Slashdot Mirror


Genetic Glitch May Prevent Kids From Learning From Their Mistakes

jamie pointed out an interesting piece being featured in Newsweek that claims a "genetic glitch" may prevent some kids from learning from their mistakes to the same degree as others. "If there is one thing experts on child development agree on, it is that kids learn best when they are allowed to make mistakes and feel the consequences. So Mom and Dad hold back as their toddler tries again and again to cram a round peg into a square hole. [...] But not, it seems, all kids. In about 30 percent, the coils of their DNA carry a glitch, one that leaves their brains with few dopamine receptors, molecules that act as docking ports for one of the neurochemicals that carry our thoughts and emotions. A paucity of dopamine receptors is linked to an inability to avoid self-destructive behavior such as illicit drug use. But the effects spill beyond such extremes. Children with the genetic variant are unable to learn from mistakes. No matter how many tests they blow by partying the night before, the lesson just doesn't sink in."

500 comments

  1. Hey! by Herr_Skymarshall · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's party like we don't know any better!

    1. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love parties!

    2. Re:Hey! by Stellian · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's party like we don't know any better!

      I gather you are one of the many victims of this horrible affliction - also known as "the stupid gene".

    3. Re:Hey! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Back in my day we didn't need do newfangled genetic glitches. Nosiree, back in the stone age we had drugs to make us stupid!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and it's been diagnosed as ADHD for years so the pharma-doctor-on-our-payroll companies can sell Million$ in drugs to their parents.

    5. Re:Hey! by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily stupid.

      The gene regulates learning from mistakes but there are other sources of learning.

      For example I've never made the mistake of failing to turn on my signal and check behind me when making a lane change on the highway. I did not learn that behavior through trial and error I learned it from being taught.

  2. Takes all kinds by XanC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is this humanity's insurance policy against catastrophic changes, where the old rules don't apply?

    1. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30% would seem a bit high, though. How often do catastrophic changes occur?

    2. Re:Takes all kinds by erareno · · Score: 1

      I would think NOTICING the change would be more important than doing the same thing you did by mistake before any change occurred.

      Just my two cents.

    3. Re:Takes all kinds by gregbot9000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, until recently, pretty often. It 30% shows me there is obviously some form of survival benefit to this for it to be so high.

      They cast this in a very negative light, calling it a disability, but the inability to learn from mistakes is actually a god send. I don't know how many people I've seen get knocked down at work, or turned down by women and not get back up. It's the people who throw themselves at things against the odds and keeps fighting that truly captures the imagination. I'm not surprised it is as low as 30% when you see the state of politics and society.

      Mostly this article is a crock of shit. Genetics is becoming the new astrology, and I see little evidence that what they say really applies on a macro level.

    4. Re:Takes all kinds by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know how many people I've seen get knocked down at work, or turned down by women and not get back up. It's the people who throw themselves at things against the odds and keeps fighting that truly captures the imagination.

      That's giving up hope. Learning from your mistakes would be getting turned down by a woman, analyzing what might have led to that outcome, and trying to fix it.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    5. Re:Takes all kinds by blahplusplus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "That's giving up hope. "

      Giving up hope is a function of learning from your mistakes, there are situations where it is perfectly rational to give up hope.

      They don't address the complexity of 'learning from your mistakes', one man's mistake is another man's genius idea. History is filled with critics that thought someone was mistaken when they ultimately turned out to be right, especially in mathematics.

    6. Re:Takes all kinds by postbigbang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps, perhaps not.

      Consider that many kinds of sociopathy have the same kind of behavioral characteristics, but also include lack of guilt, inability to love, and parrotting of a number of emotions.

      Correlation != Causation, but the relationship of risky behaviors and inabiity to learn from many kinds of mistakes also typifies the pathology of sociopaths.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    7. Re:Takes all kinds by Snoobic · · Score: 0

      /agree

      There's a difference. A combination of evolution, tenacity, and drive are all good things - and can lead to solving near-impossible problems.

      I think what the article is describing more of an illogical, blind tenacity. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

    8. Re:Takes all kinds by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

      That doesn't sound like Franklin. I think it may have been Einstein?

      But telling you this is obviously not going to work. :)

    9. Re:Takes all kinds by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Genetics is becoming the new astrology

      Mod me redundant, but I feel that deserves to be repeated.

      Maybe I don't get it, but the last time I checked, we don't really understand how the brain works. Bits and pieces of its operation, yes, but the big picture? Not even close. How is it, then, that some can claim to have such complex aspects, in this case, learning, figured out on a genetic level? Wouldn't that be like someone who barely knows jack about the immune system claiming to have found a genetic reason as to why some people are allergic to cats?

    10. Re:Takes all kinds by physburn · · Score: 0

      I thinks its humanity's insurance against bullying. These Kids will take much more punishment before complying with the punisher. Bullying tends to be effective in most animals, at getting what the bullier wants. By evolving people who won't be changed by it, might be natures comeback.

    11. Re:Takes all kinds by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Learning from your mistakes would be getting turned down by a woman, analyzing what might have led to that outcome, and trying to fix it.

      I call BS.

      Some women find persistence a form of strength. In fact, they often like to play the game "hard to get" for a reason. Perhaps they only want to bare children from those that have this "genetic glitch"?

      Evolution indeed.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    12. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually what's more appropriate for your example would be more like this:

      Guy gets turned down by woman. Next day guy asks same woman and turned down again. The next day guys asks same woman and still turned down. Repeat process until woman gets restraining order against guy. Next day guy asks same woman. Guys goes to jail. Next day guy calls woman from jail...

    13. Re:Takes all kinds by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's giving up hope. Learning from your mistakes would be getting turned down by a woman, analyzing what might have led to that outcome, and trying to fix it.

      That's assuming that 'negative feedback' comes from a mistake. A lot of things require persistence, doing the same thing until it works.

      Meeting women, ironically, is one of those things.

      1) Just be yourself.
      2) That didn't work.
      3) Repeat with another woman until it works.

      Anything else is going to fail even more catastrophically.

      Some things benefit from stepping back analyzing the approach for error and taking a new approach. Other things benefit from just continuing to hammer away at it, even if it appears not to be working. Wouldn't surprise me if, from and evolutionary point of view... a balance of 70/30 within a population is the most efficient. Most people rethink... a few hammer away... population as a whole does better.

    14. Re:Takes all kinds by enoz · · Score: 1

      I would assume most of these genetic studies involve statistics, and we all know that there are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

    15. Re:Takes all kinds by OG · · Score: 5, Informative

      No one claimed that they had learning figured out a genetic level. What they do claim is that they've pinpointed a gene that corresponds well with different behaviors. And it just so happens that this gene results in a reduction in dopamine tone. And there's been quite a bit of research showing that changes in dopamine tone result in changes in learning and memory (speaking as someone who's worked on a bit of that research).

      And I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that producing a transgenic mouse that expresses the variation of the gene associated with "not learning with your mistakes" is going to result in behavioral differences in those animals that might just correspond to the behaviors they've described in humans.

      And it's not like we don't already have any examples of a single gene resulting in pretty drastic behavioral and cognitive effects.

      What we do know is that who we are is a combination of many genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. None of them fully explains who we are, but that doesn't mean that individual factors can't exert a strong force on who we are.

    16. Re:Takes all kinds by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Genetics is becoming the new astrology...

      This is the most insightful comment I've read, here or anywhere, in a very long time. You've succinctly surmised why genetics has so captivated popular opinion. People want a modern tarot.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    17. Re:Takes all kinds by tsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It looks like we now have Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Genetics. If you don't understand a phenomenon you can easily blame it on genetics, and use The Selfish Gene theory to 'explain' it.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    18. Re:Takes all kinds by OG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I think is interesting is that people have no problem believing that someone's genetics serve as a template for their hair, eye color, height, etc, but are much more skeptical about the role of genetics role behavior. Behavior is a result of the brain (and the rest of the body), which is just as much a physical item as the rest of you.

      That's not to say that genetics can explain everything. There are epigenetic and environmental facts at play that are also important. But an individual's genetics are the starting point, so how is it foolish that to believe that understanding genetics can provide insights. Genetics isn't the end all and be all of understanding people, but it's a very important component.

    19. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In optimization, there are all kinds of techniques to try to break free of local maxima / minima. They obviously don't help you every single run, but then there are no guarantees, are there? Depending on what system you're analyzing, it's often enough just to get that better answer once because then you can devote your more reliable resources to exploring it further.

      Balance in everything, it seems.

    20. Re:Takes all kinds by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In fact, they often like to play the game "hard to get" for a reason.

      Yes: they're bitches. Nothing against women in general, but if you're not being honest about your intentions for a relationship (including whether to have one at all), you're just being cruel to the person on the other end.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    21. Re:Takes all kinds by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      Myopia is not a survival benefit, but since the invention of spectacles it has risen to be so common that good vision is considered somewhat rare. Perhaps it is our society that has led this to occur, and not a possible survival benefit.

      I also agree with the astrology comment. It is really a silly debate. I would still want my genetically modified grandchildren to have the learn-from-your-mistakes gene nevertheless.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    22. Re:Takes all kinds by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would say that's because hair/eye color are very different that the brain. For example, no amount of sociological input will ever give me a nice platinum blond mane (sigh), however, the ability of the brain can be shaped significantly with external factors. Also, I would assume that, considering how much more complex the brain is compared to various physical traits, the genetics would also be mush more complex, and therefore it would be difficult to determine just how much of an impact any one gene or set of genes would have.

    23. Re:Takes all kinds by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Myopia is not a survival benefit, but since the invention of spectacles it has risen to be so common that good vision is considered somewhat rare. Perhaps it is our society that has led this to occur, and not a possible survival benefit.

      More likely, with spectacles cheaper relative to average income than in the past, and reading so extremely important in today's society compared to pre-industrial agrarian one, people simply don't put up with the level of myopia they did in the past instead of getting spectacles.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    24. Re:Takes all kinds by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      It has been misattributed to both, but was actually by Rita Mae Brown. (Source: wikiquote.)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    25. Re:Takes all kinds by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      It is quite likely a function of both factors, but that is the easy way out of this argument isn't it?

      I would say extreme myopia is inarguably more common than in the "pre-spectacle" era, whereas minor vision difficulties would likely have always existed and are simply less tolerated in the modern era as you suggest.

      Fortunately for me, this theory is extremely vague, and almost impossible to realistically quantify and measure, and thus a solid, cogent argument either way is beyond the scope of this forum.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    26. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't mean for sure there is a survival benefit for it, there could be something else compensating for it. Other individuals like parents, sibling, friends or society in general may be protecting the individuals from removing themselves from the gene pool. We find that often in species which live as a community and humans have gone one step further in using science in keeping people alive who have life threatening conditions.

      And the ability to learn from mistakes doesn't mean people have to give up. The trait to keep trying again and again could be independent of this one, which means there will be people who rectify their mistakes and try again to succeed.

    27. Re:Takes all kinds by dougisfunny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the 70% without the gene can learn from the 30% that have it. Example, back in the day of cavemen, the tribe is looking for a new cave. "Ug Bob you go in cave" "Ok" Screaming and ripping of flesh sounds, the rest of tribe doesn't go in. Rinse and repeat until you find a good cave. You might run into 30% inhabited caves.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    28. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no amount of sociological input will ever give me a nice platinum blond mane

      Perhaps a Skinner box is just bleach blonde for the soul?

    29. Re:Takes all kinds by droopycom · · Score: 1

      Okay, the key in you strategy is that you try different women...

      To get back to the origina analogy, when you peg doesnt fit the whole, try another hole

      So you didnt disprove anything.
       

    30. Re:Takes all kinds by silentsteel · · Score: 1

      And it's not like we don't already have any examples of a single gene resulting in pretty drastic behavioral and cognitive effects.

      What we do know is that who we are is a combination of many genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. None of them fully explains who we are, but that doesn't mean that individual factors can't exert a strong force on who we are.

      I will not disagree with that statement, in and of itself. I do, however, want to point out that the (potentially related) causes behind many of the aspects of who we are has not been determined.

      Not in the case of your example, necessarily, but many of the current childhood disorders have some sort of genetic link that could, also, have a probability of occurring within the 70/30 split in TFA.

      Without examining a potential link between two seemingly separate, but similiar, disorders, it is a fallacy to say that the disorders are, indeed, separate, and each possibly controlled by a single gene.

      --
      I cut it three times, and it's still too short.
    31. Re:Takes all kinds by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      But telling you this is obviously not going to work. :)

      No, telling works fine. Reading (textbooks | manuals | tutorials) works fine. We can learn ... just not from our own mistakes!

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    32. Re:Takes all kinds by Urkki · · Score: 1

      That's giving up hope.

      What's the difference between giving up hope that a "square peg" will fit in a "round hole", and learning that it won't fit?

      Besides, I think this is not directly related to intellgience. This is not about learning how to solve problems, not about how make that square peg fit into the round hole. But if you don't "learn" it won't fit, you're perhaps more likely to find a way to make it fit (if you're intelligent enough).

      It's easy to imagine that whoever first learned to use fire was with this gene. He didn't learn that fire burns, fire bad, he just had to go and play with it again, and again...

    33. Re:Takes all kinds by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But then came Heisenberg and kept trying and showed them all!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    34. Re:Takes all kinds by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

      when you peg doesnt fit the whole, try another hole

      Or another peg. I hear that operation is pretty expensive though.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    35. Re:Takes all kinds by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Genetics seem to me more like the new Phrenology. It's much more fitting, if you ask me.

      Basically, we know a little bit about genes. We know that some mutation has certain results. Or we think we know. We have statistics that say there should be some sort of correlation. Or maybe there could be.

      All it takes is that the sample you draw from happens to be from the same social group, which have a certain genetic trait and also some social trait. Now, which is it, nature or nurture? Is it the gene, that certain people have, or is it that those people live in certain social systems?

      Simply reducing psychological traits and social behaviour to genes quickly leads to a slippery slope that I thought we left when we noticed that the "suprerior race" or "noble blood" idea is bollocks.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    36. Re:Takes all kinds by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would say that this variation may survive because the persons having it are more persistent about getting sex.

      If it isn't improving your survivability it must be about sex. Otherwise it wouldn't survive for long.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    37. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Giving up hope is a function of learning from your mistakes, there are situations where it is perfectly rational to give up hope.

      Personally, this is why I much prefer to stand back and learn from *other people's* mistakes.

    38. Re:Takes all kinds by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      30% would seem a bit high, though. How often do catastrophic changes occur?

      Depends. If your drunk and/or drugged up to your eyeballs all the time, pretty frequently.

      Fuck, I think I can hear sirens. Got to go.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    39. Re:Takes all kinds by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I think Myopia is probably caused by too much time spent reading as a child. There've been experiments with chickens. If you raise them in a small box, their eyes calibrate themselves so their focal far point is the end of the box. So it's possible that smart kids get smart from reading but it also gives them myopia. Not that it matters, since vision can be corrected with spectacles or contact lenses.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    40. Re:Takes all kinds by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      I think sociopaths fall into more the "lack of empathy" category, rather than "doesn't learn from mistakes". I suspect the scary sociopaths would be the ones that DO learn from mistakes.

    41. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, until recently, pretty often. It 30% shows me there is obviously some form of survival benefit to this for it to be so high.

      Earth is overpopulated. Looks like a perfect way to reduse the population by 30%.
      All we need, is abolish all the "lets protect the idiots" laws. Let them go and have fun!
      Our gene pool IS way too fracked as it is by now. Thank you the drug/medical industry!, for saving all the sick and retarded so they can pass on the defective genes... and give you back more clients)

         

    42. Re:Takes all kinds by Kjella · · Score: 1

      History is filled with critics that thought someone was mistaken when they ultimately turned out to be right, especially in mathematics.

      Getting off topic, but why pull up math as an example? I'd think that'd be the least such field, as theorems lead to others and there's not that many "wild theories". If you want crazy ideas I'd go with physics, you know stuff like the earth orbiting the sun and that sort of radical ideas.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    43. Re:Takes all kinds by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      To quote the book I am reading. "Percy Williams Bridgman once remarked, 'The Scientific Method is doing you damnedest, no holds barred'."

      (And, how the hell do you do a recursive quote?)

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    44. Re:Takes all kinds by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      Well, but there's a difference between Tarot and Genetics. Tarot is nothing short of idiocy, and people who actually believe in it are either very naive or plain stupid, but Genetics? Yes, we do not know much about it yet, and some people misuse it, but I think it's foolish to compare something we know that it is nonsense with something we just know very few about.

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    45. Re:Takes all kinds by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

      I'm glad somebody pointed out that "mistakes" is a subjective term in most situations. Not to mention that "learning" from mistakes implies there is a specific idea that should be learned. More often, there are several paths to resolution. If I fall off a bike, I might learn to improve my balance or I might learn that maybe I should take the bus. Which one is "learning"?

    46. Re:Takes all kinds by blahplusplus · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Boole's system (detailed in his 'An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, on Which Are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities', 1854) was based on a binary approach, processing only two objects - the yes-no, true-false, on-off, zero-one approach.

      Surprisingly, given his standing in the academic community, Boole's idea was either criticized or completely ignored by the majority of his peers. Luckily, American logician Charles Sanders Peirce was more open-minded."

      So yes there is plenty of people ignored and criticized by the math community. Mr Boole's ideas were absolutely critical for the development of electronic computers when Claude Shannon picked them up.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon

    47. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

      Theodore Roosevelt

    48. Re:Takes all kinds by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My sister actually 'broke' her left eye briefly -- it wouldn't focus. Too much target shooting (she was in college at the time, shooting competitively, and had been since she was about 12).

      Had to do 'exercises' that involved shifting her focus from something close to something far, with her right (dominant) eye closed, if i recall.

      I've run in to this myself, too. I've had stretches where I spend too much time focused on my computer monitor, and upon exiting the house I can't really focus more than a few feet in front of me. After a while being outside, I adjust.. but something tells me it's not as full an adjustment as it should be. Possibly the glasses on my face.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    49. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's giving up hope.

      You're Goddamned right it is. Try remaining hopeful after the bitch pillages the checking account and leaves the state to go live with some white trailer trash redneck in the Dioxin capital of the US.

      But, I'm not bitter. Honest. However, I hope she gets cancer, along with her stinking ratdog, whose diarrehic shit ruined every carpet in the house.

    50. Re:Takes all kinds by wisty · · Score: 1

      *sigh* kind of. Empathy is a learned behavior - you kick the dog and you get bitten, or get in trouble. Most infants are utterly selfish, but they learn to see other peoples point of view (we call it empathy) before they get big enough to do any real damage (or big enough that they don't need to see other peoples views). Otherwise it's Lord of the Flies for the rest of their lives.

    51. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or lasers.

    52. Re:Takes all kinds by Spatial · · Score: 1

      Evolution isn't that neat. Traits can also remain just because they don't affect the ability to reproduce.

    53. Re:Takes all kinds by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Funny

      They cast this in a very negative light, calling it a disability, but the inability to learn from mistakes is actually a god send.

      Don't forget: "if at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    54. Re:Takes all kinds by db32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Until recently we had a wonderful system for allowing natural selection to take place. Our society has since removed that except in extreme cases. Stupidity should be terminal, and our legal, moral, and medical thoughts have largely removed that consequence. Once if you did something too stupid you died, if you didn't die you had to come up with a way to get help. Now, you just hope someone watching pounds 911 and hope that you survive the time it takes for the EMS to show up (Typically they have to stop recording on their cellphone camera to do this, so you may be out of luck).

      I'm not saying our advances are entirely bad, but this is certainly a consequence of those changes. You remove the evolutionary pressure to not be a moron and the "moron gene" will start showing up again. I think you are wrong in saying there is a survival benefit to this, since in the cold hard world this behavior would likely get you killed before it it helped. The problem is that there is no hinderance of survival due to that gene because someone is always around to protect you. Look at all of the "OMG think of the children" crap. Toy recalls irritate me more than anything. Many of my generate played with lawndarts and survived, some didn't survive, that is natural selection.

      Inability to learn from mistakes IS a disability. In the cases you cite that isn't an inability to learn from mistakes. In fact I suspect it is quite the opposite. Every time that person approaches another woman he probably uses things he learned from the last rejection to avoid rejection. The most smooth talking snakes I have known have been rejected 10x more than accepted. And I quote, "if you ask every woman you see eventually one of them will say yes". That seems alot like learning. Same with people who throw themselves against the odds, repeating the same mistake over and over is not inspiring. Science didn't get where it is by people trying the same thing that didn't work over and over, it got there by people learning to make adjustments with each attempt. You don't just load the rock in the catapult and fire 1000 times hoping to hit your target. You adjust slightly after each failure to bring yourself closer to target.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    55. Re:Takes all kinds by Icarium · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confusing 'mistake' with 'failure', and assuming that learning from your mistakes means never repeating the effort.

      Writing a test and failing it is not a mistake, it's a failure. Writing the same test again, giving the exact same answers and expecting a different result? Thats stupidity, not a survival trait. Repeating an action for which there is only one possible outcome is a mistake, everything else is simply failure. Doing something 'against the odds' requires that there actually be odds.

      Additionally, what's defined as a mistake differs from person to person. If the high you get from partying the night before outweighs the low you get from flunking the next day, who's to say you'll even consider it a mistake? There is no clear cut standard for what constitutes a mistake - your idea of a mistake may be my idea of a good time.

    56. Re:Takes all kinds by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I've heard that one definition of insanity (or stupidity) is expecting to do something exactly the same and expect different results.

      This gene, though, seems to have something to do with fear. You need to be able to overcome the fear of getting thrown off the horse, otherwise knowing what you did wrong won't help. You actually have to get back on the horse.

      What you refer to demands courage - going ahead despite fear. TFA is about the lack of fear.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    57. Re:Takes all kinds by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Some women find persistence a form of strength. In fact, they often like to play the game "hard to get" for a reason. Perhaps they only want to bare children from those that have this "genetic glitch"?

