Genes have a role in empathy, study says
It helps us to make close connections with people, and influences how we behave in a range of situations, from the workplace to a party. Now scientists say empathy is not just something we develop through our upbringing and life experiences - it is also partly inherited.
A study of 46,000 people found evidence for the first time that genes have a role in how empathetic we are. And it also found that women are generally more empathetic than men.
[...] Participants in the study had their "empathy quotient" (EQ) measured with a questionnaire, and gave saliva samples for DNA testing. Scientists then looked for differences in their genes that could explain why some of us are more empathetic than others. They found that at least 10% of the differences in how empathetic people are is down to genetics.
Varun Warrier, from the University of Cambridge who led the study, said: "This is an important step towards understanding the role that genetics plays in empathy. But since only a tenth of the variation in the degree of empathy between individuals is down to genetics, it is equally important to understand the non-genetic factors."
The genomic data came from 46,861 23andMe users.
Genome-wide analyses of self-reported empathy: correlations with autism, schizophrenia, and anorexia nervosa (open, DOI: 10.1038/s41398-017-0082-6) (DX)
Related Stories
The FDA will allow the genetic testing company 23andMe to offer information about three common BRCA mutations that can have an influence on breast cancer risk. According to the FDA, the test should not be used as a substitute for seeing a doctor:
The Food and Drug Administration for the first time has authorized a genetic testing company to offer screenings for three breast cancer mutations common in Ashkenazi Jews, giving consumers the ability to initiate testing at home and see results without talking to a doctor or counselor.
The agency's action on Tuesday permits the testing company, 23andMe, to report results as part of its $199 Health and Ancestry product, which uses DNA from saliva samples to inform customers about their families' countries of origin, along with information on genetic health risks. There will be no extra charge for the additional reports, which should be available in a few weeks to customers who actively opt in and request to see them, company officials said.
[...] But testing negative for the three mutations does not mean someone is in the clear, as there are over a thousand BRCA mutations associated with increased cancer risk. Some critics say that comprehensive genetic testing — an exhaustive analysis to detect all mutations associated with an increase in breast cancer risk — is preferable. Physicians, geneticists and policymakers have long been concerned that the enthusiasm over personalized medical information and genetic testing may place consumers who misunderstand or misinterpret results at risk of jeopardizing their health. Even for Jews of Ashkenazi descent, whose families originated in Eastern and Central Europe and who are most likely to test positive for the three mutations, testing negative is no panacea, as they may carry other mutations that increase cancer risk.
Also at STAT News, Reuters, and The Verge.
Related: FDA Permits Marketing of 23andMe Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Test
Color Genomics Launches a $249 Genetic Test for Breast Cancer Risk
23andMe Genetic Test Relaunches, but Transparency Report Reveals Law Enforcement Data Requests
FDA to Allow 23andMe to Sell Genetic Tests for Disease Risks
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday March 13 2018, @12:51AM (7 children)
Either we've seriously evolved toward Gattaca when I wasn't paying attention, or someone's pulling studies out of their asses.
Really tempted to have a good laugh at the methodology, after a couple glasses of strong brown liquor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @01:18AM (3 children)
The math in TFS is bad enough. 10%=50% apparently.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Virindi on Tuesday March 13 2018, @01:24AM
But the correlations are significant!! P=1.36e-5!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 13 2018, @04:08PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:16PM
"But since only a tenth of the variation in the degree of empathy between individuals is down to genetics, it is equally important to understand the non-genetic factors."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @03:41AM
Look at this: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691615617439 [sagepub.com]
Its a paper about the top replications in this field, but they don't manage to mention a single published time anyone duplicated the methods of someone else and compared the results...
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 13 2018, @06:19PM (1 child)
Really tempted to have a good laugh at the methodology,...
Have you considered doing that before you discard the results?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 13 2018, @06:47PM
Based on their measure of "empathetic quotient", the result is "at least 10% of the differences in how empathetic people are is down to genetics."
Nope. Don't see much of a need.
Did you know that the greenish sufficiency quotient of Mount Boney is at least 30% down this year, according to a survey of my neighbors?
Do you need to learn about my methodology, or can we agree that "greenish sufficiency quotient" might be even easier to scientifically define than "empathetic quotient".
> found evidence for the first time that genes have a role in how empathetic we are
No shit sherlock. Your genes condition how you grow up, for example whether your experience of bullying is broken nose and tears, or bruised knuckles. The autistic kid and the schizophrenic aren't going to report the same "empathetic quotient" as the cheerleader, the RPG-player, or the guy who was 6'6" at 14.
Somebody's fishing for correlations in a big dataset.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @01:35AM (2 children)
If there is a gene for it, then we can screen and select against it, we already have the technology, why limit humanity to chance?
