Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

I got halfway through listening to this and then people came into my office, and I had to turn it off. :( Very interesting topic, and one I’ve been wondering about for a while now.  But, it’s also a headache to have to think about, if you know people who are chronically “evil"… I always have the instinct to think, “Oh nobody’s done enough, nobody’s tried to talk to them...” and so on and so forth, but people have tried.  I need to finish listening to this before I go on!

I listened to the episode last night, and ordered the book a few minutes ago. Very interesting discussion. Barbara Oakley’s observation that altruism is a survival trait which some people lack explains a lot about modern politic and business, especially Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

I’m not impressed by Barbara Oakley’s positions and feel no great inclination to read her book. It sounded all too reductionistic, and where she veered off into politics, positively naive. Ken Lays “should have done more than slap their wrists”. Give me a break! She reminds me of a naive reporter I once heard on NPR who touted Lays donations to the arts (millions, but by comparison minor pocket change) as worthy of admiration. Damnit, the Rockefellers started being ‘benefactors’ as a publicity ploy to improve their abysmal but correct image as being murderous robber barons, not because they meant it!

There are several types of CEOs, some are technocrats, some are just good looking, smooth talking figure heads, but most have achieved their high station because they ruthlessly put the bottom line over everything else. In this society, these guys tend to be lionized as heroes and ‘captains of industry’ but in my book they’re sociopaths. How do you rise in a hierarchie? Over the corpses of your competitors. It’s not just a prejudice, it’s recently shown to be the case in a decent study. Same for politics.

Here it’s especially obvious that the stupid ‘brain scans’ to which DJ kept referring don’t do nothing. Knowledge of a person’s psychological history and his history of actions apparently is much more telling, if sometimes of little account in the eyes of stupid voters. George W Bush and his henchman Karl Rove are good examples. Bush had nothing to show for except being rich, having a president for father, being born again and having emerged from alcoholism. He was a complete failure as a business man who had to be bailed out from his disastrous episodes in the oil industry numerous times. He hadn’t read a book, had in essence flunked Yale. He didn’t have to go to Nam because his connections made sure he ended up a non-flying pilot in the ‘champaign unit’ of the National Guard, and even failed to report for duty. He got into the Guard despite scoring only 25 percent on a “pilot aptitude” test, the lowest passing grade.

An acquaintance of mine attended Harvard business school with W. She told me his astounding ‘talent’ was to make claims one minute, and to completely disavow any knowledge of having ever utter anything of the kind as soon as his ideas had turned out to be wrong. She says it left profs and fellow students speechless.

Or take Karl Rove. By credible accounts the description of hitman or henchman is correct and undeniable. He had a history of breaking the rules and the law to denigrate and harm his political opponents, and was promoted to become “Bush’s brains” for exactly that reason. An amoral technocrat in the propaganda industry who was until recently allowed to machinate the lies used to start an illegal war that so far has killed more than a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. No need to submit him to a brain scan: everybody knew exactly what kind of a person he is, but the powerhungry Republican machine rewarded and promoted him for those exact features.

Or take Pol Pot or the North Vietnamese. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out the extremely cruel and devastating war in Southeast Asia basically only allowed the toughest and meanest leaders to survive. Guess why they were so inhumane? They had nothing to lose, they might die the same day in aerial bombings, they had little to eat because dikes had been bombed and their food sustenance destroyed. Were they psychopaths? By some definition, yes, but where do the genes come in? (Note: this injection of reason earned Chomsky bitter criticsm as being an ‘apologist’ for their atrocities, when all he said was that there’s no reason to expect them to be nice guys).
(As an aside, I hate it when unpleasant leaders are dubbed ‘dictator’ when they have been elected, as applies to Milosevic, whom Oakley mentioned, and Iran’s Ahmedinejad, the latter having been called a dictator by the president of Columbia University.)

Does it really require a gene theory to understand history and politics? Even if there are genetic markers that identify ‘evil’ traits, does that open up any venues to change things? In any case, politics is often a shell game with figure heads visible to the outside - who may display integrity, wisdom and statesmanship - and henchmen on the inside. Apparently, this is how people like to do things. I fail to see where the evil gene theory can make a dent, except to demonize and marginalize people who don’t live up to social norms.
What we need are social structures where obvious assholes do not rise through the ranks - now here’s a challenge!

Don’t sugar coat it moreover, tell us what you really think. 

How do you rise in a hierarchie? Over the corpses of your competitors. It’s not just a prejudice, it’s recently shown to be the case in a decent study. Same for politics.

