Scientists Find Gene That Predicts Happiness In Women

An anonymous reader writes "For reasons that scientists have not conclusively determined, women are happier than men. And now, researchers think that they may have pinpointed one of the reasons for that. They have found a gene in women that predicts the level of happiness in women. 'After controlling for various factors, ranging from age and education to income, the researchers found that women with the low-expression type of MAOA were significantly happier than others. Compared to women with no copies of the low-expression version of the MAOA gene, women with one copy scored higher on the happiness scale and those with two copies increased their score even more. While a substantial number of men carried a copy of the "happy" version of the MAOA gene, they reported no more happiness than those without it.'"

Comments

Spoilers

[GameboyRMH]

For reasons that scientists have not conclusively determined, women are happier than men

Spoilers: It's the difficulty of getting laid. A woman only has to ask "Sex?"

Re:Spoilers

[dkleinsc]

That's not true and you know it. If an 80-year-old woman came up to you and asked "Sex?", you'd probably leave very very quickly. Also, some guys don't just sleep with anything they can and want to evaluate potential partners for being decent-looking, reasonably healthy, and not crazy before jumping into bed.

Some real reasons women might be happier (as always, variations within a gender are much wider than variations between an average man and an average woman):
- Women tend to do a better job of building up a support network of friends and family, so if something goes wrong they have help they can call on.
- Moms tend to bond more closely with their children than dads. If you have kids, you're generally happier when you spend more time with them.
- As of quite recently, women are more educated than men, and also are more likely to be employed. Material security contributes a great deal towards happiness.

Re:Spoilers

[mcgrew]

Actually, I'd like to see the study that says woman are happier than men, because that flies in the face of my experience. Most of the women I know are either depressed or angry all the time.

The unhappy men I know are all married.

Re:Spoilers

[circletimessquare]

Also, some guys don't just sleep with anything they can and want to evaluate potential partners for being decent-looking, reasonably healthy, and not crazy before jumping into bed.

You are on the wrong website sir.

Re:Spoilers

[Hatta]

That's not true and you know it.

It's much closer to true than you want to admit. If you send a group of average looking college students onto campus to randomly proposition people of the opposite sex, the majority of females will get affirmative responses, and the majority of males will get negative responses. Women have a much easier time than men getting laid. That's scientific fact.

Re:Spoilers

[shadowrat]

But why do women tend to do those things? is it genetic? Is it the same gene that is identified in tfa that might influence this behavior?

Re:Spoilers

[dsvick]

Most of the women I know are either depressed or angry all the time.

And the common factor is ..... :)

sorry, had to!

Re:Spoilers

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'd like to see the study that says woman are happier than men, because that flies in the face of my experience. Most of the women I know are either depressed or angry all the time.

The unhappy men I know are all married.

Women are happy when they make men miserable.

Married men don't live longer - it just seems like it.

Re:Spoilers

[blop]

Actually, I'd like to see the study that says woman are happier than men, because that flies in the face of my experience. Most of the women I know are either depressed or angry all the time.

You should stop playing angry birds...

Re:Spoilers

[girlintraining]

Women have a much easier time than men getting laid. That's scientific fact.

Whoa there, partner. That's not science: That's social role. If you were in a different culture, it would be a different story. Try being a woman in feudal china: You had no rights. You slept with whomever the eldest male told you to. You married whomever your family told you to. For most of human history as it turns out, women were not given much choice on who they'd have sex with, and rape was a viable and commonly-practiced method of procreation. There's a 5% chance you're directly descended from Ghenghis Khan. And in pre-modern times, the spoils of a battle were often women. Generals had serious morale problems if they didn't produce enemy women on a regular basis -- it was one of the sign-up bonuses.

So don't tell me that it's a scientific fact. This isn't like gravity -- it existed 5 billion years ago, it'll still exist 5 billion years from now. That is a scientific fact. What you're talking about is just a re-arrangement of prejudices and commonly held conceptions and perceptions of the world as it exists right now. And if there's anything science teaches us, it's that the only constant... is change. These social values and ideas you think are eternally unchanging are right now in a state of flux; It's just happening too slowly for you to perceive it. So don't assume just because you, or even a thousand people like you, observe something and agree it's true that it becomes a scientific fact. Science has rules; One of which is to ensure your sample isn't biased. Yours... very much... is.

Re:Spoilers

[ColdWetDog]

Never eat a place called Mom's.
Never play poker with a man named Doc.
Never sleep with a woman with a woman who has more problems than you do.

That, along with a roll of duct tape, some WD-40, a screwdriver and a hammer will get you pretty far in this world.

Re:Spoilers

[Hatta]

Fair enough. Women have an easier time getting laid than men, with the exception of rape.

Re:Spoilers

[tilante]

So... if something is limited in the time and space to which it applies, it can't be a scientific fact? Where do you draw the line? I can definitely see the merit in pointing out to the previous poster that his statement is not a universal -- but to say that it isn't a scientific fact is simply untrue. It's a scientific fact in the United States in the early 21st century.

Re:Spoilers

[scot4875]

If an 80-year-old woman came up to you and asked "Sex?", you'd probably leave very very quickly.

If an 80-year-old woman came up to an 80-year-old man and asked "sex?" she'd probably be getting laid right now. The point isn't that women can have sex with whoever they want, the point is that they can get sex whenever they want.

But actually, 80 years old is probably where that might start to invert a bit, because men are so scarce by that age that the available ones are probably getting as much as they want anyway. For the first 60 years of life it's not even close.

--Jeremy

Re:Spoilers

[scot4875]

And those living in feudal China. Don't forget those.

--Jeremy

Re:Spoilers

[digitig]

So what you're saying is that they've discovered the Gene-spot.

Re:Spoilers

[misexistentialist]

Apex fallacy as usual. As if the average man's life had any value in feudal China. Men don't even get to be spoils of war, they are just killed. For a woman to successfully give birth she has to receive some consideration. There are very real biological factors that prioritize females above males at all times.

Re:Spoilers

[sourcerror]

Are the married woman happier than before?

Re:Spoilers

[girlintraining]

So... if something is limited in the time and space to which it applies, it can't be a scientific fact? Where do you draw the line?

It becomes a scientific fact when it can be reproduced by others reliably and consistently. The experiments we conduct today would have worked 200 years ago, or 2 million years ago, or many years from now. They are not time-sensitive, and they don't depend on the state of the observer (in this case, the cultural values of the observer), to be reproduced.

What you're saying is an analog for those stickers on bottles of oxygen "Warning: May cause cancer in the State of California." It's not a scientific fact if it only exists in one sample -- either it causes cancer everywhere, or something is wrong with California... not the other 49 states where it (apparently) doesn't cause cancer.

Re:Spoilers

[Sique]

College-aged women have an easier time getting laid.

Re:Spoilers

[Hatta]

and work on myself to make myself interesting enough to be worth someone's time

This is the hard part. I have no idea why someone would be interested in a person. People aren't interesting, ideas are interesting. Having ideas doesn't seem to make one interesting to other people though, except for rare exceptions. I'm lucky enough to have found one, but in general it seems that being an interesting person has more to do with being able to talk big without actually saying anything.

In fact I found the difference so substantial that I came to suspect the "women are choosers, men are beggars, because evolution" hypothesis was more a just-so story to describe a stable cultural pattern than a real scientific theory.

If you're interacting with them enough for them to form an opinion, then you're not doing the same experiment I described. It's literally walking up to someone saying hi, and propositioning them.

Re:Spoilers

[mk1004]

That, along with a roll of duct tape, some WD-40, a screwdriver and a hammer will get you pretty far in this world.

I wonder how many of those items might be in 50 Shades of Grey?

Re:Spoilers

[invid]

For most of human history as it turns out, women were not given much choice on who they'd have sex with, and rape was a viable and commonly-practiced method of procreation.

Most of human history is a mere 5000 years or so. Modern humans have existed for over 100000 years. Genus homo for at least 3 million. Those guys lived in small family groups. Sexual selection by women might have had a larger impact in those days, and could have led to genetically transferred sexual predispositions by women. Once the genome is more fully understood, these processes can be subject to real science.

Re:Spoilers

[Daniel Dvorkin]

average looking college students onto campus to randomly proposition people of the opposite sex

"Average looking college students" of both sexes are a pretty attractive group as a whole; they're generally healthy, in their reproductive prime, and have at least enough social status to get into college in the first place. So the experiences of the participants in this study aren't necessarily typical of what people from a demographically broader group would see--and given that the specific ways in which college students are attractive (especially youth and fertility) are generally understood to make up a larger component of women's attractiveness than of men's, I suspect that the results for them female study participants are more biased than those for the male participants.

Re:Spoilers

[outsider007]

I'm guessing there's lots of them. All white middle class feminist christian Americans who live in the same state. How close am I?

Re:Spoilers

[cecom]

Science doesn't mean what you think it means. It is funny because you are obviously wrong and blatantly biased, yet you persist. You may not like it, or you may have not experienced it if you are a female (for which I am sorry), but for anyone who is not spending time in their parents basement it is very obvious. The number of independent experiments confirm it.

Re:Spoilers

[dkleinsc]

Never sleep with a woman with a woman who has more problems than you do.

Actually, I wouldn't mind being the comfort of a woman who's girlfriend is messed up, so long as the woman herself isn't messed up too.

Re:Spoilers

[Tyler Durden]

This is the hard part. I have no idea why someone would be interested in a person. People aren't interesting, ideas are interesting. Having ideas doesn't seem to make one interesting to other people though, except for rare exceptions. I'm lucky enough to have found one, but in general it seems that being an interesting person has more to do with being able to talk big without actually saying anything.

I think that's the most insight packed into a small paragraph that I've ever seen. Damn.

Re:Spoilers

[Velex]

You say that now....

Re:Spoilers

[PlusFiveTroll]

>Whoa there, partner. That's not science: That's social role.

In the vast majority of the animal kingdom, the female chooses which male partner to breed with. The males of a great many species look superficially different then the females. Bright colors, fancy displays, loud noises and songs, antlers and horns.. These are the things most commonly found on males. The females, especially in non-pairing or social grouping animals are very bland in color.

That's not social role, that's evolution saying it's easy for a woman to get laid.

Re:Spoilers

[shutdown -p now]

There are similar studies done across cultures, and they support the same thing.

There's a fairly obvious explanation for that, too. From evolutionary perspective, it makes more sense for man to have sex with as many women as he can, since that increases the chances of him spreading his genes around. So, natural selection favors men like that.

For a woman, that same perspective makes for bonding with a single man. She doesn't increase the chance of spreading her genes by having sex with multiple men - it's one baby at a time either way - but, what with primates being strong adherents of the K strategy, and with Homo in particular having significantly higher than average male contribution to progeny, it is important to secure the attention of one particular male to contribute to her progeny - which he'll do if it's also his progeny (or at least he believes so).

Of course, it's all somewhat more complicated - for example, from the above also follows that sexual selection by women will favor men who don't openly fuck everything that moves - females will tend to avoid such males because they're more likely to spread their effort across the many children they have, but they can't avoid them if they don't know. And so we arrive at the present "pretend to be monogamous when somebody's looking" arrangement...

Re:Spoilers

[Sigg3.net]

And proper backup!

Let's not lose focus here, sheesh!

Re:Spoilers

[Sigg3.net]

So where's the culture where women prefer chubby IT-consultants with neck beards?

Don't' tell me. Millions of years into the future!?

Re:Spoilers

[Carewolf]

That, along with a roll of duct tape, some WD-40, a screwdriver and a hammer will get you pretty far in this world.

You don't need a hammer, that's just a luxury item, you can always find something suitable for hitting things with if you need to. Improvising duct-tape and WD-40 is harder, and while some screws can be operated with coins and improvised objects, most can not, and a good screw-driver is also good for much more than just screwing around.

Re:Spoilers

[tilante]

So... if something is limited in the time and space to which it applies, it can't be a scientific fact? Where do you draw the line?

It becomes a scientific fact when it can be reproduced by others reliably and consistently. The experiments we conduct today would have worked 200 years ago, or 2 million years ago, or many years from now. They are not time-sensitive, and they don't depend on the state of the observer (in this case, the cultural values of the observer), to be reproduced.

The correctly formulated version of the hypothesis -- "Women asking random men for sex are much more likely to get a positive response than men asking women, in the late 20th/early 21st century United States" -- can be reproduced by others reliably and consistently. Indeed, it has been. And this experiment doesn't depend on the observer's cultural values -- a Muslim Imam could be the observer, or an alien. The person asking for sex and the person being asked are experimental subjects who are being observed; they are not the observer, if the experiment is being conducted correctly.

And here's something else - a scientific experiment is supposed to be reproducible with the same results, so long as no significant variables are changed. In this case, culture of the test subjects is a significant variable. If you change it, you're no longer conducting the same experiment, and so your results are expected to be different.

To put it another way -- if you were in a physics lab, and the TA said, "Okay, today we're doing a lab on gravity and acceleration. If I drop a ball, it's going to accelerate at 9.8 meters per second squared..." would you immediately interrupt the TA to say that's not true, since if he dropped the ball on Mars it would be different? Or would you make the assumption that the TA is talking about the acceleration here and now, in the classroom where he's speaking?

People don't normally go around fully qualifying every statement of fact that they make, simply because it would take too much time. Now, the original poster was restating the results of the studies that he was talking about in an overly-general way... but that doesn't mean that those studies were not scientific. It just means that he's either overgeneralizing (which the first part of your post was an excellent counterpoint to), or that he's communicating poorly. In neither case does that affect the scientific standing of the studies that he's basing his statement on.

Re:Spoilers

[jheath314]

For most of human history as it turns out, women were not given much choice on who they'd have sex with, and rape was a viable and commonly-practiced method of procreation.

Now it's your turn to back up your assertions. While I agree that there has been a significant power difference between the genders for most (if not all) of human history, that is different from saying women had not much choice in the matter of who they ended up with. Humans are relatively unique among the primates in using pair-bonding as the dominant reproductive strategy (where almost every male has a chance to pass on his genes), rather than the alpha-male hierarchy seen in chimp, gorilla, and other ape societies. Genghis Khan is notable because he is the exception, rather than the rule, in our social organization.

Moreover, I would argue that human intelligence, and much of the culture that flows from it, is a sexually-selected trait, much like the feathers on a peacock's tail... females are generally attracted to men who can conspicuously show off their mental agility and creativity through displays such as music and dance, or through the accumulation of wealth. If women had no choice in who they mated with, these displays would be pointless from an evolutionary perspective. It is precisely because women had a choice in who they paired with that the selection pressure for intelligence far exceeded what was necessary for mere survival of the species.

