Criminality "in infant's brain"

[Zaune]

Via Yahoo News.

Brain research may soon make it possible to spot budding criminals and psychopaths in the first few years of life, an expert has claimed. Skip related content

Traits that predict anti-social behaviour and criminality can already be seen in the brains of children as young as six months, said psychologist Dr Adrian Raine.

One was a particular abnormality affecting the brain's "emotional centre", the limbic system. It showed up in six month-old babies who as adults committed more crimes and displayed more signs of psychopathy and anti-social behaviour than unaffected individuals.

Three-year-olds with a poorly functioning amygdala, a key part of the limbic system, were also more likely to commit crime 20 years later, said Dr Raine, a former Home Office scientist now at the University of Pennsylvania in the US.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington DC, he said: "Seeds of sin are sown quite early in life. The time is going to come when we are going to be able to predict reasonably well which individuals at a modest age say eight to 10 years old are predicated to become criminal offenders.

"The point is going to come when we have to decide; are we going to intervene at an early age even though the prediction will never ever be perfect and we'll always make mistakes."

Research presented by another scientist at the meeting showed that genetics played an important role in the emergence of "callous-unemotional" (CU) traits in young children, especially boys.

Dr Nathalie Fontaine, from Indiana University in the US, looked at data on more than 9,000 twins born in England and Wales who were assessed between the ages of four and 12. CU traits are associated with a lack of emotion, empathy and guilt and linked to persistent bad behaviour in young children.

Dr Raine is now conducting three trials to see if Omega 3 supplements can improve the behaviour of aggressive children. Omega 3 is a fatty acid that helps to build brain cells. Previous studies have shown that giving it to prison inmates reduces serious offending by between 34% and 36%.

"Its very simple - bad brain, bad behaviour," said Dr Raine. "If there is a causal connection.. then the intervention has to be improve brain functioning and you will improve behaviour. That's what were attempting to do."

Don't know about you, but I really, really hope this is bollocks.

[Starglider]

Don't know about you, but I really, really hope this is bollocks.

So you don't want us to be able to treat people early and hopefully avoid them becoming criminals? You'd prefer to have more pain and misery for both them and their victims? You'd rather that antisocial mental disorders just magically appeared out of nowhere (a curse from the gods perhaps) instead of having a solid causal grounding like every other natural phenomenon? Why?

[Singular Intellect]

Don't know about you, but I really, really hope this is bollocks.

So you don't want us to be able to treat people early and hopefully avoid them becoming criminals? You'd prefer to have more pain and misery for both them and their victims? You'd rather that antisocial mental disorders just magically appeared out of nowhere (a curse from the gods perhaps) instead of having a solid causal grounding like every other natural phenomenon? Why?

Probably because that would infringe upon the idea of a intangible 'soul' and 'free will' concepts.

Another step forward in brain science is always a great thing to hear. Hopefully we have the entire thing figured out ahead of schedule and can start replicating it artificially ahead of schedule.

[Formless]

Welp, she is a moron. Even if it were possible to detect personality traits with such precision as to find sociopaths WHEN THEY ARE FUCKING CHILDREN (hint: if we can't even relate personality traits to brain sturctures in ADULTS, why would we be able to do so in children who aren't done maturing and who have yet to experience tons of stuff that motivates real life criminals? ) most anti-social people are perfectly happy to act like ordinary jerks, not criminals.

Furthermore, the research presented in the article is along the lines of "our brain scans found a CORRELATION between amygdala function in children and criminality in adulthood, ergo we can (or will be able to) predict sociopathy!!!!1!" and "we have found that identical twins tend to share sociopathic trits, meaning there must be a genetic component [no shit, sherlock], ergo we can (or will be able to) predict SOCIOPATHY!!!1!" And ending on "We have a nutritional supplement that appears to be correlated with reduced criminality IN ADULTS." Give me a break. Any pop-science article that contains three different buzzwords (Neuroscience! Genes! Nutrients!) and mistakes correlation studies with the ability to predict complex behaviors later in life is textbook shit science.

Not that I expected anything better from Yahoo News.

[Formless]

Another step forward in brain science is always a great thing to hear. Hopefully we have the entire thing figured out ahead of schedule and can start replicating it artificially ahead of schedule.

Why am I not surprised that our resident singularity wanker doesn't get the difference between correlation studies and understanding the brain?

[Zaune]

So you don't want us to be able to treat people early and hopefully avoid them becoming criminals? You'd prefer to have more pain and misery for both them and their victims? You'd rather that antisocial mental disorders just magically appeared out of nowhere (a curse from the gods perhaps) instead of having a solid causal grounding like every other natural phenomenon? Why?

