Phenotype vs Genotype

**Curtis24** · 07-09-2011, 06:29 PM

This study is more powerful proof of the link between facial traits and personality:

In their experiment, the researchers had college students rate the faces of the CEOs of the highest and lowest ranking Fortune 1000 companies according to their perceived leadership abilities .

Certain personality traits associated with leadership, including competence, dominance, likeability, facial maturity and trustworthiness, can be judged from a person's face, previous studies have shown.

The researchers grouped these traits into two factors influencing leadership. Competence, dominance and facial maturity were combined to represent "power," while likeability and trustworthiness represented "warmth."

The CEOs who were rated as more powerful by the students turned out to be running more successful companies.

http://www.livescience.com/2225-ceo-success-face.html

**Curtis24** · 07-09-2011, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by Iberia

But, If physical appearance is based on environment, here we all agree, and then you say personality is connected to phyisical apearance, then personality is ultimately connected to environment, (appart from genetics) so yes, personality is based on genetics and environment, basically.

Well, phenotype is ultimately more important than genotype in determining behavior. My sister and I have radically different personalities. I know many other siblings like that.

Genetic heritage is interesting from a historical perspective(shows how a country was settled), but it cannot really predict behavior or social organization IMO.

**Frederick** · 07-09-2011, 06:36 PM

Well, there is like 15 years of genetic research and 200 years of phenotype research.

Give Genes another 15 years and a computer will be able to recostruct the face of the person whos (full genome) DNA file he analyses.

**Frederick** · 07-09-2011, 06:38 PM

First of all, how can you state that a personality traits or other traits are made up by genes and environment exactly around 50:50?

This is done by comparation of twins, whos DNA is identical.

Different kind of twins have been compared. Such, who grew up in the same evoirement and such who have been split as babies and grew up in different envoirement.

I recall the "gifted" (IQ 130 or more) thing.

If one twin if "gifted", then the other twin has a chance of 50% to be gifted too, if grown up in a different envoirement.

If grown up in the same envoirement, the chance is 80%

The chance for a normal brother (who share about 50% of their DNA) beeing gifted if the other brother is, is at 25% in identical envoirement.

The overall chance for beeing gifted is at 2%.

**Agrippa** · 07-09-2011, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Curtis24

This study is more powerful proof of the link between facial traits and personality:

http://www.livescience.com/2225-ceo-success-face.html

While I obvioiusly agree with it, I have to add that especially on an individual level such studies are always prone to fail, because they might confuse the effect with the cause.

For example some managers which have the socially dominant-progressive look will be more likely to come up the social ladder and being on top, as well as having an easier time on various occasions.

Don't forget, it is also about camouflaging and deceiving in nature, so people wouldn't "believe" in this traits, if there wouldn't be a real correlation, but on the other hand, once the link is there and fixed, it will work out if the respective physical traits are there alone.

For example a very fertile and healthy woman with no fertility and health traits will be still fucking ugly, while an infertile and sick woman with all fertility and health traits will be still more beautiful in comparison in particular.

So especially if it is about social success, one has always to keep that in mind - even though I'm pretty sure the respective traits make the males more likely to be the specific achievers indeed...

**Frederick** · 07-09-2011, 06:44 PM

Shouldnt you phenotyping cave monkeys not go to a different part of the forum with your theories?

**Loki** · 07-09-2011, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Curtis24

Well, phenotype is ultimately more important than genotype in determining behavior.

No, I really think you are mistaken here.

**Curtis24** · 07-09-2011, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Frederick

Shouldnt you phenotyping cave monkeys not go to a different part of the forum with your theories?

if you want to stop arguing about this, then you should stop throwing out insults...

But anyway, this should really be a different thread, and this will be my last word on the matter.

**Agrippa** · 07-09-2011, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Frederick

Shouldnt you phenotyping cave monkeys not go to a different part of the forum with your theories?

Well, you started it with the Coon map and for me it is over with this answer to yours, unless you or somebody else comes up with another geno-phenotype issue

Also, it is ALWAYS about the comparison. Because who wants to stay with "you have component 3 at 30 percent" - oh nice, what does it mean?

It is always about comparing individuals and populations, finally fantasizing or really getting knowledge about phenotypes.

Because the genes without phenotypical importance are just letters and numbers, all people want to know something, almost in a mythical way, about themselves and others, "what's written in the DNA".

I mean people hear North Atlantic is dominant in thier make up and they might compare themselves to Celts, Irish and Brits or something like that. Probably even visiting a Celtic festival next time, which they would have missed otherwise...

In the end, talking about the DNA, it is always about concrete phenotypical traits and identity issues, unless you are comparing whole populations.

Originally Posted by Frederick

Well, there is like 15 years of genetic research and 200 years of phenotype research.

Give Genes another 15 years and a computer will be able to recostruct the face of the person whos (full genome) DNA file he analyses.

It won't completely, because you are missing the environmental factor.

Also, the genetic studies are most valuable if they help to understand and grasp, probably even solve some phenotypical problems.

It is not about "what's better", it is just that one shouldn't dismiss physical-phenotype research, because that are the important questions raised for genetics and that's what they should work on.

If there are typological concepts for example, genetics should be able to reconstruct - if including ancient DNA too - how the phenotype came up, spread, which advantages it had (again a cooperation of phenotypical and genetic studies!), how it is being inherited and what consequences this knowledge might have.

Searching randomly for single traits and genetic factors is what they HAVE TO DO, because they are stoke around in the dark of the unknown...

Once things are put together in a meaningful way, something like typology for the physical traits would be the next logical step in intra- and interpopulation comparisons, unless "political correctness" stops this advances.