« BACK TO FORUM
Moderators:
anuriandima84, Liamjod, mekhala, mnopq
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
selasie
Joined: May 18, 2006
Posts: 10
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 24
Country: Ghana
Province/State: Greater Accra
City: Accra
|
What is your take
October 25, 2006 - 12:11 PM
|
|
 Can someone indicate the cause of young pepole becoming fraudsters.Is it the state of the ecnomy?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
mnopq
Joined: Dec 20, 2005
Posts: 134
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
 Virtual Volunteer
Gender: Male
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Qahirah
City: Al Qahirah
|
Re: What is your take
October 25, 2006 - 01:50 PM
|
|
It is many things.
There is usually no ready-to-see reason, although in some cases that might happen.
There are, according to many modern behavioural theories, three things expounding and influencing behaviours, attitudes and beliefs of kids and young people:
1) Their DNA;
2) Their environment in which they grow up and live;
3) Their "individual" character treats developed/developing via work, family, studies etc, which werent necessarily part of the inheritance.
So oyu can imagine that any of these three, influenced from outside events, situations etc can have its own influence on what the oyung person makes out of his/her future; whether walking towards a brighter horizon or turning towards a darker side.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
That guy
Joined: Sep 17, 2006
Posts: 20
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 21
Country: United States
Province/State: Louisiana
City: New Orleans
|
Re: What is your take
October 26, 2006 - 04:34 PM
|
|
mnopq wrote:
It is many things.
There is usually no ready-to-see reason, although in some cases that might happen.
There are, according to many modern behavioural theories, three things expounding and influencing behaviours, attitudes and beliefs of kids and young people:
1) Their DNA;
2) Their environment in which they grow up and live;
3) Their "individual" character treats developed/developing via work, family, studies etc, which werent necessarily part of the inheritance.
So oyu can imagine that any of these three, influenced from outside events, situations etc can have its own influence on what the oyung person makes out of his/her future; whether walking towards a brighter horizon or turning towards a darker side.
Hmm... what are you referring to about DNA? I have never heard of a genetic link to criminal behavior. Point me to your information, please.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
mnopq
Joined: Dec 20, 2005
Posts: 134
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Virtual Volunteer
Gender: Male
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Qahirah
City: Al Qahirah
|
Re: What is your take
October 27, 2006 - 12:57 PM
|
|
William,
I didnt mean DNA has any direct and obvious link to the criminal record of people.
Genes do not play a direct role but they do predispose certain types of character and behaviour, which, given the "favourable" environment can renforce and facilitate a development of certain criminal "treats".
Lamarck came out with the idea, before Darwin, that behaviour is hereditary trasmitted, but his theory was discredited later on with the advent of Darwin's "On the orgin of species" in 1859. Though if you read through the book of Darwin there is much he borrowed from Lamarck's theorie.
In two words, behaviour coupled with right set of genes and favourable enviroment predisposes a certain genetical mutation to happen (which would otherwise be less probable tohappen) and what you get at the end of the day is that if one has criminal parents, criminal environment, criminal friends, etc. there is much chance that certain criminal "treats" would be trasmitted to this person's children.
I think it may sound a bit vague now, but read on the "origin of species" the first edition and it will make things much clearer!
H.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Cherrie
Joined: Oct 27, 2003
Posts: 40
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 23
Country: New Zealand
Province/State: Auckland
City: Auckland
|
Re: What is your take
October 29, 2006 - 02:39 AM
|
|
The difference between an inheritance of say, Sickle Cell Anaemia (autosomal recessive single point mutation in haemoglobin) and criminal behaviour (which may be correlated with aggressiveness, susceptibility to addiction, ability to make decisions, which may be related to certain enzymatic activity) would be dependent on a gene's
penetrance - the probability that a gene will have any phenotypic expression (100% penetrance is unusual, due to recessiveness or the generation phenomenon or the modification of gene expression by environmental factors)
pleiotropism - describes the ability of a gene (or rather, its product) to have multiple effects, for example a chromosome 13 trisomy not only causes congenital heart defects, it causes other symptoms such as mental retardation, epicanthic eyelids, etc that constitute Down Syndrome
expressivity - variation in the severity of the problems arising from a particular genetic defect - this depends on the gene loci (location in genome and nucleus effects gene expression, epigenetic effects) and the environment
Thus, the mileu of genetic interactions with each other, with other proteins in the cell are so complex that it is difficult to determine exactly which genes contribute to what traits. More often than not, these genes are so responsive to the environment that any 'inheritance' is effectively nullified
and all that is left is the environment.
Further, I have only studied the works of Lamarck and Darwin briefly, but to clarify mnopq's comments, the main difference between the Lamarckian school of thought and the Darwinian school of thought is:
Lamarck thought that acquired traits could be inherited - a typical example they give us at University is that if asked why do giraffes have such long necks? Lamarck would answer - because throughout their lifetimes, giraffes have to stretch their necks (through use) to eat leaves, thus their offspring will inherit the stretchedness of the necks. This is a teleological mode of thinking - no evidence thus far.
On the other hand, Darwin would say that the long-neckedness was inherited because giraffes with shorter necks would not gain access to food or mates and therefore not give rise to offspring. Thus, any genes that may predispose for longer necks would be inherited to the next generation. This is where the popular phrase "Survival of the fittest" came about, though many people often misinterpret what this means.
This post was edited on: 2006-10-29 at 02:51 AM by: cherrie
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
« BACK TO FORUM
|
Forum Jump:
|
All times are GMT-05:00
|
» Check that you are logged in!
You cannot create new threads in this forum
You cannot post replies in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot edit/delete your posts in this forum
|
|
Administrators:
Liamjod
Moderators:
anuriandima84, Liamjod, mekhala, mnopq
|
|
Home
Community
