Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Genetic Glitch May Prevent Kids From Learning From Their Mistakes

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Aug 11, 2008 08:25 PM
from the bzzt-ow-bzzt-ow-bzzzzzzzzzt-ooooooow dept.
jamie pointed out an interesting piece being featured in Newsweek that claims a "genetic glitch" may prevent some kids from learning from their mistakes to the same degree as others. "If there is one thing experts on child development agree on, it is that kids learn best when they are allowed to make mistakes and feel the consequences. So Mom and Dad hold back as their toddler tries again and again to cram a round peg into a square hole. [...] But not, it seems, all kids. In about 30 percent, the coils of their DNA carry a glitch, one that leaves their brains with few dopamine receptors, molecules that act as docking ports for one of the neurochemicals that carry our thoughts and emotions. A paucity of dopamine receptors is linked to an inability to avoid self-destructive behavior such as illicit drug use. But the effects spill beyond such extremes. Children with the genetic variant are unable to learn from mistakes. No matter how many tests they blow by partying the night before, the lesson just doesn't sink in."
education science republicans riaa democrats
science education
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.
  • Hey! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Herr_Skymarshall (1029532) on Monday August 11, @08:28PM (#24562671)
    Let's party like we don't know any better!
    • Re:Hey! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Stellian (673475) on Tuesday August 12, @04:32AM (#24565403)

      Let's party like we don't know any better!

      I gather you are one of the many victims of this horrible affliction - also known as "the stupid gene".

  • Takes all kinds (Score:5, Interesting)

    by XanC (644172) on Monday August 11, @08:29PM (#24562679)

    Is this humanity's insurance policy against catastrophic changes, where the old rules don't apply?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Perhaps, perhaps not.

      Consider that many kinds of sociopathy have the same kind of behavioral characteristics, but also include lack of guilt, inability to love, and parrotting of a number of emotions.

      Correlation != Causation, but the relationship of risky behaviors and inabiity to learn from many kinds of mistakes also typifies the pathology of sociopaths.

          • Re:Takes all kinds (Score:4, Informative)

            by RockoTDF (1042780) on Tuesday August 12, @08:55AM (#24567655) Homepage
            Empathy may be reinforced via learning, but generally speaking it is not a learned behavior. Kicking the dog and getting bitten/in trouble is not learning empathy, its learning to not kick the dog. Empathy is quite neurological, read about mirror neurons and autism spectrum disorders. "Sociopaths" are most likely born that way (some of them have amazingly normal upbringings) and don't learn to be crazy. Both Autism and Antisocial personality disorder (sociopaths) are classified as Axis II disorders and are almost impossible to treat, which is demonstrative that traits such as empathy are not learned.
      • Re:Takes all kinds (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gregbot9000 (1293772) <mckinleg@csusb.edu> on Monday August 11, @08:51PM (#24562847) Journal
        Well, until recently, pretty often. It 30% shows me there is obviously some form of survival benefit to this for it to be so high.

        They cast this in a very negative light, calling it a disability, but the inability to learn from mistakes is actually a god send. I don't know how many people I've seen get knocked down at work, or turned down by women and not get back up. It's the people who throw themselves at things against the odds and keeps fighting that truly captures the imagination. I'm not surprised it is as low as 30% when you see the state of politics and society.

        Mostly this article is a crock of shit. Genetics is becoming the new astrology, and I see little evidence that what they say really applies on a macro level.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I don't know how many people I've seen get knocked down at work, or turned down by women and not get back up. It's the people who throw themselves at things against the odds and keeps fighting that truly captures the imagination.

          That's giving up hope. Learning from your mistakes would be getting turned down by a woman, analyzing what might have led to that outcome, and trying to fix it.

          • Re:Takes all kinds (Score:5, Insightful)

            by blahplusplus (757119) on Monday August 11, @09:17PM (#24563037)

            "That's giving up hope. "

            Giving up hope is a function of learning from your mistakes, there are situations where it is perfectly rational to give up hope.

            They don't address the complexity of 'learning from your mistakes', one man's mistake is another man's genius idea. History is filled with critics that thought someone was mistaken when they ultimately turned out to be right, especially in mathematics.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            That's giving up hope. Learning from your mistakes would be getting turned down by a woman, analyzing what might have led to that outcome, and trying to fix it.

            That's assuming that 'negative feedback' comes from a mistake. A lot of things require persistence, doing the same thing until it works.

            Meeting women, ironically, is one of those things.

            1) Just be yourself.
            2) That didn't work.
            3) Repeat with another woman until it works.

            Anything else is going to fail even more catastrophically.

            Some things benefit from

        • segregation (Score:5, Interesting)

          by TheSHAD0W (258774) on Monday August 11, @09:08PM (#24562983) Homepage

          Whether it's a disability or not, I think we should seriously consider segregating the two populations and putting them in different classrooms. I bet that, to achieve their best, they'll need radically different teaching methods.

          • Whether it's a disability or not, I think we should seriously consider segregating the two populations and putting them in different classrooms.

            Can it be called "The Gattaca Initiative"?

                • by Moraelin (679338) on Tuesday August 12, @04:51AM (#24565509) Journal

                  TBH, I fail to see why that's a bad thing anyway, assuming that our goal _is_ to give all people the best education we can. (No kid left behind, etc.) As opposed to, say, a some fucked-up kind of show-business to make under-achieving parents of under-achieving children feel better.

                  Well, or let me better qualify "bad thing." I don't think it's worse than putting everyone in the same classroom and then dumbing it down to the level where even the... _special_ kid on the right can feel special for being able to draw doodles like everyone else.

                  Most (all?) of Europe isn't afraid to separate kids by skill level, at least at high school level. It wasn't just the USSR and co. I don't think it caused anything bad, so far. Even the USSR and its satellite states, for all we see their economical failures, look around you how many of your co-workers come from their universities. They managed to produce some well educated people. (Then they failed to use them, but that's a different failure.)

                  Splitting by learning method actually seems to me like the logical next step. Instead of dumping someone into the lowest bracket just because their wiring doesn't fit the teachers' style, maybe there is some other way of teaching them stuff.

                  And before it sounds like either a nerd-elitist opinion or conversely some kind of plot to isolate and oppress nerds, remember that ADHD and Aspergers' aren't all roses even as educational prospects go. For each ADHD kid that's found his niche with his home computer, there are a couple who just flunk because they just simply get bored to tears in classroom. For each Aspie who's become some great programmer or physicist, there'll be one or two who just got bullied around and discouraged, and maybe backed into some useless interest (as an Aspie you _will_ have a very narrow focus of interest) like remembering all the football scores since 1900. Or flunked because their narrow interests didn't include geography and victorian english literature and God knows what else. Maybe we can guide them down a better path.

                  Even for neurotypicals, well, maybe they can do better if they don't have to compete with the local autism-spectrum disorder kid. Or at least find a better passtime than taunting the nerd.

                  It won't be a neat 70/30 split, duly noted, but it will be a good start anyway. We don't build all tools the exact same way, we don't raise all animals the same way (raising chicken can be slightly different from raising sheep), we don't plant all plants the same way, so, umm, I fail to see why we must teach everyone the same way _if_ we have enough proof that their brains do work differently.

                  It will be more expensive, though. That much is obvious.

        • Re:Takes all kinds (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ChromeAeonium (1026952) on Monday August 11, @09:59PM (#24563325)

          Genetics is becoming the new astrology

          Mod me redundant, but I feel that deserves to be repeated.

          Maybe I don't get it, but the last time I checked, we don't really understand how the brain works. Bits and pieces of its operation, yes, but the big picture? Not even close. How is it, then, that some can claim to have such complex aspects, in this case, learning, figured out on a genetic level? Wouldn't that be like someone who barely knows jack about the immune system claiming to have found a genetic reason as to why some people are allergic to cats?

          • Re:Takes all kinds (Score:5, Informative)

            by OG (15008) on Monday August 11, @10:31PM (#24563547)

            No one claimed that they had learning figured out a genetic level. What they do claim is that they've pinpointed a gene that corresponds well with different behaviors. And it just so happens that this gene results in a reduction in dopamine tone. And there's been quite a bit of research showing that changes in dopamine tone result in changes in learning and memory (speaking as someone who's worked on a bit of that research).

            And I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that producing a transgenic mouse that expresses the variation of the gene associated with "not learning with your mistakes" is going to result in behavioral differences in those animals that might just correspond to the behaviors they've described in humans.

