Race, genetics, and crime

[cwjerome]

Geo is not advocating racial determinism. He has clearly stated that there are people of all races who can and will be successful.

And he clearly stated that society needs to accept that a class of people are lower IQ/inferior and that is racial determinism. You are structuring society around the principle that certain races can achieve more than others. That means the lower, inferior class has less opportunity and freedom because social institutions reflect that racist principle. LOL, you are basically arguing separate is equal again, nice one Mr. Crow.

But what if one class of people is "inferior"?

But what if one isn't? Do we have proof or spartan, murky evidence? You probably would re-create institutionalized racism and subjugate a people based on that, wouldn't you?

Or what if a "race" has lower IQ on average? Do we call them inferior, treat them in an inferior manner, and determine their opportunities and freedoms based on this? Wow, hate much? What if the same flimsy evidence suggests East Asians have higher IQ than whites, you gonna put them on a pedestal and gear society around promoting them above whites?

How does pretending that a class of inferior people is equal result in anything good happening?
It seems to me like you are scared about the possibility of Geo being right.

A better question might be why would you judge the worth of an individual by IQ. Yes I said individual, because a law that is not general goes against everything the US stands for and I do not think we need to start basing laws for people based on IQ averages, why don't we just throw the Constitution in the garbage. Treat people as individuals, don't forecast laws based on statistical IQ averages, jesus christ. I am not scared about the possibility of Geo being right, I'm scared about the possibility of you people getting racist policies put into action.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I see lots of evidence that genes influence various aspects of the human condition.

I see nothing here that suggests that race is an indicator of criminality, after other factors are taken into consideration.

 

[nehalem256]

And he clearly stated that society needs to accept that a class of people are lower IQ/inferior and that is racial determinism. You are structuring society around the principle that certain races can achieve more than others. That means the lower, inferior class has less opportunity and freedom because social institutions reflect that racist principle. LOL, you are basically arguing separate is equal again, nice one Mr. Crow.

Geo said he advocating ending immigration from 3rd world countries and ending affirmative action.

Where did he say we should structure society around the principle that certain races can achieve more?

And in fact you are clearly ignoring this:

There will absolutely be people of all racial groups who are fit to perform at high levels in all fields

But what if one isn't? Do we have proof or spartan, murky evidence? You probably would re-create institutionalized racism and subjugate a people based on that, wouldn't you?

Or what if a "race" has lower IQ on average? Do we call them inferior, treat them in an inferior manner, and determine their opportunities and freedoms based on this? Wow, hate much? What if the same flimsy evidence suggests East Asians have higher IQ than whites, you gonna put them on a pedestal and gear society around promoting them above whites?

Where did Geo suggest that? He said to stop making laws that are based on the idea that any average differences are caused by "racism"/

A better question might be why would you judge the worth of an individual by IQ. Yes I said individual, because a law that is not general goes against everything the US stands for and I do not think we need to start basing laws for people based on IQ averages, why don't we just throw the Constitution in the garbage. Treat people as individuals, don't forecast laws based on statistical IQ averages, jesus christ. I am not scared about the possibility of Geo being right, I'm scared about the possibility of you people getting racist policies put into action.

Actually if you look at what Geo said that is basically what he said to do: "Treat people as individuals". Laws like affirmative action are exactly the opposite of treating people as indiviudals and isntead basing laws off income averages.

 

[nehalem256]

I see lots of evidence that genes influence various aspects of the human condition.

I see nothing here that suggests that race is an indicator of criminality, after other factors are taken into consideration.

You mean unless different races have different genes.

 

[cwjerome]

Funny, you are dishonest and functionally illiterate.

Where did he say we should structure society around the principle that certain races can achieve more?

Geo said: "When one sees that they should not lose their mind and determine that society is racist and holding blacks back, but if they are armed with this information they will realize that is normal."

Accepting that a whole class of people are inferior and will have bad behavior is racial determination. You are accepting that a group of people act and behave a certain way based on their race and that acceptance means society gears itself towards that principle. By doing this, society oppresses a whole class of people based on statistical averages of racial IQ. When you accept that a "race" of people are inferior, you explain away all the other problems that exist, design laws that reflect that idea, and essentially enslave them based on their genetics.

Where did Geo suggest that? He said to stop making laws that are based on the idea that any average differences are caused by "racism"

YOU suggested it, I was responding to exactly what you said: "But what if one class of people is inferior?"

Actually if you look at what Geo said that is basically what he said to do: "Treat people as individuals". Laws like affirmative action are exactly the opposite of treating people as indiviudals and isntead basing laws off income averages.

