Apparently, the more children you have the more likely you are

>What is correlation?
Begone, brainlet.

>>8984789
>personality
Just a random configuration of brain chemicals being fired as specific times

Oxytocin all the time means your an empathetic sensitive pussy

Serotonin means your a depressed fag

Low Serotonin means your an aggressive asshole.

>>8984789
heres a fun quote

>"professors are inclined to attribute the intelligence of their children to nature (genetics), and the intelligence of their students to nurture (environment)" -Roger Masters

i know it doesnt necessarily mean much in this context, but neither does that correlation. plus it doesnt mean those people are right, personality is a mixture of genes and experiences. The most outgoing, normal personality person in the world (from a genetic perspective), if locked in a room 24/7, there is no doubt their personality would change due to the environment, potentially leading to a genetic change due to the environment!

>>8984789
Personality is 100% genes, people have no idea what human genes are.

>>8984870
you're wrong. experience also does come into play.

>>8984873
Again, you have no idea what genes are. Experience can only come to play if the genes allow it.

>>8984873
All experience is only possible by genes, interpreted by genes and computed by genes and displayed by genes.

>>8984876
im literally a geneticist.

>Experience can only come to play if the genes allow it.

what...? we are talking about personality, not development. your personality is based on your genetic expression very early on yes, but as soon as you begin to build experiences your personality can change, even on the genetic level.

what do you think CTE is? an environmental factor causing an altered personality, due to aberrant gene expression caused by continuous blows to the head. emotional trauma may not alter gene expression but it can alter personality as well.

https://www.nature.com/emm/journal/v49/n5/pdf/emm201756a.pdf?origin=ppub

>>8984889
of course genes are necessary to receive that input. but by receiving certain environmentally caused signals, genes can alter themselves

>>8984914
***i shouldnt say they can alter themselves, they can alter their amount of expression, leading to phenotypic changes, including in personality

File: iStock_000006060485Medium.jpg (24KB, 300x457px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x457px

>>8984906
>Look! An animal who changes colors according to the environment, this is not 100% genetic I swear!

>>8984789
But can it hold up against the Boba Fett analogy...?

>>8984914
But holy fucking shit, the genes still determine what kind of varied output you get, this is like saying there are not adaptable genes, that genes only work 60% of the time, ends up being a politically correct argument instead of the truth

>>8984919
we are talking about personality. is changing colors now a part of personality or am i confused about why you brought that up?

>>8984906
>gene expression
>not genetic m8 come on

>>8984932
Yes, changing colors is part of this animal personality since "It is now believed that chameleons change color not so much to blend into the surroundings, but rather to signal, fend off rivals, or attract a mate."

>>8984928
im not arguing there are not adaptable genes. I am saying those genes which affect personality, at least from what we know, can be turned off or on based on environmental factors, leading to different phenotype (personality) expression.

we are not fully disagreeing with each other, just thinking about it differently

File: 1497904314342.jpg (35KB, 540x441px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 540x441px

>>8984789
>yfw women are slightly more redpilled

>>8984938
changing colors is not changing personality.

>>8984934
you do know certain genes are only turned on after exposure to certain environmental factors right? like they are 100% off until an environmental event occurs, such as metallothionin promoters, Tet-Op promoter, ect.

>>8984943
Only, if, the, genes, allow it. This may be the case for some humans and not for the others. Only, if, the, genes, allow it.

hmm usually women are wrong about things.. maybe it's different for women. Like being a bitchy stupid cunt is just something that never goes away whereas men are more likely to be capable of altering their personalities to fit reality

>>8984789
who the fuck allows and funds these kind of (((((scientific))))) studies?!
What does that even prove or correlate?
The graph of what some people think some other things are

>>8984967
Consider women reproduce selecting good males for them.

>>8984956
100% agree. if you dont have certain genes you cannot produce certain proteins. but everyone has a personality, it's an intrinsic part of having a working brain, so there must be genes in every person which affects it, or neurodevelopmental issues would have arrisen

File: batman-slap-header.jpg (95KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x450px

>>8984974
Shut the fuck up, you crazy schizo

>>8984974
exactly. it's not evidence. it's speculation from laypeople.

>>8984938
How does manifesting your personality through physical expressions negate his point?

>>8985017
it doesnt, he doesnt know what he's talking about

If anything the studies argues for the contrary and the people interviewed just can't be bothered to put 2 and 2 together.
>2 children with similar genetics and practically the same upbringing have similar personalities
>therefore the reason they behave similarly is because of genetics!

>>8985017
Man do you need some extra IQ points? I can spare you some I think.

>>8985023
Unlike what you think, two brothers have very different combinations of genes from their father and mother. You are thinking "They are 99.99% similar hurrr". The idea is that the parents try raising their children the same way, and the kids grow to be very different, so they conclude it is genetic.

>>8985040
>The idea is that the parents try raising their children the same way, and the kids grow to be very different, so they conclude it is genetic.

that would only apply if they were 99.99% similar. but they are not, like you just said, so how can they come to that conclusion? also, "raising a kid the same way" is not identical environmental conditions. you can never fully emulate another's environmental influence, except with maybe the case with Genie, but that would be... slightly unethical

>>8985048
>that would only apply if they were 99.99% similar.
Nope.
>raising a kid the same way
Yes they do, this is very common, the parents see this as being far. Whatever uncontrollable difference happens is unsymmetrical to how much the kids differ later on, even at early years. Please, you are not so smart, just refrain from discussing here, go masturbate or something.

>>8985055
>Whatever uncontrollable difference happens is unsymmetrical to how much the kids differ later on, even at early years

what a claim. please back it up. how about you refrain from making claims which are not based in anything.
again. raising a child in "similar fashion" is NOT going to produce the same epigenetic changes in both children. that's absolutely unfounded

>>8984789
>What is the reason for this?
Probably caused by genetics.

>>8985050
The opposite to this argument would be that parents raise their kids in dissimilar ways, and the kids have different personalities despite similar genes, which would prompt an alternate conclusion than OP's chart.

Notice that women have higher scores on this chart in every category. Women feel more genetically attached to children than men, because men often see their genetic contribution as less than a woman (despite equal genetic components, women bare children for 9 months). If women associate their genetics with their kids more than men, then they will associate their personality with their kids' personalities more than men do.

Men, on the other hand, often see life experiences as their contribution to raising a child (at a low level, you could talk about "being there" for your kids, attending games, support, etc.) Therefore, they like to associate these things with their child's development, possibly to compensate for their apparent lack of genetic contribution.

>>8985078
Nah.

>>8985078
but OP's chart isnt data. it's literal speculation. it's

>% who attribute personality primarily to genes rather than to life experience

it could be 100% down the board but that's just their opinion, their own personal assertion not based on molecular biology

File: 1497907233259.jpg (141KB, 620x750px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 620x750px

>>8985170
That is the point, you fucking retard. It is to show how people are biased until the day they actually take the trouble to raise children and see their general methods fail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTF_XVspfDM

>>8984789
It's probably cause you can't help but notice kids come out a certain way. Note: I'm not a parent but I'm sufficiently older than my younger siblings that I got a pretty good view.
It's sort of like height and looks. Some kids will have a personality more like one parent than the other and they're like that pretty much from the start. It's hard to not have doubts about blank stateism when you have a first had perspective in just how much kids have their own full fledged personalities.
I'd say woman probably score higher than men because they on average spend more time with the kids.