Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Discover Gene For Ruthlessness
Pioneer Woman writes "Researchers at Hebrew University in Jerusalem have found a link between a gene called AVPR1a and ruthless behavior. These findings come from an economic exercise called the 'Dictator Game' that allows players to behave selflessly, or like national dictators and 'little Hitlers' found in workplaces the world over. The team decided to look at AVPR1a because it is known to produce receptors in the brain that detect vasopressin, a hormone involved in 'prosocial' behavior. Researchers tested DNA samples from more than 200 student volunteers, before asking the students to play the game that measured their altruism. There was no connection between the participants' gender and their behavior but there was a link to the length of the AVPR1a gene."
they have isolated the bastard aka SOB gene ?
Better title: Jewish Scientists Have Explanation For Hitler
Can I have it infused into my DNA? I have too much ruth.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
We'll get around to 'fixing' people's 'bad' genes.
God spoke to me.
So why should ruthless behaviour in some game be linked to ruthlessness in life?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The details aren't long on the game, but it gives two options for players: "dictator" and "receiver". They gave dictators money and told them to either keep it or give some away. Now if you were in the "dictator" group, wouldn't you want to keep the money? It's just a game, not real life.
Did they named the gene after the movie "Alien Versus Predator Requiem"?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Correlation is not causation. Among other things, the hormone they're claiming is involved is also linked to about a dozen other things- the wikipedia article linked to is a veritable laundry list of basic body functions.
Side memo to the press: Stop. Dumbing. Down. Science.
Please help metamoderate.
Can we put these headlines to rest, please?
I mean the "Scientist discovers gene for [insert personality trait here]".
Some of these get pretty inane; ruthlessness, for example, is defined by behavior, and is subjective!
And don't forget: these studies are nearly meaningless, even if they are talking about something that can be defined rationally:
1. The study evaluates 'ruthlessness' based on subjects playing a game. (Not by observing reality)
2. The study involves 200 student volunteers. Not exactly a representative sample!
3. The article generalizes these dubious results to make inferences about the genetics of dictators.
4. The study has not yet been repeated to duplicate these results (A necessary step to 'prove' something)
- Demosthenes
cynicsreport.com
Games don't equal real life, but the way you play does say something about you at a fundamental level. The type of people who enjoy fragging in CS and the type of people who play Hello Kitty Island Adventure are not one and the same (for the most part).
They gave a small amount of cash ($14 USD) to some people to see how they would behave, and now they're claiming they found a gene that's partly responsible for the actions of famous dictators and mass murderers. They're reading a heck of lot into this, aren't they? Who's to say that, for example, short AVPR1a genes aren't a trait of a particular group of people in the region who are just a bit more strapped for cash. Yeah, I just pulled that example out of the usual place, but it'd be nice if people would actually run their hypothesis through a few more tests before making such bold claims. Then again, I guess those grant checks don't write themselves...
Certainly a high risk of harm to others gene really does put an odd slant on genetic testing. Think of all those sociopath corporate types who want genetic testing to exclude people from health insurance or employment, now they might have pause to rethink that whole idea when it would be aimed at them.
Really interesting though, a political gene, short and limp, your a republican and long and firm your a social democrat. Now that certainly does explain a few things.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I am a gamer and I'll agree that games are not real life. But I must say, I wouldn't kill people in real life because there are repercussions. I can kill all the bad guys (or good guys if I feel like it) in a game and there are no REAL consequences. In real life, that's not so...so killing = bad.
But if I were a dictator and had total control of my country, the repercussions for cracking down and killing thousands of people may not be so bad. First order of business: institute mandatory DNA registrations, checking every person for AVPR1a and killing all the other ruthless people.
Now we can test the whole population, and take the defectives out to a big ditch the woods and shoot them and cover them with lime and bulldoze it over !
On second thought, belay that; I'm getting myself tested first.
What ever happened to personal responsibility? just about every vice in our society now is handled by psychologists instead of jail guards.
I also guess that it skips a generation or the gene wouldn't have been passed down
The Ayn Rand gene?
Why bother running a DNA test? An advanced degree of most any sort is a dead giveaway that they've been ruthless at some point. I mean, seriously, have you ever worked with PhDs before?
Sheesh, Godwin's law came into play before I even finished reading the summary.
CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
People modify their behavior, compassion, etc depending on context.
I'll help little old grannies across the road without mugging them, but when I play chess I'm ruthless. I will handle a fish that I've caught (catch and release) with great tenderness, but will wring a rabbit's neck or shoot a person if the situation demands.