            And it's not like we don't already have any examples [wikipedia.org] of a single gene resulting in pretty drastic behavioral and cognitive effects.

            What we do know is that who we are is a combination of many genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. None of them fully explains who we are, but that doesn't mean that individual factors can't exert a strong force on who we are.

          • Re:Takes all kinds (Score:5, Insightful)

            by OG (15008) on Monday August 11, @10:49PM (#24563669)

            What I think is interesting is that people have no problem believing that someone's genetics serve as a template for their hair, eye color, height, etc, but are much more skeptical about the role of genetics role behavior. Behavior is a result of the brain (and the rest of the body), which is just as much a physical item as the rest of you.

            That's not to say that genetics can explain everything. There are epigenetic and environmental facts at play that are also important. But an individual's genetics are the starting point, so how is it foolish that to believe that understanding genetics can provide insights. Genetics isn't the end all and be all of understanding people, but it's a very important component.

  • Sadly... (Score:5, Funny)

    by g0dsp33d (849253) on Monday August 11, @08:29PM (#24562681)
    After 25 years of research the leading scientist discovered he also had the gene.
  • Illicit? (Score:5, Insightful)

    Illicit does not necessarily mean self-destructive. It is a matter of law, not health.
    • Re:Illicit? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by stevejsmith (614145) on Monday August 11, @11:16PM (#24563881) Homepage
      Not to mention heroin overdoses. There is no such thing as an overdose - opiates are relatively non-lethal - especially for junkies, who would never be able to afford ten times their normal dose (the minimum it would likely take to kill someone) at prohibition-level prices. In reality, heroin "overdoses" are almost always a result of an addict taking the drug in combination with alcohol, benzodiazepines, or who knows what else, either voluntarily or involuntarily. But even the voluntary ones might not be so voluntary - addicts might substitute these other far more dangerous drugs because heroin is unavailable, not because they would take it as their first choice. Not to mention that even these deaths by combination of drugs are slow and can be easily reversed with a Naloxone pen. Do a Google search for "heroin overdose."
  • by filesiteguy (695431) on Monday August 11, @08:36PM (#24562723) Homepage
    I know I fail to learn from my mistakes.

    I forget to take out the trash.

    I'm told about it.

    I forget again.

    What's my problem??
  • by nebaz (453974) on Monday August 11, @08:37PM (#24562733)

    Why Bart Simpson kept trying to reach the electrified candy, while Lisa's hamster did not. The whole "bzzt...ow...bzzt...ow" sequence is stuck in my head.

  • by unfasten (1335957) on Monday August 11, @08:40PM (#24562767)

    from the bzzt-ow-bzzt-ow-bzzzzzzzzzt-ooooooow dept.

    http://xkcd.com/242/ [xkcd.com]

      • by schon (31600) on Monday August 11, @09:32PM (#24563135) Homepage

        (is there nothing that the Simpsons don't have an appropriate quote for?)

        Scientology and abortion.

        Scientology because Nancy Cartwright (the voice of Bart) is a die-hard scientologist, and (if you believe the rumors) has threatened to quit if they poke fun at it. The closest they got was "The Joy of Sect" (wherein most of Springfield joins a cult.)

        Don't know the reason behind the abortion stance. Maybe because it's too hard to joke about tastefully.

        • by wolf12886 (1206182) on Monday August 11, @11:15PM (#24563867)

          Don't know the reason behind the abortion stance. Maybe because it's too hard to joke about tastefully.

          Thats where South Park comes in.

        • by Digitus1337 (671442) <lk_digitus&hotmail,com> on Tuesday August 12, @12:36AM (#24564417) Homepage
          That's not entirely true. There was an abortion joke in Treehouse of Horror VII in the short "Citizen Kang." Kang and Kodos assume the identities of presidential candidates Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. While at a rally, under the guise of Bob Dole, the alien proclaims "Abortions for everyone!" which is met with boos from the crowd, he then proclaims "Abortions for no one!" which is also met with boos from the crowd. Finally he proclaims something along the lines of "Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!" and is met with loud applause.
  • Sounds like ADD to me. I've got ADD and although I'm very intelligent, I haven't been an 'A' student since freshman year of high school. I can learn things well, but I continue the same behaviors that prevent me from succeeding, such as reading Slashdot (among other things) instead of doing homework.

