How does evolution account for murder, etc.?

Dave!

Hey folks,

If there's one thing that I find difficult to understand about evolution and the likes, it's this.

In the vast vast majority of people, morality is inbuilt to find murder and rape abhorrent. Most people will not steal even though it may be easy to do. Most people do not find members of the same sex attractive, nor indeed (as we established in the other trainwreck of a thread :pac: ) their immediate family.

All of this is probably because there has been an evolutionary advantage to these.

So what's bugging me is, why do some people, albeit a minority, end up going against the grain and murdering someone in cold blood? Or stealing? Or be attracted to the same sex, even though it is futile from an evolutionary perspective?

How are these anomalies and minority pursuits accounted for?

I'm just speculating here of course, but could it be.....

1. A brain malfunction? Mass murderers and rapists possibly have some sort of disorder or perhaps vary neurologically in some ways from the norm, in the same way that homosexuals' amygdalas are more like straight women's than other men's. But robbers? Dunno.

2. Environment/situation? Would we all steal if we were in such dire straits as it may be deemed necessary? Probably. You'll find most burglars are not middle-class university graduates! If I had a child to support and no prospects for employment, I'd probably be a robber or some sort of criminal.

On a related note, perhaps there is some sort of 'tiered' form of morality based on the situation. eg (pardon the nerd lingo ):

if (in secure and stable environment)
---> do not steal, as it will be more dangerous for your chances of gene propagation if you do steal
if (in unstable and insecure environment)
---> Steal, as the risk is now worth taking


3. Are their genes somehow different from everyone else's, and they will eventually be outbred by natural selection?


Just looking for thoughts on that. Cheers.

robindch

Dave! wrote: »

why do some people, albeit a minority, end up going against the grain and murdering someone in cold blood? Or stealing? Or be attracted to the same sex, even though it is futile from an evolutionary perspective?

Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" has a couple of chapters on antisocial behaviour and why it exists -- it's worth a read if you're interested in this area.

pH

Dave! wrote: »

So what's bugging me is, why do some people, albeit a minority, end up going against the grain and murdering someone in cold blood? Or stealing? Or be attracted to the same sex, even though it is futile from an evolutionary perspective?

How are these anomalies and minority pursuits accounted for?

Are you sure they're minority pursuits? I think you're looking at this from a Western *very privileged* point of view.

I think if you looked at most people living in the hunter-gather societies in which we evolved would find that theft and murder acceptable (for them). I think that our current behaviour goes very much against the grain to our inbuilt evolutionary driven behaviour. If you were piss-poor, living in a hovel with hungry mouths to feed I'm sure you'd look at it differently.

Most of human history has found very little wrong with marching into your neighbour's land, murdering the men, stealing the livestock and raping the women. They'd probably think our aversion to it is madness!*

On the homosexuality thing, here are my 2 thoughts:

Firstly we're all human, we all have a human brain, which needs to be feminised or masculinised depending on chemicals and hormones released as we develop. There's no real 'reason' why brains belonging to males find the female body attractive, they're all human brains after all.

The second point is that perhaps a gene that normally confers some advantage in the majority of cases could express itself as making the person attracted to the same sex in a minority of cases (or in conjunction with another gene). The gene overall would have an evolutionary advantage.

* see bible for more information.

Pompey Magnus

I think I remember reading that until recently rape was not viewed as negatively as it is today, it was a perk of being on the victorious side in war. Indeed the tradition of a groom carrying his bride over the threshold is a commemoration of the mass rape of the Sabine women by Romans. The Bible also encourages rape of the women of defeated enemies. Historically rape helped to mix gene pools.

As for murder, some cases are easily explained by evolution eg crimes of passion or killing a status rival. The random nature of other murders is harder to explain, I would guess this is down to mental illness which had no positive benefits evolutionarily speaking.

Rev Hellfire

I suspect the homosexual thing evolved from women needing haircuts and to look 'fabulous'.

AtomicHorror

Phenotypes don't fit into nice categories. We can imagine the phenotypic output of a generation to be a sort of probability distribution. At the edges of these fields are the rare cases. Whether they are "good" or "bad" by any measure of human morality is pretty much irrelevant. Natural selection is the great decider. Some of the rare will vanish, others persist and re-emerge, still others bloom to dominate the population. All variation, including psychopathy, is subject to that. Without "random" variation, evolution doesn't happen.

Saruman

Murder etc exists in a lot of species, not just us. Among animals its more a case of kill the competition or future competition when babies are killed.
Humans being more sophisticated have more reasonable reasons. Everything from revenge to not being in control (alcohol, drugs, psychotic etc).

Most humans, in fact i would have to say all humans have a violent streak. Its only our values that keep us in check. Values are learned.
To us, going on a head hunt to eat another human being is not the thing to do on a Sunday afternoon. To some tribes in Africa its normal behavior at certain times.