Do you have a reference for this? I’d like to read it, or at least a synopsis.

<>

Oh my goodness, now I really want to listen to the rest this.  When I was talking about evil people, I was thinking more like chronic inconsiderate assholes.

<>

Also, it reminded me of Michael Shermer’s book, The Science of Good and Evil

Michael Shermer’s book found - HERE = Skeptic.com on right of page

Barbara Oakley’s web site - HERE

I would also point to the work of Steven Pinker and David Sloan Wilson, who were mentioned on the podcast as praising Barbara’s book.

I was reminded of the book A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

<>

Oh my goodness, now I really want to listen to the rest this.  When I was talking about evil people, I was thinking more like chronic inconsiderate assholes.

Libertarians?

I do know some considerate libertarians.  I don’t necessarily agree with their political views, but I think that if everyone was as considerate as they are libertarianism might stand a chance!

I brought up Libertarians half-jokingly because of Barbara Oakley’s discussion about altruism in great apes, and how that may be a survival trait. Libertarians may be considerate, but their political and social philosophy is most definitely not altruistic.

Oakley’s theory regarding genetics may have some merit. My father’s side of the family (as far as I know) contains two political liberals, myself and an older cousin. The rest are rabid Republicans who believe all Democrats are evil and Republicans, while not perfect, are at least trying to protect the country from terrorists, godless heathens, abortionists, tax collectors, and (worst of all) secular humanists. My mother’s side of the family is pretty much the opposite, preferring to let people lead their own lives and weighing the evidence before making decisions. We were all raised in the same culture, so what explains the different world views? While we don’t have enough evidence to proclaim genetics as the most likely reason, it is a compelling theory worthy of further investigation.

Hi Zarcus,
regarding formating, good point, I redacted it to include more paragraphs just now. As a general remedy, when I encounter hard to read web stuff I highlight it, use cut and paste, spit it out in my text program and increase the size: 7 seconds tops and no headaches reading it.

The study on how assholes advance in business came out very recently, but at the moment I’m failing at retrieving it. In essence it quantified that mean authoritarian bosses are climbing the ladder faster than their mellower cohorts. That said, different industries and different companies have different climates, and so do business schools. Harvard B is (or used to be) all about killing the competition, whereas Dartmouth emphasized mutual interest and cooperation. It’s a big field with lots of shades.

Oooh if you retrieve that study link it, please.

<>

Despite my general critique I do agree that a certain percentage of people may be incorrigible, and possibly for reasons that are fixed in their ‘nature’ or genetic makeup. I once worked for a savvy business manager of a theatre with lots of employees. She knew that given the size of the theatre she could pretty much count on having severe problems with 10% of the employees (theft, drugs, gambling debts, fake illness), regardless of how sure they were to have made the correct descisions during the hiring process.

By the same token, physics students often were the valedictorians in their respective highschools, and yet, now that they’re an undergrad at MIT they suddenly find themselves somewhere on a bell curve distribution where a few of their fellow students finish their problem sets in early afternoon while they give up at 3:30 am. No longer above average, good bye Lake Wobegone.

The point being: we have different abilities, and whenever we look at the extremes of a distribution we most likely have folks who got there by the grace or curse of superb or dismal genes.

Sociobiologists have long argued that we ignore our biological determinants at our own peril, but the cautious ones add that much of what our genes do not do for us can instead achieved through practice, cooperation, delegating tasks, or redefining goals. But again: mitigation may be tough or impossible at the extremes where 12 hours of excersises don’t make a math genius, and 10 years of therapy don’t cure a pathological sex killer.

Speaking of pathological: much of what we consider pathological or sociopathic in one society is considered normal or unremarkable in others, for purely cultural reasons.
Sexual initiation of teenage boys in bordellos in Thailand (used to be the practice in Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany, too). Wife beating. Slavery. Lynching. Honor killings. Killing of prisoners of war. Stealing from travellers. War raids over cattle, cuties or calebasses. Deadly duels over matters of ‘honor’ (i.e. words).
Consider: all these behaviors can be judged as rather evil, and yet they might have been performed by entire societies or within certain classes by a wide range of people. Did they have bad genes? No, they followed accepted cultural norms.

And as for Hitler and Co: What about that old wisdom that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?
My Aikido teacher (a mellow defensive Japanese martial art) told us yesterday how tempting the position of martial arts teacher is in that the aura of authority creates a power imbalance that is easily exploited. Often, female students feel drawn to a teacher who can easily take advantage, eager students quickly idealize a teacher, and the result is often that a teacher overestimates his actual skill. It even goes so far that some start to believe they have supernatural powers even when they initially knew full well that they were performing what amounts to circus tricks. Didn’t James Randi debunk some of those?

