Welcome back. This is the supplementary module for unit number two. And, last time, in the last module, we talked about the landmark Minnesota study of Twins Reared Apart, MISTRA. And today, I have the pleasure of having the director of that study, of, of MISTRA here, Tom Bouchard. And, so we're going to talk with Tom this today. About the study and about the impact of the study. So welcome, Tom. >> Yep. >> Thanks for taking time to join us here today. Maybe a good place to start, students know about MISTRA, they know about the Jim twins. And, and actually gave them some of the data from, from the studies, some of the correlations. But the study began 1979 with the Jim twins. So that's a while ago. Can you tell us a little bit about what the field of psychology was like at that time? How genetic explanations were seen within psychology? kind of set the stage for, for what it was like back in 1979. >> Well. I think that the situation was mixed, but I'd have to say it was generally mostly negative. In fact, some students didn't even want to work on the project because they felt they, it would interfere with their getting a job when they left. So you can tell is. A sort of negative atmosphere. That was particularly true for people who might work on the East Coast. On the other hand, at Minnesota, the atmosphere was entirely different and I think that's because of its history. Donald G. Patterson had taught individual differences at Minnesota for many, many years. And always talked about the work of Galton and genetic influences on things, so there was an atmosphere here. In fact, I was hired by Marvin Dunnette, who had studied with Patterson, and Dunnette was an I-O psychologist and he believed in genetic influence. >> Mm-hm >> So we had the right atmosphere here. People like Paul Meehl had published in 1960s- >> Mm-hm. >> Arguing that schizophrenia had a genetic basis and of course Irv Gottesman was at Minnesota while I was teaching there. And had introduced me to twin work. So. I lucked out. >> Mm-hm >> The atmosphere was right and the setting was correct. >> But still at that time, even in 1979, behavioral genetics was considered a somewhat controversial discipline then within psychology? >> It certainly was I was introduced to behavioral genetics as a graduate student. My my advisor Harrison Goff,. Had actually assigned the textbook Fuller and Thompson- >> Mm-hm >> Written in the 1960s. >> Mm-hm >> As part of my preparation for my oral exams. >> Mm-hm. >> So people from Minnesota through Gotis, through Gott who had studied with Paul Miel. Were influencing a field, but it was just a small section. >> Mm-hm. So-. >> I don't, in fact, I have I, I have an interesting story. I went back to Minnesota. Back, I mean to Berkeley in the 90s, and I was talking to one of my undergraduate advisors, and he told me flatly. He didn't believe any of the results of the study. We'd already published in science at that >> Mm-hm >> Time. >> Okay. >> So. Some people, were, continued to be resistant. And I think some people are still resistant. >> Uh-huh >> To the idea of genetic influence. >> But very few, I would think. I would hope anyway. Maybe not so many taking this course. We don't know. >> [LAUGH] >> The, so, there hadn't been very many reared apart twin studies, maybe five or six? Why do you- >> You're not depending on the, some very small ones. Only really three sizable ones. >> Okay. >> Oh, it, it's because they're so difficult to find. >> Okay. >> In fact long before we started MISTRA, I had a meeting with David Licken and i could tell again at the faculty club. And we actually talked about trying to setup a study of twins reared apart. And we could not figure out any way to find them. This was before the internet and things of that sort. We, so we decided. We gave it up. It's, it's a difficult kind of study to do we-. >> So was that the biggest challenge you faced is identifying the reared apart twins in doing the study? >> Well once the study started it kind of snowballed, so that, that-. >> The publicity surrounding the study. >> That's correct. >> Mm-hm >> You know, the study started, literally as a case study. >> Mm-hm >> I had no intention of doing a large scale study. >> Okay. >> One day one of my students, Margaret Keyes, >> Mm-hm >> Put a newspaper story in my mailbox, >> Mm-hm >> And the same day. Gail Peterson one of our, other faculty put the same story in my mailbox and said you now why don't you study these twins. And I thought that it was such a great idea, >> Mm-hm >> That I went off and I talked to David