board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Religious genes?

Post Reply   Page 1 of 2  [ 26 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 »
Author Message
Winged Balrog
Post subject: Religious genes?
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 5:43 am
Marshmallow Toaster
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:20 am
Location: Kansas, USA
 
An interesting study...

Genes contribute to religious inclination

17:38 16 March 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Maggie McKee

Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study
of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with
time.

Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour
was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But
more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised
apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a
person's religiousness.

But it is not clear how that contribution changes with age. A few
studies on children and teenagers - with biological or adoptive parents
- show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs and behaviours
of the parents with whom they live. That suggests genes play a small
role in religiousness at that age.

Now, researchers led by Laura Koenig, a psychology graduate student at
the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, US, have tried to tease
apart how the effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Their study
suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors become
more important in determining how religious a person is, while
environmental factors wane.

Religious discussions
The team gave questionnaires to 169 pairs of identical twins - 100%
genetically identical - and 104 pairs of fraternal twins - 50%
genetically identical - born in Minnesota.

The twins, all male and in their early 30s, were asked how often they
currently went to religious services, prayed, and discussed religious
teachings. This was compared with when they were growing up and living
with their families. Then, each participant answered the same questions
regarding their mother, father, and their twin.

The twins believed that when they were younger, all of their family
members - including themselves - shared similar religious behaviour.
But in adulthood, however, only the identical twins reported
maintaining that similarity. In contrast, fraternal twins were about a
third less similar than they were as children.

"That would suggest genetic factors are becoming more important and
growing up together less important," says team member Matt McGue, a
psychologist at the University of Minnesota.

Empty nests
Michael McCullough, a psychologist at the University of Miami in Coral
Gables, Florida, US, agrees. "To a great extent, you can't be who you
are when you're living under your parents' roof. But once you leave the
nest, you can begin to let your own preferences and dispositions shape
your behaviour," he told New Scientist.

"Maybe, ultimately, we all decide what we're most comfortable with, and
it may have more to do with our own makeup than how we were treated
when we were adolescents," says McGue.

About a dozen studies have shown that religious people tend to share
other personality traits, although it is not clear whether these arise
from genetic or environmental factors. These include the ability to get
along well with others and being conscientious, working hard, being
punctual, and controlling one's impulses.

But McGue says the new work suggests that being raised in a religious
household may affect a person's long-term psychological state less than
previously thought. But he says the influence from this early
socialisation may re-emerge later on, when the twins have families of
their own. He also points out that the finding may not be universal
because the research focused on a single population of US men.

Journal reference: Journal of Personality (vol 73, p 471)

_________________

[ img ]

[ img ]

It really doesn't. :neutral:


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 7:25 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Interesting. But I'm not sure it's fair or even valid to judge people's degree of religious commitment by how they behave after they leave home and before they have children. Mainstream churches, mine included, have long known that this is a time when people drift away from the church. They're busy settling into jobs and independent life. They're thinking about other things, and they need their sleep.

But when those same people have children, many think seriously about what they want the children to learn, and what values they should have. It's then that people return to church, if they ever will--and some become committed members.

Secular behavior by younger, childless people doesn't guarantee that they really are secular people. I went to church very rarely between getting married and getting pregnant (a span of seven years). But I wasn't expressing my repressed secularity; I was just sleeping in on Sundays while I still could. :D

Even in that time I thought of myself as religious, and I am now a committed church member. My actual church-going behavior as a young woman probably would not have led anyone to predict this.


Top
Profile Quote
Kushana
Post subject: Re: Religious genes?
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 8:24 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu 20 Jan , 2005 10:13 pm
Location: The Valley of the Wind
 
Quote:
A few studies on children and teenagers - with biological or adoptive parents - show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs and behaviours of the parents with whom they live. That suggests genes play a small role in religiousness at that age.
I'm not sure how to untangle genes and environment in such a situation.
Quote:
The twins, all male and in their early 30s, were asked how often they currently went to religious services, prayed, and discussed religious
teachings.
Were changes in religion taken into account? Were interests in metaphysics or philosophy or art/music or science taken into account?
Were the items measured separated from factors such as peer re-enforcement and social control? Were the questions designed with embarassment in mind? (i.e. if you feel going to services every week is good and admirable, you may be reluctant to admit how seldom you do so. ) Did they check for attitudes towards organized/institutional religion and authority figures? Did they correct this for traditons that do not have regular services, that place little emphasis on prayer, or which emphasize ritual action or emotional connection rather than intelectual contribution? Why didn't they include alms/charity, frequency of meditation, or attendance of workshops/retreats?

