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."
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.
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
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.
You're missing the point here.
As long as it's something you do to yourself, it'd be morally sound. Case in point: Tatts, piercing, sex-change ops, etc.
When it becomes something you force upon others without their consent, well, that's when morals and ethics fly out the window and Hitler starts being mentioned. It'd be just as bad if some were to PREVENT gene-therapy from others against the other's will as it would to apply it against their will.
Let's say they do identify the gene for being gay, being black, having a vagina, being bi-symmetrical or that gives you herpes. And let's say that we'll get the genetic toolbox to add and/or eliminate genes from our system.
What's wrong with people fiddling around with themselves? How is it fundamentally different from what we already have today?
Who are we to say that the knowledge of what (stemming from research such as this) and how (the genetic toolbox) are immoral for someone to use on themselves?
Any progress towards either the what or the how is good. The more we know, the sooner we can start changing shit in our bodies we don't like and can't already tackle.
-