Orchids and dandelions
December 8, 2009 10:38 AM Subscribe
The orchid hypothesis “profoundly recasts the way we think about human [genetic] frailty.”
GuyZero, I had to look up Indigo Children. The Wikipedia "Artist's Rendering" is completely mind-blowing and has converted me without reservation.
posted by Uppity Pigeon #2 at 10:49 AM on December 8, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Uppity Pigeon #2 at 10:49 AM on December 8, 2009 [4 favorites]
This is so interesting and yet seems so obvious. The part about vulnerabilities being possible strengths reminds me of things like the similarity between Autism spectrum symptoms being kind of like allergic responses, which are just immune responses (a good thing) sent into overdrive.
I've also seen this first hand in a family I know where the parents didn't know how to parent at first and had an unstable financial and living situation, and their older kids became depressed alcoholics. When they calmed down and learned how to be good parents and were more stable, the kids raised in that situation and their kids are doing just fine and even thriving.
posted by amethysts at 10:49 AM on December 8, 2009
I've also seen this first hand in a family I know where the parents didn't know how to parent at first and had an unstable financial and living situation, and their older kids became depressed alcoholics. When they calmed down and learned how to be good parents and were more stable, the kids raised in that situation and their kids are doing just fine and even thriving.
posted by amethysts at 10:49 AM on December 8, 2009
Hmm, sounds like "Indigo" children with a schmear of science on the top.
Seems like both theories are trying to explain many of the same characteristics seen in a subset of "unusual" children, but from two very different angles (science and spirituality). I'm not sure if there's any merit to either, but that schmear of science tastes delicious.
posted by oinopaponton at 10:50 AM on December 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
Seems like both theories are trying to explain many of the same characteristics seen in a subset of "unusual" children, but from two very different angles (science and spirituality). I'm not sure if there's any merit to either, but that schmear of science tastes delicious.
posted by oinopaponton at 10:50 AM on December 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
We must have read different articles, GuyZero. Doesn't "Indigo children" usually refer to special snowflakes who must be indulged because of their inability to play by the rules set by the man, man, and whose specialness is invisible to Big Pharma and What They Want You Sheeple to Believe?
This article describes unusually toddler-ish toddler behavior as an example of a negative characteristic that might be caused by an allele that also indicates potential for significant positive development in the same area, given certain circumstances. (Total non-scientist gloss, there.) That thesis seems like pretty much the opposite of the "indigo children" phenomenon, where any opportunity for behavioral changes is seen by its opposnents as quashing innate specialness.
In any case, as the parent of a toddler who can be obstreperous, I found this really interesting. Thanks, oinopaponton.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 10:56 AM on December 8, 2009
This article describes unusually toddler-ish toddler behavior as an example of a negative characteristic that might be caused by an allele that also indicates potential for significant positive development in the same area, given certain circumstances. (Total non-scientist gloss, there.) That thesis seems like pretty much the opposite of the "indigo children" phenomenon, where any opportunity for behavioral changes is seen by its opposnents as quashing innate specialness.
In any case, as the parent of a toddler who can be obstreperous, I found this really interesting. Thanks, oinopaponton.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 10:56 AM on December 8, 2009
Also, you have to forgive my lack of preview. My violet aura keeps getting in the way.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 10:58 AM on December 8, 2009
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 10:58 AM on December 8, 2009
Uppity Pigeon - that photo is up for deletion! Wiki editors, please ensure that the artist's vision survives
posted by Think_Long at 10:58 AM on December 8, 2009
posted by Think_Long at 10:58 AM on December 8, 2009
Don't get me wrong, I found the article interesting as the issue of why seemingly negative traits continue to be passed on is a pretty broadly interesting question in evolutionary biology.
This article describes unusually toddler-ish toddler behavior as an example of a negative characteristic that might be caused by an allele that also indicates potential for significant positive development in the same area, given certain circumstances.
Substitute "allele" for "special Indigo vibe" and you've basically got my understanding what what the Indigo child book is about. I could be misinterpreting it though.
posted by GuyZero at 11:03 AM on December 8, 2009
This article describes unusually toddler-ish toddler behavior as an example of a negative characteristic that might be caused by an allele that also indicates potential for significant positive development in the same area, given certain circumstances.
