Beta
×

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!

Gene Found to Explain Repeated Mistakes

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the oh-wait-for-the-joke dept.

Biotech 299

palegray.net writes "A December 6th article in Nature explores the relationship between a specific gene and those of us prone to repeatedly making the same mistakes. From the article: "Drug addicts, alcoholics and compulsive gamblers are known to be more likely than other people to have this genetic mutation ..." The gene results in the development of fewer D2 receptors in the brain, a condition which the study has shown leads to a lessened ability to learn from experience." So no complaining about dupes and typos: it's genetic!

cancel ×

299 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Now, for the most useful one (4, Funny)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624465)

The gene that controls the impulse to tell others what to do, when it isn't necessary to tell them what to do. The 'busybody' gene.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624527)

I think that having this repeated mistake poriblem directly causes you to want to tell others what to do. After all, you do not learn from giving bad advice or instructions either. Explains a lot in politics, religion and management. All these creers where you can be sucessful even after having repeatedly demonstrated bad judgement.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (3, Interesting)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624561)

No, because politicians do what is best for them. They lose nothing by being removed from office, they get to retire and spend their money or write books. No, this gene only affects the voters, the mass of sheep who keep running into the arms of new politicians each election cycle, despite NEVER getting a better deal than they would by simply walking away and firing all the politicians. Anyone who wants the job has already proven their desire for power and for a free ride at the expense of those who are taxed. Yet people still vote for 'em? They still consent to be ruled? Remarkable. This gene must be more effective than we think!!

Re:Now, for the most useful one (0, Flamebait)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624663)

What would you have instead?

This American disdain for politicians is perplexing. You claim to be so proud of your democracy. And yet you despise the people who personify and work for that democracy?

The American debate scene is far too filled with disdain, aggression and closed minds.

I'm guessing that you're American, since that attitude seems to be prevalent only in the US.

What would you have instead?

Re:Now, for the most useful one (1)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624883)

I'm guessing you're European. 1000 years of wars, infighting, sellouts, torture, serfdom and broken promises by those in power, and you still don't get it? Nothing much I can do chief. If you can't learn from history, you most certainly won't learn from me.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (2, Insightful)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625033)

1000 years of wars, infighting, sellouts, torture, serfdom and broken promises by those in power, and you still don't get it?
There are differences between the systems 1000 years ago and the current systems.

We don't count on the politicians to be perfect. If you do, you'll inevitably be extremely disappointed, since they are people like other people. They'll look out for themselves just like most people do. Plus many of them love power. We count on that, and adjust our system in such ways that their self-interest will work in our favor.

There's no need to expect extraordinary idealism and then be surprised and despise them for being just like everybody. Expect them to be selfish and work with it.

I still wonder what you'd prefer instead.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (1)

EveLibertine (847955) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624903)

You trust your politicians? Boy are you in for a surprise.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (5, Interesting)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625187)

You trust your politicians?
Of course not. Quite the contrary. For instance here in Sweden there have recently been several scandals with politicians not paying their taxes. We expect them to be selfish, and adapt our systems in such ways that their selfishness will work in our interest.

For example, here in Sweden the members of the government, the ministers, have no right to give orders to authorities. Ministers decide about policy, and are expressly forbidden from meddling in the day-to-day matters of the authorities. That's to limit the influence of the power-hungry. The only exception is when an authority asks for a policy decision, and also some exceptional authorities such as the one that manages embassies and foreign affairs.

This arrangement complicated matters a lot when a Swede was released from Guantanamo. The US demanded guarantees from the Swedish government that he would be supervised. Since the government is expressly forbidden from giving any such orders they couldn't give any such guarantees.

It would make more sense for you Americans to simply expect your politicians to be selfish like everybody, and not despise them for that, and instead despise your system if it doesn't provide suitable checks and balances. Which I think it doesn't.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625289)

It would make more sense for you Americans to simply expect your politicians to be selfish like everybody, and not despise them for that, and instead despise your system if it doesn't provide suitable checks and balances. Which I think it doesn't.

+1 insightful, buddy. But the average American confuses the system with the nation. Despise the system? Then you're being unpatriotic. Another built-in design problem is that as you say, we should change the system so that the politicians have checks and balances. But we can't do that; only the politicians can. This is a deep and serious design flaw.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21624911)

This American disdain for politicians is perplexing. You claim to be so proud of your democracy. And yet you despise the people who personify and work for that democracy?

