Familial Transmission of Personality Is Higher Than Shown in Typical Studies
New research on familial transmission of personality traits reignites the long-running nature vs. nurture debate, suggesting heredity may play a stronger role than typical studies report. Commenters weigh genetic influences (e.g., twin and adoption studies, Big Five traits, autism-related genes) against learned behavior and environment, sharing anecdotes of children echoing parents’ quirks, speech patterns, and social habits. The thread also touches on methodological critiques of heritability research and the ethical and social taboos around linking genetics to behavior, free will, social class, and outcomes like abuse or crime.
Genetic vs Environmental Influences on Personality
- Many commenters see strong genetic influence as “obvious,” citing twin and adoption studies where separated twins and adopted children resemble biological relatives more than adoptive families.
- Others stress environment and learned habits, especially parental modeling and peer influence, and argue personality-like behaviors can change with effort over time.
- Several conclude it’s clearly “both,” but disagree on the size of each contribution.
Measurement and Definition of Personality
- The article’s use of Big Five traits is discussed: supporters note good test–retest reliability and extensive use in psychology.
- Critics find Big Five shallow or culturally biased, and point to existing critiques; some emphasize that all psychological trait boundaries are to some extent arbitrary and culture-dependent.
Anecdotes of Familial Similarity and Bidirectional Influence
- Many describe clear personality and behavioral echoes between themselves and parents or children, sometimes in highly specific “quirks.”
- People often only recognize this with age (“I sound like my dad”), or after having kids and seeing patterns repeat.
- Some speculate traits also flow child → parent, but most feel parent → child is much stronger.
Free Will, Accountability, and Cycles of Abuse
- A long subthread debates whether strong genetic and environmental determination undermines free will and moral responsibility.
- One side argues free will is a “necessary fiction” for legal and moral systems; without it, punishment looks unjust.
- Others counter that deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation can be justified even if choices are fully caused.
- Cycles of abuse are discussed as likely involving both environmental learning and possible genetic predispositions; causality is acknowledged as hard to untangle ethically.
Taboo Topics and Social Implications
- Several say genetic influences on personality, behavior, test scores, or criminality are socially and academically “taboo,” especially when they intersect with race, class, or abuse.
- Others dispute how taboo it really is, but agree the topic is rhetorically fraught and easily linked to eugenics or discrimination.
Statistical and Methodological Skepticism
- A strong minority argues much of behavioral genetics is near-pseudoscience: correlations are small (~0.2), systems are nonlinear, and observational data can fit many incompatible causal models.
- They distinguish “heritability” (a population statistic) from true genetic causation and warn that heritability can be high for clearly non-genetic traits (e.g., accents) in structured populations.
- Defenders reply that, even if causality is limited, genetic data can still improve behavioral studies by explaining variance, and completely dismissing the field is unwarranted.
Class, Wealth, and Role Models
- Commenters generalize from personality heritability to socioeconomic outcomes:
- Some emphasize that rich kids inherit both genes and modeled habits that sustain advantage.
- Others say wealth is mostly “having money,” not superior traits; counterarguments cite data on social mobility, conscientiousness, and differing financial habits.
- Role models (parents or others) are seen as crucial, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.