One special forces person I knew a while ago shot up some real people, laid some landmines then later that day rolled his car swerving to miss a small animal on the road.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
what are you trying to suggest? that being a democrat means you have a large penis? making such suggestions is a sign of insecurity.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
"having found a link" would imply that in addition to the (possible) correlation described in the article, there was some mechanism that directly links the gene to the behaviour.
instead, we have wild speculation, an analogy with a different behaviour in a different species and a generalization that is not supported by what is described in the RTFA.
Most people who kill many characters on FPS are not going to kill real people.
There, fixed that for you. There have been a few notable exceptions.
-- Alastair
Where can i get to play this game and see how Ruthless i am?
Ungh. Next we'll here people using this as a legal defense for all sorts of nonsense.
And, of course, we'll have the psychologists lining up at the door with expensive treatment options...
Has anybody been able to track down the link to the "Dictator Game"? It sounds like fun.
Embryo diagnostics for Libertarianism!! Finally. I knew there is something physiologically wrong with them :)
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
Yes and mine is bigger than yours.
You are correct that "correlation is not causation". This particular statement seems to be trotted out in any research-related posting and appears to be highly correlated with an increase in +5 moderations within science topics. However, we also have a postulated mechanism, which has already been previously explored and found plausible, and some experimental evidence from animal models.
For instance Prarie Voles and Vasopressin, in which by manipulating the Vasopressin V1a gene, males of a normally promiscuous species of Vole were rendered monagamous (and more attentive to their single mates). Only partially relevant, but suggestive.
Most importantly, it points at the possibility of producing directly relevant evidence in future experimental model (in which the species selected would be one that exhibits both "altruistic" and "ruthless" behaviors). I don't imagine such an experiment would be quick or cheap, as more socially sophisticated species tend to be more difficult to work with.
In any case, it sounds like your comment is directed at the particular news article (which mentions very little of the background), and not at the research in particular -- am I incorrect in drawing this distinction?
That's how fucking cool I'm gonna' be.
http://www.physorg.com/news116739098.html and http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22695367-2,00.html and what you have is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinky_and_the_Brain
I'm talking about the genetic profile that makes a person a flaming asshole. I've run across a number of those during my life and I just need to find the explanation.
"secret" ruthlessness. In computer games (e.g. Civilization) and other private areas, I'm very ruthless. But in real life, I can't bring myself to be that way.
It's been well established that Saddam and his two sons are sociopaths. In fact, his daughter Raghdad showed similer behavior traits as well. I've always had a hard time believing these were just problems from how they were raised as a family. Given the heinousness of their actions, I'm willing to bet there is a genetic link.
Question is, will we ever run DNA tests? If we have, will the results ever be accessable under the Freedom of Information Act?
Life is not for the lazy.
here's a story about what I'd say is a very black & white likely case of psychopathy, and one at its worst, at least on a small scale.
The above link being pretty heavy, I thought I'd offer this lighter fare; A pseudo-scientific test to measure yourself on the psychopath-meter.
If you're going to navigate your pathway through reality, (down the river of life), you need to know where the rocks are if you're going to be able to avoid crashing into them. Christianity and the like has programmed all kinds of self-destructive behavior into human-kind. "Turn the other cheek" is an example of social programming which makes us food for the psychopathic human-type, --the type which I would guess is generally in charge of countries and most of the most powerful organizations which shape our lives; the psychopath recognizes its own and shapes the rules of the world to benefit itself, and study of the power structures over the centuries, doesn't really ever let go once the seat of power is attained. --Christ's supposed dying on the cross, (which I am doubtful actually happened for a variety of reasons, not the l
ethics aside, the selfish vs altruistic behavior is not necessarily a subconscious response. The topic of "goodness" vs "badness" of the two views has dominated the debate of the last century. So different cultural trends have emerged that surround both views. It is entirely possible that someone more wired for selfish behavior has learned to value cooperation over self-achievement through cultural pressure (ok, peer pressure) or that someone wired for altruistic behavior has been exposed to the argument that only by acting in self-interest (but doing so without resorting to deception) can we all deal with each other fairly. Without starting a debate on which one is more valuable or more "human" or "will win in the end", this seems like an experiment that tried to establish the "nature" of the beast by simple behavior observation. But behavior-observation experiments can never explain away "nurture" bias.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Games != real life, but there is a relationship between behavior in a game and behavior in real life, even if it's not based on killing people. Someone who is very competitive in a video game is probably also very competitive in his real-life behavior, even if this doesn't translate literally to killing people in real life. Behavior and success in a game must be based on some aspect of the mind of the player, and it isn't unreasonable to say that the same psychology which compels us to succeed in the game will compel us to succeed in different ways in real life. It's connected with our pleasure-reward system. I might kill you in a game to win points, but in real life I might accuse you of charging too much to your expense account in front of our boss so that he/she promotes me to your position(obviously this is an extreme example). Same actors, same psychological tendency, same pleasure reward, different circumstances. Furthermore, I'm sure that many would agree that a predisposition towards ruthlessness often comes with a predisposition towards viewing one's day to day interactions as a kind of game where the goal is to win. So this sort of enhances any transfer of any game behavior into real life interactions.
