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
So why should ruthless behaviour in some game be linked to ruthlessness in life?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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
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.
What ever happened to personal responsibility? just about every vice in our society now is handled by psychologists instead of jail guards.
The Ayn Rand gene?
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
...chair throwing, we can understand how Steve Ballmer came to be!
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.
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?
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.
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.