How does evolution account for murder, etc.?

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.

Zombrex

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.

It doesn't look like it was.

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

But even if it were true Bundy could have been born with psychotic tendencies.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't look like it was.

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

But even if it were true Bundy could have been born with psychotic tendencies.

Or developed them in childhood, the most malleable life stage for the mind.

kelly1

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes but there's no evidence at all to suggest that a causal part of that progression was his use of pornography.

I'm not saying that porn caused him to sin. But it filfilled his dark desires and was a vehicle to greater depravity.

We may never know the answer to this but I have my doubts that he felt compelled or forced to do what he did. I think there must have been the consent and the will to commit evil. It was under his control I suspect.

Who knows?

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not saying that porn caused him to sin. But it filfilled his dark desires and was a vehicle to greater depravity.

We may never know the answer to this but I have my doubts that he felt compelled or forced to do what he did. I think there must have been the consent and the will to commit evil. It was under his control I suspect.

Who knows?

Well it goes right down to a debate about free will which is contentious even in scientific terms. I'd say it's far easier for someone like me to be "good" than it was for Bundy. I happen to know my will power is weak. I can't even give up coffee. So if I felt driven to do violence, I can't say for sure that I'd be a much better person than him. Most of us are just lucky in that regard.

anti-venom

Dave! wrote: »

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.

I don't believe evolution has to account for murder. 'Fight or flight' does not include or imply anything to do with murder. We may fight to disable or subdue an attacker which would give us time to escape the attack. If the attacker dies as a consequence of our fighting, then that is a secondary result and the not the primary aim which must be to escape.

When people do consciously murder they are employing a different area of the brain - conscious planning - and not a spur of the moment inscitct. When people kill in, say for example, a street brawl, then they are employing their flight or fight instinct. Just because we have the ABILITY (planning) to kill most certainly does not mean that we have an inherent instinct to kill. This is the distinction we must be missing.


Are we really equipped with an inbuilt killer instinct? I would say no. We have evolved from primarily fruit eating ancestors who would have had no need of a killer instinct. We do not eat raw meat as do other predators, We can only ingest cooked meat in any substantial quantity (ever seen a lion with a grill?) and we do no possess the physical weaponry of a natural killer.