Substitute "allele" for "special Indigo vibe" and you've basically got my understanding what what the Indigo child book is about. I could be misinterpreting it though.
posted by GuyZero at 11:03 AM on December 8, 2009
It's not that some kids are destined to create a hippy paradise on earth. Some kids are genetically more vulnerable to the effects of a bad environment than other kids. That same vulnerability can also make them more likely to thrive in a good environment. Other kids are going to do OK no matter what home they land in.
posted by amethysts at 11:03 AM on December 8, 2009
posted by amethysts at 11:03 AM on December 8, 2009
I once narrowly avoided dating someone who self-identified as an Indigo Child. The experience profoundly recast the way I think about human [genetic] frailty.
posted by hermitosis at 11:04 AM on December 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by hermitosis at 11:04 AM on December 8, 2009 [3 favorites]
Thanks for posting this. I am now reassured that, though I now sit in my basement morose and fearful, come the apocalypse I will lead a rag-tag band of hardy survivors to a glorious future.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:06 AM on December 8, 2009 [10 favorites]
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:06 AM on December 8, 2009 [10 favorites]
I think what GuyZero sees are the similarities in the traits of kids labeled either "orchid" or "indigo": tendency toward ADD is probably the most prominent, and vulnerability to depression and other mental illnesses alongside (at least perceived) high intelligence show up in both diagnoses.
posted by oinopaponton at 11:09 AM on December 8, 2009
posted by oinopaponton at 11:09 AM on December 8, 2009
(ADHD, excuse me)
posted by oinopaponton at 11:09 AM on December 8, 2009
posted by oinopaponton at 11:09 AM on December 8, 2009
So holds a provocative new theory of genetics, which asserts that the very genes that give us the most trouble as a species, causing behaviors that are self-destructive and antisocial, also underlie humankind’s phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary success.
By "new theory of genetics" do you mean "group selection problem"?
posted by DU at 11:09 AM on December 8, 2009
By "new theory of genetics" do you mean "group selection problem"?
posted by DU at 11:09 AM on December 8, 2009
No (nonlethal) genetic trait is positive or negative, except in the context of the environment it is expressed in.
posted by benzenedream at 11:12 AM on December 8, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 11:12 AM on December 8, 2009 [6 favorites]
I think you're misparsing this a bit, GuyZero, but I also think that the article isn't the best representation of this (not new) theory.
The basic idea that some socially and individually adaptive cognitive traits (creativity, for instance) are expressions of genetic variations that can also produce some socially and individually maladaptive cognitive traits (bipolar disorder, for instance) has been around since at least the 1970s, with the longitudinal studies of the Iowa MFA students.
That's pretty different from the "Indigo Children" hoo-ha, and a lot closer to studies of things like sickle-cell variations, which have upsides (malaria immunity) and downsides (anemia).
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:17 AM on December 8, 2009
The basic idea that some socially and individually adaptive cognitive traits (creativity, for instance) are expressions of genetic variations that can also produce some socially and individually maladaptive cognitive traits (bipolar disorder, for instance) has been around since at least the 1970s, with the longitudinal studies of the Iowa MFA students.
That's pretty different from the "Indigo Children" hoo-ha, and a lot closer to studies of things like sickle-cell variations, which have upsides (malaria immunity) and downsides (anemia).
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:17 AM on December 8, 2009
FWIW, the Indigo Children are old news. It's those damned Crystal Children we've gotta watch out for now. They are extremely powerful children.
On a more serious note, I haven't had time to fully digest this article yet but I am interested to do so. I think there is to some degree a "simple" target cross with the idea of indigo children. But I think both (Orchids and Indigos) are ways to express differences we perceive in children and how they respond to different environments, stimuli and so forth. I have always thought, in a non-scientific way, that there was some kind of "instability" (to use a VERY inaccurate but shorthand term) associated with creative genius and think-outside-the-boxability. Not at all intended to say the creative, those who are different, etc. are unstable or otherwise 'bad'. Just that I see in my own life and own anecdotal experience, creativity accompanied by a wider range of expression and action, and perhaps less conformity. No judgment here, just observation.
posted by bunnycup at 11:18 AM on December 8, 2009
On a more serious note, I haven't had time to fully digest this article yet but I am interested to do so. I think there is to some degree a "simple" target cross with the idea of indigo children. But I think both (Orchids and Indigos) are ways to express differences we perceive in children and how they respond to different environments, stimuli and so forth. I have always thought, in a non-scientific way, that there was some kind of "instability" (to use a VERY inaccurate but shorthand term) associated with creative genius and think-outside-the-boxability. Not at all intended to say the creative, those who are different, etc. are unstable or otherwise 'bad'. Just that I see in my own life and own anecdotal experience, creativity accompanied by a wider range of expression and action, and perhaps less conformity. No judgment here, just observation.
posted by bunnycup at 11:18 AM on December 8, 2009
(I am also not intending to legitimize the whole Indigo Children new age stuff, nor delegitimize this research. I fully understand the distinction Sidhedevil is making.)
posted by bunnycup at 11:21 AM on December 8, 2009
posted by bunnycup at 11:21 AM on December 8, 2009
It's not that some kids are destined to create a hippy paradise on earth. Some kids are genetically more vulnerable to the effects of a bad environment than other kids. That same vulnerability can also make them more likely to thrive in a good environment. Other kids are going to do OK no matter what home they land in.
