Behavioral Phenotype?
553678
This is a difficult question, because first you have to pick a behavioral phenotype. One behavioral phenotype is "anxiety" measured by behavioral assays (plus maze or open field). \n\nOne thing that can effect "anxiety" responses on the above mentioned measures is a brief daily separation from the mother early in life. Another factor that could influence these is the  "gentling effect" of repeated handling by the experimenter. These two factors can lead to less "fearful" behavior by the mice when they are tested on the plus maze and open field.
108168
Definitely I think so. Our genes are inherited from them hence we will tend to display their characteristics in our behaviour. I am not sure whether this internet resource would be of any help to you:\nhttp://www.brocku.ca/psychology/courses/outlines2003/parental_characteristics_and_parenting.3P23.pdf#search='can%20parental%20characteristics%20affect%20the%20behaviour%20of%20their%20children?'\n\nIt is in PDF format
187820
Well..if you're trying to clinically assess someone for this condition, you might need a bit more information.  It could be a "Freudian slip", a form of "Apraxia" or what was stated earlier "foot in mouth."
1104016
intelligence, maturity, attitude, looks
832711
There are a lot of tips/ways to evaluate a child's behavior. Just search google and you'll find tons of ideas. Although you might be lucky if you are able to apply and be successful in some of these, mind you, there is no 100% full proof way to diagnose what are we parents doing wrong, what is making the child behave that way and how to correct the problem.\n\nEven if we apply the way we were brought up by our parents, it is no guarantee that our kids will be like us. Good luck!
754576
Power. \n\nI think it's a family trait.
843146
Phenotype\nThe phenotype of an individual organism is either its total physical appearance and constitution or a specific manifestation of a trait, such as size, eye color, or behavior that varies between individuals. Phenotype is determined to some extent by genotype, or by the identity of the alleles that an individual carries at one or more positions on the chromosomes. Many phenotypes are determined by multiple genes and influenced by environmental factors. Thus, the identity of one or a few known alleles does not always enable prediction of the phenotype.\n\nNevertheless, because phenotypes are much easier to observe than genotypes (it doesn't take chemistry or sequencing to determine a person's eye color), classical genetics uses phenotypes to deduce the functions of genes. Breeding experiments can then check these inferences. In this way, early geneticists were able to trace inheritance patterns without any knowledge of molecular biology.\n\nPhenotypic variation (due to underlying heritable genetic variation) is a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection. The fitness of an organism is a high-level phenotype determined by the contributions of thousands of more specific phenotypes. Without phenotypic variation, individual organisms would all have the same fitness, and changes in phenotypic frequency would proceed without any selection (randomly).\n\nThe interaction between genotype and phenotype has often been conceptualized by the following relationship:\n\ngenotype + environment → phenotype \n\nA slightly more nuanced version of the relationships is:\n\ngenotype + environment + random-variation → phenotype \n\nAn example of the importance of random variation in phenotypic expression is Drosophila flies in which number of eyes may vary (randomly) between left and right sides in a single individual as much as they do between different genotypes overall, or between clones raised in different environments.\n\nA phenotype is any detectable characteristic of an organism (i.e., structural, biochemical, physiological and behavioral) determined by an interaction between its genotype and environment (see genotype-phenotype distinction and phenotypic plasticity for a further elaboration of this distinction).\n\nAccording to the autopoietic notion of living systems by Humberto Maturana, the phenotype is epigenetically being constructed throughout ontogeny, and we as observers do the distinctions that define any particular trait at any particular state of the organism's life cycle.\n\nThe idea of the phenotype has been generalized by Richard Dawkins (in The Extended Phenotype) to mean all the effects a gene has on the outside world which may influence its chances of being replicated. These can be effects on the organism in which the gene resides, the environment or other organisms.\n\nand\n\nGenotype\nThe genotype is the specific genetic makeup (the specific genome) of an individual, in the form of DNA. Together with the environmental variation that influences the individual, it codes for the phenotype of that individual. Non-hereditary mutations are not classically understood as representing the individuals' genotype. Hence, scientists and doctors sometimes talk for example about the (geno)type of a particular cancer, thus separating the disease from the diseased. While codons for different amino acids may change in a random mutation (changing the sequence coding a gene), this doesn't necessarily alter the phenotype.\n\nTypically, one refers to an individual's genotype with regard to a particular gene of interest and, in polyploid individuals, it refers to what combination of alleles the individual carries (see homozygous, heterozygous). Any given gene will usually cause an observable change in an organism, known as the phenotype. The terms genotype and phenotype are distinct for at least two reasons:\n\n1. To distinguish the source of an observer's knowledge (one can know about ge
224710
There are at least 200 pages on mind (including animals) in THE URANTIA BOOK.  At least part of the handle for which you are searching will be found there.\n\nI was once a great believer in behavioral phenotypes which I imagined to arise purely from chemical constituents such as DNA....\n\nBut with many more years of investigation, I have found that just as the behavior of our computers is attributable to programmers, so also the behavior of the animals is attributable to their creators.  In this instance living organisms are a substrate of sorts (carefully organized that way) in which higher realities -- mind and spirit -- can have an effect.\n\nNot to the same degree as one finds in humans, nevertheless quite parallel.\n\nWe have animal bodies ourselves, and our development reflects our phylogenetic heritage.  At various stages we share many of the same aspects of mind ministry as the animals have.\n\nBut we can also become philosophical and plan for the future of our children.  Animals are far less self-conscious and lack the potentials necessary for high wisdom or finding God.\n\nAlthough you may think this unscientific, I am a scientist, just an older one.\n\nAnd I am not the first scientist to bring higher concepts into the commentary.\n\nEinstein and Alfred North Whitehead are two others.\n\nThere are quite a few biologists and medical doctors in this category also.\n\nBut again, the best explanation is in the book mentioned.\n\nOne must be humble to enable great learning.
