The God Gene

[hardheadjarhead]

Here's an interesting article backing hypothesis of Dean Hamer's book, "The God Gene."


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147


Anybody think that this bears any merit?


Regards,


Steve

 

[Melissa426]

I find the statement about personality traits to be quite interesting.

About a dozen studies have shown that religious people tend to share other personality traits, although it is not clear whether these arise from genetic or environmental factors. These include the ability to get along well with others and being conscientious, working hard, being punctual, and controlling one's impulses.

Could the argument be made that religious people have a more positive impact on society than non-religious people? I consider impulse control, getting along well with others, being hard-working and conscientious as traits that are beneficial to the function of a community.

And NO, I am not implying that all non-religious folks are lazy good-for-nothing jerks who can't hold a job. It's just a question based on the article. Correct me if I am interpreting inappropriately, please.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[kenpo tiger]

Hmm. Since the test group is only from Minnesota and only 204 pairs of twins, that kind of precludes a diversity of religions, doesn't it?

Maybe those religions which are strong ethnic communities produce more religious people. Steve, any clue as to whether this is the case? a.

 

[bignick]

Hmm. Since the test group is only from Minnesota and only 204 pairs of twins, that kind of precludes a diversity of religions, doesn't it?

What...??? We're very diverse up here, don't cha know???

Have a good day - oof da you betcha,
Nick

 

[Phoenix44]

About a dozen studies have shown that religious people tend to share other personality traits, although it is not clear whether these arise from genetic or environmental factors. These include the ability to get along well with others and being conscientious, working hard, being punctual, and controlling one's impulses.

Would you please cite these studies?

Could the argument be made that religious people have a more positive impact on society than non-religious people? I consider impulse control, getting along well with others, being hard-working and conscientious as traits that are beneficial to the function of a community.

I'm not sure what you mean by "religious." Islamic fundamentalists are "religious." Hasidic Jews are "religious." George W. Bush considers himself "religious." I don't believe that these entities "get along well with others." Islamic fundamentalists have certainly committed a lot of violence in the name of religion. George W. Bush gets along well only with people who agree with him, and he seems to lack impulse control. Hasidic Jews are rather insular--they don't associate with others, as a rule.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Hmm. Since the test group is only from Minnesota and only 204 pairs of twins, that kind of precludes a diversity of religions, doesn't it?

Maybe those religions which are strong ethnic communities produce more religious people. Steve, any clue as to whether this is the case? a.

If this is part of the famed Minnesota twin study (and no, not the sports team), then the population is likely drawn from around the country. The data base for twins was first gathered in the fifties and has been expanded from there as best they could. I suspect this is a national pool, but I could be wrong. I'll have to read the article again, and then see if I can find out anything more on the study.

Problem: Because of improved economic conditions it is harder to find twins separated by adoption. A nice problem to have, I suppose, but it makes it a little harder to show genetic versus environmental influences.

As for ethnicity...I don't know. I flipped through Hamer's book and noticed he mentions the Ashkenazi jews...but I can't recall the context. If I remember to, I'll try and look into it for you.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Melissa426]

Would you please cite these studies?



I'm not sure what you mean by "religious." Islamic fundamentalists are "religious." Hasidic Jews are "religious." George W. Bush considers himself "religious." I don't believe that these entities "get along well with others." Islamic fundamentalists have certainly committed a lot of violence in the name of religion. George W. Bush gets along well only with people who agree with him, and he seems to lack impulse control. Hasidic Jews are rather insular--they don't associate with others, as a rule.

I got that quote directly from the article that HHJH linked in his first post on this topic, the one from New Scientist. Have you had a chance to read it yet?

Peace,
Melissa

 

[kenpo tiger]

If this is part of the famed Minnesota twin study (and no, not the sports team), then the population is likely drawn from around the country. The data base for twins was first gathered in the fifties and has been expanded from there as best they could. I suspect this is a national pool, but I could be wrong. I'll have to read the article again, and then see if I can find out anything more on the study.

