Behavior Genetics

Our DNA decides who and what we are.  Our behavior is predictable before birth.  True?

No, but there are fascinating pieces that surface in the inquiry.  Nailing down the genes that perhaps would determine a particular behavior trait has been a difficult task.  The simple and perhaps popularly preferred result would be a 'hard-wired' brain where genes would unerringly create in us our personality type, our character traits, and our response to a particular type of situation.

To be violent or not, to be an addict or not, to be compassionate or not; the logical path suggests our brain operates like a computer with automatic responses built into the programming.  Popular science writers, much like the news media, have perhaps taken the simplest explanation as complete, suggesting everything from a brain circuit for bungee jumping to a plan for raising your child based on their DNA with a commercially available genetic profile.  The 'Gay Gene' has been similarly popularized.

Unfortunately, the science doesn't adequately support the premise, and the genetic contribution to character and personality development appears to be much more complex.

The surprising news from the human genome project in '01 is that we have a pitiful 25,000 genes or less, about twice that of a fruit fly and less than a mouse.  The expectation of a stunningly complex program defining the magnificence of humanity was squashed.  Just 25,000 lines of code won't make a decent word processor, much less a self-aware world-conqueror.

"We simply do not have enough genes for this idea of biological determinism to be right," asserted Craig Venter, president of Celera Genomics, one of the two teams that cracked the human genome.

The debate regarding possible DNA related traits has two sides, one of which is potentially charged.

"Venter has wasted little time in playing down the importance of the genes he has catalogued. He cites the example of colon cancer, which is often associated with a defective 'colon cancer gene'. Even though some patients carry this mutated gene in every cell, the cancer only occurs in the colon because it is triggered by toxins secreted by bacteria in the gut. Cancer, argues Venter, is an environmental disease. Strong support for this viewpoint appeared last year in the New England Journal of Medicine. Researchers in Scandinavia studying 45,000 pairs of twins concluded that cancer is largely caused by environmental rather than inherited factors, a surprising conclusion after a decade of headlines touting the discovery of the 'breast cancer gene,' the 'colon cancer gene,' and many more."  Dr. Kevin Davies, author of Cracking the Genome: Inside the Race to Unlock Human DNA (Free Press, 2001). A graduate of Oxford University, he holds a doctorate in genetics from the University of London.

Popularly touted and culturally volatile, the emerging science is significant on several fronts, not the least of which is the emerging opportunity to choose your children based on preimplantation or in-utero DNA testing, the modern version of eugenics where children become a marketable, made-to-order product.  Possibly helpful?  Absolutely, but with potential for troublesome extremes.

From an engineering perspective, triggering
gene expression is just incredible.

Now comes the fun part.  Cause or effect?

Did the gene cause the behavior or did the behavior trigger the gene?

The roll of environment and experience is now being understood as one of the triggers for gene expression (activation). For 100 people with some common genetic trait, only a few might see the expected manifestation.  Why?  

Gene C controls fur pigmentation in Himalayan rabbits.
Because the gene is active when environmental temperatures
are between 15 and 25°C, the rabbit reared at 20°C (left)
has pigmentation on its ears, nose, and feet, where its body
loses the most heat. The rabbit reared at temperatures above
30°C (right) has no fur pigmentation, because gene C is inactive
at these higher temperatures.

We knew that, didn't we.  What we may not have considered is
the impact of experience on genetic expression.

We do understand that our genes illuminate much about our physiology.  The as yet inadequately addressed question is the roll of what we experience in gene activation (expression).   Does the environment in which a child is raised trigger gene-level activity?  Can living with street crime or domestic violence change specific gene-level activity in those affected?  

Only recently have we begun to see how experience (environment) can trigger gene expression and affect the development of everything from mental traits (order/disorder) to physical traits (stability/deterioration) and even male-pattern baldness ...
... in women.  Heredity vs. environment, determinism vs. indeterminism (free will) continues.  

