Phenotype vs Genotype

[Agrippa]

phenotype is ultimately more important than genotype in determining behavior.

That's an obvious thing, but the problem is the wording, because like I explained already, psychological-behavioural traits are in a way part of the phenotype.

The phenotype is already the result of genetic instructions + environmental shaping = phenotypical realisation.

So the question should rather be, which hints are more important for being able to making guesses about an individual's personality, physical traits or genetic analysis?

That depends largely on the quality of both - what can you analyse of the physique (including real data, probably hormone levels and the like, mimic, gesture etc.), what can you analyse of the genome (if you don't know what genes do what or can't analyse the important genes in question, you can say nothing about psychological traits)...

This means currently you can say more about a persons psychological traits if just analysing her with your eyes in most cases, unless there are known genetic factors of great importance, already known, you can analyse.

The more the genetic knowledge grows, the more we will be able to conclude from the genome directly - even though this will be never complete, because of the complicated nature-nurture situation and possible new/rare variants.

[Loki]

That's an obvious thing, but the problem is the wording, because like I explained already, psychological-behavioural traits are in a way part of the phenotype.

In short, phenotype is determined by genotype. So genotype is the ultimate origin.

[Agrippa]

The real problem I see with some analysis is that they go too much for quantity over quality. Many people go too much for quantity = percentages, rather than quality = phenotypical consequences.

Because one can have 25 percent genes of another population or race and little to no phenotypical traits of it, vs. another one (individual or population) might have much less, but it is of phenotypical importance and is genetic, therefore inheritable, too.

One might use some extreme Uralics vs. Pashtu as an example, which might in some cases have the same amount of Mongoloid admixture, but very different racial phenotypes, with one being significantly Mongoloid, the other very Europid.

Quantity largely ignores the factor of chance and even more important selection.

Because traits going unchecked by selection, or even without any phenotypical consequences, will be just randomly distributed, which is informative in the sense of ancestry and genealogy, but of little to no phenotypical relevance, not part of the "racial variation in the real living world" to put it that way.

Studies which concentrate on genetic variants with phenotypical consequences are much more important.

Also, if ignoring the typological aspect, the consequences are desastrous if dealing with quite variable populations, because the means and results in general, if not being put into context and trying to combine phenotype - genotype studies, as well as phenotypical groups in the population, will be often misleading.

For example to state that population X has a medium face and head, when in reality a large portion is longheaded-narrow faced vs. shortheaded-short faced, is misleading and ignores the intrapopulation differences.

Frequencies of single traits in a population are therefore just the starting point, the real goal should be to combine traits on an intra and interpopulational, as well as individual level and looking for correlations throughout time (ancient DNA) and space (geographical distribution) - as well as social, ethnic, regional etc. correlations too which go beyond that.

[Loki]

Being a certain percentage of a certain ethnic cluster doesn't necessarily say anything about "quality". All these groups have their individual strengths and weaknesses as well.

[Agrippa]

Being a certain percentage of a certain ethnic cluster doesn't necessarily say anything about "quality". All these groups have their individual strengths and weaknesses as well.

And on an individual basis one might have it or not.

There are however, for our species and if looking at the big picture, relative and absolute quality traits. The relative ones are context-dependent, like skin color, the absolute ones are more important for the human specific development and adaptability, more generally advantageous - like inteligence, attractiveness, physically versatile functional superiority etc.

But, to come back on the individual level, for example Nordeuropids have a higher frequency of genetic traits which make them more intelligent, but obviously, if an individual is otherwise Nordeuropid, but lacks those variants, he can say little about his "Nordeuropid superiority" - because he lacks one of the more important parts of it and if variants like him - in the context of the autochthonous population - would procreate more often than the more intelligent ones, the result would be "a downbreeding on the Negroid level"...

Therefore being part of a group, which is objectively superiour, doesn't mean oneself is to the same extend superiour, even if collective identity and pride are good and natural things, useful for a group's success in the greater competition at times.

If a moronic Nordeuropid would talk about Negroids being dumber than his race and therefore inferiour, he would be right, but if making himself look superiour because of that even on an individual level, even in front of a very much above average Negroid on a much higher level than him, would be somewhat strange...

Collective and individual evaluations, correlations and relations are not the same and often context specific.

[Frederick]

This is phenotype versus genotype:

Phenotype:


Genotype:


Its absolutely possible to judge the performance of a computer that is unmixed and unchanged from the production, by looking at the case and the label on it.

But judging the performance of mixed and modded mashines, by looking at the case alone is impossible. You cant know if there is a 10Mhz processor in a supercomputers case or if there is a 8Core 3000Mhz processor in a C64 case, because there are no unmodded mashines anymore.

[d3cimat3d]

Genotype usually correlates with phenotype. Most of the time you can tell just by looking at the genotype what the phenotype will be and vice versa, but in some cases it isn't so.

Sandra was born in Piet Retief, a small conservative town in apartheid South Africa. Both Sandra's parents and all her grandparents were white. Her eldest brother was also white but Sandra and her younger brother had African features. Sandra's parents were both members of the National Party and supporters of the Apartheid system.

During apartheid, schools were segregated; however, since both her parents were white, she was sent to an all white school. Her parents hoped that as she got older she would get lighter; however, instead she grew darker and her hair became more tightly coiled. At boarding school she was shunned by the other school children because of her skin colour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Laing

[Agrippa]

Genotype usually correlates with phenotype. Most of the time you can tell just by looking at the genotype what the phenotype will be and vice versa, but in some cases it isn't so.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Laing

I would have accepted such a case, if she would have had ONE single Negroid trait, but since she has a variety of Negroid traits which their parents don't have, this case must be controlled by a genetic test, because I HIGHLY DOUBT that both of the shown persons are her biological parents.

That would be a genetic-racial miracle and while I wouldn't say it is totally impossible, it is at least highly unlikely.

Again: If she would have had just single traits - ok, Mendelian laws applied, but practically the whole package for a mulatto? Joke.

[Ibericus]

Genotype determines phenotype. Autosomal DNA dictates how you look. Period.

[johngaunt]

I would have accepted such a case, if she would have had ONE single Negroid trait, but since she has a variety of Negroid traits which their parents don't have, this case must be controlled by a genetic test, because I HIGHLY DOUBT that both of the shown persons are her biological parents.

That would be a genetic-racial miracle and while I wouldn't say it is totally impossible, it is at least highly unlikely.

Again: If she would have had just single traits - ok, Mendelian laws applied, but practically the whole package for a mulatto? Joke.

Both parents were tested, and with 99% accuracy they were her parents.

For this to happend both parents would have required some very small amounts of african ancestry.