Problem: Because of improved economic conditions it is harder to find twins separated by adoption. A nice problem to have, I suppose, but it makes it a little harder to show genetic versus environmental influences.

As for ethnicity...I don't know. I flipped through Hamer's book and noticed he mentions the Ashkenazi jews...but I can't recall the context. If I remember to, I'll try and look into it for you.


Regards,


Steve

The Minnesota twin study (and yes, of course I know it's not baseball) is probably even more antiquated than you and I, Steve *winks*. I can't remember the particulars of where they draw their subjects from, so I'm no help right now. Have to try to find a moment to resesarch it a bit further as well. I was unaware of any study of the Ashkenazim. That might be interesting. We're the subjects of other fun genetic things, like Tay Sachs and the BRCA gene, so why not a religious gene?

 

[Phoenix44]

I got that quote directly from the article that HHJH linked in his first post on this topic, the one from New Scientist. Have you had a chance to read it yet?

Yes, as a matter of fact I did have a chance to read it, and it's unimpressive. I'd like the citations of the "at least a dozen studies." That would help us all make a determination whether the "at least a dozen studies" hold any value at all.

I'm a firm believer in research conducted by generally accepted scientific standards, but anyone can do "research." This reminds me of a radio commercial I hear a lot touting a treatment for erectile dysfunction based on a "scientifically conducted anecdotal study." That means: some people used it and they said it works.

The premise of this particular article seems to fly in the face of reality. I know lots of "religious" people who get along very well with people of the same religion...but not necessarily with people of other religions. I'd be willing to believe decent research to the contrary.

 

[Melissa426]

I'm a firm believer in research conducted by generally accepted scientific standards, but anyone can do "research." This reminds me of a radio commercial I hear a lot touting a treatment for erectile dysfunction based on a "scientifically conducted anecdotal study." That means: some people used it and they said it works.

Me too, but I think it's going to be incredibly difficult to do a double blinded prospective randomized controlled trial on something as subjective as "religiousness."
Also, positively impacting your society definitely depends on cultural norms for that community. In this particular study, the subjects were twins who lived in N. America. Hard-working, conscientious, getting along with others, and good impulse control might easily describe the 9-11 hijackers within the context of their particular group. Plenty of "religious" people applauded their actions as being beneficial for "their" community.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[kenpo tiger]

Me too, but I think it's going to be incredibly difficult to do a double blinded prospective randomized controlled trial on something as subjective as "religiousness."
Hard-working, conscientious, getting along with others, and good impulse control might easily describe the 9-11 hijackers within the context of their particular group. Plenty of "religious" people applauded their actions as being beneficial for "their" community.

Peace,
Melissa

*sound of hands clapping*

 

[Cryozombie]

*sound of hands clapping*

Please tell me you did not just applaud the 9/11 hijackers.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I find the statement about personality traits to be quite interesting.

About a dozen studies have shown that religious people tend to share other personality traits, although it is not clear whether these arise from genetic or environmental factors. These include the ability to get along well with others and being conscientious, working hard, being punctual, and controlling one's impulses.

Could the argument be made that religious people have a more positive impact on society than non-religious people? I consider impulse control, getting along well with others, being hard-working and conscientious as traits that are beneficial to the function of a community.

And NO, I am not implying that all non-religious folks are lazy good-for-nothing jerks who can't hold a job. It's just a question based on the article. Correct me if I am interpreting inappropriately, please.

Peace,
Melissa

Melissa et al,

The quote you reference:
About a dozen studies have shown that religious people tend to share other personality traits, although it is not clear whether these arise from genetic or environmental factors. These include the ability to get along well with others and being conscientious, working hard, being punctual, and controlling one's impulses.

is good for discussion.

Many religions where an attempt to also guide society into growing pains during the development of cultural rules of survival. All those are good traits for society in general.

