Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Find Gene That Predicts Happiness In Women

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the now-we-can-engineer-infinite-happiness dept.

Science 323

An anonymous reader writes "For reasons that scientists have not conclusively determined, women are happier than men. And now, researchers think that they may have pinpointed one of the reasons for that. They have found a gene in women that predicts the level of happiness in women. 'After controlling for various factors, ranging from age and education to income, the researchers found that women with the low-expression type of MAOA were significantly happier than others. Compared to women with no copies of the low-expression version of the MAOA gene, women with one copy scored higher on the happiness scale and those with two copies increased their score even more. While a substantial number of men carried a copy of the "happy" version of the MAOA gene, they reported no more happiness than those without it.'"

cancel ×

323 comments

First post! (-1, Offtopic)

JOrgePeixoto (853808) | about 2 years ago | (#41170691)

First post!

They identified the shape of the gene (4, Funny)

rullywowr (1831632) | about 2 years ago | (#41171125)

...and it looked like a very large princess cut diamond set in a bed of milk chocolate.

Re:They identified the shape of the gene (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171329)

You Sir, should've been modded informative.

Re:First post! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171437)

First post!

Does that make you happy?

Re:First post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171607)

First post!

Does that make you happy?

Yes. But I'm a man, so the gene is not involved.

Spoilers (5, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41170701)

For reasons that scientists have not conclusively determined, women are happier than men

Spoilers: It's the difficulty of getting laid. A woman only has to ask "Sex?"

you fail at biology forever (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41170889)

reproduction for females is costly and dangerous, reproduction for males is cheap

for a man any cooter will do, for a woman a specific wang is sought after

and historically the number of wanted wangs has been much smaller than the number of available cooters, roughly 20% of men
------------
in other words, yes random screwing is easier for women but that's irrelevant because that's not what women want, they want screwing by the small subset of desirable men and that is just as hard if not harder harder than a random man finding a random woman

Re:you fail at biology forever (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41170935)

and historically the number of wanted wangs has been much smaller than the number of available cooters, roughly 20% of men

Damn I heard it was 40% :-(

Actually this explains a lot.

Re:you fail at biology forever (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#41170949)

reproduction for females is costly and dangerous, reproduction for males is cheap

First of all sex is more than reproduction, you know this, right?

for a man any cooter will do, for a woman a specific wang is sought after

Second of all, you know that sex is for more than reproduction, right?

The VAST majority of sexually active females are *not* trying to have a baby.

Re:you fail at biology forever (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41171017)

I just figured he was Catholic :-P

Re:you fail at biology forever (5, Funny)

Scragglykat (1185337) | about 2 years ago | (#41171037)

He's referring to the using of sex to get one's way/money/goods I believe. That's why when you get married, you stop getting it... because they already have everything you own. :o)

Re:you fail at biology forever (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#41171253)

He's referring to the using of sex to get one's way/money/goods I believe. That's why when you get married, you stop getting it...

Maybe I'm in the minority, but my wife likes sex just fine.

Maybe *YOUR* wife just doesn't like sex with YOU?

Re:you fail at biology forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171441)

> my wife likes sex just fine.

Nice, isn't it? Additionally, my wife thinks sex is the cure for headaches.

Re:you fail at biology forever (5, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41171551)

Your comment reminded me of an old joke:
What's the difference between a wife and a job?

After five years the job still sucks.

Re:you fail at biology forever (5, Informative)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41171133)

The VAST majority of sexually active females are *not* trying to have a baby.

That is true in a conscious way, but they generally want to have sex when they feel like having sex. They will feel like having sex when their body tells them they are interested. That interest tends to be generated when certain requirements are met, unless they're somehow impaired (i.e. drunk). Those requirements will tend to reflect who will provide good genes for a child. That's why a woman can like a man just fine and think he is awesome, but has no interest in having sex with him.

You may well not have sex for reproduction, but we've evolved various aspects of it for that purpose, and nature doesn't care if we intend to get pregnant or not, it will do its best to find the right reproductive partner to have sex with if there is even a chance reproduction may occur.

