There's a gene for moods?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Out of curiosity, I clicked on a link for DNA artwork, and discovered that they seem to have found a gene for moods. I expected that we were probably predispositioned to a particular outlook, but I believe that how you think has a much greater impact than a genetic predisposition. Apparently it has been known for at least 5 years, by the date on this article, that there are certain genetic markers that indicate if stress will lead to depression in that individual... but that isn't entirely true as everyone has a breaking point. Put a person under enough stress and they will snap (snap here referring to different levels of what happens when you go past a certain breaking point - from basic reacting to the stressor [facial expression, words...] to "going postal"), but the points of snapping do seem to lay somewhere in the genes.

Having recently watched Gattaca for the first time (link takes you to hulu.com on the page where you can watch Gattaca for free at this time), I was primed to wonder how much stress it would be ideal for a person to be able to tolerate. If (or should I say when?) we get to the point of genetically selecting pretty much every aspect of a child that we would bear, how much stress would be an ideal tolerance level? The automatic answer probably would be to prime the person for as much stress tolerance as possible. Be cautious of the automatic reaction. It may be that if everything is so tolerable, the person may not be motivated to improve anything. Yes, then one could ask "why improve?" and point to the slavery inherent in the desire for improvement... but if you are not a slave to your own whims, are you not a slave to the whims of Nature?

A more measured response might be to aim for the middle way in all matters, and in this case such that only arousal would be the amount of reaction needed to take care of the situation - need being measured pragmatically. Would seeking a pragmatic response in all cases sufficiently provide for all needs, or would it lead to detrimental complacency?

If one is more tolerant of stress, then one will naturally allow more stressors to build up in one's life, unless something counteracts that tendency. So if one is less tolerant, they might be more motivated to remove more stressors, leading to what one might call a better life.

It might be better to have a population with various amounts of stress tolerance, as we have now, in order to balance desire/progress against complacency/stagnation. If you took the responsibility of genetically programing a member of the next generation, what would you choose?

[DivineIntercourse]

A very interesting post!

If you took the responsibility of genetically programing a member of the next generation, what would you choose?

A) Strong morals. Honestly, I'd rather have a good dummy for a friend, then an intelligent criminal.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Yes, I expect there is a gene for good morals... but I am curious to the rest of your post. A good dummy? A friend? Are you trying to imply that someone who has good morals is a dummy? Are you trying to say that a person's child should be their friend?

I wouldn't want my child to be a dummy, and I'm not sure that it's possible - but am sure it's not ideal - for a child to be a parent's friend. A parent should, by definition presented as spiritual friend, be a friend to the child, but the reverse would not always be true. A child will test limits, and should be able to test them on a parent. Part of the parent's job is to correct and redirect the child. Being a parent is being an instructor, with the child as the self-grading test of your teaching skills.

[DivineIntercourse]

A) Strong morals. Honestly, I'd rather have a good dummy for a friend, then an intelligent criminal.

By that I meant to show you how much morals mean to me. So, in answer to your question, if say I invented a conscious robot, I'd be sure to first make sure that it has a good quality moral foundation within it. I think this is why the world is so messed people. People just don't care, or... they just don't care enough. How would you answer your question?

[DivineIntercourse]

A parent should, by definition presented as spiritual friend, be a friend to the child, but the reverse would not always be true. A child will test limits, and should be able to test them on a parent. Part of the parent's job is to correct and redirect the child. Being a parent is being an instructor, with the child as the self-grading test of your teaching skills.

I agree. I call that loving your child.

[Shahrazad]

Being a parent is being an instructor, with the child as the self-grading test of your teaching skills.

Ouch.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Some have harder tests than others Sher.

[DivineIntercourse]

Being a parent is being an instructor, with the child as the self-grading test of your teaching skills.

That's exactly what I've been telling my parents for years. For instance, my mom thought that she could convince me that I was born bad by telling me that when my sister was born after coming home for the first time from the hospital I approached my mom holding my sister (I was like 3-4) and I hit her (sis). Well, I've always told her that children are like mirrors, and it makes total sense that I'd hit her at that age because that was exactly what my father (an older, bigger...) did to me. Yeah, I know... My family sounds screwed up. We're European. They were raised under corporal punishment. Anyway, my mom she keeps telling that I was beaten, because I behaved badly... UNBELIEVABLE... she's always treated me like I'm stupid... Anyway, I behaved badly and didn't want to listen to my parents because I didn't like them for beating me. I once told my father that I'd call the cops on him if he ever touch me agian - his response: they'd take me away and put me in a foster home. So, it's not surprising that I never called. I should probably move out. But then life would be different... I'm not sure if it's worth it at this time. I need to first good through school, make them pay for it, and then move out.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

(I was like 3-4) and I hit her (sis).

A 3-4 year old is not responsible for his actions. Your mom was wrong. It was not your fault.

I was beaten, because I behaved badly... UNBELIEVABLE... she's always treated me like I'm stupid... Anyway, I behaved badly and didn't want to listen to my parents because I didn't like them for beating me.