Yet, for almost every good religous person there are those that make the press or history that get upset with other religions and I am not talking about recent history, but ancient history to make my point. To make your point of positive impact on society I would have to agree that in the past, those who helped create general rules of survival in religions and those who complied were beneficial to scoiety as a whole. Yet, when you get to modern era of the last 300 years then one has to look at the turn from religion being the main source of education to open and free universities and colleges, where people coudl get an education and use it for themselves and or society. If you look at our history most of the greatest medical improvements have opccured during points of strife and war. Some of the greatest advancements in science have also occured during war or from war like research. Once could argue the in the last 40 years many of that occured do to the Space research as well and that it was not military in nature, but the reasons were to get to space befores others, and to understand it so others could not use it against us, hence our desire to obtain it for ourselves.

So, to say that a religous person would make a good citizen or subject and willing to follow the norms and being a positive member of society, is a good arguement. But, I can also see where one could say that it was those who broke the rules that made leaps and advancements in science and technology and also for helping standards of living to increase.

Therefore, you could say what you said, and present a good arguement.

:asian:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The Minnesota twin study (and yes, of course I know it's not baseball) is probably even more antiquated than you and I, Steve *winks*. I can't remember the particulars of where they draw their subjects from, so I'm no help right now. Have to try to find a moment to resesarch it a bit further as well. I was unaware of any study of the Ashkenazim. That might be interesting. We're the subjects of other fun genetic things, like Tay Sachs and the BRCA gene, so why not a religious gene?

The twin study is ongoing, as it turns out.

http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/mtfs/default.htm

The subjects are older than us for the most part, KT, but the study itself isn't all that ancient. They do in fact draw from a pool of twins from all over the world. Other researchers in Europe are trying to duplicate some of these efforts.

To answer Phoenix44's questions as to the dozen or so studies on twins, relgiosity and behavior, the above link partially explains the extensive nature of this field of research. As to the specific studies...I don't know. The original article probably lists them, and I'm fairly sure Hamer references them.

This particular study that New Scientist reported on shows that as people age the heritable traits come to the fore. Socialization has less to do with it than many thought, and some would wish.

Here's a critical look at Hamer's work:

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101041025-725072,00.html

Amazon's Scientific American write up on his book, The God Gene isn't flattering.

I tend to think that much of personality is hardwired, but that we're a long way from figuring out how that effects our notions of spirituality. Finding a definition of spirituality that everyone can accept would difficult enough.

I think there is a link between personality types and spirituality (keeping in mind the above difficulty)...but I also think that environmental influences have a lot to do with whether a person is religious or not.

I suspect that open-mindedness is a personality trait that is heritable. People who find it difficult to change their mind in the light of new, contrary evidence to an established belief seem very locked into their beliefs...so much so that I think at times it must be hardwired. Not all spiritual people are this way, however...and not all atheists are open minded, either.


Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I'll add this in a separate post:

Scientists sift evidence for a 'God gene'
By Roger Higfield

LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH

The idea of genes linked with beliefs does not look far-fetched, given the influence of genetics on the developing brain.

Thomas Bouchard, a professor at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis, conducted a study of twins reared apart and concluded that there was "a modest degree of genetic influence" in two measures of religiousness.

There are many suggestions as to why a "God gene" — or a constellation of genes linked with belief — may thrive.

John Burn, medical director of the Institute of Human Genetics at England's University of Newcastle, said: "Survival of our species has demanded a capacity to work together, to form societies. A willingness to live, and if necessary die, for a belief is a powerful selective advantage. I think there is a genetic propensity for us to believe."

Professor Edward O. Wilson, a sociobiologist at Harvard University, points out that religious leaders often help perpetuate their followers' genes by encouraging them to have big families and by including prohibitions against incest and other risky activities.

Those who were more inclined to believe also might have survived better than those who did not have such beliefs. A wide-ranging survey of scientific evidence of the "faith factor" in disease has been conducted by Mayo Clinic researchers. They concluded that a majority of 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health.