Well, skipping the whole issues of this supposed "pride" and the "democracy" vs "republic" thing, maybe our disdain is due to their corruption and spinlessness? Now, it's not that they all start that way, but the election system we have here breeds corruption, and the anticipation of re-election is an obvious disincentive to do the right thing in all those cases where the right thing might be unpopular with your financial supporters. And unfortunately, not being a direct democracy, the people who are in position to fix the problem are the ones trapped in it. Every once in a while one of them stands up and tries to get the others to do the right thing, but self-intrest and cowardice seem to always win in the end.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (5, Insightful)

j-pimp (177072) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624995)

This American disdain for politicians is perplexing. You claim to be so proud of your democracy. And yet you despise the people who personify and work for that democracy?

American's hate all forms of government. We just hate ours the least. I doubt hating our government officials is a uniquely American phenomenon either. Perhaps our two party system makes it a bit more pronounced, but I find it hard to believe that no other country shows disdain for its leaders. Also hating ones leaders fits well into the belief that government is a necessary evil.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (1)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625051)

when referring to government i prefer "evil, but necessary"

that way the evil is emphasized.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21625263)

Our country was born of those hating out government. Our country would not exist if we loved it so. It surely can't be surprising it is part of our culture.

The biggest problem is, right now, the government is at all time power and the people's at its least. The US Constitution is violated every day nows. Laws which are specifically prohibited by the Constitution are passed on a common basis and the masses remain dumb. Corruption is rampant. Buying votes is an every day affair. Rarely do the elected do what's right or best; rather they do what the uneducated, ignorant, or self serving require.

Contrary to popular belief, our government is badly broken is does not reflect the original government sought after and desired during our country's birth. Many people can look at the system and realize its broken. Most people have no idea how to begin fixing it. Those than do know how to fix it are, by far, in the minority.

By empowering the uneducated and ignorant to vote, the educated vote was drastically watered down. By empowering votes to bought, the educated vote was further reduced and divided. This combination has been the continued downfall of US government and continues in a downward spiral.

There are five things are required to *begin* fixing our government.
  o Uneducated and ignorant must not have the right to vote. Voting is a privilege and bares responsibility. Our forefathers knew this. Allowing everyone to vote is to spit on our forefathers. Those voting should be required to answer basic, topical questions.
  o Lobbying must be restricted to individuals. No financial contributions allowed; direct or indirect. Absolutely no corporations. Government funds all elections; as enforced by signatures of voters. Violation results in automatic life in prison.
  o Longer term limits so the elected can actually do their job.
  o All gun laws need to be revoked. Almost all of them are unconstitutional. Remember, when the Constitution was framed, individuals and companies could own the worlds most powerful war weapons of the time. Almost all of them are more powerful then than what is currently allowed today. The current gun laws are contrary to the Constitution and the very wishes of our forefathers to ensure the government is always empowered by the people.
  o We need to modify the electoral system. Is it obsolete. Any representative voting against their popular vote should be imprisoned.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624845)

Explains a lot in politics, religion and management.
And Internet Explorer.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (2, Funny)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624565)

The gene that controls the impulse to tell others what to do, when it isn't necessary to tell them what to do. The 'busybody' gene.
Stop calling people names just because they tell you what to do. It's for your own good.

Re:Now, for the most useful one (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625125)

There are a couple of variants to this gene, one of which causes this instructive behavior to occur while in motion. The condition is known medically as BSDS ... Back Seat Driver Syndrome.

Politics explained (5, Funny)

El Yanqui (1111145) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624487)

Now I know why so many politicians get re-elected: Too few D2 receptors in the voting population.

Re:Politics explained (5, Funny)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624571)

Now I know why people upgrade their windows installation.

Re:Politics explained (1)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624661)

Better yet! Now we know why they keep making windows with the same failed security schemes!

Re:Politics explained (1)

ewg (158266) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624733)

Now I know why people read blog comments.

Re:Politics explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21625017)

...And why Gene Hackman went on to do Superman 2.

Just what we need (5, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624501)

When our society already has plenty of excuses to avoid personal responsibility (e.g. overdiagnosis of ADD to include kids who are just undiscipled), we give more ammunition to people who just don't want to try to get it right.

