Scientists just got closer to understanding the link between genetics and crime.

[PokerGuy]

It ties into the nature vs nurture side of it. Master criminals are as much made as born that way. If it's heritable rather than random it opens up a whole new line of thought.

Did you not read the article? This is not about "nature vs nurture". They already know that there's an obvious nature and nurture component that can influence everyone's development, including ASPD. What makes this research new and interesting is that it focuses specifically on the genetic component of this, and specifically ties certain genes or sets of genes to ASPD. If accurate, it means you would know with a pretty significant scientific evidence that people with certain sets of genes are much more likely to be criminals, regardless of the "nurture" component. That could have a lot of implications.

 

[Jhhnn]

Did you not read the article? This is not about "nature vs nurture". They already know that there's an obvious nature and nurture component that can influence everyone's development, including ASPD. What makes this research new and interesting is that it focuses specifically on the genetic component of this, and specifically ties certain genes or sets of genes to ASPD. If accurate, it means you would know with a pretty significant scientific evidence that people with certain sets of genes are much more likely to be criminals, regardless of the "nurture" component. That could have a lot of implications.

So what is it you think we're arguing about?

 

[agent00f]

Did you not read the article? This is not about "nature vs nurture". They already know that there's an obvious nature and nurture component that can influence everyone's development, including ASPD. What makes this research new and interesting is that it focuses specifically on the genetic component of this, and specifically ties certain genes or sets of genes to ASPD. If accurate, it means you would know with a pretty significant scientific evidence that people with certain sets of genes are much more likely to be criminals, regardless of the "nurture" component. That could have a lot of implications.

If you had understood the conversation above, it's clear that "criminality" is rather arbitrarily defined in this context, given that similar traits manifest/directed elsewhere are something you might deem "successful".

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If you had understood the conversation above, it's clear that "criminality" is rather arbitrarily defined in this context, given that similar traits manifest/directed elsewhere are something you might deem "successful".

How is it "arbitrarily defined"? The subjects in this study are literally prisoners, a majority of which were convicted of violent crimes.

 

[agent00f]

How is it "arbitrarily defined"? The subjects in this study are literally prisoners, a majority of which were convicted of violent crimes.

As mentioned above we just happen to define certain activity as criminal and some as success even when they both involve screwing someone else over for personal gain.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

As mentioned above we just happen to define certain activity as criminal and some as success even when they both involve screwing someone else over for personal gain.

That is completely irrelevant. The fact that there could be "self serving CEOs Wall street tycoons" with this allele not in prison has no bearing on the significance on this study.

 

[bshole]

How is it "arbitrarily defined"? The subjects in this study are literally prisoners, a majority of which were convicted of violent crimes.

Basically, corporate leaders, small business owners, politicians and criminals all share the same genetic propensity. What predisposes you to criminal behavior also predisposes you to leadership and innovation.

 

[bshole]

That is completely irrelevant. The fact that there could be "self serving CEOs Wall street tycoons" with this allele not in prison has no bearing on the significance on this study.

Well if we are going to be killing these people off in the womb. We may be killing off the innovators along with the criminals....

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Basically, corporate leaders, small business owners, politicians and criminals all share the same genetic propensity. What predisposes you to criminal behavior also predisposes you to leadership and innovation.

That hasn't been shown (yet). A similar propensity to a more roughly-defined diagnosis of APD, perhaps, but not this allele.

 

[agent00f]

That is completely irrelevant. The fact that there could be "self serving CEOs Wall street tycoons" with this allele not in prison has no bearing on the significance on this study.

It has full bearing on how the study is interpreted, as we're doing here.

That hasn't been shown (yet). A similar propensity to a more roughly-defined diagnosis of APD, perhaps, but not this allele.

That is not in evidence.

 

[bshole]

That hasn't been shown (yet). A similar propensity to a more roughly-defined diagnosis of APD, perhaps, but not this allele.

So we can go ahead and start killing them right away?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It has full bearing on how the study is interpreted, as we're doing here.

No, it literally has none.

Let's say I come up with a study that shows pugs (convicted criminals with this allele) are more likely to cannibalize their puppies (be imprisoned) than the total population of all other toy dogs (the control group). What is the relevance if you tell me that teacup poodles (Wall Street folk with this allele) are more likely to steal their owner's pocket lighters and commit arson (defraud investors)?

So we can go ahead and start killing them right away?

The vast majority of people haven't had their genomes sequenced and this is still just one and very new study, so no. A hundred years from now when we might have a very good idea on what makes a person a productive member of society from a biological standpoint, sure (where "killing them" is defined more along the lines of "informing pregnant women that their child is at significant risk and encouraging them to abort").

 

[agent00f]

No, it literally has none.