Lulz, no backpedalling. How does basing immigration on genetic-based IQ averages for race treat people as individuals? How does accepting a whole class of people is inferior treat them as individuals? Sure, 9/10 times affirmative action laws are dumb, but that's a side issue on this topic. The questions are: Do we accept the evidence of racial IQ averages? Do we use racial IQ averages to classify whole groups of people as inferior? What kind of policies do we implement based on these racial IQ differences?

The answers to those questions from Geo and you is: yes, yes, racist.

 

[nehalem256]

Lulz, no backpedalling. How does basing immigration on genetic-based IQ averages for race treat people as individuals? How does accepting a whole class of people is inferior treat them as individuals? Sure, 9/10 times affirmative action laws are dumb, but that's a side issue on this topic. The questions are: Do we accept the evidence of racial IQ averages? Do we use racial IQ averages to classify whole groups of people as inferior?

The answers to those questions from Geo and you is: yes, yes, racist.

He is not advocating treating a class of people as inferior. And has directly said the opposite:

There will absolutely be people of all racial groups who are fit to perform at high levels in all fields

Accepting evidence of racial IQ averages means ending programs the are based on the idea that all people are inherently the same.

For immigration see http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/house-passes-gop-immigration-bill-for-science-math-grads/

Liberals want to have visas based on "diversity". Conservatives want to base it on merit. You tell me which policy Geo would likely favor, and which policy is racist?

What kind of policies do we implement based on these racial IQ differences?

It would seem that most of the changes would be to stop implementing policies based on the idea there are no differences.

Then those people(of all races)displaying the most merit would rise to top. And we would stop getting our panties in a knot if those displaying the most merit were not racial diverse enough.

 

[cwjerome]

He is not advocating treating a class of people as inferior. And has directly said the opposite

I get it, you guys want to call them inferior, but never treat them as inferiors.

Accepting evidence of racial IQ averages means ending programs the are based on the idea that all people are inherently the same.

We are all the same in the eyes of the law. Treating people differently based on racial IQ averages is the same or worse than selecting people based on race, ie, affirmative action. Why is it so hard for you to identify people's merit individually? Labeling and treating people different based on race is the most primitive form of collectivism I can think of.

For immigration see http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/house-passes-gop-immigration-bill-for-science-math-grads/

Liberals want to have visas based on "diversity". Conservatives want to base it on merit. You tell me which policy Geo would likely favor, and which policy is racist?

The racist policy is to base immigration on race, like Geo stated, and apparently you agree with it. The proper policy is to base immigration on pragmatic need first, with a healthy does of American idealism second.

Then those people(of all races)displaying the most merit would rise to top. And we would stop getting our panties in a knot if those displaying the most merit were not racial diverse enough.

A society that recognizes whole classes of people as inferior based on racial background cannot be merit based you ignorant ass. You fail.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Funny, you are dishonest and functionally illiterate.

.. and not worth your time. Geosurface is almost certainly actually interested in discussing this issue fairly. nehalem is just here to push his two pet causes and get people to waste a lot of time making the same arguments over and over.

 

[Silver Prime]

It wouldent matter that theres racial wars, humans wage war against there own kind, geez even brothers have killed each other. Its as natrual as every living thing.

For some reason mating of almost every living organisim incorperates batte of multiple males to get the females approval, or vice versa.

 

[alzan]

I keep wondering if this thread and a few others in the past several weeks aren't just spillovers from the Martin/Zimmerman thread.

 

[nehalem256]

I get it, you guys want to call them inferior, but never treat them as inferiors.

You obviously fail to understand what we are saying. You should stop treating people as classes.

We are all the same in the eyes of the law. Treating people differently based on racial IQ averages is the same or worse than selecting people based on race, ie, affirmative action. Why is it so hard for you to identify people's merit individually? Labeling and treating people different based on race is the most primitive form of collectivism I can think of.

What different treatment has Geo or I advocated for? None.

The racist policy is to base immigration on race, like Geo stated, and apparently you agree with it. The proper policy is to base immigration on pragmatic need first, with a healthy does of American idealism second.

The racist policy is currently be implemented and is favored by the Democratic Party. I support the GOP policy of basing immigration on individual merit.

A society that recognizes whole classes of people as inferior based on racial background cannot be merit based you ignorant ass. You fail.

And no one here as said whole classes of people are inferior. Are you having reading problems?

There will absolutely be people of all racial groups who are fit to perform at high levels in all fields

I will try bolding it this time to help you read.

 

[soundforbjt]

I keep wondering if this thread and a few others in the past several weeks aren't just spillovers from the Martin/Zimmerman thread.

ding, ding, ding !:whiste:

 

[SheHateMe]

I keep wondering if this thread and a few others in the past several weeks aren't just spillovers from the Martin/Zimmerman thread.

You've won a NEW car!


*"The Price is Right" theme*

 

[cwjerome]

.. and not worth your time. Geosurface is almost certainly actually interested in discussing this issue fairly. nehalem is just here to push his two pet causes and get people to waste a lot of time making the same arguments over and over.

