Blacks and crime in America

[Blake]

@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.

And I am pointing out that the existence of cars with low density tires that still weigh more than bicycles with low density tires proves that the argument is incorrect.

You haven’t actually addressed this obvious problem.

Mind explaining to me how a vehicle made of heavy components can be light? (I have already said other factors should remain the same.)

And we have 5 pages proving that all factors do not remain the same. Blacks and Whites do not have the same upbringing, education, history, income, diet, religion etc, etc. As such any argument that proceeds from a basis that all things remain the same is utilising an undistributed middle

Unless you wish to argue that Blacks and Whites do have all factors identical aside from genetics, all you are doing is conceding that your argument is utilising an undistributed middle.

Why would you assume “have an impact on” is the same thing as “determine” ?

I made no such assumption. I asked you to explain how “have an impact on” can change the outcome without *causing * the outcome. Something that you still haven’t really explained.

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.

So the weight of a car’s tyre doesn’t cause the car to weigh more or less?

When you use “impact” you seem to mean “contributes to”. That makes sense.

This is the problem with using meaningless buzzwords like “impact” and “sourced”. It not only hinders communication, it hinders clear thought. Words mean stuff. Weasel words like “impact” are specifically designed to lack any meaning at all. That’s great if you are politician, but it’s detrimental in a discussion when you actually want to communicate.

Of course a contributing factor is a cause. It’s not be the sole cause, but it must be a cause. So when you say that genes contribute to Black committing crimes you are saying that genes are one of the things that determines Blacks crime rates.

Of course if. I’m talking about a hypothetical here.

When you use a hypothetical to bolster an argument, as you have done here, then the hypothetical needs to match the argument. You can’t use a hypothetical that relies on an undistributed middle to demonstrate that the original argument does not rely upon an undistributed middle.

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.

Oh hell yeah. Testosterone is a stress hormone and a social hormone. It’s been well known for years that it increases in young males in response to stressors and to simply perceiving aggression and competition. It also increases in response to sex and viewing pornography, as well being reduced by learned self-control mechanisms.

IOW testosterone levels are elevated by almost everything we associate with the 'Hood lifestyle: community violence, exposure to weapons, sexual activity, alcohol abuse, macho lifestyle, unstable home life etc. In light of that it would be astonishing if testosterone levels in young men were *not *higher. There’s no need to invoke a genetic explanation.

Once again, this doesn’t prove that there is no genetic component, simply that its isn’t needed.

[Chief_Pedant]

@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.

It has been a popular defense of the genetic egalitarians/anti-nurturing group to discard “scientifically” the concept of race. What they do is set up a straw man (“Define race genetically”) and then jump to the assumption that if this cannot be done, then there isn’t any point in saying one “race” has an average under- or over-performance than another based in part on genes.

This strategy is effective, but completely misses the point.

If we allow people to completely and arbitrarily self-identify, we still find that the groups with which they self identify have–on average–different prevalences for various well-defined genes. In general, these gene prevalences will reflect ancestral pools from that SIRE group. In short, whether or not there is such a thing as genetic definition for “black” or “white,” I can say with complete scientific authority that the group self-identified as “black” in the USA has, on average, darker skin and a higher prevalence of Hemoglobin S. The “white” population, on average, has lower testosterone in its male population, along with lower levels of creatine phosphokinase. And on and on the list goes, all broadly accepted and all completely independent of whether the SIRE group of “black” is otherwise internally related to one another, otherwise has more variation or should be considered a genetic grouping.

Despite genetic flow among populations, despite any arguments about genetic markers for “a” race, and despite protestations from the Religion of Genetic Equality, there is absolutely no getting around a simple truth: Different SIRE groups have access to different gene pools, on average.

Now the question then becomes whether the default (not the “null”) hypothesis should be that these gene prevalences can drive phenotypic expressions beyond simple physiology. Can they drive aggression? Can they drive intelligence?

I think the default assumption is that they can and they do. I see examples of genes in any given individual driving those sorts of things, and so I think its reasonable that two different groups with different prevalences for genesets would have different genetically-underpinned average performances.

Real life confirms that default assumption on two grounds for me. First is the consistency of the pattern across cultures and political systems, and second is the refractoriness of the pattern to all efforts at eliminating nurturing variables.

