I think there's a strong chance he is defending himself because Harvard may really be taking the charges seriously. If you want to write a letter to the president of Harvard, a woman (with whom I overlapped in high school!), who is a sensitive, intelligent person, named Drew Gilpin Faust do so to president@harvard.edu but please be courteous and rational if you do decide to write. It doesn't do any good to be inflammatory even if it is deserved.

The science of suffering! What a complete and utter tool.
You know who the original psychiatrist was, right? Socrates. How far the great have fallen. Where is the artist when we need him?

Socrates the original psychiatrist? I don't recall this from any of my study of Socrates, or from the Franz and Alexander History of Psychiatry, which really delved into the old days.
Please help me on this one.

I have no comment on the Biederman update, except thanks for following the story. WE just had this topic come up in conversation - someone mentioned that Harvard may be slow to skewer Biederman not just because he brings in plenty of overhead, but because there may be others in the faculty ranks bringing in money the same way -- skewering Biederman would set a precedent that would be challenging to not follow with the next memory-impaired (or math-impaired) faculty researcher (see: I am atributing "symptoms" to mental disorder versus just social circumstances - maybe I can get a fat NIMH grant now).

Socrates and Biederman should never be mentioned in the same sentence!

Socrates was all about ethics, truth and morality..
Where as Biederman was clearly not about any of those ideals ...

Psychiatrists who sell out to the drug companies are little more than corporate whores..

I am always amazed that people are still shocked at the idea that psychiatry would attract so much greed, corruption and dodgy characters..

It's been like that since the very beginning..
The characteristics of psychiatrists are the same as sadists and sociopaths..
The profession attracts these types of scum bags because it has been an "unquestioned power" for a very long time..
Any powerful organization that is an unquestioned force always attracts people who enjoy dominating, exploiting and harming others..
Think Fascism, Nazism , Ku Klux Klan, Dictators etc..
The same types of people who choose to become psychiatrists are the same types of people who feel most comfortable in dark cult ideology systems...
Psychiatry is a massive scam , it's a business based on the milking of human misery, hurt, confusion and suffering..
Psychiatry is anti-soul, anti-spirit and anti-human emotion..
It is a practice and fraud of the darkest kind...

The DSM has all but bastardized the human condition to death..
I hope that I live to see the day when psychiatry is exposed for what it is.... dangerous, deluded , greedy cult which feeds on fear and creates and profits off stigma and suffering..

Truthman30:

First, who knows what Socrates was all about? If Plato described him accurately, then he was a fascist and a totalitarian. Read "the Republic", and see if he comes across as a libertarian humanist. Karl Popper was totally right about him in his "Open Society and its Enemies".

Second, I will never understand the need for hyperbole. Yes, there are problems in psychiatry. Yes, several high profile psychiatrists have engaged in unethical behaviour. Yes, drug companies wield enormous power and have engaged in fraud on several occasions. How you go from those facts to describing an entire group of people as "sadists and sociopaths", Nazis, KKK, "dark cult ideology", "anti-soul, anti-spirit and anti-human emotion".

I cannot speak for all psychiatrists, but I certainly do not belong to any of those categories. :)

Also, ever heard of Godwin's Law? ;)

Take care.

I have read the Republic..
I have also read "The Apology" , and the "Euthyphro"
I'm studying philosophy, political science and English literature
Socrates wrote the republic not to be taken literally, he created it to make a point about the "concept" of "justice" , most of Plato's dialogues discuss "ethics" and the dialogues are merely ways in which to explore these ideas..
Hyperbole to you it may be,..
But sometimes descriptive language is necessary , are you a psychiatrist by any chance? ..
If so, then I don't expect you to understand ..
Socrates was executed because he challenged the ignorance and status quo of the day and with the creation of like blogs such as this, I hope that eventually the truth about the criminal concept that is psychiatry will become common knowledge..

Oh and yes, I have heard of Godwins law, I referred to the ideology of Nazism itself, and I used it in the context of comparing psychiatry to a dark cult, I don't think Godwins law really applies here do you?..

And anyhow, if you feel the need to use Godwins law so you can quell a debate on what psychiatry actually is, then that speaks volumes to me..

It's interesting to see the real double standard play out here. If an adult labeled as having a psych disorder got caught not disclosing funds, etc., it would be considered a symptom and blamed on the person not responding properly to their meds, always of course it's the individual and not the drug that is the problem.

Dguller, you really can't see that Biderman or Goodwin or Nemeroff have done anything wrong. You're not pretending. It's that scary double standard that all "patients" of psychiatry recognize regardless of how we deal with it. As for describing an entire group of people as "sociopaths" that's a psych label dude that's what you're doing every day. What about describing an entire group of people as bipolar children. How is that better or even different from describing an entire group of people as "anti-soul, anti-spirit and anti-human emotion"?

We don't like labels any more than you do and their no more accurate when describing other people. Therein lies the entire problem with psychiatry. It's dehumanizing.

MedsVsTherapy:

You're absolutely right about why they're so slow to skewer Biederman. My (former) personal psychiatrist who treated me for about half a decade is on staff there (MGH) and has a faculty appointment. The man is a consultant and on the speaker's bureau for at least half a dozen comapnies at any one given time. He is also recipient to bucket fulls of honoraria.

A lot of the faculty, well, I would venture to bet all the big players there have similar levels of paid employment from drug comapnies.

You're exactly right about that. The dominos would all come down, but for me, thats what hurts most about the fact they havent taken action yet. if you're greedy enough and lack enough integrity, theres a point where its so vast, that beyond that, youve immunized yourself or your department to the appropriate consequences of the circumstance, which is to remove the ones who have broken federal or institutional rules, or shed the ones who haven't of their paid employment with firms whose drugs they research and promote.

I mean, obviously, this is too much to eat in one sitting -- we'd all be better off if our FDA looked like Italy's etc, but MGH needs to clean house fast. I'm most afraid they will take the seemingly inevitable low-road on this one -- wait until the uproar dies down, and then do nothing.

A poster here, seeming to feel the need to defend his profession, does not see the need for hyperbole. Yet criticism of psychiatry screams out for hyperbole. Psychiatrists seem to feed on their patients' struggles in an almost sadistic (well, I should just say usually sadistic, way). They push medications that maim and kill then walk away. Oh well. Too bad. I am grateful to be going to an old psychiatrist who actually has a soul, and who is willing to treat me as a real person. He is one among the few who has this nature.

Thank you Sally and Thank you Sorrowful

:)

:)

truthman30:

I also studied philosophy, and so would love to engage in a philosophical debate with you. A few problems with what you wrote.

First, Socrates didn’t write the dialogues. Plato did. As such, we actually have very little idea of what Socrates stood for, independently of the propaganda of Plato and Xenophon.

Second, you are right that the Republic is ostensibly a metaphor for the well-balanced and just human being. However, look at the metaphor that he chose: a benevolent aristocracy of philosophers who control all information and utilize a “noble lie” to deceive the masses to work within their respective castes for the sake of society, even if that meant giving up their children and banning the arts due to their corrupting influence upon reason. Not exactly a paragon of democracy and liberty!

Third, Socrates was executed, because he was an arrogant and offensive jackass. After he was found guilty of blasphemy and corrupting the young by the jury by a small margin, he antagonized them by claiming to be a benefactor of Athens and thus being entitled to free meals for life, and finally recommended a small fine that he probably couldn’t even pay. He deliberately insulted them by mocking their proceeding, which resulting in them sentencing him to death by hemlock.

Fourth, I cited Godwin’s Law, because you tried to draw an analogy between psychiatrists and Nazis, and anyone who compares anyone with Hitler or Nazis has already lost the argument, because they are engaging in ad hominem attacks rather than rational debate. Certainly, that is not a refutation and we can continue this discussion. I neither have the power nor the desire to stop any debate. Just wanted to remind you to stick to the facts and reason rather than emotion and hyperbole, because it only diminishes your argument rather than strengthening.

Sally:

First, I never said that Biederman, Goodwin and Nemeroff were innocent. If you read my comments from other threads, then you will see how often I have condemned them and other psychiatrists for engaging in unethical behaviour. Dr. Goodwin should have disclosed the conflict of interest on his radio show and his choice of metaphor during his speech on the violence initiative was very insensitive. However, I disagree that he should be crucified for an ethical lapse and failing to see how his factually correct remarks could have racial undertones. He did wrong, but let his punishment be proportionate to his crime.

