17 ms·
Friends Are Genetically Similar (2014)
- sillysaurus3 9y agoIt would be interesting to cross-reference this with the genetic dissimilarity between enemies, but that's problematic for obvious reasons.
- i_cant_speel 9y agoYeah I agree the results would be interesting as well as hard to collect. If I were to volunteer for this study, all of my 'enemies' (more just people I don't care for) would either be people who I haven't seen in forever because I don't want to associate with them or people that I see too often that I wouldn't want to bluntly declare as my enemy and deal with the consequences.
- pavement 9y agoBirds of a feather, no?
- corporateslave2 9y agoWhat does this say about racism? Segregation?
- skybrian 9y agoNot much at all. It's a small effect.
- johndevor 9y agoI think it means people have a natural genetic preference for similar genetics. It does not say whether or not we can overcome this preference as a society.
- dragontamer 9y agoSegregation bad when its enforced by the government. There's a big difference from "White people like to talk with white people", and "White people only beyond this point" (with Police Officers on standby ready to enforce said rule)
- cestith 9y agoThe article specifically mentions olfactory similarities being pro-friend and immune differences being pro-friend. It didn't mention ethnic markers like melanin, face shape, nose width, ear size, or relative toe length at all. In fact, it said they attempted to control for racial and ethnic differences. How well that was accomplished wasn't really made clear in the article. I can imagine that whether or not cilantro tastes like soap, whether or not you love the smell of books, similar allergies, and if you can stand to eat spicy foods goes a long way toward the likelihood of friendship. There are bound to be social factors, geographic factors, and other factors. This study is just pointing out that friends are likely to be more similar in certain ways than people who aren't friends. Don't jump to too many conclusions on just the summary article about the study.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- danans 9y agoNothing at all. > They examined [polymorphisms from] 2,000 people and correlated their similarity within the roughly 1,400 pairs of friends within the group. >the Framingham data is relatively homogeneous in terms of ethnicity, consisting largely of people of European descent. The population they studied seems very close knit and ethnically homogeneous, and the study's inferences are conditioned on this sort of population. Presumably the consistent background genetics of the population allowed them to control for larger genetic differences and detect the subtle differences correlated with friendships in the group. I would be surprised if the observed effect held up in a more cosmopolitan population where other stronger factors, both genetic and sociocultural, have more of influence in the formation of friendships. And, as others have noted, the observed effect was real, but very small.
- ThomPete 9y agoAnyone know if the genetic similarities that we become friends around according to the study aren't related to race? To me that would be the most interesting part (if it wasn't). I am pretty sceptic about this study and it seems kind of filled with opportunity for interpretation and bias plus have no idea of the data set.
- canoebuilder 9y agoAs other's have mentioned in this thread I believe the group under study were primarily, if not all, Europeans. So in that case in a sense the genetic similarites weren't related to race because race wasn't a variable. But as far the relation of genetics and genetic similarities to race, all genetics are related to race. In terms of the fact that a single Adenine molecule alone is fairly useless, it is only when that molecule is combined into the structure of a genome that it takes on meaning[0], and genomes have a race, so I don't think in that sense there are any genes or genetic similarities that aren't related to race. Every member of a race is more genetically related to every other member of that race than they are to any member of any other race. What "genetic similarities" could there be that are more similar across races than within races? [0]"Meaning" at the level under discussion in terms of human relationships and whatnot.
- abra_kadabra 9y agoThis is interesting as I've typically made friends along lines of interest. I guess my next question would be are genetically similar people more likely to have similar interests. edit: corrected grammer
- fatjokes 9y ago> I guess my next question would be are genetically people that have genetic similarities more likely to have similar interests. If that is the case, it would lead to the politically uncomfortable question of different genders or ethnic groups being more likely to have particular interests.
- corporateslave2 9y agoBut you aren't aloud to talk about that openly.
- bdamm 9y agoCounterpoint: Here we are, talking about it openly. Even Mr. Damore who previously was employed at Google was and is able to talk about it openly.
- corporateslave3 9y agohe was fired?
- bdamm 9y agoFree speech doesn't mean you get to keep your job when you say it. It means it isn't illegal or impossible to speak your opinion. That doesn't mean being as ass has no consequences.