The overwhelming consensus on both this forum and the comments attached to the Nature page are negative. Okay, fine, the dictator stuff is highly speculative--there's some blame to be apportioned for that.
But the nearly universal negative reaction suggests to me that something else is going on too--some sort of visceral objection to the content, perhaps?
The vasopressin/vasopressin receptor story is an interesting one, worked out best in prairie voles and mice, and the results of this study are basically consistent with previous studies. There isn't much new here to get excited about, except to note that, gee, it looks like humans are mammals too (who'd have thought!)--and the mildly interesting result that dictator games are one place where the difference in vasopressin signaling correlates with behavior.
So shouldn't the appropriate stance be something like, "Huh, kinda interesting, wish they hadn't written up so much over-the-top speculation. (Wish they hadn't done that on this cancer story, either, or this one on biofuels, or that one on....)"?
If the problem is that one is worried that genes control your behavior--sorry, news flash, your genetic makeup is important! It's one of the consequences of being a physically implemented being. This doesn't mean that you are completely at the whim of your genetic makeup. That is the whole point of having a cortex, you know, to modify your behavior in ways that are too complex for genes to do alone!
Almost everyone is not a ruthless genocidal dictator, so if you happen upon someone with an overly short AVPR1a gene, maybe you should realize it's a little harder for them to be unselfish, so they need a little more encouragement for it to become a habit. And if you have an overly short AVPR1 gene, maybe you can remember if you're feeling particularly greedy that your feelings in this matter might be poorly calibrated (especially if they seem to have been badly calibrated in the past), so you should think about what you're about to do a little more carefully.
Brains are really cool, especially when they're used.
Now you're getting it.
Besides, socially well adjusted people are cattle. Look at history. All change is wrought by those who could NOT adjust or eat their bowl of porridge as proscribed by the lords and masters.
And you just said it. Its fear of counter attacks or return violence that keeps violent people in check. Government has rarely successfully done this. If they start fucking with people's genes to try to "adjust" them to "society", I'm going to laugh. Nature will find a way, as it always has, and then, amusingly, the few left with savage (read SURVIVOR) genes, will slaughter the rest of the peons on a whim and steal whatever they please... hmmm, I guess they'd become rulers again.
Hey, doesn't that rhyme with past history, since agricultural sedentary cultures have been around?
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
The rub is that people really are genetically different. While understanding differences is important to understanding how and why people respond differently to different medications, etc., it's just a little bitty hop to start deciding one person is "better" than another based on genetics.
Genetics is truly a double-edged sword. Just deciding that some gene needs to be "fixed" brings a value judgement with it. And that same little hop to deciding one person is better than another.
Hopefully it only gets as extreme as wanting to help fix other people's genes instead of exterminate them.
I think the idea is to hire all the ruthless people, not kill them. Then you have them kill all the defiant people, including the ruthless ones. I wonder if they can discover a gene for defiance?
Vasopressin is also known as antidiuretic hormone (ADH). ADH increases arterial blood pressure.
If the findings of this study are true, they may help explain the stereotype of the aggressive, ruthless management-type-figure with bulging neck veins suffering from a heart attack.
Haven't Jewish people traditionally carefully directed their reproduction, by only marrying other Jews? Whenever I read an article on Jpost or Haaretz I see those "Find Jewish singles!" ads, so I can only assume this is still going on quite a bit. So it wouldn't ironic at all, as Jews have traditionally employed something like eugenics for hundreds of years.
Name one.
Yes, but you missed the article where the Israeli Defense Force considers those who play certain games (Dungeons & Dragons specifically) to be security risks. Recruits to the IDF are asked specifically whether they play Dungeons & Dragons or not. If they answer "yes" they are sent to a psychologist for evaluation with many never being allowed into positions that require "high" security.
You and I may believe that there is a separation between games and real life, however the Israelies don't share this view.
...chair throwing, we can understand how Steve Ballmer came to be!