The end result can be similar, though. It's not a stretch to imagine parents of genetically identified orchid children spending money on books, lectures, special camps and schools, etc. just like the new age indigo parents do. It can also feed into the tendency of parents to assume that their children are more special/important than other children. Why vote for a referendum to give more funds to the local public school, when those dandelion kids will live up to their mediocre potential regardless of what they are exposed to as children?
posted by burnmp3s at 11:22 AM on December 8, 2009
The end result can be similar, though. It's not a stretch to imagine parents of genetically identified orchid children spending money on books, lectures, special camps and schools, etc. just like the new age indigo parents do. It can also feed into the tendency of parents to assume that their children are more special/important than other children. Why vote for a referendum to give more funds to the local public school, when those dandelion kids will live up to their mediocre potential regardless of what they are exposed to as children?
posted by burnmp3s at 11:22 AM on December 8, 2009
GuyZero, I'm going to go look up Indigo Children now (this is all your fault!). My recollection of that whole thing has a lot to do with excessive permissiveness and excusemaking based on perceived, um, Indigo-ness, but that may be faulty; maybe at heart it just has to do with "some kids are special and need more help than other kids." In which case it's more a repackaging of industrial-grade duh than anything newly irritating, I guess.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 11:26 AM on December 8, 2009
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 11:26 AM on December 8, 2009
I don't think dandelion kids are framed as "mediocre" here. They're just more hardy. And I think parents who are going to spend money on books, special camps, etc. would have done that anyway. Parents who are going to vote "no" on a referendum for public school funding already have their kids in private school.
It seems like the point is that kids need to be parented. Some kids will turn out ok, but other kids can be damaged by lack of parenting. Parents who already know that aren't going to change their ways but maybe it will be a way to get through to people who don't already know that.
posted by amethysts at 11:27 AM on December 8, 2009
It seems like the point is that kids need to be parented. Some kids will turn out ok, but other kids can be damaged by lack of parenting. Parents who already know that aren't going to change their ways but maybe it will be a way to get through to people who don't already know that.
posted by amethysts at 11:27 AM on December 8, 2009
What a fascinating article. I'd never heard the concept expressed quite in that way before.
posted by Scattercat at 11:37 AM on December 8, 2009
posted by Scattercat at 11:37 AM on December 8, 2009
I think most mefites are familiar with The Atlantic, a little framing would have made this post much better.
/complaint about post
Can I just blame my shitty parents and environment now that The Atlantic says so? Is that why I am hopelessly drug-addicted and in jail? Are you sure it doesn't have more to do with my shitty choices?
posted by IvoShandor at 11:38 AM on December 8, 2009
/complaint about post
Can I just blame my shitty parents and environment now that The Atlantic says so? Is that why I am hopelessly drug-addicted and in jail? Are you sure it doesn't have more to do with my shitty choices?
posted by IvoShandor at 11:38 AM on December 8, 2009
It's well known that some genes are associated with mental disorders. The article goes on at length to discuss work that shows that the negative consequences of these genes can be ameliorated by the appropriate environment during upbringing. Furthermore, these same genes can be associated with unusually successful behavior in the right environment ---more so than individuals without the genes. All of this is backed up with behavioral and genetic observations in monkeys.
This is nothing like indigo children. Here there are children with the same genes, but wildly different behavior based on their upbringing. The label may be a little too precious, maybe a better label would be "gambler's children", or something. Children born with these genes do (statistically) better in some environments, and (statistically) worse in others; but the fact remains that the negative behaviors associated with e.g. depression remain negative, albeit avoidable.
posted by Humanzee at 11:56 AM on December 8, 2009 [2 favorites]
This is nothing like indigo children. Here there are children with the same genes, but wildly different behavior based on their upbringing. The label may be a little too precious, maybe a better label would be "gambler's children", or something. Children born with these genes do (statistically) better in some environments, and (statistically) worse in others; but the fact remains that the negative behaviors associated with e.g. depression remain negative, albeit avoidable.
posted by Humanzee at 11:56 AM on December 8, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm sorry what? all that is new here (as far as I can tell) is the terminology "Dandelion vs Orchid" which frankly is a bit puerile. Don't get me completely wrong there is good info in there, but I seriously question the concept this is really "new".
posted by edgeways at 12:05 PM on December 8, 2009
posted by edgeways at 12:05 PM on December 8, 2009
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake Orchid.
posted by dephlogisticated at 12:14 PM on December 8, 2009
posted by dephlogisticated at 12:14 PM on December 8, 2009
This is appealing, but I've been burned by the Atlantic before with sparkly theories that Explained It All, so I'm going to wait and see what future studies show.
