Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

The Taste of Pain 219

Posted by michael from the tastes-like-burning dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The more the human genome is unraveled and previously non-genetic based attributes are now associated with a specific genetic function, such as physical and emotional pain and taste, it seems, to me, that our personalities appear to be much less influenced by out environment and more by our genes." A related article links your sense of taste to your risk for cancer, heart disease, etc.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Taste of Pain More

The Taste of Pain

Comments Filter:
  • I don't know why but images of Sarah Kozer from "Joe Millionaire" comes to my mind...

  • Reinforces the statement to my girlfriend ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by adzoox ( 615327 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @05:17PM (#5361830) Journal
    This only reinforces my arguement to my girlfriend, "I was born this way, I'm not going to change." (Not only in reply to her bad cooking, but in reply to why I said something or did anything that displeased her) :D

    • So, I'm thinking if you have a certain taste for brocoli, carrots, herbal tea, and celery, you have a very low risk of cancer... Whereas if you have a taste for chewing tobacco, fatty steaks, bacon, you have very high risk?
    • Then perhaps you're born not to have her as your girlfriend.

      If there were no change or free will, then one might as well be treated as a manufactured item. If you fail QA you would be discarded without any mercy, and indeed why should any mercy be due?

      Most people are born ignorant. It's up to them whether they remain so.
      • One should not try to change another's view; only, try to gain wisdom from the opposite point of view.

        There is a big difference between free will and forced will.

        I would say I make the same decisions as both my parents, kind of a blend between the two. It is obvious where I get my political tendency and creative tendency. I have always felt it was beyond "what I was taught" or "what I grew up with"

        Most people who are ignorant, rarely, if ever, change. Ignorance is a disease like alcoholism. You can go to AA meetings, but will most likely suffer relapse, and always be alcoholic (apply analogy to ignorance). In essence, they are the same disease.

  • Synaesthesia (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by $$$$$exyGal ( 638164 )
    Wow. I thought this article was going to be about Synaesthesia [kuro5hin.org], which is where you mix up different senses (such as taste and feeling pain).

    --sex [slashdot.org]

  • Sense of taste.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Space Coyote ( 413320 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @05:19PM (#5361844) Homepage


    Of course, this correlation is based on an increased taste for pork products and heart disease... might not be strictly genetic.

  • Personality is highly complex, Taste is Simple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Salis ( 52373 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @05:21PM (#5361855) Journal
    The taste buds on your tongue are simply sensors, like your eyes, ears, nose, and hands. In fact, taste buds represent the least of all complex sensors of the human body. A taste bud is simply a receptor, waiting to bind to a molecule in solution in your mouth. Once the receptor binds to the molecule, it generates a signal that says, "bitter!" or "sweet!". Combinations of types of "bitter" and "sweet" represent the taste of the food, excluding molecules in the gas phase which are picked up by the nose. I read there were 27 or so types of "bitter" and only two types of "sweet".

    Even a human nose is more sensitive than human taste buds. There are over a hundred different types of receptors in the human nose. (And thousands in the dog nose.) Looking at one's ears or eyes, the complexity involved in generating a highly analog signal, over time, and having that signal correctly analyzed is incredible.

    And..we are not yet even talking about cerebral functions like reason, imagination, moods, memory, or even behavioral instinct!

    Yes, finding the genes that code for the receptors of the tongue is really great. But do not assume that the amazing complexity of the human body, even excluding the brain, will be fully understood for quite a bit of time.

    Salis

    • Re:Journal (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by Paradise Pete ( 33184 )
      But, until then, if anyone sees this (which I doubt) you're welcome to ask/discuss/argue with me

      You don't have comments enabled.

    • Re:Personality is highly complex, Taste is Simple (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ian Jefferies ( 605678 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @08:22PM (#5362661)
      A taste bud is simply a receptor, waiting to bind to a molecule in solution in your mouth. Once the receptor binds to the molecule, it generates a signal that says, "bitter!" or "sweet!".

      The bitter taste of food has a fairly strong association with alkaloid based compounds (usually poisons of varying strengths). At an early stage in life when you're putting most things in you mouth to explore their taste and texture, having a reflexive dislike of bitter food is a good thing that helps keep you alive.

      A taste/reflex like this is going to act as a positive selection method in evolution, so a genetic representation isn't too surprising.

      Ian.

  • future...? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AndyMan! ( 31066 ) <chicagoandy&gmail,com> on Saturday February 22, 2003 @05:25PM (#5361868)
    It seems to me, on a philisophical note, that as the genome continues to be explored, we will continue to be surprised at what's found. However, the really interesting part will be when the project is finished, and we discover what was NOT found.

    _Am
  • let's mention quantum physics and the illusion of free will. Of course your genetics have something to do with emotional pain, etc, for your genetics blueprint your life's development, and your particles are destined to spin in a decipherable pattern (of course only after you die can we decipher the pattern)...

    • Re:before we go any further... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm sick of people saying we don't really have free will. Really it's not their fault; it's the stupid default definition of free will that most people seem to have that causes the problem in the first place.