",,, it is important to keep in mind that there is a very complex interaction between our genes and our environment that defines our phenotype and who we are."  Lobo, I. (2008) Environmental influences on gene expression. Nature Education 1(1):39

The debate continues furiously, of course.  Both sides are perhaps mostly right, and we'll be the fortunate recipients of their research and medical advances.  One thing we know for certain, though, is that the simplistic answer of genetic determinism has fallen by the wayside.  We shoulda spotted that one coming.

Adult Education

Learn for a lifetime, or miss all the good parts.  We get to choose, but there's effort involved.

When we finished school, we were ready for life, equipped with everything we needed to know. That's what we thought, and it never occurred to us that we'd need to continue serious learning for the rest of our lives.

Moving thoughtfully forward then, how do we tackle life and its opportunities?

Helps: listening to those with experience! Whether they have artisanal skills or business acumen or relational abilities, all are helpful, and perhaps especially the interpersonal relationship insights you might acquire.

Hindrances: thinking that the knowledge we have is equal to wisdom and experience. It's not, at least not yet; for now it's just information.

Best source for advanced study: others! When we're early in the process, it helps to have others who think like we do to reinforce the good parts. Once we're well begun, we need to hear clearly those who disagree with us and understand how they came to that point of view. Absolutely essential.

Worst source: mainstream and social media. When we find ourselves agreeing with a given source these days, we need to remember that most are deliberately one-sided.

“For the most part we do not first see, and then define, we define first and then see. In the great blooming, buzzing confusion of the outer world we pick out what our culture has already defined for us, and we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by our culture.”  ― Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion

Curious what it looks like?  Here's a summary ...

There's enough here for a multi-year personal study.

The most useful information is the last column, how we might relate
genuinely to others. This is an aggregation of several studies, the most
 notable being Kegan's Structures of Complexity of Mind.

If you're going to grow up, it isn't over until you reach the goal. There are markers along the way, if you're interested.

It's hard enough making it through adolescence and education, it's hard enough becoming a responsible adult, a marriage partner, a parent. All that is just the beginning.  😃

Ahead is the extraordinary world of identity and character, service and sacrifice, and meaningful life.  Growth and change are continuous, and there is so much to learn along the way.

___________________________________________________
An annoying note to self: those of us who think we've arrived ... haven't.

Jesus was weird ...

These kids, their gracious family, and their camel reminded me ...         

Jesus was a strange fellow.  According to him, if you're rich you'll find it extraordinarily difficult to enter the 'kingdom'.  And I wonder if that's the here and now kingdom, too, rather than just the by-and-by place.

OK, so why preach this gospel if rich people can't make the cut?  All his talk about loving the whole world, doesn't that include the rich?

There are arguments in every century about his statement, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."  

  

Attempts have been made        
by commentators to soften      
the apparently irreconcilable  
dilemma, suggesting perhaps a
small gate referred to as the    
'needle's eye' where a camel    
could possibly go through on    
its knees. There's no historical
or archeological support for
such a gate. 

So then, what if he was telling us something we need to hear?

What if someone depends first on their wealth and position for what they need?
What if they turn first to their station and influence for opportunity?
What if they trust first in their country for security and other needs?

If they we can ... and do ... perhaps that's what he was talking about.  
     Perhaps 'having' interferes.
        When you have all the bread you could ever need, can you pray, "give us bread today"?  
             And insulated from the world, would you ever pray, "deliver us"?

"Make me neither rich nor poor," a writer prayed, "but feed me with just enough, lest I become arrogant in wealth or bitter in poverty."

This 'camel and needle' teaching from the early days of Christianity has little impact in this country.  Perhaps it's because he's talking about us, or most of us anyway.  We take for granted that we won't have to walk to the river and carry water home in a jug.  We won't do our laundry and dishes and bathing in that same river.  We won't walk miles to the nearest health clinic and wait for hours.  We won't have to choose between feeding our child or sending him to school.  We perhaps presume our comforts are the norm and that everybody lives that way.  Everybody doesn't, of course.  Most do not.