Obviously, women can override the immediate desire to have sex and certainly can try and avoid pregnancy, but she's probably not going to try to override her instincts about who she finds attractive.

Re:you fail at biology forever (4, Insightful)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 2 years ago | (#41171137)

The VAST majority of sexually active females are *not* trying to have a baby.

Well, NOW, yeah. But for the vast majority and prior banging, on the evolutionary time scale, the purpose was baby-making.
I mean, we're talking about genetics and the evolutionary forces that push for those genes, right?

It's legacy code that's vastly out of date, but hey, it's what we've got today and we have to live with it. Eventually we'll get around to refactoring it all, cleaning up the code, and steamlining the crufty parts, but it's good to know where we're at now.

Re:you fail at biology forever (5, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41171151)

First of all sex is more than reproduction, you know this, right?

cca 1,000,000,000 years ago: Sexual reproduction appears and sexual behavior develops.

cca 200 years ago: Effective contraceptives get into widespread use.

You think that our basal ethology and psychology has had the time to adjust to the existence of artificial reproductive barriers?

Re:you fail at biology forever (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41171233)

200 years? The ancient Egyptians had contraceptives.

Re:you fail at biology forever (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#41171273)

We are not talking abour "ancient history", we are talking about "modern times".

Re:you fail at biology forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171183)

Third of all, everything he mentioned determines what females find sexually attractive - regardless if the sex is for reproduction.

Re:you fail at biology forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171351)

That's not the point, the difference is only relevant if the female is specifically trying to not act instinctively. Instinctively, every female IS trying to reproduce.

Re:you fail at biology forever (1)

hackula (2596247) | about 2 years ago | (#41171391)

Trying has nothing to do with it. This is about genes. Evolution is the mechanism here, not reason.

Re:you fail at biology forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171063)

roughly 20% of men

This is why humans invented monogamy by the way.

Re:you fail at biology forever (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41171109)

Troof! Bless the wise unattractive caveman who invented this.

Re:Spoilers (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41170951)

That's not true and you know it. If an 80-year-old woman came up to you and asked "Sex?", you'd probably leave very very quickly. Also, some guys don't just sleep with anything they can and want to evaluate potential partners for being decent-looking, reasonably healthy, and not crazy before jumping into bed.

Some real reasons women might be happier (as always, variations within a gender are much wider than variations between an average man and an average woman):
- Women tend to do a better job of building up a support network of friends and family, so if something goes wrong they have help they can call on.
- Moms tend to bond more closely with their children than dads. If you have kids, you're generally happier when you spend more time with them.
- As of quite recently, women are more educated than men, and also are more likely to be employed. Material security contributes a great deal towards happiness.

Re:Spoilers (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41171181)

Also, some guys don't just sleep with anything they can and want to evaluate potential partners for being decent-looking, reasonably healthy, and not crazy before jumping into bed.

You are on the wrong website sir.

Re:Spoilers (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41171225)

That's not true and you know it.

It's much closer to true than you want to admit. If you send a group of average looking college students onto campus to randomly proposition [time.com] people of the opposite sex, the majority of females will get affirmative responses, and the majority of males will get negative responses. Women have a much easier time than men getting laid. That's scientific fact.

Re:Spoilers (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 2 years ago | (#41171227)

But why do women tend to do those things? is it genetic? Is it the same gene that is identified in tfa that might influence this behavior?

Re:Spoilers (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41171107)

Actually, I'd like to see the study that says woman are happier than men, because that flies in the face of my experience. Most of the women I know are either depressed or angry all the time.

The unhappy men I know are all married.

Re:Spoilers (5, Funny)

dsvick (987919) | about 2 years ago | (#41171299)

Most of the women I know are either depressed or angry all the time.

And the common factor is ..... :)

sorry, had to!

Yay! (1)

r4wbin (2713249) | about 2 years ago | (#41170715)

The world is saved!

Re:Yay! (4, Funny)

tattood (855883) | about 2 years ago | (#41170883)

Once they make a pill to activate this gene, then yes.

not the right gene (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41170743)

so maoa is going to be the new designer gene (jean).

