I want to know what people think about this topic. Do you feel that criminal behavior is based on the enviornment we live in, or do you feel that it is based on our genetic make up?
I lean towards genetic make up as the cause of criminality. As an example of such Monomine Oxidase or MAO is an enzime that correlates to antisocial behavior or a more serious behavioral disorder known as Anti-Social Personality Disorder.
Anyway let me know what you think is the cause of criminal behavior?
Both...While someones mind may tell them to rob a bank, a poor person living in the projects may rob a bank to provide for his family or to get a hit of drugs.
True, true, but why cant that person go out and get a job to feed his or her family rather than commiting a crime like robbing a bank, or to feed their drug addiction?
I can see how living conditions can force that type of behavior but whats to say they can't search for a way to better themselves rather than turing to crime?
I see your point, that's all based on peoples motivation skills though. I'll bring up drugs again, they can hinder you from doing such things, gang activity, debts to certain affiliations. Normally to hold a job you have to be pretty clean as some are drug tested environments and its normally not very long before people notice somethings up with you always going to the "bathroom" or taking a "break" or just over all looking pretty lousy. It's not always easy to get a job, it is however easy to sell some crack here or there.
True, true, but why cant that person go out and get a job to feed his or her family rather than commiting a crime like robbing a bank, or to feed their drug addiction? I can see how living conditions can force that type of behavior but whats to say they can't search for a way to better themselves rather than turing to crime?
This is generally a viewpoint that is taken by people that haven't actually spent time helping homeless people. It's not really that simple. Quite often things like vocabulary and mental illness stand in the way of getting jobs no matter how hard they try. Well that's in my experience from volunteering anyway.
To the topic I think it's a mixture. One of my mates older brother beat up this dude for no reason and turned him into a vegetable. When he was arrested and analysed it turns out he has an imbalance of the chemicals in his brain. But then some people just do bad shit because they want drugs and the like.
I lean towards genetic make up as the cause of criminality. As an example of such Monomine Oxidase or MAO is an enzime that correlates to antisocial behavior or a more serious behavioral disorder known as Anti-Social Personality Disorder.
I'd have to disagree with you. I lean towards the behaviourist/cognitive approach. Studies conducted with genetically identical twins showed that concordance rates with regards to behaviour were only 50%. This indicates that although genes may play some part, learned behaviours and cognition play a significant role too.
Twin studies have been conducted, but there is concern over the validity of those studies and their ability to separate out the nature and nurture aspects.
I do agree that learned behaviors can play an integeral role. Such as ODD and the more serious form of CD. However as I said above it's hard to seperate nature and nurture. How can we identify the difference between learned behaviors and inherint traits of an indivdual?
I would be generally cautious of placing over-reliance on concrete interpretations of legal behavioral schema. Namely what constitutes "criminal behaviour" and what does not.
It seems that certain criminal behaviours are related to our fundamental behaviours in different ways (at least, the schema of human behaviours as I see it)- for example, one could possibly consider the basic behaviours exhibited in "robbery" in different contexts as a legal or illegal practice, whereas murder is seen in a somewhat different light. By definition then, there must be an environmental component in deciding behaviours because as behaviours are defined, their significance is necessarily contextually driven.
This is a double-edged sword, it can both help and hinder biochemical and genetic theories of behaviour in that understanding this can broaden the depth of investigations, but in such investigations environmental factors as confounds would have to be taken into consideration (as has been acknowledged in the above post)
I agree with Strop that the definition of criminality is far too vague, as laws are artificially created by lawmakers and differ from culture to culture.
I'd say that nurture plays the greater role myself, although the study with twins afore mentioned, involved twins meeting each other after being separated at birth, and sharing interests and personal quirks with each other. It's probably about 50:50, to the extent that you can quantify these abstracts.
But really, I think we know far too little to make any guesses (that's what they are) on the matter. Anyone that tells you anything beyond 'even share' at this point is making things up.