Re:Just what we need (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624683)

Hopefully you aren't suggesting the results be suppressed in order to facilitate people's sense of responsibility.

Re:Just what we need (4, Funny)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624747)

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. The practice of science should be punishable by death.

Re:Just what we need (4, Funny)

abigor (540274) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624843)

Right, well that's fair enough then.

Re:Just what we need (2, Insightful)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624937)

Considering this [slashdot.org] it makes more sense if the practice of journalism becomes punishable by death.

Re:Just what we need (5, Insightful)

caution live frogs (1196367) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624761)

My biggest problem with this sort of science is that the general public usually gets everything about it wrong, thanks to bad reporting or poor understanding of science in general. Someone publishes an article stating that morph A of gene X is found more often than one would statistically expect in a number of persons with a specific condition, but when the public gets the results we get headlines screaming "OMFG TEH GHEY GENE FOUND" and that kind of crap, because it makes better press. Yes, there are conditions that can be caused by an aberration in a single gene (albinism, narcolepsy, etc.) but more often than not genes that control complex behaviors require multiple interactions between multiple genes; until proven otherwise you should always understand that publication of a finding like this is indicitave of a contributing factor, not a causal factor, for a given condition.

Trust me. I do neuroscience for a living. When you're preparing the publication for submission, you always work your hardest to ensure that everything is accurate and properly phrased to be crystal clear about the limitations and drawbacks of the findings, only to have a reporter read nothing more than the abstract and get everything wrong. Don't blame the societal excuses on the scientists. People inclined to take the easy way out don't end up with PhDs, research careers, and articles in Nature.

Re:Just what we need (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21624793)

+1, Elitist

Re:Just what we need (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624815)

+1? So Elitism is a good thing?
Disclaimer: I don't have an opinion on GPP.

Re:Just what we need (4, Funny)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624829)

(e.g. overdiagnosis of ADD to include kids who are just undiscipled), [...] people who just don't want to try to get it right.
Which kind are you? Undiscipled? Or don't want to get it right?

Re:Just what we need (5, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624919)

We already know that a lot of bad decisions are motivated by other physiological factors - adolescent "testosterone poisioning", PMS, dementia, etc. The fact that cognition has a material basis puts us in a place beyond either "excuses" or simple "suck it up" volitionalism. Each of us is, ultimately and existentially, "responsible" for ourselves. Yet much of our behavior and attitudes are still formed by factors out of our control, and there is no one I know who doesn't have thoughts, behaviors, and emotions which baffle them.

Knowing the roots of these behaviors gives us a way to short-circuit the negative ones.

Re:Just what we need (5, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625019)

When our society already has plenty of excuses to avoid personal responsibility (e.g. overdiagnosis of ADD to include kids who are just undiscipled),

I think the problem is that humans on average are not designed to sit still for hours at little desks and move little symbols on flat bleached trees. A "problem child" may have been a brilliant hunter in an earlier era. I've seen families where one kid is almost an angel and the other from the same parents is a hyper mess. Whips and chains may work in the short term, but create a disturbed personality later in life.

Re:Just what we need (1)

calzones (890942) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625227)

bingo.

Re:Just what we need (3, Funny)

bigpicture (939772) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625177)

"Personal Responsibility" What's that? Is it in the dictionary somewhere between "blame personal circumstances or others" and "It's not my fault".

Re:Just what we need (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625193)

"(e.g. overdiagnosis of ADD to include kids who are just undiscipled)"

Is it? Or is it that we have a religious cult worship of overwork? I'm with Bertrand Russel, Socrates and Buckminster fuller on this one, people work so much their relationships with their fellow human beings absolutely suck.

Justification for India's old caste system? (2, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625209)

When our society already has plenty of excuses to avoid personal responsibility (e.g. overdiagnosis of ADD to include kids who are just undiscipled), we give more ammunition to people who just don't want to try to get it right.

I've read that the original idea behind India's caste system (a long, long time ago) was that different people were qualified for different jobs. I.e., ruling, manual labor, trade, etc. The idea was to basically codify this reality. (I don't believe that caste was originally imagined as hereditary, but I could be wrong.)

Anyway, if persons' ability to handle responsibility, make good decisions, etc. could be shown to have a genetic basis, I wonder if this would actually validate some of that old system's grounding principles.

(Also reminds me go Gattaca, though.)

