What would we do without “researchers?” Eureka reports:
Do you like to do good things for other people? If so, your genes might be responsible for this. At least, the results of a study conducted by researchers of the University of Bonn suggest this. According to the study, a minute change in a particular gene is associated with a significantly higher willingness to donate. People with this change gave twice as much money on average to a charitable cause as did other study subjects. The results have now been published in the journal Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience.
The researchers working with the psychologist Professor Dr. Martin Reuter invited their students to take a “retention test”: The roughly 100 participants were to memorize series of numbers and then repeat them as correctly as possible. They received the sum of five Euros for doing this. Afterwards, they could either take their hard-earned money home or donate any portion of it to a charitable cause. This decision was made freely and in apparent anonymity. “However, we always knew how much money was in the cash box beforehand and could therefore calculate the amount donated”, explains Reuter.
Calculate!? Calculate?! It’s called adding or subtracting. That’s not calculating, it’s carrying the one.
I’m seriously asking if these “researchers” were in third grade.
They took a swab of DNA from the folks and compared a certain gene and compared it to those who gave more (which they cleverly calculated) and voila -they had a study!? What’s going on over there in Bonn that they think this is a study?
Holy Cow! Couldn’t the person’s financial situation also have something to do with how much they gave. Or maybe they were unsure if your clever little cash box would actually find its way to a charity they liked.
This study is so ludicrous that these guys should get stimulus funds NOW. Who says there aren’t shovel ready jobs? These guys are really shoveling it already.
Maybe we should separate the altruism gene for those who wish to give their own money and those who want to be altruistic with other people’s money, then we’d be on to something.
In other news, a researcher/blogger in Philadelphia just announced he discovered a “stupid researcher” gene and was last seen heading to Bonn.
HT Instapundit
November 12, 2010 at 2:52 pm
OMG! you are so spot on. The short summary of their study you read online sure shows how stupid their research is. I cant believe what a waste of space these evolutionary (fantasy) "scientists" are.
November 12, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Matt, I realize that you probably won't trust a statistic that doesn't agree with you, but let's have a little talk about how studies work.
I have a new drug that I think will treat disease XYZ. If I give the drug to one person with XYZ and a placebo to another, then even if the treated person recovers and the placebo person dies, I have a hard time saying that the drug worked. Something else could have caused the recovery. Therefore, I test my drug by getting a large number of people with XYZ and split them into a placebo group and a drug group. A few people may buck the trend due to outside influences, but if the data is generally consistent, then I can conclude that the drug works.
Yes, an individual's financial situation, upbringing, etc may influence how likely he is to give. Nevertheless, if people with a certain gene CONSISTENTLY give more than people without the gene, it is very tenuous to say that the gene had nothing to do with the giving.
Finally, I think making fun of the word "calculating" was a cheap shot. Addition and subtraction are, in fact, calculations, and the word calculate is actually a more efficient word choice than "Subtract off the amount before from the amount after and see how much the person gave"
November 12, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Edmund,
Not to belittle your scientific theories. But, Oh well, I think I will. What I find comical about the scientific theorists, is that they would likely be the first people to disagree with the natural law. They would then go on to do studies, which in essence create the natural law of science. You see what they want is not a world in which God wrote the law on their hearts, because if in fact they were to admit to that, well then, free will has reprecussions. You see the ACT of giving, regardless, of whether you have a gene or not, is still an act which is freely chosen. Unless, of course these people have lost the use of their intellect which would render them incapable of discerning the good and then making a free choice to do just that. I suspect, that since we live in a world that wants freedom without consequence, these gene studies which seem to be popping up left and right, are the way of the godless, to create a sort of natural law in which no one has to accept responsibility for their acts. In a way it sort of denies free will. The argument would go something like "it's the way I am, I was made this way, I can't help it." You have heard that argument before. It is used very often to justify homosexual acts. Which we know are gravely disordered. There is a homosexual gene so, it has been said. Is there then a heterosexual gene? How about a gene that predisposes one to pedophilia? If so, why are we putting them in prison? Are willing to go there? Is there a gene that predisposes me to steal, or rape, or kill? If you would answer no, I wonder why you wouldn't want to go there? It seems logical to me that if there are genes that govern moral choices, such as generosity, or homosexuallity…it is reasonable to believe that all moral choices are governed by one gene or another. Or is it only ok to do away with free will when the moral quandary is one you are comfortable with?
November 12, 2010 at 4:38 pm
P.S. I am working on a blog on a very similar subject at
http://makingthingsvisible.blogspot.com/. It will be posted later this evening if you are interested.
November 12, 2010 at 5:12 pm
What Ron said. The first thing to enter my mind as I was reading this was "how does one's upbringing/education/faith/etc. affect the choice to give/not give? So then is Free Will genetically determined?" Absurd.
Also, it's been well documented that the people who give the most are … hold on tight, now … social and political conservatives. See the book "Who Really Cares." So might the "generosity gene" be linked with the "socially and politically conservative" gene? If such a thing exists … sigh.
Another nuance: I give a large percentage of my income to charity, but I'm veeeeerrrrry picky about the organizations I donate to … how would the "researchers" stratify that?
Waste of taxpayer money. Oh, wait, they're Germans, so not my tax money this time … whew!
November 12, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Yep, Edmund, Ron and Patrick are correct. This study was LUDICRIOUS.
November 14, 2010 at 12:44 am
I think it's called "bias confirmation."
If you can't think of a dozen different ways that they might get this result– including that it had nothing to do with altuism, but did effect another aspect of thought– you're not looking hard enough.
Here is the paper, if anyone wants to read it.
What I find interesting is that when I googled for "COMT-Val," it brought up other research associating it with being schizophrenic.