Anyway, just an example of how power corrupts, either with the corrupted knowing full well why he scores so easily, or, at a later stage, when his own interpretation becomes delusional. No ‘evil genes’ required here, just normal corruptable people developing nasty features.

I came in late and have been busy doing a bit of writing on my own.  I ordered Oakley’s book this morning as I tend to wander off mentally when listening to anyone reading anything.  It is a subject that I am interested in since I began working with at-risk teens.  I have never believed that evil is a natural tendency but an anger that has taken over the mind much like Autism. 

Zarcus, you quote Michael Shermer.  Is it a strange coincidence that you look like him?  I am a great fan of Shermer’s books, magazine and his appearances on television.  I was sorry he was not a speaker at the Atheist Alliance Conference last month.

That’s interesting… I think having autistic tendencies would definitely be detrimental to people with chronic anger issues.  OCD patterns are more likely, and anger is easy to be OCD about.  But I wonder if it is easier for people with different brain chemistry to get past anger.  I have a relative who is bi-polar and, I think, somewhat autistic, and she absolutely cannot get over her anger issues.  She seems like such a miserable wreck so much of the time.  I wish she would take her medications, because I know from personal experience that they help just enough to get over things, or at least to stop digging the hole.  I mean, if you really need to have a breakdown you can do it eventually, but you just need to stop digging first.  When every day of your life is a breakdown you gotta change things somehow.

godlessgeorge.  Has she had any chemistry tests of her possible imbalance in her blood or digestive system?  Even a hair analysis could pick up the reason she is so angry.  A lot of the problems can be om the diet or alcohol intake.  I’m so sorry to hear of anyone having to on medications when it could be a simple change in diet.  There is so much we don’t know about bodies and brains. 

I think we all are a little different from the norm (what ever that is) and sometimes it makes us more able to think or act in a positive way.  I have a very strange quirk in my personality and have used the energy from it in good ways. 

I am looking forward this reading this book to see the quirks in others and not be put off by them.

Well, her diet and her behaviors kind of reinforce one another.  She eats a lot of junk food and gets more depressed.  I don’t think she’s had any tests done, which, now that I think about it, is bad if she does have medication!

First thing I thought of when I read about a recent internet news story regarding James Watson’s controversial statment about Black intelligence was The Barbara Oakley podcast I had listened to earlier. The Barbara Oakley discussion opens a pandora’s box for while attempting to ascribe genetic destiny on Evil individuals, Professor Watson goes one step further and attempts to ascribe certain genetic qualities to groups. Great Controversial Podcast!  However I was’nt convinced of her Evil Gene Hypothesis. It’s not the whole story. Just like the idea that free will does not exist.  Again I’m not convinced by this idea either. I think Humans have it.  Great Podcast!

Anyway regarding genetics and science. Here’s a statement Watson gave today regarding the flack he took about what he said or did’nt say.

In his statement today, Prof Watson said science should not be afraid of tackling controversial issues.
“Science is no stranger to controversy and I am not one to shy away from tackling issues, however, difficult they might prove to be. I have had my share of controversy, as many of you know,” he added.
“I have always fiercely defended the position that we should base our view of the world on the state of our knowledge, on fact, and not on what we think it should be.
“This is why I believe passionately in genetics - for it will lead us to answers to many of the big and difficult questions that have troubled people for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.”

How long has evil been around? Can you say thousands of years?

A good metaphor for free will I heard once was a comparison with riding a bobsled.  You don’t have the maneuverability of an off-road vehicle, but you have some.  And, a lot of times if you’re going to change the direction the thing is going in, you have to work very hand-in-hand with the ice, or your personal/social/environmental landscape.

The book sounds compelling, but I’m going to have to read it to get much idea at all where the science fits in because the interview barely touched on it.

I mean, who is the least surprised that there are socio-paths?  Nothing new there.  The question is whether they are socio-paths because of their genes.  Why or how does the author think science supports this hypothesis?

The point about sociopaths is key. Any leader can be called a sociopath with some justification, and while there may be genetic predispositions it seems all too obvious that normal people can often be corrupted into becoming a sociopath by the corrupting influence of power, learning from their peers, following class-specific social norms etc. There’s a path to sociopathy, I’ll say, that requires no evil genes.

