Homicide Statistics by Race & Gender [Archive]

Nereid

May2-04, 11:24 AM

Yeah these are American statistics but the same racial gaps exists in every country.The 'races' are (per BlackVision): "Whites" (or "whites"), "Blacks" (or "blacks"), "Others", and (for the UK) "asians". How many of each 'race' are there in the following "countries"The ethnic makeup of each country can be found at CIA's World Factbook. Here: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

But I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to get at here.(my emphasis)I am trying to understand the relevance of the US stats you quoted to the other ~95% of the people in the world. Your answer to my first question was to say that "the same racial gaps exists in every country", so I was curious as to what these 'racial gaps' which exist in 'every country' are.

From the source you cite I learned that:
- 'country' seems to be used to mean several different things, and has a strong 'US government policy' flavour (which isn't really surprising, but does require anyone who wants to engage in serious discussion using it as a source to openly acknowledge its limitations)
- 'race' is not used as a demographic category
- 'ethnic groups' is used, but seems to have a highly variable meaning. E.g. for
China: "Han Chinese, Zhuang, Uygur, Hui, Yi, Tibetan, Miao, Manchu, Mongol, Buyi, Korean, and other nationalities"
India: "Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Mongoloid and other"
US: "white, black, Asian, Amerindian and Alaska native, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander, other"
Nigeria: "Nigeria, which is Africa's most populous country, is composed of more than 250 ethnic groups; the following are the most populous and politically influential: Hausa and Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo (Ibo), Ijaw, Kanuri, Ibibio , Tiv"
Brazil: "white (includes Portuguese, German, Italian, Spanish, Polish), mixed white and black, black, other (includes Japanese, Arab, Amerindian)"
UK: "English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Ulster, West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other"
Germany: "German, Turkish, other (made up largely of Serbo-Croatian, Italian, Russian, Greek, Polish, Spanish)"

So, what did you mean when you said "the same racial gaps exists in every country"?

Monique

May2-04, 11:52 AM

The question also is how large the bias is against certain racial groups, are certain groups watched more closely and thus caught at a higher rate than others?

arildno

May2-04, 12:08 PM

Just a comment from Norway:
The "racial" crime component seems superficial, at best.
In contemporary Norway, the following ethnic groups are somewhat overrepresented in certain crime areas:
Ex-Yugoslavians/Albanians, Pakistanis, Somalians, Vietnamese.

The common denominator between all these diverse groups is that they are also heavily overrepresented in the lower socioeconomic classes.

To give a certain historical view on the matter:
Up to the 1950's/1960's, the aboriginal population in Northern Norway (Lapplanders/Samii a completely different "race" than Norwegians at large), was one of the primary groups with highest crime rates.
It was also one of the poorest.
Today, the economic distinction between Lapplanders and "Norwegians" is largely gone;
and so has the differential crime rates..

BlackVision

May2-04, 12:35 PM

(my emphasis)I am trying to understand the relevance of the US stats you quoted to the other ~95% of the people in the world. Your answer to my first question was to say that "the same racial gaps exists in every country", so I was curious as to what these 'racial gaps' which exist in 'every country' are.

Melting pot countries that have a variety of different races. USA, Canada, Australia, are melting pot countries. Several European countries have also become melting pot countries such as UK, Germany, etc. In countries, where enough of a ethnic group exists to do such a study, these gaps exist and are consistent in every country.

In every country, blacks tend to be far over represented in the crime rate, over 8 times or more of the white rate. Asian crime rate tend to be slightly lower than the white rate. These are consistent in every country.

hitssquad

May2-04, 12:46 PM

Asian crime rate tend to be slightly lower than the white rate. These are consistent in every country.The Philippines is number six on this International Homicide Rate Table (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html), and has a homicide rate almost three times that of the United States.

BlackVision

May2-04, 12:55 PM

The Philippines is number six on this International Homicide Rate Table (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html), and has a homicide rate almost three times that of the United States.
I suppose I should of been more specific and said Far East Asians. China, Korea, Japanese.

The Middle East is Caucasian and have an extraordinarily high crime rate as well.

Southeast Asians wouldn't be purebreed Mongoloids. They have a mixing with the Melanesian race. Middle East is also not purebreed Caucasians and have mixing with African.

Also you need to compare with the same environment. Meaning different races in the SAME country. That's why I used melting pot countries as examples. USA, Canada, UK, etc.

P.S. And Philippines is not 6th overall. There are only 40 countries on that list. There are over 200 countries in the world. Not to mention on this list, they compare several different years. You can't compare 1991 to 1994 to 1997.

Nereid

May2-04, 01:12 PM

Melting pot countries that have a variety of different races. USA, Canada, Australia, are melting pot countries. Several European countries have also become melting pot countries such as UK, Germany, etc. In countries, where enough of a ethnic group exists to do such a study, these gaps exist and are consistent in every country.

In every country, blacks tend to be far over represented in the crime rate, over 8 times or more of the white rate. Asian crime rate tend to be slightly lower than the white rate. These are consistent in every country.Evidence? Or simply unsubstantiated racist propoganda?

BlackVision

May2-04, 01:15 PM

Evidence? Or simply unsubstantiated racist propoganda?
Well there certainly is a trend. After noticing the trend, you have to ask why.

Nereid

May2-04, 01:21 PM

I suppose I should of been more specific and said Far East Asians. China, Korea, Japanese.

The Middle East is Caucasian and have an extraordinarily high crime rate as well.

Southeast Asians wouldn't be purebreed Mongoloids. They have a mixing with the Melanesian race. Middle East is also not purebreed Caucasians and have mixing with African.From the link which hitssquad provided, selections (country and homicide rate (deaths per 100k)):
Colombia: 64.6
Estonia: 28.21
Taiwan: 8.12 (in east Asia last time I looked)
US: 5.7
Italy: 2.25
Canada: 2.16
Australia: 1.86
S Korea: 1.62
England/Wales: 1.41
Germany: 1.17
Kuwait: 1.01

Maybe Colombia and Estonia have recently suffered a huge influx of Middle East Caucasians? Or the US is overflowing with Taiwanese gangsters?

