Gene Found to Explain Repeated Mistakes

palegray.net writes "A December 6th article in Nature explores the relationship between a specific gene and those of us prone to repeatedly making the same mistakes. From the article: "Drug addicts, alcoholics and compulsive gamblers are known to be more likely than other people to have this genetic mutation ..." The gene results in the development of fewer D2 receptors in the brain, a condition which the study has shown leads to a lessened ability to learn from experience." So no complaining about dupes and typos: it's genetic!

Comments

Now, for the most useful one

[MikeRT]

The gene that controls the impulse to tell others what to do, when it isn't necessary to tell them what to do. The 'busybody' gene.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[gweihir]

I think that having this repeated mistake poriblem directly causes you to want to tell others what to do. After all, you do not learn from giving bad advice or instructions either. Explains a lot in politics, religion and management. All these creers where you can be sucessful even after having repeatedly demonstrated bad judgement.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[DaedalusHKX]

No, because politicians do what is best for them. They lose nothing by being removed from office, they get to retire and spend their money or write books. No, this gene only affects the voters, the mass of sheep who keep running into the arms of new politicians each election cycle, despite NEVER getting a better deal than they would by simply walking away and firing all the politicians. Anyone who wants the job has already proven their desire for power and for a free ride at the expense of those who are taxed. Yet people still vote for 'em? They still consent to be ruled? Remarkable. This gene must be more effective than we think!!

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

The gene that controls the impulse to tell others what to do, when it isn't necessary to tell them what to do. The 'busybody' gene. Stop calling people names just because they tell you what to do. It's for your own good.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

What would you have instead?

This American disdain for politicians is perplexing. You claim to be so proud of your democracy. And yet you despise the people who personify and work for that democracy?

The American debate scene is far too filled with disdain, aggression and closed minds.

I'm guessing that you're American, since that attitude seems to be prevalent only in the US.

What would you have instead?

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[cyfer2000]

Explains a lot in politics, religion and management. And Internet Explorer.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[DaedalusHKX]

I'm guessing you're European. 1000 years of wars, infighting, sellouts, torture, serfdom and broken promises by those in power, and you still don't get it? Nothing much I can do chief. If you can't learn from history, you most certainly won't learn from me.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[EveLibertine]

You trust your politicians? Boy are you in for a surprise.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[Anonymous Coward]

This American disdain for politicians is perplexing. You claim to be so proud of your democracy. And yet you despise the people who personify and work for that democracy?

Well, skipping the whole issues of this supposed "pride" and the "democracy" vs "republic" thing, maybe our disdain is due to their corruption and spinlessness? Now, it's not that they all start that way, but the election system we have here breeds corruption, and the anticipation of re-election is an obvious disincentive to do the right thing in all those cases where the right thing might be unpopular with your financial supporters. And unfortunately, not being a direct democracy, the people who are in position to fix the problem are the ones trapped in it. Every once in a while one of them stands up and tries to get the others to do the right thing, but self-intrest and cowardice seem to always win in the end.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[j-pimp]

This American disdain for politicians is perplexing. You claim to be so proud of your democracy. And yet you despise the people who personify and work for that democracy?

American's hate all forms of government. We just hate ours the least. I doubt hating our government officials is a uniquely American phenomenon either. Perhaps our two party system makes it a bit more pronounced, but I find it hard to believe that no other country shows disdain for its leaders. Also hating ones leaders fits well into the belief that government is a necessary evil.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

1000 years of wars, infighting, sellouts, torture, serfdom and broken promises by those in power, and you still don't get it? There are differences between the systems 1000 years ago and the current systems.

We don't count on the politicians to be perfect. If you do, you'll inevitably be extremely disappointed, since they are people like other people. They'll look out for themselves just like most people do. Plus many of them love power. We count on that, and adjust our system in such ways that their self-interest will work in our favor.

There's no need to expect extraordinary idealism and then be surprised and despise them for being just like everybody. Expect them to be selfish and work with it.

I still wonder what you'd prefer instead.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[rootofevil]

when referring to government i prefer "evil, but necessary"

that way the evil is emphasized.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[ScrewMaster]

There are a couple of variants to this gene, one of which causes this instructive behavior to occur while in motion. The condition is known medically as BSDS ... Back Seat Driver Syndrome.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

You trust your politicians? Of course not. Quite the contrary. For instance here in Sweden there have recently been several scandals with politicians not paying their taxes. We expect them to be selfish, and adapt our systems in such ways that their selfishness will work in our interest.

For example, here in Sweden the members of the government, the ministers, have no right to give orders to authorities. Ministers decide about policy, and are expressly forbidden from meddling in the day-to-day matters of the authorities. That's to limit the influence of the power-hungry. The only exception is when an authority asks for a policy decision, and also some exceptional authorities such as the one that manages embassies and foreign affairs.

This arrangement complicated matters a lot when a Swede was released from Guantanamo. The US demanded guarantees from the Swedish government that he would be supervised. Since the government is expressly forbidden from giving any such orders they couldn't give any such guarantees.

It would make more sense for you Americans to simply expect your politicians to be selfish like everybody, and not despise them for that, and instead despise your system if it doesn't provide suitable checks and balances. Which I think it doesn't.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[Anonymous Coward]

Our country was born of those hating out government. Our country would not exist if we loved it so. It surely can't be surprising it is part of our culture.

The biggest problem is, right now, the government is at all time power and the people's at its least. The US Constitution is violated every day nows. Laws which are specifically prohibited by the Constitution are passed on a common basis and the masses remain dumb. Corruption is rampant. Buying votes is an every day affair. Rarely do the elected do what's right or best; rather they do what the uneducated, ignorant, or self serving require.

Contrary to popular belief, our government is badly broken is does not reflect the original government sought after and desired during our country's birth. Many people can look at the system and realize its broken. Most people have no idea how to begin fixing it. Those than do know how to fix it are, by far, in the minority.

By empowering the uneducated and ignorant to vote, the educated vote was drastically watered down. By empowering votes to bought, the educated vote was further reduced and divided. This combination has been the continued downfall of US government and continues in a downward spiral.

There are five things are required to *begin* fixing our government.
  o Uneducated and ignorant must not have the right to vote. Voting is a privilege and bares responsibility. Our forefathers knew this. Allowing everyone to vote is to spit on our forefathers. Those voting should be required to answer basic, topical questions.
  o Lobbying must be restricted to individuals. No financial contributions allowed; direct or indirect. Absolutely no corporations. Government funds all elections; as enforced by signatures of voters. Violation results in automatic life in prison.
  o Longer term limits so the elected can actually do their job.
  o All gun laws need to be revoked. Almost all of them are unconstitutional. Remember, when the Constitution was framed, individuals and companies could own the worlds most powerful war weapons of the time. Almost all of them are more powerful then than what is currently allowed today. The current gun laws are contrary to the Constitution and the very wishes of our forefathers to ensure the government is always empowered by the people.
  o We need to modify the electoral system. Is it obsolete. Any representative voting against their popular vote should be imprisoned.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[fyngyrz]

It would make more sense for you Americans to simply expect your politicians to be selfish like everybody, and not despise them for that, and instead despise your system if it doesn't provide suitable checks and balances. Which I think it doesn't.

+1 insightful, buddy. But the average American confuses the system with the nation. Despise the system? Then you're being unpatriotic. Another built-in design problem is that as you say, we should change the system so that the politicians have checks and balances. But we can't do that; only the politicians can. This is a deep and serious design flaw.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[sleigher]

The American system provides plenty of checks and balance. The problem lies in the fact that they all collude together in their selfishness. The old who watches the watchers..... Well those watching the watchers want some of what their watching. We are all fucked!

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[fyngyrz]

Government - as implemented in the US system - isn't necessary; you're just habituated to it. We could have a lot less invasive system, and quite a few more checks and balances with regard to the politicians doing stupid things, without our society coming apart or changing in any negative way.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

Sounds like you should despise your corrupting system, far more than the individuals who act within it. What else can you expect with such a strongly corrupting system?

Direct democracy is unfortunately no solution. With that system only people who have lots of leisure time get a say. People who work very hard and are always tired don't have energy, and therefore don't get a say.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[sumdumass]

It isn't as bad as you seem to have gathered. The real problem is that sore losers tend to be highly vocal and critical of the people they lost to. The Internet is a platform that they can use.

While other might not be as disappointed in their leaders, they don't really go around praising them either. So what you end up with is a disproportional outlook on things. Those that wrap themselves in this usually cannot see any opposing opinions and end up limiting their views to more restrictive and flaky positions. You being an outsider looking in, will probably notice that you see the disdain more or less in a few arenas of contact where it is either silent or barely notices in others.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

One of the best systems for checks and balances is the press, the media, checking on the politicians and reporting to the people. Of course this requires that a large proportion of the citizens be active, carefully choosing media that play this role faithfully, demanding that they do it well.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[Anonymous Coward]

Also hating ones leaders fits well into the belief that government is a necessary evil. Necessary? HelloOOOOo?

  Signed,
  Anne Anarchist

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

The citizens themselves, outside this collusion, could solve this problem, by carefully choosing media that defend democracy, by guarding the guardians. The citizens could demand from the media that they perform this task with great care.

One very unfortunate part of the US system is the widespread belief that institutional checks and balances make sense and are sufficient. If instead you saw the media as crucial, you'd demand more from your media, and your media would see this as a selling argument.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[fyngyrz]

One of the best systems for checks and balances is the press, the media, checking on the politicians and reporting to the people.

Ok, let's look at that. The press discovers behavior X, for instance, voting themselves a raise constantly. Reports it to the people. The people have no method to control, punish or regulate this behavior. So the one thing the people can do is vote a politician out on the next cycle. This has to be done one at a time, because if you live in state A, you can't vote on the politician from state B. This also has to be done in the face of perceived good the politician has done in other areas for the locals. If successful, the political party, another entity the people have no power over, promptly provides a new candidate set with the same sets of inclinations, while rewarding the first politician with a lucrative seat on a thinktank or something similar for their service to the party. The people choose from this set, and we're right back where we started.

This is why the press doesn't work to police the system. The best it can do is knock off a politician here and there, but that has no significant effect on legislation or the behavior of the group because no law or other output from the group can be affected by the actions of any particular member. Remember: They're misbehaving as a group.

That's why we're getting laws that proclaim the Internet is a terrorist threat, the USAPATRIOT act (which very few legislators bothered to read), numerous unconstitutional laws, that's why the head of a committee very much responsible for affecting regulation of the Internet thought it was a "series of tubes", and so forth on the legislative front. There's no means for us to change any of that.

That's why pork and bill stuffing continues unabated; that's why PACs and corporations continue to purchase laws with money, sex, junkets, etc. on the manipulation front. That's why senators feel free to hardly ever show up in the senate when running for president or (fill in the blank) on the "duty" front. These things are blessed by the political parties, and that means that you will never have a candidate that doesn't support them, albeit tacitly.

Further, that's why the press feels free to try to manipulate the election process - because the only difference it will make is how responsive the system is to the corporations that own the press. So they're quite intent on getting the most corporate friendly candidate in there, it can affect their bottom line. Watch how they behave, and have been behaving, with regard to Ron Paul for a terrific current example of this kind of behavior. Poll manipulation, sidelining in debates, failure to mention in (otherwise) general coverage of the candidates... if you actually pay attention, it could hardly be more obvious. The problem is, and has been for quite some time, that paying attention doesn't solve the problem. We have no mechanism that can solve the problem; the system has evolved to lock us - the citizens - out.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[quizzicus]

This arrangement complicated matters a lot when a Swede was released from Guantanamo. The US demanded guarantees from the Swedish government that he would be supervised. Since the government is expressly forbidden from giving any such orders they couldn't give any such guarantees. Sounds to me like it simplified matters.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[bendodge]

Ron Paul seems to have a good record concerning "free rides at the expense of those who are taxed".

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[Anonymous Coward]

The media is crucial. Unfortunately most major media outlets are part of the collusion. The independent media in America is looked at as a bunch of left wackos. Only because most are brainwashed to believe this. I agree some of them are left wackos but there is good media that does this job. If only we could get people to listen to them.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

But we can't do that; only the politicians can. If you wait for the politicians to do it you're doomed. They have no incentive for that. It's not in their self-interest. You'd need a whole bunch of Mahatma Gandhis in all the decisive positions, and you can't expect that. So don't wait for the politicians. It just won't ever happen.

You need a different solution. No, I don't know exactly how to get from here to that solution. But I'm quite sure that getting that to work is far easier and far more likely than getting the politicians to change the system.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

Indeed that is a very, very difficult problem.

But nothing is easy when it comes to defending freedom and democracy. It's never been easy. But with sufficient effort and time, this should be possible. Think long perspective, effort and patience.

It's worth it.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[gweihir]

I am Austrian, grew up in Germany and are currently living in Switzerland.

But, admittedly, my disdain for US politicians is even greater than for the local ones.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[epine]

Curious logic there dude.

We adjust our system in such a way that their self-interest will work in our favor. I know there is a prevailing linguistic theory that us wear the white hats, and them wear the black hats, it's what every cartoon narrative teaches our young children. Nevertheless, I'd be interested to know what lever of power they don't already control. If you meant that we the people write the constitution, you haven't been following the trend in America lately toward legislation that honors the constitution with glowing phrases and a one finger salute.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[sgt_doom]

I'm afraid, QuickFox, you misconstrue the type of government America possesses. While Sweden is a civilized, socialist democracy, America is none of those things. Instead, it is now a Corporate Fascist State run as a criminal enterprise, in a state of artificial, perpetual war. The controlling entity is spread among the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Entertainment-Prison Complex - following a very similar agenda. Sadly, this can be traced back to the unheralded concentration of power in the hands of the Dulles brothers, and from there it degenerates.

It is a backward, regressive and anti-progress social construct, an abnormal offshoot of the Third Reich - not incidentally why we now have a president who is the grandson of a Hitler supporter, Prescott Bush, and also the great-grandson of the first president and one of the founding members of the most virulently anti-worker organization in America, the National Association of Manufacturers.....

