Dale Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Having spent so much time in both biology and psychology, the arguments are so "chicken--egg" that they become a calculus approaching infinity. "Sociopaths" and "psychopaths" have demonstrable neurological variances from matched controls but where did they come from? Born with them or acquired? A huge body of longitudinal intelligence research can pin up to 80% of variance on heritable factors i.e. "you're born with it" yet plenty of kids with simple ass parents rise up and achieve outward indicators of smarts like a college degree, cognitively demanding employment, etc. I guess the point is that you can't get soapboxy either way I don't discount biological propensities - I support the notion that we are bio-psycho-social organisms, meaning we're determined by these 3 factors. However it must be emphasised that biology is limited - the brain is constantly reacting to the environment and environments can alter the wiring of the brain which goes hand-in-hand with your comment on how psychopaths might have different brain imaging results to non-psychopathic individuals. It's all neuronal structures/networks which form around stimuli from the environment. The old phrase proclaimed by neuroscience "use them or lose them" - when referring to neurons, goes a long way in attempting to explain the points I'm trying to put across here. On a sidenote - I'm not a medical student but I am a psychology student, and keep up to date with scientific developments in this area plus read many books on such topics. I'm obviously no expert and I don't know "everything" when it comes to such complex topics but I just go where the evidence is. There is plenty of evidence out there to support what I'm putting across though - unfortunately I don't have the time to list everything but who ever is reading this, don't just listen to me, do your own research and draw up conclusions based on the evidence out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 And by saying such things as "such a mentality can be conditioned by the environment" you are implicitly implying that poor (and in Bayview predominantly black) people are teaching their young that the pimping out of 13 year old girls is acceptable. I'm saying that this is one of those moral lines which is generally considered not acceptable. (13 being too young). But there is a reason(s) as to why this individual had taken this choice... and choices we make are influenced by many, many societal factors Agency means the capacity for an actor to make choices and impose those choices on the world. Sociologists (and other social scientists) largely agree that individual actors have this capacity. Yes... a capacity to make choices based on education/existing knowledge yeah - so he made a choice based on existing knowledge - he wasn't forced into the choice. Go back to a beginning sociology text - 10 questions by Charon and see what he says towards the end of his chapter "Are Human Beings Free?" - especially the part about how we learn to think (internal discussion through the learning of language) and how thinking enables us to take some control in our environment. Otherwise we would be doomed to stimulus-response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 pimpin ain't easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 i think the society could of taken steps preventing this young man to pinp a 13 years old girl however, or getting him shooting him by the police he is just a Simpson of a problem this is much deepter though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 some common sense bread, what are the chances that the dude didn't know that pimping 13 year old girl is wrong ? i mean i can accept some variance between, "sort of wrong" to "wow, dude, this is totally wrong" but to accept that, in his view, pimping the girl is totally fine is more implausible. he's not just a member of his supposed ghetto with backwards morals or whatev, he's also an american, probably did some school, watched some tv and stuff, met different people and so on.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 he is just a Simpson of a problem this is much deepter though amazing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 he is just a Simpson of a problem this is much deepter though amazing yeah, sup is a true genius. I want to know who he is, but at the same time, I appreciate the enigma that is sup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertsk8er419 Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 whether he was wanted for something else or not is irrelevant. you have cops acting as judge, jury and executioner, and mainstream media trying to cover it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 And by saying such things as "such a mentality can be conditioned by the environment" you are implicitly implying that poor (and in Bayview predominantly black) people are teaching their young that the pimping out of 13 year old girls is acceptable. I'm saying that this is one of those moral lines which is generally considered not acceptable. (13 being too young). But there is a reason(s) as to why this individual had taken this choice... and choices we make are influenced by many, many societal factors Agency means the capacity for an actor to make choices and impose those choices on the world. Sociologists (and other social scientists) largely agree that individual actors have this capacity. Yes... a capacity to make choices based on education/existing knowledge yeah - so he made a choice based on existing knowledge - he wasn't forced into the choice. Go back to a beginning sociology text - 10 questions by Charon and see what he says towards the end of his chapter "Are Human Beings Free?" - especially the part about how we learn to think (internal discussion through the learning of language) and how thinking enables us to take some control in our environment. Otherwise we would be doomed to stimulus-response. I don't think you understood my main point. One makes a decision/choice based on existing knowledge available - now, this guy may not have ever had a strong influence from a role model or instilled moral which goes against his aberrated behaviour. Picture this: Throughout life, a kid grows up not being exposed to any of the "common-sense" morals of society. This is because his life is filled with poverty, deprivation, lack of education etc. Now - he commits a crime and society looks down at them and ridiculously chooses to punish them - how responsible are they for their actions if they weren't necessarily exposed to certain moral values people generally adopt? I would consider someone to make a responsible decision when they are equipped with tools that enable them to review and assess a situation based on a critical education and knowledge on how to analyse a given situation from a critical standpoint - this can only be instilled through education. Vast majority do not think like this and generaly are unconscious to a lot of issues when it comes to their own psychology - this is because no one has ever really shown them how to take control of their emotions and life. Trust me when I say I have considered your answers chengod with a lot of thought. I totally understand what you're saying but evidence goes against you in the realms of psychology/neuroscience. Do you know that there are MANY areas of the brain that fall unconscious to many aspects in the environment? Where does responsibility come into any of this? All I'm saying is that we need to refresh our definition of "moral responsibility" - we cannot just turn to philosophy and sociology - we need to encompass all fields of the social sciences. Look up David Eagleman's work [neuroscientist] on youtube - he goes into this sort of stuff in way more depth than I can possibly articulate. whether he was wanted for something else or not is irrelevant. you have cops acting as judge, jury and executioner, and mainstream media trying to cover it up. The legal system is a complete joke. Contrived beyond words. Old, ritualistic practices which don't take into account scientific understandings of human behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 The legal system is a complete joke. Contrived beyond words. Old, ritualistic practices which don't take into account scientific understandings of human behaviour. I partly agree with this, especially with respect to having an adversarial system. The idea of justice can be lost, when no one wants to be proved wrong, for reasons of personal ego, or so that they can further their career. So if you're poor and don't have an equally powerful machine of war at your beck and call, the idea of justice can be swept away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Bread: all well and good, except this is a kid who grew up in america - he almost certainly had some exposure to say, popular media - which in America will universally show pimping out minors as a "bad" thing. Your view of the world takes away any personal responsibility - almost any sociologist/psychologist/scientist worth their salt will say that because of agency, there is some responsibility. Some even apply agency to non-living things (look up Actor Network Theory). I've just done some reading and watched some of Eagleman - what he is saying is that you are your biology, and he seems to totally refute the idea that environment has any effect on one's actions. offtopic but i think a neuro-scientist would not take kindly to being called a social scientist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesomeperson Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Didn't know Tim Wise listened to IDM and posted on WATMM with a Fight Club avatar, what a dumbass. Fucking hate apologists, by that logic merit wouldn't exist since external sources would be responsible for every single action a person takes in their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Fucking hate apologists, by that logic merit wouldn't exist since external sources would be responsible for every single action a person takes in their lives. and boom goes the dynamite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwiddleBot Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Bread: all well and good, except this is a kid who grew up in america - he almost certainly had some exposure to say, popular media - which in America will universally show pimping out minors as a "bad" thing. If anything the media fetishises violence and portrays violence as the normal way of doing things, and besides, most people don't learn morals from watching TV. Most people do not question their upbringing. If your entire community growing up consists of Mormons, that will be your norm and chances are you'll become a Mormon too. If your parents are junkies and you have to steal to eat and/or you grow up in gangs, and you go to school where you get into fights constantly, that will be your reality, violence your coping and defense mechanism. Likewise if someone is raised in an abusive home they will typically seek out those kinds of behavioral patterns and wind up in abusive relationships. In contrast, I read a study last year where inmates were rehabilitated by being educated and taught how to read literature (like shakespeare) and surprise surprise, the recidivism rate afterwards was pretty much nil. Preventative programs and education will reduce crime much more than deterrents ever will. They aren't as sexy for TV though and don't release those satisfying druggie chemicals in the brain that a good dose of vengeance does. Obviously you still gotta defend society from the crazies who are shooting at innocents and the genuine sociopaths who cannot be fixed. But the 'common sense' approach to justice is quite ridiculous. The human brain is a physical device and it can be twisted and broken just like anything else in the body. The old-skool philosophy believes that you fix things that are already broken by hitting them, which is completely ignorant of how people who are already so used to abuse that they think it is normal behavior deal with so-called 'punishment'. All that kind of punishment does is reinforce their perspective on life if not exacerbate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Bread: all well and good, except this is a kid who grew up in america - he almost certainly had some exposure to say, popular media - which in America will universally show pimping out minors as a "bad" thing. Your view of the world takes away any personal responsibility - almost any sociologist/psychologist/scientist worth their salt will say that because of agency, there is some responsibility. Some even apply agency to non-living things (look up Actor Network Theory).I've just done some reading and watched some of Eagleman - what he is saying is that you are your biology, and he seems to totally refute the idea that environment has any effect on one's actions. How do you know how much "popular media" was reinforced in this guy? There could be attributes of his character which hold onto values and understandings that are a lot more strongly reinforced than the popular media you speak of which he may have come across at certain points that discourages such behaviour. The conclusions I derived from Eagleman's work is that the idea of "law" needs to change and adapt towards neuroscientific understandings (which eventually demonstrate that many areas of neuronal connections are active on an unconscious level) - thus bringing in to question the notion of "moral responsibility". "because of agency, there is some responsibility" - let's critically analyse this statement. You say the definition of "agency" is: "the capacity for an actor to make choices and impose those choices on the world. Sociologists (and other social scientists) largely agree that individual actors have this capacity." I ask you how does one determine a "choice"? Does one necessarily always weigh up positive/negative outcomes of a given choice or option? Does one necessarily become inherently equipped with critical thinking skills in order to make a balanced decision or choice about something? so... in other words, I think what you're saying is [and please correct me if I am mistaken]: because of the capacity for someone to make choices, there is some responsibility present. You've not understood where I'm coming from in my previous posts at all. Where does one derive a sense of social responsibility? Isn't it through experience? I'm saying we are not only