The predominant factor in black deaths by police is more crimes commited - not racism

[barbos]

If this islam vs. islamism distinction is correct then islam started as islamism

 

[Toni]

Correction: they'd like to force radical Sharia on everyone.

That's what I said.

late night post. sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

If this islam vs. islamism distinction is correct then islam started as islamism

Nope.

 

[George S]

To note that there are genetic differences between races is to state the obvious. (white men can't jump)

African-American soldiers have thicker skulls than white soldiers. I know from experience. As an x-ray technician I learned that to get the same image of the brain in skull x-rays a higher penetration power is required for identical skull size measurement.

If there were to be genetic traits associated with any race's violent propensities statistical analysis should reveal that. Competing studies are available which are too ambiguous to draw a definitive conclusion. Looking at these studies through racist lenses yields an "I knew it" reaction. Either pro-white or pro-black racism. Confirmation bias.


I am my genetic heritage. I can't help it. I can't change it. My grandfathers' genes "for" a certain physical look are in me. My grandmothers' genes "against" a certain characteristic are in me. My ability in physical activities is clearly influenced by my genetics.

One of the aspects of being a human being human is social interaction. Would it be surprising to discover that there are not only physical differences but social differences? Not to me.

Should we pre-judge any individual for the propensities of a group they belong to? NO! This pre-judgment is the meaning of prejudice.

Each individual should be judged as an individual not by their group membership. I want my children to be judged by the content of their character, not because they have British, or Jewish, or Neanderthal heritage (which my children do according to 23andMe).

If it is the case that some behavior is purely genetic (can't be helped) what should we as a society of unequals (except for identical twins) do, if anything?

Ignore it?
Pretend it isn't there?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

To note that there are genetic differences between races is to state the obvious. (white men can't jump)

African-American soldiers have thicker skulls than white soldiers. I know from experience. As an x-ray technician I learned that to get the same image of the brain in skull x-rays a higher penetration power is required for identical skull size measurement.

If there were to be genetic traits associated with any race's violent propensities statistical analysis should reveal that. Competing studies are available which are too ambiguous to draw a definitive conclusion. Looking at these studies through racist lenses yields an "I knew it" reaction. Either pro-white or pro-black racism. Confirmation bias.


I am my genetic heritage. I can't help it. I can't change it. My grandfathers' genes "for" a certain physical look are in me. My grandmothers' genes "against" a certain characteristic are in me. My ability in physical activities is clearly influenced by my genetics.

One of the aspects of being a human being human is social interaction. Would it be surprising to discover that there are not only physical differences but social differences? Not to me.

Should we pre-judge any individual for the propensities of a group they belong to? NO! This pre-judgment is the meaning of prejudice.

Each individual should be judged as an individual not by their group membership. I want my children to be judged by the content of their character, not because they have British, or Jewish, or Neanderthal heritage (which my children do according to 23andMe).

If it is the case that some behavior is purely genetic (can't be helped) what should we as a society of unequals (except for identical twins) do, if anything?

Ignore it?
Pretend it isn't there?

What Difference Does Difference Make?

Reports about such studies commonly fall prey to three confusions: they conflate DNA markers of ancestry with markers of race. They mistake the fact that some gene variants are more common in some populations than others as signs of racial "difference" between those populations. And they assume that disparities in group outcomes can be attributed to inborn, or genetic, differences between races.

The idea of biological race assumes traits come packaged together, even color-coded for our convenience, as anthropologist Jonathan Marks jokes. In otherwords, if biological race were real, we'd find that skin color or other "racial" markers would correlate with a suite of other genetic traits. Knowing an individual's "race" should enable us to predict his or her other genes and traits.

But the DNA sequences studied by Rosenberg and his colleagues are not genes. Known by geneticists as "microsatellite short tandem repeats" (and more colloquially as "junk DNA"), they do not code for proteins, but just sit there taking up space in our DNA. Mutations in DNA sequences that don't code for anything are not affected by natural and sexual selection. They are neither selected for nor against but are simply passed down, generation to generation. Comparing these accumulated mutation patterns can provide clues to ancient population movements. But they have no effect on physical traits such as skin color or hair form or blood type.

