I had an important point to make...

[Project Willow]

Considering what my parents did, I guess this makes me evil, along with all the others out there...

[coffin_dodger]

Human history to date is a thorough statement that no particular breed of homo sapiens have a monopoly on violence.

Indeed - if you support the current paradigm thinking. I will say however, I have had my family history researched back to 1650 and not a single one of my many ancestors had a propensity towards violence or 'evil' - yes, they served in wars, but it wasn't their decision to go to war.

I assume then, that you consider it impossible for a propensity towards violence to be transmitted through DNA or genetics. Unlike genetic defects, looks, 'good' personality traits, skills or aptitudes etc etc.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Well, to state it rigorously, I am far more ambivalent. Recent epigenetics discoveries have, thank fuck, overturned the paradigm of genetic determinism (since replaced in the popular press by neurorealism) and there is currently no real consensus on that front. So it is indeed possible that you are correct, I just don't believe you have any evidence beyond your intuition.

Also, this:

There are plenty of examples in the real world where a son or daughter follows their successful parents into a certain field because they have a 'gift' passed to them (genetically) by their parents. Media. Arts. Sports. Business.

Surely "money" and "connections" have more bearing on this than the vagarities of GATTACA sequences. This interpretation also has the virtues of 1) being falsifiable and 2) having an explanatory mechanism behind it.

[brainpanhandler]

Surely "money" and "connections" have more bearing on this than the vagarities of GATTACA sequences. This interpretation also has the virtues of 1) being falsifiable and 2) having an explanatory mechanism behind it.

And a third being that something might be done about it that doesn't involve purifying the species.

[coffin_dodger]

Recent epigenetics discoveries have, thank fuck, overturned the paradigm of genetic determinism

Are these 'genetic disorders' (and there's quite a few of them) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders - not directly inherited, then?

I also wasn't aware that the world of genetics had been thoroughly cracked and completely decoded.

I assume, given the immorality and aggressive racist overtones of even questioning whether 'bad' traits can be inherited, this won't even be looked at by any self-respecting, peer-petrified scientist, lest he be branded a 'eugenecist' or some other equally casually-branded meme that will soil the individual in the 'free-thinking minds' of our society.

After all, to question established beliefs is not exactly de rigeur in our society at the moment.

Where's the fish, btw? - you guys usually work as a quartet.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Where's the fish, btw? - you guys usually work as a quartet.

See, that's what this is really about, innit? Which is a bummer, this could be an interesting conversation if you're willing to make the dangerous assumption I'm a human being, here.

Would you care to set that insult aside and move on with the meat?

[coffin_dodger]

No, that's not what this is really about.

I'm genuinely surprised that given the tiny, tiny amount of a huuuuge amount of data that has been analysed regarding genetics and the miniscule connections so far made, that you casually write off of as 'racist and eugenecist' even the idea that there may be connections to be made regarding inherited bad traits.

I tossed you the fish bone to see if you would grab it, and you did. You're not particularly comfortable talking about this, are you?

And fwiw, I consider you one of the most human people here, that's why I am surprised at the close-mindedness.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I am not comfortable with slim bringing up the belief that descendants of the Bauers are inherently evil due to their "bloodlines" -- that much is certainly true. Neitzsche's advice on fighting monsters does come to mind.

I am not comfortable with you -- or anyone else, really -- implying that I'm part of some Materialist Mafia thought police syndicate that works in concert.

I am comfortable, and quite content, discussing the messy fronteirs of science, though. I just don't want to sound like Charles Murray when I do so.

Also, as a side note - could you explain the "fish bone" metaphor? I have no idea what you're referring to there.

[coffin_dodger]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/ ... 2420080714

I see no mention of eugenics or racism in this article.

[Wombaticus Rex]

"These results, which are among the first that link molecular genetic variants to delinquency, significantly expand our understanding of delinquent and violent behavior, and they highlight the need to simultaneously consider their social and genetic origins," the researchers said.

Quite so, and thanks for that. Assuming this be honest research and not product fishing -- "Guo said it was far too early to explore whether drugs might be developed to protect a young man" -- it opens up remarkable vistas. I have to wonder if the last third of his statement wasn't ass-covering, given the strength of the correlation being reported.

I am going to dig up the actual paper in question, because I'm curious how often kids who do not have this genetic indicator will still be a "problem kid" when their environment is shit.

Edit: pdf link ==> http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/d ... eature.pdf

A number of twin and sibling studies report
a genetic contribution to delinquency
(Christiansen 1977; Gottesman, Carey, and
Hanson 1983; Malone et al. 2004; Rodgers,
Buster, and Rowe 2001). Rowe and Osgood’s
(1984) study represents an early investigation
into genetic sources of delinquency using identical
and fraternal twins. Molecular genetic
studies of human delinquent and criminal behavior,
however, are rare. Most evidence comes
from animal models and psychiatric studies.

[American Dream]

A "crime gene" proven?

Let's just say there's a lot of water under that bridge and it's all pretty murky...

[elfismiles]

fixed

Human history to date is a thorough statement that "government employees are the only humans with a LEGITIMATE" monopoly on violence.
.

[coffin_dodger]

I am not comfortable with you -- or anyone else, really -- implying that I'm part of some Materialist Mafia thought police syndicate that works in concert.

I am comfortable, and quite content, discussing the messy fronteirs of science, though. I just don't want to sound like Charles Murray when I do so.

I apologise for the previous remark about a quartet, I was a bit frustrated and with poor judgement lumped you in with the 'trio of the just' - it was unfair and pretty childish - just plain old mean, really. And also, whilst honesty abounds, I sadly think there is a thought-police element on this board, but they don't frighten me.

