I have been a criminologist (both theoretical and in practice) for over 20 years and there are very few fellow criminologists that believe ONLY environment matters. While his point on spurious relationships is valid there are two key points that are baseline ideas and are ignored here. What is ignored here? In part, two primary ideas- first, "crime" is a human construct and subjective in nature. This is significant to the field since the dependent variable is subjective in nature and changes from place to place and over time. Second, the impact of a growing body of literature on the intersection of DNA and environment. That literature suggests that brain and biological "predispositions" are malleable, not only by environment but also by behaviors specifically engaged in that change how the brain processes information. IMHO, the REAL issue in criminology and other social sciences in one of dosage. The arguments between approaches are matters of degree, not simple "yes/no" as alluded to here. How much does genetics matter? Or diet? Or family? Or experience? Or education? Or economy? etc... If the purpose of criminology is to reduce the negative impact of crime- then we should argue less about dosage and more about solutions. And we know that wholistic approaches (covering all parts of the social-ecology spectrum) are most effective in reducing both the amount of crime and the negative impact of crime.

@cristianbaez5314

6 жыл бұрын

Global Evaluation Solutions what jobs can you get with a degree in criminology?

@johnosandra

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly, the validity of this man's assertions aside, what does it add to the debate to say that genes mediate the relationship between the environment and crime to a far greater extent than previously thought? How does this assertion advance the field? I've got degrees in psychology, social science and law. This man's talk, while enjoyable, doesn't throw up anything novel in the way implied here. It is in fact trite to say that genes determine how a given individual or thing interacts with their environment. This understanding is by no means foreign to the vast field of criminology. One a side note, the way twin studies are relied on in scientific research, particularly in the field of psychology, is so lazy - be original - go out and actually do something punk...

@arserobinson7118

4 жыл бұрын

Even Enrico Ferri didn't believe purely on social and environmental factors. This presentation is laughable.

@jakbowtell9367

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for taking the time to write this so I didn’t have to haha!

@dppatters

3 жыл бұрын

@@cristianbaez5314 Nothing you want. Trust me. Haha

He is basically saying that genetics play a bigger role than people thought when they choose to commit a crime. But he actually offers very little grounded evidence to actually prove that and whilst it may be true to some degree, it plays a minor role in the grand scheme of things. My guess was that he wanted to shift the field of focus in Criminology, but I can't say this very revolutionary.

@samuelswartout3095

3 жыл бұрын

I agree the whole way! He offers very little evidence and is essentially saying people are more pre disposed to be criminals based on their genes almost like asserting there is a better gene pool that does not have pre disposition to crime.

@xxcrysad3000xx

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah this is so much weak tea. Good science is grounded in publicly observable evidence and replicable data. Where is the empirical evidence that crime is mostly or wholly genetic or biological?

@michaels4255

2 жыл бұрын

He doesn't dive into the evidence because this is a short and non technical talk for a generalist audience. But there is published evidence (use google scholar), and there would be more published evidence if influential people in the field were not biased against its publication. That is really the main point of this presentation: that criminology as a field needs to reform and to assess evidence for the genetic influence on crime by the same criteria that it uses to assess non genetic evidence. Most criminologists know that genetics are a factor, but they also know that controlling for genetics when they do their research reduces their chances of getting published!

No matter where the environment a person is staying,what genes they have, or the knowledge and experience they gain, "choice" will always be there and it will be a great factor in that person's life.

@michaels4255

2 жыл бұрын

Are choices completely random and unpredictable, or do certain choices become more likely depending on various factors? We should not just stop the research with the excuse that "people make choices."

@asl5079

8 ай бұрын

The field of criminology is all about those choices, though. Choices are based on reasons that are based on factors in someone's life. Two people with the same life could make two different choices when it comes to stealing an apple if one has been told by his father that stealing was better than starving whilst the second one has been told that stealing couldn't be excused. Of course, in the end, it's a personal decision. What interests criminologists is how predictable it is and which out-of-control factors affect that decision.

He's got a relaxing voice.

@khiaraluga223

3 жыл бұрын

Who's the main character about it?

this comment is not related to criminology. I find it very amusing that the man on stage projecting audio communication is lit with the spotlight whilst the person to his right is projecting visual communication and isn't lit up by the spot light.

@lilithuriel

5 жыл бұрын

yeah i thought about this too!

@eyebelieve3

4 жыл бұрын

@@lilithuriel Not only that but he is raised on the stage and she is off centre, low down ,on the floor.

Love this talk, environment starts from biological factors, they are intertwinable especially in deviance, criminality and conformity! (Conformity is another type of deviance) .

Great talk!