      Those women don't have a chance with me; I find that kind of guy they're after to be pathetic; they're stalkers. If I ask a women out and she turns me down, she missed her chance. I wound't want the kind of woman that considers herself a prize to be fought over.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    58. Re:Takes all kinds by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      one man's mistake is another man's genius idea

      You lost me there, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you paint an example?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    59. Re:Takes all kinds by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I don't get it, but the last time I checked, we don't really understand how the brain works

      We may never understand how the brain works. One of the quotes at the bottom of slashdot the other day said it; I don't remember the quote exactly, but it was along the lines of "if the brain was simple enough for us to understand we wouldn't be smart enough to understand it."

      But we know a HELL of a lot more about neurochemistry than we did just half a century ago, or they would never have been able to invent antidepressant drugs.

      They find genetic components to brain function with statistics - if, for example, 99% of schitzophrenics have a certain genetic sequence that sane people lack, it's a pretty good bet that particular genetic sequence will at least contribute to schitzophrenia, or set the stage for it.

      Genetics is like astrology only in the sense that our knowlege of genetics today is like our knowledge of astronomy a couple thousand years ago. Neuroscientists aren't claiming knowledge they don't have. Unlike astrology it is rigorous science.

      Disclaimer - I am a layman, not a neuroscientist.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    60. Re:Takes all kinds by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sex trumps survivability most of the time. If an organism survives long enough to reproduce, its line carries on.

      I know some people who are dumber than boxes of rocks, but they have lots of kids. Even if all the kids don't survive, some do. One woman I know has fourteen kids, thirteen still alive. She beats me at the evolution game thirteen to two.

      That said, it seems our species' survival is about adaptability. The world is certainly different than it was even in my grandparents' age, let alone 50,000 years ago.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    61. Re:Takes all kinds by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Giving up hope is a function of learning from your mistakes, there are situations where it is perfectly rational to give up hope.

      Personally, this is why I much prefer to stand back and learn from *other people's* mistakes.

      Ditto. It gives you vicarious experience, PLUS the added bonus of being able to laugh at them. Twofer!

    62. Re:Takes all kinds by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      There should be a Godwin's law equivalent for commenting about dating habits when the article is unrelated...

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    63. Re:Takes all kinds by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I've had stretches where I spend too much time focused on my computer monitor, and upon exiting the house I can't really focus more than a few feet in front of me

      Get used to it, young fellow. When you reach middle age your focusing lens hardens, and it will reach a point where you can't focus at all. "Age related presbyopia" it's called. If you are myopic now (which I suspect from your talking about your glasses) when you are middle aged (usually in the 40s) you will be both nearsighted and farsighted. I got where I would pull my glasses down my nose to focus. Then I got contacts and needed reading glasses as well.

      There is now a surgical procedure that cures myopia (nearsightedness), presbyopia (farsightedness, including age-related farsightedness), astigmatism, and cataracts, all at the same time. It involves removing your eye's normal focusing lens and replacing it with an artificial one that is on struts allowing it to focus. It was approved by the FDA in 2003. I have one implanted in my left eye, details are in my sig.

      It costs about $7,000 per eye, but if you have cataracts (as I did in the left eye) insurance will pay for the old fashioned, non-focusable implants and you only have to come up with a grand or two for the new kind. I went from coke bottle glasses (20/400 vision, or seeing at 20 feet what a normally sighted person can see at 400 feet) to better than 20/20 vision (20/16 at distance, meaning I can see at 20 feet what a normally sighted person can see it sixteen feet) at all distances. I believe my outcome was better than most.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    64. Re:Takes all kinds by RockoTDF · · Score: 3, Informative

      Empathy may be reinforced via learning, but generally speaking it is not a learned behavior. Kicking the dog and getting bitten/in trouble is not learning empathy, its learning to not kick the dog. Empathy is quite neurological, read about mirror neurons and autism spectrum disorders. "Sociopaths" are most likely born that way (some of them have amazingly normal upbringings) and don't learn to be crazy. Both Autism and Antisocial personality disorder (sociopaths) are classified as Axis II disorders and are almost impossible to treat, which is demonstrative that traits such as empathy are not learned.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    65. Re:Takes all kinds by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "30% shows me there is obviously some form of survival benefit to this for it to be so high."

      Not really. When humans developed the trait of compassion (i.e. caring for those who would not otherwise survive), combined witgh tool using (altering the environment to make survival easier), it allowed a whole slew of otherwise "survival-negative" traits to continue and flourish.

      Take nearsightedness. I am very myopic, and I would have been dead at an early age if we were still hanging out on the savanna. But because my family cared for me enough not to let me go through life blind, and because someone over a thousand years ago discovered that glass could bend light, I began wearing glasses and could function relatively well. And someone else invented contact lenses, so now I appear as if I don't have any genetic defect at all, making my odds of reproduction higher. So now I get to pass on my genetic defects with minimal evolutionary costs.

      Just because a genetic trait is widespread doesn't mean it is an evolutionary advantage.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    66. Re:Takes all kinds by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      "Giving up hope" is more pragmatically referred to as "being realistic". Give up hope, because reality trumps hope.

    67. Re:Takes all kinds by jtev · · Score: 1

      Sane and insane are not scientific terms. Besides, there are other means of being neurologically abnormal, so it would be better to say schitzophrenics and nonschitzophrenics. But I'm sure you know that. Besides, sane people would exclude many subsets of nonschitzophrenics, such as psycopaths, sociopaths, persons with cognative defects, and many others whom the courts have determined are not competent to tell the difference between right and wrong.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    68. Re:Takes all kinds by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      We all know that people who don't understand statistics tend to spout your meme. It's easy to spot the abuse of statistics and it's equally easy to call people out when they misuse statistics to suit their arguments. People are the problem, not statistics.

    69. Re:Takes all kinds by Digital+End · · Score: 1
      Basically the way they'd do that is take 10,000 people who are allergic to cats, check their DNA, take 10,000 people who aren't allercic to cats, check their DNA, and then find what group "A" has that group "B" doesn't. Preferably you get 10,000 people of different races, social standings, different countrys, ect. As different as possible who all have this 1 common thing.

      It's true that doing that isn't 100%. It could be, for example, that gene they found in this hypothetical situation is for an extra set of sensers in your nose (a good thing). However, it isn't astrology. There is scientific reason behind it.

      Now, it is a thousand times easier to call someone a liar and disprove them then it is to understand them, so I'm sure by time I write this there's several "It's all guesswork" posts on here trying to make themselves feel good... and that's okay. It's not 100% yet, they need to work on it. In fact it may NEVER be 100% because life is more complex then you really understand. (and it's okay to admit that)

      "In about 30 percent, the coils of their DNA carry a glitch, one that leaves their brains with few dopamine receptors."

      This is no more and no less then what they found. Don't just take the reporters word, his job is to get your attention and make you read it. Read the study that was done, understand it, then judge it. Otherwise you're just another asshole on /. with a complex.

      Some people do read this site for opinions, for thoughts on how the masses look at an issue. Is this really the thought you're wanting to push on that person? That science is always wrong?
      (post is not directed just at person I'm replying to, directed to everyone)

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    70. Re:Takes all kinds by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      Forgot to say, I do agree with gregbot9000's statement that there may be a benifit to it as well. 30% is to high for to to be random mutation, there's something there.

      However, I want to know if that amount is changing rapidly. If 100 years ago it was 15%, or 45%, that is huge information. It implys the direction we are going.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    71. Re:Takes all kinds by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Tarot is nothing short of idiocy

      That, of course, depends on how it's used.

      If you believe that a Tarot layout will "tell your future", you're going to be disappointed. If you look at Tarot as a collection of archetypes, and grab a random handful of them and think about how they are present in your life, or how they might be applied to some task or issue at hand, it can be helpful. Tarot is a rich source, but you can get some of the same effect with a universe deck, which is just a bunch of index cards with random words on them.

      Divination doesn't directly tell the future; but it can be a tool for understanding the present, and understanding the present helps us predict the future. It's an artistic, poetic, intuitive, mythological tool, not a rational, intellectual, one.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    72. Re:Takes all kinds by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      What I think is interesting is that people have no problem believing that someone's genetics serve as a template for their hair, eye color, height, etc, but are much more skeptical about the role of genetics role behavior.

      Well how much does having blue eyes instead of brown affect your behavior and personality? Is there a statistical difference in IQ, behaviour and/or personality between groups of straight haired vs curly haired people? Should we care?

      Sometimes, life is more complicated that a series of on/off switches.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    73. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish i had mod points to mod this up.

    74. Re:Takes all kinds by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      But the article IS related. You can't separate human evolution from dating rituals; evolution is mostly about sex. An organism that doesn't have sex is an evolutionary dead end. A woman who says "no" when she means "yes" isn't as likely to reproduce as one who will say "yes" when she means yes, and even less likely to reproduce than one who almost always says "yes".

      If the article were about Linux I would agree with you, but it is about evolution.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    75. Re:Takes all kinds by eastsidephil · · Score: 1

      I agree and would like to expand on that. Although the human genome is understood how genes are actually activated is largely a mystery. The article tries to mix junk science related to genetics with parenting to tell us what we do or do not know about parenting. As a parent myself I'm very skeptical of most parenting advice from "experts" because it tends to ignore the simple facts that 1) All kids are different 2) All parents are different, so what works for one parent with their kid isn't necessarily going to work the same way for you. Being a parent is a little like being a gardener. You ultimately only have control over about half of the situation. Kids are born with a personality, your job as a parent is to provide an environment where they can learn and grow. As the garden analogy, goes if you start with tomato seed you're going to end up with tomatoes, you might be able to control how, many tomatoes you get and the quality somewhat but your role is to provide good soil and water, nature does the most of the work. I think people want to believe that they can control what their children become entirely and if they don't turn out as planned, then they are failures as parents. They should probably have more articles and how to communicate kids and on what you can learn from the experience as a parent, but that wouldn't sell nearly as many magazines as astrology posing as science.

    76. Re:Takes all kinds by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Or another peg.

      Well, if you're in to that sort of thing, whatever floats your boat, man.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    77. Re:Takes all kinds by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Okay, the key in you strategy is that you try different women...

      That's absurd. After being rejected by 10 different women in a row, it would be entirely rational to conclude that the "key to my strategy" that of just trying different women isn't working. Do I just keep going, or change the strategy?

      To get back to the origina analogy, when you peg doesnt fit the whole, try another hole

      And after trying 10 holes do you just keep looking for more holes? At what point do you concede that continuing to look for holes is sticking to a strategy that hasn't exactly proven to work?

      So you didnt disprove anything.

      I disagree.

    78. Re:Takes all kinds by bsmoor01 · · Score: 1

      Careful... by bringing up genetic impact on thought patterns, you're starting to flirt with the "do we have free will" question.

      I don't want to get into my opinion here, but even the notion that we might not have free will tends to get a lot of people riled up.

    79. Re:Takes all kinds by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      are much more skeptical about the role of genetics role behavior.

      That's because, by definition, behavior is learned?

    80. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would also be entirely rational to conclude that you keep picking the "wrong" women

    81. Re:Takes all kinds by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Empathy is a learned behavior

      Rhesus monkeys will go hungry rather than subject others to electric shock. How do you think they learned this?

      Empathy is a natural phenomenon in primates, probably in other mammals too, and probably involving mirror neurons. Our neocortex can manage to narrow it to only members of our tribe, or broaden it's scope to all living things, these are learned, but the basic functionality is innate.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    82. Re:Takes all kinds by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Nah. If you understand that the basis of behaviour is genetic you can manipulate it.

      My older son is just like me. Same sort of responses in social situations. Same sort of responses under stress. He just acts the same way. I noticed this when he was about ten, and used that to 'guide' him through situations that I wish I could relive. Just gave advice and insight that I didn't have 25years ago. Overall, I think he is much happier and will be more successful in life than I ever was.

      Behaviorally, my younger son is the spitting image of his mother, even though he looks much more like me. I've learned to hold back with him more. Let his mother do more of the guiding. She understands him better than I do. She and I have talked about it, and it is just so amazingly obvious how the two boys 'inherited' traits from each of us.

      I agree with you that it would be very complex, but that doesn't matter. A complex set of actions results in a letter appearing on my screen every time I hit a key. The set of actions is more complex in a GUI than in a command line, but the key results in a character, nonetheless. I think it is obvious that behavioral tendencies are as inheritable as eye color.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    83. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it to be in the 30% that don't learn? ;)

      I think you have a point there, evolution make those people interesting

    84. Re:Takes all kinds by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "You lost me there, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you paint an example?"

      I mean that knowing what is a genuine mistake from what isn't, is difficult, see my post in relation to the poster that asked about math, see Kjella's post then see my reply.

      Knowing who is wrong is not easy, there have been plenty of people who thought someone was mistaken when they were not in many cases in history. There are genuine obvious mistakes but then there are mistakes, that aren't, just that people aren't good enough to realize that they aren't.

      There are also many ways of looking at a problem also, there are problems where there isn't really one answer, so a unique solution may look like a 'mistake', when it is really another way of looking at things.

      "The task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but to think what no body yet has thought about that which everyone sees. ... But life is short, and truth works far and lives long: let us speak the truth. (Arthur Schopenhauer, 1818)

      A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck, 1920)"

    85. Re:Takes all kinds by Svartormr · · Score: 1

      ...You can't separate human evolution from dating rituals; evolution is mostly about sex.

      Spot on!

      A woman who says "no" when she means "yes" isn't as likely to reproduce as one who will say "yes" when she means yes, and even less likely to reproduce than one who almost always says "yes".

      Evolution is about *successful* reproduction, where success is having children with the most likely successful set of traits (which genes partly determine) who grow to sexual maturity and have children of their own. And yes, this is a inductive definition.

      Women always have a high investment (and risk) in having any child and thus have a high threshold of what they need in a mate. Starting with a reliable partner to help bear the cost of raising a child. And she's not going to be always sure. This is a complex thing to filter into just "yes" and "no".

    86. Re:Takes all kinds by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      db32 said

      The problem is that there is no hinderance of survival due to that gene because someone is always around to protect you. Look at all of the "OMG think of the children" crap. Toy recalls irritate me more than anything. Many of my generate played with lawndarts and survived, some didn't survive, that is natural selection.

      In the lawndarts case this is true, but not all recalls are bad. It's the unknown stuff in toys that makes me "OMG think of the children." Like not knowing that your kid's toy have lead or other unknown damaging substances. Regardless of how much you try, your infant or toddler is going to try and stick something in its mouth and chew on it. If it's something obvious like "Bag of Glass" or toys way out of the age range then it's the parent who needs to be smart and not get the toy or have it in an accessible area.

      What really pisses me off is old timers bitching how it was in the old days and how you kids have it so easy in terms of safety and health. Look, if you don't want people watching out for you and thinking of the children I hope you don't mind when I laugh when you stroke out or die from a heart attack. Or if you have kids (which I doubt) maybe you won't mind giving them a pass on immunizations. 'Cause hey! The strong will evolve around polio, measles, the mumps, or menigitis. The stupid kids will die out. I bet you also believe that beating kids is good for discipline because you were beaten as a kid and turned out OK.

      Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve.

      I think you have some other extreme safety considerations in mind and toy recalls were a bad example. It's when we coddle our children to the point of sheltering them from the outside world. I'm not going to wrap my son in bubble wrap and plastic. Gene or no gene he will eventually learn that the stove is hot, knives are sharp and watch your hands when closing a door.

       

    87. Re:Takes all kinds by Bat+Country · · Score: 1

      Silly Putty.

      "Wright first invented it in 1943...."
      "In 1945, hoping there was a use for his new developed putty, Wright sent a sample to scientists all around the world, but no practical use was ever found."
      "Since 1950, more than 300 million eggs of Silly Putty have been sold, or approximately 4500 tons."

      --
      The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
    88. Re:Takes all kinds by Bat+Country · · Score: 1

      I should point out (as I have in the past) that just because a trait exists and is prevalent does not imply that it is an adaptive trait.

      It merely means that it is not sufficiently maladaptive to result in the death of a significant majority of organisms who exhibit the trait, or to inhibit their reproductive potential.

      If anything, it increases their reproductive potential by causing them to not learn that irresponsible casual sex may lead to unwanted pregnancies.

      --
      The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
    89. Re:Takes all kinds by db32 · · Score: 1

      1. Go look at all of the recalls and mass hysteria over "dangerous" toys. Precious few of them have been due to legitimate hidden dangers like lead based paint. Most of the major recalls have to do with parents not paying attention to their kids.

      2. I didn't say watching out for each other is bad, just that our society has changed and brought the unintended consequence of stupidity being less terminal. The fact is the developments to provide the fastest help to the person having a stroke or heart attack also allows quick help to arrive for the dumbasses attempting "Jackass" stunts. (I love the show, the folks are aware of the risks, take at least some precautions, and encourage idiots to do the same dangerous things without said precautions).

      3. In fact I do have children. This is how I know how much of a full time job it is keeping track of them as little ones and keeping them from getting hurt. The problem is the vast majority of people breeding would rather not actually raise their offspring. I'm not saying it is an easy job, but it is a job you need to be doing as a parent, or get yourself clipped before you become one for the benefit of all of us. This is also why the oldest child does not get toys that could hurt the youngest child until we are confident the oldest child is responsible enough to assist in the watching out for the youngest child. (I know...frightening thought...a parent teaching their kids to take care of each other and be held responsible...worked great for generations...not sure why it seems to have all but stopped)

      4. If you have to beat your kid you are doing it wrong. Children should be terrified of disappointing you without the threat of physical violence and they should know that you would never hurt them. Giving a smack on the padded part of their ass isn't about how much pain and damage you can cause, it is about the shock factor and startling the crap out of them and rarely takes more than the force in your forearm/wrist to get their attention. Equally important is to not play their games. My son gets about 2 calm warnings before its a thunderclap shout of "get in the corner". My wife will argue back and forth with him when he is whining or acting up. As a result he is much more well behaved for me and I rarely have to do anything other than say his name when he is acting up.

      5. You are right, the overprotective stuff is what I mean, but almost all of the toy recalls I have seen have not been about legitimately dangerous things when parent supervision was involved. When the easybake oven gets recalled because it can burn a kids hand we have a severe problem. At least two generations had that toy, in more dangerous forms, and now this generation is too stupid to be around a hot light bulb? The new skin glue for kids instead of stitches bothers me too. The whole process of getting stitches once taught me the lesson of not running in the house, going back to have them removed made sure I hadn't forgotten. My son did roughly the same thing, at just a little younger than when I did it. To this day reminding him of that serves as a wonderful deterent for whatever dangerous activity we are telling him not to do. That failing, when he does hurt himself doing something we told him not to we just shrug and let him scream (assuming no real damage).

      Whether through disciplinary actions (holy crap, that stings without a diaper), or through their own trial and error (wow, they were right, that WILL burn me), it is a wonderful thing seeing that little lightbulb go off in their head as they put 2 and 2 together.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    90. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that people like to believe that who they are is not tied down to something as "cut and dry" as genetics. And in reality, is that much to expect? People's hair color doesn't change from day to day based on what happened to them (unless they dye it etc..), but their emotions etc DO.

    91. Re:Takes all kinds by dontPanik · · Score: 1

      Behavior: 1. manner of behaving or acting. 2. Psychology, Animal Behavior. a. observable activity in a human or animal. b. the aggregate of responses to internal and external stimuli. c. a stereotyped, species-specific activity, as a courtship dance or startle reflex.

      None of these include that behavior is learned, or from nurture. The debate between nature and nurture is very much alive and you can't claim one or the other to be true.

      --
      "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
    92. Re:Takes all kinds by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      I agree on all points.

    93. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of you example are really about people not learning from their mistakes. For example, if you get turned down, you can either

      (1) Give up (as you mentioned)
      (2) Learn from your mistakes and try a different approach, and keep trying until you succeed.
      (3) Keep doing the same thing over and over again, probably never succeeding.

      So if you are a never-give-up type of a person, you had better learn from your mistakes, unless you enjoy beating your head against the wall.

      Also, in the example of catastrophic changes, you don't want to be stuck in an old way of thinking, but you had better learn from you mistakes and adapt quickly if you want to survive. It's the people who don't learn who don't change their thinking and die out.

    94. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but you will beat her 2 to 0 if they ever abolish food stamps

    95. Re:Takes all kinds by oneTheory · · Score: 1

      But we know a HELL of a lot more about neurochemistry than we did just half a century ago, or they would never have been able to invent antidepressant drugs.

      Well if you know people who have been prescribed antidepressant drugs you probably know that many antidepressant drugs weren't originally invented to be antidepressants. And very often people are prescribed many different drugs many times and in many combinations until something (hopefully) works.

      The efficacy of antidepressants really sucks compared to drugs given for other conditions. Just pointing this out to argue that we don't know much about how brain chemicals cause emotions; certainly not enough to influence them in the right direction on a consistent basis.

    96. Re:Takes all kinds by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      Not really. I have randomly guessed the answers to tests I didn't study for and passed, and failed hard. I would agree that there has to be odds, but often they can be so low it doesn't seem like there are.

      Pointless tenacity is a survival trait when it comes to lots of things. I keep thinking the Velociraptor from Jurassic park had to have this "Tuesday: touched fence: oww, Wednesday: oww, Thursday: oww, Friday: holy shit!. It is stupidity only when it doesn't work. The few cases it does it would appear they more then make up for it or it wouldn't be so prevalent.

    97. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the debate about behavior (that it's either nature or nurture) is not as clear-cut as the casual observer opines. Certainly I'm allowed to have an educated (cough, masters in education, cough) opinion on the matter?

    98. Re:Takes all kinds by againjj · · Score: 1

      After this post, I have to mention the Darwin Awards.

    99. Re:Takes all kinds by MarkCollette · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is really right and wrong. There are just positive and negative results in the immediate and long term.