In other words, the study accomplished the same thing our eyes do everyday. You can look at someone and stand a pretty good chance of identifying the continent where that person's recent ancestors lived, especially if you're gazing at someone whose family has resided in the same place for several generations - as did all the subjects of the study.

But what's that got to do with "race"? We all have ancestors from elsewhere - and if we go back far enough, about 70,000 or so years ago, all our ancestors can be traced back to Africa. But if our idea of race assumes that different groups each share among themselves a different suite of inborn traits, then we have to ask, "What difference makes a difference?" Certainly not micro-satellite short tandem repeats.

Still, there's no question that some gene forms show up more often in some populations than others: alleles that code for blue eyes, or the A, B, O blood groups, and of course, those alleles that influence skin color . (We all have the same 30,000 or so genes. But some genes come in different forms, or varieties, called alleles.) But just because some members of a population might carry a specific gene form, doesn't mean all members do. Only a small percentage of Ashkenazi Jews carry the Tay-Sachs allele. When a couple I know were screened upon their pregnancy, the non-Jewish partner was found to be the Tay-Sachs carrier, not the Jewish one.

That's because most human variation falls within, not between populations. About 85% of all genetic variation can, on average, be found within any local population, be they Swedes, Kikuyu, or Hmong. About 94% can be found within any continental population, consistent with what the Rosenberg Science study found. In fact, there are no characteristics, no traits, not even one gene that turns up in all members of one so-called race yet is absent from others.

 

[Davka]

Laying aside the obvious nit that "better" is a value judgement, I agree with the thrust of your argument. I find some cultures appealing and worthy of emulation. I find other cultures disgusting and abhorrent, worthy of consignment to the dustbin of history, where they can stand forever as examples of how not to live.

What a mighty, God-like ability you have there Davka.

You may approach and kiss Our ring.

 

[laughing dog]

He also referenced "5 generations with originally different frequencies of 'crime genes.'" That's not zero.

Sorry, but your buddy Max just revealed to all and sundry that he believes black people have a higher preponderance of "crime genes" than white people. AKA white people are genetically superior to blacks. That's good old-fashioned racism, pure and simple.

Not that this should surprise anyone. I think we should keep this post handy for all future discussions with max regarding race. He needs to be reminded, early and often, that he's been sucking down the racism kool-aid. Maybe he'll wake up. Or at least shut up.

He said as much several years ago.

We do know that the Y chromosome has crime genes contained within it. Whether there is such a set of genes whose average frequency differs by race has not been established. It's a possibility. If you were an open minded freethinker you'd be open to the possibility if the evidence led down that conclusion.

A true freethinker would define what a "crime gene" is. And a freethinker who thinks logically would understand that speculation is not science.

 

[Davka]

He said as much several years ago.

We do know that the Y chromosome has crime genes contained within it. Whether there is such a set of genes whose average frequency differs by race has not been established. It's a possibility. If you were an open minded freethinker you'd be open to the possibility if the evidence led down that conclusion.

A true freethinker would define what a "crime gene" is. And a freethinker who thinks logically would understand that speculation is not science.

And a freethinker who reads scientific articles voraciously would know that the 'science' behind race is actually just the thinly-veiled pseudoscience behind racism.

 

[maxparrish]

I did not imagine my comment on the shortcomings of another posters thought experiment would spawn several willy-willies of shock and trite liberal piety. Apparently, some of these "literate" and "free-thinking" spawners of the vortex missed the fact that my use of the term "crime genes" was enclosed by quotes, conveying the impression of skepticism and/or not to be taken literally. For example, note how I just used quotation marks around two terms describing these critics.

In the meantime, also note that genes are are contributing factor to criminal behavior, and what mix of culture/poverty/genes etc. that contribute to a populations rate of criminal transgressions is unknown. None-the-less, it is entirely plausible that some population groups do have different frequencies from other population groups, and that such are contributory to behavior.