The premise of his argument may apply to his school or academic experience; however, criminology in Canada is a multi-disciplinary subject. In crime theory, sociology does not reject or ignore biology any more than psychology rejects environment. I've studied sociology, psychology, and criminology at three different Canadian universities, and the inclusion of biology and sociology in relation to crime is consistent across all subjects. I will say, though, that each subject has their own framing that involves either more empiricism (psychology) or critical realism (sociology); criminology tends to move between the two depending on each course.

@cherylsiewierski6296

5 жыл бұрын

I agree completely - and my studies were based in South Africa (where the context and economic inequality obviously demand greater attention be given to environment, but in which biology is certainly never ignored)

STIFLER? ANYONE?!

@gioiarista717

5 жыл бұрын

Once you see it you can't unsee it ...

@zaimahbegum-diamond1660

5 жыл бұрын

DEFINITELY

We shouldn't be afraid to find the truth.

Remarquable, and courageous!

10.09 nope, correlation is not causality! Also I have no idea why he thinks sociology departments only focus on environmental factors. There are lots of criminologists who focus on psychology, neurology, and social psychology studies intertwined with the study of crime. Anyway... Not a single theory of crime, no matter what, is never gonna explain all crime. What kind of crime? How do you even define crime? Not all crimes are the same, not all actors engaging in crime are the same, not even within same categories of crimes... and, of course, he has to end everything saying there’s just “one way” or “another”, in terms of future for the science. Agency is not even considered. Of course, I am also quite sceptical of the fact that everything is necessarily rational-choice-based, but ignore agency in total is a very naive mistake, in my opinion. Such a reductionist view, from beginning to the end. This could lead to worse actuarial justice practices than the (already bad) ones that we have today. Quite problematic. Garland wrote about this types of biosocial positivism, and I share most of his concerns (legitimacy, ethics, practice, prevention mechanisms, reparation and restoration, state and institutional control vs individuals).

@michaels4255

2 жыл бұрын

" There are lots of criminologists who focus on psychology, neurology, and social psychology studies intertwined with the study of crime." You can study all three of these fields in ways that totally ignore genetic variability, so you have not refuted him at all. "Anyway... Not a single theory of crime, no matter what, is never gonna explain all crime." And your point is what? That you think the study of contributing factors should be stopped? Nothing to see here folks, move right along? "Such a reductionist view, from beginning to the end" Reductionism is an essential tool of science. It is like the tape measure in carpentry. "Garland wrote about this types of biosocial positivism, and I share most of his concerns" What about environmental positivism? Why do you not express any concerns about that? At least biosocial research does not actively exclude any factors. It includes ALL factors, whereas its opponents want to exclude on particular factor even though it is a powerful one according to the evidence.

Camera man is a criminal, blurry image in one camera, akward angle in the other, and earthquake special effects one in a while. must be alcohol abstinence.

The telentology of crime is spilt into 2 categories I believe. Expected offending , and unexpected offending environmental influence. Micro vs Macro lived experiences are intrinsic biased or imprints of how many criminals function . Based on how they view themselves and also the world and people around them. But essentially the crux of your question is people need people period. People need to belong for security to connect. And in the process their behaviour is facilitated by others . Different cultural groups are known to commit similar crimes. There is a correlation usually but not always. Human beings if detached in any form will react in some way or form. If our upbringings are abnormal or our belief systems are met with conjecture it goes against our own principles, values. Then people react which can lead to crime. Criminal behaviour is a person whom is not emotionally focused nor are they balanced both mentally , physically and culturally. But they think they are due to the fact they are socially conditioned and their behaviour is the norm. Henceforth they are living in intrinsic denial. In a criminals later developmental years self actualization sets in. This can result in non- offending or it may result in generativity or recidivism behaviour for the individual had under achieved. Or he or she wants revenge.

I took a number of sociology courses as an undergraduate. In criminology we briefly covered Lombroso (atavism, phrenology, etc.) if only as a way of completely dismissing biological theories. However, we know that different races differ in things like average IQ and testosterone levels. Shouldn't these things at least be considered in trying to understand differences in crime rates among the races?

As a studying criminology student we have been thought to take genes into effect but are you really saying that some people are more pre disposed to crime or wrong doing?

@michaels4255

2 жыл бұрын

If some people were not more predisposed than others, then genetic effects on criminal conduct would be undetectable.

One problem I think is that we have too many criminologists who fantasize about being crime fighters. Criminologists should stop trying to help the rest of society control crime and just help us to UNDERSTAND crime. The rest of us can figure out for ourselves how to use the discoveries of criminology -- and those discoveries are not just useful to police, judges, lawmakers, social workers, and parents. They are potentially useful for other purposes too, such as assessing potential marriage partners. Also, if you are part of a mafia crime family, you might want to use this information in different ways than mainstream society. The criminology profession needs to stop pre screening the information or type of research on the basis of what they perceive to be its utility.

