ScienceDaily (Sep. 5, 2010) — The fact that our female ancestors dispersed more than our male ancestors can lead to conflicts within the brain that influence our social behaviour, new research reveals.
Scientists from Oxford University and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, examined the impact that genes 'knowing' which parent they come from -- a process called 'genomic imprinting' -- has on how selfish or altruistic they want their carriers to be.
A report of their research is published in the journal Evolution.
They found that because, historically, women moved about more than men, and so are less related to their neighbours, our paternal and maternal genes are in conflict over how we should behave -- with our paternal genes encouraging us to be altruistic whilst our maternal genes encourage us to be selfish.
'When women disperse more during their lifetime than men, as seems to be the case for ancestral humans, this leads to you being more related to your neighbours through your father than through your mother,' said Dr Andy Gardner of Oxford University's Department of Zoology, an author of the report.
'This leads to conflicts over social behaviour: the genes you receive from your father are telling you to be kind to your neighbours, whereas the genes you receive from your mother, like a demon sat on your shoulder, try to make you act selfishly.'
Mutations in imprinted genes have previously been linked to growth disorders in infants and, more recently, it has been suggested that they could underpin neurological disorders such as autism and psychosis. This study reveals how such disorders of the social brain can evolve by mutations favouring the expression of paternal genes (favouring altruism) or maternal genes (favouring selfishness).
Dr Gardner said: 'What our research reveals is that the popular idea of someone battling their psychological 'demons', that are telling them to behave in a selfish way, has some basis in our genetic makeup -- we are all coalitions of conflicting genes.'
Story Source: The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by University of Oxford.
We must be brave enough to confront the racist bullies in our midst. If we remain silent, we will unwittingly allow them to hijack our national goals.
"We need to stand up at some point and say that we cannot tolerate racism!"
THE message has been made loud and clear – there will be zero tolerance for racism. No rational and reasonable Malaysia would argue against this in the wake of racist remarks made by bigoted Malaysians.
We are used to bankrupt politicians uttering hurtful words about other communities in the belief that they can win votes by projecting themselves as racist supremacists and, by extension, as protectors of their race.
But this sickening action seems to have grown, with more racial champions being given bigger space in the media, which would only encourage them further.
Frankly, some of these figures, who now also include obscure academics, have been created by the media. Without this platform, they would otherwise be just nobodies. In fact, most Malaysians would prefer for them to stay that way as their actions have created ill feelings and polarisation.
Their racially warped writings and statements, which may seem supportive of the government, have not helped the ruling party.
They may like to think that they are doing the national leaders a service, but the truth is they are held in disgust and contempt by most Malaysians. They have, in fact, inflicted serious damage to the government.
The media, both mainstream and alternative, should downplay their racist statements: better still, spike it – or delete it, as the modern journalist would say.
After 53 years of independence, Malaysian politicians and community leaders, by right, should be more confident, outward looking and politically mature but the perception is that we have gone downhill.
The ugly side, or more aptly the darker side, of some politicians seems to have emerged, which must be one of the dampeners to the National Day celebrations.
How can we remain indifferent when politicians, people we used to hold with high regard, suddenly start to beat the racial drum instead of passing the pipe of peace around?
What has shaken many Malaysians is that the appalling actions of some of these racists seem to have garnered a following.
Otherwise, how does one explain reports of Perkasa expressing support for the headmistress from Johor who purportedly made racist remarks or the outpouring of support for her in her Facebook page?
Most of us have been brought up by our parents to believe that there can be only be right or wrong. They also taught us that there are only good and bad people.
But there are also the ugly people now. Racism in whatever form is sickening. We have all experienced it in one form or another.
None of these experiences were pleasant, even if they seemed minor and were not worth getting upset about. But we need to stand up at some point and say that we cannot tolerate racism and will not allow politicians to get away with statements which cause unhappiness.
Neither should the government be seen to be dragging its feet when taking action against people such as the headmistress. Why in the world do we need a task force to investigate the simple case of a headmistress? It’s either she did it or she didn’t.
If she didn’t, and that the issue has been hyped up unnecessarily, let her enjoy her holidays in peace. If she is guilty, then act against her. Let’s get this case over and done with so the nation can move on.
The Education Ministry must also issue notices to all schools to stress that racist statements cannot be accepted nor tolerated and that action, including expulsion of students, would be carried out if anyone is found violating these rules.
This is a normal practice in many British schools and we should adopt this disciplinary code if we are committed to zero tolerance. It will be a mockery to have the 1Malaysian slogan painted on the school walls if the teachers or students within do not practise it.
We must be brave enough to confront racist bullies. We must be ready to tell those who claim to champion the cause of our community that their myopic line will not benefit Malaysia.
It is when some of us remain silent that we unwittingly allow these self-appointed community leaders to hijack our national goals. We must realise that by choosing to close an eye, we may well give the impression that we are silent racists.
The coming weeks will be a time when Malaysians come together to celebrate Hari Raya. It will be a time for sharing and, more importantly, for forgiving. Let politics take a back seat and use the opportunity to turn down the political decibel.
Malaysians cannot afford to be bogged down by inconsequential debates which put the country in a bad light. If Malaysia is seen to be divisive, racial, unsure and insecure, how can we expect investors to come here?
PUTRAJAYA: Being mindful of one’s words and actions and not questioning issues agreed upon by the nation’s founding fathers and spelt out in the Constitution are critical matters in race relations, says Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
The Prime Minister said it was important to regard the two points as “political management” because it was critical and equally important as managing the country’s economic and social affairs.
“Political management doesn’t necessarily mean politics based on parties and ideologies, and this (gathering) is not the right forum for me to touch on it,” Najib said at the Prime Minister’s Department monthly gathering here yesterday.
“Political management includes race relations. If one can refrain from uttering words or committing acts which can offend other races, then ‘temperature-raising incidents’ can be avoided.
“We also must not question what has been agreed to by our founding fathers, especially what is stated in the Constitution, which is based on the social contract among the different races.
“If we take heed of these two critical points, I believe we can further strengthen the country’s two pillars, which is national unity and political stability,” he said.
Also present at the gathering were Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Sidek Hassan.
Najib said stability and unity would be threatened if race relations were not managed well. He called on civil servants to embrace and understand the 1Malaysia concept so that the two pillars remained steadfast and strong.
“We will be celebrating Hari Raya Aidilfitri with the open house concept. Let us not just open our house to others. We should open our hearts and minds too. On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government leadership, my wife (Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor) and I, we wish everyone Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri.”
WE never seem to run out of jargons whenever a recession is upon us. An economist marvels at the use of them – phrases such as capital control and fiscal stimulus are thrown around as though it were second nature to them (as it should be).
What of the common people though?
Many of us seem content with the validity of such terms and do not feel the need to question what they mean. This leads to us assuming the meaning of certain phrases, without feeling the need to consult the great sage that is the world wide web.
My point is, few of us actually understand what we are talking about when we subtly slip in such jargons over coffee with our mates.
In fact, many of us assume that economics is a subject far detached from our everyday lives (a bit like nuclear physics) and that any analysis requiring knowledge on the subject should be left to the experts.
Indeed, piecing together how all the pieces of an economy fit together can be a daunting task – although, if anything, the imminent slow dip back into recession has proven that perhaps the experts themselves are having trouble as well!
It is a popular argument that it was the experts who got us into this mess in the first place.
The push toward Keynesian economics that began after the second world war was a time bomb waiting to explode – at the core of Keynesian’s ideas were that governments could smooth out the volatility of free markets by expanding the supply of money and running budget deficits when times were tough (there’s more jargon for you).
Common sense would suggest that such policy is not sustainable in the long run – all it does is create artificial bubbles in certain sectors of the economy that will come crashing down sooner or later.
How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes by the Schiff brothers is an advocate of such common sense. Inspired by How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn’t by the Schiffs’ father Irwin, they have decided to write a more tongue-in-cheek book.
Using illustration, humour and storytelling, the authors attempt to take economics off its lofty shelf and place it back on the kitchen table where it belongs.
The book follows the lives of settlers living alone on a far away island, the actions they take to improve their standards of living and their eventual maturity into the strong, developed nation of Usonia.
Along the way, they face trials and tribulations not unlike those faced by the United States – in fact the reader will encounter many recognisable events and personalities in US economic history as the authors use this as an allegory throughout.
Certain names are changed for comic effect – Ben Bernanke is called “Ben Barnacle”, possibly to highlight his tendencies to inflate the economy, while Richard Nixon is referred to as “Slippery Dickson”, for obvious reasons.
The authors have done a fine job in explaining how economics is relevant to our daily lives.
It must seem taxing, forgive the pun, on us to attempt to understand how banks work, why self sacrifice contributes to society or why comparative advantages should be pursued – but the truth is that the answers to all these questions are much simpler than we think.
The book also does a good job of explaining how the global economic crisis came about.
Once mysterious jargon such as “credit crunch” and “sub-prime mortgages” become clear to the reader, as does the housing glut.
It is also interesting to note how politics seems to have begun to overlap with economics in Western countries, pushing the idea of civil liberties and the free market to the edge.
The converse might also be true, as governments in developing countries begin to realise the best way forward is by gradually relinquishing their control on their economies, thus allowing market forces to exert a greater degree of autonomy.
In hindsight, the best part about the book is that it is much more enjoyable to read than most daily financial papers or certain sites on the Internet offering dryer, more textbook style explanations (Wikipedia being the possible exception).
Somehow, the introduction of characters and events always seem to make any subject more appealing and accessible to readers, and that is certainly very true for a subject with a reputation for being boring like economics.
After going through the book, the reader will no doubt feel more secure over coffee table conversations, having picked up an understanding of economics like no other (as well as meanings to jargons one never attempted to find out).
It does make a person look less pretentious if he actually knows what he is talking about. I leave the last words on this book to a review I found on the Internet: ‘This is a phenomenal book that makes economics so easy a Congress could understand it. Very enlightening!’
