Should screening for genetic sociopathy be mandatory for politicians and police?

reply to post by apacheman


Your references use the term "genetic" loosely, while referring to epigenetic heritability. Epigenetics has to do with governing gene expression without altering DNA. ...One of your references even says sociopathy seems to be a cultural adaptation for living in groups and results from altered gene expression.

Again - the real problem is not the genes, it's the culture.

reply to post by soficrow


Did you actually read any of the sources?

There is clearly a genetic component to sociopathy, and is is not merely epigenetic, as that would imply that everyone has an equal chance of bing a sociopath, which is provably false.

Why are you fighting the concept so hard?

Sociopathy is a genetically heritable trait, carried through the female bloodline, that can be exacerbated by the environment. It can express without environmental influences if the genetic load is high enough.

As to why so many today, ever hear of the concept of exponential growth? There are 7 billion people on the planet now. The best estimates for the number of genetic sociopaths is in the range of 4-6% (a number, btw, that fits predator-prey models quite nicely) so that gives us something like 3-4 million of them out there.

Given the characteristics of sociopathy, a large number of them are high in politics, business, and finance. They project a false competency, which seems to tally quite nicely with current events, since it seems few of our "leaders" are very competent, but do display all the characteristics of sociopathy. So long as there aren't too many of them, they can safely prey upon the efforts of the truly competent.

It's quite simple: they have overbred their niche, and there isn't enough room for them all at the top, so they are beginning to turn upon each other. It is a classic case of a boom-bust predator-prey cycle. The true competents are too few and the false ones too many in every area of society.

This has happened many times in history if you just look: the pattern is plain to see.

reply to post by apacheman

Did you actually read any of the sources?

Yes, all of them.

There is clearly a genetic component to sociopathy, and is is not merely epigenetic,

Your sources do NOT say or prove sociopathy is genetic - in fact, they actually show it's epigenetic. btw - all genes express differently; gene expression is very complex, and environmental influences appear critical. That's why at least one of your sources recommends early childhood intervention.

reply to post by soficrow


The environment cannot create physical differences in the brain from birth, unless we are referring to an environment filled with toxins, in which case, all babies born in that environment would share the same physical differences.

The environment only effects the actual degree of expression of sociopathy, not whether it exists in the first place. Most sources cite about a 50/50 influence for genetics/environment.

The brain of a sociopath is structurally different from normal humans, and is structurally different in the same way for all sociopaths studied. Those differences have been seen no matter how young the sociopath studied was. It is clearly a genetic difference. Sociopaths are a predator subset of the human race, evolved to practice predation socially.

reply to post by apacheman

The environment cannot create physical differences in the brain from birth,

The environment can create physical differences in the brain during fetal development - and afterward too. The impacts start with the proteins and move on to structural changes.

unless we are referring to an environment filled with toxins,

Toxins are not the only factor. ...Numerous environmental "perturbations" affect proteins, including temperature changes, exposure to radiation, chemicals, viruses, and more.

in which case, all babies born in that environment would share the same physical differences.

Not at all. Timing of exposure - even to the nanosecond - makes a huge difference.

The environment only effects the actual degree of expression of sociopathy, not whether it exists in the first place. Most sources cite about a 50/50 influence for genetics/environment. The brain of a sociopath is structurally different from normal humans, and is structurally different in the same way for all sociopaths studied. Those differences have been seen no matter how young the sociopath studied was. It is clearly a genetic difference.

You clearly do not understand neurological development, genetics, epigenetics or even the fact that environmental influences definitely can change a developed brains structures, never mind determine the structures' early development and formation.

Sociopaths are a predator subset of the human race, evolved to practice predation socially.

Yes, they are dangerous predators. No question. But in this light, I am FAR more concerned about the child-rearing traditions practiced by the elite, and the legal system mandating sociopathy in our society's corporate culture.

Sociopathy is not purely genetic - it is cultivated, nurtured and created by our corporate society. ...Virtually any genes' protein products can be modified by numerous environmental influences - it's a HUGE mistake to assume a mutant protein implies a mutant gene.

Originally posted by soficrow


Sociopathy is not purely genetic - it is cultivated, nurtured and created by our corporate society. ...Virtually any genes' protein products can be modified by numerous environmental influences - it's a HUGE mistake to assume a mutant protein implies a mutant gene.

At last we come to agreement.

