Cape Cod Institute
Behavior OnLine Forums  
The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals.
Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine.

Go Back   Behavior OnLine Forums > BOL Forums > Evolutionary Psychology


Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Unread December 3rd, 2008, 12:11 PM
James Brody James Brody is offline
Forum Leader
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 1,143
Arrow Badcock: A New Split Brain

There are whispers of a fifth edition for psychiatry's Bible, the DSM. They should probably cease efforts and read some of Christopher Badcock's thoughts. That is, Burt and Trivers (2006) had an insightful summary of the differing effects of maternal- and paternal-imprints in certain genes. Earlier this year, I explored some of these ideas in Rebellion as they apply to the phenomena called K- and r-selection and how settled or unsettled environments bias occupants for conservation and stability or for exploration and rapid use of resources. (Many events that characterize modern America are consistent with a K-selected situation under challenge by r-selected invaders!)
An English sociologist, Christopher Badcock, began at a similar point but followed a different path, reclassifying human mental disorders by opposing male-related traits to female-related ones and anchoring the model to an Aspergers and a psychotic spectrum.

There are many implications...

From Badcock: "According to the so-called imprinted brain theory, the paradoxes can be explained in terms of the expression of genes, and not simply their inheritance. Imprinted genes are those which are only expressed when they are inherited from one parent rather than the other. The classic example is IGF2, a growth factor gene only normally expressed when inherited from the father, but silent when inherited from the mother. According to the most widely-accepted theory, genes like IGF2 are silenced by mammalian mothers because only the mother has to pay the costs associated with gestating and giving birth to a large offspring. The father, on the other hand, gets all the benefit of larger offspring, but pays none of the costs. Therefore his copy is activated. The symbolism of a tug-of-war represents the mother's genetic self-interest in countering the growth-enhancing demands of the father's genes expressed in the foetus—the mother, after all, has to gestate and give birth to the baby at enormous cost to herself."

So much for the basic idea. Lots more and worth careful attention at Http://

Background: "In 2006 Bernard Crespi (Killam Research Professor in the Department of Biosciences, Simon Fraser University) and I published a paper in The Journal of Evolutionary Biology setting out the theory in relation to autism. Earlier this year Behavioral and Brain Sciences published a second paper along with 23 expert commentaries and the authors' replies which extends the idea to psychoses like schizophrenia. More recently still, Nature has published our essay on the theory ('Battle of Sexes May Set the Brain, 28August, 2008.'"

See also:
Burt, Austin, & Trivers, Robert (2006) Genes in Conflict: The Biology of Selfish Genetic Elements. Cambridge, MA: Belknap-Harvard.
Haig, D. (2002) Genomic Imprinting and Kinship New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Last edited by James Brody; May 12th, 2009 at 02:14 PM.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.