Talk:Behavioural genetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A google test for "behavioral genetics" (as a phrase) yields 230,000 hits, whereas a test for "behavioural genetics" (as a phrase) yields 50,000 hits. ("Behavior genetics" yields 180,000 hits, and "Behaviour genetics" yields 23,000 hits).This article should be moved to the most common term.--Nectar ^T 10:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

No, see wikipedia:spelling. Dunc|☺ 12:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names) states: "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." That page gives reasons for the convention.--Nectar ^T 21:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Aye, but we're not debating whether to use the common name 'widget' or 'dongle'. We're debating how to spell the same word. The wikipedia:spelling guide is the appropriate guide, not Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names). My personal opinion on whether it is more appropriate to use US or English spelling differ from that in the spelling guide, but I think it is appropiate to follow it, by retaining 'Behaviour' in this case. Pete.Hurd 00:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:spelling doesn't appear to discuss the US/British spelling issue very much, but I think you're referring to the policy that pages should simply choose a spelling and stick with it. I appreciate the complexities of the spelling issue, but it seems like the policy in naming conventions of using the most common version applies to spelling when one version has such greater usage ("We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia"). The ior ending has 5.5x the internet usage as the iour ending if we combine hits for Behavioral genetics and Behavior genetics (410,000), and combine hits for Behavioural genetics and Behaviour genetics (73,000).--Nectar ^T 00:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why redirects with alternate spellings aren't adequate. I personally would feel less enthusiastic about participating if US spelling were to be declared the official spelling of wikipedia. I'm not trying to paint you as the John Bolton of spelling, I do see your point, but I find it ironic when US spelling is advanced as a standard. Benjamin Frankin wanted to have a new language for his new country, A US English incomprehensible to non US English speakers. And launched his spelling reform as a start. Now, I have no fear of 'lite beer', 'drive thru' etc leading us to a tower of babel, but there is a sense in which US spelling was designed to be divisive. I may be a lone nut on this issue, and I would not advance it as a proposal, but if it were entirely up to me, I'd have so-called British spelling throughout, with US spelling redirects. Pete.Hurd 07:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

My stance is only concerned with utility. Since this appears to be a larger policy issue, I've asked for advice at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)--Nectar ^T 08:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving away from "stub" status

Behavioral genetics, as has been pointed out about, is an important and vital area of serious current study. If you go to this page Genetic Behavioral Theory, you will see another theory in behavioral genetics (hopefully one of many in time that will be featured here at Wiki). Let's see what we can make this into! What kind of scientists and scientific enthusiasts of Behavioral(/Behavioural) Genetics? Want to get excited and do some earth shaking in this little corner of wiki? --A green Kiwi in learning mode 18:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The article A Kiwi refers to as "Genetic Behavioral Theory" is actually a piped link to User_talk:A_Kiwi/draft-NPA_Personality_Theory. That page is a userspace copy of NPA personality theory, which has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that it is a non-notable vanity article. —Psychonaut 01:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you have it quite wrong. The theory article's nomination has absolutely ZERO to do with being a vanity article. That referred only to another biographical page of the author of the study. A truly minor point. The only validated concern about the article in questions was that the article on its own did not signify a theory of any particular notability. Rather like the research written about in this very article which could not stand alone outside its importance to the scientific field of behavioral genetics.

Be reassured. There are many who are familiar with the centuries of carefully detailed records concerning of breeding for behavioral characteristics. We know that personality IS inherited to a great extent. This is SCIENCE.

What was not as verifiable was whether Horney's theory was a true match for the inheritable components of personality in primates. Thank you for helping me raise interest in the field of behavioral genetics and about personality theory. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 02:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's odd that I "have it quite wrong"; when I checked the deletion nomination it said that "the articles on Anthony M. Benis and NPA personality theory (a personality theory invented by Anthony M. Benis) do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and may also be vanity articles". —Psychonaut 15:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the genetics of canine temperment

I don't understand how this NPA personality theory piece of original research gets an A- (Quality) and Mid (Importance) from WikiProject Psychology. The idea that human personality is determined by a single Mendelian locus with three alleles is totally at odds with all modern behavioural genetics research into the topic, see introductory textbook such as Plomin et al's Behavioral Genetics (W H Freeman & Co.) for a review of empirical research on the topic. Pete.Hurd 04:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pete. The A- Quality was for the excellence of writing and presentation. the Mid-Importance was one of those things cooked up over a week or so with limited input of less than 10 human beings. You know how that goes. As for the genetic model being out of date, so is the genetic model of the fellow mentioned on the previous page.  :o) But keep in mind that the day a textbook is published, it is already at least 10 years out of date. Any prof will admit to that.