Ideally what should have been done is to have people play the game, and then see what correlations can be drawn between the simulation and real life. It's easy to make a test, it's difficult to make a valid test.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I agree. We're responsible for our own behavior. Just because a gene has some sort of capability to make us more reckless, or cruel, doesn't mean we can't learn to restrain that behavior.
We're agents, we have agency, we can choose any choice we want. These types of things like this 'gene' just make it a little more difficult for us to make that choice, yet we can still choose to make it!
-Aegis Runestone-
But now I can have my Kate and Edith too
What?
Most people who drink mother's milk are not going to kill real people.
There, fixed that for you. There have been a few notable exceptions.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I can see companies putting all the PHB wanna-bees through a genetic screening process to weed out undesirable personality traits.
I wonder if they'll ever find the gene that increases managers' ability to hang from the ceiling by their lips.
Have gnu, will travel.
I mean since the other name is Anti-Diuretic Hormone, IE it controls peeing.
With Anderson Cooper? Well I occurred to me in about 20 seconds that the optimal winning strategy was to pretend you were the mole. If that makes me ruthless, I'll remember that when I pour some out on the curb for my dead homies.
eugenics
n : the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by
selective breeding (especially as applied to human
mating) [ant: dysgenics]
-- From WordNet (r) 2.0
besides, it was supposed to be funny.
Donald Ray Moore Jr. (mindrape)
Suspected Terrorist
Well, everyone does it, pretty much. European royal family, folks in ancient Egipt and Rome, white supremacists, etc.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
sometimes a cigar is just that, a cigar, then there other times where it's a big brown dick.
Donald Ray Moore Jr. (mindrape)
Suspected Terrorist
Although I think it's a fairly big 'hop' to go from understanding interpersonal differences to deciding that one person is objectively better than another, even if you do get to that point, there's still a wide, gaping chasm before you get to the point of forcibly "fixing" people. Action is pretty distinct from having some knowledge or holding a certain opinion; it's a totally different category.
Certainly we need to be cautious and discuss these sorts of issues as we advance our knowledge of biology and the human body, but I think it's also pretty clear where we can draw the line. We don't have to wait for science to get there before deciding some things -- like forced gene therapy -- are just not okay.
However, we should be cautious not to overreact and throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Lots of technologies create possibilities for abuse, and biotechnology isn't really any different.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
will some scientist PLEASE discover the gene expresses posts by cranky slashdotters. it would make my happy gene express that much more happiness :)
Donald Ray Moore Jr. (mindrape)
Suspected Terrorist
oh the irony of a hebrew research center practicing eugenics.
How's that ironic? The Ashkenazi have been selecting (the purposefulness is debated) for intelligence for quite a long time, and are now generally more intelligent on average than the average humnan. It's speculated that this is tied up with their higher than average proportion of genetic diseases.
They've been recently using outright eugenics to eliminate their genetic diseases. Whether this has a negative pressure on their intelligence curve remains to be seen (by our descendants, not us).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Genetics is truly a double-edged sword. Just deciding that some gene needs to be "fixed" brings a value judgement with it. And that same little hop to deciding one person is better than another.
Hopefully it only gets as extreme as wanting to help fix other people's genes instead of exterminate them. Where do you people jump to the conclusion that they want to exterminate people?
So you are saying if the gay gene, or the gene for black skin is discovered, that the evil scientists will want to exterminate them?
Ridiculous. If these people want to exterminate the bad genes, they'll do it with race based medicine, and I don't see enough people being concerned about that or the potential for genocide, because the majority of people probably secretly support genocide of some other group as long as it's not their group of genes.
Either genocide is always wrong or it's always right, which is it?
The gene for ruthlessness, aka the "mean gene" has been known since the early 1980's.
Full story here.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Every group directs it's reproduction, and we call it evolution. It's not a big deal to me, but thats not the same as "exterminating" the other races.
This from someone who lives in a country home to the world's worst health care system
I know, seriously. Stop sending your rich folk and government officials here for treatment, will 'ya?, they're tying up our beds.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
You should read some of the more extreme Zionist propaganda sometime. It's almost indistinguishable from the extreme white supremacist shit -- both groups tend to whine to no end about the need to protect their race and culture, stop interracial marriage, maintain the racial purity of Europe/Israel, etc. They also tend to bring up the fear of being outbred (both white and Jewish birth rates are apparently quite low), and blacks and hispanics are often given as an example of peoples who are going to overwhelm the jews and/or whites with sheer numbers. Here's an example post on the Jewish side, and I really don't want to go searching for something on the white supremacist side; do that yourself :P
When you get right down to it, many nationalists of ANY race follow very similar rhetoric... I guess it's just part of being extremists. The thing is... nationalism is actually accepted among Jews. It's apparently ok to have Jewish dating sites, but I doubt there are all that many all-white dating sites that aren't run by trailer trash skinheads, and I can only imagine the backlash if such a site was advertised publicly.
