Citations Needed: Links to Interesting Research - Page 6 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

If you're correct then I would hypothesis that testosterone is reduced by being in prison.

Either way, not sure this has anything to do with genes being influenced. More likely the brain influencing hormone production

Quote

11-25-2019 , 12:05 PM

#127

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

I would say yes, while perhaps reiterating that relative importance means percentage of variance explained. Chez's note illustrates one way in which that matters; "relatively more important" doesn't necessarily mean that the variation increases, just the percentage of variation explained increases. Those are subtly different, but I infer from kelhus' use of the word "relative" that he understands that. If we reduce (I agree we can never eliminate) environmental contributions to variation, a larger percentage of whatever variation remains will be explained by biology.

The kind of interaction highlighted in the article is pretty straightforward, but applies to a lot of phenomena. Conceptually, we've known that it must exist for a long time. What's new is mostly that we have better tools to measure and quantify it.

One of the main points the authors want to make, in my reading, is that environmental interactions like this mean that we can't interpret snapshot measures of explained variance as fixed and immutable. Historically, there is a tendency to interpret results this way, probably influenced by the intuitive idea that biology is fairly immutable. So if some GWAS study finds that 40% of the variance in phenotype can be explained by genetic differences, we shouldn't expect that to be true across all times and places, because of the importance of environmental interactions.

The second point they emphasize is that early research on relative contributions of genetics and environment tend to use only very local measures of environment, like the effects of immediate family. This is mostly just a methodological limitation with twin studies (though they emphasize that twin studies are really valuable). The interpretation of the data in this study is meant to illustrate that we can see the influence of very macro-level social phenomena as well, once we have the right kinds of data. The effects of feminist movements and women's acceptance into higher education is not going to appear very easily in studies that rely on family-level measures of environment at a single point in time, but becomes apparent using longitudinal data and multiple datasets over a longer time period.

One of the reasons I'm interested in this type of work is because it does seem a like a very fruitful opportunity for interdisciplinary work between the social sciences and biology. What was missing in the past was a useful methodological framework for this. It's become possible mostly because of innovations in biology, and it was biologists who first began to push those methods to ask questions that are of sociological interest. But sociological methods (and experience in dealing with some of the complexities involved) are also useful for these kinds of questions. Particularly with regard to the need for historical/sociological contextualization. And, just as new tools like polygenic scores allow biological researchers to delve into traditionally sociological questions, so you will see sociologists borrow those biological tools and datasets themselves.

Let us assume you are correct that relative levels of influence can differ. Take the example with the women and education. You still couldn't tell me which which of the two scenarios (strict gender role or more voluntary gender role) that has the higher relative role of genetics.

Which isn't that mystifying, that is merely a result that nobody can quantify the role of either. We can study phenotype, we can study genotype and we can study environment, but the link from genotype to complex behavior is still pretty much a black box.

Quote

11-25-2019 , 12:18 PM

#128

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

I agree that the scenario you've outlined is too broad to draw a conclusion about, but the data in the study suggests that the relative role of genetics in explaining variation in educational attainment among women is higher when social structures that prevent women from attending college are removed. That's the main result of the paper. It's also pretty intuitive, I think.

Quote

11-25-2019 , 12:23 PM

#129

Poker phenom

banned

Join Date: Nov 2019 Posts: 97

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Which isn't that mystifying, that is merely a result that nobody can quantify the role of either. We can study phenotype, we can study genotype and we can study environment, but the link from genotype to complex behavior is still pretty much a black box.

I am sorry and I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, so I will ask a question. What is your view of evolved adaptations?

Quote

11-25-2019 , 12:33 PM

#130

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

Again, I disagree that this can be quantified into "more" or "less". For what we know genetics could contribute more to the outcome when gender roles are fixed, causing results to be worse.

We can't just point to better exam results and degrees and say "genes showing up, job well done!". The behaviors in the other scenario can also similarly be attributed to genes.

What we can say is that this is an indicator that biological gender (and the genes that cause it) does not determine academic potential. But that is very different from saying that genetics mattered more in one scenario than the other.

Quote

11-25-2019 , 12:41 PM

#131

Poker phenom

banned

Join Date: Nov 2019 Posts: 97

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

What we can say is that this is an indicator that biological gender (and the genes that cause it) does not determine academic potential.

I generally agree with this statement. But the other statement you made was questionable, unless I am misinterpreting it which I very well may be?

Quote

11-25-2019 , 12:43 PM

#132

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Again, I disagree that this can be quantified into "more" or "less".

Quote:

We can't just point to better exam results and degrees and say "genes showing up, job well done!"

That's not what is being done in the study. I think at some point in the past I read a pretty useful explainer on GWAS methods and explained variance, but I'll have to look for it later.

Quote

11-25-2019 , 12:47 PM

#133

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poker phenom

I generally agree with this statement. But the other statement you made was questionable, unless I am misinterpreting it which I very well may be?

I meant pretty much what it said. The link from genes to complex behavior is largely not understood at all. Which isn't that odd, we don't really even understand the link from the brain to complex behavior.

