Blog 2: Nature Vs. Nurture

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes

In which of the following categories would you consider yourself: a lifelong criminal, someone with bad behavior but grew out of it, or a non-criminal? Because According to Dr. Terrie Moffitt's Theory, people fall into one of these three different types. I read two articles both discussing J.C. Barne's research on the effect of genes on criminal behavior. The paper's conclusion was that lifelong criminals are influenced by genes more than the environment. For non-criminals, the environment was the greatest influence and for people who grew out of their bad behavior it was equal between environment and genetics. I have a few reactions to these articles. It was written that a strong link between genes and criminality was found from a study of 4,000 people. However, it does not include anything about how the study was conducted. I am curious to know how they found this "strong link". How do I know that the 4,000 people were the best sample for the world's population? Written in the dailyRx article, "Barnes explains that there is no gene that actually causes someone to commit a crime, and that crime is a learned behavior. However, he cautions '...there are likely to be hundreds, if not thousands, of genes that will incrementally increase your likelihood of being involved in a crime even if it only ratchets that probability by 1 percent...It still is a genetic effect. And it's still important.'" This paragraph raises question marks every time I read it. Could it be that the genes present in the wrong environment create criminals? I think it is important to make clear that they are saying there are no "crime" genes but genes that can influence actions that are criminal. I feel that this could easily be misconstrued.

http://www.dailyrx.com/news-article/genetics-influence-criminal-behavior-well-environmental-factors-17223.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/genes-criminal-behavior-linked_n_1234423.html

4 Comments

| Leave a comment

I agree with Barnes. Though I don't think that there is a "crime gene", I agree with the idea that some of us are born with genes that could potentially predispose us to criminal behavior. For example, serial killers may have an addictive gene, and therefore become hooked on the thrill of killing people. An addictive gene isn't a crime gene - it's just a gene that could potentially influence criminal behavior. I feel that these types of genes combined with rearing environment is what creates a criminal.

I think that there very well be some type of genetic factor in all this, but one can not say that someone is a criminal only because of their genetics. I think both nature and nurture play a very important role in shaping who we are as individuals, and we should not only place the blame on one factor. (Causation vs. Correlation)

While I believe that nurture far out weighs nature, certain genetic traits have been theorized to push some people over the edge. In a study conducted by Paul Bernhardt, high levels of testosterone combined with low levels of serotonin can escalate frustration into aggression [maybe even sadistic behavior.

Nature vs Nature gets me every time. It is a fascinating topic but the bottom line is that it is a combination of the two. However, it was interesting to hear a viewpoint that we are predisposed to be something and then we change due to the environment.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by longx566 published on January 31, 2012 3:36 PM.

Placebos in Psych was the previous entry in this blog.

Emotion and Motivation is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.