Post No. 3,520 - Genes are not necessarily destiny

When our genes result in major physical differences such as paralysis or loss of sensing, they will have a major effect - one that could reasonably be considered to have a major effect on, if not destiny, then at least how a chosen destiny is pursued. 

I am not writing this post about that sort of genetic effect.  

However, this week an article was published reporting on research connecting various genes to basic personality characteristics: 

• extraversion – being sociable, assertive, and energetic; 

• agreeableness – being compassionate, cooperative, and respectful; 

• conscientiousness – being responsible, productive, and organised; 

• neuroticism – being emotionally reactive, anxious, and depressive; and 

• openness to experience – being curious, imaginative, and preferencing variety. 

The research reportedly found: 

“Between 5 and 16% of variation in personality can be explained by common genetic variants. A similar result has been found for major depression. 

This suggests genetics plays a robust role in creating personality. At the same time, a large proportion is also affected by our environment.” (emphasis added by me)

The article explains “environment” is more than solely shared family environment, admitted that the characteristics chosen may not be the best for worldwide application, and focused on the possible impacts of this on health with - grossly irresponsibly, incompetently, and amathiacly, IMO - no consideration of how such information could be used - and the moves to try to use the so-called “gay gene” to abort LGB children, or for knowledge of foetal characteristics to enable femicide in some cultures.  

The paper the article is based on has not been replicated as yet, but will, I assume, have been peer reviewed. Epigenetics has not been considered.  

The other aspect not considered here is conscious choice. 

As I wrote in this post: 

“It is in the context of lessons, particularly those around self knowledge, that I am writing this post. Keep in mind the story about the famous Greek philosopher (I forget whether it was Aristotles or Socrates) who is supposed to have had his head “read” by a phrenologist, who commented that the philosopher’s skull was of someone who was dull, stupid and slow mentally. The philosopher congratulated the phrenologist on being correct, and explained that he had worked very hard (and successfully) at overcoming the shortcomings he had from birth to become what he wanted to be. None of has to be blind adherents to our unconscious urges, biases and foibles. We can do personal growth work, counselling or we can plan other ways to overcome predicted tendencies if we wish to (and I include ALL astrological and other forms of divination in this: Cancerians DON’T have to be moody – we [I am a Cancerian sun sign] can overcome that, or channel it into a constructive expression, just as I decided at age ten to channel my anger into a constructive form – to use it [e.g. by using it to motivate me to write letters about injustices, or to be assertive], rather than allow it to use me). If I look at the history of warfare, we have gone from a situation where there were no rules (thousands of years ago non-combatants were too often slaughtered), whereas now, we have the (imperfectly adhered to) Geneva Convention and (also imperfect) monitoring of what is happening in combat - we even have (imperfect) attempts at controlling the weapons of mass destruction which have been created in recent centuries. [See Note 6] 

Note 6
Just because an attempt to address a problem, such as warfare, isn't perfect does not necessarily mean it is bad: it may well be a step along the way. To say that the Geneva Convention and other well meaning attempts at acheiving these aims are useless because it hasn't eliminated warfare is naive - no, it is stupid. Getting rid of warfre is a big issue: it will need lots of steps, of varying impact, before it is finally truly gone. Such attempts can, in my opinion, ONLY be described as bad if they make things worse (the League of Nations may be one such example; I consider the United Nations, although heavily flawed, does actually do quite a bit of good development work [which I get to see and take part in because of my day job] so it isn't an example of a "bad" attempt - and the UN Declaration of Human Rights and other statements/documents/agreements have been useful to me in lobbying I've done).” 

 

To some extent, the authors of this paper have that in mind: they are suggesting using these genes to manage a risk of certain types of behaviour, which requires conscious effort. 

I am also aware of people who have been diagnosed as psychopaths who are endeavouring to manage that by their deliberate, conscious efforts. 

So ... 

(1) genetic predispositions (especially at 5 to 16% explanation of variation) do not constitute, IMO, predestination; 

(2) there is other evidence from a wide range of aspects of human and animal life that traits can be overcome, if we wish - although that can be for better or worse; 

(3) the broader social uses/misuses of such knowledge need to be kept in mind and, where they occur, managed. 
As one perhaps smaller example, the way the chosen characteristics have been described (e.g., extraversion described in terms of “good” attributes) shows bias on the parts of science - introversion is not, IMO, undesirable, and may have benefits such as better introspection and thus survival value. 

And spirituality is a far more important and overarching factor in all this. 

Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlightopossible flaws / issues youoshouldoconsider: 

• there mayobe flawedologicaloarguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ freeoonline course “Clear and Present Thinking”;  
• I could be wrong - so keep your thinkingocaps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
  

  

Gnwmythr 

teaching the "good" (balancedopositive and spirituallyomature) 
safer ways to counter the "bad" (outoofobalance, spirituallyoimmature) 

IMO, OTAAT (“one term at a time”) is the next action to save representative democracy  

If you’re new here, consider looking at the Landing Page for Newbies   

If you appreciated this post, pleaseoshare it. I am now on SubStack, Patreon, 
and you can support me at PayPal (or PayPal Repeating Support Options) or Ko-Fi 
Any and all support will be greatlyoappreciated, and willoaid me in continuing this work 

 

Remember: we generallyoneed to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our Mӕgan, and to acknowledge that all misgenderingois an act of activeotransphobia/transmisiaothat puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptoroto prevent “othering” (just as binary gendered [men’s and women’s] sporting teams are either both given the gender descriptor, or neither).

#PsychicABetterWorld   and  

 

Note that I am cutting back on aspects of my posts - see here, and Gnwmythr is pronounced new-MYTH-ear  

Copyright © Kayleen White 2007-2026     NO AI   I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise  replicate any part of this post or other posts on this blog via any means. AI was NOT used to write this article. Typo’s may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.     Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/