I could picture a “public service” requirement in which, say, a lawyer can have a portion or his/her student debt cancelled if they serve two or three years as a public defender. This might be attractive to people who’ve gone to the higher-end law schools like Harvard but are having trouble earning enough in their early years to pay off their loans.
I think there may be similar programs for medical students, encouraging or requiring them to work in rural areas after their residencies.
Given that the crook I have some knowledge of was from a middle class, complete family, I wonder how per pressure comes to play a role in creating robbers and thieves.
The 1960s was economically one of the best decades in US history yet crime rates doubled. Crime went down dramatically during the great depression.
Crime statistics are calculated two ways. One is by reporting from police, the other is by phone survey. Both rates are very similar and do not diverge much suggesting the crime not being reported is not a big problem for most crimes. Most crimes are committed intraracially so any reluctance of white people to report white criminals would mean massive amounts of crime going unreported. This is not supported by any evidence.
Another factor is that African-Americans disproportionately live in high-population-density areas, and population density is itself a risk factor for crime. Most crimes are fundamentally interactions between people, and you get more interactions with greater density.
Excellent take. Thank you.
I think you misunderstood 90% of my comment, especially regarding my beliefs about IQ. I’d be happy to take this to Great Debates if you’d like? If I’m going to be providing sources to support my conclusions, it essentially becomes a debate, and therefore belongs there 
You make a great point; I’m aware that only about 2% of the Black American population is producing this crime rate, which is why I’ve never really understood judging us as a whole based on the minimal segment of our populace who commit crimes; but that’s people for you, I guess.
To clarify what I mean:
Say you have three, black individuals, one who scores 75, one who scores 85, and one who scores 90. They are all under the influence of the same factor we will call “x”; x could be anti-intellectual peer culture, poverty, racism, or any combination of these and/or other factors. All three individuals are transferred into an environment which eliminates the effects of x, and all three scores raise; let’s say from 75 to 80, from 85 to 90, and from 90 to 95 or higher. Although all scores have raised, the gap between them remains; this gap between individuals is the genetic aspect of IQ. It doesn’t mean however, that they cannot all be suppressed by an environmental factor which they all share in common, which causes them to underperform. It is likely that the average black IQ raised 5 points because of the increasing accessibility of middle class opportunities, or fewer people in poverty; that’s the only thing that has changed, as the culture has not. There is some evidence to suggest that culture explains the rest of the gap; a recent follow-up of an early intervention study that suffered the fade-out effect found that the study did in fact raise general intelligence, but the effects were lost after the intervention ended. This demonstrates that “failure to raise g” is not what causes gains to fade. Black children adopted by white parents show phenomenally high increases in scores, which plummet once they hit high school. If the fade-out effect is not a failure to raise g in the event of an intervention, then a logical speculation would be to expect fade-out of adoption scores also to not be explained by failure to raise g. You can conclude that the effect size of the intervention is smaller than the effect size of being adopted for the obvious reason that one is much more impersonal than the other. So now we have evidence that a massive change in cultural attitude among african americans could result in a closing of the gap. What we need to figure out now is what is happening during adolescence which causes the plummet, if failure to raise g is clearly not responsible. As an african american myself, I can provide some insight into this. We know that the same genes that account for intelligence in childhood are also responsible for intelligence in adulthood; evidence suggests that intelligence builds upon itself, and so a child’s ability to select into high-stimulation environments determines whether or not the intelligence gained in pre-adolescence will remain. Hereditarians primarily have believed that black children are unable to do so because the intelligence gained does not represent general intelligence, but now that we have reason to believe that isn’t true, I present another mechanism: black children are discouraged from selecting into intellectually stimulating environments, once peer pressure and non-home environment takes precedence over home environment. Peers who associate high school performance, reading and learning with whiteness will mock and bully those who don’t agree; with few role models in popular media that suggest otherwise, it’s not a surprise that any gains would fade over time. I also find that the fade-out effect perfectly coincides with the timing of synaptic pruning, a natural mechanism that is influenced by environmental factors. So in theory, it is actually possible that black children are losing synapses that are important for critical thinking and analytical skills, because once the new peer environment is fully introduced, these synapses become unused and neglected, so the brain views them as no longer needed. Synaptic pruning stops at exactly the same time IQ stops fluctuating and the gap stops widening; this is my personal theory and the connection that I’ve made, no one else has suggested the connection between synaptic pruning and fade-out yet. Personally, I was never introduced to the anti-intellectual peer culture, as I have been home schooled for the entirety of my academic career; I believe this has benefited me immensely. My test scores and performance have remained consistently high, although my mother was never as remarkable during her youth, having grown up in poverty and attended public school. If you want sources for some of the above claims, join me in great debates
Is there a 25-words-or-less version of your thesis?
Prolly not. Race Realist sites churn out this thinking with the associated writing style like they’re writing 1000 page Phd dissertations on the Mating Rituals of Woodlice.
Sorry It’s so long; if you paid any attention to a word I’ve said so far you’d realize I’m an environmentalist, anything but a race realist. C’mon people, keep up!
Whoever moved this to great debates, thank you.
He’s referring to the monoamine oxidase A gene, where low expression of the gene has been linked to aggression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#Warrior_gene
I think you mean Behaviorist. Environmentalists care about the little birdies and the destruction of Gaia.
Not sure that I buy a “straight-A” student can’t present his or her ideas in standard paragraph formatting.
At any rate, “black people” were violently oppressed for centuries and that destroyed their sense of family unity, cultural unity, and spiritual unity.
At the heart of the modern (post-Jim Crow) crime tendencies, I believe that the disintegration of the nuclear family has played the largest role. In particular, the absence of a father figure has left many black youth with no adult role model from whom they learn to deal with male aggression during the formative years. The absence of such a father figure creates feelings of abandonment and hatred, which, in combination with the male predilection toward aggression, often put these youth into the revolving cycle of violence and crime.
Will had Uncle Phil to teach him how to be a man. So many others do not have such fortune.
As well as both his Aunt Vivians!
I should think that it would increase those values, rather than decrease them.
No need to resort to personal attacks; I’ve always been lazy about indentation, and so I apologize for forgetting to do so in my post. I tend to forget to do it outside of an academic setting where it isn’t necessarily imperative for a grade. I’m a girl by the way Please understand that my post was not originally in “Great Debates” and it was very early in the morning when I posted; I was still tired and not necessarily concerned about presentation. I don’t think you can speculate about my intelligence based on that; in any case, we’re definitely on the same side. I’m here to gather the opinions, thoughts and citations of others to build my case against arguments for the inherent criminality and/or low intelligence of black people. If you’d read my entire post, you’d know that!
No, I mean environmentalist; it’s another term for the nurture side of the debate surrounding gaps in achievement, IQ and crime rates, the other side are the hereditarians.
You would think; take Jewish immigrants for example. Part of reason why I think it didn’t happen this way for black americans is because we’ve had our original cultural identity erased, and we’ve had to rebuild one from scratch. A culture built upon the psychology of oppression and “othered-ness” is going to have difficulty building group esteem, that’s how I see it. It’s a very unique situation; so it most certainly would not be fair to compare Afro-americans to immigrant groups, oppressed or otherwise.