BlackVision

May2-04, 01:29 PM

From the link which hitssquad provided, selections (country and homicide rate (deaths per 100k)):
Colombia: 64.6
Estonia: 28.21
Taiwan: 8.12 (in east Asia last time I looked)
US: 5.7
Italy: 2.25
Canada: 2.16
Australia: 1.86
S Korea: 1.62
England/Wales: 1.41
Germany: 1.17
Kuwait: 1.01

Maybe Colombia and Estonia have recently suffered a huge influx of Middle East Caucasians? Or the US is overflowing with Taiwanese gangsters?
I don't think you can compare the political and economical structure of Taiwan to America. Taiwanese in America would have a lower crime rate than Whites.

Estonia is a recovering communism country, I'm sure that has an effect.

But the point was that in every melting pot country. (USA, Canada, UK, etc) Every country that has a mix of different ethnic races. The asian, white, black holds. With a small gap between asian and whites and a huge one between whites and blacks. Unless you can name a country where this doesn't hold true.

Also these aren't the most accurate statistics for country comparisions I've seen.

Nereid

May2-04, 01:52 PM

I don't think you can compare the political and economical structure of Taiwan to America. Taiwanese in America would have a lower crime rate than Whites.Evidence?

Estonia is a recovering communism [sic] country, I'm sure that has an effect.Maybe we could make up an 'excuse' for every country which doesn't fit any proposed effect?

But the point was that in every melting pot country. (USA, Canada, UK, etc) Every country that has a mix of different ethnic races. The asian, white, black holds. With a small gap between asian and whites and a huge one between whites and blacks. Unless you can name a country where this doesn't hold true.So are we talking about 'races', 'ethnic groups', or 'ethnic races'? Maybe you'd like to propose a definition so that we can have a consistent discussion? In particular, especially given the inconsistency and confusion in your previous posts, what are 'asian', 'black' and 'white'?

In terms of a discussion, your suggestion is the classic debating technique of 'burden shifting': it's *your assertion* that these gaps exist, so the burden is upon *you* to provide evidence to support your claim. This is how it works in astronomy (the area of science I'm most familiar with), and I'm sure in all the sciences.
Also these aren't the most accurate statistics for country comparisions I've seen.Please supply better ones then.

Nereid

May2-04, 02:00 PM

Well there certainly is a trend. After noticing the trend, you have to ask why.What trend?

A statement without supporting evidence is interesting; a racist claim without supporting evidence is likely to attract heated responses, but little in the way of informed debate.

BlackVision

May2-04, 02:08 PM

BlackVision

May2-04, 02:21 PM

Click here for UK Crime Graph (http://www.hometown.aol.com/pawnseek45/englandcrime.jpg)

Moonbear

May2-04, 02:30 PM

Click here for graph (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/orace.gif)

Homicide Offense Rate by Race (1976-2000):

White 5.1 per 100,000
Blacks 39.3 per 100,000
Others: 5.2 per 100,000

Homicide Victim Rate by Race: (1976-2000):

Whites: 5.0 per 100,000
Blacks: 31.9 per 100,000
Others: 4.9 per 100,000

Homicide Rate by Gender:

Male: 16.7 per 100,000
Female: 2.2 per 100,000

Source: US Department of Justice
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm#longterm

How exactly are these statistics calculated? Things don't add up at all. First, there are more offenders than victims. How do you get more people committing homicide than who have been killed, especially when you factor in multiple-homicides, serial or repeat offenders, and unsolved crimes?

Second, why is the total rate of homicide by race adding up to 49.6 per 100,000, but when broken down by sex, only adds up to 18.0 per 100,000. That's 30.7 homicides per 100,000 not accounted for as committed by either men or women...do we have a third sex I don't know about?

The other problem with these sorts of statistics is they are based on conviction rates. If someone isn't proven to have committed homicide, then they can't be included in the stats. So, this could simply reflect a societal bias toward arresting and convicting blacks over whites or asians.

What happens if you break down homicide rate by local population density and do a covariate analysis of population density by race? Seems that thanks to government housing projects of a few decades ago, crowded inner-cities are highly populated by blacks. The greater the population density in an area, the greater the likelihood of conflict escalating to violence. Of the whites committing homicide (and being convicted), how many of them live in the same type of environment? I don't have stats, I'm just asking, because I'd bet that a white person growing up in an inner city would have just as much likelihood as a black person to commit a violent crime, or any crime, whereas a black person growing up in a suburban, upscale neighborhood is going to have a much decreased likelihood of committing a violent crime, comparable to the rate of whites in the same neighborhood.

Andre

May2-04, 02:38 PM

Wow, we're at the end of page two already talking about heavy racial matters and not a single fallacy attack yet about the high political incorrectness.

BTW there are no human races (http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/22/apr04/race.htm).

Moonbear

May2-04, 03:00 PM

It occurred to me that my confusion over those stats is that the numbers are percentages within each population, so the 5.1 homicides per 100,000 means 5.1 whites commit homicides out of every 100,000 whites, not out of every 100,000 people living in the US.

The latter part of my questions, regarding the relationship between population density, more people to bump into in a day, so more chance for conflict and for that conflict to escalate to violence, is something I still would like to see answered. That certainly is something that can also be addressed across more countries, looking at homicide rates based on population density, as my prediction is that density is more predictive of homicide rates than the races comprising that population.

russ_watters

May2-04, 03:10 PM

I thought this question deserved a response: Any statistics in terms of socio-economic class? Its (and the nature of the cause/effect relationship) is critical.

