The little brat just comes from a long line of crybabies. In fact the image of a screaming infant is on your family crest.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Addiction seems to just get scarier and scarier every time we learn about it. At this point, what can't you get addicted to? Starting to seem like people with a genetic predisposition to addiction are just screwed.

top that.

"In a sense it's very similar to effects that you would see during periods of intoxication and withdrawal," Barr told Science Central.

This is unbelievable! IF this theory is indeed confirmed for humans, it may well reinforce a very controversial theory of porn that appeared some years ago in the research anthology: Perspective in Pornography.

The author of the particiular article, which I seem to recall was entitled 'Toward a Theory of Pornography' maintained that extreme connections to the mother, followed by long periods of deprivation, and especially absence of breast feeding was responsible for most porn addiction in males later.

The author went through case study example and invoked PET scans to show how the affected brains mimicked brains on opioids when confronted with various porn stimuli. He argued that, essentially, the porn model had been substituted for the mother.

He further claimed his theory was testable if a control group could be compared to one exsclusively breast fed for at least three years. He argued the latter group of males would, at adulthood, show little compulsive interest in porn while the controls (denied the breast and close maternal attachment) would be manifest porn addicts - consuming it by the truckload.

If this genetic theory holds, it really does portend serious shit for humans. It means that all males bearing this gene will later become insatiable porn consumers and then...who knows what?

Perhaps this is the time to speed the technology for quantum dot electrodes to insert into the brains of male babies from birth - to assist them in overcoming this potential liability? We already have much evidence the electrodes can control adult behavior to a remarkable degree. With the infant skull so malleable, that may be the time to get the ones to control maternal (or later sexual) addiction, implanted.

Just an idea.

Of course, many will scream that the cure is worse than the disease.

But I really like this study because I can wave it in my mother-in-law's face. IN YOUR FACE, MOTHER-IN-LAW! I am not a lawless coddler!

Have you wondered how those scientists induced separation anxiety between the infant monkeys and their mothers? Have you wondered how they got monkeys to drink alcohol, which they do not do in the wild?

Do you wonder about the living conditions of monkeys in laboratories, how long they live, what stimulation they receive (or don't), and how and when the scientists pick apart their bodies to obtain information?

If you want to cite the research of scientists who go out into the field and observe monkeys and other animals, please do. But please reconsider promoting cruelty to animals simply because the people doing the abuse happen to be wearing white frocks.

She would indeed deliver the impressive-sounding primate jargon with casual bravado and in a way that snows her friends, because that’s how defense mechanisms work most effectively.

Genes generally don’t cause anything, but genes interacting through layers of environments do. Human children who experience consistently responsive care and nurturing in the absence of trauma, neglect or serious sensory or developmental problems become securely attached. Those who don’t develop attachment problems.

Individuals with high genetic proclivity toward use of addictive substances to manage distress don’t necessarily become addicts. Every human trait exhibits variation that is associated with variation among genomes. (“You mean there are genes related to impulsivity, to propensity to use addictive substances, to vulnerability to autism, to eye color, and they vary among people? Who coulda guessed?”). The fallacy serving as defense mechanism and seen almost daily in the mainstream media posits that once genetic loci are identified as associated with a trait, we have a “cause” or explanation for undesirable or harmful expressions of that trait.

“It’s the genes. That’s why I can’t stop smoking and shoving deep fat down my pie hole. No point trying. That’s why my kid has ADHD too.”

The problem with this useful falsehood, and the cost of using it defensively, is that it tends to perpetuate problems by allowing escape from agency and behavioral change, and tends to come back around to bite us in the ass. “Back off honey, you know that runs in my family. I drink because I have that disease, I gamble because I’m a risk-taker, and you get smacked once in a while because I have a higher genetic proclivity for impulsivity.”

in fact some have gone so far as to suggest that apart from sever abuse and whatever information/belief system that people are taught, everything is genetic.

The Swedish/Spanish/Nevadan company Private Media Group is a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ. Info is on wikipedia in case this link doesn't work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Media_Group

Genetic and heritable are not the same thing.

it's not because of my early attachment to the teat, but because of my genes.

But it's still Mom's fault, right?

The monkeys DRANK more when given the chance??????

Umm....?

Who slinks up to a monkey's cage and slips them a shot of tequila? Is it banana-flavored booze?

Yes, the beginning of kindergarten was tougher than average, but also more than average was the wattage of her smile when she saw me from across the room. Fun times! I remember that more than the crying, but I guess it's all in what you focus on.

Any mother familiar with the myths or truths of the last generation or three can tell you if the children in her family are at a higher risk for addiction. Just goes to show how important it is that parents not be ashamed to share information about the disease in their families.