The Finns and the Germans have the genes, but the Russians don’t?
http://rt.com/news/russia-youth-crime-rate/
The Japanese have the genes, but apparently the gene expression is turned off when they invade a country where everyone looks like them?
Hmm. Randomly killing old people, women, children? Mass rape? Beheading contests? Looting? Sounds kinda impulsive to me.
Granted, I shouldn’t take CP’s armchair kookery seriously, but rank ignorance should be pointed out as such.
I agree with some other posters. The lack of positive male role models in a young black man’s life is absolutely devastating. Then when he grows up, he doesn’t know how to be a proper role model and the cycle perpetuates.
How is a boy supposed to act when he becomes a man? If your Dad, Grandfather, or a good uncle isn’t around, how in the hell are you supposed to know? Your mother might be a saint, but she can’t teach you how to be a man. You grow up confused and disillusioned. The leaders of the black community say that it isn’t your fault, it’s the white man’s fault. Why wouldn’t you accept that?
I don’t agree with Chief Pedant often, but I think he is on to something. It would be fascinating to see the actual differences of serum testosterone levels between blacks and whites on a ng/mL basis including standard deviations. In other words, are testosterone levels in blacks all that different from a white guy pumped up on steroids? Are we talking 10 ng,100 ng, 1000 ng differences in testosterone? Do the studies correct for age? If the hypothesis is correct, high testosterone levels could explain, in part, the propensity for bigger penises and higher sex drive in black men which have been reported by white women across the nation since the Emancipation. Then again, big penises and high sex drive are not exclusive to all black men and are inclusive to some white men. More study is needed.
… and you’re writing a grant proposal as we speak? More study, indeed. 
Since? How about before, during, and after?
Are you implying that only black women can keep a secret?
Minor nitpick. Both the Japanese and the Chinese would very strongly dispute the idea that they “look alike”. We westerners may not be able to tell the difference because our eyes haven’t been trained to see the difference, but they certainly have.
I have no way of discounting the concept of genetic predisposition. However, I can only relate what I’ve experienced in life. I don’t remember the exact ratio of the various races in high school but it was roughly inline with the national averages. There was no discernible predisposition for violence or any other behavior trait for that matter. So I didn’t personally seeing genetic predisposition to anything.
Although I readily admit that male role models are valuable, a woman certainly can teach a male child how to be a man. She can teach independence, courage, empathy, kindness, integrity, tolerance, critical thinking skills, responsibility…on and on.
These values aren’t limited to males.
I cannot imagine qualities of “manhood” that a woman cannot teach.
Replace “manhood” with “adult” and it makes more sense.
A boy becomes an adult when he learns independence, courage, empathy, kindness, integrity, tolerance, critical thinking skills, responsibility…on and on.
As far as the ability of a woman to teach a boy these things I don’t think that’s disputable but there is gender influenced knowledge that is passed down from men and women. As we advance into the future I think that process is made easier by the wealth of information available on the internet both from a guardian’s perspective and also from a child’s.
Might they be poor, in part, because there is not a spouse to provide the family with a second source of income?
Maybe one group was violently enslaved for a long period of time, and when the enslavement ended, was denied education and jobs. And after more time, was treated as though they were poison and could not melt into the melting pot. And maybe, even after 1964, possibly one group was shunned still.
I could see that as, maybe, leading to a “difference in aggression”.
Crazy talk!
I’m still waiting for an explanation for how China went from on of the dumbest countries to one of the smartest.
Hey, thanks! This is exactly the sort of data I’m looking for to help sort this out.
From your cite:
“The curve suggested that typical rates may have been about twenty
homicides per 100,000 population in the High and Late Middle Ages,
dropping to ten around 1600, and ending after an extended downswing
at about one per 100,000 in the twentieth century.”
Interestingly, the highest estimated murder rate back in the Dark Ages in England is still substantially below the current murder rate in South Africa, modern culture notwithstanding…it would be fascinating to have the same data for southern african countries over the same period of time, and would shed some light on what the “natural” propensity of a given culture is to murder one another absent a political/governmental overlay. Methinks it would be substantially higher in southern african populations before modern governments, but of course I have no data.
I have absolutely no argument with the notion that for any given population, the violent crime rate is altered by political overlords and societal structure, which tempers our innate patterns. I do not think the data you cite support the idea that in the past all populations were at some sort of baseline which is the same. In fact, I suggest this supports the opposite conclusion. Even in a relatively lawless high middle ages, England had a lower murder rate than do many populations now, despite those populations being generally under modern governments and policing and judicial systems that hold murderers formally accountable for their behavior.
Given China’s population’s remarkable achievements throughout history, I’m just wondering who thinks they used to be dumb?
