Possible 'Trust', 'Monogamy' influencing gene found.

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Possible 'Trust', 'Monogamy' influencing gene found.

Post by SirNitram »

Link
What if you could tell whether a man is husband material just by peering at his genes?

There has been speculation about the role of the hormone vasopressin in humans ever since we discovered that variations in where receptors for the hormone are expressed makes prairie voles strictly monogamous but meadow voles promiscuous; vasopressin is related to the "cuddle chemical" oxytocin. Now it seems variations in a section of the gene coding for a vasopressin receptor in people help to determine whether men are serial commitment-phobes or devoted husbands.

Hasse Walum at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, and colleagues looked at the various forms of the gene coding for a vasopressin receptor in 552 Swedish people, who were all in heterosexual partnerships. The researchers also investigated the quality of their relationships.

They found that variation in a section of the gene called RS3 334 was linked to how men bond with their partners. Men can have none, one or two copies of the RS3 334 section, and the higher the number of copies, the worse men scored on a measure of pair bonding.

Not only that, men with two copies of RS3 334 were more likely to be unmarried than men with one or none, and if they were married, they were twice as likely to have a marital crisis.
Commitment phobia

Given that everyone surveyed had been in their relationship for at least five years, the team suggests that having multiple copies somehow contributes to commitment problems in men. Because the results were collected for a different study the team couldn't quiz the men on whether they were faithful, says Wallum.

It is not clear exactly how multiple copies of RS3 334 affect expression of the vasopressin receptor, and our most intimate relationships. And yet that's the most interesting question, says Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

In some animals, the theory is that the brain has two "motivational" systems: one for reward, the other for social perception. In prairie voles and marmosets, receptors for the two systems sit on adjacent cells, so social activity is highly rewarding, leading to monogamy. To see if the same mechanism is at work in people will mean using tissue from post-mortems to map where vasopressin receptors lie, to see if variations are linked to the number of copies of RS3 334.

RS3 334's social effects extend beyond bonding in couples. Earlier this year, the same gene section was shown to affect signalling in people's amygdalas, linked to trust. Another study found that people with autism, which is characterised by unusual social behaviour, often have multiple copies of RS3 334.

Walum's colleague Paul Lichtenstein says the team's next task is to test how a nasal vasopressin spray affects altruism and jealousy.
A highly interesting study, and an interesting slap in the face to the 'Polygamy is evolved' crowd.

Of course, most interesting to me is the duplication error they found in Autistics with this gene.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

A highly interesting study, and an interesting slap in the face to the 'Polygamy is evolved' crowd.
How? This is one gene. Out of a whole lot that deal with human reproductive and pair bonding behavior. The researchers, from this article at least, did not look at what effect this has on polygamists, it might be applicable to the marital bliss of multi-partner relationships, or it could easily have no effect. The research was not done.

The simplest explanation for the split between polygamy and monogamy in humans is akin to optimal foraging, where we didnt so much evolve monogamy or polygamy per se, but evolved to mate and invest in different partners in order to optimize our fitness in a given environment.

Hell, if I wanted to get technical, because we are NOT in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and assuming that these gene does have an effect on the frequency of polyamy (more properly polygyny by the way) the selctive pressures might force the allele frequency toward having more copies of RS3 334, in environments where polygyny is most advantageous. Then you get into a chicken/egg/or feedback loop problem of whether cultural institutions that enforce polygyny are responsible for the selective pressure, the aggregate effect of the allele frequency on population wide behavior, or if they are mutually reinforcing via a feeback loop.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
Vendetta
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10895
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Possible 'Trust', 'Monogamy' influencing gene found.

Post by Vendetta »

SirNitram wrote: A highly interesting study, and an interesting slap in the face to the 'Polygamy is evolved' crowd.
No, because other alleles to that gene may influence in favour of polygamous behaviour.

All animal (and hence human) behaviour is evolved, genetically or culturally.
User avatar
Dooey Jo
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3127
Joined: 2002-08-09 01:09pm
Location: The land beyond the forest; Sweden.
Contact:

Post by Dooey Jo »

I thought there were many different kinds of marital crises. Does that gene influence all of them, are the words a well-known euphemism for "infidelity", or is it just a really vague way for the researchers/reporters to express themselves in?
Image
"Nippon ichi, bitches! Boing-boing."
Mai smote the demonic fires of heck...

Faker Ninjas invented ninjitsu
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12267
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

Dooey Jo wrote:I thought there were many different kinds of marital crises. Does that gene influence all of them, are the words a well-known euphemism for "infidelity", or is it just a really vague way for the researchers/reporters to express themselves in?
When I heard this on NPR, I assumed that "marital crisis" meant a situation in which one or both partners thought the marriage could very well have ended because of it.

In any case, this is a surprising find to me; I would have expected that something like marital commitment would be governed by the interaction of about ten zillion genes, not influenced so strongly by one.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Surlethe wrote:
Dooey Jo wrote:I thought there were many different kinds of marital crises. Does that gene influence all of them, are the words a well-known euphemism for "infidelity", or is it just a really vague way for the researchers/reporters to express themselves in?
When I heard this on NPR, I assumed that "marital crisis" meant a situation in which one or both partners thought the marriage could very well have ended because of it.

In any case, this is a surprising find to me; I would have expected that something like marital commitment would be governed by the interaction of about ten zillion genes, not influenced so strongly by one.
there probably are a bunch of other different genes that regulate different aspects of your marital relationships

I thought there were many different kinds of marital crises. Does that gene influence all of them, are the words a well-known euphemism for "infidelity", or is it just a really vague way for the researchers/reporters to express themselves in?
From this, it looks like the gene make guys insensitive pricks.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Post by madd0ct0r »

which begs the question, could we take supplements of that hormone?
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

madd0ct0r wrote:which begs the question, could we take supplements of that hormone?
No. The gene in question deals with the receptor. Your brain produces enough of the hormone, it just doesnt have anywhere to bind
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
Post Reply