A warrior gene complex has been identified (James Fallon et al.), and a current theory says that females in conflict areas tend to naturally seek the protection of males who exhibit that gene complex, and hence statistically breed with such and pass on the genes more than in more peaceful areas, thus leading to self-sustaining zones of conflict. I am looking for science-based ideas how to possibly counteract the trend, or is this a totally inescapable phenomenon?
Dear Dr Ransford,
Considering that they tends to act in a hysterical form when they are counteract themselves, maybe is prudent don't interfere with this phenomenon, just garantee that the peaceful areas keep safe, and don't be contaminated by war. I mean, each individual has your own free will, your own self-determination, and must recognize the responsibility of your own acts by themselves, or no? Unless that they are acting in a non rational way? And in this case, is there anything to do?
Could you give me the complete reference for this work that you cited, please?
Best regards,
Pedro
The originator of the idea that the warrior gene (to wit, a number of variants of the monoamine oxidase A complex, see e.g. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118.long , or more recently Article Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) Gene and Personality Traits from ...
) tends to spread in war zones is as cited James Fallon (who writes about it at some length in e.g. 'The Psychopath Inside'.) The idea has since been covered and/or taken up in popular forums such as TED talks, the Discovery Channel, and even adapted into TV series (e.g. the 99th episode of 'Criminal Minds'.)Further studies involving a number of participating scientists & Institutes are being currently planned (Fallon comments on these), as well as some testing of specific population groups, despite all the difficulties, legal and otherwise, that you can imagine.
I fully agree with your assessment that individuals have full personal latitude in the way they conduct their lives & whom they associate with, which is the reason why I'm asking this question in the first place: are we doomed to the possible self-perpetuating propensity to violence that certain war zones may become ensnared in, or is there a possible way out, despite the fully legitimate free will & freedom that individuals in war zones exert? If any answer were easy, this would not be the object of an RG question: shouldn't we use nonlinear imagination to explore whether there just might be a better way than just resigning ourselves to regions of possibly endlessly self-perpetuating conflict?
Thank you very much dear Dr. H Chris Ransford for inviting me to your impressive session, but unfortunately this important topic is utterly out of my research filed so that makes me un able to post scientific feedback, I am sorry and hope you more and more success in your mission.
Warm personal regards,
Emad
As Emad mentioned, this is not my area of research. But is it possible that this kind of behavior be triggered as a kind of addiction response? As we can see in drug addict?
Thank you for that references, I will read more about it.
I wish that you have success with your research Dr Ransford.
Regards,
Pedro
About mass shootings in United States, according the official data (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-1a) the ratio of violent crime decreased in the last 9 years (-18.1%) not increased as some ideologies wants to disseminate. Regarding the supposed virtues, named above, why the terrorists murder people as gays, for example, if they, supposedly, have all this virtues? Or why they are favorable with pedophilia, for example? Other data that I want to compare, are the numbers of rapes in war areas compared with rapes in peaceful areas. Anyone has this data?
I propose to give _this_ gene three to four generations time and evaluate klan members achieving 'head' status of _any_ tribal leadership roles...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics