The Role of Genetics in Racial Behavior

[quietfanatic]

I didn't know what Inane was arguing at first. Then I found that, "for the most part", he thought "that Africans, globally, are genetically predisposed towards violent crime, at least to a greater extent than other 'races' " thanks to Kotario.

I'm not ignoring the impact that socioeconomics have on the subject just doubting the DEGREE with which it affects these statistics.

Unless I missed something, Inane still hasn't actually said what degree he was doubting, or explicitly provided an alternative evaluation. He has just flaunted some statistics and conveniently narrow, flawed and biased research. It appears that Rushton is a pariah, as opposed to a controversial but respected figure of the scientific community, which is really quite different. Others seems to understand Inane's exact position, so maybe someone could explain it to me. It couldn't possibly be that the most important factor influencing violent behaviour is purely race because that is so obviously bullshit, that it would be instantly rejected by any community that isn't a racist extremist group.

It might be true that in the absence of all specific environmental influences, some ethnic groups may be more likely to exhibit violent behaviour than others, but that is almost impossible to test and irrelevant anyway. My understanding from my genetics studies in my first year university course is that social, economic and cultural influences (i.e. environment) are more important than genetics in most cases, which I do not really like, but seems to be the general scientific consensus. In reality, it is the interplay of all the different factors that shapes us.

So why do you care about this issue Inane? Even if people of African descent were slightly more prone to be violent regardless of experience, what can you do about it? Who cares anyway? I doubt that your motivation for discussing this is intellectual curiosity. Please clarify your argument and provide adequate evidence.

In another thread, you said:

he sun never sets on my ASSHOLE not the British Empire and Universities are usually little more than paper factories...

As for Americans being fat? Who gives a fuck?! That's like stating there a lot of fags in San Francisco... no one should CARE why it is or even THAT it is outside of other homosexuals! Which raises the question, are you FAT Frissy?? Who cares?

Are you black Inane? Just curious.

Worst comes to worst this discussion is moot because genetic engineering will make us ALL the same soon enough whether I'm right or not. What a lovely day for bleeding heart liberals that'll be, huh?

Errr, no. Doomsayers predict that the rich of the first world will try to have designer babies who will become an elite ruling-class further widening the gap between the haves and have-nots. There are other reasons why that statement is wrong, but the bigger issue is more interesting. The only way that GE could make us all the same is if it created a catastrophic environmental disaster that wiped out life on earth. But then that isn't what you meant either.

If you don't like those who you see as 'liberals' maybe you should go some place else.

 

[inane]

I know I said I was done but it seems people are biting again without understanding anything.
Ok here are the basic underpinnings of what I believe to be true, short and sweet.

1. Both genetics and social standing effect behavior.
a. Race is a LARGE factor of genetics.
b. As pointed out in my link to the page on twin research, genes play a larger role on behavior than how or where you were raised.

All of this adds up THIS way-- Race>Genes>Behavior/Social Standing

In fact I think that your personal mindset and how you choose to go against the grain, against your programming has a larger affect than does socioeconomic standing.

Errr, no. Doomsayers predict that the rich of the first world will try to have designer babies who will become an elite ruling-class further widening the gap between the haves and have-nots. There are other reasons why that statement is wrong, but the bigger issue is more interesting. The only way that GE could make us all the same is if it created a catastrophic environmental disaster that wiped out life on earth. But then that isn't what you meant either.

------correction: "Some" doomsayers

As for Americans being fat? Who gives a fuck?! That's like stating there a lot of fags in San Francisco... no one should CARE why it is or even THAT it is outside of other homosexuals! Which raises the question, are you FAT Frissy?? Who cares?

Are you black Inane? Just curious.

Yes I'm black, happy? I wasn't trying to put blacks down or be derogative as Frissy was putting down Americans directly calling them "Fat." It's called context you boob.

So why do you care about this issue Inane? Even if people of African descent were slightly more prone to be violent regardless of experience, what can you do about it? Who cares anyway? I doubt that your motivation for discussing this is intellectual curiosity.