A Doctor from UCLA tried to compile a history on my family back in the late 60s when he discovered that my mother’s side of the family had one generation of 5 serious alcoholics.  They could not go back further than the parents who did not touch alcohol until my grandmother had bladder problem and the doctor put her on a beer a day.  It took her 6 months before she had tapper delivered for a constant flow of beer into her system.  My grandfather was Mormon and the reasons neither of them drank until after he died.  When the ambulance came to collect my own mother, who would go into a drinking spree lasting as long as 3 weeks and was taken to a rehab hospital, I had to go with them as I had no other family in our city.  I saw the vomiting, the hysteria of insanity until the doctor could get me out of there.  This started when I was just 4 years old.  When I was 10, that same doctor sat me down and told he felt this disease might have been inherited from my mother’s family and I should decide whether I would drink or not. 

At 15, my father (long divorced) was killed when his car missed the turn off in Beverly Hills and he was drunk at the wheel of his car.  That did it for me!  I was carrying a load of bad genes and the decision was mine how to handle the information.  If I decided not to ever drink, my life would be saved and I passed the information on to my kids.  We also discovered an inherited a degeneration Retina and that I and my kids could be blind at the age of 45 which seemed to be the common age. 

We did not even realize this inherited problem until the alcohol problems was finally diagnosed.  I did not get either problem and my eyes are still active at 74 and my kids have no problem at this time and one is 50 and the other 43.  My cousins have inherited the alcoholism and about half are losing their sight.  The draw to alcohol has destroyed their ability to stand without alcohol and many have gone into drug addiction.  We were an interesting study.  It is not over yet.  My girls did not breed so that part has been solved.  They have step kids but that’s all. 

This background of mine is why I’m very interested in looking into genetic flaws and why the human brain is unable to correct its own actions.  I do know that anxiety is part of the problem and none of the past generation ever got through a holiday without caving into alcohol.  It made all of us dread any action that brought them together.  I have outlived my generation and being the head honcho at this time, I try very hard to explain free will and a responsibility to stop this disease.  My oldest living cousin has become a born-again bore and fell into the 12-step program and brought his own son into this crap.  That, I guess is better than dying of alcohol but not much!!!

I have been concerned that our brains will not evolve any better than what we have at this time.  Humans are so eager to be addicted that I fear we might stop nature’s ability to extend our species.  Tell me I’m wrong!!!

.

I found this episode thought provoking, enlightening, and fascinating.

Also, it reminded me of Michael Shermer’s book, The Science of Good and Evil

Michael Shermer’s book found - HERE = Skeptic.com on right of page

Barbara Oakley’s web site - HERE

“Evil” is the topic of an article in the NY Time magazine today Sunday 10/21
[Here - ]

This article is an example of how the discussion can get hard-to-follow, because the philosophy of ‘evil’ gets abstract even though it is tied to concrete examples.

Jackson, thank you for letting us know about the New York Times Magazine article.  What I find fascinating is that there is no discussion at all in that article of the directly relevant information that science is beginning to provide about the concept of evil.  It’s a bit like reading a story about cancer that only discusses what was known up to the 1950s--and only discusses literary works about the topic. 

As the author of Evil Genes, I would like to point out that there is no “evil genes” hypothesis that states evil genes are the total story for why people might behave in a generally malevolent manner.  Genes are about risk, not about certainty--environment also very often plays an important role.  And sometimes that environmental influence can come about in surprising ways--that’s very clear with what happened to my sister. 

Yes, in some cases it does appear that people become psychopaths as a result of a strong genetic influence.  It really shouldn’t be controversial to say this--after all, we already know that occasionally people get Alzheimers at an early age because of a strong genetic influence.  And conditions ranging from Alzheimers to autism to schizophrenia to bipolar disorder are affected in varying degrees by both genetics and environment.  Also, some of the genes that can create some of our more problematic behavior can, when mixed with a different set of genes, underpin some of our very best behavior.  So there’s no such thing as getting rid of a few “evil genes” and, shazam, we’ve just eliminated evil. 

Free will most emphatically does exist.  The point I was trying to make in the book is that some people have more--and others less--"free will.” For example, if you have a strong ability to focus your attention, it appears you can make enormous changes in your temperament.  Certainly Gandhi and George Washington--well known for possessing the capability for profound passion and anger--were able to make deep-seated changes in their behavior.  But what if you don’t have that innate ability to focus?  What if part of your problem is that you can’t focus on anything negative about yourself?  In fact, difficulties with the attentional network appear to be at the heart of some forms of psychopathy and borderline personality disorder.  How can you use your “free will” to change yourself if you can’t understand that there is anything that needs to be changed--however obvious that need for change may appear to others? 