Let's say I come up with a study that shows pugs (convicted criminals with this allele) are more likely to cannibalize their puppies (be imprisoned) than the total population of all other toy dogs (the control group). What is the relevance if you tell me that teacup poodles (Wall Street folk with this allele) are more likely to steal their owner's pocket lighters and commit arson (defraud investors)?

The second sentence should be pugs with wealthy owners.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The second sentence should be pugs with wealthy owners.

That doesn't change the irrelevancy.

 

[bshole]

The vast majority of people haven't had their genomes sequenced and this is still just one and very new study, so no. A hundred years from now when we might have a very good idea on what makes a person a productive member of society from a biological standpoint, sure (where "killing them" is defined more along the lines of "informing pregnant women that their child is at significant risk and encouraging them to abort").

So, voluntary eugenics rather than forced eugenics. I am not necessarily disagreeing and rather respect the balls you had to admit your support for something like that. Eugenics has an awful rap right now given it's history.

 

[agent00f]

That doesn't change the irrelevancy.

The mechanism of how one gets to where they are is rather relevant when study is predicated on the other getting to where they are.

 

[bshole]

The mechanism of how one gets to where they are is rather relevant when study is predicated on the other getting to where they are.

Do you ALWAYS have to talk in riddles? Assume that your are communicating with 8th graders and dumb it down.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The mechanism of how one gets to where they are is rather relevant when study is predicated on the other getting to where they are.

How who gets to where? You're talking about how anti-social Wall Street tycoons get to screwing over the little folk, relative to common anti-social people becoming common criminals? It's a relevant question to ask about, I don't deny that, probably something other researchers would love to look into, but it's irrelevant with respect to Jhhnn's point about nature vs nurture. This validity of this study is not impacted even if it is later shown that 100% of people with this allele become criminals due bad nurture combined with being born having bad nature. No one denies that both nature and nurture are important.

 

[agent00f]

Do you ALWAYS have to talk in riddles? Assume that your are communicating with 8th graders and dumb it down.

There are a group of people with a certain behavioral trait. Study finds some, presumably acting on that trait in a given environment, end up criminals. Others, presumably acting on the in a different environment, end up successful. Now, consider that what constitutes criminality or success here are socially defined constructs, and the superficial interpretation that people with this trait are ostensibly "bad" doesn't exactly mean what it might first seem.

How who gets to where? You're talking about how anti-social Wall Street tycoons get to screwing over the little folk, relative to common anti-social people becoming common criminals? It's a relevant question to ask about, I don't deny that, probably something other researchers would love to look into, but it's irrelevant with respect to Jhhnn's point about nature vs nurture. This validity of this study is not impacted even if it is later shown that 100% of people with this allele become criminals due bad nurture combined with being born having bad nature. No one denies that both nature and nurture are important.

Nobody is question the validity of the study per se, just what it means. Personally it comes as no surprise that people unmoored by social norms often end up at the extremities of human behavior.

 

[pcgeek11]

You must have blotted out Donald's performances during the primary debates, huh?

As far as I am concerned this statement applies to both Hillary and Trump.

" aggression, irritability, disregard for rules, disregard for other people, and dishonesty "

 

[Victorian Gray]

You must have blotted out Donald's performances during the primary debates, huh?

Don't you mean his performances throughout his life?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Nobody is question the validity of the study per se, just what it means. Personally it comes as no surprise that people unmoored by social norms often end up at the extremities of human behavior.

And so you think that the presence of this allele is pure coincidence?

 

[werepossum]

Isn't it true that most leaders have these qualities? The gene that predicts criminality also predicts leaders.

Pretty much. In the words of the great Jim Steinman:
Every hero was once
Every villain was once
Just a boy with a bad attitude.

Personally I prefer my criminality retail. Plus, when they get out of prison, we aren't expected to pay them a lifetime six figure pension.

 

[werepossum]

I think it would be mandatory. If you gave a crap about what other people thought about you, the amount of bashing you would receive as a leader would destroy you emotionally. There is no way I could withstand that kind of abuse. I am a follower and I am comfortable as such. Of course I am the back-biting, bitching, never satisfied, hateful kind of follower. I couldn't be happy if I wasn't.

lol The best kind of follower. If politicians aren't nervously looking over their shoulders, we aren't doing our job. And politicians are no longer nervously looking over their shoulders.

Must you bring this bullshit into an actual interesting thread? This science is about genes and connecting them to certain traits, not about anyone "raised under the right conditions" and your jerb creator bullshit.

He only has one song. Luckily it fits every situation he sees.

 

[agent00f]

And so you think that the presence of this allele is pure coincidence?

No, I said that it's not a surprise sociopaths exhibit extra-ordinary social behavior, which is evidently sometimes punished or presumably sometimes rewarded.

---
Also, just a general psa for the thread that 50% or whatever inmates with the gene doesn't mean 50% of those with the gene are in prison. It's a common bayesian misconception.