Because I get sick and tired of idiots who go on the defense for black people and their higher rates of crime and murder when no one was attacking. This isn't the sixties, if you believe that blacks commit more crime because their mommy didn't feed them or they had no father you are NOT the hardened discriminated against crusader minority you THINK.

You are right there is nothing I can do about it though when someone starts spewing out the aforementioned bullshit, I feel it my duty to show the other side. As seen in this thread my viewpoint is NOT popular. I have made my original point.

If you don't like those who you see as 'liberals' maybe you should go some place else.

I was here five years ago, you first. BTW I hate conservatives more so.

 

[Brother None]

1. Both genetics and social standing effect behavior.
a. Race is a LARGE factor of genetics.
b. As pointed out in my link to the page on twin research, genes play a larger role on behavior than how or where you were raised.

All of this adds up THIS way-- Race>Genes>Behavior/Social Standing

That doesn't really work. Not only is it automatically Genes>Race>Behaviour/Social Standing because race is a fraction of genes even if it is a big fraction, but it also doesn't work for other reasons;

-->>Identical<<-- twins (not all twins) are a genetic anomoly. Genetic diversion in a race is by far more significant than the genetic diversion between two identical twins, so the fact that identical twins are more compelled to act alike by their "identical genes" (not true, as epigenetic modification change their relative genetic structures, I suggest you study on this before continuing) does not mean that people who have some similarities in genes, through parentage or race, are prone to act identically either.

Now let's look at your study:
"Nothing explains everything. Even genetics influences us, on the average, about 50 percent."

So race is a fraction of genetics which is half of overal human behaviour?

The problem here is, inane, that you seem to have no concept of the fact that no issue is an absolute. There are not many people who will deny that race is somehow involved in criminal liability as well as athletic abilities of "the darkies". A lot will shy away from putting an emphasis on it simply because they a scared if it, forced to be so by the mighty hand of history which after stacking so many racial atrocities upon each other has banned racial discussions from "civilized" societies.

The problem is you're not countering with a valid alternative. Just like others understate genetic and racial influences because they *want* to, you overstate them not because of actual scientific study but simply because you want to. You *desire* it to be so that race is the biggest influence on genetics (which is untrue) and then *desire* it to be so that genetics is the biggest influence on behaviour (unknown, but presumably untrue and more irrelevant) and seek badly supported studies from there. Of course you're not going to convince anyone like that.

Then there's this:
A few fascinating kinks in the biology of twin research have recently turned up, weaving an even more complex pattern for us to study and learn from. It turns out that not all identical twins are truly identical, or share all their genetic traits. In one tragic instance, one twin was healthy and a gymnast, while the other suffered from severe muscular dystrophy, a genetic disorder, and was dead by age 16. Yet the twins were identical.

(...)

Over a century ago, in 1875, British anthropologist Francis Galton first compared a small group of identical and fraternal twins and concluded that "nature prevails enormously over nurture." Time and research seem to have proved him right. "It's no accident that we are what we are," contends Nancy Segal, Ph.D., professor of developmental psychology at California State University at Fullerton and director of the Twin Studies Center there. "We are born with biological propensities that steer us in one direction or another."

Yet critics of twin studies scoff. Richard Rose, Ph.D., professor of psychology and medical genetics at Indiana University in Bloomington, has studied personality in more than 7,000 pairs of identical twins and concluded that environment, both shared and unshared, has nearly twice the influence of genes.

(...)

Environment, it turns out, may be most powerful when it limits -- through trauma, deprivation, malnutrition. Studies by Sandra Scarr, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, show that IQ scores for white twins at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, and for all black twins, are heavily influenced by environment. Social and economic deprivation keep scores artificially lower than twins' genetic potential.

...Did you even read the article?

Because I get sick and tired of idiots who go on the defense for black people and their higher rates of crime and murder when no one was attacking. This isn't the sixties, if you believe that blacks commit more crime because their mommy didn't feed them or they had no father you are NOT the hardened discriminated against crusader minority you THINK.

So?