But recent work has tended to air outside the main criminology forums. Mr. Beaver, for example, published a paper in Biological Psychiatry in February that concluded that adoptees whose biological parents had broken the law “were significantly more likely to be arrested, sentenced to probation, incarcerated, and arrested multiple times when compared with adoptees whose biological parents had not been arrested.”

At the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s meeting in February, Adrian Raine, chairman of the criminology department at the University of Pennsylvania and a pioneer in the field, presented a paper showing how variations in the parts of a toddler’s brain that regulate emotions — believed to be a product of genes and environment — turned out to be a good predictor of criminal behavior later in life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/a...ute-of-justice-conference.html?pagewanted=all

The subject is, as one might expect, toxic. Little research has been done within criminology and sociology on genes because of "free thinking" reactions like that of Davka and Toni. Still, what work that has been done is intriguing and will likely lead to some indirect contribution of genes to violent interpersonal behavior, and likely find differences between racial (and other) population groups.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He said as much several years ago.

We do know that the Y chromosome has crime genes contained within it. Whether there is such a set of genes whose average frequency differs by race has not been established. It's a possibility. If you were an open minded freethinker you'd be open to the possibility if the evidence led down that conclusion.

A true freethinker would define what a "crime gene" is. And a freethinker who thinks logically would understand that speculation is not science.

How about a lack of impulse control?

 

[George S]

What Difference Does Difference Make?

Reports about such studies commonly fall prey to three confusions: they conflate DNA markers of ancestry with markers of race. They mistake the fact that some gene variants are more common in some populations than others as signs of racial "difference" between those populations. And they assume that disparities in group outcomes can be attributed to inborn, or genetic, differences between races.

The idea of biological race assumes traits come packaged together, even color-coded for our convenience, as anthropologist Jonathan Marks jokes. In otherwords, if biological race were real, we'd find that skin color or other "racial" markers would correlate with a suite of other genetic traits. Knowing an individual's "race" should enable us to predict his or her other genes and traits.

But the DNA sequences studied by Rosenberg and his colleagues are not genes. Known by geneticists as "microsatellite short tandem repeats" (and more colloquially as "junk DNA"), they do not code for proteins, but just sit there taking up space in our DNA. Mutations in DNA sequences that don't code for anything are not affected by natural and sexual selection. They are neither selected for nor against but are simply passed down, generation to generation. Comparing these accumulated mutation patterns can provide clues to ancient population movements. But they have no effect on physical traits such as skin color or hair form or blood type.

In other words, the study accomplished the same thing our eyes do everyday. You can look at someone and stand a pretty good chance of identifying the continent where that person's recent ancestors lived, especially if you're gazing at someone whose family has resided in the same place for several generations - as did all the subjects of the study.

But what's that got to do with "race"? We all have ancestors from elsewhere - and if we go back far enough, about 70,000 or so years ago, all our ancestors can be traced back to Africa. But if our idea of race assumes that different groups each share among themselves a different suite of inborn traits, then we have to ask, "What difference makes a difference?" Certainly not micro-satellite short tandem repeats.

Still, there's no question that some gene forms show up more often in some populations than others: alleles that code for blue eyes, or the A, B, O blood groups, and of course, those alleles that influence skin color . (We all have the same 30,000 or so genes. But some genes come in different forms, or varieties, called alleles.) But just because some members of a population might carry a specific gene form, doesn't mean all members do. Only a small percentage of Ashkenazi Jews carry the Tay-Sachs allele. When a couple I know were screened upon their pregnancy, the non-Jewish partner was found to be the Tay-Sachs carrier, not the Jewish one.

That's because most human variation falls within, not between populations. About 85% of all genetic variation can, on average, be found within any local population, be they Swedes, Kikuyu, or Hmong. About 94% can be found within any continental population, consistent with what the Rosenberg Science study found. In fact, there are no characteristics, no traits, not even one gene that turns up in all members of one so-called race yet is absent from others.

Perhaps 6000 years ago race was a predictor. Racial isolation then. In the US, at least, many of us are blended. My Nigerian roommate in my freshman year was not at all like African Americans.