BlackVision

May2-04, 03:11 PM

How exactly are these statistics calculated? Things don't add up at all. First, there are more offenders than victims. How do you get more people committing homicide than who have been killed, especially when you factor in multiple-homicides, serial or repeat offenders, and unsolved crimes?
Very often times multiple people are charged for 1 homicide. One that gets 1st degree, another that gets 2nd degree for aiding it, etc etc.

Second, why is the total rate of homicide by race adding up to 49.6 per 100,000, but when broken down by sex, only adds up to 18.0 per 100,000. That's 30.7 homicides per 100,000 not accounted for as committed by either men or women...do we have a third sex I don't know about?
These are AVERAGE statistics per 100,000 population. Since it's 16.7 per 100,000 for men and 2.2 per 100,000 for women, the average becomes roughly 9.45 per 100,000.

The other problem with these sorts of statistics is they are based on conviction rates. If someone isn't proven to have committed homicide, then they can't be included in the stats. So, this could simply reflect a societal bias toward arresting and convicting blacks over whites or asians.
The bias argument tends to fail when the victim homicide rate is close to identical to the offender's homicide rate.

What happens if you break down homicide rate by local population density and do a covariate analysis of population density by race? Seems that thanks to government housing projects of a few decades ago, crowded inner-cities are highly populated by blacks. The greater the population density in an area, the greater the likelihood of conflict escalating to violence. Of the whites committing homicide (and being convicted), how many of them live in the same type of environment? I don't have stats, I'm just asking, because I'd bet that a white person growing up in an inner city would have just as much likelihood as a black person to commit a violent crime, or any crime, whereas a black person growing up in a suburban, upscale neighborhood is going to have a much decreased likelihood of committing a violent crime, comparable to the rate of whites in the same neighborhood.

New Orleans:
Population: 484,674

Ethnicity:
White: 27%
Black: 67%
Hispanic: 3%
Asian 2%

Homicide rate: 53.3 per 100,000

Washington DC
Population: 572,059

Ethnicity:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Homicide Rate: 45.82 per 100,000

Seattle:
Population: 563,374

Ethnicity:
White: 68%
Black: 8%
Hispanic: 5%
Asian: 13%

Homicide rate: 4.43 per 100,000

Portland:
Population: 529,121

Ethnicity:
White: 75%
Black: 7%
Hispanic: 7%
Asian: 6%

Homicide rate: 4.34 per 100,000

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030616-093406-7084r.htm
http://statestats.com/

hitssquad

May2-04, 03:26 PM

I'd bet that a white person growing up in an inner city would have just as much likelihood as a black person to commit a violent crime, or any crime, whereas a black person growing up in a suburban, upscale neighborhood is going to have a much decreased likelihood of committing a violent crime, comparable to the rate of whites in the same neighborhood.IIRC, Lynn and Rushton have proposed that:

Testosterone level correlates inversely with threshhold for violence

Blacks tend to have higher testosterone levels than Whites

And, on this point, it is interesting to note that males growing up in the same neighborhoods as females, virtually everywhere, tend to suffer higher rates of commission of violent crimes.

Nereid

May2-04, 03:36 PM

Click here for UK Crime Graph (http://www.hometown.aol.com/pawnseek45/englandcrime.jpg)Some data at last!

Some questions:
- what has this data got to do with homocides? At first glance it seems to be the numbers of people, per 100k population, who are in prison (and surely not everyone in prison in the UK is there for one of the crimes called 'homocide'!)
- has the data been analysed for the age effect? In DarkVision's post at the start of this thread, there is clearly a strong age effect: young men appear to have a far, far higher incidence of homocide than other groups. If the various groups in DarkVision's posted UK data have significantly different age (or sex) structures, then direct comparison is not very interesting
- how do 'Black Caribbean', 'Black African' and 'Black Other' relate to 'black' in DarkVision's US data? My guess is, 'only tenuously', given the very different history of, and reasons for, 'black immigration' into the US and UK.

Nereid

May2-04, 03:45 PM

White is anyone of the Caucasian race. This does include the Middle East and this group will inflate the score if there's a heavy surplus of them. (UK groups Middle East with Asian however) Asian is Far East and the Southeast Race. The Southeast will inflate the score. Black is the Sub-Sahara race. From what I know there isn't a particular Sub-Sahara group that will inflate the score and is quite even across the board.What is 'the Caucasian race'? 'Far East and the Southeast Race'? 'Sub-Sahara race'?

You may not have attempted to provide a comprehensive set of such (R)races, but in case you did, to which do the original inhabitants of the following islands and continents belong?
- New Guinea
- Tasmania
- New Zealand
- Taiwan
- Hawaii
- North America
- South AmericaYou're right the burden is on me to support evidence for the gap and I did just that. Comparison of white, asian, blacks in countries that have these volumes. I provided US and United Kingdom. The same gap exists in Australia, Canada, and other countries that have volumes of these races. I have seen statistics for these countries before and will post them once I find them again. But like i said WITHIN a country, the gaps are very consistent.Here is the list of 'Ethnic groups' for Canada and Australia (from the source you provided); please identify which belong to which '(R)race':
Canada: "British Isles origin, French origin, other European, Amerindian, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab, mixed background"
Australia: "Caucasian, Asian, aboriginal and other"

What 'other countries' have 'volumes of these races'?

Nereid

May2-04, 03:50 PM

IIRC, Lynn and Rushton have proposed that:

Testosterone level correlates inversely with threshhold for violence

Blacks tend to have higher testosterone levels than Whites

And, on this point, it is interesting to note that males growing up in the same neighborhoods as females, virtually everywhere, tend to suffer higher rates of commission of violent crimes.Easy enough to test hitssquad, what is the relationship between testosterone level and violence in females?

Also, why is this relevant? I mean, is there a tight, well-documented relationship between violence threshholds and homocide (in the US)?

Nereid

May2-04, 03:58 PM

DarkVision began this thread with data on 'homicide', and later mentioned that it refers to the US only. DarkVision later seemed to talk (inconsistently) about crime, incarceration, and homicide.

