---

For the same reason some jump to race and genetic factor so easily and want to claim that all blacks are genetically bound to be violent and stupid and try to use stats to prove that they are fundamentally genetically inforior and that social factors play NO role.

But what can we expect from racialists anyway.

---

Yet you jump to socioeconomic factors all the time.  What makes it so much more justifiable?

---

I'm cracking up at how the trolls and morons only list the black and white statistics as if those are the only two races in the usa.

---

---

Yet you jump to socioeconomic factors all the time.  What makes it so much more justifiable?

---

Can you show what the murder/violent gene looks like AND that blacks have more of it than whites?

If you can then I'm ready to concede that genetics would play a factor in this issue.

Here is some interesting info

http://www.geneticsandhealth.com/2006/03/21/maoa-gene-linked-to-violent-behavior/

But wait

http://tinyurl.com/828wzc

Fuck! Only whites are affected but not nonwhites! So much for that violent gene... Gotta find one that really only fits blacks so we can feel better about it all.

2. No I don't do it "all the time". Stop trying to generalize Bud. It makes you look silly.

But in this forum everyone loves to pull up stats about blacks doing this and that. At least I gave some possible explanation. You got a better one? Be my guest and put it out there.

3. What you FAILED to notice in my post is that I was trying to explain not just why blacks were more likely to be crimanls but also VICTIMS.

So if you have some genetic or racial explanataion for why 95% of BLACKS ARE VICTIMIZED by other BLACKS then Im ready to hear your theiory too.

Maybe there's also some gene that explains why black have that makes them more likely to be enslaved than other races?

Go ahead try and explain those.


-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

We have yet to successfully track every gene among humans and assign them all to specific populations.

Therefore - it's impossible to say exactly which genes cause violence and which don't - but we can discover them every few months - but we can't hope to have them all down pact.

What we DO know is that there are many genes that are more common among one population than another.

And maybe one of them is more common among Negroes than Whites.

Maybe a gene that makes it so you are less likely to be violent is among the out-of-Africa group but not others.

Or MAYBE it's due to abstract thought and conceptual thinking - something that has to do with the frontal lobes of the brain.

And studies have shown Negroes to have less complex frontal lobes.

But - why is that? Is it genetics or social factors? Is it a mix?

What we DO know:
1. Blacks are more likely to commit violent crime for UNKNOWN reasons.
2. Blacks have less complex frontal lobes for UNKNOWN reasons.
3. Brain development has been linked to genetics.
4. The frontal lobe is responsible for reasoning and conceptual thinking.
5. Genetics and crime is often linked by numerous studies.
6. IQ and crime is linked.
7. Race and IQ has been linked for UNKNOWN reasons.

We just have to find those reasons and clean around the edges a bit.

All in due time.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Show me where genetics plays a factor in blacks ppl committing half the murders.

---

I honestly doubt it does.

Just because I say that socioeconomic factors alone doesn't explain the whole thing doesn't automatically mean that I think genetics are a factor.  It's not so black and white.

---

Quote: from jakelong at 2:45 pm on Jan. 3, 2009

---

Show me where genetics plays a factor in blacks ppl committing half the murders.

---

 
I honestly doubt it does.

Just because I say that socioeconomic factors alone doesn't explain the whole thing doesn't automatically mean that I think genetics are a factor. It's not so black and white.

---

I'd say that given these problems are so complex and given that genetics works in much broader, base level ways, even if there was some technical correlation, it's completely irrelevant. Like, I'm sure that more extroverted people, who technically have more of a bunch of chemicals are more likely to commit crimes than introverted people, but that doesn't make it worth approaching just because there's some technical correlation. But people try to avoid being ridiculous and try to make something meaningful out of something meaningless. This is one of the most major flaws of the whole 'behavioral genetics' field in general. So while I don't know if certain 'races' tend to be predisposed slightly to different personalities, I really don't care.

