Genetic Nature of Personality Traits

“Hamer noticed a correlation: the people with more copies of the mini satellite- more stutters- exhibited a greater desire for novelty… It was one of the first studies linking a personality trait to a specified genetic state….In the coming decades, there will be a monumental leap in our knowledge of the genetic location of inherited diseases. And more and more genes will be discovered that link behavior to the chemicals in our brains, and genes tied to our urges and emotions” -Weinberg p 349-350

I think that if Weinberg were to comment on her speculation today, almost 15 years after the publication of her book, she would say genetic disease typing is moving a lot slower than she thought. I myself might just be out of the loop, but I feel like there have not been any major leaps forward in the field that studies genetic links to our personalities.

On the other hand, a 2012  article describing a study done by British researchers asserts that nature (genes) play more of a role in our personalities than nurture does, supposedly providing an answer to the nature vs. nurture debate. The study showed that identical twins were twice more likely to share personality traits than non-identical twins, who do not have identical DNA. The researchers focused on personality traits such as perseverance and self-control, and showed that there was the biggest genetic difference in these types of traits, i.e. the ability to keep going when things got hard. The researchers were less focused on individual talent, and more about what drove that talent.

I think that this is a very interesting and diverse field, with plenty of room for several applications and a great potential to make people’s lives better by understanding and diagnosing their conditions efficiently. But I also think it leaves a lot of room for ambiguity, particularly where what doctors diagnose as psychological conditions intermingle with what would now be known to be genetic predisposition. I also think that people might have more excuses for their behavior, now that they could blame their actions on DNA, or almost like instinct, as if they were forced to do something. But I think the biggest issue comes from what Weinberg was afraid of, completely knowing what every trait and gene in our body do and having a map of them. I think this is a ethical dilemma, and further research in this area would be open to ethical scrutiny of not done carefully.

Genetic Nature of Personality Traits

What makes a murderer: Nature vs. Nurture

Chapter 8 of Pointing From the Grave allows readers to continue to question what causes a person to commit murder. Is it their difficult background and upbringing, or is it their surroundings? I was very intrigued by this question so I decided to look into it a bit further. In my research, I found an article called Serial Killers: Nature vs. Nurture. The author of this article discusses, the differences between serial killers and murders, and discusses topics such as motives, the impulses and desires of killing, and how different surroundings and backgrounds lead individuals to kill. It’t a pretty interesting article, check it out! The link is below:

http://www.nc-cm.org/article213.htm

hannibal

Photo taken from Google

 

What makes a murderer: Nature vs. Nurture

Nature of Innovation

“No doubt some ingenious hunter-gatherer stumbled across the cleansing properties of ashes mixed with animal fat, or dreamed of building aqueducts in those long eons before the rise of cities, and we simply have no record of his epiphany”- Johnson 54

This way this quote is worded makes me wonder about the nature of innovation. Is it fair to assume that a hunter-gatherer simply “stumbled” upon the discovery of mixing ashes and animal fat? Is it possible that he was actually looking for something or experimenting? It also relates to Johnson’s other point of the connection between the concentration of people and the rise of ideas. Was the hunter-gatherer who came across revolutionary ideas simply ingenious or ahead of his time, seeing that he had not city environment to foster his creativity and he came up with the ideas on his own? If this is true, I think that it also applies to many great minds of the modern era, such as Einstein, who seemed to be in a world of his own intuition when it came to new or revolutionary ideas. Yet, I’m sure there are those who would argue that he was equally a product of his environment, upbringing, etc.

Nature of Innovation

Prometheus and Biotechnology

“Biotechnology is a Promethean risk, another example of humanity’s self-destructive aspiration to play God” (Grace 215)

Are researchers, innovators, and scientists really trying to tamper with nature when they build better inventions that make life easier? Or are we supposed to flow with nature and expect that it will provide for us? I am never sure of my stance on this issue because on one hand, I want to see many human ailments eradicated to limit suffering, but then I question: Is that what makes life, life?

Prometheus and Biotechnology