So I'm wondering, to what extent is 'homicide' itself a sociological phenomenon? I mean, when a US Marine kills an Iraqi 'soldier' or an Afghan 'terrorist', is he committing 'homicide'? What about the people who executed Timothy McVeigh, did they commit 'homicide'? How about doctors whose sloppiness or inattention results in the death of the patient? The drunk whose car he is driving kills a cyclist? And what are we to call the senior managers of tobacco companies who continued to enrich themselves by 'extending the market' for their products, knowing full well that their activities would inevitably result in the deaths of millions?

selfAdjoint

May2-04, 05:35 PM

Nereid

May2-04, 05:58 PM

Good points selfAdjoint. IIRC, there was a case in the US a few years ago ... some mine (or company) owner (or manager) was convicted of murder ... he (it was a 'he', don't know if white, black, or purple) was responsible for allowing (forcing?) some of his employees to work in conditions that he knew were unsafe (deadly?), and at least one died. Analogous 'industrial accidents' in the UK apparently result in mere loss of employment (I recall a particularly nasty case a few years ago involving a malfunctioning industrial oven), not even jail time.

Similarly, in China some time ago, there was a horrifying case of babies being killed through the inattention of their carers ... those responsible who didn't commit suicide were executed ... for murder. If there were such a case in the UK, or anywhere in Europe, I doubt that murder charges would even be laid, let alone proven in a court of law.

And we haven't even started to look at infanticide, 'honour killing', the death of young wives in all-to-frequent 'kitchen accidents' (look up 'dowry'), ...

Moonbear

May2-04, 08:04 PM

In this article:

Gapstur SM, Gann PH, Kopp P, Colangelo L, Longcope C, Liu K. Serum androgen concentrations in young men: a longitudinal analysis of associations with age, obesity, and race. The CARDIA male hormone study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Oct;11(10 Pt 1):1041-7.

The authors conclude:

"Challenging the concept of differences in testosterone levels between black and white men, our results also indicate no differences in serum testosterone or SHBG concentrations after adjustment for age, BMI, and waist circumference."

Also, when I was asking about population density, I didn't mean the whole city, I meant in the "neighborhoods" where the homicides are being committed. Every city has diversity of neighborhoods and different population densities associated with those neighborhoods. I happen to live in a more suburban part of a city with about a 50/50 black/white ratio (not to many other races or ethnicities represented in my neighborhood...a few, but negligible), and it's a VERY safe neighborhood. On the other hand, there is a section of the city where there are lots of apartments, no backyards for the kids to play in, if you looked at the number of people/acre (or some other convenient measure of property size), it would be much higher than my neighborhood. There also happens to be much higher crime rates in that area...the sort of place I wouldn't walk alone at night, and maybe not in the daylight either. Even in the part of the city where I live, there is an apartment complex fairly close to my neighborhood, similar black/white ratio there, yet much higher crime rates. Now, this could be a socioeconomic issue, that poorer people live in apartments and the relative poverty contributes toward tendencies to commit crimes, or it could be a population density issue...too many neighbors, no place to go to get some space, more likely to run into someone you're not going to get along with.

BlackVision, it's interesting that you don't understand the statistics you are using to support your claims. Just two posts after my first one, I pointed out that I realized my error in understanding the crime rates, yet your post introduces a whole new set of errors. You can't take the rate for men and the rate for women and average them together to get the rate for the population!

Nereid, while I have my suspicions of BlackVision's agenda in presenting these statistics, I'm not opposed to him/her limiting the discussion to racial differences in the U.S., for the very reasons you're pointing out...there are different societal definitions of homicide in every country, as well as different cultural pressures. I don't believe that the higher rate of homicide convictions for blacks is just because they are black, but due to problems in our own society in the environment in which blacks live and the way they are treated. If we are going to identify and address these problems, we need to first acknowledge they exist. The data are not in question, the interpretation is.

BlackVision

May2-04, 10:00 PM

DarkVision began this thread with data on 'homicide', and later mentioned that it refers to the US only. DarkVision later seemed to talk (inconsistently) about crime, incarceration, and homicide.

Ok why do certain people consistently try to misinterpret what I'm saying. Yes it originally started out with homicide but it's crime in general. Notice right after that post, I quoted an article, which lists rape and robbery statistics that correspend to the homicide rate of blacks.

And here is my one and ONLY point. The asian, white, and black gaps are consistent WITHIN any country that has enough of each of these populations in order to conduct a study. Now if you feel I am wrong about this, you may name a country in this world where this does not hold true. Again you need to pick a country that actually has these populations and not a homogeneous one.

BlackVision

May2-04, 10:10 PM

In this article:

Gapstur SM, Gann PH, Kopp P, Colangelo L, Longcope C, Liu K. Serum androgen concentrations in young men: a longitudinal analysis of associations with age, obesity, and race. The CARDIA male hormone study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Oct;11(10 Pt 1):1041-7.

The authors conclude:

"Challenging the concept of differences in testosterone levels between black and white men, our results also indicate no differences in serum testosterone or SHBG concentrations after adjustment for age, BMI, and waist circumference."
This is flawed. Age, I can understand. How can you balance for waist circumference. I mean the higher testosterone level is probably RESPONSIBLE for the waist circumference. This is like saying, "there are no height differences in between men and women after adjusting for hand sizes, feet sizes, and waist sizes" An example of how one manipulates statistics.