What an enlightening thread this is--thank you all so much for your insights.  I hope this helps clarify some of the important points that you all have brought up.

Barb Oakley

It is nearly impossible to discuss “evil” in today’s culture because all those terrible people mentioned as being evil are all considered Atheists.  Today it is so simple to state that had God been in the minds of these people (Jesus Christ in particular) they would not have done what they did!

In the cities today in America we are seeing an outbreak of evil from just about every level of society from our young children all the way into the White House in D.C.  Some wander around as Christians and stop at nothing to gain their power whether at 60 or 6 years of age.

I have a very simple mind, even for a girl, and have done some instruction of children to teach them survival tricks in our area of the San Andreas Fault in California.  The first thing to set in cement is the difference between right and wrong.  One can even use a dog training book for this as we learn that every action has a reaction that could either save a life or damage a life of oneself or others.

Animals have instincts that are either learned from training or from a genetic memory of earlier species.  For example, watch the people of Sumatra when the earthquake hit and the water around the islands began to recede.  The animals headed for high ground, many people did not.  One can train people to learn how to survive these catastrophes but first comes the moral lessons of knowing what is right from wrong.  One must rely on one’s own code here and not simply follow a supposed leader hired to lead us. 

Has the art of brain washing stopped our individual survival instints?  Did no one ever question those evil leaders mentioned in the NY Times article?  I spent many years trying to figure out what drove those German people to allow the atrocities we have seen before and during WW2. 

In America we see the damage the churches, temples, schools and even scout troops do to our younger people.  Our children are taught to follow any authority approved by a majority.  I was raised in a very anti-Semitic home and it wasn’t until I went to all girls school in Beverly Hills that I saw the utter fallacy in this.  I also refused to attend Church or even go home on weekends.  I fell head long into a library of classic literature that I have never really ever left.

Could it be that evil is inheritied through the ignorance of our parents?  I have no clue how to introduced training right from wrong anywhere but I did ask my own children to write down what they felt was right and what was wrong.  When their lists were made I asked them to describe what gave them joy.  Yep, simple uncomplicated joy.  Turned out what was right often brought them joy. Elementary my dear Watson!

I remember attending a class by Hayakawa at UCLA where he spoke on Language and how our thoughts often become our actions and my mind went even further into this that our morals could be formed by our thoughts if they were given a thorough process of evaluation; but first came right versus wrong. 

But I am a simple senior lady with little reputation other than being a foolish Atheist.  But I have kids who are so ethically sound that I wonder if we could have done the right thing afterall? 

I don’t want to believe that evil genes are inherited any more than I believe stupidity is inheritied.  The problem is there is not one damn thing any of us can do about it except to keep our children (in my case grandkids) trained to be aware of the danger of acting as groups rather than individuals.

Are there enough of us to even make a dent in this indivudality?  Rand developed her mountain retreat where individuals could end up and for some reason I am looking at Mexico which has such a weak government we might be able to develop something.

Jackson, thank you for letting us know about the New York Times Magazine article.  What I find fascinating is that there is no discussion at all in that article of the directly relevant information that science is beginning to provide about the concept of evil.  It’s a bit like reading a story about cancer that only discusses what was known up to the 1950s--and only discusses literary works about the topic. 

Professor Oakley, thanks for doing the interview with D.J. Grothe.

If it makes sense to you perhaps you can write a letter-to-the-editor for the NYT Magazine commenting on that short article, if only to point to additional reading and current research.  I didn’t include the link because I agreed with it, only because it seemed to link ‘topically’ to this link. Except it doesn’t, as you explain.  Thanks for your additional comments.

Jackson, that’s a good idea about the letter to the editor.  I’ll write one and if I hear back, I’ll post here.

I’m very glad you supplied the pointer toward that article--it was completely apropos.  The article perfectly illustrates how the exciting and enlightening neuroscientific results about human malevolence are often not being conveyed by the popular media.  This type of article, in fact, is exactly why I wrote the book. 

