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

[laughing dog]

Ah, criminal tendencies.
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?

No. But I don't give speculation about "tendencies" much credit. I don't see why any freethinking person would.

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?

To my knowledge, no one is saying that speculation is scientific.

Why the double standard in your criticism?

That question is based on a false premise.

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.

"Political correctness" is a vapid term used by intellectual lightweights whenever they run out of cogent arguments.

 

[Axulus]

No. But I don't give speculation about "tendencies" much credit. I don't see why any freethinking person would.

Then it looks like we are actually on the same page here, so why the nitpicking? I said I was open to the possibility and was waiting for better evidence to come in. That is not "credit". I was only criticizing those who dismiss the possibility like Davka.

That has nothing to do with science.

Your bias is being exposed here: that you don't consider the social sciences to be science and in fact has "nothing to do with science".

That question is based on a false premise.

I don't think it is. Racism is not readily apparent in individual actions like physical traits. No more readily apparent than criminal tenancies. What's the difference?

I have not accused anyone in this thread of racism in this thread. "Political correctness" is a vapid term used by intellectual lightweights whenever they run out of cogent arguments.

Which is why I didn't accuse you of that but pointed out that others have called me such. Political correctness is a valid term when a chilling effect is used to shut down conversation by calling one a racist or the like and when double standards are used to criticize a position or be hypercritical of an argument simply because one is worried about the potential political implications or societal consequences should the factual nature of the issue at hand be undesirable.

 

[Davka]

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

No. But I don't give speculation about "tendencies" much credit. I don't see why any freethinking person would.

I do.

Well, I see why someone who desperately wants to be thought of as "freethinking" would. Those sorts of thoughts aren't actually free - they're a dime a dozen.

 

[laughing dog]

Then it looks like we are actually on the same page here, so why the nitpicking? I said I was open to the possibility and was waiting for better evidence to come in. That is not "credit". I was only criticizing those who dismiss the possibility like Davka. Do you agree that Davka is reasonable to outright dismiss it and call people a racist for merely discussing the possibility?

This started with maxparrish claiming it was science. It isn't.

Your bias is being exposed here: that you don't consider the social sciences to be science.

First, social sciences are not science, Second, no one claimed their view were based on social science research.

I don't think it is. Racism is not readily apparent in individual actions like physical traits. No more readily apparent then criminal tenancies. What's the difference?

The difference is no one is claiming that racism is shown by science but there are posters who claim that criminal genes are.

Which is why I didn't accuse you of that but pointed out that others have called me such. Political correctness is a valid term when a chilling effect is used to shut down conversation by calling one a racist or the like and when double standards are used to criticize a position or be hypercritical of an argument simply because one is worried about the potential political implications or societal consequences should the factual nature of the issue at hand be undesirable.

We disagree. At the least, you are using "political correctness" in the way you accuse others of using the term "racist".

 

[Axulus]

First, social sciences are not science, Second, no one claimed their view were based on social science research.

The difference is no one is claiming that racism is shown by science but there are posters who claim that criminal genes are.

Then I assume you give no credit to such speculation about racism being a significant factor in police killings of blacks? Yes or no?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about a lack of impulse control?

Factor of age rather than that racist construct: race.

Some people have better impulse control than others. The latter are more likely to become criminals. If there is a genetic component to this that would be an example of a criminal gene.

 

[ksen]

I wish there was a "stop posting" gene.

 

[Jarhyn]

F

OMFG. I don't think I realized just exactly how far gone you were until I read the above.

Note that he said "some mix of"--that doesn't preclude 0% for the third term, in other words, no genetic component. It's culture, not race.

The point I was trying to make, however, is that IF we want to isolate a crime gene, we MUST blenderize the population racially, and leave it that way for a number of generations, in order to separate the 'crime culture' that actually really does exist. The thing is, crime culture is a choice (sometimes),whereas genetics are not a choice. Genetics can be mitigated through application of hard science, and cultural aspects can't be.

Either way, a racial forced-mixing is necessary to end racism. if it's 0% genetics, the mixing will have achieved it's purpose in removing the assumption of a relationship between skin color and criminality. If we still have a higher criminal population among those high in melanin, we can then do a genetic study on what genes are disproportionately expressed among the criminal population, and give extra care to prevent the expression of those genes.

Either way it has nothing to do with RACE unless there's a 100% correlation between black skin and being a shithead. And I could name a good number of examples of black people who are not, and white people who are.

