Talk:Genetic determinism

edit

I added a few things to the article: NPOV dispute, added a link to Mind-Body problem page, added a link in support of "genetic determinism" and one in opposition, as well as categorized the off-site links. I also added the page to the Neuroscience category. I'm going to leave the rest as-is until I get some kind of response or lack of response to the changes.

--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 09:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

---

"Fifty years of genetics" - Where did you get this number? You could be right, but I don't understand the significance of the number of years? Did something happen in(around) 1954 to change our view of disease. Please put a link and clarify.

"However the majority of the complex of traits that make up the physical human phenotype and all its variations are not 'caused' by genes, rather they result of a network of environmental and molecular interactions." - This is definitely not a NPOV.

Please elaborate. It looks like pretty basic and well established developmental genetics to me, one that all biologists would accept. Joe D (t) 21:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Genetic determinists want to extend the notion that genes have a role in physically determinism further, by claiming that our behavior is determined by our genes." - Using "want to extend the notion" makes it seem like genetic determinists have an unscrupulous desire to manipulate people into believing in a whimsical idea. Webster's Dictionary

Biological determinism is nature and nurture. Gentic is just nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.87.141 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 08:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

---

"Critics of the concept of genetic determinism claim that there are complex traits that make up the physical human phenotype and all its variations are not "caused" by genes, rather they result of a network of environmental and molecular interactions."

I tried to adapt this, but I'm struggling. It does indeed demolish the idea that genes alone determine phenotypes, but the problem is nobody claims anything different. High school students know that phenotypes arise from complex interactions of genetic influences and various forms of environmental influence. Joe D (t) 21:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biological determinism

Shouldn't this page in some way be merged with biological determinism ? They're roughly talking of the same thing, from a slightly different angle, no ? At least, their relationship could be made clearer ... Flammifer 03:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

These points of views may seem identical at first, but genetic determinism assumes by necessity that all biological factors and traits are predefined by genes. So from the viewpoint of genetic determinism, the boilogical version includes nothing new. However, not everyone agrees that genes are responsible for everything. There may beo ther, also not environmental factors (environmental determinism). Example: If the same genes were expressed twice (a kind of thought experiment), would we get the same result? I think this is the main distinction between these two determinisms. Anyway, I agree that this should be commented and the relationship made clearer. Karol 07:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think that would still be considered environmental. It's clear that the two pages are presenting the same idea, so they should be merged ASAP. Richard001 (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's taken nine years, and it should have been done long ago, but since I agree with Flammifer and Richard001 that there is no significant difference between the concepts, despite Karol's brave attempt to distinguish between cymbals and loud cymbals, I've boldly merged the articles now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Critique

A Unificationist scholar wrote:

Some people have mistakenly concluded that our genes control everything about our lives and determine our destiny. According to this view, known as genetic determinism, our attitudes, behavior, intelligence, health status, and physical traits are entirely fixed by our genetic makeup. This view leads to a number of problems. It could be used to “explain away” racial prejudices, or to justify violence and criminal behavior. Also, if we are simply the product of our genes, can we solve our social problems and build a world of peace simply by doctoring people’s genes through the techniques of genetic engineering? Moreover, what happens to our concepts of free will, social responsibility, and accountability for our actions?

This was from a speech given this week at a world peace conference in New York. I don't know if it has been published yet. Uncle Ed 14:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure the above is useful or applicable since it employs the argument, much of which is delivered throughout this article, of an apparent straw man technique that is referenced in the beginning of this article. Stevenmitchell 03:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

View not held by serious scientists

I had This view is now considered "a nonsense not held by any serious scientist" which Snalwimba has removed as "shameless self-promotion" but I'm not convinced that that's a good reason to remove a reference from a reliable source. If anyone else wanted to replace this - thus overcoming Snalwimba's objection, I'd be very much in favour. They could even mention the authors, which I did not to avoid "self-promotion" if they wanted to.NBeale (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

NBeale, two points. Firstly, if genetic determinism is a scientific "nonsense" as your edit suggests, then surely there must be something from the scientific literature that's a more appropriate source. Secondly, you really need to read WP:COI and reflect on it. SNALWIBMA is right — "shameless self-promotion" is exactly what this looks like. Your book is not a popular review of genetics that might be an appropriate source — the pertinent point appears to be that it is simply your book. It seems rude to ask given your expertise in Christian thought, but I presume you're aware which is the most deadly sin? --PLUMBAGO 07:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

NBeale – Nobody is disputing the fact that extreme GD is a nonsense not held by any serious scientist. I deleted the reference to your book because I felt (and still feel) that:

1. It is not a good source for the statement that raw/pure/extreme "genetic determinism" is not serious science but a fringe misinterpretation of science. Far better to source that from a scientific source, and I have found and inserted what I hope is a suitable reference that says much the same thing (though perhaps not in the best place – maybe it should go in the lead rather than the next section.
2. There is no problem with you adding a reference to your own book if it is a reliable, relevant and useful source, but it is not. And it is especially inappropriate for you to do so if you do not do it properly, by failing to give basic details such as authors' names. Far from looking like modesty, that looks like false modesty, and therefore shameless self-promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an extension of your blog. If the book was really a good source on the subject, it would be entirely proper for you or anyone else to add the reference. But is isn't, and you know it isn't, and that is why you inserted it in what looks like a sneaky way, and why you are now not simply reinserting it, fully referenced.