I mean I'm not saying you deny this, I'm just putting it in perspective for everyone else. Correlations can always be drawn but it doesn't really matter unless they have a meaningful cause and effect relationship. Being generally more extroverted isn't a bad thing because it has it's drawbacks and advantages like any other personality style.

Post edited at 7:40 pm on Jan. 3, 2009 by iconoclast

-------
join this group only if youre a mod

---

Alright.  

We have yet to successfully track every gene among humans and assign them all to specific populations.  

Therefore - it's impossible to say exactly which genes cause violence and which don't - but we can discover them every few months - but we can't hope to have them all down pact.  

What we DO know is that there are many genes that are more common among one population than another.  

And maybe one of them is more common among Negroes than Whites.  

Maybe a gene that makes it so you are less likely to be violent is among the out-of-Africa group but not others.  

Or MAYBE it's due to abstract thought and conceptual thinking - something that has to do with the frontal lobes of the brain.  

And studies have shown Negroes to have less complex frontal lobes.  

But - why is that? Is it genetics or social factors? Is it a mix?  

What we DO know:  
1. Blacks are more likely to commit violent crime for UNKNOWN reasons.  
2. Blacks have less complex frontal lobes for UNKNOWN reasons.  
3. Brain development has been linked to genetics.  
4. The frontal lobe is responsible for reasoning and conceptual thinking.  
5. Genetics and crime is often linked by numerous studies.  
6. IQ and crime is linked.  
7. Race and IQ has been linked for UNKNOWN reasons.  

We just have to find those reasons and clean around the edges a bit.  

All in due time.

---

Probably useless saying this though.

Post edited at 7:43 pm on Jan. 3, 2009 by iconoclast

-------
join this group only if youre a mod

---

Just wondering, when you say 'socioeconomic factors', do you mean ANYTHING considered environmental by some remote association, or are you using the term more specifically?

---

I'm using the term specifically - I'm referring mostly towards using primarily Marxist theory to explain this.

---

I'd say that given these problems are so complex and given that genetics works in much broader, base level ways, even if there was some technical correlation, it's completely irrelevant.

---

That's basically how I see it, too.

---

I mean I'm not saying you deny this, I'm just putting it in perspective for everyone else. Correlations can always be drawn but it doesn't really matter unless they have a meaningful cause and effect relationship. Being generally more extroverted isn't a bad thing because it has it's drawbacks and advantages like any other personality style.

---

I'm skeptical of personality types even being necessarily determined by genetics.  They may be rooted from there, but not ultimately determined.  There are extroverts of every race, yet if black extroverts commit more crimes than extroverts of all other races, could you really say that this personality trait being more common among blacks a cause of it and that something else isn't at play here?

Personally, I'm skeptical of any nomathetic (or emphasizing only one single variable) explanations for any kind of social issue.  I tend to be the opposite - thinking that there are multiple variables at play here.  I don't think very many things are simple when it comes to social issues.

---

I'm skeptical of personality types even being necessarily determined by genetics. They may be rooted from there, but not ultimately determined. There are extroverts of every race, yet if black extroverts commit more crimes than extroverts of all other races, could you really say that this personality trait being more common among blacks a cause of it and that something else isn't at play here?

Personally, I'm skeptical of any nomathetic (or emphasizing only one single variable) explanations for any kind of social issue. I tend to be the opposite - thinking that there are multiple variables at play here. I don't think very many things are simple when it comes to social issues.

---

And yeah, I'm doubtful that there's something causing blacks to be more extroverted on average too, I'm just kind of hypothesizing the way it'd most likely be possible, if it was actually true some how.

Post edited at 10:48 pm on Jan. 3, 2009 by iconoclast

-------
join this group only if youre a mod

---

I honestly doubt it does.

Just because I say that socioeconomic factors alone doesn't explain the whole thing doesn't automatically mean that I think genetics are a factor. It's not so black and white.

---

The reason I tend to go more on the socio-econimic tangent is just because thats what I am more aware of. I mean I read and expereince more about that personally and I understand more that explanation.