Re:Spoilers

[circletimessquare]

some people in this world think of relationships not in terms of financial equations or equations of control and force

the "truths" you speak of don't apply to me. only to your insecure, shallow, petty way you think about the people around you. which will doom you to only meet other insecure, shallow, petty people like yourself. please don't mistake the lame "rules of engagement" you believe in apply to me, or the rest of the world. they only apply to your pathetic life, and define the parameters by which your life and your relationships will be shallow and weak, and inferior to others who actually believe in personal integrity and emotional fidelity as most important

i read posts like yours, and all i can think is "thanks be to praise i am not you and i am not leading your stunted life"

Re:Spoilers

[cavebison]

Gender doesn't come into it. Very few of the people I've known throughout my life, male or female, have been what I'd call truly kind, generous, giving, altruistic people. Most people, all over the world, are generally fairly selfish. That doesn't have to be a value judgement either, it's just how human beings are. Very few of us see past our immediate concerns.

Re:Spoilers

[Hatta]

Well, no being an "interesting person" (socially attractive) is about being witty, socially fluent, attentive, confident, etc.

Right, it's about how good you can bullshit. That appears to be the only skill that matters in any area of life.

Re:Spoilers

[mattack2]

You don't think we have alpha males in our species?

Seems to me like the 50 year old car salesman who has a 20-something wife or girlfriend is the alpha male in his community. (Basically, the local maximum, by some considerations.)

Yay!

[r4wbin]

The world is saved!

Re:Yay!

[tattood]

Once they make a pill to activate this gene, then yes.

Multiple orgasms

[Anonymous Coward]

That gene wouldn't happen to have an association with the one that allows for multiple orgasms in women, would it?

Re:Multiple orgasms

[WillAffleckUW]

That gene wouldn't happen to have an association with the one that allows for multiple orgasms in women, would it?

Now that is actually a good question ...

GATTACA

[GameboyRMH]

Now you can analyze your girlfriend's* DNA and see if she's only acting happy and would become miserable after marriage!

*Yeah this is Slashdot but the theory is sound

Re:GATTACA

[kelemvor4]

Now you can analyze your girlfriend's* DNA and see if she's only acting happy and would become miserable after marriage!

*Yeah this is Slashdot but the theory is sound

I think Slashdot users are more likely to hit the powerball than gain the ability to test this theory.

Re:GATTACA

[CubicleZombie]

Now you can analyze your girlfriend's* DNA and see if she's only acting happy and would become miserable after marriage!

It's a lot easier than that. Just plan a wedding. Whatever she's like during that process is what she'll be like after marriage. Bridezilla == Wifezilla.

Then throw a screaming baby and some surging hormones into the mix.

Somebody kill me.

Re:GATTACA

[GameboyRMH]

I think covert DNA collection and analysis is easier than planning a wedding.

Re:GATTACA

[Voyager529]

Now you can analyze your girlfriend's* DNA and see if she's only acting happy and would become miserable after marriage!

*Yeah this is Slashdot but the theory is sound

I think Slashdot users are more likely to hit the powerball than gain the ability to test this theory.

I'd postulate that a Slashdot user hitting the powerball would find themselves quite capable of testing this theory. Also, I'm willing to be my own test subject.

Re:GATTACA

[GodfatherofSoul]

Interesting point. Weird as it might sound, I went on a Bridezillas tv show binge a while back and was blown away by the way some of those women acted. I've been disgusted for a long time with what weddings have become, but I see some logic behind guys who seem to bail weeks or months before the big day.

Re:GATTACA

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you can analyze your girlfriend's* DNA and see if she's only acting happy and would become miserable after marriage!

*Yeah this is Slashdot but the theory is sound

Good luck with that. My wife was a peach for a full 6 years before I married her, then she flipped a switch and became another person that I'd like to live without. I don't think even a dna test would have sniffed that one out.

Re:GATTACA

[hackula]

Just got married last weekend. Kept things simple with close to zero stress. Saved 20 grand and everyone's sanity. Wife was easy going and chill about everything. Pro tip: if your bride-to-be is freaking the fuck out about flowers, food, or chairs, then she is a psychopath. Do not marry a psychopath! This should go without saying, but somehow it is become the norm. Marry a woman, not a spoiled child.

Re:GATTACA

[fatherjoecode]

Yeah but Bridezillas is a reality show and as we all know, reality shows by and large do not reflect reality.

Re:GATTACA

[Anonymous Coward]

You joke, but I sometimes wish I'd been able to do this. My soon to be ex wife (who is divorcing me, not the other way around) is probably not a holder of the gene the article discusses. She leaps to the worst case scenario in any situation and assumes it will happen. It basically ruined our marriage.

Re:GATTACA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you. To each their own, but I question the sanity of people who would, for example, stress out about superficial things (OMG! The flowers don't match the bride's maid dresses!) and put themselves into debt for a wedding. If you're a millionaire and $20k is small change, fine, but much fun can be had at a wedding without it costing a lot of money, and $20k can go to a lot more useful things even if you do have it (e.g., a good chunk of a down payment on a house).

My wife and I did a simple wedding with friends and family in my parents backyard, had a lot of fun with a barbeque and live music, then we got out of there with my dad's fancy car (we borrowed it), and went to a nice resort for the weekend. Done. No limo, no expensive venue, no multi-thousand-dollar wedding dress (still a nice dress!), a nice but not insanely expensive cake, a decent suit, etc. I can't think of any of the basics we missed out on, just a lot of things we couldn't afford and wouldn't use again anyway. All that extravagant wedding stuff is just a way for wedding planners and wedding service people to rip you off by convincing you that you "need" more stuff to have a good wedding.

We're celebrating 20 years this year. Evidently none of the expensive stuff mattered.

Re:GATTACA

[mdielmann]

Somebody kill me.

You ignored the warning signs, didn't you?

Re:GATTACA

[khallow]

Do not marry a psychopath!

Make her a CEO instead.

Re:GATTACA

[burning-toast]

Congratulations! I also was married last weekend. I got lucky and found a wife who basically was not interested in the designer / Disney / fairytale wedding either. She only wanted a 1/3 karat single stone engagement ring and 1/3 karat total wedding band (around $1000 for both) for "practicality" reasons. I spent less than a grand on the wedding and reception and that included booking all of our nuclear families (and their spouses / kids), and a couple of close friends in hotels for 2 days (8 rooms) since most of them had to drive for about 6-7 hours to get to us from out of state. She picked up a skirt at Kohl's for $80 which made a perfect wedding dress (looked the part too) and we had a nice BBQ at a local forest preserve afterwards ($45 park reservation + $250 in food and charcoal). We definitely had the means by which to spend more money on this whole affair but neither of us felt we needed to (I asked her what she wanted first before offering my opinion). Both of us couldn't be happier about our decision as our financial life was not disrupted by any of this (total cost ~$2,000 split over multiple months). And that was for doing everything in Chicagoland, not in the sticks somewhere.

So yeah, find yourself a bride who doesn't feel that the expense of the wedding is the more important part over the experience of it. Weddings are not supposed to be a celebration of how fast or how much debt you can rack up throwing a party, they are supposed to be fundamentally more important than that. Besides, your lives will likely have other big purchases not too far down the road which would be a better use of capital (house, cars, children, etc). Find a worthwhile bride as the parent poster pointed out.

- Toast

Re:GATTACA

[burning-toast]

Break her expectations and that might be a possible outcome. Find yourself a woman without expectations of some fantasy wedding they have been dreaming up based on a Disney movie they saw in their childhood and you are golden.

