Slashdot Mirror


Studying the Roots of Individuality

An anonymous reader sends an article from Quanta Magazine about research into individuality — how behavior varies (or doesn't) when genetics and environment are as similar as possible. Scientists are taking various strains of fruit fly that are genetically almost identical (the result of extreme inbreeding) and raising them alone in environments that are exact copies of each other. Then they run the fruit flies through a series of decision-making tests to see how varied their responses are. Some fruit fly strains show a high degree of variance for tasks like navigating a maze. Other strains show almost no variance, suggesting there's a genetic component to individuality. The scientists also found that manipulating a certain set of neurons in the fruit flies's brains could increase the variation in choices they make. One theory suggests that evolution tends to select for genes that increase individuality by making it more difficult for predators to predict what the prey will do next.

22 of 42 comments (clear)

  1. randomness of cosmic rays by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    they dissect the DNA. Good Luck!

  2. Read this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and then tell me the simulation theory isn't a perfectly valid possibility.

    -dk

  3. Study could also prove effects of Drugs on Humans by ZippyTheChicken · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Many people believe that the use of drugs whether legal or illegal have no effect on your thoughts and decisions. This is a common belief among people who use marijuana but consider the millions of children who are on prescribed drugs like Ritalin. Anything that alters the way your mind functions will have an effect on your thought processes. Whether its a glass of wine, crack cocaine or a pharmaceutical. All you have to do is watch the disclosures on almost any pharmaceutical commercial and you will see warnings that are very dramatic but true. One product used to help people quit smoking is known to cause suicides. While it is interesting to watch studies on fruit flies .. we should all understand its application in our lives. Anything that alters your perception of reality whether prescribed or self applied will cause changes in your thought patterns. Most often those changes are negative in promotion of a health and well being but that is not to say that small numbers of people can't be helped by products like anti psychotics.. keep this in mind the next time you have a drink to combat the harsh world out there.. or pop a pill to substitute one addiction for another... or smoke some weed because you just don't want to give a ##### for a while.. because its changing you for the worse.

  4. PNAS and PDFs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is really annoying how PNAS is trying to get everyone to use their Beta Eyeball viewer so you can't get a pdf from the article page. I tried it, didn't care much for the split screen and suspected it would somehow be modified to stop me from downloading and saving for myself. Bring back the pdfs.

    Also, I like this paper. They correctly use p-values in figure 1, there is a real null hypothesis.

  5. Re:Study could also prove effects of Drugs on Huma by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

    Is it reality that alters perceptions or perceptions that alter reality? Are we lost in the mix or are we a non-sequitur? Do elements sharing outer valence shells determine reality or is it God? :bubbling noise:

  6. On Individuality by causality · · Score: 2

    What I observe with the majority of people: they are fully capable of being free-thinking individuals, but the main way they use this capability is to follow the crowd.

    With herd animals that are prey creatures (i.e. cattle, sheep) this makes sense in terms of survival. There is safety in numbers. Stray from the herd, and you get targeted by ever-present predators.

    With humans, who are at the top of the food chain and generally have no natural predators, it's just a form of cowardice. I'm not sure the DNA of fruit flies is going to provide a satisfying explanation here, at least not one that can be extrapolated to include people, fascinating though it may be.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    1. Re:On Individuality by slew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know if simply following the crowd is a form of cowardice, more often an expression of human make as social beings.

      You may argue that humans are at the top of the food chain, but more often than not, it takes a village to assure long term survival and being social beings is one behavior designed to gain acceptance in a village.

      On the other hand, we tend to detest what is too similar to ourselves, so in a sense humans are like skyrmion (bosons that sometimes exhibit fermion exclusion statistics). At least that's one way to look at it if you extrapolate things from the behavior of sub-atomic particles ;^)

    2. Re:On Individuality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With herd animals that are prey creatures (i.e. cattle, sheep) this makes sense in terms of survival. There is safety in numbers. Stray from the herd, and you get targeted by ever-present predators.

      That may have something to do with this work. They saw that while on average a group of flies is equally likely to turn right or left, different individuals were biased to turn one way more often than the other (eg right 75% of the time). So in a large group of flies there would be ~50% turning one way or the other at any given time, this would result in the swarm appearance that we see (imagine seeing a cloud of flies all circling in the same direction, which does not happen).

