Would you take this test if it were perfected?

[lunatic]

Hey everyone. I wanted to post this article up here for everyone to read then maybe have a discussion about it. I read this and was blown away by the possibilities of what a test like this could do.

 

What is your opinions? Would you take a test like this if it were a proven method?

 

link removed

[Meow18]

That's really interesting.

 

I'm not sure if I would take it. It would be neat and all to see the results, but I don't think it would be nessecary in a lot of cases where you trust your partner and know that they love you and want to be with only you.

 

The article really makes you think.

[Honey Pumpkin]

Ooh, that's interesting! I don't know. I mean, speaking for myself, there is DNA and cycles and all that, but I have never cheated on anyone, and I don't *think* I would ever cheat on someone. I think there is the physiological, and that's absolutely fascinating, but the article doesn't allow for the psychological, or the personality. For me, integrity is something that you can develop and work on, and so there is always a strong component of free choice as well.

 

Does make you think though! Thanks for posting.

[Dako]

Interesting article.

Imagine the ways that could start discord in an existing relationship!

 

I'll stay low-tech.

[Mr. Brightside]

Heh... this reminds me of the book 1984. You choose your mates and kids via technological means. I think where the real fun is wading through the bad ones to finally get to the good one at the top. It's not about the destination, it's about the trip. Even though many people complain about dating etc, I think if it were this easy, it may have the opposite effect it was intended for. People might not realize how good they really have it, not having gone through bad experiences while dating losers.

 

But I'm into the anthropological side of humanity as well so I am a little biased.

[Meow18]

I could definitely see this ruining a good happy relationship. I mean, if one person proves to be a possible cheater, it could cause the other person to develop insecurities over it.

 

I think Honey Pumpkin had some good points. No matter what your genes say, it's always possible to learn right from wrong. It just depends on the type of person you want to be and how willing you are to not want to hurt your significant other in that way.

 

I'm interested in your thoughts hubman..

[AzureSkyes69]

Yeah I would take it in a minute..I have never cheated,never will.

It is not in me to do it... so I would not be worried about the results at all.

[Day_Walker]

I think the test is a simple way to find out, but I prefer using my methods as they have not failed me in the past. If you wanted to know right off the bat then the test would be good.

[lunatic]

Well see this is where I am confused myself. I mean I have like everyone else here had some bad relationships. This test would not cause me to leave a good one just because it said she might cheat because of this MHC gene says she would be inclined to.

 

People have minds that are able to discern right from wrong. Yet cheating happens everyday and I don't know if I would take the test. I have NEVER cheated on anyone in my life but, what if this test said I would???

 

I guess this is why I posted this article because it MADE me think!

[cantexplain]

I prefer using my methods as they have not failed me in the past.

 

hmmm, so what are these methods? Pray tell!

[Dako]

And what is a committed non-cheater found it was nurture, not nature, that caused their fidelity?

 

There's aways environmental influence on behavior.

After all, many of the folks who post here with major problems aren't suffering from pathology, but from negative experiences.

 

Even with a genetic influence, quantifying the big picture will be tough.

 

The idea of DNA testing for employee screening is also pretty controversial.

[cantexplain]

Wouldn't surprise me someday if science shows DNA can change accross one single generation with given environmental (nurturing) factors.

[BellaDonna]

I probably would not take the test simply because I think they are taking a very complex behavior (cheating) and over-simplifying it by looking at just one factor: a gene.

 

Some women have the "breast cancer gene" but not all of them will get breast cancer.

 

Tests like these fail to take into account the environments that people live in.

 

My guess- there are many people who might NOT have the gene, but still cheat due to *culture *learned behavior *stress *an unhappy relationship * revenge * intoxication etc. I'm not saying any of those reasons make cheating acceptable, but they are "common" reasons.

 

Then there would be those that would have the gene, but whose environment would not lend itself to cheating anyways.

 

A test for the gene essentially tells you that you have it- and not much else. I don't believe it is a strong enough variable to predict behavior or make generalizations based on it. At the most, it could be used to assess risk.

 

If you combined the genetic profile with a profile of the person's environment then I think it would be a much stronger tool.

 

BellaDonna

[chigal28]

There are genes that can predispose us to certain behaviors, but it is still our choice whether or not to indulge. For example, someone who has a family history of alcoholism might decide not to ever take that first drink, for fear of what might happen.

 

If someone knew they were predisposed to cheat, they might be even more vigilant about getting into situations where that temptation could present itself...then again, they might stop worrying about it because they have "an excuse" for why something happened.

 

I don't think the results of such a test would prove much either way. Cheating is always a choice.

[sidehop]

Yes...but like others have said humans have the decisions not to do so.

 

But I would still take the test

[arwen]

No. Because what they claim to measure might not be indicative at all for likelihood of cheating. I do support this kind of research because it could tell us something about evolution, genetics, selection. But not for the purpose of testing of this kind.

 

First of all, above our nature, we have a CHOICE not to cheat. We can all be attracted to someone or more persons. What matters is how we commit and stick to commitments.

 

Second of all, a positive test result may be interpreted as 'warning' or 'proof' for? I don't know what use those results would be either way to be honest.

 

arwen

[Ellie2006]

Thanks for sharing the interesting article, Hubman.

Someone already mentioned Orwell's _1984_ above; it also reminded me of "Gattaca."

 

I am not sure if I would make an effort to take the test but the results would not matter to me either way; as many people said above, just bc someone has the propensity to cheat, it does NOT mean they will.

 

Also, we could utilize this info as a self-preventive mechanism, just as someone could were they to know that they were predisposed to ... say diabetes?

[CarnelianButterfly]

What about the principal to "opposites attract"?

 

A DNA test also does not measure character. Someone maybe inclined to a specific genetic behavior but because of their environment they do not act on those impulses. I think its a debate of nature versus nurture, how much of what make us up is in our biology and how much is in psychology.

[jengh]

wow, that's fascinating...

I don't think I'd take it WHILE in a relationship, as it may make things more complicated. However, I think I'd take it if single, just for curiosity's sake. I've cheated in the past and would be really interested to see if it would call me a cheater.

[miracle29]

Truth is...just because someone COULD cheat doesn't mean they WOULD cheat.

 

However I'd love to take this test. Most people would not. They'd rather not know. Ignorance is bliss in that sense!

[Cyprian]

Wish I had read this years ago. I guess the truth is that you really only need to look at the parents of the SO to get an idea...

[yeawutever]

I'm now reading the article and it sure sounds interesting. Thanx for sharing that hubman!!!!!!!!

[AwdreeHpburn]

I think I would take it cos I'd be curious to know for myself. I dunno if I'd be so willing to SHARE the results......I guess that would depend on what they said.....

 

Would that be considering cheating? On the test??

[SummerGirl38]

Sure I would. Maybe then my jaded boyfriend would believe that not ALL women are cheaters. Give me the address, ha-ha

[cantexplain]

What is your opinions? Would you take a test like this if it were a proven method?

 

link removed

 

is what you are asking me ...

 

 

...If it were a proven method for testing the liklihood that my female partner might cheat during ovulation?

 

From reading this article it does not suggest that anything other than from a sample of 48 couples that it is then statistically significant to conclude:

 

“As the [MHC] similarity increases, women are more turned off toward the guy sexually and more likely to be fantasizing about other men, specifically when she’s at the fertile point in her cycle,”

 

and concluding about women from this sample:

 

“This speaks to the possibility that women do seek sex outside of the relationship for a particular reason and it’s to possibly obtain genetic benefits, whether those are good genes or compatible genes,”

 

and about men:

 

"Men showed no discrimination when it came to sexual desire toward their partners. That supports the idea that men don’t put as much energy into reproduction. They just copulate when the opportunity arises."

 

I WOULD DEFINITELY NOT TAKE THIS TEST.

 

It is mathematically impossible to map the probability that something might occur from a sample of multiple couples on to the specific instance of a single couple - me and my partner. Sorry, statistics and probability do not work this way. Probability theorem shows that from a sample of some size that some probability can be applied to a population, not probability applied to the individual members of the population. For example, if out of 300 million people, 51% are female - this does not mean that I am 51% female or that I, alone, have a 51% probability of being female. I, as a single instance, still have a 50-50 chance of being female or male.

 

In a single instance it is still an either/or thing as is cheating within one couple's situation.

 

At worst, its a coin toss.

 

But I really like that hubman put this up for us.

 

What I have gotten out of it is that during ovulation women are more likely attracted to men with genetic variations from their own.

 

So long as partners get along the rest of the time, this underscores, scientifically, that opposites attract - or more specifically, that women are attracted to opposites and men just might as well go along unless they are able to trust their partner that during periods of ovulation they won't act on this compulsion.

 

I ask:

 

If the two people's MHC profiles vary more widely, in other words are more opposite ... what is the probability the men may stray at any time of the cycle versus men in relationships with people whose profile is more similar? For that matter, outside of the ovulatory cycle, what is the probability that the women may wander from (or not be happy with) mates with the more dissimilar profile?

 

And one final thought - so how different, huh? Seems like there could always be someone more different.