Psychology vs Phenotyping - let's hear it you learned persons...!?

bo0li5eumx12kp · 22-11-2020 7:27pm #1

Genotype + Development = Phenotype.

....

The development phase.

What is it?

How does it differ for different people?

Why exposure to same environments with different outcomes?

Freedive Ireland · 23-11-2020 5:35pm

I think it's too complex to understand other than with very broad brush strokes.

In car crashes we don't expect everyone to have the same injuries or say that the people who were uninjured were more resilient than those who were injured but we can see that those who weren't wearing seatbelts were probably injured more. The variables involved are incredibly complex in both instances.

So the same goes for development, yes genes play a part but Waddingtons landscape would suggest that development is not linear, the volume button for a certain type of gene characteristic can be increased or decreased by environment. Also we are only beginning to look at gut microbiome, we have about 25-30K of our own genes and 100s of millions of genes in the gut that we rely on symbiotically and that also interact/are influenced by our environment. Crisper will have some craic sequencing those down the line.

SuperRabbit · 23-11-2020 10:12pm

You want us to explain every single thing that can happen to a person and how that might affect them?
+
How all those things might affect them differently depending on their genes?

https://bookshop.org/books?keywords=individual+differences ?

bo0li5eumx12kp · 24-11-2020 4:18pm

SuperRabbit wrote: »

You want us to explain every single thing that can happen to a person and how that might affect them?
+
How all those things might affect them differently depending on their genes?

https://bookshop.org/books?keywords=individual+differences ?

Over complication.

Development, plain and simple.

Characterize development.

What is development?

bo0li5eumx12kp · 24-11-2020 4:25pm

Freedive Ireland wrote: »

I think it's too complex to understand other than with very broad brush strokes.

In car crashes we don't expect everyone to have the same injuries or say that the people who were uninjured were more resilient than those who were injured but we can see that those who weren't wearing seatbelts were probably injured more. The variables involved are incredibly complex in both instances.

So the same goes for development, yes genes play a part but Waddingtons landscape would suggest that development is not linear, the volume button for a certain type of gene characteristic can be increased or decreased by environment. Also we are only beginning to look at gut microbiome, we have about 25-30K of our own genes and 100s of millions of genes in the gut that we rely on symbiotically and that also interact/are influenced by our environment. Crisper will have some craic sequencing those down the line.

Microbiome - clutching at straws really, certainly when it comes to developmental issues.

....

Put it this way.

A young phenom, genetically gifted, athlete, student, all - then they hit late 20's a look like dog shit.

Another example, for some reason in latin culture, I see ridiculous hotties up to a certain age, and they develop this insanely big ghetto ass in mid to late 20's.

This is a modification of gene expression, but didn't begin to express itself until that age.

If transcription factors dictate gene expression (or modification), and are implicated by the preceding cascade - which is ultimately underwritten by cellular firing itself (action potential propagation), then it would indicate that how the cells fire - is in fact the ultimate determinant of gene expression, aka phenotyping.

So.... development, aka - what causes the cells to fire as they do, and why does that change over time?

That's the question.

Freedive Ireland · 24-11-2020 5:57pm

Emmie Nutritious Combat wrote: »

Microbiome - clutching at straws really, certainly when it comes to developmental issues.
Meh.

....

Put it this way.

A young phenom, genetically gifted, athlete, student, all - then they hit late 20's a look like dog shit. Your subjective opinion! you have no idea what caused them to look like dog**** and it's your opinion they look like dog****.

Another example, for some reason in latin culture, I see ridiculous hotties up to a certain age, and they develop this insanely big ghetto ass in mid to late 20's. Your subjective opinion influenced by culture.

This is a modification of gene expression, but didn't begin to express itself until that age. You can't simply this is...... genes are one thing but are not set in stone, they can be influenced by other factors as I already mnetioned but perhaps you didn't attend..

If transcription factors dictate gene expression (or modification), and are implicated by the preceding cascade - which is ultimately underwritten by cellular firing itself (action potential propagation), then it would indicate that how the cells fire - is in fact the ultimate determinant of gene expression, aka phenotyping.

So.... development, aka - what causes the cells to fire as they do, and why does that change over time?

That's the question.

I'm still not sure of the question but as I understand it so far, my answer is genes and the corresponding environment (& culture) that influences those genes. The environment being too full of variables to actually categorise definitively.

SuperRabbit · 24-11-2020 7:34pm

42?

bo0li5eumx12kp · 24-11-2020 9:28pm

SuperRabbit wrote: »

42?

42...

42 what?

.....

Please don't tell me we're talking about bottles of beer on the wall.

bo0li5eumx12kp · 24-11-2020 9:33pm

Freedive Ireland wrote: »

I'm still not sure of the question but as I understand it so far, my answer is genes and the corresponding environment (& culture) that influences those genes. The environment being too full of variables to actually categorise definitively.

Development.

Development is based in excitatory cellular activity (neurons).

Our thoughts are coded in neural firing, like transistors code information in an integrated circuit.

The question is why the variation in development when two similar organisms are exposed to similar environments?

i.e. phenotypic difference.

.....