      This didn't occur to me logically, but emotionally, from watching a movie, where a woman's life was split into two different courses. One appeared better at first, but ultimately the initially worse situation ended up becoming better. As well, some bad things have happened in my life, which actually opened doors, that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

      But, back to the logical viewpoint. Think of local and global maximas and minimas. A local maxima might appear to be the best, but once you've traversed beyond it, through a local minima, you can reach a greater local maxima, which may well be the global maxima. In the immediate term, traversing through a local minima might sound like a bad idea, but it might be necessary.

    100. Re:Takes all kinds by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1
      "Cuz no matter what colour a girl is, she's still a slut" -- Eminem

      Now that quote really makes sense. BTW, preech it brother! Cheers!

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    101. Re:Takes all kinds by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      Re: sig -- Not in my book!

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    102. Re:Takes all kinds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve? Is that you?

    103. Re:Takes all kinds by enoz · · Score: 1

      This sounds strangely like the pro-gun argument.

      I'm not anti-statistics, I just feel that it is a tool oft misused by companies and governments in duping the average person.

    104. Re:Takes all kinds by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I'm not pro-gun at all. I'm just saying statistics are just numbers...they aren't right or wrong. PEOPLE misuse them, so it isn't statistics fault that people are creeps.

  3. Sadly... by g0dsp33d · · Score: 5, Funny

    After 25 years of research the leading scientist discovered he also had the gene.

    --
    lol: You see no door there!
    1. Re:Sadly... by networkconsultant · · Score: 1

      oddly enough his children were found at the local speakeasy before their SAT's.

    2. Re:Sadly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although the scientist also came up with a remarkable new breed of superfly. That could, unaided, figure out how to fly through the open half of a half-open window. And also an off-switch for children.

    3. Re:Sadly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After 25 years of research the leading scientist discovered he also had the gene.

      that one is the best

  4. Self-destructive behavior such as illicit drug use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    We actually have a special set of receptors called legislons that determine if a molecule is illicit vs one approved by congress.

  5. Illicit? by solweil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Illicit does not necessarily mean self-destructive. It is a matter of law, not health.

    1. Re:Illicit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's self-destructive if using those drugs results in you going to pound-you-in-the-ass prison.

    2. Re:Illicit? by stevejsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to mention heroin overdoses. There is no such thing as an overdose - opiates are relatively non-lethal - especially for junkies, who would never be able to afford ten times their normal dose (the minimum it would likely take to kill someone) at prohibition-level prices. In reality, heroin "overdoses" are almost always a result of an addict taking the drug in combination with alcohol, benzodiazepines, or who knows what else, either voluntarily or involuntarily. But even the voluntary ones might not be so voluntary - addicts might substitute these other far more dangerous drugs because heroin is unavailable, not because they would take it as their first choice. Not to mention that even these deaths by combination of drugs are slow and can be easily reversed with a Naloxone pen. Do a Google search for "heroin overdose."

    3. Re:Illicit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... but... illegal drugs are always extremely bad for you and will do anything and everything to your health that you might imagine! And legal drugs are always perfectly safe and will not have any adverse effect on you at all! That's what the government told me, therefore it must be true...

    4. Re:Illicit? by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      You laugh, but illegal drugs are dangerous for the exact sort of person described here. Someone takes too much, say, clonazepam and doesn't wake up for work the next day, in fact almost doesn't wake up at all, then doesn't learn from it - what happens next?

      --
      ResidntGeek
    5. Re:Illicit? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Sometime back around here the Heroin suddenly went way up in quality to pretty well pure. For a while there were quite a few OD deaths.
      Another problem with black market drugs, you never really know what you're getting.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:Illicit? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Illicit does not necessarily mean self-destructive. It is a matter of law, not health.

      "Self-destructive" is not always a matter of bodily health.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    7. Re:Illicit? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      I used to hear about my friends having heroine overdoses--they'd read too many Supergirl comic books, then try to pick up chicks and fail. It seems the heroine made them impotent.

  6. Wow, they should study the Slashdot editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nowhere else in the world is their [sic] a group of individuals more afflicted by these [sic] disorder then [sic] the Slashdot editers [sic]. What do they have to loose [sic]?

    1. Re:Wow, they should study the Slashdot editors by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can cure those siccups if you drink a glass of water with your head upside down.

    2. Re:Wow, they should study the Slashdot editors by Tuqui · · Score: 1

      The Duplicated Article Syndrome is caused by this gene too?.

  7. So What's My Excuse? by filesiteguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know I fail to learn from my mistakes.

    I forget to take out the trash.

    I'm told about it.

    I forget again.

    What's my problem??

    1. Re:So What's My Excuse? by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      I know I fail to learn from my mistakes.

      I forget to take out the trash.

      I'm told about it.

      I forget again.

      What's my problem??

      Living with someone who tells you to take out the trash?

    2. Re:So What's My Excuse? by SL+Baur · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Get married in Japan. It's woman's work to take out the garbage there.

    3. Re:So What's My Excuse? by mortonda · · Score: 2, Informative

      Having a newborn baby, which fills the trash with tons of vile stench, is a sure fire cure for forgetting to take out the trash. Trust me.

    4. Re:So What's My Excuse? by Convector · · Score: 1

      Actually the diaper "pail" systems available these days do a fantastic job of sealing the odor away.

    5. Re:So What's My Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your parents didn't put a boot to your ass and kick it up between your shoulder blades enough.

    6. Re:So What's My Excuse? by saeryf · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between not learning and constantly forgetting. The latter has more to do with ADD/ADHD.

      Now get back to work :P

      PS: You may want to bookmark this reply in case you forget what you asked, what the response was, or what you need to do :)

    7. Re:So What's My Excuse? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      You don't make taking out the trash a routine.

    8. Re:So What's My Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have a problem. You are persistently trying to convince other people to solve this problem. Many generations of men persistently refused to ask for directions and now we have little computers screens with maps and instructions. Keep at it until the problem is solved!

  8. scientific proof! by jollyreaper · · Score: 0, Troll

    This must explain conservatives. Keep trying the same failed policies time after time, each iteration expecting a different result. (Not a troll, just statement of fact. Look at the neocons trying to get us into a war over Georgia.) And let us not forget our pending war with Iran.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:scientific proof! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This must explain conservatives. Keep trying the same failed policies time after time, each iteration expecting a different result. (Not a troll, just statement of fact. Look at the neocons trying to get us into a war over Georgia.) And let us not forget our pending war with Iran.

      Son, did you read what I wrote? I said it ain't a troll, don't go modding it as such.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  9. This explains... by nebaz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why Bart Simpson kept trying to reach the electrified candy, while Lisa's hamster did not. The whole "bzzt...ow...bzzt...ow" sequence is stuck in my head.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:This explains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cupcake. It was a cupcake.

    2. Re:This explains... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Editor beat you to the reference.

      from the bzzt-ow-bzzt-ow-bzzzzzzzzzt-ooooooow dept.

  10. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Forge · · Score: 1

    A relevant 1st post?

    You must be new here.

    Seriously though, I wonder if this genetic defect correlates with any genetic traits that make kids more likely to enter politics?

    I.e. Just like Dyslexic persons are usually able to see patterns and correlations that mis others, perhaps these none learners have that extra arrogance which says "a million strangers will choose me over you".

    --
    --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
  11. Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should really do more debugging before release.

  12. Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Kinda like the Libertarians? (if they ever got a chance damnit)

  13. Obligatory xkcd by unfasten · · Score: 5, Funny

    from the bzzt-ow-bzzt-ow-bzzzzzzzzzt-ooooooow dept.

    http://xkcd.com/242/

    1. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simpsons did it. Simpsons did it.

    2. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Monsuco · · Score: 1

      I do love lightning machines, even if lightning = pain, it is worth it.

  14. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kinda like voters?

  15. Attention deficit disorder by 77Punker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sounds like ADD to me. I've got ADD and although I'm very intelligent, I haven't been an 'A' student since freshman year of high school. I can learn things well, but I continue the same behaviors that prevent me from succeeding, such as reading Slashdot (among other things) instead of doing homework.

    I took Adderall in school, which I believe stimulates dopamine and does indeed make it easier to do my homework. Also makes me test positive for meth, tell jokes that don't make sense to anyone but myself, and sleep 5 hours per night.

    I was going somewhere with this post, but as usual, I got distracted. Anyway, I hope this perspective can inform someone or at least make the other folks with ADD feel like they're not alone, even when so many people don't even think ADD is real.

    1. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 4, Funny

      you just described my typical behaviour... but I've never been diagnosed with ADD, I just have a short... ooh a penny!

      --
      -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
    2. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      ...and sleep 5 hours per night.

      That's not the Adderall.

    3. Re:Attention deficit disorder by 77Punker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know that's a joke, but if you find yourself fucking things up in ways that don't make sense to you, you may benefit from seeing a psychiatrist. Sometimes the drugs can turn people's lives around.

      I wouldn't have graduated from college without my Adderall.

    4. Re:Attention deficit disorder by flonker · · Score: 1

      I was never diagnosed with ADD, but I'm discovering as an adult that I do indeed have it. Are there any tips or behaviour changes that help to complete projects without taking medication?

    5. Re:Attention deficit disorder by 77Punker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Give yourself structure. Make yourself a list of things you need to do every day. You could use paper, or be like me and get a $100 Palm Pilot. To me, mine is worth every penny. My list includes showering, walking the dog, getting haircuts, going to job interviews, getting my car inspected, paying my taxes, and pretty much every other thing I need to do.

      Other things are make sure your hygiene is good. Shower every day if you can. Get exercise. Ride your bike for half an hour every day, if possible. I've really taken a liking to cycling and it's helped to put my life in the right direction and help my lose lots of weight. Eat an egg for breakfast everyday; it'll make you feel good. Don't eat junk food.

      Keeping your body in shape helps you think more clearly, and the running theme is here that providing yourself with structure and goals is the best thing you can do for yourself this side of medication. I swear that giving myself some structure is the only reason I was able to graduate from college on time and the only way I'll succeed in making my career go somewhere and being the husband my wife deserves.

    6. Re:Attention deficit disorder by sykodoc · · Score: 1

      "How many kids with ADD does it take to screw in a lightbulb?!?" "Huh? I dunno. How many?" "I don't know. Want to go ride bikes?"

      --
      "Our enemies will talk themselves to death and we will bury them in their own confusion!"
    7. Re:Attention deficit disorder by nomadic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've got ADD and although I'm very intelligent, I haven't been an 'A' student since freshman year of high school. I can learn things well, but I continue the same behaviors that prevent me from succeeding, such as reading Slashdot (among other things) instead of doing homework.

      I had the same problem, I've been a 'B' student my whole life. From elementary through high school, where a B wasn't good, to college, where a B was about average, to law school where a B is pretty damn good. I think there's probably at least a few people somewhere who studied more for one class in one semester than I studied in 24 years of schooling. Though honestly I really regret not getting treated early on, I think I missed some good opportunities there.

    8. Re:Attention deficit disorder by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the drugs can turn people's lives around.

      Amen to that. Just because Ritalin (and similar drugs) is over-prescribed doesn't mean that it doesn't do wonders for those that it is correctly prescribed to. As an adult, or at least someone old enough to ask the question, you are the best informed person to know if it's making your life better or worse (as opposed to some parents for whom it makes their life better but not necessarily their childs), so there isn't a lot of harm to be had from giving it a go if it is recommended by a psychiatrist.

      Some people live with ADHD without any drugs and wouldn't have it any other way. That's great for them, but if you are miserable, or think that your life could be better, then I think at least trying medication is probably a good idea. The same is true for various other forms of mental 'illness'.

      I tried Ritalin for a bit, and found that I became a lot more social. I was actually happy to chat and meet with people as opposed to being a bit of a recluse. In the end though I found the 'come down' afterwards was making me pretty irritable and cranky, so I stopped taking it. I later found I could get roughly the same effect from heavily caffeinated softdrinks :) (I'd never really touched coffee before).

    9. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      (Damn AC... I hope someone sees this)

      Try taking about 400-500 mg of vitamin B6 supplements every day. B6 is the catalyst for dopamine production in the brain, and there is a notable body of research that shows megadoses of vitamins work very well for mild to moderate symptoms.
      (sorry on the no linky, google "orthomolecular medicine" for info)

    10. Re:Attention deficit disorder by genericpoweruser · · Score: 1

      How can a post with "HEIL HITLER!" in it get modded interesting?? Isn't it off topic and distasteful?

      --
      A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
    11. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ADD is real, but not all students that are said to suffer from it, have it. the teachers that are hired to take care of the ADD students need a certain amount of students in their class to keep a full time job. so when the real ADD students start to fall short , they go looking for students to fill the gap. notice that the special classes always have just the right amount of students, not too many, not too few. if they do get too many, then another teacher is hired and it starts all over again.

    12. Re:Attention deficit disorder by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was never diagnosed with ADD, but I'm discovering as an adult that I do indeed have it. Are there any tips or behaviour changes that help to complete projects without taking medication?

      Practice focusing on things. Take projects in small, defined chunks. Keep disciplining yourself to stay on task. Avoid working in environments with lots of distractions (i.e., lay off of Slashdot).

      I'm sure that there are more in depth studies around, although a quick Google search was actually disappointing. But the brain is pretty plastic, you can learn new behaviors, it's just hard and takes time. Hence the popularity of drug treatment.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My cat also has attention deficit disorder - she comes and rubs against my legs whenever she feels a deficit so I have to pet her and give her some attention...

    14. Re:Attention deficit disorder by fireheadca · · Score: 1

      That's bullshit. ADD is not a disablement. You succeed by your own initiative.

      The 60's-70's generations had bad parenting skills and chaulked it up to:
      'hey, yer kid has no focus...'
      'i know, man'
      'lets give em drugs'
      'cool.'

      In fact - the drugs they perscribe for ADD is an advantage against other kids.

      You will, in the end, do what you think about most - and if not, then you are in hell with a good excuse.

      ---

      Its okay
      Had a bad day
      Hands are bruised from
      Breaking rocks all day

    15. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that we don't think ADD is real. It's that any kid with extra energy that can't sit still for 30 minutes of boring lecture is labeled ADD. This is done by the school personnel to avoid having to figure out a real solution, and also by many parents that think they can get extra service for their kid at the expense of the rest.

      Saying I don't believe in ADD is akin to saying I don't believe in cancer because my aunt is a hypocondriac and thinks she has every disease in the book. Despite the false positives, both ADD and cancer are real.

    16. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      Meditation helps, and if you can find and afford it, neurofeedback was very effective for me, much more than the drugs.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    17. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Give yourself structure. Make yourself a list of things you need to do every day.

      Sure thing, that's a good idea! I'll just write this /. post first, and then get started on the list... Ooh, a shiny link to xkcd...!

      Other things are make sure your hygiene is good.

      Of course. I shower every night before going to bed, 'cos that'll keep the sheets and pillows cleaner too. Except tonight, I'm just too tired from doing stuff in the Internet, this time I'll shower in the morning... Except I guess I won't get up early enough so I have to rush out without taking the shower then.

      Get exercise.

      Yes! I do that every day... Except today I got stuck reading the paper and then looking related totally irrelevant stuff at wikipedia for too long, so no time any more, but tomorrow for sure!

      Keeping your body in shape helps you think more clearly, and the running theme is here that providing yourself with structure and goals is the best thing you can do for yourself this side of medication.

      Spot on! Today I'll just do it! But first I'll see if anybody has replied to any of my /. posts...

      I swear that giving myself some structure is the only reason I was able to graduate from college on time and the only way I'll succeed in making my career go somewhere and being the husband my wife deserves.

      Good for you (and I mean that). Not everybody can pull it of. Are they just slobs, or are they genetically doomed to fail in what you succeeded in, I don't know...

    18. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      That's all right man. I don't test positive for meth, still tell jokes that no-one can understand, and sleep six hours a night.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    19. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >My list includes showering, walking the dog, getting haircuts, going to job interviews, getting my car inspected, paying my taxes, and pretty much every other thing I need to do.

      Indeed, there is something wrong with you. Like maybe your sense of smell is broken, as it is clear when one needs to take a shower or walk a pet.

      Going to job interviews? Is that something you do on your lunch break? Or on your bike ride? Are you a compulsive interviewee?

      Getting your car inspected, that's something that needs to be on a list. There is nothing wrong with it sir, I just want you to inspect it for me. You must be one broke sucker and I bet your car still runs like shit.

      pay taxes. lol. put "die" on there too. tomorrow, or hopefully soon, before you breed.

    20. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry what did you say? I wasn't paying attent... ooh, something shiny!

    21. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "test positive for meth" made me smirk. It IS meth in handy Rx pill form.

      Ok, technically it's "dex", I know this. does any one else find it strange people put their rugrats on speed?

      Not that I'm much better, I tried Dex in High School because Case in Neuromancer popped them like tic-tacs.

    22. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they just slobs, or are they genetically doomed to fail in what you succeeded in, I don't know...

      Ooo...we don't ask questions like that around here. It forces people to think.

      In response to your post...

      Although there are people who have mental and physical problems, your post points out the real issue. People get lazy.

      Watching TV vs. Working out.
      Making a good, health meal vs. Microwave Garbage

      Unfortunately (and as many posts showed above), people like to cop out with "I have ADD! Poor me! I can't succeed!" Kind of sucks.

    23. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have ADD which on occasion makes me have ASS-D. Good thing I don't have ADHD or i may have ASSH=D. Although sometimes people indirectly accuse me of having ADHD by claiming ASSH-D behavior, I just simply inform them that my disorder is not that high of a magnitude to qualify.

    24. Re:Attention deficit disorder by King+Gabey · · Score: 1

      I tried that, and lost my palm pilot. I use google calendar when I can remember. It's like a palm pilot I can't lose.

    25. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      high dose epa/dha (pharmaceutical grade fish oil) has shown promise in reducing adhd symptoms.

      From google:

      http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=epa+dha+adhd&btnG=Google+Search

      http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1971271

      adhd children can have aa/epa (arachidonic acid / eicosapentaenoic acid) ratios on the order of 40+, well above the japanese average of 1.5 (longest lived, highest longevity and some of the lowest depression rates in the world). you can have your ratio checked and getting down toward 1.5 should help your symptoms.

    26. Re:Attention deficit disorder by rpillala · · Score: 1

      I've had students with ADD who report (later) that martial arts are a great thing for teaching focus and discipline. For many people, focus isn't something you train to do, you just exert the effort and it happens. A feature of ADD is that focus is difficult. It's called "Attention Deficit Disorder" but really it's an excess of attention. Your attention is split so many ways that a lot of activities required by modern life are difficult.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    27. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 1

      drugs are the problem in the world today as far as I'm concerned... it wasn't totally a joke, I do find it very hard to focus on mundane tasks (especially when plodding through some code I don't really want to be debugging... like right now actually :D ), so i have to find ways to keep my brain interested. once you are hooked on the drugs getting off them can be a very difficult ordeal, my brother was on anti-depressants for a year even though he wasn't really that depressed to begin with. It took him a long time to ween himself off of them because going cold turkey would have sent him into a depression spiral that would have been far worse than his original condition. A friend of ours went cold turkey after being on them and ended up being commited for 2 weeks because her mind couldn't cope without the anti-depresants any more.

      --
      -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
    28. Re:Attention deficit disorder by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      Also makes me test positive for meth, tell jokes that don't make sense to anyone but myself, and sleep 5 hours per night.

      Funny, the last two apply to me even without any phentylamines in me. Cheers!

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    29. Re:Attention deficit disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. I have an amazing dream job on a team that works on one of the big gaming consoles, but was screwing things up more and more with inattention. I hid it well, but it was just a matter of time before I was noticed and lost my job. I just couldn't focus throughout the day, and important things were slipping. A coworker was diagnosed... after hearing about his problems I realized there might be a reason for my issues and took the test (http://psychcentral.com/addquiz.htm, I got a 96).

      I was really worried that I'd loose my hyperfocus (ADD allows you to focus really, really well on interesting problems). And I have to an extent (I read my normal websites about 1/10th the time, and there are a few hobby projects that could use a solid 10 hours to be worked on). But now I can break loose of the super interesting stuff and actually have dinner with the family, make time to play with the kids, remember to pay the bills, and more.

  16. Oh dont worry sir... by kcbanner · · Score: 1

    ...its just a glitch, we'll have this fixed in no time.
    *bang*!

    --
    Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
  17. So that's what causes it! by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Funny

    So /. editors don't learn from publishing dupes?

    OK, maybe this isn't a dupe (diffrent researchers, maybe?), but I don't want to bring the groupthink's wrath down on me by RTFA.

    1. Re:So that's what causes it! by asCii88 · · Score: 0

      I was exactly about to point the same thing out. I remembered having read about this a couple of months ago. But to prevent the irony, I searched the comments before.

  18. Always comes down to our DNA by houbou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not surprised anymore at articles such as this one. Our DNA is basically a blue print of who we are. Our limitations, strengths, etc...

    While we are also a product of our environment, it's interesting to see how as we move forward in the research of the human body and mind, many of our issues which we would have deemed "environmental", are actually genetic.

    So, the question is, can we fix this? And then, if we fix it, are we a different person? or just better? Is our individuality really based on our DNA? what does that make of the human soul? Not a religious person by nature, I do think there is a God, but, I believe that humanity has the right and the responsibility to learn as much of itself as possible, in order to survive and to improve as a species.

    To me, an interesting question that raises is about our soul, such as, is our individuality link to it? or not? Having read and seen documentaries that a person on their death bed loses weight as they migrate from life to death. Many believe that our "soul" has a quantitive weight.

    Who are we? If one could fix a learning disability by "re-wiring" our DNA, then, what's this "soul" thing to us?

    Could it be that really, our version of heaven is actually our ability to learn about ourselves to the point where we can engineer our own immortality?

    After all, for many, heaven is a blissful eternity of life after death. That's what many religions sell in their brochure :P (I said MANY, not all)

    Is our goal to achieve long life by understanding our DNA? is this really what our reward will be? our quest for immortality lies within our reach in research and understanding of ourselves and what makes us really tick? :)

    This thread may sound off beat to the topic at hand, but, I personally think it that there is a link.

