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

[laughing dog]

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

Wrong.

There are scientific theories which explain facts.

And ones that don't.

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

While it is true that everything is open to new contradictory data, there facts that are pretty much done deals in science. The effect of gravity is one.

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.

That is an admission that "criminal genes" is not a fact of any type.

 

[George S]

Perhaps we could define a "scientific fact" as a previously unknown fact predicted by a scientific theory.

The effect of gravity is one of the "done deals" in science that was undone. Newton's Laws are not Laws at all! They are wrong! And yet the consensus was so large they named them "Laws" of nature.

Do there exist any genes at all which influence individual behavior to any degree? I daresay there are. The ability to take standardized tests (IQ) seems to be inherited. The ability to run marathons at record pace seems to be inherited.

Yes, being like a warrior can be learned. Are there genes that make some people better warriors than others?

It is a speculation, but it seems reasonable to suppose that there are (a complex of) genes related to behaviors. Has the experiment been done and it can be shown that there is no complex of genes which yields a violent individual regardless of nurture? Are there similar studies you can show me?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There is not a criminal gene (since crime is defined by the society in which it is committed, and not a natural occurrence)
There is not a basketball gene
There is not a tap dancing gene

 

[Toni]

Perhaps we could define a "scientific fact" as a previously unknown fact predicted by a scientific theory.

The effect of gravity is one of the "done deals" in science that was undone. Newton's Laws are not Laws at all! They are wrong! And yet the consensus was so large they named them "Laws" of nature.

Do there exist any genes at all which influence individual behavior to any degree? I daresay there are. The ability to take standardized tests (IQ) seems to be inherited. The ability to run marathons at record pace seems to be inherited.

Yes, being like a warrior can be learned. Are there genes that make some people better warriors than others?

It is a speculation, but it seems reasonable to suppose that there are (a complex of) genes related to behaviors. Has the experiment been done and it can be shown that there is no complex of genes which yields a violent individual regardless of nurture? Are there similar studies you can show me?

Really? Can you show me multigenerational studies which compare the scores on standardized tests? Can you show me generational studies if the record times of marathon runners? I think you are either being a bit sloppy with your 'facts' or else you are making things up. Neither wishful thinking nor truisms should be confused with established fact.

Actually try googling the definition of scientific fact to start. Then try scientific theory and also hypothesis. It seems clear to me that you do not understand any of these.

 

[George S]

There is not a criminal gene (since crime is defined by the society in which it is committed, and not a natural occurrence)
There is not a basketball gene
There is not a tap dancing gene

The basketball that I see on TV shows people with physical endowments and an understanding of the game who excel. Some are white, most are black. The genes that give a person the appearance of "being black" are associated with (those genes partner well with) whatever complex of genes led to their being able (to the degree that nature provides the base for the "nurture" of learning basketball) to do well.

Is tap dancing similar? I don't know.
Is criminality similar? I don't know.

Is being a politician (see multiple Kennedys, Shrubs, and Cuomos) similar? I don't know.

Is being a leader similar? I don't know.

But when I do not know I assume the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that, no, there is no gene (or gene complex) that influences social behavior ... it is all nurture. So proponents of any assumption of a single gene (or gene complex) have the burden of proof.

It is my opinion and belief that nature has a significant role in behavior. There are physical skills I simply cannot learn. There are mental tasks that others find easy that I do not.

A single gene is way to small to influence such a macro trait as criminality. Genes, in aggregate, produce an individual whose characteristics are like that individual's parents. The gene pool consists of genes that get along with other genes in that pool. The gene from your father is okay with the gene from your mother. They've been cohabiting in successful bodies (for 250 million years (or more in some cases).

Sometimes, especially for characteristics that make no real difference, there is a single gene (well, actually 2 in the case of eye-color and a few other genes that are modifiers) for a single physical characteristic. Genes don't work in isolation.

There can be no single gene for criminality, but this does not rule out a complex of genes working together to build a body and mind that would make a successful criminal.

