# Blacks and crime in America **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2012, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809 "2012-09-05T23:42:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/141 "2012-09-13T18:08:23Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **Der Trihs** in one: the system is horribly racist. Look at the difference in unemployment figures for blacks and for whites. Careful - that’s not evidence of racism on it’s face, i.e. racial discrimination in jobs. Perhaps blacks simply aren’t as qualified for jobs. The fact that they aren’t, however, would in turn be attributable to racism, in education, etc. Still racism, but not in hiring. (No, I’m not saying that actual hiring discrimination no longer exists). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/142 "2012-09-13T18:48:51Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > In short, there is not a single shred of credible evidence showing that groups are NOT different. Yet you persist in wanting the default hypothesis to be that groups are similar and it is up to the “scientist” to prove that nurturing is not the ONLY driver for these group differences. Nope, you completely misunderstand my position. I do not insist that the “default hypothesis” be that “groups are similar” or that “nurturing is the ONLY driver” for group differences. What I insist on is merely not jumping to the conclusion that any particular difference is due to any particular cause without scientifically **showing** it to be so. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > Whether you recognize it or not, you belong to the Religion of Equality Nah, I just refuse to endorse your Religion of Inequality without seeing some genuine scientific evidence for it. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > So there. Neener neener neener. Which is pretty much all that all your arguments boil down to: “I **know** my beliefs about genetic differences are right, despite the lack of scientific support for them, and someday you’ll realize it too! Neener neener neener!” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/143 "2012-09-13T18:49:10Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > In none of the threads anywhere that I can think of do you or other egalitarians present evidence for a nurturing explanation. You happily advance theories of why measured differences might be nurturing, and you readily demand “science” to back up those theories. Are you kidding? There’s _tons_ of evidence. Not evidence that “nurture” is the _entire_ explanation, but plenty of data that shows it’s at least part of it (as opposed to zero evidence for your genetic explanation). Pretty much all of the links you’ve shown regarding crime stats or education shows that they try and “normalize for nurture”- correct for different incomes, school quality, etc. So obviously these little aspects of “nurture” have something to do with the disparate outcomes- or they wouldn’t have to be corrected for. > [@](#): > > But where your theories have failed–where nurturing nornalization for putative disadvantages hasn’t panned out–you have nothing. Socioeconomic or parental education parity hasn’t equalized standardized test scores. Millions of dollars and thousands of programs poured into educational systems haven’t normalized outcomes even for the persons who are in them, much less the group average. Equal opportunity for inclusion in athletic endeavors has resulted in markedly disproportionate outcomes in comparison with the starting pool of wannabes. Gene prevalence analysis shows group differences. Physiologic parameters for all kinds of organ systems show group differences. Chemical analysis for laboratory results show group differences. Animal studies show that behavioral traits are heavily dependent upon genetic underpinnings. Entire populations are partly Neandertal–a population which wasn’t even considered homo sapiens–while more ancestral populations are not. For one thing, these “millions of dollars and thousands of programs” have been in place for a matter of decades, after literally centuries of discrimination and subjugation. And by many measures the gaps have shrunk. For another thing, human behavior is incredibly complex- far more so then animal behavior. To put it simply- “nurture” is a far greater aspect of human behavior then it is for animal behavior. Humans have a far lengthier childhood then animals do. > [@](#): > > In short, there is not a single shred of credible evidence showing that groups are NOT different. What does this even mean? Who hasn’t acknowledged that “groups are different”? Or is this just a statement so vague to be essentially meaningless? > [@](#): > > Whether you recognize it or not, you belong to the Religion of Equality and your defense of your position is based on faith. You can have all the pretense you want that you are somehow the arbiter of what Science is. In truth, there isn’t a single study showing that population groups are the same genetically; not a single reason to suppose that multiple gene pools just happen to drive identical phenotypic outcomes; not a single study that shows actual outcomes are equal; and to boot, the broad patterns of outcomes are reproduced universally. > > So there. Neener neener neener. More straw man crap. No one is saying that groups “are the same genetically”, another meaninglessly vague statement. No one has said “outcomes are equal”. We’re not even saying “all populations have the same levels of genetic potential in intelligence and aggression”, or something like that. We’re not making _any claims at all_- except perhaps that the only evidence as to the cause of disparate outcomes between races/ethnicities/groups to be found so far falls in the “nurture” category. There’s no other evidence. None. Zero. You got nothing. All you can do is say “the gap still exists! See! They’ve tried to kill the gap, but they haven’t succeeded yet! So therefore they never will!” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/144 "2012-09-13T18:56:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We’re not making _any claims at all_- except perhaps that the only evidence as to the cause of disparate outcomes between races/ethnicities/groups to be found so far falls in the “nurture” category. There’s no other evidence. None. Zero. You got nothing. All you can do is say “the gap still exists! See! They’ve tried to kill the gap, but they haven’t succeeded yet! So therefore they never will!” Yup. As I noted above, this is typical of Creationists and other pseudo-scientists passionately rooting for the success of a particular hypothesis about a very complex scientific issue that requires a long time and a huge effort to study. They get impatient with how long it’s taking for everyone else to discern “the Truth” of their favored hypothesis, so they arbitrarily decide that the evidence is sufficiently complete and declare victory. And then they claim that anybody who objects that the evidence is still a long way from sufficiently complete is just a blinkered ideologue. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/145 "2012-09-13T19:20:14Z")
> [@](#): > > If you see a study that says “blacks” underperform “asians” by a huge margin on the Medical College Admission Test, the designation is self-assigned. Ms Malveaux can assign herself to “black” and it’s not likely anyone will challenge that. If her French and Spanish genes give her an advantage over other blacks in her SIRE group, well…tough. She’d still qualify for preferential treatment on admission to medical school based on her SIRE group. If Tiger Woods assigned himself to “asian” and applied to medical school, no one would cut him some slack that his European genes dragged him down. He’d still have a harder time getting into medical school because his SIRE group is over-represented. And here we are, back to your singular obsession. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/146 "2012-09-14T12:20:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We’re not making _any claims at all_- except perhaps that the only evidence as to the cause of disparate outcomes between races/ethnicities/groups to be found so far falls in the “nurture” category. There’s no other evidence. None. Zero. You got nothing. All you can do is say “the gap still exists! See! They’ve tried to kill the gap, but they haven’t succeeded yet! So therefore they never will!” (By CP: In none of the threads anywhere that I can think of do you or other egalitarians present evidence for a nurturing explanation.") First, I should have said “evidence for an exclusively nurturing explanation.” I have agreed many times that nurture plays a role along with nature. Let me give you a practical example of why I discard the bias you have toward nurture instead of nature. Currently in education and STEM careers, the SIRE group of “black” is significantly underrepresented. We might reasonably consider that the odds are heavily biased against blacks for various socioeconomic reasons. Perhaps we throw in other nurturing reasons (culture, whatever) and conclude that the start pool at college is disproportionately underrepresented by blacks for entirely nurturing reasons. But let us now take those new proportionate pools and follow them. What happens? At every subsequent level the black group continues to underperform despite an increasingly identical nurturing experience. Four years on their MCAT scores are abysmally lower than their asian counterparts. Upon acceptance to medical school (again, filtering for the top tier of students) ther licensing exams are lower. 5 years later, their specialty exam scores are lower. 3 years later their subspecialty exam pass rate is lower. By the time you get to the most elite fields, asians are substantially overrepresented and blacks are remarkably underrepresented. In law, similar trends hold with the LSAT and the Bar exams. In quantitative science fields, similar trends hold again, with abysmal track records for awarding PhDs in STEM fields, and disproportionate underrepresentation against the starting college pools–not the general population. We don’t see this in other disadvantaged groups. We don’t see it in disadvantaged asian immigrants to this extent. It is a very pervasive pattern, and it is a pattern similarly replicated around the world. What seems to be missing is not nurturing, but the genesets underpinning those skillsets. I believe that ignoring the differences among SIRE groups has pervasive consequences that hurt our ability to drive a society where every group gets a chance for their piece of the pie. We are better off getting over the fact that there are innate average differences and then working on building a society that gets around that than we are pretending we all have equal potential. If we decide “race” is purely social and nurturing is the default explanation, then opportunity and socioeconomic status will become the filters for obtaining admission to good schools and opportunity in STEM (and other careers). We won’t be willing to consider race as a criterion, and as a consequence we won’t be able to have affirmative admissions or minority set-asides or any number of other informal and under-the-table preferences because we want every group to get a chance. We’re not going to see a violent impulsive crime in the context of the young black male’s genetic heritage and we’re just going to keep chasing ephemeral nurturing explanations in the blind faith that one of them will eventually bring us to the egalitarian Truth. We can work around innate differences. We’ve found ways to make good firefighters out of women without insisting that the LPGA be opened up to men. We’ve just accepted our differences, made accommodations, and moved on. We should do the same with race. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/147 "2012-09-14T12:36:44Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > (By CP: In none of the threads anywhere that I can think of do you or other egalitarians present evidence for a nurturing explanation.") Every cite, posted by you or others about education, crime, or economic stats contains evidence of the impact of nurture (though not “evidence for an exclusively nurturing explanation”, which may be essentially impossible- as hard as it is to rule out “nurture” altogether, it’s just as hard to rule out “not nurture”). > [@](#): > > What seems to be missing is not nurturing, but the genesets underpinning those skillsets. Says you, with no genetic evidence. All you’ve got is “the gap” (that is, the disparate outcomes between races/ethnicities/etc). Again- this is your argument in a nutshell: “-The gap exists. -There have been efforts to eliminate this gap. -The gap still exists despite these efforts. -It is therefore impossible to eliminate this gap. -Genetics must be responsible for this gap.” That’s all you’ve got- and you can write and cite pages and pages about this gap, and its persistence (though by some measures it has shrunk)- but until there is actual genetic data, all you’re doing is repeating that argument over and over again. We’ve already acknowledged the gap exists- you don’t need to provide more data about the gap. You’ve made a hypothesis to explain the gap. This hypothesis can be tested (with difficulty, perhaps, with today’s technology). Science is hard. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/148 "2012-09-14T18:13:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _We’ve found ways to make good firefighters out of women_ No, we really haven’t. We’ve learned to accept a lower performance standard. This isn’t good. It’s (arguably) acceptable, but not good. > [@](#): > > _We don’t see this in other disadvantaged groups._ Sure we have, over and over again. > **[Race, IQ, and Wealth](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/race-iq-and-wealth/)** > > What the facts tell us about a taboo subject > [@](#): > > So we are left with strong evidence that in the early 1970s, the Irish IQ averaged 87, the lowest figure anywhere in Europe and a full standard deviation below than that of Irish-Americans, a value which would seem to place a substantial fraction of Ireland’s population on the edge of clinical mental retardation… > > Not only are the results too numerous to be ascribed to chance error, but they follow a consistent pattern of their own, with European-ancestry groups living in affluent, well-developed countries almost invariably having IQ scores of around 100 or above, while their close kinsmen in much poorer regions have far lower scores. Indeed, in several of these cases, the countries and peoples are identical, being merely separated by a generation or less of local economic development… > [@](#): > > I\*n none of the threads anywhere that I can think of do you or other egalitarians present evidence for a nurturing explanation. > \* > **[Association between antenatal depression and low birthweight in a developing...](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1974771/)** > > Rahman A, Bunn J, Lovel H, Creed F. Association between antenatal depression and low birthweight in a developing country. There is a high prevalence of depression in south Asian women. We aimed to examine the association between antenatal depression... > [@](#): > > Results: > > Infants of depressed mothers had lower birthweight (mean 2910 g) than infants of non-depressed mothers (mean 3022 g). The relative risk for LBW (≤2500 g) in infants of depressed mothers was 1.9 (95% CI 1.3–2.9). The association remained significant after adjustment for confounders by multivariate analyses. > Conclusion: > > Low birthweight is a major public health problem in developing countries. Maternal depression during pregnancy predicts LBW. Interventions aimed at maternal depression may help improve infant outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/149 "2012-09-14T22:29:13Z")
[http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345072/title/Brain’s\_white\_matter\_diminished\_in\_isolated\_mice](http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345072/title/Brain%E2%80%99s_white_matter_diminished_in_isolated_mice) > [@](#): > > The mouse experiments suggest that neglect during a specific developmental window irreversibly stunts brain development, researchers report in the Sept. 14 Science. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/150 "2012-09-17T05:18:31Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > See [here](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741) for one such study, which found about a 15-20% elevation in testosterone levels for healthy young black males over healthy young white males. I am not aware if a biological reason for this has been definitely proved. It’s not just testosterone levels, but the androgen receptors. The shorter version of the androgen receptor gene is associated with aggressive behaviour. [All studies indicate that African Americans have a higher frequency of the short version than whites or Asians.](http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=kKLeD2lYOrwC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=androgen&f=false) So even with the same level of testosterone there would be a stronger activating effect on average for african americans. Another thing to look at is [MAO-A variants](http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.co.nz/2011/03/racial-controversy-of-violent-gene.html). ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/151 "2012-09-17T06:12:05Z")
