The article below was made available on-line two days ago. The abstract is readily available, but the actual article (in uncorrected page proof form) costs $32.00. The final published version should be out in June or July. I expect the article to generate far more heat than light in the popular press over the next few months. Just from the abstract I can see potential holes in their logic, but you can’t say you weren’t warned….

Do pigmentation and the melanocortin system modulate aggression and sexuality in humans as they do in other animals?

J. Philippe Rushtona, & Donald I. Templerb,

a Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

b California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, Fresno, CA 93704, United States

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.015

Personality and Individual Differences (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01918869), vol 52 (2012): in press.

Available online 15 March 2012

Abstract:

Pigmentation of the hair, skin, cuticle, feather and eye is one of the most salient and variable attributes of vertebrates. In many species, melanin-based coloration is found to be pleiotropically linked to behavior. We review animal studies that have found darker pigmented individuals average higher amounts of aggression and sexual activity than lighter pigmented individuals. We hypothesize that similar relationships between pigmentation, aggression, and sexuality occur in humans. We first review the literature on non-human animals and then review some of the correlates of melanin in people, including aggression and sexual activity. Both within human populations (e.g., siblings), and between populations (e.g., races, nations, states), studies find that darker pigmented people average higher levels of aggression and sexual activity (and also lower IQ). We conceptualize skin color as a multigenerational adaptation to differences in climate over the last 70,000 years as a result of “cold winters theory” and the “Out-of-Africa” model of human origins. We propose life history theory to explain the covariation found between human (and non-human) pigmentation and variables such as birth rate, infant mortality, longevity, rate of HIV/AIDS, and violent crime.

Highlights:

► In 40 species of wild vertebrates, darker pigmented individuals are more aggressive and sexually active. ► Cross fostering studies and pharmacological dose manipulations establish the role of the melatonin system. ► We review the human literature within and between populations and find similar relationships with pigmentation. ► Darker individuals average higher levels of crime, sexual activity including HIV/AIDS, and lower IQ.

Keywords: Pigmentation; Skin color; Aggression; Sexual activity; HIV/AIDS; Crime; IQ; Life history theory

Not so crazy.

Think of red heads. And blondes

Look at the biochemistry charts. You will find melanin intimately associated with the adrenergic part of Neuro Chemistry. Melanin cells even derive from the "neural tube" and migrate away in embryo development.

Confronting Liberals with Science is no easier then the Church.

Both are so very, faith based, don'tchyaknow.

Moi

BSc Biological Sciences

Should have known that without this paper, just look at Hitler and his crew and there like, blond, blue eye, white and we know what they did, to 6 million Jews and 6 million non Jews.

Yep Moi, I think your right on this on, or not.

You are right Jesus, its a racist paper all right.

Is patterning a medical treatment to one's genome, racist?

It has been called that even with the best of intentions.

Remember the "Black Blood Pressure Pill"?

Even if you don't count the colonial to independence Presidents like Jefferson,

there is a history of more red headed presidents then is proportional to society.

Must be racist.

Hitler, OMD, some mis-use it so it must be bad, like the 10th Amendment.

C'mon BHLs, try go beyond one synapse.

(For the science challenged one synapse is a simple reflex, ref. knee jerk)

Moi

Remember River, my people are innately more intelligent then your people. Racism?

Before sorting out who or what is more, or less, intelligent, I surmise it may be worthwhile to first have sufficient intelligence as to be competent to appraise intelligence. Nothing I have ever observed informs me that the human species has evolved any where close to the level of intelligence needed for accurately accomplishing such a task. Every so called, "intelligence test" I have ever come upon has merely been a variation on a measure-of-central-tendency acculturation instrument. In species with a seeming proclivity for species self-annihilation (as I deem a useful notion for any species which specializes in mutually destructive escalating reciprocal retaliation), can measures of acculturation be else than measures of ignorant stupidity? Just wondering...

Show me even one sea slug stupid enough to make war to end war, and I may need to revise my understanding of intelligence and aggression.

As for myself, as an individual person, I a willing to tentatively allow that I may marginally have sufficient intelligence to accurately realize that I am not actually intelligent.

There are verifiable genetic differences in human population groups. Recognizing that sub-Saharan African populations tend to retain sodium more efficiently than other groups (resulting in a reduced risk of heat-stroke when sweating in hot climates and an increased risk of hypertension when they are not in situations that stimulate sweating) or recognizing that northern European groups have a gene that makes them more resistant to respiratory infections such as tuberculosis or that their reduced production of melanin allows them to continue to produce vitamin D and so avoid rickets in low-light regions where darker-skinned individuals would be at risk for such diseases isn't racism, it's simply science (and a demonstration of the truth of Darwinian evolution). Believing that the amount of melanin in one's skin, the shape of the eye, or the texture of one's hair affects one's intelligence, talents, or morality and acting on such nonsense is.

The grey area comes when we know that people of African heritage have an increased risk of stroke and those of European ancestry have a higher risk of bearing children with cystic fibrosis; do we discriminate against hiring them on the grounds that they will incur higher health costs? Is that racism or economics? Wouldn't a humane policy be to assume that such risks are evenly dispersed among humans and that universal, nationalized health coverage would equally distribute the risks and eliminate such considerations. Strike a blow against racism; institute national health coverage.

Now let's listen to Ron Paul and Rick Sanctimonious tell us why should keep this sacred justification for racist behavior and continue to serve their Father Below.

Ok, explain the high number of red haired Presidents.

Forbidden thinking

Moi

My first thought is that this is another "Bell Curve" because the scientists I know that work on genetic difference between racial whatever the proper name is (I forget it right now) begin their abstracts saying this is not a predictor of future behavior but a true difference that requires medical consideration.

We've already mentioned the blood pressure differences between races and we know about sickle cell and why it exists.

I doubt several items in that abstract. FIrst of which is the HIV/AIDS business because scientists have figure out when it began and what city it first manifested itself in... SUrprise, surprise... if you didn't see that article I will hunt for it. But HIV/AIDS is only 100 years old and can hardly figure into genetic differences. IT is not selective like Sickle Cell.

So whoever this article is, is treading racist ground just like THE BELL CURVE by Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein. THat's a shame but that's what I think.

It's a misuse of statistical methods.

Ie. Do the generally better grades of asians prove they are smarter?

No, because we are not able to elininate the importance of parental attention.

Do higher crime rates mean blacks and hispanics are more prone to crime?

No because we can't sort socioeconomic and cultural differences.

You can't measure a difference like that based on color and have any hope of

real proof.

White guys are learning to jump. Someday blacks may learn to bowl.

Sweetpickle (imported) wrote: Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:31 pm It's a misuse of statistical methods.

Ie. Do the generally better grades of asians prove they are smarter?

No, because we are not able to elininate the importance of parental attention.

Do higher crime rates mean blacks and hispanics are more prone to crime?

No because we can't sort socioeconomic and cultural differences.

You can't measure a difference like that based on color and have any hope of

real proof.

White guys are learning to jump. Someday blacks may learn to bowl.

Mis Use of Science is of course "bad".

To use Scientific Racism to effect ones' rights is wrong.

We all agree on that.

Now please explain why their are more red headed Presidents then one would expect contrasted against the nation's population. Even if you don't count the early colonial Virginians who were pretty red headed. So was Jame Knox Polk and Teddy Roosevelt.

http://www.biochemj.org/bj/354/0131/bj3540131a01.gif

Here are some biochemical pathways involved with melanin. Find L-DOPA (top left)

That's right, the same L-DOPA involved with Parkinson's disease because the neurotransmitter, DOPA Amine does not cross the blood brain barrier as L-DOPA does.

So it may choose not to become L-DOPA quinone down the melanin path but, from L-DOPA to DOPA amine to Noradrenalin/norepinephrine to Adrenalin/epinephrine. Ask Kristoff what neurochemistry associations there are. I would say, arousal. Probably aggression.

And they all come from embryonic tube tissue.

I would find it hard to believe, so close yet no association to behavior, smarts, music IQ, etc.

And please do explain the red headed Presidents conundrum.