      Just because your mind behaves in an orderly way doesn't mean you don't have free will. Having "free will" means you have the capacity to make decisions and think as you please.

      So we really have two definitions of free will:

      Intelligent definition: I have the freedom to make decisions.
      Stupid definition: I have the freedom to make decisions on how I make decisions.

      You see how absurd it is? Even computers have a kind of free will, and if they were complex and dynamic enough then there would be no difference between a computer's decision making process and the human brain's. And think about this, any "soul" that people could have that makes decisions for them would have to be either governed by rules and order or simply act randomly. Your thoughts are either random or determined by natural regularity and laws. But that does *not* mean we don't have free will. Even simple computers can weigh options and make choices, and that's exactly what human brains do.

      Off topic BTW, feel free to mod me down ;)

      • Re:before we go any further... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by packeteer ( 566398 ) <packeteer AT subdimension DOT com> on Saturday February 22, 2003 @05:54PM (#5362020)
        When was the last time you "thought as you pleased". Can you really control what you think? Honestly i know i cant do it 100%. Your concious mind is basically along for the ride with your un-concious mind. When you see something or hear something you really dont have much control over what goes through your mind afterwards. If everyone has such free will why do we all act so similar. Of the billions of combinations of activities a person can do every day why do we all choose nearly the same thing; get up, go to work/school, eat at 'regular' times, sleep later that night. Look around sometime and ask yourself if the people areound you really have some master plan that involves them being there at that exact time. Some people get upset when other people say that people may not be entirely responsible for their actions. This means that significant parts of our goverment, society, and justice system are flawed. If people's genes make them do it why are we putting them in jail for? I do not think we should not punish criminals for their acts but it raises questions about what we really want to expect out of people. Obviously we wantto improve society all the time but does blaming people and accusing them of just being "mean" or "evil" do any good? People are just going to act in all different ways forever and i dont believe that you can blame their genes for what they do but i also think it is unerasonable to blame the person for everything they do. Blaming a person does just as much good as blaming their genes.

        • Re:before we go any further... (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Yes, people do think as they please. That statement means less than people think, though. For instance I bet you are pleased as punch at what you just thought (and wrote) right there, regardless of whether you have free will or not. I admit, thoughts come into my head all the time that I'd rather not deal with; that happens to us all, but that is simply evidence of how messy the brain actually is. The point I'm trying to make is that saying people have no free will because their minds exhibit order and natural regularity is absurd. And criminals certainly do make decisions before they do things. And the more premeditated and sly their methods are, the more we hate them, because that kind of planning is the sign of a truly malicious mind.
        • We put them in jail because they bother us. It is as simple as that. Society defends itself. What's wrong with that. I don't see how people may not be entirely responsible for their actions means that significant parts of our goverment, society, and justice system are flawed. It isn't their job to determine responsibility is it?
        • If everyone has such free will why do we all act so similar. Of the billions of combinations of activities a person can do every day why do we all choose nearly the same thing; get up, go to work/school, eat at 'regular' times, sleep later that night.

          I think it is because we all like food and shelter and that is what it takes to get it.
          • That is exactly my point. Does this mean we actually have free will? Is there anyone who simply doesn't want food and shelter? Of course not, we all have certain requirements in life so of course we have certain things we must do. The only "free will" i believe i have is what i do other than work towards food and shelter. It makes me wonder how much else of my life i do without having any real "free will". I dont believe that we dont have any control but its obvious that many thing we do are not controled by ourselves. I think that the most "free" will we can have is when we finally understand things like our genes that control our lives.
        • People do the same things because they are similar and are in similar environments.

          You said: "Blaming a person does just as much good as blaming their genes."

          If people have no free will, why shouldn't they be treated like objects? Discarded if useless, defective or don't meet standards.

          Who decides what's defective? How about those who have free will? Or you might say those who have an illusion of free will.

          If you say you have free will, we can blame you - it's your responsibility.

          If you say you don't have free will, the rest of us have the responsibility of what to do with "you" (there is no you after all). If you are defective we can choose to restrict "you" or discard "you". I say discard not kill because you are a dead or lifeless object.

          Of course a dead object that once lived might be treated with a bit more respect than an object that never lived.
        • Some people get upset when other people say that people may not be entirely responsible for their actions. This means that significant parts of our goverment, society, and justice system are flawed
          I remember when they tried to impeache Clinton, a whole bunch of people didn't want it to be shown on PrimeTime TV because they and their kids would lose track of their lives. The entire system is a dream anyway, the gold price will collapse because India is decreasing all consumption of new gold. Gold underpins the Federal Reserve, so the Federal Reserve will collapse very soon
          MANY PEOPLE WILL WILLINGLY TAKE THE BLUE PILL! [proliberty.com]

  • No taste = no diseases? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Lukano ( 50323 )
    So does this mean that people who smoke and thusly have lost most of their sense of taste run no risk of heart disease now? :)

  • Nature vs. Nurture (Score:5, Interesting)

    by localman ( 111171 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @05:28PM (#5361887) Homepage
    I still lean towards nurture myself, but there is obviously a lot of complexity that we'll need to unravel before we know exactly where the balance lies.

