How to Hack Your Genetics to Take Better Risks

May Theme: Self-Reliance

This month at AR, we're exploring the risks and rewards of self reliance and being responsible for your own life. If you don't want to miss it, join our newsletter.

Problem: In order to do great things, you must be willing to take risks. But your ability to accept risk in your life is genetically pre-determined, and if you don’t have the right gene, then you’re “risk handicapped.”

Solution: Take advantage of the loopholes your brain provides to bypass your genetics to take smarter and better risks, giving you an advantage over the genetically gifted.

If I asked you a question right now, I’d bet $10 you won’t remember it by the end of this article.

A show of bravado like that is the beginning of many friendly wagers, but how many go unanswered?

When you have a disagreement with a friend and they ask you to put your money where you mouth is, how do you respond? If you’re one of the few intrepid—or you have an oversized ego—then you probably agree immediately.

But what about the rest of us? We respectfully decline or agree to disagree and politely move the conversation on to something else. Maybe we dismiss it as a joke or playfully ask, “Why does it always have to be about money?”

For one reason or another, we’re really uncomfortable with making wagers on things we’re not sure we’ll win.

Or are we? Every week in the United States, millions of people go to the store to trade a few hard earned dollars for a Powerball ticket, scratch-it, or some other lottery game of chance. And most research suggests the less you can afford a ticket, the more likely you are to buy one.

The potential pay-off is big, stirring dreams of a life unattainable, but that doesn’t change the fact that the 50/50 wager you just passed up with your friend was, less-than-scientifically speaking, ten gajillion times more likely to be successful than that lotto ticket more aptly named the “stupid tax.”

And that’s not the end of the story, either.

If you look at the statistics of the most common lottery games, it’s easy to see that not only do you throw your money away on a gamble you have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, but you actually pay a premium to do it, too. The real monetary value of a lottery ticket can be calculated, and you’d be hard pressed to find one that meets the requirements for a “good buy.”

Lottery tickets aren’t the only place where we take dumb risks.

  • We hang out with people who don’t embody who we want to be even though we’ll end up just like them.
  • We dismiss financial opportunities that have better odds of success than the ones we stick with.
  • And we do things we think will keep us safe when, in fact, they actually invite more, unseen risks.

To put it simply, we’re bad risk takers and, as a result, we accidentally take more of them through our avoidance strategies.

It wasn’t always like this.

You Were Born to Take Risks (Sort of…)

It wasn’t all that long ago when survival of the human race depended on risk taking. When you look at it objectively, it still does.

None of us can remember it, but there was a time when we didn’t have the modern conveniences we do today—we hadn’t taken the risks to create them yet.

For thousands of years…

  • If you were hungry, you had to hunt and kill an animal for food. Hopefully it wouldn’t get you first.
  • If it got too cold, you had to move your family some place warmer. Better pick the right direction.
  • If you got sick, you had to find a plant or mineral that could cure you. Does that look poisonous?

The reason we’re successful today and enjoy the lives we do is because our parents, grandparents, and everyone before them were excellent risk-takers.

In 1988, a few ecologists studied the risk taking habits of surfperch (a small, coastal fish) by watching their feeding habits in different environments. Would they eat from a big, dense patch of algae—the most delicious of surfperch fare—if the food patch resembled one where they were likely to meet their arch nemesis—the kelp bass?

Next door to this Shangri-La was a sparse and much less appealing patch—probably the equivalent of leftover meatloaf to the surfperch palate.

Even though the safe patch didn’t contain enough food to support the surfperch school, the fish preferred to feed there, competing for scraps.

In every subsequent test they ran, the surfperch preferred the safer choice, despite the implications—lower quality food and not enough of it.

As a result, the serf perch survives in a safe but ultimately fragile state of existence. Their survival depends, for the most part, on what their environment provides them.

But not us.

We took risks and built systems that allow us to manipulate our environment. As a result, we enjoy what most of us consider a “higher state of existence.”

For most of human history we took calculated risks because our success depended on it. Today, things are a bit different. Risk-taking is no longer widely encouraged because we don’t really believe we require it to live.

By and large, we believe the opposite.