products of our biology, but culture as well therefore a behaviour which goes against society can easily be conditioned by the cultural environment around them. This is kind of leading into a debate towards the notion of "autonomous man" whereby one is not influenced by external social factors and is utterly responsible for their actions. Autonomous man has been revealed to be flawed logic for many years now. Even Freud knew that various aspects of the human brain are unconscious therefore how can one truly be autonomous when they are not at all conscious of every single thought process [and I'm not even a big fan of Freud in all honesty]. On a sidenote - personally - I would consider a person to hold a level of responsibility if they have been equipped with the right tools to analyse a given social situation from a critical view point (critical thinking). This can only be reinforced through education. Also - I'm not an apologist - I despise such acts that cause harm/violence/trauma. I blame the environment, someone's upbringing, external stimuli etc. This is way more productive. If one implies that someone is "responsible" - you are either directly or indirectly supporting punishment - Am I right? Also chengod - be sure to check out this lecture by Gabor Mate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk4B7BFxYR4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I've given your responses more thought chengod and your human agency argument is extremely flimsy - almost philosophical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 if someone shoots at a cop, is it ok for them to put 9 bullets in him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 article about this in the SF chronicle, one of the only big newspapers left that continues to deliver decent coverage of things http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/20/BAJM1KCQRS.DTL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 article about this in the SF chronicle, one of the only big newspapers left that continues to deliver decent coverage of things lol really? and you even linked to cw nevius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 yeah, well first of all it's not saying much to say 'one of the only bla left that continues to do decent coverage' as far as notable newspapers are concerned they are aall pretty much shit. when it comes to stuff like this they aren't sensationalist and actually attempt (key word attempt) to do real investigative journalism. Their efforts in the past few years have uncovered a lot of insane corruption in the SFPD. but probably more selfishly i respect the Chronicle because they were literally the only ONE that wrote a fair and accurate story about the beheading hoax i was involved in (they did not like all the other papers regurgitate the government scare tactics against us) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braintree Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I heard they found gun residue on his hand, but haven't been able to find anything on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertsk8er419 Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 they're lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 the problem is that the police have lost the public trust. so they say 'yep we got the gun and gunpowder residue' and everyone guffaws i haven't got anything against the chronicle personally. i read the website headlines everyday. i just thought it was funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I've given your responses more thought chengod and your human agency argument is extremely flimsy - almost philosophical I'll be sure to pass that on to the thousands and thousands of sociologists/anthropologists/psychologists/neuroscientists who support the idea of agency. You certainly sound like an apologist when you say "I blame the environment, society, external stimuli etc." Your thesis is that we are nothing more than automatons, responding to stimuli in a predestined way. On the other hand - we learn to reason when we learn language - because with those tools we can have internal discourse - in socializing us, society provides us with the very tools necessary to achieve agency. Your presumption that only people who have an "education" can think critically is begging the question - you start with the assumption that only people who are educated can reason critically, therefore lack of education means this individual could not think critically. However, obviously there are people who are not educated can think critically. Your mistake is equating human agency with free will. Agency (as I said earlier) simply means that humans make choices (decisions) and enact them on the world. Yes, how people come to make those choices is certainly influenced by their environment, social networks, SES and so on, but to deny the act of agency denies historical cases of "rags to riches". Your understanding of Eagleman needs some work - cause he even says himself that while there might not be a "reasonable individual" his work is geared to improving rehabilitation of offenders - he still holds with the idea of responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Bread: all well and good, except this is a kid who grew up in america - he almost certainly had some exposure to say, popular media - which in America will universally show pimping out minors as a "bad" thing. If anything the media fetishises violence and portrays violence as the normal way of doing things, and besides, most people don't learn morals from watching TV. Most people do not question their upbringing. If your entire community growing up consists of Mormons, that will be your norm and chances are you'll become a Mormon too. If your parents are junkies and you have to steal to eat and/or you grow up in gangs, and you go to school where you get into fights constantly, that will be your reality, violence your coping and defense mechanism. Likewise if someone is raised in an abusive home they will typically seek out those kinds of behavioral patterns and wind up in abusive relationships. In contrast, I read a study last year where inmates were rehabilitated by being educated and taught how to read literature (like shakespeare) and surprise surprise, the recidivism rate afterwards was pretty much nil. Preventative programs and education will reduce crime much more than deterrents ever will. They aren't as sexy for TV though and don't release those satisfying druggie chemicals in the brain that a good dose of vengeance does. Obviously you still gotta defend society from the crazies who are shooting at innocents and the genuine sociopaths who cannot be fixed. But the 'common sense' approach to justice is quite ridiculous. The human brain is a physical device and it can be twisted and broken just like anything else in the body. The old-skool philosophy believes that you fix things that are already broken by hitting them, which is completely ignorant of how people who are already so used to abuse that they think it is normal behavior deal with so-called 'punishment'. All that kind of punishment does is reinforce their perspective on life if not exacerbate it. you make too much sense twiddlebot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.