Just because something is "related" doesn't mean that the relationship is causal, that the causality is in the direction that you think, that a third factor didn't create both outcomes, or that there are many other contexts in which the relation does not hold. Finding honest scientific evidence that testosterone correlates with aggressive behavior in such a way as does not violate any of the aforementioned problems with assuming that correlation is causation is the job of any thinking person trying to understand a problem.
This small cluster of outliers would not only throw off all the "statistics" done with the group, but would also create a cluster of news-stories that people would inappropriately use to update their beliefs about the entire group.
I assume that people are more than animals reacting to their environment; that we all have a great deal of human potential that institutional pressures (like the government, organized religion, and big-business) have a tendency to take from us. Everyone wants to be respected, aslong as you can survive it doesn't matter how much money you make if you feel that your are respected in your job and you have the ability to make the kind of positive change for you see as right, then you respect yourself, are respected for your ability, and respected by your community.
When institutional pressures remove that human dignity (in this case by paying people to be poor, among other social-influences) then they lose that self-respect, lose the dignity of a productive job, and must seek respect and recognition through other venues.
There's nothing genetic about the plight of the poor; ideological super structures have influenced the material condition infrastructure such that other paths to being respected and recognized must be pressured.
There is a great deal of human potential in everyone; what we need is for self serving institutional actors to get out of the way of that.
First off I want to thank you for your thoughtful, detailed reply. I may not address everything in it to your full satisfaction, but let me hit on a few points.
- I'm absolutely aware that there would be plenty of instances of individual whites with more testosterone than individual blacks. I'm sure you think it's preferable to judge all people on a case by case, individual basis. I agree, but I just don't think it's practical. When establishing social policy, immigration policy, etc... we tend to zoom out and look at the very big picture. I think when you do that, is when you see things like 15% higher testosterone on average start to assert itself. So, if you stay too zoomed in, you will keep getting thrown off by individual exceptions... zoom way out, and the trends become clear.
Is there a common perception among average people that blacks are more aggressive than whites? Absolutely. A great deal of humor by black comedians, for instance, is based on this. It is often a point of pride. Typically framed in a "don't take any shit from anyone" type of way. Or poking fun at the timidity of whites, the stayed, proper, docile, and more effeminate nature of whites is the target of MANY jokes by black comedians. The shorter fuse, worse temper, tendency to rush to a violent solution among blacks are also a source of many jokes by black comedians. Somewhat by other comedians too but they are more careful about it.
Do I think referencing average peoples' anecdotal perceptions is equal to hard scientific proof? Of course not, but it isn't to just be ignored. And when it matches up very well with some biological facts... I think it gains credibility.
In addition to aggression, a deeper voice is also associated with testosterone. Blacks actually do have a deeper voice on average than whites, and this isn't just a cultural thing. There are always exceptions, but again... you zoom out, overall blacks have deeper voices than whites. This fits perfectly with the 15% greater testosterone level on average. This is why they almost always hire black actors to voice black characters in cartoons or video games, etc. TYPICALLY black voices are very recognizably distinct from white voices. And *not* just for cultural reasons (though that does play into it.)
You said "we all have a great deal of human potential" - and there's merit to this, and yes none of us will EVER live a life that fully calls upon all that we could have done... under the right circumstances and pressures. I agree to an extent.
Surely, though... you would not assert that all of us have exactly equal potential to go in any and all directions to any and all degrees. Biology sets the boundaries. For instance, someone born with Down Syndrome or some other form of pronounced mental impairment, clearly does not have as much potential in many, many endeavors as does someone born without said impairments. Even if that Down Syndrome sufferer did have far more potential to do certain things than life ever called upon.
Nobody can deny that, nobody bothers to deny that... because it's undeniable. Once you get into finer distinctions though, like Asians having brains which are on average somewhat heavier than Caucasian brains, people want to try to act like that is meaningless. It just isn't. Biological differences like that have real consequences in cognitive potential.
People know when distinctions are finer they can hide behind the greater level of detail required to look at the issue, and use it as cover for fairy tale thinking about magical equality. Nature does not do equality.
I agree with you about incentivising poverty and it's impact on self-esteem, choices, etc.
Tell me this, do you honestly think as we move to a more and more technological, knowledge-based, information-based world... that a hundred grams or so of brain weight on average is just going to be meaningless? That when the less intellect-heavy jobs pay far less... that biology can still be said to be meaningless to poverty as you said?
Anyway... I want to thank you again for your reply. Particularly because so many others just toss insults, bemoan the fact that I'm even allowed to discuss these ideas here and pine for the days of greater censorship (which I've always felt is one of the most vile characteristics a person can have, a desire to silence others...) yet you actually make an effort to be civil and discuss this issue in a legitimate way. I appreciate that.
That said, I do sort of feel like a lot of what you're saying is similar to a tactic I've seen many times before. Egalitarians who argue vs. race realists on YouTube, for instance, very frequently will sort of just throw everything at the wall and say "there are too many factors, it's too complex, no conclusions can be drawn" I really feel this is just a distraction tactic. Of course one must always be cautious not to be too simplistic, but if that same standard of "well we don't know the exact genes involved so we can't say anything about it yet." were applied and always had been, we'd never get anywhere on a lot of important questions.
I think the assertion that observed biological differences between groups, which match up VERY well with common stereotypes about behavior, etc, are in fact connected... is not an unreasonable position. Provided of course, the person holding it is willing to set it aside if it were to be truly disproved. As should always be the case.