I ride the 5 in Minneapolis. I know there are a lot of black people who are utter shitheads, reeking of malt liquor and vein obnoxious and abusive. But that doesn't mean it is at all ethical or acceptable to treat someone who is black as if they are one of those people until you see EVIDENCE that they are. And skin color doesn't constitute evidence.

 

[laughing dog]

First, social sciences are not science, Second, no one claimed their view were based on social science research.

The difference is no one is claiming that racism is shown by science but there are posters who claim that criminal genes are.

Then I assume you give no credit to such speculation about racism being a significant factor in police killings of blacks? Yes or no?

Huh? I have no problem with speculation of any type as long as it is portrayed as speculation. The "crime gene" was depicted as scientific fact which it is not. At this point in time, the crime gene is more science fiction than science fact. Now, if people claimed that it is a scientific fact that racism is a significant factor in police killings, I would have the same objection.

 

[maxparrish]

Then I assume you give no credit to such speculation about racism being a significant factor in police killings of blacks? Yes or no?

Huh? I have no problem with speculation of any type as long as it is portrayed as speculation. The "crime gene" was depicted as scientific fact which it is not. At this point in time, the crime gene is more science fiction than science fact. Now, if people claimed that it is a scientific fact that racism is a significant factor in police killings, I would have the same objection.

Of course the "crime gene" (again note the quote marks around the concept) is not literal scientific fact, it is a figure of speech to convey that genes play a role in behavior, and therefore, they likely play a role in increasing the chances of certain behaviors that are often criminalized. As Jarhyn proposed a thought experiment to test the idea of genetic vs cultural causes of behavior (see his post prior to yours above) his proposal is a hypothetical. And as I said, if two populations have different frequencies of the genes that contribute to said behavior, "blenderizing" culture and genes is not going to illuminate, it will neither confirm or refute that factor.

And while there is no a literal "cirme gene", "the fact remains that some mix of black culture/poverty/genes creates disproportionate criminality. And when when having run-ins with the law, handing the crook a welfare check is not going to make the criminal into an angel." That mix remains unknown and, as Loren pointed out, could be insignificant for genes. It could also be insignificant for culture or for poverty.

That said, I do suspect that genes-alles and disparate frequencies within the American black population sub-group (compared to whites) are a significant, although not primary, factor.

 

[Davka]

First, social sciences are not science, Second, no one claimed their view were based on social science research.

The difference is no one is claiming that racism is shown by science but there are posters who claim that criminal genes are.

Then I assume you give no credit to such speculation about racism being a significant factor in police killings of blacks? Yes or no?

Non sequitur.

But, you knew that.

 

[Davka]

And while there is no a literal "cirme gene", "the fact remains that some mix of black WHITE culture/ black inner-city poverty creates disproportionate criminality

FIFY.

 

[Jarhyn]

You apparently don't know how to research, Max. 'Blenderizing' as you put it is literally the ONLY way to effectively eliminate cultural effects from creating noise in the study. As long as there is a cultural correlation to race, the two are going to continue to be inseparable in terms of judging genetic factors. It also happens to be the only way to eliminate 'forcing' effects caused by perceptional skewing (like the assumption that criminality is genetic as opposed to cultural, to any large extent).

Wouldn't you rather see a world where people are judged on how they actually ACT rather than on bad proxies like skin color? Or do you actually want to be a racist?

 

[Axulus]

Then I assume you give no credit to such speculation about racism being a significant factor in police killings of blacks? Yes or no?

Huh? I have no problem with speculation of any type as long as it is portrayed as speculation. The "crime gene" was depicted as scientific fact which it is not. At this point in time, the crime gene is more science fiction than science fact. Now, if people claimed that it is a scientific fact that racism is a significant factor in police killings, I would have the same objection.

You are using weasel words. What's the difference between aserting something as a fact vs scientific fact?

 

[George S]

There is no such thing as scientific fact. There are simply facts. Evidence.

There are scientific theories which explain facts.

There is no such thing as a done deal in science. Literally everything in science is open to new contradictory data.

The existence of genes controlling behavior is a theory. It may be consistent with known data or not. It may be falsified by new data.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is no such thing as scientific fact. There are simply facts. Evidence.

There are scientific theories which explain facts.

There is no such thing as a done deal in science. Literally everything in science is open to new contradictory data.

