Google

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Us vs. Them is not in our genes (or brains), but in ourselves

In The Chronicle Review, On the perennial subject "us vs. them," while noting significant recent books, Carlin Romano offers us "Good News From the Ancients!" (January 23, 2011):
Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, by Erich S. Gruen, out this month from Princeton University Press, like all excellent scholarship massages the mind in useful new directions. Gruen, a Berkeley professor emeritus of history and classics, wields his command of ancient sources to shake a widely shared historical belief—that ancient Greeks and Romans exuded condescension and hostility toward what European intellectuals call the "Other." For those Greeks and Romans, that largely meant peoples such as the Persians, Egyptians, and Jews. Even if Gruen doesn't wholly convince on every ground that Greeks and Romans operated like Obamas in togas, regularly reaching out to potential enemies, his careful readings of Aeschylus, Herodotus, Tacitus, and others introduce us to a kinder, gentler ancient world. His analysis confirms how even back then, tossing people into a category and then hating them en masse was a choice, not an evolutionary necessity.
Yes, it is a mental construct: Me better, you worse, as Carlin puts it - or in the version more familiar to me: Me Tarzan, you wrong.

Defensive claims of superiority pop up again and again through history, not because there is a "gene" or neural circuit for it but because the circumstances that excite the temptation keep reappearing, and all you need after that is a human brain, period.

Thus, when we hear that "they have found the brain area for prejudice," we would most wisely interpret as follows: "This is a brain area that prejudice may activate in some individuals."

Labels: ,

posted by Denyse @ 6:00 PM  

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Knockout gene study in mice prompts speculations on human behaviour #3348

Lab mice by Aaron Logan, Lightsource
In "Ma's gene does different things to pa's copy" Jessica Hamzelou (26 January 2011) reports for New Scientist on a knockout study of mice where researchers knocked out a gene called Grb10 in females and mated them with normal males.

(From the report: "Most of our genes are expressed in pairs – one copy inherited from each parent. But pairs of so-called imprinted genes have just one copy "switched on".)
What happened? The gene was expressed "only in the brain and spinal cord."* How did this influence behaviour?
Mice lacking the paternal gene groomed their mates so much that the latter lost their whiskers and fur.
So far so good. The gene helps regulate mouse behaviour. Now wait for the klunk:
Humans have the same gene, so there is a possibility that it might be influencing our own social behaviours, he adds.
"Possibility",  "might" Their caution is well advised, but the question is, why bother? Humans differ from mice precisely in that we adjust our behaviour to real or perceived circumstances, and that difference greatly reduces the importance of any similarities.

If a human mother brushed her kid's hair until it fell out, she would soon be in a supervised parenting program (at least where I live).

A study author comments,
"The most interesting human parallel is Silver-Russell syndrome," says Gudrun Moore, a geneticist at University College London's Institute of Child Health. Ten per cent of people with this growth disorder have two copies of a maternal chromosome and no copies from the father. "These individuals have not been tested for overtly dominant behaviour, though they do have speech delay, learning difficulties and lower IQ," Moore says.
Ah, just the combination of traits needed by a dominant human: speech delay, learning difficulties and lower IQ ...

A real possibility, of course, is that an enterprising researcher will do a study of such persons, find "dominant behaviour" (acting out frustrations aggressively in this case), and we will soon be nearing about a new "violence gene". Book deal to follow? (Journal reference: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature09651)

(*A different experimental population with the sexes reversed showed that the gene expressed itself everywhere but the brain.)

See also:

Read more »

Labels: ,

posted by Denyse @ 10:32 AM  

Friday, August 07, 2009

Genetics and popular culture: Another claim that genes "explain" religion

In "NPR religion reporter dusts off fingerprints of God," (Salt Lake Tribune, July 30, 2009) Peggy Fletcher Stack reports on Barbara Bradley Hagerty's new book, Fingerprints of God:
“After interviews with Dean Hamer, researcher at the National Institute of Health's National Cancer Institute and author of The God Gene , Francis Collins, former head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, Pat McNamara of Boston University as well as several skeptics, Hagerty concludes that genes do seem to play a role as a "sort of tipping point for spiritual experience."

"It's a little bit like automatic air-conditioning," she writes. "For some people, a relatively modest rise in temperature ... can flip on the cooler system. Those people are genetically inclined to be spiritual. Others may sweat it out to 90, 95, 100 degrees; only then will their God switch flip on. And some would rather die of heat than turn to 'God.' "
Why should I think this is good news? It implies that no one on the other end is really listening, just an automated system.

I don;'t believe any of it. People with the widest variety of genetic backgrounds have spiritual experiences and there is no "switch." There is a line, of course, 24/7.

Labels: ,

posted by Denyse @ 6:49 AM  

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Nature vs. nurture: Intriguing new research

In "Nature v nurture? Please don't ask", Mark Henderson believes we have an answer to the question of whether you are born bad or grow that way through experiences (The Times March 28, 2009):
Even more striking evidence has come from a recent series of studies led by Avshalom Caspi and Terrie Moffitt. These scientists have been following up a cohort of children born in 1972-73 in Dunedin, New Zealand, recording details of their life experiences and testing their DNA. The results have demolished the nature- nurture dichotomy.

First, Moffitt and Caspi studied a gene called MAOA, which has two variants or alleles. Boys with one allele are more likely to behave antisocially and get into trouble with the law - but only if they were also maltreated as children. When raised in well-adjusted families, those with the “risky” allele are fine. It is not a gene “for” criminality, and no determinism - genetic or environmental - is involved. A genetic variant must be activated by an environmental influence to do any potential harm.

The serotonin transporter gene, 5HTT, also has two alleles, and is known to be involved in mood. Moffitt and Caspi found that people with one allele were 2.5 times more likely to develop clinical depression than those with the other - but, again, only under particular circumstances. The risk applies only to people who also experience stressful life events such as unemployment, divorce or bereavement. When their environments are happy, their genotypes made no difference.
Well, that at least begins to make some sense, whether or not it is correct.

The way a child is raised is critical because it tells the child what he should think is a reasonable way to behave. Children are not a blank slate, but whatever we write on the slate, early on, matters.

Consider the difference between "Most people in this community are decent people who work hard and want the same things we want" vs. "You can't trust anyone who isn't a close blood relative".

Which will produce a more socially useful individual in a technologically advanced democracy?


Labels: , , , ,

posted by Denyse @ 8:45 AM