- nv-vn 9y agoI disagree but even leaving that comment aside, the OP is saying you aren't allowed to talk about it openly. "Allowed" does not imply a government here, but society/employers/etc. If your employer fires you for saying "fuck", clearly you aren't allowed to say "fuck" at work.
- choxi 9y ago> The tendency for friends to have similar genomes might result from people befriending those of similar ancestry, but the duo are confident that isn't the case. Not only did they control for the effect of population structure and ancestry, but the Framingham data is relatively homogeneous in terms of ethnicity, consisting largely of people of European descent. How did they control it? Even amongst Europeans, I imagine French people are just more likely to have French friends.
- anbende 9y agoAgreed, and it's hard for me to see how you control ancestry or ethnic perfectly, since ethnicity is just a relatively stable form of genetic diversity. I might counter-hypothesize that the 1% they found is just the amount of variance in ethnic group that wasn't controlled for perfectly.
- gph 9y agoFramingham, MA is old school New England. I wouldn't be surprised if 75+% of the participants are of direct English/Anglo-Saxon descent, even though the article describes it as "European" descent.
- emodendroket 9y agoEven if it isn't, I don't think there is much meaningful distinction left among Americans of English and French ancestry. How many people would even notice?
- gph 9y agoDepends on the area. I think in parts of Maine where there's a strong Quebecois influence there's definitely a meaningful distinction. There's other areas, especially in rural communities, where a specific European country has a lingering overstated influence. But within any major metro area you're right, there's typically little meaningful distinction anyone would pick up on between two Americans of different European ancestry.
- tosser350 9y agoPeople need to realize we are built on hardware that is hundreds of millions of years old. We share a similar hormonal dominance hierarchy system with fucking lobsters. You can't just say it's </CURRENT YEAR> and expect these things to disappear. Tribalism was important for survival, trusting someone who didn't look like you could mean death and thus was selected for over long periods of time.
- jawns 9y agoAnd then we became human and started not acting like lobsters. We have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. Those allow us to drastically curtail what might otherwise be instinctive behaviors. I know there are some determinists who say that free will is illusory and we're as much slaves to our genetics and instincts as lobsters are. But it certainly seems as if, in practice, tribalism (at least the clear-cut type you're describing where we exclude people who don't look like us) is recognizable and avoidable.
- matkoboska 9y agoYou are on a cocktail party. Have had a few drinks with friends. You all start talking about spiders. How they are these wonderful tiny creatures to be protected. You know, they got rid of insects and it's actually good to be above this. After all we have intellects, a sense of morality, and a will. We're not some freaking lobsters driven by phobias. And you know what? At this wonderful evening party, we all agree, that this is just the case. And then we all go home. Where, right after opening the door, you see this diguisting, big spider crawling on the floor. Without thinking twice you crash it with your shoe. And then -- using toilet paper perhaps -- pick up its remains and flush it in the toilet. Just to be sure that the motherfucker is really dead. Not to mention your 3 year old and 5 year old living in this house. And then, then, you realize. What happened? Just talked about it an hour ago. And then I got rid of this poor bastard anyway... In a social setting, with people around having conversations, your brain cortex fires off. It's spinning like crazy. And the cortex is all about logic. It's all about intellect, a sense of morality, about a will, and group hierarchy, and talking, and relaxation. You get the picture. When the phobia kicks in... guess what... the first thing that will happen is that cortisol will turn off your cortex. In the stressful situation, in fight or run situation, your cortex is switched off brother. That's why this spider is dead. That's why after 30 years of perfect marriage you might do stupid things when 23 year old hot blonde is sexually provoking you. That's why live isn't white and black. Even in 2017.
- haberman 9y agoThis seems to make the kin selection vs. group selection controversy even more trivial: https://blog.oup.com/2015/01/kin-group-selection-controversy/ https://blog.oup.com/2015/01/kin-group-selection-controversy...
- beepboopbeep 9y agoI figured friends were more driven by proximity first then shared experiences second.
- saalweachter 9y agoThis is the rare study I'd be really interested to see repeated with college students. The population used in this study was the population in the Framingham Heart Study, presumably because they had the DNA and friendship graph already lying around. But starting from a small town's population, you've got pre-existing social networks which will both influence the future genetics and the future social networks of the town. You could get a lot of confounding correlations like "you're more likely to be friends with someone you live nearby to and you're more likely to live nearby to people you are related to". If you repeated this with college students you'd have friendships formed between people with few if any previous connections.
