Scientists Identify Gene Pattern That Makes Some Animals Monogamous

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/patterns-genetic-activity-may-play-role-animal-monogamy-180971192/

by laurex • 8 years ago

37 42 8 years ago

basicplus2• 8 years ago

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.

behringer2• 8 years ago

Oddly enough, I dumped my last girlfriend for failing her gene test.

BearsAreCool• 8 years ago

I don't know what this means and want more details.

shard9722• 8 years ago

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.

matte_black5• 8 years ago

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.

rjf722• 8 years ago

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.

bilbo0s• 8 years ago

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.

danielcarver3• 8 years ago

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.

steventhedev• 8 years ago

Stop.

Seriously. Stop.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the reason you're getting downvoted is because you're advocating something that is basically eugenics wearing modern clothing. The practice of eugenics is generally associated with Nazis. Yes, those Nazis. Not just the modern ones, but the Hitler 1920s-1945 ones who started a World War. They used "superior genetics" as a justification for many of their actions before, during, and after the war.

Don't be a Nazi. Accept that this is fresh research, that genetics may set someone out on a different path but that there are many other factors that affect their life and choices. 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.

[0] https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/02/1813775116

rjf722• 8 years ago

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.

matte_black5• 8 years ago

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.

stickfigure• 8 years ago

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.

black-tea• 8 years ago

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.

pjc50• 8 years ago

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.

tql• 8 years ago

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

owaty• 8 years ago

Note: it's a gene expression pattern. It's not like there's a monogamy gene that you have or don't have; rather there are genes that are more active in monogamous species (or vice versa).

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.

charleshmorse• 8 years ago

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.

barry-cotter2• 8 years ago

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.

justtopost• 8 years ago

humans are more monogamous

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Got any citation for that?

porpoisely• 8 years ago

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.

Scientists Identify Gene Pattern That Makes Some Animals Monogamous

Related Stories