Race, genetics, and crime

[Geosurface]

ALL ARTICLES QUOTED ARE QUOTED NOT IN FULL, BUT SMALLER, FOCUSED QUOTES FOR PURPOSES OF CLARITY. EDITING OF QUOTES CONSISTS ONLY OF EXCISING PORTIONS. LINKS ARE PROVIDED FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO READ ENTIRE ARTICLES.

The Thug Gene (Taki's Magazine)

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, wouldn’t studying it—and how to treat it—potentially save countless lives and deserve a Nobel Prize?

(Article quoted in brief to retain clarity and focus on main points OP wishes to highlight)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminologist's Research Shows Genes Influence Criminal Behavior (University of Texas - Dallas)

Your genes could be a strong predictor of whether you stray into a life of crime

...

“The overarching conclusions were that genetic influences in life-course persistent offending were larger than environmental influences,” he said. “For abstainers, it was roughly an equal split: genetic factors played a large role and so too did the environment. For adolescent-limited offenders, the environment appeared to be most important.”

“But there are likely to be hundreds, if not thousands, of genes that will incrementally increase your likelihood of being involved in a crime even if it only ratchets that probability by 1 percent,” he said. “It still is a genetic effect. And it’s still important.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testosterone differences in blacks vs. whites (US National Library of Medicine)

Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant.

blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are we still evolving? (PBS)

And what about the brain? Any signs of recent selection there? Apparently so. In 2005, for instance, Bruce Lahn, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago, reported in Science that variants of two genes known to play a role in brain development—microcephalin and ASPM—appear to have undergone strong recent natural selection. Lahn inadvertently got himself into hot water by noting that these presumably beneficial mutations are common in Eurasian populations but rare in African. This even though he emphasized that neither he nor anyone else has any idea whether these genes or this recent selection pressure has anything to do with intelligence per se.

The truth is that, with studies such as Sabeti's and Lahn's increasing in frequency, "don't go there" may no longer be sustainable. As Pinker wrote in a New Republic article on the Ashkenazim theory, "Reality is what refuses to go away when you do not believe in it, and progress in neuroscience and genomics has made these politically comforting shibboleths (such as the non-existence of intelligence and the non-existence of race) untenable."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are many more such articles and studies in mainstream science. These will do for a start. I am curious what people think of some of these studies and findings, and their implications.

A year ago I was a devoted racial egalitarian and liberal. I then got my "nose under the tent" of information like this, and simply by virtue of not successfully burying my head in the sand, and accepting the truth of these studies, and their obvious connection to observed crime rates, social problems, etc... I am now, according to many, a "racist"

I'm curious. What does it mean to be a racist? Does one automatically become a racist when exposed to certain truths unless they successfully avoid taking said truths on board?

Is it meaningful to be considered a "racist" when you fully acknowledge that this is all just about AVERAGES and that every group, including blacks, produces plenty of amazing, brilliant, gentle people too?

But if some groups produce certain problematic types of people at a far higher rate than other groups do, or other types of very desirable (for civilization) people at a much lower rate... should this have implications for say, immigration policy?

This is the POLITICS and NEWS forum - not the platform for you to spread your admittedly racist point of view using dubious sources and other sources taken out of context. It was pleasant to see in the thread that a few people were willing to engage in a more mature discussion & use facts to discredit a significant part of your OP. (And, I see that as a result, you removed the "IQ" chart.)
You're outta here for a month for such blatant racism. (This includes the bigoted shoot Muslims on sight after giving them a week to leave Western countries crap as well.) At this point, at least one other admin is in favor of simply permabanning this problem; as it stands, it's a one month ban. -Admin DrPizza

 

[halik]

You've literally destroyed whatever credibility you had with the last chart. Say to everyone at stormfront.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Source for the IQ chart, please?

 

[halik]

Source for the IQ chart, please?

Pure bullshit, read the description of the y axis. (Completely meaningless chart, given the "scaling". Anyone with least bit of stats bg can see the author has an agenda).

 

[Oldgamer]

Ok, I didn't read everything but skimmed some of what you posted. Are you trying to prove a point? If so, what? Are you saying people who are African American are more violent than Caucasian people?