From my own background in medical research (approximately a bachelor degree's worth), I can say that this is the current state of neuropsychiatric research. Far as I can see, the DSM-IV has a plethora of diagnostic entities which are largely historically based, have vague clinical indicators which are nonetheless important to adhere to (for the time being) so that there's more certainty as to where to move next, which is something beginning in areas of study such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
Because the basis of these diagnostic entities are segregated and for the most part lack a unifying rationale, at this point I'm interested in further developing a schema of fundamental behaviours from which we could approach neuropsychiatry (or everything in general) more comprehensively, but this appears to be such a mammoth (and controversial) task that I have no idea whether such a project would ever get off the ground.
so that there's more certainty as to where to move next, which is something beginning in areas of study such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
Another study involving twins regarding the biological approach to psychopathology investigated the genetic link to schizophrenia. The concordance rate was 50%. High, but not high enough.For the biological approach to be true it must have been 100%. This, to me at least, indicates learned behaviours and cognitions (of which very little is known), play as big a role as genetics in mental disorders.
Because the basis of these diagnostic entities are segregated and for the most part lack a unifying rationale, at this point I'm interested in further developing a schema of fundamental behaviours from which we could approach neuropsychiatry (or everything in general) more comprehensively, but this appears to be such a mammoth (and controversial) task that I have no idea whether such a project would ever get off the ground.
Classification and applicability of various terms in the area hinders ground breaking research from taking place, and that's not taking into account cultural differences, which can be stark.
From What I've seen in a psychiatric counseling sit-in, I've noticed that most of the kids who steal or are troubled, generally do so because of the way they were brought up. Many of them were neglected, so they often sought to obtain attention by getting in trouble. Some of them were heavily influenced by their parents (there was a child whose dad was a master thief per se, and targeted wealthy people, his child often pick pocketed ornate watches, wallets ect.) So based off of those sessions, I concluded that Criminal behavior is based off of the environment.
'Normal' criminal behavior, like stealing and what not, is most often based on the environment a person was raised in ,but some criminal behavior is genetic for example most sex offenders have a hormonal problem and cant real help, Im not trying to say they arent bad, but its not 'their fault'. Or there are kids who torture animals when they are young it doesnt matter how they were raised they have a problem that may be a chemical imbalance in their brain.
but some criminal behavior is genetic for example most sex offenders have a hormonal problem and cant real help,
Most sex offenders were abused themselves when they were young, indicating nurture is the more important factor in these instances.
Or there are kids who torture animals when they are young it doesnt matter how they were raised they have a problem that may be a chemical imbalance in their brain.
There is also a high correlation between sadists and those who were beaten as children too. However in instances when this isn't the case, it is possible that 'bad' genes are the culprit.
Often times behavior patterns stem from the home environment. A child coming from a house were domestic violence is evident can become part of the childs schema as Strop stated. They see this behavior and understand it to represent some aspect of the world.
Going out on a limb, it would seem that criminal behavior is differentiated between age groups. Genetics and heredibilty is the more dominant force of criminal behavior in adults, where as the environment has a stronger influence on children.
As adults, we can choose our environment, where we live, our job and our life partners which can all positively or negatively affects our personality traits. For children and adolescents on the other hand those choices are limited. Children also face a much different peer situation than adults. Children who show aggressive tendencies early on such as in preschool or kindergarten are deemed by their peers as outcasts. This can create poor peer relationships causing these children to be with others who share similar behaviors like bullies. A relationship like this would most likely continue into adolescence and maybe even further into adulthood where more serious problems can arise.
Interesting theory with regards to age, especially the children who display aggressive behaviour. However, that begs the question as to why those children are aggressive in the first place. Is it because of their upbringing? Is it their genes? Is it their personal cognitions?
Developmental studies have given varied results depending on the culture, therefore all that can be safely said is that behaviour is culture specific.
