Philosophy of Genetics

Experience and Form

Humans have natural variation (for example, some people are introverted, some are extroverted, etc). The process of evolution "selects" certain "fitter" variants over others -- which is the same thing as saying that some people (with a specific set of gene variants) are able to survive longer than others, and so can pass on more of those gene variants to their children.

Thus, evolution is the process of converting knowledge about the environment (i.e. how to better "fit") into our physical form. The form of our genes, body and brain is the result of evolution, which is itself the action of selection of one form over another (against the environment) over time.

This turns the debate of nature vs. nurture on its head. We humans are the physical manifestation of millions of years of experience. Our form manifests an intimate knowledge of the environment, including knowledge of the other forms (people, animals, plants) around us.

Thus, the experience of mankind (over millions of years) creates our nature (the physical manifestation of experience), as our genes and form.  Our form is designed to respond to the (expected) experiences in our lifetime, by bringing past experience (through the configuration of matter) to the present.

Genes and antisocial behavior

According to a recent scientific article, a specific variant of the COMT gene can predict whether a child will develop "early-onset antisocial behavior accompanied by attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder".

I'm not saying that this is the gene variant that leads one to become a sociopath.  Yet, I can't help wondering whether the process of evolution intended for some of us to be anti-social.  People with anti-social tendencies could be the ones who inspire wars.  Since death is the mechanism by which natural selection occurs, having more battles would certainly speed the process of evolution.

Introverts and Extroverts

According to a review of Marti Olsen Laney's new book, "The Hidden Gifts of the Introverted Child":

"Introverted children enjoy the internal world of thoughts, feelings and fantasies, and there's a physiological reason for this. Introverts have more brain activity in general, and specifically in the frontal lobes. When these areas are activated, introverts are energized by retrieving long-term memories, problem solving, introspection, complex thinking and planning."

"Extroverts enjoy the external world of things, people and activities. They have more activity in brain areas involved in processing the sensory information we're bombarded with daily. Because extroverts have less internally generated brain activity, they search for more external stimuli to energize them."

"It's the different pathways that are turned on that activate the behaviors and abilities we see in introverts and extroverts... It impacts all areas of their lives: how they process information, how they restore their energy, what they enjoy and how they communicate."

Introverted children need time alone more than do extroverted children... "Extroverts gain energy by being out and about," but "being with people takes energy from introverts, and they need to get away to restore that energy."

"Shyness is behavior that may diminish as children grow; introversion is a character trait that lasts. "

Genes and brain size

Science magazine reports that "two genes involved in determining the size of the human brain have undergone substantial evolution" as recently as 5,800 years ago.  Those two genes are microcephalin and ASPM.  When those genes are completely switched off, they lead to "microcephaly", or small head.

Another gene, GPR56, appears to affect mainly the development of the frontal cortex.  According to Wikipedia, the "frontal lobes have been found to play a part in impulse control, judgment, language, memory, motor function, problem solving, sexual behavior, socialization and spontaneity. Frontal lobes assist in planning, coordinating, controlling and executing behavior."

With this knowledge, scientists investigated whether different variants of the genes were responsible for different brain sizes among people.  According to the New York Times:

About 70 percent of people in most European and East Asian populations carry [a specific variant of the microcephalin] gene, but it is much rarer in most sub-Saharan Africans.

With the other gene, ASPM, a new [variant of the gene] emerged 14,100 to 500 years ago, the researchers favoring a midway date of 5,800 years. The allele has attained a frequency of about 50 percent in populations of the Middle East and Europe, is less common in East Asia, and is found at low frequency in some sub-Saharan Africa peoples.

The Chicago team suggests that the new microcephalin [gene variant] may have arisen in Eurasia or as the first modern humans emigrated from Africa some 50,000 years ago. They note that the ASPM [variant] emerged about the same time as the spread of agriculture in the Middle East 10,000 years ago and the emergence of the civilizations of the Middle East some 5,000 years ago, but say that any connection is not yet clear.

A gene for timidity

The journal Cell reports that reducing the activity of the so-called stathmin gene "may allow people to overcome innate or learned anxieties. Dr. Shumyatsky said doctors already had a drug that acts on the same brain molecules as stathmin does; it is Taxol, a cancer drug."

Already, a study done in mice shows that removing the gene "can turn normally cautious animals into daring ones, mice that are more willing to explore unknown territory and less intimidated by sights and sounds that they have learned can be dangerous."

Predicting Genius

The New York Times recently reported on the current "neglect of exceptionally talented children", at least in some people's eyes.

By contrast, things were different back in the 1920's.  Stanford psychologist Lewis Terman's "Genetic Studies of Genius" investigated California schoolchildren to see whether "intellectual capacity was innate", and if there was a way -- such as the newly introduced IQ tests -- "to predict and improve their chances of future greatness".  Yet such investigations fell out of favor after WWII when anyone who spoke of genetics and ability was branded a "racist eugenicist", and Terman's followers were labelled "termites".

