Some theories are supported by research, some aren't - while certainly any theory is worth consideration, only some have long term value - not all theories "are created alike." To say genetics are a small part of behaviour and that it is mostly influenced by environment is a mistake.

As for Moore... yeah... I liked Roger and Me and Pets or Meat more than F9/11. Haven't bothered watching Bowling for Columbine.

Guys I edited one post already. Please keep it clean or we will have to close it.
Thanks

I will concede that ones genetic code will predispose some more than others to be greedy, but the major influences would still be surrounding culture. My no means am I saying that environment has more of an influence on our personality than genetics. It's just that greed seems to be so "human" that it would develop in a strictly human setting, which would be the complex societies we live in.

Quinn, you mentioned some animals showing examples of greed, what would those be?

Of the above movies I thought Bowling was the best. It had more of a "flow", like a non-documentary movie.
Of course Moore is biased and one-sided. That's the point. Where else in popular media are you going to find that side presented. The powers that be are so successful at repressing any "leftist" ideals that to find a voice so accessible is rare and should be appreciated. It should also be taken with a grain of salt. No movie, whether documentary or not should be taken as absolute truth. Go out and do your own research.

So if Genetics is the driving factor does that mean that if a murder has 15 children, most of them will end up being murders also? I could understand that genetics will play a factor that they could be predisposed or susceptible more than others to wards criminal activities but I still think that if they were all adopted out to very stable and law abiding environments that this would play a bigger part in shaping there behavior.

Steve

I'm sure it isn't as simple as that, and I think that that is what you are getting at when remind us of the importance of environment. I don't think that genetics "makes" anyone do anything. The percentage of people who murder is very very small and I don't think half or even one of the children of a murderer would go on to commit murder (or even any other crime necessarily). I belive that adoption studies have shown though that those 15 children will be 'statistically' more likely to engage in deviant behavior than 15 others chosen at random. For examplem the numbers may look more like 1 in 70,000 for the children of killers as opposed to 1 in 100,000 for children of non-murdering parents.
Note: these numbers are completely made up and are probably no where near accurate :razz: ! Was just trying to demonstrate how 1 in 15 is much too small a number.

- Chad

Something else that just occured to me is that the percentage of people that kill for the sake of killing is probably very very very very small. The influence of a "murder" gene probably doesn't play as much of a role in your run-of -the-mill homicides as an "anger" gene or "impulsiveness" gene or "predisposition to consume alcohol in excess" gene does. JME :smile:

- Chad

Without going into details, my understanding of deviance is that it is not significantly influenced by genetics. Since all rules/norms/laws are socially created, little or nothing would favour criminal or non-criminal genes. Genes are value-neutral (and of course, evolution has no direction or end purpose).

As Chad pointed out, twin studies are useful in cases like these. We did discuss them in this context in one of my classes and as I recall there was no significance in the data, but I could be wrong, and of course, with probably only a handful of twin studies having been done on deviance ever, there's no solid answer yet.

Behaviour is the combination of environment and genetics. In some cases, genetics have a greater role, in some cases, a lesser one.

Cptn, I can't find where I said I knew of some animal who exhibited "greedy" behaviour, although I well may have. I am more interested in showing that no trait is strictly and distinctly human. I've argued that human greed always has a function (impressing members of the opposite sex, for instance), and under this definition, I would also argue that hoarding, etc. is "greed." Again though, I have no source for this, but I'll post as soon as I find anything out.

For what it's worth, in my mind, altruism falls into the same category as greed. On the surface, neither appears adaptive, but if you look deeper, both are, so in other words, there is no pure altruism (this idea is widely accepted), and there is no pure greed.

Doing a quick search on the internet for "genetic criminal deviance, studies" or something like that will bring up some interesting info, I even found a twin study involving 3226 male twin pairs and whether they were ever arrested before the age of 15 and arrested more than once after the age on 15 and how being raised in the same home or seperately influenced this behavior. The answer really is intuitive if you thihk about it. Either you believe that genetics can influence behavior or you believe that genetics can not influence behavior. If you think some personality traits are influenced by genetics, why would deviance not be?
Perhaps Quinn you were thinking about Lombroso's theory which claimed that criminals posses similar physical features (large jaws, high cheekbones, extra nipples). I don't think people have put much stock in that since 1876. :razz:
I would even go as far as to suggest that traits that influence certain types of criminal behavior might favor the person that posesses them. Hans Eysenck proposed that there is a link between "extrovert personalities" and criminal behavior. He argues that these type of people are more likely to crave excitement, take risks, and act impulsively. Many become respected entrepreneures while others become not so respected (but no less succesful) "entrepreneurs".
I really am in agreement with you guys in that environment is the most powerful influence (I ascribe to this now that I'm a father more than I ever did before). I just wanted to point out that deviant behavior is also the result of certain personality traits which can be influenced genetically.

- Chad

I guess to some degree this is an issue of semantics. I think it's more likely that if anything, what the evidence shows is that there might be a "risk-taking" gene, or something to that effect, ie. willingness to take risks in order to gain - and certainly I think you could justify almost any criminal act as being adaptive (murder is often attributed to jealousy, and jealousy is certainly adaptive). It would be interesting to do a follow-up study with those twin pairs to look for more evidence of this (legal, deviant behaviour). There's also a problem in the field of criminology in that politics and belief systems tend to become significant factors, and may affect research validity - a lack of objectivity.

I am familiar with Lombroso and his prison studies. I'm not sure what made you think I might put some stock in his work? As you said, it's about as valid as Lamarck's. I am also familiar with Eysenck, but am not his largest fan.

Quinn,
Sorry I wasn't clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that you subscribed to Lombroso, you just said that you had discussed the issue in one of your classes and found there was was no statistical signifigance - just thought it might have been something like that you were referring to.
It was "legal deviant behavior" that I was referring to. And I think that traits that influence criminal acts (but not necessarily criminal acts themselves) are extremely adaptive. Someone who breaks the law is baisically putting their own interests ahead of the interests of another person (or society). Whether it is murder or fraud or doing 70 km/h in a 50 zone. A person who is similarly motivated is probably more likely to succeed, whether or not success is measured as a big business deal, a bank robbery, or getting to your destination 3mins quicker than the guy who drove the speed limit.
You raised a good point that genes are value-neutral. I have never thought about that before.

- Chad