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

161–170 of 198 posts

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

#161

Post by lazide »

kipchak wrote: post #140
lazide wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding your first point - usually because the 'dark side' is easier (short term), and life periodically gets hard. So it's often inevitable. Especially in the face of others doing bad acts to you. Regarding the second - see my comment. At least in the western world, most crimes require fault and mens rea. Those require someone being able to make a informed choice, which means having free will. If there is (actuall…

Would removing the punitive aspect of punishment be enough to keep things making sense? For example with temporary insanity someone isn't considered deserving of retribution without real fault, but incapacitation and rehabilitation might still be justifiable if there was a risk of reoccurrence. Deterrence seems like it could also still be justifiable, for example if you thought someone could be aware of such a punish…

That reduces expected consequences, but I don’t see how that changes the problem.

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

#162

Post by s1artibartfast »

feoren wrote: post #159
s1artibartfast wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would cause them to not survive poverty? would they all commit suicide or spontaneously combust? Avoiding death is a pretty strong force for adaptation to new circumstances.

Alcoholism, drug addiction, dying on the street on a cold night, lack of proper healthcare, and yes, suicide. I didn't think it'd be controversial to suggest that poverty can kill. And you're taking a strict definition of "survive" -- plenty of people talk about "not being able to survive" some situation if they think it would be extremely difficult and take a permanent toll on them, even if they might not literally…

I just think it odd that you predict their "survival" rate will be lower than those born poor.

I think it goes without saying that it would be a rough transition if you swapped two people. I expect the long term outcome would be better for a rich person swapped into poverty, than if the poor person who stayed.

I think this because they statistically and experientially I think they have more of the skills necessary to escape poverty: education, trades, social coding, ect.

You see this often with immigrants to the US, and is especially pronounced in the works of Raj Chetty and Ran Abramitzky.

When you take someone successful in one country and have them start over poor in another. The immigrants do better over the course of their lives, and the children of poor immigrants do FAR better than the children of native born poor.

https://www.amazon.com/Streets-Gold-Americas-Immigrant-Succe...

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

#163

Post by throwaway22032 »

eastbound wrote: post #142
apwell23 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad has an habit of making an innocent remark that other party percives as offensive. He blurts out things in his enthusiasm. I used to feel second hand embarssement from it when i was younger. Now i see catch myself doing the same thing. I even got into trouble at work for it.

I have this. I don’t notice it. People must think I’m really socially stupid. I try to say things that I think are commonly-shared. Then, in every group, out of nowhere (it’s only months later that I remember what may have triggered it), I’m expelled (generally for another reason, because it would be too simple if people said “I don’t like you because…”). I’m 40 and since 4 years, my solution is to recluse myself and…

I have something similar but it's mostly just tended to mean that I socialise with others who don't take themselves too seriously.

Life's too short to waste on those who don't appreciate you. :)

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

#164

Post by RoyalHenOil »

civilian wrote: post #8
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…

The personality metrics they're using are the Big-5. The Big 5 has good test-retest scores (if you take the test a month apart, you're likely to get the same scores). Big 5 is used in a ton of psychological studies now. If I had to bet on nature vs nurture, I'd place bets on nature. Separated twin studies seem to suggest genes are a strong determiner. And if you've ever met a kid who stubbornly prefers to be introver…

>And if you've ever met a kid who stubbornly prefers to be introverted or extroverted...

My mom says she had an inkling I would be introverted (like my dad) and my sister would be extraverted (like her) just based on our behavior in the womb. I was very calm and nonreactive, while my sister was a big kicker and very reactive to external stimuli. Those personality traits have indeed persisted through adulthood.

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

#165

Post by RoyalHenOil »

liveoneggs wrote: post #42

I can anecdotally confirm that my kids are a blend between my wife and I, with my daughter currently closer to me and my son closer to her. I assume this will swap as they age into adults.

Why would you assume it would swap? I have found that major personality traits generally persist throughout life.

I was like my dad when I was a little girl, and I am still like him now in middle age (probably even more so now even than when I was young). Meanwhile, my sister has always been more like our mom.

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

#166

Post by skissane »

eastbound wrote: post #142
apwell23 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad has an habit of making an innocent remark that other party percives as offensive. He blurts out things in his enthusiasm. I used to feel second hand embarssement from it when i was younger. Now i see catch myself doing the same thing. I even got into trouble at work for it.

I have this. I don’t notice it. People must think I’m really socially stupid. I try to say things that I think are commonly-shared. Then, in every group, out of nowhere (it’s only months later that I remember what may have triggered it), I’m expelled (generally for another reason, because it would be too simple if people said “I don’t like you because…”). I’m 40 and since 4 years, my solution is to recluse myself and…

I think mainstream culture used to be more tolerant of people saying unintentionally hurtful things. And that cultural change puts at an disadvantage individuals who have higher autistic traits, impulsivity, etc. Whereas, people at the opposite end of the personality trait spectrum aren’t disadvantaged by it to anywhere near the same degree

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

#167

Post by kipchak »

lazide wrote: post #161
kipchak wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would removing the punitive aspect of punishment be enough to keep things making sense? For example with temporary insanity someone isn't considered deserving of retribution without real fault, but incapacitation and rehabilitation might still be justifiable if there was a risk of reoccurrence. Deterrence seems like it could also still be justifiable, for example if you thought someone could be aware of such a punish…

That reduces expected consequences, but I don’t see how that changes the problem.

If I understand correctly you're saying that people having a lack of free will cuts out the legs from the rationale for punishing people if they have not chosen to do something wrong. The five purposes for punishment as I understand it are generally deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution and restitution.

Retribution and restitution as punishments don't seem justifiable without free will or the ability to have mens rea, but punishments for the sake of deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation still seem reasonable if free will is assumed to not exist. For example incapacitating someone who is clinically insane and dangerous is already considered reasonable, and not on the grounds that they have using free will chosen to be insane.

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

#168

Post by kipchak »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #160
kipchak wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would removing the punitive aspect of punishment be enough to keep things making sense? For example with temporary insanity someone isn't considered deserving of retribution without real fault, but incapacitation and rehabilitation might still be justifiable if there was a risk of reoccurrence. Deterrence seems like it could also still be justifiable, for example if you thought someone could be aware of such a punish…

There is a feedback loop and moral hazard, so you need some fixed punishment as deterrent. If a unique situation not likely to reoccur is an defense for criminal behavior, Then this rule provides the unique situation. Imagine a rule that rehabilitation is the punishment for a first murder. For a rational person, this is a free pass to commit exactly one murder, because as soon as they do, they have every reason to av…

This would fall under the deterrence category no? Assuming free will does not exist the only types of punishment that seem by and large unjustifiable without the capacity to be at fault or culpability are retributive and restitutive punishment, for the same reasons we wouldn't consider it justifiable for someone not of sound mind.

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

#169

Post by elevatedastalt »

mjburgess wrote: post #141
elevatedastalt wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they are giving an absurd example in order to create the implication that heritability is a meaningless concept.

Heritability is a population statistic, individuals dont have "heritability". So it doesnt apply to any "kid" anywhere. It's a practically useless concept outside of extremely narrow fields of biology, where you can control causes or otherwise eliminate genetic variation. In the vast majority of cases where people use 'heritability', it is useless. Knowing how much a trait varies, or fails to vary, with genes tells y…

Yes, heritability is a population statistic for specific traits. I don't think anyone is arguing that individuals have heritability, just like individuals can't be "diverse".

> Knowing how much a trait varies, or fails to vary, with genes tells you nothing about whether its inherited.

I am not sure what this is trying to convey. Because I think there's clear cases where stuff is inheritable, and clear cases where stuff isn't, and that's a very meaningful distinction to make from a sociological perspective.

For eg. consider skin color and accent. The former is fully inheritable, the latter is completely uninhabitable.

A Scottish kid raised by Africa foster parents in Nigeria will still look like his biological parents and have their skin complexion, while he will sound entirely like how people sound in Nigeria.

One would be an idiot for trying to force him to have darker skin, or to have a Scottish accent, because we understand that one is genetically controlled, and the other is socially / culturally controlled.

Now in these cases it was as absolute as you can get with these things. But can we not imagine that there's an aspect of genetic influence on many other aspects that can also be somewhat affected culturally?

I don't care what we call it, but can we at least agree that this distinction can exist and might be sociologically salient?

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

#170

Post by s1artibartfast »

kipchak wrote: post #168
s1artibartfast wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a feedback loop and moral hazard, so you need some fixed punishment as deterrent. If a unique situation not likely to reoccur is an defense for criminal behavior, Then this rule provides the unique situation. Imagine a rule that rehabilitation is the punishment for a first murder. For a rational person, this is a free pass to commit exactly one murder, because as soon as they do, they have every reason to av…

This would fall under the deterrence category no? Assuming free will does not exist the only types of punishment that seem by and large unjustifiable without the capacity to be at fault or culpability are retributive and restitutive punishment, for the same reasons we wouldn't consider it justifiable for someone not of sound mind.

Yes, my example can be framed in terms of deterrence. However, I think punishment can fill many purposes.

Retribution is largely in the eyes of victim, so the need is subjective and depends on their emotional desire for revenge. I'm not convinced that victims will be emotionally satisfied with the explanation of causal chain that goes back to the big bang.

To be honest, I dont really understand how the concept of restitution differs from deterrence and retribution. the cost is a deterrent, and paying it to the victim partially mitigates the desire for revenge.

I posted this elsewhere in this thread, but I think free will is entirely irrelevant to assessments of responsibility, fault, and culpability. Why should it matter if someone is a robot with bad programing, or a puppet animated with a bad spirit. In both case, they a black box which took an action in a given situation.

It seems like the game theory, emotion, and economics around punishment is the same in either case.

Maybe I simply understand the argument/theory why free will is a justification for harsher/additional punishment in the first place.

Post reply on HN