Driving Through Detroit's Worst Hood - Any Leftists Want To Defend This Sad Truth?

[ruby sparks]

All joking aside, and in the interests of rational discussion, it is my understanding that at least some of the racial differences in intelligence may indeed be due to genetics.

Your understanding is incorrect. First of all, there is only one race that we all belong to, so it fails from the outset. In regard to any differences on a genetic level, they could only ever be familial and not from another species. So far as I know, humans cannot successfully mate with any other race of creatures on this planet.

I’m already aware of some of the biological limitations of the word race, and use it in discussions here as a convenient approximate descriptor only, possibly even colloquially.

You could call my use of it incorrect, yes. Other group terms might be better. I’m not sure any are non-fuzzy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only comment I would have about the OP. For some reason, this reminds me of my daily commute. And there exists cultures where it seems to be perfectly ok to walk down the middle of the street at 2 am. I work at a steel mill located in a very poor neighborhood but live in a very upscale neighborhood. And during my daily commutes, it is actually easier to miss stray deer in the street (in my neighborhood) than it is to miss jay walkers crossing the streets (by the steel mill). They are usually black people dressed in black, seeming not care one bit whether they might get hit by a car. I've had some close calls scaring the crap out of me. And close calls with hitting deer too but at least the deer seem to care about not wanting to be run down. The jay walkers seem to act like it is their road and the cars are not supposed to be there.

I had a close call with one of those types--45 mph 6 + center turn lane street, a decent amount of traffic, yet he crossed anyway. If I hadn't gotten a split-second flash of him in the headlights of another vehicle (my own headlights only showed him at about 1 second despite my knowing he was there) he would have been dead.

(And for those who think this is racist--he would have been much easier to spot if he wasn't black.)

Eh, maybe. But the very white but oh, so clad in head to toe black students in my neighborhood are awfullly hard to see at night. That’s discounting those with beards. Very little skin exposed in my area in winter. At night it really doesn’t matter what color someone is.

True, if it's cold enough race is irrelevant. The guy I nearly killed had a fair amount of skin exposed, I would have seen him much farther out if he had been white, or even typical American "black". He was African black, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or here's a different question. How come studies show no (or no significant) difference in intelligence between black human infants and white ones, when a small set of controls (for age, socio-economic status, home environment and prenatal environment) are in place?

Because the problems that are typically portrayed as racial factors are really cultural factors. Asians aren't more intelligent, it's just a lot of Asian cultures put a high value on education. Blacks aren't less intelligent, it's that inner city life puts a very low value on education. IQ tests can only test manifested intelligence, not potential intelligence. (And note that Africa has a big problem with malaria. Enough battles with malaria will leave a permanent mark on one's intelligence. Drugs are probably also a factor in inner-city intelligence.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or here's a different question. How come studies show no (or no significant) difference in intelligence between black human infants and white ones, when a small set of controls (for age, socio-economic status, home environment and prenatal environment) are in place?

You realize the right laughs at the phrase "socioeconomic factors," right? Sociology isn't a real science. Only leftists believe it.

While there is a lot of bad research from the social sciences they are real. The reason we so commonly refer to socioeconomic factors is that when you investigate disparities between white and black you almost always find that money and social position are the true factors, race is simply a proxy for them.

 

[Half-Life]

Or here's a different question. How come studies show no (or no significant) difference in intelligence between black human infants and white ones, when a small set of controls (for age, socio-economic status, home environment and prenatal environment) are in place?

You realize the right laughs at the phrase "socioeconomic factors," right? Sociology isn't a real science. Only leftists believe it.

While there is a lot of bad research from the social sciences they are real. The reason we so commonly refer to socioeconomic factors is that when you investigate disparities between white and black you almost always find that money and social position are the true factors, race is simply a proxy for them.

Men commit way more violent crime than women. It's not even close. This indicates there is some genetic component in men that makes them more prone to violence. This logic can also extend to races of people.

 

[Gun Nut]

While there is a lot of bad research from the social sciences they are real. The reason we so commonly refer to socioeconomic factors is that when you investigate disparities between white and black you almost always find that money and social position are the true factors, race is simply a proxy for them.

Men commit way more violent crime than women. It's not even close. This indicates there is some genetic component in men that makes them more prone to violence. This logic can also extend to races of people.

