zarahh09
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#1
What does it mean by explain how a psychologist could use a twin study to determine if mental disorders have a genetic basis.
0
reply
Vetofferholder1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 months ago
#2
So by using identical twins you can guarantee their genetic material is identical, therefore if mental disorders were solely inherited and have a genetic basis you would find that if a person has a mental disorder their identical twin will also have that same disorder.
It also allows you to compare the concordance of mental disorders amongst identical twins and non identical twins (aka do identical twins who share 100% dna have a higher concordance of mental disorders than non identical that only share 50% dna).
Essentially the higher the concordance between identical twins the more genetic basis there is behind mental disorders.
0
reply
zarahh09
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#3
(Original post by Vetofferholder1)
So by using identical twins you can guarantee their genetic material is identical, therefore if mental disorders were solely inherited and have a genetic basis you would find that if a person has a mental disorder their identical twin will also have that same disorder.
It also allows you to compare the concordance of mental disorders amongst identical twins and non identical twins (aka do identical twins who share 100% dna have a higher concordance of mental disorders than non identical that only share 50% dna).
Essentially the higher the concordance between identical twins the more genetic basis there is behind mental disorders.
Tysm

This is what I put: Twin studies are used to determine the extent to which some characteristics have genetic bases by comparing the extent to which both twins have the same characteristics. The higher the concordance rate between identical twins (monozygotic) compared to non identical twins (dizygotic) tends to be taken as evidence of genetic basis. For example, schizophrenia, music ability would thus suggest genetic basis - this is probably all wrong
0
reply
Vetofferholder1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 months ago
#4
(Original post by zarahh09)
Tysm

This is what I put: Twin studies are used to determine the extent to which some characteristics have genetic bases by comparing the extent to which both twins have the same characteristics. The higher the concordance rate between identical twins (monozygotic) compared to non identical twins (dizygotic) tends to be taken as evidence of genetic basis. For example, schizophrenia, music ability would thus suggest genetic basis - this is probably all wrong
It’s all good! Maybe bring up the fact monozygotic twins share 100% of dna whilst dizygotic only share 50% because if one monozygotic twin has a mental health issue and the other doesn’t have it then it almost certainly can’t be genetic.
1
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 months ago
#5
(Original post by Vetofferholder1)
It’s all good! Maybe bring up the fact monozygotic twins share 100% of dna whilst dizygotic only share 50% because if one monozygotic twin has a mental health issue and the other doesn’t have it then it almost certainly can’t be genetic.
This is not accurate. First, "there is no science of the particular" i.e. you can't make a general conclusion based on one case study. The conclusions of twin studies are based on large samples of hundreds or thousands. Second, very few traits have 100% concordance - the world is not divided into purely environmental and purely genetic phenotypes. But you can't claim that means they have no genetic basis. A simple but often accurate rule of thumb is that around 50% of variance is due to genetics, which is a substantial genetic basis, and means it is perfectly possible for a substantially genetic traits to be present in one MZ twin but not another.
0
reply
Vetofferholder1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 months ago
#6
(Original post by chazwomaq)
This is not accurate. First, "there is no science of the particular" i.e. you can't make a general conclusion based on one case study. The conclusions of twin studies are based on large samples of hundreds or thousands. Second, very few traits have 100% concordance - the world is not divided into purely environmental and purely genetic phenotypes. But you can't claim that means they have no genetic basis. A simple but often accurate rule of thumb is that around 50% of variance is due to genetics, which is a substantial genetic basis, and means it is perfectly possible for a substantially genetic traits to be present in one MZ twin but not another.
That’s a lot of assumptions on things I never said. Don’t get me wrong my response was very oversimplified and I could have been clearer but you’ve made a heck of a lot of assumptions. No one has made a general conclusion on a case study. It’s simple scientific fact, however if a certain trait is found in one identical twin and not the other the genetic basis is weak at strongest and at worst nonexistent.
We can say almost for certain if one identical twin has something, the other doesn’t then there cannot be a solely genetic basis for that trait or thing- there needs to be atleast a combination of things.
This level of analysis is not something I was trying to go into because as far as I’m aware the question is a short answer question but the level of analysis we are going into is that if an 8-16 marker
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 months ago
#7
(Original post by Vetofferholder1)
No one has made a general conclusion on a case study. It’s simple scientific fact, however if a certain trait is found in one identical twin and not the other the genetic basis is weak at strongest and at worst nonexistent.
Your second sentence contradicts your first. It is also wrong.
0
reply
Vetofferholder1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 months ago
#8
(Original post by chazwomaq)
Your second sentence contradicts your first. It is also wrong.
It’s not wrong and doesn’t contradict but whatever you say
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 months ago
#9
(Original post by Vetofferholder1)
It’s not wrong and doesn’t contradict but whatever you say
Yes it is wrong. Let's say both MZ twins have the mutation that causes PKU. However, one twin is on a diet without phenylalanine. One twin will have symptoms of PKU, the other will not. You would be quite wrong to conclude the PKU does not have a genetic basis.
0
reply
Vetofferholder1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 months ago
#10
Nope it’s not wrong and your explanation literally proved my point. The diet is an environmental factor not a biological basis therefore the biological basis is not solely responsible like I clearly stated here in bold