So if you do poorly on an exam, get a ton of speeding tickets, vote green party or decide to pursue a career as trapeze artist... no-one can really point to a selection of genes or their configuration and go "ah, those guys pulled more weight here than his parents".

Quote

11-25-2019 , 12:47 PM

#134

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

What we can say is that this is an indicator that biological gender (and the genes that cause it) does not determine academic potential. But that is very different from saying that genetics mattered more in one scenario than the other.

This is true and also supported by the study, as well as by previous research. I think there's a misunderstanding somewhere (or more than one) about what is being concluded by this study, but I have to go for now.

Quote

11-25-2019 , 12:48 PM

#135

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poker phenom

I agree that the "nature vs nurture" debate is a false dichotomy. Environmental factors can influence gene expression, phenotypes can be impacted by the environment.

I highly suspect that this is occurring in prisons. Based upon the environment a organism is in, the environment can magnify/lessen certain behaviors we would classify as negative. I also don't think it is also a coincidence that races and ethnic groups stick together in prisons. The harsher/dangerous the environment the males are in, certain genes/behaviors will become magnified. I think essentially what is occurring when males go into prisons is that certain genes are being influenced to essentially give the organism a higher chance of surviving. The organism knows it is now in a harsher environment, and because of this certain extended phenotypes will be influenced to increase the chances of surviving. I would not even be surprised if the endocrine system was influenced, I would not be surprised if a hormone like testosterone was being raised (not claiming that this does occur).

Which genes do you hypothesize are upregulated?

Quote

11-25-2019 , 12:51 PM

#136

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

AFAIK this is a very standard way of interpreting explained variance in these sorts of studies. How else do you understand r² values? I'm not sure I'm competent enough to work through the disagreement and explain it, but fwiw I'm fairly sure this characterization of the interpretation is wrong:

That's not what is being done in the study. I think at some point in the past I read a pretty useful explainer on GWAS methods and explained variance, but I'll have to look for it later.

The study looks specifically at gender, Kelhus posited this

Quote:

genetics becomes relatively MORE important as social constraints are lessened

Saying something about the role of biological gender is very different from saying something about the role of genetics.

Perhaps I am wording myself poorly. Let's be clear, my point is a trivial one. That we shouldn't conflate findings like these into a grander conclusion about the role of genetics vs environment.

Quote

11-25-2019 , 12:55 PM

#137

Poker phenom

banned

Join Date: Nov 2019 Posts: 97

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

So if you do poorly on an exam, get a ton of speeding tickets, vote green party or decide to pursue a career as trapeze artist... no-one can really point to a selection of genes or their configuration and go "ah, those guys pulled more weight here than his parents".

This is a terrible way to explain the evolutionary psychologist view point. This is where the liberal evolution denying liberal nonsense comes into play. I also don't think you have any understanding of what evolved adaptations even are.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...factor/580465/

Quote

11-25-2019 , 12:58 PM

#138

TrollyWantACracker

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 4,184

Grunching: Don't know how I missed this thread! Man o man do I have a lot of great research I can share with you guys. Get out your reading glasses!

Quote

11-25-2019 , 01:00 PM

#139

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poker phenom

Uh, are you intending to go to bat for the idea that a study of 83 American adults and their differing disgust reactions points to differences in evolution?

Quote

11-25-2019 , 01:02 PM

#140

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poker phenom

Uhm, my comment has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is about the evolution of behaviors, not what causes differences in individuals.

Quote

11-25-2019 , 01:02 PM

#141

Poker phenom

banned

Join Date: Nov 2019 Posts: 97

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Uh, are you intending to go to bat for the idea that a study of 83 American adults and their differing disgust reactions points to differences in evolution?

No it is not just this study. Mr wookie is here and therefor I am out, this thread will go to hell now but I will not be involved in it, I have learned my lesson, good day.

Quote

11-25-2019 , 01:04 PM

#142

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Sorry your ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Quote

11-25-2019 , 01:05 PM

#143

TrollyWantACracker

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 4,184

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrollyWantACracker

Grunching: Don't know how I missed this thread! Man o man do I have a lot of great research I can share with you guys. Get out your reading glasses!

Actually, never mind - it looks like you guys got it all covered.

Quote

11-25-2019 , 01:28 PM

#144

Poker phenom

banned

Join Date: Nov 2019 Posts: 97

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Uh, are you intending to go to bat for the idea that a study of 83 American adults and their differing disgust reactions points to differences in evolution?

I am only replying to you this time. The prison example I used was flawed for various reasons, I knowingly admit this.

With that said, your a still a evolution DENIER. Good day.

Quote

11-25-2019 , 01:39 PM

#145

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poker phenom

I am only replying to you this time. The prison example I used was flawed for various reasons, I knowingly admit this.

With that said, your a still a evolution DENIER. Good day.

A curious conclusion, I actually work with genetics and under the premise that evolution is a real thing every single day of my life.

Quote

11-25-2019 , 01:57 PM

#146

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Perhaps I am wording myself poorly. Let's be clear, my point is a trivial one. That we shouldn't conflate findings like these into a grander conclusion about the role of genetics vs environment.