Also, when I was asking about population density, I didn't mean the whole city, I meant in the "neighborhoods" where the homicides are being committed. Every city has diversity of neighborhoods and different population densities associated with those neighborhoods. I happen to live in a more suburban part of a city with about a 50/50 black/white ratio (not to many other races or ethnicities represented in my neighborhood...a few, but negligible), and it's a VERY safe neighborhood. On the other hand, there is a section of the city where there are lots of apartments, no backyards for the kids to play in, if you looked at the number of people/acre (or some other convenient measure of property size), it would be much higher than my neighborhood. There also happens to be much higher crime rates in that area...the sort of place I wouldn't walk alone at night, and maybe not in the daylight either. Even in the part of the city where I live, there is an apartment complex fairly close to my neighborhood, similar black/white ratio there, yet much higher crime rates. Now, this could be a socioeconomic issue, that poorer people live in apartments and the relative poverty contributes toward tendencies to commit crimes, or it could be a population density issue...too many neighbors, no place to go to get some space, more likely to run into someone you're not going to get along with.
Ok but the overall population density of these cities are equal is it not? So in the end shouldn't it balance out? Also New York probably has more apartments than any city in America, most people in New York live in apartments but New York doesn't have the crime rate that DC does. Not even close. Wouldn't you agree that New York is more packed than DC is?

BlackVision, it's interesting that you don't understand the statistics you are using to support your claims. Just two posts after my first one, I pointed out that I realized my error in understanding the crime rates, yet your post introduces a whole new set of errors. You can't take the rate for men and the rate for women and average them together to get the rate for the population!
Ok you didn't click on my link did you? If you did, you would have found this:

Men: 16.7 per 100,000
Women: 2.2 per 100,000
ALL: 9.2 per 100,000

Notice that the total homicide rate is pretty much right in between men and women.

Here you can check it again.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm#longterm

The data are not in question, the interpretation is.
A common consensus. That's a start. :smile:

hitssquad

May3-04, 01:40 AM

Men: 16.7 per 100,000
Women: 2.2 per 100,000
ALL: 9.2 per 100,000

Notice that the total homicide rate is pretty much right in between men and women.I would have said it was almost the average, or arithmetic mean, of the two subpopulation rates. But in order to calculate a total rate from among multiple population categories with varying size proportions within a total population, accountance must be made for those size variances. Since females typically generally constitute slight majorities of national populations, that might just account for the difference between the 9.2 per 100,000 figure above and the 9.45 per 100,000 figure one would arrive at by calculating the arithmetic mean with the assumption that the two subpopulations are evenly represented relative to each other in the total population.

Nereid

May3-04, 10:17 AM

Ok why do certain people consistently try to misinterpret what I'm saying. Yes it originally started out with homicide but it's crime in general. Notice right after that post, I quoted an article, which lists rape and robbery statistics that correspend to the homicide rate of blacks.

And here is my one and ONLY point. The asian, white, and black gaps are consistent WITHIN any country that has enough of each of these populations in order to conduct a study. Now if you feel I am wrong about this, you may name a country in this world where this does not hold true. Again you need to pick a country that actually has these populations and not a homogeneous one.Thank you for the clarification.

You've provided some data for the US, and I'd like to return to discuss that later, in terms of your assertion.

However, I'd first like more clarification of "The asian, white, and black gaps are consistent WITHIN any country that has enough of each of these populations in order to conduct a study" You stated earlier that your interest was in 'melting pot countries', and you gave the US, Canada, and Australia as such; later you also included the UK, and indicated that there were more. You also provide some statistics on incarceration rates in the UK. You defined what you meant by the terms 'asian', 'black', and 'white'.

I asked you to further clarify your definitions of asian (etc), and to provide data on the numbers (or proportions) of each of these groups in Canada and Australia (and any other countries you feel are 'melting pot countries'). I am still waiting for answers.

Now I would like to ask you: how do you intend to interpret the data from each of the countries? In particular, are you looking to draw conclusions across countries, or only within countries?

Moonbear

May3-04, 08:50 PM

This is flawed. Age, I can understand. How can you balance for waist circumference. I mean the higher testosterone level is probably RESPONSIBLE for the waist circumference. This is like saying, "there are no height differences in between men and women after adjusting for hand sizes, feet sizes, and waist sizes" An example of how one manipulates statistics.

Actually, that's not correct. Testosterone in males increases lean muscle mass, not fat (that's the reason body builders take anabolic steroids...if it increased fat, that wouldn't be very useful). Also, it's a valid assertion that having a higher body fat content (that's what waist circumference reflects) would lead to higher circulating testosterone concentrations. Testosterone, as well as other steroid hormones, is stored in fat, so obese subjects (same for other animals, not just humans) would have a "reservoir" of testosterone that is metabolized more slowly than lean subjects. The other reason I chose that particular study is that it is a neutral study, not focused on testosterone for some racist agenda, but instead had assumed testosterone would be different and was testing whether it was as risk factor for prostate cancer in African-Americans. This finding actually disproved the authors' hypothesis. If the authors wanted to manipulate statistics, they'd have ignored this relationship because it would have better fit their hypothesis.

Regardless, I had pasted in their conclusions, but here is the section of the results dealing with the UNADJUSTED results rather than the adjusted results. This is from the same study I cited previously, Gapstur et al., 2002.

"Unadjusted mean total testosterone, SHBG, and free-testosterone concentrations were not statistically significantly different between blacks and whites at any examination (Table 1) , except at Year 10, blacks had slightly higher levels (0.0063 ng/ml; P = 0.05) of free testosterone than whites. From the Year 2 to the Year 10 examinations, the concentrations of total and free testosterone were reduced by a similar magnitude for both black and white men."

I should point out that this difference detected only in year 10 of the study is not a biologically meaningful difference. I was actually surprised it came up significant because that amount of variation can often be accounted for simply by inter-assay variation (the means were 0.16 vs 0.15 ng/ml for blacks vs whites; in year 2 of the study, both groups had means of 0.17, so a mean concentration of 0.16 is not different from the amount found in whites during their lifetime either). They must have had a fantastic tech running their assays for such a small difference to be detected as significant. There is a difference between statistical significance and biological relevance. This is also only for free testosterone, not total testosterone (which means testosterone not bound by sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG)). It would take a lot more testosterone than that to cause a difference in aggression. Keep in mind these are circulating concentrations (what's found in the blood), not the amount that gets past the blood-brain barrier where behavior is affected.