Nevertheless, you did not address the problem. The issue in this thread is the degree to which the misjudgment called racism is a factor in the judgment by non-black policemen when using deadly force. One perspective on the issue: Yes, absolutely. Another: No, Absolutely. Another: Yes, and what is witnessed is a compound problem with culture, socio-economic status, and racism possibly at cause. Or some other unidentified factor not yet even contemplated. It may be genetic, and still have nothing to do with race. Most of us in the US are mutts.

As your quotation points out individuals must be judged as individuals, not as members of any racial group at all. If an individual happens to have done some violent crime let us blame/judge him, not his race. Similarly, no one should be called "a credit to his race." Wrong bookkeeping. No officer of the law should (in a perfect world) be judged by his race. No more than the victim should be judged by his. Sauce for the goose, etc.

Statistics show that jurors are not color-blind/race-blind. Black alibi witnesses are believed multiples more by black jurors than by white (8% of the time vs <1%). White alibi witnesses are believed by both equally (about 6%). Other witnesses are believed about equally by both races regardless of the race of the witness. Black jurors are a bit less ready to believe witnesses.

Race should be ignored to be perfectly fair. Racism may have had its origin in kin selection. People favor people like themselves. It is instinctive. Fighting this instinct -- grouping into us-v-them -- is as difficult as a baritone singing soprano. Some can do it, most can't.

 

[Toni]

A true freethinker would define what a "crime gene" is. And a freethinker who thinks logically would understand that speculation is not science.

How about a lack of impulse control?

Factor of age rather than that racist construct: race.

 

[maxparrish]

What Difference Does Difference Make?

Perhaps 6000 years ago race was a predictor. Racial isolation then. In the US, at least, many of us are blended. My Nigerian roommate in my freshman year was not at all like African Americans.

Nevertheless, you did not address the problem. The issue in this thread is the degree to which the misjudgment called racism is a factor in the judgment by non-black policemen when using deadly force. One perspective on the issue: Yes, absolutely. Another: No, Absolutely. Another: Yes, and what is witnessed is a compound problem with culture, socio-economic status, and racism possibly at cause. Or some other unidentified factor not yet even contemplated. It may be genetic, and still have nothing to do with race. Most of us in the US are mutts.

As your quotation points out individuals must be judged as individuals, not as members of any racial group at all. If an individual happens to have done some violent crime let us blame/judge him, not his race. Similarly, no one should be called "a credit to his race." Wrong bookkeeping. No officer of the law should (in a perfect world) be judged by his race. No more than the victim should be judged by his. Sauce for the goose, etc.

Statistics show that jurors are not color-blind/race-blind. Black alibi witnesses are believed multiples more by black jurors than by white (8% of the time vs <1%). White alibi witnesses are believed by both equally (about 6%). Other witnesses are believed about equally by both races regardless of the race of the witness. Black jurors are a bit less ready to believe witnesses.

Race should be ignored to be perfectly fair. Racism may have had its origin in kin selection. People favor people like themselves. It is instinctive. Fighting this instinct -- grouping into us-v-them -- is as difficult as a baritone singing soprano. Some can do it, most can't.

Athena and you are stuck on a common misunderstanding, race is a categorization of a population. That population may be categorized many different ways (geography, sex, age, religion, height, race, ethnicity, class, education level ect.), but a grouping is merely a definitional way of looking at a particular collection of individuals. Once a sub-population is defined, you can look for characteristics compared to other sub-populations similarly defined.

"Race", in America, is self-defined. Those who call themselves 'white' or 'black' (or whatever) are two or more different groups. And in those groups their are different frequencies of gene distribution, for those genes that contribute to disease, reflexes, size, and mental characteristics. It does not mean that their are not white men who cant' jump, or black men who can't do physics, it just means that the proportional genetic contributions for such talents in the population are different.

No one says their is a single (or many) genes tied to a something inherent called "race".

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Perhaps 6000 years ago race was a predictor. Racial isolation then. In the US, at least, many of us are blended. My Nigerian roommate in my freshman year was not at all like African Americans.