I agree that it is not purely genetic...I've said so many times in this thread. I do understand that if you go into the minute details of fetal development, a lot of things can effect the ultimate outcome.

But that doesn't change the fact that the basic scaffolding is present in the first place. You'll note, if you read carefully, that I've mentioned several times that the degree to which sociopathy is actually expressed varies according to environmental influences, and you can't rely on genetics alone to determine if an individual is a full-blown sociopath, and that sociopathy is contagious.

I completely agree that child-rearing practices can either amplify or reduce expression of the trait: most ruling families historically have encouraged it, actively culling the "weak" members who felt too much sympathy for the underclasses and discouraged them from leadership and/or breeding.

That is why a genetic test alone would be insufficient, and would only require further screening via brain scans and the Hare questionnaire test.

But if the genetic load is too high, no amount of good rearing will change the outcome: you have a full-blown sociopath on your hands no matter what you do, how they are treated, what they eat, or who they play with.

Some are simply born that way, and therefore it implies that genetics is truly in play, not merely society.

Agreed, there is no genetic test for sociopathy and there will never be one, because you can be a ruthless, bloodthirsty killer, but there are times like during a war when society is threatened that a ruthless, bloodthirsty killer can be an incredible hero to everyone. It all depends on the context the person is in, not the person. It all depends on the job society needs done.

reply to post by apacheman

But if the genetic load is too high, no amount of good rearing will change the outcome: you have a full-blown sociopath on your hands no matter what you do, how they are treated, what they eat, or who they play with.

Some are simply born that way, and therefore it implies that genetics is truly in play, not merely society.

The way genes work, if the relevant genes are tweaked (by the environment) in one way, you have a Ghandi - another way, you get Hitler. Same genes, different products.

reply to post by soficrow


Try this video:

www.sott.net...

Excellent presentation on the genetics of sociopathy.

reply to post by soficrow


Yes, but...if the genetic load is too high, you will never get a Gandhi, ever, but only horrors that no amount of environmental factors will ever influence.

So if we can make people pee in a cup and ruin their lives with a test that is arguably randomly correct, then I see no reason not to test for the ability to truly feel empathy through a complete and varied battery of tests that together are vastly more certain of being reliable.

Allowing psycho/sociopaths into sensitive positions of power that require the ability to feel empathy is far too dangerous to just let it slide.

An argument could be made that sociopaths would be expected to fight tooth and nail against such tests, as they would definitively expose them, an outcome that would severely limit their ability to prey upon others.

Edit to add:

Genes don't work that way: no amount of environmental influence will change the color of your hair, eyes, or skin.

reply to post by apacheman

if the genetic load is too high

"Genetic load"? Is that a scientific term? Do you have a link? ...or do you maybe mean environmental load?

Genes don't work that way: no amount of environmental influence will change the color of your hair, eyes, or skin.

Genes DO work that way - it's very old news (see 2003 ref. below). And environmental influences commonly change hair color to gray and white, for example, eye color to whitish, and skin in a variety of ways, most frequently in patches and blotches. ….you're right though - a very few, very limited traits seem to be strictly genetic, but most are not. Even hair color cannot be proved to be "genetic." (Go ahead and do the research; you won't find clear scientific proof.)

VIDEO: Epigenetics

Environmental factors can alter the way our genes are expressed, making even identical twins different.

Once nurture seemed clearly distinct from nature. Now it appears that our diets and lifestyles can change the expression of our genes. How? By influencing a network of chemical switches within our cells collectively known as the epigenome.

Scientific research from 2003:

Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals

……differences in gene expression arise during [cell] development and are subsequently retained through mitosis. Stable alterations of this kind are said to be 'epigenetic', because they are heritable in the short term but do not involve mutations of the DNA itself. Research over the past few years has focused on two molecular mechanisms that mediate epigenetic phenomena: DNA methylation and histone modifications. ……Epigenetic effects by means of DNA methylation have an important role in development but can also arise stochastically as animals age. Identification of proteins that mediate these effects has provided insight into this complex process and diseases that occur when it is perturbed. External influences on epigenetic processes are seen in the effects of diet on long-term diseases such as cancer. Thus, epigenetic mechanisms seem to allow an organism to respond to the environment through changes in gene expression.

More recent:

….For decades, scientists and doctors assumed that cancer was caused by damage to some critical stretch of DNA within one's genome. But recently, a more complex picture has emerged, one that shows that some cancers are caused by epigenetic changes—tiny chemical tags that accumulate over time and can turn genes on or off. Unlike genetic damage, epigenetic changes can sometimes be reversed…..

EPIGENETICS 101

…..skin and eyes and teeth and hair and organs all have exactly the same DNA. You cannot genetically tell my skin from my eyes or my teeth. Yet these are very different cells. They behave differently. And that behavior remains the same for as long as I live.

That difference, not being genetic, has been termed epigenetic. It is a difference that is not due strictly to genetic changes but to the way we utilize these genes. And so the same process that can cause such a profound difference that one tissue looks like skin and one tissue looks like eye could actually cause less profound changes….

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by soficrow

 

Did you actually read any of the sources?

There is clearly a genetic component to sociopathy, and is is not merely epigenetic, as that would imply that everyone has an equal chance of bing a sociopath, which is provably false.

Why are you fighting the concept so hard?

Ask yourself this:
Would a sociopath or psychopath want to be exposed?
Would a gay person in the 1950's want to be "outed"(empathic reference)

If sociopaths and psychopaths make up an X percentage of any given population, then it stands to reason that an X number of Above Top Secret users are also Psychopaths and Sociopaths. So these individuals have a fairly obvious reason to want to take certain positions in these topics that would serve their own best interest.

You have a list and other clues on how to identify psychopaths and sociopaths: use them.

----------
The whole "anyone can become" is a myth. Just as some people are born as solid homosexuals, a larger subset of people are born bi-sexual. Meaning they could go either way depending on the social atmosphere. If you have a pathological social atmosphere those people are more likely to become sociopaths or psychopaths. While if you have a more rational or empathic social atmosphere, they are likely to be rational or empathic.

I don't mean to offend homosexuals or bisexuals(I am not picking on you), it is just that homosexuality and bisexuality are the perfect examples of this type of social/genetic interplay phenomenon that almost everyone can understand and absorb what I am saying.


--
In addition: Sociopaths tend to prefer more totalitarian/sociopath led governments. So a sociopath at the street level wouldn't hesitate to go to bat for a sociopath in a position of power(hence why some people defy all logic, reason and basic humanity to protect police abuses).

reply to post by korathin


Hmm. This discussion is NOT about whether or not sociopaths exist and are dangerous. It is about whether or not sociopathy is genetic - "Should screening for genetic sociopathy be mandatory..."?

Too many people are on the "it's genetic" bandwagon when very, very few traits, diseases or anything is genetic - the only scientists who make such claims are those whose livelihoods depend on maintaining the fiction - the only politicians who push it are those who are looking to cut healthcare and other costs through euthanasia. Most traits result from an extremely complex interaction between genes and environment. And we simply do NOT know enough about the process to start "screening for genetic sociopathy."


Ed to add - also, I take GREAT exception to the exclusive focus on politicians and police - when our world's business model and corporate laws literally mandate sociopathy.

What's that about?

reply to post by soficrow


"Genetic load" refers to much of a genetic inheritance is received from parents. If only one parent carries a few of the genes involved, then the genetic load is low. If both parents carry all the genes involved, the genetic load is high. In the latter case you are nearly 100% certain to give birth to a sociopath.

While the environment may turn my hair white or gray, my offspring won't be born with white or gray hair. If my hair is black, my wife's hair is black, and everyone's hair on both sides of the family has been black for generations, and my wife gives birth to a blond-haired kid, then I'm having a talk with her and my blond-haired neighbor.

As far as focusing upon politicians and police, those are the law-makers and law-enforcers. Clean those two up, and it will be far easier to control the corporate side. I would eagerly expand the call for screening to corporate executives of multi-nationals and national corporations, but look how hard it is to gain acceptance of the concept for those who directly control our lives and laws.

I totally agree with the idea that whomever is given power or given some kind of control over situations where they hold the right to take you to jail, ruin the economy, run the people, run a school, run a kids program or even cook in a school's cafe should be tested. It makes complete sense. Politicians.. YES. Police..YES. Old creepy Sandusky...Definitely!! What would classify them as a sociopath though and uneligible for the job? More and more people are becoming sociopaths. I feel it effects us humans as more and more troubles occur in the world.

reply to post by soficrow


After reading your sources, it is pretty clear they are referring to environmental factors effecting susceptibility to disease and that they deal with how the environment may effect the expression of the underlying base. Epigenetics does not, however, change the base itself. It can only effect the given range of the available material.