According to the Times article:

In postwar America, the terms "gifted" and "talented" crowded out "genius," which sounded suspiciously elitist, and a quest was under way for a wider, democratic conception of human excellence. Psychologists pushed toward a more multifaceted understanding of giftedness, turning their attention to "divergent thinking" and creative capacities - fluency, originality, flexibility - as well as to a wider range of less distinctively intellectual abilities, like "task commitment."...Youthful giftedness could not be fully appreciated, or cultivated, without viewing it as a social construct ... with ... a receptive cultural context.

Still, some researchers doggedly continued where Terman left off:

[Prof. Julian] Stanley inaugurated the Johns Hopkins talent search and began gathering subjects for the second-most-famous longitudinal gifted study: the continuing Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), which includes a superselect cohort of students who scored 700 or above on the math or the verbal section before turning 13 (a feat performed by 1 in 10,000 children).

So it is again fashionable for "experts [to] sound the alarm about the brilliant minds that aren't being found or are being frustrated".  But this is silly.  True geniuses persevere despite the obstacles.  They don't care what society says, or whether they are popular.  They have exceptional resilience and single-mindedness, and are unwilling to accept defeat.  These qualities, which I believe to be innate, should be considered just as important as "raw mental ability".

Certainly, there are smart people in the world who would succeed with enough coddling.  But the coddlers (mentors, teachers, etc) will always represent the status quo -- the current paradigm.  A genius with a mentor would not be a genius, since he or she would be trapped in the same paradigms and ways of thinking as the teacher.  A genius must stand apart, and see things in new ways.

A truly novel idea is inherently alienating to the old order.  Joseph Schumpeter called this “creative destruction”. A genius is a person who destroys old ways of thinking, and invents new ways.  There is no such thing as "socially constructed genius".  A genius must act alone.

How do our genes work?

How do our genes work?  How can a human trait be genetic?  To find the answer, we have to explore the activity of our genes at three levels:

1. Facilitation and construction
2. Simple receptors and signals
3. Recognition and ability

Facilitation and construction.  Individual genes usually act as blueprints for specific proteins.  Those proteins fold into a three-dimensional form, which can be used as building blocks throughout the body.  They can also be used as enzymes, or protein catalysts.  Some molecules (like estrogen) are synthesized by many cooperating proteins in a so-called pathway.

Biochemical pathways are fascinating in their complexity.  Genes are switched on by proteins (transcription factors), which themselves may need to be assisted (by so-called “co-factors”).  Have a look at the Boehringer Mannheim wallchart for a taste of the complexity in metabolic (catalytic) pathways and cellular processes.

Simple receptors and signals.  Some proteins are designed to be activated by other molecules, thus sending a cascade of signals throughout a cell to carry out a specific task.  For example, the estrogen receptor protein is designed to detect the presence of estrogen molecules.  If there is no estrogen in the bloodstream, those receptors sit by idle (yet still vigilant), like army captains waiting impatiently to relay a general’s order to highly trained soldiers.  As in a battlefield, the signal has no effect unless it exploits a capability that already exists.  The distribution and location of receptors are as important as the signal itself.

Recognition and ability.  At a higher level, social behavior genes (through their ability to create the basic structure of the brain) can set up the circumstances by which the brain is motivated to train itself.  For example, the brain can learn to recognize which potential mates are most desireable, an ability which can be later exploited by the genes (or other parts of the brain that were genetically constructed).  Genes can filter our experience and establish a “motivational center” in the brain, to guide us toward certain experiences and away from others.  Like soldiers in the field, these learned capabilities can be summoned by genetic signals later, for specific purposes.

Blind Ambition

Time magazine asks why some people are ambitious and some are not. Is it innate?  Every once in a while, Time runs stories like this (about nature vs nurture), and they keep making a mess of it.

First, the article points out that identical twins aren't exactly alike in their ambition, even though they have the same genes.  I've discussed why this is misleading -- two elevators with identical designs can be sent to different floors.  Although they receive different "environments" (their buttons are pushed in different ways), it doesn't change the fact that they are designed to respond to certain types of environments (finger presses), and not to others (e.g. screams or smells).  It's true that our innate traits are triggered by certain situations, but the triggers themselves are set up by the genes!  If an elevator was summoned to the first floor or the third, would you say it's a product of its environment?

Second, although the article correctly lists a person's persistence (dedication to completing a task) and energy-level as prime factors in ambition, they draw the wrong conclusion, that it's "impossible to say whether innate differences ... were driving the ambitious behavior or whether learned behavior" was the cause. This is ridiculous!  Why do we learn anything?  Because we're motivated to do so.  I've discussed at length why motivation is innate.

Third, every discussion of innate differences in the article is always watered down, so as not to offend Time magazine's readers.  For example, women aren't less ambitious than men, they are "more selective about when they engage in competition".  Well, that's still an innate difference, right?

Fourth, the article makes a false distinction between what's in our genes and how we develop. The reality is, our genes guide our development over time.  The genes can recognize aspects of the environment, and use those aspects to guide our development and behavior.  Also, our genes can recognize many scenarios, and react accordingly by branching to a different development scenario.  But this is still 100% innate.