Second, I never labelled an entire group of people “sociopaths”. If you object to anyone engaging in that stupid practice, then you should have words with truthman30. Otherwise, you appear to be the one with the double standard.

Third, are you opposed to the use of labels and categories in general, or in psychiatry in particular? If in general, then that is preposterous. If in particular, then why single out psychiatry, and not any other human endeavour?

Thanks guys!

I know that Socrates didn't write the dialogues, Plato was his student, anyhow that's not really relevant to our debate here..
Socrates wrote the republic as a fictional way to explore the concept of justice, that doesn't make him anything but a truth seeker..

You say, "he is an arrogant and offensive jackass" , yet you also ask that I restrain my emotive language?..

Kind of a contradiction don't you think ?..

If calling Socrates an "arrogant and offensive jackass" is not a blinding example of "Hyperbole" then I don't know what is...

You then go on to say that "Socrates didn’t write the dialogues. Plato did. As such, we actually have very little idea of what Socrates stood for" ..

So what's the point in discussing him at all then?..

You then blather about "goodwins law" , which in my estimation is really just an easy excuse , I know what "goodwins law" is, but I still stand by my comparisons of psychiatry and Nazism, that doesn't mean I lose an argument, it just means I have strong points of view...

If you have to resort to "goodwins law" because you can't argue your opinions then maybe it means you have no argument? ...

And yes I did call psychiatrists sociopaths..
Because I think that they are..
It might be a generalization in your estimation , but as far as I am concerned, Psychiatry is a dangerous fraudulent cult..

I do however believe that there are some psychiatrists who are good people , they are merely misguided into the profession ...
Possibly you are one of those?..

dguller, I realize you addressed your question to Sally but I wanted to tell you that I oppose psychiatric labelling because it's arbitrary and life-destroying. Psychiatry is a religion, not a science, and still hasn't recovered from Rosehan's research in the 1970s which showed what a complete crock the whole specialty is.

A major psychiatric diagnosis sets one up for a lifetime of stigma and mistreatment. The only beneficiaries of psych diagnosis are the doctors playing God and Big Pharma.

If people have emotional troubles, by all means, let's help them. Let's identify what their concerns are and help them achieve their goals. Labelling them, declaring them defective and shattering their souls doesn't achieve this objective.

Dguller,

First, you really can't see that these guys should not be given carte blanche to label people as sub human for life because of their ethical lapses. These are the folks that label children as bipolar because they are inappropriately irritable. That label is a life wrecker and since there's no science behind the label, it's purely subjective, surely the people doing the labeling shouldn't committing felonies which is what hiding large amounts of money actually is. Are there any other groups of people who should be immune from criminal prosecution or is it just psychiatrists?

And I don't get why you don't dsm these dudes?

Second, I didn't complain that you labeled an entire group of people sociopaths but did point out that when you object to psychiatrists being labeled sociopaths, you are being hypocritical as your profession does label entire groups of people.

Third, don't be obtuse and sarcastic. You know that you shouldn't object to being labeled while labeling. Psychiatry labels and calls labeling scientific diagnosis. It's a fraud, that's why I object.

As for truthman30 and Godwin's law, bio psychiatry and Goodwin's racist eugenics are direct descendants from Nazis. Also, anyone who cites Godwin's law is probably a Nazi. Sorry, you're a decent pshrink for banter but your profession has blood on its hands.

truthman, i always appreciate your comments here!

It is troubling when a researcher can't appreciate that his failure to evidence independence in appearance and independence in fact raises questions about him and his work. It is time that Dr. Biedermen admits fault, accepts responsibility, and apologizes for his actions rather then portraying himself as the victim.

Paradoxically, if he was a mental health consumer who endeavored to an be an apologist for his own actions some might suggest that he was in denial or lacked insight but this characterization is sadly limited to patients not psychiatrists.

truthman30:

Good points.

First, I shouldn't have called Socrates a jackass. You are right that was hyperbole and hypocritical of me.

Second, I am still waiting for any arguments or facts from your end to engage in. All you have done thus far is call psychiatry bad names.

I look forward to your response.

Fransceca:

First, you are right that there are elements of psychiatric diagnosis that are arbitrary. For example, why does a major depressive episode have to last at least two weeks? Why not three? Why not four? And so on. However, why does hypertension have to be a blood pressure over 140/90? Why not 145/95? Also kind of arbitrary, no? My point is that one has to draw the line somewhere, and where there is no clear evidence for where to do so, human judgment has to fill the gap.

Now, just because there are arbitrary elements within psychiatric classification does not make the entire system totally arbitrary in the sense that there are no facts or rationale behind its arrangement. You also ignore the multifactorial statistical analysis that led to most of the diagnostic categories to begin with, i.e. the “S” in DSM. There is a reason that jumping up and down is not a criteria for major depression. Including that would be totally arbitrary.

Second, I have never heard of Rosehan. What research did he do?

Third, you say that we should label people with “emotional troubles”. Is that an acceptable label? Nobody would ever feel stigmatized for having this label? Nobody without that label would look upon someone with it as someone possibly to avoid? Also, would you broaden your classification system to include what type of emotions are problematic? For example, “anxiety troubles”, “sadness troubles”, “anger troubles”. Looks like you’d be heading towards anxiety disorders, mood disorders and impulse control disorders, just by different names. I think that you must engage in classification for the sake of treatment, because until you can recognize something, then you can’t do anything about it. That said, the DSM is an imperfect tool with many flaws, but it is certainly a step in the right direction compared to before when people were labelling people without any criteria at all.

Fourth, saying someone struggles with mental illness does not imply that they are defective. Many great people in history struggled with mental illness, and they still managed to be great.

Thanks!

Sally:

First, I don’t think anyone should be immune from prosecution.

Second, I don’t attempt a psychiatric diagnosis of those individuals, because I do not know enough of their clinical histories. You see, despite what you may think, psychiatrists are not trained to just toss around diagnoses in a haphazard fashion. We need a detailed history with collateral before we make a diagnosis, and often even with all that information the situation is unclear. Hence the NOS – “not otherwise specified” – category in DSM.

Third, psychiatrists do not label entire groups of people en mass. We diagnose INDIVIDUALS who add up to a group afterwards. That case-by-case approach is far different from simply declaring that an entire group fits into some category, because I think that they all share a certain trait. That is unacceptable in my field, and if some people engage in it, then shame on them.

Fourth, what is fraudulent about psychiatric diagnostic labelling? I will agree with you up front that any diagnostic system contains arbitrary elements, and has led to mislabelling with tragic consequences. That is endemic in ANY human categorization, and thus cannot be used to condemn psychiatric classification only. So, what specifically is the problem with psychiatric diagnoses in general? Or do you object only to certain diagnoses, such as childhood bipolar disorder?

Fifth, you claim that citing Godwin’s Law implies that I am a Nazi. Given my relatives who died in the Holocaust, I am particularly offended. The point of Godwin’s Law is to keep the nasty accusations out of debates and stick to logic and argument. Attacking the person is a logical fallacy, after all, and does not prove anything. Ad hominem.

Sixth, eugenics actually has its roots deep in Western civilization, dating from ancient Greece and Rome. If your argument is that anyone who endorses eugenics should have their work summarily disregarded, then there goes our entire human civilization. Oh, and that includes the Bible, too.

Seventh, I do not believe that Dr. Goodwin is a racist. What he said in his speech was literally true, but it contained connotations that could be taken as racist. However, his main point was that when inhibiting elements in human society break down, then our primitive aggressive instincts will run free and result in mayhem, and he cited monkeys to demonstrate our common evolutionary heritage with them. What people fail to realize is that if he condemned all violent inner city youth as primitive monkeys, then that would also include the whites, Hispanics and Asians who commit violent crime in those areas. Maybe everyone is able to read his mind and that he truly is a horrid racist who made explicitly racist statements in a public forum in prepared remarks thinking that he was so mighty that nothing would happen. Or maybe he chose his words not carefully enough, and included some whose direct interpretation is absolutely true and valid, but that contain indirect elements that could by taken in a negative way. Nah. He must be a monster, eh?