Agreed. In fact, most populations who may self-identify with a particular SIRE group look different from other SIRE groups and can, on average, hazard a guess about who lis one their group based simply on appearance–i.e., who has access to their gene pools.
This is because gene pools are different across populations, including the genes that govern phenotypic appearance. The idea that we all have access to the same set of genes is silly on its face given the obvious observation that we “look different.” Of course, it’s a common exercise to trot out an ambiguous exception, or to trot out someone who has a mixed ancestry to try and teach the lesson that appearance isn’t perfect. It’s not, but that’s not the point. The point is that, on average, populations look different because their gene pools are different.
Well, no, partly there was never the same colonial experience in India as there was in South Africa (or as there was for Blacks and Native Americans in the US), partly because the Subcontinent has had a longer postcolonial period to let things simmer down, and partly because the subcontinent managed to get their aggressive tendencies out in various civil wars and related atrocities first - or does Bangladesh not count as ethnically Indian to you? Tell me again about how we don’t see impulsive aggression in the Indian population, please…
You’ve still failed to address my question. What’s so special about outcomes now? Why do modern outcome disparities demonstrate genetic tendencies of racial/ethnic groups, but past ones did not? Or do the Spanish, Italians, and Irish have a greater genetic tendency towards “impulsive aggression” then the English?
And here is some somewhat different research about distant-past homicide rates in Europe- showing that middle-age murder in London and Amsterdam were much higher than even South Africa today. Were genetics different then?
And speaking of South Africa, it’s funny that you keep bringing it up, when in actuality the countries with the highest murder rates in the worldare in Central America (Honduras and El Salvador). And as a region, Central America has significantly more murders per capita than any other in the world- including various parts of Africa.
It certainly seems like you read the data rather selectively when trying to demonstrate the supposed increased tendencies towards “impulsive aggression” for people of African descent. There’s obviously no genetic data supporting this, but it seems increasingly like you have nothing else at all to support it.
Regardless of various ways of reading all this data, my question remains: what is so special about the disparities now, when the disparities in the past were so wildly different?
Re Honduras and El Salvador: the crime rate related to drug trafficking is difficult to sort out, but I don’t have any particular aversion to including them in the discussion. Remember that my central contention is that our genes contribute to our propensity for impulsive aggression (along with nurturing elements, of course) so that if you find any given population with a disproportionate propensity to another population in the same milieu, I suspect genes are at play. At the bare minimum, a genetic explanation should not be discarded as “insane.”
To the “why now” question…
In the modern world we have many instances of juxtaposed populations that did not occur in the past, so it’s a bit easier to sort out how much is nurturing and how much is nature. If Stockholm has immigrants from asia and africa both, and if goth groups are equally disadvantaged on arrival, and if the violent crime is heavily skewed toward immigrant blacks instead of immigrant asians, that would be an indication to look toward genes…
These seems a far cry from what I’ve gleaned from your posts in this thread and others- you seem to have moved from “the evidence shows that blacks have genetic tendencies towards lower intelligence and higher aggression” to “hey, maybe someday the evidence will show…”
Why? Why wouldn’t it be an indication to look towards how the society views and treats black immigrants vs asian immigrants? Or to compare their actual circumstances in detail?
Through much of European history Jews were more likely to be in occupations related to jewelry and finance. Was this because of genetic predisposition, or something else? Assuming you understand that it was (obviously) not because of genetics, why must very specific other statistical “anomalies” and disparities (“coincidentally” they all seem to lead to negative claims being made about black people) be due to genetics?
I trust my posts have been consistent…perhaps not.
You may subscribe, if you like, to an explanation that in Stockholm black immigrants are discriminated against beyond what asian immigrants are discriminated against. I have seen no evidence of this, and for this reason (in this instance) I posit that it’s more likely the difference is due to a genetic predisposition because the nurturing milieu is roughly the same. Moreover, I notice that in no societies, anywhere, are blacks placid and asians impulsively aggressive, proportionate to each group.
I do not pretend that this makes for an airtight case. I do hold that it means it’s not insane to consider a genetic explanation reasonable.
I remind you that atrocities on a mass scale are not the kind of impulsive aggression that I, at least, am talking about. That sort of pre-meditated evil is a category all its own and I don’t think it’s the same thing as a sort of “testosterone rage.” (I put that in quotes since I don’t think testosterone is necessarily the absolute physiologic explanation) But Mr Evil taking over the world and exterminating a population with his army in premeditated genocide is not the same thing as a young man shooting a mugging victim in a fit of impulse.
WRT the history of Africa, I note that descendants of the Indian coolies imported to work on the railways there by the British colonialists ended up with a different story than the native blacks, often ending up as shopkeeps and administrators (to the sometimes resentment of native africans). Another example of different populations, same milieu, different outcomes. And may I add, markedly different levels of violence within those Indian communities in Africa.