Logic ... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624505)

From TFA: "Dopamine is responsible for signalling fun and pleasure in the brain. But dopamine also helps us learn. When we make a pleasurable decision, dopamine is a chemical treat, urging the brain to repeat the choice. Being deprived of such a treat should theoretically activate D2 receptors and encourage people not to make that same decision again."

Is it only me who thinks that the writer did not learn to stop?

CC.

FRIST POST!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21624507)

I'm mighty hungover and they won't announce my lottery winning until Wenesday

Must be widespread.... (3, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624511)

Just look at the ad state of the World. What we would need is people that can learn from other's mistakes, but what we have seems to be a majority that cannot even learn from their own.

Back on topic, I think this is very interesting reaearch. Dare one even hope for the possibility of a cure?

Re:Must be widespread.... (4, Funny)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624567)

Just look at the ad state of the World
Thats either quite clever or the most apt typo ever.

Re:Must be widespread.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21624947)

genetic diseases/disorders don't have a cure. the best you can do is stop further propagation.

Re:Must be widespread.... (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625001)

The best you can do is stop further propagation.
Darwin Awards! [darwinawards.com]

Re:Must be widespread.... (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625299)

Just look at the ad state of the World

The "state of the world" is the best it's ever been.

- war is at an all-time low
- wealth is at an all-time high
- poverty is at an all-time low
- pollution is lower than it has been in hundreds of years
- life expectancy is at an all-time high
- people are far healthier than at any time in the past
- Many of the worst diseases are eradicated or cured outright
- Death by starvation is unknown in the majority of countries -- it simply does not happen.
- etc., etc., etc.

It is reality.

Western civilization (and the principles and traditions behind it) deserves most of the credit.

The pre-emptive dupe. (0, Redundant)

Ninjaesque One (902204) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624515)

This article will be duped. Be sure of it.

Genetic databases of individuals... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21624521)

I wonder how long until people found to have this gene are given higher insurance rates (or harder time getting jobs if it's known).

Now some of them may very well earn them, but others don't. How long until even having the gene becomes a liability, even if it doesn't seem to affect your actions.

Re:Genetic databases of individuals... (3, Interesting)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624781)

Well that does pose an interesting question. Should people with genetic predisposition to disease have higher insurance rates? Should women with the BRCA mutations pay more? What if they get profilactic surgeries?

Re:Genetic databases of individuals... (1)

krazytekn0 (1069802) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624987)

Gattaca is coming...

Re:Genetic databases of individuals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21625225)

Higher insurance rates paid for by parents who were aware of an unusually high risk of genetic disorders in their offspring. The one with the genetic problems should never be responsible, because there was no chance to choose.

Dupe (1)

iphayd (170761) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624523)

I'll wait for the next one to _actually_ comment.

Re:Dupe (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624653)

So no complaining about dupes and typos: it's genetic!
Busted!

Not to put too fine a point on it (3, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624549)

But isn't this almost the definition of stupidity?
 

In the future (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624597)

There will be no stupid people, unemployment or poor. Instead we'll have genetically indisposed, between jobs or financially challenged. Say anything else and the PC will hit you.

Re:In the future (1)

JayDiggity (70168) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624853)

So? Will that make them any less stupid, unemployed, or poor? At we can all know why.

Re:In the future (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624967)

Surely you jest!

In the future, the tolerant will tolerate the intolerant.

all the best,

drew

Re:Not to put too fine a point on it (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624711)

Insanity, not stupidity.

Re:Not to put too fine a point on it (1)

Sigismundo (192183) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624897)

Quote [quotationspage.com] from Albert Einstein: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Re:Not to put too fine a point on it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21624971)

So, that is why tech support drives me insane.

Re:Not to put too fine a point on it (1)

arktemplar (1060050) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625231)

Then all of science would be Insane, we do after all advocate the repeating of the same set of experiments all the time hoping to get different results, something that can let us publish. I do not quite agree with that bit.

Does this qualify people for a disability? (1)

kdekorte (8768) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624573)

And if so does this mean they get special parking? I hope not...

Correlation != Causation (2, Interesting)

eniac42 (1144799) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624587)

Or maybe people with fewer D2 receptors were more cynical by nature, and thought the experiment pointless..

Re:Correlation != Causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21625179)

Or maybe people with fewer D2 receptors were more cynical by nature, and thought the experiment pointless..