Take care.

dguller,

You write: "You see, despite what you may think, psychiatrists are not trained to just toss around diagnoses in a haphazard fashion. We need a detailed history with collateral before we make a diagnosis, and often even with all that information the situation is unclear."

I've not seen this occur. Psychiatrists tend to do a 15 minute interview and slap a lifetime label on a person. Once it's in your medical record, you're pretty much uninsurable and damaged. Even if there was a detailed history, the main problem is that the DSM is not based in science. That's what's fraudulent about it. And diagnosing individuals who add up to a group afterwards is wrong. If you were diagnosing people with real illnesses, medical diseases, it would be one thing but the DSM is not reflective of true diseases, and hence your kind of thinking is what got my relatives and yours killed in the Holucaust. That being true, you should be deeply ashamed of any work you do in assigning false labels to humans, bipolar, depressed, adhd, what have you. Your work is immoral and you know it.

The problem with Godwin's Law is that those who use it pretend that the Nazi era was long ago, different humans, and nothing so bad could ever happen again. It's adhering to Godwin's Law that makes such atrocities likely.

I'm wondering why you apologize for Goodwin while diagnosing innocent people with psychiatric disorders. You write of Goodwin, "Or maybe he chose his words not carefully enough," would you say that of some poor kid instead of zeroing out his or her life with a cluster b label? Treat your "patients" with the respect you treat your "colleagues" and the respect you feel entitled to and you'll see the harm you've done humans by dehumanizing us with invalid, random labels.

dguller:

I agree with Sally and Fred Goddwins comments were indefensible. I dont know you or where your are from except that you might have trained ( and live) in canada and Im wondering if you saw the one electron of sense apparently there in Goodwin's comment about inner city youth because you dont libe around a big population of poor blacks . You know, Goodwin seems clean morally now in an age where all kinds of reductionstic claims about behavior are accepted uncritically, but he has a seedy history.

I'm wondering if you've ever lived in or around a large urban population of impoverished black youth. If you have'nt, which I can't know, then your backward interpretation of Goodwin's remarks would make sense to me.

I have some friends from predominantly white areas of this country, or from areas where there is not a significant population of black poor, and they often unwittingly make essentially racist remarks, which one could probably just simply owe to their ignorance of experience. But the fact stands that Goodwin is a racist, he is not a geneticist or a real scientist of any discipline for that matter, and his ideas are oppressive and dangerous.

Look, I really enjoy the comments you post here, they add a lot to the debate, but in all seriousness (disgruntled patienthood aside), what is it worth, as a psychiatrist, to come to these threads and fire off back and forth with primarily former patients, or people who think there is enough wrong with mental health ideas that they can at least agree with a majority of what Philip posts? I'm honestly asking that question with all due respect, and you don't have to answer it because it's probably a little too personal to expect an answer -- but I was just wondering.

Sally:

First, my experience with psychiatric assessment it totally different. Everyone that I have ever worked with takes a minimum of 45 minutes during their assessment, and when the matter is unclear, always books additional sessions for assessment purposes and acquires collateral information to clarify the situation. Anyone who makes a psychiatric diagnosis with a 15 minute assessment is guilty of malpractice in my opinion.

Second, prove that the DSM is entirely fraudulent and unscientific. As I said before, I will concede that it is imperfect, that there are arbitrary elements within it, and that not everyone fits into its diagnostic categories. However, it does not follow that the entire manual is false. That requires further demonstration, which you have failed to provide. Ranting about how inhuman and sadistic psychiatrists are is not the same as a valid argument.

Third, do you consider delirium, dementia and autism to be “real” diseases?

Fourth, if you think that psychiatrists are all Nazis, then you would probably think that all liberals are fascists a la Jonah Goldberg, because he engages in the same loose thinking and guilt by association as you do.

Fifth, you did not respond to my questions about human categories in general. I would appreciate a response, because if your objection is that they are “unscientific”, then so are many other forms of categorization, and should we jettison them all? What is your standard of science? What makes a category scientific? What counts as scientific proof? What categories and labelling DO you accept as scientific and valid? I’d appreciate some clarification here.

Sixth, I am certainly not entitled to respect. It must be earned, as always.

Seventh, you complain of being dehumanized by psychiatrists, and then return the favour. That is certainly your right, given the pain that you have gone through, but please do not make the very mistake that you damn my profession for allegedly making, i.e. denigrating an entire group of people based on insufficient evidence.

Eighth, if I thought my work was immoral, then I wouldn't do it. Period. Please do not accuse me of being a sociopath, like others on this website. I certainly have a conscience and feel empathy for others, especially for my patients.

Take care.

JC:

Thank you for your kind words.

To answer your question, I post here to attempt to provide some balance and to serve as a gadfly of sorts. I understand that my perspective is often unwelcome, but I think that we are all in danger of myopic perspectives that fail to take the whole picture into account. I include myself in that statement, which is why I always read with interest what people here post. I have already learned a great deal, and have modified my practice accordingly.

I also find that demonizing one's opponents can create a false sense of righteousness that can be dangerous. If I post here in a polite and reasonable fashion, then I suppose I hope that people will no longer view all psychiatrists as devils incarnate. I also hope that I can help bring some reason and logic to bear on these issues to tone down some of the emotional rhetoric that serves only to inflame hatred rather than promote understanding.

Finally, if something written is clearly false, then I think it is my duty to point that out. For example, Philip posted an article about how a meta-analysis in the Lancet showed that atypicals were no different from typicals, but upon reading the article, I found that it showed that they were different on several scores. That is important to state, because people otherwise would have walked away believing that atypicals are not only harmful -- and they are -- they are no better than cheaper alternatives -- when they are, in fact, better in terms of symptom remission.

I hope that helps. :)

Regarding Goodwin, you'd need stronger evidence in my opinion for his malignant racism than a statement he made that was completely scientifically accurate, but could have been interpreted in a racially charged way. It's not like Don Imus' "nappy headed hoes" comment, which was explicitly racist without doubt. Also, nobody here is able to explain to me how his comments do not also include the violent inner city youth who happen to be white, hispanic or asian. Are they all monkeys, too?

To me, this is akin to someone walking into a dark theatre and saying, "Man, it's too black in here!" If there were some black people in the theatre, then certainly his words COULD be understood to be racist, i.e. there are too many black people in the theatre, but can you honestly say that was the primary intent? I mean, seriously, why would Dr. Goodwin, in a public forum, deliberately state explicitly racist statements? Isn't it more charitable and reasonable to say that he was misunderstood, and that he should have been more careful?

Take care. :)

To dguller

Do you not understand that life traumas that trigger depression and anxiety cannot be medicated away?
Psychiatric practices and the Diagnostic criteria of the DSM serve only to medicate, not to heal.

You know what a "dogwhistle" is dguller?

Truthman30:

You are right that they cannot be medicated away. Psychotherapy is essential to integrating trauma into a coherent life narrative. However, often medications are essential in order to decrease the depression and anxiety related to traumatic issues and make them approachable in therapy.

Flawedplan:

I do. Prove that it was a dogwhistle. Who was it directed towards? For what purpose or agenda? To prove his bonafide racism to hidden racists in his audience and across the country? What other instances of racism can you point to as further evidence of his underlying prejudice? Or is this one incident it? Wow. That's a lot to hang your hat on!

Also, nobody here can answer me if his allegedly calling all violent inner city youth monkeys also includes caucasian, asian and hispanic violent youth? Are they all primitive monkeys, too? Just wondering.

Take care.

If social programs really were what Goodwin was proposing, people in what he calls "high impact urban areas" would love him, no matter how poorly he chooses his words. In fact, what Goodwin advocates is the view that violence is generally the result of perpetrators having "organic brain malfunctions," and claims that there are very strong genetic factors in criminality.

At NIMH in the early '90s, he championed the push to find the presumptive biological markers for violent predisposition in very young children so that those individuals could be weeded out for biochemical and psychosurgical early intervention.

Personally, I'm not so bothered by the monkey remarks (which he made on several occasions) since they at least acknowledge that environment and society shape behavior. What makes Goodwin a creep is everything else he's done to promote the pseudoscientific dogma that some people are just born defective and bad. Only a few months later, in a speech to the APA, he claimed that "in the absence of genetic vulnerability, there's no environmental effect [on violent behavior] at all. So what this means is that the environment does not cause one to be violent or to develop a criminal record if there isn't a vulnerability already there..."