Look at widespread culture and you see that the generally accepted belief is that a better life comes from increasing our safety and avoiding risk.

Today, our most celebrated risk takers are rarely the ones working on complicated, long-term risks. Instead, we prefer novel adventure and thrill seekers. Ask any school-age child who they know better—Gandhi (leader of the Indian Independence Movement) or Bear Grylls (British adventurer)—to prove this point.

This isn’t to say Bear Grylls doesn’t provide an important service to the world, but it does suggest that we look at risk taking differently now than we used to. What used to be essential to our survival (and in many ways still is) is now celebrated as novelty.

The problem with this new perception of risk, though, is that novelty seeking is a genetic characteristic, and if you don’t have it, you’re out of luck.

Genetics: The Reason You Won’t Go Skydiving, Start a Business, or Ask That Girl on a Date

Your ability and willingness to take risks is predetermined and, just like any other genetic characteristic, you don’t get any say in how it works.

If your family comes from a long line of thrill seekers, then you’ll probably be a thrill seeker, too. If they don’t, well, science says that you’ll be more comfortable watching a movie about bull riding than actually riding one yourself.

And what, exactly, is this gene that tells us how we’ll behave?

After decades of research, geneticists tell us it’s DRD4, now commonly referred to as the “novelty gene.”

You can find yours on chromosome #11. Everyone’s got it, but there are enough variations that, depending on which you have, you end up somewhere between an accountant with a 30-year mortgage and a professional skydiver.

Risk taking, or novelty seeking, is a personality trait. Personality traits cannot be changed without, quite literally, altering your genes.

Igor! Bring me the genetic mutator!

Despite all this, we still think we can change ourselves to become risk takers—move to a new environment, change an old habit, make new friends. The truth is these things make no difference in our ability to accept risk.

In 2000, researchers at the University of Delaware studied the characteristics of identical twins separated at birth in an attempt to learn how personality traits develop. The study ended with plenty of interesting findings, but one stood out above the rest:

Despite the environment they were raised in, the children studied were far more likely to behave like their biological parents than to adopt the characteristics of the people they were raised by.

A child raised by fear-mongering cowards is still going to look for novel and exciting experiences in her life if she’s born with the risk-taking gene even though her parents and surroundings have discouraged it since birth.

And a child lacking the gene will still prefer to read adventure novels to having actual adventures despite being raised by shark-diving, storm-chasing parents.

So what do you do if you weren’t born with the right variation of DRD4? What if your genetic grab bag is missing the crucial ingredient?

Well, there are three things to do:

1. Blame your parents.

You can curse your parents for not passing along the good stuff you wanted, but it’s not really their fault either. Somewhere along the line in your family history, your relatives went from needing to take risks to survive to finding other ways to make it. As you’ll soon see, this isn’t really a bad thing,” and you’d have to look back quite a ways to find the culprit.

2. Be grateful.

Being born without the crucial ingredient for impulsive thrill seeking isn’t all bad— you probably won’t ever have to worry about becoming an alcoholic, problem gambler, or cocaine addict. The DRD4 gene is highly connected to the addiction gene; they both control how you respond to dopamine (the neurotransmitter that controls the reward system in your brain).

It’s also a good indication that you won’t ever take up a less-than-desirable career like theft or prostitution when money’s tight. The ability to predict the behaviors of the risk-endowed is astonishing. A study of 18-year-old college freshmen was successful in predicting behavior at 21, and other studies comparing prison records with the genetic make-up of natural born risk-takers is, to put it lightly, shocking.

Being pre-disposed to risk taking says nothing of your ability to take smart risks.

3. Hack into the backdoor of your potential.

Even if your genes don’t make you a natural-born risk taker, there’s still a backdoor you can exploit—a locked entrance that, with the right tools, can be picked. You can open the door not just to taking more risks, but to taking better ones, too.

The key, of course, lies within your mind.

Beating Genetics: How to Become a Risk Taking Adonis With Napoleon Dynamite Genes

In 1995, researchers Leslie Palich and Ray Bagby wanted to know what it was that made entrepreneurs such risk takers. They wanted to learn what allowed them to see opportunities and act on them where others would shy away from or avoid them altogether.