Now... back on topic: if ruthlessness is linked to a gene, it may well be especially prevalent in one or more races. And no, I'm not just thinking about the Germans here (their successes would probably be better explained by a discipline gene anyway)... also the English, the Romans, and other empire-building civilizations over the ages.
This could be dangerous... it's one thing to rant and rave about [insert race here] being [insert negative characteristic here] (and thus deserving of destruction/enslavement/etc.), but when you can bring up genetic proof... well, there's a good possibility that a lot more people are going to listen to you.
But if I were a dictator and had total control of my country, the repercussions for cracking down and killing thousands of people may not be so bad. First order of business: institute mandatory DNA registrations, checking every person for AVPR1a and killing all the other ruthless people. And so would Stalin, if you think that one gene is worth wiping out millions of lives.
Also, just because a person has the gene it doesnt mean their behavior will automatically be ruthless, it simply means being ruthless comes easier to them.
Anyone can be ruthless if the situation calls for it, just some people feel more natural in that state than others.
There, fixed that for you. There have been a few notable exceptions. The reason they aren't going to hunt you down and kill you is because killing you has consequences.
Your life has value precisely because of those consequences.
The question is which set of genes to turn off or turn on. Right now we just don't know, and it's going to take a long time to find out.
So yeah, there will eventually be a way to make sure every baby is smart, or at least a way to prevent babies from being autistic or having down syndrome, and eventually we'll figure out how to make the baby smarter.
As for which genes make a baby ruthless, we are far from discovering exactly which genes do that, and just finding one gene is not enough to convince me of anything other than we found a gene involved in ruthlessness.
mod parent up, I seem to have misplaced my mod points. Thanks.
Ah, so how long until we have Pax?
Yes, intelligence, muscular structure, blue eyes, etc. are encoded in genes, but a difference in a certain gene does not simply turn on/off one specific trait or select between traits. Modify a gene and you mess with a whole bunch of stuff at once. That's why genetic science is so difficult.
I doubt it. You can't simply "adjust" something genetically. That's the whole misconception. We would have to learn to write genetic code ourselves, and we are a long way from that. All we can do is piece together what we have to try to make something happen, and we end up screwing it up more often than not. Reverse engineering genetic code is a much scarier challenge than reverse engineering Windows. (BTW, I know that there is work being done on this, see ReactOS) The governments of the world have been researching how to do this for a while now. They've got it working in animals, just not humans.
When you say personal responsibility, you assume everyone is equally responsible, but if you want everyone to be equally responsible then the consequences have to be absolute and apply to everyone.
Currently they don't apply to everyone. There are people who can behave irresponsibly because they have the money to pay for their irresponsibility, and act above the law, and then there are poor people who have to be personally responsible for the crimes of those rich who happen to be able to buy their way out of every bad situation.
So it's more complicated than you make it seem. But it's clear that some people are morally insane and some people are morally sane. And if someone is not a morally intelligent person, and if you happen to be some sorta moral genius, then you are more capable of reason and moral behavior and should be more personally responsible than someone less capable.
You know right from wrong and you are good enough to do the moral calculus. Some of us aren't as capable of figuring out right from wrong. In fact, to some people right and wrong depends on their mood, or on their ability to get away with it, and if they could get away with raping or murdering people then it would be right.
I don't want the government running my healthcare, thank you, they've managed to screw up international affairs, wireless communications, taxes, roads, telecommunications, and regulation of food so far... Socialized medicine will likely lead to race based medicine. Just watch what happens, the same government that uses the census to ask you what your race is, will be collecting samples of your genes and begin making a medicine just for you and your kind.
http://www.sciforums.com/Race-based-medicine-t-42289.html
Because eventually the different families within your race will decide to exterminate you.
that allows players to behave selflessly, or like national dictators and 'little Hitlers'
The word you're looking for is "selfishly". "Selflessly" suggests they are disregarding their actions impact on themselves; which selfish people like dictators never do.
If the only reason you don't kill people in real life is because you can't get away with it, you should reexamine your ethics.
Moments after the link was published, it was slashdotted. Perhaps it is for the best :)
I cant be responsible for my actions ruthless killing the parking attendant when he was giving me a fine because I parked ruthless in the no parking zone and the ambulance could not get out ....
OUCH!
to code or not to code, that is the question.
If the only reason you don't kill people in real life is because you can't get away with it, you should go into politics. ;)
There, fixed that for you
Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
Um, what?
Are you seriously saying that the only reason you aren't killing people in real life is that you'd get punished for it? Gee, remind me to never move to your neighbourhood.
And please, stop trying to speak for all gamers, too. Take me, for example: I've been playing FPS games since 1992 or so (starting with Wolfenstein, then later DOOM and others); I still play DOOM a lot today, too, and all in all, I wouldn't be surprised if I'd killed, say, a million monsters since then (playing since 1992, that's an average of less than 200 a day, which seems quite likely for me).
Yet still, not only haven't I killed a person, and not only wouldn't I do so for fear of going to jail, I also wouldn't do so because it isn't right. Maybe things are different for you, but I consider myself an ethical person, and you can bet that if I had a magic button to push to kill someone without repercussions, I wouldn't do so, even if you offered me a big bag of money for it - nevermind the fact that I've killed a million monsters without any second thoughts whatsoever.
Maybe it's different for you: maybe you'd kill if you could just get away with it. But not everyone's like that.
gotta wear gloves for that around here
Hummmm...not sure how ethics pertain to antisocial personality disorder.
Just another reason why we should stop believing these researcher, They will come up with anything to keep the grants coming in. This is going to make ruthless people guilt free. "I am dick but dont blame me, its in my genes". This seems to be part of conspiracy that is pushing the entire society to immorality. So people who are ruthless are not just bad human beings. Everything is genetic I am sure they will find genes for criminals. Then I am damn sure some smart lawyer will use this gene in a case to get his client off punishment. Now does that make ruthlesness a disease, how about having a seperate parking space for ruthless people. They have a genetic problem.
Just sayin'..."So?"
Yes, this movie was ruthless.
Look, dude. These are the Israelis we're talking about here. If they find someone with the ruthlessness gene, they won't medicate him or try to sterilize him; they'll promote him to IDF General!
As all the gamers tell us, games != real life. People who kill many characters on FPS are not going to kill real people.
So why should ruthless behaviour in some game be linked to ruthlessness in life?
Absolutely. I marvel at the things I do in world conquest games such as Civilization. I would go straight for Fundamentalism as a government choice to quash those annoying civilians and their damned civil unrest. In real life, I would never consider such a thing (not that I am in a position of power), but empathy with artificial constructs simply doesn't exist. For me, it is about winning strategies, period. Then again, it is also fun to snipe in an FPS and watch the cloud of red explode from the other side, but I could not kill unless my life or the life of someone I loved was in danger, and I generally care about people. In fact, I am quite compassionate. There may be a gene for ruthlessness, but how does it impact one's behavior in life?
Totally agree. Besides, a little ruthlessness can be an asset in some situations... and in some situations, too much altruism can be harmful.
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
LaskoVortex.ReadingComprehension--;
Hint: The guy quoted the part he was calling BS; that means you don't get to re-attribute it to the quote about helping grannies vs playing chess.
I have Thalassemia Minor. If there was a huge outbreak of Malaria, guess what? I sudden become genetically better than you.
Reality just is. Taking offense at reality is rather stupid. If you have such a problem with reality, there is an easy way out.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
There goes your business class of investors and salesmen. Enjoy your Brave New World.
Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
This isn't about ruthlessness, just selfishness. One can be one without the other. Ruthlessness is doing whatever is needed for one's goals regardless of the impact on any person or people. This can include ones self. Generosity or selfishness isn't always a good indicator of ruthlessness.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
"but there was a link to the length of the AVPR1a gene."
Wanna see how long is my AVPR1a? Show me yours and I'll show you mine.
alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls
You're asking the wrong question. If you compare Judaism to other religions, there are dating sites for Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, etc. If you compare Jews to other minorities, there are dating sites for Italians, Greeks, Hispanics, etc. Maybe these dating sites are ethnocentric (or as you say, 'nationalist') but since even Italians and Greeks were 'white' the last time I checked Current Fashions in Racist Thinking, that would indicate that many 'whites' are accepting of 'nationalism' too.
there is no god but truth, and reality is its prophet
[quote]If the only reason you don't kill people in real life is because you can't get away with it, you should reexamine your ethics.[/quote]
How much examination did you employ to determine that killing is a priori wrong, or did vasopressin do the examination for you? Declining to murder based on consequences shows greater ethical development than declining to murder on the basis of emotion (or on the basis of the command of an external authority such as parents or scripture.)
I would go so far as to say electing to murder on the basis of consequence is more ethical than declining to murder due to hormonal influences.
For great justice.
But what if real life was nothing but a game. Maybe we are all part of a powerful being(God) who decided that perfection was boring so real life was created to entertain us. We do not allow us to remember any of this or any of our past life because it would not allow us to have a fresh start every time we are born. Even if real life was a game it would not make any sense to murder people since it would degrade everyone's value even the person doing the killing. If I can kill someone than someone else can kill me. I played a game in which I was so powerful in the end that the game became so boring that I either had to quit it or restart it. Restarting did not help that much since I still remembered all of the tricks to get to the end but I can not force myself to forget the tricks so I could start fresh again.
Having grown up with one (older brother, institutionalized at age 12), I can tell you that even if there is a genetic basis for psychopathy - the answer doesn't lie in genetics alone. Because you can make anyone into a psychopath regardless of genetics.
Here's one way that works pretty damn well.
When my family adopted my brother, he was 8 weeks old. And he had already been adopted and returned by 3 previous families. Yeah - probably not the best decision my mum ever made, but she'd just had a miscarriage and probably was not doing her best long term thinking at the moment.
She noticed strange behaviour in him almost immediately. Even at 8 weeks old, he clearly wasn't comfortable with human contact. As he grew older, a laundry list of abnormal behaviour manifested itself.
Years later, I saw a documentary about these kids who all seemed to have the exact same personality my brother did. They had all come from a Balken orphanage that was later discovered to have been a place where infants were physically and sexually abused.
Now think about this for a second. You're very first human contact is with people who hurt you terribly. You're an infant, so of course you have no way of knowing these people aren't representative of all people. Quite the opposite, you form your basis for what "people" are based the abusers.
How do you act, when your subconscious impression of people - even if they care for you - is that they are very dangerous to you? Well, you try to drive them away. First, you make yourself unpleasant to be around or anything that makes them avoid you. Later, as you grow large (or powerful) enough to do so - you act against them. None of this requires a special gene, it simply requires a survival instinct.
Yes, some people from loving homes go nuts and become killers anyway. And some people are abused and either abuse only themselves, or rise above it and try to protect others. The human brain is vastly complex so you must expect some variance. But the norm, the top of the bell curve, is that people who are treated badly - particularly as children - will see others as likely enemies, and treat them accordingly.
So the best way of reducing the number of "little Hitlers" is to simply treat others as kindly as you can. Even Hitler himself wouldn't have been very effective if the citizens of Germany had been significantly more reluctant to treat people cruelly. Remember, his first atrocities were not the concentration camps. His first ones were implementing neglect of physically and mentally disabled people. Then prisoners. And on and on, moving from those least able to defend themselves all the way up to the whole world.
Wild guess - the whole of Germany in the 1930's didn't have the genetic trait sited in this article.
So just try be nice, and be wary of those who advocate cruelty. That takes care of about 99% of the problem. The remaining 1% isn't going to go way, any more than the other end of that bell curve will.
At least not until we figure out how replace every species with cute little puppies. Seriously, why are dogs so happy and nice all the time compared to everything else? We should work on figuring that out. I have to work like crazy and have awesome luck to a fraction as happy as a dog who gets to go for a walk or eat a cold cut.
What does it have to do with this article, which links a gene to a behavioral pattern, showing correlation, not causality?
Hannah E. Davis, it seems to me you see the world through a particular red-shifted prism as well.
You are not saying anything about the scientific study, only about the fact that it was done by Jews?
Many minorities have pressure to marry within the community to preserve a tradition: Hindu, Sikh, Chinise, etc.
Minorities feel more threatened by assimilation and "losing themselves" as do majorities. Do you feel the same towards them as well? Most Christians, living in predominately Muslim countries work very hard to preserve traditions as well, even without ethnic differences. How do y
Ever play a game called "Fable" or perhaps "Black and White"?
Where you choose to take a "good" or "bad" route.
If you have then you will know what I'm talking about when you play good for a while, then play bad, then back to good and keep switching. It's reactionary gaming, you want to see the content and what you are capable of in the gaming realm.
Italian Dating:
http://www.italianpeoplemeet.com/online-dating/g-online-dating.cfm?t=GG00516&smd=g&tde=italian%20dating&splc=&mt=std&ad=1052388446&agn=Italian%201&gclid=CKD65ZrPyZICFQQIFQodiEZ7bw
Greek Dating:
http://eligiblegreeks.com/
I really wouldn't worry that the views of racists "might be correct", because, oh, pretty much everything they've said so far has been discredited by science. I don't oppose racism because it's 'politically incorrect' (a very Orwellian phrase) - I oppose it because it's wrong. Using race or religion to judge someone is about as useful as astrology. Why should I make (probably incorrect) assumptions based on a person's skin colour or religion, when I could just get to know them? Strike up a conversation? Racism is the refuge of the lazy and stupid.
