I just wanted to make this thread to ask what everyone thought of the idea of genetics affecting your financial responsibility.
I personally believe genetics has an impact on your financial habits. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/your-genes-may-affect-your-financial-decisions
"
The study, for the first time, links specific variants of two genes that regulate dopamine and serotonin neurotransmission to risk-taking in financial investment decisions.
Northwestern students were given real money to make a series of investments, in each trial deciding how to allocate money between a risky and a risk-free asset.
People with the short serotonin transporter gene, 5-HTTLPR (two copies of the short allele), relative to those with the long version of that polymorphism (at least one copy of the long allele), invested 28 percent less in a risky investment. Similarly, people who carry the 7-repeat allele of the DRD4 gene in the dopamine family, relative to those carrying other versions of that gene, invested about 25 percent more in a risky investment.
"Our research pinpoints, for the first time, the roles that specific variants of the serotonin transporter gene and the dopamine receptor gene, play in predicting whether people are more or less likely to take financial risks," said Camelia M. Kuhnen, assistant professor of finance, Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern. "It shows that individual variability in our genetic makeup effects economic behavior."
"Genetic Determinants of Financial Risk Taking will be published online Wednesday, Feb. 11, by the open-access journal PLoS ONE. The study's co-investigators are Kuhnen and Joan Y. Chiao, assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern.
Prior research linking the two genetic variants of 5-HTTLPR and DRD4 to, respectively, negative emotion and addiction behaviors suggested to the Northwestern researchers that those particular brain mechanisms could play a role in financial risk-taking. But until the Northwestern study, the identification of specific genes underlying financial-risk preferences remained elusive.
The study included 65 subjects (26 of which were male, and the average age was 22 years). Study participants completed 96 computer trials in an experiment designed to give them background information with which to make decisions between pairs of risky and risk-free investments. They were told the sure rate of return for the risk-free asset and the two possible rates of return for the risky asset, which were equally likely to occur. Typically, the risk-free asset return was close to 3 percent, while the two possible outcomes of the risky asset return were, for example, 20 percent and -10 percent, respectively.
Participants initially were given $15, but received additional funds for each of the 96 investment decisions. They allocated their funds between the two assets in each trial, but were not told the performance of their portfolios (how much money they were making or losing) until the end of the exercise. The entire experiment took 1.5 hours to complete, and the average pay per subject was $25.
As predicted by finance theory, participants invested significantly more money in the risky asset if its expected return was higher, the standard deviation of its return was lower or if the return of the safe asset was lower. Also the higher the amount available to participants, the more money they invested in the risky asset.
Following the investment tasks, genotyping was conducted to identify the 5-HTTLPR and DRD4 polymorphisms. Investigators collected saliva from each participant, and DNA was isolated and genotyped.
The Northwestern researchers were able to take advantage of advances in neuroscience methodology as well as emerging research on the two neurotransmitters' effects on decision-making.
"Emerging research told us, for example, that people higher in neuroticism are thought to carry the short allele of the 5-HTTLPR, a less efficient version of the serotonin transporter gene," said Chiao. "Similarly, individuals with the 7-repeat allele of DRD4, relative to those with a other variants of that neurotransmitter, are more likely to have higher novelty seeking behavior."
The Northwestern study suggests that researchers are getting closer to pinpointing specific genetic mechanisms underlying complex social and economic behavior that has been a mystery -- including drug addiction, gambling and risk-taking."
"
Diligent savers may think that they combine a knack for budgeting and ability to resist temptations to spend in the moment. But it's a less virtuous quality, scientists say, that actually makes people good at saving their money – their genes.
A new study of twins has found that people are genetically predisposed to save or spend the money they have, regardless of their wealth, sex or upbringing.
One third of our behaviour when it comes to money is explained by natural factors, rather than being someone's choice to consume or save earlier in life, according to the paper in this month's Journal of Political Economy.
Behavioural finance researchers Prof Henrik Cronqvist and Prof Stephan Siegel used an in-depth database of twins, the Swedish Twin Registry, to analyse the savings habits of identical and non-identical twins between 2003 and 2007.
They used twins because they share 100pc of the same genes if they are identical, and 50pc if they are non-identical.
What about your upbringing or wealth?
Giving your child a weekly allowance or opening a children's savings account, for example, is helpful but the effect decays over time, the professors said.
By age 45, we are no longer influenced by money habits taught by our parents. Between the ages of 20 and 25, however, around half of our behaviour to do with money is influenced by our parent's teachings.
New pension freedoms make this an all-important finding, the professors say, as Britons are about to have greater freedom over the way they spend their retirement savings. From April 6, savers aged 55 and over will have immediate access to their pension.
The study did consider other factors affecting our money. When you see your income grow through pay rises, for example, you are also a better saver. However, the professors put this down to genetic factors – because those with a growing income tend to be more "patient individuals" by nature.