I don't know whether Goodwin is a "racist" in the way that most American and Canadian white people define that word (i.e. very simplistically), though I sure wouldn't put it past him. He certainly seems to be a eugenicist in that he believes the cause of some big societal problems is the biological inferiority of certain individuals and the best solutions involve direct intervention in their biology.

UnderTheThresher:

A case can be made that those who become recurrent violent offenders likely have an underlying genetic predisposition that is activated by an invalidating, abusive psychosocial environment. After all, not every child who is raised in such an environment becomes chronically violent, and some children without that environment become chronically violent anyway. It stands to reason that there is some underlying vulnerability that if severe requires minimal environmental activation, and if there is a mild vulnerability, then it may require more activation from the environment.

Perhaps he was speaking of the former, and not the latter, as something worth screening a population for. However, even with that charitable interpretation, his strategy is a stupid one, because even if there are a small minority of sociopaths who are born that way independent of environmental impact, the majority of violent offenders likely required a significant environmental component. Therefore, any violence reduction strategy that fails to take into account the psychosocial context will be a tragic failure.

Oh, and I wouldn't label those born with a certain predisposition or genetic vulnerability towards some form of distress or impairment as defective, inferior or bad in any way. If people here associate "vulnerable" with "defective", then that is their problem, because I certainly do not make that linkage. Actually, a lot of my therapeutic work is around decoupling those concepts from each other, because their association is so pervasive and problematic.

Take care.

UnderTheThresher:

A case can be made that those who become recurrent violent offenders likely have an underlying genetic predisposition that is activated by an invalidating, abusive psychosocial environment. After all, not every child who is raised in such an environment becomes chronically violent, and some children without that environment become chronically violent anyway. It stands to reason that there is some underlying vulnerability that if severe requires minimal environmental activation, and if there is a mild vulnerability, then it may require more activation from the environment.

Perhaps he was speaking of the former, and not the latter, as something worth screening a population for. However, even with that charitable interpretation, his strategy is a stupid one, because even if there are a small minority of sociopaths who are born that way independent of environmental impact, the majority of violent offenders likely required a significant environmental component. Therefore, any violence reduction strategy that fails to take into account the psychosocial context will be a tragic failure.

Oh, and I wouldn't label those born with a certain predisposition or genetic vulnerability towards some form of distress or impairment as defective, inferior or bad in any way. If people here associate "vulnerable" with "defective", then that is their problem, because I certainly do not make that linkage. Actually, a lot of my therapeutic work is around decoupling those concepts from each other, because their association is so pervasive and problematic.

Take care.

I think you're misusing deductive reasoning here, dguller. It might work with fruit-flies in a lab, but there are way, way too many possible confounds to conclude that because two human beings from what some observers may classify as the same or similar environments have very different outcomes, the relevant variable is likely to be genetics. Especially for something as complex as illegal violent actions by real-world people. Miniscule differences in a person's beliefs, attitudes, and experience can make all the difference, and are more that adequate to explain it.

From my perspective, living in an inner city area, and knowing a bunch of kids who where really sweet as 6, 7, and 8 year-olds, some who are now scary gang-bangers, and some who are cramming AP courses, deducing a genetic explanation seems pretty absurd. Not only does every single one of those kids have a comprehensible narrative in which the choices they've made are totally understandable, many of them seem to intuitively have a great deal of insight into the way that tiny differences in people's lived experience can lead them down very different paths in life. So I think trying to make the case that the differences are caused by some sort of genetic diathesis is like hearing hoof beats and claiming it's likely zebras. Or, given the lack of real evidence of genetic causation for any complex behavior (spare me those bogus twin studies, please), maybe it's more like imaging a stampeding heard of centaurs.

Dguller, I'm glad to hear that you're not into seeing people as inferior, defective and bad. That's further evidence you aren't a typical psychiatrist. Unfortunately — as people on this site have pointed out like a hundred-billion times — that sort of condescendence is deeply ingrained in the edifice of biopsych. It's also intrinsic to the violence initiative, which was all about suppressing possible illegal violent actions at the expense of the well being of the individuals labeled as predisposed. And ultimately, I think the prevalence of that attitude is all of our problem.

UnderTheThresher:

You are correct that twin studies' estimates of heritability of various traits are complicated by a whole host of confounding factors in the psychosocial environment. That makes it difficult for scientists to give accurate figures for how much of a specific behaviour is due to genetics and how much is due to the psychosocial environment.

However, I still believe that the stress-diathesis model of psychological disorders is still the best one around. I think that you agree, as well, but believe that the psychosocial environment is the primary factor and genetics is secondary. I hope I have understood your position, and I actually happen to agree, because even with a genetic vulnerability, there are a variety of mediating factors, such as parenting, that can avert a future of criminal behaviour.

The bottom line is that our mood, cognition, motivation and behaviour are all mediated by our brains, and our brains are mediated by genetics and environmental influences to varying extents. Some individuals who have a genetic vulnerability require less environmental influence to cause the brain changes that result in violent behaviour. Some individuals are so vulnerable that they require minimal environmental influence, i.e. psychopaths.

I’d like to mention some evidence for heritability in antisocial behaviour, which can be found in a great recent review article in Development and Psychopathology (2008; 20:941-973). The article cites recent meta-analysis of 51 twin and adoption studies that found that heritability accounts for about 40% of population variance of antisocial behaviour (e.g. Psychological Bulletin. 2002; 128:490–529). In other words, they were able to account for 40% of the antisocial behaviour solely based upon heritability of traits independent of the environment, meaning that genetics is quite significant.

With regards to adoption studies, they clearly demonstrate an underlying genetic predisposition. For example, when children from biological parents with a criminal background or without that background were adopted at birth, there were higher rates of criminality in the former than the latter (Archives of General Psychiatry. 1995; 52:916–924). Unless you are going to say that most children with a family history of violence happened to be adopted by violent parents, which is unlikely, I do not see how you can disregard this fairly consistent finding.

A classic study (Archives of General Psychiatry. 1982; 39:1242–1247) looked at 862 male Swedish adoptees and found that when both heredity and environmental predispositional factors were present, 40% of the adoptees were criminal compared to 12.l% with only genetic factors present, 6.7% for those with only a bad family environment, and 2.9% when both genetic and environmental factors were absent. These were all found to be significant differences. But the interesting part is that even those adoptees with both risk factors, 60% did NOT become violent offenders. It would be interesting to know what accounts for that fact, because it would likely be helpful to prevent violent careers in vulnerable individuals. Unfortunately, the study is silent on this issue, but other researchers have looked into validating environments, parenting style, and so on.

Regarding the individuals that you happen to know who were sweet children and grew up to become violent criminals, perhaps you did not know them as well as you thought while they were younger, or maybe they represent the roughly 7% of those without a violent family history who become violent offenders simply on the strength of their environment. I do not know, and in all honesty, you probably don’t either.

The bottom line is that genetics is not destiny, but it does seem to nudge us in a general direction, which can be affected by our life experiences and interactions with others. And the point of preventative programs is not to predict who will become a violent offender and drug them for the sake of social control. From my understanding, the point is to identify who is at risk for becoming violent, and intervene with appropriate psychosocial programs, such as parenting courses, school assistance, social support, and so on, and in some individuals who are already demonstrating signs of antisocial behaviour, then medications may also play a limited role.

Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

As the reluctant resident expert on family violence here I agree with the nature/nuture argument. It takes both. Though I was raised by sociopaths I'm the only person in my family going back generations who has never done hard time or lived in a mental hospital. My own violence is so automatic and entrenched that it feels hard-wired but I've never taken it out on other people because I fought that. I've always felt and fought the urge to inflict on other people though I could have, and was raised and expected to engage in violence, the fact that I resisted made things hard for me, was seen as a problem in my family and subculture so I became a target of their violence.

The fact is I have managed to say no to harming others though I was trained to from the day I was born when my father welcomed me into the world by driving by the house and shooting out the picture window. That was an ordinary day. I grew up with external and internal pressure to conform but was not willing to go that route. Will matters. Oh and forensic psychiatry had a hand in keeping me a safe and sympathetic human. But unlike the rest of my family I was a voluntary patient, and that has a lot to do with how things turn out, doesn't it?

Genetics are far less determinant than popular media would have us believe. There are notable exceptions (Huntington's), but even relative common polymorphisms such as P450 2D6, 3A4, and so on do not guarantee individual predictions of an AE or increased efficacy for those substrates. We (professionally) have observed certain populations/groups that tend (greater propensity as a group) to have a greater or lesser extent of AEs or efficacy as the case may be. There is no way to predict that a given individual is going to have an AE or be a "super responder", however. We have excluded groups genotypically to exclude PMs to look at higher doses in Phase II whilst reducing some genetic contribution to the AE profile.

Secondly, single gene variations have had utility in clinical development in terms of decision making when the singal is significantly strong compared to the normal variablility we already see (not very often). Polygenic scenarios (almost all of CNS) are imo beyond our current science and understanding. Genetic approaches are useless (IMO again) in psychiatry so long as there are no credible and object diagnostics. The day one can diagnostically differentiate one form of depression from another, then there may be a chance to develop a drug that acts in a known way against a validated and legitimate target.

Today, we're not close, not even remotely - imo.

Dguller,

You write:

"Also, nobody here can answer me if his allegedly calling all violent inner city youth monkeys also includes caucasian, asian and hispanic violent youth? Are they all primitive monkeys, too? Just wondering."

Did somebody other than you name a race? Psych (he, he)

Well, dude, are you suggesting that if he's saying all poor people are subhuman, it's okay?

Of course you're being obtuse. You're a psychiatrist which means this pretend stance of I sure don't see why anybody would think that statement was racist is an example of what is done to psych patients, as in, "tell me why your distress is caused by how your family treats you, little genetic defect."

Now are you going to argue that violent inner city youth at the time of Goodwin's statements, i.e. pre gentrification, were not all economically deprived.

How's this for a response: the incidence of violence among non inner city youth, i.e. suburban, small town, etc. is under reported because the kids tend to be able to afford lawyers to keep their records clean and suburbs don't want the bad press.

What is classist and of course racist in Goodwin's view, is first the false idea that inner city youth are more violent than other youth in similar circumstances. He is implying that poor kids are poor because they're violent, and simultaneously overstating the numbers of violent inner city youth and arguing that violence is caused by genetic inferiority not poverty, with the underlying idea that poverty is caused by genetic inferiority not lack of resources, thus arguing for social control and against social responsibility. His argument is not just morally unsound, it's factually incorrect, based in hate and fear not science, which might remind us of what 20th century, oh right Godwin's Law, can't mention certain portions of human history....

What is troubling in his statements and your defense of them and of course one of the many flaws with psychiatry is the idea that if doing the right thing is unscientific, you should do the wrong thing.

Sally:

First, I never said that I didn't understand why people felt his statement was racist. I explicitly stated that one interpretation of his remarks is clearly racist. I just doubt that that interpretation was his likely intention. You can criticize him for poor judgment and insensitivity, but those are different from racist, which requires a clear intent to make unjustified and derogatory remarks about a racial group.

Second, socioeconomic status likely does play a role in inner city violence. I didn't bring it up, because the topic was Dr. Goodwin's RACISM, not CLASSISM. However, since you brought it up, NO, it is NOT okay to call poor people subhuman, like it is NOT okay to call black people or anyone subhuman.

Third, where did Dr. Goodwin state that the violence reduction program that he advocated would focus ONLY on uncovering possible hereditary risk factors to the exclusion of psychosocial factors, such as income, health care, community resources, education level, and soon? If did say that, then his program is a ridiculous one that will never succeed, because in addition to hereditary factors, the socioeconomic and other psychosocial factors are exponentially more important.

Take care.

dguller,

You write: "I never said that I didn't understand why people felt his statement was racist. I explicitly stated that one interpretation of his remarks is clearly racist."

Dude, you did say that you didn't understand why people felt his statement was racist. You wrote:

"What he said in his speech was literally true, but it contained connotations that could be taken as racist."

Saying his statement is literally true to me seems different from saying you understand why people feel the statement indicates Goodwin is a racist.

Here are the statements in question: ""If you look at other primates in nature -- male primates in nature -- you find that even with our violent society we are doing very well. If you look, for example, at male monkeys, especially in the wild, roughly half of them survive to adulthood. The other half die by violence. That is the natural way of it for males, to knock each other off and, in fact, there are some interesting evolutionary implications of that because the same hyperaggressive monkeys who kill each other are also hypersexual, so they copulate more and therefore they reproduce more to offset the fact that half of them are dying.

"Now, one could say that if some of the loss of social structure in this society, and particularly within the high impact inner city areas, has removed some of the civilizing evolutionary things that we have built up and that maybe it isn't just the careless use of the word when people call certain areas of certain cities jungles, that we may have gone back to what might be more natural, without all of the social controls that we have imposed upon ourselves as a civilization over thousands of years in our own evolution."

--Frederick K. Goodwin,then director of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration of the U.S. Government, in speech to National Mental Health Advisory Council, Feb. 11, 1992. (Goodwin, now Director of the National Institute for Mental Health, is one of the main promoters of the Violence Initiative.)"

Violence is caused by lack of social control because certain areas have become jungles. Are you really going to suggest that these statements are 1) factually correct, and 2) neither overtly classist nor implicitly racist.

You write: "Or maybe he chose his words not carefully enough, and included some whose direct interpretation is absolutely true and valid, but that contain indirect elements that could by taken in a negative way."

Indirect elements that could be taken in a negative way. Man wake up. And tell me about these "psychosocial factors" that he didn't recommend excluding.

Note that Goodwin doesn't cite any studies to support his statement that "maybe it isn't just the careless use of the word when people call certain areas of certain cities jungles." What about this statement strikes you as literally true? It's not exactly a fact loaded statement, especially since it starts with "maybe."

Do you mean that this part is literally true: "If you look, for example, at male monkeys, especially in the wild, roughly half of them survive to adulthood. The other half die by violence."

That may be literally true though I doubt it and even if it is, one has to wonder exactly what social controls it is that have supposedly been removed that are causing violence and how exactly the removal of these social controls relates to genes and hereditary factors.

I know we've been around the block on this one a few times and you still have a serious financial and emotional, psychosocial - if you will - investment in seeing clothes on the emperor, but if you have time I'd love for you to point out the parts of his speech that are literally true, or maybe you're referring to a different speech.

dguller,

Please post links to where I can find the free full text of the first three studies you cited. I have searched, but have only found the abstracts, and we can't really have much of a discussion when what you cite to support your argument are sources that I can't afford to even look at.

Or, if you have the studies handy, e-mail me: underthethresher@hotmailDOTcom.

Thank you.

Sally:

I can’t believe this has come down to this, but let us look closely at what Dr. Goodwin said:

“If you look at other primates in nature -- male primates in nature -- you find that even with our violent society we are doing very well.”

Let’s look at this statement. He is comparing “our violent society” with “other primates in nature” and finds that compared to them, “we are doing very well”. By using the word “other”, he implies that he is comparing two groups of a similar category. That common category is “primate”. In other words, human society as a whole – including all racial and economic groupings – is a primate group.

“If you look, for example, at male monkeys, especially in the wild, roughly half of them survive to adulthood. The other half die by violence.”

This is a gross overgeneralization. There are many species of monkey, and some are more violent than others. For example, the rhesus monkey is particularly violent and impulsive, whereas the chimpanzee is able to plan in advance to commit violence. However, the overall intent of the statement is valid, i.e. that generally, male primates in the wild do have violent lives of struggle for dominance in order to procreate with females through assertions of strength and virility. Again, this certainly does not apply to all primates, because different species have different behaviour.

“That is the natural way of it for males, to knock each other off and, in fact, there are some interesting evolutionary implications of that because the same hyperaggressive monkeys who kill each other are also hypersexual, so they copulate more and therefore they reproduce more to offset the fact that half of them are dying.”

I actually have no idea if this is true, except maybe for certain species of monkey.

"Now, one could say that if some of the loss of social structure in this society, and particularly within the high impact inner city areas, has removed some of the civilizing evolutionary things that we have built up and that maybe it isn't just the careless use of the word when people call certain areas of certain cities jungles, that we may have gone back to what might be more natural, without all of the social controls that we have imposed upon ourselves as a civilization over thousands of years in our own evolution."