Regarding 'greed genes' and 'violence genes', I suspect they will be present in most humans, since any humans who didn't hoard food or defend themselves 10 000 years ago wouldn't have lasted very long. And 10 000 years is a very short time for evolutionary change. The secret is, that together with genes for 'greed' and 'violence' most of us also have genes for 'generosity' and 'empathy', and it's up to us which ones we end up using.
And if we find the genes or lack of genes that cause something like psychopathy (which is found in all populations, but if it's a gene it seems more of a mutation than an inherited trait) maybe we can cure psychopaths instead of having to lock them away for the rest of their lives? If by some infinitesimal chance this gene were slightly more prevalent in a specific 'racial' group (which I doubt), wouldn't this be to that group's benefit?
Regarding conversion to Judaism, you have been misinformed:
Orthodox definition of a Jew: someone whose mother is Jewish or converted.
Reform definition of a Jew: someone who was raised Jewish or converted.
In both cases, the religious law states that converts are to be accepted equally as Jews. However, the orthodox conversion process involves more studying and takes longer. But "the folks in charge of Israel" currently accept both definitions, orthodox and reform. Their religious right wants to change that, but then the religious right in America wants to teach creationism in schools. There are nutters everywhere.
If you "don't know if there are Italian/Greek/etc. dating sites", Google can enlighten you! Italianosingles: Connecting Italians Worldwide. The smiling couple on the front page is very white. Of course they probably don't kick out non-whites as such, but then, Jewish dating sites are unlikely to do that either. There are white Jews, black Jews, Asian Jews, middle eastern Jews...
I wouldn't say there's a lack of nationalism among English speaking whites. Plenty of people who think of themselves as Italian or Irish or Jewish speak English (and in many cases only English). I've seen books about 'Irish pride' in mainstream bookstores (and the book was - yes - in English). Maybe you mean among whites who think of themselves as ethnically English? That could be because, unlike the Italian-, Irish- and Jewish-Americans, the English were a powerful nation, and did the whole imperialism thing, and then got over it. They've got nothing to prove. Although there are still nutters like the BNP.
I agree that ethnocentrism is not long term a good thing. But I think it's decreasing over time. And I don't think it's especially prevalent in or limited to the Jewish community. White nationalists are fond of claiming that Jews preach intermarriage but avoid it themselves. Actually, orthodox religious leaders only disapprove of intermarriage if the spouse doesn't convert to Judaism. (Although this is commonly what happens, due to societal pressure.) And something like 50% of Jews in America marry out of the faith anyway.
there is no god but truth, and reality is its prophet
or his AVPR1a length...
Right.
You know nothing.
Your wife would want you to kill a rabbit just so you could get some ass?
Holy crap, there's like 5 things wrong with that, I don't even know where to begin.
He didn't say he doesn't kill people because he "can't get away with it" he said "because there are repercussions" which could just as easily be referring to his personal guilt over killing someone. He could "get away with it" and there would STILL be consequences.
There's nothing insightful about straw men like the one you used.
Now knowing this, all that is needed is for a virus to be developed that counteracts this gene and *presto* world socialis^Wpeace at last!
...of what the current version of "Western", especially American society is built upon -- the assumption that all people can enjoy competitive behavior and environment where they can thrive only at the expense of others' suffering.
Thanks, I will refer to this every time some misanthropic economist or political leader will tell me how great competitive behavior is and how I just HAVE TO be an asshole to match his enlightened view of humanity.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The mere mention of Hitler does not satisfy the requirements of a Godwin. Even direct comparisons don't necessarily equate to a Godwin.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
I wonder if there is a "no bloody sense of humor" gene.
Look, Hitler, now we can breed you out!!!
Once we fix that, if we find the moron gene, the jerk gene, the witch gene, the scammer gene and the spammer gene out of our genetic pool, this would be a better world.
Yeah, and that's not the same as planning one's own family. "Selective breeding" means choosing mates for other people through coercion in order to achieve certain results. Planning one's own family is not coercion.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
One special forces person I knew a while ago shot up some real people, laid some landmines then later that day rolled his car swerving to miss a small animal on the road.
The internet tough guy brigade is lucky to have you.Can you benchpress a car? Or is that your special forces buddies who roll cars for bunnies with the superhuman strength?
You can't take the sky from me...
It shall be dubbed the "Khan" gene.