    The thing that worries me most about tagging personality to genes is that it gives some scientific justification for being racially prejudiced. I mean, if a certain genetic pool is genetically predisposed to a certain personality trait, then it only makes sense to assume that people of that group are likely to have the same traits. There's unlikely to be any hard tie between appearance and a trait, but any limited pool will harbor all traits equally, I think.

    One could argue that "nature" gives rise to a similar argument - that a given culture is predisposed to give rise to certain personality traits. This even seems quite likely. So what's the difference between being prejudiced against a genetic family or a culture?

    Well, to me the difference is critical. I can't escape my genetic makeup, but I can escape my culture if I choose to. (And personally this is something I've done, to an extent). Criticizing a culture is not as damning as criticizing a gene.

    In any case, I do still lean towards nurture being the prime factor, and I feel that much of the research in neural networks supports this. I certainly hope we're not doomed to live out our genes. My guess is that genes provide the interface to the world, but the mind interprets it based on experience.

    Cheers.
    • The thing that worries me most about tagging personality to genes is that it gives some scientific justification for being racially prejudiced.

      At the same time, it would also make possible the prospect of eliminating racial prejudice in the future via gene therapy.

      As to whether or not prejudice is genetic or not - I would have to lean towards the idea that prejudice in general is genetic. It's a survival trait. Ugg Caveman was more likely to live longer if he was predisposed to determine "rabbit = food" and "lion = stay away."

      However, how you discriminate would have to be social, I would imagine. Everyone immediately classifies others as "white," "black," "asian," etc... but not everyone classifies them along with the same assumptions.

      I'm not quite sure whether eliminating prejudice is a good idea, though. There are still forms of prejudice that are useful. For example, if I'm walking down a street at night, and I see a group of shady-lookin characters wearing gang apparel, it's probably better I'm able to think to myself "it's best I steer clear," instead of a simple "hey, look... it's some other people!"

      Interestingly enough, prejudice is actually directly related to the article. Prejudice allows us to classify foods as well, and our sense of taste is our main vehicle to provide the "how" part of the equation. If something tastes good, people generally will tag it as "good to eat" subconsciously. If you are predisposed to like fatty and sugary foods, you're going to be more likely to eat those foods.

      However, don't ignore the fact that human beings are sentient, thinking beings. I can say to myself "I like ice cream, but it's probably better I not have it all the time."

      We can alter how we categorize foods just like we can for anything else. The whole concept of "acquired taste" should be proof enough of this. For some people(including myself), coffee tastes terrible. We can train ourselves to tolerate the taste, and if we do this long enough, we may even like it. These alterations may take quite some time, though. If you're predisposed to like fatty and sugary foods, for example... you can't expect to change at the drop of a hat. Altering any kind of prejudice isn't easy.

      I certainly hope we're not doomed to live out our genes.

      At this point, I think it's inevitable. Watch Gattaca for a glimpse of the future.

      My guess is that genes provide the interface to the world, but the mind interprets it based on experience.

      I would submit that our genes provide the interface and the initial frame of reference, and that our minds can mold this preference as necessary or desired. This isn't altogether different from your idea, except that it argues the possibility that we may not be born a blank slate.

    • "Doomed to live out our genes" (Score:5, Funny)

      by ApharmdB ( 572578 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @06:53PM (#5362276)
      Yea, I can only wish. My father is quite the ladies' man while I am reading slashdot.
    • In any case, I do still lean towards nurture being the prime factor

      Identical twins separated at birth studies have shown time and time again that nature is dominant, even for odd behavioral traits.

      I certainly hope we're not doomed to live out our genes.

      On the bright side, we might be tinkering with our own genes before many of us finish our lifespans.

    • Re:Nature vs. Nurture (Score:4, Insightful)

      by reverseengineer ( 580922 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @11:13PM (#5363199)
      First of all, there is little to no genetic basis for race- it's been pointed out that more genetic variation exists among the tribes of apes living in one river valley in Congo than exists among every human being on this planet. At some point in the history of our species, there was a bottleneck or founder effect, and nearly every homo sapiens is thus very nearly genetically identical.

      There is, however, an epidemiological basis for classifying humans into genetic groups that correspond to race- as chance would have it, groups of humans became isolated as they spread across the planet, creating founder effects that eventually led to distinct physical appearance. There are also distinct invisible genetic differences among races, and it would be foolish to ignore these in the name of political correctness- the higher incidence of Caucasians having cystic fibrosis genes, or Africans having sickle-cell or Ashkenazaic Jews having Tay-Sachs genes. Can these genetic traits extend into personality? Perhaps they can. However, while they get compared to blueprints, genes are really more like algorithms- iterative processes dependent on inputs, which can sometimes be completely random, or at least effectively so. Look at the case of cc, that cat clone- looks very little like the animal she was cloned from. Physical appearance is extremely complicated, with multiple genes acting in concert and in opposition with each other. Nurture of course also plays a role as well. Isn't it logical to assume that personality traits in humans will be at least as complicated? What genes do is chemistry, and can influence behavior and personality only in the sorts of ways that chemicals can. Look at the present psychopharmacopeia: antidepressants, tranquilizers, stimultants- but none of these change who you are.

