"Genetics could have made Britain's bankers take risks, scientists say"
Dr Joan Chiao, assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Chicago, said: "As we sort out the devastating consequences of the financial crisis, it might be useful to note how our genetic heritage is influencing our economic behaviour.
"Think about how the excessive risks taken by just a few affected so many, from large institutions to average people."
If the British banking system is anything like Wall Street's Lucky Y Chromosome club, they may very well be onto something!
Wall Street, for all it's glamour and glory was basically an elitist's club where blue bloods and Ivy Leaguers who never really worked a day in their lives all of the sudden got six figure jobs because of their daddy (Chelsea Clinton is a perfect example, how does a 26 year old child get a hedge fund manager position?)
Do these people know how to allocate capital? Do they know what they best investments are? Of course not.
Which is why it should be no surprise the markets are off 45% and none of the "Bulge Bracket" elites remain in their previous form.
If anything, it is proof positive that the "best" and the "elite" are nothing more than spoiled brat nepotists who achieved their "elite" status through inheritance or no feat of their own and is why the system ultimately is crashing in that they have no inherent value or wealth production abilities.
"genetic heritage is influencing our economic behaviour" ...
Lamarckism and half-baked sociobiology as re-interpreted by a psychologist.
Yeah, that's valid science alright - for tabloids.
I wonder what Ms. Chiao's "genetic heritage" is?
That, and incentives that do not incentive-ize the correct behaviour.
Kind of like CEO compensation.
Now wait a minute before we move into the theme of direct linear genetic causality.
First, the gene doesn't 'cause' results directly but indirectly via many transmitters and transformers that are themselves subject to other informational influences.
Second, the study is causally backwards. Because the study showed that those people with a particular version of a gene (short serotonin transporter) take less risks than those with a different version (7-repeat) does NOT mean that ALL or even many bankers have the 7-repeat version. Nor does it show that banking does or does not require risk-taking. Indeed, all innovation and scientific advances are based on a requirement for dissent and risk. The study was, in my view, empty.
Now, in a quite different theme, the situation where children of the wealthy and privileged are moved into high paying jobs for which they are hardly entitled - that's nothing new. Of course, it's not genetic but social and happens everywhere. In Canada, our CBC, our government civil service and our financial operations at all levels, is filled to the brim with examples.
Remember Belinda Stronach, a VP of a company? How? Oh, her father owned it. The Mulroneys? On and on.
It's the new 'knowledge' economy, as in who do you 'know'.
George W. Bush being the prime example of genetic entitlement. He bankrupted 2 companies...that wasn't enough...he brought the USA to the edge of the abyss as well.
Not stirred enough but perhaps shaken too hard. GW set people free and O is going to enslave them with a colossal debt. GW may have learned something through bankruptcy. Trudeau learned nothing through his management period and Obama has done nothing except spend pork that isn't pork cuz he said so. Environmental golf carts. Acorn funding etc. etc. etc.
Oh and there is another Trudeau waiting in the wings. He can manage a pen. Did you vote for Pelosi because that is what you got.
not stirred enough said .........
as did his father ?
.....other than following that reasoning which is patently false then i have no idea what point you are attempting to make...
please to clarify your reasoning.
Every pysch class I took, the text started in with a chapter describing how psychology was a science. My genetics texts didn't. Get the idea?
I think dropped-too-many-times is trying to say "George Bush senior was "clinical" in a "flowery" way."
What is risky and what is not depends on the time frame.
In the early eighties, being invested in "safe" cash instruments was very risky - shirt-loosing, even.
Genetics ? Environment ? Mindset ? Crooked ? Perhaps. But then, some are just plain 'nuts'. Give them money and they go crazy. Give them other peoples money to play with and they are Experts on CNN.
"What Would We Do Without Scientists?"
Plow your fields using an Ox? Or rather, your husband would - you'd be cooking and cleaning instead of running a website.
I'm not even sure that we should consider psychology a scientific endeavor. Even if we do, though, it's asinine to use the pronouncements of some clueless tit as an excuse to bash a spectrum of occupations which have provided us with longer lifespans and more wealth than those enjoyed by even the royalty of a couple hundred years ago. Using the internet to criticize science is doubly absurd; in this case, the medium belies the message.
richfisher,
You're starting to get it! Here's a problem for you to solve.
If all things conservative are always correct and all things liberal are always incorrect why are conservative governments always turfed?
not stirred enough - there are a few logical problems with your 'problem'.
First, the evaluative term of 'correct' with reference to political systems is just that; an evaluation and not a scientific conclusion. Therefore, its use has to be tied to its user. And since users aren't homogeneous then the evaluation of 'correct' won't be universal. Or valid.
Second, in order for a conservative government to be 'turfed' this means that a liberal government must also be 'turfed', to permit that conservative realm to gain power in the first place.
Your problem is therefore problematic.
not stirred enough...
because eventually the lazy nanny staters who outnumber the willing horse taxpayers become well enough organized by demagogues like the Obamas or the Laytons to actually get up on their hind legs and vote...?
understand the foregoing only describes the mechanical aspect of your query... as to the clinical pathology of what makes a nanny stater ?
sorry...that's beyond my pay scale....though i believe the answer may be genetic....
ET,
I always enjoy your posts...they're chock full of circular logic that asks more questions than they answer.
If......
conservatism = failure
liberalism = failure
Do the 2 negatives multiplied equal success?
not stirred enough ....
i luv it when combative delta minus intellect dingbats evade the point and hare off leaking red herrings as you hop away....as for example your latest tongue bath THEN a Russelian segue/foray into the mathematical dialectic....
keep up the good work!
What is for sure - Politicians are better at breaking things than fixing them. The less of them and their gov'ts the better
not stirred - rather than an unsubstantiated opinion, please provide evidence of my 'chock full of circular logic'.
And you've done it again; mixed up semantics or qualititative evaluations with objective facticity.
To assert that conservativism=failure pr liberalism= failure is not the same as an arithmetic negative. It's merely a qualitative assertion. So, your slick and invalid attempt to transform a qualitative into a quantitative measurement is invalid.
Now, how about answering the 'circular logic'. Oh, and remember, if a conservative government is 'turfed' it means that a liberal government must also have been 'turfed'. Think about that illogical statement of yours as well.
Ahhh, not stirred reminds me of a Schizophrenic, he knows 2 + 2 = 4, but Man oh Man, it really bothers him.
From the one and only authenticated real Ratt.
ET, as always, Brilliant Observation.
Personally though, Conservatism is as basic as the 10 Commandments. They are wrote in stone and are good rules to live by which is why we call Politicians like McCain RINO's, because they have lost the Conservative way.
,
Strange. Before Zero we virtually did not hear of European economic problems. The Media focused only on the USA.
After Zero, will they now attempt to divert our attention to other countries. The European Banks' leveraging of 60 to one versus the US 24 and Canada's 18 wasn't a problem before Zero how come now ?
[ As they dither, the world is falling apart. Events in Japan have turned deeply alarming. Exports fell 35pc in December. Industrial output fell 9.6pc. The economy is contracting at an annual rate of 12pc. "Falling exports are triggering a downward spiral of production, incomes and spending.]
[ The European Central Bank's refusal to follow the lead of the US, Japan, Britain, Canada, Switzerland and Sweden in slashing rates shows how destructive Europe's monetary union has become. German orders fells 25pc year-on-year in December. French house prices collapsed 9.9pc in the fourth quarter, the steepest since data began in 1936. "We're dealing with truly appalling data, the likes of which have never been seen before in post-War Europe," said Julian Callow, Europe economist at Barclays Capital.
Spain's unemployment has jumped to 3.3m – or 14.4pc – and will hit 19pc next year, on Brussels data. The labour minister said yesterday that Spain's economy could not "tolerate" immigrants any longer after suffering "hurricane devastation". You can see where this is going.
Ireland lost 36,500 jobs in January – equal to a monthly loss of 2.3m in the US. As the budget deficit surges to 12pc of GDP, Dublin is cutting wages, disguised as a pension levy. ]
[ Meanwhile, Eastern Europe is imploding. Industrial output fell 27pc in Ukraine and 10pc in Russia in December. Latvia's GDP contracted at a 29pc annual rate in the fourth quarter. Polish homeowners have had the shock from Hell. Some 60pc of mortgages are in Swiss francs. The zloty has halved against the franc since July.
Readers have berated me for a piece last week – "Glimmers of Hope" – that hinted at recovery. Let me stress, I was wearing my reporter's hat, not expressing an opinion. My own view, sadly, is that there is no hope at all of stabilizing the world economy on current policies. ]Ambrose Evans-Pritchard telegraph.co,uk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/4560901/Bond-market-calls-Feds-bluff-as-world-falls-apart.html
"Think about how the excessive risks taken by just a few affected so many, from large institutions to average people."
Hmm! I wonder if the Scientists considered the wisdom of & demands of Global risk taking. In particular the Chinese effect on our Stock Markets by a nation of “REAL” gamblers
They used to be known as Aristocrats. Yup the very folks your ancestors came to the New World to get away from. Too flee. The ones starving them with liberal amounts of persecution. Entitlement to the nines is the anthem of these buzzards. We have created our own set of parasites who by blood or Education, think their superior to the rest of us.
Its why Eurabia holds America in contempt. They never have gotten over their so called inferiors beat them to a pulp in a Revolution against them. They are our betters after all. Just ask any Socialist. They too love hierarchy with the cachet that only true believers in Marx are above reproach.
Absolutism is alive & well in the EU, now being instituted by fake Conservatives in Canada. With a phony Messiah in the US doing the same.
Its all in an effort to make it permanent. A Dictatorship of the political & cultural elite, married to Big money families. Hell even Hollywood is inbreed. Remember our own politico’s crying 5the masses only want beer & popcorn. Of course they only think lofty thoughts with crude business or talk of money for the serfs.
Having a Landed gentry has really helped Europe. Hasn’t it? It sure as shooting has ruined us by featherbedding pols with their legs spread wide for cash from the upper class. For the sole purpose of crashing that elite to become one of them. To hell with the electorate. They don’t matter a fig anymore.
JMO
The idea of class envy being used as tool by the British Media to spin their lefty POV!
Who would every have imagined?
What a complete load of crap.
If you think that investment firms and financial institutions are run by people who are there only by reason of their social connections then you're just plain ignorant.
But then again..... is that not what the MSM are ALL ABOUT?
Dr Joan Chiao is an embarassment to all psychologists (assuming the remarks weren't taken out of context by a reporter). There is an association between the DRD4 7 repeat variant receptor and ADD. This dopamine receptor functions less well than other DRD4 receptors and individuals with this dopamine receptor variant are more impulsive and have frontal lobes that aren't as efficient as people who have the usual dopamine receptor. Increasing dopamine levels with dexedrine or ritalin normalizes function of this receptor.
If the bankers in question had been tested for their dopamine receptor type, and an excess of the DRD4 receptor was found, there might be some truth to this hypothesis. A quick search of medline revealed no studies on dopamine receptor types in bankers. Thus, the statements of Dr Joan Chiao are pure speculation.
The bankers that I've seen as patients are definately not risk takers. I've had patients who are stockbrokers with ADD who claimed they functioned less well on ritalin which suggests that a short attention span and impulsivity might be usefull in this case. This observation suggests a potential research project for a psychologist and geneticist but that is all.
I do take exception to the title of this post as the newspaper article is an example of how not to do science. Knowing that a person has a PhD in psychology unfortunately doesn't tell one very much as there is some very shoddy psychologic research out there. OTOH, psychologists like Eysenck have done some very significant research.
"What Would We Do Without Scientists?"
Well... we certainly wouldn't be posting and commenting on this website, that's for damn sure.
Modern Science (while still a fluid entity) and the Scientific Method is one of the greatest achievements of civilization. Why attempt to tar its reputation with this ridiculous non-representative study?
Well AJ if you can't see the difference between the "scientific studies" done to lend false credence to otherwise nonsensical beliefs and a guy in his garage/lab inventing something like a light bulb or a PC, then you might be a member of the MSM. The point of this posting from my point of view is that there are way too many people using way too many public resources hiding behind the reputation of science. In so doing they are diminishing that same reputation that they so seek to co-opt for their own payola.
Joe,
I honestly don't understand how anything I wrote has anything to do with your comment.
How could you possibly derive this: "Well AJ if you can't see the difference between the "scientific studies" done to lend false credence to otherwise nonsensical beliefs and a guy in his garage/lab inventing something like a light bulb or a PC, then you might be a member of the MSM." from what I stated earlier?
What is it about "ridiculous non-representative study" do you not understand?