I don’t have as much of a dog in these race fights as Americans.I’m from India, our contexts are simply too different. Nor do I have much experience in debating what is obviously a hot-button topic here at the Dope. So, if my point has been addressed before, do me the favour of repeating yourself. And please be gentle 🙂 From a purely scientific point of view, why should the null hypothesis be “Genes have no impact on population behaviour” ? It seems to me, given how massively important your genes are at an individual level(I hope nobody is contesting this point?) the default position on this question ought to be “Genes have an impact on population behaviour/outcomes”. To my mind, the assertion being made is that they don’t have such an impact. Shouldn’t the burden of proof lie with those making that claim? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/152 "2012-09-17T06:19:02Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > From a purely scientific point of view, why should the null hypothesis be “Genes have no impact on population behaviour” ? It’s not. The problem is that “race” is not a genetically defined population. And the fact that so many people have pushed such ideas and then turned out to be completely wrong or outright liars doesn’t help either. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/153 "2012-09-17T07:10:43Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > From a purely scientific point of view, why should the null hypothesis be “Genes have no impact on population behaviour” ? It seems to me, given how massively important your genes are at an individual level(I hope nobody is contesting this point?) the default position on this question ought to be “Genes have an impact on population behaviour/outcomes”. To my mind, the assertion being made is that they don’t have such an impact. Shouldn’t the burden of proof lie with those making that claim? Because the null hypothesis in science is always “no difference”. The reason for that lies in how science works. If you can detect “no difference” between a world in which an entity does not exist, and a world in which it does, then in science the existence of the entity rejected. Science can’t prove whether something exists or not. All it can do is prove that existence under some circumstances. Hence, the null hypothesis always defaults to “no difference”. In regard to your specific argument, you are utilising two logical fallacies in tandem. The first is an undistributed middle: while genes may explain behaviour, they don’t explain all behaviour, Your argument runs as follows: Genes are massively important to behaviour at an individual level. Different populations behave differently. Therefore the behaviour in the populations must be due to genes. To see why this fails logically consider the analogy: Tyre pressure is massively important to the top speed of any individual vehicle. Motor cars have higher top speeds than bicycles. Therefore the higher speed in cars must be due to higher tyre pressures. The conclusion is not true of course. Bicycle tyre pressures are typically much higher. The reason why it fails is because, while tyre pressure \*is \*massively important, it isn’t the only factor that determines top speed. The source of power is also rather important. The other fallacy you are engaging in is one of composition. You are attributing the sum of the parts to that of the whole. Genetic behaviour is massively important at an individual level. Blacks as a group behave massively differently to Whites. Therefore Blacks must be exhibiting different genetic behaviour to Whites. To see why this fails logically consider the analogy: The type of brick is massively important to its weight at an individual level. The black brick house weighs more than the white brick house. Therefore blacks bricks must weigh more than white bricks. Of course there’s no reason to assume such a conclusion is true. Even if Black bricks were much lighter, a house built of them could obviously weigh more just by using more bricks, or because it contains other building materials in addition to bricks. In exactly the same way, the fact that genes are important in individual behaviour, that does not allow us to conclude one single things about their importance in group behaviour. To draw that conclusion we have to first establish that all other factors between the groups are equal. Just as we can only predict the size of a house based on the bricks it is made of after we have established that all other factors, such as number of bricks, are equal. The problem is that we have no reason at all to believe that is the case. “Negro” is in no sense a genetically coherent group, and “African American” is even less coherent. All AAs don’t share genetic commonality that they don’t also share with a sizable minority of non-AA citizens of the USA. Moreover, AAs are not culturally homogeneous, nor are White Americans. There is no more basis for assuming that AA differences are genetic than there is for assuming that a difference in house sizes is due to the size of the bricks they are made of. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/154 "2012-09-17T07:12:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s not. [It is.](https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22+null+hypothesi%22s%22+%22no+difference%22.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/155 "2012-09-17T08:37:32Z")
