Categories
2015 May

Infidelity Lurks in Your Genes – NYTimes.com

“We are accustomed to thinking of sexual infidelity as a symptom of an unhappy relationship, a moral flaw or a sign of deteriorating social values. When I was trained as a psychiatrist we were told to look for various emotional and developmental factors — like a history of unstable relationships or a philandering parent — to explain infidelity.

But during my career, many of the questions we asked patients were found to be insufficient because for so much behavior, it turns out that genes, gene expression and hormones matter a lot.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/opinion/sunday/infidelity-lurks-in-your-genes.html

 

What can I say;)

mike

 

13 replies on “Infidelity Lurks in Your Genes – NYTimes.com”

The part that struck a chord with me:

If you have an Orwellian bent, you’ve probably already imagined the mischief you might do with these two hormones. You could surreptitiously make a potential investor more trusting or encourage a monogamous impulse in a partner who you suspect is cheating. All you need is aerosolized oxytocin or vasopressin, perhaps in a spiked air freshener or perfume. Kidding, of course, but you get the idea.

Orwellian bent. Hmm. Mischief.

At odds with other values, but in there. Probably genetic.

Alicia Parr

Oh yea…toss in some curious and low tranquility…and a few drops of low order, low acceptance for a topping and missedchief emerges…

mike

A truck load of factors determine most decisions.
Nature vs nurture
and
genes vs free will
appears to exclude that truck load of factors.

John

I could build you a sliding scale as could others regarding how much of our decisions are irrational or rational and in all about 1%…irrational certainly wins IMHO.

One would be wise to err on the side of irrational when considering cues, support and scaffolding.

My opinion of course.

Armstrong makes a good case for the idea that the mere existence of a business cycle proves we are irrational…even when we know it, we still can’t stop it!

Dignity says I err on side of irrationality in design.

mike

Oh yes for sure, that would help, be needed…I’m so expedient, it never crossed my no-honor bias;)

mike

Mike,
Are you saying only 1% of our decisions are rational?
I like the concept of a sliding scale–I would like to know the factors taken into consideration of developing the sliding scales.
When I was doing substance abuse work we were told if your parents had a substance abuse problem the children
have a higher chance of having a substance abuse problem.
Mike, if that example is true, or if any similar example of something like that is true, then you would probably encourage scaffolding.
Taken your involvement in football can we look at taking a DEFENSIVE or an OFFENSIVE approach to tackling:) an issue when the odds
are stacked against us with nature or nurture?
How can we look at taking a defensive vs an offensive approach. Knowing you, you probably will say both AND add some special teams.

John

Actually about 1% of the people have capability to do meta systematic reasoning in sufficient density and frequency required to be moving into the self-aware are of subject/object…

And JUST because you have metasystematic, or higher capability doesn’t mean you will use it rationally to override irrational biases (talent if you like).

Of course people do and are using every form of engagement they can to offset (or should;) the negative consequences of irrational bias which is “out of alignment” with requirements. Which is why I said to err on the side that you can’t…to setup scaffolding to support.

I’m sure I discussed this entire process @F-L-O-W, adnauseum;)

In areas where you have to “dance with the gurl who brung ya,” then I would suggest strategy to elongate the problem upstream as far as possible rather than downstream problem solving.

And yes I am looking forward to football season again John;)

mike

Yes Tim! It certainly has helped me overcome my inhibitions…Herb, you and I had this conversation once.

Brian

Gah. My high honor gets me again. Or keeps me straight. Whichever.

Brian, sounds like it was a good conversation.

This reminds me of the scene in LAST SAMURAI where the lead says to “halgren” dismissively that they have had a “good conversation” like Herb did the last time I was baiting him…using the WAR GAMES POSTULATE;)

mike

And what do you mean “rational”? If you mean calculations, methods to follow etc., I’d be inclined to say that that’s not part of the decision making itself and that the decision making itself is precisely what is not rational.

Herb

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *