Regarding the relationship between paternal absence and antisocial tendencies: correlation or causality?

 Another question of intersectional correlation.

I've already commented on my idea that correlation can be divided into two types: parallel and intersectional. While the first is a purer type of correlation where there is no true or apparent relationship between two or more elements that occupy the same space of existence, the second is precisely the opposite, where there is a relationship that is not limited to a mere parallelism of coexistence. It's the difference between the correlation between per capita ice cream consumption and HDI (Human Development Index) and the correlation between the rate of STI infection and belonging to a sexual minority.

Regarding the correlation between exhibiting irrationally antisocial behavior and being raised in a fatherless home, it is more common or popular to establish a causal relationship, since many believe that the absence or presence of a father during the formative years of a human individual usually plays a central role in their long-term behavior. However, it is more likely that an intersectional correlation occurs in this situation, rather than an absolute cause-and-effect relationship, primarily because there are many cases of individuals, especially men, raised without a father figure, who do not end up turning to crime when they become adults (or even during adolescence). Secondly, there is also a very likely underlying biological factor, in which individuals of the opposite sex with certain (more frequent) psychological and cognitive characteristics in common, being more likely to have relationships and produce offspring, are also more likely to transmit or replicate these same characteristics in their children, as in the case of irrationally antisocial behaviors, expressed by the very negligence of certain men who abandon their biological families, which is a clear example of selfish and irresponsible behavior. Another behavior correlated to this context of paternal absence is the level of promiscuity (number of sexual partners throughout life), both of the father and the mother, sometimes also reflecting a chronic instability of one or both of them in being able to maintain a relationship for a longer period. Therefore, it seems conclusive that this is yet another case of "genetic confusion" (or biological confusion) in which underlying factors of this same nature are not being fully considered, resulting in the very likely mistaken conclusion that it is only environmental elements, such as the absence of a father in raising children, that generate long-term causal behavioral repercussions in them.

An example that explains more precisely the hierarchy of influences on human behavior

 Why does crime tend to be lower in small towns?

The bigger the city, the greater the tendency for high crime rates. And the same pattern coincides, only in the opposite direction, for small towns. Even in more violent countries, such as Brazil.

So, what are the factors behind this phenomenon?

Many will point to the environment as the main factor. They will say that, in big cities, there are more people, and this factor alone increases the risk of human conflicts that result in violent acts. They will also say that social inequalities are greater and this leads some or many people, especially the poorest, to envy those who have more money than them, increasing the risk of engaging in criminal activities. And that these first two factors also fuel the urge for competition, especially among men, increasing the risk of them becoming involved in criminal activities or violent acts. They could also cite other, more specific environmental factors, such as greater access to psychotropic drugs, to claim that what is generally lacking in small cities and exceeds in large ones is sufficient to explain why there is this predominant trend of statistical differences in crime. And what's more, because they are not wrong, if, in fact, it is entirely feasible that these environmental factors have an influence on human behavior. However, these same people enter a state of absolute denial when they conclude that only the environment explains how we behave, because, even though there is a certain logic in not concluding in advance about biological or genetic factors, if they have not yet been fully identified and understood by science, it is a rationally pragmatic matter to deduce, confidently, that these factors are as influential or more influential and that discarding them, as these "circumstantialists" do, is, at the very least, imprudent. Although we do not yet have a complete picture of direct evidence on the genetic or biological influence on human behavior, it is already possible to perceive an accumulation of indirect evidence, through the observation of patterns, which confirm it, for example, by the perception of stability and predictability, in the medium and long term, of personality traits and intelligence. So, if it is true that densely populated urban environments present an increased risk of violent behavior, it is also true that individuals with different behavioral dispositions are impacted in different ways in the same environments or when they are exposed to the same stimuli and pressures, if not the majority of human beings in these spaces become violent or prone to committing crimes, not even in the outskirts of large cities. Therefore, it is not only the environment that influences human behavior, but also our own mental characteristics, which are more innate or intrinsic, and not just reflections of the influence of the environment on us. Again, it is a deduction that can be made, precisely because they are more stable and predictable in the medium and long term, because they are, on average, less influenced by social interventions or because they express themselves in a relatively independent way to pressures and stimuli (our behaviors are not absolutely logical, in the sense of reciprocal, to what happens around us or that interacts with us), there being, most likely, a coincidence or confluence between mental traits and environmental interaction factors, when there is a reciprocal response, and not that "factor x caused a behavioral expression to emerge, out of nowhere, in a certain individual". In conclusion, the most appropriate explanation for this social phenomenon, which is also behavioral, psychological, cognitive, genetic..., is that individuals with significantly higher levels of willingness to engage in violent, selfish or impulsive behavior feel more stimulated to practice them in densely populated urban environments than in less populated environments, also due to all the factors mentioned above, which serve as triggers or catalysts for tendencies and not as primary sources from which they originate. Because if only the environment had a preponderant role of influence, there would always be a great uniformity of behavior in response to it: a certain environment, pressure or stimulus, probably because of the variation in the disposition of mental characteristics (more intrinsic).