BlackVision

May4-04, 09:45 AM

The other reason I chose that particular study is that it is a neutral study
I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. It is a politically correct study. With an agenda to give "happy results" not accurate results. Like I said, if I wanted to create "happy results" to say men and women have the same height, I would say "after balancing for hand sizes, feet sizes, waist circumference, there is no height differences between men and women" Which if done, I promise you, will close the gap to near nil, if not nil.

Actually, that's not correct. Testosterone in males increases lean muscle mass, not fat (that's the reason body builders take anabolic steroids...if it increased fat, that wouldn't be very useful). Also, it's a valid assertion that having a higher body fat content (that's what waist circumference reflects) would lead to higher circulating testosterone concentrations. Testosterone, as well as other steroid hormones, is stored in fat, so obese subjects (same for other animals, not just humans) would have a "reservoir" of testosterone that is metabolized more slowly than lean subjects. The other reason I chose that particular study is that it is a neutral study, not focused on testosterone for some racist agenda, but instead had assumed testosterone would be different and was testing whether it was as risk factor for prostate cancer in African-Americans. This finding actually disproved the authors' hypothesis. If the authors wanted to manipulate statistics, they'd have ignored this relationship because it would have better fit their hypothesis.

Regardless, I had pasted in their conclusions, but here is the section of the results dealing with the UNADJUSTED results rather than the adjusted results. This is from the same study I cited previously, Gapstur et al., 2002.

"Unadjusted mean total testosterone, SHBG, and free-testosterone concentrations were not statistically significantly different between blacks and whites at any examination (Table 1) , except at Year 10, blacks had slightly higher levels (0.0063 ng/ml; P = 0.05) of free testosterone than whites. From the Year 2 to the Year 10 examinations, the concentrations of total and free testosterone were reduced by a similar magnitude for both black and white men."

I should point out that this difference detected only in year 10 of the study is not a biologically meaningful difference. I was actually surprised it came up significant because that amount of variation can often be accounted for simply by inter-assay variation (the means were 0.16 vs 0.15 ng/ml for blacks vs whites; in year 2 of the study, both groups had means of 0.17, so a mean concentration of 0.16 is not different from the amount found in whites during their lifetime either). They must have had a fantastic tech running their assays for such a small difference to be detected as significant. There is a difference between statistical significance and biological relevance. This is also only for free testosterone, not total testosterone (which means testosterone not bound by sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG)). It would take a lot more testosterone than that to cause a difference in aggression. Keep in mind these are circulating concentrations (what's found in the blood), not the amount that gets past the blood-brain barrier where behavior is affected.
And yet all the signs of higher testostereone level is present in blacks. Higher level of athletic ability. Bigger dicks. More aggression. Faster body development.

But there are always politically correct people that manipulates things here and there to try to create "happy results" instead of using proper science and giving accurate ones.

J Rushton has wrote a good study on this in his book. Although you probably will think it as a "racist" agenda while others will say it's politically incorrect yet correct information.

Nereid

May4-04, 05:48 PM

First, a comment or three on this 'testosterone level':
- if it does have a relationship to anything significant to this discussion on the relative proportions of 'white', 'black', and 'asian' people (men, actually) who are convicted of 'crimes' in the US, then there are surely some easy answers from that field of science known as 'medicine'
- aren't there disorders (conditions, whatever) which give rise to either an absence of testosterone, or massively elevated levels? If so, are the wretched folk so afflicted glaringly lacking in all tendency to violence, or utterly uncontrollable? If not, then the testosterone-violence relationship can only be quite subtle
- do young men (whatever 'race') have massively elevated levels of testosterone (compared to children and older men)? If not, the apparent substantially increased levels of 'criminality' in young men cannot be directly attributable to testosterone
- if any testosterone-violence link can be demonstrated, but is quite weak, then that serves, at best, to play only a minor role in any 'race' differences in 'criminality.

Next: (see next post)

Nereid

May4-04, 06:08 PM

DarkVision began this thread talking about the incidence of 'homicide' in the US, but quickly clarified his (her?) intent as 'criminality' (my word) and 'race', specifically, 'white', 'black', and 'asian'.

To have a decent discussion, surely we should first have a common understanding of the key terms?

DarkVision (since these are your assertions that we are discussing): what do you mean by 'white', 'black', and 'asian', first in the context of the US? What is your measure of the 'criminality' (or whatever term you wish to use) that you are seeking to determine for each 'race'?

BlackVision

May4-04, 06:21 PM

Ok first, why are you keep calling me DarkVision?

Second, for the US, these are the definitions of race as used by the US Census Bureau and other government agencies.

Race Definition:

The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups.

The racial classifications used by the Census Bureau adhere to the October 30,1997, Federal Register Notice entitled,"Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity" issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.

American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes "Asian Indian," "Chinese," "Filipino," "Korean," "Japanese," "Vietnamese," and "Other Asian."

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as "Native Hawaiian," "Guamanian or Chamorro," "Samoan," and "Other Pacific Islander."

Some other race. Includes all other responses not included in the "White", "Black or African American", "American Indian and Alaska Native", "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" race categories described above. Respondents providing write-in entries such as multiracial, mixed, interracial, Wesort, or a Hispanic/Latino group (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban) in the "Some other race" category are included here.

Two or more races. People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes, by providing multiple write-in responses, or by some combination of check boxes and write-in responses.

BlackVision

May4-04, 06:26 PM

- do young men (whatever 'race') have massively elevated levels of testosterone (compared to children and older men)? If not, the apparent substantially increased levels of 'criminality' in young men cannot be directly attributable to testosterone
Yes young men have higher testosterone levels than children and older men. The period of your highest testosterone level is also the period of your highest sex drive. Most likely from your teens and throughout your 20s.

