My Bad Seed Challenge

[VirOptimus]

[insert interesting comment here]

[insert rebuttal here]

 

[PsychoSarah]

This classic scene is from a classic movie called The Bad Seed:

The explanation for her behavior is as follows:

SOURCE

What kind of evolution is this?

Remember, survival of the "fittest" is more like "survival of the most promiscuous". A man that dies at the age of 35 from multiple genetic conditions that had 5 children is more evolutionarily "fit" than an Olympic gold medal winner that dies at the age of 90 with no children.

Behavior is pretty divided between nurture and nature. When that movie was made, this was not yet well understood, and a lot of people assumed that every trait was genetic. Depending on the personality trait, genetics can have less than a 20% heritance (they explain less than 20% of the variation in the population). This is why Australia, which was a prison colony for a period of time and many of its modern citizens are the descendents of criminals, doesn't have an extremely high crime rate. On the matter of sociopathy, nature and nurture are about equal, which is why many of the violent criminals have a combination of a genetic predisposition towards violence and a dysfunctional household rather than just one or the other. People not predisposed for violence are likely to be able to withstand a bad family situation without going homicidal, and people with a genetic predisposition for violence are likely to overcome it when they are raised right. This is why the majority of people with a genetic predisposition for violence aren't violent. This is not to say that there aren't exceptions, but this is the general trend.

 

[pgp_protector]

Like just about every other challenge, it won't get answered without putting it through a series of vents and ridicules first.

Even then, it probably won't get answered.

My guess is that it was a form of Lamarckism that got swept under the carpet and forgotten.

Maybe the Debate area isn't the best area for you then?

 

[[serious]]

This classic scene is from a classic movie called The Bad Seed:

The explanation for her behavior is as follows:

SOURCE

What kind of evolution is this?

The term you are looking for is "movie"

If the question is instead, "is this movie an accurate representation of evolution" the answer is no. Behavior in humans has a large nurture component. I don't know of any such genetic predisposition to serial killing.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What kind of evolution is this?

As far as genetics are concerned there are people that have genetic predisposition to various things. Criminal behavior in some cases could be heredity. Environment also plays a key part though. For example when it comes to heart disease, a person maybe have inherited genes that give them greater risk for this disease. If they follow the right plan to eat right, exercise and maintain healthy relationships then their genetic predisposition may not express itself and they will not have any problems with this disease. In terms of criminal behavior you can not put people in jail because they have genes that may make them criminals because with right environmental conditions those genes will never express themselves. Quite a bit of research is going into this because they are working on eliminating diseases that have genetic causes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Remember, survival of the "fittest" is more like "survival of the most promiscuous". A man that dies at the age of 35 from multiple genetic conditions that had 5 children is more evolutionarily "fit" than an Olympic gold medal winner that dies at the age of 90 with no children.

Behavior is pretty divided between nurture and nature. When that movie was made, this was not yet well understood, and a lot of people assumed that every trait was genetic. Depending on the personality trait, genetics can have less than a 20% heritance (they explain less than 20% of the variation in the population). This is why Australia, which was a prison colony for a period of time and many of its modern citizens are the descendents of criminals, doesn't have an extremely high crime rate. On the matter of sociopathy, nature and nurture are about equal, which is why many of the violent criminals have a combination of a genetic predisposition towards violence and a dysfunctional household rather than just one or the other. People not predisposed for violence are likely to be able to withstand a bad family situation without going homicidal, and people with a genetic predisposition for violence are likely to overcome it when they are raised right. This is why the majority of people with a genetic predisposition for violence aren't violent. This is not to say that there aren't exceptions, but this is the general trend.

Interesting.

So why were scientists disappointed when Klebold & Harris killed themselves?

As I understand it, they wre disappointed because they couldn't be captured and psychoanalyzed.

Why the need to do so, if what you just said is correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

The term you are looking for is "movie"

If the question is instead, "is this movie an accurate representation of evolution" the answer is no. Behavior in humans has a large nurture component. I don't know of any such genetic predisposition to serial killing.

As I understand it ... and Sarah touched on ... at the time the movie was made, scientists believed in what was called a "bad seed."

A genetic predisposition to violence.

So let's not blame this on the movie industry, eh?

Doesn't art imitate life?

 

[AV1611VET]

As far as genetics are concerned there are people that have genetic predisposition to various things.

I think the term we're looking for is: "sin nature."

In an effort to sterilize the Bible, scientists will stoop to blaming it on "your genes" or "your DNA."

 

[[serious]]

As I understand it ... and Sarah touched on ... at the time the movie was made, scientists believed in what was called a "bad seed."

A genetic predisposition to violence.

