Is criminal behaviour nature or nurture?

>>8965304
Both. Everything is both.

/thread

>>8965304
What is criminal behavoir?
Only way I could see anti-social behavoir being "nature" is being born with some kind of birth defect or immune disorder that causes the brain to not be able to function typically

>>8965304
nigger genes are genetic

File: forzano-eshg-workshop2010-4-728.jpg (67KB, 728x515px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 728x515px

warrior genes are a real thing, however they are not always invoked depending on the specifics of nurture.

>>8965304
95/5

Mostly nurture

>>8965328
this

>>8965304
Are rules and laws in our nature? Because that would answer your question.

>>8966591
>>8966673


It can be 95/5 or 5/95, there is no percentage assigned

>>8965304
100% nature.

You know it's true.

>>8965429
There are no genes unique to any one race.

All humans have the same set of genes, and only 1.7% of alleles are restricted to any one continent.

Neither.

Free will.

>>8965328
fpbp

File: IMG_1609.png (146KB, 671x519px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 671x519px

>>8968259

>>8965304

Everything is both, stop asking this asinine question.

>>8965304
Legal behaviour is nurture. The instinctive thought process is "see thing, like thing? take thing". Violence is usually a reaction on a 3rd patty trying to stop you from "taking thing".

>>8965328
Your simplification of this matter means that you're wrong. It's not "both", but an interaction between the two. Genetics predisposes one to commiting crimes, but does not guarantee it. The way a person is raised can work to magnify their genetics as well as oppose them. In fact, in many cases it's fair to say that genetics barely play a role at all.

>>8965304
>tfw the vast majority of history has had shit IQ so over time they dilute even the most concrete and also complex philosophical concepts into an arbitrary and binary black vs white valuation
Feels bad.
Also,
>>>/his/

>>8968176
The uniqueness of the genes to one race is never hypothesized by anybody involved in the debate. What is debated (and measurable) is the variation in allele frequencies for alleles associated with the normal range of behavior, and their total effect in the variation of said behavior.

>All humans have the same set of genes, and only 1.7% of alleles are restricted to any one continent.

1.7% is a lot of the genome. Keep in mind that single alleles can cause catastrophic diseases.

>>8971284
"Nature" almost always just means "heritability estimate" and "nurture" almost always just means "1 - (heritability estimate)". Heritability estimates are inferred very simply from twin studies and genome-wide association studies.

Their strength comes from being simple. They ignore "concrete and also complex philosophical concepts" because those are often pathologically murky, irrelevant, or even stupid.

Nothing is written in the heavens that says you cannot estimate gene impacts on behavioral variations just because you can philosophize about confounders. There is no point.

>>8971294
Nature vs nurture was the concept I was referring to

>>8971302
I'm not sure I understand.

It seems like you were complaining about nature vs. nurture itself being a binary/simple concept. I was arguing that this is not a bad thing.

>>8971248
So basically, both.

File: ockhamlarge.jpg (133KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1024x576px

>>8971248
>Your simplification of this matter means that you're wrong.
the fuck you just say bitch

File: why-not-both-mexican-girl-why-not-both.jpg (24KB, 500x355px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x355px

>>8965304 >>8965328 >>8972172
Both