# Where is the line drawn between genetics and free will?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 4, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054 "2005-01-04T17:17:43Z")
**Posts on this page:** 15
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Dragwyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dragwyr)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/1 "2005-01-04T17:17:43Z")
Since I don’t want to hijack [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=295119) about the recent discovery of the, “God” gene, I thought I would start a new one here.
In that thread I had posted the following:
> [@](#):
>
> Sure let’s blame genetic makeup for all of our behaviors. What’s next? The “Laziness” gene that makes people not want to go out and get a job? “Hey I would love to be employed, but my genetic makeup prevents me from doing so.” How about those that have criminal tendancies: “I would love to be a law abiding citizen, but my genes just make me want to go out and stab somone 25 times.”
>
> Now we have research suggesting that belief in a higher spiritual power is based on our genetic makeup. Yes, advances in genetic research have greatly improved modern medicine, but where is the line that separates behavior due to genetics from behavior I choose to do?
Cisco replied with:
> [@](#):
>
> Not that I believe (heh, heh) in the “god gene” as of now, but this line of reasoning is wrong.
>
> Should we draw a line where we say “OK, we no longer like the results of this research, so it’s wrong.”?
I’m not saying we should stop researching it just because the line of reasoning is wrong. I’m looking at it from the standpoint that it appears that lots of things nowadays are being blamed on genetic makeup: Criminal behavior, sexuality, spirituality. It seems to me that it is only a matter of time before we start blaming EVERYTHING on genetic makeup.
“Oh, my social skills are really bad because of my genes.”
“I can’t do well in school because my genes don’t let me study well.”
It seems like it’s the perfect excuse.
As human beings, the thing that **usually** \* distinguishes us from all other life on earth is our capacity for reason and learning; the ability to think things through, figure out problems, and makes intellegent choices in our actions. The recent research in genetics is saying that certain behaviors are programmed into us and that we have no control over them.
I’m not denying the evidence, but what I am wondering is where is the line drawn between genetic influenced behavior and behavior done by choice or “Free will”?
---
### Author:  [@Dragwyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dragwyr)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/2 "2005-01-04T17:20:54Z")
> [@Dragwyr](#):
>
> As human beings, the thing that **usually** \* distinguishes us from all other life on earth is our capacity for reason and learning; the ability to think things through, figure out problems, and makes intellegent choices in our actions. The recent research in genetics is saying that certain behaviors are programmed into us and that we have no control over them.
Sorry I forgot my footnote:
\*Discounting the people that truely ARE dumber than a box of rocks (You know who they are! :D)
---
### Author:  [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/3 "2005-01-04T17:34:55Z")
Is there a verb for this? Have I been Great Debated? 😃
Seriously, what you’re talking about here is a bit of the old Free Will Vs. Determinism/Behaviorism with a side of Nature Vs. Nurture argument.
Science, religion, and philosophy have all been trying to solve this for centuries, and all three think _they_ are the ones who are right. Personally, I’m a man of science, and while we aren’t exactly miles ahead in the race right now, I see science as the only one of the three to be trying to solve problems based on _new_ evidence and knowledge.
If you’re really interested, and aren’t familiar with these arguments, try doing a search here and maybe a few Google searches.
---
### Author:  [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/4 "2005-01-04T18:04:30Z")
Take a look at the results of studies of the personality traits of identical twins reared together and apart — and afterwards, if one still contends that our genetic make-up doesn’t very likely play a **significant** role in our personality – I’d like to see the evidence otherwise. Sure - you can remain undecided, using all sorts of ‘what ifs,’ but to contend that genetic likely does NOT play a role just can’t be supported with anything credible. And ‘otherwise’ that person is probably on a slow boat down da-Nile -
[http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/bouchard-twins.html](http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/bouchard-twins.html)
> [@](#):
>
> **Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota study of twins reared apart.**
>
> Since 1979, a continuing study of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, separated in infancy and reared apart, has subjected more than 100 sets of reared-apart twins or triplets to a week of intensive psychological and physiological assessment. Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation. **On multiple measures of personality and temperament, occupational and leisure-time interests, and social attitudes, monozygotic twins reared apart are about as similar as are monozygotic twins reared together. These findings extend and support those from numerous other twin, family, and adoption studies.** It is a plausible hypothesis that genetic differences affect psychological differences largely indirectly, by influencing the effective environment of the developing child. This evidence for the strong heritability of most psychological traits, sensibly construed, does not detract from the value or importance of parenting, education, and other propaedeutic interventions.
>
> Monozygotic and dizygotic twins who were separated early in life and reared apart (MZA and DZA twin pairs) are a fascinating experiment of nature. They also provide the simplest and most powerful method for disentangling the influence of environmental and genetic factors on human characteristics. The rarity of twins reared apart explains why only three previous studies of modest scope are available in the literature [1-4].
>
> More than 100 sets of reared-apart twins or triplets from across the United States and the United Kingdom have participated in the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart since it began in 1979. Participants have also come from Australia, Canada, China, New Zealand, Sweden, and West Germany. **The study of these reared-apart twins has led to two general and seemingly remarkable conclusions concerning the sources of the psychological differences - behavioral variation - between people: (i) generic factors exert a pronounced and pervasive influence on behavioral variability, and (ii) the effect of being reared in the same home is negligible for many psychological traits.**
---
### Author:  [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/5 "2005-01-04T18:42:57Z")
From an article in an August 1997 _Psychology Today_ citing twin studies and providing a summary of the findings - Again, about personality traits, including “religiosity” -
> [@](#):
>
> **Political and social attitudes** , ranging from divorce to the death penalty, were found to have a strong genetic influence in one Australian study. A Swedish study found genes significantly influenced two of the so-called “big five” personality traits “openness to experience” and “conscientiousness” while environment had little impact. In contrast, environment influenced “agreeableness” more than genes did. (The two other traits are “neuroticism” and “extroversion.”) Another study, at the University of Texas at Austin, found that personality in identicals correlated 50 percent, in fraternals about 25 percent.
>
> **Body fat is under genetic influence.** Identical twins reared together will have the same amount of body fat 75 percent of the time; for those reared apart it’s 61 percent, showing a heavy genetic and mild environmental influence, according to a 1991 study.
>
> **Both optimism and pessimism** are heavily influenced by genes, but shared environment influences only optimism, not pessimism, according to a study of 522 pairs of middle aged identical and fraternal twins. Thus family life and genes can be equal contributors to an optimistic outlook, which influences both mental and physical health. But pessimism seems largely controlled by genes.
>
> **Religiosity is influenced by genes.** Identical and fraternal twins, raised together and apart, demonstrate that 50 percent of religiosity (demonstrated by religious conviction and church attendance) can be attributed to genes.
>
> **Sexual orientation is under genetic influence** , though not solely, according to studies by Michael Bailey, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University. In one study he found that if one identical twin is gay, the other is also gay 50 percent of the time. However, when Bailey analyzed a sample of 5,000 twins from the Australian twin registry, the genetic impact was less. In identical male twins, if one was gay the likelihood of his twin being gay was 20 percent; in fraternal twins the likelihood was almost zero. In women, there was little evidence of heritability for homosexuality.
>
> **When substance abuse was studied** in 295 identical and fraternal twin pairs, year of birth was the most powerful predictor of drug use. Younger twins were most likely to have abused drugs, reflecting widespread drug use in the culture at large. Alcoholism, however, has a significant genetic component, according to Andrew Heath, Ph.D., at the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine.
>
> **Attention deficit disorder** may be influenced by genes 70 percent of the time, according to Lindon Eaves, M.D., director of the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics. Eaves and colleagues studied 1,400 families of twins and found genetic influence on “all the juvenile behavior disorders,” usually in the range of 30 to 50 percent.
>
> **Twins tend to start dating, to marry, and to start having children** at about the same time. David Lykken, Ph.D., and Matthew McGue, Ph.D., at the University of Minnesota, found that if an identical twin had divorced, there was a 45 percent chance the other had also. For fraternals, the chance was 30 percent. The researchers think this is due to inherited personality traits.
>
> **Schizophrenia occurs more often in identical twins** , and if one twin suffers from the disorder, the children of the healthy identical sibling are also at greater risk, according to psychiatrist Irving Gottesman, M.D., of the University of Virginia. The risk is about twice as high for the children of a twin whose identical counterpart is ill, as it is for the children of a twin whose fraternal counterpart is ill.
---
### Author:  [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/6 "2005-01-04T19:24:00Z")
> [@Dragwyr](#):
>
> “Oh, my social skills are really bad because of my genes.”
>
> “I can’t do well in school because my genes don’t let me study well.”
>
> It seems like it’s the perfect excuse.
>
> As human beings, the thing that **usually** \* distinguishes us from all other life on earth is our capacity for reason and learning; the ability to think things through, figure out problems, and makes intellegent choices in our actions. The recent research in genetics is saying that certain behaviors are programmed into us and that we have no control over them.
>
> I’m not denying the evidence, but what I am wondering is where is the line drawn between genetic influenced behavior and behavior done by choice or “Free will”?
Genetics is not an excuse, it is an attempt to understand why things work. _However_ dedicated, intelligently applied attempts to overcome our genetic shortcomings can have an influence in life too.
All the info I’ve read says genetics is about 50-60% responsible for personality traits. With therapy and pharmacology these traits can probably be exaggerated or minimized but to ignore the roles of genetics helps no one. My understanding was that genetics sets a baseline. With pharmacology and therapy and personal attempts you can move in one direction or the other, but the farther you get from your baseline the more resistance you encounter to go back. That is my understanding at least.
Take obesity. Obesity is [75-80%](http://win.niddk.nih.gov/notes/spring00/toppage2.htm) due to genes based on identical twin studies. However, those studies were done on identical twins with nearly identical western lifestyles. However I read a book at the library that also looked at twins with different lifestyles the role of genetics drops to 10-20% (which I guess means that only 10-20% of their weight is due to genes, the other 80-90% is due to lifestyle). In 30 years when pharmacology and our understanding of nutrition is even better even people with horrible genes will be able to overcome them. Even today even if your genes are horrible you can still get surgery and overcome obesity. I’m trying to remember the name of the book that said this but I can’t remember offhand. Obesity may not be a good example though since obesity is relatively easy to treat (at least compared to something like depression or how shy you are).
What i’ve always wondered is what is the role of genes when pharmacology and therapy are applied? Some things like IQ cannot be changed as of yet, but other traits like depression have at least some treatments that can work. What role does genetics play when a person decides to actually attempt to change how they act and think? In a way it seems like genetics is just what you’re stuck with if you don’t try to change, not your destiny.
Also there was a really good special on identical twins a few months ago on I think discovery health. Identical twins would meet blind dates and they would find the same people attractive as their twin, or they would go to restaurants and order the same food without knowing the other person was ordering it too. So the role of genetics may be even more insidious than is currently known.
---
### Author:  [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/7 "2005-01-04T19:36:41Z")
It is overly simplistic to say that genes determine behavior. Genes PREDISPOSITION you for certain things by providing you with a set of physical and mental tools - intelligence, strength, height, stamina, etc. Given the same characterists, it is reasonable that two people would take similar paths or have similar interests for the same reason that two identical sports cars would perform similarly. For example, two very tall twins might find that they share an affinity for basketball.
30-50% tells me that there is still a great deal of room for individual decision making as well as other factors involved.