    I took Adderall in school, which I believe stimulates dopamine and does indeed make it easier to do my homework. Also makes me test positive for meth, tell jokes that don't make sense to anyone but myself, and sleep 5 hours per night.

    I was going somewhere with this post, but as usual, I got distracted. Anyway, I hope this perspective can inform someone or at least make the other folks with ADD feel like they're not alone, even when so many people don't even think ADD is real.

    • you just described my typical behaviour... but I've never been diagnosed with ADD, I just have a short... ooh a penny!
      • Give yourself structure. Make yourself a list of things you need to do every day. You could use paper, or be like me and get a $100 Palm Pilot. To me, mine is worth every penny. My list includes showering, walking the dog, getting haircuts, going to job interviews, getting my car inspected, paying my taxes, and pretty much every other thing I need to do.

        Other things are make sure your hygiene is good. Shower every day if you can. Get exercise. Ride your bike for half an hour every day, if possible. I've really taken a liking to cycling and it's helped to put my life in the right direction and help my lose lots of weight. Eat an egg for breakfast everyday; it'll make you feel good. Don't eat junk food.

        Keeping your body in shape helps you think more clearly, and the running theme is here that providing yourself with structure and goals is the best thing you can do for yourself this side of medication. I swear that giving myself some structure is the only reason I was able to graduate from college on time and the only way I'll succeed in making my career go somewhere and being the husband my wife deserves.

  • by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Monday August 11, @08:44PM (#24562799)

    So /. editors don't learn from publishing dupes? [slashdot.org]

    OK, maybe this isn't a dupe (diffrent researchers, maybe?), but I don't want to bring the groupthink's wrath down on me by RTFA.

  • by houbou (1097327) on Monday August 11, @08:44PM (#24562801) Journal

    I'm not surprised anymore at articles such as this one. Our DNA is basically a blue print of who we are. Our limitations, strengths, etc...

    While we are also a product of our environment, it's interesting to see how as we move forward in the research of the human body and mind, many of our issues which we would have deemed "environmental", are actually genetic.

    So, the question is, can we fix this? And then, if we fix it, are we a different person? or just better? Is our individuality really based on our DNA? what does that make of the human soul? Not a religious person by nature, I do think there is a God, but, I believe that humanity has the right and the responsibility to learn as much of itself as possible, in order to survive and to improve as a species.

    To me, an interesting question that raises is about our soul, such as, is our individuality link to it? or not? Having read and seen documentaries that a person on their death bed loses weight as they migrate from life to death. Many believe that our "soul" has a quantitive weight.

    Who are we? If one could fix a learning disability by "re-wiring" our DNA, then, what's this "soul" thing to us?

    Could it be that really, our version of heaven is actually our ability to learn about ourselves to the point where we can engineer our own immortality?

    After all, for many, heaven is a blissful eternity of life after death. That's what many religions sell in their brochure :P (I said MANY, not all)

    Is our goal to achieve long life by understanding our DNA? is this really what our reward will be? our quest for immortality lies within our reach in research and understanding of ourselves and what makes us really tick? :)

    This thread may sound off beat to the topic at hand, but, I personally think it that there is a link.

    Being able to fix a person by DNA so that they can finally "learn" from their mistake, is a behavioral fix. Done using medical treatment. To me, this means that there could be a day where "Psychology" as we know it might actually end, and DNA fixes could actually be the cure to depression, etc...

    Cheers!

      • I know it's tacky to reply to your own posts, but I wanted to add something here. According to the article:

        In about 30 percent, the coils of their DNA carry a glitch...

        One of the strongest and most counterintuitive findings in this nascent field is that children with a sweet temperament, which is under strong genetic control, are the least likely to emulate their parents and absorb the lessons they teach, while fussy kids are the most likely to do so.

        DNA variants can protect children from bad parenting.

        Both views--that everything is genetic and that parents can transform a child like a lump of clay--are as wrong as wrong can be.