Please elaborate...

 

[lotus503]

ALL ARTICLES QUOTED ARE QUOTED NOT IN FULL, BUT SMALLER, FOCUSED QUOTES FOR PURPOSES OF CLARITY. EDITING OF QUOTES CONSISTS ONLY OF EXCISING PORTIONS. LINKS ARE PROVIDED FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO READ ENTIRE ARTICLES.

The Thug Gene (Taki's Magazine)



(Article quoted in brief to retain clarity and focus on main points OP wishes to highlight)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminologist's Research Shows Genes Influence Criminal Behavior (University of Texas - Dallas)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testosterone differences in blacks vs. whites (US National Library of Medicine)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are we still evolving? (PBS)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are many more such articles and studies in mainstream science. These will do for a start. I am curious what people think of some of these studies and findings, and their implications.

A year ago I was a devoted racial egalitarian and liberal. I then got my "nose under the tent" of information like this, and simply by virtue of not successfully burying my head in the sand, and accepting the truth of these studies, and their obvious connection to observed crime rates, social problems, etc... I am now, according to many, a "racist"

I'm curious. What does it mean to be a racist? Does one automatically become a racist when exposed to certain truths unless they successfully avoid taking said truths on board?

Is it meaningful to be considered a "racist" when you fully acknowledge that this is all just about AVERAGES and that every group, including blacks, produces plenty of amazing, brilliant, gentle people too?

But if some groups produce certain problematic types of people at a far higher rate than other groups do, or other types of very desirable (for civilization) people at a much lower rate... should this have implications for say, immigration policy?

I read a Quote from you once, that said something like %80 of African Americans are violent societal problems.

It appears you have gone out seeking evidence to support that, but come up short.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Out of curiosity I did a search of the content of one of the quotes and literally right under this thread was the same quotes on stormfront.

This forum is literally devolving to that level with this shit.

 

[halik]

Out of curiosity I did a search of the content of one of the quotes and literally right under this thread was the same quotes on stormfront.

This forum is literally devolving to that level with this shit.

Ha nailed it; whenever I see someone using bullshit stats to further stuff like this, you know it came form there.

 

[Geosurface]

I read. Quote from you once, that said something like %80 of African Americans are violent societal problems.

Was that English?

The only thing I can think of you might be referring to is when I was asked what % of young black males I think might be pursuing some version of a "thug lifestyle" in the US currently. I said maybe around 70% I declared at that time that was straight out of my own ass, but I took a guess at it.

You guys never fail to disappoint. Stormfront mentioned in the very first response. People quibbling with a graph that informed egalitarians don't even dispute... the dispute from egalitarians who actually stay abreast of this information is that there are cultural biases at work, that IQ isn't meaningful, etc... the actual data itself isn't questioned. Except here of course... by the same sort of great thinkers who, instead of providing a thoughtful response to the studies and findings listed... drop out cookie cutter dismissive "teh stormfrontz!!!!" bullshit.

I'm attempting to spark an actual discussion here, this isn't about me. 99% of my post was just scientific studies and findings from MAINSTREAM NON-"RACIST" SOURCES.

All I get in response is personal insults and speculation as to motives? Pathetic. Try again.

Ha nailed it; whenever I see someone using bullshit stats to further stuff like this, you know it came form there.

Good lord you should be ashamed of yourself and what you think passes for a discussion.

Someone on Stormfront mentioning an article I also mentioned doesn't invalidate the scientific data. Stormfront is a site based around racial issues right? It's natural, therefore, that some of this same information would have been latched onto by posters there.

Oh shit I just found a thread on Stormfront where a guy said he liked Star Wars and hamburgers! FUCKING RACIST STAR WARS AND FUCKING RACIST HAMBURGERS!!!!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Out of curiosity I did a search of the content of one of the quotes and literally right under this thread was the same quotes on stormfront.

That alone shouldn't disqualify a subject for discussion, IMO.

Either the claims being made are accurate and well-argued, or they are not. If the stuff is racist bullshit, then people should demonstrate that, not just shout down the messenger.

I once spent three months ripping to shreds a racist who had been running roughshod in a forum and had just never had anyone challenge him properly. (This is not a claim that anyone here is or is not a racist.)

Still waiting for the source on the IQ chart.

 

[Capt Caveman]

I think the OP meant to post this in stormfront.

 

[Whiskey16]

Supremacist hate speech.

Many advertisers paying for placement on this forum would not be pleased to see what their brands and products are associated with.

Welcoming and hosting such material not only costs hopes for responsible and civil discussion in the forum but can result in a monetary cost to this business.

 

[NoStateofMind]

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.

 

[Geosurface]

That alone shouldn't disqualify a subject for discussion.

Either the claims being made are accurate and well-argued, or they are not. If the stuff is racist bullshit, then people should demonstrate that, not just shout down the messenger.

Still waiting for the source on the IQ chart.

Thank you. Exactly.

The source of the data for the chart is listed on the chart itself, National Longitudinal Survey etc etc...

I believe the first place that chart was used in any mainstream way was The Bell Curve, a book I'm sure you are familiar with.

I personally got the chart from a blog, making it the least well-founded thing I included, admittedly. But the same chart is easily found all over the net, INCLUDING in a critique written at the time of the Bell Curve's publishing by someone at Duke University. It didn't appear they were taking issue with the data's integrity, but they did certainly take issue with the conclusions and methodology. I skimmed said article just a minute ago and it seemed they had big issues with the merits of IQ testing, and various varieties of IQ tests being consolidated into one graph... but the graph itself was not disputed as being made up or anything.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Many advertisers paying for placement on this forum would not be pleased to see what their brands and products are associated with.

Uh, if Anand actually cared about any of that, he'd close P&N and OffTopic as well. Both are full of "objectionable" content.

Given that he hasn't, and that he never posts here, my guess is that the forum directors have a handle on what should and shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The source of the data for the chart is listed on the chart itself, National Longitudinal Survey etc etc...

Insufficient. The data came from there, but the chart didn't, and I don't know how to access that data, nor how it was potentially manipulated for that chart.

I personally got the chart from a blog, making it the least well-founded thing I included, admittedly.

Okay, so link the blog.

 

[Geosurface]

Supremacist hate speech.

Many advertisers paying for placement on this forum would not be pleased to see what their brands and products are associated with.

Welcoming and hosting such material not only costs hopes for responsible and civil discussion in the forum but can result in a monetary cost to this business.

Quoting PBS, US National Library of Medicine, Taki's Magazine, University of Texas... is "supremacist hate speech?"

Interesting viewpoint.

Thought-crime eh?

 

[Whiskey16]

Uh, if Anand actually cared about any of that, he'd close P&N and OffTopic as well. Both are full of "objectionable" content.

There is "objectionable" material and then there is the crossing of a line into that of raving extremists.

 

[halik]

People quibbling with a graph that informed egalitarians don't even dispute... the dispute from egalitarians who actually stay abreast of this information is that there are cultural biases at work, that IQ isn't meaningful, etc... the actual data itself isn't questioned

No, you're confusing the IQ distribution data and the chart you provided. The former is likely to be true, given that blacks earn less than whites and IQ has explanatory power of income.

The chart you provided intentionally misguided bullshit from someone that had an agenda. You don't weight distributions by anything because it makes no sense and ruins the ability to compare data sets. If eskimos have a mean iq of 140, they would barely show up on your chart, because it's meant to show white people as a big curve by design.

Here's an actual black vs white IQ distrubution

The Bell Curve, by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray
http://biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec23_05.html

 

[Geosurface]

Okay, so link the blog.

Gladly.

http://libertarianrealist.blogspot.com/2012/05/iq-distributions.html

This is a blog run by someone who calls himself LibertarianRealist. He produces videos also relating to these issues. I have linked videos from him in other threads a few times.

I can't recommend his videos enough. Some of them are sort of "in the weeds" of bickering with other video makers, and some of them are a little bit offensive to me (not too terribly bad) in their crudeness. But the vast majority of his videos and information are well researched, well presented, and well worth your time.

Here are a few I find particularly worth watching:

Race and Crime
Einstein's Brain

 

[lotus503]

Was that English?

