Question about Michael Brown leads to beating on St. Louis light rail train

[MysticSang'ha]

It is astonishing when someone can think objectively about something and not cower to what society demands you to accept. I believe discrimination and mistreatment is wrong but genetics has a place in understanding the world's social conditions. How astonishing!

FYI, the folks you mentioned as influential in your beliefs on the genetic inferiority of blacks when compared to whites and Asians wrote The Bell Curve. Their conclusions have largely been shown to be bunk based on evidential disparity of wealth and educational achievement, but have been used by white supremacist groups to advocate for various measures in immigration and social services qualifications by race.

 

[George-ananda]

Please cite something to corroborate this claim. I'll accept nothing less than peer reviewed data, since you're claiming the ability to judge ethnicities based on genetics and science.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

For evidence I can point to the many works of social science professors like Charles Murray, Richard Hernstein, Phillip Rushton, etc..

Certainly it is controversial and we each form our own opinion.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Please cite something to corroborate this claim. I'll accept nothing less than peer reviewed data, since you're claiming the ability to judge ethnicities based on genetics and science.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

The folks mentioned regularly do not submit their studies and conclusions to peer review. At least not that I have found.

 

[George-ananda]

FYI, the folks you mentioned as influential in your beliefs on the genetic inferiority of blacks when compared to whites and Asians wrote The Bell Curve. Their conclusions have largely been shown to be bunk based on evidential disparity of wealth and educational achievement, but have been used by white supremacist groups to advocate for various measures in immigration and social services qualifications by race.

Who gets to make the determination that they are bunk? We each form our own opinion.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Certainly it is controversial and we each form our own opinion.

Who gets to make the determination that they are bunk? We each form our own opinion.

That's quite a different stance than saying that you base this belief on scientifically tested data.

If we get to form our own opinions, then it is really honest for you to say that your belief that blacks are genetically inferior and more prone to crime is based on fact?

It's either scientifically accurate of a claim, or it isn't.

 

[George-ananda]

That's quite a different stance than saying that you base this belief on scientifically tested data.

If we get to form our own opinions, then it is really honest for you to say that your belief that blacks are genetically inferior and more prone to crime is based on fact?

It's either scientifically accurate of a claim, or it isn't.

There can be disagreements on the interpretation of data. We can each look at both sides and form our opinion.

You believe the differences are 100% environmental. I believe they are from the complex interplay of genetics AND environment.

 

[jonathan180iq]

There can be disagreements on the interpretation of data. We can each look at both sides and form our opinion.

You believe the differences are 100% environmental. I believe they are from the complex interplay of genetics AND environment.

Which gene is it, then, in the black "race", that predisposes them to crime more so than the white "race"?
To make any valid argument for your opinion, there certainly is genetic evidence, right?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For evidence I can point to the many works of social science professors like Charles Murray, Richard Hernstein, Phillip Rushton, etc..

I do accept that there are biological variations between human populations, but Rushton is a horrible example. He is known to have used porn mags as sources for some of his "info". He was a psychologist to boot, not a biologist, population geneticist or physical anthropologist. Psychology is barely science as it is (which is why I prefer to refer to psychiatry rather than psychology when it comes to matters of mental health, since they're actual doctors). They should not be meddling in the hard sciences. They have no authority in that field.

The same could be said for the other two you mentioned, come to think of it. I don't trust what social scientists have to say about such things, to be honest. It seems that the social sciences are the last refuge for scientific racists these days. The physical sciences do show us that there is true biological variation between populations and you can call it races or ethnicities but what this means is more nuanced than what idiots like Rushton would've had you believe (past tense because he's dead).

 

[George-ananda]

Which gene is it, then, in the black "race", that predisposes them to crime more so than the white "race"?
To make any valid argument for your opinion, there certainly is genetic evidence, right?

Your understanding is too simplistic. Genetics is more complicated than that. Observed differences are studied for environmental influences and hereditary influences through the social sciences and attempts are made to understand the effects of each. Social science can never be an exact science.