      However, referencing yout comment about being able to escape one's culture, I cannot wait until some team of researchers finds "the gene" that determines whether you are going to be more or less likely to try to rebel from your culture. ;)
      • Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I very much like your theory that genes affect only chemistry. Admittedly, you can do some pretty wild things with chemicals, but it doesn't change you fundamentally.

        This lines up with my experience, too - in that I can often feel chemicals (of the natural variety) surging in a given situation and pushing my mood a certain way, but I've usually been able to conciously control how far I let that go. So perhaps the chemical rush is a genetic thing, but I (whatever "I" is) still have control.

        I just worry sometimes that people might get the idea that genetics explains it all, and draw hasty conclusions about others and themselves. I believe things to be far more complicated than that. I mean, just for example, there's no way the genetic code can begin to describe the complexity of a developed brain... so that must come from somewhere else.

        Cheers.
      • "There are also distinct invisible genetic differences among races, and it would be foolish to ignore these in the name of political correctness- the higher incidence of Caucasians having cystic fibrosis genes, or Africans having sickle-cell or Ashkenazaic Jews having Tay-Sachs genes."
        Western Africans. Not all Africans, and certainly not all dark-skinned people. Similarly, Ashkenazaic Jews have a high incidence of the Tay Sachs gene, but not other Jewish populations, and there are non-Jewish populations that have it.

        I think it's important to recognize that when you say "There are also distinct invisible genetic differences among races..." and then follow it with the rest of what you said, it's clear that you've reduced the word "race" to merely mean "closely related population". And that is certainly not what almost anyone means when they use the word "race". The whole problem is that people use the word "race" as a synonym for "closely related population" and think that this indicates all black-skinned people, all asiatics, all white Europeans, etc. But they're not necessarily "closely related populations". The fundamental idea of the modern conception of "race" is false: there is not a correlation between how people identify two people's "race" and their genetic relatedeness. Yeah, there is in sufficiently restricted populations--that is, where the superficial trait that they use to identify "race" corresponds to a restricted population that shares that trait and happens to be related. Yeah, seeing many blonde persons in Sweden leads one to think that they are closely genetically related--and they are--but it's only an accident that their blondness is also shared. There's lots of blonde people worldwide that are not even remotely close related. And people know this, and that's why they don't call all blonde people a "race". But they call all dark-skinned people a "race".

        So I strongly agree and disagree with you, depending upon which statement I'm looking at. Your "...epidemiological basis for classifying humans into genetic groups that correspond to race" and especially "there are also distinct invisible genetic differences among races" are at best misleading (the first) and at worst (the second) completely false. (The second is only true if you use the word "race" completely differently than it is used in ordinary usage.)

        I agree with the part that it is absurd to ignore that subpopulations have genetic divergences, and some of them are significant in a variety of ways.

    • Re:Nature vs. Nurture (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kmellis ( 442405 )
      "The thing that worries me most about tagging personality to genes is that it gives some scientific justification for being racially prejudiced."
      Only if the idea of "race" has a scientific basis in the first place, which it doesn't.

      We already know that there are genetic variations in populations. What we don't know is whether or not any of these genetic differences amount to significant behavioral differences of the sort that a regular person could recognize and understand. Some populations could be smarter, more empathic, stronger, more easily angered, whatever. We don't know, we don't understand our genome and our brains well enough to answer those questions. But there's no reason that we know of currently that says it necessarily isn't so, and there are a variety of things that indicate that it may be.

      One thing that we do know is that most human populations are pretty homogenous relative to the populations of many other species. The fact is that there aren't any subpopulations that have really been that isolated from each other, in relative terms, for that long.

      But what does this have to do with race?

      Nothing, actually, since race is not genetic. It's cultural. There's no genetic basis for the concept of "race". All modern ideas of "race" are built around distinctions on the basis of a few, pretty arbitrary and loosely defined gross morphological traits. And those traits do not reflect genetic similarity. People think that they do, and so they think that continuing evidence for genetic components of behavior and population divergences all validate the idea of race and their (mostly subconscious) bigoted ideas of how they think about people of other races.

      So, yeah, as long as people are ignorant of the fact that the modern idea of "race" does not reflect genetic reality, then this sort of work can be used as fodder for racism.

      However, correcting that ignorance doesn't solve the related problem implied in my first paragraph. A lot of the modern liberal democratic society is built around egalitarianism. What happens when you've knocked down irrational barriers that unfairly discriminate against many groups as we've done (by proving that that those barriers had been justified on the basis of an ignorant falsehood) only to find that people are different in some important ways--just not in the ways that we supposed? What then? But I think we'll find a solution.

