Are people born good or evil?

Lawrence Wells said:Nobody—and I mean absolutely nobody—is born evil. If everyone around you treats you like some kind of monster your whole life, I guess you eventually just become one.

That’s just ideological wishful thinking, really.

Studies on separated twins have shown just how much genetics actually drive personality formation.

Carol Lee4 said:- well, there were those studies done with twins—the ones who were separated and raised in totally different environments, families...

- regardless of genes, "social circumstances" took over, and in some cases, they ended up being completely different people—behaviorally speaking and all that...

I think you might have mixed things up here.

The genetic factor actually showed its prevalence—especially when that specific trait was clearly present—and it showed up in these almost unbelievably subtle personality quirks and preferences.

The whole thing with genetic influence is... complicated, I guess.
For instance, some people might carry genes that basically force them toward being honest—while others have traits that push them right toward being crooked.
Then you’ve got the ones who don't really lean either way.

So, it's entirely possible that some folks are just "born bad," whereas others are shaped by their environment.

From what I've seen personally—and even within my own family—it seems there are plenty of "bad actors" who are just genetically predisposed that way.
I come from one of those old-school American families with a long, deep lineage, and you can clearly see how genetics dictate who turns out decent and who doesn't.
I won't get into specifics, though—wouldn't want any relatives recognizing me in the text.

mistyrider7 said:That’s just pure ideological guesswork.

Studies on separated twins have shown just how massive the impact of genetics is when it comes to shaping who we are as people.

A tiny bit, sure. But at the end of the day—upbringing is what really drives things.

mistyrider7 said:I think you might have mixed things up here.

The genetic factor actually showed its prevalence—meaning when that specific gene for a trait was clearly present—through incredibly subtle nuances in personality and individual preferences.

- I didn't mix anything up; the differences were visible in behavior and even in temperament (which most people agree is largely innate)
- Even studies on newborns show that certain aspects can shift depending on environmental influences. For instance, shy or timid children can gradually lose those withdrawn tendencies through specific parenting techniques and positive reinforcement.

Best,🙂

mistyrider7 said:The whole conversation around genetic influence can get incredibly complicated.
For instance, some people might carry genes that strongly nudge them toward being honest, while others might have traits that lean more toward dishonesty.
Then you have those who don't possess either specific predisposition.

It’s entirely plausible that some individuals are essentially "born bad," whereas others are shaped into who they are by their environment.

Looking at my own life and my family history, I see plenty of "bad actors" who seem genetically predisposed.
I come from an old-school American family with a very deep lineage, and in our family tree, you can clearly see how genetics play a role in determining who turns out honest and who doesn't.
I won't go into specifics, though—I wouldn't want any of my relatives recognizing themselves here!

- There have been attempts to prove the existence of "killer genes" and things like that...
- But absolutely no research has confirmed that someone is destined to be a murderer based solely on their DNA.

- A simple way to look at it is through alcoholism or suicide; these patterns often repeat within families, but it isn't about genetics—it's about "learned behavioral models."

- It’s the exact same thing when it comes to abusers and so on.
- Abuse is passed down through generations, but not because of biology; it happens because of "learned behavioral models."
- That's why psychologists say abuse is passed down from one generation to the next through upbringing.

- So, sons of abusive fathers might have a "higher chance" of becoming abusers themselves once they reach adulthood (due to behavioral modeling).

- And daughters of abusive fathers, where the mothers didn't intervene, might have a "higher chance" of becoming victims later in life (by "choosing abusers as partners").

- Again, this is all due to "learned behavioral models"—in this case, the behavior of the "victim."

(Which, of course, can't serve as an "excuse or justification" for any adult, since every grown person is responsible for their own actions.)

Best regards,🙂

Eh, here’s a link for those who think they’re being born wicked 😁 now you decide who’s actually calling the shots... a topic involving FBI

Sometimes, drawing a line between good and evil is way more complicated than people think.
It’s definitely a philosophical rabbit hole, but psychology actually offers some interesting perspectives on how we define these things...

Hitler is a pretty intense example to look at.

Modern psychology suggests that, fundamentally, people act based on what they perceive as positive intentions.
I’m not saying Hitler himself was some kind of "good guy," but his principles were framed through his own lens—a lens that felt positive to him and his followers at the time.
If you follow the idea that someone is simply born a certain way and then labeled a villain later, the answer almost writes itself...

But if you look at things through the prism of time, stuff that seems purely negative in one era might actually turn out to be totally positive in the long run. That’s why defining good versus evil is such a headache...