    Being able to fix a person by DNA so that they can finally "learn" from their mistake, is a behavioral fix. Done using medical treatment. To me, this means that there could be a day where "Psychology" as we know it might actually end, and DNA fixes could actually be the cure to depression, etc...

    Cheers!

    1. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Our DNA is basically a blue print of who we are.

      Wrong. Epic fail. DNA determines what we are, not who we are. Saying DNA determines what we are is like looking at a blueprint of an office building and trying to determine what type of business will operate there.

      So, the question is, can we fix this?

      Who said people are broken?

    2. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by houbou · · Score: 1

      Well, the premise of the original topic, is that there is a link between DNA and the ability for people to learn from their mistakes.

      Can this issue be resolved? can it be fixed? or for better term, is there treatment? in essence, can we correct this behaviour via gene therapy, or DNA re-writing, whatever?

      So, maybe broken isn't the word, but certainly, there is something wrong.

      if DNA can determine how we learn, in essence, it does affect to some degree "who" we are. Again, whereas I would have thought we are often more a product of our environment and the learning that we have received, it's interesting to see how we are also whether we like it or not, a product of our genetics, and that WHO we are, isn't just based on the experiences we have lived.

      Where does genetics stop and environment and nurturing begin? I say it's getting a bit blurry here. But study like this can't be dismissed anymore. Again Psychology as we know it, may end, if we are able to treat many of the "mental" defects via DNA manipulation.

      That's something we need to accept, because it's our limitation. Once we accept it, we then can use the tools we learn to overcome these limitations. Surely, that's the great thing about this.

      Fixing these limitations, can increase our quality of life. I'm all for it!

    3. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      [[Having read and seen documentaries that a person on their death bed loses weight as they migrate from life to death. Many believe that our "soul" has a quantitive weight.]]

      You fucking tool. Recommend running your own, scientifically accurate studies rather than listening to pre-conceived notions from a 1907 experiment dealing with inaccuracies, small sample size, and irreproducibility.
      AC because I'm feeling a bit irritable and want no chance of a karma hit, apparently even on /. you can find idiots that believe the soul weighs 21 grams.

    4. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by Internalist · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised anymore at articles such as this one. Our DNA is basically a blue print of who we are. Our limitations, strengths, etc...

      While we are also a product of our environment, it's interesting to see how as we move forward in the research of the human body and mind, many of our issues which we would have deemed "environmental", are actually genetic.

      I think even more interesting than this is that the current "DNA is all" mindset has actually been proving wrong, or at best misleading. Moshe Szyf at McGill has shown that behavioural environmental factors (viz. not simply being exposed to some chemical or toxin) can alter gene expression leading to behavioural changes.

      These links have OK summaries:

      http://www.mcgill.ca/headway/fall2006/indepth1/
      http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11326195

      I won't get into the rest of your post other than to say that the evidence for "soul" and "God" as something other than ways of talking about the world and patterns of human behaviour is...scarce.

      --
      Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun
    5. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by houbou · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to place myself as an expert.

      But since we know so little still of the human body and it's chemistry and composition, indeed, maybe we have the ability to affect our DNA ourselves, based on what is around us and what we experience.

      After all, we barely use 10% of our brains and if you take into consideration people with telepathy and telekinesis and other "psychic" abilities.

      Who is to say we don't all these abilities in ourselves, but for some of us, just enough that it can "push a few DNA thingies so to speak, you know! I mean, it's all speculation, but hey, the point is, I'm not going to disagree with you, but it is highly possible in my opinion that "behavioural environment alters DNA" and "DNA controls behaviour" to be both true.

      And as for the "soul" aspect and the "God" aspect, well, you know, I wasn't trying to sell that point, but rather, question it, because as one replied to this post pointed out. If too make mistakes is intrically linked to your DNA, then the question of sinning (depending on the mistake) and the question of forgiveness comes to play from a religious aspect. That's all.

    6. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by SimonBelmont · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised anymore at articles such as this one. Our DNA is basically a blue print of who we are. Our limitations, strengths, etc...

      I think it's interesting the way people tend to polarize the physical vs emotional reasons for human behavior. It seems there is often a sort of threshold that separates them. If a person is mentally retarded, we pretty much take it for granted that there is some medical reason. If they're just not all that bright, though, then they or their parents must not have tried hard enough.

      Hopefully as more and more research like this comes out, more people will acknowledge that 99% of the time, the reasons for a person being the way they are are somewhere between the two, and more complex than either. That much seems obvious to me, but it doesn't seem to occur to many people.

      I think the polarization gets abused and clouds the real issues. To take obesity as an example, an obese patient might claim they have a medical problem they can't control, to try and make it more socially acceptable, whereas a doctor might claim it's a problem of free will and refuse to investigate non-behavioral treatments. Likely it is both, and we shouldn't just feel sorry for obese people because they can't control their actions, and thus remove social pressure to change their behavior, but neither should researchers simply proclaim that there is no environmental factor, when they could possibly overlook such tremendous public health gains.

    7. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your comments read like a mish mash of bits of questions ive heard a million times before. really quite pointless questions that try to map religious concepts onto reality. unfortunately you are mistaken in your belief that religion has any place anywhere but in the minds of idiots.

    8. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by houbou · · Score: 1

      The human mind and body is a complex piece of biological machinery. Add the mind to this, you know, the experiences we've lived, the memories we have and well, I can say that this can add even more complexity to the mix!

      Take into account that we are affected by our environment, heck, the water in our bodies is affected by gravity and that's just one of the examples here I offer.

      When push comes to shove, we understand very little about how things work when it comes to our overall health (mind and body) of a person.

      There is a lot of knowledge, but it's not yet, I guess, merged properly, somehow. Still very segragated.

      But as a rule, most people seek easy answers to problems. That in itself is a problem right there.

      Diagnosing why a person is fat is a good example:

      You can go to various specialists in their fields and they will tell you offer different diagnosise and solutions.

      A psychologist will find one answer, a doctor another, a nutritionist another.

      But, I'll bet that if these specialists worked together, they could find the real answer to the health issue.

      The problem is they don't work together (most of the times anyways).

      Human health isn't just the body, it's the mind, and in that respect, we are still way behind. Well, in my opinion anyways.

    9. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can boil this down to any psychiatric illness. I am bipolar and am constantly tormented by my various states of mind.

      Which one is the real me? The one (manic) that enjoys going to bars and picking up women (occasionally flirting with men even though I am definitely straight..) or how about the me (depressed) that completely drops all responsibilities to just lounge around, stop paying bills, and going to work/school and the proceed to feel abhorrently guilty about all of that, as well as my embarrassing behavior that I've done while manic. Then theres psychotic me, which basically means I'm terrified of everything including the kitchen sink (no joke) and paranoid that there are things running around watching me.

      As if that weren't enough I've occasionally experience a mix of these, full of energy and wanting to kill myself, or unable to move but feeling extremely euphoric as if I've taken heroin.

      I've also taken a plethora of medications which further obscure who "I" am.

      In the end, I've decided that the "real" me is whomever I want to be. In this case, it's a charismatic person that is comfortable at a bar talking to a woman, yet in control so as not to draw too much attention to myself. I careful and considerate person who feels guilty for doing "Bad" things but knows to move beyond the guilt and to look towards the future.

      I consider myself a diverse person, a spectrum personalities rather than a single fixed point; I do however use medication (Lithium) to keep that spectrum bounded so I avoid the extremes which I consider most unpleasant and not "me".

      If I had a drug problem or something and realized that I wanted to be able to move past my mistakes better and there were a way to do this, I see no problem with modifying my DNA. Hell, if I could modify my DNA to make the bipolar more manageable and so I wouldn't have to take medication constantly, I'd do that too.
      Posted AC because I consider this a personal subject.

    10. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by houbou · · Score: 1

      Uh, not to be impolite, and I didn't say I believed it, I did only mention it, because it is a theory.

      The link to this "ahem, cough, cough" research is here.

      http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

      Now, the truth is, regardless that our "soul" has weight or not, the issue was.. what role does it have? if one does wrong repeatedly because of a DNA defect, then, how can we have a "conscience" so to speak? That's really what I was trying to bring it.

      But as I can see by your remarkable display of the english language, you like to jump to conclusions and attack, more than think. If I was moderator, I would actually give you a "karma" hit.. Unless you can prove to me that your DNA is the reason you are a "tool" :)

    11. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      "So, maybe broken isn't the word, but certainly, there is something wrong."

      According to evolution theory if 30% of people are wired this way it isn't "wrong". They would have died out without passing it on. I was wondering whether Edison had this "defect". You know he had tried carbon filaments multiple times before he finally got them to work in the electric light. If he had learned from his mistakes he would have given up on the light bulb long before that.

      My guess would be that for most of human history there was enough randomness in the world that just trying your first idea again made sense, even though it failed the first ten times. Of course, in the last couple thousand years people have been trying to eliminate all of the randomness through logging, shooting, plowing and paving. So maybe it is no longer true.

    12. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not surprised anymore at articles such as this one. Our DNA is basically a blue print of who we are. Our limitations, strengths, etc...

      My brother works into genetic research and we agree on one thing: there's too much crap about DNA in the popular media.

      First thing, I bet this "gene" they found out by indirect evidence, we're still struggling to understand basic facts about how DNA works on a much lower level.

      Second thing, they have no clue why this gene is really so predominant, if it is so bad, how come 30% of people with this "disability" left offsprings and live normal lives, and had to be tested specifically whether they "learn" from their mistakes?

      Third thing, serious scientific discoveries usually don't end up as pop-bits about DNA in Newsweek, that should ring a bell.

    13. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "After all, we barely use 10% of our brains and if you take into consideration people with telepathy and telekinesis and other "psychic" abilities."

      Just think, if people with "psychic abilities" used 11% of their brain they could be millionaires. /sarcasm

      Read this book, understanding it's message will change your life. /unsolicited_advice

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no soul. It's an imaginary construct just like god.

      You're welcome.

    15. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      To me, this means that there could be a day where "Psychology" as we know it might actually end, and DNA fixes could actually be the cure to depression, etc...

      The Max Planck institute agrees with you, and screens DNA to find the right pill to cure your ill. I'm sure the direct fix would be preferable if possible.
      http://www.chinapost.com.tw/health/genetics/2008/01/25/140504/Genetic-changes.htm

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    16. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... in order to survive and to improve as a species.

      We humans have not improved in thousands of years. Read the news, if you do not beleve me.

      Only thing that has improved over the years is the technology.

    17. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 2pence would be that it all comes down to two major influences on the human animal. (I do strongly believe that we are but mere animals. Nothing beyond that. The civility and pursuing self refinement can provide a chance of becoming human, but that is another rant so Iâ(TM)ll skip it. :)
      The two factors would be, in general, technical progress which far exceeds the human animalâ(TM)s capability of adaptation; the second factor would be medicine (and I believe this is the major factor that messes up the human as species).

      To explain what I mean â" technical progress, and probably the rapid expanse of the web with all sorts of chats, fora, social networking services, MMOGs and various other â(pseudo)social engagementâ(TM) services/sites, in particular is a bane on interaction and proper emotional growth. Humans are social animals, and depend on contacts with other beings. What we have achieved in creating a barrier that just causes a significant number of population (esp. in the so called developed countries, or the West) to be aloof. They can only interact properly on the net, sometimes compensating their frustrations and real life social shortcomings with trolling, abuse on the net or just simply creating their own dream worlds and locking themselves away (or just simply playing WoW â" I donâ(TM)t play, I would get too addicted! But Diablo 3 is on itâ(TM)s way.. as is Fallout 3.. oh my oh myâ¦;p)
      If you look at how social interaction in big cities in the West looks like, well, it is a grim visions of the future from the 60s come true (sort ofâ¦). What I mean is, chatting to someone on your journey to or form work on public transport is considered as a weirdness. Looking around at people â" weirdness. Shutting yourself away, reading a (free)newspaper and listening to ipod or other music device â" a norm.
      Hello? Isnâ(TM)t it a bit wrong? What about a simple smile to a fellow passenger without the immediate implication of being a perv?
      Social interaction has deteriorated. Materialism is prevalent. Hell, it comes down to a vulgar display of materialism, and a cult of twisted ârespectâ(TM) (think of B grade âgangstaâ(TM) movies and pose of such acclaimed artist as 49cents â" lookkie a promo! 1 cent off!). This cult of commerce is depriving people of civility. (ok, those things I mentioned above are not proper arguments, but I just want to avoid a writing a longer rant than this is becomingâ¦)
      You can get mugged or beaten for fun, or simply because someone wants to improve their material status on your cost. The cities of the west are beginning to look like concrete jungles ravaged by wild packs of human animals that fear nothing (sort ofâ¦), respect no social norms, and are motivated by personal gain. If you are unlucky to be a target, you might even get killed⦠over a frigginâ(TM) cell phone or ipod.. or a few bucks (or quid if youâ(TM)re in the UK ;)
      Wow, looks like proper argument turned into a rant re social frustration.. anywayâ¦

      Medicine â" cures, vaccines and general medical progress make it possible to keep alive people with all sorts of genetical deformities, hence gene pool gets messed up. (and I donâ(TM)t care if someone tells me I sound like Dr Mengele ) Survival of the fittest is gone. Now it is all about the ill-conceived support for life at all costs.
      People with haemophilia, all sorts of genetical defects are able to pass on their messed genes on to further generations thanks to medicineâ(TM)s progress. (apparently some severe mental conditions also are influenced by genes, paranoia and schizophrenia in particular⦠canâ(TM)t remember the article though)

      Now combined â" social pressure for material gain, and being hip, plus ease of mind that a lot of conditions can be alleviated by modern medicine lead to people not caring about their physical and

    18. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O.K., so DNA therapy can be used to improve us, fix us, but who decides what improvement means? What is normal? What is better? In some cases it might seem pretty clear, but I think this is a slippery slope for sure.

    19. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Eh, if such a thing as a "soul" exists, it follows the laws of physics just like everything else. It might not be the laws we currently think we know of course. But either way, it's all cause and effect, or randomness, or a combination of the two. No room for "free will", whatever that's supposed to be.

    20. Re:Always comes down to our DNA by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      So, the question is, can we fix this?

      DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!

      It's easy to think 'this gene means the posessor won't learn from his mistakes. We don't want that! Here's a little edit...'

      But the article goes on to talk about mellow kids who don't take lessons from their parents as well as difficult children. Then maybe these kids who don't learn are not so much "not learning" as resistant to "bad learning".

      The fact that this gene shows up in as much of the population as it does - 1/3 - shows that something is selecting for it. "Fixing" this may upset some sort of societal balance.

      Imagine if parents all chose to have mellow kids instead of difficult ones, and then bad / unlucky parents began producing more profoundly screwed up kids instead of kids who were able to shrug off the negative influences in their childhood...

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
  19. I think I have this... by srjh · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always hit submit before

    1. Re:I think I have this... by g-san · · Score: 2, Funny

      And that is where you keep going wrong...

  20. Epic fail by hack++slash · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder if this person learnt from his mistake...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZZXslsLDLs&fmt=18

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
  21. Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But essentially flambait: illicit drug use is not always a self-destructive behavior. Some people find it very fulfilling and regard it as beneficial.

    1. Re:Interesting... by srjh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the corollary - drug use doesn't have to be illicit to be self-destructive. How many people drink themselves to death each year?

      It should read "self-destructive behavior such as substance abuse".

    2. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comments reminds me of a comment I heard recently on the news. A woman fell down the stairs inside her house and needed an ambulance. During the report, the news lady said the woman was tested for intoxication and found to be 3 times over the legal limit.

      Just what is the legal limit of drunkenness for walking down the stairs in your house? Does this vary from state to state? Is the legal level of blood alcohol content while walking higher on college campuses?

      What's disgusting about this story is that it's no one's business but the woman, her family, and the medical personnel treating her. What's scary is that the police want you think everything naturally has a "legal limit", so they have a little more control over you.

    3. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the corollary - drug use doesn't have to be illicit to be self-destructive. How many people drink themselves to death each year?

      It should read "self-destructive behavior such as substance abuse".

      No, it should not. If they did, that Newsweek would lose all its liquor and cigarette advertising, including the subliminal advertising revenue they get from printing pictures of 'cool' people drinking and smoking. Get real, bud. What have you been snorting anyway?

    4. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would be very surprised if there are any people who drink themselves to death each year

    5. Re:Interesting... by smoker2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Self destructive behaviour ?
      It seems to be widely accepted that each animal has only a certain number of heartbeats, when that number is up - they die.
      So going to the gym, cycling to work and having sex all shorten your life more than not doing those things. Similarly, joining the military, freefall parachuting and mountaineering all can be shown to reduce your lifespan.
      So certain kinds of self destructive behaviour are seen as acceptable, but others are not. I think it's time to choose one way or another and get on with it, instead of persecuting those whose choice differs from yours.
      To get back on topic, I think that the reason kids are failing to learn from their mistakes is because there are no real consequences to that failure. No-one is "forced" to do anything and there is a medical explanation for everything. Hardly the incubation method for people with a strong sense of self reliance and responsibility.
      To use the military as an example, how many people have been thrown out of the army for having ADD ? How often do you see recruits on drill practice standing looking at a PDA, or wandering off to play with something shiny ? And if you don't, why ?

    6. Re:Interesting... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Smoking pot often gives me creative insights, but drinking makes me stupid. I usually give the bartender my car key when I'm still sober, because once I get drunk I'm too stupid to walk home unless I have to.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    7. Re:Interesting... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Exercising raises your heart rate short term, but lowers your heart rate long term.

      My resting heart rate has lowered from 65 to 50-ish this past year since I began high-intensity interval training. Three times a week I knock my heart rate up to about 170 or 180 for less than 30 minutes. That's about a 100-beat increase over my former resting rate. That's a 9000 beat per week increase over "sitting around doing nothing."

      My resting heart rate has lowered 15 beats per minute. Another way, that's approximately 150,000 beats fewer per week my heart beats thanks to the exercise I get.

      I don't know if this is typical, but it has been scientifically recorded.

  22. Implications by Compuser · · Score: 1

    We should implement this test for all citizens and immediately revoke all civil rights for everyone with this abnormality. This is the first case where people can be accurately defined as sub-human despite looking like one and being able to breed with one.
    Once we revoke their human rights we should have a popular vote on whether to sterilize them.

    1. Re:Implications by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Once we revoke their human rights we should have a popular vote on whether to sterilize them.

      Naw, we just need to pack them up onto four giant sleeper ships towards Gantris VI...
      We can name them Reagan, Argo, Sarengo, and Nagglfar.

    2. Re:Implications by Compuser · · Score: 1

      I just googled for Gantris VI and it seems it is something out of some Starcraft, which may be either a book or a game. But either way, reading
      http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/United_Powers_League
      it seems that in this universe "over 400 million people were eradicated".
      Now here in this reality, we are dealing with 30% of people, so ~1.8 billion. Just so you realize that reality has a way of outdoing imagination.

    3. Re:Implications by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I say we revoke the civil rights not of the learning impaired as you suggest, but the empathy impaired; subhumans such as yourself.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Implications by Compuser · · Score: 1

      I had enough empathy not to suggest killing them off outright. Given our overpopulation right now we really should think about genetic cleansing seriously (until the population drops below 1 billion). So I think I showed plenty of empathy.

    5. Re:Implications by donnielrt · · Score: 1

      Scary how you're not modded funny!

    6. Re:Implications by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I had enough empathy not to suggest killing them off outright.

      Y9ou have to die; everyone has to die. However, everyone does NOT have to have their civil rights and human dignity stripped from them. What you said further illustrates your lack of empathy, as well as your lack of communication skills.

      Given our overpopulation right now we really should think about genetic cleansing seriously

      Go for it; if you jump off a tall building the population will be reduced by one. And, there is no evidence that the planet can't sustain six billion people, most of whom live in China. It isn't overpopulated where I live.

      You have some serious moral deficiencies.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  23. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by PacketShaper · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm curious why "kinda like the Democrats" was modded as Flamebait while "kinda like the Republicans" was modded funny...

  24. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by iksbob · · Score: 1

    The tendencies seen in politicians strikes me as an intentionally adopted behavior, rather than genetic predisposition. If a politician changes his/her ways as a result of some failure, that can be read on the surface (as deep as politics seems to get these days) as admitting he/she was wrong in some form. Politicians do their best to look as absolutely pristine as they can manage, so as to give the competition as little mud to sling as possible.

  25. STDs in prison by tepples · · Score: 1

    Illicit does not necessarily mean self-destructive. It is a matter of law, not health.

    A matter of law is a matter of health for people who catch a disease while incarcerated.

    1. Re:STDs in prison by solweil · · Score: 1

      The health problems that result from legal issues and punishment is why I hedged my statement with 'not necessarily.'

    2. Re:STDs in prison by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      Why, yes, the Almighty State is hazardous to your health. What a surprise.

    3. Re:STDs in prison by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

      Not to mention heroin overdoses. There is no such thing as an overdose â" opiates are relatively non-lethal â" especially for junkies, who would never be able to afford ten times their normal dose (the minimum it would likely take to kill someone) at prohibition-level prices. In reality, heroin "overdoses" are almost always a result of an addict taking the drug in combination with alcohol, benzodiazepines, or who knows what else, either voluntarily or involuntarily. But even the voluntary ones might not be so voluntary â" addicts might substitute these other far more dangerous drugs because heroin is unavailable, not because they would take it as their first choice. Not to mention that even these deaths by combination of drugs are slow and can be easily reversed with a Naloxone pen. Do a Google search for "heroin overdose."

  26. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using the topic to push a personal political opinion is flamebait. A reply which is exactly the opposite illustrates the irony of the argument, and thus is funny.

    The next few people playing off of the original joke with their own variation are hoping to get caught up in a time-honoured slashdot tradition of karma-whoring threads.