I agree with the complaint about “race” as a category. If, for example, there are 7 subpopulations within the “race” of “black,” and one of those populations is so outstanding at power sprinting that the whole category of “black” has its average lifted up even though most of them are marginal power sprinters, what is accomplished by talking about the “black” power sprinting superiority?

But this is NOT the discussion we are having. This debate is about whether or not a SIRE population can have its average affected by genes as well as nurture. And if a SIRE group can be shown to have different genetic prevalences than the next SIRE group over, then of course those different gene prevalences can be a factor, and of course it is not “insane” to think they might be.

I would be tickled to eliminate “race.” In my own social circles it is rendered irrelevant, since in my circles we tend to group by profession or social class and nobody gives a crap about genetic ancestry or SIRE group. But as I mentioned earlier, there is a cost to discarding SIRE categories, and the cost is that it becomes vastly more difficult to drive a societal structure in which every group has a shot at the pie. Since our average genetic differences also drive average appearance differences, there is a natural social grouping attached to SIRE groups. If we refuse to recognize SIRE groups, we cannot stamp out appearance-based discrimination where we do find it, and we cannot give a helping hand up to groups that would otherwise be markedly under-represented. That may not matter in the NBA, but I think it does matter in professional and business circles, and it matters even in the ordinary job market. We see this play out over and over again, from Regents of U of C v Bakke, to Ricci v DeStefano.

We should stop this ridiculous charade that pretends “race” has nothing to do with gene prevalences or that our groups showed up on the planet 5,000 years ago and forgot to evolve.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

Different SIRE groups have access to different gene pools, on average.

Now the question then becomes whether the default (not the “null”) hypothesis should be that these gene prevalences can drive phenotypic expressions beyond simple physiology. Can they drive aggression? Can they drive intelligence?

I think the default assumption is that they can and they do. I see examples of genes in any given individual driving those sorts of things, and so I think its reasonable that two different groups with different prevalences for genesets would have different genetically-underpinned average performances.

So you’ve conceded that there’s no evidence for it, and now it should just be accepted by “default”?

Real life confirms that default assumption on two grounds for me. First is the consistency of the pattern across cultures and political systems, and second is the refractoriness of the pattern to all efforts at eliminating nurturing variables.

Of course, the “consistency” across cultures and political systems- as long as only the last few decades are looked at. And a few decades is all you’re willing to give society, apparently, when it tries to fight the achievement gaps (and by many measures has had some success). Your mind is made up.

But this is NOT the discussion we are having. This debate is about whether or not a SIRE population can have its average affected by genes as well as nurture. And if a SIRE group can be shown to have different genetic prevalences than the next SIRE group over, then of course those different gene prevalences can be a factor, and of course it is not “insane” to think they might be.

Your goalposts have shifted so much they’re out of the stadium. First it was “the evidence shows…”- now it’s “it is not insane to think…”. At least you’ve recognized the total lack of evidence.

We should stop this ridiculous charade that pretends “race” has nothing to do with gene prevalences or that our groups showed up on the planet 5,000 years ago and forgot to evolve.

Of course- more cracks about creationism from the guy who has reached a conclusion about genetics with absolutely no genetic evidence.

[Chief_Pedant]

When you actually present any persuasive evidence that nurturing is the chief driver for the patterns we see, I’ll be a little more impressed.

All of the current nurturing hypotheses have been tested and failed. Nurturing proponents are left with pretending Nature proponents don’t know what science is, or have ulterior “racist” motivations or don’t have any idea of which scientific study to make.

Meanwhile the world goes on and the patterns persists. The animals tell us impulsive aggression is in our genes and can be bred away. Until the gene pool is altered, a silver fox cannot be tamed; with an altered gene set it is tamed easily. In human populations we see gene set after gene set that differs in prevalence among groups, and yet the egalitarians would have us believe that these groupings are so artificial they cannot be used, or that there is “zero” evidence for genes.

The “studies” you need to prove that equivalent nurturing will drive equivalent outcomes are not difficult studies to do. There is, however, little social or academic incentive to prove definitively that a given group is genetically “superior” to another. Informally, these studies have been done thousands of times over by simply controlling for nurturing variables such as socioeconomic status for quantitative psychometric testing or opportunity for widely-pursued athletic endeavors. There are no credible alternate hypotheses left to be tested. No careful thinker on my side of this debate argues that the world is fair or that everyone has equal opportunity or that discrimination does not exist. But whether we look at the situation underlying Ricci or the practical problem of administering any quantitative job exam across the entire socioeconomic spectrum, the universality of the pattern is remarkable and the nurturing hypothesis is unpersuasive when two groups are given an identical body of material to master for an exam.