Multiple orgasms (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41170745)

That gene wouldn't happen to have an association with the one that allows for multiple orgasms in women, would it?

GATTACA (4, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41170753)

Now you can analyze your girlfriend's* DNA and see if she's only acting happy and would become miserable after marriage!

*Yeah this is Slashdot but the theory is sound

Re:GATTACA (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#41170879)

Now you can analyze your girlfriend's* DNA and see if she's only acting happy and would become miserable after marriage!

*Yeah this is Slashdot but the theory is sound

I think Slashdot users are more likely to hit the powerball than gain the ability to test this theory.

Re:GATTACA (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41170897)

Yeah well we talk about particle accelerators, fighter jets and new cars too.

Re:GATTACA (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about 2 years ago | (#41171057)

Now you can analyze your girlfriend's* DNA and see if she's only acting happy and would become miserable after marriage!

*Yeah this is Slashdot but the theory is sound

I think Slashdot users are more likely to hit the powerball than gain the ability to test this theory.

I'd postulate that a Slashdot user hitting the powerball would find themselves quite capable of testing this theory. Also, I'm willing to be my own test subject.

Re:GATTACA (4, Insightful)

CubicleZombie (2590497) | about 2 years ago | (#41170887)

Now you can analyze your girlfriend's* DNA and see if she's only acting happy and would become miserable after marriage!

It's a lot easier than that. Just plan a wedding. Whatever she's like during that process is what she'll be like after marriage. Bridezilla == Wifezilla.

Then throw a screaming baby and some surging hormones into the mix.

Somebody kill me.

Re:GATTACA (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41171003)

I think covert DNA collection and analysis is easier than planning a wedding.

Re:GATTACA (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#41171261)

Interesting point. Weird as it might sound, I went on a Bridezillas tv show binge a while back and was blown away by the way some of those women acted. I've been disgusted for a long time with what weddings have become, but I see some logic behind guys who seem to bail weeks or months before the big day.

Re:GATTACA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171339)

This is 100% true. Don't ask me how I know. :(

Re:GATTACA (4, Insightful)

hackula (2596247) | about 2 years ago | (#41171645)

Just got married last weekend. Kept things simple with close to zero stress. Saved 20 grand and everyone's sanity. Wife was easy going and chill about everything. Pro tip: if your bride-to-be is freaking the fuck out about flowers, food, or chairs, then she is a psychopath. Do not marry a psychopath! This should go without saying, but somehow it is become the norm. Marry a woman, not a spoiled child.

Re:GATTACA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171281)

Now you can analyze your girlfriend's* DNA and see if she's only acting happy and would become miserable after marriage!

*Yeah this is Slashdot but the theory is sound

Good luck with that. My wife was a peach for a full 6 years before I married her, then she flipped a switch and became another person that I'd like to live without. I don't think even a dna test would have sniffed that one out.

In other news... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41170767)

the gene is incredibly rare.

Hair? (4, Funny)

Chemisor (97276) | about 2 years ago | (#41170781)

This gene wouldn't be the one responsible for blond hair, would it?

In all seriousness. (1)

neoshroom (324937) | about 2 years ago | (#41171115)

They traced [the gene] to the low-activity form of monoamine oxidase A (MAOA). The findings surprised the researchers, because that same gene has been linked to alcoholism, aggression and generally antisocial behavior.

That does sound rather like some blonds I know...

Re:Hair? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41171315)

Blondes only have more fun because they're easier to find in the dark.

Er... Science? (0, Troll)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41170783)

The investigators analyzed a group of 345 people -193 women and 152 men.

Wow, they got that result even though they analyzed only negative women.

After controlling for various factors, ranging from age and education to income

In other words, after ignoring the 9000 other variables that lead to happiness or lack thereof...

Anyone have a link to the actual numbers so we can see if they are finding trends in data noise or not?

Re:Er... Science? (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#41170901)

The investigators analyzed a group of 345 people -193 women and 152 men.

Wow, they got that result even though they analyzed only negative women.