Final additional questions

Are these differences in criminality also a question of selective migration? Of mutation? And of statistical proportion??

1-

Do small towns attract or retain more individuals with a more docile temperament, while big cities tend to attract more impulsive, greedy and selfish types?

This is a very important question, because it makes sense that different environments/tend to attract or retain different types of human beings. Not that this factor fully explains this statistical difference in crime, but it can serve as an addendum that can partially explain this social phenomenon.

2-

Larger populations are more likely to have higher values ​​of genetic diversity, because they are more susceptible to mutations that occur more naturally among them than in small populations, including mutations related to mental disorders, personality disorders...

3-

5% of psychopaths in a city of 15 thousand inhabitants (750) is not the same as 5% of psychopaths in a city of 2 million (100 thousand), right??

Therefore, having a large population increases the absolute proportion of individuals with mental disorders of a moral nature, such as psychopathy, and therefore increases the probability that they will engage in violent or criminal acts. This, without taking into account possible statistical differences in the incidence of psychopathy between small and large cities (the selective migration factor).

Exemplos/ relatos reais de esquerdopatia/Real examples/reports of leftist-psychopathy

 De cinismo, hipocrisia e crueldade disfarçados de "amor". 

Grifo que são todos reais! 

Primeiro exemplo: de um patrão, dono de uma loja de sapatos, que se diz petista, lulista e comunista, "mas' explora os seus empregados... 

Segundo exemplo: de uma mulher que cobra aluguel por um preço abusivo e sim, se diz adepta ao mesmo amor teatral, "politizado" e fingido...

Terceiro exemplo: de um homem que também está no mesmo grupelho de autodeclarados "alecrins dourados" que se acham intelectual e moralmente superiores aos outros, mas que, no privado, se comporta como um indivíduo muito dissimulado e incoerente com os valores que supostamente defende, como a solidariedade e o respeito...

Quarto exemplo: de uma professora que também foi vereadora do PT. Uma professora com didática pobre e uma mulher muito antipática...

Puxando pela memória, não são poucos os exemplos de indivíduos com esse perfil que conheço ou já ouvi falar e que são, no mínimo, estranhos...

Esses são quadros clinicamente diagnosticáveis: especialmente de narcisismo e maquiavelismo. Uma toxicidade cheia de "amor" seletivo e superficial...

Isso que não estou nem levando em consideração todas as políticas injustas ou estúpidas, supostamente bem intencionadas, que uma parte nada agradável de autodeclarados "à esquerda" defendem com unhas e dentes e no que isso pode implicar em termos clínicos e morais...

Real examples/reports of leftist-psychopathy

Of cynicism, hypocrisy and cruelty disguised as “love”.

I emphasize that they are all real!

First example: of a boss, owner of a shoe store, who says he is a PT member, a supporter of Lula and a communist, "but" exploits his employees...

Second example: of a woman who charges rent at an abusive price and, yes, claims to be a supporter of the same theatrical, “politicized” and false love...

Third example: of a man who is also in the same group as the self-proclaimed “golden rosemary” who think they are intellectually and morally superior to the others, but who, deep down, behaves like a very dubious individual, inconsistent with values. ​which he supposedly defends, such as solidarity and respect...

Fourth example: from a teacher who was also a PT councilor. A teacher with poor teaching skills and a very snob woman...

From memory, there are many examples of individuals with this profile that I know or have heard of and who are, to say the least, strange...

These are clinically diagnosable conditions: especially narcissism and Machiavellianism. A toxicity full of selective and superficial “love”...

I'm not even taking into account all the unfair or stupid, supposedly well-intentioned policies that a not-so-uncommon group of self-proclaimed “leftists” defend tooth and nail and what that might imply in clinical and moral terms...