The Role of Genetics in Racial Behavior

Double double-posting as well, tisk tisk.

I believe that my full statement was "Because scientists have completely demystified genetics and there isn't any debate or further research on the subject?" It's because you seem to think of genetics as a static science, without differing opinions or revisions to the body of knowledge. Neanderthal would be a compliment to a degenerate like you.
 
Wooz said:
*Click*

Whirrrr....

Please, don't double-post. If you realized you have other things to say after you've posted a message, use the "Edit" button.

Thank You for cooperation, have a Nice Day.

Πρόκειται να καταστρέψω τη σελίδα σας..... :lol: you too
 
Kotario said:
*Psst* DiDrDe, you're making me look bad. *Ahem* Anyway, since this is developing into a serious tangent, it's an appropriate call.

I'm sorry, my incredible, rugged, masculine beauty makes every man look bad.
 
While I entirely agree that genetics are part of what defines us, it's only one in a very very VERY fucking large pile of variables.

Besides, except for a few remote tribes in Africa, even Africans have become mongrels at best by now. Any clear definition of race is artificial as of the moment two races mix.
 
Well this is all entirely amusing on so many levels. What I especially love about statistics is how you can 'prove' any point statisitcally, making it both the most useful and useless science at the same time.

I have a friend named, no joke, Conner O'Laughlin. Conner is black, adopted into a thoroughly white family. Connor has a white accent, white mannerisms and general whiteness that belie his thoroughly black complexion. He is easily the whitest black guy I know. But Conner can still bust a move on the dance floor like he's black, is a percussionist and is (according to his thoroughly white gf) well-endowed. Every time I hear the race vs nature vs nurture useless shitstorm argument I remember the contradiction and truth that is Connor O'Laughlin, then laugh at everyone trying to debate.

so LOL @ Inane et al!

edited for grammar
 
So, the answer to all of worlds problems is for all children to be raised in white, middle class families?! That's racist... and not PC... and... completely true.
*shrug*
 
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/13/MN87077.DTL

As that report suggests, research that delves into the links between the genome and behavior is often inconclusive because there are so many factors that scientists do not take into account when carrying out their research which is often difficult (if possible at all) to reproduce.

Personally I think the suggestion that black people are genetically more predisposed to commit violent crime is preposterous. Until we've solved all the socioeconomic problems with this world and we can do a study where that (major) factor is taken out of the equation I doubt I'll believe any study that claims there is a link. By then, let's face it, I'll be a rotting corpse in the ground.
 
Why don't we put it this way: is there anyone here (not counting Inane, obviously, the fucking bigot, hiding behind a thin veil of science he can't comprehend, that he is) who believes that you can reduce such behaviors to a single variable, namely in this discussion, genetics?

It seems to me that most people are in agreement here.
 
Inane, I think there are quite a few assumptions in these studies. Scientists have also proven that not genetics but your surroundings, your environment growing up are more so to blame for who you are than anything else.

Put yourself in a young black mans shoes in America. Do you have equal rights and opportunities that a young white man has? Biggy Smalls summed up blacks in America quite well. "You've either got a wicked jump shot or you sling crack rock."

What choices do you have has a young black man in a society that rewards one color over the other? How do you feel when you have the epiphany that you do not have an equal opportunity or rights? When most of the black heroes who stand up for what is right are killed off or destroyed in one way or another? Rather discouraging isn’t it? Rather angering isn’t it?

The numbers crunched in this case are accurate, yes. But how many of those statistics had little to no option than to become just another criminal due to a society and government that is prejudice towards them? How many wars and atrocities have been committed by white people? Now lets compare that with that of Asian or African. Don’t fear what you will one day become.

Look at the “looters” after the hurricane. Black, yes, now ask yourself how many white people live in a predominately black area such as New Orleans? Look into it deeper and you see the prejudice brooding in the American media and leaders. Why does it take a sliver of the time to rescue and give aid to Florida after a devastating hurricane than it does New Orleans? Why does the media gobble up black people stealing not only water and supplies to survive but creature comforts such as TV’s or computers when they have nothing left to their names. Prejudice and racism still run through American society. Blacks committing more crimes should not come as a shock but rather a sign that something is very wrong. I am not wired any differently than someone from Africa, Japan or Mexico. The determining factors of how violent or crime ridden I am lay in my surroundings, environment, experiences, and ultimately choices I make growing up in life.
 
God, please, not the "government did a bad job in New Orleans because they hate black people" arguement.

