|
Post by musik on Feb 16, 2024 22:14:54 GMT
Friday and a day with administrative business for me, some shopping and several training sessions for my wrist and hand. I just also filled the football coupon with my predicted results, it looked very easy. Before that I checked the types of lamp connections in the ceiling, so I know what to buy. I also moved my key lock on the laundry room board on the wall, since it would collide with something else.
But tonight I happened sleepy as I was to go through the tv channels and found out the psychiatrist and brain researcher Anders Hansen was interviewed in the sofa by Carina Bergfeldt, in some kind of tv program I never see on our national tv SVT I.
He was asked about heritage, genes and so on and actually did say, after he'd got the question "What is the difference with you now when you're getting older?" (he's not 'old', but older than he was before, just like the rest of us ...), that he has realised it's the genes that have the significant meaning to a person and not things like upbringing and so on. To know the fact that I had been exactly the same person if I would have gone through other experiences is a relief now when I'm older. The genes rule, you can't change that, he said.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Feb 16, 2024 23:57:42 GMT
---he has realised it's the genes that have the significant meaning to a person and not things like upbringing and so on. To know the fact that I had been exactly the same person if I would have gone through other experiences is a relief now when I'm older. The genes rule, you can't change that, he said. Q: is it unusual to hear this kind of explanations these days?
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Feb 17, 2024 10:13:32 GMT
---he has realised it's the genes that have the significant meaning to a person and not things like upbringing and so on. To know the fact that I had been exactly the same person if I would have gone through other experiences is a relief now when I'm older. The genes rule, you can't change that, he said. Q: is it unusual to hear this kind of explanations these days? Sapolsky believes there is no such thing as free will. We can influence our genes through our decision making and rewire our brain through neuroplasticity but if we do not already have the genes present to guide ourselves to make changes then it won't happen Genes can be influenced by internal s well as external mechanisms - how a female chimp mother's her offspring can influence 4000 of the child's genes. This is why adverse childhood events (ACEs) can lead to health inequalities in later life Short version Long
|
|
|
Post by musik on Feb 18, 2024 23:07:38 GMT
Q: is it unusual to hear this kind of explanations these days? Sapolsky believes there is no such thing as free will. We can influence our genes through our decision making and rewire our brain through neuroplasticity but if we do not already have the genes present to guide ourselves to make changes then it won't happen ---- This is why adverse childhood events (ACEs) can lead to health inequalities in later life Short version Long I had to search what ACEs were. I see, bad childhood experiences can give you worse health as an adult. Could it possibly be as an indirect effect and not as a direct effect? For instance, if you grow up with someone who doesn't take care of her/him, then it might work as a role model for you and you'll repeat a certain behaviour and thereby get the health issues yourself later on. That's my thought on that. Sapolsky spoke about different things affecting your choice and HEY, that's scratching on the surface on what I've been saying earlier myself about free will in another thread/s.😁 I even see it like this: in every situation in life, and I really mean in EVERY situation, you are always restricted. And it's these restrictions that lead to the highest likely outcome in every one of those situations. People think far too often we do things by our own free will. For example, if you cross a street, there are hundreds of restrictions leading to the outcome of that crossing. You could of course surprise me and pick another way, but yet again ... wouldn't that also be a result of restrictions? I actually - even though free will is interesting - thought about epigenetics when I put a question to Anders Hansen's thoughts on genes and how they kind of "control" us. And sometimes, the more I read, I think people mix up genes with genes + epigenetics, and it also is true for A Hansen, I believe. My contribution in the epigenetics and gender theory debate will come, but I can already now say that they have missed something very important, the most important bit of all: There is not only ONE way to be a man. There is not only ONE way to be a woman.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Feb 20, 2024 8:01:10 GMT
I really like and understand why N Carey calls the DNA the manuscript and the epigenetics the interpretation of that manuscript.
It explains a lot.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Feb 21, 2024 23:01:34 GMT
I'm watching an episode of the American series Diagnosis Murder.
Dr Sloan said 50% of the genes between a father and his son is the same (since the other 50% comes from the mother to the son).
But if we have two brothers, then 75% of their genes are identical.
Is that so? Why? Why as high as 75%? How does it work mathematically?
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Feb 22, 2024 0:57:10 GMT
I'm watching an episode of the American series Diagnosis Murder. Dr Sloan said 50% of the genes between a father and his son is the same (since the other 50% comes from the mother to the son). But if we have two brothers, then 75% of their genes are identical. Is that so? Why? Why as high as 75%? How does it work mathematically? This is very rare. Essentially they are semi-identical if they share 75%. An egg is fertilized by two sperms. Semi-identical twins don’t usually survive. They are not the same as fraternal or identical.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Feb 22, 2024 6:59:07 GMT
I'm watching an episode of the American series Diagnosis Murder. Dr Sloan said 50% of the genes between a father and his son is the same (since the other 50% comes from the mother to the son). But if we have two brothers, then 75% of their genes are identical. Is that so? Why? Why as high as 75%? How does it work mathematically? This is very rare. Essentially they are semi-identical if they share 75%. An egg is fertilized by two sperms. Semi-identical twins don’t usually survive. They are not the same as fraternal or identical. Must have been a mistake then, either in the film manuscript or in the text translation on the tv screen to Swedish. I got the impression he meant just any brother, not talking about twins at all there. I was surprised since we brothers don't look like each other at all.
|
|