I'm afraid they may have isolated how well the study subjects trued to cultural expectations of being religious, rather than inner feeling on the subject....
Quote:
About a dozen studies have shown that religious people tend to share other personality traits, although it is not clear whether these arise
from genetic or environmental factors. These include the ability to get
along well with others and being conscientious, working hard, being
punctual, and controlling one's impulses.
:) Anecdotally, for me the first several people who spring to my mind at that description are atheists... Was religiosity the most important common factor in these studies? Did they each have control groups? Has there been a similar study on the non-religous?

As the prior poster said --most congregations that I know, across several faiths, are actively concerned with attracting and retaining families with young children. (It ensures both the long-term participation of the parents and another generation of members. ) Also, religious affiliation tends to spread along family lines, and this may be a way of gaining the membership of more than a nuclear family. Many people return to services at that time more for sociological reasons than piety -- for assistance in their child's spiritual upbringing, for reasons of cultural or ethnic heritage (including language lessons and summer camps/schools), and to find playmates for their children and peers for themselves.

-Kushana

_________________

Pretty nice Shire, isn't it? Ring... God-Soldier... What's the difference?


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 12:57 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
This is spurious at best - about as spurious as saying Ethiopians have a water-repellant gene because when it rains none of them bother with umbrellas.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Winged Balrog
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 5:45 pm
Marshmallow Toaster
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:20 am
Location: Kansas, USA
 
I think some of you may be misunderstanding the study. I must say it's not described very well in the article and its major finding is not very apparent on first reading. For some reason the article keeps harping on the differences between younger and older adults, but this is just a minor observation of the study.

So here is a clarification. It was a twin study, where identical and fraternal twins were compared both when raised together and when separated at birth and raised in adoptive families. This is a pretty standard way of separating environmental from genetic influences in Psychological studies. What they basically found was that the number one predictor for whether someone would continue to be religious as a young adult was environment. That is, there was a close correlation between the decisions of twins raised in the same family, but no significant differences between fraternal vs. identical twins. But later in life, the number one predictor for whether someone continued to be religious (or returned to religious belief) was genetics. That is, there was a greater correlation between the decisions of identical twins separated at birth than there was between fraternal twins separated at birth. And if the twins were raised in the same home it had no significant impact on this correlation.

As far as psychological research goes, this is a pretty definitive result. It doesn't mean that there is a "religion gene." The effect can be pretty indirect. It just means that certain genetically-determined character traits do have a major impact on your decision to have faith. Also, the correlation is not 100% (as it never is in such studies), suggesting that environmental factors such as what Prim mentioned do still play a role. But there is a definite genetic influence, and I find that fascinating!

Kushana: I found the point you raised about religious belief that falls outside of standard Christianity interesting. This study does certainly seem to be skewed towards traditional Christian belief, and I'd be interested in seeing a study that looked at spiritual belief in general.

_________________

[ img ]

[ img ]

It really doesn't. :neutral:


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 6:17 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Identical twins have a greater bond than others. Thus if one feels strongly on a subject - any subject - they will have a more sympathetic ear from their identical twin, and therefore a greater influence on them.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 6:24 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
TheLidlessEyes wrote:
Identical twins have a greater bond than others. Thus if one feels strongly on a subject - any subject - they will have a more sympathetic ear from their identical twin, and therefore a greater influence on them.
Though I didn't see it specified in the article (maybe I missed it), most of these studies are done on twins who were not raised together. That would take out the "twins bond more closely" element out of the equation.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 6:37 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I'm always surprised that they can find so many sets of identical twins that were separated at birth. Identical twins are rare to begin with, and being given up for adoption and then being adopted separately is another relatively unusual thing.

Some of the sets must have been in several studies by now.


