A couple of reasons suggest themselves for why social scientists avoid studying possible genetic links to individual behaviors:

First, genetics is a hard science. The results are objective and tend towards precision in the study, analysis and replication studies. Social sciences frequently look like confirmation bias wrapped in jargon with an overlay of statistics which either may not be appropriate for the data sets, or appear to involve cherry picking to create significant results to report;

Second, if a genetic link is found, that genetic link will probably exist in related populations of the same ethnic or racial group, which will expose the social scientists reporting such link to charges of racism, and lead to ostracism by peers and community groups, as well as the type of attacks which destroy careers (e.g., such as occurred with Profs. Jensen and Shockley several decades ago, before the types of attacks that now can be quickly organized through social media).

How's about a third reason?

Genetics might be a hard science but the people who latch onto it certainly like to interpret more from the data than we can actually understand.

We can't even differentiate between schizophrenic and ADHD genes but somehow criminologists are supposed to help us track which genes are crime genes and make sweeping generalizations about groups of people? Lmao ok. How is that different than the shoddy work they're already doing?

Personally I think better explanations for the nastiness of human nature come from the likes of guys like Sapolsky : men are hardwired for it and I have American society to thank why I'm not getting violently beaten on the daily baboon style.

"THE COUNTRY HAS made unprecedented strides in the fight against crime. Both violent and non-violent crime are way down from their highs in decades past. This is great news, of course, but the success could easily lull us into a false sense of security,"

I live during the safest time in the entirety of human history, in the safest country, god forbid I might get conned into actually feeling safe.

For all his commie ways I recommend Sapolsky talks on aggression. Cultural environment is probably turning on/off genes that are present in all males and hence why most American boys prefer playing violent video games vs violently beating me and the rest of us.

Ppen: "Cultural environment is probably turning on/off genes that are present in all males ..."

I think that excluding those that are "evil" (Laugh if you want I've seen evil in young boys. Their families typically move once it becomes apparent that "Billy liked it when he hit the boy in the head with the brick.".) cultural environment IMO explains a lot of crime.

Look at the history of "Travelers" and "Gypsies" and the annual warnings of "scams" that pop up after every major storm.

It's a criminal enterprise that is familial not genetic. If the child had been born into a different "family" I suspect they would be into Barbie/G.I. Joe dolls instead of scamming.

This guy nailed it but ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action

To Bob: Check out a fascinating YA novel I found - "See You Down the Road" by Kim Ablon Whitney. It's told from the point of view of a teen Irish Traveler girl, Bridget. It even reminds me of a certain famous old YA writer's work, in its simplicity.

"...Bridget's life is pretty complicated her family lives in a trailer and is constantly on the move, she's engaged (by her parents) to be married, and her parents want her to quit high school so she can help out more with the family's money-making scams. But Bridget's not so sure the Traveler life is for her anymore. She feels guilty about the lies she tells, she wonders what it would be like to live in one place, and she's definitely not sure she wants to get married to anyone, even if Patrick can prove he's a good guy.

"Now she's about to set off on a new adventure that could change her whole life. Will Bridget have what it takes to stay with her family? In this tautly written novel of life on the road, Bridget finds herself grappling with questions that go right to the heart of what family is all about."

Oh, and I'm curious -

"Their families typically move once it becomes apparent..."

Does that mean, in your neighborhood, that the family is ashamed, or just that they'd rather move than deal with their kid?

"We can't even differentiate between schizophrenic and ADHD genes but somehow criminologists are supposed to help us track which genes are crime genes and make sweeping generalizations about groups of people?"

I don't think that was what Boutwell and Barnes are saying. We're a long way from being able to point at a specific gene and saying it causes a specific behavior. At the moment, all we can do is say "There is a statistically significant (above the noise floor) correlation between having this gene and exhibiting this behavior." Then again, that's all that the social sciences ever do in general. It isn't really possible for social sciences to demonstrate a cause and effect, because the answer ultimately lies in the physical sciences (biochemistry, neurotransmitters, etc). It's an inherent weakness of the social sciences.

What Boutwell and Barnes are decrying is that the "blank slate" theory is not only accepted without question in the social sciences, but it is taboo to challenge it. Taboos on challenging established doctrine always inhibit real science from being done. Social science today can't explain why some cultures are better than others. It just assumes that cultures are a product of their environment. But not only does it ignore both individual variability and the fact that cultural success only has a loose relationship with resources, it makes the same mistake that you decry the geneticists for making -- it assumes that correlation is causation. The social sciences assume that cultures are the product of their environment, but it can't offer any evidence that it isn't the other way around, i.e., the culture creates its environment.

*Crime* is a social construct itself and hard to quantify but generally is behavior which violates the social order in ways that tend to destabilize society.