That would still be causation. Will you ever learn?

Genetically-oriented criminals (1)

renrutal (872592) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624589)

So instead of "Not guilty by reason of insanity" they now might say "Not guilty because of genetic tendency"?

Re:Genetically-oriented criminals (1)

Compholio (770966) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624703)

So instead of "Not guilty by reason of insanity" they now might say "Not guilty because of genetic tendency"?
Next up: You are hear-by sentenced to a lifetime of gene therapy.

Re:Genetically-oriented criminals (1)

RHSC (1019802) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625233)

It's just like bioshock. Let's send them all to rapture

faggots know this (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21624603)

they keep making the same mistake of sucking dicks and installing linfucks

Human behavior is simple... (1)

ameline (771895) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624613)


I find that the following two axioms explain much of what I observe in human behavior...

1: Thinking is hard.
2: People are lazy.

That's all here is to it.

Re:Human behavior is simple... (3, Funny)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625083)

That didn't take a lot of thought. Too lazy to flesh it out?

Interesting... (5, Interesting)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624619)

I know a recovering alcoholic pretty well, and one of her pronounced traits is repeatedly doing the same things that she knows she shouldnt. Keep in mind that the phrase "Insanity is doing the same action over and over again and expecting a different result" comes from AA.

Oddly enough, it only became really pronounced AFTER she stopped drinking - gene activation?

Hey I know that girl too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21624657)

Hey I know that girl too!

Re:Interesting... (1)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624737)

Either that or you just didn't notice it on the grounds she was blind drunk.

Source (1)

avalean (1176333) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624669)

I would like to know if this gene is more common in males or females, and if it increases or decreases with aging.

More than one way to Rome. (5, Insightful)

Trackster (761525) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624671)

I think it's interesting that we are so easily convinced that genes control every little detail of our lives. Just because they find a gene that, when modified, affects this trait or that trait; we assume that's all there is to it. It's not. Playing with the genes may be _one_ way to get a certain result. However, it is _not the only_ way to get that same result. Anyone who knows the smallest bit about psychology and sociology know there are many ways to consistantly produce children (and by extension, adults) who repeatedly make mistakes. Heck, even physical injuries to the brain can produce certain behaviors.

The road called "genes" isn't the only one that can take you to Rome. There are plenty of others. If life was like a golf green, genes would be the contour and speed of the green. Learning, society and environment would be the skill of the golfer, the putter, the wind, etc.

It must be permanent Gene Day at the White House (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21624673)

Really, do I need to add anything here at all?

What's the point of finding these genes? (1)

dgr73 (1055610) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624679)

They keep finding genes for all kinds of "unwanted conditions", so one must draw the conclusion that the next step is to find a way to screen for these genes in embryos, or possibly prospective partners (I hate to sound too GATTACA here, but bear with me).

Now, i'm not one of those "genetics will destroy mankind" nutjobs, but there is one point i'm worried about.. if we start eliminating/changing genes that we don't want, are we perhaps eliminating things humanity needs in the future. Few examples:

-Autism is something people would probably like to eradicate, but on the other hand many brilliant people suffer from a mild form of autism.
-Where would Woody Allen be without his neurotism?

People are already stuffing their kids with Ritalin to control their behaviour and place it in an acceptable mold. But if you homogenize everything (whether through drugs, or in the future, altering genes), how can we progress? Instead of a pack of individuals, are we becoming a hive?

In techie terms: Is mankind selling it's chance to evolve into v2.0 in the future in exchange for a quick fixpack?

Re:What's the point of finding these genes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21625045)

-Where would Woody Allen be without his neurotism?

In a much much better world... a world without Woody Allen's neurotic comedy...
Just think of it... it would be so great... and then there would be cake.

Ahh, (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624693)

No wonder we get goatse.cx posts. Unless posting is not an unfavorable experience to it's authors.
(Word of caution: don't clink any links appearing in reply to this)

Re:Ahh, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21624887)

> (Word of caution: don't clink any links appearing in reply to this)
*click*

Do Petty Criminals Also Lack D2 Receptors? (3, Interesting)

osewa77 (603622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624707)

Hmmm. I wonder if there's a criminal aspect to this. Do repeat convicts in the US have less d2 receptors on average? People who have been arrested more than once and continue to commit petty crimes?