Remember Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
 
I prefer Occam's Razor myself. Then perhapse you can give me an answer that my govornment will not? Why did it take so long?
 
Look, there's a reason why I find any grand government conspiracy theory hard to believe. My family has worked for the government for the last three generations (and while I'm heading into the private sector, my own brother is preparing himself for a career as a bureaucrat). To say the government is inefficient and counter-productive would be a major understatement.

In this case, no person or agency wants to be handed the blame for this disaster, so they keep shuffling it around or ignoring it, hoping it will go away. That is why no one has given a firm answer on where the problem lies. That's why you have not gotten an answer.

As for why the government took so long, quite a few reasons, not all of which I know or could guess. However, FEMA hasn't been managed well since it was shuffled into the Department of Homeland Security. FEMA now takes orders from people who are unequipped to do their jobs (nothing new in government). In addition to the problems on the federal level (which of this was only one), there were major lapses in planning and execution on the local level. It seems as though the government of New Orleans and Louisiana failed to prepare or carry out what needed to be done. Basically failure compounded on multiple government levels. It's not malice, its stupidity.

My personal supposition is that New Orleans expected to be "lucky." The city has dodged similar bullets in the past, and I think the local government was expecting it to happen again. Nothing about this is fact, just supposition. Now, on the other hand, Florida is a veteran of such incidents, the state knows how to handle such disasters from experience. Goddammit, what is it with stupid people! First bigotry disguised as "genetics" and now the government is a huge racist body that willingly lets people die. Is incompetence so hard to believe? As if the government could keep anything like that hidden, and if any politician would risk it. It would be political suicide, and likely a trial for murder/manslaughter as well, not to mention riots and such.
 
Well it seems that no one is reading my links or paying any serious attention to what I'm saying. You say things without backing them up except for one who put up a single link to one page with no real data to speak of (yes I'm listening but all I'm hearing is meow meow meow), only "what I heard one time in college/in high school/from watching The Discovery Channel/from-watching-some-black-guy-I-know" primarily. A wasteland hither stand I amongst a PC shitstorm. Pull your heads out of your asses, stop listening to what the media tells you and stop worrying about being labelled negatively or labelling someone or something. All of you are saying the exact same shit over and over again so I see no sane reason to continue posting in this thread.
 
kidsrel1zg.gif


Oh my god! Parents are more likely to kill their children than anyone else! Obviously parents are genetically predisposed towards killing their own children. Because this one graph I pulled from the Bureau of Justice proves everything!

Why don't I find a semi-scientific article that I don't understand and slap that around like its absolute proof as well, even if it doesn't actually prove my point?

Just admit that you are a bigot, and stop trying to hide the fact behind a thin veil of 'science.' At least then you will be honest, for all your other faults. Why not contact a real geneticist and talk to them about this, see what they have to say? I'm sure you can find one at a lab or university relatively close to you.

In any case, it isn't our burden to prove ourselves when you can't even make a decent case yourself. A page of graphs of crime trends and an article about how twins live similar lives? That really does a poor job of proving that Black people are genetically predisposed towards violence.
 
inane said:
" blah... blah... blah...." -Dr. J. Phillipe Rushton

I'm not having ANY luck at all finding data that reflects differently. Perhaps you can help me.

Perhaps you need to check your sources better? Or be a bit more discriminating in your data?

For who is Dr. J. Philippe Rushton?

www.geocities.com/sailerfraud/articles/rushton.html

Who is Phillipe Rushton?
July 2003

Anyone who is familiar with the works of Steve Sailer knows his obsession with race and genetics. Being a eloquent writer rather than a scientific researcher, Steve has been known to derive much of his research on the ideology of a so-called race researcher named Jean Phillipe Rushton.

Steve Sailor? This is what he says-

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050213_mapping.htm
Who is this Phillipe Rushton whom Steve primarily bases his racial research? Phillipe Rushton was a professor in psychology of the University of Western Ontario in Canada. After receiving a large research award from the racist and pro-facist Pioneer Fund in 1981, the research area which would boost his fame up to the next decade was the controversial subject of genetic differences in racial groups.

Rushton's early experiences of racial criticism and political correctness was from a paper presented at the Symposium on Evolutionary Theory, Economics, and Political Science on 1989. He classified all human beings somewhere among the three major racial groups: Black (Negroid), White (Caucasoid), Asian (Mongoloid). He claimed to have scientific evidence of an inherited link between brain size, intelligence and race, where Blacks and Asians are on opposite ends and Whites are in between.