But what if you are living in a situation where there is no order? Or one where violence is what keeps you alive?

My mild mannered father who never got into anything more than a rare raised voice argument with my mother, was a silver star winning stone cold killer in the South Pacific for four years. His ability to think on his feet and kill in a heartbeat saved his own life and countless others in situations that most of us never encounter.

So yes, I not only agree with PPen. I reject the thesis that the tendency to violate the social order is necessarily a negative genetic trait. It is a well honed suvival characteristic that is absolutely necessary in any situation where social order has broken down.

lenona,
The "Travlers" I've encountered were the men traveling around the country (usually in very expensive trucks) doing "home repair" scams. In my case their families lived in Florida and did not travel w/their men.

The family that moved did so due to their son's behavior. This was the '60's in a rural area so once it became apparent that this was premeditated, continued misbehavior would have resulted in immediate law involvement if they were lucky.

Having your son's head split open w/resulting cognitive issues brings out the worst in people (especially in areas where hunting in the morning before going to work is common). Accidents do happen you know.

lenona, "deal with their kid"

Evil is different from animalistic or even amoral behavior. I really fell sorry for the parents of children with that have any of these traits.

You can not "deal" with the child/person. You are fucked. Plain and simple. It's in their DNA and you can not change it with your love and care.

If you value your safety you nudge them out and away w/o antagonizing them and love them at a distance.

You accept the fact that it is possible that they may turn violent on you if they are used to you providing support and you decide not to (stop being an enabler).

If you look around you will find Mothers that are being beaten by their sons/daughters quietly behind closed doors.

Talk to some criminal lawyers and you will hear some sad sad tales. It's not just dope that causes bad things to happen.

I say start with the bananas. Apparently we share quite a bit of DNA with all living things, bananas included.

Find your violent banana and bingo! There's the key.

That may be too science-y for some of you but no worries. I'll be here to help explain it.

Does a banana massacre count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre

What Bob in Texas said.

The problem is that all the genetics will do it determine the start point, and even then environment will play a role. Maternal nutrition has nothing to do with DAN but is a known factor. Much of the issues we have with center around a specific set of neurotransmitters. Dopamine probably the big one. Now once the initial set up is made we know that life experience will physically alter the brain.

Some people take great pleasure from petting a dog some from kicking one. Now as one who fits into the first category the idea of doing something really nasty to someone that fits into the second makes me smile. Is this because I was born to like dog or was I raised to see them as family? While the kids that picked on me constantly as the enemy?

Then lets extend Issab's example: What role does social acceptability play in behavior. Some people will violate social norms that they feel are wrong. Some will follow social norms the are disgusted by. Acceptable behavior in combat vs the dinner table.

Then you have the old truth. Legal and moral are bot unrelated always shifting.

DNA will never be deterministic in predicting behavior (of any kind) unless our grasp of neurosciences is completely wrong.

Well, damn.

There's no such thing as "free will". EVERY time the idea is subjected to rigorous study, it disappears. Yes, you are a complicated organism, but response still follows stimulus.

How do you think magicians always know where you are looking?

You have serious, hard limits on how much you can process at one time due to how you are built. That you cannot (yet) point to a particular gene or gene sequences is simply not relevant.

This will go nowhere, though, because people honestly believe things which are comforting even when they are manifestly untrue.

The depth of the problem is huge... do you even know what you are saying when you say, "DNA"? Can you get from that page into coding for the construction and repair of cells? I know I can't, even as the article makes (mostly) sense to me.

We will not believe crime or other objective statistics when it does not suit us. No, blacks are NOT jailed disproportionally. Boys DO score higher in physical fitness, and more get top scores on the SAT than girls. Yes, there IS a correlation between brain size and academic achievement, not just cultural factors.

And Fed has a few words on criminals which strongly suggest that crooks are born, THEN raised.

No, blacks are NOT jailed disproportionally.
__________________________________

Define "jailed" as opposed to "convicted."

Even if they commit more crimes, from what I hear, there's plenty of evidence to suggest they get longer sentences for the same crimes than whites. Especially drug trafficking.

No, blacks are NOT jailed disproportionally.
__________________________________

Define "jailed" as opposed to "convicted."

Even if they commit more crimes, from what I hear, there's plenty of evidence to suggest they get longer sentences for the same crimes than whites. Especially drug trafficking.
lenona at December 1, 2016 10:15 AM

Repeat offenders get longer sentences. Once you screen for that, I think you will find no evidence that minorities get longer sentences than whites for the same crimes.

Poor people in general get the short end of the stick when dealing with law enforcement at all levels because they are easy targets for fines. They dont have the resources to lawyer up.

"Define "jailed" as opposed to "convicted.""

Okay.

See what I mean about not believing crime stats?