Nevertheless, you did not address the problem. The issue in this thread is the degree to which the misjudgment called racism is a factor in the judgment by non-black policemen when using deadly force. One perspective on the issue: Yes, absolutely. Another: No, Absolutely. Another: Yes, and what is witnessed is a compound problem with culture, socio-economic status, and racism possibly at cause. Or some other unidentified factor not yet even contemplated. It may be genetic, and still have nothing to do with race. Most of us in the US are mutts.

As your quotation points out individuals must be judged as individuals, not as members of any racial group at all. If an individual happens to have done some violent crime let us blame/judge him, not his race. Similarly, no one should be called "a credit to his race." Wrong bookkeeping. No officer of the law should (in a perfect world) be judged by his race. No more than the victim should be judged by his. Sauce for the goose, etc.

Statistics show that jurors are not color-blind/race-blind. Black alibi witnesses are believed multiples more by black jurors than by white (8% of the time vs <1%). White alibi witnesses are believed by both equally (about 6%). Other witnesses are believed about equally by both races regardless of the race of the witness. Black jurors are a bit less ready to believe witnesses.

Race should be ignored to be perfectly fair. Racism may have had its origin in kin selection. People favor people like themselves. It is instinctive. Fighting this instinct -- grouping into us-v-them -- is as difficult as a baritone singing soprano. Some can do it, most can't.

Athena and you are stuck on a common misunderstanding,

Don't think so.

race is a categorization of a population. That population may be categorized many different ways (geography, sex, age, religion, height, race, ethnicity, class, education level ect.). That grouping is merely a definitional way of looking at a particular collection of individuals. Once a sub-population is defined, you can look for characteristics compared to other sub-populations similarly defined.

The categorizations are simple minded. The categories are arbitrary. The motivations behind the exercise are always Political, always a justification for instituting a hierarchy that glorifies one group and dehumanizes all others. And ever since the first mumbling of scientific racism, the "science" has been about justifying the hierarchy, and little else. the same is true today.

"Race", in America, is self-defined. Those who call themselves 'white' or 'black' (or whatever) are two or more different groups. And in those groups their are different frequencies of gene distribution, for those genes that contribute to disease, reflexes, size, and mental characteristics. It does not mean that their are not white men who cant' jump, or black men who can't do physics, it just means that the proportional genetic contributions for such talents in the population are different.

Read the post again. Or better yet, click the link and read all the background readings there.

You won't do that, but I have to make the offer.

 

[Axulus]

He said as much several years ago.

We do know that the Y chromosome has crime genes contained within it. Whether there is such a set of genes whose average frequency differs by race has not been established. It's a possibility. If you were an open minded freethinker you'd be open to the possibility if the evidence led down that conclusion.

A true freethinker would define what a "crime gene" is. And a freethinker who thinks logically would understand that speculation is not science.

A "crime gene" is a gene or set of genes that gives traits that increase criminal tenancies. It is established by the science that certain traits are heritable to varying degrees such as impulse control, quickness to experience anger, risk taking tendancies, etc.

Why do people readily accept the heritability of physical traits and the differences between groups defined under races but shut out the possibility of the same for mental traits? I can only imagine it's done for political correctness reasons.

A freethinker would not dismiss something as not possible for political correctness reasons that has not been dismissed by science, regardless of the speculative nature of it.

 

[Davka]

A true freethinker would define what a "crime gene" is. And a freethinker who thinks logically would understand that speculation is not science.

A "crime gene" is a gene or set of genes that gives traits that increase criminal tenancies. It is established by the science that certain traits are heritable to varying degrees such as impulse control, quickness to experience anger, risk taking tendancies, etc.

We already know what this gene is - actually, it's a whole group of genes, so many that they make up an entire chromosome. It's called the Y chromosome.

A freethinker would not dismiss something as not possible for political correctness reasons that has not been dismissed by science, regardless of the speculative nature of it.

So if I were to "speculate" that libertarians are unable to see the folly of their position due to a genetic predisposition to tunnel-vision, none of the "true freethinkers" here would take offense.

 

[J842P]

We already know what this gene is - actually, it's a whole group of genes, so many that they make up an entire chromosome. It's called the Y chromosome.

