Sociogenic Brain Damage*

Montagu, Ashley

doi:10.1525/aa.1972.74.5.02a00010

Cited by 25 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One can only say that those relationships are consistent with the bidirectional influences stated in the probabilistic formula Genetic Activity $ Structure $ Function presented in Gottlieb (1976, p. 218) and elaborated in Gottlieb (1991, see especially Appendix, p. 13). As I have described in detail elsewhere (e.g., Gottlieb, 1992Gottlieb, , 1997, the formulation of probabilistic epigenesis was built on the writings of Kuo (1976), Lehrman (1970), Montagu (1977), and Schneirla (1960).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normally Occurring Environmental and Behavioral Influences on Gene Activity

Gottlieb¹

2010

Handbook of Developmental Science, Behavior, and Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central dogma of molecular biology holds that ''information'' flows from the genes to the structure of the proteins that the genes bring about through the formula DNA ! RNA ! Protein. In this view, a set of master genes activates the DNA necessary to produce the appropriate proteins that the organism needs during development. In contrast to this view, probabilistic epigenesis holds that necessarily there are signals from the internal and external environment that activate DNA to produce the appropriate proteins. To support this view, a substantial body of evidence is reviewed showing that external environmental influences on gene activation are normally occurring events in a large variety of organisms, including humans. This demonstrates how genes and environments work together to produce functional organisms, thus extending the author's model of probabilistic epigenesis.The new discipline of the genetics of behaviour, to judge by some recent books, is caught in the dogmas of Mendelian genetics without regard to developments in modem genetics during the last ten years, and to modern experimental approaches to the genetic roots of behaviour. Books on the subject usually begin with an account of the principles of Mendelian genetics. The material on behaviour deals mainly with mutated animals and their observed changes in behaviour. That is exactly what genetic principles predict. If an important mutation should not be followed by a change in behaviour -then geneticists would have to worry about the validity of the principles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normally Occurring Environmental and Behavioral Influences on Gene Activity

Gottlieb¹

2010

Handbook of Developmental Science, Behavior, and Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results may be broadly generalizable to the disadvantaged strata of our and other societies which are locked into recurrent cycles of poor‐quality life experiences. We are reminded of a chapter by Ashley Montagu (1977) in which he described the phenomenon of ‘sociogenic brain damage,’ deriving from inadequate or impoverished life experiences in the early years:…”

Section: Irremediable Cognitive Deficits Stemming From Early Deprivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Various Roles of Animal Models in Understanding Human Development

Gottlieb

Lickliter

2004

Social Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the authors take a very conservative view of the contribution of animal models to an understanding of human development. We do not think that homologies can be readily documented with even our most closely related relatives' behavior and psychological functioning. The major contribution of animal models is their provision of food for thought (hypotheses, not facts) about human development and general principles of development, and we describe some of the more significant and interesting of these at length. We also briefly discuss the other applications of animal research toward understanding the development and evolution of behavior, more generally speaking.Keywords: animal models; comparative psychology; principles of development; evolution of behaviorThe comparative behavioral and psychological study of animals is a wide-ranging enterprise that has very general ramifications for developmental and evolutionary theory. Since many readers who work in the field of human development may think that the main reason for doing experiments with animals is to shed light on seemingly related behavior in human beings, a major goal of this article is to point out that that is only one purpose of the study of animals. There are three other quite distinct purposes of the study of comparative psychology: (a) a description of similarities and differences in the behavior and psychological capacities of various species, without regard to their evolutionary relationship; this approach reveals broad trends in psychological evolution that transcend particular lineages (Rensch, 1959); (b) a description of similarities and differences in species that are closely related in an evolutionary sense, with the objective of trying to interpret the evolution of a particular behavior, and (c) a description of the species-typical behavior of animals in the field, which is aimed at revealing adaptations peculiar to each species in their usual habitat. Finally, there is (d) the more well-known animal model approach, which aims to find nonhuman species with behavioral or psychological repertories that are similar to humans

show abstract

“…This study has become something of a classic in the nature-nurture controversy. It is generally claimed to be an example of the interaction of heredity and environment (e.g., Carlson, 1987;Eysenck, 1971;Fernald & Fernald, 1985;Fessler & Beatty, 1976;Finger, 1978;Gottesman, 1963aGottesman, , 1968Heaton & Klein, 1981;Henderson, 1970;Isaacson & Hartesveldt, 1978;Jensen, 1969;Kimble, Garmezy, & Zigler, 1984;Li, 1978;Montagu, 1972;Pettigrew, 1964;Risch, 1979;Roediger, Rushton, Capaldi, & Paris, 1987). However, not all concur that Cooper & Zubek (1958) illustrate a genotypeenvironment interaction (e.g., Ferchmin, Eterovic, & Levin, 1980;Myslivecek & Stipek, 1979;Rajalakshmi & Jeeves, 1968;and, in particular, Throne, 1975).…”

Section: Support From Animal Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Norm-of-reaction: Definition and misinterpretation of animal research.

Platt¹,

Sanislow²

1988

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of a phenotype is due to an interaction of the genotype with the environment. Two terms have been used to describe the outcome of this interaction, the norm-of-reaction and the reaction range. The first represents the theoretically limitless distribution of the phenotypes that may be expressed by a given genotype. The reaction range implies an upper and lower limit for phenotype expression possible from a given genotype. A critical distinction between the reaction range and the norm-of-reaction is that the norm-of-reaction is a statement of the conceivable interactions found but does not imply any predictability other than that within the conditions previously tested experimentally, that is, the tails of a normal distribution are infinitely variable, whereas the concept of reaction range implies a limitation inherent in the genotype, that is, a finite range. Empirical support for the reaction-range concept is questionable. Animal studies cited in support of the reaction range have been inappropriately and incorrectly interpreted.

show abstract

Sociogenic Brain Damage*

Cited by 25 publications

References 53 publications

Normally Occurring Environmental and Behavioral Influences on Gene Activity

Normally Occurring Environmental and Behavioral Influences on Gene Activity

The Various Roles of Animal Models in Understanding Human Development

Norm-of-reaction: Definition and misinterpretation of animal research.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About