After controlling for various factors, ranging from age and education to income

In other words, after ignoring the 9000 other variables that lead to happiness or lack thereof...

Anyone have a link to the actual numbers so we can see if they are finding trends in data noise or not?

It actually makes me curious how education factors in here. Are women happier when more or less educated?

Re:Er... Science? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41170977)

Eh... with no other data, I could see that going either way. Same with men.

Re:Er... Science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171121)

Typically, studies report a negative correlation between education and happiness. There's apparently some truth to the old saw "ignorance is bliss."

Re:Er... Science? (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 2 years ago | (#41171411)

Are women happier when more or less educated?

Considering they're wealthier, healthier, with more upwards social mobility, more respected, and more in charge of their life... I'd have to go with more educated. You know, just at a guess.

Re:Er... Science? (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41170975)

Even before this study, it was already well established (from twin studies) that happiness is largely genetic: "studies of twins estimate genetic factors account for 35 to 50 percent of the variance in human happiness." (from the article).

.

The contribution of this study is NOT that happiness is largely genetic, only building evidence that this particular gene plays a role.

And while you question whether they corrected for enough variables, I question if they corrected for too many. If you factor out variables (such as level of education or income) that reflect happiness that reflects genetics, then you may be factoring out some of the effect that is ultimately attributable to genetics. Whereas there is no chance that your level of education or income determines your genetics (although they reflect and therefore may well "predict" the genetics of a randomly chosen person). The real answer to study bias is having a sound argument that the sampling of subjects was random with respect to the outcome variable.

Wait. What? (4, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#41170789)

There's such a thing as a happy woman?

Re:Wait. What? (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 2 years ago | (#41171307)

If there are, I haven't met them ... oh wait.

Re:Wait. What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171511)

keeping your woman happy is easy. Just buy her new shoes.

Re:Wait. What? (3, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41171605)

A friend told me about his racing school teacher who was divorced many times and had discovered the secret to happy marriage: Add a piece of jewellery to the budget for every new set of tires.

For the average slashdotter just replace "new set of tires" with "new computer/PC overhaul"

As a man, all I have to say about this news is (3, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41170791)

it makes me unhappy. It's unfair. Lucky women. Life sucks. Leave me alone.

No surprise here (0)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#41170807)

Macy's is for clothes
Amazon.com is for 50 Shades of Gray
Overstock.com is for everything else
Avon is for makeup

MOAN gene... There, fixed for ya... (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | about 2 years ago | (#41170811)

I always thought the gene that made women happy was what was in my pocket...

Get your mind out of the gutter! I meant in my wallet in my back pocket.

New GMO corn (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41170825)

Now if Monsanto will just stick thing in their corn, it will make for a happier world!

Of course they're happier... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41170841)

in most states they don't have to put up with wives.

Who cares here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41170863)

There's no women here and the residents don't have any form of interaction with them.

Stabbing in the dark (3, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#41170869)

The picture I'm getting is that genetic tech and biochemistry is still in the dark ages. I mean, they have no idea how gene X works on a biochemical level, so they take a survey of people with gene X and ask how happy they are... and call that a study.

The good news is, once they figure this shit out and can accurately model all the biochemical reactions inside the human body, the possibilities are endless.

Re:Stabbing in the dark (1)

AwesomeMcgee (2437070) | about 2 years ago | (#41170997)

No, the possibilities end at getting a wife not to make something up and claim their husband didn't do it and should have known they were supposed to. That's way beyond genes, from my personal experiments a wife exhibits the following characteristics during said complaint time:
She grows slightly between 15% and 20% of her normal body size
She may speak a language foreign to her to ensure you understand her disdain
She will not be interrupted by anything less than 4000dB loud or less than 3500lbs of weight landing on her
She is invulnerable to all forms of damage including slashing and burning
She temporarily imbues deaf people with hearing to ensure her complaint is known.
She glows in the dark so you may not ignore her

Achievement disparity (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41170909)

Could this be a major contributor to the disparity in achievement between men and women? Women have achieved great things as scientists, CEOs, politicians, and in many other areas. Despite this, by and large, men strive for achievement more than women (as a group). Is it because men, on average, are less content? Could this be the primary motivating factor for men to achieve greater things than their predecessors? Perhaps men then to just "want it" more than women. I'm not denying that discrimination and disenfranchisement are contributing factors, but maybe they don't play as big a role as people think.

so... (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#41170931)

Is this Gene activated when I do the dishes or put my close in the hamper? Because I'm getting told it does by my wife and... oh I was just told I've used up my "internet" for the day...

Re:so... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171323)

Is this Gene activated when I do the dishes or put my close in the hamper? Because I'm getting told it does by my wife and... oh I was just told I've used up my "internet" for the day...

My wife used to go down on me for steam cleaning the carpets.

But as it turns out, the carpets start falling apart when you steam clean them twice a day.

Dating Requirement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41170939)

Picture, height, weight, likes, MAOA results...

In other news... (1)

bobthesungeek76036 (2697689) | about 2 years ago | (#41170945)

This gene only occurs when hubby/boyfriend/SO has lots of money...

How do they objectively measure happiness? (2)

johnny cashed (590023) | about 2 years ago | (#41170953)

Is there some new way science is able to quantify happiness? They can measure it?

Re:How do they objectively measure happiness? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41171177)

Is there some new way science is able to quantify happiness? They can measure it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrinology [wikipedia.org]

this isn't science (2)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about 2 years ago | (#41171397)

not in the slightest.

Wrong gene name? (1)

Alvarex (2704755) | about 2 years ago | (#41170967)

Funny, I would have thought the gene would be called MIDOL

Yeah right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41170983)

Tell my ex-girlfriend that. She was happy so long as she got her own way and if she wasn't happy, not only should I be unhappy but it also must have been my fault in some way.

Women - you can't live with them and you can't live with them. :-)

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171113)

Roger, you slimy piece of shit, is that you?

How does ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41170985)

... low-expression MAOA relate to the size of her ass?

Happy Happy Joy Joy... (1)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#41170989)

One wonders what evolutionary advantage the high-expression version of this gene might have yielded.

"The MAOA gene regulates the activity of an enzyme that breaks down serontin (sic), dopamine and other neurotransmitters in the brain. The low-expression version of the MAOA gene promotes higher levels of monoamine, which allows larger amounts of these neurotransmitters to stay in the brain and boost mood."

You can understand why the low-expression form might be advantageous, but the high-expression form would seem to make one pretty much always depressed and hard to live with.

Predisposition toward being depressed does not immediately suggest any advantage in getting your offspring into the next generation, or even any advantage in ensuring your immediate survival, let alone attracting a mate.

The findings surprised the researchers, because that same gene has been linked to alcoholism, aggression and generally antisocial behavior.

Left unsaid is if this prior linkage was found in males or females. With testosterone being suspected to deactivate the low-expression version of MAOA, it might make sense that such a linkage toward aggression would be more likely to be found in males.

It would seem Cats [youtube.com] must have a two copies of the low expression version.

Re:Happy Happy Joy Joy... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41171141)

You can understand why the low-expression form might be advantageous, but the high-expression form would seem to make one pretty much always depressed and hard to live with.

Predisposition toward being depressed does not immediately suggest any advantage in getting your offspring into the next generation, or even any advantage in ensuring your immediate survival, let alone attracting a mate.

Back in the hunter-gatherer era, the ability to scare off potential suitors might help a woman in dedicating her existing attention towards the raising of an existing child. Popping out one kid a year (even if child mortality is high) results in a sizable family. And what with the father(s) absent hunting, or in a non-monogamous society where dad just moves on, mom can't afford to stretch her resources too far.

Then there's the great sex with a crazy bitch theory. If crazy bitch correlates with unhappy, and (based upon my observations) crazy bitch correlates with hot sex, the 'unhappy' gene serves to attract suitors.

Just hook up at their place, not yours.