Sounds like a chicken-and-egg thing. Yeah, back then, your parents should have been the grown ups and noticed that what they were doing wasn't working, so they should try something else. Now though, you're old enough to reason so you have to be the grown-up. Well, I guess you don't have to.... you could just go on with all of you not being grown-ups... But if you're the grown-up, you can figure out what behavior will elicit a better response from them.

Okay, you got shafted as a kid. Me too. It wasn't cool at all. BTW - don't let anybody tell you that you don't have a right to whine about it. Burying it just backfires. Sounds like you're still in the situation, so you have even more of - not just a right to complain, but an obligation to seek whatever help you need to get through this. Just a heads up though - not everyone can handle hearing about it. Sounds stupid - you actually lived through it, yet there are people who can't even handle hearing/reading you tell about it... but that's the way it is. Like it says linked at the top of the thread, genetically some people can handle more stress than others. Interesting note - by staying there, you are still tolerating the stress of it. If you were not able to tolerate the stress of that family, you might have taken the foster family instead - even if your parents promised that the foster family would have been worse. Or you might have believed them and stayed then, but found a way out now. Of course getting out now has its own special set of stressors, too.

I need to first good through school, make them pay for it, and then move out.

Sounds like you feel entitled to some kind of compensation for a sub-optimal childhood, and know that the only way you could collect is through having tuition, etc. charged to your parents. You can't really "make" your parents pay for school, though - that's something they have to agree to. It isn't like how they'd be responsible for a hospital bill if you were underage and needed treatment. Keep in mind, too - "making" someone pay for something involves a cost to you that might not be apparent at first. How much is it costing you psychologically to stay? If you're under 25 your brain is still forming, so additional psychological damage can add up to a greater degree of permanent (or highly difficult to reverse) brain damage. But if you can turn the situation around and make it a psychologically healthy-enough environment, that could be even better for you than getting out - but only if you succeed.

[DivineIntercourse]

A 3-4 year old is not responsible for his actions. Your mom was wrong. It was not your fault.

She says that I was bad because I was born with something wrong with me. They're Catholic: possessions, etc... Who knows.

Sounds like a chicken-and-egg thing. Yeah, back then, your parents should have been the grown ups and noticed that what they were doing wasn't working, so they should try something else. Now though, you're old enough to reason so you have to be the grown-up. Well, I guess you don't have to.... you could just go on with all of you not being grown-ups... But if you're the grown-up, you can figure out what behavior will elicit a better response from them.

I don't know how to talk to them. I try, but it's difficult. It's really a dysfunctional family. I don't like some of the things that they say to me. I don't like how they make me feel. I don't like who I become around them.

Okay, you got shafted as a kid. Me too. It wasn't cool at all. BTW - don't let anybody tell you that you don't have a right to whine about it. Burying it just backfires. Sounds like you're still in the situation, so you have even more of - not just a right to complain, but an obligation to seek whatever help you need to get through this. Just a heads up though - not everyone can handle hearing about it. Sounds stupid - you actually lived through it, yet there are people who can't even handle hearing/reading you tell about it... but that's the way it is. Like it says linked at the top of the thread, genetically some people can handle more stress than others. Interesting note - by staying there, you are still tolerating the stress of it. If you were not able to tolerate the stress of that family, you might have taken the foster family instead - even if your parents promised that the foster family would have been worse. Or you might have believed them and stayed then, but found a way out now. Of course getting out now has its own special set of stressors, too.

It's a very strong necessary attachment.

Sounds like you feel entitled to some kind of compensation for a sub-optimal childhood, and know that the only way you could collect is through having tuition, etc. charged to your parents. You can't really "make" your parents pay for school, though - that's something they have to agree to. It isn't like how they'd be responsible for a hospital bill if you were underage and needed treatment. Keep in mind, too - "making" someone pay for something involves a cost to you that might not be apparent at first. How much is it costing you psychologically to stay? If you're under 25 your brain is still forming, so additional psychological damage can add up to a greater degree of permanent (or highly difficult to reverse) brain damage. But if you can turn the situation around and make it a psychologically healthy-enough environment, that could be even better for you than getting out - but only if you succeed.

We love each other. We just don't particularly like each other because of the difficult past. I know they'll pay for it because they want me to succeed. No one is perfect.

PS - it's not and it wasn't as bad as I make it seem. People learn to adapt. We're all products of our environment and we change accordingly.

Thanks for taking the time. It's late, so... I'm out. Thanks again!

[Cognition]

DNA codes for RNA which codes for proteins. Several genes play a role in mood. Any gene that facilitates brain development and homeostasis affects mood. Your mood is going to depend on what areas of your brain are communicating, and how they communicate. Where the neurons are and how they are operating affects mood. Your neurochemistry is also important. Neurotransmitters have long been known to play an important role in mood. I'll put it this way: DNA gives you potential for certain moods. Your genome gives you all these different options and says, "Alright, I think you are prepared for anything that you will confront. Good luck." The environment is going to determine what genes will be expressed. The child's developing brain is especially open to environmental impact. Moods are very complex cognitive processes that exist in both conscious and biochemical states (let me make it more clear: existentialism is only a thought and is not biochemical; a myelin sheath exists biochemically but doesn't really affect cognition). The origins of a mood will involve genes that play roles in neuron growth and structure, neurotransmitter composition, quantity and synapse function...it's very messy.