- okreallywtf 9y agoI have anecdotally noticed this with tall people and short people, I will notice a group of friends who are all 6'2"+, or who are all <=5'7", both of which seem statistically unlikely. There are plenty of more diverse groups (in terms of height) but its hard to say whether they are work friends or something else where you have less overall choice.
- cgag 9y agoMy experience is short people mostly get ignored in an otherwise tall group.
- orbitur 9y agoAnd to take this further, outside of jr. high/high school, this ignoring is unintentional. I'm 5'7" which makes me tall among the shorts, but the number of times I've felt like I had to jump, to make sure other guys pay attention when I interject, is high. Seated meetings/meetups are my friend.
- emodendroket 9y agoI'm your same height and have never observed this. Frankly a lot of stuff I see online about supposed travails of being my height are bewildering to me.
- eric_h 9y agoI'm 5' 4". I've generally found that in a professional setting, my height is not generally an issue. However, if, at a bar, my height is considerably (>= 6-8") below the median of the people i'm hanging out with, interjection does require more effort than it does amongst those who are closer to my own height. It may just be pure acoustics :P [Edit: in case it isn't clear, this is in situations where everyone is standing]
- choward 9y agoIt works the other way too. I'm relatively tall and when I'm in a loud crowded place hanging around shorter people I have no idea what they are saying to each other.
- jdmoreira 9y agoHaving read "The Selfish Gene" I wasn't surprised. This study conclusion fits pretty well within the general theme of the book. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it!
- lentil_soup 9y agoUpvote for "The Selfish Gene". Should be mandatory for anyone interested in science and/or biology! A great eye opener about how evolution really works.
- jrs95 9y agoDefinitely. And you shouldn't let the fact that it was written by Richard Dawkins scare you off if you have a negative opinion of him -- it has very little to do with his atheism.
- nf05papsjfVbc 9y agoAlso the subject of atheism should itself not scare you off. It is quite a reasonable position to hold.
- agumonkey 9y agowhat about emotional epigenetics ?
- countryqt30 9y agoHow come I am from Europe and all my best friends are (originally) from Asia? :O
- InclinedPlane 9y agoReminds me of this: http://www.neatorama.com/2013/12/15/When-the-Actors-in-Planet-of-the-Apes-Donned-Their-Makeup-They-Spontaneously--Segregated-Themselves/ http://www.neatorama.com/2013/12/15/When-the-Actors-in-Plane... Humans are still amazingly tribal creatures.
- rxaxm 9y ago> Topping the list for common genes were those related to our sense of smell. One explanation for this is that people with similar olfactory genes will smell things in the same way and so be drawn to (or repulsed by) similar environments... The opposite pattern held for genes related to immunity -- friends tended to be less similar at those parts of the genome. This makes me think of the thesis of "Sex At Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. If humans evolved as polyamorous foragers for whom communal bonds were more important than paternal certainty, then it makes sense that you want your friends to like the same environments and add immunological diversity to your shared gene pool.
- nyolfen 9y agoi found out recently that my lifelong best friend and i share a relatively uncommon paternal haplogroup, despite our families coming respectively from germany and scotland for the most part (the group is relatively prominent in frisia). anecdote, not data obviously, but i'm curious if anyone else has any similar experiences.
- mmanfrin 9y agoR-M405? Me too; but my paternal line hails from Venice. Seems our forebears scattered around.
- dominotw 9y agofriends are economically similar and how much money you make relative to the rest of the society depends almost entirely on how much money your parents made relative to the society. Wealth passes alongs genetic lines so does friendship.
- pamqzl 9y agoTo a large extent the causation is backwards: how much money depends on your genes. Smart parents have smart children and smart children make more money.
- azinman2 9y agoBasing this on the Framingham study doesn’t say much. We do know homophily is very common world-wide, but Boston in particular is extremely segregated. Out in the burbs it’ll be largely small pools of ethnic (European) groups. While the summary at least touches on this, it would totally flop in diverse areas like SF or NYC. Most of my friends are from all around the world — if they all still shared some genes in a way that was uncommon I’d be extremely surprised.
- mancerayder 9y agoThe study mentions the 1% similarity, which is the genetic equivalent of fourth cousins. That's fine, but isn't there a heavy correlation between DNA origin and geography, and another correlation between friendship and geography??