This idea that social scientists ignore biology is a straw man. Biology is not hated or rejected by any of the subject specialisms he mentions. Bio-psychology is a major part of any psyc degree. Sociology isn't particularly interested in biology simply because it is the social context that is under investigation. Sociologists don't reject biological aspects of human behaviour - rather, it simply is not their field to describe and explore. Criminology is grounded more in sociology than any other subject, sure. But is he asking that criminologists now become biologists and neuro-scientists too? If I wanted to find out how the brain affects behaviour, who do I ask? A neuro-scientist. Experts specialise. If you are interested in how genes, the brain etc affects criminal or deviant behaviour, there are plenty of avenues to study this. First though, you will need to understand the basics of human biology and genetics. You would then eventually specialise to study crime in this context. There is plenty of research into the many ways crime is a product of brain chemistry (for example, psychopathy). There really is nothing stopping someone researching the biological causes of crime. But it would be a mistake to expect the field of criminology to suddenly embrace biological causes of behaviour - you are asking people to base research in an area they have no background in. The field is grounded in sociology and the social context of crime. That doesn't mean they reject biological causes - it simply is not their field.

@xxcrysad3000xx

3 жыл бұрын

I realized this guy was a creep and a fraud when one of the "Up Next" recommended videos is an interview of him on Stefan Molyneux's program. Yikes.

@darwinkilledgod

3 жыл бұрын

That has not been my experience in criminology. "Bio criminology" has a moral taint to it.

if he says pre-crime ...

I can see this future turning into a dystopian-literature-book-type society, separating children at birth, "criminals" and "non-criminals".

how can he be gone to tedx??

interesting

This talk dramatically mischaracterizes the findings of Polderman and colleauges, published in Nature Genetics. In fact, Boutwell used the study to support conclusions the study itself cautions against. In a long tradition from Lombroso to Hooten and onward beyond Herrnstein, this dispositional approach to criminogenesis is built on ideological interpretation of science. Perhaps we may be unable to read science except through the lens of ideology, but then we might deliberately avoid ideologies that have a genealogical link to eugenics.

@michaels4255

2 жыл бұрын

You have it exactly backwards. It is the taboo against examining the genetic effects on human behavior that is "built on an ideological interpretation of science" ever since the social sciences were corrupted by Franz Boas and Sigmund Freud in the early 20th century.

giving crime environmental explanations gives us the idea we can enact policies to change crime. What can WE do to effect change on genetics? Eugenics died almost a century ago

@charmainemcbrearty3814

6 жыл бұрын

Perhaps not, but we could become better predictors, better educators, better at early intervention and develop better crime prevention strategies. As our knowledge grows, so too can systems and policies...across the entire, broader population. It's not about identifying criminals through genes and treating them, but about growing our understanding of genetics and it's contribution, so we can continue to work collaboratively in a fully-informed way.

@michaels4255

2 жыл бұрын

@@charmainemcbrearty3814 Also, as he pointed out in his presentation, controlling for genetics changes the environmental correlations, and sometimes apparent environmental correlations (suspected causes) vanish entirely. Thus, failing to control for genetics can lead us to incorrect conclusions about particular environmental variables.

The Nature Genetics article Prof. Boutwell cites in this talk (Polderman et al., 2015), says nothing about crime or criminality. It discusses many traits, but not crime.

@BrendenBeck

7 жыл бұрын

Why do you think Boutwell didn't cite those, but instead cited Polderman?

@michaeljensen6805

7 жыл бұрын

it's relevant to the field of criminology, because in social sciences (like criminology) the enviroment is deemed as the alpha omega when it comes to human personality and behaviour. He cited it because apparently that is not the case, since twins that have grown up in different enviroments are still extremely similar in intelligence, behaviour etc, and therefore not only a product of their enviroment as so many criminologists claim, but also a product of their parents genes.

Positivists get such a harsh rep in Criminology

@alwaysask

7 жыл бұрын

Using "positivist" as a pejorative is very cheap and unscientific. It's as if someone called the average social scientist (almost an oxyMORON) a post-modern socioconstructivist relativist that can only use words and use Derrida and Foucault.

ARE WE TALKING IDENTICAL OR FRATERNAL TWINS???

How could you not make the connection between psychopathy, impulse control issues and the propensity for crime regardless as to environment? Environment is just a variable that increases or decreases the probability, it doesn't remove it. Secondly, "crime" is of course cultural and changes from culture to culture, in this case, a person with the above problems is more likely to experience issues in a culture who's laws are comparatively stricter than others. Loosen the grip and you loosen the propensity for breaking the law, completely loosen the grip and it doesn't matter what a biologically predisposed psychopath with impulse control issues does, its "all good" in the eyes of the law because they're not breaking any laws as there are none. Normal people will undoubtedly become disturbed by this and wish for the tightening of law to bring these people into check and so they should, they have no empathy. Law in many ways, is about empathy at the core of it. Sometimes empathy for the individual but overall the group and the sum of groups that reflect that culture. By having a law, it gives the sum of normal people to ostracise those who break the law, laws aren't too tight in any one culture otherwise everyone would be breaking it. Thus law making and breaking has a cultural equilibrium with respect to the former and a biological equilibrium with respect to the latter.