Zombrex

Dave! wrote: »

So what's bugging me is, why do some people, albeit a minority, end up going against the grain and murdering someone in cold blood? Or stealing? Or be attracted to the same sex, even though it is futile from an evolutionary perspective?

How are these anomalies and minority pursuits accounted for?

As Atomic suggested (I think), it would be a mistake to think that every single human behaviour is explained by some clear evolutionary behaviour.

As you say humans have evolved a large number of instinctive emotional systems to help regulate human behaviour. But they are instincts not hard rules.

One common aspect in murder is a feeling of them and us. It is far easier to kill someone that you feel little attachment to than it is to kill someone that is part of your family or tribal system. This can extend in modern times to the act of one country demonizing the population of another so it is easier to go to war with them.

You also find people where these evolutionary instinctive systems simply don't work. They don't feel empathy for other human beings, they don't feel attachment to other human beings. It is obviously far easier for someone like that to kill someone, even someone close to them, because they have no system regulating them

nozzferrahhtoo

Dave,

I have to agree there is one thing you do not understand about evolution but its not what you think. The problem seems to be a category error. That is the assumptions you make that you based your queries on. If you address this you will find that the questions you have asked answered themselves. This is not to say you have asked _bad_ questions, just the wrong questions.

Firstly your assumption that evolution SHOULD account for these things in humans is erroneous. In animals you could begin to discuss it. However at some point in evolution we developed consciousness and hence the ability to overcome our genetic impulses. You do this every time you use a condom for example. Clearly when it comes to human motivations and actions in moral or societal situations you have entered the realm of philosophy, not of evolution. This is the category error you have made.

In short, before you ever ask a question of this sort again remind yourself that evolution theory is merely the description of how we got here. It does not, should not and will not account for how we now act, how we should act, what form of society we should build nor what our moral doctrines should be. Dawkins notes in the selfish gene that any society built on the science of evolution would be a very unpleasant place to live indeed.

Secondly your "probably" about advantage is a bit sweeping and I am afraid to say incorrect. For example there can and have been many very good arguments made about the genetic usefulness of homosexuality. These arguments are not only made at a genetic level but can be observed throughout the animal kingdom where many homosexual, asexual and other non reproductive elements can be observed to strengthen the genetic strengths of a species. It’s a tangential discussion though so I will avoid going down it for now.

Murder also is seen in many species. In Lions for example when a new male line takes over he is commonly observed to slaughter the cubs of the previous male. Genetically it would be advantageous to us to do the same! When taking a wife you would, in evolutionary terms, be advised to slaughter any children she had with previous partners, especially if they are still young and need nurturing.

So if we went with your initial premise that we should be acting to evolutionary standards then clearly we all really should be killing the babies of our new partners. Your question changes from why do humans kill and murder to why are we NOT killing and murdering when its clearly to our advantage in many (not all) cases.

However as I said above we have risen above genetic considerations and evolution is NOT used to explain how we act today nor how we should. I reiterate, you are in the realm of philosophy and social science, not evolution.

AtomicHorror

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Firstly your assumption that evolution SHOULD account for these things in humans is erroneous. In animals you could begin to discuss it. However at some point in evolution we developed consciousness and hence the ability to overcome our genetic impulses. You do this every time you use a condom for example. Clearly when it comes to human motivations and actions in moral or societal situations you have entered the realm of philosophy, not of evolution. This is the category error you have made.

I disagree completely. Evolution has been demonstrated to still be very much at work on humans. As long as there is mutation in or genes, human sexual reproduction and selective pressures, we will evolve. Our conciousness and awareness of evolution only means that a new set of extra pressures, call them "unnatural selection" if you like, are now acting along with the rest to change our biology over time. And as morality and society are products of our biology, so too are they still very much influenced by evolution.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In short, before you ever ask a question of this sort again remind yourself that evolution theory is merely the description of how we got here. It does not, should not and will not account for how we now act, how we should act, what form of society we should build nor what our moral doctrines should be. Dawkins notes in the selfish gene that any society built on the science of evolution would be a very unpleasant place to live indeed.

I agree that to use evolution as the basis for moral philosphies or social theories is to misunderstand what evolutionary theory is. It's a model of how we got here and a means to understand where we might be going. All knowledge should inform morality and society, but a scientific theory should not dictate either.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Murder also is seen in many species. In Lions for example when a new male line takes over he is commonly observed to slaughter the cubs of the previous male. Genetically it would be advantageous to us to do the same! When taking a wife you would, in evolutionary terms, be advised to slaughter any children she had with previous partners, especially if they are still young and need nurturing.

Well now I think that you are generalising too. Infanticide is a strategy employed by some species but not by others. The costs and benefits are mixed and in humans the balance appears to be against it perhaps in part due to our extremely social nature.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So if we went with your initial premise that we should be acting to evolutionary standards then clearly we all really should be killing the babies of our new partners. Your question changes from why do humans kill and murder to why are we NOT killing and murdering when its clearly to our advantage in many (not all) cases.