You know, I like the Renaissance notion that somehow science is this abstract field that somehow strives to find knowledges irregardless of consequence or usefulness.

History has showns the foolishness of this. We still believe, for some reason, that science is ultimately one huge quest for knowledge, but a lot of us, politicians in particular, are forced to take a more utilitarian approach.

Which raises the question of "Ok, so blacks commit more crimes. And then?" What are you going to do? Pre-emptively imprison blacks? Emigrate them? Segregate them? These are not humanitarian solutions to a problem that is not actually their fault. Considering nobody is going to consider these options, all you're doing is removing responsibilities from criminals by giving them a "I had no choice, I was born that way"-card to play

The reason Nurture usually wins in the Nature vs Nurture debate is not only because it is a dangerous game to play the Nature-card, but also because nobody can do much of anything against Nature. It's there, it does what it want to and even if we could do anything about it few are willing to think about the moral repercussions of that.

Nurture, 50% or more of human behaviour according to the study you yourself linked to, is something we can influence. And thus we study and emphasise nurture. Because that's something we can work with.

Your line of thinking leads nowhere. It is void of meaning.

 

[Maphusio]

god... lock the thread lol its just going to get worse. The guy is acting like John, fanatically right all the time.

 

[welsh]

@ Maphusio- hardly, this is actually a pretty interesting argument. There is a valid issue here- why are blacks more likely to commit crime than whites? Is it race or something else?- It's an intellectual mystery and a good one.


Nicely stated Kharn.

A couple of other points Inane.

First the issue of evidence- You are relying on one major source. Is this source dependable.

It is possible that your academic source, the professor from Canada, is little more than a truth-seeking academic whose quest for truth led to some politically controversial results. It is possible that he is being persecuted because his scientific results are politically unpopular and repugnant and that the liberal academic institutions of the US an Canada are unified in denoucing him. It is also possible that this fellow is doing little more than following the tradition of the Eugenics movements that existed before World War 2 that emphasized the differences in races and the implications of the races. Given the social stigma he has looked to the one group of individuals that will support his position- the white supremists- he has been forced to make a deal with the devil in order to receive both funding for his research and an audience for his results. Perhaps, but unlikely.

Alternatively, it is possible that the doctor is using dubious science and bad methods, that his science reflects his politics, and that he is doing this to support his cause. He can do this with the same kind of smile that German scientists had after working in various research institutions in Germany before World War 2 which led to the extermination of the racially undesirable. Eugenics and Racial sciences were highly acceptable avenues of research, and to a certain extent they remain of interest in the scientific community. So perhaps he merits the outrage he has received- either because his methods are bad and because his conclusions are morally reprehensible.

Either way, your argument is in trouble because your source of evidence is, at best, suspect. You have been put on notice that the evidence and method may be unreliable. You must find your evidence elsewhere?

Does that mean that you are necessarily wrong? No.

But you have made a causal claim, and in order to defend that causal claim you must eliminate alternative hypotheses that may provide a better explanation. You must also defend the validity of your thesis against hard cases.

So let's look at some statistics-

FBI data- FBI Crime Stats
also -
more stats and info

A quick look at these numbers and sources it might suggest that there is a correlation between race and crime.

Yet,
(from- Facts on Crime )

1. Crime is concentrated in urban America.

Surprisingly, you are less likely to be assaulted, raped, robbed, burglarized or murdered today than you were in 1980 - unless you are a minority resident of an urban neighborhood. For most Americans, all rates for crimes except auto theft are down.

For urban minority Americans, rates for all crimes including homicide are up. The death rate by violence for African-American males living in these areas is about 10 times the national average. And inner-city African-Americans experience much higher rates of rape, robbery, burglary and aggravated assault than do whites.

2. Urban crime is increasingly concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods.

Crime rates in Milwaukee's most impoverished neighborhoods, for example, are more than 20 times higher than crime rates in other parts of the city. Nationally, such neighborhoods have a disproportionate share of drug abuse, welfare dependency, illegitimacy and breakdown of the social fabric.

3. Conditions that foster crime are spreading to poor white communities, too.

Children who grow up in inner-city neighborhoods grow up among deviant and criminalistic adults, many of them felons, ex-felons and drug addicts. Children become radically present-oriented, unable to defer immediate gratifications. They also become radically self-regarding, unable to feel the joy and pain of others (least of all strangers) and capable of committing the most vicious acts without the slightest pangs of conscience.

There is evidence to suggest that all young Americans, not just poor inner-city youth, are increasingly disposed to these character defects. A "white underclass" is developing.

These are potentially alternative arguments that might link race to crime. High levels of poor communities in highly urban areas are more prone to crime. Yet we also see a rise in crime among poor whites.

So is it race or class that makes a difference?

You can also look at other social-economic variations based on race in this report-

Assorted information about race and social and economic demographics

- note issues such as urbanization, education, housing, poverty levels- etc.

But let's also consider overall homicide rates-

According to the National Safety Council-

U.S. Murder Rate Since 1900 (rate shown is per 100,000 population)

1900: 1.5
1910: 4.3
1920: 6.4
1930: 8.2
1935: 9.6
1940: 6.0
1950: 5.0
1960: 4.7
1970: 8.0
1980: 10.3
1990: 10.0
1996: 7.4

Crime rates are fairly low during rather prosperous times- 1900- 1020. Then comes the depression years- 1930-1940, where the crime rates peak. You will also notice that crime rates increase in the 1970s, through the 1980s into the 1990s- generally bad economic times, especially in urban areas. Then crime rates fall into the early 1990s again- another prosperous time (and also a period that correlates with the "impact of abortion on crime rates" thesis - http://www.nber.org/papers/w8004 ).

So we've got a stronger correlation between low incomes or economic problems and violent crimes.

You will also notice-
Crime Atlas

The Crime Atlas and you will also note that rates of murder also that crimes rates peak and valley- corresponding to periods of economic prosperity and economic hardship.

On the other hand, if crime rates were merely about race than we would expect another kind of correllation- since poor African Americans often have more children than middle class whites, we might expect the proportion of Blacks to whites to increase over 100 years. We should then expect a similar correlation of increase in overall crime rates per 100,000 people. Furthermore, we should expect that ratio to be consistent as populations grow.
But we don't. Why? Your thesis- race leads to crime- doesn't answer that.

Let's go one better- what explains crime rates in societies where there are very few blacks- like Russia or Eastern Europe? Not many blacks in Lithuania, Estonia-
Yet-

comparative crime rates

Or is it because these folks are more Asian and therefore more likely to commit crime?
Or are Russians really just pale blacks?

But I will concede to you that there is a good question- why have blacks sustained high crime rates despite the end of de jure segregation and years of affirmative action?

Is it because they are black- and thus racially predestined to be "bad" or is it because we have not yet been able to address the social inequalities in our society- blacks remain poor because of a variety of social- economic factors? Have blacks and whites reached such a playing ground where you can effectively eliminate all other variables and isolate race as the causal variable at play?

The World Bank helps provide an answer- Inequality and violent crime

But let's get back to your thesis- Race is the independent variable, a string of intermediary variables- conclusion Race = crime.

The problem is that you are using the correlation means causation fallacy-
Correlation implies causation - from wikipedia

Note this doesn't work. But Hume points out that we can get a better sense of causal links by eliminating alternative arguments. Thus the onus is on you- you must be able to eliminate the alternative claim- that other social-economic variables do not explain crime but that it is race. Even if you say, "Race is 50% of the story"- how do you quantify that?

 

[inane]

I just wish I had more time Welsh, as it stands I have 74 hours on the clock this week stretching fence 30 miles outside of Death Valley FUN hehe anyway...

1. Both genetics and social standing effect behavior.
a. Race is a LARGE factor of genetics.
b. As pointed out in my link to the page on twin research, genes play a larger role on behavior than how or where you were raised.