Actually, I'm holding out that criminal behaviour is a product of environment and experiences and thus if not always repairable then at least preventable, rather than a congenital defect that we can do nothing about.

Double Post removed

[Zed]

Via Yahoo News.

Brain research may soon make it possible to spot budding criminals and psychopaths in the first few years of life, an expert has claimed. Skip related content

Traits that predict anti-social behaviour and criminality can already be seen in the brains of children as young as six months, said psychologist Dr Adrian Raine.

One was a particular abnormality affecting the brain's "emotional centre", the limbic system. It showed up in six month-old babies who as adults committed more crimes and displayed more signs of psychopathy and anti-social behaviour than unaffected individuals.

Three-year-olds with a poorly functioning amygdala, a key part of the limbic system, were also more likely to commit crime 20 years later, said Dr Raine, a former Home Office scientist now at the University of Pennsylvania in the US.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington DC, he said: "Seeds of sin are sown quite early in life. The time is going to come when we are going to be able to predict reasonably well which individuals at a modest age say eight to 10 years old are predicated to become criminal offenders.

"The point is going to come when we have to decide; are we going to intervene at an early age even though the prediction will never ever be perfect and we'll always make mistakes."

Research presented by another scientist at the meeting showed that genetics played an important role in the emergence of "callous-unemotional" (CU) traits in young children, especially boys.

Dr Nathalie Fontaine, from Indiana University in the US, looked at data on more than 9,000 twins born in England and Wales who were assessed between the ages of four and 12. CU traits are associated with a lack of emotion, empathy and guilt and linked to persistent bad behaviour in young children.

Dr Raine is now conducting three trials to see if Omega 3 supplements can improve the behaviour of aggressive children. Omega 3 is a fatty acid that helps to build brain cells. Previous studies have shown that giving it to prison inmates reduces serious offending by between 34% and 36%.

"Its very simple - bad brain, bad behaviour," said Dr Raine. "If there is a causal connection.. then the intervention has to be improve brain functioning and you will improve behaviour. That's what were attempting to do."

Don't know about you, but I really, really hope this is bollocks.

This article is about on the same level as the eugenics movement.

[Purple]

To be fair, proper use of eugenics can yield positive results. For example with modern technology we can predict birth defects and stuff like that and warn the parents about it giving them a chance to abort. Or we can ban people with aids from having children and stuff like that. Is that not a form of eugenics as well?

It's just that the whole movement gets a bad name since it was abused by various nations in the world as an excuse to murder people rampantly. And sadly, this article continues the time honored tradition of being completely insane and calling it eugenics.

[Formless]

Wait a second... that article makes plenty of bold, idiotic claims but it also explicitly advocates therapy for anti-social personalities. What does eugenics have to do with this? That it also historically tried to oversimplify nature-nurture interactions? Well, okay, but that's a pretty common feature to shit science in general when it comes to psychology/genetics/neuroscience.

[Purple]

It seems you are right. Than I ammend my post from:

And sadly, this article continues the time honored tradition of being completely insane and calling it eugenics.

to

And sadly, this article continues the time honored tradition of being completely insane on a topic that will inevitably lead to it being linked with eugenics by people who don't even understand what the word means.

Thank you for catching my lapse.

[Simon_Jester]

To be fair, proper use of eugenics can yield positive results. For example with modern technology we can predict birth defects and stuff like that and warn the parents about it giving them a chance to abort. Or we can ban people with aids from having children and stuff like that. Is that not a form of eugenics as well?

It's just that the whole movement gets a bad name since it was abused by various nations in the world as an excuse to murder people rampantly. And sadly, this article continues the time honored tradition of being completely insane and calling it eugenics.

The problem here is that the word "eugenics," like the word "concentration camp," has come to include things that no civilized society can tolerate, let alone promote.

See, originally, "concentration camp" meant exactly that: a camp that would concentrate a population- forcibly relocating them into temporary housing. The British came up with the idea while fighting a guerilla war in South Africa; the Spanish used them in Cuba, the Americans used them in the Philippines- in each case, while fighting guerillas, as a way to segregate the guerilla bands from the civilian population.

For this definition of "concentration camp," it is at least theoretically possible to construct a humane facility that runs along those lines. If you were decent enough to supply adequate food, medical support, and so forth, the violation of human rights might actually not be all that tremendous. As a practical matter, of course, no one ever did that. Pretty much invariably, the population herded into the camps was mistreated. Their property was often subject to theft or other losses, and the people themselves wound up suffering disproportionately from hunger, disease, and abusive camp guards.

