LOGANHESS

Anonymous asked: Have you done tumblrdatinggame(.)com yet?

Fuck Off

Fun old essay!

The Affect of Genes on Personality
Logan Hess
26 May 2011
University of California, Davis

    An essential question in studying personality is finding out where personality comes from. What causes people to manifest certain traits in certain situations, or what underlying mechanisms contribute to the stable, reliable reactions we interpret as personality? In this paper I will examine, specifically, how and to what extent genes contribute to personality. I will take the position of a behavioral geneticist and an evolutionary psychologist to compare and contrast how these biological approaches interpret the effect of genes on personality. After this integration I will take a look at three research articles addressing the subject and use that information to form a more complete answer on genes’ effect on personality.
    Behavioral genetics is a branch of psychological study that looks at how inherited material (the genes) translates into common personality traits. One basic assumption of this view is that everything is heritable. Personality is passed down just like eye color and body type, but the main question is to what extent? Where does the influence cross from nature into nurture? One method used to measure this is calculating a “Heritability coefficient” by comparing the average behavioral scores of Monozygotic (identical) twins to those of Dizygotic (fraternal) twins. These scores are important because Monozygotic twins have the same genes, so the calculated difference between their behaviors and the Dizygotic twin pairs’ behaviors should be due to genetics.
    The difference in the calculated heritability coefficients show the amount of variation that is due to genes, which is estimated at 40 percent. However, studies with other levels of relatedness, such as aunts and cousins, have led to the understanding the the effect of genes can be very interactive. Because genes interact with one another, the variation in a person’s genome can be greater than the sum of its parts. Studies have shown that due to these interactions, identical twins, who share twice as much DNA (genes) as typical siblings, are often four times as similar.
    Now that actual DNA can be studied, researchers have started to correlate specific genes with specific traits across many people. In addition, neural imaging has been used to associate particular behaviors with certain patterns of brain activation. When all of this data is pooled, behavior geneticists have a more complete view of how genes lead to brain function which leads to behaviors or personality traits. Rapid advancements have led to a greater understanding of the overall biological impact on personality.
    Behavioral genetics research also yields some interesting findings on the importance of environment on personality. Researchers are left to answer the question, if biology only accounts for a portion of variance in behavioral characteristics, then what accounts for the rest? Another common research technique involves adoption studies and measuring the correlations of the Big Five traits between adoptive siblings. Studies show that only about five percent of personality variation is due to these shared environments. As it turns out, non-shared environments have a much greater impact on personality. The research includes environmental factors because we now know that there are important interactions between genes and environment that go more than one way.
    Behavioral geneticists have found that genes and environment act on each other in various ways. Research has shown that genotype is only the structure on which a phenotype is built, meaning that genes are only a piece of the puzzle. Genes can influence one’s personality by predisposing them to seek out certain environments. For example,  a thrill seeker may be more likely to be comfortable in a job full of risk and excitement. An important thing to keep in mind is that the same environment can affect and be interpreted by two people in very different ways. Genes can predispose someone to greater stress or anxiety than another person in an analogous situation, therefore genotype and environment interact in a unique way to incite particular behaviors and personality traits.
    Studies on specific genes have shown that though a person may have a genetic predisposition to be depressed or aggressive, a positive environment can act as a buffer. People with the short allele of the gene 5-HTT were more likely to be depressed following a major life stressor than those with the long allele. However, in the absence of major life stressors, there is no difference in likelihood of depression between the two alleles. Similar results have been found in genes leading to higher or lower level of MAOA activity and their correlation with antisocial behavior. These findings and others like them are important because they show us that the presence of certain genes does not guarantee outcomes,  and that there are limits to how genotype translates to phenotype.
    Epigenetics research has looked at the other side of the interaction, how environment can affect genetic expression. This relatively recent discovery that parenting behavior in mice can be genetically silenced based on early life experience has opened new doors in the realm of behavioral genetics. Long gone are the days of Watson and the strict behaviorists, where the belief was that you could mold a person into whatever you desire through environmental training. But, this discovery that environment may play a key role in gene expression, creates new questions as to the extent of genes and environment on personality.