- rjurney 9y agoAlso friendship and family are tied together. I would think they controlled for these things? I did not read the paper.
- c314 9y agomarxists are gonna love this /s
- vorg 9y agoThere was a book I read in the 1970's about "sociobiology" that explained this. If I remember right: People share exactly 50% of their genes with their parents and children, but only probably 50% of genes with siblings -- it could be 51%, or could be 48%. To preserve their own genes, people will feel altruistic to give their lives for three of their siblings (about 150% of their own genes saved), but not for one sibling (only about 50% saved). People share between 90% to 110% of their genes with two siblings (I'm guessing the variance here), so will give their lives for two siblings they share 110% of their genes with, but not two they only share 90% with. The feeling of "liking a sibling as a friend" is the same as being willing to give one's live for them, so in today's age of large urban groups where friendship is a proxy for one's siblings in small tribes during the hunter-gatherer era, it follows people choose their friends because they share more than the average genetic material with them.
- grzm 9y agoCould it have been E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology: The New Synthesis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology:_The_New_Synthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology:_The_New_Synthesi... The two brothers/eight cousins idea goes back as far as Haldane regarding kin selection: > No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane Wikiquote has that as quoted in 2007, but I'm not sure how far back he originally stated it.
- cgag 9y agoThe version I heard was "I would gladly give up my life for two brothers or eight cousins.". I much prefer it.
- grzm 9y agoIt's more succinct and stands alone (as opposed to the actual quote, which requires additional context), I agree. It's just not quote attributed to anyone in particular, as far as I know.
- 9y ago
- horsecaptin 9y agoDoes this mean that if you have similar experiences, then your genes change? I have found that experiencing things together forms friendships much more than genes.
- elchief 9y agoAnd don't we fall in love with people that are genetically different? Something about not liking the smell of relatives
- canoebuilder 9y agoOnly in the genetically different immune systems as discussed in this article, otherwise opposites don't really attract. I don't think it would be that surprising to find similar results(maybe less, but still greater than random in terms of similarity) among married couples.
- jfinmaniv 9y ago"The opposite pattern held for genes related to immunity -- friends tended to be less similar at those parts of the genome." It would have been more accurate to title this article "Friends Are Genetically Similar in Some Ways and Different in Others" but I guess that would not have been as edgy. EDIT: The overall trend reported is that friends are more genetically similar than would be expected, as pointed out by user Real_S. Good title, after all.
- cyberferret 9y agoHmmm... As someone of sub-continental heritage, I have close friends from about 3 different ethnic groups. I have NO friends from my own cultural/regional heritage at all in 5 decades of walking this planet.
- smortaz 9y agoStudy summary in one picture :) https://iwsmt-content-ok2nbdvvyp8jbrhdp.stackpathdns.com/52520132332151.jpg https://iwsmt-content-ok2nbdvvyp8jbrhdp.stackpathdns.com/525...
- canoebuilder 9y agoIs it anymore likely that people with 1% genetic similarity have that connection randomly than the possibility they in fact share g-g-great-grandparents? i.e. 2 slots in the 32 level of their family tree, or what if they are double fifth cousins, sharing four slots at the 64 level?(is that math correct?) So in effect for these similarities to present, they have to be cousins on some level right? Whether that is sharing N slots at the 2048 level, or some other combination? In a sense all of humanity are cousins, and races are clusters with a higher coefficient of cousin-ness than the global average.
- throwaway832852 9y agoThe same is true of spouses, and in fact, the healthiest couples (or at least those with the most children) seem to be third or fourth cousins: "Third Cousins Have Greatest Number Of Offspring, Data From Iceland Shows" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.h... Not exactly what you'd expect given how often we see "hybrid vigor" touted as a purported benefit of interracial marriage.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jinfiesto 9y agoYeah, I think "hybrid vigor" is probably nonsense. However, interracial couples tend to be left-leaning, which also implies fewer children, so I don't think it makes sense to infer causality (or lack thereof) the way you are. Too many competing factors.
- throwaway832852 9y agoAt a minimum, the study suggests that the fitness golden mean between inbreeding depression and outbreeding depression is actually much closer to the intraracial side of the spectrum than the interracial.
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoWhat about my online friends? Are we similar?