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."
So why should ruthless behaviour in some game be linked to ruthlessness in life?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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
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...
And why should we assume that Joe Public can understand science? If that was the case, there would be no use for graduate degrees. The MSM is just an entertainment medium. Only a small percentage of us actually care about being correct. That's why I hang around /. Regardless of all the jokes, people here do care about being right. I say this even disagreeing with many of the general opinions around here.
Do away with our corrupt tax code. Support the Fair Tax
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?
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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 agree. Instead of "Little Hitlers", they should have said "Little Napoleons". I wonder if overexpression of the AVPR1 gene also makes you seem short. That would explain a correlation between perceived height and incessant posturing, loud voices, and stomping around. That is to say, such behavior actually makes people seem shorter--I think it can actually take 2 to 3 inches off one's height. I've seen a 5'4" guy remark that a 5'5" guy had a Napolean's complex. I had to agree, the little Napolean that the 5'4" guy was referring to always seemed short while I never even thought about the 5'4" guy's height until that point (not a Little Napolean). But maybe we should cut Little Napoleans a break. Perhaps they can't help it, genetically speaking.
Just callin' it like I see it.
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.