  • You want a taste of pain eh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <be@@@eclec...tk> on Saturday February 22, 2003 @05:28PM (#5361890) Homepage Journal
    Well that's fine, you feel free to not hold up on your end of the deal and you'll get more than a taste of pain, you'll get a four course meal of it.

    You scientist schmucks.

    Ack, I really need to quit watching mob movies.

    (FYI: This was meant to be funny, it's saturday ... loosen up a bit ...)

  • Enviorment, not Genes for personality... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TibbonZero ( 571809 ) <Tibbon@@@gmail...com> on Saturday February 22, 2003 @05:28PM (#5361891) Homepage Journal
    to me, that our personalities appear to be much less influenced by out environment and more by our genes

    Ok, so if our personalities were more influenced by Genes, then why aren't all Australians violent people that steal, rape and kill?

    I seriously think that enviorment has alot more to do with it than anything. Perhaps there are Genes that make people lean slightly more towards agressive behaviors. But I think it's much more enviormental than anything else.

    • Re:Enviorment, not Genes for personality... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "if our personalities were more influenced by Genes, then why aren't all Australians violent people that steal, rape and kill?"

      They're not!?!

    • Re:Enviorment, not Genes for personality... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bicoid ( 631498 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @06:52PM (#5362264)
      Ok, so if our personalities were more influenced by Genes, then why aren't all Australians violent people that steal, rape and kill?

      Or maybe they were all just political prisoners. Bad argument.

      I seriously think that enviorment has alot more to do with it than anything. Perhaps there are Genes that make people lean slightly more towards agressive behaviors. But I think it's much more enviormental than anything else.

      Genes may make a person have a more agressive personality, but simply having a gene doesn't mean that gene is expressed. It's called incomplete penetrance. Some genes don't always express themselves. Like cancer. You can have a gene that causes a type of cancer, but you won't necessarily get cancer.
      • You're right. But there are too many people who blame things directly on their genetic makeup. I have heard too many parents who have adopted children comment that the reason for the kid's misconduct is due to their genes- which I think is bullshit. Ok, the kid might have a tendancy towards agression, but it's your job as a parent to help their work past that. That's part of what I feel separates us from other animals- the ability to push a little past the confinements of genetics, and try to make it better.
    • Ok, so if our personalities were more influenced by Genes, then why aren't all Australians violent people that steal, rape and kill?

      Maybe because most Australians are here as a result of immigration not transportation? And those who were transported to Australia as convicts were typically just very poor people who committed a minor crime. They didn't fit in the prisons and their crimes were too minor to be hanged for, so they were sent here.

  • BS! (Score:4, Funny)

    by rampant mac ( 561036 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @05:29PM (#5361897)
    "our personalities appear to be much less influenced by out environment and more by our genes."

    I still think it's a combination of the two. My cousin and I attended the same private school as children, yet she completed K through 12 at the school, while I only spent 4 years there. Our IQ's are nearly identical, but she had the better learning environment.

    She's currently a doctor, while I work as a civilian for the government.

    I wish luck would've been more on her side. Poor girl.

    Sadly, I must cut this post short; I need to file a grievance with the Union, blame my co-workers for my ineptitude, and take the rest of the day off.

    Dammit, someone changed my Freecell settings again... I'm taking a coffee break.

  • Yeah.. if it tastes like a bacon double cheeseburger with a side order of curly fries and onion rings, then I can pretty much guarantee that it certainly won't help your ticker.

    If however, it tastes like fresh fruit or vegtables then i'd say you will fare slightly better :)
  • Favorite quote from the last linked article:
    "This is genetic -- what you taste determines what you like to eat," chief researcher Linda Bartoshuk, an experimental psychologist at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., told United Press International. "What you like to eat determines your diet, and your diet is a risk factor for all kinds of diseases."

    So, dieting is like a form of gene control? Maybe gene therapy could be the basis for a new Weight Watchers... the profit making potential is limitless!

  • He Would Say That, Wouldn't He? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Slapdash X. Hashbang ( 315401 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @05:37PM (#5361937) Homepage
    "...it seems, to me, that our personalities appear to be much less influenced by out environment and more by our genes."

    What made it seem like that to you? Genes, I guess.
  • Not to be confused with The Smell of Fear [imdb.com].

    They just don't make movies like that anymore (and some would say with good reason).
  • If the right kind of scientists figure out a way to genetically alter what people like, we could get rid of all those people who like velvet paintings, garden gnomes, and NASCAR racing!

    Of course there is the darker side . . .

  • Stephen J. Gould is Rolling Over in His Grave (Score:4, Informative)

    by Seanasy ( 21730 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @05:49PM (#5361999)

    If he hadn't left us so prematurely, I'm sure the recent spate of genetic determinism would have given him enough material for another edition or two of The Mismeasure of Man [wwnorton.com] .

    RIP, Mr. Gould. You tried.

  • Chicken, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Openadvocate ( 573093 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @05:53PM (#5362015)
    Chicken, pain tastes like chicken..

  • Various complaints about the blurb (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sam_handelman ( 519767 ) <samuel...handelman@@@gmail...com> on Saturday February 22, 2003 @06:00PM (#5362038) Journal
    Most of the genes that play a role in behavior are explored in mice, and were discovered in the mouse genome project; in mice, you don't need to worry about inflicting only tolerable amounts of pain. So, most developments in neurogenetics come from the mouse genome project, or the C. elegans (a little tiny worm my colleagues upstairs like to study) genome project, not the human genome project.

    The human genome project, as yet, has not produced a stirring new mandate for nature vs. nurture. In fact, since human beings have less than half as many different individual genes as was expected (we have less than 50,000; before the genome came out 100,000 was the most popular prediction) a great deal of our complexity/diversity must arise from something other genetics. That is to say, more complexity arising during our development, less complexity "pre-programmed". The behavior of little tiny worms is almost entirely controlled by genetics, but I wouldn't generalize from that.

    Of course, we are going to find genes that influence our behavior in complex ways. There is no doubt about this; it was already known, for example, that some genes existed that impart a predilection for alchoholism. Finding such genes, individually, and further clarifying what they do should NOT be taken as an indicator of what role genes, in general, may play in specifying the diversity observed in human consciousness and behavior.

  • I say! (Score:5, Funny)

    by spinlocked ( 462072 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @06:03PM (#5362047)
    In this case it's well worth it to RTFA:
    [nature.com]
    She's lovely

    Maybe it's just in my genetic makeup to fancy raven haired beauties who lick lollypops... Rrr.

  • Not true (Score:4, Interesting)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <[slashdot] [at] [keirstead.org]> on Saturday February 22, 2003 @06:05PM (#5362052)
    Environmeent has been scientificly proven to be the most important factor in one's personality development for a long time. I could point you a any number of twin studies that confirm thst, but you all know how to use google, so I won't waste my time.

    • Re:Not true (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BrainInAJar ( 584756 )
      Yeah, but when you take into account monozygotic twin development (when they take identical twins and put them in different homes), similarities still abound. IQ has a statistically VERY signifigant correlation, as well as personality qwerks (one study, both twins walked into the ocean backwards, etc), which are not present in dizygotic twin development

      Look at evidence. *THEN* chose a position

  • You haven't tasted Pain (Score:3, Funny)

    by Yo Grark ( 465041 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @06:07PM (#5362060)
    You haven't tasted Pain til you try my wife's cooking. /me passes slashdot he salt.

    Yo Grark
    Canadian Bred with American Buttering
  • In Soviet Russia, pain tastes you!!
  • If genes were not far more important that environment you could teach a frog differential equations.

  • New name for an old excuse (Score:3, Funny)

    by hedley ( 8715 ) <hedley@pacbell.net> on Saturday February 22, 2003 @06:27PM (#5362137) Homepage Journal
    "Far more women than men are 'super-tasters', as the 25% of people who are especially sensitive to bitterness are formally known."

    So that's the excuse now eh? "Sorry honey, I can't because I am a Super Taster"

  • if you think the major facets of your personality are based on how much you feel pain and how well you taste things. I'd like to think that human personalities have a bit more depth to them than that.

  • Nature vs Nurture (Score:2, Informative)

    by t0ny ( 590331 )
    Well, there was a recent study of a cloned cat. The 'new' cat was very different behavior-wise, and even had different spotting. To see the two cats together, you would never guess they were from the exact same genetic material.

    In fact, this correlates with one twin study I read a long time ago- the two brothers were separated at birth, one was somewhat well off, the other grew up poor (and was raised in an orphanage). The poor one was an introvert, while the other was an extrovert. Of note, however, was that both smoked the same brand of cigarettes, and used the same obscure, imported toothpaste.

    • Re:Nature vs Nurture (Score:2, Interesting)

      by martyn s ( 444964 )
      Of note, however, was that both smoked the same brand of cigarettes, and used the same obscure, imported toothpaste.

      Which confirms what the article says: taste is genetic. Your study shows behavior is not.

  • Sorry... I fail to see where the issue is. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ted_Green ( 205549 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @07:39PM (#5362499)
    This has linked COMT with a gene. (for those who didn't read the article it "cleans up" after a dopamine chemical linked in sensing pain)

    Is it really all that revealing that COMT production is genetically based. Anymore than it is to say insulin production is genetically based.

    Regardless, the whole "nature v. nurture" debate is a futile argument when it comes to explaining individual action and the personality that defines those actions.
    Esp. when one has a much more reliable and immediate explanation for one's actions, which is to say conscious "choice." Something which we have a much more intimate connection to.
    (Sure it's easy to say our conscious choices are mere illusion created from a chain of causation in a reductionist universe... of course doing requires that "illusion" to believe in the reality of reductionism.)

