I just wanna know your opinion if you believe that deciding to do things like rape, stealing, lying, etc. is inherited by genes or adaptation in the surroundings you lived in?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I think it's choice.
Inherited by genes, but influenced and boosted by you surroundings.
Imagine a person like a car blueprint.
The blueprint can be customized and improved and even turned into a space craft if need be.
But it will never be a blueprint of a stationary house.
So if you got the blueprint completely far off the mark of what one should be, there is no amount of adaptation to fix you.
On the other hand you can have the right blueprint and negatively influenced by your surroundings to fall off the mark.
Most cars fall on this category and so do most humans.
What about those psychopaths whose parents attitude was opposite to him.
Inhereted by genes does not mean your parents are the same, it means that genes create your blueprint.
Thus it could be that one ancestor had the same problem or you are the first to develop it in your entire lineage.
If you are born as a psychopath, it was surly not your choice/adopted. That was my whole point.
both, really. mainly adaptation, however. If a parent raises their kid with the idea that murder is a great thing to do, they'll murder if nobody stops them beforehand.
If they got the right blueprint they can be reasoned with unless their mental state is not too far gone.
is there any rigorous proof any which way?
of course not, heh.
"is there any rigorous proof any which way?"
Yes, have read:
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/sociopath-genetics
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/5979198/Psychopaths...
There is no one sociopath gene but it mostly has to do with getting the wrong genes for whatever reason.
It has little to do with choice, if you get the wrong blueprint, you might have the best of upbringing and still the tendency is that you will be a sociopath.
Assuming your claim is valid, Jeff, that is only a subgroup of all of sentient life. How about those who deviate from said norm?
what do you mean ?
"Doing right and wrong: Inherited or adapted?"
I presented evidence that some wrong is done without adaptation/choice. That is enough to be evidence that if you get the wrong blueprint you have the tendency to do more wrong then if you get the right one regardless of upbringing.
From personal experience, some people are just born that way, this appears when brothers/sisters are raised by the same parents and one of them becomes evil while the other stays civilized.
In the end the blueprint you are born with triumphs on life influence.
This does not mean that everyone has either a good or a bad blueprint.
That is a flawed black and white thinking.
The concept is that if your blueprint has more good then bad, the probability is that the good attributes will develop more and overshadow the bad ones.
If on the other hand the bad attributes in the blueprint are more numerous, the probability is that your bad attributes will develop more and overshadow the good ones.
Your upbringing is surly a factor but simply not the dominant factor, the genes are.
I myself am the living proof that I became an atheist regardless of my christian upbringing and brainwashing.
The concept of questioning everything(doubt) is gene related.
I was born that way even if some knowledge was needed to develop that quality.
Jeff, why are you only account for two possible factors, environment and material in the cell nucleus? Is that not also Black and White thinking??
I said they are factors, i never said they were the only factors.
The question was clear, 1 of 2 options, I just chose the dominant factor between the two.
Another factor is the sensitivity/stability.
Being too sensitive may result in brain damage later on in life, which could lead to unforeseen results.
We see this caused by traumatic events that mentally destabilize a person sanity regardless of blueprint(genes) or upbringing.
Genetic determinism, as it relates to human behavior, is generally not considered a very strong hypothesis. There are likely some genetic factors that increase the risk of certain behaviors, much like hypercholestemia. However, remember that people with hyepercholestemia make up less than ten percent of people with hypertension. Genetics are not fate, in such areas, and shouldn't be treated as such. Such reasoning also opens the door to genetic discrimination, and even possibly genocide, based on a connection that is poorly established and tenuous at best...
You had to know that when Jeff said he had "rigorous proof" it was going to be pretty flaky shit.
If you mean "Inherited" as taken only from from your ancestors, they yes you would be right.
I took the meaning as being born that way vs life experience.
In the latter, you would be wrong, there is pretty strong evidence that regardless of upbringing people do evil things.(greed, egoism, crime for pleasure, etc...)
If you wish to claim the opposite that with the right upbringing you would mostly be a good person regardless of what blueprint you get, be my guest.
You cannot use the entire population for that claim, you have to find evidence that children that did evil deeds for pleasure(not misguided, but enjoy seeing other suffer for their own benefit) were educated and actually became good people.
(as far as I know this is the vast minority)
In most cases the children who are born that way are the hardest to deal with and generally end up as criminals/politicians/lawyers or priests.
(the greedy egoistic scum of society that prey on other people for their own selfish reasons with a smile)
Thus showing that how you are born is a much more of a dominant factor then life experience.
Just be ready to present a scrap of evidence for it like I did with my well supported claim.
He asked about genetics, I answered him with genetics. So:
"If you mean "Inherited" as taken only from from your ancestors, they yes you would be right."
Thank you, and I know.
welcome but when one talks about genetics as he did, it does not mean "Inherited" ONLY from his ancestors, unless specifically says just inherited from previous generations.
Inherited could also mean from anything, like inherit it from a human trait.
EG: Gay people do inherit this difference from a human trait, it does not mean that their parents or ancestors were gay either.
"Inherited by genes" seems pretty damn specific to me.
genes do carry both, both the hereditary attributes of one's ancestors(parents) and also human traits
(eg the possibility to develop mutations or anomalies with those gene combinations)
(+ other hereditary attributes that go so back that in time that can be considered a trait of all/most humans.)
Seems like INHERITED genes wasn't quite specific enough of a topic for you.
It was not in the context he put it.