Blacks, according to Rushton, have larger genitals, making them more promiscuous, and smaller brains, making them less intelligent than whites and Asians. Using 60 different measures, Rushton ranks the races along an evolutionary scale with blacks at the bottom and Asians at the top. [1]
Rushton then continued his controversial research on race for the next several years, writing a few books on race as well. His only significant source of funding for his racist research was the pro-fascist Pioneer Fund, since no other credible organization would waste their time and money on his racist and flawed research project. His relationship with the general public, the academic world, and the scientific community has indeed been treacherous.
Among his academic colleagues at the university of Ontario, Rushton has endured much flack. Then Prime Minister of Ontario, David Peterson, declared Rushton's arguments 'offensive to the way Ontario thinks', and called for the University to dismiss him; a group of students lodged a complaint about him with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. He was not fired nor suspended, but when he tried to give classes, the students themselves howled him down. Poor Rushton was forced to lecture to the television cameras, safe from the howling mob (Berton, 1993). [2]

Even the Canadian police found interest in Rushton's works. Rushton was investigated several times by the Canadian police for possible violations of Canada's hate crime laws, for promoting hatred against any identifiable group. Eventually, in the words of attorney-general Ian Scott, the police decided that Rushton's theories were 'loony but not criminal' and therefore dropped all criminal charges. [3]

Some claim these incidents show Rushton was unfairly hounded by a zealous left-wing faction, although the Canadian police has no political opinion as a group. The other criticisms against Rushton came from high-level members of the University of Ontario and the Prime Minister of Ontario, not special left-wing interest groups. Even from an objective, scientific, and non-political perspective of Rushton's works, many reputable scientists have found numerous flaws in Rushton's theory of race.


Loyola Marymount (Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts)
Extensive critique showing the flaws of Rushton's research on race, based from a scientific perspective.
Ohio Citizens for Science
"Would teachers be required to tell their students about J Phillippe Rushton's "scientific" views on the inferiority of Africans? Notice that, although promoters claim the work is scientific and even claim that it forms part of the evolutionary corpus, they publish in books, not peer-reviewed journals --just like Intelligent Design "theorists." "

http://www.sntp.net/eugenics/genetics_1.htm
"In 1989 Rushton’s colleagues in the Behavior genetics Association (BGA) protested his views. Five key officers of the BGA circulated a letter dated February 17 to the membership, calling Rushton’s work "insensitive," "repugnant," and "dubious scientifically." "

http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/quirks/archives/95-96/feb1796.htm
Feb. 1996 - "University of Western Ontario Professor Rushton appeared at the Poster Session of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Meeting in Baltimore to present his race science and was confronted by protesters. The AAAS claims he slipped into the session because his name wasn't recognized and he didn't use the word "race" in his abstract. They say had it been known he was coming, they might well have denied him permission to present. Dr Joseph Graves, who ran another session at the AAAS on "Psuedoscience and the Education of African American Students," attacks Rushton's work."

http://prague.tv/pill/article.php?name=bachelor-of-science
"Rushton is the most dubious of Bakalár’s sources; he has been criticized repeatedly for misrepresenting data and selectively citing and misinterpreting sources. This is significant in terms of Bakalár’s book, which relies heavily on Rushton’s ideas and research, most notably his study, "The IQ of Gypsies in Central Europe." Interestingly, neither Rushton nor Bakalár carried out any primary research or fieldwork, but based their scientific claims on the papers of other researchers."

Rushton became an outcast from the reputable scientific community. After seeing his scientific career spiral downhill since the 1990s, Rushton was dealt some final blows to seal his fate. His reputation was so lowly he was booed off the unreputable Geraldo Rivera stage set. The only major supporters of the racial ideology of this failed scientist remaining into the 21st century are David Duke, former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan who lost the Louisiana governor's race over a decade ago, and today a worldwide spokesman for the white supremacy movement, and Steve Sailer to whom this site is dedicated.

