"Over a decade ago, "all human behavioral traits are heritable" was stated as the first law of behavior genetics". A new study looked at whether trust was affected by genetics.
The authors found that "genetic influences are smaller for trust, and propose that experiences with or observations of the behavior of other people shape trust more strongly than other traits".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday April 10 2014, @05:49AM
Who the hell passed this bill into a law? Was it Indiana general assembly [wikipedia.org] perchance? (point: I can't believe a researcher in her/his right mind could thing that everything in behavior is genetically driven).
Didn't they hear the father of neurophysiology [wikipedia.org] giving the "Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?" answer to the nature vs nurture [wikipedia.org] question?
Did they really think they are smarter asses or have they just wanted to swindle some research grants?
Or what the hell am I missing from the picture?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Thursday April 10 2014, @07:41AM
That line in the summary was a quote from the introduction to the paper (it is open access so you can read the whole thing). The citation was for this paper (I found the PDF online, published in 2000): http://www.faculty.umb.edu/pjt/epi/turkheimer00.pd f [umb.edu]
The introduction for that paper lists three "laws" (in this sense it means a law like Newtons laws, not laws of a particular country).
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 10 2014, @09:50AM
Searching after the name of the author, a stumbled over study in 2004 in which the same person discovers that, in low socioeconomic status condition, 60% of IQ is due to nurture. [apa.org]
In this light:
Not at all dissimilar with the Indiana Pi bill, showing politicians ready to pass a law of legislative nature contradicting a "law of nature" (my point in the first post of the thread: the author behave closer to a smart-ass politician than a scientists)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Thursday April 10 2014, @10:10AM
It looks like the trust paper was more evidence against it. This is the full first paragraph of their introduction:
The introduction of the paper talking about the "laws" on the other hand did seem a little self-serving.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Geezer on Thursday April 10 2014, @09:52AM
Strictly speaking, until a fetus becomes responsive to environmental stimuli in the womb every bit of our behavior is genetically driven, and only proportionally modified by environmental/experiential factors threreafter. One dimension of Hebb's rectangle is constant and generally quantifiable via mapping. The other dimension is variable and worthy of study.