Scientists Identify Gene Pattern That Makes Some Animals Monogamous(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
Scientists Identify Gene Pattern That Makes Some Animals Monogamous
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/patterns-genetic-activity-may-play-role-animal-monogamy-180971192/
45 comments
One mating season is monogamous? Tell my wife that.
Also, this seems to make no mention of 'rearing complexity'. A more developmentally complex brain should imply prolonged rearing and have a bias of survival in favor of shared parenting.
I guess you can find anything you're looking for in gene expressions, if you really want.
Also, this seems to make no mention of 'rearing complexity'. A more developmentally complex brain should imply prolonged rearing and have a bias of survival in favor of shared parenting.
I guess you can find anything you're looking for in gene expressions, if you really want.
Also, the environment and predation plays a role in monogamous behavior. Penguins are monogamous and have shared parenting because
one parent has to be with the egg or chick at all times lest the egg/chick freeze or be eaten by predators. Pretty much the environment leaves no room for polygamous or inattentive penguins as their offspring and hence their genes don't make it.
> A more developmentally complex brain should imply prolonged rearing and have a bias of survival in favor of shared parenting.
Primates are significantly brainier than most of the rest of Mammalia, on average, and humans and gibbons are the only primates that are more monogamous than polygamous. Cetaceans and elephants also have comparatively large brains and aren’t monogamous.
Primates are significantly brainier than most of the rest of Mammalia, on average, and humans and gibbons are the only primates that are more monogamous than polygamous. Cetaceans and elephants also have comparatively large brains and aren’t monogamous.
>humans are more monogamous
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Got any citation for that?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Got any citation for that?
Humans aren’t obligate monogamous but our level of sexual dimorphism is less than polygynous species like gorillas. Against this is the difference in upper strength where men are about twice as strong as women. Also in hunter gatherer societies we’re familiar with most men do not have multiple mates at one time and from the varying patterns of inheritance of Y chromosomes and mitochondria which are passed down solely along the male and female line respectively ~40% of men leave descendants. That’s not compatible with polygyny. Humans are not obligately monogamous or polygynous but all evidence points to more of the first than the second.
From what I can tell, hunter-gather societies, and possibly all of our pre-agriculture ancestors, are serially monogamous with some fooling around on the side. Children probably received support from the whole band or tribe.
The sexual part seems pretty familiar from looking around current society, and the children support part isn't far off from now either.
The sexual part seems pretty familiar from looking around current society, and the children support part isn't far off from now either.
This makes absolutely zero sense. Not only is a figure of 40% male reproduction compatible with polygyny, it is solely compatible with polygyny.
If humans were monogamous as you suggest, the figure of male reproduction would be far closer to 100%. But we’re not. We’re polygynous — a harem-based species. And the 40% figure you just cited proves that: Less than half of the men mate with all of the women. That’s not called monogamy dude. That is called polygyny.
If humans were monogamous as you suggest, the figure of male reproduction would be far closer to 100%. But we’re not. We’re polygynous — a harem-based species. And the 40% figure you just cited proves that: Less than half of the men mate with all of the women. That’s not called monogamy dude. That is called polygyny.
coming soon.. Pre marital test..?
Would be interesting if certain humans have these genes and some don’t. That way couples could be tested before committing to marriage and be more informed. Ideally though, people could know ahead of time what genes a partner carries before going further with a relationship.
This is one example of how using genetics data for a dating network can help produce better matches, and more calculated offspring.
This is one example of how using genetics data for a dating network can help produce better matches, and more calculated offspring.
What is the chances that after going down this rabbit hole, you end up with racist algorithms that match people who are within the same ethnic group? It seems quite possible that you would find more "compatible" matches with people who are more genetically similar.
I'm really curious about your views on something, if you would share:
1) Let's say you could provide definitive data showing, without doubt, that intraracial relationships resulted in different longterm outcomes than interracial relationships, with an extremely high degree of statistical certainty. Would you say that consideration or utilization of this fact would be racist if done in a completely impartial fashion?