It should also be noted this thread is in regard to the biological approach, which is notorious for being very reductionist because it puts everything solely down to genetics which the example you gave in relation to something I had already outlined literally contradicts. So that argument is good to show against the biological approach and the flaws because biology is not solely responsible- also linking to nature vs nurture but again this is high level evaluation and I get the impression this is not an extended writing question.
(Original post by Vetofferholder1)
That’s a lot of assumptions on things I never said. Don’t get me wrong my response was very oversimplified and I could have been clearer but you’ve made a heck of a lot of assumptions. No one has made a general conclusion on a case study. It’s simple scientific fact, however if a certain trait is found in one identical twin and not the other the genetic basis is weak at strongest and at worst nonexistent.
We can say almost for certain if one identical twin has something, the other doesn’t then there cannot be a solely genetic basis for that trait or thing- there needs to be atleast a combination of things.
This level of analysis is not something I was trying to go into because as far as I’m aware the question is a short answer question but the level of analysis we are going into is that if an 8-16 marker
Last edited by Vetofferholder1; 2 months ago
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 months ago
#11
(Original post by Vetofferholder1)
then it almost certainly can’t be genetic.
If you had said "solely genetic" here you would be correct. But you did not.
(Original post by Vetofferholder1)
Nope it’s not wrong and your explanation literally proved my point. The diet is an environmental factor not a biological basis therefore the biological basis is not solely responsible like I clearly stated here in bold

It should also be noted this thread is labelled biological approach, so explanations like the example you gave backing up what I previously stated prove the biological approach isn’t the most accurate because it doesn’t account for environmental factors
For a start, biological is not the same as genetic. All psychological disorders are biological (what else could they be - inorganic?). As I explained in my first post, it is wrong to think you can divide traits into genetic and non-genetic ones.
0
reply
Vetofferholder1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 months ago
#12
(Original post by Vetofferholder1)
Don’t get me wrong my response was very oversimplified and I could have been clearer but you’ve made a heck of a lot of assumptions.
Oh look I’ve already admitted I could have a said it better… yet you are still being obtuse about it, are you just really bored or are you not reading anything I’m saying?




(Original post by chazwomaq)
For a start, biological is not the same as genetic. All psychological disorders are biological (what else could they be - inorganic?). As I explained in my first post, it is wrong to think you can divide traits into genetic and non-genetic ones.
Who said they are the same? Again this is you not reading properly; the thread is labelled biological approach so all my explanations of the genetic basis are in relation to the biological approach. Have you not studied a level psychology ? The biological approach is a whole sub topic as is the psychodynamic approach, the humanistic approach etc etc so this must be your lack of understanding showing through. It is not wrong to divide traits at all especially when discussing the biological approach- it’s one of the key criticisms.
Here’s a link to the biological approach so you can educate yourself instead of saying silly things like ‘biological is not the same as genetic’ when I clearly said the biological APPROACH. https://www.simplypsychology.org/biological-psychology.html
Last edited by Vetofferholder1; 2 months ago
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 months ago
#13
(Original post by Vetofferholder1)
the biological approach...puts everything solely down to genetics
Here is where you say the biological approach is only genetic in outlook. Diet is obviously a biological and non-genetic factor.

I haven't studied A level psychology. But I do have a PhD in psychology and 10 years' experience teaching biological psychology at university level.

It is absolutely wrong to divide traits into genetic vs. non-genetic or biological vs. non-biological. If A level psychology teaches you that, the syllabus is wrong.
0
reply
Vetofferholder1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 months ago
#14
(Original post by chazwomaq)
Here is where you say the biological approach is only genetic in outlook. Diet is obviously a biological and non-genetic factor.

I haven't studied A level psychology. But I do have a PhD in psychology and 10 years' experience teaching biological psychology at university level.

It is absolutely wrong to divide traits into genetic vs. non-genetic or biological vs. non-biological. If A level psychology teaches you that, the syllabus is wrong.
Yes because the biological approach is solely down to genetics! Diet is a criticism of the biological approach.

Well that’s what it teaches you, so whether you like it or not that’s what she needs to know if she wants to get good grades- take it up with the a level exam boards but she needs to understand genetic vs non genetic and biological vs non biological as a key concept.
0
reply
Arden University
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 months ago
#15
(Original post by zarahh09)
What does it mean by explain how a psychologist could use a twin study to determine if mental disorders have a genetic basis.
zarahh09
Twin studies were very popular in Psychology for a long time, it is the idea that both participants have near identical DNA so it was argued that if they develop a certain trait or behaviour, it is 100% down to genetics. However, this only really works if the twins are raised separate from each other to rule out the nurture element

Marc
Arden University Student Ambassador
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 months ago
#16
(Original post by Vetofferholder1)
Who said they are the same?
(Original post by Vetofferholder1)
Yes because the biological approach is solely down to genetics!
You're directly contradicting yourself.
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 months ago
#17
(Original post by Arden University)
zarahh09
Twin studies were very popular in Psychology for a long time, it is the idea that both participants have near identical DNA so it was argued that if they develop a certain trait or behaviour, it is 100% down to genetics. However, this only really works if the twins are raised separate from each other to rule out the nurture element
This is wrong. If two twins have the same length hair, does that mean hair length is genetic? If they speak with the same accent, does that mean accent is genetic?

The idea of twin studies is to compare MZ and DZ twins. You can study twins raised together to estimate concordance, heritability, shared and non-shared environmental effects. Twins raised apart are also scientifically powerful but rare, but you can't control shared environment which is a downside.
0
reply
Vetofferholder1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 months ago
#18
(Original post by chazwomaq)
You're directly contradicting yourself.
Nope I’m not… can you not read? I never said they are the same thing however the biological approach in regard to twin studies is solely based on genetics.

As I said, if you don’t like what the a level syllabus teaches I suggest you go to the exam boards.
Last edited by Vetofferholder1; 2 months ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Feeling behind at school/college? What is the best thing your teachers could to help you catch up?

Extra compulsory independent learning activities (eg, homework tasks) (15)
6.73%
Run extra compulsory lessons or workshops (34)
15.25%
Focus on making the normal lesson time with them as high quality as possible (38)
17.04%
Focus on making the normal learning resources as high quality/accessible as possible (34)
15.25%
Provide extra optional activities, lessons and/or workshops (59)
26.46%
Assess students, decide who needs extra support and focus on these students (43)
19.28%

Watched Threads

View All