dNATE.com

Genetic Marketing

Genetic marketing is the logical next step if you believe human traits and (shopping) preferences are innate.

But it's a controversial idea.

On one side you have people like Steve Jones and David Dobbs who argue that "pretty much nothing is just genetics: genes respond to environmental stimuli, and their expression varies by environment".

On the other side, you have companies like Miinome who think otherwise. "The era of genetic-based advertising is coming".

Here's why Steve Jones and David Dobbs are confused about nature vs. nurture.  While it's true that identical twins (having the same gene variants) are not alike in all traits, that doesn't prove environment trumps design.  Identical watches don't always tell the same time, and identical elevators don't always travel to the same floor, but you wouldn't say an elevator is a product of its environment, would you?  An elevator only responds to presses on its buttons, not to screams or smells.

Similarly, our genes constrain the possible environmental inputs and outputs we react to.  Genes define the range of possible outcomes.  While it's true that the environment selects the outcome, the genes constrain the menu of choices that are possible or desireable.  In other words, our genes are designed to detect (and expect) certain environments and use them as (fully anticipated) trigger and branching points.

We humans each possess variants of the same underlying desires and passions.  Yet our unique gene variants set the level of intensity of each desire.  Our gene-designed cortex then arbitrates and balances each of our competing innate desires against each other.  But that doesn't make human traits any less innate!

Since human design (including genes) is a product of ancient experience (natural selection), our traits are a result of ancient experience (genes) interacting with current (expected) experience.

However, if you still believe variations in human traits aren't genetic, then you have nothing to worry about, since genetic marketing won't work, will it?

How to Motivate Someone

According to Steven Reiss, we all possess variations of the same 16 basic desires:

1. Acceptance, the need for approval
2. Curiosity, the need to learn
3. Eating, the need for food
4. Family, the need to raise children
5. Honor, the need to be loyal to the traditional values of one's clan/ethnic group
6. Idealism, the need for social justice
7. Independence, the need for individuality
8. Order, the need for organized, stable, predictable environments
9. Physical activity, the need for exercise
10. Power, the need for influence of will
11. Romance, the need for sex and for beauty
12. Saving, the need to collect
13. Social contact, the need for friends (peer relationships)
14. Social status, the need for social standing/importance
15. Tranquility, the need to be safe
16. Vengeance, the need to strike back and to compete

So to motivate someone, you need to tap into one of their existing desires, right?  Yes, but think about what this implies...

No two people experience each desire with the same intensity.  Some people have a burning desire for power or social status, for example, and other people don't. That difference is due to small genetic variations among us, that wire our brains differently.  While it's true that the role of the higher brain is to reduce the dissonance between our competing desires - for example, vengeance vs. tranquility - it doesn't change the fact that individuals have different underlying set-levels and thresholds for each desire.

To motivate someone, you need to tailor your motivational strategy to suit the person - in other words, tailor it to their unique genes.

If you put it this way, people often recoil at the implications. We are loath to accept the fact that people innately differ on average.  This affronts our sense of free will and equality. So we make up false explanations, and simply cover it up. Desires come and go, interacting with each other, so it can't be genetic!  And since the level of one desire may alter the level of another desire (for example, if you desire acceptance by a group that only accepts members with intellectual curiousity, you might fake the latter to receive the former) doesn't that demonstrate that desires are not destiny?

Sorry. Innate differences do exist, despite our rationalizations. Anyone who advocates that it's best to tailor motivational strategies to individuals based on their unique desires is tacitly accepting this fact, and exploiting the innate difference.

No two people are motivated by the same things.  There's a genetic inequality in society, that should be acknowledged and rectified, not covered up.

What is the current Zeitgeist?

Here is a description of today’s zeitgeist, by which I mean the working assumptions made by top scientists, politicians, academics and journalists, as they do their jobs, every day:

1. Free will is an illusion. The interests, passions, motivations, obsessions, fears and desires that drive us are largely subconscious, and not freely chosen. (see for example, Libet.)  What's more, we humans are hard-wired to believe in free will, and we make up plausible (but false) stories to explain our subconscious behavior.
2. Therefore, "humans are creatures of passion, and reason itself is primarily aimed at social victory and political persuasion rather than philosophical or scientific truth" [Scott Atran, quoted in This Explains Everything, p.11] 
3. If our obsessions are largely subconscious, they must be innate (“in our genes”) since if we have no conscious control over them, where else would they come from? (Other possible influences - society, parents, environment, etc - have been largely debunked.)
4. The 1% genetic variation among humans accounts for variations in our subconscious desires, and thus talents (you only practice what appeals to you, and practice leads to talent).
5. Everyone is urged to get a college degree, but without the right DNA you probably won’t be able to complete it, and you’ll end up in debt with a huge college loan. You must possess the right desires, interests and obsessions (e.g. to study mathematics, to defer gratification, to lead others, to achieve status) to be accepted by a top university, and be able to complete the program and gain skills.  
6. Only 30% of adults have a college degree, and only the top 1% are lucky to be born with the right DNA to graduate from prestigious universities. Having “skills” is thus a euphemism for having the right genes. 
7. Employers in the modern information economy (like Yahoo's Marissa Mayer) only want to hire employees with a degree from a prestigious university, so the talent pool for top jobs is very small, leading to a bidding war by corporations for top talent. Unfortunately, most low-skilled jobs are being automated by robots or are outsourced to China or other low-wage countries.  Without a degree from a prestigious university, you’ll likely be underemployed and poor in the modern information society.
8. Thus, income inequality is largely caused by genetic inequality (i.e. some people are born with the rare gene variants that establish deep subconscious obsessions, which lead to motivation and willingness to practice, which lead to talent).

Once you are willing to accept this as an intellectual framework, higher taxes on the rich (the lucky genetic elite) and income redistribution have a strong scientific basis, and make a lot of sense.  All humans are morally equal, and so if talent is innate and unequally distributed (through no fault of your own), justice requires that we fix the problem.