    An evolutionary psychologist is also interested in how biology affects personality, but he or she takes the research in a different direction. Rather than looking at how people are different, evolutionary psychologists try to find out how people are the same. The theory is that if a behavior or trait is more conducive to the survival and reproduction of the organism, the more likely that trait is to be present in offspring. When studying personality, they must identify a trait and figure out how this trait is beneficial to survival. If a trait is important to survival and and a person fails to develop it, they may fail to reproduce. This is the mechanism in which traits develop: selected traits are passed on genetically to the following generation.
    Looking more at general human nature than individual differences, researchers have found what they think to be the biological mechanisms behind selecting a mate with which to pass on your genes. Men tend to look for younger, healthier mates, because, biologically they are just looking for a female that will produce healthy offspring. Women tend to look for older, more financially stable men, because their biological need is to find a mate with the resources to provide for his young. Evolutionary theory is also built on an idea that a species must be diverse to continue. The differences and genetic mutations offer more possible solutions to problems that may be plaguing a species. Therefore, individual differences become essential to evolutionary theory.
    Evolutionary psychologists notice that these individual differences suggest that human nature flexible. General trait patterns may evolve in humans, but it may take certain environmental circumstances to activate these patterns. People have evolved certain behaviors, but it takes the right circumstances to bring on a certain response. Also, they see that each person may have inherited a number of trait patterns, but they use the one that works best with their own combination of characteristics.
    Based on these assumptions of Evolutionary Psychology, genes play an important role in the human nature. The basic traits involved in successful mate selection and the mating process have been reinforced by evolution and thus are highly heritable. However, when it comes to each person’s personality in terms of the Big Five traits, evolutionary theory has a harder time nailing down the variation in these traits. This is where behavioral genetics can take over to better explain these individual differences. All of the research that has been done, pinpointing certain genes and their effect on brain activity and personality, helps our understanding of the interplay between genes and environment. The role of genes in personality can finally be scientifically appreciated with our ever-evolving understanding of the human genome, and how genotype becomes phenotype.
    I have collected three articles looking at the role of genes on personality formation, and I will share the methods, goals, and findings of each. The first article that I looked at attempted to identify single polymorphisms that could be correlated to the Big Five personality traits (McCrae, Scally, Terracciano, & Abecasis, 2010). This study build off of the information that we already know in behavioral genetics: the Five Factor Model has roots in genetic factors shared by all humans and that heritability of personality has been well documented. McCrae notes that many other tests linking specific genes to behavioral outcomes have been largely unreplicable because researchers have done little work in identifying why a gene is associated with a certain trait, merely that it is. The goal of this study is to identify single polymorphisms (SNPs) that are associated with certain personality traits so that in the future personality can be scored on non-biased Molecular Personality Scales (MPSs), and to identify biological mechanisms behind personality to develop interventions.
    McCrae took DNA and a Revised NEO Personality Inventory of 6,148 people in Sardinia. However, the final sample size was 3,972 (57% female, 43% male), with an age range of 14 to 93 years. The numbers were reduced because some did not have valid personality data and others dropped out. Any related individuals were grouped into families, and families were assigned to one of three subsamples. The results of the DNA scan were plugged into the Affymetrix 10,000 SNP Mapping Array to get the genotypes of the participants. The computer then eliminated redundant SNPs in an attempt to find the 1% of genetic variability, rather than the 99% of identical genes in humans. Once they had the genetic and personality results, researchers correlated the data to see if any SNPs had linear relationships with certain traits.
    After statistical analysis, McCrae found that single SNPs cannot explain a large amount of variance in personality, and it would take a much larger sample to eliminate the small, true findings from chance and error. McCrae’s data showed that rather than the effect of a single polymorphism, traits are affected by a large number of genes. Some of the correlations that they discovered indicate that there were some true connections between SNPs and personality, and that this could be one of the more important findings in relating specific genes to personality due to the failure to replicate past research. The main success of this research was the development of a replicable gene/personality identification method, which could be applied to other traits in the future, such as anxiety or general intelligence.
    The next article I looked at dealt specifically with the variance of extroversion, and an alternate hypothesis that this variance is better explained by in interplay between physical strength and physical attractiveness than an extroversion polymorphism. Lukaszewski and Roney (2011) did two complementary studies to test this hypothesis. The purpose of the research was to find out whether this facultative calibration is a viable alternate, and to look at early tests for and integrative method operating with genetic polymorphisms. 