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/8 "2005-01-04T20:35:07Z")
Steven Pinker, in his book _The Blank Slate_ covered topic similar to this. He cited the “Three Laws of Behavior Genetics” by Eric Turkheimer. The three laws are (pg 373):[ul][li]The First Law: All human behavioral traits are heritable[/li][li]The Second Law: The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of the genes.[/li][li]The Third Law: A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.[/ul][/li]What follows is an explanation of each of the laws, how traits are studied, etc. that I’m not going to copy here. At the end of the passage he writes (pg 380-1):
> [@Steven Pinker](#):
>
> A handy summary of the three laws is this: Genes 50 percent, Shared Environment 0 percent, Unique Environment 50 percent (or if you want to be charitable, Genes 40-50 percent, Shared Environment 0-10 percent, Unique Environment 50 percent). A simple way of remembering what we are trying to exlain is this: identical twins are 50 percent similar whether they grow up together or apart. Keep this in mind and watch what happens to you favorite ideas about the effects of upbringing in childhood.
And I should post a couple definitions:
> [@](#):
>
> The _shared_ environment is what impinges on us and our siblings alike: our parents, our home life, and our neighborhood (as compared with other parents and neighborhoods in the sample). The _nonshared_ or _unique_ environment is everything else: anything that impinges on one sibling but not another, including parental favoritism (Mom always liked you best), the presence of other siblings, unique experiences like falling off a bicycle or being infected by a virus, and for that matter anything that happens to us over the course of our lives that does not necessarily happen to our siblings.
(Note, any errors in the quoted passages are probably mine)
So, the answer is that, yes, genes do play a substantial role in personality, but no, they don’t determine personality. The fact is that genes _cannot_ be causally sufficient to any personal actions–and in some cases they may not even be necessary.
Steven Pinker brought up appeals to genetic determinism in his book, and he made a particularly apt point. After giving several examples of people attempting to excuse their behavior on the basis of causal factors, he states, “Something has gone terribly wrong. It is the confusion of _explanation_ with _exculpation_. Contrary to what is implied by critics of biological _and_ environmental theories of the causes of behavior, to explain behavior is not to exonerate the behavior” (pg 179). Learning about the causes of bad behavior doesn’t make the behavior less wrong, but it might give us new tools to help change their course and make their behavior right.
---
### Author:  [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/9 "2005-01-04T21:59:25Z")
> [@Dr. Love](#):
>
> …Steven Pinker brought up appeals to genetic determinism in his book, and he made a particularly apt point. After giving several examples of people attempting to excuse their behavior on the basis of causal factors, he states, “Something has gone terribly wrong. It is the confusion of _explanation_ with _exculpation_. Contrary to what is implied by critics of biological _and_ environmental theories of the causes of behavior, to explain behavior is not to exonerate the behavior” (pg 179). Learning about the causes of bad behavior doesn’t make the behavior less wrong, but it might give us new tools to help change their course and make their behavior right.
Right, and in the same book by Steven Pinker - he discusses why some critics continue to treat this subject like a political issue rather than a scientific one. It appears that the results of evolutionary psychology are being attacked by both the political left AND right. The religious right hates anything ‘evolution’ for obvious reasons. The radicals on the left fear that the findings of evolutionary psychology will provide _justification_ for all sorts of social evils – and as such, certain theories of evolutionary psychology are fair game for all sorts of misrepresentations - like ‘charges’ of “genetic determinism.” An argument which no one makes. There tends to be a lot of emotional and misrepresenting words when discussing a topic like this one.
At the end of it all however - we are still a “_human_ animal” and as such have an awareness of who we are, others, our surroundings, and can even consider the consequences of an action that has yet to occur. Simply because desires like social status, or an inclination toward aggression, or the desire to acquire beyond our needs, may be a product of evolution, DOES NOT mean that “human animals,” once they reflect on themselves and the situation, can’t make decisions contrary to our ‘natural inclinations.’
Frankly, I believe that evolutionary psychology is the gateway to self-understanding — as well as understanding others and the social frameworks we all do it in. If so, it’s also the gateway to the solutions to some of the problems –
---
### Author:  [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/10 "2005-01-04T22:37:07Z")
You gotta prove we _have_ free will before you can discuss with any certainty what our genome contributes to enabling or limiting FW. Assuming we do have FW, I can’t imagine that genes could be said to completely negate it any more than any other aspect of our lives we have no control over. Sure, maybe you’re born smart or gay or pretty or what-have-you, but you would still be able to act as a “free agent” within the parameters those pre-determined traits set for you in the game of life (presuming, of course, those traits can be said to be truly or purely pre-determined). Hell, where and when you’re born can have a huge impact on what decisions you make thenceforth, and you can’t choose that parameter; so there’s no reason to presume our genetic makeup is really any more significant.