Some confusion may be springing from the fact that “null hypothesis” is often popularly interpreted as “what we think is true” or “what’s most likely to be true”. This confusion in turn often leads so-called “race realists” to argue that their opponents are “clinging” to the null hypothesis out of bias, because otherwise why would they assume it? But a null hypothesis, as **Blake** explains, is **always** of the “Nothing to see here” variety, no matter whether researchers consider that the likeliest explanation or not. **Everything** is initially assumed to be just random variation or some undetermined cause. To make a scientifically convincing case for the influence of any particular cause, you have to come up with either a reliably predictive model explaining **how** your hypothesized cause is operating, or statistically significant test results showing at least that the correlation between hypothesized cause and observed phenomenon is real and fundamental. The “reliably predictive model” bit is why we don’t have to assume that, say, dogs might be just randomly varying forms of cats or watermelons until proven otherwise. We have a model of biology that is very successful at explaining the genetic differences between dogs, cats and watermelons, and predicting which one will result from a particular mating. But we don’t currently have any such model for how human genetic variation at the population level (much less at the socially-defined “race” level, which is a much murkier category in terms of genetic differences) affects complex traits like intelligence and behavior. Nor do we even have any results of statistical tests that guarantee the correlation between racial genetic differences and differences in intelligence or behavior, because it’s so difficult to exclude the effects of environmental differences. So at present, the null hypothesis of “no genetic impact on racial population behavior” still stands. That doesn’t mean that it has been confirmed, or that anyone should feel personally convinced of its truth, or that the non-“race realists” are somehow “winning” the argument. It just means that so far, it has not been contradicted by scientific evidence. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/156 "2012-09-17T08:44:50Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Because the null hypothesis in science is always “no difference”. The reason for that lies in how science works. If you can detect “no difference” between a world in which an entity does not exist, and a world in which it does, then in science the existence of the entity rejected. Science can’t prove whether something exists or not. All it can do is prove that existence under some circumstances. Hence, the null hypothesis always defaults to “no difference”. Ok, that makes sense. > [@](#): > > In regard to your specific argument, you are utilising two logical fallacies in tandem. > > The first is an undistributed middle: while genes may explain behaviour, they don’t explain all behaviour, > > Your argument runs as follows: > Genes are massively important to behaviour at an individual level. > Different populations behave differently. > Therefore the behaviour in the populations must be due to genes. > > To see why this fails logically consider the analogy: > > Tyre pressure is massively important to the top speed of any individual vehicle. > Motor cars have higher top speeds than bicycles. > Therefore the higher speed in cars must be due to higher tyre pressures. I’m not at all excluding the middle. You’re misreading or mischaracterising my argument for extending individual to group behaviour, and the analogy you use is far from accurate. I have at no point said genes are responsible for all group behaviour(Although, at some level of abstraction, and probably not a useful one for debates like this, they _must_ be). Here’s a different analogy to clarify for you my thought process - Tyres are made of rubber and steel. The density of rubber used is massively important to the tyre’s weight Motor cars weigh more than bicycles. Therefore the higher weight of the motor car must in some part be due to the density of rubber used, and to say that it is not would be the unreal assertion. > [@](#): > > The other fallacy you are engaging in is one of composition. You are attributing the sum of the parts to that of the whole. > > Genetic behaviour is massively important at an individual level. > Blacks as a group behave massively differently to Whites. > Therefore Blacks must be exhibiting different genetic behaviour to Whites. > > To see why this fails logically consider the analogy: > The type of brick is massively important to its weight at an individual level. > The black brick house weighs more than the white brick house. > Therefore blacks bricks must weigh more than white bricks. > > Of course there’s no reason to assume such a conclusion is true. Even if Black bricks were much lighter, a house built of them could obviously weigh more just by using more bricks, or because it contains other building materials in addition to bricks. In exactly the same way, the fact that genes are important in individual behaviour, that does not allow us to conclude one single things about their importance in group behaviour. Once again, I have at no point made the statement that genes _determine_ group behaviour, only that they have an impact on it. And there is a fairly plausible causal chain for something like impulsively committed crime. If indeed there are different average levels of testosterone in different human populations, and if testosterone affects aggression, ceteris paribus (of course) you would expect heterogeneity in crime rates. > [@](#): > > To draw that conclusion we have to first establish that all other factors between the groups are equal. Just as we can only predict the size of a house based on the bricks it is made of after we have established that all other factors, such as number of bricks, are equal. Obviously, one would have to control for other factors. > [@](#): > > The problem is that we have no reason at all to believe that is the case. “Negro” is in no sense a genetically coherent group, and “African American” is even less coherent. All AAs don’t share genetic commonality that they don’t also share with a sizable minority of non-AA citizens of the USA. Moreover, AAs are not culturally homogeneous, nor are White Americans. > > There is no more basis for assuming that AA differences are genetic than there is for assuming that a difference in house sizes is due to the size of the bricks they are made of. Again, I have at no point made any assertions regarding ‘race’. In fact, I would have appreciated your participation in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=657343) thread, where I asked if humanity _could_ be divided into genetic sub-populations. Didn’t receive any definitive answers there, although I did expand my knowledge a little ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/157 "2012-09-17T09:47:15Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > I have at no point said genes are responsible for all group behaviour. No, but you have said that they are responsible for some forms of group behaviour, which is an undistributed middle if you reach that conclusion from a premise that genes are responsible for some individual behaviour. And that is your argument, correct? > [@](#): > > Here’s a different analogy to clarify for you my thought process - > > Tyres are made of rubber and steel. The density of rubber used is massively important to the tyre’s weight > > Motor cars weigh more than bicycles. > > Therefore the higher weight of the motor car must in some part be due to the density of rubber used, and to say that it is not would be the unreal assertion. :dubious: I think I must be misreading something here. Because you have just argued that, if I show you a car that weighs 12, 000 kg and a bicycle that weighs 15kg, you can tell me that the density of the rubber on the car’s wheels \*must \*be higher than that of the bicycle wheel. Because if the density of the rubber on the car can ever be lower, then clearly the higher weight of the motor car _can not be_ in some part be due to the density of rubber used. And as such your argument is proven to be false. If this is your thought process, then it’s a classic example of an undistributed middle \*and \*an example of why they are invalid. Substance A is heavier then substance B. Vehicle C is heavier then Vehicle D. Therefore vehicle D must be made from substance B. You simply can not construct such an argument logically. A vehicle can be incredibly heavy despite being made of lightweight components, or it can be incredibly light despite being made of heavy components. The weight of the components does not have to correlate to the weight of the vehicle. And the genetic behaviour of the individuals does not have to correlate to the genetic behaviour of the group, for precisely the same reasons. No one is saying that it _can’t_ correlate, simply that you can’t conclude that they do correlate. > [@](#): > > Once again, I have at no point made the statement that genes _determine_ group behaviour, only that they have an impact on it. So if the “impact” isn’t deterministic, then what precisely is the “impact”. I can’t quite follow what you are trying to express here. If genes do not in any way determine behaviour, then something else is must be determining behaviour. And presumably that something else is environment or culture. It’s hard to see what else it could be, but let me know if you have some other else in mind. In which case all you are saying is that the behaviour of Blacks is determined by culture and environment, and not in any way determined by genes. Is that correct? > [@](#): > > If indeed there are different average levels of testosterone in different human populations, and if testosterone affects aggression, ceteris paribus (of course) you would expect heterogeneity in crime rates. If. If there was evidence it was linked to a specific gene or suit of genes. And if the frequency of the gene corresponded to the frequency of crime. And if those genes were not also common in non AAs. Then you would have a valid argument. It wouldn’t have anything at all to do with the arguments you have presented so far. But we have nothing even remotely like that. People have been lookingfor along time, and they have found nothing. The null hypothesis remains in effect. If someone proposes that a mechanism exists, it is up to them to demonstrate that it exists. Until they do it is assumd that it does not: No difference. What you can’t do is construct an argument that differences in individual behaviour is due to by genetic differences, and that behaviour between two groups is different, so the two groups must have genetic differences. That is totally invalid > [@](#): > > Obviously, one would have to control for other factors. Precisely. And an that has never been done. Hence the argument contains an undistributed