Potterverse: Social Psychology - Wizarding Genetics

[jrober4211]

No: HPFGUIDX 34577

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander <lav at t...> wrote:
>   Greetings!
> 
>   Two little works of mine. Note please that I'm neither a
> social psychologist, nor a genetic engineer. I'm just a
> programmer who has or had both these subjects as his hobby.
> So please be kind with me. And of course, if there are real
> social psychologists, genetic engineers etc etc on the List,
> feedback is most welcome.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>       WIZARDING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
> 
>  
> 
>   Wizarding World in general is much more adventurous and
> prone to risk-taking than Muggle World.
> 
>   Here we come to contradiction. We have a conservative
> community of risk takers. Surely something that cannot exist
> for long.
> 
>   Or can it?
> 
>   Of course, social strain will be great in the Wizarding
> World. We can suppose that many conflicts which would become
> a subject of hot debate in Muggle World will turn into real
> wars in the Wizarding World.
> 
>   So we come to the final conclusion. Wizarding World exists
> in a state of permanent war. Something similar to Orwell's
> "1984". Of course we don't mean that Wizarding World social
> system mirrors that of "1984". But certain similarity exists
> and must be kept in mind.
> 
>   Now we can consider the eternal struggle of good and evil
> in the Wizarding World from an entirely different point of
> view. Instead of a mystical ancient conflict it becomes a
> social regulator of sorts. A war becomes an integral part
> of the society.
> 
>   Conservatism of the ruling circles is easily explained by
> this theory. Indeed, it is only logical that conservatives
> rule the community. Society that has chaos at it's roots
> will always try to get as much order as possible.

Having worked with spinal cord injury/head injury patients, I know a 
little about the "high- risk taker " personalities. They are usually 
of lower socioeconomic status, male,late teens/early twenties,have 
poor impulse control, and have average to below average IQ. As a 
general rule, they do not think ahead as to the "cause and effect" of 
their actions. I would say that this personality type evolved in the 
wizarding world because of the ability to magically fix broken bones 
and other ailments that we can not with ordinary muggle medicine, and 
not as a sign of "wizard toughness" . I would also like to note that 
as Hermione said in PS, "wizards are not known for logic". Therefore 
you are probably correct in your assumption that war is an integral 
part of wizarding society. War also seems to be an integral part of 
our society/muggle, so how do you explain that?
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>       WIZARDING GENETICS
> 
>
> 
>     Genetic Theory
> 
>   We make an initial assumption that magical talent is
> controlled by some gene or set of genes. In other words, we
> assume that wizards do have no differences from muggles but
> in their genetic code.
> 
>   So far, so good. What genes, then?

Same question could be asked for other talents such as art and music, 
so far, no specific gene or combination of genes for inheritance have 
been identified for particular "talents". 
> 
>   First of all, we can reasonably assume that Wizarding Gene
> (called WG in the text) is the dominant. This conclusion
> springs immediately from the statistics of wizard-muggle
> marriages: so far no wizard born from a muggle and a wizard
> has reported to have non-magical brothers and sisters.

This is true, it would indicate that it is a dominant gene, such as 
the gene for brown eyes. But, when one parent with brown eyes and the 
other parent with blue eyes have 4 children, 3 out of the 4 will have 
brown eyes (if the brown eyed parent had a blue eyed parent and a 
brown eyed parent). There is a 25% chance of having a blue eyed 
child, so I would say that there is a 25% chance of having a non-
magical child. If the  child came from a brown eyed parent that had 
both brown eyed parents, then all children would be brown eyed 
regardless of the fact that the other parent had blue eyes. Therefore 
we can not say all muggle/wizard parents with wizard children would 
always have wizard children. If the wizard parent had muggle parents, 
he might produce a muggle child if mated with a muggle. This would 
mean that both muggle parents must carry a magic gene, that is 
unexpressed or recessive, to produce a wizard child. Therefore the 
presense of a magic gene allele does not necessarily gaurantee magic 
abilty as both parents or one parent would have to have a recessive 
magic gene, and your theory is that the magic gene is a dominant gene.

muggle gene=O magic gene =M

       Muggle parent (recessive)  Muggle parent( no magic allele)
            MO                      OO
            4 children = MO, OO, OO, OO ( one child with magic trait
             3 children with no trait. which means a 25% chance 
             having a child with magic trait, 75% chance of muggle kid
             in pregnancy)
       Muggle parent (recessive)   Muggle parent (recessive)
            MO                        MO
            4 children= MM,MO,MO, OO ( 1 child magic, 2 children
            with magic trait, 1 child with no trait.Translation-
            25% chance of a magic child, 50% chance of child
            with magic trait, and 25% chance of having a muggle
            child) 

It is possible for the Creavy's to produce 2 magical kids if both 
children inherited the MM chromosome. These are just examples of the 
ratios, and the 4 possible gene combinations are easier to show in 
the example of 4 kids.
             
> 
>   Second, magical talent is controlled not by a single pair
> of chromosomes (like gender), but by a set of them. This
> conclusion we draw from the facts that: a) wizards sometimes
> appear in completely non-magical families, and b) single
> dominant gene would manifest itself in one of the parents at
> least.

Not true . Your theory is that the magic gene is dominant. In order 
to have a wizard with muggle parents, the magic gene would have to be 
recessive, as the presence of the magic trait in the parents does not 
give them magic ability, therefore is recessive. I think what you 
might be alluding to is a "carrier gene" like that for color 
blindness.  
> 
>   Also we must remember about Creavey Case. In a non-magical
> family both children were born with magical talent. We can
> reasonably assume that both Creavey parents have parts of
> the magical genes set heterotyped (doubled). From this we
> can also expect most of Creavey children to posess magical
> talent. If this conclusion will be supported by long-term
> research, this will become a significant proof of the
> theory.

See gene demonstration above with explaination of how two magic 
children were produced from two recessive parents. 
> 
>   Another conclusion is that if some muggle family has a
> wizarding child, we can expect them to have partial magical
> parentage themselves, if often lost in the ages.

As stated above, both muggle parents must have the magic gene trait, 
unexpressed, in order to produce magical children if you are 
operating on the assumption that the magic gene is dominant. I think 
you contradicted yourself here based on what you said in the previous 
paragraph.Its understandable, genetics is like crocheting, it can get 
knotty. 
> 
>   About rarity of squibs.
> 
>   So far we know that Wizarding World experiences a large
> amount of muggle-blood injections. This probably has some
> connection with the fact that magican genetic patterns have
> certain influence on either reproduction abilities or
> behavioral patterns (more probably former). Hence we can
> assume a relatively large percent of muggle genes in the
> Wizarding World genetic pool. Even with dominant magical
> genes we should expect a relatively large percent of squibs.
> But this doesn't seem to be the case.

We don't know this for sure, as it seems that most squibs leave the 
wizarding community i.e. the weasley cousin who is an accountant. The 
only squib we see at Hogwarts is Flinch. So I think it is safe to say 
that we really don't know the percentage of the squib population, 
unless I missed something in canon. Feel free to set me straight on 
this. 
> 
>   This can only happen if whole genetic pattern is not
> required for a child to be magically talented. That is, even
> a part of magical genes is enough. Whether this means that
> the child is less talented or powerful or it's not the case
> should be researched further.
> 
If the magic gene is dominant, as you assume,in your theory, then 
what you say about needing only one parent with a recessive magic 
gene to produce a magic child does not hold water with the rest of 
genetic examples I provided, or with the ratios of how squibs and 
magic children could possibly be produced according to your proposed 
theory. 

  >>>> Hoping like hell I remembered all my genetic theory correctly 
that I learned in midwifery school<<<<<
>     Chaos Theory
> 
>   This theory assumes that magical talent has little to none
> connection with the genetics. Instead, human brain patterns
> are considered to be the source of magic.
> 
>   Initial assumption is that human brain is the accumulator
> of Chaos/Order energy. Concentration of extremely large
> amount of information disrupts the information structure of
> the Universe, and this fact can result in non-mundane
> effects - the so-called "spells". Modern science does not
> reject such opportunity entirely, and this has already been
> covered in lots of science-fiction books.
> 
I hate to bust your bubble on this one, but in psych nursing , the 
research suggests that brain structure, which is inherited, 
determines brain wave activity, thus it is inherited. In the last 15-
20 years, they have come up with the genetic theory of mental 
illness, as sociopaths and schizophrenics have abnormal brain wave 
responses to the external world. upon examination of their brain 
structure through cat scan , mri, along with eeg's, they found 
distinct differences between normal brains and the brain structure of 
the two types of mental illness i just mentioned, and the brain wave 
activity in response to incoming information from the external 
world.  
>  
   Inheritance of magical powers is tied to genetics, of
> course. Similarity of brain centers becomes however
> something more like a phenotype similarity (a child often
> looks similar to one or both of parents), and this can
> happen even to non-magical parents, in this case appropriate
> brain pattern is created randomly.

There is always a chance for a fluke mutation of any kind whether in 
structure of the brain that would create the magic ability or whether 
the magic allele was a fluke mutation. in and of itself. 
> 
>   This means that: a) muggle parents that have a magical
> talented child may have no magical blood in their veins, and
> b) that squibs are muggles by definition.

Well there you go!

Jo Ellen
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>   So? Any more ideas? :)
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> Alexander Lomski,
> (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed),
> who thinks boa-constrictor will return in later books, to be
> a husband for Nagini and draw her to the Good side... :)
> 
>     One must be a complete paranoic to search for the
>     hedgehog at the top of a fir tree.
>         Pavel Shumilov.