Are those inclined towards generosity genetically programmed to behave
that way? A team of researchers, including Dr. Ariel Knafo of the
Psychology Department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, believes
that this could very well be the case.

Through an online task involving making a choice whether or not to
give away money, the researchers found that those who chose to give
away some or all of their money differed genetically from those
involved in the exercise who chose not to give their money away.

The scientists conducted the experiment with 203 online "players".
Each player could choose to keep the equivalent of $12 he was
allocated, or to give all or part of it to an anonymous other player.

Those involved also provided DNA samples which were analyzed and
compared to their reactions. It was found that those who had certain
variants of a gene called AVPR1a gave on average nearly 50 percent
more money than those not displaying that variant. The results of the
study were published online recently in the research journal Genes,
Brain and Behavior.

"The experiment provided the first evidence, to my knowledge, for a
relationship between DNA variability and real human altruism," said
Knafo, who conducted the research along with other researchers,
including Prof. R. P. Ebstein, Prof. Gary Bornstein, and Salomon
Israel of the Psychology Department at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.

The gene AVPR1a codes for the production of a receptor that enables a
hormone, arginine vasopressin, to act on brain cells. Vasopressin, in
turn, has been implicated in social bonding. The researchers found
greater altruism in players in which a key section of the AVPR1a gene,
called its promoter, was longer. The promoter is the region of a gene
that allows cellular machinery to bind to it and determine how much
gene product is made. In the case of this gene, a longer promoter can
result in greater activity.

The findings could help biologists sort out altruism's evolutionary
history, according to the scientists. They noted that a version of
AVPR1a also exists in rodents called voles, where it also promotes
social bonding. This suggests that altruism has a long rooted genetic
history, which may have taken on a new role during human evolution.

Source: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
http://www.physorg.com/news116164996.html

On 7 Dec, 09:49, Lance  wrote:

> ........... This suggests that altruism has a long rooted genetic
> history, which may have taken on a new role during human evolution.

What would this "new" role be?

Dave

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 7 Dec, 09:49, Lance  wrote:
>
> > ........... This suggests that altruism has a long rooted genetic
> > history, which may have taken on a new role during human evolution.
>
> What would this "new" role be?
>
> Dave

I give up. What is the answer?

Lance

On 7 Dec, 20:34, Lance  wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 7 Dec, 09:49, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > ........... This suggests that altruism has a long rooted genetic
> > > history, which may have taken on a new role during human evolution.
>
> > What would this "new" role be?
>
> > Dave
>
> I give up. What is the answer?
>
> Lance

I hoped you would tell me.  The comment seems to suggest that altruism
took on a new role,  but perhaps what is meant is that the hormones
associated with altruistic behaviour in recent evolutionary history
were not associated with altruistic behaviour in earlier evolutionary
history.....    Incidentally, apparently vasopressin has a very
similar structure to oxytocin  --  you posted an article on the
latter's apparent contribution to altruism a short while ago.

Dave

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 7 Dec, 20:34, Lance  wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 7 Dec, 09:49, Lance  wrote:
>>>> ........... This suggests that altruism has a long rooted genetic
>>>> history, which may have taken on a new role during human evolution.
>>> What would this "new" role be?
>>> Dave
>> I give up. What is the answer?
>>
>> Lance
> 
> I hoped you would tell me.  The comment seems to suggest that altruism
> took on a new role,  but perhaps what is meant is that the hormones
> associated with altruistic behaviour in recent evolutionary history
> were not associated with altruistic behaviour in earlier evolutionary
> history.....    Incidentally, apparently vasopressin has a very
> similar structure to oxytocin  --  you posted an article on the
> latter's apparent contribution to altruism a short while ago.
> 
That's interesting.

It is not that strange, I know, but it is interesting that bigger 
molecules that are similar to each other act in generally similar ways, 
whilst smaller ones often don't. Ether and Alcohol have exactly the same 
atomic composition, only a different structure, but they act very 
differently.

On Dec 8, 1:19 am, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 7 Dec, 20:34, Lance  wrote:
>
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> > > On 7 Dec, 09:49, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > > ........... This suggests that altruism has a long rooted genetic
> > > > history, which may have taken on a new role during human evolution.
>
> > > What would this "new" role be?
>
> > > Dave
>
> > I give up. What is the answer?
>
> > Lance
>
> I hoped you would tell me.  The comment seems to suggest that altruism
> took on a new role,  but perhaps what is meant is that the hormones
> associated with altruistic behaviour in recent evolutionary history
> were not associated with altruistic behaviour in earlier evolutionary
> history.....    Incidentally, apparently vasopressin has a very
> similar structure to oxytocin  --  you posted an article on the
> latter's apparent contribution to altruism a short while ago.
>
> Dave

Thanks for the interesting observations.

It seems to me that those lacking the "generosity gene" still gave
even if the they gave less. So I think it is like introversion and
extraversion - two relatively stable evolutionary positions that
coexist in the population. Consider the case of Fish (stickleback?, I
can't remember), which have have also been shown to be either
introverted or extraverted just like human beings. The extraverted
fish takes risks and often will get more food. The shy introverted
fish hides away, takes fewer risks, but also loses out on
opportunities. So someone with the generous gene will build a network
of friends but will accumulate fewer resources. Someone with the less
generous gene will accumulate more resources but will have fewer
people to turn to in times of trouble. Both are likely to be stable
positions.

Lance

On 9 Dec, 11:50, Lance  wrote:
> On Dec 8, 1:19 am, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7 Dec, 20:34, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > On 7 Dec, 09:49, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > > > ........... This suggests that altruism has a long rooted genetic
> > > > > history, which may have taken on a new role during human evolution.
>
> > > > What would this "new" role be?
>
> > > > Dave
>
> > > I give up. What is the answer?
>
> > > Lance
>
> > I hoped you would tell me.  The comment seems to suggest that altruism
> > took on a new role,  but perhaps what is meant is that the hormones
> > associated with altruistic behaviour in recent evolutionary history
> > were not associated with altruistic behaviour in earlier evolutionary
> > history.....    Incidentally, apparently vasopressin has a very
> > similar structure to oxytocin  --  you posted an article on the
> > latter's apparent contribution to altruism a short while ago.
>
> > Dave
>
> Thanks for the interesting observations.
>
> It seems to me that those lacking the "generosity gene" still gave
> even if the they gave less. So I think it is like introversion and
> extraversion - two relatively stable evolutionary positions that
> coexist in the population. Consider the case of Fish (stickleback?, I
> can't remember), which have have also been shown to be either
> introverted or extraverted just like human beings. The extraverted
> fish takes risks and often will get more food. The shy introverted
> fish hides away, takes fewer risks, but also loses out on
> opportunities. So someone with the generous gene will build a network
> of friends but will accumulate fewer resources. Someone with the less
> generous gene will accumulate more resources but will have fewer
> people to turn to in times of trouble. Both are likely to be stable
> positions.
>
> Lance


Are you arguing that generosity, extraversion and risk-taking manifest
in bimodal distributions rather than normal distributions?

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 9 Dec, 11:50, Lance  wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 1:19 am, Dave Smith  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 7 Dec, 20:34, Lance  wrote:
> >
> > > > Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > > On 7 Dec, 09:49, Lance  wrote:
> >
> > > > > > ........... This suggests that altruism has a long rooted genetic
> > > > > > history, which may have taken on a new role during human evolution.
> >
> > > > > What would this "new" role be?
> >
> > > > > Dave
> >
> > > > I give up. What is the answer?
> >
> > > > Lance
> >
> > > I hoped you would tell me.  The comment seems to suggest that altruism
> > > took on a new role,  but perhaps what is meant is that the hormones
> > > associated with altruistic behaviour in recent evolutionary history
> > > were not associated with altruistic behaviour in earlier evolutionary
> > > history.....    Incidentally, apparently vasopressin has a very
> > > similar structure to oxytocin  --  you posted an article on the
> > > latter's apparent contribution to altruism a short while ago.
> >
> > > Dave
> >
> > Thanks for the interesting observations.
> >
> > It seems to me that those lacking the "generosity gene" still gave
> > even if the they gave less. So I think it is like introversion and
> > extraversion - two relatively stable evolutionary positions that
> > coexist in the population. Consider the case of Fish (stickleback?, I
> > can't remember), which have have also been shown to be either
> > introverted or extraverted just like human beings. The extraverted
> > fish takes risks and often will get more food. The shy introverted
> > fish hides away, takes fewer risks, but also loses out on
> > opportunities. So someone with the generous gene will build a network
> > of friends but will accumulate fewer resources. Someone with the less
> > generous gene will accumulate more resources but will have fewer
> > people to turn to in times of trouble. Both are likely to be stable
> > positions.
> >
> > Lance
>
>
> Are you arguing that generosity, extraversion and risk-taking manifest
> in bimodal distributions rather than normal distributions?

The granular nature of genes does suggest distinct groups, yes.

Lance

On 9 Dec, 19:53, Lance  wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 9 Dec, 11:50, Lance  wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 1:19 am, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
> > > > On 7 Dec, 20:34, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > > > Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > > > On 7 Dec, 09:49, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > ........... This suggests that altruism has a long rooted genetic
> > > > > > > history, which may have taken on a new role during human evolution.
>
> > > > > > What would this "new" role be?
>
> > > > > > Dave
>
> > > > > I give up. What is the answer?
>
> > > > > Lance
>
> > > > I hoped you would tell me.  The comment seems to suggest that altruism
> > > > took on a new role,  but perhaps what is meant is that the hormones
> > > > associated with altruistic behaviour in recent evolutionary history
> > > > were not associated with altruistic behaviour in earlier evolutionary
> > > > history.....    Incidentally, apparently vasopressin has a very
> > > > similar structure to oxytocin  --  you posted an article on the
> > > > latter's apparent contribution to altruism a short while ago.
>
> > > > Dave
>
> > > Thanks for the interesting observations.
>
> > > It seems to me that those lacking the "generosity gene" still gave
> > > even if the they gave less. So I think it is like introversion and
> > > extraversion - two relatively stable evolutionary positions that
> > > coexist in the population. Consider the case of Fish (stickleback?, I
> > > can't remember), which have have also been shown to be either
> > > introverted or extraverted just like human beings. The extraverted
> > > fish takes risks and often will get more food. The shy introverted
> > > fish hides away, takes fewer risks, but also loses out on
> > > opportunities. So someone with the generous gene will build a network
> > > of friends but will accumulate fewer resources. Someone with the less
> > > generous gene will accumulate more resources but will have fewer
> > > people to turn to in times of trouble. Both are likely to be stable
> > > positions.
>
> > > Lance
>
> > Are you arguing that generosity, extraversion and risk-taking manifest
> > in bimodal distributions rather than normal distributions?
>
> The granular nature of genes does suggest distinct groups, yes.
>
> Lance- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't see why.  If a number of genes contribute, plus environmental
factors, a normal distribution might well result.  Moreover, in this
particular case, it seems from this abstract that the promoter region
of the relevant gene had a range of values:

http://ts-si.org/content/view/2768/993/

Abstract. Human altruism is a widespread phenomenon that puzzled
evolutionary biologists since Darwin. Economic games illustrate human
altruism by showing that behavior deviates from economic predictions
of profit maximization. A game that most plainly shows this altruistic
tendency is the Dictator Game. We hypothesized that human altruistic
behavior is to some extent hardwired and that a likely candidate that
may contribute to individual differences in altruistic behavior is the
arginine vasopressin 1a (AVPR1a) receptor that in some mammals such as
the vole has a profound impact on affiliative behaviors. In the
current investigation, 203 male and female university students played
an online version of the Dictator Game, for real money payoffs. All
subjects and their parents were genotyped for AVPR1a RS1 and RS3
promoter-region repeat polymorphisms. Parents did not participate in
online game playing. As variation in the length of a repetitive
element in the vole AVPR1a promoter region is associated with
differences in social behavior, we examined the relationship between
RS1 and RS3 repeat length (base pairs) and allocation sums.
Participants with short versions (308-325 bp) of the AVPR1a RS3 repeat
allocated significantly (likelihood ratio = 14.75, P = 0.001, df = 2)
fewer shekels to the 'other' than participants with long versions (327-
343 bp). We also implemented a family-based association test,
UNPHASED, to confirm and validate the correlation between the AVPR1a
RS3 repeat and monetary allocations in the dictator game. Dictator
game allocations were significantly associated with the RS3 repeat
(global P value: likelihood ratio ÷2 = 11.73, df = 4, P = 0.019). The
association between the AVPR1a RS3 repeat and altruism was also
confirmed using two self-report scales (the Bardi-Schwartz
Universalism and Benevolence Value-expressive Behavior scales). RS3
long alleles were associated with higher scores on both measures.
Finally, long AVPR1a RS3 repeats were associated with higher AVPR1a
human post-mortem hippocampal messenger RNA levels than short RS3
repeats (one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA): F = 15.04, P = 0.001,
df = 14) suggesting a functional molecular genetic basis for the
observation that participants with the long RS3 repeats allocate more
money than participants with the short repeats. This is the first
investigation showing that a common human polymorphism, with
antecedents in lower mammals, contributes to decision making in an
economic game. The finding that the same gene contributing to social
bonding in lower animals also appears to operate similarly in human
behavior suggests a common evolutionary mechanism.