A mini-course of influence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As a general principle, to effectively gauge the influence of a concept’s different features, you need a correct categorization. If the features are handled inappropriately, the concept might seem to be uninfluential while much of its possible infuence stays hidden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For instance, the demonstrated <\/em>impact of stress on some diseases may be nihil. Even so, a correct distinction between eustress and distress may reveal huge influences for good and bad that are missed in the simple blob-like concept of \u2018stress.\u2019 Note that such a distinction is only the beginning of a meaningful path<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The same happens with parenting. Without proper insight into what is essential, gauging nurture\u2018s influence on children is challenging. Of course, herein lies a catch-22. Without proper insight, the science is difficult to start with. Meanwhile, several improper categorizations of stress \u2013 or parenting \u2013 may lead to proof that little influence can be found. More precisely, little can be found within this way of handling it<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nature as dictator<\/strong>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last few years, scientists have delved into the genetic factors of mental conditions, helped by the human genome project and much epidemiology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Genetics appears to be much more influential on many mental issues than thought before. On average, its influence seems to be bigger than other factors combined<\/em> \u2015 such as trauma, family, or psychotherapy. Moreover, these may have just a temporary influence. [*]<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, little room for mental growth?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Or does the purported genetic influence result largely from 1) a flaw in measurement methodology (things we don\u2019t measure because they are difficult to measure) and 2) cultural blindness for influential elements (things we don\u2019t even realize) in constructs such as education and stress?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mental growth<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This can be seen from two viewpoints:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dear reader, if you notice the convergence of these viewpoints, then you know that I\u2019m smiling at you right now beyond place and time. My further thought is that when this convergence is genuinely achieved, it\u2019s also durable and eventually most healthy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Where there are humans, there is the possibility of mental growth more or less everywhere. However, this may melt into the statistics because<\/em> it\u2019s everywhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If we don\u2019t measure it, we don\u2019t see it \u2015 at least not scientifically. The same happened with genetics, which we largely didn\u2019t see before measuring it more precisely since a few years. Back then, it melted into the statistics and left many \u2018environmentalists\u2019 thinking that the environment was everything. Since then, the research pendulum has swung toward the genes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, not measuring mental growth\u2019s durable influence<\/a> doesn\u2019t mean it doesn\u2019t exist. We just don\u2019t know from measuring \u2015 as straightforward as that. Mental growth is notoriously difficult to handle feature-wise. Therefore, to say that it cannot substantially influence a person\u2019s behavior or even a person as such in the long term is premature at best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second part of the mini-course<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Say, you see a correlation of 70% for the genetics of obesity (as Plomin [*] does) in different families, and perhaps a correlation of 10-20% for known mental factors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But say, you then discover an interesting mental factor (mental growth related?) accounting for a 50% correlation if realized<\/em>. If you consistently realize this, the genetic factor drops from 70% to 35%. The prior 70% was related to that time\u2019s situation, not to any<\/em> situation. By realizing the mental factor, you just changed the situation and reduced the leeway for genetics with 50%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, genetics is (mostly) fixed and cannot be less or further realized. It can only follow the situation made by the changeable factors. For instance, if you deprive everybody of almost all food (changeable factor), then all are thin. The deprivation then plays for 99% and genetics plays in the entirety of this situation only for 1% instead of a 70% correlation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lisa vs. genetics<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Lisa supports mental growth by either acting within natural boundaries or uniquely relaying them \u2015 not by hitting them but by pushing gently and effectively. There is in such growth no fight against nature but a support of the same<\/a>. Hopefully, this will be realized for many people and thus have a widespread influence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, Lisa-based science is Real-World Evidence that can go from \u2018big data\u2019 directly to \u2018big knowledge,\u2019 enabling the discernment of relevant features\/categorizations with lasting influence. May this make the pendulum swing again, this time to a rightful synthesis of growth and genes?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Might this open doors toward more growth to happiness<\/a>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2015 <\/p>\n\n\n\n [*] Robert Plomin, Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are<\/em>, 2019<\/p>\n