Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

Monday, June 8, 2009

Gang Membership: Genetic?

Posted by Bethany Jean Clement on Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Maybe so:

"Warrior Gene" Linked To Gang Membership, Weapon Use

Interestingly, "Girls with the same variant of the... gene seem resistant to its potentially violent effects..."

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (19) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Urgutha Forka 1
Cool, we can use this to breed a clone army of the perfect warriors.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on June 8, 2009 at 1:53 PM
2
Could it be (negitively applied) Nuture(-ing) creates gang members and not Nature?
Posted by Phenic on June 8, 2009 at 1:54 PM
balderdash 3
Genetic? No.

It's the interaction of genotype and environment that produces the phenotype - the actual physical expression of the gene(s).

Genetics plus poverty plus cultural disempowerment equals gang membership... that I could buy.
Posted by balderdash http://introverse.blogspot.com on June 8, 2009 at 1:56 PM
seandr 4
Fortunately for me and my lady friends, I've got the love warrior gene.

@1: Sleestacks rule!
Posted by seandr on June 8, 2009 at 1:56 PM
5
@3 right until we had capitalism and gangs there was absolutely no violence among human beings and absolutely no Darwinistic advantage in like using weapons or fighting and stuff? And of course we all sat down to eat with the sabertooth tigers and lions and bears

oh and we were all vegan too.
Posted by PC on June 8, 2009 at 2:01 PM
6
We used to have armies that didn't care if you were gay, a lowlife, or uneducated for people like this to join. Oh, yeah, we've also had gangs for a very long time for those truly disenfranchised from their surrounding culture. Then again, may be it's more natural for us to fight each other, look at wolves, chimps, and many other species.
Posted by Tingleyfeeln on June 8, 2009 at 2:15 PM
balderdash 7
@5

I think perhaps you are applying what I said overbroadly.

If you re-read my comment, perhaps several times, you will come to realize that your point - via sarcasm - is the same as mine. Here are some things to look for in your comparison: adverse environmental conditions, human genetic predispositions contingent on environmental conditions, and your mom.

No, wait, sorry. Your mom's right here, ball gag and all. Look for the others in my comment, though. You might also consider some education in the subjects of ecology and genetics.
Posted by balderdash http://introverse.blogspot.com on June 8, 2009 at 2:16 PM
8
Look, we have a long history evolving. Many adaptations have kept us surviving. We shouldn't be surprised that these are in our genes. Behavior is rooted in survival. And many other animals use groups or gangs as a method of survival. We become obsessed with oppressing what are natural behaviors because they don't comform to our sensibilties.
Posted by Vince on June 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM
9
"Girls with the same variant of the... gene seem resistant to its potentially violent effects..."

In other words, in half our subjects there was no correlation between this gene and violence/aggression. But we're gonna go ahead and spin that as an interesting sociological followup to our finding, and not as a blatant refutation of any claim to have found a "warrior gene".
Posted by cephi on June 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Will in Seattle 10
Actually, genetic sequences exist on two strands - some which are sex linked are only one strand for males.

The environment - diet, stress, infections, etc - just activates the siRNA, mRNA, miRNA and all the other fun bits to give you a slight variant - but the perpetuating DNA passed on through children is not normally impacted.

Diet and exercise and stress probably have way more to do with this than "genetics".

Which, if we read the actual underlying paper, we'd find out, not to mention the sample sizes normally don't support the inferences the media tend to use - I could look at a multivariate study with say 600 subjects and say certain things may be true, but deep questions like this we could only say might be true - and would need a further study focussed on this question to get a real answer.

The media tends not to like the fuzziness of the answer, so they say A is True when actually the science says A may be true if B and C not D where E exists - but needs greater statistical power to give a better answer.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 8, 2009 at 3:12 PM
11
We become obsessed with oppressing what are natural behaviors because they don't comform to our sensibilties.


Or maybe what assists survival in the wild doesn't work too well in civilized society. What is your problem?
Posted by keshmeshi on June 8, 2009 at 3:42 PM
w7ngman 12
#7 don't bother.
Posted by w7ngman http://userscripts.org/users/89370 on June 8, 2009 at 3:42 PM
13
What's the frequency of the genetic profile in cops? Army generals? Pro athletes? General population rage heads?

The study seems to promote the notion that young, male, non-white = will shank you as soon as look at you.
Posted by Westside forever on June 8, 2009 at 4:11 PM
14
Ooh, "Warrior Gene", love that -- be sure to get that in the headline! Because you wouldn't want to call it the "Wingnut Gene" or anything.
Posted by Irena on June 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Will in Seattle 15
@13 - depends, are we measuring the genes or the activated proteins and other resultant materials?

I think if we looked at a family which had cops or military in much of its lineage, we might notice a higher portion, though.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 8, 2009 at 4:20 PM
16
Girls with the same variant of the... gene seem resistant to its potentially violent effects...
Posted by frede on June 8, 2009 at 4:25 PM
yucca flower 17
This sounds like something the Bush administration would dream up to bring back the draft (for poor people only). "It's in their DNA to kill, we're providing structure and discipline so they can put their natural talents to work".

Either that or it's a justification to bring back Eugenics programs and sterilize poor, non-whites.
Posted by yucca flower on June 8, 2009 at 7:49 PM
18
Celebrate DiverSHITTY
Posted by divershitty beez genetic n'shit - genes beez racist! on June 9, 2009 at 4:17 PM
19
"cultures that are typified by warfare and aggression"

wow ... wouldn't that imply almost every culture on the planet? i know i am to interpret all this as applying to indigenous tribal populations of color. but, then i look at the two world wars and the like and they were all started by europeans. but i guess nationalism is a form of tribalism.
Posted by stella on June 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Add a comment

 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use