5 ms·

> But as long as there are criminal opportunities, some percentage of baseline humans will want to exploit them, whether due to rational economic decision-makin

> But as long as there are criminal opportunities, some percentage of baseline humans will want to exploit them, whether due to rational economic decision-making or quirks of their neurological or psychological makeup. Can you cite a source on this?

watwut 8y ago
Psychopats and sociopaths will. Per observation, plenty of non-psychopaths and non-sociopaths are pretty good at rationalizing harmful behavior. Also, there is no period in history where people who not tried to break the law.
- thisisweirdok 8y ago
  Psychopathy and sociopathy aren't cut and dry clinical diagnosis. The idea that there are these inherently evil people roaming around out there is incredibly rare and is inflated by popular media. What people typically refer to is Antisocial Personality Disorder, which varies wildly. Many people with APD aren't criminals, or even "bad" people. It's rare to the point that I suspect that you could house the number of violent criminals with untreatable Antisocial Personality Disorder in a single prison.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    It's rare to the point that I suspect that you could house the number of violent criminals with untreatable Antisocial Personality Disorder in a single prison. California has at least 4 state mental institutions devoted solely to housing violent mentally disordered offenders.
    - thisisweirdok 8y ago
      >untreatable Antisocial Personality Disorder I'm talking specifically about people you'd qualify as psychopaths/sociopaths as they're colloquially depicted. The "evil" emotionless/unreachable criminal is incredibly rare. >California has at least 4 state mental institutions devoted solely to housing violent mentally disordered offenders. This is unrelated, but keep in mind that often these institutions are treating a symptom and ignoring the disease. California probably wouldn't need 4 state institutions if they had reasonable access to mental health and stable housing. They often have zero support system when they're released. They're temporarily put into group homes or halfway houses where they're surrounded by other people with mental disorders and various related issues like substance abuse (not to mention that abuse in general is rampant in this type of housing, including by staff). Some people know that this type of housing is problematic, and opt for homelessness instead. They've got no permanent homes, finding work is incredibly difficult, and they're grouped together with other people with wide-ranging mental disorders and other problematic histories. It's hard to imagine that anyone is _ever_ able to escape these cycles of institutionalization.
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        APD and psychopathy are actual diagnoses... Moreover, people with antisocial personality disorder aren't emotionless. They're non-empathetic, meaning they have no regard for the emotions of others. Most people with APD are fully capable of feeling and expressing their own emotions. If you want to re-define these terms to mean something other than what they actually mean, you could say that the evil emotionless, unreachable criminal is incredibly rare. That's because evil people, emotionless people, and unreachable people are all incredibly rare, so the combination of all 3 is even rarer.
        thisisweirdok 8y ago
        I'm talking about how the terms sociopath and psychopath are used colloquially, which as you pointed out is incorrect. The original comment I'm responding to is "Psychopats and sociopaths will [always commit crimes]." Criminals with APD and Psychopathy as depicted in popular media are incredibly rare — that's the entirety of what I'm trying to express. The American obsession with prisons has next to nothing to do with the prevalence of people who fit the layman's understanding of "sociopaths" and "psychopaths." If it were directly related very few prisons would need to exist at all.
leetcrew 8y ago
obviously they can't, but it seems to be true throughput the recorded history of civilization. the burden of proof is probably on those who want to refute this claim.
- everdev 8y ago
  > the burden of proof is probably on those who want to refute this claim. I agree that the claim is fairly self-evident, but the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim. It's not my job to do your research!
  - tathougies 8y ago
    > It's not my job to do your research! Can you please provide a source for this showing that this is a common proscription? It's not my job to do your research!
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    There's a great deal of difference between a generally verifiable claim, supported by thousands of years of human history, and a request for specific citations of scientifically-validated studies. In this case, it is your job to do research. This isn't a research journal, it's a discussion board. If you want to deep dive into a topic brought up on the board, it's your responsibility to follow up, not the OP's.
  - umvi 8y ago
    > but the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim. I think the burden of proof should be on whomever is making the less collectively accepted claim. If I claim the earth is round and you are a flat earther, I don't have to prove anything to you despite your demands. However, if people everywhere generally accept that the earth is flat, then indeed the burden of proof is on me to prove that the earth is actually round. In GP's example, the statement "as long as there are criminal opportunities, some percentage of baseline humans will want to exploit them" is a collectively accepted claim. Therefore the burden of proof is on anyone claiming something to the contrary.
alexpetralia 8y ago
Not to be rude, but is that not self-evident? Is the reasonable counterargument that we can achieve 0% of people with neurological/psychological abnormalities, or that there will never exist a rational, profit-making opportunity to break the law?

