วีดีโอ

No problems here whilst using headphones.

Holy smokes 😅 trying to get up that great big hill of hope. Omg do I try.

Generally, when people discuss "Classic Strain Theories," they're also including the work of Cohen (1955) and Cloward & Ohlin (1960). Both of these works were heavily influenced by Merton's writings on strain and attempted to explain the formation of juvenile gangs.

I suppose the concept of freewill is a farce and we are all predisposed to be involved in any behavior we engage within (excuse me if this is not coming off as sarcastic as it is intended to be). With only "half the variance" explained by learning theories, which quite honestly I have no clue where one comes up with that value, where does the other "half" come from? Or are you of the disposition that biological and genetic factors explain 100% of the variance? I am not sure of the policy implications to be had through such a view... Maybe one could research eugenics and the history underlying the topic for why such a practice became frowned upon (understandably that may be too difficult and time consuming...). The internets will be informative indeed for sure... Regardless, these are not my theories, just a brief overview of the major events and authors associated with them. I am sure you know better given your underlying wealth of knowledge...

@@dr.g280 "With only "half the variance" explained by learning theories, which quite honestly I have no clue where one comes up with that value' Studies of relatives, and especially of twins (comparing identical with fraternal). It varies somewhat by trait, but typically about half the variance is explained by genetics and the other half by "all other factors," whatever they may be, but which are usually lumped together as "environmental," which is just another way of saying "non genetic" effects on behavior. There is nothing wrong with asking sincere questions, but I think the sarcasm is uncalled for.

@@michaels4255 "... When are the social sciences going to give up their incorrect implicit assumption of environmental determinism and integrate with genetics???" ... Is not a viable question, nor one I would be willing to entertain in this type of forum as it comes off a highbrow and close minded. There are varying philosophical views pertaining to human behavior, and the notion that there is an " incorrect assumption of environmental determinism" does not hold any weight - as far as I am concerned - as there are numerous conflicting perspectives within social sciences that cater to the topic. Also, studies involving relatives and twin are wrought with methodological flaws and inadequacies. Thus, throwing out random, limitedly qualified values to explain a phenomenon is a waste of everyone's time when one makes such a bold assertion (i.e., everything that was mentioned in your initial post). Given a determinist perspective, what within my DNA influenced me to respond here? Am I not of my own faculty to make the decision to respond on this discussion? Indeed, I have many options here, and while biological factors may play a role, there are other underlying factors that also influenced my decision to respond. Just as simply as it would be to not respond, or perhaps even delete the post or video for that matter. Is it biologically determined that one would provide information within this format for free, as I do here? Is there not some innate desire to gain something though any and every act (i.e., hedonism) as we are genetically disposed to profit and avoid pain (such as the pain I have gained from reading the nonsense above and typing this response)? Thus, your genetic argument is weak at best, and there are areas within criminology which specifically attempt to address the interaction between environment and biology (simply search biosocial criminology - if indeed you are interested). Nonetheless, I will not waste any more time on this here as - I am sure you are well aware - your DNA has already predisposed you to respond with some lackluster retort. In the end, NO theory can fully explain human behavior. If you are looking for that, be sure to tell me first as I will be buying islands once that occurs...

@@dr.g280 "... When are the social sciences going to give up their incorrect implicit assumption of environmental determinism and integrate with genetics???" ... Is not a viable question, nor one I would be willing to entertain in this type of forum as it comes off a highbrow and close minded. MS: Let me see if I understand this: the person who asks controversial questions is closed minded, and the person who refuses to entertain such questions is the open minded one??? " that there is an " incorrect assumption of environmental determinism" does not hold any weight - as far as I am concerned - as there are numerous conflicting perspectives within social sciences that cater to the topic" And why is the view that genes make a non trivial contribution to human behavior not one of these numerous perspectives? Why is only one perspective "off limits?" "Also, studies involving relatives and twin are wrought with methodological flaws and inadequacies." I realize there are a number of social scientists who make this claim, but the preponderance of geneticists seem to disagree with them. I think the social scientists are grasping at straws. Back in the 1960s, there were, let us say, "environmentalist" psychologists and social workers who deliberately and unnecessarily separated twins and sometimes even triplets when making adoption decisions for the express purpose of following up on them as adults and proving once and for all that human behavior was entirely environmental in nature, so at that time they did not seem to have any reservations about the efficacy of twin studies. But then when the data started coming in during the 1980s and showed very surprising results, the findings of the twin research became so inconvenient that some social scientists, rather than adjust their theories to the evidence, began searching for rationales for dismissing the data. "Given a determinist perspective, what within my DNA influenced me to respond here? Am I not of my own faculty to make the decision to respond on this discussion?" If there is a determinist position, it is clearly within the environmentalist camp. The question raised by London School psychologists such as the venerable Hans Eysenck or the late David C. Rowe in his short but path breaking book _The Limits of Family Influence_ is not whether genes fully explain human behavior, but whether genes make ANY non trivial contribution to human behavior, and the evidence overwhelmingly points to an affirmative answer, yet most social scientists outside of psychology continue to ignore the weight of the evidence, in effect assuming that human behavior is not significantly affected by demonstrably heritable differences in hormone levels or brain structure and efficiency. For how long shall most of the social sciences continue to pretend that this is a credible working assumption, or that all the formidable body of research pointing to a large heritable contribution to human behavior (in effect no different from other diverse factors that affect human behavior) simply does not exist? At the very least, the evidence needs to be seriously addressed, not ignored. "Is it biologically determined that one would provide information within this format for free, as I do here?" Once again, it is very, very, very rare to find anyone in the "hereditarian" camp who will argue for biological determinism, but rather those who argue for a deterministic position (such as the famous behavioralists B.F. Skinner or John B. Watson) are overwhelmingly in the camp that either denies the importance of genes or totally ignores the question. I do commend you for introducing these theories to the general public, and I wish they were part of the general science education in public schools, but explanations that totally ignore the effects of genetic differences are omitting a huge influence on human behavior. Especially in an introductory lecture to the basics of the field, a factor that might possibly be the largest single influence (for example, there are studies that show the variance in criminality is in the neighborhood of 58% heritable, leaving all other factors combined to explain less than half the variance) is not a factor that ought to be omitted. "there are areas within criminology which specifically attempt to address the interaction between environment and biology (simply search biosocial criminology" Yes, and indeed I once listened to an interview with a biosocial criminologist who mentioned how hard it can be to get papers in that area of research accepted for publication in criminology journals, sometimes forcing the authors to settle for publication in journals specializing in psychology or genetics. "I am sure you are well aware - your DNA has already predisposed you to respond with some lackluster retort." I thank you for your reply, although I cannot say that I have found it enlightening. "In the end, NO theory can fully explain human behavior." Why is that a reason to NOT look at ALL the factors that affect criminal behavior, including genetic factors??? And why should "biosocial" criminology be treated as a subordinate and not entirely welcome subfield? After all, I don't think we have special subfields for family history criminology, peer group criminology, financial incentive criminology, nutritional deficiency criminology, mental illness criminology, or free choice criminology. It is not helpful when seeking to understand crime or social deviance as a phenomenon to cordon off the genetic contribution as though it were some embarrassing red headed step child who does not resemble the rest of the family!

Hey were you able to find references

Great to hear!

Glad it helped!

Thank you, I am happy the videos are able to help for sure!

Most welcome!

My pleasure!

our Lord and Savior

Glad it helped!

What is your course?

Jess are still studying?

@@jaydenespiritu9350 hahhahhahhahahha you down horrendous

Glad it was helpful!

Awesome! Thank you!

Happy to help!