Yes, after his response above, it's pretty clear. He's a GOP partisan against affirmative action, too stupid to see his contradictions regarding racial IQ averages.

 

[Geosurface]

Geosurface is almost certainly actually interested in discussing this issue fairly.

Absolutely.

Unfortunately very few (Yourself and DixyCrat being exceptions) on the other side of the issue are interested in the same.

Most are much more interested in shouting down anyone with views remotely like mine with mindless cries of "racist!" and vapid references to "Stormfront."

They like to focus purely on speculations about motives or whether the person is misrepresenting current or past views... yadda yadda yadda.

Whatever people think of me, someone like Steven Pinker cannot just be brushed off.

 

[Zebo]

Should have named it Race, poverty, and crime. I don't see black doctors out robbing liquor stores. Poor people do desperate things. Just so happens blacks and browns are poorer because we refuse to deal with poverty in this country in any meaningful way. No worries though as white folk catch up in poverty they are committing crimes at an alarming rate too.

 

[Geosurface]

Should have named it Race, poverty, and crime. I don't see black doctors out robbing liquor stores. Poor people do desperate things. Just so happens blacks and browns are poorer because we refuse to deal with poverty in this country in any meaningful way. No worries though as white folk catch up in poverty they are committing crimes at an alarming rate too.

Yet, poor blacks commit crime at a much higher rate than poor whites and impoverished people in other groups.

http://www.gnxp.com/oldblog/nopub/85379116

60% of violent crimes were committed by (whites + Hispanics), Hispanics 12.5% and Whites 69.1 % of population ---> 60% of violent crimes committed by the (white + Hispanic) 82% of population 40% of violent crimes were committed by blacks, 12.1 % blacks in US ---> 40% of violent crimes committed by the black 12% of population Source: FBI UCR, table 43 (Mixed Race, Asians, Amerindians omitted) Note that the FBI reports violent crimes for whites + Hispanics together, which dramatically inflates the apparent rate of violent crime committed by whites.

Thus, what we actually find is that 24% of the poor population is black, but 40% of the violent crimes are committed by blacks. This means that poverty is an insufficient explanation for violent crime

And I feel it's relevant to repost this from my OP:

The gene is called monoamine oxidase A, or MAOA.

MAOA was relabeled the “warrior gene.” A pair of 2008 studies found that a certain type of MAOA (2-repeat allele) doubles a person’s rate of violence (without factoring child abuse into the equation). This allele is less powerful than Brunner syndrome but far more common.

Three studies over the past five years hint that the especially dangerous 2-repeat allele might be more common among African Americans. In one study, 6% of nonwhite subjects had this allele. In another, five of 37 (14%) African-American men possessed these rare MAOA alleles. Those percentages are remarkable given that in both studies, fewer than one percent of white men had this gene. A third study determined that 0.5% of white MAOA genes and 4.7% of African-American MAOA genes feature this 2-repeat allele—almost a tenfold difference.

If a single gene could offer some explanation as to why African-Americans commit roughly five times as many violent crimes per capita as whites

No doubt though, poverty is very tied in with crime. Have you considered that poverty might be a manifestation of genes in some ways?

Culture, income, IQ, wealth... most people don't want to consider that these can all be expressions of genes. I believe at least in some part, they are.

Is it so hard to believe that a group of people who lived in our species' ancestral starting point in Africa up until modern times, an environment starkly different from Eurasia, might have benefited more than their cousins in Eurasia who were pursuing agricultural lives in colder environments... by instead retaining a more conflict-prone behavior pattern? Could this help explain what we see in crime rates and in Africa with the constant strife there?

Mind you, no person chooses what genes to start with in life. A docile, kind, brilliant person can pop out of any place on this planet or any ethnic group in our species. The odds of it from some groups may be better than from others based on evolutionary history and differences in selection pressures.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Geo, the problem here is that your methodology basically boils down to "throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks". There's no actual reasoning here, no A leads to B leads to C. You are tossing out stats and studies, and observations, but not showing how they link together. Worse, a lot of the stuff you're tossing out is of the "studies suggest" or "may be" type variety.

Your implication is clearly that blacks have genes that make them intrinsically more violent than whites. But you're not presenting an argument to that effect. It's all basically a lot of supposition that relies on the reader's prejudices to put the pieces together. And that's why a lot of folks are pissed off.

 

[Zebo]

Many whites are not as poor as browns and blacks despite same income levels. They all think they can move out because they know people that are middle class. Many blacks and browns have nothing to look forward to because all they are exposed to is pure poverty generational poverty and see no light at end of tunnel.

When people have nothing to lose they lose it. Many whites still have plenty to lose or think they do, despite their current predicament.