191778
I'm not too sure exactly the kind of information you need, but one book that may shed light on behaviors and how to manage them is: Preventing Classroom Discipline Problems.\n\nAdditionally, I'd read Fred Jone's book TOOLS FOR TEACHING. He provides some answers as to why certain behaviors occur in the classroom.
483943
Here you go! Hope this helps.\n\nhttp://web.uvic.ca/~rburke/burkelab/neuraldevelopment.htm
838096
A. behaviorism\n\nC. wavelenght\n\nD. biological\n\nC. retinal\n\nD clinical\n\nA. ductless\n\nNow, who ever you are, be so good as to go back to the psychology section.
1150347
dark pigments in their skin...a genetic trait
1085039
yes. of  course, it is called animalistic human behavioral characteristical syndome.
553378
Hyperactive behavior commonly refers to a group of characteristics. This can include constant activity, easy distractibility, impulsiveness, inability to concentrate, aggressiveness, and similar behaviors.\n\nTypical behaviors may include fidgeting or constant moving, wandering, excessive talking, and difficulty participating in quiet activities (such as reading).\n\nHyperactivity is not easily defined, because it often depends on the tolerance of the observer. Behavior that seems excessive to one observer may not seem excessive to another. However, certain children -- when compared to others -- are clearly far more active, which can become a problem if it interferes with school work or making friends.\n\nHyperactivity is often considered more of a problem for schools and parents than it is for the affected child. However, many hyperactive children are unhappy or even depressed. Hyperactive behavior may make a child a target for bullying, or make it harder to connect with other children. Schoolwork may be more difficult, and hyperactive kids are frequently punished for their behavior.\n\nHyperkinetic behavior often decreases as the child grows older, and may disappear entirely by adolescence.\n\nCommon Causes:\nAttention deficit disorder \nEmotional disorders \nBrain or central nervous system disorders \nHyperthyroidism
1057596
Wow, it is amazing how much the exact wrong answer has influenced the answers here, behavior is certainly influenced by genetics.  Consider what a gene does, it makes a protein, possibly a neurotransmitter, and that effects the way we think, the way we feel, how intelligent or aggressive we become, how frustrated or whether or not we have feelings or empathy for others.  \n\nThe genetic factor governing behavior is so powerful that it has been spotted in every single study that looked for it.  Yet for some reason the faith in a nurturing environment seems absolute.  It is wishful thinking, however it is true that a good environment can armor one against and work as a deterrent to inherited antisocial tendency, it does not take away the tendency though.
234681
This is a large question, and the source of much controversy, conflict, anger, and hilarity for all of recorded history. Aristophanes' Lysistrata is merely one of the earliest in a long literary tradition exploring the question. James Thurber is only one of the most recent, and funniest, of those writing in English.\n\nOnly in the last few decades has there been any scientific evidence which even begins to explain why the so long observed differences exist. \n\nIt is clear that there are, on average, anatomic differences between female and male brains. For instance, in the connection between the two hemispheres. And imaging studies of working brains ('PET scans') have shown some apparently characteristic differences in the areas of the brain used by males and females when their brains are ostensibly doing the same thing. There is even enough of such evidence that there are now centers for the study of gender differences. \n\nFrom a behavioral viewpoint, the field of evolutionary psychology (or sociobiology) has produced a series of testable hypotheses about differences between female and male behavior. These are essentially unique in the field because they suggest experiments which can test them. Thus far, this approach has shown promise in accounting for some of the non-cultural non-religious behavior differences. Thus far, even such things as the clothing styles chosen when going to dance clubs have been accounted for to some extent by this approach. Much of this work is controversial amongst one or another group since it deals with issues (eg, sex, reproduction, mating behavior, ...) which are of great importance socially or religiously.\n\nThe most reasonable account of behavioral differences between the sexes is based on reproductive success. Males who behaved this way (or these ways) tended to have more descendants (more children who survived to have children themselves), and females who behaved that way (or those ways) also had more children who survived to have children of their own. Much of the reasoning on these matters is based in the fact that, in humans, females cannot have more than a small number of children, given the underlying biology. We humans are born far from able to cope with life, and require a long period of maturation before we can. We share some of this extended infancy with some other species (such as chimpanzees and orangutans) and, to some extent, they show similar sex linked behavioral differences. Males, on the other hand, are capable of having a great many children. But, because of the long term helpless infancy period, together with typical human female awkwardness during much of pregnancy, it seems likely that males who stayed with the female increased the chances that children (half of whose genes came from him) were more likely to survive to child-bearing age. This pattern may also account for male jealousy (only if the female is sexually exclusive can he be sure the child is his) and female interest in male resource control. If he's rich (however rich is measured in a society), he will likely be able to increase the chance that her children will survive to have children of their own. Some of these suggestions (hypotheses) are subject to test in humans and some other species; the evolutionary approach has illuminated some hitherto opaque behaviors.\n\nThese matters are very near to the center of much conflict in traditional (and some other not so traditional) societies, many of whose citizens are made uneasy by new and different behaviors and by research which either 'endorses' some of those behaviors or 'undermines' some of their existing or traditional behaviors. In fact, the science is still in its infancy, and those who claim it endorses this or that don't understand it, and those who fear the science would be better advised to concentrate on policy makers of various kinds who don't understand the nature of science, nor much of this emerging scien
134124
What particular traits.\n\nI really wish you kids would learn to write in complete, coherent sentences.\n\nI no 1t 1z k00l 2b ncoherent n l3337 n stuff, but it suxxors wen U want anzers.