        I think these finding have serious implications for how we look at religion, and how it can or cannot work effectively to shape people's behaviour from the time they are children to adults. Some people -- at least 30 per cent -- are hard-wired to find it difficult to deal with "sin" without feeling guilt, shame, failure and worthlessness. They will either end with serious psychological and spiritual h

  • by srjh (1316705) on Monday August 11, @08:45PM (#24562805)
    I always hit submit before
  • Epic fail (Score:3, Funny)

    by hack slash (1064002) on Monday August 11, @08:45PM (#24562807)
    I wonder if this person learnt from his mistake...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZZXslsLDLs&fmt=18 [youtube.com]
  • On the bright side (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xPsi (851544) * on Monday August 11, @08:56PM (#24562891)
    I'm guessing there are many perfectly productive and successful adults out there who also have this "defect." Like ADD and OCD, which can morph into powerful creative and focusing skills as positive adult byproducts, I'm betting this one can manifest itself as otherwise helpful traits such as "never giving up", "persistence in the face of resistance", etc. "Once bitten, twice shy" probably isn't a meaningful phrase for them and they likely wouldn't suffer from a host of ordinary hangups that stymie many adults (who learned from mistakes in an ordinary fashion).
  • off topic? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zappepcs (820751) on Monday August 11, @08:57PM (#24562893) Journal

    There are several studies available on "the Google" where you can find that genetically, we as a species are bound to obey the genetic code we are born with, whether that is good or bad. This is just another example. You'll see in my journal that the MWNN regarding atheists. This supports the atheist understanding of the world. We are born as we are, mostly accidental, or luck of the draw regarding genetics. There is no deity responsible for this. What a reprehensible thought that an all powerful and all knowing deity would do this to people?

    As a hobby, I try to build small autonomous robots, and generally speaking most people believe that the human experience is the 100% value or perfect way of interacting with the world. What they forget, and what I like to call 'failure mode' is that we humans are anything but perfect: bad vision, autism, this story's problem, and many other failures. Ever bump into the wall in the dark? There is another failure.

    We are far from perfect, hardly worthy of being called a creation of an all powerful being. Destructive behavior is what we excel at. Brilliant design, eh?

    Back on topic: for the most part, we are finding genetic reasons for many problems with the human race. Even if they could all be corrected, I'm not sure it will improve our situation. I sometimes think that we are trying to save nature's discards. Amazing really. Apparently war fixes some of the overpopulation, or used to.

    The answer to such problems is fantastically unimaginable. How do you fix the discards and keep population withing the realms of what the planet can support? China has taken a step in that direction and it has caused unimaginable hardships for their population; selling babies, hiding from the government, fear of things that are only natural.

    So, what are we to do with things like this? What are we to do with people like this? Fix them, or abort them?

  • Original article (Score:4, Informative)

    by DebateG (1001165) on Monday August 11, @09:10PM (#24562999)
    I would much rather read the original article [sciencemag.org] than an oversimplified Newsweek summary.
  • by clovis (4684) * on Monday August 11, @09:14PM (#24563017)

    there would be nothing on YouTube but cats.

    Also, survival traits in some cases may benefit the species more than the indivdual - some of us are needed to find out what new things can or can't be done. Some of us are needed to hold the beer.

  • by LM741N (258038) on Monday August 11, @09:43PM (#24563217)

    George Bush syndrome.

      • by pragma_x (644215) on Monday August 11, @11:24PM (#24563937) Journal

        The major difference between the US and other "first world" societies is that US politics very rarely includes the concept of "good will towards all". The notion, that "what is good for my neighbor is good for me" simply doesn't fly around here. Electing politicians on merit implies that we'd be electing people to serve the *public* trust, rather than our own individual interests.

        Granted, I"m painting things with a broad brush, but that's pretty much the impression I get.

        Why is it this way? I honestly don't know. It could have something to do with our frontiersman roots being so recent in our country's past - that we're still one nation of individual people, rather than an individual nation of one people.

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by srjh (1316705) on Monday August 11, @08:51PM (#24562849)
      And the corollary - drug use doesn't have to be illicit to be self-destructive. How many people drink themselves to death each year?

      It should read "self-destructive behavior such as substance abuse".
      • You'll have to pardon me for not discussing the details of some highly personal experiences on Slashdot. In the particular instance I'm thinking of, about two years ago I pretty much got a personal guided tour of my own unconscious with respect to a certain issue that was causing me a great deal of pain at the time, and it allowed me to go ahead and make some really drastic changes over the next few months and pretty much completely remake my life. That isn't something that could have happened without a g