Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

osf.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 198 posts

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#111

Post by [deleted] »

whimsicalism wrote: post #104
Enginerrrd wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've never considered this to be taboo either, it's bloody obvious. Is there some sort of hidden context here I'm not getting? There is. So the problem comes in when you start looking at something like say a particular minority racial/ethnic group and then picking some statistic that is higher or lower than the average over all people and associating that statistic with bad outcomes like violent offenses, lack of co…

Speak for yourself. I was the one who made the original taboo comment and you are simply putting tons of words in my mouth. There are much simpler, much more solid mechanistically scientifically associations that are still taboo to discuss that imo have nothing to do with race (race isn't even a real thing). For instance, a common argument I hear is that "standardized tests are just testing affluence" because the cor…

[deleted]

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#113

Post by nialse »

rulalala wrote: post #22

Is there a good book on the subject? I am curious about the evidence and theorisarion of this for interests related to myself. As an anecdote, I have a loved adopted cousin that even adopted (unconsciously, of course) all our familiar psycho-somatic pains.

This article might be a good starting point. The author literally wrote the book on the behavioral genetics. His text book is somewhat of a hard read though. The later editions might be better though.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9922236/

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#114

Post by pineaux »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #75
lazide wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the taboo the poster was referring to was more along the lines of discussion of actual free will, level of control of self, etc. My take is that free will is, 90% of the time, a necessary lie. Because if we didn’t believe it, everything would get far far worse.

I think free will is simply a restatement of the fact the future is unknowable and the humans are agents. You cant 100% predict what a person will do without duplicating the entire person and the world they are interacting with. Even if everything is causally driven by historic circumstance, it is the human that synthesizes that history and computes an action

I think the free will debate is not about this. Its more about the question if the mind is part of a deterministic universe, thus being deterministic itself. I dont believe this myself. The universe is quasi deterministic. I would say it's emergent. So there are constantly "random" things that are building on top of the n-1 condition. This random things can be an electron that moves left instead of right. Or it allows a person to make a slight nudge into a direction. Be it consciously or unconsciously. That is my theory. It fits my experience of the world and it doesnt violate any natural laws to my knowledge.

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#115

Post by caeril »

nomel wrote: post #109
jokoon wrote: post #2

Even when kids are put in school, they still spend a lot of time with their parents, and children do a lot of mimetic Would genetics lead to some personality disorder that are common in a family, and would that lead to similar personalities? Or would some brain-related genes lead to some forms of personality tendencies? I would also guess the definition of personality could be rejected by skeptics, since it's very di…

There have been studies against twins, separated at birth, that suggest there is a significant genetic component to personality [1]. To me, this seems obvious. [1] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/01/double-life#:~:text=That... .

[flagged]

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#116

Post by elevatedastalt »

mjburgess wrote: post #70
em-bee wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as i mentioned in another comment, what bothers me the most is that heritability is used as an excuse for not changing certain traits and and as a reason to demand the right to continue bad behaviors

Well, remember: heritability of scottish accents is near 100%, and heritability of two eyes is near 0%. Why? The covariance of genes with accent is near 100%: almost everyone who speaks scottish interbreeds within the same geographical area. As for eyes: there is almost no variation in the species between the number of eyes. Since ~everyone has 2, no genetic variation whatsoever discriminates. The co-variation of a g…

Will a kid born to Scottish parents who was separated at birth and raised by Chinese parents in China also speak in a Scottish accent? Or are you just giving insanely strawmannish arguments no one actually presents?

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#117

Post by lazide »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #106
lazide wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not what free will is (philosophically). Free will is the belief that we can choose our actions. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will ] In your statement, there is no choice - just a lack of predictability due to unknown starting states.

Im saying that there is no difference, and most of the arguments around fee will and responsibility are distinctions without a difference. Individual choice happens if someone believes in an extra-physical soul or not. It happens if you believe in determinism or not. The question of if someone could have made a different choice is meaningless without an argument for why someone would make have a different choice.

All you're saying you don't (actually) believe in free will, philosophically.

People who do believe in free will make an argument that regardless of the input state, the individual always has a choice what course they take, and is responsible for those decisions.

So for example, if someone chooses to be a concentration camp guard or a capo vs be a prisoner and be murdered - that is their choice, and they are responsible for it.

If free will exists.

It's a rather fundamental philosophical question, actually.

Because those concentration camp guards and capos did pretty evil things, which were also (in their circumstances) often the least 'bad' thing for them. Which enabled evil at a truly massive scale against others because of those other peoples upbringings/genetics.

And those prisoners (most of which had no choice in the matter) mostly ended up dead, and stopped having much of a say in the matter.

This is why it's an important philosophical debate. Because if people play out a script based on their circumstances/upbringing/genetics and have no actual choice in the matter (philosophically), then isn't punishing those guards and capos essentially doing the same thing to them that they did to those prisoners? Hurting them due to factors outside of their (actual) control, even up to murder?

And if we think that upbringing/genetics was a major factor in creating that sort of destructive evil, doesn't that open up the possibility of tracking down and killing/punishing other people based on their upbringing/genetics? Regardless of any individual choices they had made? In this example, other potential concentration camp guards and capos - though it would play out as relatives and those with similar genetic traits and upbringings?

Which then creates the circumstances exactly that was at the root cause of the Holocaust to begin with? Namely, assigning 'goodness' and 'badness' based on some general attribute (ethnicity aka genetics/upbringing, sexual orientation, etc.) that cannot be changed or chosen, and NOT a persons choices (aka did they commit a crime knowing good vs bad)?

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#118

Post by whimsicalism »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #52
ryanjshaw wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just look at the people who are convinced they have to beat up their kids to discipline them because "I turned out fine".

This is arguably a different mechanism. Propagation of personality seems to be based lest on acute, specific, traumatic events like physical abuse. We understand to some degree why hurt people hurt other people. It’s less clear why and how much we emulate our families in more subtle ways.

> We understand to some degree why hurt people hurt other people

By “understand”, you mean “have colloquial theories that we don’t bother trying to falsify”

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#119

Post by Workaccount2 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #79
Workaccount2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't agree. This is only true if you think that people are deserving of a good life merely because they have a certain brain structure. If you thought that in the first place, you weren't much of a leftist to begin with in my eyes. e: Also - I want to be clear, variance is incredibly high even where there is heritable signal. The notion of X "can never be an astronaut because her genetically defined brain structur…

No, it's not currently supported by evidence. It's an extremely specific example. But the needle has been moving more and more in that direction to the point where people should be comfortable with the idea that they have genetics to contend with not only when running and looking good, but also when thinking and behaving.

Obviously the groups that will have the hardest time with accepting something like this are the groups that say things like "It's not your fault you didn't go to college, it's [insert social structure] and therefore our entire mission is to change [social structure]."

Re: Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies

#120

Post by whimsicalism »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #88
Rinzler89 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the actual real world evidence on that? Plenty of rich European families have been rich for hundreds of years, and I'm not talking about royalty. That kind of disproves the theory. The ones who go broke fast are usually the ones who also got rich fast, trough luck instead of work or knowledge, like from lottery wins or speculations.

There is a lot of real world socioeconomic data on it. studies usually look at the population in terms of 20 or 25% segments. That doesn't mean it is true for the 1% or 0.1%. That said, there are lots of examples of people entering and leaving the top 1% too, so outcome isn't perfectly deterministic.

Actually, real world socioeconomic data on familial wealth holdings is incredibly hard to come by.
Post reply on HN