Now you sound like a "real Christian". It is one of those cases that what he said didn't matter , because what someone says doesn't actually matter, only what you want them to have said does. Now you will tell me that inherited means something besides what it does, and that the entire field of genetics is wrong, because he didn't say what you wanted him to.
Read the question again:
"I just wanna know your opinion if you believe that deciding to do things like rape, stealing, lying, etc. is inherited by genes or adaptation in the surroundings you lived in?"
My opinion "that deciding to do things like rape, stealing, lying, etc. is inherited by genes?" Yes it is.
My opinion "that deciding to do things like rape, stealing, lying, etc. is adaptation in the surroundings you lived in?" No it is not mostly the case, it is mostly effected by your blue print(including the "inherited by genes" by your ancestors and human traits).
Try to think about lying? Does it matter your surroundings as a main factor?(rich, educated people lie more often(and better) for a better outcome)
People that never lie or rarely do so, are the ones that are born with a liking to honesty above most things.
In that context, where he asked my opinion on the matter, it fits perfectly.
He did not say ONLY inherited by genes from parents/ancestors like you seem to implying.
He just put forward 2 factors and it was implied that he wants the major factor between the two.
I chose one of them and presented evidence for my choice.
You presented nothing except personal attacks.
Now instead of making baseless accusations about me(personal attacks), why don't you present something tangible to claim otherwise?
That "adaptation in the surroundings" always decides the outcome of a person? Or at least it does it in most cases REGARDLESS of blueprint.
"He did not say ONLY inherited by genes from parents/ancestors like you seem to implying"
He said inherited genes, if you don't inherit them from your parents/ancestors, then they are not inherited are they? You don't "inherit" genes from anywhere else. I am not sure how many goddamn ways I have to tell you the same fucking thing before it clicks. My post was a direct response to his query about criminal behavior being "inherited", yet you seem to be utterly unable to accept that singular fact. My post didn't address mutation or variation, as that wasn't even mentioned in the question, and I am not entirely certain how one could prove which genes cause it.
My post also addressed genetic determinism, or the "genes are your fate" mentality some pseudo-intellectuals seem to be spreading lately. It simply doesn't bear up under scrutiny in the realms of psychology, and in many cases even health. The vast majority of cases(around 90%) of high cholesterol in my country are not due to genetic factors(hypercholestemia), for instance. So it simply ISN'T true that genes determine all behaviors or medical problems a person might have, a great deal of it boils down to personal choices and responsibility.
As far as "adaptation of surroundings" is concerned, do you think environment an irrelevant factor in human behavior? Because, I have to tell you, you must have spectacularly failed psych 101 with such a glaring misunderstanding about how human beings work. All of a persons pivotal experiences are important, and go into who they will become, even in abnormal cases. The idea that because you can't understand some spree killers motivations, when your knowledge of their past experiences is absolutely limited, is a classical argument from ignorance if ever I heard one. Everything affects us, even down to WHERE we live, and there is a vast array of studies concerning all of it.
I will not be apologizing for saying exactly what I said, because you do seem far more interested in interpreting what he wrote into what you want it to mean, than dealing with what he wrote as he wrote it. If you have a problem with that observation of your behavior, then YOU have a problem. All this is part of the reason I simply don't usually talk to you at all. Time after time, after time, after time. You can't even admit it when you were wrong on statistical analysis, and couldn't even muster the barest minimum understanding of Bayes Theorem, but in you own spectacular Dunning-Kruger fashion you deign to tell a person who took a whole collegiate course in it how they were stupid.
You, sir, are an ass; and one I take little to no pleasure in talking to. As such, I formally request that you no longer talk to me, and hope that you will have the decency to accept it.
To be honest, Bayes' Theorem is pretty hard to understand intuitively (ask well read poker players about this)
Nyarlathotep. I hardly ever agree with you because well you are a dumbass but when you said---"You had to know that when Jeff said he had :rigorous proof" it was going to be pretty flaky shit"....You said the obvious!!! Jeff says "flakyshit" all the time!!! GodBless
Let's say a biological imperative forces certain individuals to engage in behaviours that would be considered wrong in their culture, well that would mean that those behaviours aren't undertaken out of choice. They can't be, if their causes are biological; moral choice requires the faculty for moral distinction. If being "bad" is biological, you can't rightly say the offender is making a deliberate choice to be bad. Doing so would be like saying a two year old is making a deliberate choice to be two years old.
Honestly, whether being psychopathic is biological or learned is imo irrelevant in regards to the outcome. It doesn't really make a difference either way; if a psychopath is biologically predetermined to have no empathy, or if a psychopath has somewhere in life learned to have no empathy, neither changes the fact that he or she has no empathy. In both instances, the psychopath in his or her current state lacks the fundamental mental faculty for genuine moral deliberation regardless of whether it was biologically caused or it was learned.
There is strong evidence that psychopathy and related disorders come in various shades and strengths and that people with the disorders can be treated to varying degrees, which would suggest psychopathy and related disorders are at least partly learned behaviours (what's learned can sometimes be unlearned, whereas a biological imperative is there for life). It's also true that some people can have a small number of psychopathic tendencies and be otherwise socially integrative, while others can have full blown textbook psychopathy and end up with bodies in their basements, which would suggest that it is not just a specific gene or a specific disorder,but rather that it has varying causes and different severities. It looks more like a spectrum disorder than a specific genetic malfunction.
I think to integrate a well functioning psychopath into society is partly opportunity. If you're born into wealth, you are less likely to be a murderer because you know that is bad for your future lifestyle
Or it is more likely you are not caught since you are well funded.
Pages