    At best genetics and enviorrment are probability guidelines in judging the possible future actions/personalities of an individual. However they are a piss poor way to explain human actions as a whole.

  • A Recent Show on NPR (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dr_canak ( 593415 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @07:42PM (#5362506)
    Odyssey, a show on NPR, just had a discussion about some of these same issues and the realaudio link can found here:

    http://www.wbez.org/frames.asp?readerURL=../sche du le/hd_sched_light.htm&BodyURL=/schedule/odyssey/od yssey_v2.htm

    It was quite good, and I think the consensus of their panel (an MIT chemical biologist, a University of Chicago geneticist, and another panel member, I forget from where) was that we are a long way off from reducing human behavior to genes alone.

    jeff
  • "They taste like burning." -Ralph
  • my kids, my cousins, and my siblings.
    Three different age groups that grew up in completely different surroundings.

    At a recent wedding I watched as my cousin sat and ate EXACTLY like my son and sister do.

    they walk with the same heavy foot steps.
    they whine about the same thing.
    they have the same low pain thresholds
    they basicly suck.

    Not only do they look alike they act alike such that they could easily pass off for each other (save for the age differences.)

    freaky freaky freaky.

    It was this realization that allowed me to see why and how my son drives me up the wall. He has the same exact mannerisms as my oldest brother and baby sister.

    You cannot fight genetics!!!
  • Most current geneticists, anthropologists, and evolutionary psychologists now agree that the "nature versus nurture" debate is kind of moot: virtually everything about us is influenced in some way or to some extent by our genes, and many, many aspects of ourselves are influenced to some extent by environment. The question becomes: "for a given trait, how many genes are involved, and to what extent; also, to what extent does environment play a role?" There are virtually no genes that perform a single function, and virtually no traits that are affected by a single gene. Virtually no gene is entirely unaffected by some environmental factors



    Additionally, many of the "environmental" ways we are shaped have nothing to do with what we commonly think of as nurture-- where we grew up, what our parents fed us when we were little, how many times Billy up the street told us that if we wished hard enough we could teleport. Environment often means "the biochemical environment in the womb during a specific developmental period." Temperature, whether mom ate something spicy for dinner, the time of day of conception-- who knows. Steven Pinker recently wrote a book called The Blank Slate: [amazon.com] The Modern Denial of Human Nature addressing this debate, if you're interested, and talks quite a bit about what exactly we mean by "environment." In the February issue of Current Anthropology, there is a fantastic debate [uchicago.edu] about genes and culture-- how much of what is affected by environment and how much by genes. Read the comments after the article-- the range of views is staggering.


    The final thing I need to say is this: many studies of "what genes do" comes from a technique called twin studies. This means taking a look at a huge sample of identical twins and seeing what's the same about them and what doesn't seem to depend on having the same genotype, and what genes they have in common. For instance, there are 50 sets of twins; for 30 of those sets, both twins exhibit some characteristic. Those 30 sets also share the same gene at some locus, thus there is a reasonable expectation that that gene is necessary for expressing that trait. Now. This does not exclude the possibility that a) some of the other sets of twins have one individual expressing the trait-- it merely means that in those cases the expression of that trait is certainly not due to genetic similarity; b) that that trait might also be caused by some other gene sometimes, or by other (ie environmental) factors; c) some of those other sets of twins may both exhibit that trait but it could be caused by some other gene! All of these are possiblities. I have seen in previous comments the claim that many genetic studies have been done on mice and their results applied to humans-- this is true, but not usually when we're talking about analyzing behavior. Human twin studies are a common technique. I've also seen the rabid frustration with claims that homosexuality is genetic and the fear that this will lead to scientific racism [216.239.57.100] which we all wish we had left far behind in the last century but which is unfortunately still a problem today. There have been a number of studies done that indicate that some types of homosexuality are almost certainly influenced by heritable characteristics. This does not mean that anyone who knows anything about them claim that all homosexuals are "that way" because of their genes, nor that all people with that gene are homosexuals, nor that all homosexual behavoir or tendencies are fundamentally either the same or stemming from the same place. Anyone interested in further exploring this issue, and in a really good overview of the research done in this area, should read a fantastic book called The Science of Desire: [amazon.com] The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior by Hamer and Copeland.


    We can explore these issues without falling into the trap of saying that we are what our genes say OR saying that genes are irrelevant. Genes are a recipe. Our mothers' wombs, test tubes, premie ranks, surrogate parents, childhood environments and life experiences are the chefs. Life never makes the same recipe twice, and the recipe definitely isn't a blueprint. There's a lot of flexibility and randomness built in.

  • It seems to me (Score:2, Interesting)

    by madsenj37 ( 612413 )
    "...it seems, to me, that our personalities appear to be much less influenced by out environment and more by our genes."

    Are not our genes influnced by our environment, all be it in a longer time line? So really this complicates the whole nature vs nuture matter even more. Just my two cents.