You realize that genes that make "maleness" aren't necessarily on the Y chromosome, right?

The Y chromosome is basically a deformed truncated X chromosome. The few genes it does have are related to sperm production, IIRC. The most important gene it has is SRY which is a transcription factor that changes gene expression on a whole host of other genes. Actually, I think SRY itself influences the expression of other transcription factors which then go on to influence other transcription factors - molecular biology tends to work in 'cascades.' Eventually what you get is the development of testes (the primary male sexual characteristic) in the embryo. The testes result in a particular endocrine environment which will influence the development of secondary sexual characteristics, which would be the ones we are interested in like aggressiveness and tendency towards violence in males.

ETA: Interestingly, the "warrior gene" is actually a variant (i.e. an allele) of MAO-A, which is located on the X chromosome and not the Y chromosome.


From a cursory look at the wikipedia article, it seems that the 'warrior variant' results from a change on the regulatory region of the gene that results in decreased expression of MAO-A.

 

[laughing dog]

A "crime gene" is a gene or set of genes that gives traits that increase criminal tenancies. It is established by the science that certain traits are heritable to varying degrees such as impulse control, quickness to experience anger, risk taking tendancies, etc.

Ah, criminal tendencies.

Why do people readily accept the heritability of physical traits and the differences between groups defined under races but shut out the possibility of the same for mental traits? I can only imagine it's done for political correctness reasons.

Oh, I think you don't give your imagination enough credit. Physical traits are easily observable and identifiable. "Tendencies" are not and they are influence by a host of other possible factors.

A freethinker would not dismiss something as not possible for political correctness reasons that has not been dismissed by science, regardless of the speculative nature of it.

Science has not established or confirmed "criminal genes", so that speculation by non-scientists is not science. That has nothing to do with "political correctness" but clear thinking and rational thought.

As an aside, I thought you were clever and rational enough to eschew the bullshit "political correctness" meme. Please do not prove me wrong.

 

[J842P]

Science has not established or confirmed "criminal genes", so that speculation by non-scientists is not science. That has nothing to do with "political correctness" but clear thinking and rational thought.
.

Well, the so-called 'warrior gene' could certainly be considered a 'criminal gene.' You realize these are just cutesy names molecular biologists use. Genes do not "code" for traits that we categorize at the macroscopic level. Traits that we see at the macroscopic level emerge from a complex interplay at the chemical level - proteins, protein expression regulation, etc.

 

[laughing dog]

Science has not established or confirmed "criminal genes", so that speculation by non-scientists is not science. That has nothing to do with "political correctness" but clear thinking and rational thought.
.

Well, the so-called 'warrior gene' could certainly be considered a 'criminal gene.' You realize these are just cutesy names molecular biologists use. Genes do not "code" for traits that we categorize at the macroscopic level. Traits that we see at the macroscopic level emerge from a complex interplay at the chemical level - proteins, protein expression regulation, etc.

Using that reasoning, any gene could be considered a "criminal gene" if some criminals exhibited a trait that was formed from a tendency.

 

[Axulus]

Ah, criminal tendencies.

Why do people readily accept the heritability of physical traits and the differences between groups defined under races but shut out the possibility of the same for mental traits? I can only imagine it's done for political correctness reasons.

Oh, I think you don't give your imagination enough credit. Physical traits are easily observable and identifiable. "Tendencies" are not and they are influence by a host of other possible factors.

So because it is difficult to study, you dismiss it?

A freethinker would not dismiss something as not possible for political correctness reasons that has not been dismissed by science, regardless of the speculative nature of it.

Science has not established or confirmed "criminal genes", so that speculation by non-scientists is not science.

You mean kind of like the speculation by non-scientists that blacks may be or are killed more often than whites by police due to racism? Why the double standard in your criticism?

That has nothing to do with "political correctness" but clear thinking and rational thought.

As an aside, I thought you were clever and rational enough to eschew the bullshit "political correctness" meme. Please do not prove me wrong.

Your double standards and the accusuations of racism against me by others in this thread for daring to bring up taboo topics are prime examples of this political correctness in effect.