The hypothesis: Entrepreneurs are, genetically, no different than anyone else. They only perceive risk differently.

To test the assumption, they created a decision-making survey and sent it to 550 successful entrepreneurs.

The results? Telling.

After tallying up all of the survey responses, what was left was a group of highly successful entrepreneurs that, as they assumed, didn’t self-identify as risk takers any more than the general public did.

When it comes to natural born risk-taking, entrepreneurs express no different characteristics than anyone else: most entrepreneurs identify themselves as more risk-averse than risk-seeking.

How could it be? What they learned was that successful entrepreneurship often depended on an unlikely suspect—learned ignorance.

Successful entrepreneurs aren’t more open to risk taking than anyone else; they’re just able to look at risks differently than others.

To put it simply, where the average person sees a high level of risk and attempts to avoid it, entrepreneurs instead see an opportunity and go toward it. Successful entrepreneurs succeed because they fail to see the hazards that others do and, when they do see them, they appraise them as less of a threat.

And why is this finding so exciting?

Because it removes entrepreneurship from a personality trait—a genetic characteristic that can’t be altered—to a cognitive one—a learned behavior that can be molded and changed with practice and persistence.

You cannot run away from that which you cannot see. To allow more risk into your life, train yourself not to see it in the places where you used to; embrace learned ignorance.

And how do you do that? As a wise man would say, “one small step at a time.” You can change the way that your brain perceives risk by introducing it to many small ones and building a tolerance for it just like you would build a tolerance for anything else.

Create daily “risk-experiments” that allow you to test assumptions with little punishment for failure and greater reward for success. By stacking the odds in your favor at the beginning, you can build confidence and slowly change the balance of your experiments through small successes.

Your tolerance for risk will increase as you succeed more and more. This creates a brain-process-interrupt where your amygdala—the prehistoric part of your brain designed to keep you from doing something scary—is cut out of the decision loop by slowly raising its tolerance level, allowing it to sleep where it would normally wake up and sound the alarm.

Where you once perceived risk, you’ll no longer see it. If you were afraid of risk before, that won’t change. What will change is the likeliness that you’ll notice it in the first place.

Now you have the upper hand on genetic risk takers. Where they have the natural ability to take risks but may lack good judgment, you can take risks and retain your ability to make informed decisions.

And what about that good decision-making? If you’re going to take more risks, you’re probably better off it you also learn to take better ones.

Take Smarter Risks by Learning Arithmetic, Ignoring Confidence, and Skipping Thanksgiving

Let’s pretend for a second that you run a small business, and you have a few financial decisions to make to keep things operating smoothly.

In one case, you need to decide whether it’s better to take a sure bet with a lower gain or to roll the dice on a higher gain with the chance it may not come. In the other case, you have to choose between a sure loss or a chance to lose nothing at all.

Look at the options below. I want you to decide which decisions are the best for you.

In your first decision, you must choose between:

A. A sure gain of $240.
B. A 25% chance to gain $1000 and a 75% chance to gain nothing.

In the second decision, you must choose between:

C. A sure loss of $750.
D. A 75% chance to lose $1000, and a 25% chance to lose nothing.

Which pairing do you prefer? Go ahead and answer in the poll below:

Which combination of choices is better?

  • View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...
    Analysis hidden to avoid spoiler. Click to reveal.

    You probably would have realized this if you’d considered both choices together, but we’re not programmed to do that. Instead, we prefer to deal with problems like these with linear thinking—solve the first problem first and the second problem second. That works sometimes but more often leads to poor decisions.

    By looking at concurrent decisions as part of a whole rather than separate occurrences, you get a better glimpse of the real scenario taking place.

    Life is a series of decisions, and none exist in a vacuum; each one affects the next.

    How good you are at taking smart risks depends on how good you are at seeing the effect each choice has on the one that comes after it. In the example above, that means re-learning the high school math you’ve long forgotten, but in everyday life it means considering the consequences of your choices as a whole—thinking ahead at least a few steps—rather than considering each on its own merits.

    The answer will never be obvious; that’s why it’s called risk taking. But it can certainly become clearer.

    Of course, you already knew this intuitively.

