An interesting article for writers interested in crime.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/12/how-to-spot-a-murderers-brain?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fbooks%2Frss+%28Books%29

<Added>

I daren't say too much. I got into trouble at work with colleagues for suggesting the eleven plus was biased towards wealthier families because they are more likely to be intelligent.

I wasn't saying that poor people couldn't be intelligent, just that by dint of the system those with brains are more likely to have money and to raise children who are generally more academic. Blah, blah, blah.

Just like sporty people are more likely to raise sporty children. Not always, just more likely.

That's not to say murderers are more likely to raise murderers but, then again...

If your position was that those from a middle class environment with books etc read regularly to toddlers, money for extra-curricular classes, social expectation and so on, then, yes, I would agree. (My mother-in-law, a child dev specialist, sometimes says there should be a syndrome HNBT - has not been taught.)

But for natural, genetic intelligence...

I think there is an issue in how one defines intelligence. There are many dimensions and academic competence is only one of them. Academic skill can be learned in a way that native intelligence probably can't (but can be nurtured / encouraged).

In my opinion, human behaviour, society, culture, etc. is so complex, compared with other animals, that genetics can only explain a proportion of the way people behave. It might give a person a predisposition to be more thoughtful, or more aggressive, or more inclined to run around and burn up lots of energy. That predisposition can be completely swamped, however, by an upbringing or environment or social life which encourages different behaviour. I've often observed similar behaviour patterns in parents and children which, to me, have less to do with genetics than with upbringing. A parent who is impatient and inclined to queue-jump will implicitly teach their children to behave in the same way, for example.

I grew up in a working class family, among people of a similar background, and have mixed with people of that background (and others) all my life. I've seen how much of a tendency there is for working class people to put a greater emphasis on earning money than on following academic interests. I've also seen children with promising, enquiring minds discouraged from following an academic path because "you're better off leaving school at 16 and getting a job, rather than going to university until you're 21" (or sentiments along those lines).

That's not to say murderers are more likely to raise murderers but, then again...

This made me laugh. I read the article about brain scan difference between criminals and non criminals and how people say it's a bit dodgy because this was what Hitler was saying. But I don't think he was, was he? he was saying if you're Jewish, gay or gypsy you are of lower intelligence. We have gone too far the other side now where we can't have the discussions.

I've also seen children with promising, enquiring minds discouraged from following an academic path because "you're better off leaving school at 16 and getting a job, rather than going to university until you're 21" (or sentiments along those lines).

I agree this is part of the nature/nuture debate - the 'People like us don't do that' mindset.

My personal feeling is that academic intelligence (noting intelligence doesn't have to mean academic leanings) is a mix of nature/nuture and

We have gone too far the other side now where we can't have the discussions.

being brought up in working class community too, I do think nuture is an influencing factor, but I still think that nature plays a role.

nature plays a role.

Obviously it has to, or we would be able to train animals of different species to an equivalent level.

I suspect that effect is a tad more complex than the groupings that have appeared at a societal level, though. For example, what is the difference between two plumbers of equivalent background/education when one scrapes a living as a hired hand and the other goes on to manage a large and successful business?

Is it intelligence, upbringing or networking that makes the difference between leaving school to become a broker earning six-figures (including bonuses) or leaving school to become a door-to-door salesman earning a fraction of that?

G

I believe I've heard that it's true that people who have been sexually abused as children are more likely to be the predator in the same as adults. Horrible, horrible thought, but apparently it happens. Something to do with imprinting, I think.

And someone seriously screwed up is more likely to raise a screwed up kid, IMO. The background we're raised in does affect us - sometimes we stay like it as adults and sometimes we move as far away from that background as possible.

I got into trouble at work with colleagues for suggesting the eleven plus was biased towards wealthier families because they are more likely to be intelligent. I wasn't saying that poor people couldn't be intelligent, just that by dint of the system those with brains are more likely to have money and to raise children who are generally more academic. Blah, blah, blah.

Dunno why your workmates disagreed with this. I think it is true that wealthy does often correlate with intelligent, although of course there are many people who do not fit that generalisation. You can be one and not the other.

Being intelligent often helps you become wealthy, because people are usually paid more for things that it's hard to do than for things anyone can do, such as wipe tables. But not everyone intelligent has the chance to capitalise on their ability.

And people with good jobs often value education more highly because they see what it's done for those around them, even if not for them personally. So are more likely to instill an appreciation of learning into their kids, and give them opportunities, which is also easier to do if you have money.

Why are people so touchy about this stuff and hate seeing these conclusions drawn? It would be so wrong if people suggested that everyone who was poor was stupid. That would be like racism. But saying there's a positive correlation is not wrong... is it?

For example, what is the difference between two plumbers of equivalent background/education when one scrapes a living as a hired hand and the other goes on to manage a large and successful business?

That sort of thing has a lot to do with how the person thinks about work. Someone who thinks in terms of "being given a job" has a tendency to think like an employee, whereas someone who thinks in terms of "finding work" is more likely to be entrepreneurial. Very often, a wish to be the latter gets squashed by family and friends who can only see the risks and uncertainties, and succeed in talking them up in comparison with the advantages. My brother went through this, years ago, when he switched from being a carpenter employed by a company to a self-employed carpenter working for anyone who would hire his services. His wife and our Mum were both very worried about the risks, and almost talked him out of it.

I don't agree Sharley and Debac about wealthier people being more intelligent! Not at all.
Wealth can be inherited - is often inherited; exam success can be bought. And what about the Philosopher who makes no money but whose IQ is through the roof compared to the wealthy football player/ pop singer? Some people just go into jobs that pay well and others have a calling. Are teachers, vicars, social workers, WRITERS, stupid?

I agree with Jem that wealth is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence, and nor is class, although the middle and classes do have more advantages in terms of access to a good education as well as better housing, nutrition, environment and opportunities to expand their horizons and so on. I thought the article was quite clear that genetics was not the only factor, as it isn't in things like schizophrenia or personality disorders either. I read a fascinating article yesterday about a book called Intellectual Impostures by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont about how people like Lacan, Derrida, Kristeva and other famous post modern theorists got away with murder, using terms they didn't understand themmselves in order to impress the impressionable:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/tallis.html

I wonder what their brainscans would have told us.

Eleanor

I don't agree Sharley and Debac about wealthier people being more intelligent! Not at all.

My comments were:

I got into trouble at work with colleagues for suggesting the eleven plus was biased towards wealthier families because they are more likely to be intelligent. I wasn't saying that poor people couldn't be intelligent, just that by dint of the system those with brains are more likely to have money and to raise children who are generally more academic.

but I explained further by saying:

My personal feeling is that academic intelligence (noting intelligence doesn't have to mean academic leanings) is a mix of nature/nuture

I also said - which would explain the nuture that social workers, teachers would offer - the following:

I do think nuture is an influencing factor, but I still think that nature plays a role

<Added>

But in my conversation with my colleagues, I wasn't discussing professionals. I was discussing the children from disadvantaged families who are disadvantaged by the parents not understanding the system, not reading to the children at a young age or understanding the importance of education, which perpetuates the system. And, yes, these people are less intelligent academically but whether they would be if they were brought up differently or whether the genes play a wider role, is anyone's guess.

However, like with me and I know I can't understand concepts others can no matter how hard I try, there is a level for everyone. So genes do play a role. What I don't know is if I would be different if I'd been academically stimulated more as a child. Who knows.

<Added>

Thanks for posting that, Eleanor. I think I need to read it when I'm not tired. Or else it may be proof that sometimes I just don't understand concepts and theories that others do

I just don't think being intelligent is a synonym for being educated. Intelligence is what you're born with. I think it's just your wording I'm struggling with -

"And, yes, these people are less intelligent academically"

They're not necessarily less intelligent - just less savvy.

Thanks for posting that, Eleanor. I think I need to read it when I'm not tired. Or else it may be proof that sometimes I just don't understand concepts and theories that others do

I think the gist of the article I mentioned is that some of the most eminent and influential intellectuals of the 20th century managed to bamboozle several generations of students with concepts and theories that nobody understood, including themselves, but which are still taken seriously by people who have too much invested in them to notice that the intellectuals concerned were con artists and their concepts and theories are high falutin' rubbish and a classic case of The Emperor's New Clothes.

Eleanor

I've certainly come across stark differences between academic ability and what's generally called common sense. My first wife was always the first to point out that she wasn't "very brainy", as she put it. Yet she had enormous common sense, and could often understand real-world problems in ways that her better-educated sisters and brothers couldn't. Maybe this is the real difference between innate intelligence and academic learning.

I think even the concept of "innate intelligence" is way too vague to be much use - there are so many different kinds of intelligence.

What about the bodily intelligence that one five year old can show when first sailing a dingy or picking up a little violin, and another can't? Or the high-functioning autist who's astonishing at Maths but can't read faces?

The brain imaging thing is becoming a new phrenology - pseudo-science - and is about as much use. Makes good headlines, of course, but it's grotesquely over-simplified to reach them (which, of course, there's huge pressure to do, because of the "impact" element of funding decisions)

Seeing a sploge of neurons firing in one bit of the cortex is interesting, and may yet be revealing, but the way the brain interacts with the mind isn't understood at all, and not much is understood about how it interacts with the rest of the body and the social context in which that person operates is specific to that person. Plus, brain injury studies show that the brain can use other bits of itself to do things. There's no absolute sense in which a specific area of the brain does specific things.