If Hitler hadn't done what he did, who knows what the state of America or the world would look like today? This leads to another weird consequence: if certain positive shifts started happening *because* of the aftermath of his actions, then without him, those positive changes might never have happened. By that logic, you could argue he was a catalyst for good because his actions triggered those eventual positive outcomes...

If you want to dive deeper, check out Demian by Hesse. It does an amazing job describing that duality of good and evil. I’d highly suggest anyone interested in this topic give it a read to get a better handle on these definitions and the messiness surrounding them.

Carol Lee4 said:- there were those attempts at proving killer genes and stuff...
- not a single study has actually confirmed anyone is born a killer just because of genetics

I think I even saw a documentary once about how a bunch of killers and violent criminals have certain chromosomal abnormalities or genetic disorders—maybe.

You don't exactly need a PhD in genetics to see how biology plays its part.

Anyone with a bit of life experience—and maybe some actual observational skills—can tell you that honesty often shows right up in a person's face. It seems like those shady, degenerate types... well, they usually have the faces to match.

And it’s not just adults, either. You see it in kids too, before their environment even has a chance to reshape their features.

These aren't just temporary expressions you can fake; they're baked into their basic constitution.

I'm not saying everyone is genetically programmed to be dishonest, but it’s pretty obvious that plenty of them are—unless, of course, you're one of those people who chooses to look the other way.

mistyrider7 said:You don't need to be a geneticist to recognize the impact of biology and heredity.

Anyone with a bit of life experience—and even just basic observational skills—can see that honesty often shows up right in a person's physiognomy. It seems to me that people with those shifty, degenerate, dishonest-looking faces are most often actually dishonest.

And this isn't just an adult thing, either—you see it in children too, before their "environmentally conditioned personality" even has enough time to reshape their facial structure.

Ultimately, we're talking about physiognomic traits that aren't just temporary expressions you can fake; they are constitutional.

Now, I'm not saying everyone is genetically predisposed to being dishonest, but it’s blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention—except, of course, for those who simply refuse to see it.

Your thesis just doesn't hold water... modern psychology has already proven that facial structure has absolutely nothing to do with character.

mistyrider7 said:You don't exactly need a PhD in genetics to spot the impact of biology and heredity.

Anyone with a decent amount of life experience and a sharp eye can see that honesty often shows right up in a person's facial structure—and conversely, people with those shifty, degenerate looks are frequently dishonest.

It’s not just something you notice in adults, either; you see it in children too, before their environment has had enough time to reshape their actual facial features.

These aren't just fleeting expressions you can fake; we're talking about constitutional physiognomy.

I’m not claiming everyone is genetically hardwired to be dishonest, but it’s pretty obvious that plenty of them are—unless, of course, you're choosing to look the other way.

- this is starting to sound like racist rhetoric, and honestly, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.👎

Nicole James said:That theory just doesn't hold water... modern psychology has already proven that facial structure has absolutely nothing to do with someone's personality.

And when exactly was that "proven"?

Carol Lee4 said:These are just racist spikes—they don't even have anything to do with the topic, I guess.👎

I'm not really sure where you saw any racism in my post—maybe I just missed it?
Unless you just had a sudden realization that certain races—or maybe just certain populations—actually have a higher frequency of faces that look downright unfair compared to others.

Since physiognomy is basically just biological signaling that we're all constantly scanning—evolutionarily speaking, it'd be wild if that were just some coincidence—so, yeah, you've got a point.

Some people argue that since certain twins raised apart show totally different values and outlooks—all because of how they were brought up—it proves there's no biological component to who we are. I guess maybe... though I wouldn't be so sure.

It’s all nonsense—I mean, studies on identical twins have already shown that genetics can drive personality in some pretty intense ways, leading to some really wild specificities, I guess.
I guess others might see it differently—but that's just not how it works for me.

What’s this supposed to mean?

So, there are genes that basically hardwire your personality—meaning some people are pretty much biologically set in stone from day one. But I guess it also means certain genetic combos don't work that way, creating more of a blank slate type of person who just absorbs whatever environment they're thrown into.

I guess it aligns with what most people see—some kids just come out of the womb with this intense, set-in-stone personality, while others are more like clay, just waiting for their environment to mold them. Maybe.