What I argue is that the evidence that our genes control much of who we are is powerful evidence, in formal animal and human studies. What I argue is that gene set prevalence varies by “race” category and that it is highly unlikely those different gene sets drive differences only for cosmetic or trivial differences when the outcome patterns we see are profound and stubbornly resistant to correction for hypothesized nurturing variables. Evidence for this position is profound and in front of your face every day.

I suggest is that you are leading with your heart and not your mind, and that it is tempting to lead the charge tilting at the windmill of racism. Unfortunately your real enemy is the harshest of all: Mother Nature. She cares not a whit for how you think the world should have been more intelligently designed. Pretending an opponent has no idea what science is is a pretty lame alternative to presenting alternative evidence.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

When you actually present any persuasive evidence that nurturing is the chief driver for the patterns we see, I’ll be a little more impressed.

There’s tons of evidence that “nurture” is involved in the patterns we see. There’s no evidence that “nature” (if it means genetics) is involved.

All of the current nurturing hypotheses have been tested and failed.

No they haven’t.

Nurturing proponents are left with pretending Nature proponents don’t know what science is, or have ulterior “racist” motivations or don’t have any idea of which scientific study to make.

I make no claims about motivations. I just know that you are supporting an explanation with no evidence. You (and others) have made a hypothesis- that the ultimate explanation for different outcomes (educationally, in crime statistics, economically, etc) between races/ethnicities/groups is that those races/ethnicities/groups have, on average, different genetic tendencies towards certain behaviors (things like intelligence, aggression, etc). This is a hypothesis. There is no genetic evidence in support of this hypothesis. And yet you are convinced it is true.

Meanwhile the world goes on and the patterns persists.

“Persist” to you apparently means outcome gaps from a few decades ago have not been totally eliminated by all measures.

The animals tell us impulsive aggression is in our genes and can be bred away. Until the gene pool is altered, a silver fox cannot be tamed; with an altered gene set it is tamed easily. In human populations we see gene set after gene set that differs in prevalence among groups, and yet the egalitarians would have us believe that these groupings are so artificial they cannot be used, or that there is “zero” evidence for genes.

Yes- there is evidence that some groups have different likelihoods of having some genes. There is evidence for this. There is, however, no evidence that genes for intelligence and aggression are included among these. No genetic evidence. Why believe something with no evidence?

The “studies” you need to prove that equivalent nurturing will drive equivalent outcomes are not difficult studies to do.

Ok- please describe to me a study that normalizes for every single aspect of nurture. That would include things like bias in the justice system (and other forms of discrimination), the emotional state of the mother during pregnancy, nutrition during pregnancy and nursing (and nutrition for the child), substance abuse during pregnancy and nursing, parental attention and literal nurturing (as in interacting with the baby), along with every single other possible variable (besides genetics- I’m using your definition of “nurture”) that might affect a child’s development. I’d really like to see a “not difficult” study that accounts for all of this.

There is, however, little social or academic incentive to prove definitively that a given group is genetically “superior” to another. Informally, these studies have been done thousands of times <snip>

Ahh, the “it’s a conspiracy to prevent a hard truth” idea. Of course- the fact that you have no evidence is a conspiracy… it couldn’t possibly be that there is no evidence to support your hypothesis.

What I argue is that the evidence that our genes control much of who we are is powerful evidence, in formal animal and human studies.

Evidence of what? It’s evidence that genotype affects phenotype, and nothing more. The fact that genes exist, and that genes have something to do with behavior, does not count as evidence that some “races” are dumber/more violent than others- it’s laughable to count that as evidence.

What I argue is that gene set prevalence varies by “race” category and that it is highly unlikely those different gene sets drive differences only for cosmetic or trivial differences when the outcome patterns we see are profound and stubbornly resistant to correction for hypothesized nurturing variables.

This sentence can be summarized as “races must differ in behavior, genetically, just 'cause”. There’s no evidence for this, as I’ve said over and over again.

Evidence for this position is profound and in front of your face every day.

Undoubtedly you’ve had bad experiences with some races. Undoubtedly others have had bad experiences with your race. Your experiences are as weak a form of evidence of genetic differences as theirs is.