2) What if we instead of simply considering intra/inter relationships we instead look the outcomes differences between specific ethnic/racial matchups over the longterm. Would consideration or utilization of these data be considered racist if done in a completely impartial fashion?
3) Let's move away from algorithms and add a human element. There are a variety of, mostly ethnically homogeneous, religions that vehemently forbade marriage outside the religion and where joining the religion, as an outsider, is made extremely difficult. Are these religions inherently racist? Are their practitioners inherently racist?
---
And to be clear, as this is a sensitive issue, I'm not secretly trying to find some contradiction or whatever to come back at you with. I just like to try to understand worldviews outside my own and have no intention of challenging any of your answers in any way.
1) Let's say you could provide definitive data showing, without doubt, that intraracial relationships resulted in different longterm outcomes than interracial relationships, with an extremely high degree of statistical certainty. Would you say that consideration or utilization of this fact would be racist if done in a completely impartial fashion?
2) What if we instead of simply considering intra/inter relationships we instead look the outcomes differences between specific ethnic/racial matchups over the longterm. Would consideration or utilization of these data be considered racist if done in a completely impartial fashion?
3) Let's move away from algorithms and add a human element. There are a variety of, mostly ethnically homogeneous, religions that vehemently forbade marriage outside the religion and where joining the religion, as an outsider, is made extremely difficult. Are these religions inherently racist? Are their practitioners inherently racist?
---
And to be clear, as this is a sensitive issue, I'm not secretly trying to find some contradiction or whatever to come back at you with. I just like to try to understand worldviews outside my own and have no intention of challenging any of your answers in any way.
> 1) Let's say you could provide definitive data showing, without doubt, that intraracial relationships resulted in different longterm outcomes than interracial relationships, with an extremely high degree of statistical certainty. Would you say that consideration or utilization of this fact would be racist if done in a completely impartial fashion?
Probably, it meets most definitions.
> 2) What if we instead of simply considering intra/inter relationships we instead look the outcomes differences between specific ethnic/racial matchups over the longterm. Would consideration or utilization of these data be considered racist if done in a completely impartial fashion?
Well yes it would be.
˘ 3) Let's move away from algorithms and add a human element. There are a variety of, mostly ethnically homogeneous, religions that vehemently forbade marriage outside the religion and where joining the religion, as an outsider, is made extremely difficult. Are these religions inherently racist? Are their practitioners inherently racist?
Yep.
Pretty much anything that seeks to understand differences between races will inherently be racist by it's definition.
Probably, it meets most definitions.
> 2) What if we instead of simply considering intra/inter relationships we instead look the outcomes differences between specific ethnic/racial matchups over the longterm. Would consideration or utilization of these data be considered racist if done in a completely impartial fashion?
Well yes it would be.
˘ 3) Let's move away from algorithms and add a human element. There are a variety of, mostly ethnically homogeneous, religions that vehemently forbade marriage outside the religion and where joining the religion, as an outsider, is made extremely difficult. Are these religions inherently racist? Are their practitioners inherently racist?
Yep.
Pretty much anything that seeks to understand differences between races will inherently be racist by it's definition.
Good question. First of all, people control the genes they are looking for. Algorithms just find people according to given parameters, they are not racist.
Second, there’s nothing racist about preferring people in your own ethnic group. Most people find their own race most attractive for a partner, and there’s reason to believe that will still be the case in a post-racism world. Yes there will be mixed couples, but people who want a mate from their own race aren’t racist.
Second, there’s nothing racist about preferring people in your own ethnic group. Most people find their own race most attractive for a partner, and there’s reason to believe that will still be the case in a post-racism world. Yes there will be mixed couples, but people who want a mate from their own race aren’t racist.
> people control the genes they are looking for. Algorithms just find people according to given parameters, they are not racist.