  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

    Click on the "Score: 1" link. They were both modded both up and down. I consider that fair, because both are amusing, but also flamebait. ;)

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  29. On the bright side by xPsi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm guessing there are many perfectly productive and successful adults out there who also have this "defect." Like ADD and OCD, which can morph into powerful creative and focusing skills as positive adult byproducts, I'm betting this one can manifest itself as otherwise helpful traits such as "never giving up", "persistence in the face of resistance", etc. "Once bitten, twice shy" probably isn't a meaningful phrase for them and they likely wouldn't suffer from a host of ordinary hangups that stymie many adults (who learned from mistakes in an ordinary fashion).

    --
    i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
  30. off topic? by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are several studies available on "the Google" where you can find that genetically, we as a species are bound to obey the genetic code we are born with, whether that is good or bad. This is just another example. You'll see in my journal that the MWNN regarding atheists. This supports the atheist understanding of the world. We are born as we are, mostly accidental, or luck of the draw regarding genetics. There is no deity responsible for this. What a reprehensible thought that an all powerful and all knowing deity would do this to people?

    As a hobby, I try to build small autonomous robots, and generally speaking most people believe that the human experience is the 100% value or perfect way of interacting with the world. What they forget, and what I like to call 'failure mode' is that we humans are anything but perfect: bad vision, autism, this story's problem, and many other failures. Ever bump into the wall in the dark? There is another failure.

    We are far from perfect, hardly worthy of being called a creation of an all powerful being. Destructive behavior is what we excel at. Brilliant design, eh?

    Back on topic: for the most part, we are finding genetic reasons for many problems with the human race. Even if they could all be corrected, I'm not sure it will improve our situation. I sometimes think that we are trying to save nature's discards. Amazing really. Apparently war fixes some of the overpopulation, or used to.

    The answer to such problems is fantastically unimaginable. How do you fix the discards and keep population withing the realms of what the planet can support? China has taken a step in that direction and it has caused unimaginable hardships for their population; selling babies, hiding from the government, fear of things that are only natural.

    So, what are we to do with things like this? What are we to do with people like this? Fix them, or abort them?

    1. Re:off topic? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      This supports the atheist understanding of the world. We are born as we are, mostly accidental, or luck of the draw regarding genetics. There is no deity responsible for this. What a reprehensible thought that an all powerful and all knowing deity would do this to people?

      And this is the ironic part of atheism: on the one hand, willing to accept that "we are born as we are", but on the other hand, unwilling to accept an evil or indifferent deity. Being agnostic lets you accept that an evil deity could exist, just that it's not (yet) provable. And if one has to accept what is understandable of the world, that best fits the current situation.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    2. Re:off topic? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      I accept no deity. 'Twas not me who said God loves all the little children, or that he has the whole world in his hands, nor was it me that said Jesus saves. I think we are all fscked. Some of us less so than others. There also is no devil or evil deity, only humanity's desire for self-destruction. You can blame either on whatever imaginary friend you like, but I will still hold you accountable when you fsck with my life. Funny how our supposedly christian laws in the USA don't let you choose the 'devil made me do it' option when pleading before the courts. Of course, judging by historical experience, pleading that the devil made you do it is probably not a sane defense anyway if you want to live much longer than the length of the trial.

      I'm forcefully unwilling to accept any deity. When one comes down and hands me the amount I owe on my mortgage, I'm in church for life, whether it's the good church or bad one, I don't care. When some deity actually does *SOMETHING* for ME, perhaps I'll think about changing my thinking. Until then, keep praying for me bro' because I know you need a hobby.

    3. Re:off topic? by djfuq · · Score: 0

      AHEM

      Hey Mr perfect imperfect genetics atheist preacher personage.

      FYI
      I don't learn from my mistakes, yet I am brilliant in my own way. All you have to do is read a few of my posts to know I'm a necessary evil for humankind to endure.

      Now how do you propose we get rid of Stephen Hawking? I mean, he is inferior right?
      Nothing but some discardable genetic crap - isn't he!

      I have bad karma on this site. Does that mean I don't learn from my mistakes? Or do I intentionally prefer to do what the fuck I want to do? See, some people view things as mistakes. For instance, your comment is a mistake of arrogance that makes me laugh at you. And my comment is a mistake that makes you laugh at me.

      So what is your baseline for knowing what is a good human, and a bad one?

      Interesting how this genetic code is being interpreted isn't it?

      I would say the 30% are the good humans who don't give a fuck about mistakes, and the other 70%? They spend all day thinking about mistakes the other 30% make.

      I guess I've run out of vitrol for the moment -- cya!

      --
      Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
    4. Re:off topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inquiring minds want to know: What the hell are you talking about?

    5. Re:off topic? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      "Discards"? Has it ever occurred to you that evolution creates genetic diversity for a very, very good reason? When the environment shifts quickly (for genetic evolution, "quickly" can mean a single million years, for memetic/cultural/human evolution, as little as a day) a set of genetic tendencies previously disadvantageous can often become the key to survival or successful reproduction.

      Take, for example, thinness and fast metabolism as genetic traits. In societies with scarce food, they will be weeded out by starvation. In societies with plentiful food, they become valued as healthier breeding partners.

      Never underestimate evolution, or it will pwn you very hard.

    6. Re:off topic? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      I will reply to your post in answer to all so far. I never said we SHOULD throw them away. I asked in a provocative manner what should be done. It's an insane question, an insane problem. Beethoven was deaf for fsck sake. I did not imply that all should be aborted, only that there is a moral problem with all this discovery of genetic problems. What is correct, who is perfect?

      Go ahead, get pissed off, I am. How do we deal with this? China already has a problem. The Western world will soon. The challenge was how to deal with it, not how pissed off can you be because you don't see yourself as a perfect human.

      I never said what was or was not perfect, in fact I said we are all fscked.

    7. Re:off topic? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      You also did not see. I said we are all fscked, some less than others. The question I posed was acerbic in it's best form. If we fix all the people, what do we do with them, where do we draw the line about what is right and what is wrong? How do we decide what a 'normal' human is?

      Genetics is a dangerous slope to climb. When you fix one trait for cancer, cool. What happens when you find you can fix the genetic trait for being gay? What happens when you find the genetic trait for wanting sex other than missionary position? Where do you stop?

      What happens if you find you can abort a fetus that has traits that cannot be fixed?

      Does that answer your question?

    8. Re:off topic? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 0

      Funny how our supposedly christian laws in the USA don't let you choose the 'devil made me do it' option when pleading before the courts.

      I'm not even a Christian, but you obviously don't know much about Christianity. The New Testament explicitly says somewhere that you are accountable not only to God, but to the earthly authorities, because God put them there over you. I'm not trying to get into a lengthy argument about religion, but saying they don't believe in justice in our lifetime is ignorant. When the government's directives conflict with those of God's, that's the only time you're allowed to disobey the government. Until that point, you are obligated to obey both.

      Until then, keep praying for me bro' because I know you need a hobby.

      Did you even read this dude's post? He said he's agnostic. He doesn't believe in the existence or nonexistence of God. And for the record, he's right. Either side positively asserting their beliefs fails, because they lack proof. Saying that there is a God requires proof, but so does saying there definitely is no God.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    9. Re:off topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm interesting how you made the effort to put "the" before Google (Firefox's Spelling checker made me capitalize it) as to not specifically declare it as the all powerful being. However, you still quoted from it as if it were powerful. Although, I am not sure if was supposed to be all powerful or just slightly less. Maybe, it is more like a profit or David Koresh.

    10. Re:off topic? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      I'm not only a preacher's son, but I'm a libertarian!!!! I'm allowed to disobey any government that is oppressive, my constitution says so. I do not have to prove there is no god, I only have to ask for your proof that there is a god. I say that there is no god, I do not have to prove that as there is no proof of the existence of a god. I claim this. I say there is no proof, and if you wish to argue, you have to prove existence of a god. It's true, you cannot prove a negative, but those who do not share my opinion say there is a god, let them prove it.

      As for your knowledge of Christianity, well, I'm far more qualified than you, trust me. I AM a pentecostal preacher's child.

      I am NOT obligated to obey anything or anyone. I do so to make my life tolerable at my choosing. I do not have to prove there is no god, others have to prove that there is one if they want me to believe in that god.

    11. Re:off topic? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      First: I'm not telling you that Christianity is right in their view on disobedience to government, merely telling you that you're off-base. Second: I understand that the claim that there is a god must be proved, I'm just saying that, since the non-existence of a god must similarly be proved, I hold that the agnostics (which I count myself as) have the right idea here. You're allowed to believe in the nonexistence of God, just as Christians are allowed to believe in his existence. It's when one tries to spread their ideas to others that the burden of proof kicks in.

      And you'd be surprised as to your qualifications compared to mine. I used to be a Christian (I stopped believing due to personal events which showed me that my belief was ill-placed), and I have a pretty good grasp of what Christians (or at least the ones I have associated with) believe and teach as a result. You may have better qualifications than me, I don't know, but if they are better, they aren't better by a lot.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    12. Re:off topic? by djfuq · · Score: 0

      Sorry if it appeared I was offended. I actually was. gah. Probably you have a "in a provocative manner" way of speaking that hits me a bit haha :-p

      I don't think were all fucked personally... if we can extend lifespans and go to space and colonize one of those fancy new "super earths" I've read about..

      But yes, I see your point - there are so many people in the world so little resources. We have to come up with SOME reason to kill people and I guess governments will use genetics. The will of course call this the eugenics wars and this one dominant fool and a small team of super people will go and kick some 30% of the worlds ass.
      I betcha captain Kirk will kick their butts but he never learns from his mistakes so its a tough issue altogether.

      That's why you have to start killing responsible people ASAP. Serious. Just use boring people as food for example and you could feed all of the cattle of the world. Cattle dont drive cars so the air quality would be much better for the few super humans that exist to harvest dumb people to feed the cows.

      Anyways I'm bored of talking shit for the moment. till next time!

      --
      Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
    13. Re:off topic? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      You missed it.... I say there is no god, that is a negative. To disprove that you have to prove that there IS a god. I was indoctrinated at birth, I know all that there is for evangelicals. There is no proof of a god, there is only belief. If anyone has proof, let them speak. I am stating a negative. There is NO god. The ONLY refutation is to prove there IS a god. Do you have that proof?

    14. Re:off topic? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Sorry I didn't notice it, but next time could you perhaps use some sarcasm or irony tags? You really got quite dry there.

    15. Re:off topic? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      But... you do see the futility of my point. There is NO answer. Fixing things only leads to problems. There is NO answer. So who do we trust to decide? That is the real problem. What is normal, what is acceptable? It's not a problem that most of us want to think about, but we should.

    16. Re:off topic? by djfuq · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I think about that every time I "break the law".

      --
      Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
    17. Re:off topic? by syntek · · Score: 1

      Amazing. All this time, I thought I was not being responsible. Come to find out... I'm some sort of a mutant with the amazing ability to blow off everything.

    18. Re:off topic? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      It took a couple readings to get it, but I like that reply. Bad is good in this situation. There is no right and wrong, so what does genetic discoveries bring us? Where is this leading us? How doe we deal with it?

    19. Re:off topic? by Fireflymantis · · Score: 1

      Indeed. An Unfortunate Truth. New question I guess now. Can a Gattaca future be avoided? Is it for or against humanities best interest? Genetics is such a smelly can of worms.

    20. Re:off topic? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the generic anti-Christian rant, but you missed the point. I'm agnostic, not Christian. There's a difference between being unwilling to accept something because it's impossible and being unwilling to worship something because you find it morally reprehensible. The fact is, if there does exist a deity (and by deity, I mean an all-powerful being), then no amount of "does *SOMETHING* for me" should matter to you if you're moral. To willingly go along and benefit from an indifferent/evil deity (as I've already pointed out there can't be a good deity) is to accept, acknowledge, and encourage that indifferent/evil deity in their actions/inactions; this, ironically enough, goes right against your claim that to accept an indifferent/evil deity is a "reprehensible thought".

      Put another way, if I willing state I can't prove the devil exists, why would I claim the devil made me do something? And if a good god can't exist and it's morally repugnant to pray for aid from an indifferent/evil god, why would I pray? There's a lot of things you can rationalize. But you can't rationally expunge the existance of a supreme being. You can only rationalize what the supreme being might be like and what responses you, given the ability and opportunity, would carry out. For example, the supreme being clearly can't be one to remove atheistic thoughts at all times. And assuming a supreme being does offer me a choice of "heaven", I can tell him to fuck off.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    21. Re:off topic? by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      How about letting God be God, and handle that problem?

      Or let me put it this way: Suppose you get on Price Is Right, and are in the middle of the game, and suddenly notice that one person isn't doing so well, and another is doing very well. Moreover, many people aren't getting called on to come up, at all. Is it your position to interrupt the game, and tell Bob, "We need to adjust the rules here. Some of those who are getting called are a complete embarrassment..."

      Is that your job as one of the potential contestants?

      Or is that more the job of Merv Griffin?

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    22. Re:off topic? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Saying that there is a God requires proof, but so does saying there definitely is no God.

      No, it doesn't. I can say quite definitely that the following do not exist: Father Christmas, astrology, the Loch Ness monster, an afterlife, the Tooth Fairy, a teapot orbiting the earth, and God.

      To prove me wrong, just provide evidence of their existence. Otherwise, I do not feel myself obligated to think they may or may not exist with equal probability.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:off topic? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Goddamn it! For the last time, I do not believe in God! I am not trying to disprove your disbelief. I'm saying that putting forward either belief or disbelief requires proof if you expect others to accept your views. That's all!

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    24. Re:off topic? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. If you're right, you'll never know. If you're wrong, you may also never know.

      Did the Pharoah know when 'God hardened his heart'? (the last five plagues, not the first five).

      At any rate, I don't have to prove there's a God just because I believe there is. I don't have to prove my car is made out of metal or my driveway is concrete or that electricity would burn me either. But I'm quite satisfied with my belief in God. Enjoy your disbelief.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    25. Re:off topic? by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is no deity responsible for this. What a reprehensible thought that an all powerful and all knowing deity would do this to people?

      That doesn't seem too clear to me. It seems to disregard the possibility of an all-powerful deity who likes to keep things interesting. Maybe he likes to mix things up, keep us guessing. Maybe he likes to bring us down a notch now and then, and keep us humble. Or maybe all these "failures" aren't quite as defective as you like to think. None of us are capable of seeing all ends.

      A random off-topic possibly-offensive example: I know some people who have argued that genetic homosexuality would be a defect, because there would be no evolutionary advantage to the trait-- it would be unlikely to be passed on. Ignoring for a second the questionability of using evolutionary fitness to determine morality, this also fails to take into account the complexity of evolution in social (pack) animals. I read an article not too long ago that suggested that incidence of homosexuality may be more frequent in crowded populations (even in animals), perhaps suggesting that it serves to diminish sexual competition among males in crowded situations.

      Also, there are some studies which suggest that many "learning disabilities" aren't disabilities at all, but simply that people with those "disabilities" learn differently from the majority of the population. If we had tailored the education system to the "disabled" kids, then they would be very successful while the majority would appear to be "disabled".

      Finally, in this case of the "genetic glitch" that prevents kids from learning, it's likely that this gene is very helpful in many ways. Learning too quickly, for example, could lead to disastrous results. Imagine if everyone stopped trying after the first failure. The first time I tried to read, I failed, so I learned it was a waste of time. The first time I tried to build a flying machine, I failed, and so I learned it was impossible. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, in fact, better for a group dynamic (small as a pack or big as China) to have some people who just never learn. I've known some people who probably have that "glitch" who manage to turn it into something semi-productive. They're just relentless.

    26. Re:off topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever bump into the wall in the dark?

      No.

    27. Re:off topic? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does. I can't prove you wrong, but until we have evidence either way, we must concede that they may exist, even if we think it's likely that those entities don't exist. A negative assertion requires proof just as a positive assertion does. To claim otherwise is egregious intellectual dishonesty.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    28. Re:off topic? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I accept no deity

      That's fine, you don't have to.

      I will still hold you accountable when you fsck with my life.

      You can say "fuck" here. And as to the remark, you should hold someone accountable; If I fuck with your life it will be by accident, and I would want to make it right.

      Funny how our supposedly christian laws in the USA don't let you choose the 'devil made me do it' option when pleading before the courts

      That's because we don't have Christian laws. The US is decidedly NOT a Christian nation. Adultery is a sin, one of the ten commandments in fact, but it is perfectly legal. Drug use is NOT a sin (not in the Christian bible anyway) but most psychotropic drugs are against the law. If we have a national religion, it's the worship of money.

      I'm forcefully unwilling to accept any deity

      If you're forceably uinwilling to accept the existance of elephants, when you go to the zoo you will consider the elephant to be some fancy magic trick, a hoax, and will be outraged that they faked such a thing.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    29. Re:off topic? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      'Twas not me who said...Jesus saves.

      Jesus ALWAYS saves. That fucker is a DMs worst nightmare... "Myahhh. Look at Meeee. I'm Jeeeesus. I never take more than half damage! Myahhh..."

      And he eats all the fucking Cheetos too.

      Jesus is a dick.

    30. Re:off topic? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      This is the other side of the coin that was my comment/post. The diversity of mankind is based on the small failures here and there. If we correct these perceived failures genetically, how do we decide which genetic inconsistencies to fix, and which to not 'fix'? One of the truly useful traits of humans is their ability to adapt, adopt, and learn. How and who decides what is perfect or 'right' so that genetics can be used to improve mankind. I think the Germans did some early research into this.

      My point, I think, is that we should learn better how to help everyone be the best that they can be rather than figure out how to fix them. The movie Gattica illustrates the problem quite well. When you deign to decide what humans should be, you begin to play god. God has a lot of followers because they want to be on the side that is 'normal' and good and right, but the truth is that we are ALL right, no matter how failed or fallible. God apparently created man in his image, so I sometimes imagine how fscked up god must be. If only christians were more like christ. If it were that religious people were as compassionate as they claim, perhaps we would not have to worry about how genetics would affect mankind. Sadly, this is not so.

      We can cure cancer, correct autism etc. but we need to stop there. When we move towards making 'perfect' humans, or try to, we have gone too far. Sure it can be said that there are those who will opt to have the best they can get, just as there are those who choose plastic surgery et al. I don't really think that makes them better people.

      In robotics and AI there is often heated debate about what intelligence is. I believe that there is no clear link between intelligence and a physical form. With the brain and genetics they are inextricably linked (wetware), but a bad body does not mean a bad intelligence. Mr Hawking can explain that a bit more for you. Would he be what he is without his affliction? Is it not part of the human race to overcome adversity? Without such failures and adversity would we be the community that we are today? Will genetic manipulation do more good than harm?

      These are all questions that should be asked and answered when a story like this comes up. If we don't ask them it becomes a real possibility that we would consider some people as 'discards' and in doing so, lose all that makes us admirable now.

    31. Re:off topic? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      The movie Gattica illustrates the problem quite well.

      There's no "i" in the name of the movie. Just like there's no nucleobase in DNA that starts with "i". Cytosine, guanine, thymine, adenine - see, none of these starts with an "i".

    32. Re:off topic? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      You might have a point, but I'd rather think that mankind has more compassion than that. We DO have a moral obligation to help the members of our community IMO. It's not a game show. It's not a game. That has fsck all to do with religion or god(s).

      If you don't have it in your heart to be humane, the godless and the god fearing will both want your heart ripped out. The trouble with leaving such questions to god(s) is that there is no god, and you have failed in your duty to your community and to mankind in general. So, no, I will not leave it to the god(s) to figure out. We must be watchful of what man will do or suffer the consequences of waiting for the god(s) to sort it out.

    33. Re:off topic? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I'm glad someone else posted that correction. It struck me too, but didn't want to be the spelling police on that one.

    34. Re:off topic? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      The diversity of mankind is based on the small failures here and there.

      The part that I'm not getting is, why do you want to call them "failures". That implies that there is some perfect human form that we're failing to live up to. And I guess that's a rather popular concept, but not particularly sensible, and very poorly supported.

      More like there's a range of "normalcy", and then some outliers. Some of the outliers we deem to be advantageous and desirable, and some not. If an outlier is problematic and sufficiently far out from "normal", we call that a disease. When we have a method of bringing that outlier back into the range of "normal", we call that a cure.

      But in all the possible permutations of "man", I don't see any reason to think that any form is "the right one" or even "correct". I don't see "failures" or "discards".

      In robotics and AI there is often heated debate about what intelligence is. I believe that there is no clear link between intelligence and a physical form.

      The study of intelligence extends a bit outside of robotics and AI, you know. And there, even in the broader study, there is a lot of debate. However, it's rare to find someone who thinks that physical form has no link to intelligence.

      That's not to say that it's impossible for someone to have some sort of disease or malformation and still be intelligent. Saying that would be easily refuted by observation. However, it's clear that damaging the physical form of the brain can have effects on intelligence. It's also quite well-known and accepted that the level of exercise you get can have an effect on mental functions. Further, there are many who would argue (myself included) that the physical capabilities of a being *at the very least* have influence over the development of intelligence.

      For example, I'll concede that Hawking is quite intelligent even while having extremely limited physical capabilities. However, this raises some very interesting questions: would he be equally intelligent if he had been afflicted with his current condition from birth? Is the capability of moving through the world and exercising your will a prerequisite for intelligence developing in the first place? Does Hawking's current condition affect his mental functions in some way now?

    35. Re:off topic? by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      It seems to me to be a real question of what is humane.

      In your original post, you said -- and it is current political thought -- "The answer to such problems is fantastically unimaginable. How do you fix the discards and keep population withing the realms of what the planet can support? China has taken a step in that direction and it has caused unimaginable hardships for their population; selling babies, hiding from the government, fear of things that are only natural. So, what are we to do with things like this? What are we to do with people like this? Fix them, or abort them?".

      Now, in even defining such a question, you are defining some to be in your community, and some to be outside of your community. Arguably, I would say that insofar as we have a duty to mankind in general, we have a duty to all men within mankind. To set boundaries and say "for the benefit of mankind, I exclude you", is to make the mistake that China, Russia, Nazi Germany, the Hutus, the Virginia Colinists (after Bacon's Rebellion), the Serbians, the WWII Croatians, (and so on) all have made. As you noted, it creates horrible suffering. Further, as we have seen it doesn't benefit anyone.

      I'd contend that the wars that resulted also did not benefit anyone.

      I'd further contend that we don't have the capability of answering the macroscopic questions. All we have the capability of doing is responding to the local needs with a concern for all, and trusting God's divine providence to come up with the macroscopic answers.

      Or to put it in techie terms, when you go to war, you don't colonize the moon. Even abortion is going to war. It's when you do things right at the lower (nontech) level that you have an opportunity to develop at a higher (tech) level. There's a reason computers were developed in the US and not in Rwanda. Rwanda under Mobutu did not provide a good business development environment.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    36. Re:off topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homosexuality thing:
      That's like saying a kid who likes to play video games way too much has a genetic defect. Or that someone who wastes tonnes and tonnes of money on a DVD collection has a genetic defect. There are no evolutionary advantage to these traits, so they MUST be genetic defects.

      Nature or nurture?

    37. Re:off topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to ignore the hubris you exhibit in pretending to understand the mind of an "all powerful being" and what his/her/its creation should be like.

      First of all, human development at the individual level is a complicated process influenced by genetics and environment. Yes genetics define potential in the broadest biological sense, but much of the diversity you see is actually a result of environmental influences, particularly in utero. For instance, there is strong evidence that individuals with autism spectrum disorders have a genetic predisposition toward them which is triggered by environment. We are "bound by our genetic code" only in the sense of biological limits to our body plans - we are not simply your Erector Set robots running a Scheme script.

      I'm more disturbed by the eugenic philosophy you espouse. You seem to have some notion that there is some perfect standard of human being and that deviations from this standard are somehow bad/undesirable.

      Even if they could all be corrected, I'm not sure it will improve our situation.

      (emphasis mine)

      God (oops!) knows diversity should be avoided at all costs.

      I sometimes think that we are trying to save nature's discards.

      Read God for nature (ironic, given your previous statements about atheism). So anyone that needs glasses, is hearing impaired, thinks differently (feel free to interpret that last one as you see fit), or generally doesn't measure up to your standard is a "discard"? This is the same crap that eugenics nuts have been espousing for over a hundred years - usually to further a political agenda.

      Apparently war fixes some of the overpopulation, or used to.

      (again, emphasis mine)

      Right, war is good because, as we all know, it only kills off the undesirables (survival of the fittest!). Are you really advocating that war is any way desirable? If so, check out the Wannsee Protocol for a more efficient approach.

      How do you fix the discards and keep population withing the realms of what the planet can support?

      Do you really think the "discards" are what are fueling overpopulation? Not unless you include the undereducated/poor in your list of "discards". Which, of course, would not surprise me. For what it is worth, the U.S. (and I would guess most Western nations) is growing in population due to immigration, not birth rate. As people are afforded more education and career opportunities they tend to focus less on procreation.

      What are we to do with people like this? Fix them, or abort them?

      Your preconceived notions of worth preclude a third alternative most relevant to the people referenced in the article: leave them the fuck alone. They don't need to be fixed. This probably applies to a host of other "discards" such as people with Asperger's, etc.

      Yes, there are many genetically based, life threatening diseases that can and should be cured (your stupid overpopulation argument notwithstanding). And yes, it is a difficult question as to where to draw that line (see Gattaca). But before you suggest aborting 30 percent of the population because there mind may work a bit differently than yours, consider this: one measure of the "health" of a species is its genetic diversity. Lack of genetic diversity (usually due to overspecialization) is a quick path toward extinction.

    38. Re:off topic? by dontPanik · · Score: 1

      You're an atheist, but I'll take loving Christianity to your pessimistic misanthropy any day.

      Everywhere in your post you regard humanity as something that needs to be controlled and "fixed" and "aborted."
      All we need to do with people is find how best to integrate them into our society. And that means accepting everyone.
      A kid has ADHD? Give him a more structured environment to live in. A man commits a crime? Rehabilitate him.
      To help people with problems, you have to have faith in humanity.

      --
      "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
  31. Blame it on the Gene's by LittleBigScript · · Score: 1

    Sure kiddo. The DNA made you do it.

  32. Character by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Why can't people just have particular types of character, it is has served use well for millennia.

    Now, they think it is all to do with dopamine receptors, and neuro this and that.

    It is a load of mumbo jumbo, designed to sell more drugs, justify research grants, and support a whole string of others in the chain.

    Some people just get bored easily, and are easily distracted, perhaps meditation could help improve focus, or some type of activity, though then they will probably get told they are obsessive.

    We know substances can have an effect on feelings, and thoughts, but we don't really know how it all works, so these things are really just a smoke screen to try and validate what is just generalised observed behaviour. The problem is the substances can effect others in completely different ways.

    It is pure madness not by the individual but by the observer, who seems to have some voyeuristic tendency, let people be who they are, and let society adapt, not the other way around.

    1. Re:Character by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Why can't people just have particular types of character, it is has served use well for millennia.

      Because our society mandates that for economic and reproductive success all individuals mimic the behavioral patterns of the people running things, whether or not this actually leads to success?

      For example, plenty of us Slashdotters have something labeled "ADD": our minds gravitate to novel, interesting, or challenging things and work inefficiently on repetitious, pointless or already-solved problems. This brain pattern is a creativity engine: it results in brilliant writers, artists, engineers and scientists. However, as the societal structures surrounding the creative professions have gotten larger, the amount of boring, stupid, "necessary" legwork necessary to reach a creator's level of competence in these fields has conspicuously increased, mostly because the people running the social structures prefer consistency, reliability, and the absence of risk over the aforementioned qualities that actually lead to greatness, albeit at a relatively high risk to anyone investing in an individual.

  33. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by networkconsultant · · Score: 1, Funny

    now now if you ran a business you'd be a libertarian too.

  34. Oh great! Just what we need! by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying this report is wrong, because I don't know enough to have an opinion. However, I can see what one of its results is going to be: teenagers claiming it's not their fault that they did the same dumb thing for the fourth time, it's the fault of their genetics and hence, their parent's fault. Just what we need: another way for kids to avoid taking responsibility.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  35. Or, as some call it, "Persistence" by Normal_Deviate · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's interesting to find a brain mechanism for persistence versus adaptation, but not interesting to add an exaggerated normative claim. If at first you don't succeed, (1) Quit; (2) Try again; or (3) Split the difference and alter the plan. Different people favor different strategies. Pretty obvious and pretty benign, unless your objective is to get research funding "for the children".

    1. Re:Or, as some call it, "Persistence" by djfuq · · Score: 0

      Thank you. :-)
      Well said!

      --
      Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
  36. How long before we can start discriminating? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Seriously, this is just about the perfect setup for a bout of good ol' eugenics. "Newsweek reports that ~30% of the population are defective subhumans!" Bring on the cheap and unreliable test-kits at every drugstore, and hysteria generally!

  37. Moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Once we finish moderating these, we'll know which one of the parent posts didn't learn from their mistakes!

  38. Unconscious errors... by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

    ... I know I make these all the time, when I send commands to the motor centers some of them never get there and some of my posts are truncated or the wrong message was sent, so I might say their instead of there, etc.

    Many errors are really the result of neurological issues and I wish more teachers would understand that.

    I still make unconscious errors, so I'd have to agree with the article.

  39. segregation by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whether it's a disability or not, I think we should seriously consider segregating the two populations and putting them in different classrooms. I bet that, to achieve their best, they'll need radically different teaching methods.

    1. Re:segregation by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whether it's a disability or not, I think we should seriously consider segregating the two populations and putting them in different classrooms.

      Can it be called "The Gattaca Initiative"?

    2. Re:segregation by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Whether it's a disability or not, I think we should seriously consider segregating the two populations and putting them in different classrooms. I bet that, to achieve their best, they'll need radically different teaching methods.

      I bet that, to achieve their best, they'll need radically higher taxes to fund the parallel system of teachers necessary to educate a segregated school population.

      Special-needs students are a lot more expensive to teach than your garden variety student.

      There are plenty of ideas that might do wonderful things for the United States public education system if there weren't numerous bureaucratic and structural obstacles. If only it was so simple as "putting them in different classrooms".

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:segregation by icegreentea · · Score: 1

      Ugh. What happens when they kids join the work force having spent their time predominantly with people who agree with their approach to failure?

    4. Re:segregation by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Whether it's a disability or not, I think we should seriously consider segregating the two populations and putting them in different classrooms. I bet that, to achieve their best, they'll need radically different teaching methods.

      Or, it could just as easily be that to achieve their best, they need to interact with people who don't think like they do (that goes for either group).

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:segregation by mpe · · Score: 1

      Whether it's a disability or not, I think we should seriously consider segregating the two populations and putting them in different classrooms.

      There are a lot more criteria you could use to segregate students.

      I bet that, to achieve their best, they'll need radically different teaching methods.

      Unless you have some plan segregate an entire society people in each of these catagories are still going to have to interact with those in the other.

    6. Re:segregation by The+Gaytriot · · Score: 1

      They work for the government.

      --
      Srsly u guys. U guys, srsly.
  40. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Miseph · · Score: 5, Funny

    Unless your business gets big fat government subsidies. Then you'd be Iowa.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  41. Original article by DebateG · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would much rather read the original article than an oversimplified Newsweek summary.

    1. Re:Original article by freedumb2000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      So woud I, but since it's pay-per-view that's impossible.

  42. Bart vs the Hamster by cailith1970 · · Score: 1

    I was thinking of that Simpsons episode myself, where Lisa did the tests to see if a hamster was more intelligent than Bart by wiring a electrical charge to a cupcake.

    Whenever someone at work made the same mistake twice, we'd always trundle out the Simpsons quote (is there nothing that the Simpsons don't have an appropriate quote for?)

    --
    I intend to live forever, or die trying. - Groucho Marx
    1. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by schon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      (is there nothing that the Simpsons don't have an appropriate quote for?)

      Scientology and abortion.

      Scientology because Nancy Cartwright (the voice of Bart) is a die-hard scientologist, and (if you believe the rumors) has threatened to quit if they poke fun at it. The closest they got was "The Joy of Sect" (wherein most of Springfield joins a cult.)

      Don't know the reason behind the abortion stance. Maybe because it's too hard to joke about tastefully.

    2. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by cailith1970 · · Score: 1

      Well there you go - there's the two things I've never tried to apply a Simpsons quote to. Go figure.

      --
      I intend to live forever, or die trying. - Groucho Marx
    3. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by Squiffy · · Score: 1

      "...is there nothing that the Simpsons don't have an appropriate quote for?"

      They don't have a quote for the case in which the Simpsons don't have an appropriate quote for something. Maybe that's because it never happens? Hm...

    4. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by DigiShaman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Don't know the reason behind the abortion stance. Maybe because it's too hard to joke about tastefully.

      Or maybe Nancy Cartwright had an aobortion herself at the request of her cult leader??? Maybe the fetus was an evil alien half-breed or would never have reached Clearity??? Who the hell really knows.

      Point is, who cares what the reasons are? She's a nut job! Nuff said.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by B4D+BE4T · · Score: 1

      According to South Park, no.

    6. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by wolf12886 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't know the reason behind the abortion stance. Maybe because it's too hard to joke about tastefully.

      Thats where South Park comes in.

    7. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by WK2 · · Score: 1

      Don't know the reason behind the abortion stance. Maybe because it's too hard to joke about tastefully.

      It's not like that's ever stopped them before. Fortunately, we have several South Park episodes that might have some juicy quotes:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_matter_in_South_Park#Abortion

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    8. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by Digitus1337 · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not entirely true. There was an abortion joke in Treehouse of Horror VII in the short "Citizen Kang." Kang and Kodos assume the identities of presidential candidates Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. While at a rally, under the guise of Bob Dole, the alien proclaims "Abortions for everyone!" which is met with boos from the crowd, he then proclaims "Abortions for no one!" which is also met with boos from the crowd. Finally he proclaims something along the lines of "Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!" and is met with loud applause.

    9. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame. There's so much about scientology that is funny.
      Like: that people believe any of that shit.

      But I guess that's true for all religions.

    10. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      Actually it made me think of an episode of Gargoyles, where they're all locked in electrified cages. One of them (forget their names, but it was the gangling teenage one) kept flicking the side of the cage to watch the lights go dim when he did, and that was the exact audio.

      *bzzzt*
      Ow.
      *bzzzt*
      Ow.
      *bzzzt*
      Ow.

      He was doing it out of boredom, though, rather than (just) stupidity.

      Whaddaya mean, no one watched Gargoyles?

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    11. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      Jokes about abortion on Simpsons?

      OK: Marge gets abducted by aliens. They bang her six ways to Xmas, and release her back to Homer et al. She is now pregnant with alien spawn, and when she finds out it's an Alien a la the movie Alien, she is not looking forward to the delivery date, much les shave some nasty lizard punch out of her chest. So she has an abortion, with the notion that it is murder, "But murder in self defense! I don't want some crittur growing inside me! Eeeeww!"

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    12. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by Monsuco · · Score: 0, Troll

      And his post gets marked +4 informative for describing a simpsons episode, only on /.

    13. Re:Bart vs the Hamster by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Brooklyn. And the quote is on IMDb (at series level, though it should be filed by episode under "Enter MacBeth"):

      Brooklyn: [pokes cage] Ouch.
      Brooklyn: [pokes cage] Ouch.
      Lexington: [annoyed] How many times are you going to try that?
      Brooklyn: Until you find a way to get us out of this.
      Brooklyn: [pokes cage] Ouch.
      Brooklyn: [pokes cage] Ouch. Hey, you know, I'm getting tired of this.
      Lexington: Did you just see how the lights dimmed when you did that?
      Brooklyn: Oh, sorry no, I was too busy writhing in agony to notice.

      So it was partly boredom, partly motivational.

      Of course it was shortly followed by the reused line (and by "reused" I mean exact same performance), "Go for help, Bronx!"

      First season, so it's on DVD.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  43. enough with the excuses by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't care if daddy beat you or if you've got bad genes. be a douche and you should face the music.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:enough with the excuses by houbou · · Score: 0

      If you are a douche, you should face the music (assuming all your DNA bits are correctly aligned)

      Information is power. This type of information is actually going to alter the way we view at bad behaviours.

      If someone can prove without a doubt, that our ability to make correct decisions is linked to our DNA and then, prove that someone's DNA can be faulty. Then, these indviduals are ill, but they are not "a douche".. :)

      More to the point, if this can be corrected with gene therapy or something like that, I say Yay.

      See, for me, the power of choice is based on free will. If your DNA compromises your ability to know right from wrong, then, where is that free will then?

      I know this can become a real boon for defence lawyers who will try and use this to get their clients off the hook, but really, if we can figure out how to diagnose this, then we can figure out, in the short term, a better form of rehabilitation or incarceration for those who are afflicted, after all, if beyond a shadow of a doubt, one is set in their bad ways because of a DNA loophole, then, let's be humaine.

      When the real fix is ready, again gene therapy, or whatever, we can cure them.

      That being said, if DNA isn't an issue, well, they, indeed, they should face the music :)

      Punish the healthy, heal the sick. :)

    2. Re:enough with the excuses by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      If your DNA compromises your ability to know right from wrong, then, where is that free will then?

      Small problem. TFA states not an an inability to know right from wrong, but a retarded ability to know so. In other words, it takes more time (err, discipline) for these guys to "get it", which hardly absolves anyone from guilt.

  44. Without this 30% by clovis · · Score: 3, Funny

    there would be nothing on YouTube but cats.

    Also, survival traits in some cases may benefit the species more than the indivdual - some of us are needed to find out what new things can or can't be done. Some of us are needed to hold the beer.

    1. Re:Without this 30% by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily true, there would be the occasional video of the first stupid thing someone did...

    2. Re:Without this 30% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      werd... and now we know what to thank for moto-x double backflips.

    3. Re:Without this 30% by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      Right.. So the presence of that 30% has given us a website full of Crazy Frog Brothers, rickroll, various less-than-pleasant Elmo vs. Barney videos, babies that laugh their heads off for no reason ... well you get the point. (It's amazing the kind of stuff you run across when you have a few neighborhood kids who like to browse Youtube on your box).

  45. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by tuomoks · · Score: 1

    Funny, why flamebait? If I could vote in US I would vote for a democrat %50 of time, or maybe a little less, there still are more parties than two? Doesn't everybody vote a person by merits, not by (business) connections?

    Anyway, an interesting reaction from moderators. And if what I see about moderation, I go with anonymous "Kind like voters?"

    Back to topic, interesting - I was one of those in college, not life threatening but the tests were a little difficult when not feeling too well in the morning. Good that I can blame my DNA - fortunately it doesn't seem to go to the next generation, even as adult they often say "thank you" for telling us your shortcomings so we don't have to learn them the hard way. Maybe it skips generations but that's their problem - heh!

  46. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Repeat after me:

    EVERY... DIFFERENCE... IS... AN... ILLUSION... TO... DISTRACT... YOU!

    (And yes, you have to yell it. More text to counter the lame "lameness" censorship. ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  47. Almost by snaildarter · · Score: 1

    Replace "humanity" with "evolution" and you are absolutely correct. Dawkin's The Selfish Gene explains it well.

    --
    Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
    1. Re:Almost by tsa · · Score: 1

      But then again, Dawkin's The Selfish Gene can explain everything you throw at it really well.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    2. Re:Almost by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      If that is sarcasm, you are blasphemer and a heretic.

      Dawkins is THE ONE TRUE GOD!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  48. Genetic testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we could test for this at birth to see who was going to be drug addicted politicians later in life?

    1. Re:Genetic testing by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      So we could test for this at birth to see who was going to be drug addicted politicians later in life?

      I prefer my politicians to be adulterous philanderers (redundancy for emphasis). Is there a test for that?

  49. This sounds familiar... by Almonday · · Score: 1

    (Warning: Anecdote)

    I can say that there is definitely something to this. I am the oldest in a family with 3 male children, two of whom, my younger brothers, are dizygotic (fraternal) twins. One of them is 450 pounds, has never had a problem with drugs or alcohol, is diagnosed with a form of schizoaffective disorder --they say his executive functions are broken, meaning that he has trouble putting things together as well as learning from his mistakes-- and is currently living on social security disability. My other brother has had numerous problems with drugs and alcohol, yet does not suffer from schizoaffective disorder, looks like a rail-thin anime character and is currently finishing up his undergraduate degree. Our mother is schizoaffective but stable on meds, and both our parents met as high-functioning graduate students at Stanford. As for me (and in reference to TFA) I was considered the "mellow" baby but am probably the most teflon-like of the three. The point, of course, is that although we all grew up with almost the exact same parenting --right down to breastfeeding, fireside chats and access to the best psychiatric resources-- all three of us turned out quite differently.

    Incidentally, about a year and a half ago my family was asked to participate in a medical study at Baylor looking for genetic links between schizoaffective disorders, drug/alcohol addiction and (oddly) the presence of involuntary eye movements which show up to varying degrees when people track moving objects...apparently, when a police officer stops you on the highway and asks you to follow his pen from side to side, he's not looking to see if you can actually follow the pen; he's looking for these little eye flutters at the periphery of your vision which become more noticeable under the influence of alcohol. From what I know, the study was designed to see if paying attention to these eye flutters might eventually allow doctors to prescribe medication more quickly and effectively for both addictive and schizoaffective disorders. The study still has a few years left, but we'll see what comes up.

    --
    Posterity, my posterior.
  50. Re:Now we know what's wrong with Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Losers always whine about the failed policies of Jimmy Carter; winners go home and ... ooh a penny!

  51. Refusing to learn from mistakes? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 4, Funny

    Kinda like those guys who keep finding genetic links to damn near everything?

  52. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by lee1026 · · Score: 1

    That would imply that dems would win all of the elections, as only 30% have this gene.

  53. Rethinking religion by Jabbrwokk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think your comment is right-on to the topic. This finding, if it bears out, kind of blows the whole "sin" doctrine right out of the water, doesn't it? If some people cannot help but repeat their mistakes, how can they ever be "saved" from sin?

    1. Re:Rethinking religion by houbou · · Score: 1

      Never been much of a religious buff myself, but indeed, this would be a good argument to give to the Pope :P He who knows all, has the direct pipeline to God himself/herself. LOL. I could only imagine a "religious" reply to this post :P

      But I've always said that for humanity to improve, it needs to evolve its morality and spirituality to the point where religion isn't required for its members to function.

      Religion has served its purpose, from its humble beginnings, so many of these religions with the same similar mandate, to keep their people in line, in tow so to speak. Do good, else, you go to hell! Really, religion has been the way to scare people into believing there is a purpose beyond the here and now. You are evil, go to hell, you are good, go to heaven. How to be good? Follow these rules.

      So, yes, religion was a necessary "ahem" evil that was required to keep the peace and order in an ever growing village, land, civilisation, because it gave people a moral sense of structure and conduct and when you did wrong, there was retribution. Because death is the ultimate deal here, religion was the ultimate answer to "what happens when we die?" So, to "sin" meant to lose that chance of that perpetual blissful life in heaven.

      Fear is religion's ultimate weapon and unfortunately, fear is a powerful motivator in learning. It's a sad truth. However, you would think that by now, in this day and age, our sense of morals (right and wrong) would assert itself on its own, without having to resort to religion? :)

      By now, humanity as a whole should know right from wrong, regardless of religious doctrines.

      Humanity's ultimate challenge in my honest opinion is to rise above religion, to stop using it as a crutch and to just move on and learn everything there is, in the purest and most unbiased way possible. To do what's right, because it's right, for no other reason that it's the way it should be.

      That's when we shall achieve true morality and enlightement.

      That's when our technological advancement, our moral and spiritual sides will all co-exist together in balance.

      Wow, I should be writing a novel uh?

      "The little engine that could" - the first self-help book a child encounters - Lewis Black

    2. Re:Rethinking religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sin" is the collected knowledge of humanity telling that 30 percent that these are things you shouldn't try even once.

    3. Re:Rethinking religion by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      how can they ever be "saved" from sin?