:)
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Tuesday March 13 2018, @02:30AM (1 child)
Selecting against genes that weakly correlate with a trait which is merely unpopular amongst the majority? What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @05:56AM
Nothing can go wrong, who would mourn the phasing out of an obsolete UNPOPULAR people? We'll just replace them with better and more efficient gene lines.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @01:41AM (10 children)
So, they're starting to quantify what every dog breeder and farmer has known for ages: temperament is hereditary. This includes empathic markers.
Well, that's great.
Wait, it's not great, because it means a bunch of whiners will talk about their right to dictate how everybody else behaves, and how it's not fair that one can be congenitally gay, but shouldn't be able to congenitally be an asshole.
Let me put in my whinathon earplugs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @02:10AM
No. You can't. Don't even try.
(Score: 2, Informative) by anubi on Tuesday March 13 2018, @06:21AM (6 children)
Yup...
Some Russians have been experimenting on breeding out the "wild" part of foxes, turning them into companion animals. [fastcompany.com]
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:20AM (1 child)
There are old studies doing this with dogs. They eventually discovered the tamer dogs had lighter fur and the more aggressive dogs had darker fur. Modern dogs are breed with a generic 'disability' which makes them far too trusting and needy on us. We love our purpose-bred, animal slaves.
Another word for this research is "domestication". We've been doing this to animals since before known history.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @09:20AM
Look closer... "animals" are not the only mammals being "domesticated".
Even before Biblical days, some of us have been domesticating the rest of us.
For the very same reason.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 13 2018, @04:27PM (3 children)
Happens accidentally too. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/self-domesticating-mice-suggest-some-animals-tamed-themselves-without-human [sciencemag.org]. Even get the white hairs and smaller heads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @06:10PM (2 children)
The pale foxes are less aggressive. The tamer dogs had lighter fur and the more aggressive dogs had darker fur. The pale mice are also friendlier. In every case: the dark ones tend to be violent.
The same genetic mechanism operates in humans.
Now I'll burn for crimethink, because facts are unacceptable.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 13 2018, @06:37PM (1 child)
So blondes are less aggressive then brunettes? It does go with the perception that blondes aren't as smart though.
While the Scandinavians do seem pretty peaceful now, they did have a quite a history of going a viking with violence rather then friendliness on their minds. And where do the gingers fit into this? Paler hair then brunettes, yet a reputation for a short temper.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:39PM
The perception is "not smart".
More correctly, it should be more like "not risk-averse enough" or "too trusting" or "too childlike" or "foolishly leftist" or "no street smarts". They are certainly smart, on average, if you consider academic pursuits.
I think you have to account for culture too. We can't really compare blonde vikings with non-blonde vikings.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:20AM (1 child)
A congental asshole gay is necessary male. Watch out, you just excluded the lesbian feminists.
Back to you, kurenai.tsubasa, if you still have a womyn-born-womyn axe to grind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @01:39PM
Maybe when we get closer to election time. Especially if the Democrats fuck up again.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @02:20AM (9 children)
1. We can abort people with a bad EQ.
2. EQ will vary by ethnicity.
Oh dear, shit hitting the fan!
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday March 13 2018, @02:46AM (5 children)
And what nation was most infamous for pushing eugenics the hardest? The whole "Master Race" thing? And the gas chambers to purge the "genetically unfit" from society? Hardly even needed to Godwin this story. Practically Godwinned itself.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @03:42AM (4 children)
Read and weep at your history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/ [pbs.org]
Know your history... Or am I a terrorist now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:06AM (1 child)
Nazis take note, eugenics leads to Californication!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @10:27AM
Leave 'em alone. Fapping sessions do not make babies.
Self-curing problem. Not worth the trouble to pontificate over.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:23AM
Pedantic note: not mutually exclusive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @03:34PM
The devil has shown his ugly head:
Post no: (#651666)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @02:49AM (1 child)
Liberals and conservatives?
(Score: 0, Troll) by cocaine overdose on Tuesday March 13 2018, @03:26AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @04:27AM
It's a bit late in your case.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @04:34AM (1 child)
Genetics can make people have empathy through experiences they are predisposed to, rather than directly raising EQ. Suppose you or a family member (who shares your genes) gets cancer at a young age. If you've known that kind of suffering, you are more able to feel for others.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 13 2018, @04:13PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @05:49AM
I got your 'empathy quotient' right here!
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:23AM (1 child)
There is built-in gender bias that was not accounted for. In society, men are expected not to be as empathetic and women are expected to be more empathetic. We condition that from early childhood. But honestly, I think that both are probably the same if we treated both sexes the same.
Women are also more neurotic than men, which in the past was how we ended up with "more emotional", but this can also be as result of societal factors.. Why? Because men are not allowed to be neurotic. HTFU, right?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday March 13 2018, @08:44AM
FTFY.
Before modding me down, note that the comment places the context "in the past" then read this [huffingtonpost.com]:
See, magister? And you want us to still trust the Greeks today? (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford