Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

"Trust" Not Influenced By Genetics

posted by n1 on Thursday April 10 2014, @04:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the someone-has-to-do-the-research dept.

lhsi writes:

"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".

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
"Trust" Not Influenced By Genetics | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 14 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by lhsi on Thursday April 10 2014, @07:41AM

    by lhsi (711) on Thursday April 10 2014, @07:41AM (#29314) Journal

    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).

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 10 2014, @09:50AM

    by c0lo (156) on Thursday April 10 2014, @09:50AM (#29345) Journal
    Thanks for the link.

    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]

    The findings suggest that it makes little sense to speak in general about the heritability of a trait such as IQ. For large populations of people who live in diverse environments, such as children in the United States, such broad statements may be meaningless.

    In this light:

    1. the 2000 "enshrining" of the three no-less-than laws seems a bit premature, hasty and possible disingenuous/self-serving (the "3 hypotheses/conjectures" would have been more appropriate).
      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)
    2. it really seems weird to still refer to that hypothesis as a law 10 year after at least a counter-example was found that invalidates it
    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0

    • (Score: 2) by lhsi on Thursday April 10 2014, @10:10AM

      by lhsi (711) on Thursday April 10 2014, @10:10AM (#29354) Journal

      It looks like the trust paper was more evidence against it. This is the full first paragraph of their introduction:

      Over a decade ago, "all human behavioral traits are heritable" was stated as the first law of behavior genetics [1]. While provocative at the time, evidence since then has accumulated to suggest heritability estimates of 30% or higher on assessments of cognitive ability, a variety of psychiatric disorders, and even for most classic personality traits [2]-[4]. Indeed, a few years later, one may even add a qualifier to the first law "All human behavior traits are quite heritable" (italics added). But the question is whether the quantifier "all" is justified. Is all human behavior quite heritable? Or are there exceptions to this law?.

      The introduction of the paper talking about the "laws" on the other hand did seem a little self-serving.