Choosing to marry a woman expecting a fantasy wedding, not communicating fully about expectations before hand, and then breaking her expectations is your fault three times over (at least).

- Toast

Re:GATTACA

[hackula]

This is not something you "do" or "decide" if you are the groom. The bride is going to do what the bride is going to do. The trick is to find a sane one. Not all women are irresponsible. Also, you can still have a really nice wedding for a reasonable amount. We spent ~5k. We also only invited close friends and family. By not inviting the people we don't like anyway, we had just as nice of a wedding as any of the 50k weddings I have been to.

Re:GATTACA

[mattack2]

and $20k can go to a lot more useful things even if you do have it (e.g., a good chunk of a down payment on a house).

HAHAHAHA.. Good joke.

(I agree with your statements in theory though.)

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

the gene is incredibly rare.

Hair?

[Chemisor]

This gene wouldn't be the one responsible for blond hair, would it?

Re:Hair?

[wonkey_monkey]

Blondes only have more fun because they're easier to find in the dark.

Re:Hair?

[200_success]

That would explain dumb blondes.

Re:Hair?

[WillAffleckUW]

Blondes only have more fun because they're easier to find in the dark.

Actually, some science indicates that men can read blondes blush responses and emotional reactions more easily than brunettes, so they are more likely to pick up on negative responses and positive responses, thus actually causing blondes to have more fun.

Same tends to be true of redheads, btw.

Re:Hair?

[wonkey_monkey]

Same tends to be true of redheads, ftw.

FTFY.

Wait. What?

[squiggleslash]

There's such a thing as a happy woman?

Re:Wait. What?

[RivenAleem]

If there are, I haven't met them ... oh wait.

Re:Wait. What?

[GameboyRMH]

A friend told me about his racing school teacher who was divorced many times and had discovered the secret to happy marriage: Add a piece of jewellery to the budget for every new set of tires.

For the average slashdotter just replace "new set of tires" with "new computer/PC overhaul"

Re:Wait. What?

[vbraga]

In my humble experience, the occasional flowers or chocolate box in an unexpected day works as well as a piece of jewellery every few years.

Re:Wait. What?

[Inda]

I've found that to be the quickest way of being accused of something.

"Chocolates? But it's not even my brithday. What have you broken?"

I jest. It's more like:

"Chocolates? Is it that time of year again? I'll shave my legs."

I jest.

I wish.

As a man, all I have to say about this news is

[circletimessquare]

it makes me unhappy. It's unfair. Lucky women. Life sucks. Leave me alone.

MOAN gene... There, fixed for ya...

[macbeth66]

I always thought the gene that made women happy was what was in my pocket...

Get your mind out of the gutter! I meant in my wallet in my back pocket.

New GMO corn

[houstonbofh]

Now if Monsanto will just stick thing in their corn, it will make for a happier world!

Re:New GMO corn

[Richy_T]

I've seen Stargate.

Of course they're happier...

[Anonymous Coward]

in most states they don't have to put up with wives.

Stabbing in the dark

[Spy Handler]

The picture I'm getting is that genetic tech and biochemistry is still in the dark ages. I mean, they have no idea how gene X works on a biochemical level, so they take a survey of people with gene X and ask how happy they are... and call that a study.

The good news is, once they figure this shit out and can accurately model all the biochemical reactions inside the human body, the possibilities are endless.

Re:Stabbing in the dark

[AwesomeMcgee]

No, the possibilities end at getting a wife not to make something up and claim their husband didn't do it and should have known they were supposed to. That's way beyond genes, from my personal experiments a wife exhibits the following characteristics during said complaint time:
She grows slightly between 15% and 20% of her normal body size
She may speak a language foreign to her to ensure you understand her disdain
She will not be interrupted by anything less than 4000dB loud or less than 3500lbs of weight landing on her
She is invulnerable to all forms of damage including slashing and burning
She temporarily imbues deaf people with hearing to ensure her complaint is known.
She glows in the dark so you may not ignore her

you fail at biology forever

[Anonymous Coward]

reproduction for females is costly and dangerous, reproduction for males is cheap

for a man any cooter will do, for a woman a specific wang is sought after

and historically the number of wanted wangs has been much smaller than the number of available cooters, roughly 20% of men
------------
in other words, yes random screwing is easier for women but that's irrelevant because that's not what women want, they want screwing by the small subset of desirable men and that is just as hard if not harder harder than a random man finding a random woman

Re:you fail at biology forever

[GameboyRMH]

and historically the number of wanted wangs has been much smaller than the number of available cooters, roughly 20% of men

Damn I heard it was 40% :-(

Actually this explains a lot.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[Frosty Piss]

reproduction for females is costly and dangerous, reproduction for males is cheap

First of all sex is more than reproduction, you know this, right?

for a man any cooter will do, for a woman a specific wang is sought after

Second of all, you know that sex is for more than reproduction, right?

The VAST majority of sexually active females are *not* trying to have a baby.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[GameboyRMH]

I just figured he was Catholic :-P

Re:you fail at biology forever

[Scragglykat]

He's referring to the using of sex to get one's way/money/goods I believe. That's why when you get married, you stop getting it... because they already have everything you own. :o)

Re:you fail at biology forever

[GameboyRMH]

Troof! Bless the wise unattractive caveman who invented this.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[tnk1]

The VAST majority of sexually active females are *not* trying to have a baby.

That is true in a conscious way, but they generally want to have sex when they feel like having sex. They will feel like having sex when their body tells them they are interested. That interest tends to be generated when certain requirements are met, unless they're somehow impaired (i.e. drunk). Those requirements will tend to reflect who will provide good genes for a child. That's why a woman can like a man just fine and think he is awesome, but has no interest in having sex with him.

You may well not have sex for reproduction, but we've evolved various aspects of it for that purpose, and nature doesn't care if we intend to get pregnant or not, it will do its best to find the right reproductive partner to have sex with if there is even a chance reproduction may occur.

Obviously, women can override the immediate desire to have sex and certainly can try and avoid pregnancy, but she's probably not going to try to override her instincts about who she finds attractive.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[HeckRuler]

The VAST majority of sexually active females are *not* trying to have a baby.

Well, NOW, yeah. But for the vast majority and prior banging, on the evolutionary time scale, the purpose was baby-making.
I mean, we're talking about genetics and the evolutionary forces that push for those genes, right?

It's legacy code that's vastly out of date, but hey, it's what we've got today and we have to live with it. Eventually we'll get around to refactoring it all, cleaning up the code, and steamlining the crufty parts, but it's good to know where we're at now.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[K. S. Kyosuke]

First of all sex is more than reproduction, you know this, right?

cca 1,000,000,000 years ago: Sexual reproduction appears and sexual behavior develops.

cca 200 years ago: Effective contraceptives get into widespread use.

You think that our basal ethology and psychology has had the time to adjust to the existence of artificial reproductive barriers?

Re:you fail at biology forever

[GameboyRMH]

200 years? The ancient Egyptians had contraceptives.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[Frosty Piss]

He's referring to the using of sex to get one's way/money/goods I believe. That's why when you get married, you stop getting it...

Maybe I'm in the minority, but my wife likes sex just fine.

Maybe *YOUR* wife just doesn't like sex with YOU?

Re:you fail at biology forever

[Frosty Piss]

We are not talking abour "ancient history", we are talking about "modern times".