I'm sorry, but referrals to the like of 'Charles Murray' are lost on me. I'm not American.

All I am saying is this - let's suppose, as a thought experiment, that there is an 'evil' gene. Whether it may be triggered or not in an individual could depend on a) whether the individual posseses the gene and b) the stimuli the individual receives during childhood and adolescence.

Now, the unscrupulous, armed with the knowledge that an individual has inherited this gene through themselves might see to it that the right set of stimuli be admisnistered that can induce a mindset (of weakness) to non-empathic warmongering, a desire to have power over others, deceitfulness, corruption and generally all the traits we see in the over-arching power structures of today.

This makes me wonder if there is a connection with the fact that the vast majority of rich and powerful people send their children to private, oppressive, rigidly structuralized schools that train them to believe they are better than us. They are trained to take postions of power - and they do. I'm not talking about the likes of your dear President either - he clearly has no power whatsoever. I'm talking about the power behind the White House - and in the corridors of Whitehall here in the UK.

I would also suggest that if there is an 'evil/anger/violence' gene, the last thing we need for it is a pill. It would be forced on the plebs to quieten them down, whilst the powerful would regularly skip their own doses.

Hypothetically, of course.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Charles Murray is the author of "The Bell Curve," a book expounding on why black & hispanic people have an inherently low IQ. If you're curious, this is a good, albeit furiously biased, overview: http://shameproject.com/profile/charles-murray/

I agree on the boarding schools angle: it's a curious & cold ritual. Especially given the abundance of first-hand accounts of the brutality beneath the good-chap veneer.

I don't see the need for any active conspiracy to maintain this system, though: I think our culture does that. Howard Bloom's The Lucifer Principle is a book I highly recommend, re: the biological and genetic basis of "evil" behaviors.

Wiki summary is quite decent ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucifer_Principle

[Searcher08]

In one of his teaching tales, renowned hypnotherapist Milton Erickson tells the true story of a man named Joe. Joe was one bad dude.

At the age of twelve Joe was expelled from school for beating up other kids in his class, along with vandalism and other assorted misdemeanors. After stabbing his father's farm animals with a pitchfork and setting fire to the barn, his parents took him to court and had him committed to Wisconsin's State Industrial School For Boys. At the age of fifteen, the Industrial School paroled him. On his way home, Joe was arrested for burglary and promptly returned to the Industrial School, where he had to stay until he was twenty-one years old.

By that time his parents were dead and they disposed of their property, leaving Joe without any inheritance. Upon being given a suit and ten dollars at his discharge, Joe headed back home again, was arrested again for burglary on his way and, this time, was sent to the Young Men's Reformatory in Green Bay. He served every day of his sentence - in other words - with no time off for good behaviour.

After his release from the Reformatory, Joe went into the town of Green Bay, was arrested for burglary again and, this time, sent to state prison. When he completed every day of that sentence, he was released and, on his way back home, was arrested for burglary again and sent back to prison for another term.

After serving every day of that term, he was released and headed back home again. "This time," said Erickson, "he made it all the way back; and, as soon as he walked into town everybody started saying, 'Look out! Joe's back!'" Sure enough, by the end of his fourth day back in town, some merchants noticed items missing from their stores. Somebody else reported a motorboat that had suddenly disappeared. And everybody knew who the culprit was.

Now, it happened that a rich farmer who lived outside of town had a daughter named Susie. Susie was about five-foot-ten, good looking, famous for her dressmaking and cooking, and popular with all the young men in town. But everybody felt sorry for Susie. She was an old maid at 23! And, in those days, that should not have been! Everybody felt Susie was just too choosy!

But, it happened that one day Susie was on her way into town on an errand and Joe just happened to be leaning up against the front door of one of the stores as Susie was making her way down the street. When he saw Susie coming, Joe swung around and stood in her path. He looked her up and down very thoroughly and very quietly . . . and Susie, with equal poise, looked Joe up and down very thoroughly too.

Finally, Joe said, "Can I take you to the dance this Friday?" (Now the town had a dance every Friday and Susie was very much in demand at those dances by all the eligible young men; and when Joe said, "Can I take you to the dance?") Susie said, "You can if you're a gentleman."

And Joe just stepped out of the way and let her go on her way.

And the next morning, the merchants who had reported missing items were very glad to find boxes full of stolen goods back at their front doors. And the motor boat that had gone missing was suddenly back where it belonged. And somebody saw Joe heading out of town toward Susie's father's farm. And that Friday Joe and Susie went dancing together. And they danced every dance - just the two of them.

Word soon got around that Susie's dad had hired Joe to work on his farm for the magnificent wage of $15. a month. And they fixed Joe a room in the barn. And Joe turned out to be the best worker Susie's dad ever hired. And every Friday night Joe and Susie went dancing together. And soon the whole community was "a'buzzin'" because Joe and Susie were seen "goin' for a drive" every Saturday night. And they started going to church together. And within a year Joe and Susie were married. And Joe moved from the barn into the house. And Joe was still the best hired hand imaginable. And Joe became the best neighbour people had ever known in those parts. And soon people began to forget about Joe's convict days. They even elected him to be president of the local school board. And, in his spare time, Joe went back to the state reformatory for young men and volunteered to work with young offenders. Brought them back to work on the farm and managed to rehabilitate quite a few of them.

And that was when Joe met Milton Erickson. Ran into him in the hallway one day as Erickson was making his rounds. "There's an old record at the Industrial School that you ought to read sometime, Doc. About a guy named Joe." And Erickson did read it. That's how he learned all about Joe.

"And all the psychotherapy Joe received," said Erickson, "was, 'You can if you're a gentleman.'"