Then came the Germans. Who set up a system of "concentration camps..." and then proceeded to abuse the inmates more horrifically than anyone had ever done before, even to the extent of actively trying to kill them as fast as possible. When the smoke cleared after World War Two, "concentration camp" had changed in its meaning, because people realized just how hideous such a camp had the potential to become, when the logic of the thing was taken to its extreme conclusion, when the civilian population was defined as part of the 'enemy-' an attitude encouraged by the very existence of the camp in the first place.

As a result, civilization recoiled from the idea of mass relocations of civilians into large temporary camps as a wartime occupation measure. Doing that is always going to be a human rights violation, even if it isn't part of a campaign of genocide... but the fact that it makes genocide so much easier, and has been so often associated with genocide, means that it simply cannot be tolerated.

And it is flat out not worth trying to rehabilitate the term "concentration camp." It is not worth it to say "we don't want to kill all these people, we just want to stick them into camps while we hunt down the rebels!" That turns out to always be a human rights violation, you see... and it's a violation that can so very easily lead to greater, more horrific violations.


Likewise, eugenics is with reason associated with horrible violations of human rights. You got forcible sterilization. You got second class citizenship for people whose only real fault was being born to families that didn't provide them with the upbringing they deserved. You got 'keep the gene pool clean' being used as a blatant excuse for every kind of racism and personal bias under the sun, and nobody cared whether or not the science supported their biases because eugenics was a good excuse even when it didn't.

It is also closely related to other, similarly vile practices, such as nonconsensual lobotomies of the mentally ill... which were performed for many of the same reasons, and under the same kind of attitudes towards medicine and public health, as eugenics.

It is flat out not worth trying to rehabilitate the concept of eugenics. If you want to talk about keeping population growth down, or eliminating well defined genetic diseases, fine... but don't try to link it to the goal of creating a 'clean' gene pool; that way collective madness lies.

[Zed]

Wait a second... that article makes plenty of bold, idiotic claims but it also explicitly advocates therapy for anti-social personalities. What does eugenics have to do with this? That it also historically tried to oversimplify nature-nurture interactions? Well, okay, but that's a pretty common feature to shit science in general when it comes to psychology/genetics/neuroscience.

The relation between criminality and genetics, which is implied by suggesting that criminality can be predicted from early childhood, is one of the central tenets of eugenics. See, for instance, the work of Francis Galton.

[Broomstick]

Don't know about you, but I really, really hope this is bollocks.

So you don't want us to be able to treat people early and hopefully avoid them becoming criminals? You'd prefer to have more pain and misery for both them and their victims? You'd rather that antisocial mental disorders just magically appeared out of nowhere (a curse from the gods perhaps) instead of having a solid causal grounding like every other natural phenomenon? Why?

The problem is that I think it is much more likely that society will restrict and hinder such people in the name of protecting others rather than actually help those affected by this so-called criminal predisposition.

Do we help drug addicts overcome their addiction - or are they imprisoned as criminals? (Most nations go for the latter).

Are societies more likely to warehouse and marginalize the physically disabled, or given them rehabilitation and adaptive aids and do everything to maximize their lives?

IF we ever learn to spot "criminal tendencies" in a reliable and consistent manner in toddlers the odds are those kids won't be helped to overcome those traits and become productive citizens, much more likely they'll be hemmed in and put on leashes of one sort or another. I'm not sure that is really the best path to go down.

[Starglider]

Why?

Actually, I'm holding out that criminal behaviour is a product of environment and experiences and thus if not always repairable then at least preventable, rather than a congenital defect that we can do nothing about.

Although the science does seem fuzzy here (hard to tell with a Yahoo article), the researcher specifically talks about possible treatments (to begin with, dietary supplements), so it's hardly the case that 'we can do nothing'. Frankly it's much easier to get children to take dietary supplements than it is to erradicate all crime, poverty, drugs, broken families and anything else that might be an environmental factor - and it is quite likely that the cost/benefit of the implementing the former is highly favorable, versus a tiny bit more incremental spending on general programs to tackle the later.

The problem is that I think it is much more likely that society will restrict and hinder such people in the name of protecting others rather than actually help those affected by this so-called criminal predisposition.

Really? Is there any legal precedent in the US for restricting people's rights because of a medical or personality test, rather than actual illegal / dangerous behavior?

Do we help drug addicts overcome their addiction - or are they imprisoned as criminals? (Most nations go for the latter).