Again, it is not at all clear that there would be any advantage to such behaviour in our current circumstances. Human competition for resources etc occurs on a much larger scale than mere one-on-one conflict. But it still happens and will continue to as long as any form of scarcity exists. We are killing and murdering. But on the scale of super-tribes. Nations.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However as I said above we have risen above genetic considerations and evolution is NOT used to explain how we act today nor how we should. I reiterate, you are in the realm of philosophy and social science, not evolution.

Ultimately philosopy and society are expressions of our biology in interaction with our environment. Our biology is the result of our evolution to date. Evolution continues. One could extend this further and put it all down to chemistry, as Dawkins would, or further still into very complex physics. To imagine that these things have become disconnected is simply incorrect.

Saruman

Im still not clear what any of this has to do with evolution. Its pretty clear to me that murder and all the stuff we see as being "bad" or "good" is down to culture, not evolution.

Like i mentioned earlier, its only to us westerners that something like rape or kidnapping or murder is seen as bad. To other cultures such as certain tribes in Africa the kidnapping and rape of woman from a rival tribe is their culture. Its how they work. One tribe steals a woman from a rival village and in turn they steal a woman from that village and probably in doing so avoid conflict (and preserve genetic diversity?) as its the way things are done.

To others, killing another human is perfectly fine.

Its all down to culture and what we are taught growing up. Nothing to do with evolution or biology.

nozzferrahhtoo

I am not sure of the source of your first "I disagree completely" as I am not aware of a point where I claimed that evolution is not "very much at work on humans". Had I made that claim I could see where you are coming from here, but I never did. I dont think I see you disagreeing with my actual claim. My claim was no more than this: we consciously overcome many evolutionary drives.

Your pointing out my generalisation is correct but useless in this context however. You are correct that it could be argued that there are costs that outweigh the benefits of infanticide in our species. The benefits are obvious in that you’d have increased resources dedicated to your own off spring. I’m also aware that there are many species that do not practise this as you said. However this is an entire side discussion and taken solely as an example for the point I was making it still stands regardless. If you want to find a better example then feel free to do so but it is enough to highlight the point I am actually making and so a tangential discussion is, although interesting, unwarranted.

So I will reiterate the point without an example to save you from pushing towards a tangent this time. There are clearly many aspects of our society that, if informed solely by evolution would be completely different to the way it actually is practised now. If we based everything solely on evolution it would be a completely different society and in many ways horrific.

Which takes me back to the actual point I was making from the start. We consciously overcome much of our evolutionary drives and huge portions of society would not match what evolution might predict. Hence I feel asking evolution theory to account for murder, rape and many other things is (to a large extent though I will grant not 100% completely) a category error from the start. Evolution may INFORM (I never meant to suggest a complete disconnection) morality and philosophy, but to ask it as a stand alone theory to account for Daves questions is wrong.

So all in all a good reply, and you are correct to pick me up on the nitty gritty of my examples, and i do find the idea of where philosophy and evolution overlap... and where they HAVE become disconnected a very interesting conversation..... but I think my base points stand.

AtomicHorror

Saruman wrote: »

To others, killing another human is perfectly fine.

Its all down to culture and what we are taught growing up. Nothing to do with evolution or biology.

Only if you assume that society, culture and learning have no connection to biology or evolution. That would be quiet incorrect as biology and evolution fundamentally underlie all of our behavioural characteristics. They place bounds on the probable and the possible.

ntlbell

Does this mean homosexuals might be nothing more than brain damaged?

vibe666

does evolution not just account for traits that affect a species success or failure reproducing?

i.e. if any given personality trait does not get you killed before you have a chance to reproduce then it is not a critical factor in the survival of your bloodline.

AtomicHorror

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I will reiterate the point without an example to save you from pushing towards a tangent this time. There are clearly many aspects of our society that, if informed solely by evolution would be completely different to the way it actually is practised now. If we based everything solely on evolution it would be a completely different society and in many ways horrific.

I think we need to draw a distinction between concious efforts to bend society to a known theory, which is what I was contending was inappropriate and the unconscious formation of social structures in ignorance (but nonetheless in accordance) of those theories, which I believe is what is occurring. My point is that no behaviour, however altruistic, social, antisocial, selfish or horrific, is not influenced to a significant degree by biology and thus evolution. Further, none of these is exempt from future selection or has been exempt from it in the past. As it has been taboo to murder and rape in large portions of human society for many centuries (and in ignorance of the theory of evolution), and as it appears that this social thinking is prevailing and growing at the expense of alternative social structures, it can be argued that the aversion to murder, infanticide etc. is being positively selected for. It seems logical to me that this would be so, but of course only extended time will tell if this is truly the case.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which takes me back to the actual point I was making from the start. We consciously overcome much of our evolutionary drives and huge portions of society would not match what evolution might predict. Hence I feel asking evolution theory to account for murder, rape and many other things is (to a large extent though I will grant not 100% completely) a category error from the start. Evolution may INFORM (I never meant to suggest a complete disconnection) morality and philosophy, but to ask it as a stand alone theory to account for Daves questions is wrong.