Licken, Len Heston over in >> Mm-hm >> Psychiatry. They were not. Terribly encouraging, but I remember telling him, Look, do me a favor. >> Mm-hm >> Do an interview or do some testing. I wanted David Licken to do psycho physiology. I wanted Len Heston to do a psychiatric interview. >> Mm-hm >> And they humored me. >> Mm-hm. >> I said, you know, every psychologist ought to do one case study. A case study of identical twins reared apart would be really interesting. And that's how the study began. But once those twins came here we got publicity. In fact,. A lot of this was very, very serendipitous. When I, went, looked for the first pair of twins, the Jim twins, I called the Associated Press, and the woman who answered the phone said well, tell me why these twins are important and then I'll contact them for you >> Mm-hm >> If I think I should. And I went into a long spiel about how scientifically important and interesting they were. And she asked me how I was going to pay for it, and I didn't have any funding at that time. So, I said, I'll beg, borrow or steal, >> Mm-hm. >> But I'll get the funding. And that turned up to be a little story in the New York Times. [LAUGH] >> [LAUGH] >> So, a lot of people heard about it very quickly. And that's just luck. >> So, it, it might be very difficult today to, to do a reared apart twin study. It might be hard to find them then. >> Yeah, the I think it could be done, but I think the technical or scientific question is, what would it add? >> Uh-huh >> I think there have been so many different kinds of studies now,. Ordinary twins, twins reared apart other partial relatives. They all point to a genetic influence so the question really is I think today how do genes work? >> Mm-hm >> What's, what are the mechanisms? >> Mm-hm >> It's, it's a different question. And I think it's going to require different technology, different approaches. >> Mm-hm. >> I'm not sure. I think adding. Sporadic cases will bring out interesting little different facts. >> Mm-hm. >> But they won't answer the fundamental scientific question how do genes work. How do they make us the way we are? >> So what was in your opinion did most surprising thing that came out of. What really surprised you? you did this study for must have been 20 years Tom. And,. >> Just about 20 years, >> Yeah, so what was-. >> Well I will tell you. One of the things that surprised me most is something that happened almost within the first day, we brought the Jim twins in, and. With our twins, we always brought them to dinner, introduced them to, I introduced them to my wife and my family. >> Had, had they met before, by the way? The Jim twins? >> Oh yeah. They had met a little bit. >> Okay. >> But, not much. >> Okay. >> And so we were sitting having breakfast, and they were sitting across from me and I can remember one of them put his hand up on the table and I noticed his fingernails. He bit his fingernails right down to the nub. >> [LAUGH] >> And I said to myself gee, I wonder if his brother does that? And as I was thinking that, his brother put his hand up and they both had. Bitten their fingernails right down to the nub and I said now, there's a little peculiar behavior, and while I was looking at them I noticed their eyebrows were exactly the, I mean these little minor things were exactly the same. That really caught my attention and, and we saw a lot of that, and I remember thinking to myself. My God, you move from an embryo to a full grown adult. And you're 39 years old and some of the feature, biological features in your organism are so similar. >> Mm-hm. >> So that's one of the things that's really captured me. The other thing is later on. It turned out everything we were looking at was genetic. I remember maybe two, three years ago, the study, we were doing profiles of the MMPI and the CPI and the similarity across all the traits measured by those instruments. Where this, the profiles were the same; sometimes they were displaced, >> Mm-hm >> But the highs and lows were the same highs and lows-. >> The same configuration, yeah. >> Yes. So it, those are, those are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but they really captured my imagination. >> I can't remember all the anecdotes, but it, with the Jim twins it's like they married women with the same name, and they. Eh eh, I mean, they have a. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> They've vacationed in the same beach in Florida. What do you make of those kind of anecdotes like those? >> Well-. >> Are those-. >> Clearly, some of those things are coincidents that-. >> Yeah, like, like-. >> You, you have parent [INAUDIBLE] -. >> Marrying a woman with the same name. That can't, we can't have a genetic. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Basis for. >> One of the you know. It's very hard to decide. I, I, we did have a pair of twins for example, when they met they both had seven rings on their hands. >> Uh-huh. >> We had them in those, those rings got pictured in text books. >> Uh-huh. >> And I've always used those as an example of how things might work. >> Mm-hm. >> because we really don't know but if you look at those women's hands, they really had long fingers. >> Mm-hm. >> Very elegant hands. I always thought a test of that might be do women with long fingers wear more rings? So-. >> Okay. >> So you have a process by which- >> Mm-hm. >> Something like this might happen. >> But maybe not seven rings. [LAUGH] >> Yeah well [LAUGH]. The question is, if we took up large sample- >> Mm-hm >> Of women with long ears. >> Yeah, I see the point. >> There'd be a correlation >> Yeah >> Between the number of rings and the length of fingers. >> Yeah >> I don't know. >> Yeah >> But its a. >> It's not as preposterous as it might seen initially when you begin to unpack is what you're saying. >> No, in another case, we had a pair of twins one from England, one from Scotland, both born in Scotland, and when they interviewed by Heston in psychiatry there were a whole series of questions about fears. And they both were very fearful of the open ocean. >> Uh-huh >> But they love to go the beach, and so that was as little quandary. >> Yeah >> And Len asked them all, what do you do when you're at the beach? They said oh, we just back into the water. >> Oh. >> So they don't see the vast expanse. Well, it's a peculiar similarity, but if you think about it. How else you going to cope with that fear? >> Yeah, it's an [CROSSTALK] adaptation yeah-. >> It's an adaptation. >> Yeah >> So, it's not so peculiar when you tink about the details. And the, these examples, all contributed to my working on a theory which, you've worked on, too. >> Mm-hm. >> Experience producing drives. >> Mm-hm. >> People actually create. Their own environments. >> Yeah. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> And that's something that we're talking about in this course. For sure, is that our, our environments don't happen to us at random. Some things happen to us at random. >> Well, a lot of things we make. >> Yeah. >> We select. >> Yeah. >> And case after case with the twins, you could see >> Mm-hm >> This sort of thing happening. >> Oh. What would, so the study began at a time, I guess you would characterize it as maybe the mainstream of psychology was a little bit antagonistic, maybe a lot of antagonistic towards genetic explanations. The study ran for 20, 20 plus years. So, it finished at the turn of the 21st Century. What would you say was the major impact? Of MISTRA, >> Well >> On the mainstream of psychology. >> I think the major impact is students are not taught about behavior genetics. Let me give you an example. In 1972, I was on sabbatical leave at the University of Oregon. >> Mm-hm >> And I taught the individual difference course. And I had been under the influence of Irv Gottesman so I knew about >> Mm-hm >> Genetic influence on schizophrenia and mental disorder, and there were a good number of studies. >> Mm-hm >> I had, two lectures in that course on the genetics of mental disorder. After I gave those lectures, about a week later two young women came up to me and said, we have a problem. We're taking the course in psychopathology, it's being taught by a graduate student at the University of Oregon, and she has asserted that there's no evidence whatsoever that genes influence serious psychiatric illnesses. >> Mm-hm. >> And you have assigned 3 papers [LAUGH] on the topic, what do we do? And I said well that's not your job, I'll go talk to the student. I went and talked to her, she was finishing her Ph.D in psychopathology, she had no knowledge whatsoever about genetic influence on psychopathology, she'd never been taught. You will not find that today. Won't happen. >> Uh-huh. The so, and, and, you've already kind of touched on this Tom. More or less the last question I have is, where is the, where do you see the field going today. You said that really the studies that, that, that pioneering behavior geneticists did in the 70s and 60s and even into the 80s. Really established that there is important phenomena to be explained here. But where, where do you see the field going