Leading edge Neuroscience suggests predisposition to crime/mental illness - Shooter studying himself

Was James Holmes studying himself? Did what he find push him over the edge?

Before dropping out he took a class that explored the biological origins of psychiatric and neurological disorders, and was scheduled to give a presentation on “MicroRNA Biomarkers,” according to a class schedule published online. The topic appears to demonstrate an interest in the genetic basis of mental illness.

Perhaps Mr. Holmes believed whatever feelings he was having were anchored in his DNA, and couldn't be rooted out—that perhaps he was destined to act out..

www.psychologytoday.com...

For decades this issue had been hushed. It conjures nightmarish images of eugenics programs and Minority Reports. But, that doesn't make the science any less real...

www.orthodoxytoday.org...

Neuroscience, the science of the brain and the central nervous system, is on the threshold of a unified theory that will have an impact as powerful as that of Darwinism a hundred years ago. Already there is a new Darwin, or perhaps I should say an updated Darwin, since no one ever believed more religiously in Darwin I than he does. His name is Edward O. Wilson. He teaches zoology at Harvard, and he is the author of two books of extraordinary influence, The Insect Societies and Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Not "A" new synthesis but "The" new synthesis; in terms of his stature in neuroscience, it is not a mere boast.

Wilson has created and named the new field of sociobiology, and he has compressed its underlying premise into a single sentence. Every human brain, he says, is born not as a blank tablet (a tabula rasa) waiting to be filled in by experience but as "an exposed negative waiting to be slipped into developer fluid." You can develop the negative well or you can develop it poorly, but either way you are going to get precious little that is not already imprinted on the film. The print is the individual's genetic history, over thousands of years of evolution, and there is not much anybody can do about it. Furthermore, says Wilson, genetics determine not only things such as temperament, role preferences, emotional responses, and levels of aggression, but also many of our most revered moral choices, which are not choices at all in any free–will sense but tendencies imprinted in the hypothalamus and limbic regions of the brain, a concept expanded upon in 1993 in a much–talked–about book, The Moral Sense, by James Q. Wilson.

The neuroscientific view of life

This, the neuroscientific view of life, has become the strategic high ground in the academic world, and the battle for it has already spread well beyond the scientific disciplines and, for that matter, out into the general public. Both liberals and conservatives without a scientific bone in their bodies are busy trying to seize the terrain. The gay rights movement, for example, has fastened onto a study published in July of 1993 by the highly respected Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health, announcing the discovery of "the gay gene." Obviously, if homosexuality is a genetically determined trait, like left–handedness or hazel eyes, then laws and sanctions against it are attempts to legislate against Nature. Conservatives, meantime, have fastened upon studies indicating that men's and women's brains are wired so differently, thanks to the long haul of evolution, that feminist attempts to open up traditionally male roles to women are the same thing: a doomed violation of Nature..

So basically, cutting edge neuroscience says you are pretty much who you are going to be from the day you are born. Sure you may be able to tweak or improve certain trainable areas depending on your lot in life but the essential you is already there and is immutable.

How much further has the science come in the years since this article was written? What can they know about a person? Did James Holmes know about himself?

I have heard neuroscientists theorize that, given computers of sufficient power and sophistication, it would be possible to predict the course of any human being's life moment by moment, including the fact that the poor devil was about to shake his head over the very idea.

It's easy to see why it's a somewhat taboo subject. Do the benefits of this science to society out weigh the cost to the individual? What are we prepared to do with the knowledge we might gain from knowing a person's nature? What of free will? What of faith or perseverance? Does any of it really matter? Is this why James Holmes went insane?

Please take time to read the entire article as it covers everything from sociology to biology, from Descartes to Nietzsche, from Marx to Freud. I guarantee *mind blown*.

reply to post by KillerQueen
This is dangerous reasoning. I'm a huge believer in self development. Constantly striving to improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. If you believe this then you've doomed yourself, there is in essence no room for growth which is just non sense. This is just the classic nature vs. nurture argument. Just my opinion.

Cool article. I'm hoping neuroscience prevails so people can start valuing real things and people rather than their fleeting thoughts. Thanks for sharing.



ETA: I also don't believe the whole predisposition part. Just the philosophical and scientific stuff. There are too many outside forces and anomolies to predict the future like that.

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by KillerQueen

 

This is dangerous reasoning. I'm a huge believer in self development. Constantly striving to improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. If you believe this then you've doomed yourself, there is in essence no room for growth which is just non sense. This is just the classic nature vs. nurture argument. Just my opinion.

Surely, you've been around people that are 50 years old and can barely read? How about those between 20 and 40 that have no idea what's going on in the world because they don't pick up a newspaper or watch the news? The only way someone can improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, is they have to WANT to. If they don't want to, then can you see how your belief is only good for you and in no way represents the rest of mankind.

Good for you to be the way you are, but I've seen kids where I could tell by the look on their faces that they just don't have it in them to strive. Not saying they can't survive, but not strive or thrive.

reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX


I'm with you. I believe we have to hope and strive, that we are here on a spiritual journey to improve ourselves, maybe despite any predispositions.

The point, however, is that neuroscientists believe this. And possibly James Holmes.

As a believer of a consciousness component giving rise to the expression of genetic variables. Dominant vs Recessive it is my postulation that consciousness/soul generates the genetic attributes which become prevalent. This would assign a plastic malleable potential and not a concrete set potential.

The school of thought postulated in this neuroscience article derives from a mechanical viewpoint of life. IE that all there is is electromechanical process because that is all that school of thought can measure or process currently. There is a new school of thought developing where biophotonic resonance is taken into consideration.

A most disturbing initial read really....

from your link
"This, the neuroscientific view of life, has become the strategic high ground in the academic world, and the battle for it has already spread well beyond the scientific disciplines and, for that matter, out into the general public. Both liberals and conservatives without a scientific bone in their bodies are busy trying to seize the terrain. The gay rights movement, for example, has fastened onto a study published in July of 1993 by the highly respected Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health, announcing the discovery of "the gay gene." Obviously, if homosexuality is a genetically determined trait, like left–handedness or hazel eyes, then laws and sanctions against it are attempts to legislate against Nature. Conservatives, meantime, have fastened upon studies indicating that men's and women's brains are wired so differently, thanks to the long haul of evolution, that feminist attempts to open up traditionally male roles to women are the same thing: a doomed violation of Nature.."

Do they think they have found the new weapon for the next witch hunt?, would be a more appropriate question....

When you discover things about yourself, you are opened up to 'other' things so I don't actually think this dude was the full quid all on his own, may not have been for several days before hand either, hence the planning.
Especially seeing the research he was into, it's almost like a fail safe on delicate information being revealed and perhaps he failed his 'test' because he succumbed to those outside forces he discovered, which are all part of us as well.

Going to read the rest now, hope that made sense

I don't buy the predisposition part , you are a product of your enviroment , you will be shaped to your surroundings . No matter how extreme it is .

Feral children lack the basic social skills that are normally learned in the process of enculturation. For example, they may be unable to learn to use a toilet, have trouble learning to walk upright and display a complete lack of interest in the human activity around them. They often seem mentally impaired and have almost insurmountable trouble learning a human language. The impaired ability to learn language after having been isolated for so many years is often attributed to the existence of a critical period for language learning, and taken as evidence in favor of the critical period hypothesis.[4]

Now what would happen if i went back in time and took baby hitler the day he was born , and allowed a bunch of monkeys to raise him .?

Perhaps Mr. Holmes believed whatever feelings he was having were anchored in his DNA, and couldn't be rooted out—that perhaps he was destined to act out..

One of the things I try to push on ATS is scientific literacy. You've linked to a very good source, but the article is still one of speculation, and its author is more a sociologist, judging by his bio on that site. It's unlikely he knows much more about neuroscience than the rest of us.

Let's examine another of Dr. Peele's points:

Naturally, we may wonder about the clearance process for NIH grant recipients (particularly in the mental health field). We might further wonder whether Mr. Holmes was seeking solace and answers for his own torment by studying neuroscience.

Should there be a 'clearance process'? Holmes' PhD/MSs supervisors would have been aware of his competency and suitability, and Holmes wasn't necessarily going to be in contact with any patients. Dr. Peele has only made the assumption that Holmes was suffering any 'torment'.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Surely, you've been around people that are 50 years old and can barely read? How about those between 20 and 40 that have no idea what's going on in the world because they don't pick up a newspaper or watch the news? The only way someone can improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, is they have to WANT to. If they don't want to, then can you see how your belief is only good for you and in no way represents the rest of mankind.

You seem to be labouring under the misconception that you have free will. "Leading edge" neuroscience says that there is no such thing. Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will

reply to post by KillerQueen


Minority report.

I disagree.

The path to true enlightenment only comes when one knows ones self grasshopper

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
Surely, you've been around people that are 50 years old and can barely read? How about those between 20 and 40 that have no idea what's going on in the world because they don't pick up a newspaper or watch the news? The only way someone can improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, is they have to WANT to. If they don't want to, then can you see how your belief is only good for you and in no way represents the rest of mankind.

You seem to be labouring under the misconception that you have free will. "Leading edge" neuroscience says that there is no such thing. Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will

Cybernetics and information theory also says something along those lines - that people can and do get manipulated through social engineering. Things like 'MK ULTRA' and 'mind control' have some basis in science - the idea of making someone live an illusion by feeding him/her a narrative they think is real.

In fact, this happens every day: someone unwittingly run a virus on his computer, because he genuinely believed it was a legitimate attachment emailed from a legitimate person.
Now spread this kind of scenario over a longer period, introduce a few more 'actors' into the target's life, and you could make the target do practically anything.

reply to post by KillerQueen

So basically, cutting edge neuroscience says you are pretty much who you are going to be from the day you are born.

No, that is not what they are saying. I study neuroscience and this is far from "the most important scientific revelation since Darwinism", lol. Wilson is just regurgitation, in a 'new way', something known in the field for some time, that both genetics and environment play a role in a persons development. Everyone knows genetics plays a big part in a humans development, people are just confused when it comes to how (much) the environment also plays into that equation. Some say a moderate amount (30% - 50%) while others contend much more (65% - 95%)

The two most important findings in neuroscience and developmental psychology have been that genes can be turned on/off by environmental experiences (actually concluded by behavioral geneticists) and the ability for the brain to 'rewire' itself through different experiences (neuroplasticity). The fact that different experiences in life can 'switch' on or off certain genes was a massive realization and puts all genetic leaning behaviorists on edge because it makes the whole nature vs. nurture debate impossible to solve through a purely genetic scope.

To claim someone is predisposed to "crime/mental illness" because of genetic traits is absolutely unscientific. They might have certain genetic traits that are theoretically (not empirically) considered to lean towards certain behavioral traits, but considering the environmental influences on which genes get 'turned on/off' (par with Wilson's idea of a film to be developed "poorly or well") there is an infinite amount of possibilities of how this person will develop. I think his "chiming in" on this case is purely egotistical and insincere. None of us know the complete scope of this young mans life circumstances, and to use his case as a means to promulgate his (Wilson's) own research is ridiculous. Chasing federal funding grants on this one, I would say.

Originally posted by XeroOne

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
Surely, you've been around people that are 50 years old and can barely read? How about those between 20 and 40 that have no idea what's going on in the world because they don't pick up a newspaper or watch the news? The only way someone can improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, is they have to WANT to. If they don't want to, then can you see how your belief is only good for you and in no way represents the rest of mankind.

You seem to be labouring under the misconception that you have free will. "Leading edge" neuroscience says that there is no such thing. Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will

Cybernetics and information theory also says something along those lines - that people can and do get manipulated through social engineering. Things like 'MK ULTRA' and 'mind control' have some basis in science - the idea of making someone live an illusion by feeding him/her a narrative they think is real.

No, this has nothing to do with social engineering -- go read the article. Research has shown that, at least in some cases (and there are those who will say all cases,) you decide to do something a minuscule amount of time AFTER you've done it. In other words, you don't "decide" anything, your brain just validates what some other process (which was not your consciousness) determined to do and resulted in an action.

reply to post by XeroOne


Yeah, if you're interested in that theory of mind manipulation look up John B. Watson and Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew). The mind will be blown.

"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it." - Edward Bernays

"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors." - John B. Watson

I think HE WAS studying himself. Some psychopaths realize that their thoughts aren't normal and are constantly fighting them. In some cases of extreme back and forth with let's say, talking yourself out of doing something evil, eventually a dual personality will develop or the whole "voices in my head" scenario will manifest.

I suspect he had evil thoughts since his early teens causing him to feel different from normal kids which may partially explain why he was somewhat withdrawn. Of coarse he fought those feelings and tried to be "normal" by immersing himself in homework and his studies, and being a camp councillor for kids for 6 weeks, and other things "normal" people would do. Even though he tried to be normal those evil thoughts still tormented him.

He should've spoke up and asked for help but then again he may have been too ashamed and thought he could help himself by studying mental disorders , self diagnose and self medicate. That could explain why he was on 100mg. of Vicodin the night of the massacre.

A gun dealer in San Diego (where he's from) said Holmes came into his shop 2X a year ago to look at guns. He never bought any at that time but it shows that he was already thinking or planning his deadly deed out a year ago and not just 4 months ago as the media is reporting.

Yup. He was studying his psychotic disorder, probably trying to control it on his own instead of seeking professional help. Too little too late. The evil in him took over. Perhaps after taking that last class and hearing that his mental disorder was in his DNA he may have lost hope and just stopped fighting it.

I don't think the defense can prove he was insane... I don't think he is insane. He diabolically prepared for his rampage to take place during the first showing of The Dark Knight Rises. He may have even related the movie title to the darkness within himself finally rising?

Intelligent, yes. Disturbed, yes. He will and should get the death sentence.

reply to post by KillerQueen


Those who are born evil will do everything to silence, destroy and discredit such research. I wonder what the genetic markers for most elected legislatures and elected executive officers and attorney generals is?

Neuroscience research and theory can't be blamed for Mr. Holmes violent, anguished and anguishing violence. But it certainly wasn't capable of preventing it, even for a person intensely interested in what the neuroscience of mental illness has to tell us.

I'm sorry but this psychologytoday article is just terrible, The author of that article said taking classes in neuroscience wasn't capable of preventing a mass murder spree? What? Is he confused about the difference between a client of psychotherapy and student of neuroscience research? Even his subtitle of "Has the NIH caused more misery than it solves?" is just mind boggling... Wow...

Sorry, end rant.

No, this has nothing to do with social engineering -- go read the article. Research has shown that, at least in some cases (and there are those who will say all cases,) you decide to do something a minuscule amount of time AFTER you've done it. In other words, you don't "decide" anything, your brain just validates what some other process (which was not your consciousness) determined to do and resulted in an action.

edit on 23-7-2012 by adjensen because: clarification

Yes, I was aware of that. My point is that a couple other branches of science have drawn very similar conclusions. John von Neumann, Alan Turing, Norbert Wiener, and a good few others explored the idea that our brains simply process and repeat information, and our decisions are heavily influenced (if not determined) by this. If I remember correctly, Turing took the view that our brains are merely Baynesian logic systems.

"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it." - Edward Bernays

"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors." - John B. Watson

Exactly the point I was getting at. This was the real basis for the 'mind control' programmes back in the 1950s - 1960s, which I reckon originated with the Macy Conferences following World War II. The idea that a person could be made to play any given role under the right conditions. All the controller needs to do is set the scene and create those conditions.

reply to post by jiggerj


Watching the news doesn't help you "know" or understand the world. In fact -- I gave up TV altogether at the age of 38. Do you know what I did in place of TV? I started pursuing degrees in philosophy and physics.

TV news is 100% corporate propaganda. There is nothing worth knowing in "the news."