    The first study involved 85 men with an average age of 19.70 and 89 women with and average age of 18.70, all participating for college credit at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Each participant completed five measures relating to either extraversion or physical attractiveness and strength. Extraversion was measured by three scales: the International Personality Item Pool HEXACO, a 13 item social attention scale, and a 20 item shyness scale. Also, physical attractiveness was measured via self-rated measures and physical strength was measured by weightlifting machines. When correlated, the study found that those men and women high in physical attractiveness were also high in social attention, high in extraversion, and low in shyness. These results were similarly correlated with physical strength in men, but not in women.
    These results were consistent with the what Lukaszewski and Roney were looking for, there could be psychological adaptations that determine extraversion based on physical characteristics. However, the researchers also bring up ways that genes could still be working behind the scenes here. There is the possibility that the same genes that impact physical attractiveness could have a pleiotropic effect on extraversion. So, they included another study that addresses the Androgen Receptor (AR) gene, and it’s likely impact on strength and extraversion. Also,  the second study controlled for the fact that physical attractiveness was self-rated could limit the validity of the results.
    This second study took 146 men with an average age of 18.90 and 52 women with and average age of 18.80 from a larger study on the biology of mating behavior. These were also students participating for credit at UCSB. Extraversion was rate by a 10 item scale while physical attractiveness was self-rated in the same way as the first study. Standardized photos controlled for clothing and expression were also rated by a group of eight other undergraduates (five women and three men, averaging 20.75 years of age) on a 1-7 Likert scale. Strength was again measured by weightlifting machines, and the men in the study had their AR CAG repeat length determined by genotyping.
    This second part of the study found that, in men, extraversion was positively correlated with physical attractiveness (self- and other-rated), and physical strength. It was also negatively correlated with AR CAG length, meaning higher extraversion was associated with a shorter version of the AR gene. Further testing found that these factors were all independently correlated extraversion, meaning each has its own impact on extraversion. Extraversion cannot be explained wholly by any of the factors, each has their own contribution.  With women, extraversion was also positively correlated with physical attractiveness but, again, uncorrelated with strength. The main finding of the research is that, though the AR gene may contribute to extraversion, facultative calibration is the best explanation for the origin of extraversion. Also, this research can in no way rule out the genetic impact on extraversion because it only deals with this one gene and, in face, the authors argue the side of a more integrative view.
    The third article I will look at was published by Turakulov et al. (2004) and similarly deals with the length of the AR gene. The study tries to establish a link between different alleles of the AR gene and Eysenck’s less popular dimension, Psychoticism (P). This “trait” has been described since as a mix of low agreeableness and conscientiousness. This study will assess adults for P, Extraversion, and Neuroticism, and will genotype participants for CAG and GGC repeats in the AR gene and the DBH C-1021T polymorphism. These expected to be correlated with P.
    Of the participants in this experiment, 896 “Caucasian/white” people were genotyped for the DBH gene, 1698 were genotyped for the AR GGC gene, and 1676 were genotyped for the AR CAG gene. All participants were given scales measuring the Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System and a short form of Eysenck Personality Questionnaire revised. Each person was genotyped from a sample collected via cheek swab, and statistical analysis was done to test the relationships.
    The study found that the short CAG genotype was significantly related with high P in men. Women with the short CAG and individuals with short GGC alleles all trended a higher P, but nothing significantly significant, presumably because the sample size was not large enough to detect the small effect. These were the main findings that I am interested in because, as in the previously discussed study, they offer a link between certain genetic make-up and personality traits.
    All three studies have, to varying degrees, proven that genes to affect personality. Because they study different genes and different traits, there is still much to learn about the overall extent of genetic impact on personality. Lukaszewski and Roney (2011) tried to discount the effect of genes in favor of the facultative calibration hypothesis, and though they did find support for this hypothesis, the could not deny that the AR gene had an impact on extraversion. Turakulov et al. (2004) openly expected that the AR gene would predict high P. The first study I looked at very ambitiously sought to prove that SNPs could be associated with certain personality traits, and though the results were not as resounding as they could have been, this method opened the doors for much more research of this kind with, hopefully, larger sample sizes. These findings support the idea that there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent to which biology translates to personality, but there is no denying the fact that it does. The integrative method used in Lukaszewski and Roney (2011) seems to be the future to finding how genes and environment interact, and how other characteristics, such as physical attractiveness and strength contribute to our personality.
   