But income redistribution is not economically sustainable.  So instead of taxing people with the genes that lead to success in the modern world, why not let anyone change their genes to better fit the world (and subsidize this for anyone who can't afford it)?  In other words, human-directed evolution is the only viable long term approach.

Nature vs. nuture explained

Imagine I have a genetic script that compells me to paint my face blue whenever I see the moon.  So if the moon appears, my face turns blue (due to my programmed behavior).  If not, my face remains pink.

Imagine also that this script will run as described above ONLY if I carry gene variant X.  (If I carry gene variant Y instead, the script will not run.)

So the logic looks like this:

IF i_have_gene_variant_x

THEN

     IF i_see_the_moon

          THEN

               DO paint_my_face_blue;

The 4 possible outcomes of this genetic script are as follows:

1. Blue face, because I have gene variant X, and I saw the moon
2. Pink face, because I have gene variant X, but I didn't see the moon
3. Pink face, because I have gene variant Y, and I saw the moon
4. Pink face, because I have gene variant Y, and I didn't see the moon

You could say the color of my face is an equal product of both my environment (nurture) and my genes (nature), interacting. 

But you would be wrong.  Because the script, which anticipates various environments, is fully in my genes.  The outcome is not affected by babies screaming or dogs barking.  If a genetic script anticipates specific experiences, then the outcome is 100% nature, not nurture.

Here's another way to look at the same genetic script.  President Andrew Jackson endured horrific experiences as a child, yet he was not traumatized by the experience.  Assuming he was one of the rare individuals who LACKED the T gene variant, his genetic script resembled something like this:

IF i_have_gene_variant_t

THEN

     IF i_experience_traumatic_events

          THEN

               DO induce_stress_disorder

ELSE remain_unaffected;

We each possess the same genetic script.  It's only the master switch (gene_variant_t) that is responsible for dramatic differences in outcomes in human traits and temperaments.

Al Gore - The Future of Genetics, Intelligence, Crime and Transhumanism

In his recent book, The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change, Al Gore predicts we will soon experience dramatic social upheaval, brought about by technological change. Most remaining manufacturing jobs will be outsourced or automated by intelligent robots, creating vast unemployment. Without middle class jobs, there will be no consumer demand for goods, plunging the economy into depression.

In fact, the tipping point has already been reached. Most people in America pay no taxes, because they are either underemployed, disabled, or elderly. Yet, as a emerging majority, this group will wield immense political power. In return for their votes (to the triumphant Democratic party) they will demand (successfully) that income inequality be addressed by ever-higher taxes on the "rich", which is a euphemism for "meritocrats", i.e. those born with natural talents and intelligence that allows them to fill the few remaining jobs. (Every manufacturing robot still needs a designer, for now.)

In the future, the supersmart will be in high demand, creating powerful incentives for human enhancement. Gore predicts that we humans will "seize active control over [our own] evolution," [p. xiv] starting in China, then, after a period of indignant denial, in America as well:

• The prospective ability to pick traits like...intelligence to create "designer babies" may be highly appealing to some parents. [p.208]
• [Quoting Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg and Marcy Darnovsky] the beginning of the age of active trait selection is now upon us...[troubling scenarios like] "who deserves to be born?" [p.209]
• [Quoting Dr. David Eagleman] "If you are a carrier of a particular set of genes, the probability that you will commit a violent crime is four times as high as it would be if you lacked those genes...The overwhelming majority of prisoners carry these genes; 98.1 percent of death-row inmates do." [p.251 - by "these genes" he means the entire Y chromosome!]
• [China's BGI] has been seeking to identify which genes are involved in determining intelligence. It is conducting a complete genomic analysis of 2,000 Chinese schoolchildren (1,000 prodigies from the nation's best schools, and 1,000 children considered of average intelligence) and matching the results with their achievements in school. [p.235]
• [Quoting Richard Hayes] the widespread use of trait selection could lead to..."a techno-eugenic rat race." [p.209]

This mirrors one of the topics in the annual Edge question: "What do we have to worry about?"  The answer is, genetic inequality.

What is Life?

Here's an excerpt from The Cone of My Incompetence:

Imagine you’re standing outside at night, under the stars, observing a distant planet through a telescope. As you gaze out, you admire the planet, even as you assume it’s simply made of inert matter—rocks and dust and debris.

Imagine your shock, then, as you notice odd and spontaneous activity on the planet. A small chunk of the planet’s surface suddenly breaks free and begins to rise upward. It travels faster and faster, away from the planet, until it escapes the planet’s gravity entirely and flies around of its own accord, even circling a nearby moon.

What sort of matter can defy gravity in this way? And what sort of planet—composed of mere dirt and rocks—could spawn such mystical matter that can travel against the combined forces of wind and gravity?

Now imagine you are standing on Mars. Through your telescope you observe Earth on the day a rocket is launched into outer space. What kind of matter is found on Earth that can design and launch rockets that travel into orbit, circle the moon, and return to Earth in one piece?

The answer is life.

How are ancestral memories represented in our DNA?

Here's an excerpt from The Cone of My Incompetence:

Remember the first time you saw an optical illusion. Perhaps the illusion was the picture of an old woman who magically transforms into a young lady, or the rabbit who turns into a duck after you stare at him long enough. Remember the thrill, the sudden pop of perception, when you finally saw it?

What happened in that moment of recognition? I think it was resonance. Resonance happens when one object begins to vibrate in sympathy with another object. If you play an E or A note on a violin, strings on nearby violins begin to vibrate sympathetically at the same frequency and echo the same note.

In the same way, brainwaves resonate with our experiences. Each sensory experience can be reduced to a characteristic resonant wave pattern in the brain. As the brain begins to hum—its hundred billion neurons each firing one hundred times a second— it compares the characteristic wave pattern with its stored library of signature patterns. If it recognizes a pattern in the environment, it can then execute its behavioral response script.

Where would such a library of characteristic wave patterns (for innate perceptions) be stored? Why not in our DNA? DNA is just a sequence of letters: AGAGCCACC … Letters can be used to represent numeric frequencies—the way a letter E or A is used to represent a musical note. If our innate perceptions, instincts, and impulses are stored in DNA, they can be passed along to the next generation as ancestral memories.