Complaining *must* also be genetic then... (1)

workingstiff (221476) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624715)

So no complaining about dupes and typos: it's genetic!
No complaining about complaints either! It's genetic!

Re:Complaining *must* also be genetic then... (1)

ls -la (937805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624949)

So no complaining about dupes and typos: it's genetic!
No complaining about complaints either! It's genetic!
But it's not a mistake.

Re:Complaining *must* also be genetic then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21625235)

Hah! That's what you think, meta-complainer! I'll show you just how wrong you are! *kicks ls -la in the groin*

See, that's what you get for complaining about complaining! And you're going to do it again, I just know it. So you see, you don't learn from your mistakes!

A news site (1)

s4ltyd0g (452701) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624743)

With a genetic disposition for typos and dupes, is like an airline pilot with a genetic disposition for running
into the ground.

Re:A news site (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624751)

A pilot is less likely to get a chance to learn from his mistake.

Here's a good summation of the story (1)

Protonk (599901) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624771)

Ars has [arstechnica.com] a good writeup of the article in nature, for those who want to read more, but don't want to bother w/ the journal article.

I guess this explains ... (5, Funny)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624811)

why I keep coming back to Slashdot!

Re:I guess this explains ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21625213)

and the duped dupes

new category to moderate (2, Funny)

meta coder (752563) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624813)

-D2 troll

Genes vs. Memory capacity (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 6 years ago | (#21624881)

I think we can explain dupes from simply not having infinite memory, I mean really. Those with better memories = less mistakes, I would imagine.

It all makes cents now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21624975)

It all makes cents now. It all makes cents now.

Two words (1)

weave (48069) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625021)

Intelligent design

/sorry, couldn't resist
//Yes I know this ain't fark
///I can spare the kharma

So can we call this... (1)

Stickerboy (61554) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625043)

...the Homer gene?

Mmmmm..... donuts.

DNA Test (2, Interesting)

InterestingX (930362) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625113)

Would this gene be something they could pay $999 to find out [slashdot.org]

oh, wait...

Bah (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625133)

leads to a lessened ability to learn from experience

I prefer to think of that as the triumph of optimism over experience.

All men are born with that (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625135)

You can see the result from our repeatedly going to get a girl, getting stung by them (they run off with your money and your best friend) and then trying to find another (or the same) girl to get back with us.

If you don't have 2 missing genes, you must be gay off course. For most geeks it is unknown whether or not they are missing some genes.

Isn't this backwards? (5, Interesting)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625137)

Isn't addiction the result of the brain learning too well that getting a certain stimulus triggers the pleasure/reward sensation? It's only a "mistake" when the stimulus turns out to be a false positive. The same "addicted" reaction to a drug that short-circuits the reward sensation might cause a person to acquire and maintain very good habits for needed nutrients or acquiring resources. It's a tradeoff between locking in behaviors that consistently produce rewards and the risk that you are locking in slowly self-destructive behaviors that only seemed to be a reward. A person who can break addictions easily may also tend to randomly stop doing useful, rewarding things.

Learning from experience - very relative (1)

codeboost (603798) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625165)

Learning from experience is a very vague concept. I think that people DO learn something from each mistake they make, it's just there are lots of things to learn from one bad experience or failure.
For instance, if you jump from the 5th floor and break a leg, you can learn that:
1. Jumping is bad
2. Jumping from a hight is bad
3. Courage is bad
4. I cannot judge heights
5. My body is too weak
6. Next time when I jump, I should be more careful
and so on, you get the idea.

There can be multiple interpretations of one experience so I guess it's better to say that people learn the wrong things from experience rather than 'they don't learn from experience'.
If you put it this way, the D2 gene explains something completely different.
In fact, people who don't learn from experience sometimes end up discovering new ways around limitations (eg. wright brothers), which is, after all, a good thing :).

It's called the "Surge" gene (1)

Ranger (1783) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625211)

This probably explains why Bush keeps doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Dear Kansas City school board: (1)

geohump (782273) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625219)

Dear Kansas City school board:

The "Creator" is apparently making some people "Unintelligent by Design!".

Perhaps this explains how the "Intelligent by Design" theory came about.

That explains a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21625285)

No wonder I keep forgeting to prevew my posts.

You'd think I'd learn butt nooooooo.....

Rediculuous (1)

mr_josh (1001605) | more than 6 years ago | (#21625297)

YOUR KIDDING!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>