Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Violence Genes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Violence Genes

    They've found genes which about 1% of the population has which cause violence. [url]http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/07/18/seg.gupta.violent.genes.cnn

  • #2
    That's pretty interesting Diana. Do you believe whoever JtR was was a part of that 1% of the population??
    Becks

    Comment


    • #3
      I guess there are genes that inherited could predispose a person to violence, but life is oft much simpler than that, as a for instance the salt content of sea water can directly affect the behaviour of sharks, in that sharks from seas or oceans with a high level of salt will be much more aggressive than their cousins from less salty water.
      In extreme desert conditions providing salt licks for livestock can often result in extremely aggressive behaviour from the stock resulting in untoward 'murders' which never occur if salt licks are not provided.
      In the 1980's I experimented with a valuable herd of Arabian Oryx in such desert conditions, and was forced to withdraw the salt licks before a serious injury occured.
      Yes, we all probably have an inherent gene for violence, but that gene will need a chemical trigger that is available in our immediate environment.
      If it is not there, we will not be violent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Well Ap,that being the case,as Robert said a few weeks ago, couldnt the mere sight of someone resembling his mother have caused a murderous chemical to have been loosed in the brain----especially if his mother had abandoned him for some reason.......?

        Comment


        • #5
          1/3 Have it

          Here's another article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/au...medicalscience

          It says that 1/3 of the population has this gene. It has to be coupled with an abusive childhood to be triggered.

          It is found on the X chromosome. The Y doesn't have it. That is why most people affected are men. If they get the deficient gene on their one and only X chromosome and they are abused as children they're on their way to a problem. A woman with the deficient gene on one of her x's has the other x to pick up the slack. Only in the rare instance where both of a woman's x's have the gene, and she has been abused as a child will there be a problem. That would be why Aileen Wuornos is such a rarity.

          I think there is a good chance that JtR had this.

          Comment


          • #6
            A couple of considerations

            1. Was as the article implies, the entire sample from a European population? I mention this because within normal human variation, genetic and epi genetic function varies. In one case a gene has been identified in both Chinese and Scandinavian populations, the exact same molecular make up, but the gene expresses differently due to epi genomic factors.
            2. Were steps taken to rule out violence and rejection in the formative period and their effect on the child's cognitive model?

            The correlation may or may not be statistically significant depending on these factors. There is also the complex play of culture( and specifically culturally held values regarding violence as a valid behavior) which also tend to play a rather marked role in the expression of violent behaviors and vary widely, even within cultures. For example, I dare say the Victorian mindset on violence was not the one held by the residents of flower and dean street.Dave
            We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by protohistorian View Post
              1.For example, I dare say the Victorian mindset on violence was not the one held by the residents of flower and dean street.Dave
              I think Dave that there was an undercurrent of violence,particularly in public schools where young boys often were subjected to cruel beatings and humilations by masters.Also violence in the colonies was quite common by all accounts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks Nats, those are excellent examples of the variation of violence within cultures. Dave
                We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hello,

                  An aggressive gene may be plausible, as it has been argued, over many years, that evolutionary maturation may have engrained aggression into humans - especially men as throughout evolution, males have had to compete and fight for a mate. Aggression once again rears its head when males attempt to ensure their mate remains loyal to them and his offspring but asserting this aggressive nature. This finding has also been noted in male human beings, were the highest peak of aggression is displayed around the late teens and 20's - around the time of reproduction.

                  Indeed, there was also a psychological study which presented the findings of an a strange gene in convicted criminals who had a history of being violent than convicted criminals who did not. Also, it has been found that some criminals' brains were different to non-criminals.

                  Also, I would highly question whether this aggression was rooted from a gene. They mention that if they have this gene you're talking of AND were abused as children, I would personally question whether its the gene or just another example of social learning and behaviourism. Social Learning Theory is a notorious aspect of Behaviourism in Psychology and has received much more support and a lot of evidence to suggest those who live around violence will be violent -- not genetially based. An example of a study in Bandura.

                  On the idea of children suffering abuse, Bowlby's Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis may support this. Unsurprisingly, Bowlby focuses on Maternal Deprivation and finds that children who are neglected, or whose primary caregiver is aloof, inconsistent and cruel is more likely to grow up to become involved in drinking, violence and a whole range of criminal activity.

                  There are a lot of theories concerning Aggression and Development in the field of Psychology which have been imprinted into memory from my studies. But personally, I would question whether gene or social learning theory, or both. Afterall, not everyone who is abused grow up to be violent, some grow up to be very timid -- 1/3 of the population do not exhibit mass aggression, which also provides another question for the social learning theory and not genetics.