What Should We Be Worried About? Genetic Inequality

Edge posted its annual question: What Should We Be Worried About?  They received 150 responses from intellectuals and meritocrats, who are obviously blind to the main worry we non-meritocrats have: Genetic inequality.

Certainly Douglas T. Kenrick, Professor of Psychology, Arizona State University, touches on this inequality when he writes:

Just as countries differ in their distribution of wealth, they also differ in their distribution of IQ. ... Having a high IQ intellectual class—lots of people with accomplishments in science, math, technology and engineering—translated directly into more wealth for a country. To put it into purely economic terms, an increase of 1 IQ point among average citizens increases a country's average GDP by $229, whereas an increase of 1 IQ point in the intellectual elite is worth $468.

And Geoffrey Miller, Evolutionary psychologist, NYU Stern Business School and University of New Mexico, touches on another piece of the puzzle:

[China] is currently doing whole-genome sequencing of 1,000 very-high-IQ people around the world, hunting for sets of sets of IQ-predicting alleles. ... These IQ gene-sets will be found eventually. ... Potentially, the results would allow all Chinese couples to maximize the intelligence of their offspring by selecting among their own fertilized eggs for the one or two that include the highest likelihood of the highest intelligence. ... After a couple of generations, it would be game over for Western global competitiveness.

Yet meritocrats won't state the obvious conclusion: Genetic inequality is what we should be worried about.

Leadership is Innate

Scientists have recently discovered yet another gene variant (the so-called rs4950 variant of the CHRNB3 gene) linked to leadership ability. They outline a number of possibilities for the gene’s function. It could affect “traits of impulsivity and patience”. Or it may be linked to personality traits like sociability, gregariousness, exhibitionism or extraversion. Or it “may influence the tendency of people to select environments more favorable for a leadership role”, like ability to stay in school.

The authors say the environment still plays a role in attaining a leadership role, but I disagree.  If the design of a trait anticipates environmental signals, differences in those signals are inherent in the design itself.

This finding (and the fact that we humans differ genetically by only 0.1 percent) supports my theory that we each carry the entire set of human traits (leader and follower), with just a few master switches to differentiate us.

The question is this: is CHRNB3 a development gene? For example, a development gene like the SRY gene is active only for a few hours in utero (SRY is responsible for selecting our gender, and after that it is switched off and its effects cannot be undone.)  Or is CHRNB3 a signaling gene, responsible for variations in “runtime” hormones or receptors, in which case there is the possibility that its effect can be later altered, intercepted, or modulated.

If CHRNB3 is a development gene, leadership is truly innate. If it's a signaling gene, leadership could be potentially influenced by runtime signals, either neurohormone receptors or environmental “situation recognizers” in the brain.

In any case, I think we should be moving away from a "gene variant for trait X" and toward the notion of gene signatures, or complexes of genes, that cause behaviours.  I doubt a single gene variant explains everything.

The Cone of My Incompetence

Here's an excerpt from my new book, The Cone of My Incompetence: How My Genes Keep Me Down:

From an early age, I realized I was different.

Some people have natural gifts like energy, drive, charisma, motivation, calm under pressure, willpower, self-discipline and resilience. They’re lucky to be born with such rare and highly valued traits.

But I’m not so lucky. I lack natural potential and talent. And no amount of practice can change that.

I call it The Cone of My Incompetence.

My Cone determines my needs, wants, interests, fears, obsessions and desires. It resides deep in my subconscious brain, constructed by my DNA.

My Cone keeps me down. Managing people just makes me nervous. Power hierarchies leave me cold. Unless rallied by a natural leader, I’m a lazy sloth. I’m a natural born follower. A promotion is not in my DNA.

Those born with natural gifts are rewarded with lavish salaries, bonuses, perks, and promotions. But I’m not.

I never chose this Cone. It’s not something I have. It’s who I am.

And it’s not fair.

Here's another description from Amazon.com:

Frustrated by his own lack of talent and natural gifts, the author questions whether elite meritocrats--corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, lobbyists, bankers--who are lucky to be born with rare character traits like self-confidence, energy, resilience, and drive, truly deserve their enormous pay packages, bonuses and perks

You can order it here.

A New Political Party

Karl Marx said that human nature is malleable, and can be changed by social & industrial relationships, i.e. the means of production. Using that philosophy, the Soviet Communists and Chinese Maoists collectivized farms in the mid-20th century, and millions died of starvation as a result. It turns out there is a human nature after all, and it's not as malleable as Marx thought.  A man works harder if he feels a sense of ownership in his property.  It's human nature.

On the other hand, the Nazis believed human nature is fixed, and look how that turned out - unspeakable crimes against humanity. So a pox on both their houses!

Modern political parties are much more tame.

Democrats (falsely) believe human nature is malleable, and so inequality must be due to discrimination (or cultural practices, or social relations), which should be rectified (usually by government programs or income redistribution). 

Republicans, on the other hand, believe that human nature is fixed and immutable, and use this fact to (falsely) justify social inequality (e.g. they argue that government programs that attempt to rectify inequality are largely ineffective and a waste of money).

I think they're both wrong. But there's a third way. I call it the Nature Party.

The Nature Party believes that human nature is indeed fixed and immutable, leading to social inequality. Yet the government should provide the funding and freedom to individuals to allow them to change their nature to fit the world (probably by genetic change), and bring about greater fairness in society.  And if they opt not to change their nature, they should continue to be cared for and supported by government programs and income redistribution.

What is Morality?

Morality is any system the human mind invents, that, through our faith in it, achieves emergence and stability (existence) and has a beneficial effect on society.

Not every invented system of human principles is moral.  Only those systems that resonate enough with humans to induce believe and faith, and which benefit society through this belief.  The act of faith itself, across a broad enough swath of society, gives the system moral existence. 

We (in America) believe everyone is morally equal.  We believe in individual liberty.  You can't prove these concepts are true, but belief in them has a powerful organizing force in society.

We (in America) believe in the moral principle of "no man left behind" in battle.  We take it on faith, even knowing that many soldiers could die when rescuing just one fallen man.  With that faith, other soldiers know they will be rescued if captured, and so don't reveal secrets to the enemy, an enormous practical benefit.

Free Will is another such moral concept.  While most scientists agree that we humans don't have Free Will, the belief itself has a positive benefit on society.  It's the basis of the legal system and personal responsibility for your actions.  Our faith in Free Will, not the truth behind it, gives it powerful moral authority.

Do elevators have Free Will?

You can't predict an elevator's behavior.  If you observe an elevator from the outside and don't see which buttons are being pressed, you will really think the elevator has a mind of its own. It travels to the first, second or third floor, based on cues it perceives from its environment (someone pressing a button).

The elevator's software programming consults both the environment (button presses) and internal state (memory of what floor it's currently on) before making a decision on where to go next.  

Elevators respond to button presses, but not to screams, in the same way that humans respond only to environments that interest us (for which we were innately designed to be interested), and we ignore all others (e.g. we can't detect magnetic fields the way trout can).  

Elevators are constructed from a set of design blueprints. Humans also develop from a genetic blueprint. If we have Free Will, then why don't other designed entities with internal memory and programming to respond to environmental inputs also have Free Will?

Humans are free to do what we're designed to do (what we want to do). Free Will is simply the freedom to follow your design... which is not really Free Will is it?

What is Development?

We each have 23,000 genes, most of which code for proteins. Every cell in the body has a complete copy of the genetic (DNA) sequence, comprised of 3 billion letters - nucleic acids - grouped into 23 chromosomes.  In other words, genes are sequences found in chromosomes.  Genes (DNA) act as templates for the sequence of amino acids that comprise proteins. 

In front of each gene is an on-off regulatory switch, which signals whether to make more protein.  The switch is made of another protein, called a transcription factor.

If you string together a series of amino acids into a protein, they begin to fold into a characteristic 3-dimensional shape.  At that point, proteins can be used for many purposes.  As building blocks to construct the body.  As signals.  Or as catalysts, called enzymes.

Enzymes catalyze chemical reactions in the body, whereby molecular metabolites are brought together, or split apart.  The products of one reaction feed into the next reaction, in complex metabolic pathways.

Development thus proceeds, building structures in the body, sending and receiving signals (for example, hormone signals).  The receiver is usually a specialized protein, often on the surface of a cell, in which case the cell has a specific response.  In other words, if the cell doesn't have the built-in receiver (surface protein) it won't notice and respond to the signal (hormone).

The brain develops similarly.  There are too few genes (only 23,000) to specify the precise location of each of the 100+ billion neurons in the brain.  So brain development relies on construction of repeating units (there are 2 million cortical columns - processing units - each with 100,000 neurons).

I’m always most interested in the development of the brain itself, a process known as neurulation.  The neural cells continue to differentiate into specialized neurons in the brain.  A sort of chemical grid, or map, guides them as they migrate to their proper position, connecting with other neurons along the way.

There are two types of development in the early brain.  Activity-independent mechanisms (such as differentiation, migration and axon guidance) proceed according to genetic programming, independent of the environment (neural activity and sensory experience).

But once the neurons are in place, with their axons connected to other neurons, activity-dependent mechanisms of development (influenced by the environment) can begin.  Neurons do not connect directly with each other.  Instead, there is a gap, called a synapse, between every neuron, where chemical signals pass back and forth.  The chemical signals are vulnerable to being intercepted by drugs, like antidepressants and antipsychotics, because the brain is designed for exploitation by "global signals" and external agents (if not, the neurons would connect together directly).

The synaptic connections between neurons change over time, influenced by our experiences. But those are not just any experiences.  They are the specific experiences for which our development was programmed to respond, like an elevator which is programmed to respond to "button presses" but not loud screams.  Some genes are programmed to switch off (semi-permanently) in some people under certain environments, which is why identical twins (people with the same genes) may differ.  One twin may have a slightly different experience in his life, for which a particular gene is programmed to switch off, so now the twins have, in effect, different (active) genes!

We learn skills, perfect them, and make new memories – all of which are possible by the activity of the brain.  The genetically developed substructures in our brain help us remember new things (hippocampus), motivate us (amygdala), allow us to plan (frontal lobes), and learn language and other skills.  Evolutionary psychologists believe we have evolved hundreds of specialized regions in the brain, each triggering specialized human desires, motivations and behaviors.  Since each of us has different gene variants (probably leading to a different amygdala structure), no two people are motivated by the same things.

Key points

Genes develop the body and brain.  But the body has some of the properties of a mechanism, like a toaster.  It has an internal state (a toaster has on-off states).  It's behavior depends on environmental stimulus (a toaster needs someone to press the lever).  Genetic development is unlike a toaster, in that it assumes input from the environment for tuning purposes.

Saying "genes cause human behavior" must consider this developmental intermediary.  Genes are blueprints for development, and the resulting body/brain are what cause the behavior.  It's somewhat indirect.  But that doesn't make behavior any less innate.

I don't deserve this!

Your natural talents are not your own doing.  You're simply lucky to be born that way.  For example, Michael Jordan was born with talents and gifts.  (Of course, if you replace the politically correct term "natural gifts" with the identical term "genetic talents" many people get very agitated!)

Did he deserve all the money he made?  Certainly Michael Jordan practiced hard, but many other players practiced just as hard, and perhaps his willingness to practice hard was also an inborn trait.  Jordan was also lucky to be born in a time when we value basketball talent, and reward it with millions of dollars in compensation.  

The same can be said for Wall Street bankers.  They may be born with certain natural talents (analytical ability, mathematical ability, love of risk, etc.). If a hedge fund manager makes a smart bet, he can make a billion dollars overnight.  But it's a lucky bet.  How does it differ from someone who wins the lottery? Does he deserve the million dollar bonuses?  Or is he simply lucky to be born in an age that honors financial acumen (i.e. the genetic traits that lead to its development)?

Such inequality in innate traits is the rationale behind income redistribution.  The rich should pay more in taxes, as the genetically disadvantaged suffer from a lack of natural talent (intelligence, diligence, energy-level, etc.) and should be supported by social programs, essentially handouts from one genetic class to another.

Yet, in one way, Michael Jordan is responsible for his success, because talent is not something you have.  It's something you are.  It's part of your design, which comes from your genes via development.  Michael Jordan is functioning according to specs, according to his genetic design.

The same way that a serial killer is operating normally when he hunts down and kills someone.  It's the way his genes designed him.  He enjoys doing what he does.  He's operating according to his design specification.  He (the complete organism developed by his genetic blueprint) is responsible for his acts, and thus should be punished for his actions.  Because laws are simply rules imposed by one set of genetic beings over another.

If you're not happy about this, there's not much you can do.  Human development is mostly one-way.  The only way to change the outcome is at conception, although meritocrats are desperately fighting this option.

Prenatal Genetic Testing

Scientists have recently developed a technique to screen unborn babies for over 3000 different genetic diseases using a drop of the mother's blood, without the need for an invasive amniocentesis.  The test will be generally available in a few years.

There are concerns with this approach, however, that need to be more widely discussed.

First, we now know that diseases are often caused by rare genetic variants, not common variants.  While certain genetic variants are well-known to cause disease, with other variants it's less clear.  Maybe a variant will causes minor problems, or maybe none at all, so how do you interpret the screening results?

Second, the screening will be conducted after a fetus is conceived and developing.  Parents will often want to abort if a genetic disease is detected, even if a rare variant with a low chance of severe disease is found.  The number of abortions will thus greatly increase.

It's a morally grey area to abort before the viability of the fetus (healthy births have been recorded for pregnancies shorter than the legal abortion term).  Abortions are also painful, costly and dangerous.  I believe this will inevitably lead to greater demands for in vitro fertilization in the future, when screening can be done against multiple fertilized eggs before they are implanted, instead of aborting after pregnancy begins.

Emergence - Levels of explanation

There are no such things as "atoms".  There are only protons, neutrons, and electrons.  A hydrogen atom is composed of one proton and one electron.

But there are no such things as "protons," either.  There are only quarks.  A proton is composed of two up quarks and one down quark.

And so on...

Do we really believe that?  Of course not.  

Atoms have their own existence and emergent properties that arise from their constituent parts.  Atoms can join together to form molecules in ways that are too complex to describe in terms of protons, neutrons and electrons.  And if we tried to explain them in terms of all their underlying quarks, we would be lost.

There is no deterministic relationship between levels.  Electrons are probability waves until they exist as particles.  The complex folding structure of proteins can't be fully determined by the underlying components, because there is always quantum uncertainty.  One level is a statistical aggregate or description of the lower level, but you can't predict what each individual part contributes to the whole.

Once a "higher" explanatory level can describe emergent properties and behavior with more elegance and simplicity than lower levels, and, more importantly, those higher properties are stable across space and time, then the new explanatory level becomes useful.  It comes into its own existence.

A molecule has its own existence, over and above the existence of its constituent atoms and quarks, because it has stable properties and stable interactions with other molecules in ways that cannot be elegantly described in terms of its underlying parts.

Human society is yet another level, with its own rules that explain the mysterious workings of matter at a higher level.  Society exists because it has stable properties across time and space, and terminology (culture, psychology, wants, desires, ambitions) that explain matter more elegantly than a purely reductionist description in terms of physics and chemical reactions.

Genetic diseases

A startling recent discovery has overturned much of what we know about disease.  As usual, Nicholas Wade in the New York Times sums it up well:

• Until [recently,] researchers have looked only at common mutations as possible contributors to the risk of common diseases. [However] common variants have turned out to explain only a fraction of the genetic risk of common disease. 
• It now appears that large numbers of very rare genetic mutations may underlie common human diseases like schizophrenia and cancer.

What's it all mean?  Certainly it will be difficult to map every single DNA unit to a disease, as there are 3 billion DNA units in each person, and "only" 7 billion people in the world.  Everyone will have a different response to drugs, with no simple genetic test.

Nicholas Wade goes on:

• A rare variant occurs in one out of every 17 DNA units, of which the human genome has some three billion.  313 genes out of the 25,000 in the human genome carry rare mutations.
• Detecting the roots of common disease will [now] prove much more difficult. Mutations with small effect must be studied in large numbers of patients to be detectable ... raising doubts as to how soon genome sequencing will become a routine medical test. 
• Rare mutations [may be] specific to particular populations, with Africans and Europeans having sets that do not overlap much. This means that medical knowledge about rare mutations may have to be developed independently for each population. 

Age of Innocence

Study after study shows that success is in the genes.  The latest was published in the Journal for Personality:

Genes to play a much bigger role than lifestyle, with self-control particularly etched into our DNA. Our genes also largely determine how determined and persistent we are.  This is important in terms of success, as someone who refuses to give up is more likely to achieve their dreams than someone who throws in the towel.

Still, there are many deniers out there, especially genetically elite meritocrats:

To suggest that “success” is genetically determined assumes that “success” can somehow be defined outside of our cultural frames. While I feel that my American Studies PhD should constitute a sign of “success,” others would define “success” more narrowly – say, making a lot of money as a CEO or corporate lawyer. Now, I’ll certainly be the first to argue that one’s success in life isn’t all about hard work and determination. It’s also about socially defined privileges. ... Perhaps I just don’t want to admit that my accomplishments were hard-wired into my biology. But more likely, the “success gene” simply represents another gene of the week. 

David Brooks proclaims it the Age of Innocence, but I would call it the Age of Denial.  We've seen the collapse of No Child Left Behind, but many commentators continue to bury their head in the sand.  The most sinister are meritocrats like David Frum who fear their position atop society is at risk, and will do anything to defend the status quo.

