I have much respect for your work and thanks for the above. One comment:
TRUE
"Complex human behaviour emerges out of a hyper-complex developmental network into which individual genes and individual environmental events are inputs. The systematic causal effects of any of those inputs are lost in the developmental complexity of the network. "
NOT TRUE
"individual differences in complex human characteristics do not, in general, have causes, neither genetic nor environmental."
This, to me, is a non-sequitur and therefore a non-explanation of cause.
It confuses that which is cause and effect with that which is measurable due to complexity and random noise.
Doesn't it depend on where we look for causes? A recent study in JAMA psychiatry found two social variables (social support and childhood maltreatment) that explained 40% of the variance in MDD, while genes explained 3%, and quantitative MRI practically zero. It was a biological psychiatry paper so they didn't discuss the social variables in the discussion or conclusion. Some bits of that complex network have stronger influences than others and I think can be considered causal.
The problem with Social Psych is that they tend to push the politically correct explanations over the rationalise ones from the data. For me ACEs are epileptic causes. How the reactions of the amygdala etc get baked in early. As such they are more correlated with GenexEnvironment (GxE) interaction rather than pure heritability.
Think of political subjects such as "Intimate Partner Violence" where SES and ACEs have very significant explanatory power, yet the mainstream researchers pitch for the social category "Male" as being the explanation.
In fact, SES, ACEs and their interaction with Cluster B personality disorders, if they were honest, have far greater explanatory power.
> Spoiler alert: in the domain of human behavior, there aren’t any.
The sun is a major cause of human behavior! ☀️ It makes people see things (and therefore react to them), get out of bed, etc.. On longer timespans, it makes people eat and therefore survive.
Though obviously the sun doesn't explain individual differences in persistent traits. But also, to an extent, that seems to be because the persistence is an illusion. For instance most personality traits are not expressed at all times (e.g. during sleep), so the assumption that they exist at those times is not really justified until we understand their root causes.
> Divorce, to trot out my standard example, has no essence.
Two thoughts:
1. Divorce is kind of a one-time transition event, so that makes it hard to get enough information about the specifics to explain.
2. ... But one can understand what the couple in question find attractive or repulsive about each other.
“Name me one fucking medical disorder that is known to work that way!”
Yes, he was right. So what is the basis for assuming mental disorders would behave differently? Only that you are holding onto the idea that there must be a genetic basis.
Hi Eric,
I have much respect for your work and thanks for the above. One comment:
TRUE
"Complex human behaviour emerges out of a hyper-complex developmental network into which individual genes and individual environmental events are inputs. The systematic causal effects of any of those inputs are lost in the developmental complexity of the network. "
NOT TRUE
"individual differences in complex human characteristics do not, in general, have causes, neither genetic nor environmental."
This, to me, is a non-sequitur and therefore a non-explanation of cause.
It confuses that which is cause and effect with that which is measurable due to complexity and random noise.
Doesn't it depend on where we look for causes? A recent study in JAMA psychiatry found two social variables (social support and childhood maltreatment) that explained 40% of the variance in MDD, while genes explained 3%, and quantitative MRI practically zero. It was a biological psychiatry paper so they didn't discuss the social variables in the discussion or conclusion. Some bits of that complex network have stronger influences than others and I think can be considered causal.
The problem with Social Psych is that they tend to push the politically correct explanations over the rationalise ones from the data. For me ACEs are epileptic causes. How the reactions of the amygdala etc get baked in early. As such they are more correlated with GenexEnvironment (GxE) interaction rather than pure heritability.
Think of political subjects such as "Intimate Partner Violence" where SES and ACEs have very significant explanatory power, yet the mainstream researchers pitch for the social category "Male" as being the explanation.
In fact, SES, ACEs and their interaction with Cluster B personality disorders, if they were honest, have far greater explanatory power.
> Spoiler alert: in the domain of human behavior, there aren’t any.
The sun is a major cause of human behavior! ☀️ It makes people see things (and therefore react to them), get out of bed, etc.. On longer timespans, it makes people eat and therefore survive.
Though obviously the sun doesn't explain individual differences in persistent traits. But also, to an extent, that seems to be because the persistence is an illusion. For instance most personality traits are not expressed at all times (e.g. during sleep), so the assumption that they exist at those times is not really justified until we understand their root causes.
> Divorce, to trot out my standard example, has no essence.
Two thoughts:
1. Divorce is kind of a one-time transition event, so that makes it hard to get enough information about the specifics to explain.
2. ... But one can understand what the couple in question find attractive or repulsive about each other.
“Name me one fucking medical disorder that is known to work that way!”
Yes, he was right. So what is the basis for assuming mental disorders would behave differently? Only that you are holding onto the idea that there must be a genetic basis.