That's why people who save more also tend to be slimmer and are less likely to smoke, the professors said.
Conscientious savers are less likely to be obese, not because saving inculcates good health, but because of our genetic predisposition for "consistency in behaviour and self control"."
Starting Score: Ex08-732,Eq08-713,Tu08-717
@Berk wrote:I know what I'm gonna do - max out all my credit cards, default on them all, and when I get sued tell the judge that its not my fault! **bleep** genes got in the way. How can you hold me responsible for something I couldn't control?
Think it'll work?
Seriously, though, I think as the science of the genome develops we are going to see more and more correlation between our genes and our psyche. This report doesn't surprise me at all and the science behind it is probably correct. Just look at Jeff Skilling with Enron. That man's entire life was one risk taking activity after another - both physical and mental. Just look at the "mark to market" accounting method he employed at Enron - nothing but a huge risk. All that risk taking didn't end too well for him - or the Enron employees who believed him.
So, sure, there are genes that affect our ability to manage money well. However, that fact means that I have to work all that much harder to ensure that I am responsible with my finances.
What if I were to tell you that working hard too was genetic? It turns out in a study involving mice, scientists discovered a laziness gene.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/02February/Pages/Is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-lazy-gene.aspx
"A mutation in a gene with a critical role in the brain could explain why some people are 'couch potatoes'," The Independent reports, while the Mail Online claims that "there might soon be a pill to get you moving".
Both headlines are way off the mark – the underlying study did not involve humans, but mice. Researchers looked at the genetics and brain chemistry of mice to see how a specific genetic mutation (a variant of the SLC35D3 gene) influenced body weight, food intake, metabolism and physical activity levels.
The mutation seems to disrupt dopamine signalling. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter associated with physical pleasure and reward. The disruption in this gene appears to make affected mice "lazy" – they quickly developed symptoms associated with metabolic syndrome in humans (a series of symptoms linked to obesity and inactivity).
What has captured the media's imagination is that the disruption to dopamine signalling was reversible. Affected mice given a drug designed to improve dopamine signalling became more active and lost excess weight. These findings were relatively convincing and pointed towards a candidate gene for further study in people.
Oh come on.
It's widely reported that Gen X works harder than the Millenials, and there's no chance that's genetic if true. Admittedly I'm more than happy to be going to work for a millenial-focused company and getting more "work/life balance"
I'm going to call something out: 95% of all academic research is complete horse pucky, and if you go out drinking with a professor at a real university they'll tell you that. Hardly any of it gets peer reviewed because there's no damned money in that... and many of the scientific journals have fallen into the same trap that our media outlets have, and it's worse on the journal side in terms of societal impact.
I'm less than amused at what may well just be an intellectual form of trolling at this point.
@Revelate wrote:Oh come on.
It's widely reported that Gen X works harder than the Millenials, and there's no chance that's genetic if true. Admittedly I'm more than happy to be going to work for a millenial-focused company and getting more "work/life balance"
I'm going to call something out: 95% of all academic research is complete horse pucky, and if you go out drinking with a professor at a real university they'll tell you that. Hardly any of it gets peer reviewed because there's no damned money in that... and many of the scientific journals have fallen into the same trap that our media outlets have, and it's worse on the journal side in terms of societal impact.
I'm less than amused at what may well just be an intellectual form of trolling at this point.
I see you're calling out genetic research and in fact almost all research as 'horse pucky'. You then say how scientific research is unreliable because it's not peer reviewed. Well I'm going to side with research in general because I'm aware that it has brought many wonderful things like vaccinations which saved millions of lives. Reseachers also spend countless hours out of their lives researching and should be given proper respect for their hard work.
You made a lot of claims which you failed to back with sources. You know what's less peer reviewed than academic research? Your claims like "it's widely reported that Gen X works harder than the Millenials, and there's no chance that's genetic if true." and "95% of all academic research is complete horse pucky," as well as "Hardly any of it gets peer reviewed because there's no damned money in that... and many of the scientific journals have fallen into the same trap that our media outlets have, and it's worse on the journal side in terms of societal impact."
It turns out my professors here at Universtiy of Maryland are professional enough to know that underage drinking is unacceptable so I would not be drinking with them. I've done plenty of research with them and did research assignments they gave me and almost all of them involved academic journals. I had countless assignments and lectures explaining why academic research is superior to other sources. Perhaps those 'professors' you mention were too drunk.
In any case I don't appreciate you calling this an intellectual form of 'trolling' and find your entire post condescendatory. Lots of other posters here have posted content without being rude even when they had disagreeing views. If you want to disagree with research that's fine, however what's not fine is calling this thread intellectual 'trolling'. If you don't find this thread interesting then just don't comment on it, you don't need to belittle others.