So, for the rich folks who might read this, have you noticed how hard it is sometimes to take Jesus seriously?  Figured out why yet?

"We all know something's wrong.

At first I thought it was just me. Then I stood before twenty thousand Christian college students and asked, "How many of you have read the New Testament and wondered if we in the church are missing it?" When almost every hand went up, I felt comforted. At least I'm not crazy."   ~Francis Chan

Seven Questions:

1. The disciples asked, "who then can be saved?"  What does his answer mean? 
2. Why does Christianity seem irrelevant these days, especially among younger folks? 
3. How much of western Christianity is the real thing?  What parts?
4. How far back do you need to step to see things as they really are?
5. Is there a difference between folks in secular and sacred employment?
6. What effect does wealth have on relationships? (this is huge!)
7. If one path would fulfill your calling, what would it be?  (maybe that's the big question.)

If we can hold the thought long enough to truly consider the questions, we're one in a hundred.

If we can hold the thought long enough to do anything differently, we're one in a thousand.

That's a conflict in which we all are engaged.  And for the record, camels are fascinating animals, really.

American Capitalism

Trickle down didn't.

The most recent decade has brought capitalism to the center of our collective attention. Again.

As the economy collapsed in the Great Recession, doomsayers pointed to the flawed capitalistic system and predicted the end of it all. Public opinion was much the same in the Great Depression years.

The problem here is not capitalism but corruption.

Capitalism may, as Churchill humorously said of democracy, be the worst possible solution save for all the rest.   Communism was such a disaster that by the end of the 1980's, capitalist West Germany had four times the GDP per capita of communist East Germany.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union, eastern European countries flocked to the EU.  China found communism to be such a failure that they mandated a neo-capitalism beginning in 1978.  

The problem, of course ... corruption,
 not capitalism.

There are players and practices in our economic system that take unfair advantage of their position and power.  That's not a problem with capitalism, however, but with responsibility, accountability, and law.

Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution brought planes, trains, and automobiles to name a few, plus health care and increased life expectancy; it was 47 a century ago and 78 today. 

All things considered including current difficulties, capitalism is the essential cornerstone of today's modern economics. The clean version, of course; the clean, uncorrupt, fair market version.

It is perhaps worth remembering that capitalism, like its alternatives, is an adaptation to circumstances. It is not a virtue, not a standard for judgement, not a measure of right or nobility. It's just another 'ism' where virtue is dependent on the players.
See American Socialism ,if you like, or The GAP for more.

American Socialism

The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy that has long embraced both capitalism and socialism. True?

Our efforts have both up- and down-side issues, or course. Cap and Soc are amoral, neither good nor bad, ethical or unethical.  Each is just a top-level category name for how things get done.

An entertaining Tea Party perspective ...

Capitalism gives us our free markets, individual economic mobility, and a venue for innovation and talent.  It's the foundation of our strength and viability in the world economy and our status as the world's only superpower.  

Socialism gives us our public schools and universities, public parks, roads and highways, sewer and water, dams, harbors, along with social support initiatives such as worker’s compensation, unemployment insurance, social security, and so on.  Universal healthcare is in the queue lately.

Capitalism
In common usage, it is an economic structure in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated.  The investment of capital, the prices of goods and services, all are decided by a free market rather than by the state. In capitalism, players in the market are there for profit.

Socialism
Most generally, socialism refers to state ownership of common property, or state ownership of the means of production.  A socialist state would be one in which the state owns and operates the means of production and controls the marketplace as well. 

Modern developed countries combine socialism and capitalism in broadly varying ways.

In a purely capitalist economy, there would of course be no public schools, no public works, no welfare, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, Social Security benefits etc.


The University of Texas is a 'socialist' implementation, for example, because it is owned and operated by the state of Texas. The kids on campus are the beneficiaries even though they pay for the privilege. The same is true of highways, parks, harbors, dams, ports, bridges, levees, fire and police departments, airports, Army/Navy/Air Force, and the list goes on.

Simplistic name-calling perhaps reflects our preferential bias and lack of perspective more than our thoughtful participation in America's direction.

CAVUTO: Colonel David Hunt joins us now, the Fox News military analyst, in Boston. Colonel, I'm wondering whether this is a military threat -- leave aside the energy concerns -- but a military threat to our country now? 

HUNT: Yeah. There is no question. Oil -- oil is a weapon. And I think what you are finding with Iran, Bolivia, and -- and Venezuela, that it absolutely is being considered. 

Bolivia nationalized their oil and gas industries in 2006. No, despite news media claims of 'fair and balanced reporting, it was not a military threat.  Not their first such contribution ...

While it is possible to appreciate the perhaps noble intent of the media players, we might be better advised to sell the tv and get an education instead.


It is perhaps worth remembering that socialism, like its alternatives, is an adaptation to circumstances. It is not a virtue, not a standard for judgement, not a measure of right or nobility. It's just another 'ism' where virtue is dependent on the players.

See American Capitalism, if you like.

I could have done more

A member of the Polish underground during WWII,
Karski risked his life uncovering the NAZI holocaust.

Polish 2nd Lt. Jan Karski was captured by the Russian army, handed over to the Germans, escaped and went underground with the resistance in Poland. While gathering information for his government in exile, he uncovered what was being hidden from virtually everyone including the German citizens; the Nazi death camps.

With the help of colleagues in the underground, Karski managed a brief surveillance of the Warsaw ghetto where the city's Jewish population was slowly starving to death. Persuaded there was more, he managed to sneak into a Nazi transit camp where Jews were held prior to being shipped off to the murder factories that Heinrich Himmler and his Einsatzgruppen had established.

Karski traveled to the U.S. with his message, meeting with President Franklin Roosevelt. He gave a simple, clear description of the nature and scope of the atrocities being committed. Roosevelt concluded the conversation, assuring Karski that the war criminals would be dealt with after the Allies had won. Karski later met with Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter who was himself a Jew. Justice Frankfurter was incredulous and told Karski emphatically that he didn't believe him.


Despite the urgency of the message, the Allies failed to follow up on the issue even as further proof surfaced. For the rest of his life until his death in 2000, Karski lamented the failure, distraught that he had not done more.

Heroes don't always win, but they always try.  They're heroes because they didn't pass by on the other side of the street.

Wikipedia Note: Karski met with Polish politicians in exile including the Prime Minister, as well as members of political parties ... He also spoke to the British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, giving a detailed statement on what he had seen in Warsaw and Bełżec. In 1943 in London he met journalist Arthur Koestler, ... He then traveled to the United States, and on July 28, 1943 Karski personally met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Oval Office, telling him about the situation in Poland and becoming the first eyewitness to tell him about the Jewish Holocaust.^[10] During their meeting Roosevelt asked about the condition of horses in Poland.^[11] Roosevelt did not ask one question about the Jews.^[12] Karski went on to meet with many other government and civic leaders in the United States, including Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Cordell Hull, William Joseph Donovan, and Rabbi Stephen Wise. Frankfurter, skeptical of Karski's report, said later "I did not say that he was lying, I said that I could not believe him. There is a difference."^[13] Karski presented his report to media, bishops of various denominations (including Cardinal Samuel Stritch), members of the Hollywood film industry and artists, but without much result. ...^[14] 

During an interview with Hannah Rosen in 1995 Karski said about the failure to rescue most of the Jews from mass murder;

“

It was easy for the Nazis to kill Jews, because they did it. The Allies considered it impossible and too costly to rescue the Jews, because they didn't do it. The Jews were abandoned by all governments, church hierarchies and societies, but thousands of Jews survived because thousands of individuals in Poland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Holland helped to save Jews. Now, every government and church says, "We tried to help the Jews", because they are ashamed, they want to keep their reputations. They didn't help, because six million Jews perished, but those in the government, in the churches they survived. No one did enough. [21]

”

After the war, the Allies lack of response was viewed as a failure of intelligence.  Reports were many, often contradictory, and difficult to believe.