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[R2.0]

I'm more than a little confused here - who is the "government" and who are the "authorities"? You seem to be implying that there is an organization in Sweden that enforces the laws, collects taxes, and has power over the citizenry, but is not elected and is answerable to no one. Is that the case?

More likely you are describing a standard parliamentary system, where a "government" is a temporary arrangement, and can be formed and dissolved at the whim of the legislature.

We use different terms in the US - the "government" is comprised of every person associated with any act of "governing", i.e. weilding power over the citizenry. Police? Government. Congress? Government. Courts? Government.

In the US, the Government is divided into a number of parts, with powers and limitations defined in teh constitution. So, for instance, members of the Legislature have no authority to give orders to members of the Executive branch. And vice versa. The Legislature can only remove members of the Executive and Judiciary by an extraordinary procedure; as opposed to the Parliamentary system where a simple vote (or series of them) can remove ALL of the Executive for any reason - the "no confidence" vote.

Are there gray areas? Certainly. Are there abuses? Obviously. But a statement like "despise your system if it doesn't provide suitable checks and balances. Which I think it doesn't." shows that you don't really understand the theory and practice of the US form of government, except what you read on Slashdot and hear on your news. That's fine - most Americans are baffled by the Parliamentary system as well. But you won't see nearly the number of Americans on Slashdot blathering about how backward the European system is.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[leereyno]

Who exactly are the "authorities" that the ministers are forbidden to direct?

Could it be....bureaucrats?

I hardly see how taking power out of the hands of corrupt (but elected) officials, and putting into the hands of corrupt (but unelected) bureaucrats is a good thing.

The iron cage of bureaucracy clams shut once again.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

Some of the things you mention are inherent in the representative democracy as such, and won't be much affected by better media. For instance, you do elect based on overall performance, and can't punish individual details like greedy salaries alone.

Representative democracy has many inherent flaws and weaknesses. I'm not suggesting that better media would remove those problems.

But as I see it your system has other problems, not inherent in representative democracy as such.

The unhealthy interests of the media corporations that you mention are a tremendous problem. You'd need serious change, and citizens willing to support media that would debate this need for change in a serious and thoughtful way.

To mention one example, for the citizens to be able to punish greedy politicians, you'd need a system where there are many strong parties, so that when one party misbehaves, every citizen could find another ideologically close party that he could vote for instead. Only then does a party that misbehaves risk significant loss.

Such losses happen often in Swedish elections, with voters going to a close neighboring party. Our many parties are keenly aware of this risk, and the media like to emphasize this risk to dramatize the reporting. Thus our system encourages the media to emphasize this.

But for all practical purposes your system guarantees two-party perpetuation. Of course a change away from the two parties is theoretically possible, but it's so difficult that this has no practical significance. You'd need media willing to seriously discuss alternatives that give voters more parties to choose from. And, more importantly, you'd need citizens willing to carefully choose and support such media.

This is indeed very difficult. You'd need to somehow get citizens interested in change, and interested in supporting media that look for change. A tall order indeed.

But freedom and democracy was never easy.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[fredklein]

Uneducated and ignorant must not have the right to vote. Voting is a privilege and bares responsibility. Our forefathers knew this. Allowing everyone to vote is to spit on our forefathers. Those voting should be required to answer basic, topical questions.

How about making people go thru a period of Federal Service before being able to vote? Heinlein proposed this idea in his book Starship Troopers (the book, not the horrible movie). Only those who Really value being able to vote (and therefore, would be more likely to use thier franchise seriously) would bother.

All gun laws need to be revoked. Almost all of them are unconstitutional.

True.

Longer term limits so the elected can actually do their job.

In The moon is a Harsh mistress, Heinlein had a character propose a bi-cameral legislature- one house that Makes laws (with a 2/3 majority), and one that does nothing but Repeal laws (with a 1/3 minority). In that case, having a shorter term limit makes more sense to me.

We need to modify the electoral system. Is it obsolete. Any representative voting against their popular vote should be imprisoned.

Why not just eliminate the Electoral College and go right to the popular vote? If they can get off their butts and get a SECURE and USABLE electronic voting system in place, it'll be easy to get even the Presidential winner minutes after the polls close.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[The One and Only]

I propose legalized assassinations. (Just kidding, NSA.)

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[HiThere]

The two party system stymies any attempt to reform it. And it's desireable to the "vested interests" because this means that they only need to buy two [candidates | parties], yet people can still be fooled into believing that they have been given a choice.

It's been proven that no election system can be fair. This doesn't imply that some aren't worse than others, and the two party system is one of the worst. (One party is, technically, worse, but if there are only two parties, and both are corrupt, then you effectively HAVE a one party system.)

There are nuanced differences between the Democrats and the Republicans that generally cause me to prefer Democrats...but there can be overlap. Some Democrats are worse than some Republicans, even though the means are such that I prefer Democrats. And, of course, on a large raft of issues neither comes close to representing my viewpoint, but voting for any other party is even more of a waste of the ballot. The system is rigged. It has been *designed* to be corrupt.

N.B.: Political parties aren't mentioned in the constitution (or at least not in the basic document plus the original tem ammendments). Their effect was either overlooked, or considered desireable. You choose which you believe, I don't think there's much in the way of evidence. I consider, however, the lack of mention to be a serious design flaw. Possibly they were considered, but no agreement on how to deal with them could be reached. Possibly nobody saw the need to deal with them (though this is hard to believe after the example of Byzantium...these were well educated men).

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

Yes, it's a parliamentary system. I use the word government for the ministers, and, more loosely, also the organization around them (a lot of secretaries and so on).

These ministers are appointed by the parliament. Indeed as you say the parliament can dissolve the government. But in Sweden this is extremely unusual, except of course in the standard procedure after elections. It's a step that is not taken lightly.

There are a large number of different authorities. Each authority is a beaurocratic organization. Examples are the police, tax collection, social security, and so on and on and on. They are not democratically elected, but those authorities that have power over the citizenry are local and are answerable to local politicians at the municipality level. These politicians are of course democratically elected.

They are also answerable to the courts, in the sense that any decision that the authorities make regarding a citizen can be challenged in a court of law. Whenever an authority decision is communicated, it always includes a written description of the procedure for challenging the decision. (Except where it's impractical, for instance if a cop orders you to move aside.)

I think the national government decides about the nationwide organizational structure of authorities, and about creating them and shutting them down.

But you won't see nearly the number of Americans on Slashdot blathering about how backward the European system is. Nor did I do that. I get the impression that it takes an American to take offense at this kind of debate and exchange of opinions. Americans get all touchy and sensitive and talk about anti-Americanism. You won't see nearly the number of Europeans on Slashdot blathering about anti-Europism.

I have legitimate reasons to be concerned, because your system makes you start wars in Europe's backyard, and in other ways exacerbate the terrorism problem. Questioning authority is legitimate. People with a truly democratic mindset accept that authority gets discussed and debated. Only an authoritarian mindset demands that you bow down in silence.

It has nothing to do with backwardness. I neither thought nor expressed anything like that.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[Lemmy Caution]

I think it's more infantile. Americans like as little government as possible over themselves, and as much as possible over other people. People resent being told that they can't add an addition to their house but are happy to force their neighbors to care for their lawns.

I don't see this kind of divided thinking in a lot of other countries. One thing about Americans is that they have a sort of egalitarian blindness - they assume that the differences between the people below them and themselves are based on a defect of character of those lower, while attributing differences between themselves and those above them in rank and status as either arbitrary or unfair. They want the government to enforce the differences between themselves and those they deem beneath them, but to leave them alone.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[dadragon]

I doubt hating our government officials is a uniquely American phenomenon either.

Well, I'm Canadian, and I hate your government officials, too. ;)

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

Who exactly are the "authorities" that the ministers are forbidden to direct?

Could it be....bureaucrats? Details in my comment 21627657.

I hardly see how taking power out of the hands of corrupt (but elected) officials, and putting into the hands of corrupt (but unelected) bureaucrats is a good thing. I doubt that you elect each and every bureaucrat individually. Most will be employees who answer to some elected person above them in the chain of command. Similarly ours answer to our local elected politicians.

The important thing is that the media should be watching every step they take, and that, when a party misbehaves, there should be another ideologically similar party that you can vote for instead, so that parties can easily lose a lot of influence if they misbehave.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

I'd be interested to know what lever of power they don't already control. They don't control all the media. My thought is that your compatriots might somehow be persuaded to choose and support better media, media that would work for improvements in the system. Your compatriots might be persuaded to demand more from their media.

Democracy is worth at least some vigilance.

honors the constitution with glowing phrases and a one finger salute. It almost makes me cry.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[DaedalusHKX]

Almost all of them are unconstitutional.

No, actually ALL WEAPON LAWS are unconstitutional. The second amendment was among the most hotly debated at its time, the tyrants Hamilton and Washington (among others) wanted no such thing, and Madison watered the amendments down with easy to misconstrue language (especially over time as meanings of words changed).

What you can't forget is that there are NO qualifiers for "the right of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", period. Plus, a "militia" is any group of men older than 16 and younger than 60, of sound body and mind. They provide their own arms (any and all, not just guns) and their own training. Women with military experience could also be considered if able to handle the stress and willing to go the distance. THIS is what militia meant. Not the 1900's National Guard. That came almost 130 years later, which means it could not POSSIBLY have been what the 2nd amendment intended.

Regulation does not refer to today's bureaucratic paper pushing and prohibitions. They refer to organized into units, equipped with the equivalent of the military's arms, and commanded by an officer.

The same thing can be said of "congress shall make no law" in the first amendment... thus implying that any other bureaucracy can fuck the citizens as it pleases so long as it isn't Congress doing the fucking, and yet, the entire sheeple herd screams bloody murder the moment any group tries to infringe upon the vaunted separation of church and state, even though it was only the separation of church and CONGRESS expressly written into the amendment itself.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[DaedalusHKX]

Actually I think, and I'm not alone on this... that if Ron Paul wins, he'll basically just drag everyone back into the system for awhile longer, and lull them into complacency until the system (cage) built around them will be unbreakable by any means available. If Ron Paul does NOT win, a lot of conservatives (the small government folks, not the tyrannokrats of today) will probably blow a gasket and start a revolution.

If I get wind of it coming down, I'm getting on my boat and shoving off long before the bullets fly where I live. I plan to be living overseas at the time, because the end result will either be a total fascism (government commits total biochemical genocide of the "affected regions", which might explain why George Bush reopened the biochemical warfare laboratories in Maryland a few years back) or a total religious theocracy after the libertarians are killed off and the "conservatives" who didn't fight come out of the woodwork to reestablish their previous order.

Violent revolution never solves anything, because it is merely a REVOLT, not a revolution (change of existing order), just like it didn't solve anything in 1776. Sure, we got a fantastic form of free people's government a decentralized federation governed by the loose and hard argued Articles of Confederation. THAT was a truly free people's government, it also didn't last long, as in 1791 a new revolution overthrew the recently freed states. Not enough at the time were enlightened enough to carry on, so a new tyranny was shortly established, bringing back the centralized government that the tyranny lovers adore. In fact, if one does the proper research (visit the library of Congress and dig it up while you're at it), one can discover that the Committee on Style decided to strike out "and his title shall be *his Excellency*" from the description of the president, because it sounded too obviously like royalty. Afterwards in the 1850-1870 period, the new imperial presidency consolidated its power by conquering the South when it tried to exercise its supposedly guaranteed right to secede from the Union. Their ancestors should've read the fine print.

Ron will serve as merely a damper to get the tyranny built to its gills in armor and hardware, and then Ron will either retire or BE retired, depending on whether he's a useful sucker or in on the scam. Regardless, I have low expectations for a "nation of freedom" because freedom is where authoritarian worship ISN'T! Sadly, nowadays, that's very few places at all, and most are remarkably inhospitable to life. Every time pioneers and freemen tame a wilderness, the sheeple follow and bring their collectivist policies with them, until eventually the freemen and pioneers flee elsewhere. The time for the pioneers to make a stand and resist the infiltration of the collectivists was some 200 years ago.

When they failed to follow through on their success in 1776, and failed completely in the 1850's, when, after the Wyoming, Johnston County War, the US Congress can declare "the wild west over", we already know that tyranny lived in America, long before we were born. It only took another 120 years for the people to begin coming to that same conclusion each on his or her own.

I don't know how this will end, but I know how it began. That much I'm clear on. The rest, I cannot make any bets, its all too fuzzy with potential, but little of it any good. So I'll do what any good man can. Live life one day at a time, hope for the best, and be prepared for the worst. That and bitch around on slashdot to see if there are any other students of this mess living out here in the great wild west.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[DaedalusHKX]

Actually the system that was setup in 1791 guarantees them raises so long as they don't vote against said raise.

I agree with what you have to say with one exception. Press opposition to a candidate who says all the right things might have been engineered. They knew the man would get out on the net. This was tested when Howard Dean was "going to run for prez" and raised 2 million bucks online in about a week (or 2 days or whatever it was). Then he blew a gasket on public media and had to let Kerry take over. It has been tested before, so I have my doubts. If I were to still register and vote, I'd vote for Ron Paul, but, frankly, I have my supreme doubts that 400 Ron Pauls in Congress and Executive and Supreme Court would be able to fix this clusterfuck that we have today.

The whole world is screwed up, and we cannot fix it by further centralizing this mess. DECENTRALIZING might work, especially returning the authority to each individual unto himself insofar as he doesn't trespass upon others via force or fraud. As simple as that sounds, I can guarantee a hundred authoritarians (authority worshippers) will tell me how more laws than just that are required. Of course they are, these "useful idiots" require that every possible use of fraud and force be spelled out, not because they plan to obey the laws, but because they really need them enumerated so they can know how to defraud others or what methods of force may be employed in oppressing others.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always felt the immunity granted to career politicians here in the US hopelessly breaks the system. However, try getting lawmakers to make a law that removes their ability to live above the law. That same greed you mention makes it quite simply impossible to bring about such behavior. Further, trying to get enough fellow Americans angry enough to fight for change is damn near impossible. They're all too content to stare at Britney's latest exploits on their HDTVs.

I understand where you're coming from, and I wholeheartedly agree. However, it's going to take a revolution or a miracle to get such a change in the US political system. Or maybe a retrovirus that eliminates this gene...

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

Further, trying to get enough fellow Americans angry enough to fight for change is damn near impossible. They're all too content to stare at Britney's latest exploits on their HDTVs. It looks like this is the core of the problem. Indeed getting people to wake up and react is very difficult indeed. It's very difficult everywhere.

But it has been done before. Many times, in many countries. It should be possible. The question is how.

However, it's going to take a revolution or a miracle to get such a change in the US political system. A revolution is a nightmare. And there's a huge risk that it will be usurped by people hungering for power. Let's hope a better path than that is found before it's too late.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[jhol13]

only the politicians can. Not quite. Just like in Sweden, you need strong independent press. It seems USA has none (all the press is associated with a party). Besides, in the USA government has news agencies in the leash.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[eyendall]

Anyone who wants to be a politician should be automatically disqualified from seeking office. A bunch of pompous, strutting, egotistical, corrupt, intellectually bankrupt, (add your own endearment here), parasites on the public purse.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[CrkHead]

The press do have the ability to police the system as the grandparent post posited. The issue is that they no longer consider it to be in their interests.

IMHO, the primary reason we get left with choices A and B is that C does not stand a chance at getting the level of coverage required to compete.

With your example re: Dr. Paul, case in point. Dr. Paul broke fundraising records because he bypassed traditional access methods and did not rely on receiving any media coverage. Even after he became #3 in Republican fundraising (the most important polling statistic) there were movements to remove him from the debates.

A free and open press does have the ability to influence politics. I think the US is a good example of that.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[TapeCutter]

Your missing the point, the public service is supposed to "speak truth to power without fear or favour". From the view point of an Aussie I would trust the (east) European public service more than I would trust the US or even my own government.

It's not as if it's an impossible task to be an honest and capable public servant in the US, but IMHO a large chunk of the population have come to accept the idea that the public service itself is corrupt, their neighbour is crazy, poor people are lazy criminals sucking their taxes, and there is nothing they (or anyone else) can do about it, ...other than blame the media, join the NRA, keep a gun in the bedside draw, and a shotgun at the front door - you know, for people who walk on the front lawn... /rant

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[EveLibertine]

I get the impression that it takes an American to take offense at this kind of debate and exchange of opinions. Americans get all touchy and sensitive and talk about anti-Americanism. You won't see nearly the number of Europeans on Slashdot blathering about anti-Europism. "Americans" aren't generally touchy about anti-Americanism. Rather, American's are touchy about over-generalizations being applied to them. If your goal is to illicit some kind of adverse reaction and then accuse your detractors of being touchy, then by all means, continue with the generalizations. And on the contrary, I encourage others to complain about America's ill conceived foreign policy, especially when it is directly adversely affecting the complainant. However, I don't understand the notion that I cannot lay blame upon the individuals committing the atrocities. Believe me, American's are as pissed off about the system that allows this behavior as they are at the people performing the deeds themselves. Your attempts to imply otherwise are what is causing the backlash that you are receiving, and are apparently the result of you being misinformed on the state of the current political climate. Believe me, even if all 9,000,000 Swedes are ravenously pissed off about the American government, the amount of disdain stateside easily dwarfs that.

It would make more sense for you Americans to simply expect your politicians to be selfish like everybody, and not despise them for that, and instead despise your system if it doesn't provide suitable checks and balances. Which I think it doesn't. Don't hate criminals (politicians) for committing crimes, hate the system that allows them to do so? Don't hate the playa, hate the game? I'll hate both, thank you very much; I'm American after all, hating is what I do best. (Clarification: It could be misconstrued, but I don't mean to imply that I hate you; the previous statement is meant purely in jest. In fact, I love you very much.)

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[Belial6]

This is why when I hear people say they are not voting because they don't like the candidates, I tell them to vote 3rd party. We will never convince people that voting 3rd party isn't 'throwing away your vote' in our current situation. So, people who are voting for the perceived lesser of two evils are not the ones you want to talk to about 3rd parties. It's the ones that have decided that they WANT to 'throw away their vote' that you want to talk to. These people have already decided that they are not going to influence the election. So, they have nothing to lose by voting third party. Don't try to convince them that the third party can win. Just try to convince them that 5% of votes going to a third party will scare the shit out of the two main parties, which will get them to behave a little better.

Now, we all know that getting a third party candidate elected is a chicken and egg problem. People don't want to vote for a candidate that cannot win, and the candidate cannot win because people don't vote for them. If enough traditionally non-voters were to vote for third party candidates, you could see a turn in this. The trick is not to over promise. Don't promise a win. Don't even imply a possible win. Just point out that even 5% of the vote would scare the two incumbent parties. It doesn't even matter which third party they vote for, since the third party isn't going to win anyway.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[Hucko]

Come on! Surely even USA citizens can comprehend the inherent humour! DaDragon, you've won a fan.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[F34nor]

Mark Twain said "Love for the country always; love for the government when it deserves it."

The system is the constitution like the mycelium of a fungus; the government is the fruit that pops to the surface. We can harvest that fruit and it will grow back without damaging the underlying structure. The only real threat is if the current political oscillation has damaged the technocracy and the bureaucracy to the point that we may have lost some of our institutional memory. If FEMA literally can't remember where the files are, or if the CIA analysts who have read 25 years of transcripts from Iran are forced out and can tell what's going on by tonal changes, what are we going to do? This is why Porter Goss and Gonzales are a threat.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[Stachel]

You claim to be so proud of your democracy.
The United States of America is not a democracy, it's a federal constitutional republic.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[ardle]

Here's a good story from 335 years ago.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[krasmussen]

It would make more sense for you Americans to simply expect your politicians to be selfish like everybody, and not despise them for that, and instead despise your system if it doesn't provide suitable checks and balances. Which I think it doesn't.

Or, you could vote for politicians that are in politics because of a sincere desire to improve the world instead of the fame and salary. Democracy does partly work if voters and politicians are selfish, but it leaves out the minorities and the weakest when the majority of voters chooses tax cuts over welfare and development aid.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[ardle]

I agree with your model for base behaviour for public service: you also indicate that - barring electoral rigging - the elected government reflects the will of the people to some extent. Politicians have learnt to get elected by appealing to our interests on "small" issues: must even politicians motivated by public interest play this game?
Really interesting viewing :-)

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[Nethead]

I wish there was an "obvious once clearly stated" button to mod you with.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[WilliamSChips]

Now, now, Europe's been quite good since they've had the shit scared out of them by thousands of bombs being placed by foreign nations on their land.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[hey!]

A pox on both your houses.

Nobody can make a valid generalization about how "Americans" feel about something like, say, government workers. True, a particular viewpoint can become influential because it has a lot of adherents, or because its adherents are strategic in a closely balanced situation. America certainly has a log of evangelical Christians, but they are far from a majority. The reason they are so powerful is because the Republicans can't put together a winning coalition of voter groups in many elections without them. This leads to a kind of cognitive bias that assigns a kind of opinion schema to a "typical" American that very few individuals are likely to have.

America is not only a large country, it has a wide variety of people who, in our heretofore largely free society, have developed a huge variety of viewpoints on things. You might not agree, but I think that's what makes America great. I hate it when people take that dynamism and boil it down to some simple stereotype like "Americans detest government" -- and even in that case it's a meaninglessly vague statement. Some people who avowedly "detest government" would like religious doctrine and mandatory loyalty oaths in public schools. Others are principled libertarians who at least try to be consistent. Some people hate the present government but think a better government is possible. Others aren't paying any attention at all to government.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[ultranova]

The whole world is screwed up, and we cannot fix it by further centralizing this mess. DECENTRALIZING might work, especially returning the authority to each individual unto himself insofar as he doesn't trespass upon others via force or fraud.

Acquiring a centimeter-thick strip of land which completely encircles your home and then setting your eternal servitude as the price for right of passage requires neither force nor fraud. Take the deal or rot in your home; literally once food and water run out. That's what you libertarians refuse to understand: your rules don't prevent the haves from issuing orders ending with "or die" to have-less.

As simple as that sounds, I can guarantee a hundred authoritarians (authority worshippers) will tell me how more laws than just that are required.

More laws are required because the set of "do not defraud" and "do not initiate force" is insufficient to guarantee freedom. All it does is transfer power from the official government, the one with at least nominal checks on its usage of that power, into the plutocracy, removing even the nominal checks and leaving everyone else worse off than they were before.

Of course they are, these "useful idiots" require that every possible use of fraud and force be spelled out, not because they plan to obey the laws, but because they really need them enumerated so they can know how to defraud others or what methods of force may be employed in oppressing others.

If you don't specify exactly what counts as either fraud or force, then court gets to decide it on whatever basis it pleases. Better make sure the judge likes you, then, by worshipping in his church and mowing his lawn and being his servant in every other way imaginable too. Again, you haven't freed people from power, but rather moved the power outside of supervision.

Laws need to enumare the offenses and be specific, because otherwise the courts get to judge based on the whims of their members, giving those members undeserved power over other members of the society. There is nothing authoritarian in this enumeration; if anything, it limits the power of government.

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[QuickFox]

Indeed my generalizations were stupid. So much so that the next morning I woke up remembering them and feeling embarrassed.

I really should be able to avoid such generalizations, because it annoys me when people talk about Europe as if our fringe oddballs were our mainstream. And yet I make similarly meaningless generalizations myself occasionally, when I'm tired and annoyed. When I'm in that state there's something strangely tempting in striking out in blunt, wide-sweeping strokes without much thought.

Sorry.

So this isn't even the first time I've done it. Maybe I have that gene that prevents you from learning from mistakes.

Wow, I brought this back to the topic of the article! I did not expect that!

And on the contrary, I encourage others to complain about America's ill conceived foreign policy, especially when it is directly adversely affecting the complainant. This makes me realize that perhaps I've listened to a vociferous fringe and assumed that it was widespread. Why is it so easy to get tricked by such impressions?

This probably means that I should be more forgiving of those who are tricked to see Europe's fringe as mainstream.

However, I don't understand the notion that I cannot lay blame upon the individuals committing the atrocities. I didn't intend it to go that far. Of course the individuals should be held individually responsible, and hated, brought to justice and so on as deserved. It's just that sometimes I get the impression that they get smeared regardless who they are and what they do, that they are perpetually damned if they do and damned if they don't, out of a sweepingly general disdain for anyone working in politics.

And it looks like a saint would be smeared far worse than somebody evil.

But maybe I'm just looking at a fringe.

I'm American after all, hating is what I do best. Not even in my most sweepingly generalizing mood combined with anger do I see Americans that way.

In fact there are lots of things I love about the US and its people. There's a kind of brotherhood between our continents.

The thing is, you bash a brother far more than a stranger.

In fact, I love you very much. What a heart-warming compliment! I love feeling loved!

Re:Now, for the most useful one

[ClubStew]

Is that why between 40-60% of registered voters vote? And many of those that do (most?) do so to vote for the lesser of two evils. Do nothing, and the incumbant wins and as you imply they've already exercised their power and no doubt only for their greater good, not the voters.

Politics explained

[El Yanqui]

Now I know why so many politicians get re-elected: Too few D2 receptors in the voting population.

Re:Politics explained

[marcello_dl]

Now I know why people upgrade their windows installation.

Re:Politics explained

[explosivejared]

Better yet! Now we know why they keep making windows with the same failed security schemes!

Re:Politics explained

[ewg]

Now I know why people read blog comments.

Re:Politics explained

[Anonymous Coward]

...And why Gene Hackman went on to do Superman 2.

Re:Politics explained

[Anonymous Coward]

We can fix that with a small eugenics program. No political support needed,
just one or more of the following:

1) sex and a more ... relaxed .. morality.

2) drugs (to make those D2 receptors more active)

Re:Politics explained

[iminplaya]

Some might tell you there's too few R2 receptors.

Re:Politics explained

[dpilot]

> We can fix that with a small eugenics program. No political support needed,
> just one or more of the following:
>
> 1) sex and a more ... relaxed .. morality.
>
> 2) drugs (to make those D2 receptors more active)

You forgot...

3) Rock and Roll

Re:Politics explained

[marcello_dl]

Now I know why people write blog comments.

Re:Politics explained

[marcello_dl]

> Now we know why they keep making windows with the same failed security schemes!

I thought the answer was "Profit!!!", but I hope that in the end your perspective will be the right one :)

Re:Politics explained

[Anonymous Coward]

In related news, Gene found to Explain Repeated Mistakes.

Just what we need

[CRCulver]

When our society already has plenty of excuses to avoid personal responsibility (e.g. overdiagnosis of ADD to include kids who are just undiscipled), we give more ammunition to people who just don't want to try to get it right.

Re:Just what we need

[abigor]

Hopefully you aren't suggesting the results be suppressed in order to facilitate people's sense of responsibility.

Re:Just what we need

[CRCulver]

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. The practice of science should be punishable by death.

Re:Just what we need

[caution live frogs]

My biggest problem with this sort of science is that the general public usually gets everything about it wrong, thanks to bad reporting or poor understanding of science in general. Someone publishes an article stating that morph A of gene X is found more often than one would statistically expect in a number of persons with a specific condition, but when the public gets the results we get headlines screaming "OMFG TEH GHEY GENE FOUND" and that kind of crap, because it makes better press. Yes, there are conditions that can be caused by an aberration in a single gene (albinism, narcolepsy, etc.) but more often than not genes that control complex behaviors require multiple interactions between multiple genes; until proven otherwise you should always understand that publication of a finding like this is indicitave of a contributing factor, not a causal factor, for a given condition.

Trust me. I do neuroscience for a living. When you're preparing the publication for submission, you always work your hardest to ensure that everything is accurate and properly phrased to be crystal clear about the limitations and drawbacks of the findings, only to have a reporter read nothing more than the abstract and get everything wrong. Don't blame the societal excuses on the scientists. People inclined to take the easy way out don't end up with PhDs, research careers, and articles in Nature.

Re:Just what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

+1, Elitist

Re:Just what we need

[calebt3]

+1? So Elitism is a good thing?
Disclaimer: I don't have an opinion on GPP.

Re:Just what we need

[QuickFox]

(e.g. overdiagnosis of ADD to include kids who are just undiscipled), [...] people who just don't want to try to get it right. Which kind are you? Undiscipled? Or don't want to get it right?

Re:Just what we need

[abigor]

Right, well that's fair enough then.

Re:Just what we need

[Lemmy Caution]

We already know that a lot of bad decisions are motivated by other physiological factors - adolescent "testosterone poisioning", PMS, dementia, etc. The fact that cognition has a material basis puts us in a place beyond either "excuses" or simple "suck it up" volitionalism. Each of us is, ultimately and existentially, "responsible" for ourselves. Yet much of our behavior and attitudes are still formed by factors out of our control, and there is no one I know who doesn't have thoughts, behaviors, and emotions which baffle them.

Knowing the roots of these behaviors gives us a way to short-circuit the negative ones.

Re:Just what we need

[QuickFox]

Considering this it makes more sense if the practice of journalism becomes punishable by death.

Re:Just what we need

[Tablizer]

When our society already has plenty of excuses to avoid personal responsibility (e.g. overdiagnosis of ADD to include kids who are just undiscipled),

I think the problem is that humans on average are not designed to sit still for hours at little desks and move little symbols on flat bleached trees. A "problem child" may have been a brilliant hunter in an earlier era. I've seen families where one kid is almost an angel and the other from the same parents is a hyper mess. Whips and chains may work in the short term, but create a disturbed personality later in life.

Re:Just what we need

[bigpicture]

"Personal Responsibility" What's that? Is it in the dictionary somewhere between "blame personal circumstances or others" and "It's not my fault".

Re:Just what we need

[blahplusplus]

"(e.g. overdiagnosis of ADD to include kids who are just undiscipled)"

Is it? Or is it that we have a religious cult worship of overwork? I'm with Bertrand Russel, Socrates and Buckminster fuller on this one, people work so much their relationships with their fellow human beings absolutely suck.

Re:Just what we need

[calzones]

bingo.

Re:Just what we need

[fyngyrz]

I rather suspect that if a hyper child spoiled more than one hunt with uncontrollable noise, running about, and blathering, that said child would become dinner. Or a lone nomad at an early age. Like three.

Be grateful for modern society. Otherwise you'd see hyper kids enjoying such advanced treatment regimes as being tightly swaddled and hung from a hook.

Re:Just what we need

[fyngyrz]

No, no. It's just obsolete usage. It's been replaced with "call a lawyer."

Re:Just what we need

[Daimanta]

Well, scientists find excuses for shitty behavior all the time and blame it on genetics. They should at least be kicked in the nuts for it.

Re:Just what we need

[PPH]

You'd think that editors would have learned better by now. Perhaps they suffer from a genetic lack of D2 receptors.

Re:Just what we need

[ShakaUVM]

It's true.

All these magic "genes" they find that "cause" behavior tend to have something like 1% to 20% of the total causes to the behavior. But the media always reports it as "The God Gene!" "The ADD Gene!" "The Novelty-Seeking Gene!"

Re:Just what we need

[cduffy]

I rather suspect that if a hyper child spoiled more than one hunt with uncontrollable noise, running about, and blathering, that said child would become dinner. Or a lone nomad at an early age. Like three.[...]Be grateful for modern society.

On what grounds should I-the-reader take the means of child rearing you suspect was once prevalent to be a Bad Thing? If this is a moral judgement call, it's one couched in the assumptions and environment of modern society, not that in which these practices may have occurred.

If killing or abandoning an uncontrollable child enhanced the survivability of the community, that would be exactly the right and moral thing to do.

Re:Just what we need

[wish]

Yes.

Re:Just what we need

[gowakuwa]

If women weren't so bad at selecting a mate their genes would have left the gene pool long time ago. Who cares about good psycopath hunter abilities in a civilized world?

Re:Just what we need

[mochan_s]

When our society already has plenty of excuses to avoid personal responsibility (e.g. over diagnosis of ADD to include kids who are just undiscipled), we give more ammunition to people who just don't want to try to get it right.

All of this coming from someone who can't even spell properly (or upgrade to Firefox 2).

Re:Just what we need

[fyngyrz]

On what grounds should I-the-reader take the means of child rearing you suspect was once prevalent to be a Bad Thing?

I did not say, or imply, that such would be a bad thing. The parent post to mine was engaged in some amusing (to me) speculation that a hyper child might have been a "great hunter." In so doing, my impression was that they were attempting to recast the social defects of a hyper child into something positive. I was pointing out that in reality, said child were more likely to be ostracized, or otherwise summarily dealt with, because loud, uncontrollable children are no asset to any hunt; my remark of "be grateful" was made in that light.

Re:Just what we need

[Tablizer]

Who cares about good psycopath hunter abilities in a civilized world?

Civilized?

Re:Just what we need

[ScrewMaster]

No, +5 right on the money. An educational system incapable of teaching citizens even basic math, science, and statistics combined with journalists more interested in headlines than accuracy is guaranteed to induce irrational kneejerk reactions from the general public.

Re:Just what we need

[timeOday]

The significant question is not whether behaviors are controlled by one gene or several genes, but whether behavior is controlled by genetics, period. ("Gene" is just a made-up organizational construct, anyways).

Re:Just what we need

[leereyno]

Why would doctors diagnose someone with ADD simply because he or she does not have any disciples?

I had disciples when I was a kid, but they diagnosed me anyway.

Futhermore, I thi--oooh look shiny object!!!!!!

Re:Just what we need

[LaskoVortex]

> When you're preparing the publication for submission, you always work your hardest to ensure that everything is accurate and properly phrased to be crystal clear about the limitations and drawbacks of the findings, only to have a reporter read nothing more than the abstract and get everything wrong.

Yes, reporters make this same mistake over and over again.

Re:Just what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't you have to prove conclusively that science was used before fulfilling a sentence of that magnitude? Therefore those doing the verification are also conducting science as well.

Re:Just what we need

[Lemmy Caution]

I suggest you investigate the psychological profile of a typical CEO. A measured amount of sociopathy is not really a bad thing to have in modernity, either.

Re:Just what we need

[grammar fascist]

Knowing the roots of these behaviors gives us a way to short-circuit the negative ones.

Hear, hear.

I have ADD. I started medication a couple of months ago, and the effect has been dramatic. Before, the only way I could concentrate on something was when I was excited about it, very interested in it, up against a deadline, or the planets just happened to be aligned properly. Don't get me wrong: I can make myself stare at anything for as long as I want. Most people assume that's enough, but it's not. A lot of things need to come together to get the prefrontal cortex engaged and functioning at capacity. Being worried sick, undernourished, or sleepy can put anyone in a distracted fog. Imagine being foggy and distracted all the time for no apparent reason.

Now that the ol' brain generally engages when I want it to, all those techniques and tricks people had been swearing would help me get stuff done actually work. I get work done on time, even when I don't feel like it. I'm less irritable. I can put up with noise and chaos without getting cranky. I have more control over my thoughts. I have an easier time with empathy. I no longer wander into the kitchen looking for things to munch when I'm not hungry.

In short, anyone who says it ain't real is full of it, but they're entitled to their opinions. I was skeptical myself until I got that miraculous squirt of dopamine that put everything right.

Back on topic: there's no single cause of ADD, but everything in the dopamine and norepinephrine cycles has been implicated. It seems it takes the right combination of factors - too much MAO, underproduction of monoamines, underfunctioning monoamine transporters, not enough receptors including D2 - to converge and put someone over the impairment threshold. "Once bitten, twice shy," as the article is titled? Yep, that's me, and most others with ADD. I take responsibility for my actions, though. It's taken me years longer to learn what's supposed to come naturally - or at least more easily - but it is my life and I am in charge.

All the same, I'd done as much as I could and I'm finished with it. I'm keeping this minor personality transplant.

Re:Just what we need

[Artifakt]

My daughter was diagnosed with ADHD and treated with Ritalin for a number of years. We eventually took her off it, against the school system's collective advice, and her grades and behavior improved remarkably, and she proved to be quite able to control and motivate herself. I question whether the diagnosis was ever really correct, but assuming it was, I'd like to add the following incident.

Daughter was 9, and hiking in the Great Smoky Mountains. Daughter pointed, and whispered "See that deer?" We looked, puzzled. Daughter: "That deer on the hill - no not that hill, the hill behind the other hill behind that hill." Focused 12x binoculars right where she pointed. Yep, there was a deer there, laying down in high grass, about 2 1/2 miles away. With binoculars, you could see just her head and neck. Daughter "She's pregnant!". Deer stood up, waddled a few feet - appeared either preggers or seriously overweight. Asked daughter "Was she standing up when you first saw her?". Daughter: "You can tell she's retaining fluids, like mommy did with me!".
      We've tested this various ways since. Take my daughter to a place where there are exposed fossils, and she can find dozens of specimens in the time it takes most people to find one. Fill a tabletop with a hundred intricate knick-knacks, glass figurines and such, let her look at it casually for a few seconds, and then leave. Let people rearrange a few items, take a few, or add a few new ones, then let her reenter the room and ask her to describe the changes (Do this without telling her it's a test).

So it's nice you regard the speculation about 'great hunters' as amusing. I've heard it and similar from a lot of observers who think it is often objectively true. Doubtless not in nearly all cases, and yes, I have seen ADHD children whose behavior was eternally annoying to simply intolerable for even the shortest exposures, but given your remarks, you would doubtless be amazed by how often this sort of claim comes up. Many of the reports aren't from parents or guardians of the subjects in question. There's a large subset of ADHD kids that focus quite well to absolutely superlatively in some other settings, just not in school.
        While we're at it, a lot of these kids are regarded as needing medication by some female teacher, and any male teachers in the environment disagree, often strongly. Male teachers are 80% less likely to recommend an initial physician's visit than women, and even more likely to have the opinion that the child needs an outlet for his or her energies more than medication. Guess which gender was historically likely to be leading a hunting party?

          In my daughter's case, there is only one group of people who were shown objectively to be wrong. That's the teaching staff who repeatedly warned that her behavior would only worsen if she was taken off Ritalin, who were 180 degrees off axis. The exceptional 7th grade math teacher who saw her at a midnight public astronomy workshop, and said, "If she's like this when she hasn't had a pill since noon, get her off the pills and she can skip bonehead math and be learning calculus by her junior year." was apparently right. The people who dealt with her in the summer that year, and were offering her chances to volunteer at a local museum were right (and sad that their insurance wouldn't let them offer an apprenticeship to a child with her diagnosis). Outside of school, we saw very little ostracism, either by other children or adults. Sure there was some, she's a geek of the old block after all.

Re:Just what we need

[fyngyrz]

Aside from your interesting 2 1/2 mile anecdote (which I strongly suggest you adjust for realistic human visual acuity before someone calls you on it directly), my experience has been exactly the opposite.

We have an ADHD son who was utterly intolerable and a solid non-performer in school, dangerous to himself and any other child around him unless medicated; on Ritalin, he excelled. Eventually - in his teens - he came off the drug, and he's a sweet, generous and well behaved human being of 33 today. Without it, he was an uncontrollable ball of foaming craziness. Further, at this time there is a grandson who is further down the spectrum, but politically correct attitudes here in our isolated small town resulted in his mother, who frankly isn't too bright, not medicating him. Now he's far behind his peers socially and can barely speak. We - grandma and grandpa - pointed out our experience with the other son (this is a son of our youngest, the subject of my first point was the oldest of three) but it fell of deaf ears.

I am certainly not saying that all active kids need medication, but I *am* saying that the current backlash against medicating kids is hurting some of them.

Re:Just what we need

[Foobar of Borg]

I am certainly not saying that all active kids need medication, but I *am* saying that the current backlash against medicating kids is hurting some of them.

Part of the problem, I think, is that we Americans tend to be extremists. First, ADHD is discovered and every kid who acts up gets put on drugs. Then, lo and behold, we find that drugging every kid who can't sit through a continuous reading of Farewell to Arms is a bad thing. The solution? Make sure that no kids get anymore drugs ever, even the few who may really need it.

Re:Just what we need

[Reziac]

It's not just humans. The best canine performance candidates (ie. serious hunting and fieldtrial dogs) generally go through a stage where they're tough to control at best, and hyperactive at worst -- but it all boils down to they need MORE TO DO than the average non-pro-trainer can give them, because they have more desire to hunt, and need more of an outlet for it, than the average pet.

Substitute "child" for "dog" and the parallel is obvious.

Re:Just what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the assumption you're making is that CEOs are in fact desirable. I cannot speak for the other fellow, but I would not make that assumption. If there were ever something to eliminate from the human gene pool it would be sociopaths. There has been a clear selective pressure in humans to encourage reciprocity, which you see in general studies of games. Successful sociopaths are opportunistic parasites, while unsuccessful ones fill prison beds after cutting up women and animals. Neither is especially helpful to the long-term viability of the species.

Re:Just what we need

[Lemmy Caution]

Evolution isn't about "the species." It's about the propagation of one's own gene line.

Re:Just what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely wrong. Evolution in general is the catch-all for mechanisms of change for life over time. It has no particular bias in terms of higher-level selection criteria. It is in fact a "whatever works" system, with different selection criteria in different species. And of course it should be noted that by definition, species only successfully reproduce amongst themselves. A single animal's "gene line" is essentially meaningless, since an animal unable to procreate is just time-filler from an evolutionary perspective. Individual genes, rather than the genes of individuals, are of course entirely important units of consideration. In any event, I don't see what your point was supposed to be. Did you even have one?

Re:Just what we need

[Lemmy Caution]

The point is that the OP thinks that sexual selection should take the well-being of the species as a whole into account, that the persistence of selection for traditional dominance traits no longer helps the species. Thinking of the perpetuation of the species as any kind of motivation for selection when it doesn't benefit the immediate offspring of the individual in direct competition with others is misguided.

Re:Just what we need

[Tejin]

Like that line from Repo Man:

"I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame society."

Re:Just what we need

[IdeaMan]

Test your child for color-blindness.
Was talking to my co-worker the other day, he has 20/10 vision and color blindness. Turns out color blind people were picked for door gunners in choppers in Vietnam because they aren't fooled by camouflage.

Logic ...

[foobsr]

From TFA: "Dopamine is responsible for signalling fun and pleasure in the brain. But dopamine also helps us learn. When we make a pleasurable decision, dopamine is a chemical treat, urging the brain to repeat the choice. Being deprived of such a treat should theoretically activate D2 receptors and encourage people not to make that same decision again."

Is it only me who thinks that the writer did not learn to stop?

CC.

FRIST POST!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm mighty hungover and they won't announce my lottery winning until Wenesday

Must be widespread....

[gweihir]

Just look at the ad state of the World. What we would need is people that can learn from other's mistakes, but what we have seems to be a majority that cannot even learn from their own.

Back on topic, I think this is very interesting reaearch. Dare one even hope for the possibility of a cure?

Re:Must be widespread....

[Adambomb]

Just look at the ad state of the World Thats either quite clever or the most apt typo ever.

Re:Must be widespread....

[Anonymous Coward]

genetic diseases/disorders don't have a cure. the best you can do is stop further propagation.

Re:Must be widespread....

[calebt3]

The best you can do is stop further propagation. Darwin Awards!

Re:Must be widespread....

[Kohath]

Just look at the ad state of the World

The "state of the world" is the best it's ever been.

- war is at an all-time low
- wealth is at an all-time high
- poverty is at an all-time low
- pollution is lower than it has been in hundreds of years
- life expectancy is at an all-time high
- people are far healthier than at any time in the past
- Many of the worst diseases are eradicated or cured outright
- Death by starvation is unknown in the majority of countries -- it simply does not happen.
- etc., etc., etc.

It is reality.

Western civilization (and the principles and traditions behind it) deserves most of the credit.

Re:Must be widespread....

[sam_handelman]

Yes, because only western civilizatuon resulted in net improvement in living conditions, as all those brown skinned savages were living in mud huts before their aryan superiors came along to civilize them.

  When western civilization burst onto the world scene starting around the 15th century, the main exports were backsliding and hobbesianism. India, which had been the economic center of the world, suffered an economic collapse. Central and southern America suferred an even more severe economic collapse, and the loss of on the order of 50% of their population, north America was more sparsely populated but fared even worse.

  It is absolutely true that things have improved a great deal since that time - but they had been improving *before* our ancestors killed and/or subjugated the rest of the planet and there's no reason to think that India and the Americas wouldn't be in considerably better shape today without european meddling.

  The best aspects of western civilization are mostly arabic anyway.

Re:Must be widespread....

[gweihir]

Typo, I am sorry to say. But I think I am quite impressed muself ;-)

Re:Must be widespread....

[Kohath]

You sound like a bigot.

Re:Must be widespread....

[leereyno]

People who learn from other's mistakes are called wise.

The pre-emptive dupe.

[Ninjaesque One]

This article will be duped. Be sure of it.

Genetic databases of individuals...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how long until people found to have this gene are given higher insurance rates (or harder time getting jobs if it's known).

Now some of them may very well earn them, but others don't. How long until even having the gene becomes a liability, even if it doesn't seem to affect your actions.

Re:Genetic databases of individuals...

[the_humeister]

Well that does pose an interesting question. Should people with genetic predisposition to disease have higher insurance rates? Should women with the BRCA mutations pay more? What if they get profilactic surgeries?

Re:Genetic databases of individuals...

[krazytekn0]

Gattaca is coming...

Re:Genetic databases of individuals...

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher insurance rates paid for by parents who were aware of an unusually high risk of genetic disorders in their offspring. The one with the genetic problems should never be responsible, because there was no chance to choose.

Re:Genetic databases of individuals...

[Fractal Dice]

That depends on how seriously you want to hold to the axiom that "all men are created equal"

(I think this will be one of the fundamental choices we face as a society - do you allow discrimination based on uncontrollable birthrights or do you waive any liabilities a person is born with and only allow them to be judged by their actions/risks after birth)

Re:Genetic databases of individuals...

[the_humeister]

It's quite clear that all men are not created equal as a result of genetics. Clearly someone with Down syndrome, compared with someone without Down syndrome, is less intelligent, more prone to Alzheimer disease, and more prone to certain types of cancers.

Re:Genetic databases of individuals...

[Fractal Dice]

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that people are carbon copies of each other at birth or that it is impossible to make statistical predictions of future success. But rather, is who you are in the eyes of the society a question of your genes and ancestry or is it the person how you become? In another era, the color of a person's skin would have been considered as insurmountable disability and every measurable statistic of social success at the time would have agreed.

One of the most eloquent solutions the world has ever seen to all the ethical and legal complications of inheritance is the famous passage from the American Declaration of Independence. They simply declared equality as an axiom. It was intended as rejection of hereditary social caste systems within the dominant race and gender of the time, but it's really all a question of genetics.

(now the question of insurance is muddier because it's one thing for the law to be blind to genetics, but it's another thing for the law to meddle in the calculations of a private company, but I'll leave that to a different debate ... I just wanted to try to clarify where my original comment was coming from)

Re:Genetic databases of individuals...

[Nossie]

that already happens in the uk if you've had one defined STD for whatever reason (I know this because I was tested negative and before being tested was told that the results could make a difference to insurance etc) Why would the insurance companies not want more reasons to screw you out of more money?

I think we are one step closer to such a situation... it wont be long before Micheal Dell, Richard Branson and Bill Gates are all classed as 'pizza delivery boys'

Re:Genetic databases of individuals...

[ceoyoyo]

In a capitalistic medical insurance system, yes. A genetic predisposition to disease is no different than other factors that DO cause higher insurance rates, such as age, smoking or a penchant for crocodile wrestling.

This is an excellent example of the problems with capitalistic medical insurance systems.

Dupe

[iphayd]

I'll wait for the next one to _actually_ comment.

Re:Dupe

[dotancohen]

So no complaining about dupes and typos: it's genetic! Busted!

Not to put too fine a point on it

[Colin Smith]

But isn't this almost the definition of stupidity?

Re:Not to put too fine a point on it

[calebt3]

Insanity, not stupidity.

Re:Not to put too fine a point on it

[Sigismundo]

Quote from Albert Einstein: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Re:Not to put too fine a point on it

[Anonymous Coward]

So, that is why tech support drives me insane.

Re:Not to put too fine a point on it

[arktemplar]

Then all of science would be Insane, we do after all advocate the repeating of the same set of experiments all the time hoping to get different results, something that can let us publish. I do not quite agree with that bit.

Re:Not to put too fine a point on it

[Anonymous Coward]

No. I'm not stupid; I have an excellent degree from (according to recent reviews) the world's second best university and I have an interesting and very well paid job.

However, I've been aware for many years that I have what's called an "addictive personality". I enjoy drugs and gambling far too much. But, aware of my tendencies, I don't do either more than once a year. Except smoking, which I also love (and yes, that is stupid).

I think that stupidity and addictive tendencies are unrelated. But if you suffer from both you're likely to have a shit life.

Re:Not to put too fine a point on it

[srussia]

Quote from Albert Einstein: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Quote from Heraclitus: "You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you." Hence my sig.

Re:Not to put too fine a point on it

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how they conducted the research into learning, people learn in diffrent ways with practicing generally being considered the best way.

However memory is easy to test for.

I do well on intelligence tests but have a VERY poor memory.

Does this qualify people for a disability?

[kdekorte]

And if so does this mean they get special parking? I hope not...

Correlation != Causation

[eniac42]

Or maybe people with fewer D2 receptors were more cynical by nature, and thought the experiment pointless..

Re:Correlation != Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe people with fewer D2 receptors were more cynical by nature, and thought the experiment pointless..

That would still be causation. Will you ever learn?

Re:Correlation != Causation

[foreverdisillusioned]

There are plenty of possibilities that do NOT involve causation. See my post here: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=383655&cid=21630831

Genetically-oriented criminals

[renrutal]

So instead of "Not guilty by reason of insanity" they now might say "Not guilty because of genetic tendency"?

Re:Genetically-oriented criminals

[Compholio]

So instead of "Not guilty by reason of insanity" they now might say "Not guilty because of genetic tendency"?

Next up: You are hear-by sentenced to a lifetime of gene therapy.

Re:Genetically-oriented criminals

[RHSC]

It's just like bioshock. Let's send them all to rapture

In the future

[anss123]

There will be no stupid people, unemployment or poor. Instead we'll have genetically indisposed, between jobs or financially challenged. Say anything else and the PC will hit you.

Re:In the future

[JayDiggity]

So? Will that make them any less stupid, unemployed, or poor? At we can all know why.

Re:In the future

[zotz]

Surely you jest!

In the future, the tolerant will tolerate the intolerant.

all the best,

drew

Human behavior is simple...

[ameline]

I find that the following two axioms explain much of what I observe in human behavior...

1: Thinking is hard.
2: People are lazy.

That's all here is to it.

Re:Human behavior is simple...

[Valdrax]

That didn't take a lot of thought. Too lazy to flesh it out?

Re:Human behavior is simple...

[fyngyrz]

1. Thinking is hard;
2. People are lazy and/or not well equipped for it;
3. Religion.

Re:Human behavior is simple...

[kohaku]

1. Thinking is hard;
2. People are lazy and/or not well equipped for it;
3. Religion.

I must respectfully disagree, religion is merely a tool with which to facilitate laziness in thinking ;)

Re:Human behavior is simple...

[fyngyrz]

I think you're talking about the use of religion, once the mythos is crafted. I was, admittedly far too tersely for it to be obvious, referring to the genesis of religion.

Re:Human behavior is simple...

[ameline]

Yep -- to lazy to even proofread it :-)

Re:Human behavior is simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep -- to lazy to even proofread it :-) Or that, apparently...

(You know, I also have an axiom about human behavior; it involves pretentious assholes and generalizations...)

Interesting...

[R2.0]

I know a recovering alcoholic pretty well, and one of her pronounced traits is repeatedly doing the same things that she knows she shouldnt. Keep in mind that the phrase "Insanity is doing the same action over and over again and expecting a different result" comes from AA.

Oddly enough, it only became really pronounced AFTER she stopped drinking - gene activation?

Re:Interesting...

[FinchWorld]

Either that or you just didn't notice it on the grounds she was blind drunk.

Re:Interesting...

[leereyno]

She's simply finding other ways of manifesting her unresolved compulsion for self-destruction.

She can't drink anymore, so she finds other ways of shooting herself in the foot, trying her hardest to ruin and wreck things for herself.

Is this because of some rogue gene? I seriously doubt it. This is what is known as a character flaw, one that is unfortunately very serious.

I hope that she is able to eventually work her way through all of the nonsense she's pulled in on top of herself. It is rare that someone is able to do this, but it does happen.

Re:Interesting...

[R2.0]

You seem to be confusing causation with responsibility. Whatever the cause of her actions - bad parents, bad genes, or just being bad - she is ultimately responsible for them, and she more or less accepts that.

Just because there may be physiological reasons behind certain behavior doesn't mean that it alleviates personal responsibility. Indeed, it may increase it - if I have a mental illness that is treatable by drugs, I would be clearly irresponsible not to take them, ESPECIALLY since others rely on me.

Unfortunately our legal system and culture have grabbed hold of the causation=responsibility myth. Although it is a little bit schizophrenic about it.

Re:Interesting...

[leereyno]

I'm not sure you read what I wrote.

A character flaw is, by definition, something that we are responsible for.

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that the phrase "Insanity is doing the same action over and over again and expecting a different result" comes from AA. Oddly enough, it only became really pronounced AFTER she stopped drinking - gene activation?

Or perhaps it's an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've noticed that people in the program tend to slip especially hard when they do fall off the wagon.

Re:Interesting...

[yoyoq]

"Insanity is doing the same action over and over again and expecting a different result"

is actually an einstein quote
(also attributed to Ben Franklin)

Re:Interesting...

[steelfood]

The first question to ask her or for her to ask is: "Why?"

A little introspection goes a long way, especially when one can make a firm commitment being true to oneself. Most psychological problems are caused by conflict that arises from denying reality, by trying to shut it out, lay blame on someone else, or however else to make it easier to cope with. A person who denies reality must make a convincing fantasy. Unfortunately, when the properties of that fantasy does not conform to observation, then the mind simply goes insane in trying to reconcile the real and the fake (likely, the reason why people who have high creative intelligence are more prone to schizophrenia is because their fantasies are very 'real' and hence they sometimes fail to distinguish reality from fantasy).

People subconsciously pick this easy road; not everyone has the strength to face their demons.

Your acquaintance must first honestly confront herself, figure out the source of the problem--admit that it is a problem at all. Then, she can go about trying to solve the problem, however it needs to be solved. The latter she does not have to do alone, but the former is something she and only she can do. AA tries to convince people that the former can be communal (in fact, that it is only through external intervention that it can happen), but the effects of that thinking are largely temporary; most people who recover through AA have to continue to go and continue to abstain, or they will lapse. Others can only provide support and assistance during and after the act of confrontation--in a way, this is the purpose of seeing a shrink. But the self must make the commitment, and actually carry out the act, and only the self can know the truthfulness of the answers. Those who can do this will be quickly free of whatever the undesired behavior is (said undesired behavior could be 'being nice to others' and this method would still work).

Drinking is an interesting addiction. Alcohol allows people to temporarily forget their demons, usually when they pass out. It also gives a certain high from the pain it causes during and afterwards. And, its effects are quite consistent, allowing for a level of stability in the mind. She could be drinking for one or more of these and other reasons. Her behavioral changes may be an attempt to compensate for whatever she lost when she stopped her consumption.

Re:Interesting...

[R2.0]

Your last paragraph almost hits it. After she stopped drinking, she was having trouble concentrating and finishing projects. The Doctor diagnosed her with ADD. Turns out there is a relatively strong correlation between alcoholics and adult ADD sufferer's. the theory is that the alcohol, acting as a depressant, medicates the ADD symptoms, "slowing things down" enough for them to get a handle on everyday life. Of course, the problem is that the "cure" is worse than the disease.

Is ADD overdiagnosed? Yep. Does she have it? Perhaps not. But I do know that, if she runs out of her meds, she definitely functions less well, enough to convince me there is some therapeutic effect taking place.

Hey I know that girl too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey I know that girl too!

Source

[avalean]

I would like to know if this gene is more common in males or females, and if it increases or decreases with aging.

More than one way to Rome.

[Trackster]

I think it's interesting that we are so easily convinced that genes control every little detail of our lives. Just because they find a gene that, when modified, affects this trait or that trait; we assume that's all there is to it. It's not. Playing with the genes may be _one_ way to get a certain result. However, it is _not the only_ way to get that same result. Anyone who knows the smallest bit about psychology and sociology know there are many ways to consistantly produce children (and by extension, adults) who repeatedly make mistakes. Heck, even physical injuries to the brain can produce certain behaviors.

The road called "genes" isn't the only one that can take you to Rome. There are plenty of others. If life was like a golf green, genes would be the contour and speed of the green. Learning, society and environment would be the skill of the golfer, the putter, the wind, etc.

Re:More than one way to Rome.

[green453]

Clearly your genes are not up to par.

Posting a reasonable analogy on /. certainly proves that you have not learned in your lifetime that you should not make mistakes like violating norms of nerd behavior...

Re:More than one way to Rome.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who knows the smallest bit about psychology and sociology know there are many ways to consistantly produce children

Not on slashdot we don't.

It must be permanent Gene Day at the White House

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, do I need to add anything here at all?

What's the point of finding these genes?

[dgr73]

They keep finding genes for all kinds of "unwanted conditions", so one must draw the conclusion that the next step is to find a way to screen for these genes in embryos, or possibly prospective partners (I hate to sound too GATTACA here, but bear with me).

Now, i'm not one of those "genetics will destroy mankind" nutjobs, but there is one point i'm worried about.. if we start eliminating/changing genes that we don't want, are we perhaps eliminating things humanity needs in the future. Few examples:

-Autism is something people would probably like to eradicate, but on the other hand many brilliant people suffer from a mild form of autism.
-Where would Woody Allen be without his neurotism?

People are already stuffing their kids with Ritalin to control their behaviour and place it in an acceptable mold. But if you homogenize everything (whether through drugs, or in the future, altering genes), how can we progress? Instead of a pack of individuals, are we becoming a hive?

In techie terms: Is mankind selling it's chance to evolve into v2.0 in the future in exchange for a quick fixpack?

Re:What's the point of finding these genes?

[Anonymous Coward]

-Where would Woody Allen be without his neurotism?

In a much much better world... a world without Woody Allen's neurotic comedy...
Just think of it... it would be so great... and then there would be cake.

Ahh,

[calebt3]

No wonder we get goatse.cx posts. Unless posting is not an unfavorable experience to it's authors.
(Word of caution: don't clink any links appearing in reply to this)

Re:Ahh,

[Anonymous Coward]

> (Word of caution: don't clink any links appearing in reply to this)
*click*

Do Petty Criminals Also Lack D2 Receptors?

[osewa77]

Hmmm. I wonder if there's a criminal aspect to this. Do repeat convicts in the US have less d2 receptors on average? People who have been arrested more than once and continue to commit petty crimes?

Complaining *must* also be genetic then...

[workingstiff]

So no complaining about dupes and typos: it's genetic! No complaining about complaints either! It's genetic!

Re:Complaining *must* also be genetic then...

[ls -la]

So no complaining about dupes and typos: it's genetic! No complaining about complaints either! It's genetic! But it's not a mistake.

Re:Complaining *must* also be genetic then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah! That's what you think, meta-complainer! I'll show you just how wrong you are! *kicks ls -la in the groin*

See, that's what you get for complaining about complaining! And you're going to do it again, I just know it. So you see, you don't learn from your mistakes!

A news site

[s4ltyd0g]

With a genetic disposition for typos and dupes, is like an airline pilot with a genetic disposition for running
into the ground.

Re:A news site

[calebt3]

A pilot is less likely to get a chance to learn from his mistake.

Here's a good summation of the story

[Protonk]

Ars has a good writeup of the article in nature, for those who want to read more, but don't want to bother w/ the journal article.

I guess this explains ...

[LaughingCoder]

why I keep coming back to Slashdot!

Re:I guess this explains ...

[Anonymous Coward]

and the duped dupes

Re:I guess this explains ...

[MarkRose]

It's quite obviously, really. D2 is two deuterium atoms in a covalent bond. But everyone knows that deuterium is relatively rare, and there just isn't enough to go around and you got shorted. Sorry about that.

new category to moderate

[meta coder]

-D2 troll

Genes vs. Memory capacity

[blahplusplus]

I think we can explain dupes from simply not having infinite memory, I mean really. Those with better memories = less mistakes, I would imagine.

It all makes cents now...

[Anonymous Coward]

It all makes cents now. It all makes cents now.

Two words

[weave]

Intelligent design

/sorry, couldn't resist
//Yes I know this ain't fark
///I can spare the kharma

So can we call this...

[Stickerboy]

...the Homer gene?

Mmmmm..... donuts.

Re:So can we call this...

[Brad1138]

...the Homer gene?

I was thinking "Bushitis"

DNA Test

[InterestingX]

Would this gene be something they could pay $999 to find out

oh, wait...

Bah

[value_added]

leads to a lessened ability to learn from experience

I prefer to think of that as the triumph of optimism over experience.

All men are born with that

[guruevi]

You can see the result from our repeatedly going to get a girl, getting stung by them (they run off with your money and your best friend) and then trying to find another (or the same) girl to get back with us.

If you don't have 2 missing genes, you must be gay off course. For most geeks it is unknown whether or not they are missing some genes.

Isn't this backwards?

[Fractal Dice]

Isn't addiction the result of the brain learning too well that getting a certain stimulus triggers the pleasure/reward sensation? It's only a "mistake" when the stimulus turns out to be a false positive. The same "addicted" reaction to a drug that short-circuits the reward sensation might cause a person to acquire and maintain very good habits for needed nutrients or acquiring resources. It's a tradeoff between locking in behaviors that consistently produce rewards and the risk that you are locking in slowly self-destructive behaviors that only seemed to be a reward. A person who can break addictions easily may also tend to randomly stop doing useful, rewarding things.

Re:Isn't this backwards?

[leereyno]

Hey! I resemble that!

Re:Isn't this backwards?

[replicant108]

A person who can break addictions easily may also tend to randomly stop doing useful, rewarding things.

Not so. Every healthy human mind has the capacity to distinguish between addictions and 'useful, rewarding things'.

It is important to remember that humans are not reflex-driven automatons.

Addiction is a disorder of the mind, where the rational faculty has been overwhelmed by ideas that reinforce the addictive behaviour.

Perhaps the most symptom of addiction is the delusion that one has no self control.

Learning from experience - very relative

[codeboost]

Learning from experience is a very vague concept. I think that people DO learn something from each mistake they make, it's just there are lots of things to learn from one bad experience or failure.
For instance, if you jump from the 5th floor and break a leg, you can learn that:
1. Jumping is bad
2. Jumping from a hight is bad
3. Courage is bad
4. I cannot judge heights
5. My body is too weak
6. Next time when I jump, I should be more careful
and so on, you get the idea.

There can be multiple interpretations of one experience so I guess it's better to say that people learn the wrong things from experience rather than 'they don't learn from experience'.
If you put it this way, the D2 gene explains something completely different.
In fact, people who don't learn from experience sometimes end up discovering new ways around limitations (eg. wright brothers), which is, after all, a good thing :).

Justification for India's old caste system?

[DoofusOfDeath]

When our society already has plenty of excuses to avoid personal responsibility (e.g. overdiagnosis of ADD to include kids who are just undiscipled), we give more ammunition to people who just don't want to try to get it right.

I've read that the original idea behind India's caste system (a long, long time ago) was that different people were qualified for different jobs. I.e., ruling, manual labor, trade, etc. The idea was to basically codify this reality. (I don't believe that caste was originally imagined as hereditary, but I could be wrong.)

Anyway, if persons' ability to handle responsibility, make good decisions, etc. could be shown to have a genetic basis, I wonder if this would actually validate some of that old system's grounding principles.

(Also reminds me go Gattaca, though.)

Re:Justification for India's old caste system?

[OrangeTide]

Not that much different from Eugenics either, or Nazi propaganda about a master race. If there is a master race, who gets to decide which race it is? (in the near future my bet is on the Chinese)

Funny that wikipedia article also refers to Dysgenics.

Re:Justification for India's old caste system?

[timeOday]

If there is a master race, who gets to decide which race it is?

Obviously that would be decided by genocidal warfare. The fact that Germany lost WWII doesn't speak too well for Hitler's theories. (On the other hand Germany's kill ratio was pretty high; they probably could have wiped out any adversary of comparable population to themselves.)

Re:Justification for India's old caste system?

[xenocide2]

(On the other hand Germany's kill ratio was pretty high; they probably could have wiped out any adversary of comparable population to themselves.) Besides which, they say that Hitler was worried that the American's level of Germanic ancestry would be problematic. I guess he was right to be worried.

Re:Justification for India's old caste system?

[Hucko]

Really? I have never heard that one. I have heard that he was disappointed that the British were taking umbrage against him; in his mind they should have been allies.

Re:Justification for India's old caste system?

[ceoyoyo]

It's always been true that some people are better at some things than others. It's also always been true that aptitude often runs in families. That doesn't mean it's hereditary -- it could be environmental -- but it doesn't mean that aptitude isn't at least influenced by heredity either.

The problem with Gattaca wasn't that they recognized genetics can influence aptitude, it was that they thought genes DETERMINED aptitude. The same is true of a strict hereditary caste (or guild) system.

Re:Justification for India's old caste system?

[xenocide2]

At least, a documentary on the History channel suggested that Hitler's view was that of races dominating others towards an end of history, and that the Germans were going to be inevitable racial victors.

Re:Justification for India's old caste system?

[Some_Llama]

actually Hitler was quite upset at america, he saw all of the best and brightest emigrating to america leaving behind the cruft in his own country.

It's called the "Surge" gene

[Ranger]

This probably explains why Bush keeps doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Re:It's called the "Surge" gene

[Tablizer]

This probably explains why Bush keeps doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Or the voters who voted him twice, as somebody pointed out.

Dear Kansas City school board:

[geohump]

Dear Kansas City school board:

The "Creator" is apparently making some people "Unintelligent by Design!".

Perhaps this explains how the "Intelligent by Design" theory came about.

That explains a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder I keep forgeting to prevew my posts.

You'd think I'd learn butt nooooooo.....

Rediculuous

[mr_josh]

YOUR KIDDING!

Re:Rediculuous

[4D6963]

YOUR KIDDING!

Note Willy..

I'd want a test for exactly that reason.

[r00t]

I don't want any of my kids to marry somebody with the defect.

That's not the only defect of interest. Full genetic testing
would be a good thing, at least for people who have fewer
defects than average. The below-average people just shouldn't
breed. If they get stuck breeding with each other, at least
the die-off rate will increase.

To oppose this is to say that either:

a. you don't believe in evolution

b. you're OK with humans evolving to be stupid creatures
that depend on modern medicine for survival, with the
collapse of our population if modern medicine should
happen to become unavailable from all the stupidity

Re:I'd want a test for exactly that reason.

[carpe.cervisiam]

There is a flaw in your logic. You assume that the rate of reproduction would be the same for both groups. It wouldn't. How many very smart people have you seen with large families? Now, compare that to how many families you've seen that are large and completely dysfunctional (by your logic carriers of undesirable traits). The stupid people are breeding at a much higher rate. They are not going to weed themselves out because they ARE the weeds. I guess we'll just have to start getting rid of people who are not genetically pure. To me that sentiment is the start of a slippery slope. Once genetic profiling becomes more popular, how long will it be until someone decides that it's not worth the risk to the genetic future of humanity to allow undesirable traits to be passed on. If you think for an instant that this is beyond the realm of possibility, take a look at the history of the Nazis. The final solution was justified by eugenics

Re:I'd want a test for exactly that reason.

[megaditto]

This is exactly the reason we need to get off the socialist society/welfare path we've been goning down. The reason "stupid" people reproduce so much is that they get paid to do that (by taxing "smart" people).

Socialism means the end of progress; I though Nazi example should have taught us as much.

Re:I'd want a test for exactly that reason.

[carpe.cervisiam]

I completely agree with you about the welfare state. I also think that the "smart" people need to start breeding like rabbits.

I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species

Re:I'd want a test for exactly that reason.

[croto]

Are you suggesting we should let "stupid" (poor, maybe?) people die from starvation or diseases in order to boost progress? I'm afraid there's something I'm not understanding, since I cannot believe such an offensive comment got modded insightful. People with no economical resources who need to get the advantages of the socialist welfare you're talking about are not poor because they're stupid. They have less opportunities for good nutrition and education because they are born poor. So if you want to have less "stupid" people, we should give more opportunities and education to those sectors of society. Not giving them the resources to reproduce won't solve the problem because we live in a system that makes a big fraction of population poor.

And you should read some more history. The only socialism in the nazi party is in the name.

Re:I'd want a test for exactly that reason.

[r00t]

That's a popular belief. It's rooted in the desire to believe that all people are created equal. Sounds nice, huh?

Life isn't fair, at least not in that way. Offensive stuff can be correct.

Twin studies, in which twins are separated at birth and raised separately, show that intelligence is strongly genetic. Many other mental attributes are too. Even the strength of religeous belief is, once the subject gets well into adulthood.

Socialist welfare will not be provided forever. It can not be sustained when the vast majority of the population needs it. It is pure fantasy to think that humans are immune to evolution, or that this won't have dramatic effects on society.

Re:I'd want a test for exactly that reason.

[ceoyoyo]

This year's international educational rankings just came out. I believe the US finished 29th, behind all those socialist European countries and Canada.

Already doing it...

[Roger W Moore]

if we start eliminating/changing genes that we don't want, are we perhaps eliminating things humanity needs in the future.

While I understand your point we have already been doing this to some extent for the past 100 years or so. As technology has improved people who would never have survived to reproductive age have managed to do so. A genetic weakness to measles, polio, TB etc is no longer a problem thanks to vaccines and infections are far less dangerous thanks to antibiotics so people with weaker immune systems are not disadvantaged.

So given this I'd propose a slightly provocative question: "Can we afford not to start manipulating our own genetic heritage?". I don't know the answer but I'd much rather have the knowledge and ability to do this than to not have it because who knows what nature will throw our way in the future?

CowboyNeal option?

[cashman73]

Great! So the human genome now has a CowboyNeal option! ;-)

consider the databases for sale

[r00t]

We have no privacy here, even when we should. We must waive HIPPA rights to get insurance, etc.

Imagine targeted advertizing. The casino industry won't have to waste advertizing on people like me. They can just target the people most vulnerable.

Not from Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is not from Nature, but from Science...

Re:Now, for the most useful one - American

[chawly]

There now sonny. Sleep tight - 200 years of experience of all of that shit - you really got it locked down. Do you have a hat ?

Well...

[DarkIye]

We've known this for a while, haven't we?

http://www.timecube.com/

Patented?

[SleepyHappyDoc]

I'd have thought Sony would have a patent on this already...seems to be an integral part of their business.

Re:Must be widespread.... sure it is, but

[chawly]

Nope .... sorry

heh

[Anonymous Coward]

This explains my wife....

and hence why i post AC :D

Employers

[nurb432]

This is a good example of why employers using DNA in their screening process is wrong.

Going to end up with a world of 'unemployables' as DNA technology improves to a frightening point of accuracy.

The lengths I'll go through to prove I RTFA.

[xigxag]

Drs. Klein and Ullsperger noted that upon discovery of the gene, they tested themselves for its presence.

"Fortunately we determined we were both negative for the A1-allele," Dr. Klein admitted with some relief, with Ullsperger adding, "We double checked just to make sure."

Finally!

[iminplaya]

We get tell the spelling/grammar nazis to go away. Anyway, it also sounds like there could have some relation to Alzheimer's. Of course I'm no geneticist, but it seems to me there would no single gene that control just one single function. Kinda like killing a butterfly in Australia will cause a hurricane in Florida. Too many unknowns. Fixing this gene might help your memory, but it might also make you grow three eyes on your butt. Now there's a lovely thought.

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sign me up.

gene for repeatedly making the same mistake

[rcamans]

You mean they finally found the slashdot gene? Does that mean they will cure all slashdot users? I see the end of slashdot rushing at us.
heh heh

Taco and the Dupe Gene

[WED Fan]

Do you think that we could all chip in and get Taco some gene therapy to cure /. dupes?

The best comment:

[mveloso]

"The researchers chose men because dopamine levels change during a woman's menstrual cycle, which would have complicated the study."

So...if a woman already had fewer D2 receptors, and her dopamine levels change naturally, then she'd be even more unable to learn from negative experiences. Doesn't that sound familiar?

Re:The best comment:

[Jens Egon]

Would they go through childbirth more then once if they did learn?

Re:The best comment:

[Zero__Kelvin]

"So...if a woman already had fewer D2 receptors, and her dopamine levels change naturally, then she'd be even more unable to learn from negative experiences. Doesn't that sound familiar?"

No, but then again I don't know you that well ... 8-)

Wrong way round

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> So no complaining about dupes and typos: it's genetic!

If the gene makes you more likely to make typos then we need to be complaining about you *more*, not *less*, in the hope that nurture can overcome nature. And you should be thanking us for the privilege.

Bitching about politicians is patriotic.

[tjstork]

There's no need to expect extraordinary idealism and then be surprised and despise them for being just like everybody. Expect them to be selfish and work with it.
I still wonder what you'd prefer instead

Bitching about politicians is patriotic and an American birthright. If Jesus Christ were President, we would bitch about him too, and he'd never make it over 50% in the polls unless He bombed someone.

We know our form of government is the best and our country is the best, but, if we don't keep bitching about it, or trying to improve ourselves, then, we'll wind up as yet another nation that lost its purpose. Democrat, Republican, Conservative, or Liberal, alike, are all trying to put forth ideas to improve our country. If they didn't, and didn't fight about it, then, wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of Democracy?

Oh no, I know it.

[r00t]

I'm doing my part to fix things. How about you?

We've pretty much run out of Flynn effect. IQ is predicted to drop a point or so each year based simply on who is having the kids. (IQ is not recentered, and thus not fixed at a mean of 100)

It won't keep up forever. It can't, because society can not be sustained with stupidity. Industry will eventually collapse. We're so interconnected these days that it will be a bit of a chain reaction.

In the coming disaster, survival will mean having all the old-style survival traits.

Look at the evolutionary pressure today. The big thing to overcome is birth control. It's unlikely that we will overcome birth control via body changes. Behavioral changes can do it though. The immediate effect is that stupid people are selected for. Long term though, it'll be people who just WANT lots of kids.

Insanity

[Brett Glass]

Isn't insanity often defined as repeating the same action and expecting a different result?

Re:Insanity

[Boronx]

That's a stupid definition.

Re:Insanity

[Boronx]

That's a stupid definition..

Re:Insanity

[Brett Glass]

No, I said INSANITY. Stupidity.... Well, that's another issue altogether. ;-)

Great News!

[Luscious868]

So it's a gene that causes me to meet women who seem very nice and are attractive until they convince me to move in with them and then they gain 20 pounds and turn into a bitch? At least that means there's hope. I was starting to think that's what they all do.

Re:Great News!

[CrazedWalrus]

TWENTY pounds??

Wow. You're optimistic.

The USA is the Best

[tjstork]

It would make more sense for you Americans to simply expect your politicians to be selfish like everybody, and not despise them for that, and instead despise your system if it doesn't provide suitable checks and balances. Which I think it doesn't

We despise our politicians, becuase, we can. We despise our system, because we can. We in America are always searching for better, in our goods and in ourselves and above all, in our leaders.

Our system provides for more checks and balances than any parliamentry system, simply by virtue of having the executive branch be genuinely separate from that of the legislative. Finally, as a practical matter, our system is the only system that exists genuinly by the consent of its governed. The vast majority of Americans own a gun of some kind, and to own a gun is to have -real- power, far more than even our mighty military has.

In every conceivable way, one can make the argument that the USA is the greatest country in the world. Taken as a whole, the American race is the genetic best from around the world, combined into one super citizenry body. But, despite that, we are not the type of people to sit by and think that we are happy. We have to do better, have to have more, and we will. And then, when we get sick of that, we'll bitch about that too.

Only losers are reasonable.

Re:The USA is the Best

[Oligonicella]

Well said.

Re:The USA is the Best

[Hucko]

Only the great are merciful. Not condescending, not paternal or egotistical. Merciful. Your nation may possibly under some assumptions be the best, but the evidence of the USA's greatness is only in the past.

Re:The USA is the Best

[tjstork]

Only the great are merciful. Not condescending, not paternal or egotistical. Merciful. Your nation may possibly under some assumptions be the best, but the evidence of the USA's greatness is only in the past

Which past was that? World War II? Yoda says : Wars make not one great.

Re:The USA is the Best

[John Betonschaar]

We despise our politicians, becuase, we can. We despise our system, because we can. We in America are always searching for better, in our goods and in ourselves and above all, in our leaders. Then you should try searching a little harder, because somehow you seem to keep voting absolute idiots into the white house and senate. The history of the US is riddled with presidents that were obviously not elected for their capabilities and good intentions for the US and its people. Clinton was not bad, but instead of praising him you almost impeached him, for getting a blowjob from his secretary. In my book that's hardly as bad for a country as taking money from large corporations in exchange for political favors. Anyway, I don't think I can remember any other good US president that was in the office during my lifetime. Don't even get me started on the abundance of right-winged hardline morons in the senate, that normally only get there by elbowing themselves up, having a big mouth and being completely disconnected from reality.

Anyway, it's not like the US is unique in this regard, where I live (Netherlands) we have a prime minister that already trainwrecked three cabinets and he's well on his way to wreck his 4th.

Our system provides for more checks and balances than any parliamentry system, simply by virtue of having the executive branch be genuinely separate from that of the legislative. Finally, as a practical matter, our system is the only system that exists genuinly by the consent of its governed. The vast majority of Americans own a gun of some kind, and to own a gun is to have -real- power, far more than even our mighty military has. The 'guns empower the people' argument is pretty pitiful, but I guess that's just something you can only see if you're not raised with stupid idea's like that. How do you envisage the american people to defend or correct their politcal system using guns? By shooting all representatives that don't agree. Thinking guns protect your civil rights is outright insane.

As for the checks and balances in your government: I think there's a lot going on in the US that proves there aren't enough, or they are too easily circumvented.

Re:The USA is the Best

[tjstork]

Thinking guns protect your civil rights is outright insane.


Seemed to work pretty well in 1776, but then again, the Netherlands is generally cannon fodder for other European powers. Maybe you should try an armed citizenry sometimes.

Re:The USA is the Best

[John Betonschaar]

Seemed to work pretty well in 1776, but then again, the Netherlands is generally cannon fodder for other European powers. Maybe you should try an armed citizenry sometimes So what you're basically saying is that things haven't changed much in the US since 1776, and that's why you all still need to have guns? And did you ever care to check how many citizens the Netherlands has? Even if every person in the country was armed to the teeth we would be overrun easily by all of the countries around us except Belgium and Luxembourg.

I do agree that we are cannon fodder for about any country on earth, both in the military and political sense. That's why our government is sucking up to the US so much providing military support in Afghanistan and Iraq. We actually have 1600 people in Afghanistan that will be there at least until 2010, defending 3 square kilometres of bare desert. That's more than e.g. France or Germany. We're not there because anyone actually thinks it will make a difference, but only to please the US and get something in return later.

Re:The USA is the Best

[tjstork]

So what you're basically saying is that things haven't changed much in the US since 1776

Well, why should they? Look at your line of reasoning, as well. You have this view that citizens should have to be able to demonstrate a need for something, in order to get government approval for it. Have we Americans taught you anything about freedom? You don't have to justify what you do. If you don't intend to hurt anyone else, you should theoretically be allowed to have anything.

Yes, it sucks that some few thousand people get shot to death in America every year, but, when you weigh that against the notion of some 80 million Americans (if not more), actually owning a gun, then, you can see that gunowership itself is safer than walking down the stairs or going for a swim.

We actually have 1600 people in Afghanistan that will be there at least until 2010, defending 3 square kilometres of bare desert

And, its stupid too, because, everyone in America knows that these troops really aren't allowed to fight, and that, what all these troops are just tokens to try and deceive the American people into thinking that NATO actually means something. I think we should take reality for what it is. Europe isn't going to fight for anything, and that, while, we should remain firm friends and have good and open trade, that NATO should be dissolved, except for a military alliance with the British, and let the Europeans fend for themselves.

Re:The USA is the Best

[John Betonschaar]

Yes, it sucks that some few thousand people get shot to death in America every year, but, when you weigh that against the notion of some 80 million Americans (if not more), actually owning a gun, then, you can see that gunowership itself is safer than walking down the stairs or going for a swim. Well, I beg to disagree with that, I don't see the added value of armed citizens. But let's just keep it at that, we're not going to agree on this one.

And, its stupid too, because, everyone in America knows that these troops really aren't allowed to fight, and that, what all these troops are just tokens to try and deceive the American people into thinking that NATO actually means something. I think we should take reality for what it is. Europe isn't going to fight for anything, and that, while, we should remain firm friends and have good and open trade, that NATO should be dissolved, except for a military alliance with the British, and let the Europeans fend for themselves. In fact, these troops *are* allowed to fight, but we're all just supposed not to see it like that. Our government likes to call it a 'reconstructive mission, to re-build the country', but it's nothing more than troops scouting an area that's not even 2% of the country, of which only 3sqr kilomtres is actually safe and under control, constantly driving into ambushes and roadside bombs. No official numbers are available, but it's estimated that dutch troops already killed hundreds of Taliban. Don't let anyone fool you: this *is* a fighting mission, just a useless one.

Also let me remind you of the war in Yuguslavia and Albania to stop genocide. NATO does mean something, sometimes.

Re:The USA is the Best

[Hucko]

I wouldn't know, I'm not American. I just know that very little in the present suggests they are great, today suggests that America is very strong. End of story.

Nurture

[bzipitidoo]

You make it sound as if it's mildly astonishing that 2 children by the same parents could be so different. Genes trump all, right? Perhaps. One child at a delicate age could be exposed to environmental contaminants such as mercury, lead, funky sex hormone mimicking soft plastics, gasoline with lots and lots of additives, while the other isn't. Perhaps in another era that hyper child would have been a vigorous worker, but instead was screwed up by industrial poisons. The focus on genetics is certainly convenient for pollution generating industries that wish to avoid and divert attention away from inquiries into the effects of their activities. I recall reading an interesting report on the big power outage across the NE US some years ago. People's allergies miraculously cleared up those few days when the NE was without power. I have not been able to find that report again.

