According to the Psy-Fi Blog….The idea that genes determine behaviour has been around for ... well, for about as long as the idea of a gene has been around. The problem is how to separate the effects of nature and nurture on behaviour, because the impact of upbringing on our conduct is known to be profound. Teasing apart environmental and genetically determined behaviours is, fundamentally, damn difficult despite the reams of material written to suggest otherwise: it's like trying to unbake a cake.
Historically psychologists have had a single, powerful, tool available to analyse these types of problems: the twin study, using the differences between identical twins and fraternal twins to discern effects which are mainly genetically derived. The trick is that all non-separated twins will have a similar upbringing but identical twins are genetically identical while fraternal twins are only genetically similar: so differences are likely to be down to genetics, not environment..
So a simple twin study will look at whether identical twins are more similar on a certain trait than fraternal twins and then assume that any statistically significant difference has a genetic basis. That this isn't necessarily a safe assumption is drawn out in this paper by Peter Schonemann, which points out that a lot of the models in this area aren't entirely sound: for instance, in one case a twin study suggests that religious preference is more heritable than race – leading to the odd conclusion that you're more likely to change your parentage than your faith.
Nonetheless, twin studies are one of the best ways we have of trying to detect genetic influences and have helped identify a wide range of areas in which nature is a significant factor in behaviour. The question here is whether stockmarket participation is one of them….
Find out more at http://www.psyfitec.com/2011/11/are-you-born-investor.html
No comments:
Post a Comment