I don't say it's the only one or even the best one but its the one I am aware the most of all for some reason.

Also I don't think my explanation is particularly "marxist" (or if it is I don't really take is as that). Its just my personal take on it. You got blacks living togther and they got trouble (maybe not just because they poor but there's friction going on and theres gangs and wham there's going to be blacks tending to kill other blacks BECAUSE they LIVE together and know each other.

Maybe the reason I speak more of the poverty thing is because thats what I see more of around me.

Come to think of it the same reasoning can be applied to white killing other whites except maybe they tend to live in areas (or situations) with less frictions, tensions, gangs etc...so maybe there's fewer killings proportion wise.

Just one question: do you have some alternative explanation that we haven't heard about yet here? Im just curious thats all.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Also I don't think my explanation is particularly "marxist" (or if it is I don't really take is as that).

---

Like all labels, they can be used to seemingly distort what they actually mean.

Marxist theory refers to basically anything where you use class structures as the primary explanation for any kind of social problem (so saying that black people tend to be poor, and that poor people tend to murder more, thus black people have higher murder rates is an example of applying Marxist theory to this).

Karl Marx did this extensively in what he wrote, and Marxists are fixated on it so much that they wind up seeing class issues where none really exists, or at least in the way they portray it.  More moderate people use these explanations quite a bit as well, left wingers more so than right wingers.  They obviously have some validity, but they aren't the blueprint for all social problems and that's my point.

---

Maybe the reason I speak more of the poverty thing is because thats what I see more of around me.

---

Not saying it isn't necessarily a factor.  It very well could be, however, I'd hypothesize that it's more like what I discovered in my race tipping study - that while lower classes tend to have higher murder rates than upper classes, blacks of any class tend to have a higher murder rate than races of the same class (though they still show the same drop in murder rates the higher the class you go despite that).  And if you were able to conduct a study and find this, given that it was properly conducted and credible, you'd be hard pressed to say that socioeconomic class is even a variable to be considered here.

Again, if socioeconomic class is a variable after all, at the very least I honestly doubt it's the only one.  Just saying, keep your mind open to the other possibilities out there.

---

Just one question: do you have some alternative explanation that we haven't heard about yet here? Im just curious thats all.

---

I don't have any answers nor does anyone else in this thread.  I'd suspect that culture has a great deal to do with it, but how much is beyond me.  I can only speculate, and doing that is going off on a limb and would result in me most likely talking out of my ass.

An interesting thought, it is possible that socioeconomic class could still be a variable even if my hypothesis was supported - after all, if we suppose that a good portion of blacks are poor, or if their culture is centered around being poor, that this would spread out to the blacks in the upper classes, and if there's something about this culture that causes a higher murder rate for whatever reason (and would most likely be indirectly), then you could say socioeconomic class is a variable.

Every single little variable you can think of in social issues are so intertwined that it is almost impossible to come up with anything truly conclusive when trying to answer the question of why.  It's all so much sometimes that you often wonder if why is even all that necessary to answer.

What I mean is for example among filipinos (just to pick some group) sometimes the BIGGEST hate/tension/rivalry is  

NOT between a filipino group and a black group or even a filipino group and a vietnamese group (excpet maybe gangs that always use ANY excuse to have tensions and frictions anyway)

BUT between 2 rival filipino groups.  

I think part of it is that WITHIN the group ppl know each other's strength and weakness and what hurts more. Also they have sometimes to compete for the same things, have the same problems that bother them, step on each other's feet more.  

Its like sometimes brothers will have more bad feelings among them than with ppl outside the family.  

When the group is small or very segregated from the majority group the inside tensions are somtimes higher because ppl can get on each other nerves more.  

Inside a majority group there's also some tension but things can be more diluted. For example if you are part of the majority and you can't stand your neighbor you can move to the other side of town or surround yourself with more ppl that you get along with so you don't go beserk that quick.  

Inside a minorty group thats segregated and lives in a ghetto like situation you are often stuck with those you can't stand and have no clue or no means or no chance to "get away" and let things cool down. So you get at each other's throat.

Thats an explanation that has a bit of social origin or basis but not necessarily economic.

In case you ask again why I put that explanation its again based on what I see around me. Again I don't say its the only possible one.  

Post edited at 11:15 pm on Jan. 3, 2009 by jakelong

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Marxist theory refers to basically anything where you use class structures as the primary explanation for any kind of social problem

---

I mean just because my explanations are more on the social flavor that doesn't mean its because I believe in marzism or I am a Marzist I hope. I just came up with those explantion on my own really. Its not like I read some marxist book to do that.

(unless Im a marxist without knowing it...)

Anyway I was just saying not really arguing.

---

It very well could be, however, I'd hypothesize that it's more like what I discovered in my race tipping study

---

I mean not tipping could be cultural lack of awareness or info on the issue etc.. but murder is really basic. No culture really says that murder is ok.

Maybe if they were in some remote isolated  tribes  with some long tradition of tribal warfare I can understand if you pull the ritual tribal warfare line in which tribes battle each other just to prove their manhood, their claim to a turf, etc...

But most blacks have been totally isolated from those rituals for centuries (and even in Africa there are really very very few tribes that do go that way today) and I don't see much in their culture that really speaks of that.

If you really want to push that though you could say that explain gangs (except that mafiosos do the exact same and italians don't have that as their culture either.)

But it doesn't explain murder itself.

So what you use to explain not tipping (like culrual isolation, misunderstanding etc..) can't really always be used to explain murder. excet if most murder are really gang-related. (they mght be but I don't have info that says any thing like that)

---

Again, if socioeconomic class is a variable after all, at the very least I honestly doubt it's the only one. Just saying, keep your mind open to the other possibilities out there.

---

---

I don't have any answers nor does anyone else in this thread.

---

---

An interesting thought, it is possible that socioeconomic class could still be a variable even if my hypothesis was supported - after all, if we suppose that a good portion of blacks are poor, or if their culture is centered around being poor, that this would spread out to the blacks in the upper classes, and if there's something about this culture that causes a higher murder rate for whatever reason (and would most likely be indirectly), then you could say socioeconomic class is a variable.

---

Well the problem is that would we call that culture more "black culture" or more "gang culture" in which poor blacks (and poor latinos) happen to get entrapped in more?

The thing is that when there a big stat link between

- being blacks and living in poverty
- being blacks and living in an inner city
- being blacks and living in areas where violence is pretty much here all the time

then how can you really what comes from what really?

One argument some ppl often have is that poor whites don't tend to have the same murder rate as poor blacks. I think you brought that up once and I tried to think about that. But if you really look at where most poor whites tend to live (isolated rural areas and the Appalachas) and where poor blacks tend to live (inner cities and high ppl concentration areas) then its obvious you can't even really compare fairly or accuaretly

To compare fairly you gotta compare poor white in inner cities and poor blacks in inner cities and if you find a big differnce then think ok then what happened. Personally I saw ppl of ALL race being violent and going beserk where I live. But its true that poor blacks (and latinos) often have a lot of gangs that theywill get tempted to join and whites usually go more into the skinhead mode or go beresk on their own family/employer/friends. And when you go into gangs then you kill more because thats what they do.

If you look at 40 years ago or more though you notice ALOT more poor whites into gangs (italians, jews, poles) and going the very violent way.

So what changed for whites? its what we talked about I guess: more integration and feeling as part of the system and the whole american thing. When you feel you're accepted and you fit into the larger society then you're less likely to destroy the world around you and go into killing and crime and act stupid aainst your own interest.

---

Every single little variable you can think of in social issues are so intertwined that it is almost impossible to come up with anything truly conclusive when trying to answer the question of why. It's all so much sometimes that you often wonder if why is even all that necessary to answer.

---

But yeah I agree in many ways its toatlly pointless. But try to tell that to racialists or ppl who want to explain everything through race/genetics.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP