I don't think so either.

Not that video, the one about the animal's emotion.

Saw Farenheit, it was all right, far too melodramatic for my tastes though. As far as bias, I don't think it was nearly as one-sided as the politicians he was aiming for.

Just a little confused re the alleged biases and misinformation in "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Exactly which information presented in the movie is untrue?

The part about how the Bush administration is financially in bed with the Saudis?

The part about how ordinary working-class Americans are sending their sons and daughters to die in Iraq, while only one member of Congress has a son or daughter in the armed forces?

I found the movie completely accurate. The only biases I found in the movie were a bias toward truth and a bias against killing people for no reason.

Greed now, eh? Allright...

I don't think greed could be passed on genetically, therefore it is not influenced by evolution (at least not directly). More a subject of anthropology, psychology and philosophy than biology.

I think it is a product of human culture. Early settlements would undoubtedly have one individual with the most property and power. Others would note this and become jealous, and in trying to obtain that same amount of perceived respect would become greedy. I think it is a learned behaviour unique to our species. It could be viewed as a bonus that comes with the technology to aquire and store more than is necessary.

Jeesh, I don't read the posts for a couple days and I don't recognize the thread anymore.
Teevee might be the guy to ask because it sounds like he is more current on the classes that the rest of us took ages ago but I do not see any reason why "greed" as a trait couldn't be (or isn't) passed on genetically. I think that the studies done on twins raised seperately has shown us that genetics doesn't influence just the color of a person's eyes or the shape of their face, but also the way they think and feel and their personality traits. ??

- Chad

Genetics is a small part of behavior, while it may predispose a persons tendency to wards a specific pattern it is mostly environmental stimulus that will shape a person's behavioral pattern. so parents, surroundings, friends, on and on.

Steve

OK ... so you took the time to watch the movie and see it from MM point of view ... complete with slick editing ... maybe visit this website to see how he actually does what he does to trick you into seeing it from his distorted viewpoint. I have actually gone back in the movies to see if it is true ... guess what ? ... see for yourself

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Oh, there isn't a speck of a lie anywhere in the movie. I don't think any of us are accusing it of being otherwise. As mentioned prior, it's the purposeful neglect of presenting subjecting information for both sides of the war.

I mean, think about it, if it was ONLY about the oil, why not hit Saudi Arabia? No, there's a little more motivation to the war then some dirty money.

Don't get me wrong, I loathe both the war and the Bush administration, I just think Micheal Moore has become bigger then his pants.

With all due respect, when did you finish your Ph.D in psychology Steve?

There are numerous theories on the origins of behaviour (and personality), and perhaps most popular among them at this time is biological or genetic theory. Also reasonably popular are cognition theory, social learning theory, and of course behaviourist theory, and they all have something to offer to this discussion.

This topic is highly relevant to numerous disciplines. A general trend in the sciences lately is convergence, in a way. Physics and chemistry are now significantly incorporated into biology, and psychology and biology, as we've seen, are coming together in a relatively new field called evolutionary psychology, which is also closely related to comparative psychology, and both, coincidentally, are fields the U of Lethbridge is strong in (versus, say, Calgary, which emphasizes applied psychology to a significant degree). The U of L is home to the Canadian Centre for Behavioural Neuroscience as well.

I don't have the figures handy but as I recall current estimates say that between 50% and 60% of our behaviour is the product of genetics. Of course there are significant interactions between genetics and environment.

I'll dig around some more and try to find out more about the relationship between genetics and "greed". I'm still waiting to hear back from the professor of mine on the issue. However, to say something is not influenced by genetics at all would be quite absurd.

never claimed to have one {edited}.


exactly.. theorys... so the theory I have read is just as valid as any other as they are all theories.. no need to get ignorant teevee. If you want to point out the differences of newer theories compared to older ones that I know a tiny bit about then do so in a discussion type post not an attack.

Steve

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

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...

haha that is crazy!
... poor dog

First of all ... the jails are full of idiots that not only commit one crime but are repeat offenders ... so much so that in the US there is the 3 strikes law to keep these morons behind bars where they belong instead of terrorizing society.

What you are saying is that these guys/gals are " risk takers " ? ... so they weigh out the odds before they commit a crime and then take the " risk " of not getting caught ... is that about right ?

I dont think so ! :rolleyes:

I think that for some of them they cant help it and/or are too stupid to see that if they get caught they will get locked up for a very long time.


I am pretty sure that the big ones are fairly universal ( ie. stealing, B&E, rape, murder etc ) regardless of where you grew up ... besides you would have to be pretty naive to think you could argue your case in a court of law in a country that forbids certain acts and get away with it.

People commit crimes every day regardless of the punishments that society puts in their path to discourage them from those acts. One has to think that in those people they are predisposed to committing crime which does not allow them to see the consequences of their actions ( both what happens to their victims and also what can happen if they get caught ) ... the thing is that it is not always IQ as there are some very smart crooks ... as I said before ... so smart that if they applied themselves to lawfull enterprise would do very well.

Alot of these criminal types have no heart whatsoever ... and can be traced back to when they were children ... abusive to children & adults at a very early age ( often with perfectly normal parents & siblings ) and the tale of woe gets worse as they grow up.

Like I said " Criminal Mind "

Check the statistics... a lot of what you're suggesting may appeal to common sense but isn't supported by the research (a common theme in this thread I think).

At some point in time a significant difference forms between what people wish were the case and what actually is...

I would heartily recommend this title to everyone.

With this I'll take my leave of this particular conversation. As I alluded to previously, crime and punishment is probably one of the hottest topics out there, hotter than evolution versus creationism, likely due to the problems with data collection/analysis. As is the usual for me, I've probably made enough enemies in the last eleven pages. :rolleyes:

You have raised a good point and I think that predisposition probably plays a greator role in so called "stupid crimes" than it does in others. The criminals who cant help but hit every person who makes them mad, or the car theives who don't wear gloves and keep getting caught, etc etc
But I think you are overestimating the risks involved in some crimes and underestimating the thought processes of some criminals.
A marihuana grow is a great example. A person could set up a 500 plant grow in a new community and in one year's time get three harvests and make a profit of one million dollars (after expenses).
The risks they would face are:
Being detected
Being caught and there existing enough evidence to be charged
Being convicted
A hundred little details all need to fall in place (properly) in order to achieve the conviction and then it would probably be only after a second or even third conviction that the person would recieve jail time, and that time would likely be measured in months, not years. Since many of us will work our entire lives and still not earn a million dollars, it would still be profitable even if you were caught and jailed everytime you did it (which would not happen). In a case like this, I believe the criminals' behavior is motivated by very cognitive processes and the "risks" are, to them, just the cost of doing business.

- Chad

Here it is. Not important now, but I'm still curious. Before you go if you could elaborate on "However I also must note that there are species (and even human cultures) which are not territorial but exhibit some of the characteristics of greed that I listed... "

And I've got to leave this one too. Great thread. Now I know more about you all besides the fish and corals you keep. Look forward to meeting more of you in person.

So I'm off to feed the baby. Every three hours! Did you know that?! How do they expect us to get any rest at that rate? Or clean the tanks? Or spend time in elaborate off topic forums?

ah but you are comparing a soft crime, to a murder/whatever type.. two totally different things. growing or smoking pot is done by 9/10 of kids by the age of 18 (I think this was the last numbers I saw) so our culture is becoming desensitized. at any rate growing pot is non violence and the only impact is on the person who get busted. A murder, rape what ever is usually a spontaneous act with no regard for the consequences. and the person that is hurt is the victim.

Steve

The fact that jails are full of repeat offenders ? ... do I need to prove that point with statistics ?


I have a niece in social work and a few police officers in the family ( both immediate and extended family ) and their statistics seem very different from yours ( albeit anecdotal as they actually deal with these people on a daily basis and not from the comfort of a classroom :razz: )

Actually, I was addressing Buk_A_neer's point by comparing crime that some crimianls do because they have carefully planned it out and weighed the pros and cons to that which is commited by those who "cant help it and/or are too stupid to see that if they get caught they will get locked up for a very long time".
I didn't mention murder/rape in this comparison but I do agree with you that it is much more violent and universally accepted as being wrong. I do not agree though with your conclusion that growing pot only affects the person who gets busted. Infact, the only people affected by murders are the victims and their loved ones (not a lot in a city like Calgary), while the cultivation of marihuana negatively affects everyone who owns a house in the city of Calgary because it is you who is making up for the losses incured by banks due to mortgage frauds and homes that end up being written off and comdemmed. Probably the losses from the theft of electricity are passed along to the consumer by utility companies as well. (Not argueing that murder isn't the more serious crime, just that it has a comparetively smaller 'sphere of impact')

I guess I can't just cleanly extricate myself from this one.

Of course the jails are "full" of repeat offenders - repeat offenders are more likely to be incarcerated. The jails are also disproportionately full of aboriginals... in short, jail populations do not tell us much about crime in the real world.

For what it's worth (nothing), my uncle is the head of the City of Calgary's Social Work Department. I know numerous prison guards and police officers, and both of these groups are about the most biased out there in respect to beliefs about crime. Guess what social group is more likely to engage in child and spousal abuse than the general population... not really the most objective information source if you ask me. Like asking a Haliburton executive if Bush should allow oil extraction in Alaska's nature reserves.

Marijuana is only illegal because Emily Murphy decided at the turn of the century that it was a tool of "the yellow man" (her words; see "The Black Candle") to seduce young white women. She went off to Ottawa, petitioned the boys in the houses, and they banned it in short order. Personally I am in favour of legalization of all banned narcotics.

Cptn, ah right, as I said before though, if like me you believe that greed under our definition is always adaptive, then you could say that any hoarding/resource storing behaviour is greedy...

Quinn,
Are you saying that prison guards and police officers are a "social group" (I thought that it was 40 hour/week "occupation"), and if so, are you saying that they are statistically more likely to engage in child and spousal abuse than the general population? - I hope you have some sort of evidence to back that up...
And you are for the legalization of all banned narcotics eh???
That's a really great idea Quinn :rolleyes:. I mean general use of addictive, mind altering substances could only be an improvement. Just look how much alcohol alone has benefited our society :razz: .
Sorry, I'm trying to view both sides of the debate but you lost me on that post.
- Chad