Re:Nurture

[fyngyrz]

You make it sound as if it's mildly astonishing that 2 children by the same parents could be so different.

No, I didn't even address two children, much less causes. I talked about a (one) hyper child, that's all. Are you hallucinating?

the genetic wormhole

[epine]

You lost me at could be shown. The whole point of the nature/nurture debate is that it can't be shown.

At the risk of firing an arrow so far over your head it passes into an alternate universe, this can be quite readily demonstrated from the vantage point of cryptographic theory. This page describes a hash function which fails to achieve uniform cryptographic avalanche.

http://home.comcast.net/~bretm/hash/6.html

What this means is that correlations remain between which input bit is modified and the distribution of the output bits. Consider that some of these input bits are nature, other input bits are nurture, and if you like, set aside some of the bits as hidden state variables for the subject concerned.

There are correlates for some restricted input subsets, but few general correlates over the full range. The human organism is complex enough that nature and nurture interleave into partial avalanche. Too many sub-correlations are exposed to make it much use as a cryptographic function, but all the same far too intricate to think it could ever be shown that genes and outcomes exist in any fixed relationship.

This conceptual fallacy was also debunked in the context of Laffer curves. Check out the Neo-Laffer curve. It also serves as a good illustration of the typical complexity of any gene determining any definable outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#The_Neo-Laffer_Curve

My cryptographic example merely shows that it is possible to draw a Laffer curve over multiple inputs and outputs with no correlation anywhere. Anyone here surprised that genetics can't be reduced to the smooth hump of a Reagan-era tax slogan?

Now, at some point some genes will be shown to have strong effects under broad conditions, but even then, not without a twenty page appendix of fine print covering assumptions and conditions. Conversely, many of our genes will prove to have such a baffling array of possible downstream effects, that soon the refrain from the peanut gallery will become "why do we bother, if nothing is ever proved?" Get used to it.

It can't be shown.

Re:the genetic wormhole

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of the nature/nurture debate is that it can't be shown.


Take two people, raise them identically. If they act the same as adults, then nuture (how they were raised) is more important. If they act differently then nature (their gene- who they are) was more important.

Slashdot Gene

[Gninnaf]

Hello, duh, this is the slashdot gene. It the gene that makes people post, repost, reply, and read when they already know no one is paying attention, no one understands, and no one cares, and no one has anything better to do.

yeah, yeah, very funny

[roman_mir]

Just look at the ad state of the World. ...

Back on topic, I think this is very interesting reaearch. obviously this is a pun that was intended.

Working very hard != success or productivity.

[DaedalusHKX]

Working very hard, merely means that someone didn't figure out a better way to do what it is they do.

Also, getting involved in governance reminds me of the old adage.

"Don't vote, it only encourages them!"

this is really great nuez

[Anonymous Coward]

this is really great nuez. Now I no longer have to learn how to speil correctly. I can't speil because I have a bad gene.

How about eliminate all federal services period?

[DaedalusHKX]

Heinlein wrote about FASCISM in that book, but that must've slipped by you. We're talking about plain simple citizen militia as written INTO the second amendment. Not this watered down federalized arm of the military that we call the 1906 National Guard. If that was truly what the 2nd refers to, its also called EX POST FACTO LEGISLATION, and that's prohibited by the main body of the Constitution as well!

If the elected officials NEED employees...

[DaedalusHKX]

Then the government is too big if they need unelected (and thus not responsible to the electorate) employees.

This is the problem that has been around forever. Those employees owe their loyalty to those signing their checks, and those signing their checks are NOT the electorate... it is the rulers. The rulers redistribute the wealth they confiscate through taxation. Thus it is the RULERS who command the loyalty of the army and of the police arms. This has ALWAYS been the case, and the system has YET to change. This has been the case since the first thug band got big enough to call itself "ruler of all their leader could see"... and thus a "government".

Or maybe...

[glitch23]

it's the gene that makes some people not have any self-control and willpower.

A December 6th article in Nature explores the relationship between a specific gene and those of us prone to repeatedly making the same mistakes. From the article: "Drug addicts, alcoholics and compulsive gamblers are known to be more likely than other people to have this genetic mutation ..."

I don't call drug addicts, alcoholics, and gamblers people who make mistakes. I call them people who don't have any willpower to stop doing something that is bad despite what temporary "rewards" those things give people.

on the "correlationisnotcausation" tag...

[Falladir]

This knee-jerk reaction is incorrect. Generally speaking, correlation is not causation because the two correlated items might share a cause. In this case, one of them is the presence of a gene. What causes a gene to be present? All I can think of is "another gene" (that is, this might happen to be on the same chromosome as something that *actually* causes the repeated mistakes), in which case it's still the same story: this behavior is caused by a gene.

Re:on the "correlationisnotcausation" tag...

[foreverdisillusioned]

Well, it's as you said--the gene they've found might merely be commonly found alongside another gene (like how the blue eyes gene is usually found alongside a light hair gene), and THAT gene is the one is the true cause. Or maybe the gene (if it is the only causative gene) doesn't have a direct effect on "repeated mistakes" at all, but affects some other obscure part of human perception as well which, in combination with certain childhood environmental factors, causes the behavior to arise. Or maybe the gene just happens to be commonly found in certain races or subcultures (be it white collar, blue collar, black, white, hispanic, slavic, whatever--and remember, people *generally* stick with their own when it comes to choosing a mate, and there only needs to be a moderate correlation for this to work) and that particular subculture just happens promotes/tolerates repeated mistakes moreso than the general population. In this scenario, the behavior could be 100% learned and yet a strong genetic correlation could still exist.

By analogy, having very dark skin (genetic) doesn't "cause" someone to become a criminal (behavioral)--even though over 1/3 of black men in America have been convicted of a crime. The causative agent here is clearly environmental (poverty and black subculture)--it's just so happens that those two environmental factors have a strong correlation with the "has dark skin" gene. (In the case of "poverty", this is due to historical slavery/discrimination and the fact that over the generations most people stay in their social/economic class.)

Now, repeat after me--without hard causative evidence, correlation doesn't prove a damn thing.

Except it wasn't a nature article

[juggledean]

Science. 2007 Dec 7;318(5856):1642-5.

        Genetically determined differences in learning from errors.

        Klein TA, Neumann J, Reuter M, Hennig J, von Cramon DY, Ullsperger M.

http://tinyurl.com/2z5dzt

Genetic?

[morari]

A lot of the examples given sound like a lack of will power to me; alcoholism, gambling, etc.

LSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Since LSD upregulates D2 maybe those accounts of LSD helping alcoholics, drug addicts, gamblers, etc. could base some research off this study.

Re: A Youth Attempt at Reform

[TaoPhoenix]

I recently caught wind of some young people tossing about the idea of selling a vote on ebay. (!?)

The trick is: It's a method of pre-planning the vote without it being the blind activity we have today. In extreme circumstances it might be enough to haul in a dark horse third party, but only with a devastating candidate, which isn't present in this election.

Tom Clancy once wrote a book whereupon a character had to remake the government, and he nixed "all the bums". Already, we're discussing the First Woman and the First African-American in a serious run for President. Those are both non-tradtional candidates, but I don't know if we're ready for that at the gut level, despite our griping.

Since when is "It's genetic" an excuse?

[Lord Bitman]

"Can't blame me for making the same mistake repeatedly! It's genetic!"
Yeah, but you still make the same mistake repeatedly, so, I'm going to judge you because of it.
"But I can't help it!"
Isn't that more of a reason to hold it against you, not less of one?

"Can't blame me for being ugly, it's genetic!" you're still ugly
"Can't blame me for being a jerk, it's genetic!" you're still a jerk
"Can't blame me for being smart, it's genetic!" you're still smart

If you want to use the "it's genetic" argument, doesn't it imply an acceptance of our deep-rooted need to judge people and find either favor is disfavor about them because of their genetics? You may have redeeming qualities; but, if you repeatedly make the same mistake, not repeatedly making the same mistake isn't one of them. It's still a character flaw. Being a character flaw that is encoded into the most basic parts of every atomic unit of you that can still be considered "you" doesn't make it any less of a flaw.

So I'm still going to complain about tacking "funny" little misleading quips to the end of article summaries, no matter how many times you do it, no matter why you do it.
And I'll do so repeatedly.

Gentic predisposition

[ignavus]

So have they found the gene that explains the need to find genes that explain human characteristics?

Oh..the Bush/Cheney gene

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh ya mean the gene most expressed by officials in our present Administration. Just cannot learn that torture is evil, that Iraq had no weapons of mess disillusion, and that Iran is trying to do what its religion, Shia'ism ,says is immoral. Shia's would never willingly develope nuclear weapons for to use them would be to commit murder of innocent people, 'harram'(forbidden) in Shia Islam. What is going to be really funny is when a future Democratic administration refuses to pardon Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gates/Bolton and the rest of that gang for crimes against humanity, murder, mass murder, torture, and the rest of the most foul evils men have ever commited against humanity and equivalent to the worst evils of Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot and Kemal Ataturk and others. What will be even better is when these victims show up in American courts to sue these gangsters in our present administration, or even better, try to charge them with international war crimes before the United Nations. Can you just see, Cheney for instance, in the same cell with Milosevic or Mladic or Pol Pot.....or would that be an 'undisclosed location'. Any more, present administration members will start to have the hunted look that the German Waffen SS guards did in the closing days of the Great Democratic War (WWII in the West).

I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

It is important to remember that humans are not reflex-driven automatons. This strikes me as a very non-scientific assertion. If you assume there are no factors influencing a human's behavior other than the physical laws acting upon them, then they are pretty much by definition automatons. So the question is then to find a useful definition of "reflex-driven", and assert that some "rational part" of the brain has ultimate control, which again seems to be a rather non-scientific assertion.

Addiction is a disorder of the mind, where the rational faculty has been overwhelmed by ideas that reinforce the addictive behaviour. Since the definition of "rational behavior" is predicated on the idea of a utility function, which function are we working under? Or does "healthy human mind" imply a particular utility function?

Is smoking irrational? Say new cigarettes become popular that are only half as harmful as they are today. Is it still irrational to smoke them? How about 1/8 as harmful? 1/16? What if smoking over the course of your life merely cost you on average one month at the end, and three months of degraded standard of living?

Any time you make the statement that an individual is behaving "irrationally", pay attention to the assumptions that you're making about utility functions, and which set of values and priorities is "best".

But hating the playa is pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't hate criminals (politicians) for committing crimes, hate the system that allows them to do so? Don't hate the playa, hate the game? I'll hate both, thank you very much Sure, and you're justified in doing both, but "hating the playa" in the context of politics is a little like being constantly surprised that there are bad people in the world. To the extent that peoples' disgust with politicians exists on a personal and/or emotional level, it interferes with their ability to think on and act rationally about the system that creates/encourages/empowers such politicians in the first place.

<-- 1-way (no replies)

Dopamine, willpower, same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The two (learning and willpower) are remarkably related, especially when it comes to shortages/surpluses of dopamine. Try amphetamine or cocaine some time, and be amazed at just how neurochemically quantifiable willpower is.

Self-Responsibility is the key, not DNA

[Steeltoe]

Bruce Lipton has a very enlightening view and explanation on DNA and its many myths exposed:

1) DNA is much more varied in one body than popular science will have us believe.

2) DNA is not decoded just one way, but in real-world situations, signals alter proteins covering different parts of the DNA, which alters how DNA is expressed.

3) How we use our mind and body then releases different hormonal signals, which discover different potentialities in our DNA.

4) The ancient knowledge of "you are what you think you are", is actually now indicated by scientific tests on DNA and how hormons affects it. Your feelings and belief-system will actually change your DNA expression!

5) His conclusion in Part 2 is very empowering and telling for most of us.

Well worth the watch:

Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8506668136396723343

Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6568107389365915765

Re: A Youth Attempt at Reform

[HiThere]

You don't understand. Hillary may be an unusual candidate, but she's been bought. I'm not certain about Obama, but I very very strongly suspect so. (He's already in congress, after all.)

A reform would require something like instant runoff or condorcet(sp?) voting. Condorcet is the better of the two choices, but instant runoff isn't that bad. Both give voters the chance to vote for a ranking order of preferences on their ballot. Then the ranking orders are compared with multiple steps of elimination of the least desireable candidate until a single candidate gets more than 50% of the remaining vote. (They differ in the precise order of candidate eliminations.)

This means that if you would really prefer a Vegetarian, next the Libertarian candidate, and after that the Democrat, then Republican, then Fascist you can vote in that order without losing your vote. This would make it much more expensive to buy an election by buying all of the candidates, however indirectly. It would become more cost-effective for corporations to campaign for policies rather than for specific candidates.

Another change that needs to be made is that the corporations controlling "the public airwaves" need to be forced to provide a certain amount of free access to every candidate. This used to be the rule before the FCC sold out. (Actually, I believe the rule was "equal access", so that if one candidate bought some time, the other candidates. This has it's points, but if many candidates are running, then it might wipe out all media campaigning, by making airtime too expensive, unless a certain amount were mandated.)

Also, now that billboards, newspapers, etc. are monopolies, those should fall under the same kind of regulation that I'm proposing for the airwaves. Exceptions should require that any particular corporation for a particular mode of media (say billboards) should be required to prove that it owns or controls less than 50% of the penetration in it's area of service.

Having RTFA...

[doom]

After RTGDFA, I see that the sample size is 26, and there's no reason at all to think the result has anything to do with addictive behavior, that's entirely speculative.

What is this doing on the front page of slashdot?

uh, didn't the nazis already try 2 fix that?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The reason "stupid" people reproduce so much

and look where that got us:-(

Gene found to explain ...

[The MESMERIC]

how to blame anything on the genes.