Talk:Genetics of aggression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating.

[edit] Fix article name

I think the title of the article should be changed; doesn't seem to be proper/standard wiki style. 64.81.240.241 04:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Partially fixed to address incorrect capitalization, but the article name is still not good. Someone should come up with a better article name. Sandy (Talk) 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The title name is still not syntactically correct. A more correct title would be "Genetic influence on aggression"; however, this implies that there IS a genetic influence on aggression - this article gives the THEORIES of how there is a genetic influence on aggression. Therefore, I propose the title Genetic theory of aggression. Cheers ~ James Kanjo (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That would not be correct: there IS a genetic influence on aggression. Read the article: one can seletively breed mice to be aggressive or not, for instance. There is much more research than mentioned here, ven though most (but not all) is on mice. But there is no doubt that genes have an influence on aggression. I agree that the title is incorrect, though. "Genetics" is a field of investigation, in and of itself it does not influence anything (except perhaps other fields of scientific inquiry). Correct would be "Genetics of aggression", "Genetic influences on aggression", etc. BTW, the foregoing does not, of course, mean that genes are all there is that determines aggression levels. --Crusio (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ; it is your opinion that there is a genetic influence on aggression. Aggression in DNA is theory. Aggression in biology-basis is theory. Aggression in social-basis is theory. There is biological evidence that through adding or removing chemicals in the brain. This is not to say that it is a genetic reason, it simply says that chemicals influence aggression. That mouse section, by the way, is, as I have written below, terrible. It's not very comprehendible, and gives unclear evidence (arguably no evidence). It does say; however, that serotonin is identified as a chemical which influences aggression. This is NOT genetic. This is a biological cause, NOT genetic. I do like your title (first one). "Genetics of aggression". It is, so far, a theory, so I do think the word theory should be integrated into the title. "Genetics of aggression theory". I do prefer my first suggestion though: Genetic theory of aggression. Cheers ~ James Kanjo (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

