Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2002 8:32 am
by fable
Originally posted by C Elegans
Exactly! The gene increases the risk of crime in people who have also been socially maltreated, mind you.
@#$% I hate popular press
Me, too! LET'S KEEEEL THEM!
...More seriously, I agree. But remember, the popular press excretes knowledge as tiny hamster pellets because that's what they believe people will accept best. I put it back to a terrible educational system: educate people correctly to think and enjoy learning, and they'll turn up their noses at idiot explanations.
Soapbox mode off.

Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2002 8:43 am
by Ode to a Grasshopper
Originally posted by fable
Me, too! LET'S KEEEEL THEM! 
...More seriously, I agree. But remember, the popular press excretes knowledge as tiny hamster pellets because that's what they believe people will accept best. I put it back to a terrible educational system: educate people correctly to think and enjoy learning, and they'll turn up their noses at idiot explanations.
Soapbox mode off.
LOL. Fable's Army, I'd be in that...
I see it more as the education system perpetuates the attitude that stays content at hamster pellet information. If it were reformed to encourage independent thought and questioning over blind acceptance there would be far more people who wouldn't accept the media manipulation of information.
Which would create problems for big business and the goverment. Hence we're unlikely to see any such changes.
Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2002 9:05 am
by Silur
Aww, how come frenology keeps rearing its ugly head time and time again? Sure, it has a new makeup, but it's still just as ugly.
Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2002 11:52 pm
by C Elegans
I am happy to see everybody in this thread has taken the information for what it is
I am terribly disappointed at BBC, they usually have good reporting of science, and the article wasn't that bad - but I will never forgive them for the headline Scientists found "crime gene" even if crime gene were within quotation marks. I was actually going to write to them and complain, when I noticed they have changed the headline to "Bad behavour linked to gene". I think I was not the only one who reacted negativly!

Perhaps I should drop them a line anyway and say how displeased I was with the first headline, just to let them now.
I am surprised that nobody has commented on the horror of snip profiling I mentioned...or are you all to cynical and apathetic to care?

Posted: Sat Aug 03, 2002 12:21 am
by fable
Originally posted by C Elegans
I am surprised that nobody has commented on the horror of snip profiling I mentioned...or are you all to cynical and apathetic to care?
Yeah, I think that about sums it up.

Posted: Sat Aug 03, 2002 4:09 am
by C Elegans
Originally posted by fable
Yeah, I think that about sums it up.

That would indeed be sad.
Posted: Sat Aug 03, 2002 8:01 am
by fable
Originally posted by C Elegans
That would indeed be sad.
I'm sure you know without my saying anything, @CE, that many of us are opposed to such practices, and regard 'em as nonsense.

The BBC, alas, has long since gone the way of other major news sources in realizing that good, hard science is a bore to the average listener; and the BBC wants to be less elitist, and have a larger popularity among the average radio audience. Newshour on the World Service is one of the worst offenders in this regard, IMO, for the way they try to reduce many huge, complex issues to simple yes/no statements, and the way they twist minor scientific footnotes into banner headlines without a factual basis.
I'd also mention that during the 9/11 crisis, my wife and I were renting rooms in Budapest. We watched the 24-hour BBC news serivce on television, and saw how the Beeb chose its sources to present a *highly* prejudiced, one-sided view of what life was like in NYC. I've seen this before, too: when a few of the Kennedy family died in a plane crash a year or two ago, the BBC claimed for a day (while the funeral took place) that "America was in morning, its First Family torn to pieces")--while most of America could have cared less, nobody outside of Massachusetts even lowering a flag; and as for the "First Family"...I'm no fan of George W, but the acting president's family fits that bill, not the Kennedy's. The BBC has plenty of opinions to mix in with their news.
In my opinion.

Posted: Sat Aug 03, 2002 12:40 pm
by C Elegans
Originally posted by fable
I'm sure you know without my saying anything, @CE, that many of us are opposed to such practices, and regard 'em as nonsense.
Oh, of course I know that. I was just curious what people thought of the idea of using profiling to prevent crime. The so called war against drugs that the elder shrub started, used methods based on profylactic profiling, and as I understand it, that turned out as a complete catastrophy regarding biases and racism.
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2002 9:15 am
by Mr Sleep
Interestingly enough Skynews who i slammed for an erranious story about the "Missing link" have now posted a more thorough article (
Sky News Article) than the BBC one, thoughts?
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2002 9:21 am
by C Elegans
I found the Sky News report better than BBC:s one, still with the major flaw that we are not talking about an "anti social" or "criminal" gene here, we are talking about a gene connected to increased risk of anti social behaviour pattern responses in this specific population.
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2002 9:25 am
by Mr Sleep
Originally posted by C Elegans
I found the Sky News report better than BBC:s one, still with the major flaw that we are not talking about an "anti social" or "criminal" gene here, we are talking about a gene connected to increased risk of anti social behaviour pattern responses in this specific population.
Still it is nice to see journolists getting it (half)right once in a while