Uuuh, while your algorithm isn't racist, if a person is using an algorithm to be racist, then it could be concluded that what is happening is... racism.
Uuuh, while your algorithm isn't racist, if a person is using an algorithm to be racist, then it could be concluded that what is happening is... racism.
Computers generally cannot solve for the user’s bad intentions. Of course companies do try, and that’s either a value add or a regulatory requirement. Stamping out racism by making it impossible to carry out racist ideas seems like a losing strategy.
Algorithms are not racist but they might very well be biased, intentionally or not. As a programmer I make assumptions every time I write code and I rarely have 100% insight into the full implications of that code.
Sometimes I generate machine learning (ML) solutions and then this holds more true than ever. All the best (least biased) matchmaking solutions will be ML, as well as all the worst (most biased).
Also, matching for the best DNA/RNA/gene expression match, wouldn't that just separate us into different species of humans?
Sometimes I generate machine learning (ML) solutions and then this holds more true than ever. All the best (least biased) matchmaking solutions will be ML, as well as all the worst (most biased).
Also, matching for the best DNA/RNA/gene expression match, wouldn't that just separate us into different species of humans?
> Uuuh, while your algorithm isn't racist, if a person is using an algorithm to be racist, then it could be concluded that what is happening is... racism.
This is an extremely weak "argument".
Practically, anything can be used as a murder weapon by a murderer. Then "what is happening is ..." murder.
This is an extremely weak "argument".
Practically, anything can be used as a murder weapon by a murderer. Then "what is happening is ..." murder.
This doesn't solve the main problems with dating services.
For instance, one big problem is that threes are with threes, and eights are with eights. Just because you give them an email saying they have similar genes, you're not going to convince an eight to go with a three. (That's one of the biggest problems in today's dating services. If you could figure out how to make an eight go with a three, you could make billions.) Anyway, by far the biggest problem, one that no one has been able to solve, is that nines and tens are not on the dating service at all. (They don't need it.)
So even if you throw in genetics, the nines and the tens are still better off dating in their own circles. I'd imagine that the genetics are generally pretty good in your average Division 1 athletics department for instance. So a top 10 offensive lineman and a top 10 women's volleyball or basketball player would be very unlikely to find better genetics on any gene based dating service that I could create. In fact, it could be argued that the athletic departments themselves are already serving ss genetically gated dating services for elite genes. Stanford crew girl has a thing for Stanford wide receiver is a lot easier method of getting good gene sets together than testing millions of people and trying to make matches by computer that you hope the people will like. (And I'd wager that if we were to put together a dating service that tried to match good genes, the crew girl and the wide out would create superior offspring in any case. [I don't like using the word "superior", but you get what I mean.])
So adding genetic services might appeal to a subset of users, but it's not going to solve the main problems with your average dating service today. How to get eights to go with threes? and how to get nines and tens to use your service at all? Adding genetic services would only be doing a LOT of work to add a service that may appeal to a very niche slice of the dating market.
For instance, one big problem is that threes are with threes, and eights are with eights. Just because you give them an email saying they have similar genes, you're not going to convince an eight to go with a three. (That's one of the biggest problems in today's dating services. If you could figure out how to make an eight go with a three, you could make billions.) Anyway, by far the biggest problem, one that no one has been able to solve, is that nines and tens are not on the dating service at all. (They don't need it.)
So even if you throw in genetics, the nines and the tens are still better off dating in their own circles. I'd imagine that the genetics are generally pretty good in your average Division 1 athletics department for instance. So a top 10 offensive lineman and a top 10 women's volleyball or basketball player would be very unlikely to find better genetics on any gene based dating service that I could create. In fact, it could be argued that the athletic departments themselves are already serving ss genetically gated dating services for elite genes. Stanford crew girl has a thing for Stanford wide receiver is a lot easier method of getting good gene sets together than testing millions of people and trying to make matches by computer that you hope the people will like. (And I'd wager that if we were to put together a dating service that tried to match good genes, the crew girl and the wide out would create superior offspring in any case. [I don't like using the word "superior", but you get what I mean.])
So adding genetic services might appeal to a subset of users, but it's not going to solve the main problems with your average dating service today. How to get eights to go with threes? and how to get nines and tens to use your service at all? Adding genetic services would only be doing a LOT of work to add a service that may appeal to a very niche slice of the dating market.
> In fact, it could be argued that the athletic departments themselves are already serving ss genetically gated dating services for elite genes. Stanford crew girl has a thing for Stanford wide receiver is a lot easier method of getting good gene sets together than testing millions of people and trying to make matches by computer that you hope the people will like. (And I'd wager that if we were to put together a dating service that tried to match good genes, the crew girl and the wide out would create superior offspring in any case. [I don't like using the word "superior", but you get what I mean.])
Super duper insightful man.
But both problems you’re discussing have already been solved:
>how to get eights to go with threes?
Prostitution.
>how to get nines and tens to use your service at all?
Build a walled garden, I.e. the Raya app.
Super duper insightful man.
But both problems you’re discussing have already been solved:
>how to get eights to go with threes?
Prostitution.
>how to get nines and tens to use your service at all?
Build a walled garden, I.e. the Raya app.
I knew immediately on seeing the title that people would start making pseudoscientific comments on the implications for humans, without regard to actual anthropology and with a side of sexism.
By mentioning sexism, when the parent comment doesn't, you're already assuming only women can be cheats. Please don't be a sexist, it's against the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don’t understand this at all. The dude you’re responding to is clearly criticizing sexism rather than reinforcing it. There is absolutely nothing in his comment to suggest that “only women can be cheats.”
+1 to implicit sexism. But why an implicit sexism means that a person assumes only women (and not only men) can be cheats?
I've more often met with a misconception that men cheat more often than women.
I've more often met with a misconception that men cheat more often than women.
Oddly enough, I dumped my last girlfriend for failing her gene test.
I don't know what this means and want more details.
I believe it was a tongue in cheek response which served to point out how horrible society would be if the parent comments wish were to come true.
Every time I bring this idea up people say it will be the most horrible of societies, but they can never seem to effectively explain why.
In the case of the linked article, we're not talking about the presence of genes, but rather their expression.
Genetic expression is influenced by many things, some that we understand and some that we don't (yet), but it is highly plausible that this can be (and already is) influenced and optimised throughout people's lives.
People's negative reaction to your proposal is obviously because people think it's dystopian to think that the genetic hand you're dealt at birth is highly restrictive and deterministic in terms of your potential life outcomes.
Policies like the one you describe would lead to a horrible society, because anybody who comes to believe that they are doomed to a miserable, futile life will not contribute positively to society and may well contribute very negatively. I suspect much of what we're seeing playing out around the world right now is at least partly a result of this phenomenon.
If it turns out that people's genetic expression is far more important than their genetic blueprint, and that their genetic expression can be influenced and optimised to lead to improved life outcomes, then people will be motivated to contribute positively to society and society will be vastly improved.
Genetic expression is influenced by many things, some that we understand and some that we don't (yet), but it is highly plausible that this can be (and already is) influenced and optimised throughout people's lives.
People's negative reaction to your proposal is obviously because people think it's dystopian to think that the genetic hand you're dealt at birth is highly restrictive and deterministic in terms of your potential life outcomes.
Policies like the one you describe would lead to a horrible society, because anybody who comes to believe that they are doomed to a miserable, futile life will not contribute positively to society and may well contribute very negatively. I suspect much of what we're seeing playing out around the world right now is at least partly a result of this phenomenon.
If it turns out that people's genetic expression is far more important than their genetic blueprint, and that their genetic expression can be influenced and optimised to lead to improved life outcomes, then people will be motivated to contribute positively to society and society will be vastly improved.