When I wrote of scienctific knowledge informing morality etc, I meant just that. Conscious knowledge of things informing decision-making. That is quiet separate to what Dave is asking about. He is asking about direct influence. I wouldn't call the original question a category error. It is at worst an over-simplification of the problems in question. Application of the laws of evolution to natural or technological phenomena would be such an error. However, I think the continued presence of such behaviours and impulses as homicide must have connections to evolution. They persist at a low frequency for some reason that is as much biological as it is social. Psychopathy, sexuality, these are phenotypic expressions with a biological basis. Sometimes that basis is complex, but it is no less real and no less subject to natural selection.

AtomicHorror

ntlbell wrote: »

Does this mean homosexuals might be nothing more than brain damaged?

Where did you get that from? No.

AtomicHorror

vibe666 wrote: »

does evolution not just account for traits that affect a species success or failure reproducing?

i.e. if any given personality trait does not get you killed before you have a chance to reproduce then it is not a critical factor in the survival of your bloodline.

The other way of looking at it is that such traits can enhance your likelihood of survival. Thus the trait increases in frequency in a given population. This is contextual though. What works in one overall environment may fail in another. If the trait does not have a discernible effect either way it enters a form of drift, settling into an equilibrium in the population.

Very few people would contend that the unit of selection is the species. Most would say it acts at the level of a given single organism. Dawkins claims that it acts at gene level.

nozzferrahhtoo

Much better, I think you are essentially agreeing with me here just coming at it from a different direction.

Remember though even natural selection were to 100% really positively select against... homicide for example.... it is likely that it still wont be bred out of us completely. This is because, as I said, Evolution isn’t the sole reason or explanation for these behaviours. We have many behaviours that are not selected for or dictated by our genes. We have risen above solely genetic reasons for our actions, motivations and requirements.

So to reiterate my point one last time... evolution and the theory of natural selection can not be expected to, solely at least, account for Dave’s questions. He is entering into an interesting area of discourse but is, like I said, asking the wrong questions.

As for the homosexuals being brain damaged.... I think I would just say "dont feed the troll"

pH

vibe666 wrote: »

does evolution not just account for traits that affect a species success or failure reproducing?

i.e. if any given personality trait does not get you killed before you have a chance to reproduce then it is not a critical factor in the survival of your bloodline.

No because just having a child is not the end of it, that child has to have children and so on. So just reproducing isn't the end of it, continued effort put into nurturing your children and bring them healthy and prosperous to the point where they can have children is 'selected for' from the gene's perspective.

AtomicHorror

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Remember though even natural selection were to 100% really positively select against... homicide for example.... it is likely that it still wont be bred out of us completely.

Similar traits re-emerge via alternate genetics and these phenotypes are unlikely to be the result of single traits, so yes they will persist despite selection unless the selection is very severe.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is because, as I said, Evolution isn’t the sole reason or explanation for these behaviours. We have many behaviours that are not selected for or dictated by our genes. We have risen above solely genetic reasons for our actions, motivations and requirements.

I would question our ability to make such an assessment. Whatever we are, we have evolved to become. Whatever we do from here, will be selected for or against. If what we are truly emerges from evolution, it emerges entirely from it. Try not to think of genetic "reasons", these are just anthropomorphisms we use to make the concepts easier. There is no reason. There is only the chaotic output of the genes (some of which may appear to us to defy evolution, and some of which actually does) and there is selection. What appears to be reason emerges from that.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So to reiterate my point one last time... evolution and the theory of natural selection can not be expected to, solely at least, account for Dave’s questions. He is entering into an interesting area of discourse but is, like I said, asking the wrong questions.

If as you contend, evolution can only partially explain the phenomena in question, what harm is there in a question which focuses on that input and influence? Would you similarly attack questions which asked about psychopathy solely within the context of psychology or sociology? Would these represent category mistakes?

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

No because just having a child is not the end of it, that child has to have children and so on. So just reproducing isn't the end of it, continued effort put into nurturing your children and bring them healthy and prosperous to the point where they can have children is 'selected for' from the gene's perspective.

In some species certainly. Humans in particular. Whatever genes feed into the nurturing instinct have proven to be popular companions for the other genes in our pool.

Dave!

Cheers for the posts folks, mucho interesante.

