Inherited trauma

(Jan 1, 2017 06:09 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: Thanks, my err. I had not read that.
just finished reading it now.
funny that the emotive inflection of the modern era is so captured in one of the last sentences.

" Self-determination is not at odds with the genetic discoveries being made today."

Such is the age of reality projection upon a stage of self acclaiming insular ideologies, bound in ubiquitous freedom to be insular in social emersion.

let not science be thine stumbling block upon which ye rest thine weary mind.
For i am to only gaze upon the known frailty of human endevour to state my case upon the world.

Yes and...

"You are truly far more than your genes - your DNA is not your destiny."

(Jan 1, 2017 06:49 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Jan 1, 2017 06:09 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: Thanks, my err. I had not read that.
just finished reading it now.
funny that the emotive inflection of the modern era is so captured in one of the last sentences.

" Self-determination is not at odds with the genetic discoveries being made today."

Such is the age of reality projection upon a stage of self acclaiming insular ideologies, bound in ubiquitous freedom to be insular in social emersion.

let not science be thine stumbling block upon which ye rest thine weary mind.
For i am to only gaze upon the known frailty of human endevour to state my case upon the world.

Yes and...

"You are truly far more than your genes - your DNA is not your destiny."

Quote:"You are truly far more than your genes - your DNA is not your destiny."

Completely agree, ... (my hesitation to promote it)...
When this becomes a need to be stated, then there is a different problem that needs to be fixed.
2 things
1. people are obviousely being fed biased and missleading information that leaves them with the beleif that this has become the scientific absolute.
2. people have dissengaged soo grotesquely from basic scientific principals that they not only fail to educate themselves properly about things they believe to be extremely important, but they become emotionally reactive to information they have not cross checked or researched.
thus feeding into this scientific hebephrenia.

The below link is for a woman who has taken her study of memory so far she can (apparently) implant false memories at will on her subjects.
I can't put it to words right now but the link is sitting there in my mind. Other than to say there is a more reasonable explanation than epigenetics for all of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

(Jan 1, 2017 04:50 AM)elte Wrote: I've been reading about epigenetics research for years.

Yes, epigenetics in its current incarnation is certainly not pseudoscience. The author of that skeptic article makes a distinction this way:

Ewan Birney: Coined before the discovery of DNA as the source of genetic information, the word “epigenetics” is now used in two ways. Firstly, it can mean the ways in which modification or packaging of DNA results in the transmission of information within a group of cells. This is a well-established, evidence-based theory. However the second usage refers to the ways in which the modification or packaging of DNA might result in the transmission of information from one generation of people to the next, a theory for which there is not currently much evidence and which is therefore not well-established.

Science culture has conditioned us for generations that Lamarckism (or in this case whatever loosely resembles it) is somewhere along the spectrum of phlogiston to impossible. Such a thought-orientation taboo (whether informal or canonical) will provide long-term stimulus to skeptically oppose at least the second usage of epigenetics (genetically inherited trauma, etc). That's good from the standpoint that any research and its conclusions should be heavily scrutinized and its tires kicked. But depending on whether or not one of those counter-movements ever becomes excessive or fueled by fervor in its own right, there should be awareness of the momentum of runaway doubts / denials possibly having conditioning as its source, too (not just some adherents of the pro side).

So in that 2nd context of epigenetics, Professor Birney might desire the "old news" mice studies[2] to be consigned to the sloppy or junk science bin. Or if not, has another exit route for the possibility in regard to humans: Too many alternative factors contributing in the case of humans, and contending it rare in mice, etc.[1]

- - - - - - -

[1] Ewan Birney: "Secondly, as one cannot fully control the breeding or physical environment of humans, there are many other far less exciting reasons why the great-grandchildren of one group of people may be different from the great-grandchildren of another. The complex societal forces that persist over time would be just one example. Even when studying mammals, such as mice, whose breeding and environment can be more controlled, true trans-generational epigenetic inheritance is extremely rare."


[2] Fearful Memories Passed Down to Mouse Descendants: Genetic imprint from traumatic experiences carries through at least two generations
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ssed-down/

Mice can inherit learned sensitivity to a smell
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...121544.htm

Summary: A surprising example of apparent inheritance of an experience: Researchers found that when a mouse is trained to become afraid of a certain odor, his or her pups will be more sensitive to that odor, even though the pups have never encountered it.

(Jan 1, 2017 07:15 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

I’ll see your Guardian piece and Wikipedia article and raise you with two more critiques.

[1] and [2]


"The authors are pretty careful in their statements, but do say this in the abstract:

This is the first demonstration of transmission of pre-conception parental trauma to child associated with epigenetic changes in both generations, providing a potential insight into how severe psychological trauma can have intergenerational effects.

Others have not been so careful, particularly science journalists, who either don’t read the paper or lack the expertise to evaluate it. Check out, for instance, this Guardian piece about the Yehuda et al. paper. Its author, Helen Thompson, seems completely unaware of the many problems with the study, and presents no caveats. It’s an example of bad science reporting.

There’s another uncritical piece at Scientific American.

I won’t go into detail about Yehuda et al.’s methods and results, but will just give the major results and some of the problems that Matthew and I found with them..."

Quote:This is the first demonstration of transmission of pre-conception parental trauma to child associated with epigenetic changes in both generations, providing a potential insight into how severe psychological trauma can have intergenerational effects.

I'll take that as validation..

(Jan 1, 2017 08:40 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:This is the first demonstration of transmission of pre-conception parental trauma to child associated with epigenetic changes in both generations, providing a potential insight into how severe psychological trauma can have intergenerational effects.

I'll take that as validation..

You just don't like to read much, do you?

"While this paper is interesting and provocative, it suffers from formidable problems that call its conclusions into question. It needs to be repeated, preferably using other traumas (whose survivors are more numerous) and certainly using larger samples. The paper is intriguing, but certainly doesn’t mandate that we see this as a true case of epigenetically induced inheritance due to trauma, much less as a revision of how we think about evolution."

(Jan 1, 2017 09:10 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Jan 1, 2017 08:40 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:This is the first demonstration of transmission of pre-conception parental trauma to child associated with epigenetic changes in both generations, providing a potential insight into how severe psychological trauma can have intergenerational effects.

I'll take that as validation..

You just don't like to read much, do you?

"While this paper is interesting and provocative, it suffers from formidable problems that call its conclusions into question. It needs to be repeated, preferably using other traumas (whose survivors are more numerous) and certainly using larger samples. The paper is intriguing, but certainly doesn’t mandate that we see this as a true case of epigenetically induced inheritance due to trauma, much less as a revision of how we think about evolution."

Oh so he's worried about protecting evolution. I see an ideological bias here. Like the determinists versus the freewillers..What's he afraid of? Losing freewill? Why would anybody want to debunk such a study to begin with?

(Jan 1, 2017 09:17 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Oh so he's worried about protecting evolution. I see an ideological bias here. Like the natural selectionists versus the Lamarkians.What's he afraid of? Losing freewill?

Did you even bother to read the second critique? If you find the subject interesting, why wouldn't you want to read the critical responses, as well? I don't get it, MR.