Do we have conclusive evidence that causality isn’t actually reversed here in a large percentage of cases?

As in, a certain % of the population is, very unfortunately and not of their own volition, born with innate antisocial traits. They just happened to roll a 1 at birth on many attributes at once, and are stuck with it for life. Assuming humans are not a blank slate, many said humans will not be re-trainable to be pro-social. They will cause mayhem and misery to those around them unless isolated, humanely, with dignity and compassion, from the rest of society. Given a large enough of a denominator, that’s potentially millions of people.

And fair point around social ties being important here, I wonder what percentage of imprisonment that would prevent.

▲

bryanrasmussen 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>Do we have conclusive evidence that causality isn’t actually reversed here in a large percentage of cases? >As in, a certain % of the population is, very unfortunately and not of their own volition, born with innate antisocial traits.

Assuming the certain % is something meaningful and not like 1% then:

Yes, given that America and the world has run the largest ever social experiment, America imprisoning a higher percentage of their population than any other country and most other countries continuing to thrive with lower crime numbers than America (in cases where countries do not thrive obvious external and environmental factors are seen) it follows that America, a nation of immigrants with higher heterogeneity of the population than other nations of the Earth, does not have a population with a greater percentage of the population genetically predisposed to anti-sociability.

America has a population where 1 in 3 adults has a criminal record. If criminality was in any significant way genetically hard-wired in Americans it seems difficult to believe the country would have lasted as long as it has, although I admit my argument here may be slightly weak given the current state of things, but I think one can argue that is not the fault of the anti-social population.

▲

amiga386 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Recent metaanalysis of intervention effectiveness (2025, UK) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/680101e3da5bb...

In short: humans are not inherently good 'uns or bad 'uns. The social interventions made by friends, families, community, state-run programs, have a discernable effect on reoffending rates.

▲

nomel 16 hours ago | parent [-]

“Discernible effect” doesn’t really refute their point, it affirms it. Some aren’t responsive to any of that.

I think it’s logical that you’re both right, with the disagreement being in the ratio. If you honestly think all humans are born equal, I suggest visiting a mental ward, or more relevant here, watching some interviews/analysis of mass murderers. There’s a well accepted, by the medical field, by objective metrics, spectrum of self control, awareness, autonomy, and intelligence, expressed in humans. We’re not all the same. You typing here suggests you’re on the relatively extreme end of the “genetic luck” spectrum.

▲

amiga386 15 hours ago | parent [-]

> If you honestly think all humans are born equal

I don't. But in addition to genetics, babies pop out of rich and poor vaginas. Socioeconomic status is a much stronger indicator for being incarcerated than genetics (not counting "male vs female"). There is also the theory that the children of prisoners grow up without fathers and are more likely to go to prison, thus perpetuating the cycle. Children that lose both parents (to imprisonment, drug addiction, abandonment) and enter foster care or become wards of the state have terrible life outcomes. Not genetic, but familial due to disrupted social support networks.

I also think that if, for example, you get addicted to heroin, and you don't have a good support network, that will be your only life until you're dead. But if you do have a good support network, you have an better chance of getting clean and staying clean.

	▲	8f2ab37a-ed6c 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		At least in the US your race is stronger indicator for being incarcerated than your affluence levels. E.g. Black Americans are somewhere 10-30x more likely to be arrested for violent crimes than Asian Americans of similar poverty levels. Race here, similarly to economics, is again a confounding variable for something else that is actual causal to this. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 . And again, the direction of causality here isn't obvious either. Most likely it's a combination of genetics, cultural expectations, social support networks, and a litany of other elements that all come together to affect the ultimate outcome. Which aligns with your thesis around one's support network making a huge difference. But it's just important to point out that poverty by itself is not causal of crime, it simply makes it more likely given many other factors such as culture and community. It's mildly predictive, but up to a point. Funnily enough, as a side-note, the stats show that most white-collar crime is committed by well-educated and affluent white men in their forties or older, causing a lot more financial harm than your everyday street crime added up.
	▲	nomel 13 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I agree, and I think the other person will too. You’re correct. But they’re also correct. There will be some subset of the population that will be, and remain, harmful to society. This isn’t even a purely human concept, and can be found in all species with collective/social behavior.

▲

taurath 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> born with innate antisocial traits

If this were true, sociability wouldn't be so incredibly overwhelmingly correlated with trauma, and to the extent that trauma & poverty are related, poverty. This is a full and utter complete fact, it is foundational knowledge to social science, psychology and psychiatry.

People. Are. Not. Born. Bad. They're born to traumatized parents raised in a society that squeezes them for all they're worth.

> many said humans will not be re-trainable to be pro-social

The vast, vast majority of people absolutely could be, but they will never receive the resources (time, attention) to be better. It is not that we don't know how to help people, its that its /expensive/ and we /would rather punish them than help them/.