Right. Human beings do have primitive aggressive impulses that are restrained by the inhibitions of human civilization, and when those barriers are removed, we return to a state of nature in which violence becomes acceptable in order to satisfy our primary urges. You can look at any part of the world where the social order has broken down, which results in instability secondary to theft, disease, violence, and general mayhem. This is not a matter of race, but rather human nature.

That leaves his choice of using the word “jungle”. The implication is that the “high impact inner city areas” that he is talking about are populated exclusively by black people, and that they are equivalent to monkeys living in a jungle. However, there are problems with this interpretation:

(1) It completely ignores his opening statement in which he identifies all human beings as primates, and not any particular racial or economic group;

(2) It forgets that inner city areas also include violent Caucasians, Asians and Hispanic youth, meaning that he must also have implied that they are monkeys living in a jungle, which negates the racist edge of the statement;

(3) He used the word “jungle” as a metaphor for a return to the state of nature when the controls of civilization have broken down. You know, like “the law of the jungle”? Is that a racist statement, too? Or maybe Upton Sinclair’s 1906 book “The Jungle”, in which he compares the capitalist system that exploits workers and consumers with ruthless efficiency to a jungle is also racist?

So, unless you can account for all those facts, it is quite a stretch to say that he was intentionally calling all inner city black people monkeys living in a jungle. That said, I can certainly see how a particular interpretation of his words could imply racist meaning, which is why he should have chosen them more carefully, but I still disagree that that was his primary intention or meaning.

Unless other racist statements or behaviours of his are uncovered, I cannot reasonable conclude that he is a horrid racist who should be crucified for his disgusting prejudice. All I can reasonably conclude is that he is a man who made valid points using language that could be seen as insensitive.

I can see how his words could be interpreted as racist, and so there is no point in your pointing out this fact. The disagreement between us is whether his words could be interpeted in a harmless way? Either you can see how they can or you cannot. If the former, then why focus exclusively on the negative meaning? If the latter, then please see my above post and questions, and feel free to answer them.

Take care.

Dguller,

You seem intent on interpreting Goodwin's words in a harmless way but you are ignoring what you said before about his statement being "literally true."

The negative meaning is pretty atrocious because of it's implications.

First each sentence in his statement is the sort of vague, hate speech that is based in falsehood, fear, and yes racism:

"If you look at other primates in nature -- male primates in nature -- you find that even with our violent society we are doing very well."

Yep, I'll agree with you that it's literally correct that humans are primates, but don't agree that our society is either violent or doing very well.

Next:

"If you look, for example, at male monkeys, especially in the wild, roughly half of them survive to adulthood."

Again, I have no way of knowing if this is true.

"The other half die by violence."

The implication is that it is natural for male monkeys to die by violence, i.e. be killed by other male monkeys, at a rate of 50%.

And he goes on with:

"That is the natural way of it for males, to knock each other off and, in fact, there are some interesting evolutionary implications of that because the same hyperaggressive monkeys who kill each other are also hypersexual, so they copulate more and therefore they reproduce more to offset the fact that half of them are dying."

While this is gibberish, still he's saying that it's natural for male monkeys to kill each other which is simply a lie, and then from this false assertion, jumping in weird, hysterical way to the idea that the monkeys kill because they are hyperagressive and that there's some proof that being hyperagressive also means they are hypersexual because of an evolutionary, genetic compulsion to kill and then have wild sex to replace the dead monkeys with their own children. What part of that hypothesis is not harmful? What part proven?

And then his really long sentence:

"Now, one could say that if some of the loss of social structure in this society, and particularly within the high impact inner city areas, has removed some of the civilizing evolutionary things that we have built up and that maybe it isn't just the careless use of the word when people call certain areas of certain cities jungles, that we may have gone back to what might be more natural, without all of the social controls that we have imposed upon ourselves as a civilization over thousands of years in our own evolution."

So here we have our disagreements. You think that social control has made man better, I disagree.

But wait, there's certainly less social control in Beverly Hills than there is in Harlem, so why isn't there more violence?

Of course I don't even agree that inner cities are more violent, there's no way in which Goodwin's statements are not harmful, though you've written of ample troubling illogical ways of interpreting them as not harmful, much like a good German rationalizing Nazi tactics as "not harmful."

As for Upton Sinclair, I agree with him that it's the social controllers that are primitive, controlled by base instincts rather than passion, though still I think he's unfairly maligning jungles.

All I can reasonably conclude is that he is a man who made valid points using language that could be seen as insensitive.

Are you this much a crashing bore in real life dguller or just on the Internets? If you would step back from charging people to prove dogwhistles and look at the preponderance of evidence you could answer your own question as to why people focus on a negative interpretation on his jungle monkey wisdom.

I think I see your problem: Freud's not dead. People do add up, people do reveal their character and un-spoken, un-examined agendas. Other people observe these quirks of nature and produce what we call "insight". These people are sometimes called psychiatrists, but alas, not so much these days.

Goodwin's preponderance amounts to a man who is on record as pro-coercive, a wingnut, an avaricious, money-grubbing, petty, sleazy, racially insensitive, over-privileged but self-defeating douchebag, though I'm sure he gives expert guidance on what it takes to be mentally healthy.

Why am I always ending up in moderation here? Please, Philip. Let me bear the consequences of my own Goddamn ravings.

wow dguller i suggest starting a blog

lol, nicely put flawedplan.

Sally:

Good, so you agree that all humans are part of the primate family, and thus his comments about how our primitive instincts -- which are shared by monkeys -- can become predominant once the restraints of human civilization are withdrawn, apply to all human beings, and not just certain races. It’s hard to infer that he was targeting black people when he appears to have been referring to human beings in general.

It is interesting that you disagree that civilization and social order have beneficial effects on human beings. Perhaps we disagree on what counts in this category. I refer to the presence of a government -- or other authority -- that ensures the provision of education, healthcare, culture, a media to provide information to the public, laws and regulations, police to enforce those laws, a military to protect a nation from external threat, and so on. When these civilizing elements are no longer present, then anarchy, chaos and mayhem occur, which leads to a great deal of misery. Just look at Zimbabwe for a current example of this occurring.

However, I think that we likely agree on the above. You happen to focus on some elements of civilization that have stifled our inalienable freedoms as authoritarian and oppressive, and as a form of “social control”. It is this aspect of civilization that you decry, and you are correct that we must guard our freedoms vigilantly, but also recognize that we sacrifice some privileges when living in social groups, and thus have to submit to some forms of restrictions in order to have a functional society.

Can we agree on that? And if you disagree, then is there any form of social control that you find appropriate, or should be simply live in a state of anarchy where everyone does what they please?

Now, if you honestly believe that the amount of violence in the inner city is not high, then I would refer you to a study in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine (2001; 155(12):1351-6). The authors followed 119 inner city children from birth to age 7, and found that 75% had heard gun shots, 60% had seen drug deals, 18% had seen a dead body outside, and 10% had seen a shooting or stabbing in the home. They also found that 61% worried some or a lot of the time that they might get killed or die, and 19% sometimes wished they were dead. Is that a representative sample of what an average American child is exposed to by the age of 7?

Oh, and please stop calling me a Nazi. Thanks.

Flawedplan:

Please see my discussion with Sally. Dr. Goodwin was referring to human beings in general as having primate instincts that can be destructive once the inhibitory mechanisms of society are removed. He was not speaking of black people in particular, and the onus is upon you who declare him a racist to prove that he did. Prove that he intentionally referred to black people as monkeys living in a jungle, and not inner city youth (of all races) living in an environment where societal mechanisms had broken down, which resulted in an increase in violent crime. Perhaps if he had other incidents of racism in his past -- i.e. the “preponderance of evidence” you speak of -- then your case would be stronger, but it still rests on a single speech where the overt meaning was obviously not racist at all, unless you mean that he was insulting the entire human race by comparing us to monkeys living in a jungle?

And as for Freud, he famously stated that “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”. :)

dguller

You and most psychiatrists seem very fond of the claim that because thought and behavior are mediated by biology, and one of the influences on phenotypical variation is inherited genetics (distinct from epigenetics, etc.), therefore thought and behavioral variations are caused by genetic variation.