Top
Profile Quote
The Watcher
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 6:56 pm
Same as it ever was
Offline
 
Posts: 6183
Joined: Mon 07 Mar , 2005 12:35 am
Location: Cake or DEATH? Errr, cake please...
 
I would certainly not be shocked to find that certain personality types are more likely to have strong religious beliefs, anymore than I would be surprised to find that aptitudes help determine our choices of careers or hobbies.

I have what I call a deeply questioning and probably slightly cynical mind, hence my own thoughts on religion are is that it is interesting culturally, historically, and philosophically, but it does very little for me myself as a core belief system. But, I think genetically I only had an aptitude to become this way, it was the environment I was raised in and the later patterns of my adult life that really got me here.

Still, it is an interesting study. I wonder if the twins raised seperately also are truly representative of the human population at large, however. First the sample size must be rather limited, and what were the biological parents of these twins like themselves?

_________________

Scientists tell us that the fastest animal on earth, with a top speed of 120 miles per second, is a cow that has been dropped from a helicopter.

Never under any circumstances take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night.

- Dave Barry


Glaciers melting in the dead of night and the superstars sucked into the supermassive...
Supermassive Black Hole.

- Muse


[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Winged Balrog
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 7:00 pm
Marshmallow Toaster
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:20 am
Location: Kansas, USA
 
Lidless: yovargas is right. They always compare between identical and fraternal twins separated at birth in studies where they're assaying for genetic factors. This study is no exception. I believe I put that in my post above, but you probably just missed it. :)

Watcher: The sample size must have been at least large enough for statistical significance, or else the study would never have even been published. And I agree, I don't really find the result surprising. Just interesting. :) More surprising is that genetic influences come more into play later, and environmental influences earlier. I would have expected the reverse.

_________________

[ img ]

[ img ]

It really doesn't. :neutral:


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 7:09 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Bugger.

OK then, how about that in the vast majority of cases, the twins would have been adopted by the same kind of people.

In other words, whoever supervised the adoption of the twins would have used the same values / inherent prejudices in determining which parents they go to. Therefore the same environment, therefore the same influences. Not 100%, but it's a factor.

If only one twin is given up for adoption, probably not (unless the birthmother has a say in who gets their child).

Surely this is an influencing factor to a degree, and I have yet to see in any of these studies that use twins, an analysis of any correlation resulting from this and a correction of the results thereto.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 7:44 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
Quote:
They always compare between identical and fraternal twins separated at birth in studies where they're assaying for genetic factors.
Fraternal twins, too, Winged_Balrog? Are you sure?

Since fraternal twins are not more closely related genetically than any other siblings, I cannot see how studying them in differing environments would be useful.

Identical twins, who are largely "clones" genetically, would function as a control for the genetic influence so that the environmental influences could be studied.

Prim: :LMAO: I've often wondered where they get all these identical-twins-separated-at-birth folks, too... wouldn't it be funny if it were the same 100 pairs of people, endlessly studied from every angle?


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 8:54 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
A 'set of identical twins' could of course be just one person looking to make some money just by answering a set of questions.

Just sayin'

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Dindraug
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:04 pm
Tricksy Elf!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:20 pm
Location: Tanelorn
 
Winged Balrog wrote:
Lidless: yovargas is right. They always compare between identical and fraternal twins separated at birth in studies where they're assaying for genetic factors. This study is no exception. I believe I put that in my post above, but you probably just missed it. :)
Seperated at birth and then seperated by country, or kept in the same country?

The culture would place an enormous effect on the way somebody behaves and believes. If one twin was brought up in a cloistered religious country like say Taliban Iran, or parts of India, or Bible belt USA, and the other in a secular land like much of the rest of the world, would they still react the same way?

A lot of these studies are effected by the questions, and theya re culturally bias (believe me, I studied a lot of them), and the conclusion that always appears is that you can read what you want into them.

Especially if they use the same set of twins all the time :LMAO:

_________________

'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from delusion, it is called Religion'.

~Robert M. Pirsig


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:17 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
Quote:
an analysis of any correlation resulting from this and a correction of the results thereto.
Is ending a sentence in "thereto" considered pompous?

Discuss.

:D


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:23 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
So, assuming this study has a point, what are its implications?