What do ye think of this part that I posted in the OP? Dunno if I heard it somewhere or I just thought of it, but it makes a bit of sense I think

On a related note, perhaps there is some sort of 'tiered' form of morality based on the situation. eg (pardon the nerd lingo ):

if (in secure and stable environment)
---> do not steal, as it will be more dangerous for your chances of gene propagation if you do steal
if (in unstable and insecure environment)
---> Steal, as the risk is now worth taking

nozzferrahhtoo

"Selection is very severe" I specified this specifically in my comment with the words "100% really positively select against". The comment itself is purely rhetorical and nothing I expect to actually happen. You are being to literal in your responses now both in this first paragraph and your last.

As for questioning our ability to make such an assessment, as I said we do this very thing every time we wear a condom. Natural selection is a mindless process responding to mindless inputs in a mindless way. Clearly the fact we have a conscious mind upsets this and what we early termed "unnatural selection" occours. So I stand by the comment "We have many behaviours that are not selected for or dictated by our genes. We have risen above solely genetic reasons for our actions, motivations and requirements."

You are right, "reasons" are just a convienient language tool. Evolution doesnt have "reasons". We, however, do and this upsets the hold that a solely natural evolution would have upon us.

Its a powerful theory for sure and it would be hard if not impossible to find any area of our humanity it doesnt inform or influence. But you seem here to be pushing for it to be the ultimate explanation for everything and I am not sure I can follow.

pH

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As for questioning our ability to make such an assessment, as I said we do this very thing every time we wear a condom. Natural selection is a mindless process responding to mindless inputs in a mindless way. Clearly the fact we have a conscious mind upsets this and what we early termed "unnatural selection" occours. So I stand by the comment "We have many behaviours that are not selected for or dictated by our genes. We have risen above solely genetic reasons for our actions, motivations and requirements."

But can we?

Natural Selection should be currently selecting against condom use (and all contraceptive use) in that those who don't use them or those for which they don't work well should be having more children (and passing these traits to them - if they are genetic rather that learned). It's an open question as to whether we can actually defeat natural selection using our technology and intelligence.

Something even more controversial is thinking along the lines of the film idiocracy or even the aliens in "Mote in God's eye", natural selection should select for "a strong desire to have children" if there is a genetic component to this desire. As pointed out in these fictional works it's easy to use a condom and spend your life not having 20+ kids, but who populates the next generation, those using condoms or those not using them?

AtomicHorror

Dave! wrote: »

Cheers for the posts folks, mucho interesante.

What do ye think of this part that I posted in the OP? Dunno if I heard it somewhere or I just thought of it, but it makes a bit of sense I think

I think the hierarchy, if it exists would be more complex.

nozzferrahhtoo

Again its another interesting tangent and I struggle often on message boards not to get drawn into them. But if i were to play avacado (Stephen Fry pun) on it I could actually make sound arguments for the genetic benefits of condom use.

However we are now descended into arguing negatives. AtomicH having shown yourself to be more than the average evolutionist who has watched a few Dawkins you tube talks and declared himself an expert, id be interested to hear you argue the case in terms of the original question asked. Proceed to account for deviant behaviour using evolution theory. Dont stop with rape and murder but include things like starving oneself in a hunger strike to promote an idealogical standpoint for example.

It is interesting I grant you and the thread has provided me more to think about than most would.

AtomicHorror

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However we are now descended into arguing negatives. AtomicH having shown yourself to be more than the average evolutionist who has watched a few Dawkins you tube talks and declared himself an expert, id be interested to hear you argue the case in terms of the original question asked. Proceed to account for deviant behaviour using evolution theory.

Well, my view on it as I explained early on is that deviant behavior is just that. Not in the manner it is understood in the common sense as "evil" or "immoral" but meaning deviating in extent and frequency from the normal distribution of behavioral traits. They reflect genetic deviation from the mean. In terms of evolution this can represent a population in decline in terms of frequency, or a newly emergent one, or one in equilibrium at a low frequency. My hypothesis would be that the relatively low frequency of such behaviors represents a set of genetic and behavioral traits in decline or limited as much as reasonably possible by natural selection. I would suggest that the selective pressure is the basic human social structure which has been extant in something resembling its current form for several millennia and may well have had sufficient time to select favorably for the behavioral characteristics which we now ascribe to "good" people, or at least socially inoffensive ones.

Broad speculation within the rough framework of my understanding of the theory. That's about as much as I can muster right now!

Zillah

^ That was a pretty damn good post.

However, I'd like to add a slight modification by suggesting that we remember to distinguish phenotype and genotype. It may simply be that the expression of certain genetic traits is in decline due to various environmental pressures, rather than it being that the genes themselves that give that behavioral bias are in decline.

For example, if some titanic upheaval destroyed human civilisation as we know it, I think we'd very quickly see hunter gatherer tribes wandering the world once more, with all the rapacious barbarity that follows. Perhaps many such savages could have been bankers or business executives had their lives been more comfortable.

AtomicHorror

Zillah wrote: »

^ That was a pretty damn good post.

However, I'd like to add a slight modification by suggesting that we remember to distinguish phenotype and genotype.

Give me some credit I did sort of allude to that distinction.

Zillah wrote: »

It may simply be that the expression of certain genetic traits is in decline due to various environmental pressures, rather than it being that the genes themselves that give that behavioral bias are in decline.

Modulation of gene expression is also genetic in basis. But I take your point. Of course there is on-the-fly environmental feedback, of which society is certainly a part.

Zillah wrote: »

For example, if some titanic upheaval destroyed human civilisation as we know it, I think we'd very quickly see hunter gatherer tribes wandering the world once more, with all the rapacious barbarity that follows. Perhaps many such savages could have been bankers or business executives had their lives been more comfortable.

Perhaps, though I suspect such a total descent might take some generations. I think also, that you'd see many of those social structures re-asserting themselves under the right circumstances. That is assuming there is not enough time for the frequency of violent psychopaths to increase too much!

vibe666

the environment that such traits manifest themselves would have to play a major part certainly, aswel as from whom they are garnered.

your father may live long enough to bestow all sorts of traits that aren't going to do you an favours before disappearing, but with a good mother their effect may be diminished due to a good upbringing.

it's been said many times before that anyone is capable of murder gven the right circumstances and I think that's probably true to a certain extent.

On a related subject, there's a movie called 'Idiocracy' that imagines a human race 500 years into the future where everyone is exceptionally stupid due to the fact that smart people worried too much about bringing kids into our messed up world and ended up not having kids whilst the dumb as mud trailer trash brigade were oblivious and just kept breeding like rabbits.

The gap between what is required to survive in the world and what these idiotic future humans could manage themselves being filled by the invention of (presumably by the last smart people to die out) various automated technologies.

it was by no means an Oscar candidate, but it was quite interesting to see that someone somewhere imagines this future for us.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

deviant behavior is just that. Not in the manner it is understood in the common sense as "evil" or "immoral" but meaning deviating in extent and frequency from the normal distribution of behavioral traits. They reflect genetic deviation from the mean.

For anti-social behaviour which is, or could be, shown to be inherited, yes, that's true. But I don't know if it's ever been shown that it can be inherited -- are you aware of research done here?

A much simpler explanation is that either the brain's behaviour modulation apparatus in the frontal lobe is either missing or damaged. See, for example, the famous case of the unfortunate Phineas Gage.

Black Swan

"How does evolution account for murder, etc?"

Darwin: Variation

Spencer: Survival of the fittest (i.e., Social Darwinism)

robindch

vibe666 wrote: »

there's a movie called 'Idiocracy' that imagines a human race 500 years into the future where everyone is exceptionally stupid due to the fact that smart people worried too much about bringing kids into our messed up world and ended up not having kids whilst the dumb as mud trailer trash brigade were oblivious and just kept breeding like rabbits.

There are a few of us around who believe that this has already happened

Or at least, if a tendency to religious belief has some genetic basis, then by permitting religions to restrict access to sex outside its own terms, and by instructing the truly religious to breed like rabbits, then a predisposition to religious belief will inevitably increase over time.

Having said that though, human culture evolves far faster than genes do, so I believe that the cultural adaptions necessary for a successful society to counteract the adverse social effects of widespread religious belief will generally outweigh any increase in the tendency for individuals to be any more prone to acquiring religious belief in the first place.

And so the balancing act continues...

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

For anti-social behaviour which is, or could be, shown to be inherited, yes, that's true. But I don't know if it's ever been shown that it can be inherited -- are you aware of research done here?

Honestly, I haven't looked. As I said, I'm just speculating. I would be surprised if the genetic connections to so broad a phenomenon as "antisocial behaviour" were simple, but I have little doubt that the connections both exist and are significant. The brain is a very malleable organ and the manner in which it "sets" during development seems very much to be moulded by experience, especially in childhood. However, I would speculate (once again) that genetics places all manner of constraints on this process. Certain genetic combinations might be "potentiating" for something like psychopathy. In other words, would make it more likely to arise if the right developmental pathways are followed. Others may make its emergence negligibly likely. It has always been clear that it is quite possible for two people to experience very similar upbringings and lives and yet emerge with vastly different psychologies. The evidence tends to be quite anecdotal though, and where studies are conducted, the scale is often grossly inadequate.

Of course, I would not for a moment suggest that genes alone are enough to predict the ultimate phenotype.

robindch wrote: »

A much simpler explanation is that either the brain's behaviour modulation apparatus in the frontal lobe is either missing or damaged. See, for example, the famous case of the unfortunate Phineas Gage.

I'm not sure Gage is a good example here. The man's brain was extensively physically damaged. Of course this is an example of a purely environmental influence on the brain. If I remember it rightly, the incident didn't make Gage "antisocial" so to speak (or at least not in a manner comparable to what we've been discussing), it merely changed his personality dramatically. He became introverted.

The incident does provide an insight into a basic element of brain function and suggests to us that "underdevelopment" of the frontal lobes might account for some personality types. However I would still assert that such development is the result of genotype meeting the outside world and reaching a compromise.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Or at least, if a tendency to religious belief has some genetic basis, then by permitting religions to restrict access to sex outside its own terms, and by instructing the truly religious to breed like rabbits, then a predisposition to religious belief will inevitably increase over time.

This may open a can of worms but there are some tenuous statistical correlations between intelligence and tendency towards religious thinking. Broadly an inverse relationship. I've heard though, that the correlation breaks down for fundamentalists. It has been said that they are on average, more educated and intelligent than the average. So if we assume intelligence can be neatly determined by genetics (again a potentiating effect I suspect), then there we have our indirect genetics to religion connection.

Of course the kinds of studies that look at such statistical correlations must surely have a painfully obvious bias. Couple that with the fact that correlations are a dubious business themselves and you really don't come out with much "science" there.

Dave!

This kind of thread would fit well into the proposed Evolutionary Science forum, huh AtomicHorror?

AtomicHorror

Dave! wrote: »

This kind of thread would fit well into the proposed Evolutionary Science forum, huh AtomicHorror?

kelly1

Dave! wrote: »

So what's bugging me is, why do some people, albeit a minority, end up going against the grain and murdering someone in cold blood? Or stealing? Or be attracted to the same sex, even though it is futile from an evolutionary perspective?

How are these anomalies and minority pursuits accounted for?

Hey Dave! good question. I started a similar thread a good while back. I know many who commit evil are victims of circumstance but I think in general evil is commited with intent. From a religious perspective, consent to evil puts us on a slippery slope towards greater and greater evil. Don't all serial killers start with "minor" crimes likes killing animals for pleasure? This whets their appetite for murder. They fantasize about murder until they eventually consent to commiting the crime.

Might be worth reading about Ted Bundy's problem with violent porn and how it lead to murder:-

http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/intimacy/understanding/a0000082.cfm

Red Hand

robindch wrote: »

For anti-social behaviour which is, or could be, shown to be inherited, yes, that's true. But I don't know if it's ever been shown that it can be inherited -- are you aware of research done here?

A much simpler explanation is that either the brain's behaviour modulation apparatus in the frontal lobe is either missing or damaged. See, for example, the famous case of the unfortunate Phineas Gage.

That case isn't fully watertight. A number of people who were in contact with Gage only knew him for a short time before his accident, and so cannot be counted on to give an accurate testimony to his behavior.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

Hey Dave! good question. I started a similar thread a good while back. I know many who commit evil are victims of circumstance but I think in general evil is commited with intent. From a religious perspective, consent to evil puts us on a slippery slope towards greater and greater evil. Don't all serial killers start with "minor" crimes likes killing animals for pleasure? This whets their appetite for murder. They fantasize about murder until they eventually consent to commiting the crime.

Might be worth reading about Ted Bundy's problem with violent porn and how it lead to murder:-

http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/intimacy/understanding/a0000082.cfm

The question asked is how evolution influences such behavior. The connections between violent or sexually explicit media and violent behavior have never been compellingly demonstrated to be causal. Ted Bundy's personal opinion on the matter is just that. Citing some actual studies would be a better argument, but remembering of course that correlations and causality are not equal.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Might be worth reading about Ted Bundy's problem with violent porn and how it lead to murder:-

http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/intimacy/understanding/a0000082.cfm

Slightly off topic, but there is little evidence that Bundy was actually obsessed with violent pornography, this seems to have been a story he invented for James Dobsen, an evangelical Christian who interviewed Bundy before he was executed, because Dobsen was looking for some way to blame wider liberal society for creating someone like Bundy. Bundy had a habit of telling people what they wanted to hear, a common trait with psychopaths. The "violent pornography" that Dobsen was complaining about isn't what we would know as violent pornography today, such as simulated rape or beating, but rather old pulp crime comics that often showed comic drawings of women in distress.

The actual reason Bundy turned into a kill are probably far more complicated.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but there is little evidence that Bundy was actually obsessed with violent pornography

You could be right. It's quite possible that he was using porn as a scapegoat even though he claimed he claimed full responsibility for his actions. He might also have lied when he said he came from a good Christian home where there was no abuse. Who knows.

aidan24326

Even if Bundy had been obsessed with violent pornography, it's a leap to suggest that that turned him into a psychotic killer. Rather an interest in violent pornography would more likely be a symptom of his underlying state of mind, rather than a 'cause' of anything.

kelly1

aidan24326 wrote: »

Even if Bundy had been obsessed with violent pornography, it's a leap to suggest that that turned him into a psychotic killer. Rather an interest in violent pornography would more likely be a symptom of his underlying state of mind, rather than a 'cause' of anything.