Generations of white privilege has buffered the white crime wave.

 

[Geosurface]

Geo, the problem here is that your methodology basically boils down to "throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks". There's no actual reasoning here, no A leads to B leads to C. You are tossing out stats and studies, and observations, but not showing how they link together. Worse, a lot of the stuff you're tossing out is of the "studies suggest" or "may be" type variety.

Your implication is clearly that blacks have genes that make them intrinsically more violent than whites. But you're not presenting an argument to that effect. It's all basically a lot of supposition that relies on the reader's prejudices to put the pieces together. And that's why a lot of folks are pissed off.

As is clearly demonstrated in this thread any argument of MINE will be dismissed and disregarded. Far better to cite mainstream sources. I don't think the connections are hard to make at all, particularly in the first article I listed. Remember also that due to the volatile and politically incorrect nature of this subject matter, there are far fewer studies than there would be in a more intellectually open society where researchers didn't fear for their livelihood if they pursued certain research.

By necessity, one must piece together disparate studies and draw conclusions. I don't think it requires as much imagination as you're implying... blacks have a gene tied to violence at a far higher rate than other groups? Those dots connect themselves.

As to Zebo re: poverty thing... it sounds like you have built yourself an impregnable fortress of justifications. What about West Virginia which is one of the poorest states, but being almost entirely white, has a very low crime rate?

Poverty and criminality are not always so closely linked as you imply. There are plenty of poor people who don't resort to crime.

 

[lotus503]

As is clearly demonstrated in this thread any argument of MINE will be dismissed and disregarded. Far better to cite mainstream sources. I don't think the connections are hard to make at all, particularly in the first article I listed. Remember also that due to the volatile and politically incorrect nature of this subject matter, there are far fewer studies than there would be in a more intellectually open society where researchers didn't fear for their livelihood if they pursued certain research.

By necessity, one must piece together disparate studies and draw conclusions. I don't think it requires as much imagination as you're implying... blacks have a gene tied to violence at a far higher rate than other groups? Those dots connect themselves.

As to Zebo re: poverty thing... it sounds like you have built yourself an impregnable fortress of justifications. What about West Virginia which is one of the poorest states, but being almost entirely white, has a very low crime rate?

Poverty and criminality are not always so closely linked as you imply. There are plenty of poor people who don't resort to crime.

It doesn't matter who posted it, it would be treated the same. The fact you have made gross overstatements absent any supporting data previously. Just allows context.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

By necessity, one must piece together disparate studies and draw conclusions. I don't think it requires as much imagination as you're implying... blacks have a gene tied to violence at a far higher rate than other groups? Those dots connect themselves.

You're complaining about being dismissed, yet here you basically admit that what you are offering is not evidence but innuendo.

 

[Screech]

As is clearly demonstrated in this thread any argument of MINE will be dismissed and disregarded.

eh, I'm not sure what you are doing is actually providing arguments. You do indeed seem to be, as noted above, throwing endless links and shit against the wall and hoping something sticks.

That said, I do think there is a huge cultural influence on crime in the african american community. I think another large issue (problem/challenge) is lack of good leadership. Decades ago you had MLK jr and real leadership. Now you've got "leaders" who are far more interested in getting facetime on TV over whatever the latest outrage is...ie...al sharpton? with leaders like that you don't need enemies.

[EDIT] before anyone chimes in and says "but obama!", obama doesn't really do a whole lot to deal with this aspect of populism in leadership in the black community. I would argue he has generally tried to stay away from such things, with the notable exceptions of the beer summit thingy and saying something like trayvon martin could have been his son, or whatever, which was a huge misstep. But neither of these is really replacing the populist rhetoric that the other leaders in the african american community use.[/edit]

I'm open to the idea that different groups of people are on average different in their abilities based on what their environments have selected for, again, on the average. I think sickle cell anemia (in africa and now in people whos heritage comes from there) is a very good example of this. I would not extend this line of thinking to "xxx people are genetically more inclined to violence, lets kick them out!" or any such nonsense.

 

[blankslate]

The environment in which we live has more impact on social behavior than race. Focusing on race to solve violence is ignoring the real issue.

This is true.

For more information about that I offer up this interesting TED talk about income inequality and the incidences of unfavorable conditions in societies. In short the more income inequality that there is in a society the more homicides, instances of obesity, imprisonment and other undesirable effects.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

It would be interesting to find out how much of these ills on society are really due to genetics. And how much they are wishful thinking by people who are afraid of a heterogeneous society and fear diversity while they ignore real societal problems.

 

[classy]

So lets recap,

Black men are stronger, faster, and just better physically genetically. Which would explain why black men have become such a desire of other races of women. Women are designed to submit to a more powerful alpha male. And our only flaw is our lack of self control. But when controlled, we are the dominant, perfect male species.