To have and have not

Aristotle wrote that "poverty" is the mother of crime. But is he correct? Of course, poverty and crime are related. The idea that a lack of income might mislead someone seems to make sense. However, Amir Sariaslan and his colleagues at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm have just published a study at the Journal of Psychiatry in the UK at least - there is a doubt about causality regarding at least violent crime and drug abuse.

Using the rich personal data the Scandinavian government gathered about citizens, Mr. Sariaslan and his team were able to study over 500,000 children born in Sweden between 1989 and 1993 . The records they have investigated include information on the educational background of these people, annual family income, and criminal convictions. They also allow researchers to identify each sibling

In Sweden, since the age of criminal responsibility is 15 years old, Mr. Sariaslan started tracking the subject on average for 3 and a half years since the birthday of 15 years old. To my surprise, he is seven times more likely that a young man raised with the lowest family will be guilty of a violent crime and that the possibility of having been convicted of a drug crime is from their family We found 2 times income in top 5

To my surprise, when I saw a family who began to become poorer and richer, children born with a relatively wealthy child like their brothers and sisters - they were teenagers then There may be cheating on you. Household income itself is not a decisive factor

This suggests that there are two possibilities, not the possibility of mutual exclusion. One is a family culture that is "sticky" once it is established - you can rude children from your neighbors, but you can not bring out a child's neighbors. For example, it seems very reasonable, given the tendency for children to mimic brothers and sisters to admire. Another possibility is that genes that tend to be criminal (some studies suggesting the presence of these genes) are probably due to the tendency of the lack of impulsive control to reduce the ability of people to earn There is to be more general than above the bottom of society.

These conclusions are rarely welcomed by social reformers. The initial view is that it may be a good idea for other reasons simply to increase people's income, but that does not solve the problem of bad behavior itself. The second question shows that intergenerational poverty can become self-complementary, especially in wealthy countries like Sweden. People who rely on too many chemical crutches to complete this day, not people.

Of course, this is just research. These conclusions need to be tested by others. However, if they get verified, the fact that they feel uncomfortable will not be an excuse to ignore them.