Small-brain link to long-term antisocial behaviour

People who steal, bully and lie throughout their lives may have smaller brains, researchers say.

MRI scans suggested 45-year-olds who had shown antisocial behaviour from childhood had reduced surface area and a thinner cortex in parts of the brain previously linked to such behaviour.

But it is unclear if this was inherited or due to factors such as substance abuse, low IQ or poor mental health.

The researchers scanned nearly 700 volunteers they had studied from birth.

They were divided into three groups, those who:

were not persistently antisocial
only behaved this way when they were adolescents
continued to act this way throughout their lives

They found the 80 people in the last group, which included people who had committed violent crimes, had significant structural differences in their brains.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51406572

Which came first, the chicken or the egg ?

Or in this case, the ingrained 'bad behaviour' or the 'smaller' brain..

'Wolfie wrote:

Which came first,  the chicken or the egg  ?

Or in this case,  the ingrained 'bad behaviour' or the 'smaller' brain..

Good point.

Whenever a "link" is found, people want to see causation where really, only correlation has been found, at least so far.

Science is investigation, and investigations are full of bad leads, dead ends, red herrings, etc. Something like "these murders all happened when Suspect A was off of work" is suggestive, but not proof, of course. It's important to remember that correlation often doesn't mean causation.

I may be biased having lived in an area blighted by anti social behaviour and seeming indifference from the forces of law and order.

But I think persistent anti social behaviour should be classed as a mental health issue with offenders either medicated or placed in care. Not as much kudos as an ASBO maybe and quite reactionary but my only other preference is kill the fuckers.

These arseholes really do erode, ruin and destroy innocent peoples lives.

I agree with that 100% !

doc wrote:But I think persistent anti social behaviour should be classed as a mental health issue with offenders either medicated or placed in care.

Medication?  Incarceration?  Who, Tories or Labour?  

Seriously, didn't some Italian formulate the same theory:

Wiki wrote:Cesare Lombroso (/lɒmˈbroʊsoʊ/,[2][3] also US: /lɔːmˈ-/,[4] Italian: [ˈtʃeːzare lomˈbroːzo, ˈtʃɛː-, -oːso]; born Ezechia Marco Lombroso; 6 November 1835 – 19 October 1909), was an Italian criminologist, physician, and founder of the Italian School of Positivist Criminology. Lombroso rejected the established classical school, which held that crime was a characteristic trait of human nature. Instead, using concepts drawn from physiognomy, degeneration theory, psychiatry and Social Darwinism, Lombroso's theory of anthropological criminology essentially stated that criminality was inherited, and that someone "born criminal" could be identified by physical (congenital) defects, which confirmed a criminal as savage or atavistic.

Anglo-American law has always been predicated on the notion that you become criminal based upon your actions.  If we can determine beforehand who is, or is not an antisocial type, it will save us a lot of trouble.

Original Quill wrote:

doc wrote:But I think persistent anti social behaviour should be classed as a mental health issue with offenders either medicated or placed in care.

Medication?  Incarceration?  Who, Tories or Labour?  

Seriously, didn't some Italian formulate the same theory:

Wiki wrote:Cesare Lombroso (/lɒmˈbroʊsoʊ/,[2][3] also US: /lɔːmˈ-/,[4] Italian: [ˈtʃeːzare lomˈbroːzo, ˈtʃɛː-, -oːso]; born Ezechia Marco Lombroso; 6 November 1835 – 19 October 1909), was an Italian criminologist, physician, and founder of the Italian School of Positivist Criminology. Lombroso rejected the established classical school, which held that crime was a characteristic trait of human nature. Instead, using concepts drawn from physiognomy, degeneration theory, psychiatry and Social Darwinism, Lombroso's theory of anthropological criminology essentially stated that criminality was inherited, and that someone "born criminal" could be identified by physical (congenital) defects, which confirmed a criminal as savage or atavistic.

Anglo-American law has always been predicated on the notion that you become criminal based upon your actions.  If we can determine beforehand who is, or is not an antisocial type, it will save us a lot of trouble.

I'm not sure if I think criminality can be inherited. certain disorders ike psychopathy can be used as indicators or precursors of crimiinality but AFAIA that isn't set in stone.

I just happen to think that someone who is persistently anti-social should be classed as cognitively disordered, possibly dangerous and has a negative impact on his community. Of course some anti-social behaviour is from people who know they can get away with it, but taking such measures will soon weed out the opportunistic players

Original Quill wrote:

doc wrote:But I think persistent anti social behaviour should be classed as a mental health issue with offenders either medicated or placed in care.

Medication?  Incarceration?  Who, Tories or Labour?  

Seriously, didn't some Italian formulate the same theory:

Wiki wrote:Cesare Lombroso (/lɒmˈbroʊsoʊ/,[2][3] also US: /lɔːmˈ-/,[4] Italian: [ˈtʃeːzare lomˈbroːzo, ˈtʃɛː-, -oːso]; born Ezechia Marco Lombroso; 6 November 1835 – 19 October 1909), was an Italian criminologist, physician, and founder of the Italian School of Positivist Criminology. Lombroso rejected the established classical school, which held that crime was a characteristic trait of human nature. Instead, using concepts drawn from physiognomy, degeneration theory, psychiatry and Social Darwinism, Lombroso's theory of anthropological criminology essentially stated that criminality was inherited, and that someone "born criminal" could be identified by physical (congenital) defects, which confirmed a criminal as savage or atavistic.

Anglo-American law has always been predicated on the notion that you become criminal based upon your actions.  If we can determine beforehand who is, or is not an antisocial type, it will save us a lot of trouble.

we do that already...with stop and search....but YOU call that racism.........

and....are you SERIOUSLY advocating what is essentially eugenics

Victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Medication?  Incarceration?  Who, Tories or Labour?  

Seriously, didn't some Italian formulate the same theory:


Anglo-American law has always been predicated on the notion that you become criminal based upon your actions.  If we can determine beforehand who is, or is not an antisocial type, it will save us a lot of trouble.

we do that already...with stop and search....but YOU call that racism.........

and....are you SERIOUSLY advocating what is essentially eugenics

Stop & search (the name) deals with the method, not the reason.  What has gained the bad reputation for stop & search in America, is that it is typically used against blacks and Hispanics.  The predication for this is, blacks and Hispanics are typical criminal types.  There is a tinge of racism to that...I mean, are blacks and Hispanics typical criminal types?  And why doesn't stop & search get used in white communities?

If there were proper predication for it, stop & search would be simply neutral.  But all too often the predication is, being black in America.

I don't understand your allegation about eugenics, vic.  I haven't advocated anything.  I've merely described an Italian criminologist's theory, and the ever-popular, ...we are only accountable for our acts.  If you disagree with these, in content, I'm just the messenger.

BTW...I, too, am not a fan of eugenics.