Yes, there is a genetic component to propensity towards violence. there is also an environmental component to it. Hormones are the largest factor, and are also predictably different in different genders. Makes sense.
When talking genetics in "people", we are referring to the set of genes that define "homo sapien" (Human). What is this "race" thing you speak of, with respect to genetics? The Male race versus the Female race? Both are still homo sapien, genetically.

 

[Trausti]

While there is a lot of bad research from the social sciences they are real. The reason we so commonly refer to socioeconomic factors is that when you investigate disparities between white and black you almost always find that money and social position are the true factors, race is simply a proxy for them.

Men commit way more violent crime than women. It's not even close. This indicates there is some genetic component in men that makes them more prone to violence. This logic can also extend to races of people.

Yes, there is a genetic component to propensity towards violence. there is also an environmental component to it. Hormones are the largest factor, and are also predictably different in different genders. Makes sense.
When talking genetics in "people", we are referring to the set of genes that define "homo sapien" (Human). What is this "race" thing you speak of, with respect to genetics? The Male race versus the Female race? Both are still homo sapien, genetically.

Better not look up MAOA.

 

[Gun Nut]

Yes, there is a genetic component to propensity towards violence. there is also an environmental component to it. Hormones are the largest factor, and are also predictably different in different genders. Makes sense.
When talking genetics in "people", we are referring to the set of genes that define "homo sapien" (Human). What is this "race" thing you speak of, with respect to genetics? The Male race versus the Female race? Both are still homo sapien, genetically.

Better not look up MAOA.

Why not? it's a great example of the "genetic component" I mentioned, and you quoted, above. If you knew anything more about this than "MAOA has been called the warrior gene" then you would understand the variable in the "hot sauce" experiment called "Provocation". That's, in this case, the environmental part.

So, thank you for your support, I guess.

 

[Half-Life]

While there is a lot of bad research from the social sciences they are real. The reason we so commonly refer to socioeconomic factors is that when you investigate disparities between white and black you almost always find that money and social position are the true factors, race is simply a proxy for them.

Men commit way more violent crime than women. It's not even close. This indicates there is some genetic component in men that makes them more prone to violence. This logic can also extend to races of people.

Yes, there is a genetic component to propensity towards violence. there is also an environmental component to it. Hormones are the largest factor, and are also predictably different in different genders. Makes sense.
When talking genetics in "people", we are referring to the set of genes that define "homo sapien" (Human). What is this "race" thing you speak of, with respect to genetics? The Male race versus the Female race? Both are still homo sapien, genetically.

So you are saying men grow up in environments where violence is common and women don't?

 

[Gun Nut]

Yes, there is a genetic component to propensity towards violence. there is also an environmental component to it. Hormones are the largest factor, and are also predictably different in different genders. Makes sense.
When talking genetics in "people", we are referring to the set of genes that define "homo sapien" (Human). What is this "race" thing you speak of, with respect to genetics? The Male race versus the Female race? Both are still homo sapien, genetically.

So you are saying men grow up in environments where violence is common and women don't?

Me? No, the body of research says that male hormones and genetic propensity leans toward violence when provoked more easily than female hormones and genetic propensity do. And on top of that, the social environment where men are expected to be 'protectors' and compete with each other in physical challenges, versus women being expected to be on the more meek side, contribute to the same.

Sorry life is complicated... if your answer to something is easy, then you might be, at best, half-right, half-life.

 

[Half-Life]

Yes, there is a genetic component to propensity towards violence. there is also an environmental component to it. Hormones are the largest factor, and are also predictably different in different genders. Makes sense.
When talking genetics in "people", we are referring to the set of genes that define "homo sapien" (Human). What is this "race" thing you speak of, with respect to genetics? The Male race versus the Female race? Both are still homo sapien, genetically.

So you are saying men grow up in environments where violence is common and women don't?

Me? No, the body of research says that male hormones and genetic propensity leans toward violence when provoked more easily than female hormones and genetic propensity do. And on top of that, the social environment where men are expected to be 'protectors' and compete with each other in physical challenges, versus women being expected to be on the more meek side, contribute to the same.

Sorry life is complicated... if your answer to something is easy, then you might be, at best, half-right, half-life.

And you don't think these hormonal differences could be different in other races?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While there is a lot of bad research from the social sciences they are real. The reason we so commonly refer to socioeconomic factors is that when you investigate disparities between white and black you almost always find that money and social position are the true factors, race is simply a proxy for them.

Men commit way more violent crime than women. It's not even close. This indicates there is some genetic component in men that makes them more prone to violence. This logic can also extend to races of people.

The factor is called testosterone.

And my point is that once you control for socioeconomic factors race ceases to be a factor in how people turn out. It's not genetics.

 

[Trausti]

Yes, there is a genetic component to propensity towards violence. there is also an environmental component to it. Hormones are the largest factor, and are also predictably different in different genders. Makes sense.
When talking genetics in "people", we are referring to the set of genes that define "homo sapien" (Human). What is this "race" thing you speak of, with respect to genetics? The Male race versus the Female race? Both are still homo sapien, genetically.

Better not look up MAOA.

Why not? it's a great example of the "genetic component" I mentioned, and you quoted, above. If you knew anything more about this than "MAOA has been called the warrior gene" then you would understand the variable in the "hot sauce" experiment called "Provocation". That's, in this case, the environmental part.

So, thank you for your support, I guess.

You're welcome.

The 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene confers an increased risk for shooting and stabbing behaviors

There has been a great deal of research examining the link between a polymorphism in the promoter region of the MAOA gene and antisocial phenotypes. The results of these studies have consistently revealed that low activity MAOA alleles are related to antisocial behaviors for males who were maltreated as children. Recently, though, some evidence has emerged indicating that a rare allele of the MAOA gene-that is, the 2-repeat allele-may have effects on violence that are independent of the environment. The current study builds on this research and examines the association between the 2-repeat allele and shooting and stabbing behaviors in a sample of males drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Analyses revealed that African-American males who carry the 2-repeat allele are significantly more likely than all other genotypes to engage in shooting and stabbing behaviors and to report having multiple shooting and stabbing victims.

 

[Patooka]

Me? No, the body of research says that male hormones and genetic propensity leans toward violence when provoked more easily than female hormones and genetic propensity do. And on top of that, the social environment where men are expected to be 'protectors' and compete with each other in physical challenges, versus women being expected to be on the more meek side, contribute to the same.

Sorry life is complicated... if your answer to something is easy, then you might be, at best, half-right, half-life.

And you don't think these hormonal differences could be different in other races?

I don't think you have any proof. Otherwise you would have shown it. Allegedly, some people might come to the conclusion that you are a lying cunt.

Allegedly, of course. I'm here to help you dissuade of that however.. That is of course just an opinion

 

[Gun Nut]

Me? No, the body of research says that male hormones and genetic propensity leans toward violence when provoked more easily than female hormones and genetic propensity do. And on top of that, the social environment where men are expected to be 'protectors' and compete with each other in physical challenges, versus women being expected to be on the more meek side, contribute to the same.

Sorry life is complicated... if your answer to something is easy, then you might be, at best, half-right, half-life.

And you don't think these hormonal differences could be different in other races?

No. They are influenced by culture. Since our brains operate just a hair above tribal cave people, "race" (physical appearance differences) cause people to group up and create their own local cultures. Differences one may incorrectly attribute to race are a coincidence with the actual difference in culture these races have.. and it's the cultural difference that is a factor, not the racial differences.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why not? it's a great example of the "genetic component" I mentioned, and you quoted, above. If you knew anything more about this than "MAOA has been called the warrior gene" then you would understand the variable in the "hot sauce" experiment called "Provocation". That's, in this case, the environmental part.

So, thank you for your support, I guess.

You're welcome.

The 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene confers an increased risk for shooting and stabbing behaviors

There has been a great deal of research examining the link between a polymorphism in the promoter region of the MAOA gene and antisocial phenotypes. The results of these studies have consistently revealed that low activity MAOA alleles are related to antisocial behaviors for males who were maltreated as children. Recently, though, some evidence has emerged indicating that a rare allele of the MAOA gene-that is, the 2-repeat allele-may have effects on violence that are independent of the environment. The current study builds on this research and examines the association between the 2-repeat allele and shooting and stabbing behaviors in a sample of males drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Analyses revealed that African-American males who carry the 2-repeat allele are significantly more likely than all other genotypes to engage in shooting and stabbing behaviors and to report having multiple shooting and stabbing victims.

What I get from that is that mistreatment as children is a good indicator of violence in adulthood. Did I miss something?

I know just enough about statistics to know what "significant" means. Is the significance quantified in the link? No. Maybe you should do more research.