Barb

I’m coming late to the discussion since I just got the chance to listen to the episode. I have to say that while I think genetics clearly has a profound influence on temperment and behavior, I think our understanding of the connections and the relative contributions of genes, environment, development, and other factors is still very weak. As such, I was bothered not so much by the connection posited by Prof. Oakley between genes and behavioral tendancies as by the seemingly casual acceptance of pretty radical implications. She seemed quite comfortable suggesting some people are innately hopeless and that institutionalization prior to any actual violations of law would be reasonable, and I have to say our current ability to predict violent behavior doesn’t seem nearly strong enough to support that idea. Granted, imprisoning the mentally ill is a terrible idea, but the history leading to our doing so has as much to do with the equally horrible warehousing in nominal “health care” facilities that were little more than prisons by another name, so we need to be very concerned about the way in which the mentally ill are evaluated and cared for before we start talking about involuntary commitment. It’s easy to take a case like Virginia Tech. in hindsight and say “we should have known,” but the presumption that the mentally ill are prone to violence is often mistaken, and the source of much unecessary suffering.

I also wonder if the reliance on personal experience and moments of epiphany, as during listening to Milosevic in the dock, are a sound basis for the formation of a scientific theory. Granted I haven’t read the book, and I presume there is more detail about what the science actually shows than in the interview, which really provided no evidence at all, but I can easily see a set of powerful personal experiences with evil leading to the formation of a set of ideas based on the person’s own temperment and emotional needs as much as on any rational analysis of human behavior. With a different personality, cultural and historical context, and scientific education, Viktor Frankl experienced evil personally and came up with a theory opposed in many ways to the “evil genes” idea. Now we acknowledge the contextual reasons for the form his theory took and why it is, in retrospect, full of holes. It seems safe to presume the same might be true of any contemporary theory which has emerged out of a personal set of experiences.

None of this is meant to say that I really feel qualified to evaluate Prof. Oakley’s ideas based on the little tidbits from the interview, only that I would have to see quite strong evidence for it before going along with some of the extensions and implications brought out in the interview.

Glad to see you here, Barbara or do you prefer Ms. Oakley?  I was very fascinated by what you had to say and could comprehend the psychology behind your theory.  However, I was curious about one thing.  What is it in the genes in which one parent had no scruples and was domineering, the other has a plenty- so much so she is passive (most of it was her Evangelical Fundamentalist upbringing) and the offspring is “too good”.  Yes, that is what the teachers said to my mother about me.  I was too afraid to get into trouble, still some what am for that matter, but I have become a little more assertive and outspoken in my adulthood, esp when I see people harming themselves or others.

Listening to you tell your sister’s story made me wonder how such things occur in one family, which I know very well can happen from your story.  I just didn’t quite grasp the same idea when one parent is one way, another is the opposite and the offspring is similar to the parent with scruples.  Shouldn’t that make a middle ground for the offspring?  Or does the environment the aggressive parent causes cause the child to swing towards the more passive parent?

I guess what I’m asking is, doesn’t environment have something to do with it too and how does that all factor into offspring’s behaviour.  BTW, I only threw in my mother’s upbringing, because I know it too is an environmental factor that can contribute to submissive behaviours- esp for women.  It seemed to me, environmental factors were missing from your theory, but I can understand that, because you and your sister had the same childhood environment.  Genes could be the only probable factor.  I have no siblings to compare and can only conclude that environment is a factor too.

I bought your book Barbara and was meeting someone for lunch and took the book with me, when he showed up on time, I tossed the book on the seat of my car.  When we came back the book was gone.  So, I ordered another copy as the first part of the book was wonderful!

Hi Mriana:  Thanks for the words of welcome--please just call me Barb.

I think the best way to answer your question is to look at peas.  (That’s what Mendel, the father of modern genetics, did back in the mid-1800s.) If you cross a pea that produces red flowers with one that produces white flowers, you’ll get pink-flowered offspring.  If you mate those pink flowers, you’ll get pink offspring—but also red as well as white offspring!  This is because a pea inherits two genes that tell it how to color its flowers.  If the pea gets two “red” genes, the flower is red.  If the pea gets two “white” genes, the flower is white.  But if the pea gets a red and white gene, the flower is pink. 

I’m simplifying a lot now, but it might help you to think of the “red” gene as being a red flag, while the “white” gene is a white flag.  The flags themselves don’t change color—the pair of them just send signals to tell the flower what color it should be.  Two red flags signals for a red flower.  Two white flags signals for a white flower.  A red and a white flag signals for a pink flower.  (There is never a pink flag.)

