This is going to be a massive political can of worms...

So, crime is driven by biochemical processes as well?

yes. for example, lead contamination leads to increase in crime

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/violen...

[1] http://theconversation.com/child-lead-exposure-linked-to-agg...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning

...

Isn't it "known" that even something like temperature is also linked to increased crime?

You are actually correct, I have seen statistics like that. It's really funny where you can find correlations, if you think about it.

Time to abolish prisons now.. is that what you are trying to say?

Why do you believe that brains have to be magic for prisons to make sense?

Who's implying to believe in magic here? I certainly don't.

I'm just trying to warn about the pitfalls of monocausal explanations for complex issues..

You should try to ask the OP the same question..

But, to be fair, the title of the submission to HN has been changed, to something a lot less of clickbait.

Maybe I would not have engaged otherwise, actually. Makes you think..

But still, downvotes = disagreement, I thought HN would be better than that.

Apparently, I was wrong.

> But still, downvotes = disagreement,

Nope, downvotes can be for many reasons, disagreement is not required to downvote. (I often downvote comments that I agree with and find non-useful in context, and upvote comments I disagree with but which contribute to productive discussion.)

Not everyone is a saint like you, I guess..

I agree in theory, but I would like to hear some justification why other comments, even if unrelated, get downvoted as well then.

You seemed to be implying magic by arguing against crime being caused by biochemical processes in the brain. As far as we know all human behavior ultimately boils down to stuff in happening in the brain and the brain is a biochemical machine.

That's quite a stretch to say that I would imply something like that.. You should read the original comment again. To which I was simply writing a reply.

I don't know, maybe you should have a talk with some post-structuralists, or with some other folks who seem to believe that xyz is a "social construct"..

> But still, downvotes = disagreement, I thought HN would be better than that.

downvotes can also be for perceiving questions as posed in bad faith, non-sequiturs, being reductive, rude comments, etc.

Tell me something I don't know yet..

But I was not asking in bad faith, it is beyond me why anyone would even want to do that.

Okay, this is the Internet, I know, and you cannot tell from across the screen. That old drama.

But still, I don't agree that an uncharitable interpretation should be the standard on HN that everyone just downright assumes..

> Time to abolish prisons now.. is that what you are trying to say?

i'm not quite sure how "abolishing prisons" is suggested by what they posted. what leads you to that?

Nothing. It was not suggested.

I just extrapolated a bit too unconstrained maybe. Okay, you can accuse me of erecting a straw man now.

But the thing is, I don't know how many times I've seen this (or very similar) debates unfold. Definitely getting a bit tired of it, to be honest. So I just though, why not skip ahead a bit, leave out some of the usual steps, you know?

no, that would be a different topic (although prisons are probably not the best way to introduce socially beneficial patterns into human mind, quite the opposite).

So glad to see that the concept of individual responsibility is not dead yet...

Wouldn't every behavior be driven by biochemical processes?

Here's an interesting case driven by surgical removal of part of the brain. http://www.businessinsider.com/radiolab-story-on-klverbucy-s...

Yes and No, I guess. It depends.. I don't know what someone would achieve by arguing that way, hence my reply.

But please enlighten me.. Maybe I am getting it wrong, or am just not seeing it..

But sure, just put it all on "biochemical processes".. and no one is responsible for anything any more. Brave New World.

Whether or not you like the implications behind something doesn't make it less true. There is a book called 'Behave' written by Robert Sapolsky which lays out that human behavior is determined by the configuration of your brain, hormone levels, culture, the environment you were raised in, etc (basically all things over which you have no control).

For example, if you have an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex then you are going to be more impulsive and have a hard time delaying gratification. These people are way more susceptible to committing crimes and it is purely down to bad luck that they weren't born with the right genes (or had some sort of injury that damaged their PFC). Another example is if you have a smaller amygdala, you're going to have a higher pain tolerance and experience less fear than someone with a normal sized amygdala. Again, this can change your behavior quite a bit as you won't be able to relate to what the average person experiences when they are in pain. These people will have less moral compass than others.

With those things in mind, Sapolsky agrees that if an individual poses a threat to others, we should still lock them in prison for the good of society. But the more we understand what leads to human behavior, the more we're going to realize how many things are out of our control (almost all of it).

Whether or not Robert Sapolsky likes the implications behind that does not make it less true (or anyone else for that matter).

When did this notion take hold that we can answer such complex matters with simple solutions?

Do people on here even realize how old this stupid Nature vs Nurture debate is?

Probably not. I guess most older HN users have already abandoned ship, leaving only the greenhorns behind.

At least that would explain it.

And again, I am not arguing for anything here. I am just the Devil's Advocate.

I'm not sure I follow what your argument is here? Just for your information, Robert Sapolsky is a neuroendocrinologist from Stanford who has been studying this exact subject for the past 4 decades. The book agrees with your point that looking for a single reason to explain human behavior is impossible and a lot of things contribute (hence why he covers so many determinants of behavior, such as what is going on in your brain, your genes, what is going on with your hormones, where you were born, how you were raised, etc).

I don't see why the nature vs nurture debate is stupid or why how old it is matters? Clearly both things determine human behavior. The main point to be made in Sapolskys book is that almost all determinants of your behavior are out of your control. You don't choose which country you're born in, what genes you have, whether your brain develops properly, whether your parents are kind people or terrible people, what neighborhood you grow up in, what race or gender you are. Perhaps you should read Sapolskys book.

I don't see how that follows. Just because things can be explained by biochemical processes doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility. Even if you assume a person's behavior is completely deterministic, without any free will at all, holding someone responsible for their actions is still the right thing to do. It might change how we should treat those individuals, of course, but it isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.

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

Maybe a predisposition to moral deviance is biochemical?

Do you mean that there's a biochemical "gene" (or similar) for behaving contrary to whatever someone believes is morally correct? Or that morality is an objective state?

I was hypothesising that there may be biochemical processes that regulate your response to (society defined) morally deviant actions.

I am only asking questions to point out the answer probably isn't as simple as the poster seem to believe.

well, "biochemical processes" isn't exactly simple. :P

Downvoted for asking a simple question?

Is that what HN has come to? Really?

I'm really sorry my friend.

They (downvoters) fail to realize that they are shooting the messengers, nothing more. But smart people understand. They know and will never cease to keeping them honest..

> Downvoted for asking a simple question

this seems a bit reductive.

sometimes people asking leading questions that are a bit... let's say tired, aren't all that interesting. if there is a point to be made, they should just make it.

"smart people" (as you say) sometimes prefer forthright discussion.

> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Yeah, thanks. I am only trying to hint at the possibility that there are other avenues to consider than a simple "crime gene", ie. the answer is probably not as simple as the poster wants.

Genetics and the human body have proven to be increasingly complex.

I love how all the reactionaries come out to glom on to these sorts of findings.

„Democrats and Republicans are rather similar in linking individual characteristics to genes and race, even IQ, aggression and homosexuality.“

https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/998856273725743104?s=21

not all democrats are progressive. or, perhaps more to the point, not all democrats are non-reactionary.