3 ms·

> My guess is that his behaviour was a rational response to being brought up in a home where he was denied love and affection. I wish this were always the case

> My guess is that his behaviour was a rational response to being brought up in a home where he was denied love and affection. I wish this were always the case but statistically this would be a miracle. There is a non zero number of humans born that no matter what we do they will not work with the society that works for the rest of us. That’s the root of this issue. How do you help the ones that can be helped, and what do you do with those that can’t be helped. I imagine we’ll need a much more sophisticated understanding of genetics before we can answer that.

mxkopy 5y ago
Do you have a source for your statistics?
hef19898 5y ago
You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics? We are as much a product of our genes as we are of our environment. Nothing justifies any of those measures described in the NYYT article and by others in this thread. Nothing, period. If people commit crimes, we have a justice system (no matter how fucked up those can be, not even talking about prisons). For those truly having mental and psychiatric issues, we have corresponding hospitals (again, those can be, and are, pretty abusive themselves). And none of those should be above critical investigations. As a society we have to accept that some people don't want to cooperate. As long as nobody is harmed (up to the justice system to decide) we have to accept that too.
- rajin444 5y ago
  > We are as much a product of our genes as we are of our environment Don’t our genes dictate how we respond to our environment?
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > Don’t our genes dictate how we respond to our environment? "Dictate" is much too strong. Genetics and environment interact in complex ways, that aren't well understood. I detest the idea that some people are just bad, and were always going to be bad. It seems to be an idea that attracts religious fundamentalists. I struggle with the idea that literally all psychological problems are the result of trauma; but I do think most of them are. Some kids seem to be able to largely shake off trauma on their own; others need help. My guess is that it's much harder to help a 30-year-old deal with childhood trauma than it is a 12-year-old. But that doesn't mean the 30-year-old is "bad to the bone".
    - Clubber 5y ago
      >I detest the idea that some people are just bad, and were always going to be bad. I think some people (children really) have a propensity to be bad, but it can be corrected. When and how it's corrected has a lot to do with success. It has to be worked on early and properly, or it could make the problem worse. Like you I'm not comfortable with the idea that any child is irredeemable. >I struggle with the idea that literally all psychological problems are the result of trauma; but I do think most of them are. I agree, much of it is trauma, but some of it isn't. I think drug and alcohol dependence seems to be passed down quite a bit, which is also a significant source of detrimental behavior. I have it in my family but it seems to have dodged me. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056340/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056340/ >Abundant evidence indicates that alcoholism is a complex genetic disease, with variations in a large number of genes affecting risk.
      - mxkopy 5y ago
        >I think some people (children really) have a propensity to be bad That's... incredibly simplistic. When you're describing actions as good or bad you've already lost the truth. A child can have poorly informed priorities. They can be sociopathic. But if your local government is experiencing an armed revolution, you're going to envy that lack of care for society. Blanket characterizations like 'bad' and 'good' might have been useful in the third grade, but accurate and specific diagnoses that bring accurate and specific treatments are the only way to solve this problem.
- Clubber 5y ago
  >You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics? Jesus, a Hitler reference? Lots of organizations that aren't Hitler diagnose behavior based on genetics, including alcohol and drug abuse prevention and modern medicine. Your parents have cancer? Well predictively you might have a higher chance of getting it too. Your parents are smart? We should test you for the gifted program. >Nothing justifies any of those measures described in the NYYT article and by others in this thread. Nothing, period. Nobody is justifying it, read what you are replying to. >As a society we have to accept that some people don't want to cooperate. As long as nobody is harmed (up to the justice system to decide) we have to accept that too. Most of the time people are harmed, not just the troubled individual but the family of 4 they crash into and kill on a drunken joyride. What tools do parents have to prevent that? That's the whole point of the discussion.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    >> Most of the time people are harmed, not just the troubled individual but the family of 4 they crash into and kill on a drunken joyride. What tools do parents have to prevent that? That's the whole point of the discussion. Answer: None. Because it can happen, all the time. Whether those kids are 16, 18, 25 or 53. Also, it is a pretty specific example... EDIT: Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society. Don't even think of comparing those. The former is your body turning on you, the latter is society deciding you are "troubled" and need "fixing".
    - Clubber 5y ago
      >Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society. >You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics? Both can be predicted genetically. You insinuated predicting outcomes in genetics was bad somehow because Hitler did it. It wasn't a great argument, you should just own up to it. ≥Don't even think of comparing those. You ain't my daddy. You think you're the only person with experience with cancer? Everybody, and I mean everybody has a cross to bear. >The former is your body turning on you, the latter is society deciding you are "troubled" and need "fixing". You shouldn't minimize mental health issues, many of these troubles can be the result of that, at least in part. Killing a family of 4 in a drunken joyride isn't just society deciding you are troubled, it has real world consequences. You seem to have some emotional block to thinking about this rationally.
taurath 5y ago
> I wish this were always the case but statistically this would be a miracle. I certainly live around a whole lot of miracles. > There is a non zero number of humans born that no matter what we do they will not work with the society that works for the rest of us. How normalized emotional and physical abuse and neglect is in families would absolutely shock you then, as well as the outcomes. An infographic from the foundational ACE (adverse childhood experiences) study showing outcomes of neglect, abuse or traumas in childhood: https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/aces-infographic/home https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/aces-infographic/home

mxkopy 5y ago

Do you have a source for your statistics?