It is quite likely - MORE than likely - that such a large component of human behavior could be explained by what is true in the genetic research papers I have read on canine genetics.

Are you aware that dog behavioral genetics are solely governed by the full or total expression, suppression or absence of dominance, territoriality and affiliation? It is such expression patterns that determine why all terriers vary from all hounds, and so on. Are you a geneticist? Majoring in genetics? Can you help explain to me why that is so? Thanks. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 05:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I majoring in genetics? No I'm a professor that has taught undergraduate courses in behavioural genetics, I've published my research in journals such as Genes Brain & Behavior, Brain Behavior & Evolution, Animal Behaviour, Biological Psychology and Personality and Individual Differences... I cannot explain to you why "dog behavioral genetics are solely governed by the full or total expression, suppression or absence of dominance, territoriality and affiliation" because it's just such an oddly contrived thing to suggest. Pete.Hurd 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that must have been a way of looking at things that had its time and then moved on. Okay hen, how do you explain the dog behavioral genetics that focus on those three canine behavioral-determinate qualities? Just want to understand, no matter how it can be explained. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 06:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have references that illustrate this way of thinking? I've got here three papers on behavioural genetics in dog that spent the last week sitting on my desk waiting for me to have time to read them. I'll take these as representative of present day science's take on the topic. They are: Badino et al 2004) Modifications of serotonergic and adrenergic receptor concentrations in the brain of aggressive Canis familiaris. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 139:343-350. Saetre et al (2004) From wild wolf to domestic dog: gene expression changes in the brain. Mol. Brain Res. 126:198-206. Masuda et al (2004) Sequencing of canine 5-hydroxytriptamine receptor (5-HTR) 1B, 2A, 2C genes and identification of polymorphisms in the 5-HTR1B gene. J. Vet. Med. Sci 66:965-972. None of these papers refer to this three-dimensional personailty system you speak of. Pete.Hurd 17:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter, can understand why you are all at sea here, seeing as how you are a professor of psychology, not of genetics, and that the reason you have those papers on your desk seems to do with your role in the allocation of research funds or something of that nature.

My own background is cellular microphysiology. The first paper you mention deals with possible modifications of neurotransmitter concentrations in the more aggressive breeds. The second paper is a more a philosophical comparison of present day wild wolves and present day dogs. The two species have been separated for so long, there is very little similar in temperment or social behaviors. The third paper is about identifying changes in gene structure. None of them, however, have anything to do with what veterinarians and researchers in the genetic precursers of dog temperment know to be true about why dogs are as they are.

What I still don't know is how you would explain to your classes about why behavioral traits such as these are genetically linked and how a breeder could introduce, intensify or eliminate such traits in a given line of canines. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, but I can see grounds for describing most hypotheses, of any kind as "oddly contrived things to suggest" until they are either proven or disproven. Speaking of which, surely a theory remains valid no matter how "out of date" it is perceived to be until it is disproven? Research often takes a wrong direction and has to backtrack to that which was previously perceived to be "out of date". --Zeraeph 12:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientific theories are never proven or disproven in such a clear way. We know, for instance, that Einstein's theories are not entirely correct, but that doesn't mean that ptolomeic system retains any credibility. Just because several theories have been proposed, that does not mean any propsed theory will be credible. Hypotheses are made which are based on theories which make sense given the best evidence. People do research using personality constructs such as the Big Five personality traits because the model has empirical support and some degree of verisimilitude. The big five "works" that's why so much research is done using it as a conceptual framework, without necessarily embracing it as the one abolutely true personality structure. NPA personality theory is not used by any empirical researcher, that no one has "proven" the big five, or Catell's 16 Personality Factors deoesn't mean that it's a candidate on equal footing. That researchers have measured the heritability of the five dimentions of the five factor model in numerous empirical studies speaks to the usefulness of the idea. The NPA personality theory idea that a three allele single locus underlies personality is just not going anywhere, it's much like something someome made up at school one day. Pete.Hurd 17:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

regarding Catell's recent release of his "16 factor" diagram is scarcely a theory of anything, nor does it appeart to be very valid of anything. It impressed me at the time and again now as something that someone made up at school one day. Honestly. It simply flies in the face of so much of known research. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)