I really could have done without knowing the author had the doubleplusgood/doubleplusbad gene, though. It did kind of give it an Indigo Child vibe.
I predict a whole slew of troubled types declaring themselves Short/Short Alleles and telling their moms that they would be frikking GENIUSES if not for being raised in a stressful environment. THANKS MOM FOR STUNTING MY GENIUS.
posted by emjaybee at 12:15 PM on December 8, 2009
I really could have done without knowing the author had the doubleplusgood/doubleplusbad gene, though. It did kind of give it an Indigo Child vibe.
I predict a whole slew of troubled types declaring themselves Short/Short Alleles and telling their moms that they would be frikking GENIUSES if not for being raised in a stressful environment. THANKS MOM FOR STUNTING MY GENIUS.
posted by emjaybee at 12:15 PM on December 8, 2009
No (nonlethal) genetic trait is positive or negative, except in the context of the environment it is expressed in.
Any genetic mutation that doesn't kill the phenotype is neither good nor bad? I don't agree with that. Some genetic traits lead to lower or higher quality of life than others, even if they don't end up being fatal.
posted by justkevin at 1:18 PM on December 8, 2009
Any genetic mutation that doesn't kill the phenotype is neither good nor bad? I don't agree with that. Some genetic traits lead to lower or higher quality of life than others, even if they don't end up being fatal.
posted by justkevin at 1:18 PM on December 8, 2009
Whether or not it lowers the quality of life is very dependent on the environment in which it is expressed. Having gills might be a great positive if the world floods. If instead we get an Arrakis all desert planet my gills are a real downer. There is no intrinsic value in the genetic trait. The value of the trait can only be evaluated within the environment in which it is expressed.
I don't know if benzenedream came up with that expression on his/her own or borrowed it from elsewhere but it is an exquisite wording.
posted by Babblesort at 2:00 PM on December 8, 2009
I don't know if benzenedream came up with that expression on his/her own or borrowed it from elsewhere but it is an exquisite wording.
posted by Babblesort at 2:00 PM on December 8, 2009
To give a real world example of the context-dependence of genetic mutation, those who are homozygous for the HgbS allele develop sickle-cell anaemia, which causes debilitating symptoms and a large decrease in life expectancy. That same allele, however, also provides functional resistance to malaria, and those who are heterozygous for HgbS are nonsymptomatic carriers of the sickle-cell trait. So is HgbS a good mutation or a bad one? Given that a third of indigenous people in Sub-Saharan Africa carry at least one copy of this gene, it clearly offers a survival advantage. But that advantage must be weighed in the context of both the environment in which it occurs and in terms of the cost/benefit ratio for the individual vs. the overall population.
In other words: these things are often more complicated than they seem.
posted by dephlogisticated at 2:31 PM on December 8, 2009
In other words: these things are often more complicated than they seem.
posted by dephlogisticated at 2:31 PM on December 8, 2009
The sickle cell example is the sort of canonical example of this but I think the jury is still out on whether it applies equally to behavioural traits. Also, one wonders if this sort of thing was a more clear-cut issue when children used to die for all sorts of reasons and an extra dead kid or two went pretty much unnoticed. The issue of dealing nicely with kids with behaviour issues, small or large, is a fairly recent phenomenon.
posted by GuyZero at 2:58 PM on December 8, 2009
posted by GuyZero at 2:58 PM on December 8, 2009
Just today, my son asked me what "Indigo Children" were (he was listening to a song by Tool, I think), and I had to look it up to tell him. We were very skeptical of the whole concept, though could understand how, if you had a child who had trouble assimilating, you might latch onto it.
I see this Orchid idea in a similar light. I would love to think that any child could thrive in a happy, healthy home and that the right stimulation would cause an otherwise awkward child to thrive--who wouldn't? Especially as I am myself the depressed, Orchid type by nature*.
*Although I had fabulous parents and a great home life and I haven't actually gone out and cured cancer or anything.
posted by misha at 3:52 PM on December 8, 2009
I see this Orchid idea in a similar light. I would love to think that any child could thrive in a happy, healthy home and that the right stimulation would cause an otherwise awkward child to thrive--who wouldn't? Especially as I am myself the depressed, Orchid type by nature*.
*Although I had fabulous parents and a great home life and I haven't actually gone out and cured cancer or anything.
posted by misha at 3:52 PM on December 8, 2009
Is that why I am hopelessly drug-addicted and in jail?
