Refine Search

New Search

Results: 32

(searched for: doi:10.1002/9781444327632.ch18)
Save to Scifeed
Page of 1
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 30 September 2020
Abstract:
Are We Slaves to our Genes? - by Denis R. Alexander October 2020
Denis R. Alexander
Published: 11 September 2020
Abstract:
There is a common misconception that our genomes - all unique, except for those in identical twins - have the upper hand in controlling our destiny. The latest genetic discoveries, however, do not support that view. Although genetic variation does influence differences in various human behaviours to a greater or lesser degree, most of the time this does not undermine our genuine free will. Genetic determinism comes into play only in various medical conditions, notably some psychiatric syndromes. Denis Alexander here demonstrates that we are not slaves to our genes. He shows how a predisposition to behave in certain ways is influenced at a molecular level by particular genes. Yet a far greater influence on our behaviours is our world-views that lie beyond science - and that have an impact on how we think the latest genetic discoveries should, or should not, be applied. Written in an engaging style, Alexander's book offers tools for understanding and assessing the latest genetic discoveries critically.
Anna Stetsenko
Review of Research in Education, Volume 41, pp 112-135; https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x16687524

Abstract:
Research on disrupting inequality in education can benefit from situating it within the debates on varying and often conflicting meanings of equality and its perils and promises. Especially in the wake of achievement testing and resurgent biological determinism, researchers continue to equivocate between commitment to the idea that all humans are equal in their core capacities versus the tendency to attribute developmental outcomes to differences in “natural” inborn talents and endowments. This chapter examines contemporary research and theorizing to address the tenet of fundamental equality to counter biological determinism laden with mythic racial, gender, and other types of unproven assumptions and biases. Drawing on a wide range of emerging positions and evidence across neurosciences, epigenetics, developmental systems perspective, and cultural-historical framework, the core argument is that all persons have infinite potential—incalculable in advance, unlimited, and not predefined in terms of any putatively inborn “endowments.” This potential is realized in the course of activity-dependent generation of open-ended, dynamic, and situated developmental processes that are critically reliant upon sociocultural supports, tools, mediations, and access to requisite resources, especially through education. An educational policy along these lines would be centrally premised on the imperative to remedy the effects of discrimination and marginalization.
E. Mark Cummings, Kristin Valentino
Published: 23 March 2015
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Patrick Bateson
Published: 23 March 2015
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Robert Lickliter, Hunter Honeycutt
Published: 23 March 2015
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Bruce F. Pennington
Published: 23 March 2015
The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
, Jay Joseph
Published: 1 April 2013
International Journal of Health Services, Volume 43, pp 281-303; https://doi.org/10.2190/hs.43.2.f

Abstract:
This article critiques the “missing heritability” position, which calls for greater efforts and funding to identify the genetic architecture of common disorders, even if this endeavor has yet to translate into tangible prevention, diagnosis, or treatment interventions. Supporters of the position contend that genetic variants “for” common disorders, which they argue must exist based on heritability estimates (hence their “missing heritability” position), have not been found because the current state of science and technology is not adequate to the task, yet they insist that this search warrants significant societal investments. We argue, instead, that these variants have not been found because they do not exist. The thrust of the problem with the “missing heritability” position, we propose, lies in its proponents' use of faulty concepts and research methods, including reliance on twin studies, plagued with environmental confounds; on the concept of heritability, a breeding statistic and not a measure of the importance of genetic influences on phenotypes; and on the belief that genetic variations are relevant to understanding, preventing, or treating common disorders, a belief that we argue is false. We elaborate on these problems, discuss their public health implications, and suggest future directions for a critical analysis of human genetics.
Published: 1 April 2013
Applied Developmental Science, Volume 17, pp 94-107; https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2013.778717

Abstract:
The Cartesian-Split-Mechanistic scientific paradigm that until recently functioned as the standard conceptual framework for sub-fields of developmental science (including inheritance, evolution, and organismic—pre-natal, cognitive, emotional, motivational, socio-cultural—development) has been progressively failing as a scientific research program. An alternative scientific paradigm composed of nested meta-theories with Relationism at the broadest level and Relational-Developmental-Systems as a mid-range meta-theory is offered as a more progressive conceptual framework for developmental science. Termed broadly the Relational-Developmental-Systems paradigm, this framework accounts for the findings that are anomalies for the old paradigm, accounts for the emergence of new findings, and points the way to future scientific productivity—and a more optimistic approach to evaluate-evidence-based applications aimed at promoting positive human development and social justice.
Published: 24 November 2012
Journal of the History of Biology, Volume 46, pp 1-30; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-012-9344-6

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Comment
, Richard M. Lerner
Published: 24 October 2012
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Volume 35, pp 375-376; https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x12001082

Abstract:
This commentary argues that the anomalies suffered by the population behavior genetics paradigm are more widespread than suggested by Charney, including many made in the field of developmental science. Further, it is argued that, according to the criteria established by Kuhn, there is and has been available an alternative scientific paradigm that provides the formative context for Charney's postgenomic view. This is the relational developmental systems paradigm.
Published: 23 April 2012
Applied Developmental Science, Volume 16, pp 65-83; https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2012.667343

Abstract:
The psychiatric genetics field is currently undergoing a crisis due to the decades-long failure to uncover the genes believed to cause the major psychiatric disorders. Since 2009, leading researchers have explained these negative results on the basis of the “missing heritability” argument, which holds that more effective research methods must be developed to uncover presumed missing genes. According to the author, problems with the missing heritability argument include genetic determinist beliefs, a reliance on twin research, the use of heritability estimates, and the failure to seriously consider the possibility that presumed genes do not exist. The author concludes that decades of negative results support a finding that genes for the major psychiatric disorders do not appear to exist, and that research attention should be directed away from attempts to uncover “missing heritability” and toward environmental factors and a reassessment of previous genetic interpretations of psychiatric family, twin, and adoption studies.
Published: 1 July 2011
Research in Human Development, Volume 8, pp 258-263; https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2011.634289

Abstract:
The two methodologies presented in this special issue—relational developmental systems and quantitative behavior genetics—are not competing alternatives in the exploration of genetic–environmental interplay, but parallel approaches having distinct focuses and distinct goals. This commentary explores several conceptual issues that can, and have in the past, result in confusions about the nature of each methodology, and their relation to each other.
Page of 1
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Back to Top Top