Re:you fail at biology forever

[hackula]

Trying has nothing to do with it. This is about genes. Evolution is the mechanism here, not reason.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[mcgrew]

Your comment reminded me of an old joke:
What's the difference between a wife and a job?

After five years the job still sucks.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[Moheeheeko]

Thats actually been proven by Science. Read an artice on it a week or two ago.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[ColdWetDog]

Second of all, you know that sex is for more than reproduction, right?

Tell that to your neuroendocrine system. You do talk to your neuroendocrine system, don't you?

Whilst 'modern' humankind has managed to separate the physically and mentally enjoyable part of sex from the reproductive part, it's rather likely that our hormonal / emotional response is more geared to procreation than recreation.

Given time, this may change, but for now the AC OOP is probably correct.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[bill_mcgonigle]

The VAST majority of sexually active females are *not* trying to have a baby.

Well, NOW, yeah. But for the vast majority and prior banging, on the evolutionary time scale, the purpose was baby-making.

Pregnant women still seek sex.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[invid]

Pregnant women still seek sex.

So...evolutionary forces should have made some sort of mechanism to turn off the sex drive while the woman is pregnant in order to prove to you that the sex evolved for the purpose of procreation? Evolution would only do that if the sex drive was sufficiently detrimental during pregnancy. That said, a secondary evolutionary benefit of sex is the strengthening of the pair bonds between parents, which could have been selected for and explain the generally horny nature of humans compared to other animals.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[thetoadwarrior]

Yeah it's cheap until you're paying child support.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[K. S. Kyosuke]

We are not talking abour "ancient history", we are talking about "modern times".

Sorry, mate, your genes and hormones have a "slightly" different perception of time than you have.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[hairyfeet]

Problem is women are more fucked up biologically than men, period. Now before the few females here have a shitfit, hear me out. In today's society the "Alpha male" is the one you do NOT want, they screw around thus bringing the risk of possibly deadly STDs, they don't provide for the female thus leaving her and the offspring in worse shape, and they are more prone to violence thus putting her and the potential offspring in danger.

But what do we see? Women lined up to buy books like "How to tame the bad boy" and "bad boys and the women that love them" like you can reset the male like he's just got a switch that needs flipping! Let me make this perfectly clear women...men? We really aren't that fucking hard to figure out, we really aren't. We really were never good at manipulation anyway so when a man tries its hamhanded and sloppy, so with men what you see? What you get.

At least with us guys are drives are as simple as we are. Some like big titties, some like a nice ass, some like nice legs, and most of us like a woman that can make something to eat and don't bitch constantly. Again simple and predictable is the male.

So if women are happier it has to be a "delusional crazy woman" gene, because I have seen women in truly shitastic relationships that just smile away, they are just sure they are gonna "fix" him like a 75 Dodge that needs a rebuild. If guys aren't as happy its simply because we don't lie to ourselves, that all. And again like deception our self lies are as hamhanded and unbelievable as Will Shatner's rug, so naturally even we don't buy it.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[sheetsda]

Pregnant women still seek sex.

I heard this explained recently using the example of horses (I think this came from a cracked article, so take it with a grain of salt). If there are multiple males around and a male will kill any offspring perceived not to be his own, then the female will mate with all the available males so that they all perceive the offspring as their own. Obviously this is not perfectly applicable to modern humans, but it doesn't seem far fetched that the biological urge would still be buried in our DNA somewhere.

The logical course of action then is for sex-deprived people to start killing all offspring that isn't theirs so that the opposite sex will put out more for fear of not passing on their genes.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[Nyder]

He's referring to the using of sex to get one's way/money/goods I believe. That's why when you get married, you stop getting it... because they already have everything you own. :o)

Your wife enjoys sex just fine. I should know.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about all the guys she fucked before you, that either got laid (or the promise of a lay) for a nice dinner or a free trip or a ride in a nice car or because they made nice money and that promised security for some offspring? Basically, fucking in return for all the things that make you have to worry less about working longer, more, harder, for the rest of your life, and having to provide for yourself? This isn't the case for all women, but to dismiss that it's a driving factor for many (especially historically) is just naive.

In fact, you were just the chump at the end of that line of fucks that got stuck with the bill of goods having to provider for her for life and be her caretaker. The guys before that just got a nice trade of pussy and head for whatever they had to offer at the time. She was probably WAY more fun back before she settled on boring old poindexter to get hitched to.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[outsider007]

Amen, brother.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[DNS-and-BIND]

100% wrong. In every culture I've been in except Western culture, it is disgusting to even think of sex with a pregnant woman. The women themselves are conditioned to breathe a sigh of relief when pregnant..."whew, no more sex for a year at least, more likely two or three." Sex while pregnant is believed to harm the baby and result in birth defects and reduced intelligence. Such a typical attitude..."we do it in this way in my weird-ass culture, therefore it is immutable human nature."

Re:you fail at biology forever

[davester666]

Dammit. Now I'm humming "Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate".

It'll take me weeks to get that out of my head again.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[Max Rool]

And now.... It's not just you. Thank you for that.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[AmiMoJo]

You make the assumption that attraction is only about biology, but the conscious mind is actually a very important factor. Biology brings some instant attraction but most women need a bit more than that to get into bed, and even without that "spark" the conscious mind can build up attraction over time.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[Jedi Alec]

So? Human beings are bloody stupid and will believe some priest in a dress over what their own body is telling them, especially when that priest has men with pointy objects to drive the point home if you disagree.

If sex during pregnancy is truly bad for either the mother or the foetus, we'd probably have noticed by now...

Re:you fail at biology forever

[DNS-and-BIND]

So, what's this problem you have with cross-dressing? What's with the theophobia? Why do you attribute your own fears to those who are not like you?

Re:you fail at biology forever

[marcello_dl]

A thread about sex on slashdot is like a thread about cannibalism in a vegan forum.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[cornjones]

whereas most obstetricians in the western world will tell you that sex during pregnancy is considered a good thing. Releases a bunch of endorphins in the mother's blood stream that are considered good for both mother and baby.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[labnet]

And to add to your points.
My wife says sex begins 12 hours before hand (I've also read this). It's just as much an mental and soul act as a physical act.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[mattack2]

That implies that vegans *want* to be cannibals.

Re:you fail at biology forever

[mattack2]

First of all sex is more than reproduction, you know this, right?

As far as evolution is concerned, no it isn't.

Re:Er... Science?

[kelemvor4]

The investigators analyzed a group of 345 people -193 women and 152 men.

Wow, they got that result even though they analyzed only negative women.

After controlling for various factors, ranging from age and education to income

In other words, after ignoring the 9000 other variables that lead to happiness or lack thereof...

Anyone have a link to the actual numbers so we can see if they are finding trends in data noise or not?

It actually makes me curious how education factors in here. Are women happier when more or less educated?

Achievement disparity

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this be a major contributor to the disparity in achievement between men and women? Women have achieved great things as scientists, CEOs, politicians, and in many other areas. Despite this, by and large, men strive for achievement more than women (as a group). Is it because men, on average, are less content? Could this be the primary motivating factor for men to achieve greater things than their predecessors? Perhaps men then to just "want it" more than women. I'm not denying that discrimination and disenfranchisement are contributing factors, but maybe they don't play as big a role as people think.