They have open internet access in jail? I think I'm ready for three hots and a cot!
posted by me & my monkey at 4:03 PM on December 8, 2009
They have open internet access in jail? I think I'm ready for three hots and a cot!
posted by me & my monkey at 4:03 PM on December 8, 2009
The Orchid Hypothesis, as described in this article, is perfectly untestable. Any deviation from the norm on any dimension can count if it seems adaptive or if it isn't. It's a science equivalent of heads I win, tails you lose.
posted by srboisvert at 4:04 PM on December 8, 2009
posted by srboisvert at 4:04 PM on December 8, 2009
justkevin: "Any genetic mutation that doesn't kill the phenotype is neither good nor bad? I don't agree with that. Some genetic traits lead to lower or higher quality of life than others, even if they don't end up being fatal."
I am not a geneticists or evolutionary biologist, but I am pretty sure that "quality of life" is outside the domain of natural selection proper unless it affects your chances of reproducing. Even whether something kills you or not is tangential, what is important is whether it keeps you from breeding offspring which live long enough to themselves breed.
Absolute good or bad is another issue, but I doubt he was opening that can of worms.
posted by idiopath at 4:27 PM on December 8, 2009
I am not a geneticists or evolutionary biologist, but I am pretty sure that "quality of life" is outside the domain of natural selection proper unless it affects your chances of reproducing. Even whether something kills you or not is tangential, what is important is whether it keeps you from breeding offspring which live long enough to themselves breed.
Absolute good or bad is another issue, but I doubt he was opening that can of worms.
posted by idiopath at 4:27 PM on December 8, 2009
"Can I just blame my shitty parents and environment now that The Atlantic says so? Is that why I am hopelessly drug-addicted and in jail? Are you sure it doesn't have more to do with my shitty choices?"
Those aren't really mutually exclusive, you know. After all, why did you make such shitty choices? Proximate causes coexist with less proximate causes.
The article doesn't really give enough data for its hypothesis/assertion that these defects can be opportunities. Sure, the the at-risk kids improved more with intervention than the kids without the risky allele, but did they improve such that they eventually overtook protected kids (data insufficient to answer) or such that they eventually overtook kids without externalizing behaviors (not even possible to answer with this study)? Yeah, the anxious monkeys eventually did okay, but never actually overtook confident, assertive monkeys.
And this article is permeated with the myth that a gene must be advantageous to prosper, which isn't really the case. If it doesn't interfere with reproduction, that's good enough. A sexually selected trait can be downright nasty.
Still, I'm glad to see more air given to acknowledging that genotypes follow a torturous, forking path to phenotype. Our insistence on "fat genes" and "gay genes" and "depression genes" hides the fact that for any given trait, some expressions of a genotype will be, rather than a normal distribution, bifurcated.
And it reminds us that we'd better start paying (research) attention to traits we like, and not just in the top 0.01% of the population, before we screw too much up by trying to get rid of the traits we don't like.
posted by nathan v at 4:30 PM on December 8, 2009
Those aren't really mutually exclusive, you know. After all, why did you make such shitty choices? Proximate causes coexist with less proximate causes.
The article doesn't really give enough data for its hypothesis/assertion that these defects can be opportunities. Sure, the the at-risk kids improved more with intervention than the kids without the risky allele, but did they improve such that they eventually overtook protected kids (data insufficient to answer) or such that they eventually overtook kids without externalizing behaviors (not even possible to answer with this study)? Yeah, the anxious monkeys eventually did okay, but never actually overtook confident, assertive monkeys.
And this article is permeated with the myth that a gene must be advantageous to prosper, which isn't really the case. If it doesn't interfere with reproduction, that's good enough. A sexually selected trait can be downright nasty.
Still, I'm glad to see more air given to acknowledging that genotypes follow a torturous, forking path to phenotype. Our insistence on "fat genes" and "gay genes" and "depression genes" hides the fact that for any given trait, some expressions of a genotype will be, rather than a normal distribution, bifurcated.
And it reminds us that we'd better start paying (research) attention to traits we like, and not just in the top 0.01% of the population, before we screw too much up by trying to get rid of the traits we don't like.
posted by nathan v at 4:30 PM on December 8, 2009
...and whose specialness is invisible to Big Pharma...
It's not that it's invisible, it's just that the current body of law makes it damn near impossible to take anything that is tailored to an individual's genotype to market. I mean how are you even going to do phase two clinicals when you used your entire patient population for phase one, and the auditors didn't like that because you only had an n of 1 and no control group?
Before you all gather around my house with pitchforks and torches, I'm ADD as all get-out and a Myers-Briggs ENFP. Deny my special snow-flakeness at your peril!
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:32 PM on December 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's not that it's invisible, it's just that the current body of law makes it damn near impossible to take anything that is tailored to an individual's genotype to market. I mean how are you even going to do phase two clinicals when you used your entire patient population for phase one, and the auditors didn't like that because you only had an n of 1 and no control group?
Before you all gather around my house with pitchforks and torches, I'm ADD as all get-out and a Myers-Briggs ENFP. Deny my special snow-flakeness at your peril!