Re:Happy Happy Joy Joy... (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 2 years ago | (#41171487)

Well, off the cuff, unhappy people often strive to be happy. You know, that motivational force thing. If you were content to just sit around all day in a happy haze, you wouldn't get much work done. Unless you're clinically depressed, most people who are unhappy try to fix it.

Re:Happy Happy Joy Joy... (2)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#41171505)

Not sure that applies to depressed people.

I know that DNA combination from Biology class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41170999)

I think it goes something like V-I-S-A or A-M-E-X

So, under a utiliterian ethic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171029)

we're morally obligated to attempt to genetically engineer happier women.

Re:So, under a utiliterian ethic (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41171185)

There is prior art [wikipedia.org] .

control group? (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about 2 years ago | (#41171045)

did they test genes in lesbian women? i'm pretty certain men are unhappy because we have to make women happy.

I wonder (2, Interesting)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 2 years ago | (#41171047)

No troll intended
But I wonder if this gene is activated or deactivated by the monthly increase or decrease in certain hormones.

Emotions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171055)

Well, this just proves even more than women are led by their emotions, down to the genetic level.

Re:Emotions (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | about 2 years ago | (#41171105)

Not married, huh?

Gene Therapy (1)

zippy40 (737906) | about 2 years ago | (#41171091)

Where can I sign my wife up for gene therapy???

Wanting to know what makes people happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171095)

Careful now, this is how Reavers were created.

Happiness... (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | about 2 years ago | (#41171097)

I thought they were the ones that don't make her ass look big... oh, genes... I thought you said jeans.

Gene Therapy (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41171143)

Gives a whole new meaning to the old saying, 'Take my wife, please!'

Happiness in Men (2)

Ashenkase (2008188) | about 2 years ago | (#41171175)

Positive manipulation of the MAOA gene will help to Predict Happiness In Men

hmm (1)

buddyglass (925859) | about 2 years ago | (#41171333)

I'd be fascinated to learn what other characteristics this gene's presence (or absence) correlates with. Religiosity? Divorce? Teen pregnancy? Drug abuse? High IQ? High or low income? High or low education level? Conservatism or liberalism? Is it expressed more or less frequently among different ethnic groups?

The Results Were Skewed (3, Interesting)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#41171449)

Sally Albright: Most women at one time or another have faked it.
Harry Burns: Well, they haven't faked it with me.
Sally Albright: How do you know?
Harry Burns: Because I know.
Sally Albright: Oh. Right. Thats right. I forgot. Youre a man.
Harry Burns: What was that supposed to mean?
Sally Albright: Nothing. Its just that all men are sure it never happened to them and all women at one time or other have done it so you do the math.

The odds are the women were faking happiness during the study. You do the math. In the mean time, I'll have what she's having.

To state the obvious (1)

Boghog (910236) | about 2 years ago | (#41171545)

The MAO-A gene resides on the X chromosome. Therefore men can carry at most one copy of the gene. It is shocking that neither of the linked articles state this.
In fact, the second linked article is flat out wrong:
Interestingly, the gene did not hold the same correlation for men, who reported the same amount of happiness no matter if they had zero, one or two copies. [medicaldaily.com]

So, where is that in relation to the SHOE gene? (1)

mschaffer (97223) | about 2 years ago | (#41171559)

finally, the link between MAOA and SHOES

I assume... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171613)

...that "Gene" is the name of the woman's rich husband?

Happiness deemed harmful (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41171617)

Happiness undoubtedly is largely a physiological characteristic of a person. The question is then, why didn't evolution sort the genes out so that we would be happy most of the time? The obvious answer is that happiness isn't a good thing for the survival of the individual.

I believe we were "created" to strive to be happy, but we weren't "meant" to be happy except for some fleeting, orgastic moments. Happiness is the carrot, suffering is the stick that propels us to survive and procreate. Pain is there to make us suffer but so is love, which is definitely not meant to make us happy but rather sacrifice our wellbeing for that of another individual.

Humans are constantly trying to cheat nature. Alcohol, opium, cocaine etc make us happy, so happy that we don't care if we starve, if we stink, if we contract a disease.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...