Sociology behaves like a pseudoscience that categorically states that human behavior is determined solely by the cultural or social environment; in other words, it denies the role of biology or genetics in this regard. A more specific example of this is attributing differences in behavior within a criminal context solely to environmental conditions. Then, we have those who treat sociology as the best or even the only method for understanding human behavior, asserting, precisely based on what sociologists have produced, that individuals from historically marginalized social and racial groups who turn to crime do so because they are victims of poverty and social exclusion, and not because they exhibit character flaws or personality traits that make them more prone to following that path. While social and historical factors may have some influence, and even at first glance it seems logical that they play a predominant role, this alleged causal relationship appears to be a case of "primary logic," a term I coined, which refers to a first impression confirming a hypothesis, but which may not be confirmed as fact or truth upon deeper analysis. So, let's look at the evidence against what is considered the central thesis of sociology, starting with a question: why are heterosexual men so disproportionately represented in crime statistics?
Worldwide, from the richest to the poorest country, from the most egalitarian to the most unequal, from the most peaceful to the most dangerous, the same pattern: men committing more crimes in a significantly disproportionate way compared to women. Therefore, even when or where there are no serious social problems that can be used to justify this discrepancy, men continue to commit more crimes than women. And it's not limited to comparisons between countries; if, within the same social, racial, or cultural group, the same pattern is observed. Because it's notable that, even in distinct social, cultural, and historical environments, this reality of behavioral discrepancy between the sexes has been observed, it's potentially conclusive that "social factors alone" cannot explain it. This leaves precisely the aspect most neglected by sociology: the biological or genetic one, which, in this case, refers to hormonal differences between men and women. The former group presents much higher levels of the hormone testosterone, related to typically masculine behaviors, including a greater tendency towards aggressiveness, also considered one of the founding aspects of male biology. But it doesn't stop there, because this influence of testosterone in promoting aggressive or antisocial behaviors is also found in more specific groups, such as individuals who end up falling into the category of criminals and homosexual or lesbian women. In the first group, the most obvious of all, higher levels of this hormone have been found than in comparison to individuals who have never been imprisoned. The second group, which is even more interesting to observe, tends to commit more crimes than heterosexual women, and the reverse pattern is also found in relation to homosexual men, who, in turn, are underrepresented compared to heterosexual men in crime statistics, perhaps with some exceptions for certain types of sex crimes. This is because heterosexual women tend to have less testosterone than homosexual women, and homosexual men tend to have less testosterone than heterosexual men. This may be reductionist, especially since other social and biological factors are also involved, for example, the relationship between the stress hormone cortisol and aggression, and the discovery of a correlation with certain genetic variations. But the primarily partial causality of these hormonal variations is too evident to be dismissed or considered secondary in importance.
Finally, another group disproportionately represented in the practice of crime is sub-Saharan African Americans, and once again, one of the most likely factors to explain, in part, this statistical correlation (which has also been found in practically the entire world) is the difference in hormonal variation, especially of the hormone most related to this type of behavior, testosterone.
So, even if it is reductionist, it is not essentially wrong to conclude that the disproportionate aggressive or antisocial behaviors of certain groups are perhaps largely attributed to differences in hormonal expression among them, and not only to external or environmental factors. These factors, however, can or very likely interact with other biological factors mediate the level of hormonal expression. Well... This is also a speculative statement, because there is a possibility that the influence of the environment is even less, based on the more scientifically honest evidence that has already been compiled on this topic.
Chicken or egg??
Sociologists and others could still argue that it is not hormonal expression that contributes to generating behaviors, but rather the opposite, that it is environmental factors, such as culture, that induce hormonal variation. Although I believe in a constant "feedback" between both categories of factors, environmental and individual, I also believe that it is our intrinsic or biological factors, such as hormonal levels, that determine potentials and/or limits of expression, and that our behaviors are the result of these factors interacting with the environment, based on the logic of the most probable order of factors, in which biology, or what is internal to an organism, generates its expression or behavior when interacting with its environment; And also that, for the environment to be more influential, its predominant influence should be perceived in a great uniformity of behaviors, that is, that randomly selected individuals under the same environmental forces would present very similar responses, but this is not what usually happens in reality. And even when there is an apparent uniformity, it is premature to deduce that it is a predominant influence of the environment, if it is also important to verify the level of similarity of the individuals involved (individuals who express similar psychological and cognitive traits tend to exhibit similar behaviors).
So this is a demonstration of the sociological fallacy, which I believe is a great example of how deviant from a legitimately scientific practice sociology tends to be, as it shows robust patterns of correlation between specific behaviors and biological factors that manifest in many environments, weakening the main sociological thesis that emphasizes the environment as the most important influencing factor for human behavior.
Source:
https://www.psypost.org/2022/12/testosterone-and-cortisol-levels-are-linked-to-criminal-behavior-according-to-new-research-64477
https://www.psypost.org/surprising-connection-found-between-finger-length-ratios-and-psychopathological-traits/
https://www.psypost.org/dutch-women-but-not-men-in-same-sex-relationships-are-more-li kely-to-commit-crime-study-finds/#google_vignette
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0018506X22001544
https://selfhacked.com/2014/12/07/about-mao-a-and-what-to-do-if-you-have-the-warrior-gene/
https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000003217.19
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4327897/