Sorry to write harshly, but you really need to think about issues of WP:conflict of interest in your WP edits. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead author of QoT is a world-renowned scientist and FRS. The source you have found is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at an obscure university. It is - to say the least - far from obvious that this is preferable. The reason I am not re-inserting it, fully referenced, is that you would simply delete it so I have better things to do. I'm sorry if this looks like false modesty to you, but 99.99% of Wikipedia users would neither know nor care. We should be writing for them, not for us. NBeale (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your argument from authority (X is a world-renowned professor, Y is a mere associate dogsbody) is completely irrelevant. But I agree with your second point – we should indeed be writing for the readers, not in order to inflate our own egos and promote our own books. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Erm, "writing for them, not for us"? Nice one — I've not laughed so hard in ages. Incidentally, said FRS is not a biologist, so it is likely that there is a more appropriate source for such a biological topic. SNALWIBMA found one, and was honest enough to note that he hoped it was suitable. Finally, that 99.99% of Wikipedia wouldn't know that you were self-promoting is probably true; that they wouldn't care that articles are being co-opted for promotion is less obvious. --PLUMBAGO 09:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Francis Collins says something relevant here but it's not I think as much to the purpose. I don't say that X is a dogsbody, but science actually works by incremental empirical additions to authority, and Wikipedia is in a sense entirely built on authority, so I don't quite see why you (and Grayling) are so excited about this as though it is a problem. NBeale (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You can't imagine why anyone interested in the honest pursuit of scientific progress might be nonplussed by an appeal to authority? That either shows a lack of imagination or a subservience to post-surname acronyms. Furthermore, unless by "authority" you mean (in some convoluted way) "objective evidence" or "scientific consensus" (or some such), the notion that science is comprised of "additions to authority" is a nonsense. Simply possessing, say, FRS status does not automatically grant authority in all matters scientific. And certainly not on topics that one has no direct research experience in. It might float the boat in circles that are used to hierarchy, deference and ideas from "on-high", but status alone doesn't cut much ice in working science. Anyway, as SNALWIBMA already notes above, you seriously need to get reacquainted with WP:COI. --PLUMBAGO 14:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideally (in principle etc..) every (important etc...) statement in a scientific publication is supported either by evidence from the work reported or a reference to a suitably authoritative source for that statement. Of course experiment (or analysis) may show that the authority is mistaken, but that's a different matter. And pretty rare. In WikiPedia we have no WP:OR so it's all authority. Of course being an FRS does not make you omnicompetent (eg Dawkins) but it puts you in a stronger position to be a source if you say "no serious scientist hold view X". NBeale (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Article is confusing

It introduces the idea as meaning that genes alone [not environment] determines behaviour, then gives what is calls the modern perspective, which *seems* to argue the opposite, then concludes that genetic determinism is standard. So is the "modern synthesis" not the standard model? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.76.208 (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry you must mean the creditable version of 'genetic determinism'. That's not clear from scanning the article so I'll make a minor alteration - hope that's OK.

Starting sentence is wrong

Genetic determinism is the belief that genes, along with environmental conditions, determine morphological and behavioral phenotypes. Morphological and behavioral phenotypes are determined by the interaction of the organism's genome and it's environment along with its behaviour. That's it, there isn't anything else that determines its morphological and behavioural phenotype. This applies to all life forms on earth. The problem that this article correctly addresses is genetic determinism, the belief that genes determine the organsm's phenotype (so please someone remove that environmental conditions from that sentence). Just to be clear environmental conditions are the two main things, matter (all states including other living things such as pathogens) and energy (in the form of electromagnetic radiation usually) that come in contact or penetrate the organism's skin or membrane. Environmental conditions may also refer to things like financial situation and career or socioeconomic status and social environment including relationships as well as sleep, physical exercise and emotional stress although these strictly speaking are behavioural factors or conditions rather than environmental. The point is that phenotypic morphology and behaviour is due to the complex interaction of these and it's genome and the first sentence needs to be changed. Besides this, even if there was an additional factor affecting the phenotype of an organism which there isn't, still, the first sentence should not include the phrase environmental conditions in it. U1012738 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues from time to time since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)