Understood. In my criminology classes the causes of crime were, of course, a central issue. However the professor I took them with was fairly leftist and (like so many others out there) may have had a bit of an agenda. But I think we agree that a "likelyhood of taking risks" gene is much more agreeable than simply a "criminal" gene.

Simple mathematical formulae can be used to predict and explain behaviour, and I think you could do that here as well. Let a certain choice yield X probability of gaining either 0 or 2 resource points, and the alternative choice guarantee 1 resource point. Based on X, (in theory) you could predict the likelyhood of an individual choosing the former versus the later.

Cool :cool:
That makes sense Quinn.

I disagree that a " taking risks gene " is responsible for criminal behaviour ... most millionaires went broke on average 3 times before they stayed millionaires and had to take HUGE risks to achieve what they did. I am pretty sure that they have a " risk taking gene " but the majority ( 99% ) would NOT resort to criminal behaviour.

On the other hand I think that some people have as Gowan once said in one of his songs " a Criminal Mind " and are predisposed to comitting crimes even though with their intelligence they could be quite successful in normal business enterprises.

Buk,
Sounds good. I don't think anyone is claiming to have identified a single gene responsible for criminal behavior - only that certain traits likely influence it. This 'criminal mind' predisposition that you spoke of... do you think it is something that is only learned, or that we are born with, or that is a combination of both? Sounds like we've reached a concesus.

- Chad
ps- do you really think that the majority of the millionaires out there are not criminals?? jokes :razz:

At some point one's socialization/learning/understanding of the world kicks in and moderates behaviour.

Again, since crime is socially defined, there cannot be a "crime" gene. What is considered criminal or lawful varies tremendously across human cultures.

Interesting.

Even in animals, you find certain individuals which exhibit oddly abberant behavior within a population. Take chimps for example. Jane Goodall's studies once focused on wildly violent and implusive chimps which, by far and large, lived in a static (as in lacking perversive influence such as media, politics, laws, etc) society. In these individuals, you'd get certain animals which would display gross and misguided behaviors such as stealing food, unprovoked aggression and cannibalism.

I think there was an incidence where one female chimp would kidnap and consume the infants of other chimps. This trait was shared by her daughter and grand daughter even though the activity ceased after the aforementioned mother chimp had her first daughter.

Freak! New nightmare. Thanks.

I dont mean to go off topic in this thread (:lol:) but I was once in a town that had a huge poplulation of monkeys living in it and getting swarmed by those little demons is about the scariest thing ever. Within 5mins of watching them interact with each other I saw old monkeys beating up on baby ones, rapes, thefts... I kept asking myself why would anyone want one of these as a pet?!

- Chad

Then again, that raises another question:

How come serial killers were rare to the point of being nonexistant before Jack the Ripper?

Poor reporting methods? :razz:

I think the key is having only one. Even then, I agree, not a very good choice for a pet.

I met a guy once who used to have a monkey, not sure what kind. He also had a german shepherd. The monkey would hold some of its food out of its cage and entice the dog to come eat it. As soon as the dog was within range the monkey would grab it with hands and feet and bite the dog as viciously as possible before it could get away and whimper in the corner. A few minutes later, the little monkey hand would come out with some yummy food...