Re:Achievement disparity

[sandytaru]

I'm a fairly happy woman (also pretty hard to get upset) and I still dream of big things. But I'm content so long as I have my creature comforts. Even if I never achieve my most ambitious dreams (like working for NASA), I'm happy just having reached some smaller goals (writing a novel, going to graduate school, finding a nice guy to marry, buying a house, etc.) So I do think that the yearning, the desire for more and better things, that some men and women experience is definitely a factor in their level of happiness.

Re:Achievement disparity

[phorm]

Despite this, by and large, men strive for achievement more than women (as a group)

How much of this is to acquire the optimal mate though? Fast car, big wallet, etc. Who are you trying to impress?

Re:Achievement disparity

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Even if I never achieve my most ambitious dreams (like working for NASA), I'm happy just having reached some smaller goals (writing a novel, going to graduate school, finding a nice guy to marry, buying a house, etc.)

You have either overrated NASA, or else underrated the rest of your life.

Re:Achievement disparity

[sandytaru]

It was a childhood dream, what can I say? I knew I didn't want to be an astronaut, but I loved space and wanted to be an astrophysicist. All that ended somewhere around integral calculus in college when I realized I had more fun reading and writing about science than I did actually doing it. I changed my major from physics to English shortly after that.

Re:Achievement disparity

[sandytaru]

I really think the unspoken law of /. needs to be changed to "no single women" because the joke is just getting old these days.

so...

[Charliemopps]

Is this Gene activated when I do the dishes or put my close in the hamper? Because I'm getting told it does by my wife and... oh I was just told I've used up my "internet" for the day...

Re:so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this Gene activated when I do the dishes or put my close in the hamper? Because I'm getting told it does by my wife and... oh I was just told I've used up my "internet" for the day...

My wife used to go down on me for steam cleaning the carpets.

But as it turns out, the carpets start falling apart when you steam clean them twice a day.

How do they objectively measure happiness?

[johnny cashed]

Is there some new way science is able to quantify happiness? They can measure it?

Re:How do they objectively measure happiness?

[CanHasDIY]

Is there some new way science is able to quantify happiness? They can measure it?

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

Re:How do they objectively measure happiness?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Is there some new way science is able to quantify happiness? They can measure it?

An entirely subjective measure should be sufficient. If somebody says they're as happy as they could imagine, and you assume they're not lying, then there's no point in saying, "oh, but you could be happier!"

Wrong gene name?

[Alvarex]

Funny, I would have thought the gene would be called MIDOL

Re:Er... Science?

[timeOday]

Even before this study, it was already well established (from twin studies) that happiness is largely genetic: "studies of twins estimate genetic factors account for 35 to 50 percent of the variance in human happiness." (from the article).

.

The contribution of this study is NOT that happiness is largely genetic, only building evidence that this particular gene plays a role.

And while you question whether they corrected for enough variables, I question if they corrected for too many. If you factor out variables (such as level of education or income) that reflect happiness that reflects genetics, then you may be factoring out some of the effect that is ultimately attributable to genetics. Whereas there is no chance that your level of education or income determines your genetics (although they reflect and therefore may well "predict" the genetics of a randomly chosen person). The real answer to study bias is having a sound argument that the sampling of subjects was random with respect to the outcome variable.

Re:Er... Science?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Eh... with no other data, I could see that going either way. Same with men.

Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell my ex-girlfriend that. She was happy so long as she got her own way and if she wasn't happy, not only should I be unhappy but it also must have been my fault in some way.

Women - you can't live with them and you can't live with them. :-)

Re:Yeah right

[M0j0_j0j0]

Topics that make /doters talk about marriage are the ones with most AC!! You have been warned dont complain now!!

How does ...

[PPH]

... low-expression MAOA relate to the size of her ass?

Happy Happy Joy Joy...

[icebike]

One wonders what evolutionary advantage the high-expression version of this gene might have yielded.

"The MAOA gene regulates the activity of an enzyme that breaks down serontin (sic), dopamine and other neurotransmitters in the brain. The low-expression version of the MAOA gene promotes higher levels of monoamine, which allows larger amounts of these neurotransmitters to stay in the brain and boost mood."

You can understand why the low-expression form might be advantageous, but the high-expression form would seem to make one pretty much always depressed and hard to live with.

Predisposition toward being depressed does not immediately suggest any advantage in getting your offspring into the next generation, or even any advantage in ensuring your immediate survival, let alone attracting a mate.

The findings surprised the researchers, because that same gene has been linked to alcoholism, aggression and generally antisocial behavior.

Left unsaid is if this prior linkage was found in males or females. With testosterone being suspected to deactivate the low-expression version of MAOA, it might make sense that such a linkage toward aggression would be more likely to be found in males.

It would seem Cats must have a two copies of the low expression version.

Re:Happy Happy Joy Joy...

[PPH]

You can understand why the low-expression form might be advantageous, but the high-expression form would seem to make one pretty much always depressed and hard to live with.

Predisposition toward being depressed does not immediately suggest any advantage in getting your offspring into the next generation, or even any advantage in ensuring your immediate survival, let alone attracting a mate.

Back in the hunter-gatherer era, the ability to scare off potential suitors might help a woman in dedicating her existing attention towards the raising of an existing child. Popping out one kid a year (even if child mortality is high) results in a sizable family. And what with the father(s) absent hunting, or in a non-monogamous society where dad just moves on, mom can't afford to stretch her resources too far.

Then there's the great sex with a crazy bitch theory. If crazy bitch correlates with unhappy, and (based upon my observations) crazy bitch correlates with hot sex, the 'unhappy' gene serves to attract suitors.

Just hook up at their place, not yours.

Re:Happy Happy Joy Joy...

[HeckRuler]

Well, off the cuff, unhappy people often strive to be happy. You know, that motivational force thing. If you were content to just sit around all day in a happy haze, you wouldn't get much work done. Unless you're clinically depressed, most people who are unhappy try to fix it.

Re:Happy Happy Joy Joy...

[icebike]

Not sure that applies to depressed people.

Re:Happy Happy Joy Joy...

[HeckRuler]

Ok, let me step back and point out that this study was about happiness, not depression. They are not testing for depression, nor are they claiming that women without this gene are depressed. Merely, "less happy". Happiness is relative and it is not a binary on/off thing.

...the high-expression form would seem to make one pretty much always depressed...

No. The high-expression form simply means that the happy juices get flushed quicker. The happy, it fades. It fades faster for these women. That doesn't make them depressed nor does it mean they're incapable of feeling happy, but it probably lends itself towards depression and means these women are more likely to become depressed.

Re:Happy Happy Joy Joy...

[denzacar]

Back in the hunter-gatherer era, the ability to scare off potential suitors might help a woman in dedicating her existing attention towards the raising of an existing child. Popping out one kid a year (even if child mortality is high) results in a sizable family. And what with the father(s) absent hunting, or in a non-monogamous society where dad just moves on, mom can't afford to stretch her resources too far.

Hunter-gatherer societies which don't enforce monogamous relationships are destined to be matriarchal.
"Popping out one kid a year" along with absent (and frankly, unknown) fathers creates social circles of mothers and their children.
I.e. Families.

And with few resources available bigger IS better - if your family is surviving on ants, you need to be able to gather a lot of them. More hands, more resources.
Also, large families tend to have many aunts as well - children being a responsibility not only of their blood mother but of ALL mothers in the family.

control group?

[Eponymous Hero]

did they test genes in lesbian women? i'm pretty certain men are unhappy because we have to make women happy.

I wonder

[wbr1]

No troll intended
But I wonder if this gene is activated or deactivated by the monthly increase or decrease in certain hormones.