      The question is, what makes one fly get biased towards turning right vs left? At first I would think it was some kind of learning, the flies were rewarded somehow for turning right early on so they formed that habit, others for turning left so they formed that habit (This is old, old-school psychology before they started doing weird stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_effect). However, there does not seem to be any reward or punishment involved here. On the other hand, maybe this learning occurred earlier since the flies were already 4-8 years old at the time of the experiments. They should watch newly hatched flies to see what they do. Also a good summary chart would be to create a string of RLLLRRRL from the data, then associate red and blue with the two directions. This can then be used to show the pattern of turns via colored boxes for each fly.

      From the learning perspective, we should also ask why these flies keep exploring the y-mazes used in the experiments at all? After a few times it seems they should realize nothing is there and simply conserve energy.

      This is the best bioscience I've seen posted to slashdot in a long time. Thanks Soulskill, even though you are wrong in the summary when you write "Other strains show almost no variance". One strain showed less variance than the others, but this was still much more than expected if there was no bias.

    3. Re:On Individuality by Immerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forget though that humans spent most of our evolutionary history as prey animals. It's only in the last few hundred millenia that we've begun to ascend to "dominant predator" status, and much of that ascension has been due directly to our much enhanced ability to cooperate and share knowledge within our tribal groups. We are very much a herd animal, and as such a predilection to herd-animal instincts is entirely reasonable.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:On Individuality by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Provide a cite or you're talking out your ass. Best they've done that I can find is 3x.

  7. Re:Study could also prove effects of Drugs on Huma by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously? Perhaps you meant lingering *long term* effects? I mean the whole point of taking Ritalin, caffeine, marijuana, alcohol, or any other mind-altering substance is to alter your thoughts and decisions. Though of course your brain is a self-reinforcing system, and as such anything that alters it's patterns short-term will tend to cause lingering long-term effects, especially with chronic usage.

    But what makes you so sure those changes will be for the worse? It's not like we're some sort of divine beings created in an initially perfect form - we're animals with extensive symbolic reasoning systems bolted on at the last minute. Our basic natures are as brutish and shortsighted as any other animal.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  8. Paging David Suzuki by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    Where is he when you need him?

  9. The Harvard law of Animal Behavior by wherrera · · Score: 1

    Harvard law of animal behavior:

    When stimulations are repeatedly applied under precisely controlled conditions the animal reacts as it damn well pleases

    See here:

    http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/...

  10. Re:Study could also prove effects of Drugs on Huma by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    Perceptions do not alter reality, otherwise a person hallucinating would affect the reality of others. And if you fall back onto the argument that the others are seeing the person hallucinate, you're stretching the meaning of your query into nonsense.

  11. Boys from Brazil by dtynan · · Score: 1

    Probably just the first stage of some mad scientist's research after watching the Boys from Brazil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

  12. Re:Study could also prove effects of Drugs on Huma by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Are we lost in the mix or are we a non-sequitur?

    I'm pretty sure that I'm not an it does not follow.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Re:Study could also prove effects of Drugs on Huma by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

    Exactly.

  14. Re:Study could also prove effects of Drugs on Huma by sjames · · Score: 1

    Changing you, certainly. But I see no argument for why it would necessarily be for the worse in all cases.

    Also keep in mind the other things that may be changing your thinking for the worse, such as watching the news, looking at advertising, worrying about the bills, slavish adherence to a work schedule that offers little time off and subtly penalizes actually using even the little that is offered, etc.

  15. Re:Study could also prove effects of Drugs on Huma by sjames · · Score: 1

    But perceptions DO alter reality, just not that overtly. We tend to see what we expect to see and our actions based on what we see affect the state of the world and what other people see.

    Consider how the perception that only an R or a D can win the election keeps people voting for an R or a D making sure that only Rs and Ds win the elections.

  16. Re:Study could also prove effects of Drugs on Huma by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    Basically everything does have an effect on you, but defining it as better or worse is not anywhere near as clear as you try to make it. We barely have any kind of a grasp on mental health. Oddly enough, we seem to be stuck on the idea that anything that makes us happy is bad for us, despite happiness being clearly important to our mental well being.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  17. Re:I thinks by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    Have you considered the possibility that who someone is programmed to be and the environment may be incompatible to at least some degree? Drug abuse is quite often a coping mechanism.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  18. Fruit flies by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

    Please don't attempt to extrapolate human behaviour from the actions of tiny, tiny insects. That is all.