hef19898 5y ago

You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics? We are as much a product of our genes as we are of our environment. Nothing justifies any of those measures described in the NYYT article and by others in this thread. Nothing, period. If people commit crimes, we have a justice system (no matter how fucked up those can be, not even talking about prisons). For those truly having mental and psychiatric issues, we have corresponding hospitals (again, those can be, and are, pretty abusive themselves). And none of those should be above critical investigations. As a society we have to accept that some people don't want to cooperate. As long as nobody is harmed (up to the justice system to decide) we have to accept that too.

rajin444 5y ago
> We are as much a product of our genes as we are of our environment Don’t our genes dictate how we respond to our environment?
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > Don’t our genes dictate how we respond to our environment? "Dictate" is much too strong. Genetics and environment interact in complex ways, that aren't well understood. I detest the idea that some people are just bad, and were always going to be bad. It seems to be an idea that attracts religious fundamentalists. I struggle with the idea that literally all psychological problems are the result of trauma; but I do think most of them are. Some kids seem to be able to largely shake off trauma on their own; others need help. My guess is that it's much harder to help a 30-year-old deal with childhood trauma than it is a 12-year-old. But that doesn't mean the 30-year-old is "bad to the bone".
  - Clubber 5y ago
    >I detest the idea that some people are just bad, and were always going to be bad. I think some people (children really) have a propensity to be bad, but it can be corrected. When and how it's corrected has a lot to do with success. It has to be worked on early and properly, or it could make the problem worse. Like you I'm not comfortable with the idea that any child is irredeemable. >I struggle with the idea that literally all psychological problems are the result of trauma; but I do think most of them are. I agree, much of it is trauma, but some of it isn't. I think drug and alcohol dependence seems to be passed down quite a bit, which is also a significant source of detrimental behavior. I have it in my family but it seems to have dodged me. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056340/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056340/ >Abundant evidence indicates that alcoholism is a complex genetic disease, with variations in a large number of genes affecting risk.
    - mxkopy 5y ago
      >I think some people (children really) have a propensity to be bad That's... incredibly simplistic. When you're describing actions as good or bad you've already lost the truth. A child can have poorly informed priorities. They can be sociopathic. But if your local government is experiencing an armed revolution, you're going to envy that lack of care for society. Blanket characterizations like 'bad' and 'good' might have been useful in the third grade, but accurate and specific diagnoses that bring accurate and specific treatments are the only way to solve this problem.
Clubber 5y ago
>You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics? Jesus, a Hitler reference? Lots of organizations that aren't Hitler diagnose behavior based on genetics, including alcohol and drug abuse prevention and modern medicine. Your parents have cancer? Well predictively you might have a higher chance of getting it too. Your parents are smart? We should test you for the gifted program. >Nothing justifies any of those measures described in the NYYT article and by others in this thread. Nothing, period. Nobody is justifying it, read what you are replying to. >As a society we have to accept that some people don't want to cooperate. As long as nobody is harmed (up to the justice system to decide) we have to accept that too. Most of the time people are harmed, not just the troubled individual but the family of 4 they crash into and kill on a drunken joyride. What tools do parents have to prevent that? That's the whole point of the discussion.
- hef19898 5y ago
  >> Most of the time people are harmed, not just the troubled individual but the family of 4 they crash into and kill on a drunken joyride. What tools do parents have to prevent that? That's the whole point of the discussion. Answer: None. Because it can happen, all the time. Whether those kids are 16, 18, 25 or 53. Also, it is a pretty specific example... EDIT: Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society. Don't even think of comparing those. The former is your body turning on you, the latter is society deciding you are "troubled" and need "fixing".
  - Clubber 5y ago
    >Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society. >You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics? Both can be predicted genetically. You insinuated predicting outcomes in genetics was bad somehow because Hitler did it. It wasn't a great argument, you should just own up to it. ≥Don't even think of comparing those. You ain't my daddy. You think you're the only person with experience with cancer? Everybody, and I mean everybody has a cross to bear. >The former is your body turning on you, the latter is society deciding you are "troubled" and need "fixing". You shouldn't minimize mental health issues, many of these troubles can be the result of that, at least in part. Killing a family of 4 in a drunken joyride isn't just society deciding you are troubled, it has real world consequences. You seem to have some emotional block to thinking about this rationally.

taurath 5y ago

> I wish this were always the case but statistically this would be a miracle. I certainly live around a whole lot of miracles. > There is a non zero number of humans born that no matter what we do they will not work with the society that works for the rest of us. How normalized emotional and physical abuse and neglect is in families would absolutely shock you then, as well as the outcomes. An infographic from the foundational ACE (adverse childhood experiences) study showing outcomes of neglect, abuse or traumas in childhood: https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/aces-infographic/home https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/aces-infographic/home