All of this adds up THIS way-- Race>Genes>Behavior/Social Standing

That doesn't really work. Not only is it automatically Genes>Race>behavior/Social Standing because race is a fraction of genes even if it is a big fraction, but it also doesn't work for other reasons;

-->>Identical<<-- twins (not all twins) are a genetic anomaly. Genetic diversion in a race is by far more significant than the genetic diversion between two identical twins, so the fact that identical twins are more compelled to act alike by their "identical genes" (not true, as epigenetic modification change their relative genetic structures, I suggest you study on this before continuing) does not mean that people who have some similarities in genes, through parentage or race, are prone to act identically either.

Now let's look at your study:
"Nothing explains everything. Even genetics influences us, on the average, about 50 percent."

My point of bringing up the whole twins issue was this (if you read indepthly you'll find it): Identical twins', separated at birth, life stories, raised in COMPLETELY different environs, ALWAYS turn out to have VERY similar life courses (recidivism, what kind of crime activity if any they were involved with, whether they went to college, what kind of job they have, drug use, mental disorders, their favorite color, what their spouses look like, the color of their house, the color and MODEL of their cars and even what KIND OF DOG THEY HAVE.)

If you research this you will learn how very much our genetics decide the entire course of events in our life, more so than we can imagine as far as I can see. I believe it would take a person with an absurd level of personal and mental strength to even begin to fight the presets of how they will interact with the world. Although in my research and understanding in families there is room for a great plethora of genes related to personality, intelligence and character there is an even greater variance between different families so... following logic we could determine that the gap between whole groups of families (ergo races) is simply exponential. Call it "room for growth" without it we would be overly symmetrical, inbreeding our species into extinction.






And Welsh, I will try. I believe that the real issue here though is control. We as humans like to think that we as individuals do not fit inside of statistical and genetic boxes. It's what drives us, it's pleasant to turn on your TV in the morning I suppose and hear the anchor rattle on about how you can interact with your children to make them smarter, better people.

I know that this is a little off track but peruse at your leisure (I've read everything and every link on this article, quite indepth.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence





Oh and that decade by decade data you supplied welsh? I believe that has a lot to do with a larger portions of the population living in urban sprawls... then again it's also when blacks started moving into the cities out from the south where they care not how many blacks get killed by other blacks and hardly report it. It's something to think about for sure and (surprisingly) makes A LOT of sense to me.

 

[Tannhauser]

Identical twins', separated at birth, life stories, raised in COMPLETELY different environs, ALWAYS turn out to have VERY similar life courses (recidivism, what kind of crime activity if any they were involved with, whether they went to college, what kind of job they have, drug use, mental disorders, their favorite color, what their spouses look like, the color of their house, the color and MODEL of their cars and even what KIND OF DOG THEY HAVE.)

Some people research the topic before posting, finding specific facts and figures they can cite to bolster their argument. Apparently you feel you can dispense with all this for inaccurate generalizations.

 

[Quantos Leap]

can someone shoot the dumbass on page 1 for posting that pic that makes it impossible to read it from having to scroll side to side?

Increase your screen resolution, dumbass.

Inane, if your assertions from those statistics are true, using the same statistics, one could say asians are genetically the least violent and most intelligent ethnicity. East Asians, on average, do better academically, commit less crime, and are richer than whites. The most extensive research done on this topic concludes this can all be attributed to culture and environment.

 

[inane]

can someone shoot the dumbass on page 1 for posting that pic that makes it impossible to read it from having to scroll side to side?

Increase your screen resolution, dumbass.

Inane, if your assertions from those statistics are true, using the same statistics, one could say asians are genetically the least violent and most intelligent ethnicity. East Asians, on average, do better academically, commit less crime, and are richer than whites. The most extensive research done on this topic concludes this can all be attributed to culture and environment.

Exactly, I believe that too,(forgot the though, oops) they are genetically less disposed to commit murder. I don't know about the crime levels in general though, it is said to be lower though I'm prone to believe they are simply smart enough to make it LOOK legal. They are much more homogenous, they have a higher IQ average yet they are less likely to produce EXTREME intellects (ie Stephen Hawkins, Einstein) on the same token they are less likely to produce mentally handicap. Also where as black and white mix children score BETWEEN the white and black averages, white and asian mixed score ABOVE both averages mean value by almost 27 points on average. As for asian and black mixes, last I'd read there was not enough data to support any real numbers.