Your conclusions feel a bit simplistic—generalizing an entire population based on one case or another—and they kind of ignore how much more complex things get at a genetic level. I guess there’s probably a whole continuum here, ranging from people who are heavily genetically driven to those who aren't really affected much at all. It's just... we don't all carry the same genes, and some clearly act as much stronger drivers than others—though, obviously, not everyone is stuck with those specific formative ones.

If you look at humans as just another biological system, I guess the logic suggests we have to have different "ecological niches"—basically, different segments of the population using different survival strategies to get by in society. Each of those approaches probably leads to certain genes being selected, which then shapes how an individual is psychologically wired, maybe.

Maybe one ecological niche is just being "dishonest"—the kind of behavior that might actually help you survive in certain social setups, especially during long stretches of chaos or total instability—though I guess that’s a bit simplistic since you have to look at dishonesty alongside all those other social dimensions.
In those kinds of circumstances, you could end up with this weird kind of negative moral selection—where women basically weed out the dishonest guys. I guess that would be the whole point of "advertising" dishonesty through facial features, if they actually become a deciding factor in mate selection at some point.

This kind of negative selection—even if it gives some unfair advantage to certain people during specific historical stretches—is basically a disaster for society. I guess the thing is, while those dishonest players might see their own edge grow, the overall competitiveness of the country just tanks... which eventually ends up dragging them down too.
It’s hard to fix a society like that later on—I guess the biological makeup itself just holds everything back.

I guess I’ve always felt that in this part of the country—if you can even call it that—there's been this long-standing process of negative selection. It feels like people lacking the biological capacity for any real moral backbone are disproportionately common around here... maybe just my cynical take on things.

It isn't even just about some hypothetical "dishonesty gene"—it’s more about the underlying moral potential, I guess—those genes that actually dictate it. So, we're talking about a broad systemic factor and how it varies from person to person, rather than some single, specific gene for being crooked.

I guess moral potential is just baked into our genetics—it’s basically a survival trait for any social species, whether you're looking at mammals or birds (though insects are pretty much just biological robots). In humans, since we run on this whole system of social contracts—both the unspoken stuff and the formal agreements—that principle of exchange—the moral core, I suppose—is hardwired into our biology on a much deeper level.

I mean, if biological viability is lower, being honest should—logically speaking—lead to a sort of biological erosion of that potential through negative selection. I guess. Maybe.

And I should probably add one more thing—even if you could somehow override a genetic leaning toward being dishonest through really careful, persistent parenting, it doesn't mean that biological nature just disappears. It kind of implies that "natural evil" might actually exist—I guess.
If someone like that passes those bad genes down without being just as careful with how they raise them—I guess if they aren't equally diligent about it—then things could easily slide right back.

mistyrider7 said:I’m honestly stumped—where exactly did you see racism in what I wrote?
Unless you're suggesting that certain ethnicities or populations inherently possess a higher frequency of faces that just look unfairly harsh compared to others.

Since physiognomy serves as a biological signal we're all constantly decoding, from an evolutionary standpoint, it would be quite a coincidence if it weren't true—so you make a fair point.

- No, it's more about how certain "experts" used physiognomy (facial features) to try and prove the criminal tendencies or intellectual inferiority of specific groups, races, and so on.
- Besides, it's pretty simple—we often describe many killers by saying things like, "He looked like someone who wouldn't even step on an ant."

Carol Lee4 said:- no, it wasn't that—it was more like some "experts" trying to use physiognomy (facial features) to prove the criminality or intellectual inferiority of certain ethnic groups or races, etc.

Look, if you run into them again, tell them to reach out to me—I've got some new interesting info for them.

As for judging someone's character by their face... well, you actually have to know what you're looking for. There’s stuff I’ve picked up on that most people probably wouldn't catch.

Take Angelina Jolie, for example. When I first saw her, I thought she was unattractive—mostly because I know how to read faces, and I immediately spotted traces of metabolic imbalances. To me, it signaled an unbalanced personality, which is why I intuitively felt that "ugliness."
And, well, looking at her now, she does seem like a pretty unbalanced, somewhat flighty person in many ways.

If you look at a lot of actors that everyone else considers beautiful, those who actually know how to look will see plenty of physical signs of ugly internal deformities. But most people don't notice; they usually just get stuck on the surface level of facial semantics—those superficial meanings that drive most people's preoccupations—so they miss everything else.
A face that signals authority, or power—especially sexual power and the ability to manipulate others' desires and frustrations—will be attractive to a lot of people, mostly because they're desperate to prove something about themselves through that specific semantic configuration.