Sociopathy, while contagious, is not a disease, it is a state of being. Being Asian, Black, Caucasian, or AmerIndian aren't disease states, they are states of being, and no environmental factors will ever change the genetic signature of those states. Being raised around/in a group you aren't genetically related to doesn't give you or your offspring the genetic characteristics of that group.

Sociopaths are discernibly genetically different from non-sociopaths. The degree of expression of their sociopathy is indeed influenced by the environment, but only the degree, not the fact of the state.

Sociopaths are evolved predators upon humanity with the very effective tools of mimicry as part of their predatory repertoire. They look like us, talk like us, but they aren't really us. We are their prey. They feel nothing for us but contempt.

We have the tools now to expose them and protect ourselves from them

We should really start using them.

reply to post by apacheman

"Genetic load" refers to much of a genetic inheritance is received from parents. ….In the latter case you are nearly 100% certain to give birth to a sociopath.

No references for this one, huh? I can understand why not. But why are you hiding the fact that you're a Eugenecist? Are you ashamed?

The term "genetic load" was coined by Muller and Haldane - both Eugenics promoters - and their ideas of human genetic "superiority" and "inferiority" really do NOT survive scrutiny.

War Against the Weak

War Against the Weak is the gripping chronicle documenting how American corporate philanthropies launched a national campaign of ethnic cleansing in the United States, helped found and fund the Nazi eugenics of Hitler and Mengele — and then created the modern movement of "human genetics."

Genetic load

The concept was first formulated in 1937 by JBS Haldane, independently formulated, named and applied to humans in 1950 by H. J. Muller, and elaborated further by Haldane in 1957.

Muller was a proponent of Eugenics

Haldane on Eugenics

If my hair is black, my wife's hair is black, and everyone's hair on both sides of the family has been black for generations, and my wife gives birth to a blond-haired kid, then I'm having a talk with her and my blond-haired neighbor.

Big mistake. Get educated before you hurt someone out of ignorance, please.

As far as focusing upon politicians and police, those are the law-makers and law-enforcers. Clean those two up, and it will be far easier to control the corporate side.

Many ATSers say it works the other way around.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by korathin

 

Hmm. This discussion is NOT about whether or not sociopaths exist and are dangerous. It is about whether or not sociopathy is genetic - "Should screening for genetic sociopathy be mandatory..."?

Too many people are on the "it's genetic" bandwagon when very, very few traits, diseases or anything is genetic - the only scientists who make such claims are those whose livelihoods depend on maintaining the fiction - the only politicians who push it are those who are looking to cut healthcare and other costs through euthanasia. Most traits result from an extremely complex interaction between genes and environment. And we simply do NOT know enough about the process to start "screening for genetic sociopathy."


Ed to add - also, I take GREAT exception to the exclusive focus on politicians and police - when our world's business model and corporate laws literally mandate sociopathy.

What's that about?

edit on 4/12/11 by soficrow because: add

Yawn, You read but do not comprehend. It was a thinly veiled accusatory statement on my part. What I meant is, a certain percentage of sociopaths and psychos are in this very thread. I have often noticed that sociopaths tend to make the nurture argument but I digress...

The simple fact is some people are just born evil.

And some people are born being susceptible to becoming evil. And when enough evil people gain power in society, it causes those that are on the fence to drop the other way.

www.smartplanet.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Is sociopathy the next step in human evolution or is it a genetic "mistake"? Anyways...I feel sorry for all the sociopaths but I am all for it to screen for this genetic "mistake" and keep these people out of politics or any other public office. There are other ATSérs that brought this option for sociopaths forward in other threads and their opinion is something worth thinking about.

I think it is fair to say that sociopaths/ psychopaths do only care about their own interest and couldn't care less about society or any other person.

on the other hand I am very interested to hear arguments why such personal and mental skills could be a benifit for a nation. I can imagine that such "sick"personality skills can contribute to the annual profit of a company.

reply to post by korathin

Yawn, You read but do not comprehend. It was a thinly veiled accusatory statement on my part.

Yawn. I comprehend and ignore such statements.

What I meant is, a certain percentage of sociopaths and psychos are in this very thread.

I get that. What YOU don't get is that everything is being falsely described as "genetic" - from cancer to sociopathy. The goal is a return to Eugenics policies, the isolation of the sick and diseased, and the "sanitization" of the human gene pool - ALL based on completely false premises, and a misunderstanding of the difference between genetics and epigenetics.