Yes, "facts" are in fact seldom facts as much as beliefs. Belief may indeed be the most factual thing we have. One derived lesson being; believe in yourself, view any evidence to the contrary with extreme skepticism.
Because you are disadvantaging people for a behaviour they might never exhibit. There is a reason we do not punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. You should judge people on their actual actions and not on your prediction of their actions.
Not being selected isn’t a punishment. We are not entitled to having everyone find us attractive. We are not even entitled to having a mate. There really may not be someone for everyone.
If you have very unattractive qualities and because of that people are not selecting you, they are not punishing you. If someone doesn’t want to be with you because you admit you’ve cheated in the past but don’t plan to anymore, that is fair. If you carry genes that make you more likely to seek out other partners and they don’t want that, that is also fair.
If you have very unattractive qualities and because of that people are not selecting you, they are not punishing you. If someone doesn’t want to be with you because you admit you’ve cheated in the past but don’t plan to anymore, that is fair. If you carry genes that make you more likely to seek out other partners and they don’t want that, that is also fair.
But you can't override your genetic disposition for being physically unattractive with your human willpower and become attractive.
Yes you can. Have you never heard of someone having an attractive personality? People also have different tastes and different ideas of what is attractive. You can also become more attractive as you age. You can also have plastic surgery.
Your genes that set physical attractiveness have little to do with just how attractive you actually are, who else may or may not find you attractive, and your chances for successfully passing on your genes.
Eg, your genes aren't the entire story, maybe not even most of the story.
Your genes that set physical attractiveness have little to do with just how attractive you actually are, who else may or may not find you attractive, and your chances for successfully passing on your genes.
Eg, your genes aren't the entire story, maybe not even most of the story.
[flagged]
I think the leap to eugenics there is not warranted. Eugenics is about enforced selective breeding. Enforcement being the key. Imagine you are tall and want a child that is also tall and so actively seek out a tall partner. That's obviously not engaging in eugenics, but an enforced prohibition on short individuals procreating would indeed be eugenics.
I would very much oppose any government ever enforcing genetic criterion on a mass level. But I see no qualms about individuals themselves having genetic preferences. Your argument might be that well nobody would want somebody with [undesirable trait x] so it would exclude these individuals from the collective gene pool, yet we see in real life that that's not how things work. Being short is not very desired, is genetically linked, and is immediately visible. Yet in spite of all of that, in practice it in no way stops people from living great lives, raising families, and finding great partners.
I would very much oppose any government ever enforcing genetic criterion on a mass level. But I see no qualms about individuals themselves having genetic preferences. Your argument might be that well nobody would want somebody with [undesirable trait x] so it would exclude these individuals from the collective gene pool, yet we see in real life that that's not how things work. Being short is not very desired, is genetically linked, and is immediately visible. Yet in spite of all of that, in practice it in no way stops people from living great lives, raising families, and finding great partners.
Dictionary tells us that the term applies even in the absence of enforcement per se:
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Eugenics
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Eugenics
The dictionary will tell you only tell you about words, not the reality that the words are meant to reflect. You cannot deduce, from what word a thing is called, whether that thing is good or bad. You must address the thing itself, and not assume that, just because it is called by the same name as some other thing, that they are the same.
(See e.g. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen... for more on this.)
(See e.g. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen... for more on this.)
I think this whole discussion is pretty pointless because it will inevitably turn out that behavior is incredibly complicated and can't be pinned to a DNA arrangement.
But... I don't like your reasoning. It sounds like: Hitler was a vegetarian. Don't be Hitler.
We already legally enforce certain kinds of eugenics. Most of the world prohibits sex between siblings. Right up until very recently many US states had marriage blood test requirements to prevent certain sexually transmitted and genetic diseases. There are a couple horrifying genetic diseases I wouldn't object to banning - google Lesch–Nyhan syndrome or Harlequin-type ichthyosis if you'd like to spend the rest of your evening crying.