      You can't be saved, only forgiven. Understanding that a person has a disability that causes him to (for example) steal makes it easier to forgive his thieft, even when it's your stuff he ripped off.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Rethinking religion by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Well, if you want to go that route, neither "sin" nor free will have been compatible with science since physics was invented. If the world is completely governed by the initial conditions of the universe and physics laws, how can we be responsible for anything we've done, as, if we knew the initial conditions, we could predict millennia in advance what some currently non-existent person will do (erasing free will, and therefore sin).

  54. 'Illicit'? by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 0

    A paucity of dopamine receptors is linked to an inability to avoid self-destructive behavior such as illicit drug use.

    Yeah, because things can become self-destructive by legislative fiat. Considering that I owe a large portion of the person I am today to LSD and MDMA, I must say I am rather offended at the implication that I should regard this as destructive.

    1. Re:'Illicit'? by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you know that for a fact? Have you talked to the version of yourself that didn't take LSD and MDMA recently?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:'Illicit'? by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'll have to pardon me for not discussing the details of some highly personal experiences on Slashdot. In the particular instance I'm thinking of, about two years ago I pretty much got a personal guided tour of my own unconscious with respect to a certain issue that was causing me a great deal of pain at the time, and it allowed me to go ahead and make some really drastic changes over the next few months and pretty much completely remake my life. That isn't something that could have happened without a great deal more of pain and struggle otherwise, and probably without such successful results otherwise. Knowing all the details of it, the notion that it would have turned out anything like as well without suitable chemical assistance is just too silly to merit consideration.

    3. Re:'Illicit'? by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Pay no attention to the moron - there have been recent studies showing theraputic benefit from MDMA, and Albert Hoffman, the discoverer of LSD, was both effective throughout his career and also convinced of LSD's beneficial effects from his own experience.

      Been there myself, and I understand what you are saying. Hallucinogens can be revelatory.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    4. Re:'Illicit'? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      To seriously ask that question without being a hypocrite, you have to dismiss all negative aspects of drug use, as not one drug user, nor one non drug user has ever met there counterpart self. It is no better than asking if we really exist, or if we are just a dream of some higher being. You know, the kind of question people ask each other when they are sitting around hopped up on dope.

    5. Re:'Illicit'? by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      I usually try to avoid paying too much attention to morons. :)

      Well, I suppose it could have been a valid question if one were really so naive about the nature of the hallucinogenic experience and didn't realize how indisputable and dramatic that sort of revelation can be. The rather hostile and inquisitorial tone of the comment in question, however, leaves me inclined to suspect it was motivated by a prohibitionist agenda rather than simple ignorance, and thus to conclude that it should not go unanswered.

    6. Re:'Illicit'? by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do not have a prohibitionist agenda.

      I have severe doubts about everyone's (so I am explicitly including myself here) ability to make sense of subjective experiences in a reasonable way, and to report, to themselves, their experiences in an accurate and honest way. There is no reasonable way to separate the hallucinogenic experience from the later freedom that having a 'reason' to explain changes you elected to make.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:'Illicit'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flip side to this is... are you going to trust someone else's opinion of your experience? They may be less biased/subjective, but they aren't you, they haven't had your experiences, and they probably didn't have this experience, either.

      Interpreting experience and applying it on a larger scale is a rather difficult subject matter.

    8. Re:'Illicit'? by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      But there is a fair amount of clinical evidence from observers that MDMA in particular does facilitate a beneficial experience. See this

      If you haven't been through the experience of a hallucinogen, the tendency is to think it's like getting drunk, only seeing cartoons. It's not. Depending on the dosage, it's in many ways a much more clear headed experience. Particularly in the latter stages of the experience, the thoughts and philosophizing are an important and, IMO, valid part of the experience.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    9. Re:'Illicit'? by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I congratulate you on your sucessful journey to the center of your mind. I've taken such journeys, although it was long before you were born (I clicked your homepage, you look like one of my daughter's friends).

      Don't go there too often, though. I have friends who stepped over the edge, never to return. I haven't seen my friend Dave for a long time, he's a great guitar player but the voices in his head won't let him leave his mother's house (he is probably older than your parents).

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  55. I see now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just explained the government.

  56. I would call this by LM741N · · Score: 3, Funny

    George Bush syndrome.

    1. Re:I would call this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, that above post was funnier than the Libertarian one. What are you moderators, a bunch of Neocons?

    2. Re:I would call this by sm62704 · · Score: 2

      I disagree. Bush hasn't made any mistakes. Sure, he fucked his country up REAL GOOD but he's an oil man - have you seen the price of gasoline lately? Sure, your civil rights and the constitution are in shambles - but he's power hungry.

      The man isn't stupid, as much as he would like you to think he is. You've heard of "Hanlon's razor", well I have my own. McGrew's razor is "never attribute to stupidity or incompetence that which can be adequately explained by greedy self interest."

      Bush isn't a fool, he's just evil.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:I would call this by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Why learn from your mistakes when you can redefine them as successes?

  57. Finally! Research I can use! by lewp · · Score: 1

    Sayonara, personal responsibility!

    --
    Game... blouses.
    1. Re:Finally! Research I can use! by smellotron · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the party. Were you stuck in traffic for the last 5 years?

  58. I'm sorry officer by grilled-cheese · · Score: 1

    "Will you hold my weed officer while I get my geneticists exemption note?"

  59. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Derosian · · Score: 1

    Only until that business becomes a public company then you turn Republican.

  60. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

    EVERY... DIFFERENCE... IS... AN... ILLUSION... TO... DISTRACT... YOU!

    That's exactly what THEY want you to think! You're playing right into THE MAN's hands. Don't you see THE TRUTH right in front of you?

    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  61. yup by geoffaus · · Score: 1

    Id have to agree - I think I know quite a few of these people.

    --
    As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Godwin's Law approaches 1
  62. As in all things, there is a plan.... by iceT · · Score: 1

    That's why god created "Natural Selection"....

    --
    -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
  63. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by wiIIyhiIIII · · Score: 0, Troll
  64. Holy crap, I read TFA and... by Jabbrwokk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know it's tacky to reply to your own posts, but I wanted to add something here. According to the article:

    In about 30 percent, the coils of their DNA carry a glitch...

    One of the strongest and most counterintuitive findings in this nascent field is that children with a sweet temperament, which is under strong genetic control, are the least likely to emulate their parents and absorb the lessons they teach, while fussy kids are the most likely to do so.

    DNA variants can protect children from bad parenting.

    Both views--that everything is genetic and that parents can transform a child like a lump of clay--are as wrong as wrong can be.

    I think these finding have serious implications for how we look at religion, and how it can or cannot work effectively to shape people's behaviour from the time they are children to adults. Some people -- at least 30 per cent -- are hard-wired to find it difficult to deal with "sin" without feeling guilt, shame, failure and worthlessness. They will either end with serious psychological and spiritual hang-ups, or will reject religion altogether.

    1. Re:Holy crap, I read TFA and... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      I believe that cognitive behavior therapy deals with this pretty well, so I'm not sure that you can conclude that this is hardwired. There is a great book, called Feeling Better, by David Burns, if you know anyone in this place.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
  65. Re:FUCKING JEW NEVER LEARN THE MISTAKES by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

    The parent poster forgot to click AC, a the moderator modded him Insightful. Considering the topic, either this is the finest piece of meta-humor I've ever seen, or there are two exceptionally dumb assholes on /. today.

  66. Genetically inferior editors like inferior authors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worse than that, Slashdot editors are science enthusiasts, but never learn about science.

    The real title of the Newsweek article should be, "Why, when you don't give your children much attention, you aren't at fault. It's their genes."

  67. The Betty Crocker theory of thoughts & emotion by Internalist · · Score: 1

    From TFS (and presumably TFA?)...

    [...] one that leaves their brains with few dopamine receptors, molecules that act as docking ports for one of the neurochemicals that carry our thoughts and emotions (emph mine - Internalist)

    I know /.'s readers won't get sucked into this "explanation" of how the activities of our brains gives rise to our thoughts and emotions, but John & Jane Q. Public might, and boy does that tick me off! OK, so it's probably not a big deal if people don't see the difference, but we as scientists should be encouraging right-thinking ways in the lay public.

    Oh, and the subject line is from a paper by Paul Churchland that I can't be bothered to find right now. In one of the first Betty Crocker cookbooks for microwave ovens, the intro explains that microwaves work by making the molecules in food jiggle really fast, thereby encouraging them to rub together more and create heat via friction.

    --
    Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun
  68. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by BlueCollarCamel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Those next few people are always followed by some karma whore looking for that Insightful mod for pointing out those next few people.

    --
    1&1 - Cheap domain and web hosting.
  69. We can still mitigate the effects by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Just blaming your DNA is rather defeatist. You can typically still do some things that help. Exercise and diet can make a big difference for many people.

    Being able to meddle with these things also brings to mind the question: where is the threshold between OK and defective. If you can't get straight As or run a 4 minute mile then are you defective and should you be considered disadvantaged?

    We end up with huge moral issues too: Is a criminal really a bad person or is he just a victim of his DNA?

    In countries with the dole, where do you draw the line between lazy and a victim of their DNA: given all kinds of handout and assistance because they are disadvantaged.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:We can still mitigate the effects by houbou · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's about blaming DNA. But if DNA is a factor, and it's proven to be, then we have more information on how to correct things.

      And of course, the more we learn, the more questions arises and the more moral issues it raises. But you know, Life is problems, living is solving them.

      Life is a journey in learning. We are all doing that. And we need to basically deal with it as it comes. :)

      You raise good issues, but make no mistake, like anything else, that's the price to pay for increase knowledge, in this case, a reexamination of the moral issues this knowledge raises and a readjustment of how to deal with things.

      Cheers!

    2. Re:We can still mitigate the effects by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Just blaming your DNA is rather defeatist.

      Don't know when to give up, do ya'?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  70. is this where all the linux users come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fucking stupid bitch whore faggots.

  71. Not to be confused with learned helplessness... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    Giving up hope is a function of learning from your mistakes, there are situations where it is perfectly rational to give up hope.

    Maybe, but those situations are a drop against the bucket of "learned helplessness", where after failing enough times you just give up. And that has been wired into our genes since we diverged from rodents, if not longer.

  72. My Worry by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    The rise of monitoring people for their own health, and sharing that information with employers/government as well as trying to find this impossible "normal" that so many people apparently have (though I've never seen) seems more like a power play than anything. It just seems like more information skewed to make people feel better about themselves.

    "Of course!" they exclaim, "I always learn from my mistakes!" as they wend their way through the same old habits that produce the same results in their lives over and over again. It seems to allow "intellectuals" the ability to further lament "the downfall of civilization!". People must just be dumb as a bag of hammers, but not me! No sir.

    I recognize that the information offered in the article could have useful implications. However, when we treat information (science?) as entertainment in a headline blurb, it will be just that: Entertainment.

    I recognize that Slashdot is a place where we can have arguments (i hope) instead of being fed entertainment news, but /. feels like the exception and not the rule, and even then it's not always very good argument.

    I shouldn't get any mod points for this. All this has been said before on slashdot in one way or another, and I would rather getting modded for a nugget of new truth than for regurgitating the same tired old cliches.

    --
    -
    1. Re:My Worry by Vexar · · Score: 1

      What useful implications to you envision will come from this? I can think of none.

  73. This is a duplicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently the editors don't learn from their mistakes either http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/24/2220209

  74. Meanwhile, Time's Man of the Year is on a rampage! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks Democrats, for making us so fucking dependent on foreign oil that all we can to to help Georgia is stand by and shake our fist in the air.

  75. Uh, sorry, but... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    .. if they really have such a learning problem, then they wouldn't even get to the part about "partying the night before" a test!

  76. Re:The Betty Crocker theory of thoughts & emot by Internalist · · Score: 1

    Oh man...serves me right for not checking first that there's a /. user named "Jane Q. Public"...you're certainly not the fictitious person I was talking about!

    --
    Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun
  77. The Worst Thing about a Gattica Scenario... by beaverbrother · · Score: 1

    Is that a breakout disease would have a much higher chance of destroying all people on the planet.

  78. Bah. I don't believe it! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    And nothing can make me thing... me thing... grr. me thing differently!

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  79. prevalence by sex by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the prevalence of this disorder is in males/females. There is a lot of talk (and some action) of separating girls from boys in schools because they supposedly "learn differently".

    I don't know about the rest of slashdot, but I would've hated to have been in a male-only school. If one can make any argument at all, it is for segregating schoolchildren based on ability, not arbitrary factors such as race, sex, or even religion.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:prevalence by sex by mpe · · Score: 1

      If one can make any argument at all, it is for segregating schoolchildren based on ability, not arbitrary factors such as race, sex, or even religion.

      There have been all sorts of methods used to segregate students of the basis of "ability" which turn out to have quite a degree of "arbitrary" involved.

    2. Re:prevalence by sex by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      I went to an all-male high school -- it was a Jesuit school, and those typically exclude female students. While there were positives and negatives, it seems that my high school years were relatively free of the social drama and bullshit that many of my friends at coed institutions went through.

      The curriculum was a lot more hardcore as well, though I attribute that more to the traditional Jesuit pedagogy than to any conscious attempt to appeal to male learning styles.

      My two cents.

      --saint

  80. Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is old news.

  81. Re:bad idea. by digitrev · · Score: 1

    Now, twitter, while this is approaching a sane argument, he's not saying who gets taught what. He's advocating different teaching methods. I'm calling you out on this lovely straw man you've created. I mean, yeah, hoarding knowledge is definitely a despicable thing, and everyone should be given the opportunity to access bits and bytes of information. But that's not what we're talking about. we're talking about how to teach people. Surely you'd agree that someone like you (who clearly can't learn from their mistakes, given your posting history and piss-poor karma) needs to be taught in a different method than someone who can learn from their mistakes after a few failures.

    --
    Cynical Idealist
  82. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. What is not to like about pot smoking, gun toting, anarchists?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  83. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    right up until someone decided to "liberate" your stock or cash, and you realise that in your quest for "liberty" from government interference you were also "liberated" of the burden of government protection.

    But that's OK, because you'll probably just solve it with a gun anyway.

  84. Re:bad idea. by Your.Master · · Score: 1

    This isn't necessarily about winners and losers. It is about people who learn from mistakes, and people who learn predominantly from other things. Certain teaching methods which are highly effective for 70% will fail 30% of students.

    Ideally everybody would have their own education tailor-made to them by the exact sort of people that can best teach them. But...we can't. It's ridiculously impractical.

  85. Conversely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Geez, no wonder he keeps recycling the failed policies of Jimmy Carter.

    Yeah! We should recycle *Bush's* failed policies! That's bound to work!

  86. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True Libertarians are conservatives who are tired of liberals bitching, and realize the best way to get rid of them is to give them exactly what they want.

    Make drugs cheap, legal and strong, they O.D. Make the gheyness legal, they stop breading, make abortion legal the ones who do breed don't reproduce. Keep firearms legal and stop regulating the wearing of them so if a junky does try to steal from you for a fix you can shoot them.

    If Libertarians get their way in the end, everyone left will be a right winger.

  87. Phew, and here I thought... by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

    That it was my fault. What a relief. I had nothing to do with my lazy, ineffective behavior in college. Halelujiah.

    --
    Speak for yourself.
  88. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by pragma_x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The major difference between the US and other "first world" societies is that US politics very rarely includes the concept of "good will towards all". The notion, that "what is good for my neighbor is good for me" simply doesn't fly around here. Electing politicians on merit implies that we'd be electing people to serve the *public* trust, rather than our own individual interests.

    Granted, I"m painting things with a broad brush, but that's pretty much the impression I get.

    Why is it this way? I honestly don't know. It could have something to do with our frontiersman roots being so recent in our country's past - that we're still one nation of individual people, rather than an individual nation of one people.

  89. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Velorium · · Score: 1

    Possibly coinciding with that 32% approval rating of Bush a couple years back? (Not trying to call anyone out, just a stray thought)

  90. you must be new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a dummy account, he doesn't care.

  91. Most likely this is again bunk by gd23ka · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So little dopamine receptor deficient Jamal in the projects hits the crack pipe for the first time in his life. He flicks the muthafuckuh lighter and da crack ... well crackles and fizzles and
    that vapor of cocaine is absorbed from his lungs directly into his bloodstreams and fraction of a second causes that massive release of dopamine that divine bell ringing blissful soma
    that has tears streak into your eyes while your heart is thumping and about to leap out of your throat... only little Jamal doesn't "get" it. I mean it isn't bad, it kind of lifts his mood
    and for him it's like snorting a small line of mediocre coke... so little Jamal will probably not be renting out his ass to da brothers and da Y-T crackerz for another hit off of the crack pipe.

    Following logic here where does addiction come into play for little Jamal when he's lacking the very equipment for it?

    Seems like this is another criminal behavior is in the genes and paid for article.

  92. Dupe research. by palegray.net · · Score: 1

    I submitted a Slashdot story several months ago on this topic (sans the kids aspect). Reference this article for a basic overview.

  93. Just kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, no, I didn't RTFA, but is there a reason why it targets kids in the headline? Do the "coils of their DNA" change when the kids grow up? Does the genetic glitch learn that it's a mistake?

  94. Well actually, that's a little too simple by mveloso · · Score: 1

    "Our DNA is basically a blue print of who we are. Our limitations, strengths, etc..."

    Don't think of DNA as a blueprint. Think of it more as a book of recipes. Various dishes can be cooked at any given time, and there are (or can be) multiple variations of each recipe depending on a host of different factors, some of which are environmental.

  95. vikaden vs electroshock by exabrial · · Score: 1

    Every time we do something stupid, the doctor should prescribe electroshock therapy instead of vikaden... just to make sure the experience was painful enough we wouldn't do it again.

  96. Re:Oh great! Just what we need! by WK2 · · Score: 1

    We can blame whoever we want for our problems. Our blame might be justified, or it might not. The important thing is who is responsible for our problems, and that is always us, regardless of who's fault they are.

    "I don't blame people for their problems. I only ask that they take responsibility for them." - John Hammond, Jurassic Park

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
  97. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by jamie(really) · · Score: 1

    Ah John Adams would be so proud of you.

  98. A HA! by Frion · · Score: 2, Funny

    One step closer to being able to rationalize how Bush got re-elected.

  99. Re:bad idea. by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1

    Who $hall decide the winner$ and lo$er$? The $oviet Union had te$t$ to $egregate people ba$ed on ability. They were abu$ed for politic$ and who do you know kind of $tuff. The National $ociali$t wanted to $egregate people ba$ed on their idea of racial purity. When you build two $y$tem$, one for "$mart" people and one for "dumb" people what you ultimately create i$ a cla$$ divi$ion and give $omeone the power to decide what kind of education people get.

    There i$ no longer a need to be $tingy with education, $o your main motive$ no longer apply. Electronic publication make$ it po$$ible to $hare knowledge with everyone and no one intere$ted $hould ever be denied. Wealth come$ from the freedom to exploit re$ource$. Artificial re$triction$ and $carcity create poverty and re$entment. Hoarding knowledge i$ a crime.

    There - fixed it for you. I felt something was missing...

    --
    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/7/22/ms/

  100. this just in by rubycodez · · Score: 1, Funny

    further research showed, those 30% with the gene inhibiting learning from their mistake, could still be taught to not repeat the mistake if they were smacked upside the head while their mistake was pointed out.

  101. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by MPAB · · Score: 0, Troll

    No. I'd say like the socialists. More than 100 million starved and they still praise communism.

  102. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

    There is no spoon?

    --
    This is not the funny you're looking for.
  103. Perfect Defense..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    "Children with the genetic variant are unable to learn from mistakes. No matter how many tests they blow by partying the night before, the lesson just doesn't sink in."

    -----This is the type of person most commonly known as a DUMBASS. Other terms include, but are not limited to: Idiot, moron, knucklehead, bonehead, airhead, shit-for-brains, pea-brain, fucktard, and Congressman.

    I wonder how long it takes before criminals start claiming, "I'm sorry, your honor. It's not my fault. I have a genetic disorder that prevents me from learning from my mistakes."

    Every slimy and scuple-less defense lawyer will be all over that "research" like a pack of dogs on a three-legged cat.

    Call it cruel, but sometimes a .45 is the best medicine for stupidity.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Perfect Defense..... by Vexar · · Score: 1

      I think that early childhood development is overfunded. They are trying to unlock the secrets of stupidity. Does anyone see the point? What stupid person is going to say "you mean I can get gene therapy and be un-stupid?" This will just lead to millions of American stupid kids becoming briefly very bright, only to have the genes regress, the stupidity return, and, like the rat Algernon, all the stupid kids die. Genetic glitch. Why don't they find the genetic thing for incredibly smart people who never make mistakes, get picked on in school, move to Montana, and start mailing triggered explosives, only to be arrested and locked up in Hi-Max with the likes of Richard Reed (may his feet stink forever)? I think rather than finding what makes people incurably stupid, they should develop more aerodynamic paddles, switches, canes, etc. Or, maybe a non-physical punishment that works just as well. Even the Bible says the world is full of simple-minded people. I half-wonder if the folks in early childhood development are simple-minded themselves. I mean, if they were smart, they would have come up with something usable by now. Someone point to a single, commonly accepted axiom or technique that was produced by the early childhood development movement. Go ahead. Name one.

  104. Re:bad idea. by silentsteel · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, it would not be a 70/30 split. If you begin to go down the path of who learns best in a given situation, neurotypicals would not survive in a classroom designed for people with an autism-spectrum disorder. People with ADD/ADHD would need their own prescribed teaching method, and so on. Some of each of the above likely fall on varying sides of the 70/30 split based on the logic that very few aspects of an individual human being's physiology and psychology are governed by one gene.

    I would be interested to see how these genetic quirks link with the various psychological/neurological disorders that are already recognized, at which point maybe something logical can be done with their treatment.

    --
    I cut it three times, and it's still too short.
  105. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Trespass · · Score: 1, Troll

    I don't get it. What is not to like about pot smoking, gun toting, anarchists?

