I read a really startling article in The Guardian this week that was all about the research that is being done around the theory of children being 'born bad.' In the article, a psychiatrist named Dr Essi Viding, from the Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at King's College in London said, that research has shown that some children actually inherit antisocial disorders from their parents and that their poor behaviour is not caused by bad parenting or a bad environment.
Being 'born bad' has now been scientifically proven to be a real thing and a lot of antisocial behaviours that children display are actually caused by a child's genetic makeup. Sure, if these vulnerable children are then exposed to poor parenting and a less than nurturing environment then their psychopathic tendencies are most certainly exacerbated, but even without those influences there are some poor kids out there that are definitely behind the genetic eight ball when it comes to having their shit together and mastering the ability to make good and appropriate social choices.
The research was based on the psychiatrists analysis of 3,687 pairs of seven year old identical twins. Apparently identical twins are the best candidates for this type of comparison research due to the fact that they share exactly the same genes and therefore the same inherited influences. Anyway, long story short, from the data that they collated, they have identified that yes, some children are in fact 'born bad.'
This information makes me feel really conflicted. On one hand I feel dreadfully sad that there are kids out there that are just 'born bad' because I have always been a firm believer that no child is ever truly 'born bad' but rather 'made bad' by influence and environment, which is still certainly possible, but it is clearly not always the case according to this study.
And then on the other hand I feel really hopeful and quite excited about what this new research has uncovered because it means that specialists will be able to pinpoint potential problems very early on for these poor children, probably even before they are born. Which in turn will mean that we will be able to offer better forms of early intervention and support, and hopefully head off the big problems before they have a chance to really manifest.
I suppose that this type of research can only be seen as a positive step forward, but there is something about an unborn child being labelled as 'bad' that makes me feel pretty damn uncomfortable. Maybe the word 'bad' needs to be changed up for something that has a lot less connotations attached to it, but 'disadvantaged' or 'potentially dangerous' doesn't really sound a lot better does it? Maybe we should just stamp a biohazard symbol onto their poor little heads when they pop out into the world so that we can easily identify them?
Seriously though, as much as we all want early intervention and prevention, do we really want to be labeling 'bad' kids prenatal? All that I know for sure is that there will definitely need to be a lot of diplomacy and privacy around the handling of this information in the future, so that our so called 'bad' kids can have the same opportunities as our so called 'good' kids in this world.
Being 'born bad' has now been scientifically proven to be a real thing and a lot of antisocial behaviours that children display are actually caused by a child's genetic makeup. Sure, if these vulnerable children are then exposed to poor parenting and a less than nurturing environment then their psychopathic tendencies are most certainly exacerbated, but even without those influences there are some poor kids out there that are definitely behind the genetic eight ball when it comes to having their shit together and mastering the ability to make good and appropriate social choices.
The research was based on the psychiatrists analysis of 3,687 pairs of seven year old identical twins. Apparently identical twins are the best candidates for this type of comparison research due to the fact that they share exactly the same genes and therefore the same inherited influences. Anyway, long story short, from the data that they collated, they have identified that yes, some children are in fact 'born bad.'
This information makes me feel really conflicted. On one hand I feel dreadfully sad that there are kids out there that are just 'born bad' because I have always been a firm believer that no child is ever truly 'born bad' but rather 'made bad' by influence and environment, which is still certainly possible, but it is clearly not always the case according to this study.
And then on the other hand I feel really hopeful and quite excited about what this new research has uncovered because it means that specialists will be able to pinpoint potential problems very early on for these poor children, probably even before they are born. Which in turn will mean that we will be able to offer better forms of early intervention and support, and hopefully head off the big problems before they have a chance to really manifest.
I suppose that this type of research can only be seen as a positive step forward, but there is something about an unborn child being labelled as 'bad' that makes me feel pretty damn uncomfortable. Maybe the word 'bad' needs to be changed up for something that has a lot less connotations attached to it, but 'disadvantaged' or 'potentially dangerous' doesn't really sound a lot better does it? Maybe we should just stamp a biohazard symbol onto their poor little heads when they pop out into the world so that we can easily identify them?
Seriously though, as much as we all want early intervention and prevention, do we really want to be labeling 'bad' kids prenatal? All that I know for sure is that there will definitely need to be a lot of diplomacy and privacy around the handling of this information in the future, so that our so called 'bad' kids can have the same opportunities as our so called 'good' kids in this world.
THE YOUNG OFFENDERS
Release Date: 2016
Rating: MA 15+
Running Time: 83 mins
An Irish crime/comedy that was written, directed and co-produced by Peter Foott. The Young Offenders delivers a sweet and infectiously enjoyable bromance, shot along the Wild Atlantic Way of Cork.
Two haphazard and wayward teenagers set out on stolen bicycles for a road trip that will change their lives forever. They plan to seize a bale of cocaine that has fallen off a drug trafficking boat that is rumoured to be capsized off the coast of County Cook.
Best friends Conor (Alex Murphy) and Jock (Chris Walley) are a pretty entertaining couple, they're literally a modern day version of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, making this film amusing and also at times quite heart warming. This is a fun watch that was actually inspired by the real life seizure of 1.5 tonnes of cocaine off the Irish coast in 2007, and at just over 80 mins running time, it's a fabulous short viewing choice.
FINAL SAY: If I was looking for stuff, stuff would be found.
3.5 Chilli Peppers
Release Date: 2016
Rating: MA 15+
Running Time: 83 mins
An Irish crime/comedy that was written, directed and co-produced by Peter Foott. The Young Offenders delivers a sweet and infectiously enjoyable bromance, shot along the Wild Atlantic Way of Cork.
Two haphazard and wayward teenagers set out on stolen bicycles for a road trip that will change their lives forever. They plan to seize a bale of cocaine that has fallen off a drug trafficking boat that is rumoured to be capsized off the coast of County Cook.
Best friends Conor (Alex Murphy) and Jock (Chris Walley) are a pretty entertaining couple, they're literally a modern day version of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, making this film amusing and also at times quite heart warming. This is a fun watch that was actually inspired by the real life seizure of 1.5 tonnes of cocaine off the Irish coast in 2007, and at just over 80 mins running time, it's a fabulous short viewing choice.
FINAL SAY: If I was looking for stuff, stuff would be found.
3.5 Chilli Peppers
RSS Feed
