Posted on 04/07/2008 6:41:48 PM PDT by blam
Genes trigger phobias in kids and teens
21:00 07 April 2008
NewScientist.com news service
Jim Giles
Our response to the things that scare us, from threatening men on dark streets to hairy spiders in the bath, is programmed to become active at different times in our lives, suggest two studies on the genetics of fear.
Scientists already know that fears and phobias are shaped in part by genes. Identical twins, for example, are more likely to develop phobias for the same objects, such as snakes or rats, than non-identical twins. But less is known about when the genes involved act and what effect they have.
In the case of spiders, that effect may be hard-wired from birth.
David Rakison of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, showed five-month-old babies simple representations of spiders, made up from block-like shapes, as well as more jumbled images made from the same shapes. The babies looked at the schematic spiders for an average of 24 seconds, but spent around 8 seconds less on the more jumbled images.
Arachnogenes
This suggests babies are born with a "mental template" for spider shapes, and potentially for other things that may harm them, say Rakison and his colleague Jaime Derringer of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, as it is unlikely that the babies developed a specific interest in spiders in the few months they had been alive.
For safe objects, that template appears to be missing. When Rakison repeated the experiment using a representation of a flower and a jumbled equivalent made from the same shapes, the babies looked at all the images for around the same length of time.
Once identified, spiders produce fear and disgust in many people. But that reaction, and the genes that shape it,
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
YEC INTREP
I can’t really think of any fears I have. I’ve got a few strong dislikes but no real fears.
I don’t reckon I have any phobias, although I do have something for threatening men on dark streets, but hairy spiders in the bath? I would have never have even thought of such a thing had Jim Giles not brought it up. I suspect he has a problem with hairy spiders that he is attempting to project upon others.
Back in the 1920s, eugenics studies tried to determine genetic patterns in *separated* twins, raised by different families, which strongly reduced “environmental” factors in a given family.
They did discover some interesting similarities and differences, but the sample of known separated twins was so small that they were hesitant to draw conclusions, even though some seemed to be obvious, like twins both committing two of the same crime at the same age.
Unlike scientists today, who seem to have few reservations about drawing conclusions from very limited or anecdotal sources.
In the case of phobias, especially, you are not dealing with just genetic factors, by a long shot. Environmental factors such as TV shows and movies, school lessons, stories told by their friends and families, etc., all have a strong impact on psychological development.
Children are often encouraged to use their imaginations, but if they have little content with which to imagine, they won’t imagine much. However, it has been long known that if a UFO movie is aired on TV in an area, in a week or two there will be a rash of adult “alien abduction” stories. And the people will often admit to seeing the show, but draw no connection at all with their fantasies. Impressionable adults.
Children will however, make grand imaginations when given just a smattering of information. If they see the animated version of Charlotte’s Web *first*, even intimidating pictures of spiders later may have less impact on them. Or visa versa. If they see horrifying pictures of menacing spiders first, they may think of Charlotte’s Web as a horror story when they see it later.
There does seem to be a pattern of development in phobias as we age, however. Yet this may be far more developmental than genetic. For instance, infants often have a near instinctual fear of men with beards, which they do not have with the clean shaven. But this is completely lost in older children, usually.
Genetic? Not likely. The key word is “often”, not always. Plenty of infants think men’s beards are fun toys or maybe food. Yet there seems to be no genetic difference between the phobias and the non-phobias.
The babies looked at the schematic spiders for an average of 24 seconds, but spent around 8 seconds less on the more jumbled images. This suggests babies are born with a "mental template" for spider shapes, and potentially for other things that may harm them.Bwa-haw-haw-haw!
This supports my theory that I have a genetic predisposition to be a homophobe.
I can’t help it; I was born that way.
People need to quit trying to force me to change my natural inclinations.
I mean, when I see homosexuals on TV or in public, it makes me shiver.
And I’m scared they may discover my homophobia and taunt me or even worse.
And I doubt it is environmental. I mean, I don’t recall a traumatic experience as a small child where a homosexual came out of the closet and knocked scalding hot water on me.
No. It is inborn. Culture needs to quit insulting people like me and stop making us feel bad about who we are.
Open high places- Aeroacrophobia.
That’s one of them. I don’t like elevators with glass walls much, either.
Gene Simmons? Gene Autrey? Gene Gene the Dancing Machine?
They need to be more specific!
But they do develop an interest in the mobiles hanging from their crib, which is what the "schematic" spiders probably reminded them of.
Nothing like a little unconscious...or dare I say it, deliberate...bias to get the results you want. Granted, I'm not privy to the particulars of the study, but unless the infants observations (if you want to call them that)can be translated as "crying," or some similar distressful behavior, then the conclusion that these prolonged "looks" represent a recognition of danger is simply untenable.
The writer appears to lump phobias and fears together. I have no phobias but fear many things (wasps are #1 on my list). The two are not the same.
Gene Roddenberry I’ll betcha!
Yup. The 'prolong look' was also used as an indicator when infants were used to identify beauty. The infants looked longer at female images that we considered beautiful, etc.
They decided from that data that we're born with the ability to recognize beauty. I was puzzled though when the babies of different races picked the same White girl as the most beautiful.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Interesting that....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