    The smell.

  106. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Urkki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    now now if you ran a business you'd be a libertarian too.

    Unless you live in a country where the current government is actually able to do it's job (maintaining an environment and a society where you can run your business) well enough for a business owner to not want to get rid most of it, of course...

  107. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the hell is twitter?

  108. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by drakkos · · Score: 1

    ...make the gheyness legal, they stop breading...

    Oh no, my sandwiches!

    Drakkos

    --
    You are young... Life has been kind to you. You will learn...
  109. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by lifesizeactionfigure · · Score: 1

    WTFOMGBBQ?? Oh noes he didn't! PAULBOTS ATTACK! Just kidding. I love Ron Paul.

  110. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    That would explain a lot right now.

    And if this defect is so frequent it must have some kind of survivability bonus, or is it just that these people tends to get more sex?

    Maybe insurance companies will take on to this and increase the fee if you have this genetic variation.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  111. Learning from mistake vs persistence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am under the impression that many people make a confusion between "learning from their mistakes" and "persist in their behavior".

    Let's say a baby tries to force a circle into a round shape. It won't work, period. The baby should notice it and try some other combination.
    Now imagine a man (or woman) expressing a "non authorized" opinion in a dictatorship. He (or she) will be severly punished for his (or her) "mistake". Does it mean that he (she) should bail out because it is a mistake? He will acknowledge it is a "mistake" according to his opponent's standard, but may decide to persist in what he perceives as the correct behavior. There is an actual learning, the person simply have decided to persist in what isn't considered a mistake, even if the chances of success is basically the same as the baby's in the previous example (with more dangerous consequences though).

  112. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You are very insightful.

    I think that the problem has to do with FUD. There was a PBS documentary about the divisive nature of US politics. Many towns/cities which were typically neutral made sudden shifts. Some became Republican. Some become Democrat. In all cases, they found that there was a lot of FUD being spread around. I'm just paraphrasing. That's the message that I got from it.

    The bottom line is that we have more in common with each other, than we do with the politicians that supposedly match our views. Yet, we turn to those polticians and get betrayed time and time again.

  113. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We make our own soap, rather than depending on the government for it!
    The smelly hippies that are living in the trees at Berkeley are Greens or militant greenpeace members.

  114. Re:bad idea. by Blackhalo · · Score: 1

    Some people can learn by being told what not to do, some can learn from observing the mistakes of others, and some have to pee on the electric fence themselves.

    With at 30% incident rate, I highly doubt that low dopamine levels is a defect.

    http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html

    --
    "There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
  115. hmmm by crossmr · · Score: 1

    Between Asperger's syndrome and this people on the internet will never have to take responsibility for their behaviour again.

  116. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by cain · · Score: 2, Informative

    "A couple years back"? His ratings have been in the low thirties for years.

  117. Re:bad idea. by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

    Ideally everybody would have their own education tailor-made to them by the exact sort of people that can best teach them. But...we can't. It's ridiculously impractical.

    But we already do that. Or rather I try to teach my children some things, but I suspect many other parents do too.

    There are things I can't teach them (Quantum Physics, Future Car Repair, ...), but that's only a small part of their education. Walking, talking, and not using their fists[1] are far more important.

    [1] If it's important enough to get into a fist fight over; use a rifle!

  118. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Velorium · · Score: 1

    My mistake.

  119. In other slashdot news, by roguegramma · · Score: 1

    In other slashdot news, editors don't lear from posting dupes:
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/24/2220209

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
  120. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When there's a red button and a blue button and they both give electric shocks, maybe the stay-at-homes are the most intelligent of them all. oh yeah and there's a green button but it's in the ceiling and nothing happens when you stretch for it.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  121. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Kjella · · Score: 2, Funny

    Those next few people are always followed by some karma whore looking for that Insightful mod for pointing out those next few people.

    Immidiately followed by some smartass karma whore that explains how this leads to recursive explainations of the parent post.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  122. Hold on a minute... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Every book on this area I've ever read says that the part of the brain that is responsible for cause/effect doesn't wire up properly until you're 18 and that's why teens/kids do dumb stuff. Has that one been thrown out as wrong now?

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    1. Re:Hold on a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, learning consequences takes time. What this shows is that it occurs more easily for some people than for others. Your body doesn't simply go, "Ok, the earth has made 18 revolutions around the sun since I've been born, time to form those consequences brain circuits."

      Frankly, the article was better the last time this was posted, but we all know that slashdot editors don't learn from dupes.

  123. So did Rick Astley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Apparently, so does Rick Astley..
    "Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down"

  124. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

    .. or explainming the joke.

    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  125. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 2, Funny

    There is no cake to eat with it.

    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  126. I fail to see why that's a bad thing, though by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    TBH, I fail to see why that's a bad thing anyway, assuming that our goal _is_ to give all people the best education we can. (No kid left behind, etc.) As opposed to, say, a some fucked-up kind of show-business to make under-achieving parents of under-achieving children feel better.

    Well, or let me better qualify "bad thing." I don't think it's worse than putting everyone in the same classroom and then dumbing it down to the level where even the... _special_ kid on the right can feel special for being able to draw doodles like everyone else.

    Most (all?) of Europe isn't afraid to separate kids by skill level, at least at high school level. It wasn't just the USSR and co. I don't think it caused anything bad, so far. Even the USSR and its satellite states, for all we see their economical failures, look around you how many of your co-workers come from their universities. They managed to produce some well educated people. (Then they failed to use them, but that's a different failure.)

    Splitting by learning method actually seems to me like the logical next step. Instead of dumping someone into the lowest bracket just because their wiring doesn't fit the teachers' style, maybe there is some other way of teaching them stuff.

    And before it sounds like either a nerd-elitist opinion or conversely some kind of plot to isolate and oppress nerds, remember that ADHD and Aspergers' aren't all roses even as educational prospects go. For each ADHD kid that's found his niche with his home computer, there are a couple who just flunk because they just simply get bored to tears in classroom. For each Aspie who's become some great programmer or physicist, there'll be one or two who just got bullied around and discouraged, and maybe backed into some useless interest (as an Aspie you _will_ have a very narrow focus of interest) like remembering all the football scores since 1900. Or flunked because their narrow interests didn't include geography and victorian english literature and God knows what else. Maybe we can guide them down a better path.

    Even for neurotypicals, well, maybe they can do better if they don't have to compete with the local autism-spectrum disorder kid. Or at least find a better passtime than taunting the nerd.

    It won't be a neat 70/30 split, duly noted, but it will be a good start anyway. We don't build all tools the exact same way, we don't raise all animals the same way (raising chicken can be slightly different from raising sheep), we don't plant all plants the same way, so, umm, I fail to see why we must teach everyone the same way _if_ we have enough proof that their brains do work differently.

    It will be more expensive, though. That much is obvious.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:I fail to see why that's a bad thing, though by silentsteel · · Score: 1

      I, actually, agree with your statement. I was merely pointing out that splitting the classrooms down this 70/30 split would not be sufficient as there are many other issues that fall into the same arena of consideration if we are going to go down that path. For an individual there might be some overlap, but who knows? Definitely more study needs to be done before we would embark on a change in the educational system of this magnitude.

      The knee-jerk reaction to this is to split the classes along this line, which as you say is not a bad start, but if it is not done with a solid plan in place for more diversification as more is learned about the brain, then it will accomplish very little long term.

      Sadly, it is likely a moot point because of the red tape surrounding the educational system currently.

      --
      I cut it three times, and it's still too short.
    2. Re:I fail to see why that's a bad thing, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Having a functioning MR daughter, nothing was more heartbreaking than having her shoved into the normal classroom.

      We would get teachers that would flat kick her out of class, citing that it was too hard for her to comprehend (it's true), and that because of NCLB, she was dragging the class down.

      She was bounced at least 12 times her senior year, for the first 3 weeks, from classroom to classroom.

      However, the smaller the town, the fewer number of those type of kids you will have, and then you have to put the kid that can't even move in the wheelchair with the ones that can wash dishes, but can't comprehend more than single command sentences.

      You would almost need a one on one with those kids, because with MR kids, the same tactic doesn't work with one that works with the other.

      Even now, the special Ed teachers are SWAMPED with tons and tons of paperwork, and goals for each child, and personalized instructions. Still, there is something missing.

      Yea, it would be a lot more expensive.

    3. Re:I fail to see why that's a bad thing, though by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1
      Please sir, you must become president of my country! Also, would you be interested in adopting a 15 y.o.? {/beging rant} *stands up and wipes his tears*

      Now, seriously, I have to agree with you wholehartedly, seen as I've went through all that, albeit on a smaller scale, and I believe that our own school system suffers from this even more than in america, though I might be suffering an inverse 'grass is greener' syndrome.

      PS I live in bulgaria.

      PPS Mods, this guy is the single reason to have a +11 Damn Right mod

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    4. Re:I fail to see why that's a bad thing, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed about most points, except the last line.

      Better teaching would be LESS expensive.

      That's because the chief problems restricting children from learning are caused by a (purposely?) dysfunctional educational establishment.

      If we fire virtually all the educational administration we will have plenty of money for teachers, students, and teaching material.

      Then, if we let the smart kids mostly learn on their own, with just a little adult guidance, the bill for teachers will go down too, while education will go up.

      I don't expect this to happen anytime soon. The plan to stupidize Americans has already succeeded.

  127. Hypnosis? by Msdose · · Score: 1

    I submitted this comment anonymously years ago because I'd forgotten my password.

    Your psychological and emotional states are united by neurotransmitters. For every psychological state you enter (building a stairway), emotional states corresponding to that state are created by neurotransmitters (satisfaction, accomplishment etc.) This process gives you your connection to reality. There is a one - to - one relationship between your emotional and psychological states. The emotional state is supposed to follow the psychological state but if the situation is reversed (drugs, hypnosis, religious bafflegab,) an incorrect reality will be created because of the one - to - one correspondence.

    Obviously the current research shows that a persons reality can be altered by their genetic implementation of the neurotransmitter scheme. Another story I read said research showed that nicotene altered people's ability to act on knowledge that smoking was harming them, so they kept on smoking anyway. Again, dopamine was the culprit.

  128. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    >.. or explainming the joke.

    Or pointing out spelling and grammar errors.

  129. Re:bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's just karma whoring. He's not saying anything of value. It's just another buzzword-compliant collection of words that looks like a post, like most of his flamebait.

  130. Re:Sockpuppets by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

    Where do I have to sign up to join the club?

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  131. A good thing by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone wants everyone else to set aside their personal feelings and agree with them, but no one wants to do that with their own.

    --
    This is my sig.
  132. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

    As opposed to letting the government solve it with a gun?

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  133. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Dahlgil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I also read an article about the dangers of making sweeping generalizations.

  134. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what behavior *doesn't* have genetic links?

    That's like having human behavior without a "breathng" link.

  135. The correct conclusion? by alphalfa · · Score: 1

    I suspect this is actually a case of a genetic variant that prevents science journalists from reporting science findings accurately. The chances that a single gene is responsible for our ability to learn from our mistakes is slim to none.

  136. Article error by tobias.sargeant · · Score: 1

    There's an error in the newsweek article (backed up by the report in Science). The genetic variant isn't found in 30% of humans. The 30% number is the deficit of dopamine receptors in parts of the brains of people with the variant. The allele frequency is not actually discussed. Surely if the reporter had stopped to think about what they were writing, the effect of 30% of the population being unable to learn from their mistakes would have been obvious.

  137. Re:You Mean "Republican" by gordo3000 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    how is this interesting and not flamebait ;-)

    just wondering, but how are republicans running the US into the ground? I mean honestly, republican pushed through policies. I in fact, did not vote for Bush because he is an evangelical candidate, not a republican (kind of like most NE democrats wouldn't vote for a blue dog democrat) but when people feel like blaming all the country's problems on the particular party in power, I'd like to know what they are talking about.

    and obviously, I'd wonder how do those particular situations differ compared to say, clinton's presidency.

  138. Fancy words for "stupid" by technomom · · Score: 1

    ...one that leaves their brains with few dopamine receptors, molecules that act as docking ports for one of the neurochemicals that carry our thoughts and emotions. A paucity of dopamine receptors is linked to an inability to avoid self-destructive behavior such as illicit drug use. But the effects spill beyond such extremes. Children with the genetic variant are unable to learn from mistakes. No matter how many tests they blow by partying the night before, the lesson just doesn't sink in.

    Sure are a lot of fancy words for "Some kids are born stupid."

  139. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being moderated funny is potentially worse for the recipient than being modified flamebait. A flamebait mod reduces karma by one. A funny mod doesn't affect karma at all, but it increases the post's score such that someone else can negative moderate it.

  140. Is there an opposite condition? by Puffy+Director+Pants · · Score: 1

    Not sure if it'd be something like learning too much from your mistakes, but I do wonder if there's a consequence from having too many dopamine receptors?

  141. Summary of Article by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Article Summary: 30% of teenagers are immature. Good call.

  142. Re:Like...The American voters?! by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    As if quoting the Daily Mirror is any more intelligent than voting for George Bush?

  143. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by DrWho520 · · Score: 1

    You are assuming 100% of US citizens vote. If you look at the 2004 general election, total voter turnout, including absentees and overseas voters, is 60.93%. So 30% is darn near half of that, which is what the final tally was.

    --
    The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
  144. Like invading Iran? by sammyo · · Score: 1

    Yes, a tad flip and no where near enough conspiracy theorist for this crowd, but just think about it for a moment...

  145. 99 percent by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

    of the IT people I work with apparently have this gene.

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  146. Use this sound to learn from your mistake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoosh!

  147. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    That would explain a lot right now.

    And if this defect is so frequent it must have some kind of survivability bonus, or is it just that these people tends to get more sex?

    Maybe insurance companies will take on to this and increase the fee if you have this genetic variation.

    Survivability bonus: Makes oft-hearted voters (note how I didn't use the "l-word") QQ so we keep them alive. Then they get to irresponsibly create more of these drains.

    Push the fuckin' button already, we're done. Let us go out before our new genetically-predisposed-to-stupid overlords take over!

  148. Re:FUCKING JEW NEVER LEARN THE MISTAKES by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    You've just met twitter.

  149. I've been saying this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darwin had his theory "Evolution of the Species". What he didn't count on was that there would be a peak sometime in the 1950's to 1970's where we would see the beginnings of the "De-evolution of the species".

    We're going back to becoming monkeys in a few thousand years. Think "Planet of the Apes"

  150. It's not a "dumb gene", it's a dumb diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are assuming that the lack of formation of those receptors is a "genetic glitch", but there is plenty of scientific research indicating that the formation of important receptors in the brain is controlled by what the mother is eating during the third trimester of pregnancy. Omega-3 fatty acids and choline are the primary influences on the formation of those receptors, not genetic predisposition. If you examine the diets of the women who had those children lacking in dopamine receptors, you'll see that they weren't eating fish or eggs or other sources of omega-3s and choline enough.

  151. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then the answer is clear: you suck.

  152. Dupes explanation by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Finally, the dupes that appear here are explained with a genetic condition! If this is genetic, does that mean it's a real disability that you should be able to collect money on, i.e. "I can't learn to not screw up, therefore I have a disability & should get paid!"

    --
    stuff |
  153. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    Or perhaps, alternately, many of us consider it our personal duty to help our neighbors. We further realize that subcontracting that duty to the government doesn't work well.

    If you look at the Charitable giving rate in the US, it's quite clear we are concerned about our neighbors, and we will contribute money towards the effort.

    Your view seems constrained by the notion that only the government is capable of executing the concept of 'good will towards all.'

    The people in the United States can, and do, execute the 'good will towards all.' concept directly & personally.

    Saying 'eh, let the government handle it.' is both lazy and ultimately counterproductive.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  154. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    A relevant 1st post?
    You must be new here.

    Once in a blue moon a first post is not only on-topic, not flamebait, not a troll, but modded up!

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  155. shocking by .Spyder78. · · Score: 1

    No matter how many tests they blow by partying the night before, the lesson just doesn't sink in

    and here i thought it was because they just didn't give a crap

  156. Republican's? by charnov · · Score: 1

    So this is where Bush's supporters come from!

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  157. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    and thus is funny.

    The next few people playing off of the original joke with their own variation are hoping to get caught up in a time-honoured slashdot tradition of karma-whoring threads.

    "Funny" doesn't add karma. If someone is making an obvious joke, he isn't karma whoring.

    In Soviet Russia, karma whores YOU!

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  158. Re:bad idea. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Teaching methods don't fail students. Some teaching methods are less effective than others based on a student's individual learning style, but no one style will match all students and no students have just one style. Hence, the 70% solution is perfectly fine in public education.

  159. Other end of the spectrum? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

    This makes me curious .... if a genetic "glitch" can make certain people less prone to learning from their mistakes, I wonder if there's something that makes a portion of the population overly sensitive to mistakes? You'd have symptoms of timidity, anxiety, an unwillingness to take risks, overreactions to negativity, etc. Wouldn't surprise me if another third of the population might fall into this category, too. It's just a guess, but it would be a pretty sensible distribution, it seems.

  160. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They just found the gene for being a tard.

    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  161. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should read one on reading comprehension too.

    Q: What was my comment about
    a) All Dems flip flop
    b) All Reps never change their minds
    c) More Dems change their minds than Republicans
    d) Both a and b

    Answer: ROT3('z')

  162. Misleading summary by Momomoto · · Score: 1

    Well, until recently, pretty often. It 30% shows me there is obviously some form of survival benefit to this for it to be so high.

    Newsweek misinterpreted the numbers in the article, which is why that figure seems so high.

    According to the actual journal article, it's not that 30% of children possess the allele that reduces dopamine receptor density.

    Rather, it's that children that possess the allele have a 30% reduction in dopamine receptor density.

    --
    "Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
  163. Most of my coworkers and managers by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    suffered from that. :)

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  164. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by afxgrin · · Score: 1

    The tags of Republicans and Democrats on this article is just awesome.

  165. Mod parent up! by Jabbrwokk · · Score: 1

    That's a really good point, too bad you posted AC...

  166. Genetic glitch that makes kids repeat errors... by Dupedupeshakur · · Score: 1

    They're called parents.

  167. Re:bad idea. by andreyvul · · Score: 1

    If it's important enough ... use a rifle

    Eric S. Raymond? Is that you?

    --
    proud caffeine whore
  168. What are they called? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are called idiots.

  169. Think of all the girls that gave great Blow Jobs.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and got it in the I*, and stopped working for Apple thereafter.

    Legend:

    * - iSuck, iGotLoadedInTheEye, iDontGiveHeadAnymore, iThinkSteveJobbsDoesntGiveHeadAnymoreSinceHeHadanLSDsexChange, iDontCareAboutModerators, iThinkBadKarmaIsGoodForEarSex.

  170. Original research article? by ponos · · Score: 1

    Anyone has a link to the original research article? The newsweek story is quite vague for my hardcore scientific taste.

  171. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by Monsuco · · Score: 1

    The major difference between the US and other "first world" societies is that US politics very rarely includes the concept of "good will towards all".

    On average, people in the USA donate FAR more to charities than people in other western nations, what people in the US seem to realize is that there is no such thing as a "compassionate" government program.

  172. must resist.... ugh! by oneTheory · · Score: 1

    I didn't have the free will to refrain from posting this off-topic comment!

  173. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by sjames · · Score: 1

    The Democrats re-elected Clinton for a second term, but the Republicans re-elected *BUSH* (ducking)

  174. Re:Epic fail indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like filming something at 1 fps or posting completely unwatchable links?

    I mean, there's like 15 copies of this on YouTube, and you pick the one where you can't actually see him kicking?

  175. Seems It's Much Higher on /. by SkyDude · · Score: 1

    ..about 30 percent, the coils of their DNA carry a glitch...

    The percentage must be higher on /. Why else would we keep returning here every day?

    --
    == First cross river, then insult alligator.
  176. Re:Refusing to learn from mistakes? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

    The pot, the guns, and the anarchy? ;)

  177. Live and learn? by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    This may require a corollary for the axiom "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

  178. Besides, we need cannon fodder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, the gene is perpetuated because women reward those who have survived past cannon feeding attempts.

  179. Mario by mmwithpeanuts · · Score: 1

    Genetics do indeed play a role, as do epigentics and our environment in our behaviors. What some people are forgetting about is our choices, which at any given time may exceed 'influentially' all genetic and environmental factors. What one chooses even if one has done a behavior several times without the "oops, don't do that again!" gene, may choose not to do so based primarily on societal factors of disapproval, depending on what behavior is performed. If this is repeated with the Pavlovian reward/punishment system, the mechanism of choice can trump any gene anytime! If this is known as environmental, it is because the society has created this form of ultra environment within our physical environment for a reason. These experiments only confirm what was already known, only now things are being confirmed and identified and labeled. Believe me, to choose wisely is always in fashion, whereas we must pick our misbehaviors accordingly.

  180. not defect, but normal human variation by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Human society needs a variety of personality types from hyper-extroverts to near-austistic introverts. Even during ancient tribal hunting grousp we needed this variation to survive. To say there is a one-standard "normal" is ridiculous.

  181. Re:You Mean "Republican" by MrResistor · · Score: 1

    It's posts like this that make me sad about the /. mod system. One of the most cogent and succinct political arguments I've read in a long time, modded as a troll...

    But hey, at least I had the foresight to put you on my friends list so I got to read it anyway.

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  182. Re:You Mean "Republican" by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah, Slashdot's "moderation" system is so easily gamed that an army of rightwing trollMods routinely suppress plenty of my posts, and surely lots of others. A tiny minority can manipulate the discourse so the majority of people can't communicate facts to each other, no matter how well cited or argued. Which is of course perfect Republican territory.

    But there's so much truth against them now that some gets through. They're fighting a losing battle, and digging their hole to discredibility hell deeper, instead of finding a new game. So I think enough people are getting the message, despite a "lost generation" of hopeless hardcore rightwingers who won't quit until we pry their keyboards from their cold, dead hands.

    --

    --
    make install -not war