    That’s why studies have found that people taking quizzes of random knowledge are generally optimistic when it comes to the certainty of each answer they give, but pessimistic about their overall performance. More simply, most people say they’re confident in their decision after each answer, but once the quiz is over, they aren’t so sure how they did.

    This is just one more little way we regularly misunderstand ourselves. Armed with that knowledge, you can start to use it to your advantage.

    6 More Fun Ways to Take Better Risks

    The body and mind are strange beasts, and even though we still don’t fully understand them, we’ve made massive discoveries that can help you become a better risk taker each and every day if you’re willing to obey the scientific wisdom.

    Here are a few more zany tactics you can employ on your quest to more intelligent risk taking:

    Find smarter friends: Just the act of being in a group makes you far more likely to take risks. This could be due to a sense of shared responsibilities—you don’t feel like you’re acting alone. Taking more risks doesn’t mean taking better ones, though, so be sure to surround yourself with people who inspire you to take smart ones. No need to be king of the hill. Aiming to be the dumbest of all your friends is a noble goal.

    Practice sleep deprivation: If it’s basic human nature to take more risks on a loss than on a gain, studies have shown you can at least partially counteract this by staying up too late the night before a big decision; sleep deprivation inhibits the part of the brain that’s responsible for assessing potential losses.

    Avoid beautiful women: If you’re a man, elevated testosterone usually equals more risk taking and less thinking. This is our primitive curse, as proven in a hilarious study at the University of Queensland on the willingness of teenage skateboarders to harm themselves in the presence of beautiful women. If you’re doing something potentially life threatening, make sure no one attractive is watching.

    Look at art: New research suggests that looking at art for just 40 minutes can achieve the same effect that five hours of typical “decompression” tactics like reading or relaxing have. To de-stress quickly before a difficult decision, opt for Dalí over Dickens.

    Avoid MAO inhibitors: If your doctor prescribes you an MAO inhibitor, avoid important decision making while using it! Deficiencies of the critical MAO-B neurotransmitter are heavily linked to poor decision making. Just ask the legions of prison inmates with MAO-B deficiencies.

    Skip Thanksgiving: Not long ago, we learned that tryptophan—a natural chemical found in turkey—is what’s responsible for making you so tired after a holiday feast. Now we know that it makes you temporarily stupid, too. Participants in a study at Queen’s University Belfast were tested for their decision making capabilities during a normal state and during a state of rapid trytophan depletion. Participants in a depleted state made objectively better decisions. This may explain why retailers make so much money on the day after thanksgiving.

    In the End…

    Risk taking used to be required for survival, but it isn’t anymore. As a result, some of us have lost the genetic juice that keeps us testing our limits.

    If you don’t want to accept fate and embrace comfort, but you’re having a hard time stepping out of your comfort zone anyway, remember that there are several things you can do not only to take more risks, but to take smarter ones, too.

    • Trick yourself to take more risks by slowly raising your risk threshold.
    • Consider your decisions as part of a whole rather than individually.
    • Put yourself in situations that help you take better risks and avoid situations that encourage you to take bad ones.
    Your options are now limitless. What will you attempt with your new arsenal of tools?

    ~~~~~

    25 Responses to How to Hack Your Genetics to Take Better Risks
    1. Evelyn
      October 23, 2011 | 8:21 pm

      You talked about building up tolerance by taking small risks everyday. Could you please list a few examples?

    2. nkosana
      October 24, 2011 | 12:54 am

      Hi Tyler. I think this is an insightful article. What i want to find out is whether you can give me more information on the tryptophan study? I am curious about how the foods we eat affect our thinking and behaviours, from an individual scale up to a societal scale. Thanks.

      • Tyler
        October 24, 2011 | 6:14 am

        Hi Nkosana, the second article cited in the sources section is the full tryptophan study:

        http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n7/full/1300980a.html

        • beowuff
          October 24, 2011 | 6:56 am

          Actually, the amount of tryptophane in turkey does NOT make you sleepy. Tryptophane only makes one sleepy when consumed on an empty stomach with NO protein. The sleepiness one feels after a giant Thanksgiving dinner is probably caused by all the carbs and alcohol that are normally consumed with the turkey. In fact, the average serving of chicken or beef has just as much tryptophane in it as turkey.

          http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/turkey.asp

          • Rianh
            May 6, 2012 | 5:59 pm

            Yeah, true. Any large meal will cause that same effect.

    3. Shane
      October 24, 2011 | 4:30 am

      Love this post! I think we’d all be better served to take bigger risks in life. In fact, personally, anytime I’ve taken pretty big risks, they’ve mostly paid off in the end. I’ve never really attributed it to risk-taking, but rather “tunnel vision”. I think the two have a lot in common.

    4. Erica
      October 24, 2011 | 6:16 am

      This was fantastic! I’ve always been very risk-averse but have been unknowingly increasing my tolerance over the last year and doing more things I would have never considered 10, even 5 years ago. I’ve never thought about considering my decisions as part of a whole, however–that was a pretty interesting section (and I really liked the analysis of the poll results). I’ll definitely be applying that to my future decision-making!

    5. beowuff
      October 24, 2011 | 6:58 am

      I noticed you didn’t analyze B+D in the quiz. It seems to be the most popular choice. Do you think that would be a good or bad answer?

      • Tyler
        October 24, 2011 | 7:25 am

        B+D would represent a 25% chance to gain $250 and a 75% chance to lose $760, so that would still be sub-optimal to B+C.

        It’s interesting (yet not necessarily surprising) that, so far, AR readers have chosen B+D—the two options that appear the riskiest—most often.

        • David Harper
          October 24, 2011 | 11:35 pm

          I don’t think B+D is suboptimal to B+C: B+D has 37.5% Prob of zero; 6.25% of +1,000 and
          56.25% of -1,000 = same expected value (-500) as B+C (the fallacy is to assume that A/B is not independent of C/D).

          and i don’t mean to be a pain, but it’s also a mistake to assert A+C, which has certain loss of -510 to B+C (or B+D), which have expected losses of -500. It’s a different think than saying that risk preferences are expressed by the choices.

          If you are (highly) risk-averse, then the best choice here is A+C simply because for the low net cost of -$10 to EV, you can “lock in” a loss of -510 and avoid the possibility of -1000 or -760. Either the survey expresses risk preferences (in which case no choice can be suboptimal), or risk as a utility function must be incorporated, in order to assert a choice as optimal. Thanks, David Harper, Bionic Turtle

          • David Harper
            October 24, 2011 | 11:51 pm

            (there is no edit, sorry). What i mean is, the EVs of all four combinations are -500 to -510 or so. The A+C choice is rational in the way that cheap insurance is rational: for a the cost of a mere 2% reduction in exp value (10/500), you can eliminate further downside. put another way B+C is optimal only if you are indifferent to risk,

            (similarly, B+D is superior to B+C, despite equal EVs, if you are a risk seeker because for no change to EV, if offers the prospect of a higher upside, $1000, compared to an upside of only $250 for B+C). Thanks, David

            thanks, David

    6. kdivasilver
      October 24, 2011 | 7:02 am

      Hmm, I’ve been thinking recently that I’m not doing much in the way of risk-taking, but looking back I see some shifts that I hadn’t noticed. This leads me to believe that I’ve been practicing learned avoidance without knowing it. Or it could be that I’m avoiding learning to take more risks! Thanks for all the reminders–I can do better, I know that.

    7. Kent Healy
      October 24, 2011 | 9:15 am

      Risk-taking is such an important topic – and one that is easier to talk about than deal with. Because of this, I think you did a really good job outlining practical solutions – which is where many other writers fall short on the topic. Good work Tyler.

    8. Gwendolyn
      October 24, 2011 | 9:59 am

      Fall in love.

    9. Evan
      October 24, 2011 | 10:25 am

      Hey Tyler, just wanted to say great article! Keep up the good work on your new 10/10 article quest.

    10. Paula @ Afford Anything
      October 24, 2011 | 1:13 pm

      I’m a little confused by the quiz, still. You keep referring to the 75% chance of losing $760. But isn’t it a 75% chance of losing $1,000?

      Maybe I’m slow, but I just don’t understand the math behind the “solution” to the quiz. Can someone explain it?

      • Tyler
        October 24, 2011 | 1:48 pm

        Paula, you have to look at both decisions in unison. If first you gain $240, and then have a 75% change of losing $1000, then your net loss is $760.

        Thanks for asking this question, though, because I know you’re not the only one to think it—I thought the same when I first considered it—and it brings up exactly the point being made: we want to look at the decisions as separate events rather than as one whole.

    11. chad
      October 25, 2011 | 12:31 am

      Absolutely fan-fucking-tastic. You clearly put a massive amount of yourself into these. Your posts have always been incredibly well thought out, but these new ones are just… just on a whole different level.

      How are they resonating with your audience? Is this new style helping those readership problems you cited earlier as one of your reasons for this change?

      • Tyler
        October 25, 2011 | 6:32 am

        Thanks, Chad. Time will tell if it’s the best course of action. Fewer people will read the articles because they’re long and take some commitment, but the people who read them seem to really enjoy them, and I’m betting that, with time, that will outweigh the other factors.

    12. James
      October 25, 2011 | 10:17 am

      1st I tried to defend my A+D choice… A is sure bet, B is stacked against me. C is already a sure loss, but with A already in hand, and since I’m already losing money, take ‘D’ cause I “might” not lose anything.

      Then I sat back and rethunk. This would be a terrible business model. The vast majority of the time, I would lose and lose and lose lots. Doesn’t matter if it’s -510, -750, -760, -1000. Yet I only stand to gain 0, +240, +250, or on the rarest occasion +1000. Banks would laugh at me. Casino’s would love me. Bookies would become my “financial institution” and Gweedo my new unwanted best friend.
      I take that back, banks might HIRE me ;)

      But not to end all neg. – Nicely written article once again and I can see where your going riskology wise.

    13. Laura
      October 25, 2011 | 3:50 pm

      I recently bought the books to study for my personal trainer cert. Then I can start training clients and group classes. The big risk will be moving to do that full time :)

      I have noticed a change in myself, whether its confidence or becoming a bigger risk taker, but I’m no longer as afraid of failure. Sure, I still fear losing everything and living on the street, but before I had a paralyzing fear of making a fool out of myself and being judged. Just the other night at a bar with coworkers I (sober) danced ballet in front of everyone simply because I was dared to do it. Not a huge risk, but it is something the old me would have never done, and it ended up being hilarious and fun.

      Thanks for all the inspiration, T!

    14. Steve
      October 25, 2011 | 7:30 pm

      There is so much interesting information in this post. I’m especially fascinated by the fact that sleep deprivation inhibits part of the brain that assesses potential losses.

      I think raising your risk threshold is a great idea. I can imagine how hard it would be for someone to take a huge risk if they aren’t used to them. Plus, their mind might look at the risk as something to avoid rather than as an opportunity.

    15. Mike
      October 27, 2011 | 12:04 am

      I’ve been studying psychology over the past 4 months to help myself understand what has been holding me back in some areas of my life. You don’t do into much what causes anxiety or fear, but you do talk about overcoming it. Which although simple, is profound and very useful.

      I’ve been challenging myself to take more risks in general, even found a symbol that represents risk taking to remind me to do it, and also just making more decisions quickly and acting with little or no thinking. It’s been really helpful and empowering but I have a ways to go still.

      Not to take away from your great article but a few comments:
      *Surprisingly, I did choose B+C. Whether they admit it or not I would say the majority of the people choose B+D because the article was about risk taking and those two options were the uncertain ones. So, consciously or unconsciously your readers were influenced by the article topic to take the riskier options.

      *According to your rationale of increased testerone around women leading to more risk taking, shouldn’t you have more beautiful women in your life? Or maybe I misunderstood what you’re trying to say.

      *You mention that it was necessary in ancient times to take more risks. Actually, fear and being risk averse is ingrained in humans BECAUSE of those days. Life Threats were more common back then so fear often kept you alive. Now, today that risk averse feeling exists even though very little these days is life threatening.

      Great article though, keep up the good work

    16. [...] A couple weeks ago, Tyler Tervooren tweeted something about DRD4 (dopamine receptor D4), the novelty/thrill-seeking/adventure gene. Now he has an article entitled Hack your Genetics for Better Risk Taking. [...]

    Leave a Reply