I suggest is that you are leading with your heart and not your mind, and that it is tempting to lead the charge tilting at the windmill of racism. Unfortunately your real enemy is the harshest of all: Mother Nature. She cares not a whit for how you think the world should have been more intelligently designed. Pretending an opponent has no idea what science is is a pretty lame alternative to presenting alternative evidence.

Right. The guy with no evidence in support of his hypothesis says this. Your beliefs about genetics have no bearing on actual genetics. You are convinced of something with no evidence. The strength of your conviction has nothing to do with the actual evidence. I’m not convinced of anything- whatever straw-man you apply to me not withstanding. I have no conviction that needs supporting. You’re the one making claims with no evidence.

I make no claims about an explanation for every single aspect of achievement and outcome gaps. You are convinced you know why- yet you have no evidence for your explanation. Think about it. Why are you so damn convinced?

[UltraVires]

@Zoe

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.

I simply disagree. I know that it’s not politically correct to talk about gender roles in today’s world, but there are certain aspects of being a “man” that a woman simply can’t teach. And there are certain aspects of being a “woman” that a man simply can’t teach.

That used to be an indisputable fact, and I agree with it from my own life experiences.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@jtgain

I simply disagree. I know that it’s not politically correct to talk about gender roles in today’s world, but there are certain aspects of being a “man” that a woman simply can’t teach.

Such as?

[Chen019]

@Der_Trihs

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.

That’s not that much of a problem in the US. Self identified ethnicity corresponds almost perfectly to genetic clusters.

You get clusters because groups have different gene frequencies - and as explained above this includes some of the genetic correlates of criminal behaviour (eg. testosterone, androgen receptor lengths, MAO-A variants etc).

So prima facie there’s no reason to expect an identical distribution of group outcomes in terms of crime rates.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chen019

You get clusters because groups have different gene frequencies - and as explained above this includes some of the genetic correlates of criminal behaviour (eg. testosterone, androgen receptor lengths, MAO-A variants etc).

It’s far from proven that genes like the MAO-A variants actually correlate to criminal behavior among the general population. The dysfunctional variant is correlated to aggression in mice, but the link to human aggression is far from clear. And while this variant does differ in frequency among various populations, its prevalence is nearly the same between African populations and Chinese populations (to give an example).

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Ibn_Warraq

Such as?

No matter how many times you shake, you can never get rid of the last drop.

[lance_strongarm]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

No matter how many times you shake, you can never get rid of the last drop.

You don’t stare right at her boobs, you glance sideways and then look away before she notices.

[bldysabba]

@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.

@Chen019

That’s not that much of a problem in the US. Self identified ethnicity corresponds almost perfectly to genetic clusters.
.

Anyone care to tell me which of these gents is correct, or(as is more likely) why I’m mistaken and their statements are not actually in conflict with each other? Is Blake talking about the world?

[Blake]

1. A self identified ethnicity isn’t a synonym of race used by anybody in the history of the world. The very fact that of the ethnicities included White, Black and Native American in addition to Hispanic, yet they could all be divided based upon genetic markers, should immediately ring alarm bells, What are Hispanics if not some blend of White, Black and Native American? How did Hispanics get unique DNA that isn’t found in Blacks, White or Native Americans?

Quite simply they didn’t. The study doesn’t look at unique genetics, it looks at permutations of genetics that are spread across all groups. And it does so *after *it already knows what groups people “belong” to.

As I already stated, it’s trivially easy to divide humans into any number or permutation of groups that you like by simply selecting the right genetic markers. That doesn’t make such groupings scientifically valid. By relying upon self-reported race, and then constructing genetic clusters* after the fact*, such a system becomes inherently unscientific because it is, obviously, self referential. For such a system to be scientifically valid it would need to start from assigning genetic clusters and then assigning races on that basis. But we can’t do that.

Because every human being is genetically unique you could, if you wished, construct near-perfect genetic clusters on any conceivable self-reported trait. You could, for example, assign clusters that correspond to the political party that people voted for at teh last election, or their favourite TV programs. I’m sure you agree that voting history and TV viewing habits are not genetically determined. The fact that we can do this for things that we know can’t be genetically determined is really all that we need to know to falsify the utility of the methodology for constructing genetic sub-populations that correspond to race.

