anybody here know anything about the science of genes?

[Baliset]

so here's the situation:

my grandmother and grandfather had two children, my mom and my uncle. my mom met my dad, got married and had four kids and my uncle met my aunt, got married and had four kids.

i am the youngest of all my siblings and i am a musician.

my uncle's youngest son is going to school to become an actor right now and is going to england to study drama over there as well.

so my question is whether or not there is some scientifically verifiable "artistic gene" and if there is a set way it gets passed on because it seems to me to be a very weird coincidence that the youngest child of four children for both my mom and my uncle(who come from the same genepool) would become an artistic person of sorts.

can anyone shed some light on this or tell me i am completely crazy and over-analyzing this?

 

[Nut Butter]

Funny you should mention that, I was just talking about that same thing with my dad yesterday. He's one of those old guys who thinks genes are neat-o and therefore control every aspect of our lives. He believes there's a gene for homosexuality, a gene for liking creme and sugar in your coffee, a gene for thinking Fellini films are a bit too queer to fully appreciate, a gene for enjoying a nice walk everyday, etc. I, on the other hand, believe we're more a product of our upbringing, of our family dynamic and our place within it than the sum of our genes.
Here's my family: My paternal grandmother sang beautifully in a choir and had a great flair for music while her husband preferred to watch the soccer game or play "pétanque" with his buddies. They reared two children, my aunt, who enjoys the occasional Tracy Chapman output but who couldn't hum a tune to save her life, and my father, a Wagner fanboy from a very early age who went on to play first violin in a prominent Montreal orchestra. My maternal family isn't very artistic. Some of my mother's siblings play the piano, but they play it like those mechanical pianos you see in old westerns, stringing the notes along without any feeling. And now our current generation, my sister enjoys light classical, nothing very challenging, and I'm a full fledged music maniac.
So what was my point? Not too sure anymore... I believe genes can play a role in making someone more receptive or sensitive to music or other art forms. My dad would say genes entirely explain why some family members are more artistic than others. I believe it has more to do with who you identify with in your family. My father's much closer to his mother, and my aunt to her father, etc.
As concerns the youngest siblings of both families having a penchant for the arts, I think that's a total coincidence. I finished high school with a concentration in biology (not much, I know ) and if I recall correctly, no genetic principles could explain that phenomenon, given that there's an equally arbitrary genetic shuffle for each new kid...

 

[Nut Butter]

Oh, by the way, my name's Nut Butter and I'm new here

I promise to leave more breathing space between paragraphs the next time around.

You wouldn't happen to be guitar god Greg Massi by any chance?

 

[lizard]

welcome...are you really from liechtenstein?

 

[Xtokalon]

it's more about the typical 'nuture' of those who are the youngest than the heredity.

i'm the youngest in my family also and the most 'artistic' insofar as i'm more into art than anyone else. but why is this so? probably because of all the leisure time i had in growing up. while i was introspecting, being lazy, dousing myself in recreational pleasures of all kinds, everyone else was working their asses off.

when you're given the resources, when you can afford not to think of the most basic needs -- finances, food, etc -- you're able to be concerned with other things. i think the youngest in the family have these resources the most, which allows them to develop their introversion typically more easily than others. it's a dispositional tendency that exists because of the 'setup' that's typical with most families. that's my opinion.

 

[Baliset]

You wouldn't happen to be guitar god Greg Massi by any chance?

nut butter = my new favorite poster.

 

[AndICried]

I believe genes are more abstract than "if you have this gene this will happen". For example, there is a gene that a large percentage of homosexuals have, and a large percentage of heterosexuals don't have. It could be argued that this is the "gay gene", but I doubt it. I imagine it alters a variety of more abstract "tendancies". If you have this gene, you're more likely to be gay.

I doubt there are "artistic genes". Rather, there are genes that give you natural abilities in particular things. I also think that because art can be defined in so many different ways there's no ultimate combination of genes for the ultimate artist. The entire point of the DaDa art movement was to be "anti art", and people debate over what is artistic and not. In summary: I think genes just suggest potentials, and what you may be inclined towards, rather than define your skills in society created values.

I apologize for this pretentious, bullshit ramble.

 

[Nut Butter]

@Baliset -- Yay, I've never been anyone's favourite anything!!
@AndICried -- You seem wise in the ways of genetics, and I can say that because I agree with you

 

[Nut Butter]

Oh! and thanks for the greeting Lizard! Sorry to disappoint but no, I am not actually from Liechtenstein (I even had to go back to double-check the spelling ). I just thought I'd have a better shot at acceptance if I didn't mention I'm from Canaduh. Oh, the unbearable shame of it all...

 

[AndICried]

lmao

 

[IanDork107]

I don't think there's any way of it getting passed on to the youngest child exclusively, although generally speaking the first child a couple has tends to be the smartest which is slightly inexplicable seeing as there should be a pretty well equal chance of every child turning out a certain way.