I disagree somewhat - the frontal lobes of the human brain are still developing during adolescence. In other words, we reach sexual maturity long before we fully develop adult decision making and risk-assessment capacity. Which is why teenagers do so many stupid things without considering the consequences.
Like everything else, the rate of maturity differes. But I would say that the average 17y.o is going to be somewhat different from the average 19y.o. in maturity.
So, when speaking about thinking, women don't really reach maturity till we are out of our teens. Males, IMO, don't reach full brain maturity till they are 45 or so, and they swiftly regress to 14-year-old boy level after age 50.
I don't believe that people should be made to suffer for the sake of some kind of balancing out.
Sentences should be given for deterrence or containment. Not retribution.
I disagree - the desire for revenge when someone does us wrong seems to be an instict which we share with other primates.
In our society, we have no right to vengence - and rightly so. None of us would like to live in a world where and "eye for an eye" principle operated, if only because it would soon degenerate into "might means right".
So, being civilized, we have exchanged revenge for justice. If someone commits a crime against me, the matter in the hands of the court who can consider both sides and (in theory) come to a balanced judgement.
I think that we came to this point because, as a species, we like to at least attempt to balance fairness and self-interest. So it's part of the social contract that we want sentencing to address all three factors: (a) rehabilitation (because we understand that people can repent and change) (b) containment (because we want to protect ourselves against predators) and (c) punishment (because we things to be fair).
Of course, it all gets distorted all the time and never works the way it should.
I'm merely saying that 44 years is a lot for succumbing to a desire that advertisers have implanted in his head. This man needs treatment. Incarceration won't give him that.
It's true that the incidence of mental illness among prison populations is far, far higher than the general population, and the lack of mental health services for prisoners is an outrage.
However, the key point in this case is that he had control over what he was doing - he was able to maintain a public face of respectability while routinly vitimising vulnerable girls behind closed doors. So this demonstrates that he knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway. Which is why the word predator is appropriate. And why it's difficult for most people to frame his as a victim.
This is different from my ex-next door neighbour who moved in and began standing at his window exposing himself to passing women. It turned our that he had 43 (count 'em!) charges over a 30 year span for doing this, and as many addresses. Now there was a man with a compulsion over which he had no control and which clearly ruined his life. Overall, we felt sorry for him more than anything else.
Additionally, what kind of idiot do you have to be to allow your stepfather to use a dildo on you to see if your eggs are healthy.... Jesus Christ what a moron.
I have a poor sense of direction, some left-right confusion, am easily overwhelmed by visual information and - as a result, don't like driving much, particularly in busy, complex or unfamilar areas.
I find GPS makes the situation much worse. It's just another distraction. I much prefer to pre-plan a trip using a paper map or just ask for directions.
I agreed with the article - those "napkin maps" make much more sense to me.
I know that I'm much worse than most people, but in my experience, relying on the verbal information is far less dangerous.
I agree with you about the loopy middle class attraction to homeopathy and so on, but in the case of psychotropic drugs there is far too little known about them for me to be comfortable with their widespread use on children (whose brains are still developing).
Here in Australia, we've never had a woman on the ticket of any of the major parties in a federal election, as far as I know. I don't know much about US politics, but when was the last time that the democrats or republicans ran a woman for president?
In any case, I would never vote for someone just because they are a woman - look at Margaret Thatcher.
Perhaps if women (who complain about this) should get off the self-pity train and do what the rest of us do when we feel like we aren't getting a fair shake: square off, prove up and go down in flames if necessary.
"Square off, prove up and go down in flames" is a very male metaphor (and mixed). Why do you think women should act like men? Most of us don't have the testosterone for such an aggressive approach to life.
Women aren't on the self-pity train any more than men. We would just like things to be fairer becuae we tend to like thing to be fair. That's not inferior to your competitive approach or superior either.
I'm happy to listen to men complaining about where they are disadvantaged (family law courts for example). I happy to listed to anyone who feels they are being treated unfairly. It's not a victim competition - in this world we all get the rough end in some way or other.
My observation as a female is that men prefer "hot dumb blond chicks" (in bars etc) over more regular gals per se, without intellegence being factored in at all. Dumb, smart, pfft, she's hot.
As a warmish rather than hot chick, I think, in general, that the smarter the man the more he values intelligence. Or that's what I keep telling myself, anyway.