A genetic signature for autism

I'm interested in how the New York Times struggles to cover stories on genetics.  For example, they report that a "tiny fraction" of autism cases are explained by having certain rare genetic mutations. Scientists hope to explain 10-20 percent of autism cases by identifying yet more rare gene mutations in the next couple of years.

OK, first, why call them "mutations"?  We're each born with different gene variants, that's what makes us unique.  When I think of "mutations" I think of DNA damage caused by exposure to radiation, which it's not.

Second, the article complains that "There are likely hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rare mutations that could disrupt brain development enough to result in social and developmental delays."

So what?  There's no single gene variant for autism.  Instead, there may be thousands.  But if you sequence someone's entire genome, it's no harder for a computer to scan for thousands of variants than it is to find one.

In other words, there's an emerging "signature" for autism in our genes, not a single gene.  That might make it harder to develop a genetic test for autism, but not that much harder, especially when the price of a full genome scan falls below $1000.

At that point, anyone with a family history of autism will be encouraged to have a genetic test, similar to a test for Down Syndrome.  It will be a test for the "genetic signature" of a disease.

What is Confabulation?

Michael Gazzaniga writes in Who's in Charge that "listening to people's explanations of their actions is interesting ... but often a waste of time." [p.78] "The left brain uses what it has and ad libs the rest." [p.88] Confabulation is the brain's hard-wired impulse for "giving a fictitious account of a past event."

In the book, Gazzaniga explores some of the hottest issues in the study of the human mind, including consciousness and free will.

"Consciousness is distributed everywhere across the brain," says Gazzaniga [p.64]. For example, patients with a localized brain stroke may lose conscious awareness of their left arm, even believing it belongs to someone else. "Consciousness involves a multitude of widely distributed specialized systems and disunited processes" [p.102] Any sense of unity in consciousness is merely confabulation.

To some extent, says Gazzaniga, we humans are hard-wired. "The medial frontal cortex gives one the feeling of the urge to move". [p.113] The lateral frontal lobes are responsible for "sequencing behavior" like planning [p.49]. Specific areas in the temporal lobe allow you to recognize animals and fruits [p.50]. We have specialized brain functions for detecting cheaters and making moral judgements [p.69].

However, Gazzaniga says that "social interactions make us free to choose" [p.215], which I find odd. Perhaps it would be better to depersonalize it. Human impulses come in sets or pairs. People constantly balance competing desires (using their frontal lobes). The desire to steal from a rich man is (usually) counterbalanced by the fear of punishment. The cortex mediates between competing impulses in the context of new information from the senses.

How does the cortex do this? Gazzaniga doesn't know. "These interactions will only be understood with a new vocabulary" [p.107]. "A unique language, which has yet to be developed, is needed to capture the thing that happens when mental processes constrain the brain." [p.220]

Gazzaniga believes in "emergence" but I have my own explanation, which is Resonance. Think back to the days when physicists explained black body radiation in terms of oscillators. Billions of neurons in the brain, each firing 200 times per second, are like oscillators that constrain all the other oscillators in the brain. The mind is a statistically emergent phenomena - the lowest-energy state of these oscillators - but it often takes time for the brain to re-adjust after it has been perturbed by new information. In a sense, the mind is a set of resonance frequencies (or standing waves) derived from the brain's activity, but the brain doesn't affect the mind deterministically, since there's always quantum uncertainty from one level to the next.

This also opens the possibility of genetic encoding of desires, fears and impulses.  If indeed the cortex reduces our experiences to multidimensional resonance frequencies, perhaps the frequencies have a unique signature that can be coded in the genes and retrieved during brain development.

Gazziniga doesn't discuss human difference. Yet our genes constrain our impulse thresholds, and genetic variations among us are responsible for human individuality. Your genes define what you want, and who you are. While Gazzaniga admits that "overall [brain] connectivity pattern is under genetic control" [p.21] and "if the capacity is not built-in, it does not exist" [p.19], he shies away from the key question: Why do some people enjoy being serial killers and others don't? Why do some enjoying leading, while others enjoy following?

Finally, I don't believe that consciousness is required for free will. By my definition, free will is the freedom to follow your design, whether you're conscious of it or not.

How to increase your willpower

USA Today has a dilemma.  Tell the people what they want to hear, or report the truth.

On one hand, telling people what they want to hear sells more newspapers.  But if they report falsehoods, they lose credibility.

To their credit, USA Today is transparent about their crass motives.  In a recent article, they acknowledge that most people (71%) "think willpower is something they can learn," so they cravenly devote most of the article to reinforcing this (false) popular notion by publishing the discredited theories of a crackpot psychologist who advocates that people "work on ways to delay instant gratification" and "practice self-control".

Again, to their credit, USA Today seeks to retain a modicum of credibility, by quoting one of the country's foremost experts (executive director of the American Psychological Association), who throws cold water on most of the article's content.  "Studies show that some people are better at resisting temptation than others, he says.  'They seem to innately have more self-control'."  (In other words, willpower is not learnable.)

It's a neat trick, popularized by such noted charlatans as Dr. Phil.  Tell the majority what they want to hear, and hope they miss the few sentences that you devote to the truth.

A review of Sam Harris' Free Will

Sam Harris, in his new book, asserts that we humans don’t have Free Will.  First, I'll discuss why I disagree, and then I'll state what I think is the real issue.

Harris agrees with me (and Schopenhauer) that we humans have the freedom to do what we want.  But we can’t choose our wants themselves.

However, "wants" (or genes, for that matter) are not something you have; they are who you are.  They define you.  I consciously choose based on who I am, based on my design, including my genetically constructed brain, with its cognitive abilities and specialized brain modules that implement primal needs/preferences/ desires/interests.  Implementing "desire" in neurons is no easy feat, but that's another topic.

And what is consciousness?  The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each connected to 7,000 other neurons (or to the senses), each firing at 200 times per second.  The whole brain begins to hum and resonate with the environment like a tuning fork.   We are continually thrown off balance by external stimuli or internal wants/interests/desires that perturb the system, and the brain struggles to regain resonance.  Past memories and future plans/predictions are all thrown into the multi-dimensional resonance mix.  We often have competing desires (e.g. fear and greed), which the brain’s resonance engine resolves in the environmental context.   But we only sense and retain things for which we were genetically built. 