Belief can help people to cope with stress, and religious people might be more compliant and less likely to overindulge, or they might be able to draw on a bigger support network, such as a congregation. If religious belief does boost an individual's chances of survival, any genes linked with a propensity to believe would survive in future generations.

Michel Raymond of the Institute of Evolutionary Science in Montpellier, France, and Dutch researcher Frans Roes have published research in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior that purports to show it is possible to predict how religious a society is, and the kind of religion to which it subscribes, by the evolutionary benefits.

For example, the survival of social groups in a desert would be promoted by a supreme deity's legitimization of moral codes that protect natural resources. When cultures around the world are compared, there is an association between belief in gods strong on such moral codes and societies where water is scarce.

They conclude that because larger societies tend to have more conflicts, they are more likely to have a belief in God, to provide "moral glue" and social cohesiveness. When there are recurring threats, moral rules should be imposed with authority. They conclude: "How better than by a moralizing god?"

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030324-3457211.htm


Regards,


Steve

 

[kenpo tiger]

Please tell me you did not just applaud the 9/11 hijackers.

Hardly.

Melissa, as always, has pointed out what I feel is a crucial point in this discussion. Those who *have seen the light* or are *answering G-d's call* under the guise of terrorism are usually revered by others having similar religious beliefs and often deified themselves by that same group. Look at the families of the suicide bombers in the Middle East. They parade around with pictures of the deceased as if sainthood was instantly bestowed (and they do believe that.) Peripheral to all this is the endowment the terrorist organization/government gives to the family for their child's *sacrifice*.

If you've read any of my other posts regarding 9/11 you would know that I feel that death was too good for them and any other terrorists.

 

[Phoenix44]

I guess I fail to understand how that works out to "getting along with others." As I said before, getting along with people who think and act exactly as you do is pretty easy. In my mind, "getting along with others" includes people who DON'T think exactly as you do.

 

[ginshun]

and not all atheists are open minded, either.

Quit to the contrary I would venture to guess. Most athiests that I have talked with are not any more likely to accept other peoples beliefs than are religious zealots. Probably less so actaully.

As far as the study goes, it is interesting, makes you wonder how many things are hardwired into people.

 

[Cryozombie]

Hardly.

Melissa, as always, has pointed out what I feel is a crucial point in this discussion. Those who *have seen the light* or are *answering G-d's call* under the guise of terrorism are usually revered by others having similar religious beliefs and often deified themselves by that same group. Look at the families of the suicide bombers in the Middle East. They parade around with pictures of the deceased as if sainthood was instantly bestowed (and they do believe that.) Peripheral to all this is the endowment the terrorist organization/government gives to the family for their child's *sacrifice*.

If you've read any of my other posts regarding 9/11 you would know that I feel that death was too good for them and any other terrorists.

Thanks. Your reply just read that way, and I was taken aback.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Quit to the contrary I would venture to guess. Most athiests that I have talked with are not any more likely to accept other peoples beliefs than are religious zealots. Probably less so actaully.

You'd have to qualify "Probably less so."

Atheists, for all their intolerance of the meddling of the churches in the affairs of the state, often champion religious tolerance...as odd as that may sound.

Robert Green Ingersoll, a well known and outspoken atheist of the nineteenth century wrote, "Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." That right being, among others, a right to believe what you wish. It isn't a right to repress others or attempt to deny them their rights as outlined in the Constitution. You rarely find atheists doing that in the United States. They lack the power to do so, if not the inclination.

I cut this from a web site to illustrate this:

According to Nature 394:313, a recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.


While academics of this caliber could be narrow minded, I tend to think they aren't. The scientific method tends to frustrate that sort of mind set.

But all that aside, I stand by what I said. Some atheists can be incredibly narrow minded and...I'll add...intolerant. However; I'd submit the vast majority are not. Atheism expresses a tendency to doubt and a propensity to question and challenge. That alone is not the trait of a closed mind.

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html


Regards,


Steve