Top
Profile Quote
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:28 pm
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
I don't know anything about this study, but I have to say that's sort of how it feels to me: that I lack the gene for religiousity.

I understand (I think) and respect the power and beauty of belief in a benign God. Sometimes I even envy it. But I just can't get myself to believe no matter how hard I try. It feels impossible to me. And it isn't even because I'm so sure I'm right. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I may be wrong. It just... feels like that's the way I'm wired, and that's all there is to it.

It doesn't have anything to do with environment in my case. My parents were religious. I have great respect for Jesus as a moral philosopher. It's not that I dislike Christianity - or other religions either. I find religion interesting, and I honestly do respect its importance to people. But for me it's just... a thing apart.

So I would not be astounded if there turned out to be a genetic - or at least personality type - related factor in all this.


Top
Profile Quote
Winged Balrog
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:59 pm
Marshmallow Toaster
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:20 am
Location: Kansas, USA
 
Lidless: That's an interesting point that may hold some validity. But I think it's controlled for in these studies because the identical twins separated at birth are compared with fraternal twins separated at birth. Since the confound that you mentioned would presumably be the same for both groups, then any correlational differences between the two groups are probably due to genetics.

Anth: I'm pretty certain that they usually use a group of fraternal twins and a group of identical twins, for the reason I just gave Lidless. What researchers are looking for is whether there is a higher correlation wrt the experimental variable among identical twins than among fraternal twins. If the correlation is higher, and is statistically significant, then genetic influences must be playing a role. You're absolutely right that fraternal twins are no more genetically similar than any siblings, but I think they like to use twins so that age can be controlled for.

Dindraug: You're right, of course. That is a problem with every psychological and medical study being performed today. Unfortunately, such worldwide studies that you describe are still usually unfeasable. Hopefully as globalization continues it will become easier and cheaper to conduct them.

And as for the same group of twins being used for all these studies... :LMAO: Who knows? I hadn't even thought of that. :D

_________________

[ img ]

[ img ]

It really doesn't. :neutral:


Top
Profile Quote
Kushana
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 10:13 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu 20 Jan , 2005 10:13 pm
Location: The Valley of the Wind
 
Ethel wrote:
.... I would not be astounded if there turned out to be a genetic - or at least personality type - related factor in all this.
Hmn, but what is it that we're trying to pin down, and how does it express itself? Is it limited to religion? Should we include a scientist or an artist's sense of wonder? Metaphisical inquisitiveness? Overt piety? (Whose expression varies greatly with time, context, and culture... )

How do we measure individual reverence separate from the forces of social and cultural cohesion that support normative religious behavior? (Either within a particular spiritual community or in society at large? )
What do we do with non-attendance, questioning, speculation, syncretism, and other phenomena which seem anti-instiutional yet which may all be elements of deep interest and involvement in spiritual issues? How do we separate people who are attracted to a spiritual gathering for reasons of community, emotional satisfaction, or intellectual stimulation (yet who are rather "meh" about spirituality, itself) ?

... I, personally, have known people who went though times of intense spiritual involvement in their lives (sometimes after a conversion, sometimes in relation to their existing tradition) -- and yet now they consider that intense involvement superficial, an incidential part of their genuine spiritual biography. (Because they either de-converted or later developed a very different mode of being religious. ) What are we to make of that? (They all report that, at the time, they were sincere in their devotion and only time and reflection revealed its lack of depth. )

-Kushana

_________________

Pretty nice Shire, isn't it? Ring... God-Soldier... What's the difference?


Top
Profile Quote
Mummpizz
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 10:52 pm
Gloriosus
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Wed 08 Dec , 2004 11:10 am
Location: history (repeats itself)
Contact: Website
 
Kushana has some many points she's freckled like an Irish lass (happy St. Patrick's day btw). Most atheist societies have quasi-religions or substitutes, and even the staunch atheists around here (e.g. me) carefully follow a turn of rituals in their days that makes them feel good. Even if it's just the sequence of rising, doing Yoga exercises, preparing breakfast, fetching the paper. The jump from rituals to actual religion (i.e. seeing a cause and justification for the rituals and their benefit) is just a small one.

_________________

– – –


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 2  [ 26 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page 1 2 »
Jump to: