scholarly journals A developmental science commentary on Charney's “Behavior genetics and postgenomics”

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 371-372
Author(s):  
George F. Michel
Keyword(s):  
Human Behavior ◽  
Research Program ◽  
Behavior Genetics ◽  
Developmental Psychobiology ◽  
Developmental Science ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Program Characteristic

AbstractCharney's target article convincingly demonstrates the need for the discipline of quantitative human behavior genetics to discard its false assumptions and to employ the techniques, assumptions, and research program characteristic of modern developmental psychobiology.

Human behavior genetics

1972 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven G. Vandenberg ◽  
John DeFries ◽  
David C. Garron ◽  
Ronald C. Johnson ◽  
William Meredith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Behavior ◽  
Behavior Genetics

Heritability estimates in behavior genetics: Wasn't that station passed long ago?

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 361-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wim E. Crusio
Keyword(s):  
Human Behavior ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Behavior Genetics ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Real Place ◽  
Heritability Estimates

AbstractCharney describes several mechanisms that will bias estimates of heritability in unpredictable directions. In addition, the mechanisms described by Charney explain the puzzling fact that research in human-behavior genetics routinely reports higher heritabilities than animal studies do. However, I argue that the concept of heritability has no real place in human research anyway.

Human Behavior Genetics

1988 ◽  
pp. 475-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
George P. Vogler ◽  
David W. Fulker
Keyword(s):  
Human Behavior ◽  
Behavior Genetics

Humans, fruit flies, and automatons

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 381-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Charney
Keyword(s):  
Candidate Gene ◽  
Human Nature ◽  
Twin Study ◽  
Behavior Genetics ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Fruit Flies ◽  
Gene Association ◽  
Candidate Gene Association ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Study Methodology

AbstractMy response is divided into four sections: (1) is devoted to a potpourri of commentaries that are essentially in agreement with the substance of my target article (with one exception); in (2) I address, in response to one of the commentaries, several issues relating to the use of candidate gene association studies in behavior genetics (in particular those proposing a specific G×E interaction); in (3) I provide a detailed response to several defenses of the twin study methodology; and in (4) I conclude with several reflections on that methodology and the conception of human nature it has fostered.

Appraisal of Parental Bias in Twin Studies. Ascribed Zygosity and IQ Differences in Twins

1979 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam P. Matheny
Keyword(s):  
Human Behavior ◽  
Behavior Genetics ◽  
Twin Studies ◽  
Parental Influences ◽  
Twin Method ◽  
Iq Scores ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Parental Bias ◽  
Parental Belief

A criticism of twin studies has been that the difference between the behavioral similarities of identical and fraternal twins is largely created by parental influences based on their perception of the twins' zygosity. This issue is examined for differences in the IQ scores found within pairs classified by parents and bloodtyping. The systematic differences in IQ scores could be attributed to zygosity classified by bloodtyping rather than by parental belief. The available evidence indicates that the twin method is still appropriate for human behavior genetics.

Dominance runs deep

1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 376-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie J. Grant
Keyword(s):  
Human Behavior ◽  
Turning Point ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Biological Basis ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Evolutionary Point

Seen in its historical context, Mazur & Booth's (M&B's) target article may come to be viewed as a turning point in the study of the biological basis of human behavior in general, and dominance in particular. To facilitate further research, suggestions are offered for making the definition of dominance more precise. From an evolutionary point of view, the testosterone-dominance link may be as important in women as it is in men.

A psycho-historical research program for the integrative science of art

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas J. Bullot ◽  
Rolf Reber
Keyword(s):  
Research Program ◽  
Necessary Conditions ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Historical Research ◽  
Historical Science ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Design Stance ◽  
Integrative Science

AbstractCritics of the target article objected to our account of art appreciators' sensitivity to art-historical contexts and functions, the relations among the modes of artistic appreciation, and the weaknesses of aesthetic science. To rebut these objections and justify our program, we argue that the current neglect of sensitivity to art-historical contexts persists as a result of a pervasive aesthetic–artistic confound; we further specify our claim that basic exposure and the design stance are necessary conditions of artistic understanding; and we explain why many experimental studies do not belong to a psycho-historical science of art.

scholarly journals Perspectivas darwinistas sobre la mente y la conducta humanas: alcances, limitaciones e implicancias educativas

2019 ◽  
pp. 187
Author(s):  
Leonardo González Galli
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Psychology ◽  
Human Behavior ◽  
Research Program ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Ideological Bias ◽  
Educational Implications ◽  
Ronald Giere ◽  
And Behavior

In this work I characterize Darwinian approaches to human behavior and mind, especially evolutionary psychology, and analyze the main criticisms that these approaches have received. To this end I resort to Jean Marie Schaeffer’s criticism of the thesis of human exceptionality and the semantic perspective of scientific theories of Ronald Giere. I conclude that the main criticisms (reductionism, determinism and ideological bias) are not applicable to evolutionary psychology as a research program. I also conclude that it cannot be held a priori that the Darwinian approach is not applicable to the human mind and behavior. Finally, I discuss some educational implications of these debates.

scholarly journals Aristotelian Moral Psychology and the Situationist Challenge

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-277
Author(s):  
Adam M. Croom
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Moral Psychology ◽  
Human Behavior ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
Developmental Science ◽  
Psychological Studies

Abstract For some time now moral psychologists and philosophers have ganged up on Aristotelians, arguing that results from psychological studies on the role of character-based and situation-based influences on human behavior have convincingly shown that situations rather than personal characteristics determine human behavior. In the literature on moral psychology and philosophy this challenge is commonly called the “situationist challenge,” and as Prinz (2009) has previously explained, it has largely been based on results from four salient studies in social psychology, including the studies conducted by Hartshorne and May (1928), Milgram (1963), Isen and Levin (1972), and Darley and Batson (1973). The situationist challenge maintains that each of these studies seriously challenges the plausibility of virtuous personal characteristics by challenging the plausibility of personal characteristics more generally. In this article I undermine the situationist challenge against Aristotelian moral psychology by carefully considering major problems with the conclusions that situationists have drawn from the empirical data, and by further challenging the accuracy of their characterization of the Aristotelian view. In fact I show that when properly understood the Aristotelian view is not only consistent with empirical data from developmental science but can also offer important insights for integrating moral psychology with its biological roots in our natural and social life.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document