Personality trait or mental disorder?

[nonsequitur]

Came across an article that I thought was very pertinent to this site:

Personality trait or mental disorder? The same genes may weigh in on both Personality trait or mental disorder? The same genes may weigh in on both - LA Times

Aggregating the genetic profiles of close to 261,000 people, a UCSD team led by neuroscientist Chi-Hua Chen has identified six regions of the human genome that are significantly linked to specific personality traits. And when they compared the genetic regions linked to certain personality traits with the genetic sites that can be linked to certain psychiatric disorders, they found some remarkable points of overlap.

Take, for instance, “neuroticism,” one of the “big five” personality traits that psychologists use to measure and describe the fixed behavioral tendencies that collectively make up our personalities. Someone who scores high in neuroticism is generally given to negative emotions such as sadness or anger or dread, whereas someone who scores low on this trait has a generally sunny disposition.

Psychologists have known for many years that high levels of neuroticism predispose a person to depression and anxiety. But Chen and her team found that, in the huge population for which they had detailed genetic information, the places on the genome where variations predicted neuroticism were the same places where variations appeared that were linked to major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.

The UCSD team also found a link between extraversion – a tendency to be talkative, friendly and highly social – and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Several of the sites on the genome that Chen’s team found to be associated with extraversion were the same sites that genetic studies have linked to ADHD.

Chen’s team also found “openness,” another of the five traits that psychologists use to define our personalities, to be closely linked to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In these large groups of people studied, the researchers found that those who are intellectually curious, highly creative, risk-taking and generally open to new experiences tend to have genetic variations in predictable places on the genome. But they also found that people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder tend to have genetic variations in those same places on the genome.

To hunt for these patterns, called “genome-wide associations,” the UCSD team combed through data from four large troves of genetic data. Those came from the commercial genomics service, 23andMe; from the Europe-based Genetics of Personality Consortium; from British-based Biobank and from Decode Genetics, an Iceland-based human genetics company.

The group’s findings were published this week in the journal Nature Genetics.

Scores on two of the big five personality traits did not show any association with mental illnesses. Those were agreeableness (an inclination toward cooperative and compassionate behavior) and conscientiousness (a tendency to act responsibly and exercise self-discipline).

Findings like this might go a long way toward confirming some of our gut instincts about some mental disorders – that schizophrenia and bipolar disorder seem to be concentrated among “creative” types, and that ADHD might just be too much of a thing – friendliness – that we usually value highly. But they should also help confirm the idea that nature deals us with some very strong behavioral predispositions that nurture – the circumstances in which we live – can only channel in different directions.

 

[prplchknz]

from my understanding that most disorders have more to do with whether or not that trait impedes functioning and/or causes distress whether socially, academically, or generally and two people can have those same traits but if one is able to function and doesn't cause distress they wouldn't be considered as having a disorder, while someone else has some or all of those issues with distress and functioning then they would probably be considered of having a disorder.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I think personality disorders are just extremes on personality trait spectrums.

 

[chubber]

I think personality disorders are just extremes on personality trait spectrums.

Didn't Jung build his theory on those that were considered... unstable?

 

[Pionart]

I thought it was a fairly obvious possibility that certain disorders would correlate with certain dimensions of personality. The quoted article doesn't say a whole lot.

Like, it's cool that schizophrenia diagnosis correlates with scores in openness, but being highly open doesn't mean a person is on the schizophrenia spectrum.

 

[nonsequitur]

I thought it was a fairly obvious possibility that certain disorders would correlate with certain dimensions of personality. The quoted article doesn't say a whole lot. Like, it's cool that schizophrenia diagnosis correlates with scores in openness, but being highly open doesn't mean a person is on the schizophrenia spectrum.

You missed the part where this is correlated with known genetic markers for disorders. The deeper implication is that not only are we predisposed to certain personality traits, we are diagnosed with disorder when this predisposition is so extreme that it interferes with "normal" functioning.