The speaker said, "We are not well regarded" by the rest of the field. Wondering, why not? Are there substantive objections to your approach, or is it all just name calling? Also, a little skeptical about the final bit, about how a more accurate understanding of criminality will inexorably lead to a more humane policy that will benefit everyone. That's a little naive. Sure, do your best to understand it as well as you can, but scientific knowledge could lead to all sorts of good or bad policies, you can't predict.

@73elephants

8 жыл бұрын

It's name-calling and avoidance. sound research opens the door to the possibility of better responses to chrome. Doesn't guarantee they will be adopted, but as long as we continue on the unproductive path of denying biology, any significant improvement is impossible.

@tamararickett2458

8 жыл бұрын

Part of the reason is that people like Brian associate with the likes of: www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray

@tamararickett2458

8 жыл бұрын

No one denies biology (this is one of the MANY problems with Brian's talk: he sets up a dichotomous strawman at the outset which is far to simplistic (gene vs enviro). For example, within the context of bio factors (not gene) is FASD, which is now understood as being extremely prevalent within prison populations (along with TBI, pre-natal nutrition etc.)

@ikearamba5843

8 жыл бұрын

"We" as in the White Supremacist Eugenic Criminologists Department

@kirtichandrakomarraju5164

7 жыл бұрын

guilt by association is a logical falacy. He is shunned by mainstream so he has to look towards the fringe.

The memory, of crime(( is within the water.asit has memory

Online with Mr.laver anyone?

Hmmm what are his credentials?

@VioletViolence

5 жыл бұрын

He obtained a PhD from the Florida State University and received an Outstanding Professor Award from the BACCJ Program in 2015. He is an American criminologist and associate professor of criminology at Saint Louis University.

Phenotype = environment / genes and biology combined

The equation of genes + environment leaves out personal choice. Pause on that. How can any of this make any sense when the "social scientists" and "bio scientists" ignore that individuals also make choices that impact criminality and any other behavior or outcome? Its as if they have a complete blindness to the concept of personal agency; as if the human being is a machine that runs on a program without a mind making choices. Impulses and influences alone do not control human beings. We make choices too.

@Sam-py9qq

6 жыл бұрын

M Santana it's about difference and analysis on the aggregate level. Everyone has agency so it cancels out.

@clng5550

5 жыл бұрын

if you dig deeper, we cant control our biochemistry. is there really free will in whether or not we conduct crimes?

@darwinkilledgod

3 жыл бұрын

What explains which choice a person makes? What causes choice?

Miaouw

This is ignoring so many social factors and aims towards a more racist future, If done wrong. Very dangerous!!

@kymscheiwe5859

6 жыл бұрын

They were my thoughts. There's something a bit discriminatory in this that I can't quite put my finger on. I just feel like this new branch could lend itself to some dark schools of thought if unchecked.

@mollygunter-droney4194

6 жыл бұрын

I don't think he's ignoring social factors, but *including* biological factors. That's important, and that's his point, because without that the equation is incomplete.

@tammylee5045

6 жыл бұрын

Totally agree, Molly, I'm for one glad they are finally acknowledging bio factors

smart boy :)

This is a laughingstock

Obviously those of you watching this Ted Talk are interested in criminology. So tell me something. We hear all these kinds of heinous crimes, smash and grab robberies, shootings, etc. Why doesn’t the justice system execute them? Why isn’t the death penalty used or used more often?

How can you be a criminologist yet you are a criminal?, is that logistic even

@samuelpayne7885

3 жыл бұрын

Well no one knows the mind of a criminal better than a criminal so that could come in handy but yes I understand why it wouldn't be logical

I took a number of sociology courses as an undergraduate. In criminology we briefly covered Lombroso (atavism, phrenology, etc.) if only as a way of completely dismissing biological theories. However, we know that different races differ in things like average IQ and testosterone levels. Shouldn't these things at least be considered in trying to understand differences in crime rates among the races?

@Tim0909

6 жыл бұрын

To further elaborate, I believe IQ, testosterone and other arguably predisposed genetics can be studied in relation to crime but only when used in conjuntion with a huge myriad of other research. Albeit, my personal stance is that I find it extremely difficult to seperate things like IQ and testosterone from social factors, let alone applying it to something so broad like a race especially applying it to the causation of crime. Just applying it to crime itself seems ridiculous. Like if I have a high testosterone and a low IQ therefore I am more prone to white collar crime like embezzling?