OK so you think he started out "bad". I'm not so sure. He claims to have come from a good loving home where he was given moral guidance. It would be interesting to know whether that's true.

I think it's like drugs. In the same way that people "progress" from cannabis to heroin, consumers of porn progress from soft to hard because the soft no longer satisfies their lust and ultimately hard core porn doesn't satify their lust so they end up raping and/or killing.

pH

kelly1 wrote: »

I think it's like drugs. In the same way that people "progress" from cannabis to heroin, consumers of porn progress from soft to hard because the soft no longer satisfies their lust and ultimately hard core porn doesn't satify their lust so they end up raping and/or killing.

And I think it's not. There just isn't any evidence at all to support this, people have been doing violent nasty things to their fellow man for millennia, or are you blaming Jack the Ripper's actions on viewing erotic daguerreotypes?

Also your drug argument is just as wrong and pointless, the vast majority of cannabis users never progress to using heroin. A few studies show that cannabis use is predictive of use of harder drugs, but the most studies cannot even show that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory

As usual you confuse things that you'd like to be true with things that actually are true.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

OK so you think he started out "bad". I'm not so sure. He claims to have come from a good loving home where he was given moral guidance. It would be interesting to know whether that's true.

I think it's like drugs. In the same way that people "progress" from cannabis to heroin, consumers of porn progress from soft to hard because the soft no longer satisfies their lust and ultimately hard core porn doesn't satify their lust so they end up raping and/or killing.

Yes but equally, the vast majority of people do not progress at all beyond fantasy. Inevitably the psychotic types make up a large fraction of those that do due to the attraction. The logical extension of the concept of "gateway behaviour" is that breathing air increases your chances of getting addicted to heroin. It says nothing of what underlies the problem whatsoever. It's just statistical analysis abused and over extrapolated. Correlations assumed to be causal connections by those who would like to ban or control certain kinds of media for other reasons entirely.

I would suggest that if "pornography" (if that's what it really was) were unavailable to Ted Bundy, that he would merely have escalated to more and more depraved personal fantasy until he arrived at the point of having nothing further to satisfy him. Indeed it could well be that he would have crossed the line from fantasy to reality sooner because there was nothing more for him in the realms of fantasy.

This is speculation, but it is as well-supported as the very tired causation argument.

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

Also your drug argument is just as wrong and pointless, the vast majority of cannabis users never progress to using heroin. A few studies show that cannabis use is predictive of use of harder drugs, but the most studies cannot even show that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory

Bang on. The theory is fundamentally flawed. Under what strange circumstances would anyone progress directly from no drug abuse to heroin? As I said in my previous post, the logical extrapolation of "gateway" behaviour is that we must ban cigarettes, alcohol, food, water and breathing in that order.

kelly1

pH wrote: »

And I think it's not. There just isn't any evidence at all to support this, people have been doing violent nasty things to their fellow man for millennia, or are you blaming Jack the Ripper's actions on viewing erotic daguerreotypes?

Also your drug argument is just as wrong and pointless, the vast majority of cannabis users never progress to using heroin. A few studies show that cannabis use is predictive of use of harder drugs, but the most studies cannot even show that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory

As usual you confuse things that you'd like to be true with things that actually are true.

I'm not saying that progression is inevitable but every step down the slope involves a decision. Most cannabis users would refuse harder drugs but the move from no drugs to hard drugs is more unlikely than the move from soft drugs to hard? N'est ce pas?

What I'm saying is that every time we consent to evil, we move further down the slippery slope. Ted Bundy didn't become a killer overnight. It was a downward progression.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

You could be right. It's quite possible that he was using porn as a scapegoat even though he claimed he claimed full responsibility for his actions.

I don't think he was using porn as a scapegoat. I would imagine it was more that he wanted the attention from Dobsen and knew what to tell him to get Dobsen hanging on his every word.

You have to remember that someone like Bundy is fundamentally broken. He did not act and behave in a manner one can easily recognize as a normal human being, not simply when he was killing people, but when he was doing anything including talking to people.

Who knows what was going on in his mind.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not saying that progression is inevitable but every step down the slope involves a decision. Most cannabis users would refuse harder drugs but the move from no drugs to hard drugs is more unlikely than the move from soft drugs to hard? N'est ce pas?

What I'm saying is that every time we consent to evil, we move further down the slippery slope. Ted Bundy didn't become a killer overnight. It was a downward progression.

Yes but there's no evidence at all to suggest that a causal part of that progression was his use of pornography. The biggest issue would surely be his lack of inhibition or lack of ability to distinguish between the moral implications of fantasy and reality.

Producers of pornography can certainly not be held accountable for the psychology of users, given that Ted Bundy types are so very rare. The industry is huge and yet has not produced generations of rapists and killers. Indeed there's no data at all to support the notion that there is an increased incidence of either in modern times.