You can find Rushton's essential books here- at stormfront.org
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=34242
Which advocates White Pride World Wide

Or woud you be surprised that Rushton posts on the David Duke webpage?
http://www.davidduke.com/library/race/rushton-crime.html

For more about the Eugenics Movement and where Dr. Rushton gets his money-
http://www.albany.edu/ws/journal/kolt2.html

The Pioneer Fund has been a bastion for eugenics and the ‘study’ of racial differences. It is estimated that the Fund distributed more than $10 million between 1971 and 1992 and has annual income of about $1 million that is granted to approximately 20 beneficiaries a year. The Fund has a history with the Ku Klux Klan and the Southern White Citizens Councils. Yet, it also has grantees from prestigious universities, including Garrett Harding, a biological sciences professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Furthermore the Pioneer Fund has had firm support for the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which has made efforts to eliminate undocumented immigration and reduce legal migration by half. FAIR’s efforts have provoked even greater xenophobia and stand in the way of immigrants’ status and rights in the United States. [6]

An example of a Pioneer Fund beneficiary is J. Phillipe Rushton. In The Science of Human Diversity, Lynn (2001) describes the work of J. Phillipe Rushton, whose research was primarily based on racial differences in intelligence and sexual behavior. Rushton conducted a study with African students from the University of Witwatersand in South Africa and concluded that their IQ’s had an average score of 85. The author further notes that, since the subjects were college students, one could assume that their intelligence is one standard deviation above that of the broad inhabitants in Africa, limiting the IQ of that population to an average of 70.

What Lynn neglects to mention is the social and racial stratification that exists in South Africa. During the time that Rushton’s research was being conducted, Apartheid was still in effect. The obstacle of unequal education among other disadvantages seems wholly ignored in the study. Furthermore, the reliability of IQ and other standardized tests has been highly questionable as being unfavorable toward non-whites. [7] Even Alfred Binet, who is considered to be the founder of intelligence tests, did not have confidence in the theory of, “intelligence as a unitary mental function.”[8] Surprisingly, Evan and Waites (1981) also note that Lynn had admitted that global differences among test scores could not be considered equal due to cultural dissimilarities. [9] Yet both Lynn and Rushton continue to use IQ as a valid measure of intelligence.

Inane, you don't see a problem with this?

Now I am not saying that there is no relationship between race and crime. What I am worried about is whether there are more important variables that create that relationship and whether race, in of it's self, is epiphenomenal.

But you should always judge an argument not only about what it says, but also what the source is.

Inane- on one side I am glad you raised a controversial issue. But the problem, as Kharn, Kotario and others have pointed out, is that your methods aren't working. Worse you are citing a source that is also a bit shakey. This is the "John Lott - More Guns" problem, the source sounds good but the methods stink and if you look a bit deeper you might find that the entire program stinks.

You have offered a correlation based on simple crime statistics looking at one variable- race to find out how it measures against another - crime.

But the question might have more to do with other social and economic issues than you have allowed. Why not social class, levels of urbanization, levels of social opportunities, etc. And to be honest, the problem of race and social class, and race and poverty - is a very close one. But is it race, or is it social class, or is it poverty?

Is every wealthy, successful African American another OJ Simpson about to plunge a knife into a white woman's belly? Or is the killer instinct more racially neutral.

But consider this- More blacks get death row than whites- is it because blacks commit more crimes, because blacks suffer more prejudice from juries, or because blacks can't afford good lawyers?

More toxic waste dumps are established in predominantly minority areas- why? Because they are black? Because they are poor? Because politically they are less powerful? Because the land is cheaper? Or becaue those who dump toxic waste want to poison the black folks?

How do you know the answer until you test out the alternative arguments?
 
inane said:
All of you are saying the exact same shit over and over again so I see no sane reason to continue posting in this thread.

bwhahaha! That's funny. Your sources have been debunked and you are not providing any additional data to support your position. Nor are you debating anything that people respond with with any vigor or purpose.

Welcome to NMA's GD, noob, we don't suffer fools or laziness kindly.
 
Murdoch said:
inane said:
All of you are saying the exact same shit over and over again so I see no sane reason to continue posting in this thread.

bwhahaha! That's funny. Your sources have been debunked and you are not providing any additional data to support your position. Nor are you debating anything that people respond with with any vigor or purpose.

Welcome to NMA's GD, noob, we don't suffer fools or laziness kindly.

Sources? What's up with the plural? Oh and every popular or influential researcher has his/her nay sayers and second guessers(shit take a look at how many anthropologists abhor the Leakey family, possibly the single most influential anthropologists of the 20th century.) Secondarily Welsh, you haven't told me anything I did not know about Rushton. He's going by the facts and being criticized for it... oh and your sources misquote Rushton on SEVERAL occasions... like I said, done. This thread is useless because anyone of you is prone to change your minds on the subject in the next 3 years where as I will not.
 
Back
Top