Gene Therapy

[zippy40]

Where can I sign my wife up for gene therapy???

Happiness...

[thestudio_bob]

I thought they were the ones that don't make her ass look big... oh, genes... I thought you said jeans.

Re:Emotions

[macbeth66]

Not married, huh?

In all seriousness.

[neoshroom]

They traced [the gene] to the low-activity form of monoamine oxidase A (MAOA). The findings surprised the researchers, because that same gene has been linked to alcoholism, aggression and generally antisocial behavior.

That does sound rather like some blonds I know...

They identified the shape of the gene

[rullywowr]

...and it looked like a very large princess cut diamond set in a bed of milk chocolate.

Re:They identified the shape of the gene

[quenda]

...and it looked like a very large princess cut diamond set in a bed of milk chocolate.

You forgot shoes. What is it with women and shoes? Some young men are obsessed with their shoes, but not 10, 20, 30 pairs of them.

Gene Therapy

[CanHasDIY]

Gives a whole new meaning to the old saying, 'Take my wife, please!'

Happiness in Men

[Ashenkase]

Positive manipulation of the MAOA gene will help to Predict Happiness In Men

Re:Happiness in Men

[HeckRuler]

I see what you did there.

Re:So, under a utiliterian ethic

[PPH]

There is prior art.

hmm

[buddyglass]

I'd be fascinated to learn what other characteristics this gene's presence (or absence) correlates with. Religiosity? Divorce? Teen pregnancy? Drug abuse? High IQ? High or low income? High or low education level? Conservatism or liberalism? Is it expressed more or less frequently among different ethnic groups?

this isn't science

[Eponymous Hero]

not in the slightest.

Re:Er... Science?

[HeckRuler]

Are women happier when more or less educated?

Considering they're wealthier, healthier, with more upwards social mobility, more respected, and more in charge of their life... I'd have to go with more educated. You know, just at a guess.

Re:First post!

[Anonymous Coward]

First post!

Does that make you happy?

The Results Were Skewed

[guttentag]

Sally Albright: Most women at one time or another have faked it.
Harry Burns: Well, they haven't faked it with me.
Sally Albright: How do you know?
Harry Burns: Because I know.
Sally Albright: Oh. Right. Thats right. I forgot. Youre a man.
Harry Burns: What was that supposed to mean?
Sally Albright: Nothing. Its just that all men are sure it never happened to them and all women at one time or other have done it so you do the math.

The odds are the women were faking happiness during the study. You do the math. In the mean time, I'll have what she's having.

Re:The Results Were Skewed

[Thorgal]

Given that the study was based on self-reported data, said gene might as well be responsible for making women exaggerate about their positive well being.

To state the obvious

[Boghog]

The MAO-A gene resides on the X chromosome. Therefore men can carry at most one copy of the gene. It is shocking that neither of the linked articles state this.
In fact, the second linked article is flat out wrong:
Interestingly, the gene did not hold the same correlation for men, who reported the same amount of happiness no matter if they had zero, one or two copies.

Re:To state the obvious

[ColdWetDog]

Maybe the medicaldaily reporter has Klienfelter's Syndrome (XXY).

Don't get so technical.....

Re:To state the obvious

[Boghog]

Maybe the medicaldaily reporter has Klienfelter's Syndrome (XXY).

Don't get so technical.....

This is pretty basic and extremely relevant to the discussion to understanding possible difference in behavior between the two sexes. Besides, this is slashdot. Aren't nerds supposed to be technical?

So, where is that in relation to the SHOE gene?

[mschaffer]

finally, the link between MAOA and SHOES

Happiness deemed harmful

[Anonymous Coward]

Happiness undoubtedly is largely a physiological characteristic of a person. The question is then, why didn't evolution sort the genes out so that we would be happy most of the time? The obvious answer is that happiness isn't a good thing for the survival of the individual.

I believe we were "created" to strive to be happy, but we weren't "meant" to be happy except for some fleeting, orgastic moments. Happiness is the carrot, suffering is the stick that propels us to survive and procreate. Pain is there to make us suffer but so is love, which is definitely not meant to make us happy but rather sacrifice our wellbeing for that of another individual.

Humans are constantly trying to cheat nature. Alcohol, opium, cocaine etc make us happy, so happy that we don't care if we starve, if we stink, if we contract a disease.

Re:Happiness deemed harmful

[M0j0_j0j0]

"Happiness undoubtedly is largely a physiological characteristic of a person. The question is then, why didn't evolution sort the genes out so that we would be happy most of the time? The obvious answer is that happiness isn't a good thing for the survival of the individual."

People get happy with others misery.

Re:Happiness deemed harmful

[NoSleepDemon]

I was pretty happy just now, until I read this. Now I feel like arse and being a man, it's going to take me all bloody day to feel better again. Thanks a lot.

Are they happier, or just have lower standards?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

The DNA of study subjects had been analyzed for MAOA gene variation and their self-reported happiness was scored by a widely used and validated scale.

What scale is that? Maybe those women don't really are happy. Maybe they just have lower standards. How can we know?
Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall.

So some women naturally produce antidepressants?

[RMingin]

I thought this sounded familiar.

MAOA = Monoamine Oxidase A.

MAOI = Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitor, a common class of antidepressant.

So in people with low-expression (doesn't make much) genes for MAOA, they have less of this depression-causing gene, and are happier. For everyone else, have some of this over-prescribed medication!

This sounds very much like "research" which was heavily funded by a pharmaceutical company that makes lots of MAOIs.

Breaking news! People with fewer natural antidepressant genes are more depressed! Have some moclobemide!

The only interesting thing for me here is that these MAOA genes seem to only work as described in women.

Re:First post!

[WillAffleckUW]

First post!

Does that make you happy?

Yes. But I'm a man, so the gene is not involved.

Actually, if you RTF article, you'd see it's having two copies of the gene that impacts it, not just one.

So, actually, second post is the winner. Or at least happier.

On the other hand, first post is probably so clueless that they don't realize that.

Re:Hair? Blond Red or What?

[WillAffleckUW]

Good question. Unfortunately, genetic diversity in more isolated population groups is smaller, so it could be correlated with blond or red hair, in that these population groups originated in more genetically less diverse regions.

Africa, for example, has strong genetic diversity, so you couldn't really say anything about probability of someone having two copies of the gene there, whereas in Sweden or Norway or Iceland (areas with blonds and redheads) a less diverse population group might actually have women who are happier.

Or maybe they're just happier because, since men frequently left to go hunting or fishing for days on end, they got used to not giving a cr.p what the men thought and thus a "happier" group existed.

Also, since one might be more depressed with less than 2 copies of the gene (if female), you might do yourself in and thus not breed, giving an evolutionary advantage in remote areas to women with 2 copies of the gene.

(sorry, science here)

Re:Er... Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who does research in this area, the fact they find it in women but not men is the first sign that this is mostly likely bullshit.

Things aren't always the same between the sexes, but for things like happiness, it would be really bizarre to find something related to happiness in women but not men. Note that you can have a sex difference due to some variable that operates the same in the two sexes, if the variable has a different mean in each group but operates the same.

happy genes

[indy_Muad'Dib]

sadly the gene is 3 sizes too small and no one can fit into them.

FALSE. Women will never be happy until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone invents a chocolate phallus that ejaculates money.

Gene that results in happiness in women?

[turkeyfeathers]

So they've found the gene that controls breast size?