 

[George S]

Perhaps we could define a "scientific fact" as a previously unknown fact predicted by a scientific theory.

The effect of gravity is one of the "done deals" in science that was undone. Newton's Laws are not Laws at all! They are wrong! And yet the consensus was so large they named them "Laws" of nature.

Do there exist any genes at all which influence individual behavior to any degree? I daresay there are. The ability to take standardized tests (IQ) seems to be inherited. The ability to run marathons at record pace seems to be inherited.

Yes, being like a warrior can be learned. Are there genes that make some people better warriors than others?

It is a speculation, but it seems reasonable to suppose that there are (a complex of) genes related to behaviors. Has the experiment been done and it can be shown that there is no complex of genes which yields a violent individual regardless of nurture? Are there similar studies you can show me?

Really? Can you show me multigenerational studies which compare the scores on standardized tests? Can you show me generational studies if the record times of marathon runners? I think you are either being a bit sloppy with your 'facts' or else you are making things up. Neither wishful thinking nor truisms should be confused with established fact.

Actually try googling the definition of scientific fact to start. Then try scientific theory and also hypothesis. It seems clear to me that you do not understand any of these.

Well, you try googling. I suggested the definition of a scientific fact vs a fact fact is nonsensical. Later I proposed the definition that a "scientific" fact could be a fact predicted by a scientific theory. A theory is right when it makes accurate predictions and wrong if it fails to do so.

I know what are called Scientific Theories (with caps). They are the generally accepted theories. Evolution is a fact; the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. It could be disproved if it were wrong. String Theory is NOT a Scientific Theory -- it is still a plausible hypothesis. Inflation Theory is not yet a Scientific Theory, but it is the most accepted one in the physics community.

As for the multigenerational studies, see any competent literature. I happen to have studied up on this area. IQ is correlated with the IQ of parents. Try reading the studies yourself. Perhaps my data (about 20 years old) is no longer valid and I must change position. But when I looked the correlation was high. It could be nurture, of course. Children of musicians are often good musicians. Inborn talent? Nurture alone? Some mix? It has been shown that scores on IQ tests can be improved by practice. IQ is not fixed. What IQ measured, initially, was the ability to take standardized tests. Later IQ tests were "normalized" so as to agree with predecessors.

When it comes to biology, I am no more educated than the average professor of computer science. So I read all of Dawkins' books. Evolutionary Theory explains how all characteristics of all species are inherited. It is not too much of a stretch to include some degree of propensity to violence in genetics.

ETA. Okay I googled it and found this...

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing."

Why yes! That fits.

Now as to scientific fact we find...

"In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts."

Why, yes! That is consistent with both my statements. Scientific facts are just verifiable facts; no adjective needed.

A scientific fact (as distinguished from a fact fact) is one that has been verified scientifically.

What else did you want me to look up and find what I myself said?

 

[maxparrish]

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?

I would rather see a world where people are gracile good lookers, intelligent, healthy, fit, embedded with good character, creative, and productive. I don't wish to see a world in which such features are 'blenderized' with the repulsive, unhealthy, unfit, characterless, lazy, sagittal crested, occipital ridged, 'robust' primitive knuckle draggers.

If you insist on removing racism, the better solution is to limit or prevent the reproduction of the Deltas and Epsilons, and encourage the reproduction of Alphas and Betas.

 

[Jarhyn]

So you are, in fact, a racist. There's no two ways about it. You have assumed being a terrible person is a function of race as opposed to anything else. the idea of 'alphas and betas, deltas and epsilons' is full-retard social Darwinism. It's a disgusting and objectively flawed approach to ethics. In fact, people who sincerely believe such things are terrible people. Do you actually believe such a thing?

 

[J842P]

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.

I'm not sure I understand your objection. Can you elaborate?