The reason why we can find genetic permutations that correspond to Hispanic or Democrat is because these aren’t unique DNA sequences we are talking about. They are simply combinations of unbiquitous genetic material selected post facto precisely because they correspond to our groups. Once we have our group of Democrats or Hispanics, we then analyse them and say that they all have either (Marker A and Marker B), or (Marker B and Marker C), or (Marker C and Marker Z) or (Marker A and Marker Z). The fact that Republicans/Blacks have even higher prevalences of Markers A, Z and B, but they are never found together, and Greens/Whites have higher prevalences of C, but never with B or Z, doesn’t bother us because were are applying the results to the groups post facto, not constructing the groups from the application.

In actual fact the study didn’t just look at 4 markers. It had to look at over 300 markers, and construct groupings that had not just (Marker B and Marker C) but
(Marker 365 and Marker 120 and marker 1 and Marker 287 and… ) or (Marker 563 and Marker 210 and marker 67 and Marker 233 and… ) for Black. Note that these two “Blacks” share no genetic commonality at all that they don’t also share with Whites.

In short, there is a huge difference between scientifically *constructing *genetic sub-populations that correspond to race and finding genetic similarities between *pre-identified * sub-populations. Genetic uniqueness means that you must *always * be able find genetic similarities between *any *pre-identified sub-populations, whether those sub-populations are racial, political or preferential. That doesn’t give lend validity to a claim that racial, political or preferential populations are genetically based.

3. As you note, the US is not the world.

[grude]

So what about majority black countries with isolated crime ridden ghettos like the USA? Did the population of them just get the shitty end of the genetic lottery?

[Blake]

And what about majority White countries with isolated crime ridden ghettos like the USA? Did the population of them just get the shitty end of the genetic lottery?

And what about majority Asian countries with isolated crime ridden ghettoslike the USA? Did the population of them just get the shitty end of the genetic lottery?

Hmm. Maybe the presence of isolated crime ridden ghettos doesn’t have any correspondence at all to race, or genetics. Maybe they just have a correspondence to low income, a lack of education and generational poverty?

Nahh.

[grude]

@Blake

And what about majority White countries with isolated crime ridden ghettos like the USA? Did the population of them just get the shitty end of the genetic lottery?

And what about majority Asian countries with isolated crime ridden ghettoslike the USA? Did the population of them just get the shitty end of the genetic lottery?

Hmm. Maybe the presence of isolated crime ridden ghettos doesn’t have any correspondence at all to race, or genetics. Maybe they just have a correspondence to low income, a lack of education and generational poverty?

Nahh.

I was actually making the same point, but you did it far better and with links.

[bldysabba]

@Blake

1. A self identified ethnicity isn’t a synonym of race used by anybody in the history of the world. The very fact that of the ethnicities included White, Black and Native American in addition to Hispanic, yet they could all be divided based upon genetic markers, should immediately ring alarm bells, What are Hispanics if not some blend of White, Black and Native American? How did Hispanics get unique DNA that isn’t found in Blacks, White or Native Americans?

Quite simply they didn’t. The study doesn’t look at unique genetics, it looks at permutations of genetics that are spread across all groups. And it does so *after *it already knows what groups people “belong” to.

As I already stated, it’s trivially easy to divide humans into any number or permutation of groups that you like by simply selecting the right genetic markers. That doesn’t make such groupings scientifically valid. By relying upon self-reported race, and then constructing genetic clusters* after the fact*, such a system becomes inherently unscientific because it is, obviously, self referential. For such a system to be scientifically valid it would need to start from assigning genetic clusters and then assigning races on that basis. But we can’t do that.

Because every human being is genetically unique you could, if you wished, construct near-perfect genetic clusters on any conceivable self-reported trait. You could, for example, assign clusters that correspond to the political party that people voted for at teh last election, or their favourite TV programs. I’m sure you agree that voting history and TV viewing habits are not genetically determined. The fact that we can do this for things that we know can’t be genetically determined is really all that we need to know to falsify the utility of the methodology for constructing genetic sub-populations that correspond to race.

The reason why we can find genetic permutations that correspond to Hispanic or Democrat is because these aren’t unique DNA sequences we are talking about. They are simply combinations of unbiquitous genetic material selected post facto precisely because they correspond to our groups. Once we have our group of Democrats or Hispanics, we then analyse them and say that they all have either (Marker A and Marker B), or (Marker B and Marker C), or (Marker C and Marker Z) or (Marker A and Marker Z). The fact that Republicans/Blacks have even higher prevalences of Markers A, Z and B, but they are never found together, and Greens/Whites have higher prevalences of C, but never with B or Z, doesn’t bother us because were are applying the results to the groups post facto, not constructing the groups from the application.