Now as to asians or whites being superior... fuck that. Being more capable one way by race creed or family is what being human is all about. The ones who can't reason as fast, can't run as fast, lacking in physical aptitude, visual acuity, agility or being more prone to violence simply set measure to the opposite. The yin and the yang.

There are and have been natural environments where being more aggressive is an asset. Likewise there are environments where being able to cooperate with your fellow neighbor calmly is more beneficial... survival. The African continent's races have had 2,000 percent more time to adapt to it's environment as Europeans or Asians... it is possible that during the course of human evolution in these latter continents bands of people better able to cooperate without what our modern day society has tagged as unneccessary violence were better able to survive and pass on their genes in the new alien and harsh continents. On a continent already well populated and adapted to, a more aggressive, competitive "kill-your-neighbor-take-his-territory" attitude would naturally lead to more progeny.

ofcourse the past 20,000 years of European and Asian evolution has probably led to more of a violent tendency given that it's been more populated and better adapted to.... interesting that we may have been less prone to murder 20,000 years ago.

 

[Murdoch]

The most extensive research done on this topic concludes this can all be attributed to culture and environment.

Exactly, I believe that too, they are genetically less disposed to commit murder.

STOP. RIGHT. THERE. Did you even read what he said?!

 

[Maphusio]

*sobs* it hurts... It's really best not to think about it.

 

[inane]

The most extensive research done on this topic concludes this can all be attributed to culture and environment.

Exactly, I believe that too, they are genetically less disposed to commit murder.

STOP. RIGHT. THERE. Did you even read what he said?!

East Asians, on average, do better academically, commit less crime, and are richer than whites.

Read my WHOLE reply. I was agreeing to THIS... it's obvious to anyone who can read into context.

Besides, the environment in China is hardly a place where you'd expect an average IQ of between 106-110. Culture? Environment?! In fact they live on a far poorer nutrient rich diet than do African Americans with less opportunity for further education, that's a fact. Oh yes I can see how a people oppressed and cheated, stolen of their rights to procreate freely or learn while the beauracrasy lives like fat cows would be less likely to want to kill someone, yeah... RIGHT!

 

[Elissar]

Hmmm... wait... if the dark meat is genetically predisposed to violence... and most of TO swears i'm black...

Sweet... i can go out and be violent and use the race card to get out of it!!!

Nice.

 

[inane]

Hmmm... wait... if the dark meat is genetically predisposed to violence... and most of TO swears i'm black...

Sweet... i can go out and be violent and use the race card to get out of it!!!

Nice.

Sounds like a plan

 

[Elissar]

Your grasp of sarcasm, like your grasp of science and anything resembleing common sense, is astounding.

 

[Quantos Leap]

Also where as black and white mix children score BETWEEN the white and black averages, white and asian mixed score ABOVE both averages mean value by almost 27 points on average. As for asian and black mixes, last I'd read there was not enough data to support any real numbers.

Not to be insulting to anyone that fits this description, but have you noticed the typical black/white hybrid has usually the lowest common denominator worth of parents. Usually a morbidly obese, white-trash, welfare titan of a mother, and a ghetto-grown, crack head father. I'm talking absolute bottom of the gene spectrum here. Not to mention the environment that kid will probably grow up in with parents like the above. Could that possibly account for a lower IQ on average?

27 points higher for asian/whites? That doesn't sound right.

Besides, the environment in China is hardly a place where you'd expect an average IQ of between 106-110. Culture? Environment?! In fact they live on a far poorer nutrient rich diet than do African Americans with less opportunity for further education, that's a fact. Oh yes I can see how a people oppressed and cheated, stolen of their rights to procreate freely or learn while the beauracrasy lives like fat cows would be less likely to want to kill someone, yeah... RIGHT!

The mean IQ for china is actually 100.

