Genotype to phenotype

I see genotype as a word that describes the medium of an artist's
expression. It's the canvas or acrylic or other surface and the paints
they use. Life (or god) is the artist that paints the phenotype through
the experiences that bring a person to the point of 'diagnosis' or
labelling of a phenotype.

Phenotypes are ultimately what mental health diagnoses are: they're
labels that attempt to classify the type of human being that exists from
their genetic predisposition and what life does to them. In mental
health it might be explained as biological predisposition and
psychosocial determinants. The problem is the former leads to
pathologisation without need, i.e. a genetic assay which identifies
schizotaxia assumes it to be an illness. Often the psychosocial elements
are used to excuse the phenotype so a psychopath is explained and
excused by their hellish childhood.

This is a necessity in a world that doesn't understand that people go
through some horrible shit in life and that's what makes them into a
psycho - they'd only see the psycho. In other words they'd see the
painting they don't understand and judge it. They'd know nothing of the
process that would make other art lovers understand that it's simply
something they don't like rather than something that's bad. Modern art
is a useful example because many people don't get it.

Reflecting on phenotype and genotype a person might see the
responsibility. This isn't the question about good art or bad art. It's
the evaluation of the artist. A spiritual or religious perspective would
blame god for the creation of the most stigmatised phenotypes. A
secular, mental health perspective might see the creator of these
malformed works as society and people. They paint the psychopath upon
the same canvas that can create saints and scholars, the phenotype upon
genotype.