Genetic involvement in a predisposition toward a preoccupation with online is something which maybe gets people thinking, yeah, I've seen ... in someone else. Judging by online, there must hordes of Someone Else people. (Science Daily: Online media use shows strong genetic influence)
The science is in a twin study and researchers really get off on these ones since identical twins have the same genes whereas fraternal twins get fifty percent from each parent. The identical twins get the highest interest because the identical gene maps become an interesting point when there are differences in behavior, etc.
Ed: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny!
You just had to say it. The expression is clever and is all over the Biology Dept (i.e. any Biology department) so the expression of the gene as to whether you have blue eyes is the phylogeny and the process whereby the gene evolved is the ontogeny. The twin study seeks to eliminate the ontological aspect as a variable since both twins have the same genetic kit so what differences do we see in phylogeny which the ontogeny does not explain. They should be so identically identical but if there's some trait which is not then why not.
Published in PLOS ONE, the study looked at online media use in more than 8,500 16-year-old twins from the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS). By comparing identical twins (who share 100 per cent of their genes) and non-identical twins (who share 50 per cent of their genes), the researchers were able to estimate the relative contribution of genes and environment on individual differences in engagement with a range of online media, including games for entertainment and education, as well as time spent on chat rooms, instant messaging platforms and Facebook.
- SD
The nature versus nurture aspect of development has been starting quarrels between the Biology Dept and the Psychology Dept for just about forever and this example shows us integration of both disciplines.
Ed: is this all to discover why people become gamers?
It's more than that but gamers are a part of it. After you have blown up a few tanks in some simulated combat does it really matter if you ever do it again and to some it does.
They go for the direct charge of a genetic contribution.
Heritability was substantial for time spent on all types of media including entertainment (37 per cent) and educational (34 per cent) media, online gaming (39 per cent) and social networking (24 per cent). Heritability describes the degree to which differences between children -- in this case their use of online media -- can be attributed to inherited genetic factors, rather than the effects of their environment.
- SD
Maybe you see heritability as 39% of the contribution to significant gaming and that calls the question of what about the other 61%?
In addition, unique environmental factors accounted for nearly two-thirds of the differences between people in online media use. Unique environmental factors could include varying access to media sources within a family, such as one sibling having a personal mobile phone and the other not, or parents monitoring use of social networks more heavily for one sibling compared to the other.
- SD
Yahoo! We're right back to nature versus nurture again. What do you know, it plays out to a draw.
These results raise questions about personalised media and the extent to which social media 'filter bubbles' only expose us to information that supports our own point of view, while sheltering us from conflicting arguments.
However, Professor Plomin points out that individual differences would still play an integral role here: 'Where one person may seek online media that only supports their views, another may choose to also explore conflicting viewpoints.'
- SD
It is not the purpose of the Rockhouse to ridicule the research since it's a difficult study to make. When we see gamers preoccupied with kickboxing impossible monsters which don't exist, many will regard this as unusual behavior so the researchers ask why they do it.
Ed: but they still don't know!
Nope. Don't read that as dismissive since they will keep trying and always with different twists to discover whether they can crack the problem.
The science is in a twin study and researchers really get off on these ones since identical twins have the same genes whereas fraternal twins get fifty percent from each parent. The identical twins get the highest interest because the identical gene maps become an interesting point when there are differences in behavior, etc.
Ed: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny!
You just had to say it. The expression is clever and is all over the Biology Dept (i.e. any Biology department) so the expression of the gene as to whether you have blue eyes is the phylogeny and the process whereby the gene evolved is the ontogeny. The twin study seeks to eliminate the ontological aspect as a variable since both twins have the same genetic kit so what differences do we see in phylogeny which the ontogeny does not explain. They should be so identically identical but if there's some trait which is not then why not.
Published in PLOS ONE, the study looked at online media use in more than 8,500 16-year-old twins from the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS). By comparing identical twins (who share 100 per cent of their genes) and non-identical twins (who share 50 per cent of their genes), the researchers were able to estimate the relative contribution of genes and environment on individual differences in engagement with a range of online media, including games for entertainment and education, as well as time spent on chat rooms, instant messaging platforms and Facebook.
- SD
The nature versus nurture aspect of development has been starting quarrels between the Biology Dept and the Psychology Dept for just about forever and this example shows us integration of both disciplines.
Ed: is this all to discover why people become gamers?
It's more than that but gamers are a part of it. After you have blown up a few tanks in some simulated combat does it really matter if you ever do it again and to some it does.
They go for the direct charge of a genetic contribution.
Heritability was substantial for time spent on all types of media including entertainment (37 per cent) and educational (34 per cent) media, online gaming (39 per cent) and social networking (24 per cent). Heritability describes the degree to which differences between children -- in this case their use of online media -- can be attributed to inherited genetic factors, rather than the effects of their environment.
- SD
Maybe you see heritability as 39% of the contribution to significant gaming and that calls the question of what about the other 61%?
In addition, unique environmental factors accounted for nearly two-thirds of the differences between people in online media use. Unique environmental factors could include varying access to media sources within a family, such as one sibling having a personal mobile phone and the other not, or parents monitoring use of social networks more heavily for one sibling compared to the other.
- SD
Yahoo! We're right back to nature versus nurture again. What do you know, it plays out to a draw.
These results raise questions about personalised media and the extent to which social media 'filter bubbles' only expose us to information that supports our own point of view, while sheltering us from conflicting arguments.
However, Professor Plomin points out that individual differences would still play an integral role here: 'Where one person may seek online media that only supports their views, another may choose to also explore conflicting viewpoints.'
- SD
It is not the purpose of the Rockhouse to ridicule the research since it's a difficult study to make. When we see gamers preoccupied with kickboxing impossible monsters which don't exist, many will regard this as unusual behavior so the researchers ask why they do it.
Ed: but they still don't know!
Nope. Don't read that as dismissive since they will keep trying and always with different twists to discover whether they can crack the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment