Cheating on your partner could be ingrained in your DNA

[JackLuis]

It seems that lot of people cheat at some time in their lives. Science may have found out why.

Cheating on your partner could be ingrained in your DNA

According to AsapSCIENCE, our likelihood to cheat is actually written in the coding for our dopamine receptors, also known as the “happy hormone.” For example, about 50 percent of individuals who posses the long allele variant of this hormone have confessed to cheating at some point in their lives, compared to only 22 percent of individuals who possess the short allele variant. Individuals with this long variant are also more likely to engage in risky behavior and deal with substance abuse.

Another hormone related to cheating is vasopressin. This hormone is released when we come into close physical contact with others and is found in smaller amounts in individuals who have social development issues, such as those with autism.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Nature, nurture, whatever. Free will, so free choices. You got DNA with problem-causing-tendencies, you cope with it.

 

[lovecraft68]

I think its upbringing more than DNA, if you're raised to respect relationships and around people who are in good ones, odds are you're not going to be a dog.

Something tells me if you could round up and test all the members of Ashley Madison, most won't have that DNA.

The internet has gone a long way in making cheating easier and that has nothing to do with genetics.

 

[Handley_Page]

Nature, nurture, whatever. Free will, so free choices. You got DNA with problem-causing-tendencies, you cope with it.

Given a little help

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Cheating is a very human failing, so I try not to judge too much about it. Certainly nothing nuclear or nuts. I don't like double standards, either, whether those which favor men (the older double standard, fading, but still advocated by some trolls here) or those which favor women (favored by Hollywood, social media, pop culture in general, extreme misandrists, and certain writers here on Lit). What's forgivable in a man is forgivable in a woman, and vice versa. Your partner isn't your possession or property, and if he or she cheats, you have plenty of options on how to react. You don't have to go nuclear.

Personally, I opt out of the whole monogamy paradigm, thus saving myself the issues involved.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Personally, I opt out of the whole monogamy paradigm, thus saving myself the issues involved.

People still cheat in nonmonogamous relationships, sadly. Had a lover break dates with me and eventually break up with me because their new girlfriend got jealous, and they chose to appease the near-distance girlfriend at the cost of breaking promises to me. In my book that's cheating :-/

 

[Hypoxia]

What I came down to in What Is Cheating? was: If you think it's cheating, it's cheating. I've seen references that non-monogamous behavior is evolutionarily wired into both human males and females as a reproduction strategy. This study seems to point to a mechanism. Is biology destiny?

 

[Tio_Narratore]

What I came down to in What Is Cheating? was: If you think it's cheating, it's cheating. I've seen references that non-monogamous behavior is evolutionarily wired into both human males and females as a reproduction strategy. This study seems to point to a mechanism. Is biology destiny?

No, biology is potentiality and limitation. Add any amount of agency and the standard variable bit of stochasm, and you get "destiny." Unfortunately (though I lean more towards "fortunately"), we can only retrodict "destiny;" it only seems to have been inevitable once it happens. And if something different had happened, it would still seem to have been inevitable.

As for myself, I'm a deist. Oops, sorry, I meant to say "Dayist." A Doris Dayist, to be precise. Que Sera. Sera

 

[sybarite_1]

Cheating is a very human failing, so I try not to judge too much about it. Certainly nothing nuclear or nuts. I don't like double standards, either, whether those which favor men (the older double standard, fading, but still advocated by some trolls here) or those which favor women (favored by Hollywood, social media, pop culture in general, extreme misandrists, and certain writers here on Lit). What's forgivable in a man is forgivable in a woman, and vice versa. Your partner isn't your possession or property, and if he or she cheats, you have plenty of options on how to react. You don't have to go nuclear.

Personally, I opt out of the whole monogamy paradigm, thus saving myself the issues involved.

As long as people call it cheating....
When it's referred to has "having a party in your pants" or "boy's night inside" or "no big deal, it's just a muffin steal" or "I don't mind if you transfer herpes to my weiner" etc. then it won't be a big deal.

Also, I'm sure every man wants to hear from other men, "Hey man, I did your woman in the ass in an alley within an hour of meeting her! Uh, exactly how long are you gone on those business trips? You don't mind if I piss in your pool while you're away do ya?"

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It's pretty easy to show that cheating is a good survival strategy for maximizing gene survival, and so most non-social animals are profligate little whores and man-sluts.

Things get complicated with the social species, though, where herd coherence and group survival can depend on long-term monogamy, and especially in hominins where you get that big pre-frontal cortex that's able to deal in hypotheticals and imagine what others feel.

 

[lovecraft68]

It's pretty easy to show that cheating is a good survival strategy for maximizing gene survival, and so most non-social animals are profligate little whores and man-sluts.

Things get complicated with the social species, though, where herd coherence and group survival can depend on long-term monogamy, and especially in hominins where you get that big pre-frontal cortex that's able to deal in hypotheticals and imagine what others feel.

I think that's the most pretentiously expressed opinion I've ever heard to justify being a dog in heat.

If people want to play the field, swing, be open, whatever, its no big deal providing you're with a like minded partner.

But its called cheating for a reason because its about more than sex. Its about being unable to keep a vow because you're too weak to 'settle' for one person in your life and you're also hurting the person you allegedly care about.

So its not about spreading the seed, its about being a lousy deceitful and ultimately weak willed lemming. The 'herd' can be found on Ashley Madison, not in a true monogamous relationship.

Monogamy takes commitment, love, and can be a test at times. The weak 'maximize gene survival" the strong stick to their principles.

Remember the 'herd' does what's popular, not what's challenging.

Your explanation is that of the sheeple, not the people.

But excuses are always needed when one knows deep down they're wronging someone.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I think that's the most pretentiously expressed opinion I've ever heard to justify being a dog in heat.

If people want to play the field, swing, be open, whatever, its no big deal providing you're with a like minded partner.

But its called cheating for a reason because its about more than sex. Its about being unable to keep a vow because you're too weak to 'settle' for one person in your life and you're also hurting the person you allegedly care about.

So its not about spreading the seed, its about being a lousy deceitful and ultimately weak willed lemming. The 'herd' can be found on Ashley Madison, not in a true monogamous relationship.

Monogamy takes commitment, love, and can be a test at times. The weak 'maximize gene survival" the strong stick to their principles.

Remember the 'herd' does what's popular, not what's challenging.

Your explanation is that of the sheeple, not the people.

But excuses are always needed when one knows deep down they're wronging someone.

Life is one big Loving Wife drama. When youre not near the one you love, someone else is.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It seems that lot of people cheat at some time in their lives. Science may have found out why.

Cheating on your partner could be ingrained in your DNA

Now I have the time to follow this up... the story is bullshit and the sources (not you) ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The link is a RawStory article based on a YouTube video that doesn't cite its source anywhere I can see. When somebody reports a science story without mentioning their source, odds are either they're sloppy (in which case you shouldn't trust their reporting) or they're deliberately leaving it out because they don't want you to check the facts (all the more reason for distrust).

I did eventually track down the study they mentioned. Looks like the ASAPScience video "forgot" to mention a few important things about the study...

Participants were 181 young adults (118 females, 63 males) recruited from a midsized state university in the northeastern United States

Okay, so this is not a huge sample, and taken from a single location, which means it may not be representative of the general population...

...participants were permitted not to answer individual items if they were uncomfortable given the personal nature of the assessment. This resulted in small portions of absent data: history of sexual intercourse, 8%; one night stands, 10%; infidelity, 4%. Genotypes were grouped as 7R+ (at least one allele 7-repeats or longer) or 7R- (both alleles less than 7-repeats); the 7R+ genotype was present in 24% of the sample.

i.e. of those 181 participants, only about 43 people had the supposed "cheater" allele (7R+), and a few didn't answer the infidelity question at all...

A similar pattern was evident for sexual fidelity, where 50% of 7R+ individuals reported being unfaithful compared to only 22% of 7R- individuals (See Figure 2), although this difference fell short of statistical significance (χ2 [df  = 1]  = 2.15, p = .14).

In other words: the sample size is small enough that this difference between 7R+ and 7R- could easily have been just the luck of the draw. At a p-value of 0.14 the authors shouldn't be asserting any sort of meaningful "pattern"; those numbers mean there isn't enough data to confirm any such pattern. That's the whole point of calculating a p-statistic.

Also, they didn't just check for correlation between 7R+ and infidelity; they compared against a bunch of other behaviours (history of sexual intercourse, promiscuity, etc etc). Running that many tests makes it all the more likely that you'll find meaningless correlations; there are techniques for getting around that but it doesn't look as if these researchers used them.

tldr: original article is a bit sloppy and overreaches in interpreting results from a small sample, but at least it indicates that the 50%/22% finding is not trustworthy; ASAPScience/RawStory cherry-picked it for clickbait without including that important qualifier.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Look, some folks prefer monogamy and some do not. Neither choice is less valid. I don't think less of those who practice monogamy and I'd like the same favor in return. This is for those of who seem to think that anyone who doesn't live like you do is wrong. I don't ask you to be polyamorous and I'd ask you not to shove your monogamy down my throat.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Now I have the time to follow this up... the story is bullshit and the sources (not you) ought to be ashamed of themselves.
...
tldr: original article is a bit sloppy and overreaches in interpreting results from a small sample, but at least it indicates that the 50%/22% finding is not trustworthy; ASAPScience/RawStory cherry-picked it for clickbait without including that important qualifier.

Concur. A friend of mine with more background in reading papers than I have, chased down the research and tells me this wasn't even vaguely serious science. Clickbait sums it up.

I *really* abhor it when people present "scientific truth" as a way to get publicity/clicks/attention, regardless of the effect their "findings" might have on society. There's people out there looking for excuses to do as they please - crap like this just enables it.

And thumbs up for the XKCD reference.

 

[LucidLucifer]

Women tend to have a plan "B". Especially if they want a partner upgrade.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Lovecraft68: Nature isn't moral. Nature does what works.

P.S. Were you giggling when you appended that '68' to your name?

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Nature does it all and life sorts the winners and losers.

 

[Dam_Fool]

Cheating is in your DNA as much as chewing, stealing, lying, talking bullshit, or giving presents. It's a choice. It's an urge, and a choice to make. We see something that we think will give us some pleasurable experience, and we think by getting it/doing it, we will benefit in some way. Whether short or long term. So, we choose to do it. The only DNA about it is detecting something that feels good and realizing the outcomes of getting it and weighing it.

PPL have said and will say monogamy is in our DNA too. Or polygamy. Or whatever is the flavor of the week.