[nith2k6 (OP)]

Hai All

I have a question []. This is especially for genestists and biotechnists [O8)]. Is there any relation between gene and personality [:X] [:-'(] [] [] [^] [!] [V] i.e; character [?]. Also, why there are some external morphological variations between the countries. For example, Chinese have a flat face and stub nose and Africans were gigantic and has curly hair and most of the indians have baldness. For all these people, they are similar within their countries but differ with other countries. I apologise if i made any inconvenience or hurt.

[ukmicky]

You just wanted to use that icon with the fuzzy hair , hopefully somebody soon with brains in the right place will answer your question , Neil where are you

[chris]

Well, culture aside, we know that gender makes a big contribution to personality, and that's down to whether you carry two X chromosomes (and are female), or an X and a Y chromosome (and are male).

Males are typically more aggressive, more competitive and more likely to resolve a conflict through violent means than women. I'd argue, therefore, that this is an excellent example of genes dictating personality.

Chris

[science_guy]

thats more of a genes controlling testosterone level, which in turn control some personality.  There are always exceptions, and not the same results will always come from a strand of DNA in that sense.  I am among the men who hate a fight.

[chris]

I don't think it makes a jot of difference whether a gene makes a hormone, an enzyme or a receptor. There is no gene for testosterone; instead there is a complex synthetic pathway, encoded by multiple genes, that enables cells to make it. Then there's a separate gene again for its receptor.

It's daft to view genes as individual entities that have individual effects, because on the whole it just doesn't work like that. Genes achieve functions through interactions with thousands of other genes and their products. But all of their effects are manifest "indirectly" (as you put it) through their influences of cell biochemistry.

Chris

[DrN]

the effect of genes on behaviour is a very interesting subject. personality includes emotion as well as behaviour, and there is evidence that chemicals can alter both. these tend to be short term occurrances for the purposes of experimentation though, and personality is more the baseline state of mind, not the changes that are capable within it.

I think there must be some kind of baseline, whether this is different for different people I have no idea. the interactions of gene products with the environment, nutrition, stimuli, pain, sensation etc etc etc are far too complicated.

[DoctorBeaver]

This comes down to the classic nature/nurture debate. There is evidence for both being a controlling factor.

My view is this. From steel you can make, say, a plough or a sword; and a plough can also be made out of wood. However, a wooden sword wouldn't be much use. If you take the raw material as representing nature (DNA etc) then it follows that nurture (environment) fashions that into the finished product. You can start with the same raw material and fashion different things from it, or you can fashion the same article from different raw materials.
In other words there are basic genetic patterns that tend toward, or preclude, certain personality traits; but it is one's environment that decides which of those traits manifest.

John Watson famously said "Give me the child until he is 7 years old & I will make him into anything I want" (or words to that effect). I don't hold with that opinion. For instance, if a child doesn't have the foundations of musical talent he could never become a concert pianist. And I can't imagine a child with ADHD growing up to become a brain surgeon! The basic pattern needs to be there or the trait will not manifest.