PDA

View Full Version : Heretability of self-control is 60%



Angela
28-02-19, 20:24
See:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763418307905?via%3Dihub

"Highlights•The present meta-analysis synthesized 31 twin studies.
•Genes significantly contribute to differences in self-control: the overall heritability is 60%.
•The heritability is the same for boys and girls, and across age.
•The heritability is different across informants.
•Considering genetic influences is key when investigating self-control.


AbstractSelf-control is the ability to control one’s impulses when faced with challenges or temptations, and is robustly associated with physiological and psychological well-being. Twin studies show that self-control is heritable, but estimates range between 0% and 90%, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to provide a quantitative overview of the heritability of self-control. A systematic search resulted in 31 included studies, 17 reporting on individual samples, based on a sample size of >30,000 twins, published between 1997 and 2018. Our results revealed an overall monozygotic twin correlation of .58, and an overall dizygotic twin correlation of .28, resulting in a heritability estimate of 60%. The heritability of self-control did not vary across gender or age. The heritability did differ across informants, with stronger heritability estimates based on parent report versus self-report or observations. This finding provides evidence that when aiming to understand individual differences in self-control, one should take genetic factors into account. Recommendations for future research are discussed."

The more and more that is coming out about how much of our personality is heritable, the more slack we should give other people for their peccadillos. "Have a little self-control may be easier for some than for others."

Farstar
01-03-19, 07:20
Fascinating stuff. As a society, we need to learn to discuss these issues in a rational way (and we are not doing that).

davef
01-03-19, 07:39
I'll admit, my self control is limited and I can't for the life of me resist temptation but my life is still going strong....I excelled in a demanding major and just received an excellent performance evaluation in my current occupation (I'm a software engineer) so there's still hope for some of us who "can't resist" ;)

Salento
01-03-19, 17:33
I'll admit, my self control is limited and I can't for the life of me resist temptation but my life is still going strong....I excelled in a demanding major and just received an excellent performance evaluation in my current occupation (I'm a software engineer) so there's still hope for some of us who "can't resist" ;)

Congrats, :smile:

“You’re the Master of Your Domain.”

“If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.”

“Things are only impossible until they’re not.”

”*don’t listen to me”

Seinfield - Marcus Aurelius - Star Trek - *Salento lol

Angela
01-03-19, 18:08
Fascinating stuff. As a society, we need to learn to discuss these issues in a rational way (and we are not doing that).

In the current political and social climate, even getting the funding to examine these things is increasingly difficult, because it calls into question the prevailing world view. This is particularly true in regards to research into things like intelligence, or criminality.

A proposed study of the heritability of certain kinds of criminality had its funding removed, as just one example.

When the genetics can't be denied, they just waffle on all sorts of irrelevant side issues, as this recent article in The New Yorker on twin studies shows. We've known for years that they indicate how important a role is played by heredity in intelligence, skills, personality, even mate preferences, down to what colors attract people.

This doesn't need to lead to oppression of others less fortunate. It should lead to more compassion for others, and in practical terms, it calls into question, for example, the more punitive aspects of how we deal with crime, for example.

Of course, there have to be consequences, because everyone does have some self-control, and in extreme cases, some people are too much of a danger to others to be allowed to roam free. However, as I said, some compassion is in order.

Sometimes I think the only solution is genetic engineering, but that raises all sorts of other problems. Will only the rich have access, instead of people who really need it? Who will decide what traits should be altered? What happens when everyone is equally intelligent? Will we just create clones? Will those in charge wipe out homosexuality? Will everyone be programmed to be "happy", like a bunch of sheep or cows? Without pain and a feeling of "otherness", is there art?

It gives me a headache. :)

Ailchu
01-03-19, 19:28
genetic engineering might be the only real future. but i think that it will just be extremely depressing. it is just changing the rules so much in which humans, every other life, have evolved, that it just literally breaks the game. the futility of everything would become so painfully clear. why live? why even have children when they will be modified anyway? when you yourself are modified? why not just die and let others with the same modifications have children? who then can modify their children if they want to. why not just produce new humans artificially when they are needed and the rest is just living and then dying off.