This also raises questions about "normality", the basis of diagnosis and opens a whole can of worms with regards to IVF, embryo selection etc. it sounds like science fiction, but the tools are all there - CRISPR to selectively edit DNA can easily replace the degree of uncertainty inherent in parents who used to choose donor eggs/sperm of a certain IQ/education level, for example. There are similar gene therapies currently being developed for neurological disorders in adults, for e.g Huntington's Disease.

I won't go on because this can easily become a lecture, but there are many wider implications for people and personality in this research.

 

[chubber]

I think you should go on, what else could we be learning?

 

[nonsequitur]

I think you should go on, what else could we be learning?

There are so many possible angles to take with this, that's why I just posted it and was hoping that people would contribute from different perspectives. I don't really want to lecture, so I'll just raise a few points to aid discussion.

Didn't Jung build his theory on those that were considered... unstable?

I think personality disorders are just extremes on personality trait spectrums.

Exactly. In biology, we often look for the "extremes", what we call a phenotype, to give us some idea of what a particular gene does.

We already know that there is an interaction between genes and environment. Environment also plays a role in how genes are expressed, and this can be inherited. I've shared some information on that in another thread before: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...physiology-world-post2766471.html#post2766471 Personality is so complex, but even it is driven by a genetic disposition. Consider the nurture/parenting angle that advocates (often within a narrow context) how to raise "well-adjusted" kids. What about the drives in different cultures, e.g. to be either more extraverted, or more introverted in order to "fit in" and be "normal". How does this affect kids?

Following from that, the definition/scale of "normality" differs from culture to culture, and the point has been raised above that the "extreme" form of it is often called "disorder". In the context of the facts that disorders are on the extreme side of a scale of personality, intrinsically linked to biology (and with a selective advantage e.g. creativity, friendliness), how does this gel with a world in which people are increasingly diagnosed with disorders?

Another angle involves treatment of individuals with disorders. There is personal context here. I'm speaking from a personal perspective here, as someone who has had a lot of diagnosis/labels heaped on to me. Even when I was suicidal and anxious to the point of being agoraphobic, I was reluctant to try medication because I knew, on a very intuitive level, that what drove me to that point was an important part of myself. I recall telling my psychiatrist that I was afraid that the medication would make me "not myself". From the inside, it didn't feel any different while I was going on it. It was only after I came off it that both my friends and I noted how different I was while medicated. I recognise that it was necessary at that point in time to get me to a place where I could deal with my issues, but again, with so many people being diagnosed, I wonder what medication is doing to our structure of society, perceptions of others and our interactions.

I've also been thinking about Western treatment of mental illness in the context of "normality" after hearing this podcast: The Problem with the Solution : Invisibilia : NPR I highly recommend Invisibilia, but this episode in particular is great because it brings a different perspective to therapy in the context of mental illness existing on the scale of personality traits.

I've already brought up embryo selection and IVF and selection for personality traits in kids, possible treatments for serious mental illness in the form of genetic editing - this implies that when you change that, you change personality too.

Perhaps we can start with those angles first.

 

[Litsnob]

I think it is very important to be able to distinguish between cultural expectations and norms, and what does or does not allow an individual to function and be content. Severe anxiety, depression, being suicidal or being unable to get out of bed, perform self-care, go to school or hold a job or conduct enjoyable activities of the type we would call sports or hobbies, to perform work of any type, these are things that contribute to quality of life as long as basic needs are also met. People who do not have this quality of life due to some sort of thinking malfunction (whether or not that is chemically based or something that can be re-trained through cognitive behavioural therapy) deserve to be helped to achieve that quality of life. If we began to selectively breed to reduce the chances of someone having a mental illness and this meant that we were selectively breeding out certain personality types, that might indeed have an impact on the human race.

Having said that, the human race will eventually die out anyway largely due to faults of its own and I am not getting my knickers in a knot over that fact.

This reminds me of a radio documentary I heard discussing whether or not Down Syndrome should be genetically eliminated. Some people argued that the sweet, gentle happy nature of those with Down Syndrome is an asset to society.