 

[maxparrish]

So you are, in fact, a racist. There's no two ways about it. You have assumed being a terrible person is a function of race as opposed to anything else. the idea of 'alphas and betas, deltas and epsilons' is full-retard social Darwinism. It's a disgusting and objectively flawed approach to ethics. In fact, people who sincerely believe such things are terrible people. Do you actually believe such a thing?

And who, other than you, believes that deltas and epsilons is a function of racial identity? Who then is the racist?

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow. So you are so intent to distract from the fact that you JUST said that forcibly dissociating appearance from parentage would mean exposing 'your' culture to 'lazy' genes, that you are trying to invent a controversy over what I said. 0 points for effect and 0 points for reading comprehension. That is what you call RACISM.

The point about Greek letters, your desire to deny more ethical people the ability to have children because you venerate beastly feral ape culture, is an aside. It is a SECOND and mostly unrelated piece.

 

[Davka]

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?

I would rather see a world where people are gracile good lookers, intelligent, healthy, fit, embedded with good character, creative, and productive. I don't wish to see a world in which such features are 'blenderized' with the repulsive, unhealthy, unfit, characterless, lazy, sagittal crested, occipital ridged, 'robust' primitive knuckle draggers.

If you insist on removing racism, the better solution is to limit or prevent the reproduction of the Deltas and Epsilons, and encourage the reproduction of Alphas and Betas.

Care to throw in some remarks about watermelon, fried chicken, and big dicks while you're at it?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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?

I would rather see a world where people are gracile good lookers, intelligent, healthy, fit, embedded with good character, creative, and productive. I don't wish to see a world in which such features are 'blenderized' with the repulsive, unhealthy, unfit, characterless, lazy, sagittal crested, occipital ridged, 'robust' primitive knuckle draggers.

If you insist on removing racism, the better solution is to limit or prevent the reproduction of the Deltas and Epsilons, and encourage the reproduction of Alphas and Betas.

Max,

That sounds like something straight out of Mein Kampf.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is not a criminal gene (since crime is defined by the society in which it is committed, and not a natural occurrence)
There is not a basketball gene
There is not a tap dancing gene

Whether these things are natural or not has nothing to do with whether there are genes that are related to them.

After all, evolution is a collection of random things that turned out to be useful. If random things weren't sometimes useful there would be no evolution.

Thus a gene that leads to more/better something certainly can exist. For example, a gene for poor impulse control means they have a greater chance of being a criminal.

 

[laughing dog]

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

I'm not sure I understand your objection. Can you elaborate?

IMO, it makes the concept of a "criminal gene" trivial.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There is not a criminal gene (since crime is defined by the society in which it is committed, and not a natural occurrence)
There is not a basketball gene
There is not a tap dancing gene

Whether these things are natural or not has nothing to do with whether there are genes that are related to them.

After all, evolution is a collection of random things that turned out to be useful. If random things weren't sometimes useful there would be no evolution.

Thus a gene that leads to more/better something certainly can exist. For example, a gene for poor impulse control means they have a greater chance of being a criminal.

Loren.

Let's say there is a gene that compels women to casts ballots. In 1829 America, that would be a crime gene because in that year women voting was a crime. 100 years later, it would not be a crime gene because women voting is not a crime. What is and is not criminal behavior is not determined by genetics. Crime is a totally social construct not a genetic one.

 

[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?

I would rather see a world where people are gracile good lookers, intelligent, healthy, fit, embedded with good character, creative, and productive. I don't wish to see a world in which such features are 'blenderized' with the repulsive, unhealthy, unfit, characterless, lazy, sagittal crested, occipital ridged, 'robust' primitive knuckle draggers.

If you insist on removing racism, the better solution is to limit or prevent the reproduction of the Deltas and Epsilons, and encourage the reproduction of Alphas and Betas.

My momma always said: "Pretty is as pretty does."

and also:

"Ugly goes clean to the bone."

 

[Toni]

Really? Can you show me multigenerational studies which compare the scores on standardized tests? Can you show me generational studies if the record times of marathon runners? I think you are either being a bit sloppy with your 'facts' or else you are making things up. Neither wishful thinking nor truisms should be confused with established fact.