Humans genetics are a lot like those simple pea genetics—except there are thousands of genes that combine to shape our personalities.  Sometimes human genes can mix and match together so that two really nice people produce a child that has an extremely problematic temperament.  And two nasty people can have a child with a wonderful temperament.  It’s the luck of the genetic draw.  Overlying everything, and of extraordinary importance, is the effect of the environment.  The interaction of genetics and environment is so complex that it is only just beginning to be understood.  But I try to explain some of the ideas in the book—certainly my sister led a deeply troubled life not only because of her underlying genetics, but also because of the damage to parts of her brain by the poliovirus, as well as the actual stress related to being a polio survivor. 

Brennen—I absolutely agree that we don’t have good predictive skills about violent behavior.  And the potential for abuse of involuntary commitment means that I’d be the last person to be advocating it without many of the checks and balances that are already in place.  I also agree that a simple moment of epiphany certainly shouldn’t do the trick for anybody in forming scientific theories.  (We’re most emphatically on the same side there!) That initial spark was tempered by six years of careful study—years where some of my ideas were rightly shot down by experts, while other ideas took their place.  Certainly I am now far more understanding of the difficulties experienced by some of those who inflict emotional pain on others.  I’m so glad you brought up science—D. J. Grothe mentioned that he planned to bring me back for precisely that discussion.  It’s awfully tough talking about a book with as many different facets as “Evil Genes” in the short time we had available.  Meanwhile, for your hit of solid science, you can enjoy the book itself.  I’ll be very interested to hear what you think after you’ve had a chance to give it a read.

Sandy—LOL!  You and the light-fingered Machiavellian who took the book have both made my day.

Yes, I understand genes put that way because I have two biracial children and the odds of them marrying a white woman and having a child that looks Black is greater if there is a hidden ancestor back there, but for the most part, if they marry a black woman, they will have Black children and a white woman White children- so to speak.  Black as a rule is dominate.

I don’t know, I think genetics has a some to do with it, but environment has a lot to do with it too.  Polio is a physical event, but I’m sure the time being in the hospital and possibly an iron lung didn’t help matters.  I may have to get your book and read it, because I’m sure there’s more research now than there was when I first got my degree in psychology, but I would think after seeing Holocaust victims, learning about Stockholm syndrom and other environmental “tragedies” (crimes to humanity) there would be a lot more information on the effects of environment.  The book “There Are No Children Here” by Alex Kotlowitz attributes a lot to environment.  Skinner and Bandura did too. The list goes on and on.  Of course, the human mind is the Final Frontier and we still have far more to explore of it than we do space.  We’ve mapped more of our solar system than we have the human brain.  However, I’m not so sure environment and genetics don’t contribute about equally, barring some traumatic events.  There again, traumatic events can cause a person to react either way given their genetic make-up too, so I’m not trying to discredit what you said.  I just need to snag a copy of your book, which does sound fascinating.

Oh, with bi-racial children, you get the point precisely!  What lucky ducks your children are--they’ll have less risk of the malignant melanoma that runs in our family. 

Keep in mind that the “Evil Genes” title is tongue in cheek.  Mostly one can think of environment and genetics as being equally important, but not always.  For example, some Romanian orphans had barely any stimulation or cuddling at all, and they often either died or suffered profound personality dysfunction.  That’s a profound environmental effect that overrode all genetics.  But those who inherit the allele for Huntington’s will get Huntington’s, with all its accompanying ill effects on the personality.  That’s a profound genetic effect that overrides all environmental effects.  (Actually, it sounds like we’re both in agreement about these kinds of issues.)

Thanks so much for your comments and questions.  Do let me know what you think of the book when you’ve a chance to give it a read!

Yes, I do and love their natural tans.  :D Although my older son takes a bit after my side of the family only not as light complected.  Obviously their father had a white gene in his family tree, which is no surprise considering American history.

Yes, I think we are in agreement.  Case in point on the Huntington’s.  My younger son has Pervasive Developmental Disorder (Autism spectrum, high functioning).  At age 2 1/2 he was not talking, but his older brother when he was 8 months spoke full sentences (different as day and night).  I heard the Dx and went straight to my mother and asked her if there was Autism in our family.  At the time she said no, but as the next three years went by, we learned more, and my younger son started talking two word sentences when he was almost 5.  My mother said, “Now wait a minute.  Your great uncle Bennett (my grandfather’s baby bro) was considered backwards, not quite with the social norms.” He also had the flapping hand tantrums, outbursts, and repetitive behaviours, but not classic autism, so no one thought he was autistic back then.  Sadly he was hitchhiking, not unusual for him, and was killed.  Family members assume it was probably because of his unusual behaviours.  My mother observed her younger grandson and said, “He acts like the stories of your great uncle’s childhood.” Years went by and she said, “He’s the spitting image [behaviourally] your great uncle.” Just like my younger son, he was brilliant in certain areas, but lousy with social rules and norms.