It doesn't even sound like he's proposing a legal requirement. People pick mates for all sorts of dumb reasons. Hell, I know people that believe in zodiac signs. As long as it's voluntary, let them play the genetic dating game. If someone thinks that a few genes are going to bring a happy marriage, the joke's on them.
But... I don't like your reasoning. It sounds like: Hitler was a vegetarian. Don't be Hitler.
We already legally enforce certain kinds of eugenics. Most of the world prohibits sex between siblings. Right up until very recently many US states had marriage blood test requirements to prevent certain sexually transmitted and genetic diseases. There are a couple horrifying genetic diseases I wouldn't object to banning - google Lesch–Nyhan syndrome or Harlequin-type ichthyosis if you'd like to spend the rest of your evening crying.
It doesn't even sound like he's proposing a legal requirement. People pick mates for all sorts of dumb reasons. Hell, I know people that believe in zodiac signs. As long as it's voluntary, let them play the genetic dating game. If someone thinks that a few genes are going to bring a happy marriage, the joke's on them.
> It sounds like: Hitler was a vegetarian. Don't be Hitler.
To me it read more like the Nazi comparison was meant as a wake up call, and the bulk of the argument is in the second paragraph: "In this study[0], there is no human research, and the definition of monogamy is limited to a single mating season. It's also looking at gene expression, which means that a gene that everyone has is either turned on or off. For reference, genes are expressed differently in various parts of your body, and is a fairly good test for various types of cancer."
On a separate note, this wasn't a "Hitler was a vegetarian" thing. Pseudoscientific rationalisation for why some humans are morally superior to others is precisely that sort of context where Godwin's Law doesn't apply.
To me it read more like the Nazi comparison was meant as a wake up call, and the bulk of the argument is in the second paragraph: "In this study[0], there is no human research, and the definition of monogamy is limited to a single mating season. It's also looking at gene expression, which means that a gene that everyone has is either turned on or off. For reference, genes are expressed differently in various parts of your body, and is a fairly good test for various types of cancer."
On a separate note, this wasn't a "Hitler was a vegetarian" thing. Pseudoscientific rationalisation for why some humans are morally superior to others is precisely that sort of context where Godwin's Law doesn't apply.
[deleted]
People are afraid of eugenics and it’s antiquated association to Nazis, but humans practice eugenics everyday.
We select people who are most likely to be within our social class, we select based on appearance and intelligence (and thus, earning potential) or things like height and fertility.
Because genes make up who we are, nearly every filter we create is somehow tied to a person’s genetics. Eugenics doesn’t have to be barbaric and racist.
I’m not calling for genetic based dating to be forced on everyone, or to become law. I’m simply calling for a platform to be built that allows people to come together based on desirable genes and give them the best chance of making genetically gifted children. We owe it to future generations.
Someday, when the technologies are ready and I have more money, I would be glad to form a team and take a shot at building this platform, if someone else hasn’t beaten me to it.
We select people who are most likely to be within our social class, we select based on appearance and intelligence (and thus, earning potential) or things like height and fertility.
Because genes make up who we are, nearly every filter we create is somehow tied to a person’s genetics. Eugenics doesn’t have to be barbaric and racist.
I’m not calling for genetic based dating to be forced on everyone, or to become law. I’m simply calling for a platform to be built that allows people to come together based on desirable genes and give them the best chance of making genetically gifted children. We owe it to future generations.
Someday, when the technologies are ready and I have more money, I would be glad to form a team and take a shot at building this platform, if someone else hasn’t beaten me to it.
Do you really think any humans hold the "monogamous gene"? Monogamy in humans is entirely learnt behaviour. You only need to look at the prevalence of porn. Almost every man simulates sleeping with other women. Women are more hypergamous than non-monogamous but, again, just watch a few of their chick flicks and you'll see their version of porn.
So it won't show up on your 23andme test. It's a completely different type of analysis called RNA-seq, and in order to perform it they had to obtain actual brain tissue samples (not blood or saliva), because gene expression is different in every tissue.