The only thing I can think of you might be referring to is when I was asked what % of young black males I think might be pursuing some version of a "thug lifestyle" in the US currently. I said maybe around 70% I declared at that time that was straight out of my own ass, but I took a guess at it.

You guys never fail to disappoint. Stormfront mentioned in the very first response. People quibbling with a graph that informed egalitarians don't even dispute... the dispute from egalitarians who actually stay abreast of this information is that there are cultural biases at work, that IQ isn't meaningful, etc... the actual data itself isn't questioned. Except here of course... by the same sort of great thinkers who, instead of providing a thoughtful response to the studies and findings listed... drop out cookie cutter dismissive "teh stormfrontz!!!!" bullshit.

I'm attempting to spark an actual discussion here, this isn't about me. 99% of my post was just scientific studies and findings from MAINSTREAM NON-"RACIST" SOURCES.

All I get in response is personal insults and speculation as to motives? Pathetic. Try again.



Good lord you should be ashamed of yourself and what you think passes for a discussion.

Someone on Stormfront mentioning an article I also mentioned doesn't invalidate the scientific data. Stormfront is a site based around racial issues right? It's natural, therefore, that some of this same information would have been latched onto by posters there.

Oh shit I just found a thread on Stormfront where a guy said he liked Star Wars and hamburgers! FUCKING RACIST STAR WARS AND FUCKING RACIST HAMBURGERS!!!!

First I didn't mention stormfront?

I mean I can dig up the %80 quote if your disputing you stated that.
Its seems your more mincing %10 or so than disputing you stated it.

My comment was you seem to be researching evidence to support your %80 claim and are coming up short.

Its possible it was fathomable on conservative treehouse vs. your geosurface account here.

But someone who has such an obvious agenda of proving black people more violent than white people, going out and trying to find data to support it, just like they do on stormfront and then you whine about the comparisons.

Why dont you remind us how your two best friends in the navy were black.

 

[Geosurface]

No, you're confusing the IQ distribution data and the chart you provided. The former is likely to be true, given that blacks earn less than whites and IQ has explanatory power of income.

The chart you provided intentionally misguided bullshit from someone that had an agenda. You don't weight distributions by anything because it makes no sense and ruins the ability to compare data sets. If eskimos have a mean iq of 200, they still wouldn't even show up on your chart, because it's meant to show white people as a big curve by design.

I accept your criticisms of the graph in question and have removed it from the OP in the interest of people actually responding to the MAINSTREAM STUDIES QUOTED AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS.

Now, please do so.

 

[lotus503]

just so were clear

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/06/11/trayvons-mysterious-button-cory-c-johnson/

Your words

"this is going to sound really outrageous to say but I think something like 80%+ of blacks in the USA are worthless criminals, whereas the percentage of whites who are worthless criminals is something more like 15%."

 

[Geosurface]

First I didn't mention stormfront?

I mean I can dig up the %80 quote if your disputing you stated that.
Its seems your more mincing %10 or so than disputing you stated it.

My comment was you seem to be researching evidence to support your %80 claim and are coming up short.

Its possible it was fathomable on conservative treehouse vs. your geosurface account here.

But someone who has such an obvious agenda of proving black people more violent than white people, going out and trying to find data to support it, just like they do on stormfront and then you whine about the comparisons.

Why dont you remind us how your two best friends in the navy were black.

Attack the messenger, ignore the message.

Mention Stormfront. Ignore the data.

Attempt to make the poster look absurd, avoid discussing data contained in OP.

Insinuate above-average level of knowledge about OP and try to imply some ability to "expose" him, ignore discussing actual data or it's implications.

Such discussions tactics are beneath you Lotus. Or are they?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I accept your criticisms of the graph in question and have removed it from the OP in the interest of people actually responding to the MAINSTREAM STUDIES QUOTED AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS.

Now, please do so.

You can't realistically start a thread like this and then expect people to just let you stuff various genies back into their respective bottles when you're no longer able to support them. Posting that chart calls into question both your motives and your methods.

That does not automatically disqualify the other material you posted, but it does play into the hands of people who would dismiss you, and on a personal level, it makes me feel much less inclined to take the time required to rebutt the other things you posted.