middle and is logically invalid. The sole purpose of controlling for other factors is to establish that the middle term is not undistributed. Until you have done that, you are applying an undistributed middle. > [@](#): > > Again, I have at no point made any assertions regarding ‘race’. :dubious: So when you said “Genes have no impact on population behaviour” in a thread specifically and solely about race, the populations you were referring to were not racial? Can you explain what those populations were if not racial, and why you thought they could be relevant to this thread. If you were honestly asking whether genes can determine behaviour in any population, ever, then of course the answer is yes. A family of genetic idiots will all be idiots. So if that is your only question then of course the answer is “yes”. This thread, however is about races, not ay other sort of populations. > [@](#): > > In fact, I would have appreciated your participation in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=657343) thread, where I asked if humanity _could_ be divided into genetic sub-populations. Didn’t receive any definitive answers there, although I did expand my knowledge a little Of course you can divide humanity into genetic sub-populations. We commonly call some of those those sub-populations families. It seems self-evident that we can genetically distinguish family lines. We can also construct arbitrarily ever-larger groups by combining family lines. We can thus divide humanity into an infinite number of genetic sub-populations, anywhere from 6 billion to two. That is beyond dispute. Moreover, we can decide which genetic lineages to follow, so we can construct huge numbers of different clusters at any scale. So we can genetically divide humanity into 6 populations of equal size, or we can divide it into 6 population, 5 of which contain just a few thousand individuals, or any other combination you want. The question in this thread, however, is whether we can scientifically construct genetic sub-populations that correspond to race. And the answer to that is unambiguously “No, we can’t”. People within races are no more closely related than people in different races. A point that has been hashed out _ad nauseum_ on these boards for at least 10 years. Do a search for my name and “Race” and you will see that the subject has been settled to the satisfaction of everyone willing to actually accept the science. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/158 "2012-09-17T10:45:57Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Because you have just argued that, if I show you a car that weighs 12, 000 kg and a bicycle that weighs 15kg, you can tell me that the density of the rubber on the car’s wheels \*must \*be higher than that of the bicycle wheel. Nope. All I have argued is that the density of the tyre must affect whether the car is heavier than the bicycle. It may not be the only thing that has an effect, but it must be one of them. > [@](#): > > You simply can not construct such an argument logically. A vehicle can be incredibly heavy despite being made of lightweight components, or it can be incredibly light despite being made of heavy components. Mind explaining to me how a vehicle made of heavy components can be light? (I have already said other factors should remain the same.) > [@](#): > > So if the “impact” isn’t deterministic, then what precisely is the “impact”. > > I can’t quite follow what you are trying to express here. If genes do not in any way determine behaviour, then something else is must be determining behaviour. And presumably that something else is environment or culture. It’s hard to see what else it could be, but let me know if you have some other else in mind. Why would you assume “have an impact on” is the same thing as “determine” ? I apologise if my writing wasn’t clear enough, but for me one allows for other factors to have a role, the other doesn’t. So if I were to say genes determine behaviour, it would mean I think they are the only factor responsible for behaviour. If I said culture determines behaviour, it would mean the same thing. On the other hand, if I were to say, as I have, that genes have an impact on group behaviour, it means they are one of the factors that contribute to group behaviour along with cultural and environmental factors, in much the same fashion that (although to a different, unknown extent) a car tyre’s density would have an impact on its total weight, but it would not determine what that weight was. > [@](#): > > In which case all you are saying is that the behaviour of Blacks is determined by culture and environment, and not in any way determined by genes. > > Is that correct? Incorrect, see above. > [@](#): > > If. > > If there was evidence it was linked to a specific gene or suit of genes. > And if the frequency of the gene corresponded to the frequency of crime. > And if those genes were not also common in non AAs. > > Then you would have a valid argument. It wouldn’t have anything at all to do with the arguments you have presented so far. > > But we have nothing even remotely like that. People have been lookingfor along time, and they have found nothing. Of course if. I’m talking about a hypothetical here. There are cites in this thread that claim higher average testosterone levels among the black population. What is your opinion on the validity of those cites? If you accept that different levels of testosterone could exist across different populations, could the reason for that be anything other than genetic? Genuinely curious. > [@](#): > > :dubious: > > So when you said “Genes have no impact on population behaviour” in