Poll: The Violence Gene

[Rigs83]

I just read an article about a gene linked to various antisocial behavior and now has been associated with gang membership. I think that nurture is a better predictor than genes but what do you think?
The site is:
http://health.msn.com/blogs/daily-dose-post.aspx?post=1156970&GT1=31036

 

[sallene]

Its both. Human beings are both social creatures and intelligent. Both of our hard wired functions that can influence our behavior and the influence of our surroundings are what goes into our identities as individuals.

 

[Bofus Teefus]

Think of it as a genetic predisposition. A variant of the MAO gene would give the resulting variant protein, but links between genotype and phenotype (violent vs. non) get complicated, so nurture probably has a huge effect.

 

[Simalacrum]

in my opinion the upbringing of a person is the most important thing. Generally speaking violent behaviour originates from children being brought up with it, and thus believe it is the social norm. Genetics may affect it as humans are naturally violent creatures (as are many animals, purely for the purpose to survive), but the upbringing is really what changes people. Afterall, a domesticated animal is almost always less violent than a wild equivalent.

 

[savior in death]

its both because we have sertan things we cannot control but its how we are raised and our experinces on earth that also have a mayjor part in who we are as human beings.

 

[AngloDoom]

I personally believe both play a part, but people can overcome their genetic disposition; I personally believe it's harder to go against what you've been taught.

 

[Xrysthos]

Nurture has a greater effect than nature, but both types have an effect. That is my opinion/unerstanding anyways. There might very well be a gene that is more common in people with violent behaviour, but that doesn't mean that they have to be violent if they have that gene.

 

[ae86gamer]

I think most of it is the persons upbringing. If they grow up near violence then they will think that it is acceptable and normal.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

Change ??? to Other, because I don't want any of those, and I don't think three question marks really shows my opinion.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Genes can make you more predisposed towards violent behaviour (via hormone expression levels and stuff like that), but the environment is the set of factors controlling the expression of these genes, to put it simply. It seems like nowadays, we like linking everything to genes, but we tend to forget that genes are like a cake recipe - nobody ever follows those word for word, because they might want to add a bit more of their favourite ingredient, or maybe they don't have something and put an ersatz in, or... Yeah, in this sense your genetic code is like a cake recipe, only more so.

EDIT: Didn't really put a conclusion in there... So: a "violence gene" will not make you join a gang, or kill someone... It might make you more predisposed towards violence, but ultimately, it's the environment which decides.

 

[Andalusa]

I think it's a little bit of both.
I remember my dad was quite a violent person when he got angry, so am I.
The thing is my dad hasn't been around for the past 6/7 years and it's only been recently that my anger's been worse.

 

[goatzilla8463]

I think it's to do with influences in life such as violent parents, violent friends etc.

 

[arc101]

Right, if anyone has read the tempest by william shakespeare we can see quite easily the advantages and disadvantages of both, however, we need to make our own minds, creating our own decisions in how we want to live, and how we want to act. One will never be better than the other but in the right proportions they can create perfection.

 

[randommaster]

People believe that there is a gene that makes some people get addicted to cigarettes more easily, but that the same gene is what causes people to go and look at what caused the giant explosion rather than run away from it. It is supposedly this trait that enables people to push the boundaries of society and science, which is how you get new crap.

There could be a gene that makes people more aggressive, but pure antisocialism/violence is a combination of both nature and nurture.

 

[Arrers]

That's just dumb. Next thing you know, they'll be announcing that they found the Evil gene or somthing.

 

[Crimsane]

I foresee this being used as a scapegoat in trials in the future. Combined with violent video games, TV, having been traumatized from seeing old people naked, and an array of other equally bullshit reasons to mask the defendant's lack of self-control.

Essentially, my vote goes to both, while leaning heavily toward the nurture side.

 

[Erana]

Some people are more prone to some behaviors, but it is not the determining factor in their future.
Even the genetically nicest person in the world could be a gang member in the right situation.
We're animals, there's no end to the highs and lows we can achieve.

 

[DAMG]

Read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene; it discusses all that jazz.

 

[PyroZombie]

That's just dumb. Next thing you know, they'll be announcing that they found the Evil gene or somthing.

They did say something about undiscovered genes, and that there is approximately 1.-- pounds unaccounted for the weight of a human being and are calling it "the weight of the soul".

 

[Zombie_Fish]

I think it's nurture. It's a person's upbringing and past life that influence their minds and in turn how violent they are, in my opinion.