Actually try googling the definition of scientific fact to start. Then try scientific theory and also hypothesis. It seems clear to me that you do not understand any of these.

Well, you try googling. I suggested the definition of a scientific fact vs a fact fact is nonsensical. Later I proposed the definition that a "scientific" fact could be a fact predicted by a scientific theory. A theory is right when it makes accurate predictions and wrong if it fails to do so.

I know what are called Scientific Theories (with caps). They are the generally accepted theories. Evolution is a fact; the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. It could be disproved if it were wrong. String Theory is NOT a Scientific Theory -- it is still a plausible hypothesis. Inflation Theory is not yet a Scientific Theory, but it is the most accepted one in the physics community.

As for the multigenerational studies, see any competent literature. I happen to have studied up on this area. IQ is correlated with the IQ of parents. Try reading the studies yourself. Perhaps my data (about 20 years old) is no longer valid and I must change position. But when I looked the correlation was high. It could be nurture, of course. Children of musicians are often good musicians. Inborn talent? Nurture alone? Some mix? It has been shown that scores on IQ tests can be improved by practice. IQ is not fixed. What IQ measured, initially, was the ability to take standardized tests. Later IQ tests were "normalized" so as to agree with predecessors.

When it comes to biology, I am no more educated than the average professor of computer science. So I read all of Dawkins' books. Evolutionary Theory explains how all characteristics of all species are inherited. It is not too much of a stretch to include some degree of propensity to violence in genetics.

ETA. Okay I googled it and found this...

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing."

Why yes! That fits.

Now as to scientific fact we find...

"In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts."

Why, yes! That is consistent with both my statements. Scientific facts are just verifiable facts; no adjective needed.

A scientific fact (as distinguished from a fact fact) is one that has been verified scientifically.

What else did you want me to look up and find what I myself said?

Maybe you should read your own post. You wrote:

Perhaps we could define a "scientific fact" as a previously unknown fact predicted by a scientific theory.

Which is quite a bit different than the actual definition of fact or scientific fact.

You also stated

The ability to take standardized tests (IQ) seems to be inherited. The ability to run marathons at record pace seems to be inherited.

Actually, anybody can take a standardized test and even an IQ test provided they are given the opportunity. You seem to be equating high performance on standardized tests with high IQ, which most experts would dispute and would further dispute that high performance on any test is hereditary. There is a positive correlation between performance on at least some standardized tests and the income level of the parents. Despite the inheritance laws, income level is not genetically inherited. Nor is the education level of the parents, although it is somewhat predictive. Not entirely predictive, though. Certainly there are more than just a handful of individuals who perform at very high levels whose parents are relatively uneducated and lower income.

I have yet to find a single study that suggested that time with which one completes a marathon is determined by how well your parents did running marathons. I would wager that most of those who participate in say, the Boston Marathon, including those who place in the top quadrille, were not born to parents who had also run in the Boston Marathon or any marathon, much less placed in the top quadrille.

You honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Davka]

On the IQ test question, it has been demonstrated that certain groups - specifically blacks, hispanics, and women - do less well on tests when they are A) reminded beforehand of their group identity, and/or B) told beforehand that the test will measure how smart they are. IQ tests do a pretty good job of seeing how well people do on standardized tests. They're not very good at measuring actual intelligence.

 

[Axulus]

On the IQ test question, it has been demonstrated that certain groups - specifically blacks, hispanics, and women - do less well on tests when they are A) reminded beforehand of their group identity, and/or B) told beforehand that the test will measure how smart they are. IQ tests do a pretty good job of seeing how well people do on standardized tests. They're not very good at measuring actual intelligence.

Is also good at predicting past and future school performance, job performance, income, crime, likelihood of completing college, earning a masters degree, earning a PhD, among other things. The score is also quite stable over a lifetime. If it was just a measure of how well people did on the test and had no other association with anything else, you'd have a point.