now? >> Boy, I wish I could give you a coherent answer to that. But that, that's the problem with science; you have to pick and choose- >> Yeah, you, you never quite know where you're going, yeah. >> That's right. I, I think what you do is, you want to pick phenomena. A phenomena that's always been of interest to me is. It's psychopathology and intelligence. >> Mm-hm. >> I've, I've published a lot on intelligence. Quite a bit less on psychopathology but I know about it. But one of the findings is you can be mentally ill and still be brilliant. >> Mm-hm. >> Nash being an example. >> Yeah. >> There are lots of examples like that. >> Mm-hm. >> And one of my theories has always been high IQ reflects. Really efficient functioning of the brain, but a person with severe mental illness does not have an efficiently [LAUGH] functioning brain. It's like there are two fundamentally different systems. >> Mm-hm. >> There's almost no real research looking at the length between these two things. >> Mm-hm. Right. >> So here's a puzzle it seems to me in science. There's got, genes have gotta be involved and somehow there's two different systems >> Yeah >> Networking and the brain. >> Mm-hm. >> Seems to be the underlying this and it's both soft in a sense that it's chemical and it's harder in the sense that it's neurotransmission, which depends on the soft part to some extent. That's a puzzle and a problem I would jump right into if I were starting over again. Another big issue was I think measurement I think the field of personality is a mess. >> Uh-huh >> Right, I don't, if. No real progress has been made in about 75 years as far as I can tell except for finding genetic influence. >> Mm-hm >> And that's partly a psychological methodological problem that psychologists just haven't cracked. >> Mm-hm >> So. Another area I've worked on-. >> With respect to the first area you've talked about, we're just in the second week of the course here, we have 6 more weeks to go, we'll get in later to Genome-wide association studies, GWAS, but as you're talking about that I, I can't help but think about what's coming out of those GWAS is are these interesting linkages. Between genes for this disorder and a completely apparently unrelated disorder. So there are these cross-link, linked, linkages. >> Oh yeah. Well, actually. >> Mm-hm. >> I, I have written a little bit. I'm working on some papers currently. You know, people are now arguing there's a. Very general psychopathology factor. >> Mm-hm. >> And I think that's probably true. >> Mm-hm. >> It manifests itself in many, many different ways. But the underlying in causal mechanism is probably the same. But Krueger's done a lot of work. >> Yeah. >> On this. >> Uh-huh. >> But Kaspy. >> Mm-hm. >> In the New Zealand group have a. Big paper on this called The Small P. >> Mm-hm. >> And I think there's something to that. In fact, we have some data. We just developed a new inventory >> Mm-hm. >> based on the merger of the MPQ, the MMPI, and the CPI. >> The three large personality inventories, yes. >> Yeah. And we get a wide. A large number of measures >> Mm-hm >> Of basically psychopathology. >> Mm-hm. >> Poor mental health. >> Yeah. >> When those tests have merged with vocational interests inventories values et cetera, we get a large factor. >> Mm-hm. >> Very similar Krueger's internalizing factor. >> Okay. >> And it, it brings all these measures together. And I think there's going to be more work of this certainly. >> Yeah. >> And, and I would suspect that genetics will play a major role in trying to arbitrate. >> Yep. >> These, these linkages and the [CROSSTALK] distinctiveness of different domains, yeah. >> Actually why [INAUDIBLE]. >> Yeah. It's, it's amazing, when I was, taking courses in psychopathology, you know, that was always this disorder or that disorder. Nobody was telling you that, you have a patient who comes in, he usually has three disorders. >> Yeah, yeah. >> You know. Some hierarchy. >> Yeah. >> And six months later, they were under a different order. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> That's a very important point. >> Yeah, yeah. And, i, it's not just psychiatrists but also internists that are dealing with the same thing. People have multiple physical. >> Oh yeah. >> Disorders as well, so. Tom, I think, this comes to the end of our time, so I really appreciate you taking the time to visit with the students here. I'm sure they appreciate it, too. So thank you very much, and have a great day there. >> Okay, I'm out on the slopes. >> Okay, great. Bye. >> Buh-Bye.
