Scientists Discover Gene For Ruthlessness 300
Pioneer Woman writes "Researchers at Hebrew University in Jerusalem have found a link between a gene called AVPR1a and ruthless behavior. These findings come from an economic exercise called the 'Dictator Game' that allows players to behave selflessly, or like national dictators and 'little Hitlers' found in workplaces the world over. The team decided to look at AVPR1a because it is known to produce receptors in the brain that detect vasopressin, a hormone involved in 'prosocial' behavior. Researchers tested DNA samples from more than 200 student volunteers, before asking the students to play the game that measured their altruism. There was no connection between the participants' gender and their behavior but there was a link to the length of the AVPR1a gene."
Games != real life (Score:5, Insightful)
So why should ruthless behaviour in some game be linked to ruthlessness in life?
another personality trait? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean the "Scientist discovers gene for [insert personality trait here]".
Some of these get pretty inane; ruthlessness, for example, is defined by behavior, and is subjective!
And don't forget: these studies are nearly meaningless, even if they are talking about something that can be defined rationally:
1. The study evaluates 'ruthlessness' based on subjects playing a game. (Not by observing reality)
2. The study involves 200 student volunteers. Not exactly a representative sample!
3. The article generalizes these dubious results to make inferences about the genetics of dictators.
4. The study has not yet been repeated to duplicate these results (A necessary step to 'prove' something)
Re:oh the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Repeat after me (Score:3, Insightful)
But then it wouldn't be the press. Since when has scientific thinking had a place in mainstream journalism?
More testing please (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Repeat after me (Score:3, Insightful)
Correlates strongly with +5 moderations... (Score:4, Insightful)
For instance Prarie Voles and Vasopressin [bbc.co.uk], in which by manipulating the Vasopressin V1a gene, males of a normally promiscuous species of Vole were rendered monagamous (and more attentive to their single mates). Only partially relevant, but suggestive.
Most importantly, it points at the possibility of producing directly relevant evidence in future experimental model (in which the species selected would be one that exhibits both "altruistic" and "ruthless" behaviors). I don't imagine such an experiment would be quick or cheap, as more socially sophisticated species tend to be more difficult to work with.
In any case, it sounds like your comment is directed at the particular news article (which mentions very little of the background), and not at the research in particular -- am I incorrect in drawing this distinction?
Re:Everything now is a disease (Score:3, Insightful)
You seriously have to be joking. Never mind. That comment is really one of the more ignorant things I've ever read on Slashdot.
Re:When I'm gaming I'm different (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oh the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Games != real life (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people who drink mother's milk are not going to kill real people.
There, fixed that for you. There have been a few notable exceptions.
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. Instead of "Little Hitlers", they should have said "Little Napoleons". I wonder if overexpression of the AVPR1 gene also makes you seem short. That would explain a correlation between perceived height and incessant posturing, loud voices, and stomping around. That is to say, such behavior actually makes people seem shorter--I think it can actually take 2 to 3 inches off one's height. I've seen a 5'4" guy remark that a 5'5" guy had a Napolean's complex. I had to agree, the little Napolean that the 5'4" guy was referring to always seemed short while I never even thought about the 5'4" guy's height until that point (not a Little Napolean). But maybe we should cut Little Napoleans a break. Perhaps they can't help it, genetically speaking.
Who ever said exterminate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Genetics is truly a double-edged sword. Just deciding that some gene needs to be "fixed" brings a value judgement with it. And that same little hop to deciding one person is better than another.
Hopefully it only gets as extreme as wanting to help fix other people's genes instead of exterminate them.
So you are saying if the gay gene, or the gene for black skin is discovered, that the evil scientists will want to exterminate them?
Ridiculous. If these people want to exterminate the bad genes, they'll do it with race based medicine, and I don't see enough people being concerned about that or the potential for genocide, because the majority of people probably secretly support genocide of some other group as long as it's not their group of genes.
Either genocide is always wrong or it's always right, which is it?
Truly Awful! (Score:3, Insightful)
I know, seriously. Stop sending your rich folk and government officials here for treatment, will 'ya?, they're tying up our beds.
Re:oh the irony (Score:3, Insightful)
When you get right down to it, many nationalists of ANY race follow very similar rhetoric... I guess it's just part of being extremists. The thing is... nationalism is actually accepted among Jews. It's apparently ok to have Jewish dating sites, but I doubt there are all that many all-white dating sites that aren't run by trailer trash skinheads, and I can only imagine the backlash if such a site was advertised publicly.
Now... back on topic: if ruthlessness is linked to a gene, it may well be especially prevalent in one or more races. And no, I'm not just thinking about the Germans here (their successes would probably be better explained by a discipline gene anyway)... also the English, the Romans, and other empire-building civilizations over the ages.
This could be dangerous... it's one thing to rant and rave about [insert race here] being [insert negative characteristic here] (and thus deserving of destruction/enslavement/etc.), but when you can bring up genetic proof... well, there's a good possibility that a lot more people are going to listen to you.
Re:Games != real life (Score:5, Insightful)