 

[George-ananda]

I do accept that there are biological variations between human populations, but Rushton is a horrible example. He is known to have used porn mags as sources for some of his "info". He was a psychologist to boot, not a biologist, population geneticist or physical anthropologist. Psychology is barely science as it is (which is why I prefer to refer to psychiatry rather than psychology when it comes to matters of mental health, since they're actual doctors). They should not be meddling in the hard sciences. They have no authority in that field.

The same could be said for the other two you mentioned, come to think of it. I don't trust what social scientists have to say about such things, to be honest. It seems that the social sciences are the last refuge for scientific racists these days. The physical sciences do show us that there is true biological variation between populations and you can call it races or ethnicities but what this means is more nuanced than what idiots like Rushton would've had you believe (past tense because he's dead).

I don't necessarily accept everything any social scientists say; I just consider and form my own opinions. It's uncomfortable to say but my considerations have concluded that genetics and environment (not just environment) affect the ethnic disproportions seen in certain areas of society; such as athletic fields, certain intellectual fields, criminality, and 1,001 other things.

I understand this is not pretty, but I it is what I honestly concluded. It is not what I wanted to conclude for emotional reasons either. I do believe many stereotypes traditionally held do have some genetic basis. It takes courage for me to say this knowing how unpopular this will make me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't necessarily accept everything any social scientists say; I just consider and form my own opinions. It's uncomfortable to say but my considerations have concluded that genetics and environment (not just environment) affect the ethnic disproportions seen in certain areas of society; such as athletic fields, certain intellectual fields, criminality, and 1,001 other things.

I understand this is not pretty, but I it is what I honestly concluded. It is not what I wanted to conclude for emotional reasons either. I do believe many stereotypes traditionally held do have some genetic basis. It takes courage for me to say this knowing how unpopular this will make me.

You can say whatever you want. I don't care. I used to be a huge racist and I used Rushton as proof of my arguments before. But that was years ago.

I said that biological variations do exist, but social sciences have no authority in the physical sciences. So people like Murray and Rushton have no authority in subjects of biology and physical anthropology, which they are/were trying to meddle in. Rushton has been torn to shreds by anthropologists.

For example:
http://mathsci.free.fr/graves.pdf

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Here is an explanation of what race is by an evolutionary biologist: Are there human races? « Why Evolution Is True

So read that and take it in. There's differences, but the differences are far more nuanced and complicated than you would think and what people like Murray and Rushton would have you think.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Your understanding is too simplistic. Genetics is more complicated than that. Observed differences are studied for environmental influences and hereditary influences through the social sciences and attempts are made to understand the effects of each. Social science can never be an exact science.

To make a declaration that blacks are more predisposed for criminal behavior than whites (or any other race) is a statement that insists of a basis in scientific territory.
If your entire reason for believing such an adsurd idea is only based on assumptions and conclusions found in the liberal arts, then what does that really say about the foundation of your belief?

The issue isn't that my understanding is too simplistic. The issue is that you have no supporting data to validate the claim other than bias.
While you may even have a handful of biased supporting authors, the vast majority of study in the field contradicts those handful that you would clamor too. And you can insist that it's not an emotional attachment for you at all, yet clinging to an idea that has been handily refuted for a long time would indicate otherwise.

You have made the argument that blacks are more predisposed to crime, genetically. I'm only asking you to support that in any form other than pseduo-scientific fashion, followed then by copping out and saying we are each entitled to our own opinion...

If blacks are more predisposed to crime genetically, then by definition there has to be some basis in the genetic study of that population. If there is no genetic science supporting this claim, then it needs to be recanted.

As you have yet to supply this forum with any peer-reviewed articles supporting the idea, are we to assume that the supporting data simply doesn't exist, leaving the foundation for such a claim absolutely baseless?

 

[Iti oj]

So you both think that it is unfair of us to expect a higher standard from police than we expect from random people on the subway. Is that a fair interpretation of your "point"?

Its like you commented with out reading the thread

 

[fantome profane]

Its like you commented with out reading the thread

It was more question than comment.