Re:So some women naturally produce antidepressants

[Anonymous Coward]

Except MAOI drugs are not common. They have some nasty side effects and are generally used as a last resort should pretty much every other type of antidepressant fails. The drug interactions with MAOIs is so severe that people who take them often carry a card in their wallet about MAOIs in case of an emergency.

Heck when on MAOIs you can't even eat cheese!

Which Gene?

[OldSport]

Hackman, depending on your age. Likely not Simmons (he's pretty misogynistic).

Re:So some women naturally produce antidepressants

[RMingin]

IANAD, so I will absolutely not say that you are wrong, but I was just reading the other day that that information is not current anymore. Current MAOIs aren't irreversible, so they have better-controlled effects.

I've identified the name of the gene

[WebManWalking]

It's called the Jordache gene.

Re:I've identified the name of the gene

[daremonai]

That only brings happiness if they fit into it.

My wife is still

[Virtucon]

a bitch!

Re:You Are a Misogynist & a Troll

[wbr1]

To be honest, it was only one line because I was posting from my phone, on which I hate the tiny on screen keyboard with a passion.
It is medical fact that mood can change with hormone levels, in both men and women.
It is also medical fact that due to the nature of the menstrual cycle, women have more frequent and powerful hormonal changes than most men.
That said, it makes me wonder if either A) The expression of this gene can change levels/rates of hormonal changes, or B) Hormonal changes can change the expression of this gene.
In either case it is knowledge, and of possible use of which could help people who already suffer from sever mood disorders, or severe PMS or both. Both of which are very real medical conditions.

So, my comment was intended to spark conversation about such matters, which I am admittedly not versed in, but I am not a misogynist. Loner yes, misogynist no. And I have a girlfriend. So take your cheap homonym of pseudonym and rant elsewhere.

Re:First post!

[cayenne8]

Funny...I thought that it was likely because most women get their way in life paid for them...and if they move on to another one...they get half of the last guys stuff....

This is the Warrior Gene

[Delosian]

The MAO-A gene is also known as the 'Warrior Gene' because people with it tend to be more aggressive than people without it. Happiness and the lack of aggression would logically be correlated.

Re:First post!

[WillAffleckUW]

Interesting argument.

In the US, there are more women with 4 year degrees and more women with advanced (Masters, PhD, MBA) degrees than men, in the age cohort below 40. This is a recent phenomenon you may be unaware of, but it is real.

Thus, it would be normally true to state that, for most people 40 and under, it is in fact lower paid men who get their way paid for them by higher paid women.

Of course, this may be different depending on your age, the age of your peers, and the country in which you reside.

Re:First post!

[Eponymous Hero]

while we're being misogynistic, here's a few more:

ignorance is bliss (assuming women in general are dumb)
when you ask a woman what's wrong, she says "nothing" and it really is equal to about nothing, but she's still upset anyway (assuming surveys are wrong, women aren't actually happier)
women aren't happy unless they're complaining (that one is just true =P )

don't bother getting mad at me, i'm gonna pay for this later. strictly for the lulz

Re:First post!

[Culture20]

In the US, there are more women with 4 year degrees and more women with advanced (Masters, PhD, MBA) degrees than men, in the age cohort below 40. This is a recent phenomenon you may be unaware of, but it is real.

Thus, it would be normally true to state that, for most people 40 and under, it is in fact lower paid men who get their way paid for them by higher paid women.

You're assuming that these higher paid women are with men, or only one man. For a small pool of highly paid men, there may be a larger pool of slightly less highly paid women who are playing musical chairs, or preferring to stand. Also, advanced degrees don't always translate to actual earnings.

Great, but...

[aXis100]

Have they found the gene that makes them batshit crazy?

Large MAO gene?

[youn]

the LMAO gene responsible for happiness... what a surprise :p

Re:Er... Science?

[shutdown -p now]

Given that there are specific genes that are responsible for e.g. aggression or acceptance towards other humans, and those genes are different between males and females, why would it be surprising if they're also different for happiness? Genes can be activated in different ways by different hormones, and males and females do have different amounts of those hormones...

MEN are happier.

[matt007]

Funny post.
I just watched some piece about a meta-study on hapinness in the last 40 years.
Conclusion :

Women are less happier than men AND less happier as they age.
The exact opposite for men.

source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhWwQfwkutY&feature=plcp

But which one is it?

[SpaghettiPattern]

But which one is it? The Kelly or the Hackman variation? Tell me as I need to set my priorities and both propositions differ dramatically!

Re:So some women naturally produce antidepressants

[sound vision]

Ir/reversibility just refers to the time frame of activity. Irreversible MAOIs deactivate the MAO enzyme permanently, so that your body won't break down monoamines until it has time to build entirely new enzymes from scratch (~2 weeks). Reversible MAOIs temporarily deactivate the enzyme, so that when the drug leaves the system (could be hours or days) the enzymes will begin functioning normally.

There are two variations of the enzyme, MAO-A and MAO-B - some MAOIs preferentially bind to one type or the other, but I think they are functionally identical, or nearly so. But the only difference between reversible and irreversible MAOIs is how long it takes your body to function normally when you stop taking it.

I'm not a doctor either, but as someone who's studied this extensively, in addition to going through treatment myself, and knowing others who have also gone to treatment, I feel qualified to say this: Modern psychiatric "best practice" is to prescribe SSRIs (or similar newish agents like SNRIs) as first-line treatment. Only if the patient fails to respond to SSRIs, are second- and third- line medications like MAOIs and tricyclics considered.

It's been this way for at least the last decade, maybe two. SSRIs first hit the scene in the late 80s/early 90s.

I am on it

[SmallFurryCreature]

Now you can analyze your girlfriend's* DNA and see if she's only acting happy and would become miserable after marriage!

It's a lot easier than that. Just plan a wedding. Whatever she's like during that process is what she'll be like after marriage. Bridezilla == Wifezilla.

Then throw a screaming baby and some surging hormones into the mix.

Somebody kill me.

I am on it.

The wife

193 women in the sample

[Herve5]

Yes, one hundred ninety three. So, error bar @ 95% is 7% ( 0.98/sqrt(n) )

I'd like to know if the difference in "happiness measurement" is above this...

Otherwise, it's just like those latest political polls: they detect noise.

I have the reason

[The Other White Meat]

"For reasons that scientists have not conclusively determined, women are happier than men..."

Well, it's not like they NAG THEMSELVES.

Re:Er... Science?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Hey mods? You keep using Troll, and I do not think you know what it means.

So questioning anything claiming to be a scientific study on any grounds whatsoever is trolling. Gotcha.

Re:Er... Science?

[HeckRuler]

Well, sure, there's that study out there that says happiness caps out $75,000/year. But since, in America alone, about 80% of the populace makes less than that $75K it looks like improving the income of people makes them happier. And education is the best way to do that. Duh.
Seriously, take your bitter broken heart and try to get it fixed. Or just ditch her and be happy.

subconciously, they are trying to have babies

[r00t]

We are evolved to enjoy sex in ways that lead to healthy children, resulting in grandchildren and great-grandchildren and so on. As far as sexual desire goes, everybody is essentially trying to make babies even if they think they are not.

We evolved this way because sex meant babies prior to birth control. We will evolve to suit the new environment of course; we now must directly want babies rather than just sex. There already exist people in our population today with this trait. Someday, the trait will be essentially universal. Everybody will want kids passionately. People who merely like sex are failing to pass on their DNA.