The existence of genes controlling behavior is a theory. It may be consistent with known data or not. It may be falsified by new data.

if we're being nitpicky about it, this behavior being controlled by genes over-represented in that specific population is not a theory. It's a hypothesis with a LOT of obfuscating noise that would need to be cleared LONG before it could be established as a theory. It's a wild speculation as tipsy as a toothpick sta ding on its point during a stiff breeze.

 

[Never]

Moderator Note: The discussion from this thread about Affirmative Action was split by request. New thread here.

 

[Toni]

You apparently don't know how to research, Max. 'Blenderizing' as you put it is literally the ONLY way to effectively eliminate cultural effects from creating noise in the study. As long as there is a cultural correlation to race, the two are going to continue to be inseparable in terms of judging genetic factors. It also happens to be the only way to eliminate 'forcing' effects caused by perceptional skewing (like the assumption that criminality is genetic as opposed to cultural, to any large extent).

Wouldn't you rather see a world where people are judged on how they actually ACT rather than on bad proxies like skin color? Or do you actually want to be a racist?

No offense but you seem to be making the same mistake others are making and seem to be equating skin color/race with culture. To be honest, I am a bit confused by what others (not you specifically) mean by 'culture.' It seems to be a proxy for how closely one adheres to stereotypes about how white middle class people supposedly act.

Certainly you are aware that there are black and brown and Asian children being raised in white families. Surely you are aware that new immigrants from various nations in Africa have different experiences than black Americans whose ancestors were brought over here as slaves.

 

[Jarhyn]

You apparently don't know how to research, Max. 'Blenderizing' as you put it is literally the ONLY way to effectively eliminate cultural effects from creating noise in the study. As long as there is a cultural correlation to race, the two are going to continue to be inseparable in terms of judging genetic factors. It also happens to be the only way to eliminate 'forcing' effects caused by perceptional skewing (like the assumption that criminality is genetic as opposed to cultural, to any large extent).

Wouldn't you rather see a world where people are judged on how they actually ACT rather than on bad proxies like skin color? Or do you actually want to be a racist?

No offense but you seem to be making the same mistake others are making and seem to be equating skin color/race with culture. To be honest, I am a bit confused by what others (not you specifically) mean by 'culture.' It seems to be a proxy for how closely one adheres to stereotypes about how white middle class people supposedly act.

Certainly you are aware that there are black and brown and Asian children being raised in white families. Surely you are aware that new immigrants from various nations in Africa have different experiences than black Americans whose ancestors were brought over here as slaves.

'race' really isn't a thing, and I use the word as an expedient to describe a complex set of genetic factors with an effect on appearance. When I say 'culture' I mean a self-segregating community which oftentimes picks some arbitrary genetic trait or familial relationship or geographic location as an identity. Oftentimes these communities seek to keep people who share their selected 'identity traits' from having values or interactions foreign to the community.

Oftentimes these cultures have extremely deleterious values that they pass onto their children. Disrespect for all law, aggression as a problem-solver, irrational reverence and protection for 'community' values (that's OUR music, you can't sing it!; I Better not see you wearing those Other-Culture hairstyles!). Sometimes those values are even worse, sometimes they are actually evil, such as veneration of murder, robbery, and human trafficking.

However, I realize that every one of the terrible people I run into from day to day could just as easily be 'white', 'yellow', 'red' or any of the other variations on skin tone or familial descent, if raised by the same parents in the same environment, with the same resources. They just would lose their arbitrary 'racial' identity, and cultures would no longer be able to assume that physical traits MAKE people awful.

The thing is, that we don't really know if those physical traits have any comorbidity with a predisposition to be awful. And several generations after denying all racial basis for cultural enforcement, we might still see an effect that is actually correlated with race, and then we can eliminate or treat those effects without people being ASSUMED to be bad just because they have outward expressions of their ancestry.

 

[laughing dog]

Huh? I have no problem with speculation of any type as long as it is portrayed as speculation. The "crime gene" was depicted as scientific fact which it is not. At this point in time, the crime gene is more science fiction than science fact. Now, if people claimed that it is a scientific fact that racism is a significant factor in police killings, I would have the same objection.

You are using weasel words. What's the difference between aserting something as a fact vs scientific fact?

Well, it is a fact that I like chocolate. That has nothing to do with science, so it is not a scientific fact. I think "scientific fact" to most people means that the fact is discovered or found by science or is about science. Really, this isn't terribly difficult if one thinks about it for a minute or so.