SEA captures the fact that the genes in one individual can have an impact on the gene expressions in other individuals who are their social partners. Extended from this is the idea that societies and species at large consist in part of massively extended socially epistatic structures whereby the frequency and position of certain genes in certain individuals has been carefully selected for over time in order to produce optimal fitness for the group.
As one person comes into social contact with another person, each of their own genes can literally change gene expression in the other person due to the phenotypic and environment-based interactions between them. A good example could be alcoholism, where perhaps a person is slightly prone genetically to alcoholism but has been able to maintain relative sobriety for years, yet makes a new friend who is a heavy drinker. The behavior of the heavy drinker friend influences the genes in the first individual, triggering alcoholism.
This view is so interesting because it interprets environmental influence, from within the context of natural selection and evolution, at least in some instances as little more than an extended genotype. Yes, you read that correctly. What we think about as purely environmental influence can at least some of the time be recategorized as extended gene-to-gene epistasis relationships, direct genetics mediated through environmental proximity to one another of the individuals in question.
One consequence of this can be seen in societies where the natural epistatic balance is thrown off. A small number of individuals can have a massive harmful impact on the group or species as a whole if those individuals are disrupting social signals and skewing the evolutionarily-created ratios and patterns of gene to gene interactions necessary to maintain optimal health and fitness. For example, for human individuals it may be the case that we as persons require to come into contact with certain types of other persons in order to maximize our own potential or even just in terms of our own health and optimal fitness outcomes (even just thinking in purely successful-reproductive terms). The idea is that a society that is subjected to increasing gene mutations, such as a society post-industrialization where so many generations have lived essentially outside the purview of natural selection and specifically the influence of a Darwinian purifying selection (i.e. a society like current first world western societies) would find some of these unpurged mutations affecting individuals in harmful ways, AND then those mutated individuals would go on to socially interact with other, non-mutated individuals yet still can spread the harmful effects to the non-mutated via the mechanism of gene to gene social epistasis. These effects can therefore become amplified over time, in particular if the mutated individual achieves social status and extended reach within the ‘extended genotype’ of the environment.
A great video chat between two scientists talking about this issue is below. This was censored off of YouTube but is still available at the internet archive link below:
" Episode 6: The Rise of the Mutants: Social Epistasis Amplification, with Michael Woodley of Menie
Isn’t this just a rehash of the nature vs nurture debate?
“others genes influence and activate others genes”
yes that sounds like the “nurture” bit of nature and nurture. Perhaps the original inventors of the “nature vs nurture” slogan did us all a disservice because “nurture” implies childhood things and not “adult and teenage societal interactions” as it should imply. Other than that it sounds like wheel reinvention
You can understand social behvaiours, and society without a single reference to genetic.
Traits, and behavours rarely relate to specific genes. They only relate specifically to the original set point conditions at birth.
But as soon as baby takes its first breath is it not possible to deliniate between social and envorinmental effects and the innate effect of the genomic code.
And for humans this is more true than any other species without exception since there is not species for whom the term tabula rasa applies more.
We own less to our genes than we do our culture, history, family and other environmental factors.
There is nothing that is worth while in this concept. Knowing that our somatic reality is coded by genes does not help specific understandings.
SImple observations tells us all we need to know. There is nothing to be gained by references the specific genes (or traducing them as mutations) that make the behavious possible.
All traits and behaviours have to evolve and thrive in a cultural landscape and obey cultural logic.
There is an entire field of archaeology/ antropology called CVT (cultural virus theory) in which notions, ideas behaviours, beliefs can be understood as “viruses”, or “memes” as Dawkins would have called them, These are entirely extrasomatic, and reproduce without genes. And it matters not a jot about people’s genomes.
Let’s face it… The unimaginably hugh amount of social change that has happened in the last 100 years is not, cannot, and should not be referencable to the genome.
The human genome is basically the same as it was thousands of years ago.
Just look at the toxic change that social media has wrought in just 15 years. That should be enough to tell you to put aside references to genes.
What I see in the link (above) is a sort of verbal masturbation deviod of any reference to reality.
Social Epistasis Amplification - my Arse
i fully grasp what you are saying, it just seems like a reinvention of the wheel. i dont find anything wrong with it i just dont find it to be something new
tabula rasa is bs, why do you believe that rubbish?
scientists believe its 50% genetic and 50% environment.
the reason you believe what you do is because humans share 99.9% of the same genome base pairs, thus all act the same, there is a very small difference between their genes.
Quote: " Humans share approximately 99% of their DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos, making them our closest living relatives. This astounding similarity highlights the deep connections within the tree of life and speaks volumes about our shared evolutionary history. But this 99% figure warrants a closer look, as it refers primarily to sequence similarity in comparable regions of DNA.
While this 99% similarity with chimps is widely known, it is important to understand the nuances. Not all of our DNA is identical. The 99% figure generally refers to the coding regions of DNA and where there are comparable sequences. Furthermore, the remaining 1% or so of variation is critical; it encodes the specific traits and characteristics that make us distinctly human. Crucially, it’s also vital to note the difference between our DNA being 99% the same and 99% of our DNA being identical. These are two distinct concepts. When you consider insertions and deletions of DNA, the amount of identical DNA drops to about 96%. That remaining 1-4% of variation defines our own unique characteristics, including predispositions to disease, and is a subject of intense study among geneticists."
That doesn’t mean chimps are compatible with the human social framework, even if the DNA is almost the same.
The human social framework provides a narrow window and specifically tuned for that 0.1% of DNA variation. That 0.1% in real terms could translate into anywhere from 100% to 10% in perspective to the social window and its constraints.
The point has to do with accumulating harmful mutations over time in the population. Do you not grasp the significance of this? Did you even watch the video and learn about what happened to the mouse utopia colonies?
I am familiar with the mouse utopia theory but I have not done my homework on his rat theories. As humans are more similar to rats in my opinion, that one seems more prescient.
Anyway, the mouse dystopia was to illustrate that due to overpopulation, boredom and lack of purpose, social fragmentation is more likely to occur.
The point has to do with accumulating harmful mutations over time in the population. Do you not grasp the significance of this?
I’ll admit I was a bit too dismissive earlier, and it was to punish you for saying stupid shit in that other thread. It does seem like just another regurgitation of nature vs nurture though, but there are cases when reinventing the wheel can be interesting (such as Mecanum wheels.)
What error did I make? Or is it just more narcissistic drivel from you? Am I supposed to watch an hour and 15 minute video or are you just gonna tell me?