So let's not blame this on the movie industry, eh?

Doesn't art imitate life?

I'm not up on my historical physiology. If that was a view of the time, maybe a journal article would be more relevant.

 

[[serious]]

Interesting.

So why were scientists disappointed when Klebold & Harris killed themselves?

As I understand it, they wre disappointed because they couldn't be captured and psychoanalyzed.

Why the need to do so, if what you just said is correct?

No idea. Who was disappointed?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I thing the term we're looking for is: "sin nature."

In an effort to sterilize the Bible, scientists will stoop to blaming it on "your genes" or "your DNA."

Those who are redeemed through the Blood of Jesus are no longer under the curse of the law. DNA must represent the Law because it is just about the most rock solid evidence you can use in a court of law. If they say your the daddy then by golly your the daddy and they gonna make you pay the cost to raise that child.

Ex 20:5 "You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, of those who love me and keep my commandments".

Ex 24:6"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.

Science confirms that we can be geneticly predisposed and still that DNA may not express itself. That is why they ask the question: "Should a genetic predisposition influence sentencing?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/arts/genetics-and-crime-at-institute-of-justice-conference.html

 

[PsychoSarah]

Interesting.

So why were scientists disappointed when Klebold & Harris killed themselves?

As I understand it, they wre disappointed because they couldn't be captured and psychoanalyzed.

Why the need to do so, if what you just said is correct?

School shootings are, and were especially at the time, very rare acts of violence, so the psychological studies on people that committed them were practically nonexistent. They are still exceedingly rare, due to a pattern of suicide amongst offenders.

In contrast, typical serial killers are far more common, and weirdly willing to participate in psychological studies, and more minor criminals are more common still.

 

[AV1611VET]

School shootings are, and were especially at the time, very rare acts of violence, so the psychological studies on people that committed them were practically nonexistent. They are still exceedingly rare, due to a pattern of suicide amongst offenders.

In contrast, typical serial killers are far more common, and weirdly willing to participate in psychological studies, and more minor criminals are more common still.

So why don't scientists just shrug their shoulders and say, "Meh. Another hominid went ape."

 

[PsychoSarah]

So why don't scientists just shrug their shoulders and say, "Meh. Another hominid went ape."

Knowing why people do it could help prevent them in the future. No one wants school shootings to happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

Knowing why people do it could help prevent them in the future.

In what way?

Suppose Klebold & Harris were just having a "flashback" to one of their ancestors?

You know ... sort of a recessive trait coming out?

 

[PsychoSarah]

In what way?

Suppose Klebold & Harris were just having a "flashback" to one of their ancestors?

You know ... sort of a recessive trait coming out?

Unlikely, but the fact that you could not think of a solution if that were the case doesn't mean other people can't.

You identify what causes the trait to be activated, and prevent it

you identify what percentage of the population has this trait, and the likelihood of it being activated, to help predict the probability of school shootings.

If it only occurs in a certain age group, restrict access to guns for that age group.


There's a lot that could be done.

 

[AV1611VET]

You identify what causes the trait to be activated, and prevent it

Is that what they do every time a blond is born in a family of redheads (or vice versa)?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Is that what they do every time a blond is born in a family of redheads (or vice versa)?

The reverse wouldn't be unusual, because red hair is typically recessive to blond hair. The other would be a mutation. And the most common way that even gets noticed is because of accusations of alternative paternity.

 

[AV1611VET]

The reverse wouldn't be unusual, because red hair is typically recessive to blond hair. The other would be a mutation. And the most common way that even gets noticed is because of accusations of alternative paternity.

Sarah, please start making sense, or I'm done.

Why is it unacceptable for some hominids to "go ape" and not for others to "go blond"?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah, please start making sense, or I'm done.

Why is it unacceptable for some hominids to "go ape" and not for others to "go blond"?

One is killing people, and the other is dying hair or having their hair naturally change color as they get older (it happens, and it happened to me twice. I was born with black hair, which changed to blonde at the roots when I was a couple months old, and when I was 9, my hair turned brown. Heck, my eye color even changed from blue to green around the age of 9). I don't understand why you are asking me to distinguish why one is immoral, and the other isn't. We aren't ruled by our genes; even if some genetic predisposition for violence activated at a later time, we still have the capacity for self-control. And the few cases where there is no doubt that an altered state of mind out of the criminal's control is the culprit, we provide treatment rather than execute them. Also, a change in hair color hurts no one, and school shootings do.

That too, is part of why it is a shame they committed suicide. If they were mentally ill, they could have been healed, or at least treated; given a chance to be productive and peaceful citizens. Even if this was not the case, the information would have been valuable for dealing with such criminals in the future.