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)
#### Post date: [January 4, 2005, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/11 "2005-01-04T23:01:19Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#):
>
> Right, and in the same book by Steven Pinker - he discusses why some critics continue to treat this subject like a political issue rather than a scientific one. It appears that the results of evolutionary psychology are being attacked by both the political left AND right.
He makes that point multiple times throughout the book. Did I imply otherwise? I certainly didn’t mean to.
> [@](#):
>
> The radicals on the left fear that the findings of evolutionary psychology will provide _justification_ for all sorts of social evils – and as such, certain theories of evolutionary psychology are fair game for all sorts of misrepresentations - like ‘charges’ of “genetic determinism.” An argument which no one makes. There tends to be a lot of emotional and misrepresenting words when discussing a topic like this one.
Maybe I’m reading the OP wrong. If I am than I apologize and withdraw from the thread. However, I read statements like these:
“The recent research in genetics is saying that certain behaviors are programmed into us and that **we have no control over them** ”, " It seems to me that it is only a matter of time before we start **blaming EVERYTHING** on genetic makeup", “…where is the line drawn between genetic influenced behavior and behavior done by choice or ‘Free will’” [my emphasis]
as a question about genetic determinism. My response was that genetic determinism doesn’t exist.
> [@](#):
>
> At the end of it all however - we are still a “_human_ animal” and as such have an awareness of who we are, others, our surroundings, and can even consider the consequences of an action that has yet to occur. Simply because desires like social status, or an inclination toward aggression, or the desire to acquire beyond our needs, may be a product of evolution, DOES NOT mean that “human animals,” once they reflect on themselves and the situation, can’t make decisions contrary to our ‘natural inclinations.’
>
> Frankly, I believe that evolutionary psychology is the gateway to self-understanding — as well as understanding others and the social frameworks we all do it in. If so, it’s also the gateway to the solutions to some of the problems –
Exactly the point I was trying (and failing, apparently) to make.
---
### Author:  [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)
#### Post date: [January 5, 2005, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/12 "2005-01-05T10:22:51Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#):
>
> Genetics is not an excuse, it is an attempt to understand why things work. _However_ dedicated, intelligently applied attempts to overcome our genetic shortcomings can have an influence in life too.
>
> All the info I’ve read says genetics is about 50-60% responsible for personality traits. With therapy and pharmacology these traits can probably be exaggerated or minimized but to ignore the roles of genetics helps no one. My understanding was that genetics sets a baseline. With pharmacology and therapy and personal attempts you can move in one direction or the other, but the farther you get from your baseline the more resistance you encounter to go back. That is my understanding at least.
>
> Take obesity. Obesity is [75-80%](http://win.niddk.nih.gov/notes/spring00/toppage2.htm) due to genes based on identical twin studies. However, those studies were done on identical twins with nearly identical western lifestyles. However I read a book at the library that also looked at twins with different lifestyles the role of genetics drops to 10-20% (which I guess means that only 10-20% of their weight is due to genes, the other 80-90% is due to lifestyle). In 30 years when pharmacology and our understanding of nutrition is even better even people with horrible genes will be able to overcome them. Even today even if your genes are horrible you can still get surgery and overcome obesity. I’m trying to remember the name of the book that said this but I can’t remember offhand. Obesity may not be a good example though since obesity is relatively easy to treat (at least compared to something like depression or how shy you are).
Agree 100% here. For instance, the part about the dating, marriage and having children. In the Netherlands, the average age for women to have their first child is now just above 30. In the U.S., it is more than 10 years earlier. Wanna make a bet that separated twins raised in the U.S. and the Netherlands are going to follow this?