This isn't comparable to actual crime. This is a form of profiling. You can't assess someone's genetic or biochemical risk factors just by looking at them, there isn't really a risk of being disproportionately harassed prior to actually committing a crime, the way there is with racial profiling. It isn't really a risk at trial because frankly 'my genetic made me do it' is more likely to be used by the defence than the prosecution. I guess there is some risk that a national medical database with this information could be used in assessing the likelihood of crime suspects, but I don't think that's high up on the list of civil rights violations we need to be worried about.

IF we ever learn to spot "criminal tendencies" in a reliable and consistent manner in toddlers the odds are those kids won't be helped to overcome those traits and become productive citizens, much more likely they'll be hemmed in and put on leashes of one sort or another. I'm not sure that is really the best path to go down.

Who do you think is going to implement this? Exactly what measures do you think will be taken? How are they going to be made legal and who is going to pay for them?

[Formless]

Starglider, she's talking about social prejudice not legal precedent. Also:

This is a form of profiling. You can't assess someone's genetic or biochemical risk factors just by looking at them, there isn't really a risk of being disproportionately harassed prior to actually committing a crime, the way there is with racial profiling.

I think you underestimate the stigma that comes with mental illness. No, you can't tell someone is crazy or anti-social just by looking, but once people know they do not tend to think about it rationally. I can see legitimate reasons to fear institutional prejudice arising from this science, even if it turns out not to be hyped up shit science.

Edit: and before you ask, an institution that immediately comes to mind where such problems might crop up is the school system. "I'm sorry Jhonny, you can't play with all the other children because you might be dangerous to them." Nice way to screw a kid up with good intentions.

[Formless]

Also, a thought just occurred to me, how would parents react to knowing their child is a sociopath? Do you think they would treat them better or worse?

[Jaepheth]

Wasn't there a study that also showed that adults' perception of children effected how those children developed? (If I remember correctly, children who the teachers believed would do well were subconsciously treated differently, and thus ended up doing better, and the same with the children who were believed to be troublemakers or less intelligent with the opposite effect)

Telling parents/guardians/educators that certain children have a predisposition towards criminal behavior could lead to the diagnosis becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy. And once the child or their friends find out (either through being told or by looking up the details of their medications online) it could strengthen this effect.

[Broomstick]

The problem is that I think it is much more likely that society will restrict and hinder such people in the name of protecting others rather than actually help those affected by this so-called criminal predisposition.

Really? Is there any legal precedent in the US for restricting people's rights because of a medical or personality test, rather than actual illegal / dangerous behavior?

Buck v. Bell, a 1927 decision by the Supreme Court that stamped approval on eugenic sterilization in the US. The saddest thing? Carrie Buck wasn't feeble minded, she was a rape victim. That's the one that first springs to mind, there are others. Is one sufficient?

(And yes, it's a Wiki reference. Stephen J. Gould wrote on excellent essay on it, but I don't have an on-line link. If you'd like I'll try to find the essay title for you)

[PainRack]

As a result, civilization recoiled from the idea of mass relocations of civilians into large temporary camps as a wartime occupation measure. Doing that is always going to be a human rights violation, even if it isn't part of a campaign of genocide... but the fact that it makes genocide so much easier, and has been so often associated with genocide, means that it simply cannot be tolerated.

A very.. very minor nitpick here.
Concentration camps need not be a human rights violation if the purpose is to sequester the human population away from current fighting and hotspots.
For example, if someone had placed the Rwandan people into concentration camps so as to protect rural civilians from rampaging mobs, is this a human rights violation?

[Simon_Jester]

There's another name for that, PainRack: "refugee camps."

Thinking it through, yes there are situations where mass relocations of civilians makes sense. I should have been more precise. What is deeply, deeply problematic is mass relocation of "enemy" civilians: either civilians in occupied territory, or civilian members of a group that the state has decided it fears or despises.

And that is what "concentration camps" were classically used for even before Hitler tied the term to atrocities terrible enough to shock the conscience of Atilla the Hun.

So the point stands- it is not worth trying to rehabilitate that term. And we need to be especially cautious about our conduct any time we find ourselves doing something that could sanely be described by that term (mass relocations of "enemy" civilians into "internment camps" or "security perimeters" or whatever).

The same goes for eugenics. Not only has the word itself come to describe an utterly vile and criminal set of state policies, but the long history of atrocities committed in the name of 'eugenics' means that we should be more vigilant about our own ethical conduct when we are practicing something that might, once upon a time, have been thought of as 'eugenics.'