Consciousness (by my definition) is the emergent “pop” of resonant frequencies (or semi-stable standing waves) in the brain.  Perhaps one day we'll invent conscious computers by this very principle.

So if we are free to do what we want (based on who we "genetically are"), and consciousness emerges from the resonance of the human brain with its internal and external environment, then what is the real issue?

It's the unfairness of genetic diversity.  It's the fact that we’re all born unequal, with different wants/ desires/ interests, which essentially come from our unequal genes (and the unequal “resonance engines” they construct), and which lead to inequality in pay, opportunity and status.  (According to Business Week, "needs, desires, and weaknesses [are] coded into our DNA.")

Are genetic inequalities within the realm of justice?  Not for those already living, since our genes define who we are.  I decide freely based on who I am (by my design).  If your “wants” aren’t in sync with social expectation (e.g. you want to kill people), then you’ll end up impoverished and perhaps incarcerated.  The legal system will throw you in jail for being “you”.  Laws are written by genetic beings to control other genetic beings, whom they fear.  But you can’t change someone’s genes without changing who they are (the exception being non-development genes). 

In the future, with the advent of affordable genetic testing, parents will decide their children’s genes before they are conceived.  This will restore fairness and equality in society.  Create a future generation who freely choose the things that will make them more prosperous, and eliminate those who freely choose to be serial killers.

Why America's politics are so polarized

I'm reading Charles Murray's new book, Coming Apart, in which he asserts that high-IQ individuals are increasingly segregating themselves from the rest of society. They meet at top universities, inter-marry, live in gated communities, get astronomically high-paying jobs in finance, business, law, etc... and rarely mingle with the common folk.

With the rise of highly-leveraged financial markets and hedge funds, control over billions of dollars in physical assets is consolidated by relatively few individuals. (Contrast that with a day laborer who controls only the fruits of his own labor.) It makes sense for corporations to seek out high-IQ talent and pay them millions, since an additional two or three IQ points may net an additional $100 million in profits on financial transactions.

It used to be that small towns across America had more high-IQ citizens scattered about to shape, nuance, inform, moderate, or otherwise influence local opinion, perhaps serving as mayor or town council members. In short, to act as community leaders, to inspire and motivate others. But now, high-IQ students are whisked away after high school graduation to attend an elite university like Harvard or Yale or Stanford, and they rarely return (nor do their children).

America's average towns are suffering a brain drain. Those left behind are more easily incited and influenced by simple-minded, all-or-nothing, charismatic zealots on television, like Rush Limbaugh. And since the high-IQ elites are overwhelming liberal, when they move away their hometowns become even more conservative on average.

Resonance, or, Genetic memories

We humans have 100 billion neurons in our brain, but only 23,000 genes. That's only one gene for every 4 million neurons, hardly enough for the genes to be determining the action of every neuron.

Yet, abstractly, neurons are all alike, even as some are long wirey threads, and others resemble dense bushes. We certainly have enough genes to act as recipes for basic neural development, neural migration and placement, and neural activity.

Once developed, the brain's neurons begin to fire at a rate of 200 times per second. Each neuron connects with 7,000 other neurons. Pretty soon, the entire brain is vibrating in harmonic oscillation.

But it's not just random oscillation. Neurons receive input from the environment via the senses. The brain then begins to resonate with the environment in characteristic ways. If two people see a bird, the experience causes a similar resonance in their brains. If two people feel anger, there's also a similar resonance pattern of neural firings.

Can resonance patterns be reduced to a characteristic signature, or unique sequence of numbers? I'm not a mathematician, but I know that complex wave functions can be reduced to a Fibonacci sequence. Perhaps the resonant oscillations of the brain can be reduced this way as well.

Numbers can easily be represented in the genes as a sequence of DNA bases. For example: AA=0, AT=1, AG=3, AC=4, TA=5, and so on... So if the same environmental object always produces the same resonant signature in the brain, it's possible that these memories can be stored in (and recalled from) the genes.

And not just objects. Perhaps traits, behaviors, desires and interests can also be reduced to unique resonance signatures of neural firing patterns. It would be a possible mechanism for genes to encode innate character traits.

Introverts - a Quiet critique

Susan Cain, the author of a recent book on introverts, argues that human society is similar to a beehive. Each of us has a specialized role to play. It takes all types. The introvert does the deep analysis, and the extrovert does all the talking and leading.

However, corporations discriminate. Introverts are paid less than extroverts because they’re not considered promotable. As Jack Welch writes, "introverts stagnate in large organizations. They can work hard and deliver to expectations or beyond, but they rarely get their due… Extroverts tend to outshine introverts [because] their outsize personalities earn them chances to make presentations to higher-ups, always a good way to accelerate the career-changing process of getting out of the pile."

In other words, you can always hire an introvert if you need an analyst, or someone to check your ego. Then, when they're no longer needed, you can drive them away by switching to an "open office" plan.

Schools like Harvard Business School are filled with extroverts, with nary an introvert in sight. Extroverts are the future leaders of business, the top 10% who will make 50% of the money, and grab the lion’s share of society’s resources.

“Extroversion is in our DNA,” writes Cain. But not in everyone’s DNA. Half of us (or more) are introverts. Corporations fight over the rare group of extroverts with additional desired traits (intelligence, lack of shyness), by offering exorbitant compensation and stock option packages. (See the book: Leadership is Innate). Sure, there are a few introvert leaders around, but they are the exception.

That's OK, according to Cain, because introverts are not usually money-motivated. But if you replace the words “introvert” and “extrovert” with “women” and “men,” would it still be OK? Is it OK for society to direct resources to one genetic class over another?