> [@](#):
>
> What i’ve always wondered is what is the role of genes when pharmacology and therapy are applied? Some things like IQ cannot be changed as of yet
You bet it can. IQ only measures a child’s development against a certain average, set at 100. It really doesn’t measure intelligence. A lot of attempts have been made to make the test less dependent of culture, but the fact of the matter is so far nearly anyone can be trained to score tens of points higher for nearly every test out there, and IQ tests for Adults are even more useless than they are for children, as IQ was devised to measure only the development of mental skills in children, so set against the timeframe of development into adulthood.
> [@](#):
>
> but other traits like depression have at least some treatments that can work. What role does genetics play when a person decides to actually attempt to change how they act and think? In a way it seems like genetics is just what you’re stuck with if you don’t try to change, not your destiny.
> [@](#):
>
> Also there was a really good special on identical twins a few months ago on I think discovery health. Identical twins would meet blind dates and they would find the same people attractive as their twin, or they would go to restaurants and order the same food without knowing the other person was ordering it too. So the role of genetics may be even more insidious than is currently known.
There are definitely some interesting genetical issues going on. For instance, I remember my ex-girlfriend telling me that the immune system determines for a large part how you smell, and that the more different immune systems people have, the more they are attracted to each other’s smell.
But the current twin research is in most cases still far to limited. It’s going to be really interesting once the exact causes for behaviour are known. (And with the brain being quickly unraveled, I actually don’t think we are that far off, scary as that may be for many.)
While the lizard brain definitely has a serious impact, the power of our rationale and culture is huge. Just consider the immense impact of being raised in different languages, or without language for that matter.
---
### Author:  [@ninetypercent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ninetypercent)
#### Post date: [January 5, 2005, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/13 "2005-01-05T11:56:37Z")
What free will? You can’t choose your inclinations. You can’t choose the intensity of those inclinations. You can’t choose the environment that will determine how your genetics form your character. The information in your body that is used to make choices has already been completely filtered before it’s possible to be aware of it.
Assuming we CAN make a conscious decision… even then, it is very limited by pre-determined factors. Most things are decided automatically. A small portion of that information is ambiguous enough that we need to conscious of it at all. There is no time in your life that you can choose anything based on “clean” data.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [January 5, 2005, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/14 "2005-01-05T12:13:53Z")
I consider the ‘will’ to be an [illusion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=291063), at least the ‘will’ of everyday language: We are biological computers who output decisions based on prior inputs (senses, memory, chemical emotion and the like).
Our genes (‘nature’) determine the hardware on which these calculations are performed (even if they are deterministic but _non-algorithmic_, rather like triple billiard-ball collisions) - if you like, the plasticity and potential of the computer. Our environment (‘nurture’) provides the _inputs_ to the calculations.
Some computers output utterly different decisions to others even given very similar inputs. Some computers output similar decisions even after vastly different inputs.
The conglomeration of computers called “society” itself offers important **if…then** type inputs, most notably in the forms of the criminal justice system and the free market. However, there will still always be computers for whom such programming fails to eradicate the output of decisions which society finds undesirable.
---
### Author:  [@Jake\_the\_Plumber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jake_the_Plumber)
#### Post date: [January 5, 2005, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-line-drawn-between-genetics-and-free-will/283054/15 "2005-01-05T12:23:20Z")
> [@Dragwyr](#):
>
> It seems to me that it is only a matter of time before we start blaming EVERYTHING on genetic makeup.
>
> “Oh, my social skills are really bad because of my genes.”
>
> “I can’t do well in school because my genes don’t let me study well.”
>
> It seems like it’s the perfect excuse.
There is a difference between something being caused by something (positive), and something being an excuse for something (negative).
One can have really poor social skills because of a gene, or not study well because of a gene. It isn’t an “excuse” until it is used tp avoid some duty or obligation related to it. The idea is that by scientifically identiifying these genes, they can be caught early and perhaps better treatment for the conditions (say, schizophrenia or ADHD or autism).
On your note on free will, a schizophrenic’s will isn’t taken away because they have schizophrenia. Free will is decision making based on the result of previous life experience. An irregular gene is just another factor in decision making.