watwut 8y ago

Psychopats and sociopaths will. Per observation, plenty of non-psychopaths and non-sociopaths are pretty good at rationalizing harmful behavior. Also, there is no period in history where people who not tried to break the law.

thisisweirdok 8y ago
Psychopathy and sociopathy aren't cut and dry clinical diagnosis. The idea that there are these inherently evil people roaming around out there is incredibly rare and is inflated by popular media. What people typically refer to is Antisocial Personality Disorder, which varies wildly. Many people with APD aren't criminals, or even "bad" people. It's rare to the point that I suspect that you could house the number of violent criminals with untreatable Antisocial Personality Disorder in a single prison.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  It's rare to the point that I suspect that you could house the number of violent criminals with untreatable Antisocial Personality Disorder in a single prison. California has at least 4 state mental institutions devoted solely to housing violent mentally disordered offenders.
  - thisisweirdok 8y ago
    >untreatable Antisocial Personality Disorder I'm talking specifically about people you'd qualify as psychopaths/sociopaths as they're colloquially depicted. The "evil" emotionless/unreachable criminal is incredibly rare. >California has at least 4 state mental institutions devoted solely to housing violent mentally disordered offenders. This is unrelated, but keep in mind that often these institutions are treating a symptom and ignoring the disease. California probably wouldn't need 4 state institutions if they had reasonable access to mental health and stable housing. They often have zero support system when they're released. They're temporarily put into group homes or halfway houses where they're surrounded by other people with mental disorders and various related issues like substance abuse (not to mention that abuse in general is rampant in this type of housing, including by staff). Some people know that this type of housing is problematic, and opt for homelessness instead. They've got no permanent homes, finding work is incredibly difficult, and they're grouped together with other people with wide-ranging mental disorders and other problematic histories. It's hard to imagine that anyone is _ever_ able to escape these cycles of institutionalization.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      APD and psychopathy are actual diagnoses... Moreover, people with antisocial personality disorder aren't emotionless. They're non-empathetic, meaning they have no regard for the emotions of others. Most people with APD are fully capable of feeling and expressing their own emotions. If you want to re-define these terms to mean something other than what they actually mean, you could say that the evil emotionless, unreachable criminal is incredibly rare. That's because evil people, emotionless people, and unreachable people are all incredibly rare, so the combination of all 3 is even rarer.
      - thisisweirdok 8y ago
        I'm talking about how the terms sociopath and psychopath are used colloquially, which as you pointed out is incorrect. The original comment I'm responding to is "Psychopats and sociopaths will [always commit crimes]." Criminals with APD and Psychopathy as depicted in popular media are incredibly rare — that's the entirety of what I'm trying to express. The American obsession with prisons has next to nothing to do with the prevalence of people who fit the layman's understanding of "sociopaths" and "psychopaths." If it were directly related very few prisons would need to exist at all.

leetcrew 8y ago

obviously they can't, but it seems to be true throughput the recorded history of civilization. the burden of proof is probably on those who want to refute this claim.

everdev 8y ago
> the burden of proof is probably on those who want to refute this claim. I agree that the claim is fairly self-evident, but the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim. It's not my job to do your research!
- tathougies 8y ago
  > It's not my job to do your research! Can you please provide a source for this showing that this is a common proscription? It's not my job to do your research!
- gamblor956 8y ago
  There's a great deal of difference between a generally verifiable claim, supported by thousands of years of human history, and a request for specific citations of scientifically-validated studies. In this case, it is your job to do research. This isn't a research journal, it's a discussion board. If you want to deep dive into a topic brought up on the board, it's your responsibility to follow up, not the OP's.
- umvi 8y ago
  > but the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim. I think the burden of proof should be on whomever is making the less collectively accepted claim. If I claim the earth is round and you are a flat earther, I don't have to prove anything to you despite your demands. However, if people everywhere generally accept that the earth is flat, then indeed the burden of proof is on me to prove that the earth is actually round. In GP's example, the statement "as long as there are criminal opportunities, some percentage of baseline humans will want to exploit them" is a collectively accepted claim. Therefore the burden of proof is on anyone claiming something to the contrary.

alexpetralia 8y ago

Not to be rude, but is that not self-evident? Is the reasonable counterargument that we can achieve 0% of people with neurological/psychological abnormalities, or that there will never exist a rational, profit-making opportunity to break the law?