Incomplete Penetrance and the Complexity of Belief
by MikeGeneIn genetics, there is a concept known as penetrance. This concept is typically most relevant with dominant mutations that cause disease and the idea here is that not all genotypes elicit their expected phenotypes. For example, consider the phenonmena of polydactyly in humans. This is where an individual has extra fingers and/or toes. Since this trait is caused by a dominant mutation, you would expect that anyone with the dominant allele would have this trait. Yet this is not always true. The concept of penetrance comes into play when we estimate how many with a particular genotype express the trait. For example, if 90 out of 100 people who are heterozygous have the trait, we'd say the trait is 90% penetrant.
So why is it that many traits show less than 100% penetrance? Two factors come into play "“ the genetic background and the environment. Whether or not a particular allele at a specific locus is expressed can be a function of the expression of other alleles at other loci. Thus, without the right genetic context, a particular genotype may not be expressed. As for environment, it is well known that it can work in conjunction with a genotype to determine whether a particular phenotype is seen. This means that certain traits will be expressed only in the right environmental context.
I mention all of this simply because it makes for a nice metaphor in understanding how humans believe.
Many people share the naïve notion that a powerful argument for X should elicit belief X. If someone is thus presented with argument X, yet fails to adopt belief X, that person is then viewed negatively (i.e., they are stupid, deluded, or dishonest).
But let's assume the argument is the allele (genotype) and the belief is the trait (phenotype). Whether the argument leads to belief depends on the context of background beliefs and experience that already exist (akin to genetic background) and the social setting (the environment). The argument for X may fail to elicit belief X simply because of incomplete penetrance. In such cases, the power of the argument for X is dependent on the context of other beliefs and knowledge and the way belief X plays out in social reality.
Such incomplete penetrance is not stupidity, delusion, or dishonesty. It exists as a function of the Complexity of Belief. We not only believe differently, but we think differently. Thus, an important lesson in life is to realize that other people are not extensions of your self.

























October 15th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
MikeGene writes:
I've just recently, in the past few months, been impressed by the truth of this statement, particularly in the context of worship-style needs — some folks need the "jump and dance and clap" style; some need the "sit quietly and meditate" style. That doesn't mean that one style is right and the other is wrong. I've known one group to condemn the other group because "they're doing it wrong!"
Of course the principle applies in other areas as well. As I read your post it struck me that I see this very often on Slashdot and Digg (two of my fave sites) anytime the discussion turns to creation/evolution/ID. It seems that people (the Darwinistas mostly, in my experience) resort to name-calling and accusing their opponents of stupidity and blindness and "science-bashing". I've been able to see that it's not always a matter of stupidity or ignorance (although sometimes it is), but rather a matter of the person's mental paradigm, or as you put it, the "penetrance" of the idea as filtered by their background environment.
It's rather validating of my increased realization of this principle to see someone else state it. Thanks!
Comment by kenter — October 15, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Hi kenter,
Thanks for commenting. I happen to think this is a very important topic.
Comment by MikeGene — October 16, 2007 @ 9:05 pm