a thread specifically and solely about race, the populations you were referring to were not racial? Yes. As the other thread I started should tell you, I have no interest in ‘races’ > [@](#): > > Can you explain what those populations were if not racial, and why you thought they could be relevant to this thread. > > If you were honestly asking whether genes can determine behaviour in any population, ever, then of course the answer is yes. A family of genetic idiots will all be idiots. So if that is your only question then of course the answer is “yes”. > > This thread, however is about races, not ay other sort of populations. Ok. I wasn’t aware that the thread was required to hew THAT closely to races. I was really responding to the sort of reasoning that **iiiandyiii** makes here > [@](#): > > Are you kidding? There’s tons of evidence. Not evidence that “nurture” is the entire explanation, but plenty of data that shows it’s at least part of it (as opposed to zero evidence for your genetic explanation) Which seems to say that he’s arguing there is no evidence for genes having an impact on group behaviour, and I found that strange. Maybe he’s just saying, like you, that groups can’t be racially segregated. I have no real problem with that. > [@](#): > > Of course you can divide humanity into genetic sub-populations. We commonly call some of those those sub-populations families. It seems self-evident that we can genetically distinguish family lines. We can also construct arbitrarily ever-larger groups by combining family lines. We can thus divide humanity into an infinite number of genetic sub-populations, anywhere from 6 billion to two. That is beyond dispute. Moreover, we can decide which genetic lineages to follow, so we can construct huge numbers of different clusters at any scale. So we can genetically divide humanity into 6 populations of equal size, or we can divide it into 6 population, 5 of which contain just a few thousand individuals, or any other combination you want. I’ll repeat a question I asked in the [other thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=657343) about the arbitrariness of construction of groups from family lines - you can answer it here or there(or I suppose, not at all) > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by bldysabba > But statistical analysis of data is often used to throw up clusters defined by the data itself, based on similarity/dissimilarity of certain variables in the data. Assuming here that genetic information about populations is usable as such a criterion, a similar analysis could bring down(not do away with) the level of arbitrariness. You would then be left to define how many groups and by observing the level of within-group and between-group variance, it could be possible to arrive at a defensible number. Based on some of the (non-race oriented) responses I was reading about division into sub-populations, I’d figured that was what was being done. > [@Blake](#): > > The question in this thread, however, is whether we can scientifically construct genetic sub-populations that correspond to race. And the answer to that is unambiguously “No, we can’t”. People within races are no more closely related than people in different races. A point that has been hashed out _ad nauseum_ on these boards for at least 10 years. > > Do a search for my name and “Race” and you will see that the subject has been settled to the satisfaction of everyone willing to actually accept the science. Sure ok, that’s what prompted me to start that other thread anyway. I don’t care about the race angle. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/159 "2012-09-17T11:06:12Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Nope. All I have argued is that the density of the tyre must affect whether the car is heavier than the bicycle. It may not be the only thing that has an effect, but it must be one of them. But you can’t assume that the car tire ['scuse US spelling] **is** denser than the bicycle tire just because the car is heavier. The “race realists” are saying, in effect, “Tire density is indisputably one of the factors affecting vehicle weight, and since we see that Vehicle 1 is heavier than Vehicle 2, that must mean that Vehicle 1’s tires are more dense.” (What they’re literally saying, of course, is “Genes are indisputably one of the factors affecting individual intelligence and behavior, and since we see that Group 1 of individuals compares thus-and-so to Group 2 in terms of intelligence or behavior, that must mean that their intelligence/behavior genes are substantially different.”) Obviously, that argument is flawed. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809/160 "2012-09-17T12:09:03Z")
> **[Back to School - This American Life](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/474/back-to-school)** > > A growing body of research that suggests we may be on the verge of a new approach to some of the biggest challenges facing American schools. > [@](#): > > Paul Tough discusses how “non-cognitive skills” — qualities like tenacity, resilience, impulse control — are being viewed as increasingly vital in education, and Ira speaks with economist James Heckman, who’s been at the center of this research and this shift. > > Doctor Nadine Burke Harris weighs in to discuss studies that show how poverty-related stress can affect brain development, and inhibit the development of non-cognitive skills. We also hear from a teenager named Kewauna Lerma, who talks about her struggles with some of the skills discussed, like restraint and impulse control. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-crime-in-america/633809.md?page=9)