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:32 PM on December 8, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sure, the the at-risk kids improved more with intervention than the kids without the risky allele, but did they improve such that they eventually overtook protected kids (data insufficient to answer) or such that they eventually overtook kids without externalizing behaviors (not even possible to answer with this study)?
More importantly to me as a parent, do you actually treat kids any differently depending on whether or not they have the risky allele? Both groups improve with the same interventions, so from a strictly behavioural standpoint the allele is irrelevant. That parents need to get past the fact that children can be really annoying hardly needs scientific research to be good advice. (at least, that's how I read the article - a parent who didn't think their kid would sit for story time gave the kid story time and everyone enjoyed it. uh, yeah. thanks science.)
posted by GuyZero at 4:35 PM on December 8, 2009
More importantly to me as a parent, do you actually treat kids any differently depending on whether or not they have the risky allele? Both groups improve with the same interventions, so from a strictly behavioural standpoint the allele is irrelevant. That parents need to get past the fact that children can be really annoying hardly needs scientific research to be good advice. (at least, that's how I read the article - a parent who didn't think their kid would sit for story time gave the kid story time and everyone enjoyed it. uh, yeah. thanks science.)
posted by GuyZero at 4:35 PM on December 8, 2009
Yeah, the problem here is that it seems as though people who actually do better in excellent environments do better in all environments.
For example, intelligence and emotional sensitivity actually are *not* problematic if you are raised in a crappy environment-- you may have less fun, but you are still more likely to thrive and get out of poverty than those who are stupid and insensitive.
If you are stupid and insensitive in a traumatizing environment, you are more likely to become a criminal and to do things like commit violent crimes. That may be "adaptive" in terms of allowing you to reproduce OK-- but it's not going to make you into a genius or a businessman or artist that overcomes poverty.
Whereas someone who is sensitive and smart will be more likely to "over achieve" whether raised as a hothouse kid by rich parents or whether raised in a ghetto: the data is pretty clear that intelligence is not detrimental in terms of overcoming poverty and a chaotic upbringing; smart kids attract teachers, mentors and others that help these kids find a way out, often. Some smart, sensitive kids may wind up as addicts instead of over-achievers-- but this doesn't mean that the dumber, less responsive ones do any better.
So, I don't really think there's much research support for the idea that there are "orchid" kids who do horribly in poor environments but flourish in rich ones while there are "dandelions" who do well anywhere. "Orchids" in fact tend to do well anywhere (though less well in poverty) and dandelions, too. The data is clear on this with regard to intelligence and stress system responsivity, which are huge factors. Maybe there are other factors that produce different results, but this is clearly more complicated than this article makes it out to be.
posted by Maias at 4:45 PM on December 8, 2009
For example, intelligence and emotional sensitivity actually are *not* problematic if you are raised in a crappy environment-- you may have less fun, but you are still more likely to thrive and get out of poverty than those who are stupid and insensitive.
If you are stupid and insensitive in a traumatizing environment, you are more likely to become a criminal and to do things like commit violent crimes. That may be "adaptive" in terms of allowing you to reproduce OK-- but it's not going to make you into a genius or a businessman or artist that overcomes poverty.
Whereas someone who is sensitive and smart will be more likely to "over achieve" whether raised as a hothouse kid by rich parents or whether raised in a ghetto: the data is pretty clear that intelligence is not detrimental in terms of overcoming poverty and a chaotic upbringing; smart kids attract teachers, mentors and others that help these kids find a way out, often. Some smart, sensitive kids may wind up as addicts instead of over-achievers-- but this doesn't mean that the dumber, less responsive ones do any better.
So, I don't really think there's much research support for the idea that there are "orchid" kids who do horribly in poor environments but flourish in rich ones while there are "dandelions" who do well anywhere. "Orchids" in fact tend to do well anywhere (though less well in poverty) and dandelions, too. The data is clear on this with regard to intelligence and stress system responsivity, which are huge factors. Maybe there are other factors that produce different results, but this is clearly more complicated than this article makes it out to be.
posted by Maias at 4:45 PM on December 8, 2009
"Yeah, the problem here is that it seems as though people who actually do better in excellent environments do better in all environments. For example, intelligence and emotional sensitivity actually are *not* problematic if you are raised in a crappy environment..."
That may be the case if by "environment" you're referring solely to whether parents read to their kids, but then, if intelligence is so purely beneficial to reproductive success, why aren't we smarter? This old FPP suggests that more intelligent populations are also at greater risk of certain neurological disorders. (With the assumption that genetics are not uniquely responsible for the disorders, but share some blame with environment).