   
 
Works Cited
 Lukaszewski, A W, Roney, J.R. (2011). The origins of extraversion: Joint effects of facultative     calibration and genetic polymorphism. Personality & Social Psychology Pulletin, 37(3),     409-421.
McCrae, R, Scally, M, Terracciano, A, Abecasis, G. (2010). An alternative to the search for     single polymorphisms: Toward molecular personality scales for the five-factor model.     Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 1014-1024.
 Turakulov, R, Jorm A.F., Jacomb, P.A., Tan, X., Easteal, S. (2004). Association of dopamine -β-     hydroxylase and androgen receptor gene polymorphisms with Eysenck’s P and other     personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(1), 191-202.

The 100 Most Beautiful Words in English

Are Video Games Associated With Problem Behaviors?

I play lots of video games. I always have. Ever since I was five-years-old video games have been intricately tied to my social development. I started conversations with peers about how far they could get in Sonic 2. I built one of my most enduring relationships on a trade I made for Mortal Kombat 2. My brother and I bonded while taking down the despicable Ganondorf in Ocarina of Time. My Dad taught me that blowing in the Super Mario Bros. 3 cartridge could get it to work.

And just today I popped in Donkey Kong Country Returns for some multiplayer platforming action. The point being that, in my experience, video games have been a tool for bringing people together. What was more important to my happiness today, shaking the Wii Remote to blow out some candles or sharing a laugh with some of my closest friends after shouting “GET ON THE F**KING WHALE!”?

It was the laughs.

While not all games are multiplayer, I feel I’d be hard pressed to find a game that doesn’t promote social interaction. Even though Skyrim is single-player, I’m still asking people where they found this particular mask or telling them how I got to this settlement. I talk about my character and ask others what’s working for them, because “gamers” or “players” or whatever you want to call them, are members of a community.

community |kəˈmyoōnitē|
noun ( pl. -ties) a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals

This doesn’t have to mean every person playing games, or even fans of a particular game, it means those two other people playing with me. We are all trying to collect the letters K-O-N-G.

But, I’m 22. This has always been the definition of multiplayer to me, so what does it mean when a 13-year-old can virtually anonymously interact with mass numbers of people? What does it mean to them when their digital person is shooting the other digital person in the head? What happens when their parents have fallen so out of touch that they don’t even talk about what’s taking place? I don’t know the answer but I’m willing to bet that this sense of “community” can start to break down. And suddenly, a child using a fake character to shoot another in the face is something much different than jumping on a crab with a cartoon gorilla.

I played Quake, Goldeneye, and even Doom as a child, so I have nothing personally against violent shooters or those who play them, but I came across an article that piqued my interest on how they can affect kids. As I searched I came across a few more studies on how video games affect various populations in different ways. I decided I’d like to present some of the results and see how people on this gaming website, in this community, feel about them. So, after this lengthy introduction, I’ll present a study about how internet use and video gaming predict problem behavior in early adolescence.

Holtz, M. Appel. Journal of Adolescence, 34 (2011) 49–58.

Let me start by saying this will not be filled with statistical mumbo jumbo. As a Psych student at UC Davis, it was a common chore to scrutinize the tables and charts to come away with something meaningful. That something is all I wish to offer.

The study aims to connect various game and internet related variables with problem behaviors. I’ll unpack those terms in a minute, but let’s start by looking at the participants in the study. This sample of Austrian youths was comprised of 100 boys and 105 girls. They were all between the ages of 10 and 14, with an average of 12.71. They were from both rural and urban areas and participated in the study in 2007. So it was a normal group of Austrian kids.

Each completed a questionnaire on various topics, including: access to computer/internet, favorite games, how long s/he played each day, types of internet use, and whether his or her parents talked about internet use or were aware of its uses. They basically wanted to know how the kids used the internet and the content of the games they played.

They also completed the German version of the Youth Self Report (YSR), “an empirically derived, well established, and widely used instrument with excellent psychometric properties.” This is how the researchers determined whether or not the child exhibited “problem behaviors”. They looked at three separate measures from the self report: Total Problems, Internalizing Problems, and Externalizing Problems. The Total Problems score is a summary of all behavior problem items, but the other two categories are much more specific (and informative). Internalizing Problems include: withdrawn behavior, anxiety, depression, and somatic complaints (bodily issues without physiological cause). Externalizing problems are more of the aggressive and delinquent behaviors.

Prior research revealed a connection between playing violent games and aggression. Violent media content can desensitize the viewer (or player, or “experiencer”) to not only media violence but real-life violence, according to the General Aggressiveness Model. In theory, the common experience of violence causes stable patterns of aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to develop over time. This study aims to go a step or two further, by not only correlating violent games with externalizing problems, but also linking fantasy games and MMORPGs with internalizing behaviors, and lack of parent-child communication with problem behaviors as a whole.

The results, while debatable, are clear. Adolescents, who spend more time on video games and the internet than any other group, may be vulnerable to developing problem behaviors. Because this is a correlational test, it can assert no cause-effect relationships. It can only make claims that if this behavior or condition is present, it is likely that behavior will be too. And the study found that aggression and delinquency could be predicted by internet communication, the amount of online gaming, and by playing FPSs (of which CounterStrike was the favorite). More than half of fantasy game players presented internalizing behavior problems, much larger than those who preferred other types of games. And, parent-child communication was negatively correlated with problem behaviors. I know I said I’d leave out the tables, but in summary:

FPS = aggressive/delinquent
Fantasy = depressed/anxious
More parent talk = less problems

Obviously, these findings aren’t fact and this doesn’t mean that if you play World of Warcraft you are a loner. What they mean is that if you know someone plays WoW, there is a higher chance they will be a loner than if they played CounterStrike. There are obviously (and admittedly) many issues with the study, but as a starting point for discussion, what do the findings mean to you? Would you filter what games your kids play because it could impact their social development, or encourage your lonely child to play WoW because that’s what he prefers? I think we, as a gaming community, have a unique opportunity to look at these findings and tease apart what may be valuable information, and what’s crap. I don’t know about you, but my monthly subscription the the Journal of Adolescence ran out, so I missed this article. Now I think this information has found it’s way into the right hands, so it is our responsibility to find out what it really means.

Maybe my dad teaching me to blow into that NES cartridge meant more than I know…

**Note: I originally posted this to Game Informer, hence the references to the GIO community**

Are Video Games Associated With Problem Behaviors?