Someone I know did research on differences between what men and women say in performance reviews at work, on their CVs and in job interviews. Men tend to take credit and overstate somewhat, whereas women tended to share credit (she didn't find they understated). So if someone was involved in a steering committee for an epidemiological study, the men would be more likely to say "I oversaw a major epidemiological study", whereas the women would say "I was on a committee that co-ordinated a major..." (I making the example up from a memory of the broad result).
Her conclusion was that there is a dual outcome of this - not only do men present themselves as more qualified and more autonomous than women, they also appear more confident.
Overall, I remember thinking that women were more accurate in their descriptions, which is nicer, but counterproductive in context.
Yes, although I'd say that only part of the "complex electrochemical interactions" are preprogrammed (i.e. genetic). Humans aren't born with a fully formed brain, and even the adult brain is quite plastic in the way that the nerual networks work (i.e. we can learn new stuff, including new patterns of behaviour). So I'd say that we all have genetic boundaries we operate within, we're are so flexible within these boundaries that any sort of simplistic biological determinisim is just as wrong as the "free will" camp.
Sorry, I re-read your post and understand your point. A person who can be "cured" should get a lighter sentence? Right. Well OK, so I have untreated bipolar disorder I get into fights all the time and medication will help me then that should be taken into acocunt in sentencing?
OK, but this guy was described as being a "psychopath". Given that there is no cure, are you still saying the sentence should be reduced?
And also, you are assuming that psychopathy is a "illness". I'm not sure I agree with you. I can never decide whether it's a deficit (of empathy and autobiographical memory funtioning) in which case, yes it probably is an "illness" in the same sense as autism or Downs syndrome is an "illness". But maybe it isn't, maybe it's an extreme (some people are really nice, some nice, some average, some jerks, some arseholes and some sociopaths). In which case, I say, nah, lock up the evil ones.
Agreed, but re the "sociopathy is not a defence" if you read the article, that's exactly what was being used. No, it didn't work, but more and more as researchers find the brain areas associated with sociopathy, it's going to cause confusion.
The logic seems to be: "Most people are normal and if they commit a crime it's because they chose to do it. Because we have free will. Some people are ill or "brain damaged", so it wouldn't be fair to hold them responsible for their actions." And that's good, except, over in lab x someone is showing that a sociopath's brain functions differently. And then - as in the article - it's argued that the person has a genetic "brain abnormality". So people reason "Well, he was born that way so he can't help it. We can't say he is responsible for the rape to the same extent as someone normal would be. Because normal people choose to rape but this guy was determined by his biology."
No, that didn't happen, but the article says that it took the jury four hours rather than 4 minutes to decide.
The average person in our society believes that most of us ("normal people") have free will, which the mentally ill and those with brain injuries lose. Psychologists in the main accept that we all (normal or not) do what we do because of our brains.
So where does this leave sociopaths in a world where neruological research is fast heading towards showing that "failing to give a dam" whether your behaviour is right or wrong has a specific genetic basis?
I meant by "justice" the basic codification of our desire for fairness and balance - a sense of things being put right. Revenge is more to do with sating a desire to do harm to those who have harmed us. "Revenge" seems very old testament - "an eye for an eye". Justice takes the desire for revenge into account, but tempers it with consideration of the motives and circumstances of the person who did the harm as well. The courts, if you like, versus the lynch mob. The mother who says "you must share your toys with your sister even if she hit you and she must apologise for hitting you" rather than the one who confiscates your toy and locks your sister in the basement.
The question is whether or not the illness means that they are not responsible (or less responsible) for their crime. The illness should be cured either way, of course, but they shouldn't get a lesser sentence just because an fRMI can show up patterns consistant with people who "lack empathy"? or "are agressive" or "act on their impuses without thinking". Just because we can detect these things on a scan? No way. "Your child was killed. We are giving him a lighter sentence because he was born without empathy!"
I agree completely with the second part of what you said.
Taken the Voight-Kampff lately? Maybe it's just your ugly language. "Defective". "Deformed". "Faulty". What a way to describe human beings!
And what's the point of your quest? You say: it "does nothing but weaken us, as a race". Is our race weak? We certainly don't seem to be circling the drain as a species at the moment - in fact we're thriving in plague numbers. Numbers enough to share our resources with people who can't help themselves.