Just kind of an aside, because I think it's important to recognize that the reason we're not surrounded by good things is because there is such a thing as too much.
posted by nathan v at 4:56 PM on December 8, 2009
That may be the case if by "environment" you're referring solely to whether parents read to their kids, but then, if intelligence is so purely beneficial to reproductive success, why aren't we smarter? This old FPP suggests that more intelligent populations are also at greater risk of certain neurological disorders. (With the assumption that genetics are not uniquely responsible for the disorders, but share some blame with environment).
Just kind of an aside, because I think it's important to recognize that the reason we're not surrounded by good things is because there is such a thing as too much.
posted by nathan v at 4:56 PM on December 8, 2009
I think people with ADD would count as Orchid kids. They're a complete fucking disaster if they aren't given the tools to compensate for it, but can be amazingly brilliant if they're able to control it and use it.
posted by empath at 5:09 PM on December 8, 2009
posted by empath at 5:09 PM on December 8, 2009
The story isn't about intelligence or emotional sensitivity. It's about genes that express different behavioral phenotype in monkeys raised under different circumstances. That's why, for instance, they measured serotonin levels in the monkeys. There is a known link between certain alleles of the serotonin transporter gene, serotonin levels, and depression. What they show is that under certain circumstances (in this case they could be considered "positive"), monkeys with the "depression" allele didn't become depressed, and in fact, they do better than the monkeys who lacked that allele. Measurements of their serotonin levels were normal, giving further evidence backing up the behavioral tests.
You can't really counter this with evidence or wisdom you've gathered by watching the people around you. This is talking about a connection between genes, early childhood environment, and adult behavioral phenotype ---we rarely observe more than one for a given person, and never dispassionately. The work addresses questions like, "under what circumstances will genes cause someone to be very shy?" not, "in what environments is shyness an adaptive trait?". The article author, in what was perhaps a mistake, led with interventions in very young children. However, if you look at the numbers that are quoted, the changes are very small. In any case, the purpose is to offer a different viewpoint on mental disorders, not to advocate leaving some children to play in dumpsters while showering attention on a few precious snowflakes.
posted by Humanzee at 6:11 PM on December 8, 2009 [6 favorites]
You can't really counter this with evidence or wisdom you've gathered by watching the people around you. This is talking about a connection between genes, early childhood environment, and adult behavioral phenotype ---we rarely observe more than one for a given person, and never dispassionately. The work addresses questions like, "under what circumstances will genes cause someone to be very shy?" not, "in what environments is shyness an adaptive trait?". The article author, in what was perhaps a mistake, led with interventions in very young children. However, if you look at the numbers that are quoted, the changes are very small. In any case, the purpose is to offer a different viewpoint on mental disorders, not to advocate leaving some children to play in dumpsters while showering attention on a few precious snowflakes.
posted by Humanzee at 6:11 PM on December 8, 2009 [6 favorites]
Fascinating theory, lousy framing. Article unsuitable for those who posess two copies of the "react to claim without reading evidence and methodology" allele. However, they might come around if painstakingly walked through the argument.
posted by condour75 at 4:38 AM on December 9, 2009
posted by condour75 at 4:38 AM on December 9, 2009
The story isn't about intelligence or emotional sensitivity. It's about genes that express different behavioral phenotype in monkeys raised under different circumstances. That's why, for instance, they measured serotonin levels in the monkeys. There is a known link between certain alleles of the serotonin transporter gene, serotonin levels, and depression. What they show is that under certain circumstances (in this case they could be considered "positive"), monkeys with the "depression" allele didn't become depressed, and in fact, they do better than the monkeys who lacked that allele. Measurements of their serotonin levels were normal, giving further evidence backing up the behavioral tests.
Actually, virtually all of these gene x environment interactions that are hyped (like the MAO-A and I believe some of the serotonin work on stressful environments producing depression only with some SERT genes) fail to be replicated.
Further, I'm certainly not countering with personal experience.
What I'm talking about are the replicated findings that smarter, more stress-sensitive (as measured by cortisol stress response) children raised in traumatic environments do better than duller, less cortisol-responsive kids. The smarter ones are more likely to be functional as adults-- the duller, less sensitive ones are more likely to commit crimes (or, perhaps, to get caught doing so). I would dig out the citations but I can't bear to after doing literally 250 endnotes in a book I'm writing that deals with some of this over the last week or so.
Google or PubMed resilience and you'll find very quickly that intelligence is one factor highly linked with it in terms of overcoming child trauma.
Consequently, the outcome is that smart plus stress-responsive = more likely to do well if you are hothoused by your mom who thinks you're gifted or if you are treated like crap by your stepfather who rapes you. So, at least in terms of this widely replicated finding on resilience, the author of the Atlantic piece is just plain wrong. The "orchid-like" (AKA rarer) smart/high sensitive phenotype does better in both good and bad environments, in general (again, not saying that smart always does well, but typically, it's an advantage).