However, people who don't have those hang-ups—or have moved past the typical obsessions of the masses—see things differently. They see things as they actually are, since their own wants and frustrations aren't clouding their perception.

Carol Lee4 said:- besides, it's pretty simple—for a huge number of killers, we say, "Oh, he seemed like the type who wouldn't even hurt a fly."

I wouldn't say it applies to such a large number.

Murder is a very specific thing that doesn't necessarily correlate with being an honest person, especially when dealing with a weak, disturbed personality. Maybe those are the kinds of signs one should be looking for in physiognomy.

I was specifically pointing to the question of honesty and morality. I didn't say dishonesty is always genetically determined, just that there are cases where it definitely is, and that it shows up in facial characteristics.

Any study concluding that facial features say nothing about a person's moral potential—simply because there are dishonest people without those traits (though, again, you have to know how to look, and I doubt many people on this planet can look the way I do)—would be incredibly simplistic. It ignores the fact that genes are extremely formative for psychology in some cases, while in others, they create much more "neutral" personalities that are easily shaped by their environment.
It also ignores the logic of the human species as an evolutionary biological system, and the reason why people constantly decode messages through facial physiognomy.

You have to look at all of this holistically—connecting every involved aspect and dimension—before the full coherence of the system finally emerges.

I suppose a person is born first and foremost with something we might call—well, a purpose. Everyone has their own, individually. That purpose remains indifferent to the concepts of good and evil; if you ask Nietzsche, it exists on the far side of good and evil.

The individual in the second post of this thread—my apologies, I can't recall the username—made an excellent point: this is more of a philosophical inquiry, since providing an answer requires us to at least roughly define good and evil, which is already quite a massive undertaking.

Now, if we interpret 'good and evil' as what is socially acceptable or unacceptable—meaning certain civilizational values, the ability to integrate into society, and its standardized moral and ethical views on right versus wrong—then this becomes a legitimate psychological topic centered primarily on individual socialization. In that sense, every person is born with a unique talent for socializing, though whether their personality develops in a fully realized way depends largely on the circumstances they grow up in.

However, when it comes to the ultimate questions of a person's good and evil, psychology can't really tell us anything at all. Personally, I’d go so far as to say even philosophy falls short here. Perhaps only theology offers any real answers. And theology suggests there is such a thing as predestination regarding one's traits—that certain people are chosen for one path or the other. Usually, these individuals serve as sorts of 'channels,' or instruments for collective events. As for everyone else, we are left with varying degrees of freedom (though, more often than not, a smaller 😬 ))

thumbelina said:Or do they just become that way over the course of their lives?
Look, let's take the most obvious example: would Hitler have been Hitler regardless of the circumstances he was born into? 🙂

My take? I believe humans are fundamentally, inherently malevolent creatures. We are wired for darkness—it's just that social norms and upbringing train us to strive for what we call "goodness" and force us to mask our shadow side. Consider an extreme case you see on the news all the time: a domestic homicide where everyone in town claims the perpetrator was "always such a quiet, kind, and gentle soul." Well, that's nonsense. He wasn't "good"—he was just as malicious as anyone else, he was simply performing for society because that's what was required of him. It’s impossible that someone is a saint one day and a monster the next; rather, at that breaking point, they simply stopped pretending to be good and finally revealed their true nature. Now, the difference lies in execution: some people snap over the smallest triviality and stop hiding behind the facade of goodness, while others manage to suppress their primal instincts so effectively that they spend their entire lives successfully masquerading as decent citizens. That is just my humble opinion, mind you—I’m certainly no psychologist or anything of the sort.

P.S. I can already hear someone shouting from the back of the room: "If we are naturally evil, why do we even attempt to be good? It's a contradiction." My answer? I don't know.

Indiana Jones said:You don't exactly need to be a geneticist to see how much biology and heredity really play a role.

I think anyone with a bit of life experience and a decent eye can tell that honesty often shows up right in a person's facial structure. It seems to me that people with those shifty, dishonest-looking faces are usually, well, dishonest.

And it isn't just an adult thing, either. You see it in kids too, before their environment has even had enough time to shape their features.

I guess these are just constitutional traits—things you can't really mask just by changing your expression.

Now, I’m not saying everyone is genetically hardwired to be crooked, but it feels pretty obvious to most people that a good number of them are. Maybe some people just choose not to notice.

I completely agree. From what I've seen, people who look mean usually are... though I suppose there are exceptions. Still, that gut intuition can be a huge help when you're judging someone's character...