                  I also think in the case of JtR, he would not have seen 5 women who reminded him of his mother in a physical nature. If I were to say he killed because he noticed a similarity between the 5 victims and someone he hated, it would be by occupation, not appearance, as the all looked different, and were all of different ages, thus, the only similarity they share is through occupation. However, another similarity, food for thought - most of the victims had children -even comsidering Martha Tabram who had 2 children, Polly who had 5 children, Annie who had 3 children, Elizabeth had a still born, Catherine Eddowes had 3 children, and as far as I'm aware, Mary Jane Kelly didn't have any children. -- could explain the concentration on the abdomen region and the taking of organs and disfuguring them as women.

                  Regards. Wolf.
                  Last edited by Wolf; 06-18-2010, 03:03 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Rogue genes and unresolved childhood resentments don't really address the gender/sexuality question. How many adult women go round slaughtering weak old men or women because they had a sexually abusive father or cruel and uncaring mother? How many former boy scouts and choirboys... well, you get the drift.

                    I can see how poor personality and behavioural traits, inherited to some extent or developed from an early age, would contribute to the raw materials for an adult violent offender/predator. But it's not the whole story because most people, in reaching adulthood and full responsibilty, have no urge (or manage to control the urge) to use violent, or any other criminal means, to get their own way or to take their personal "issues" out on others, particularly strangers.

                    I often think an imbalance of testosterone must come into it somewhere, turning the kind of resentments and urges that should be manageable molehills into active volcanoes.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Your absolutely right. The early days of genetics expected a 1 to 1 correlation but the situation is much more complex. Epigenomics (interaction of gene and environment) and poly genetic functions (multiple genes working in concert ) are just two of the ways the picture gets hazy with haste. Consider the actual molecular genetic component as the color red and the observed phenomena or behavior as a fire truck. Firstly, red can be red, or it can be a combination of colors. Secondly, many things are red besides fire trucks. Thirdly, and perhaps the most instructive for us, is that not all firetrucks are red. Dave
                      We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Epigenetics

                        Epigenetics forms the interface between genetics and environment and resolves the long standing nature/nurture debate. Simply put epigenetic factors are like on/off switches attached to genes. When you were in your mother's womb you grew an umbilical cord. To this very day, every cell in your body contains DNA with the recipe or code for an umbilical cord. The switch is in the off position (aren't you glad?). The developmental changes that occur during a lifetime -- cutting teeth, growth, puberty and for women menopause all happen because those switches are flipped to either the on or off position on a predetermined schedule. Epigenetics also explains cell differentiation. Every cell in your body has the complete set of directions for all of you in the genes or DNA. But liver cells only grow in the liver, brain cells only grow in the brain. That is because in each cell all the switches are in the off position except the ones that are appropriate for that kind of cell. Research has shown that environmental influences can flip genetic switches. Aloof mothers and overexposure to salt are probably two examples. So arguments about whether something is caused by genetics or environment become sort of irrelevant. It is not either/or but an interplay of factors. So if a person has a gene that might predispose them to violence but the switch is in the off position they (and the rest of us) are safe. If an environmental exposure flips the switch then you are headed for trouble.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cap'n Jack View Post
                          Yes, we all probably have an inherent gene for violence, but that gene will need a chemical trigger that is available in our immediate environment.
                          If it is not there, we will not be violent.
                          Yes... That chemical is called alcohol. More commonly known as gin.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Brain damage

                            My eldest daughter has been recently been exposed to adults with brain damage, in the course of her studies to become an orthophonist.
                            She has worked specifically with a senior orthophonist who cared for people (mostly young or middle aged men) who had frontal brain damage, often after a traffic accident, and needed treatment for speaking/writting difficulties.

                            One of frontal brain damage frequent consequence, as it seems, is to lift off much of our social inhibitions.
                            Depending on individuals, this can result in a mild, harmless, quite childish behaviour or rather in a bold, 'macho-like' attitude, with strong sexual harassing tendencies.

                            Not to say that JtR received a brain injury at some moment in his life, but only that beside genetics and environment issues, brain injuries can also led to amazing behavioral changes in grown individuals.

                            Some patients don't recognize very close relatives any longer or do not feel any love/friendship for them anymore, even if they otherwise perfectly know who they are.
                            The human brain is definitely a complicated machinery

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Excellent point Marc! I had a stroke in 2004. It was not in the frontal cortex but the mid thalamus. I had tremendous difficulty regaining my self control and some other executive functions. Given what we "know" about the ripper crimes I am of the opinion that brain trauma cannot be ruled out as an exacerbating factor. Dave
                              We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X