Does an introvert choose to be that way of his own free will? It certainly feels like free will to follow your innate interests, desires, and comforts… However, the question should be: can we choose our interests themselves? And the answer is, of course not. Our interests, desires, motivations, passions are what's genetic, part of our design, who we are. (Like an elevator that "chooses" to go up and down of its own free will because that’s the way it’s designed.) An introvert (freely) chooses introverted behavior because that’s the way his brain is wired. If you don’t want something different, it’s the same as not being able to choose it.

Cain says people do what they're "expected to". But feeling pressure to live up to social expectations is simply another innate trait. Most people do, but others do not. For example, if you’re born gay and your parents put pressure on you to conform, you will rather endure great difficulty than live up to their expectations. People only do what society expects if it resonates with their inborn nature.

Genes are recipes for the development of the brain. But just because the brain is a complex and dynamic system doesn't mean traits are not innate. Yes, the brain has an internal state (memory) and the ability to vary its outputs based on inputs (context sensitivity) and its internal state (model). There is no contradiction to say that traits may be both situational and innate. We're wired for many eventualities and situations: being in a group, being alone, etc. Yet, given the same situation (e.g. being in a group setting) without an overriding trait or passion (e.g. Bill Gates overcoming his introversion at a software conference), the trait tends to be more fixed.

Evolutionary experience shows that having a distribution of traits, or specialized actors, makes society more robust. A gene is merely a special form of matter that transports past evolutionary experience to the present. But that doesn't make it fair.

Introverts are "born that way". Given this, assuming we don't know ahead of time whether we'd be born an introvert or extrovert, how should we design society to be fair to all genetic parties? Most likely, with a system of redistribution, from the genetic-haves to genetic-have-nots, until such time everyone can choose extrovert genes for their children. However, some elites, like Harvard's Michael Sandel, are fighting to limit that option.

What is Biology?

Interests and choices must come from somewhere. From personal preferences? Then where do preferences come from? Society and culture and family? Why would you bother to listen to the voice of society unless it resonated with your preferences?

Indeed, gay teenagers endure harsh and negative social criticism, but that doesn't persuade them to change. For the rest of us, it's just a coincidence that our preferences are socially accepted, even as we falsely attribute this coincidence to our strong moral character and willpower.

No, ultimately, our interests and choices boil down to Biology. Yet biology doesn’t determine outcomes. It merely constrains the set of possibilities. An elevator can bring you to any number of different floors. Which floor is not predetermined. But the elevator can't drive you across town.

Freedom of choice is another way of saying you choose according to your design. (Design is just another word for Biology.) Like an elevator that chooses to go up and down, functioning according to your design is the very essence of free choice. It's being who you are.

Being "born that way" refers only to being born with a certain developmental plan. Biology operates over time. A girl is not born with breasts - they arrive later - yet breast development is certainly biological. Development is not necessarily one way, either. The script (the programming) is what’s biological. But like a computer program, the script can be full of loops and conditionals.

The brain itself is constructed by a biological script (or rather a set of specialized scripts), thus what we can learn is constrained by what we’re hardwired to learn. We humans can learn language, but dogs can't, because they lack the biological script to properly wire their brain.

Biology has an internal state. The brain is the best example. We remember things, and this “state” (a memory of things past) becomes part of our current environment. It affects the outcome of our choices (which button on the elevator gets pushed).

Our interests, wants, needs, desires, etc, are coded into the brain, and vary based on our Biology, i.e. variations in our genes. Different people have different scripts. That's why people differ in their preferences, traits and capabilities.

A simple blood test for Down Syndrome

A simple blood test for Down Syndrome is now available for women who are 10 weeks pregnant. It's more accurate than amniocentesis, and safer for the mother and child.

A recent article asks: Do All Women Need Genetic Testing Before Pregnancy?

More than half of pregnant women do some kind of prenatal screening or testing of their fetus ... The vast majority of women undergo [disease] carrier screening based on their ethnic background, although many, regardless of their heritage, are also screened for cystic fibrosis. Traditionally, certain ethnic groups — especially Ashkenazic Jews of Eastern European descent — have been advised to consider carrier screening for various fatal conditions including Tay-Sachs and Canavan diseases.

[GenPath recently announced a test to detect] 160 diseases in a single genetic screening test. Indeed, GenPath is presenting the new test as a way to level the genetic playing field and expand testing to any woman, anywhere.

This is just the latest of a battery of new blood tests that can determine everything from fetal sex to Down syndrome to paternity.

Bacteria and cancer

Scientists have found a link between bacteria and colorectal cancers.

"Tumors and their surroundings contain complex mixtures of cancer cells, normal cells, and a variety of microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses," says the study's senior author, Matthew Meyerson, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber and the Broad Institute. "Over the past decade, there has been an increasing focus on the relationship between cancer cells and their ‘microenvironment,' specifically on the cell-to-cell interactions that may promote cancer formation and growth." 

While the relationship between colorectal cancer and Fusobacterium is unclear, there are intriguing hints that the bacterium may play a role in the cancer, says Meyerson.  "At this point, we don't know what the connection between Fusobacterium and colon cancer might be," Meyerson observes. "It may be that the bacterium is essential for cancer growth, or that cancer simply provides a hospitable environment for the bacterium."

Recent studies have also found a link between bacteria and pancreatic cancer.

The buzz on genes and behavior

Researchers have long worried that correlating genes and behavior was "too complex to fathom, because so many factors can act together to regulate behavior."

Now new research shows how a few "master genes" can switch on and off complex behaviors, at least in bees.  

Researchers found that "naturally occurring behaviors are under the influence of discrete regulatory networks in the brain ... there is a close relationship between changes in gene expression ... and behavior."

They also found "a high degree of modularity in the regulation of genes and behavior, with distinct behavioral states".  Words like "discrete" and "modular" are important, as they show that complex networks created by genes can be controlled and achieve a steady state.

"The team focused their analysis on ... genes implicated in ... foraging, such as scouting for flowers ... maturation, ... and aggression, or hive defense."

Look for more informatio on the BeeSpace project which developed "a catalog of genes that turn on or off in the bee brain in response to social cues, environmental changes or as a result of hereditary factors."