Farstar
01-03-19, 19:34
In the current political and social climate, even getting the funding to examine these things is increasingly difficult, because it calls into question the prevailing world view. This is particularly true in regards to research into things like intelligence, or criminality.

A proposed study of the heritability of certain kinds of criminality had its funding removed, as just one example.

When the genetics can't be denied, they just waffle on all sorts of irrelevant side issues, as this recent article in The New Yorker on twin studies shows. We've known for years that they indicate how important a role is played by heredity in intelligence, skills, personality, even mate preferences, down to what colors attract people.

This doesn't need to lead to oppression of others less fortunate. It should lead to more compassion for others, and in practical terms, it calls into question, for example, the more punitive aspects of how we deal with crime, for example.

Of course, there have to be consequences, because everyone does have some self-control, and in extreme cases, some people are too much of a danger to others to be allowed to roam free. However, as I said, some compassion is in order.

Sometimes I think the only solution is genetic engineering, but that raises all sorts of other problems. Will only the rich have access, instead of people who really need it? Who will decide what traits should be altered? What happens when everyone is equally intelligent? Will we just create clones? Will those in charge wipe out homosexuality? Will everyone be programmed to be "happy", like a bunch of sheep or cows? Without pain and a feeling of "otherness", is there art?

It gives me a headache. :)

Yes, this subject is amazing and hopeless at the same time.

What about the creation of "epsilons", such that "alphas" can live without working, and develop their creativity, unbounded by "practical issues"? Epsilons would be happy to serve. Everybody would be happy, so why not? Brave new world, Aldous Huxley.

Angela
01-03-19, 20:01
genetic engineering might be the only real future. but i think that it will just be extremely depressing. it is just changing the rules so much in which humans, every other life, have evolved, that it just literally breaks the game. the futility of everything would become so painfully clear. why live? why even have children when they will be modified anyway? when you yourself are modified? why not just die and let others with the same modifications have children? who then can modify their children if they want to. why not just produce new humans artificially when they are needed and the rest is just living and then dying off.

It depresses me too. Yet, look at the people unequipped by their genes for intelligence for the competitive world in which we live, or the many people tortured by alcoholism, or drug addiction, or bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia.

If we could trust the scientists to just correct mental disorders (as well as physical ones) and low IQ it might be alright, but I don't trust them or the politicians. What happens if you get rid of introversion? In my opinion you might get rid of creativity too.

Forgot to link the New Yorker article on twin studies:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/08/07/double-mystery

@Farstar,

I'm completely uncomfortable morally with a system where we program people to be happy being slaves.

This is all assuming too that the scientists will always know exactly what they're doing. It's very dangerous and unpredictable messing around with the genetic code. I read an article recently where the twin girls altered in China for just one gene are showing differences in other ways too. We just don't understand enough about how genes intereact with each other.

Farstar
01-03-19, 20:14
It depresses me too. Yet, look at the people unequipped by their genes for intelligence for the competitive world in which we live, or the many people tortured by alcoholism, or drug addiction, or bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia.

If we could trust the scientists to just correct mental disorders (as well as physical ones) and low IQ it might be alright, but I don't trust them or the politicians. What happens if you get rid of introversion? In my opinion you might get rid of creativity too.

Forgot to link the New Yorker article on twin studies:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/08/07/double-mystery

@Farstar,

I'm completely uncomfortable morally with a system where we program people to be happy being slaves.

This is all assuming too that the scientists will always know exactly what they're doing. It's very dangerous and unpredictable messing around with the genetic code. I read an article recently where the twin girls altered in China for just one gene are showing differences in other ways too. We just don't understand enough about how genes intereact with each other.

Sorry for the confusion, I was being ironic with my comment. I realize it is dangerous to be ironic without physical/eye contact. Of course I disagree with Huxley's dystopia. Without being an expert, I understand genes have multiple dependencies, and highly non-linear, so I guess it has to be amazingly difficult to isolate characteristics. One should be extremely careful about this, and I agree with your reluctance to allow politicians to mess it up.

markod
01-03-19, 20:58
Genetic engineering might have unforeseen consequences. You can never really be sure what exactly you're editing out due to epistatic effects and the inherent difficulty of quantifying personality in any meaningful way.

This reminds me of a common theme in German enlightenment thought: the association between artistic genius and criminality. Future Goethes might be at risk of being edited into office drones.

Angela
01-03-19, 21:30
Sorry for the confusion, I was being ironic with my comment. I realize it is dangerous to be ironic without physical/eye contact. Of course I disagree with Huxley's dystopia. Without being an expert, I understand genes have multiple dependencies, and highly non-linear, so I guess it has to be amazingly difficult to isolate characteristics. One should be extremely careful about this, and I agree with your reluctance to allow politicians to mess it up.

No problem, Farstar. We get all kinds here. I don't know you well enough yet to be able to tell. :)

About those Chinese twins, the report is that intelligence has been increased. I of course can't prove it, but I have a suspicion that the negative reaction of the Chinese government is fake. I've been reading for a while that they're interested in using genetics to create a "superior" population, and in a country where you get demerits and lose rights for tiny infractions of the rules I absolutely don't believe this scientist went "rogue". They were probably testing the waters to see the international reaction to the gene altering.

@Markod,
I agree. I really think artistic creativity skirts the divide between conformity/stability and dysfunction.

Angela
01-03-19, 22:45
That's it, Gidai, I reported you to a spam service. Good luck with that.

FYI with your negative reputation points, you can give me 100 down votes. It won't change anything. That's if I even cared, which I don't. Fill it up, you're still banned for life.

It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. You seem to be a master at it.

Salento
01-03-19, 22:51
imo Penalizing posts without a good reason is also a sign of: Lack of Self-Control.
Chill-Out.

Angela
01-03-19, 23:25
Sorry, Salento, I gave you a down vote by mistake. I can't remove it, but I'll make up for it.

Salento
02-03-19, 00:55
No problem. It has happened to me too a few times on my iPhone, the +/- are small, and I have strong thick bruiser fingers. Lol

Salento
02-03-19, 05:30
Genomelink Personality Results:

http://i.imgur.com/xysmX60.jpg

Yinwang888
03-03-19, 09:08
I've seen this genonmelink calculation before, but anyone knows how they actually calculate it? Like, what SNPs goes into it? IMO the quality of third party app calculations are really highly varied and I'd like to know if this is one of the good ones. Anyone knows?

Messier 67
28-03-19, 17:45
imo Penalizing posts without a good reason is also a sign of: Lack of Self-Control.
Chill-Out.

They should watch this:

https://youtu.be/2KqkwrUaF80?t=4m12s

Was on EWTN years ago.

Jaime__
14-04-19, 14:15
About the topic. The problem of people with limited self-control affects only those that have self-control. A non-self controled person is harming others, that have to put up with those incapable of being rational (as a consequence of a poor developped pre-frontal cortex: it is the one that control impulses).

So, the most intellligent the people are, the most they have to put up with those ret*ards (80% of the population) with low skills, low self-control, low rational views, and so on. That is why most high intelligent people are considered as having "mental issues, depression, and so on", when in fact, it is a consequence of dealing with complete idiots and desequilibrados.

It is high intelligent people the ones that should have support from the authorities on how to deal with ret+ards and non-equilibrados people. They are doing a constant harm to those that have a good pre-frontal cortex and intelligence. That is the reason why low IQ people tend to be happier, not because they are less ambitious, but because they do whatever they want and don´t experience the harm that high intellligent people get from these kind of low IQ people, since their little minds are not able to understand the harm they cause in others in the most simple things related to behaviour, rationality and many other different things.