James, I'm afraid I cannot follow you. How can you oppose "biological" to "genetic" causes?? Are genetic causes not biological?? Genes influence aggression by, among others, influencing serotonin levels and such. If you want to interpret that as meaning that genes do not directly influence aggression, but only indirectly, then there are hardly any characters left that would be influenced by genes. The only direct products of genes are RNAs, but still we say that genes influence eye color, for instance. It's the same with aggression. By selectively breeding, one can obtain animals that are reliably more or less aggressive than others. That's pretty solid evidence of genetic influences in itself. In addition, there are many genes known to have an effect on aggression when knocked-out. If you want to classify all this evidence as "opinion", go ahead, but it doesn't belong in this article. By the way, the way you use the word "theory" makes me suspect that you actually mean "hypothesis". --Crusio (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me, evidence is evidence, not an opinion. One can make an opinion from evidence. But yes you hit the nail on the head, that genes do not directly influence aggression. Well, it is certainly clear that genetics can have an influence on aggression (ironically, the title of this article which we are debating), but there is the theory that genetics are the sole reason behind aggression. This is why I say the title should mention the word "theory", as it is unproven that genetics are the sole reason for aggression. Perhaps this explanation will help you follow me: there is a biological theory behind aggression, which is basically that aggression is purely to do with biochemical reasons (genetics being one of them), and a social theory behind aggression, which is basically that aggression is purely to do with a person's environment, or the way they were brought up. These are two extremes, and I'm sure you and I would both agree that the reality is that it is a combination of both. However, I thought that this article is explaining one of these extremes, and so is a theory, not a reason. But if this article is not meant to depict an extreme, and simply depict how genetics influence aggression, then the word "theory" should be knocked out. So you know, I meant the word theory because it is difficult to devise an experiment to prove this particular extreme; and theory which could be tested is a hypothesis. Regardless of this, the syntax of the title is still wrong. However, you are right to say that genetics have an influence on aggression (even though it is indirect, there is still an influence) and so it is proof that genetics can influence, so if the article was titled theory, then it would be misleading in that some information in it is unproven facts. What it comes down to is this: Is this article explaining an extreme, or explaining what is? This would determine the style of title. Cheers ~ James Kanjo (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry James, did not want to sound patronizing. I follow your reasoning, but I really don't know anybody who would argue that genes are the one and only cause of aggression. Anybody studying genetics learns very rapidly the importance of environment, especially in behavioral studies. I am a behavior geneticist, meaning that I study the interplay of genes and environment in producing (differences in) behavior. It does not mean that I ignore environment and only study genes. I know of no geneticist that would argue otherwise. I think the whole argument really is a straw man. And on the risk of sounding patronizing again, a "theory" is something that is much stronger than a hypothesis and which is supported by a large body of evidence. It is NOT something which cannot be tested. Theories are used to generate testable hypotheses. Hence, the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity. If somebody would hypothesize that all individual differences in aggression are genetic in origin, that hypothesis would be based on genetical theory, but evidence would knock it over pretty rapidly. This would invalidate that particular hypothesis, but not the theory of genetic inheritance, of course. --Crusio (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, we have finally sorted that out! Well, thank you for that elaboration. So by suggesting that no person would argue that genes are the one and only cause of aggression, that is saying that this article is not meant to argue an extreme; simply giving the facts/results and other proof of the influence they have, or when they have one. I think it's about time we change the article name now...I reckon, that because you hold an expert opinion on the subject, that you can have the task of actually changing the page's name to what you think suits best; I doubt anybody would disagree with your decision. Cheers ~ James Kanjo (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I did enough cleanup to justify removing the tag, but the article still needs more. The WP:LEAD needs to conform, the article needs a copy edit for basic grammar and punctuation errors, and the wikilinking is a mess - the first occurrence of each term should be linked, not *every* occurrence. Pls review WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, WP:MSH, WP:MOS, and for wiki-linking, WP:MOS-L. Sandy (Talk) 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I followed this matter -of how often linking is allowed- to the Answer Desk, and the answer was that the could be linked more than once, but only one time to any one subsection. Many people (myself included) go to a page, check the index, and go straight to the subsection I want to read. If I come across a term not linked, I have to go up the page to find its first occurence or type it into the search box. I can see that short or relatively short and simple topics don't really need a second link. Nor does it seem at all appropriate or needed to simply link because you can link, when the subject is not so obscure that many people would have to check a reference. But in long technical or complicated articles, it is nice that Wiki allows one per section. --Kiwi 00:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As one of many examples, aggression is not a technical or overly difficult term, and yet it is wiki-linked sixteen times in one section in addition to the many times in every other section: this article is a classic example of over-linking. Genetics and heritability are also not difficult terms that need to be repeatedly linked. Please try to fix these, and the many others, Sandy (Talk) 01:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I did a few sections as an example of how many times the same word is linked in one paragraph or one section - there is much more to do. Sandy (Talk) 01:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My GOODNESS!!! Sandy, I see now what you mean. I didn't look at the article until after I wrote and have been doing deep and extensive editing offline where I have spellcheck and font size control for optimal working speed. (have diabetes & vision problems). Would it be helpful to post it on a page on my pages here at WK? I am a good copy editor where you're looking for clarity above all. I have the background to make all the material understandable to me -- but I can make it understandable to all. I've done the beginning section and the first subsection or two and was going to upload it, but for some reason my browser froze up on me. --Kiwi 07:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mouse Studies

This section is terribly written. It is unclear, and makes no sense. Exactly what was "manipulating a receptor for serotonin" doing? Does it make the receptor absorb more serotonin, or less? Does it produce more serotonin or less? Also, there seems to be two experiments on mice. One with mice being mutated, and one with mice being raised without their mothers. Are both of these experiments done by "Bock & Goode, 1996"? I would think that the latter experiment is done by Bock & Goode, and not the first one - which means the first one needs a citation. In fact, the whole section is without citations, it is difficult to trace the information - let alone even trust it. Or perhaps one of these experiments is done by "Southwick, 1970"? It is not clear. This section needs desperate attention. Cheers ~ James Kanjo (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I also think this section needs some much needed revamping.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, it's pretty bad.... --Crusio (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)