And specific to this subforum, is the answer to be found in the psychology of the process?

.....

What is development; perhaps it's like saying, "what is psychology"?

SuperRabbit · 25-11-2020 1:11am

It's not like saying "what is psychology"? psychology is the study of lots of different things, including stuff like hunger and perception and reaction times and stuff like that, I don't think that's what you are interested in but I still can't figure out what.

"The question is why the variation in development when two similar organisms are exposed to similar environments?"

Define "similar"? Similar means "not the same". So you are talking about two different organisms in two different environments, why wouldn't they be different? That question is unclear because you can't mean that, because that answer is so obvious that you can't be asking that.

Even for twins, the left side of the womb is not the same as the right side, for example, so no two people ever develop or are ever raised in the same environment.

Gremlinertia · 25-11-2020 10:04pm

Posts deleted, Laptopgremlin, responding with gifs is below standard for a science forum.

Gremlinertia · 26-11-2020 12:44pm

LaptopGremlin, you have been on the site long enough to know discussing moderation on thread is a no no, please take 24 hours off from this thread and bring any further issue to PM
Grem

bo0li5eumx12kp · 27-11-2020 7:03pm

Alright, let me re-phrase.

I knew a pair of mono-zygotic twins one time.

Actually I knew several but knew these, particularly well.

Obviously, there was a plethora of genetic similarity, but simultaneously, some striking developmental differences.

They weren't separated at birth, they grew up, same house, went to the same school, same activities, same group of friends etc.

Though apparently in studies that doesn't really matter, mono-zygotic twins separated at birth often grow up with remarkable developmental similarity regardless of environmental exposure (or breath of difference there in).

.......

So, what made them different from each other, in the developmental capacity?
(curiously despite sharing an identical genome, there was also a slight height variation emerging before their 20's).

psychology is the study of lots of different things, including stuff like hunger and perception and reaction times and stuff like that

These are all products of neural function.

So, perhaps the question should be - what defines neural function? (my terminology vs ya'lls, perhaps that computes better than "how does one define psychology?")

.....

Put it this way; conditions like non-verbal autism - developmental conditions, I don't have a dramatic wealth of experience around such people but my understanding is, they pretty much require a lifetime of care from others.

I definitely think that's an interdasting comparison.

SuperRabbit · 27-11-2020 8:03pm

Mel Baggs was non-verbal and lived independently, if by non-verbal you mean not speaking. That's not super unusual, but I don't know how common it is. They could not speak but they could write, and when they wrote they used verbs, so non-verbal is a really tricky adjective. But I get what you mean, it's very difficult to find one word for an autistic person who can't live independently, because whatever word you pick will also describe someone else who does live independently. That's a whole other rabbit hole

Why are monozygotic twins who are raised together different? is a good and coherent question!

I will think about it and see what i come up with

bo0li5eumx12kp · 27-11-2020 8:16pm

SuperRabbit wrote: »

Mel Baggs was non-verbal and lived independently, if by non-verbal you mean not speaking. That's not super unusual, but I don't know how common it is. They could not speak but they could write, and when they wrote they used verbs, so non-verbal is a really tricky adjective. But I get what you mean, it's very difficult to find one word for an autistic person who can't live independently, because whatever word you pick will also describe someone else who does live independently. That's a whole other rabbit hole

Point being in that instance he had command over words.

Noam Chomsky wrote:

Language is the basis of cognizance

If he had words at his disposal, then he had ability to rationalize (aka cognizance)

Rationalization appears to be the basis of emotional process and thus behaviour (kind of, thoughts - emotions - actions framework).

But very young non-verbal autism cases who have no words at their disposal in any capacity, thus ZERO ability to self rationalize;

They'll have accordant minimal control over their nervous system - seems to go hand in hand with co-morbidities like neural dysregulation - as one would see with epilepsy and GI disturbance issues consistent with emotional/electrical dysregulation.

bo0li5eumx12kp · 28-11-2020 1:19pm

Environment influences development, but doesn't necessarily determine it.

And when development reaches a certain point, IT begins to influence environment.

And the outcome (phenotype), will seemingly always be emphatically a function of genetics - as outcome = genetics + development.

So, pfffff - optimal specimen could be something like,

1) eugenics based breeding combined

2) with CRISPR based genome optimization.....

BUT

3) Optimal development would also be imperative to long term success.

I suppose the question from an existing organism POV would really be, we can only avail of the development step 3).

Prevention of cellular deterioration and acquired gene flaws etc.

I posted in the health science section that conversation with Manolis Kellis, genetic "perturbation" - influence on gene expression, historically been pharmacological - in some capacity I guess we could say that's development, no doubt influences it.

.....

Psychological based genetic "perturbation"...... I'm sure that's pretty much the underlying target of psychology as a field/science (including other peripheral psychological considerations like response time etc).

- But that will also influence excitatory cellular function (ultimately determined as such by way of the psychology approach, psychology based "perturbation")
- And subsequent hormonal based second messengers and resultant physiological implications of such.
- As well as cascade effect on gene expression/phenotyping itself.

Psychology vs Phenotyping - let's hear it you learned persons...!?

Comments