  • Ripe for fallacies... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by br00tus ( 528477 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:00PM (#5362800)
    I am very suspicious of people who claim to have discovered "scientific" facts about human behavior, especially when their "scientific" discovery is that human behavior is scientically pre-determined. There has always been a hard line between science and social science (the study of human behavior using some scientific methods), and I believe that line is drawn for a reason, I'd say there are very, very few "laws" of human behavior and thinking that we know of, if any. And even fundamental scientific laws like Newton's have been shown to have holes in them, so with social science laws of human behavior, one must be doubly wary.

    Trying to prove their ideas "scientifically" is an idea that has been taken up by the far left and the far right in the past, and many of the scientific conclusions of both left and right have over time been shown to be ridiculous. On the left you have the Marxist tradition of "scientific socialism" that "scientifically proves" that there is a dialectically material force of history that will lead to the unstoppable triumph of communism. On the right you have eugenics, the Bell Curve, and "science" proving socially darwinistic ideas, and that human behavior is genetically determined. These ideas, both the scientific socialist and eugenic science ideas were very popular in the late 19th century and early 20th century, but time has shown massive gaps in both of these body of ideas, and they both also lead to some extent to the massive exterminations carried out under Hitler and Stalin. But aside from the toll of ideas, is the simple fact that I think time has shown that many of these so-called scientific ideas have a lot of holes in them.

    When a scientist points his telescope at the sky, it doesn't really have much of a social effect on earth nowadays (although centuries ago, Galileo Galilei was convicted of heresy for touting the Copernican system, and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his works on Copernican astronomy). When the lens is pointed at humans however, especially human behavior, you are sure that there will be plenty of people grabbing "scientific" research and using it to push their social agendas. So much so, that I have an enormous amount of skepticism about virtually any "scientific" model of human behavior, including psychiatry and psychology. That someone has "scientific" proof of some aspect of human behavior, in this case, that it's predetermined by genetics, really has to be taken with a grain of salt. As do anthropological and sociological studies that show humans are generally better off cooperating and working for the greater good (social anarchism) as opposed to competing (capitalism). These kind of ideas usually break down into left wing and right wing people either supporting or disputing the theories, breaking down among political lines, and so on and so forth, I can't think of anything more unscientific than that. That it's been scientifically proven that "our personalities appear to be much less influenced by out environment and more by our genes" is the epitomy of what sounds like political propaganda - the nurture versus nature debate is an ancient philosophical debate, and from my discussions with scientists who know more about the genome project than I do, they are barely able to use the information they have cataloged to solve medical problems (despite the hype - which is needed for funding), never mind have scientifically set in stone the answer to a fundamental philosophical question about human nature. I take this news with a huge grain of salt.

  • Tough Guys and Wimps? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by snakelass ( 526031 ) <snakelass@yahoo.com> on Saturday February 22, 2003 @10:22PM (#5363040)
    Tough guys and wimps carry different forms of the gene

    Why such loaded words? According to the research cited, subjects felt different amounts of pain from the same stimulus. If I feel pain that I'd rate at 6 on a scale of 0 to 10, and after the same stimulus someone else rated their pain a 3, all that says is I am feeling more pain than the other person. It does not say anything about how well I can withstand pain.

    It extremely common for people to believe that the same amount of tissue damage causes the same amount of pain for anyone. However, pain researchers knew long before this study that this belief is a fallacy. [Pain: The Science of Suffering by Patrick Wall, Columbia University Press, 2000.]

    Perception of pain is a complex event, modified by genetics, culture, experience, anxiety level, perceived purpose of the pain, expected duration, etc. This study is looking at a single variable, and the only thing really interesting is that it suggests that some of the inherited variability is tied to a alleles of a specific gene.

    Denise

  • "[I]t seems to me that our personalities appear to be much less influenced by out environment and more by our genes."

    I can vouch for that. I am very outgoing and musical and into drama and acting, like my mom. My sister is very serious and intent and driven, like my dad. Both grew up in a normal family with both parents present, but we are very different from one another, but much like one of our parents.

    Aside from my personal experience, I have seen many studies that show that twins, raised separately, such as twin orphans adopted by different couples, will grow up to have very similar personalities.

    If anybody can find these studies online, post a link. I'm tired. :-P

  • Nature v. Nuture: 19th century thinking (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Sunday February 23, 2003 @02:24AM (#5363657) Homepage Journal
    Ask any modern psychologist and they'll tell you that the only people who talk about Nature versus Nurture are Psych 101 students. The concept is old and buried (as the field has come to the realization that psychological principles are more unified in nature).

    A correlary would for someone to say that big iron and dumb terminals are the way of the future because your Comp Sci 101 handbook published in 1978 says so.

    Someone else mentioned the pseudo-science of eugenics and social darwinism. Both are known to be BS. The problem is that it took a long time for the field of psychology to shake them and become a formal science.

    The problem is that most people think it is so "obvious" that the field can be mastered in a sixteen week freshman level course. People like that are the Script Kiddies of the psych world.

Slashdot Top Deals

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Close