In actual fact the study didn’t just look at 4 markers. It had to look at over 300 markers, and construct groupings that had not just (Marker B and Marker C) but
(Marker 365 and Marker 120 and marker 1 and Marker 287 and… ) or (Marker 563 and Marker 210 and marker 67 and Marker 233 and… ) for Black. Note that these two “Blacks” share no genetic commonality at all that they don’t also share with Whites.

In short, there is a huge difference between scientifically *constructing *genetic sub-populations that correspond to race and finding genetic similarities between *pre-identified * sub-populations. Genetic uniqueness means that you must *always * be able find genetic similarities between *any *pre-identified sub-populations, whether those sub-populations are racial, political or preferential. That doesn’t give lend validity to a claim that racial, political or preferential populations are genetically based.

3. As you note, the US is not the world.

So. I went and read the cited paper. What you’re saying does not seem to be true. Here’s where the paper directly contradicts what you’re saying -

Genetic Clusters versus SIRE

Genetic cluster analysis using structure was performed, allowing, sequentially, for k=2, 3, 4, or more clusters (Pritchard et al. 2000). The results can be summarized as follows. When k=2 clusters was specified, the Chinese and Japanese emerged as a combined cluster; when k=3 clusters was specified, the African Americans separated from the whites and Hispanics; when k=4 clusters was specified, an additional cluster was formed that was nearly exclusively Hispanic (99.8%). All but one of the Hispanic individuals analyzed were included in this new cluster. The four-cluster results are given in table 2, with crossclassification by SIRE. Our sequential cluster results are completely consistent with what we observed from the genetic distance measures and from figure 1—namely, that the East Asians are the most distant from the other groups, followed by the African Americans, and then the Hispanics. Allowing for more than four clusters did not yield stable results: multiple runs of structure produced varying cluster configurations; in many runs, one cluster was nearly empty. However, when we repeated the cluster analysis with only the East Asian subjects, two clusters did emerge that almost perfectly distinguished between the two ethnicities, with a total of 6 (2 Chinese and 4 Japanese) (1.1%) of 567 subjects being differentially classified. No such consistent subclusters emerged from separate analyses of the African American, white, or Hispanic groups. Thus, the structure we observed at the population level using MDS is recaptured here at an individual level. For the group reporting a major SIRE category, the correspondence between genetic cluster and SIRE is remarkably high, with only 5 (0.14%) of 3,636 individuals being differentially classified (table 2).

Let’s leave the world/US thing aside for the moment. How do you explain this apparent divergence between what the paper says and what you say?

ETA: On preview, and given the acrimony these threads usually have, I want to point out that although my tone may be coming across as adversarial, I’m actually trying to learn here.

[Blake]

I did get your point. I was just riding on your coattails. It’s a point well worth emphasising. Every civilisation on history has had an underclass, and every underclass has live din ghettos and been been highly disposed to criminal activity.

While there is obviously no genetic commonality between the underclasses of London, Mumbai, Los Angeles and Tokyo, there is an astonishing commonality in education, generational poverty and social discrimination.

So why the anybody would thinks there would be a genetic link baffles me.

[Blake]

@bldysabba

Let’s leave the world/US thing aside for the moment. How do you explain this apparent divergence between what the paper says and what you say?

There is no divergence.

Can you explain where you think the paper diverges from my summary of it?

[grude]

Here is an issue not widely known about but that was in effect in the USA until the 70s at least and most likely well beyond unofficially.

Redlining

Redlining is the practice of denying, or charging more for, services such as banking, insurance,[2] access to health care,[3] or even supermarkets[4], or denying access to jobs to residents in particular, often racially determined,[5] areas. The term “redlining” was coined in the late 1960s by John McKnight, a Northwestern University sociologist and community activist.[6] It refers to the practice of marking a red line on a map to delineate the area where banks would not invest; later the term was applied to discrimination against a particular group of people (usually by race or sex) irrespective of geography. During the heyday of redlining, the areas most frequently discriminated against were black inner city neighborhoods. For example, in Atlanta in the 1980s, a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles by investigative reporter Bill Dedman showed that banks would often lend to lower-income whites but not to middle- or upper-income blacks.[7]

For all the “why haven’t blacks flourished in the centuries since slavery” arguments.