There may be other genes that produce people who do horribly in poor environments and fabulously in good ones-- but in terms of the gene by environment interactions with which I am most familiar in terms of writing about the neuroscience and epigenetics child trauma for the last 10 years or so, the claim here certainly doesn't stand up as an absolute one.
You would think that being smart and oversensitive to stress would that mean you are going to be *more* messed up if you get traumatized and that this would support the writer's claims-- but what turns out to be the case is that these qualities allow you to attract outside help, which is another key to successful resilience.
There's lots of cool epigenetic research showing that, for example, if you give a rat more nurture, it will learn better in most environments. However, rats that get *less* nurture learn better under extreme stress. So, basically, the epigenetic changes are tuning the offspring to flourish in the world they think it is entering: low nurture suggests high stress, so the tuning is to do well under high stress, high nurture suggests greater resources and therefore, the tuning is to do well under less stressful primary circumstances. That makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is a general dandelion/orchid distinction. It's simply much more complicated than that.
posted by Maias at 5:42 PM on December 9, 2009
Actually, virtually all of these gene x environment interactions that are hyped (like the MAO-A and I believe some of the serotonin work on stressful environments producing depression only with some SERT genes) fail to be replicated.
Further, I'm certainly not countering with personal experience.
What I'm talking about are the replicated findings that smarter, more stress-sensitive (as measured by cortisol stress response) children raised in traumatic environments do better than duller, less cortisol-responsive kids. The smarter ones are more likely to be functional as adults-- the duller, less sensitive ones are more likely to commit crimes (or, perhaps, to get caught doing so). I would dig out the citations but I can't bear to after doing literally 250 endnotes in a book I'm writing that deals with some of this over the last week or so.
Google or PubMed resilience and you'll find very quickly that intelligence is one factor highly linked with it in terms of overcoming child trauma.
Consequently, the outcome is that smart plus stress-responsive = more likely to do well if you are hothoused by your mom who thinks you're gifted or if you are treated like crap by your stepfather who rapes you. So, at least in terms of this widely replicated finding on resilience, the author of the Atlantic piece is just plain wrong. The "orchid-like" (AKA rarer) smart/high sensitive phenotype does better in both good and bad environments, in general (again, not saying that smart always does well, but typically, it's an advantage).
There may be other genes that produce people who do horribly in poor environments and fabulously in good ones-- but in terms of the gene by environment interactions with which I am most familiar in terms of writing about the neuroscience and epigenetics child trauma for the last 10 years or so, the claim here certainly doesn't stand up as an absolute one.
You would think that being smart and oversensitive to stress would that mean you are going to be *more* messed up if you get traumatized and that this would support the writer's claims-- but what turns out to be the case is that these qualities allow you to attract outside help, which is another key to successful resilience.
There's lots of cool epigenetic research showing that, for example, if you give a rat more nurture, it will learn better in most environments. However, rats that get *less* nurture learn better under extreme stress. So, basically, the epigenetic changes are tuning the offspring to flourish in the world they think it is entering: low nurture suggests high stress, so the tuning is to do well under high stress, high nurture suggests greater resources and therefore, the tuning is to do well under less stressful primary circumstances. That makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is a general dandelion/orchid distinction. It's simply much more complicated than that.
posted by Maias at 5:42 PM on December 9, 2009
Okay, point taken. I was thrown by your inclusion of intelligence, which as I remember, wasn't discussed in the article. I'm not an expert on this stuff (my system has only about 30 neurons in it, so depression isn't an issue), so I can't speak authoritatively from the literature on psychological resilience. The one thing I'll say is that my understanding is that there couldn't be such a simple story with intelligence since it has so many factors at play. The serotonin story is nice in that there's an allele that's individually associated with depression, but it's very common, leading one to wonder how it flourishes --maybe it's doing something more complicated than just causing depression.
I would be amazed if there was any simply-stated general rule describing gene-environment interactions. They're way too messy. I just piped up because it seemed like some people had misunderstood the point of the article (as I saw it).
posted by Humanzee at 7:58 AM on December 10, 2009
I would be amazed if there was any simply-stated general rule describing gene-environment interactions. They're way too messy. I just piped up because it seemed like some people had misunderstood the point of the article (as I saw it).
posted by Humanzee at 7:58 AM on December 10, 2009
thanks humanzee: i think you are right that there can't be a simply stated rule here. and that's what threw me about the article-- it was kind of trying to gladwell-ize this into something about which you can make a general statement. and there are clearly situations where that's not the case.
posted by Maias at 7:11 PM on December 10, 2009
posted by Maias at 7:11 PM on December 10, 2009
« Older Underground Design | The Fortsas Bibliohoax Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by GuyZero at 10:44 AM on December 8, 2009 [4 favorites]