It's affirming the consequent to claim that observed variation in behavior is proof of the conjecture that these variations are genetically caused, and the syllogism is invalid so long as it's possible for factors other than inherited genetics to account for the biological variation. That inherited genetics are one of the factors mediating biological development is hardly evidence that the variations in genes amongst individuals are the cause of the variation in biology.

Differences in brain biology account for the variation amongst individual's mathematical abilities, and one influence on variations of brain biology is inherited genetics. We know that there are consistent genetic differences between med and women, so is it logical to conclude that there must exist some sort of genetic influence or genetic diathesis accounting for the huge gender disparity of mathematics professors at Harvard?

With logic we can't prove that there is a direct genetic mediation of human behavior, only that there potentially could be. As for genetic diathesis being the best theory around, in an abductive-validation sense there are so many judgement calls that it seems to me to be largely a matter of opinion. But since we already know that environment affects thought and behavior, often in very subtle ways, in every instant of every day, I don't think that tacking on some sort of genetic mediation diatheses delivers the most simple, elegant hypothesis we could come up with.

Since reasoning alone won't settle the question, we'll need to turn to empiricism. Fortunately, there many large, well-constructed studies that can answer the question — or so I thought before I actually looked at them.

First, some of my more global criticisms, and then I'll address the papers that you cited.

I) Use of confounded proxies for actual violence / aggression / antisocial behavior—
Most studies use criminal convictions as a proxy since actual violence committed is impossible to measure directly. However, a chain of conditions is necessary for the commission of violence to lead to criminal conviction, and each of these confounds the assumption that convictions are a stand-in for actual behavior.

Some instances of violence are outlawed, while others are condoned and even celebrated (e.g. sports, police, military). Whether particular violent acts correlate with criminality depends on the whims of the society in which it is committed. For instance, if we take the premise that criminal convictions are a proxy for actual violence and apply it to the US South, then we can conclude that before the 20th century, there was no violence committed by white people against black people. (Since then, the number of convictions has sky-rocketed, which proves that the skin-heads are right: there has been a precipitous deterioration in the genetics of the white race).

Unless someone wants to argue that lynchings don't qualify as "antisocial" violence, I think we have to admit that criminal convictions would be a dubious proxy even if perpetrators were caught and convicted 100% of the time. But even in law & order heavy countries, something like half of murders go unsolved, and the conviction rates for rape and battery are much lower. Criminal convictions are a poor proxy since they account for less than half of the actual violence committed, and are not a very representative sample at that.

Even if it was genetic variation that causes the difference between convicts and non-convicts, there are many possible reasons for that other then a genetic predisposition to violence. Perhaps the genetic factors lead people to be careless and stupid, thus much more likely to get caught. Perhaps it's that when genetics causes people to look more like Hannibal Lector than Dudley Duright, they are more likely to get convicted. Perhaps there are genetic factors that contribute to poverty, which (in the US, anyway) make defendants less likely to have a lawyer who will spend the entire trial awake.

There are far to many possible confounds to conclude that a correlation between genetics and criminal convictions would prove it's violence / aggression / antisocial behavior that's genetically heritable.

The other common operationalization of antisocial behavior is psychiatric labeling, which has plenty of its own problems, especially since labels like "conduct disorder" and "oppositional defiant disorder" are among psychiatry's most controversial.

II) Facile definition of "environment"—
It's neither logical valid nor empirically sound to claim that the totality of possible influence is confined to simply whether the environment is "abusive and invalidating," or to a short check-list of discrete factors (i.e. what Moffit calls "bad parenting").

There is no evidence that that these are the only possible environmental influences, and it would require proving the negative to show that there couldn't be any other influences out there. Claiming that some people become chronically violent without having had a chronic - violence - inducing environment begs the question of whether their environment was, in fact, violence inducing.

For human beings, experience of the environment is mediated by consciousness, which means that all that touchy-feely stuff like belief, intention, and will, (which biopsych tries to pretend doesn't matter much) in fact matters immensely. It's a throwback to the crudest aspects of behaviorism to view human beings as really big mice who simply react to the most manifest aspects of their environment based on their genetic predispositions. If three people are in the same situation, but one believes that God is punishing them, one believes that God is testing them, and one believes that the whole idea if "God" is a faerie story for rubes who haven't read enough Ayn Rand, are they really in the same situation? If they react to the "same environment" in different way, does it make sense to conclude that their different genetics must be the cause?

Construing "environment" in a superficial way papers-over all the subtler differences in people's lives that might account for the difference in behavior — no genetic explanation required.

III) Misuse of process of elimination in concluding that behavior not accounted for by facilely defined "environment" is therefore genetic—
For researchers to limit their consideration of possible environmental influences to only those easy-to-measure factors that had previously been shown to correlate with behavioral variance would not be a problem if they were honest that this is almost certainly only a partial representation of the totality of environment. If they said, "Well, we can account for 60% of the observed behavior with environmental factors from our checklist, and the other 40% is unknown. Maybe it's genetic, maybe it's other environmental factors that we didn't consider, maybe it's some combination — we just don't know." That would be scientific, and honest. But what they actually say is like, "Well, we can account for 60% of behavior as environmentally caused, and therefore the other 40% must be genetic."

Conducting studies that are, by design, so heavily weighted in favor of finding genetic influences raises major questions about the researchers'' credibility, objectivity, and honesty.

IV) The poorly validated Equal Environment Assumption—
Twin studies that rely on the it are only as valid as the EEA is. Considering how many studies are based on the EEA, it's quite surprising how little effort has been made to validate it. The assumption that MZ twins' environments are not in any relevant way more similar than DZ twins' seems to me to be implausible, and I can't find any credible proof that it's true. The Visscher study, which appears to show that similarity of non-identical siblings' heights is correlated with the degree of their actual genetic similarity (as measured by genetic testing of each individual), is interesting, and suggests a possible methodology to apply to behavioral characteristics. But the study of height doesn't prop up the twin study methodology for behavior any more than a study showing that eye color similarity correlated with genetic similarity would support claims that behavior is mediated by simple mendelian genetics.

This is significant not only for the studies themselves, but also because a variety of twins-raised-together studies are cited as much of the basis for claiming that nearly everything has some degree of genetic mediation, and therefore it's reasonable to conduct new research by starting from the assumption that everything is totally genetic until proven otherwise.

V) Dishonest claims that subjects were adopted "at birth" when they were in fact up to several years old—
This problem is endemic in adoption studies. In the classic Swedish study that you cite, the subjects cannot be said to have "only genetic factors present" because they likely spent substantial amounts of time being environmentally influenced by their biological families before being adopted away "at an early age."

When studies are designed to adduce genetic influences by eliminating the environmental influence of the biological parent(s), they are fatally confounded if the children spent time with their biological parents.

VI) Confounding in adoption studies due to knowledge / perceptions about the biological family—
It's interesting that you defend the adoption study 1995; 52:916-924 by stating, "Unless you are going to say that most children with a family history of violence happened to be adopted by violent parents, which is unlikely, I do not see how you can disregard this fairly consistent finding." Since neither of us has been able to track down a full-text copy, there's not much of a discussion we can have about this study specifically. But the implicit assumption that the adoptive parents are equally randomized for children with and without violent biological parents — the old "non-selective placement assumption" — is violated by the actual conditions of many adoptions.

Only two conditions need to be met for adoptees with violent (or "mentally ill") biological parents to be more likely to end up with lower quality adoptive parents. One, that people believe undesirable characteristics such as violent tendencies to be genetically heritable, which has been a prevalent belief going back to the eugenics movement. And two, that prospective adoptive parents have some knowledge / beliefs about the biological family of the particular children they are considering. This may vary widely, though "blind" adoptions appear to be mostly a recent phenomenon in many countries.

So I wouldn't say that children with violent biological families are more likely to *happen* to be adopted by violent parents: I'd say it's often by design. Also, I wouldn't assume that manifest violence is the only environmental influence on children's violent behavior that families could possibly have.

Even without a selective placement bias, the mere belief that someone has a genetic predisposition to a particular course in life is likely to have a powerful effect on their choices and behavior. It is also likely to have an impact on the way their family treats them, and may bias the accounts that the parents give years later, when asked by researchers.