Source: http://www.volkmar-weiss.de/table.html

That's a little too simple. There are still several other reasons why why that could be. For example, chinese culture, even in communist china, puts an outstanding amount of value on intellect and academics. But here in the states, black culture looks down on that kind of stuff. Basically, it's cool not to be intelligent and not to learn.

Alas, there are good arguments both ways. I certainly hope there isn't racial genetic inferiority among us. That would certainly make further evolving as the human race harder considering all of the interbreeding happening these days.

 

[mortiz]

Even if genes do determine behavior I see no concrete proof that Black people are more genetically pre-disposed to violence.

As for the twins thing, identical twins developing in similar ways is the exception, not the rule. For instance my father has an identical twin, they both grew up together so they have the same backgrounds, yet they have completely different personalities and lead completely different lives. Perhaps it could even be put down to coincidence? I also know of other identical twins that are similarly quite different in nature.

In fact there are a huge number of different variables that determine behavior that it's near impossible to map them all and foolish to try and simplify them down into a single variable.

 

[welsh]

The problem is trying to reduce this all to one variable. That kind of determinism is very difficult to do. John Stuart Mill was very critical of this kind of determinism in the social sciences in part because of the complexity of society but also the way variable interact.

But the problem is also one of conceptualization- the more you fudge the variables with other social or nurture type arguments, the greater you move away from your argument that it's all about genetics adn the more you define race along stereotypes.

This argument about Asians being more predisposed towards intelligence and non-violence is a very Western stereotypical view of Asia. That the Asian students that you see often do well and strive to succeed may have more to do with class and social experience. Many are driven by parents who push them to take advantage of education and career opportunities to climb the social ladder in Western society, in part because that is often the social class that the parents come from. Likewise, many immigrants families go through the same process of pushing their kids to work hard in school to acheive. Which is it that matters?

However, a closer look at Asia shows some pretty violent stuff. Violence? Genocide in Cambodia, massacres in India, purges in China, a cultural revolution, war time slaughters in Vietnam and Korea of civilians, ethnic cleansing in Indonesia, etc. Crime? The major cities of Asia have had the same problems with crime that we have in the US and the in Europe. Intelligence? Please. There are plenty enough Asians without education or with limited education.

And before we go off on the Africa has had a history of "take your territory and kill everyone" history- best to do a bit more homework on African societies prior to colonialization. Africa historically has suffered the problem of low population densities to high geography, unlike European society where you have little geography and lots of competing political units, which created the frequency of war in Europe, and thus the engine for national state. As Charles Tilly is oft quoted- "war made states and states made war." It was this ability to utilize violence by national state and the agents of national states and commerce that allowed Europe to conquer most of the world.

So back to the issue- the problem of concepts.

If you mean black, or Asian or white- are you also including society and culture into that concept. Blacks are not just racially black, but they can also be defined by their living and social conditions?

Perhaps such a conceptualization might make things easier, but it might also make things confusing- especially if you are trying to understand causes.

Is it poverty or is it education or is it urbanization, or....(choose the next relevant variables).

You need to disaggregate your variables and you need to test them for both their internal validty (are racial groups still violent when you remove those social-economic factors) and then test the external validty- (what explains violence when that ethnic group is not present?)

Then return with your data- what matters more- is it race, religion, culture, economics?

 

[Brother None]

My point of bringing up the whole twins issue was this (if you read indepthly you'll find it): Identical twins', separated at birth, life stories, raised in COMPLETELY different environs, ALWAYS turn out to have VERY similar life courses (recidivism, what kind of crime activity if any they were involved with, whether they went to college, what kind of job they have, drug use, mental disorders, their favorite color, what their spouses look like, the color of their house, the color and MODEL of their cars and even what KIND OF DOG THEY HAVE.)

Actually, your article itself states a case where this did not happen.

Buzzer. You loose.

Also, you failed to answer my question as to what's the use of all this?

 

[Loxley]

One can finally put people in their place? Genes decide all? White rullling race, asian worker race and a final sollution to the criminal problem?