Just heard an Extra sound byte clip mention a "cheating gene"

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

It won't be long before people are talking about the murder gene...

I wonder what the solution is going to be. Shall we stamp the foreheads of babies with the mark of their genes or simply kill them if they have unpopular social orientation genes?

[Vessol]

Then they'll come up with the terrorist gene and the anti-government gene.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

It won't be long before people are talking about the murder gene...

I wonder what the solution is going to be. Shall we stamp the foreheads of babies with the mark of their genes or simply kill them if they have unpopular social orientation genes?

Total BS to think there is one gene (or even combination) that controls behavior - such as cheating.

Let's say that you have the gene (or combination) they claim is responsible, you can still simply choose not to cheat. It's completely free will.

Now in comparison for genetic diseases: Down's syndrome, for example. There is no choice involved. You cannot choose not to have that.

[PermanentSleep]

The last 10 years of research has slowly eaten away at the central dogma. As one cell biologist says, "it's the environment, stupid". It seems that scientists are actually beginning to realize that the genes simply house the blueprints for making parts/machinery(proteins) and that they don't actually control themselves, but are actually controlled by various environmental stimuli; whether it be on a large scale like an ecosystem or on a small scale as in the blood of the body or the cytoplasm of a cell. The receptors on the surface membrane are constantly sampling the environment, generating second messenger molecules that flood the cytoplasm and activate further pathways which ultimately lead to some effect/action. Up until recently, however, it hasn't been fully understand how much of an effect the environment has on the overall functioning of a cell. Enucleated cells, a cell with it's nucleus removed, have been shown to survive for 20+ days behaving normally, indicating that the nucleus does not in fact control the cell as the brain controls the body. The enucleated cells only died after their parts (proteins) began to wear out and break down, which would indicate that they did not die due to a lack of nucleus, but rather to the lack of the ability to reproduce and assemble essential parts for their survival. Without the blueprints to assemble the proteins, no new proteins can be generated. If this is actually the case, then the entire theory behind genetic determinism, that you are a slave to your genes, is false. This would change everything.

[MelissaWV]

Eh. People are drawing these ridiculous conclusions from selective data.

It's highly probable that some people are more prone to be risky, or impulsive. This would give you a little push in the direction of, say, alcoholism, drug abuse, overuse of caffeine, nymphomania, gambling addiction... or cheating.

It's highly improbable that people are so hard-wired to be addicted and risk everything, that they simply cannot be broken of it.

[awake]

You're not responsible, your genes made you do it.

Just ask Keynes and Marx if there is any power and profit in totally ass backward theories.

[Elwar]

I heard the guy who did this study on the radio.

He was basically saying that there was a gene that differentiated people who were more prone to want to settle down with a single mate or someone who preferred to not settle down.

Basically saying that those who aren't made to settle down are saddled with society's view that you have to settle down and have a mate but it's not natural for them so they tend to end up cheating or divorcing and fighting society's norms.

If they were able to test someone for it and let them know, then they could choose a different lifestyle and not worry as much about settling down and trying to fit in and be comfortable with being single. They might find that their life is a lot easier that way.

[awake]

So some day we can treat this condition with gene therapy?

[MelissaWV]

...Basically saying that those who aren't made to settle down are saddled with society's view that you have to settle down and have a mate but it's not natural for them so they tend to end up cheating or divorcing and fighting society's norms.

If they were able to test someone for it and let them know, then they could choose a different lifestyle and not worry as much about settling down and trying to fit in and be comfortable with being single. They might find that their life is a lot easier that way.

Right, but if they already know they don't want to settle down, they should already be able to choose another lifestyle. It's basically about growing a spine and not worrying about your parents' dreams of grandbabies and you having a white picket fence and a steady job and whatever else, but instead deciding what's the best path for you. Will it somehow make people feel better if they can say they cheated because of their genes, and not the jeans of the other party?