The 1982 Swedish study is generally cited as being about "petty criminality." Its title is "Predisposition to Petty Criminality in Swedish Adoptees." I haven't seen any references to it being about violence at all.

The 2002 Meta-analysis of Genes and Antisocial Behavior study states that, "operationalization, assessment method, zygosity determination method, and age were significant moderators of the [perceived] magnitude of genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior..." The fact that using different proxies and assessment methods resulted in different effect sizes shows that a substantial portion of the perceived effect is an artifact of the particular proxy or method.

The authors noted only those moderators that varied amongst studies or between the twin and adoption designs, and weighted them based upon the degree of variance (constrained parameters vs. free parameters). This limits the apparent maximum amount of moderation to the variation amongst the particular studies used, and ignores any common or baseline moderation that they may share. This is not likely to be a problem for zygosity determination, since there are only two discrete possibilities for that. But the assessment methods used in all of the studies (or at least all of the studies not axed as outliers) may also have concurrent built-in biases, and these would go undetected in an examination that only compares selected studies with each other.

The meta-analysis being of twin and adoption studies means that a substantial portion of the supposed genetic influence is likely due to the original studies having some of the problems I described above, all of which are biased in favor of genetic findings. Similarly, a substantial portion of the reported effect size may be due assumptions in the analysis and the particular statistical methods used. The .41 genetic influence seems impressive, but it really only takes a few good chips for it to disappear.

There are many biological factors cited in the very interesting Development and Psychopathology (2008; 20:941-973) article that could be causative for illegal violence, but it's unclear if these biological factors are due to any genetic diathesis rather than being solely effects of the environment. As the article says (p.p 947-48) "It is know that CD [conduct disorder] children have often been exposed to adverse rearing circumstances involving neglect, abuse, and domestic violence, and that these experiences could affect their subsequent physiological reactivity to stress. Such enduring effects of early life adversity on cortisol reactivity are demonstrated by a study reporting that healthy adults reporting significant maltreatment in childhood showed attenuated cortisol responses to psychosocial stress."

The brief section "Genetic Factors in Antisocial Behavior" cites the 2002 Meta-analysis I discussed above, and another meta-analysis (Miles & Carey, 1997) that states in the abstract that the perceived large genetic effect "was not attributed to methodological inadequacies in the twin or adoption designs." That's an interesting assertion given the statement in the 2002 meta-analysis that, "Miles and Carey's... meta-analysis concluded that two studies using an objective method [of assessing aggression] found little evidence of genetic influences on aggression, in contrast to studies using self-report or parent report." Which sure sounds like a methodological problem to me.

The one part of the whole paper that actually makes claims about genetics creating biology that causes an increased likelihood of antisocial behavior is the part about MAO. Of the studies that they cite, Kim-Cohen et al 2006 shows a worse outcome for subjects with high MAOA. But Caspi et al 2002 says, "Maltreated children with a genotype conferring high levels of MAOA expression were less likely to develop antisocial problems." And Foley et al 2004 claims, "Low monoamine oxidase A activity increased risk for conduct disorder..." (The Caspi study is also the sole citation to support the claim that, "genetic factors are involved" in the causes of the putative biological "impairments" of CD children.)

I found many other MAOA studies, and like these, they're all over the map. So it seems more than a little disingenuous to claim that there is good evidence that variations in MAOA genes create a genetic diathesis when some studies show that the high activity polymorphism creates the diathesis and others show that the low activity polymorphism creates the diatheses and the high activity version is protective.

The only thing that this is evidence of is that a lot more study is needed, preferably by some new researchers who don't have axes to grid in "proving" the existence of genetic influences for illegal violence, "mental illness," and other undesirable behavior. Showing causal linkage between particular polymorphism and particular biological variations that cause an increased likelihood of actual antisocial violence can potentially avoid most of the confounds and problems that invalidate family, adoption, and twin studies.

dguller, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the point of violence prevention programs identifying people who supposedly have a genetic diatheses is so that they can be offered school assistance and social support. I'm glad if that's your idea of what violence prevention ought to be, and actually I happen to agree, though I think that social support should be available to everyone regardless of their genetics or biology.

It seems clear that, unfortunately, this was not Goodwin's idea. I can only find one quote where he mentions social programs, and it sounds pretty lip-servicy. He talks about drugs and biological "treatments," including psychosurgery, repeatedly.

This may not be about "social control" in such a sinister sense as forcing lobotomies on the leaders of "race riots," but I'd be real surprised if biologically-based violence initiatives were about trying to help potential felons stay out of prison, rather than preventing them from hurting innocent people.

I don't know what the situation is in Canada, but down here in Freedomland there has been a huge push for forced drugging of people who have the schizophrenia or other mental illness label in order to protect society from their alleged dangerousness. This is even in the absence of much compelling evidence that such people are violent at a higher rate than the general population or that forced drugging reduces violence, so I shudder to think what would happen if researchers started claiming to have found a link between particular genetics and violence. I don't think it would take very many ghastly murders by people with that polymorphism before the public, whipped up by the Nancy Grace and Fuller Torreys of the world, would demand that something be done. And I seriously doubt that would be limited to offering parenting courses.

If at some point in the future, compelling evidence to support the genetic diathesis theory is discovered, that's something that societies will have to grapple with, just as if there were evidence to support the theory that women are genetically less suited to advanced mathematics, or if the crap in that book "The Bell Curve" somehow turned out to be true. But at the moment, there is no logical support for the claim that there *is* a genetic diathesis, and the empirical basis seems to me to be quite weak.

Any claim of a genetic diathesis, whether true or not, is likely to detract attention from the environmental component, even when no remedy exists to address the genetic aspect. So I think that the genetic diatheses supposition fails on all counts: it's not logically supported, it's not well empirically supported, and it's not helpful for dealing with the actual problems. Of course I look forward to future research.

Thank you for sending those papers, and for this interesting discussion.

UnderTheThresher:

Before we begin this discussion anew, I think we need to ensure that we are understanding each other and not talking past one another. Is the ultimate thrust of your above points the demonstration that one's genetics have NO influence upon the development of one's cognitions, emotions and behavioural patterns? Or, do you claim that genetics has SOME influence, but that its influence is usually overshadowed by environmental influence?

Thanks.

dguller,

Interesting that the two suppositions you came up with are that I'm asserting something unreasonable and unsupported or that I agree with you.

Demonstrating the weakness of the logic and research behind the supposition about genetic variation being a cause of variation in thought and behavior amongst individuals is not proof that genetics have NO influence. It doesn't disprove the supposition, but it does disprove the claim the the supposition is well supported by logic and research (i.e. that it IS true).

So I'm not claiming to be sure that genetics has no influence, because there isn't a good empirical base to support that. And I'm not claiming to be sure that genetics has some influence, because there isn't a good empirical base to support that either. My assertion is that we don't know the answer. It's an open question.

I think I was pretty clear about that:

"With logic we can't prove that there is a direct genetic mediation of human behavior, only that THERE POTENTIALLY COULD BE."

"...reasoning alone won't settle the question..."

"If [researchers] said, "Well, we can account for 60% of the observed behavior with environmental factors from our checklist, and the other 40% is unknown. MAYBE IT'S GENETIC, MAYBE IT'S OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT WE DIDN'T CONSIDER, MAYBE IT'S SOME COMBINATION — WE JUST DON'T KNOW." That would be scientific, and honest."

"There are many biological factors cited... that could be causative for illegal violence, but it's UNCLEAR if these biological factors are due to any genetic diathesis rather than being solely effects of the environment."

"The only thing that this is evidence of is that A LOT MORE STUDY IS NEEDED, preferably by some new researchers who don't have axes to grid in "proving" the existence of genetic influences for illegal violence, "mental illness," and other undesirable behavior."

"If at some point in the future, compelling evidence to support the genetic diathesis theory is discovered, that's something that societies will have to grapple with..."

"But AT THE MOMENT, there is no logical support for the claim that there *is* a genetic diathesis, and the empirical basis seems to me to be quite weak."

So I don't see where you're getting the idea that I'm claiming to know whether genetic variation causes behavioral variation. My contention is that nobody knows, and given the lack of good evidence, it is untruthful and unscientific for people to claim that they do.

Thanks.