That is genetics, but my mother’s belief that she had to be submissive to her husband, even an abusive one, and spent 15 years too many married to him because divorce “is a sin”, is environmental.  My grandfather had both though- genetic depression and extreme religious beliefs that sadly led to his suicide- he refused treatment for depression, saying psychologist and psychiatrist were of the devil and the doctors were playing god and keeping him alive longer than God wanted him to be.  So he quit taking all his heart/blood pressure meds and died of heart failure three days later.  He was a smart man who knew better than to quit taking his meds, but due to religous beliefs refused help for depression.  Bad combination IMO, but of course, there is the possibility some of his astere religious beliefs were a symptom of the depression, so I should not be so hasty to blame religion in his case.  He wasn’t a religious suicide bomber after all.  There is a difference between religious oppression (environment) contributing to behaviours and mental illness (genetic) causing behaviours- even religious psychosis.  It is not unusual for severe depression to cause psychosis.

The brain is a very complex thing.  Sometimes it gets confusing concerning the cause of behaviour- the environment, genetics, or both.

I will let you know what I think when I get the chance to read your book. 

Hi Barbara,

After listening to the podcast, I went to your website to read the reviews and will definitely
get a copy your book. Facinating title.

I am reading “Moral Minds” by Marc Hauser in which he “argue that we are endowed with
a moral faculty that delivers judgments of right and wrong based on unconsciously operative
and inaccessible principles of action”.

Correct me if I am wrong, it appears you are proposing that some people have an immoral
faculty instead which make them successfully evil.

Does your theory in any way directly contradict Marc Hauser’s or is it complementary in the
sense that most people are moral except for some who are immoral because of their
genetic inheritance?

Your comments would help to clarify this issue and would be appreciated.

Hi Kkwan,

Your question is a very interesting one.  I’m actually not proposing that people have an “immoral” faculty.  Instead, I’m simply proposing that some people don’t have a “moral” faculty.  Thus, they can do immoral things far more easily.

I haven’t thought about it in this way before, but in some sense, perhaps sadism could be thought of as an immoral faculty.  It does appear to have a genetic component—certainly there could also be an environmental component.  There is so little known now about how sadism arises that it’s tough to make any conjectures at this point, though.

Barb

<>

--

Hi Barbara,

Thanks for clarifying the issue. My apologies for misunderstanding your proposal.

The absence of a moral faculty in some people who are also very intelligent, have no scruples, successfully cloak their intentions to appear benign, gain people’s trust and manipulate them to do evil is my definition of evil incarnate. Mao, Stalin and Hitler had this ability to mesmerise millions of their own people to betray, torture and kill without remorse. The irony is that in their lifetimes, they were worshipped like gods. Confucius thought that a ruler who had to resort to force had already failed as a ruler—“Your job is to govern, not to kill”

Thinking about these powerful evil personalities and how successfully evil they were lead me to propose that they did not lack moral faculties but had immoral faculties instead.

“Never follow a multitude to do evil” is a good maxim to follow. So is the ethic of reciprocity or the golden rule. Why did the millions of people who had moral faculties follow these psychopaths to do evil?

If the human moral faculty is so fragile, then we are indeed doomed when the next “devil” comes. What do you think? Do we have a fighting chance?

Barbara Oakley will be speaking at CFI Michigan on February 13, 2008

Visit http://www.cfimichigan.org/events/event/evil-genes/ for details.

Barb, I find compatabilism- soft determinism real. I have schizotypy and found therapy to overcome it somewhat. I find that medecine and talk therapy can overcome the genectic and environmental causes in that they are superior causes. So, determinism is consistent with free will.
Don’t you find that religion is the universal neurosis! I find with Albert Ellis that it is ‘mustabatory,” a mere want , not a real need, a replaceable placebo. I find that human purposes and love and this one life suffice and thus we need no divine purpose for us and love and no future state.
I hope to find your posts elsewhere here. Thanks!

<>

Barbara Oakley will be speaking at CFI Michigan on February 13, 2008

Visit http://www.cfimichigan.org/events/event/evil-genes/ for details.

Thanks for this post.

The Point of Inquiry podcast for 1/19/2008 with an interview of Colin McGinn [link to first comment]

includes a discussion of where Shakespeare thought “evil” came from—seems to complement Professor Oakley’s thesis.