Stop trying to perfect the human race. All we need is for most of us to be OK enough. And we are, more or less.
You say "revenge" - I would have said "justice". But perhaps they should be two separate points on the list.
We all do everything we do because of our brains, and none of our brains are perfect. The real question is whether the person is responsible for their crime. With some types of brain damage or mental illnesses then, no, of course they aren't. But you wouldn't say "This person has naturally high testosterone levels and he can't help being agressive so his sentence should be lighter". It helps us to know why some people are more agressive - but we need to accept that humans vary in what they are. Otherwise we will be on our way to diagnosing anyone who isn't a happy, uncritical extrovert as having "a brain abnormality"
When you said "humans only use 1-15% of their brain" I know you meant "at a time". But just in case someone thinks this is the old: Unlock your potential - use the other 90% of your brain, here's a simple explanation:
http://health.howstuffworks.com/10-brain-myths10.htm
Slashdot Mirror
Males of any species prefer young females because they're the healthiest.
OK. But he didn't choose his victim because she was healthy. He chose her because she was available and vulnerable.
Like everything else, the rate of maturity differes. But I would say that the average 17y.o is going to be somewhat different from the average 19y.o. in maturity.
So, when speaking about thinking, women don't really reach maturity till we are out of our teens. Males, IMO, don't reach full brain maturity till they are 45 or so, and they swiftly regress to 14-year-old boy level after age 50.
I don't believe that people should be made to suffer for the sake of some kind of balancing out.
Sentences should be given for deterrence or containment. Not retribution.
I disagree - the desire for revenge when someone does us wrong seems to be an instict which we share with other primates.
In our society, we have no right to vengence - and rightly so. None of us would like to live in a world where and "eye for an eye" principle operated, if only because it would soon degenerate into "might means right".
So, being civilized, we have exchanged revenge for justice. If someone commits a crime against me, the matter in the hands of the court who can consider both sides and (in theory) come to a balanced judgement.
I think that we came to this point because, as a species, we like to at least attempt to balance fairness and self-interest. So it's part of the social contract that we want sentencing to address all three factors: (a) rehabilitation (because we understand that people can repent and change) (b) containment (because we want to protect ourselves against predators) and (c) punishment (because we things to be fair).
Of course, it all gets distorted all the time and never works the way it should.
I'm merely saying that 44 years is a lot for succumbing to a desire that advertisers have implanted in his head. This man needs treatment. Incarceration won't give him that.
It's true that the incidence of mental illness among prison populations is far, far higher than the general population, and the lack of mental health services for prisoners is an outrage.
However, the key point in this case is that he had control over what he was doing - he was able to maintain a public face of respectability while routinly vitimising vulnerable girls behind closed doors. So this demonstrates that he knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway. Which is why the word predator is appropriate. And why it's difficult for most people to frame his as a victim.
This is different from my ex-next door neighbour who moved in and began standing at his window exposing himself to passing women. It turned our that he had 43 (count 'em!) charges over a 30 year span for doing this, and as many addresses. Now there was a man with a compulsion over which he had no control and which clearly ruined his life. Overall, we felt sorry for him more than anything else.
Additionally, what kind of idiot do you have to be to allow your stepfather to use a dildo on you to see if your eggs are healthy.... Jesus Christ what a moron.
That's just nasty of you.
It depends how you have your defults set in "posting".
Damn! I've turned into one of those people.
I find GPS makes the situation much worse. It's just another distraction. I much prefer to pre-plan a trip using a paper map or just ask for directions.
I agreed with the article - those "napkin maps" make much more sense to me.
I know that I'm much worse than most people, but in my experience, relying on the verbal information is far less dangerous.
I agree with you about the loopy middle class attraction to homeopathy and so on, but in the case of psychotropic drugs there is far too little known about them for me to be comfortable with their widespread use on children (whose brains are still developing).
plane flight?
Medical technology gets to the point where it can save lives, but many of these lives end up not worth living.
In any case, I would never vote for someone just because they are a woman - look at Margaret Thatcher.
I'd mod you up if I had points.
Perhaps if women (who complain about this) should get off the self-pity train and do what the rest of us do when we feel like we aren't getting a fair shake: square off, prove up and go down in flames if necessary.
"Square off, prove up and go down in flames" is a very male metaphor (and mixed). Why do you think women should act like men? Most of us don't have the testosterone for such an aggressive approach to life.
Women aren't on the self-pity train any more than men. We would just like things to be fairer becuae we tend to like thing to be fair. That's not inferior to your competitive approach or superior either.
I'm happy to listen to men complaining about where they are disadvantaged (family law courts for example). I happy to listed to anyone who feels they are being treated unfairly. It's not a victim competition - in this world we all get the rough end in some way or other.
As a warmish rather than hot chick, I think, in general, that the smarter the man the more he values intelligence. Or that's what I keep telling myself, anyway.
Her conclusion was that there is a dual outcome of this - not only do men present themselves as more qualified and more autonomous than women, they also appear more confident.
Overall, I remember thinking that women were more accurate in their descriptions, which is nicer, but counterproductive in context.
Good point about the spin.
Yes, although I'd say that only part of the "complex electrochemical interactions" are preprogrammed (i.e. genetic). Humans aren't born with a fully formed brain, and even the adult brain is quite plastic in the way that the nerual networks work (i.e. we can learn new stuff, including new patterns of behaviour). So I'd say that we all have genetic boundaries we operate within, we're are so flexible within these boundaries that any sort of simplistic biological determinisim is just as wrong as the "free will" camp.
OK, but this guy was described as being a "psychopath". Given that there is no cure, are you still saying the sentence should be reduced?
And also, you are assuming that psychopathy is a "illness". I'm not sure I agree with you. I can never decide whether it's a deficit (of empathy and autobiographical memory funtioning) in which case, yes it probably is an "illness" in the same sense as autism or Downs syndrome is an "illness". But maybe it isn't, maybe it's an extreme (some people are really nice, some nice, some average, some jerks, some arseholes and some sociopaths). In which case, I say, nah, lock up the evil ones.
The logic seems to be: "Most people are normal and if they commit a crime it's because they chose to do it. Because we have free will. Some people are ill or "brain damaged", so it wouldn't be fair to hold them responsible for their actions." And that's good, except, over in lab x someone is showing that a sociopath's brain functions differently. And then - as in the article - it's argued that the person has a genetic "brain abnormality". So people reason "Well, he was born that way so he can't help it. We can't say he is responsible for the rape to the same extent as someone normal would be. Because normal people choose to rape but this guy was determined by his biology."
No, that didn't happen, but the article says that it took the jury four hours rather than 4 minutes to decide.
The average person in our society believes that most of us ("normal people") have free will, which the mentally ill and those with brain injuries lose. Psychologists in the main accept that we all (normal or not) do what we do because of our brains.
So where does this leave sociopaths in a world where neruological research is fast heading towards showing that "failing to give a dam" whether your behaviour is right or wrong has a specific genetic basis?
I meant by "justice" the basic codification of our desire for fairness and balance - a sense of things being put right. Revenge is more to do with sating a desire to do harm to those who have harmed us. "Revenge" seems very old testament - "an eye for an eye". Justice takes the desire for revenge into account, but tempers it with consideration of the motives and circumstances of the person who did the harm as well. The courts, if you like, versus the lynch mob. The mother who says "you must share your toys with your sister even if she hit you and she must apologise for hitting you" rather than the one who confiscates your toy and locks your sister in the basement.
I agree completely with the second part of what you said.
And what's the point of your quest? You say: it "does nothing but weaken us, as a race". Is our race weak? We certainly don't seem to be circling the drain as a species at the moment - in fact we're thriving in plague numbers. Numbers enough to share our resources with people who can't help themselves.
Stop trying to perfect the human race. All we need is for most of us to be OK enough. And we are, more or less.
We all do everything we do because of our brains, and none of our brains are perfect. The real question is whether the person is responsible for their crime. With some types of brain damage or mental illnesses then, no, of course they aren't. But you wouldn't say "This person has naturally high testosterone levels and he can't help being agressive so his sentence should be lighter". It helps us to know why some people are more agressive - but we need to accept that humans vary in what they are. Otherwise we will be on our way to diagnosing anyone who isn't a happy, uncritical extrovert as having "a brain abnormality"
When you said "humans only use 1-15% of their brain" I know you meant "at a time". But just in case someone thinks this is the old: Unlock your potential - use the other 90% of your brain, here's a simple explanation: http://health.howstuffworks.com/10-brain-myths10.htm