Nereid

May4-04, 06:28 PM

BlackVision

May4-04, 06:39 PM

BlackVision (not DarkVision): A mistake, I'll try to be more careful in future.

So if some 'criminal' chooses to say they have (are?) more than one race, is their 'crime' recorded as having been perpetrated under all self-declared races?
There are a number of factors that causes criminal behavior. Testosterone level would be one of them. Certainly not in all aspects a bad hormone. This magical hormone does many things. It gives you a sex drive, it allows you to build muscle mass, as well as other so called "male" characteristics. One of them is aggressive behavior. Aggressive behavior would often even be positive. It allows you to be more competitive which is great as long as you have it under control. But this aggressive behavior often times turns criminal.

80-90% of homicides are commited by men. It's hard to make a case for environment being the main cause of it. Men are much more aggressive than their female counterparts. That magical male hormone testosterone probably responsible for it.

Now do certain races have a higher median level of testosterone than others? If this is the case, the pattern of higher aggressive behavior should be visible.

BlackVision

May4-04, 06:42 PM

And oh yeah to your question, if a person is of mixed races, then it will likely be listed as whatever race that person considers themselves. Kinda like the Census Bureau I suppose.

Moonbear

May4-04, 07:18 PM

There are a number of factors that causes criminal behavior. Testosterone level would be one of them. Certainly not in all aspects a bad hormone. This magical hormone does many things. It gives you a sex drive, it allows you to build muscle mass, as well as other so called "male" characteristics. One of them is aggressive behavior. Aggressive behavior would often even be positive. It allows you to be more competitive which is great as long as you have it under control. But this aggressive behavior often times turns criminal.

80-90% of homicides are commited by men. It's hard to make a case for environment being the main cause of it. Men are much more aggressive than their female counterparts. That magical male hormone testosterone probably responsible for it.

Now do certain races have a higher median level of testosterone than others? If this is the case, the pattern of higher aggressive behavior should be visible.

The differences in testosterone between the blacks and whites in that study I cited (which was only different at one timepoint) are not sufficient to induce differences in aggression. Keep in mind, it wasn't total testosterone that differed, only free testosterone, and only by a very, very small amount.

Here is another reference on male aggression and testosterone (I'm pasting in the abstract, you can read the full article for yourself):

Physiol Behav. 2002 Apr 1;75(4):557-66.
**
Exogenous testosterone, aggression, and mood in eugonadal and hypogonadal men.
O'Connor DB, Archer J, Hair WM, Wu FC.
Department of Endocrinology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester M13 9WL, UK. daryloc@psychology.leeds.ac.uk
To investigate (1) the effects of exogenous testosterone (T) on self- and partner-reported aggression and mood and (2) the role of trait impulsivity in the T-aggression relationship. Thirty eugonadal men with partners were randomized into two treatment groups to receive: (1) 200 mg im T enanthate weekly for 8 weeks or (2) 200 mg im sodium chloride weekly for 8 weeks. Eight hypogonadal men received 200 mg im T enanthate biweekly for 8 weeks. All groups completed a battery of behavior measures at baseline (Week 0) and at Weeks 4 and 8. Cognitive and motor impulsivity were the only predictors of self-reported total aggression (over and above age and T levels) at Weeks 0, 4, and 8. No significant changes in aggression or mood levels were found in the eugonadal-treated group. Significant reductions in negative mood (tension, anger, and fatigue) followed by an increase in vigor were found in response to T treatment in the hypogonadal group. These results demonstrate that inability to control one's behavior when such control is required by a particular situation (impulsivity) was found to significantly predict levels of aggression over and above age and T level. These data do not support the hypothesis that supraphysiological levels of T (within this range) lead to an increase in self- and partner-reported aggression or mood disturbances. Instead, for the first time, this study has identified the high level of negative affect experienced by hypogonadal patients. These findings have implications for T replacement therapy and male contraception.

Also note that there are disorders in women in which androgen concentrations are elevated. For example, in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), women have very elevated testosterone concentrations. These women are not more aggressive than other women.

Nereid

May4-04, 07:42 PM

Yes young men have higher testosterone levels than children and older men. The period of your highest testosterone level is also the period of your highest sex drive. Most likely from your teens and throughout your 20s.I am given to understand that it may be different for me :wink: (Nereid (http://webhome.idirect.com/~donlong/monsters/Html/Nereid.htm): "daughters of the nymph Doris and of Nereus")

Moonbear

May4-04, 07:44 PM

Now do certain races have a higher median level of testosterone than others? If this is the case, the pattern of higher aggressive behavior should be visible.

I already provided evidence that this is not the case. That you chose to ignore it and instead claim it is just "PC" is not my problem. I again point out that study I refered to was EXPECTING to find a difference and to use it to support their hypothesis, therefore, that they did not find a difference was not in any way helpful to them or fulfilling some PC agenda.

You should also be aware that daily fluctuations in testosterone are much greater than those differences in testosterone observed between the races. Further, the PEAK in testosterone in men occurs at about 7 AM, with the lowest levels at about 10 PM. When do most crimes occur? If you can show me credible statistics that most homocides, or crimes, occur around 7 AM, then I may concede testosterone is associate with this. If, however, more homocides, or crimes (since it's still not clear to me if we're discussing only homocide or all crime rates) happen in the evening, then there's a problem with your prediction that small differences in testosterone concentrations are responsible. Here is another reference and abstract supporting the time of day difference (also has a nice graph of differences between young and middle-aged men in testosterone concentrations...note that the daily nadir for the young men is lower than the daily peak for middle-aged men, so even though middle-aged men have overall lower testosterone than young men, this would predict that middle-aged men would still have high enough testosterone in the mornings to commit crimes at that time of day.

Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2003 Jun;58(6):710-7.
**
Diurnal rhythms of serum total, free and bioavailable testosterone and of SHBG in middle-aged men compared with those in young men.
Diver MJ, Imtiaz KE, Ahmad AM, Vora JP, Fraser WD.
Department of Clinical Chemistry, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. mjdiver@liv.ac.uk
BACKGROUND: Conflicting views are reported on the association between advancing age and gradually diminishing concentrations of serum total testosterone in men. The putative loss of diurnal rhythm in serum total testosterone in older men is reported to be in part due to low concentrations in the morning when compared to concentrations found in young men. We have measured total, free and bioavailable testosterone along with SHBG in samples taken every 30 min throughout a 24-h period in 10 young and eight middle-aged men. RESULTS: Both young and middle-aged men displayed a significant diurnal rhythm in all variables, with a minimum fall of 43% in total testosterone from peak to nadir in all subjects. Subjecting the data to a time series analysis by least squares estimation revealed no significant difference in mesor (P = 0.306), amplitude (P = 0.061) or acrophase (P = 0.972) for total testosterone between the two groups. Comparing bioavailable testosterone in the two groups revealed no significant difference in mesor (P = 0.175) or acrophase (P = 0.978) but a significant difference (P = 0.031) in amplitude. Both groups display a significant circadian rhythm (middle-aged group P < 0.001; young group P = 0.014). Free testosterone revealed a highly significant rhythm in both the young group (P < 0.001) and the middle-aged group (P = 0.002), with no significant difference between the groups in mesor (P = 0.094) or acrophase (P = 0.698). Although analysis of the SHBG data revealed a significant rhythm in the young group (P = 0.003) and the older group (P < 0.001), the acrophase occurred in the mid afternoon in both groups (15.12 h in the young and 15.40 h in the middle-aged). The older men had a significantly greater amplitude (P = 0.044) but again no significant difference was seen in mesor (P = 0.083) or acrophase (P = 0.477) between the two groups. Acrophases for total, bioavailable and free testosterone occurred between 07.00 h and 07.30 h; for SHBG the acrophase occurred at 15.12 h in the young group and 15.40 h in the middle-aged group. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that the diurnal rhythm in these indices of androgen status is maintained in fit, healthy men into the 7th decade of life.

Nereid

May4-04, 08:40 PM

Nereid

May4-04, 08:43 PM

And oh yeah to your question, if a person is of mixed races, then it will likely be listed as whatever race that person considers themselves. Kinda like the Census Bureau I suppose.Thanks.

So, for the avoidance of doubt, in compilations of US crime statistics, the 'race' of the perpetrator is whatever the perp said it is? And if the perp says "I'm white, Hawaiian, black, and other", four records are created?

How is the 'race' of the victim determined, in cases where the victim is dead?

hitssquad

May4-04, 09:29 PM

How is the 'race' of the victim determined, in cases where the victim is dead?A coroner makes an official determination of the race from the remains:

E-1. General (http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/10-286/Appe.htm)

Positive identification of a remains can be made through a knowledge of the skeletal system. Identification as to race, sex, age, and height is possible through applying a knowledge of the human skeleton.

E-10. Identifying Skeletal Remains

a. General. Persons assigned to carry out the identification of deceased personnel must be able not only to identify bones and place them in anatomical order but also to identify the sex, race, height, and age of skeletal remains.

c. Race. The three primary races are Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongolian; the two classifications are American Indian and mixed. Some skeletal differences exist among the races. They are restricted to the orbital cavities, long bones, nasal ridge, back of the skull, and hair.1

(1) Orbital cavity. The orbital cavities of the three primary races differ. Those of Caucasians are square with rounded corners; those of Negroids are rectangular with rounded corners; and those of Mongoloids are oval.

(2) Long bones. The long bones of a member of the Negroid race are relatively longer than those of a member of the Caucasian race. The long bones of a member of the Mongolian race range in length between those of the other two races.

(3) Nasal ridge. The nasal ridge, the edge of the bone at the base of the nasal cavity, has noticeable racial differences. In a member of the Caucasian race, the edge is sharp; in a member of the Negroid race, it is smooth or dull.

(4) Back of the skull. The back of the skull of a member of the Mongolian race is relatively flat as compared to that of either of the other two races.

(5) Hair. In a general way, race can be determined from the characteristics of the shaft, or free portion, of hair strands. However, since hair characteristics of the races overlap, they should not be the only evidence used in determining the race of the remains.

(a) Caucasian. The wavy and curly hair of Caucasians is smooth and silky. The color varies from ash blond to black, including red.

(b) Negroid. The hair of members of the Negroid race is frizzly, woolly, and peppercorn and either brown or black in color. Also, the hair is typically coarse and crisp.

(c) Mongolian. The hair of members of the Mongolian race is typically straight, limp, and coarse and either dark brown or black in color.

Nereid

May4-04, 10:30 PM

Thanks hitssquad.

Presumably the same techiques are not used to establish the 'race' of the perps?

What say do the family members of a victim (assuming they are involved in any way) have in determining the 'race' of the victim (as such is recorded for crime stats)?

What 'race' would a coroner assign a person who has mixed parentage, say someone like Tiger?

Loren Booda

May4-04, 11:52 PM

Put aside your statistics for just a moment and consider a black man walking toward you. Is it significant that he might murder you, or is he much more likely to be friendly given the opportunity to acknowledge your genuine smile, gesture or greeting? Maybe he had a good day, maybe not - just give him the benefit of the doubt.

Overall conditions of blacks are no more likely to have arisen from whatever arbitrary color ("indigo") they inherited than I from my different, arbitrary skin color ("pink"). In black and white populations you can almost always find people whose IQ, say 80, matches that of another person in the other racial group. Would you give your neighbors the eugenics diatribe that their responsible daughter of such IQ is not worthy to marry your son of IQ 110?

Try to compare polar opposites (black/white, male/female, atheist/fundamentalist, obese/ectomorphic, communist/fascist, rich/poor, etc.) of independent variables throughout a comprehensive statistical accounting against the resultant dependent statistics. You will find that extremes can beget other extremes. The haves dehumanize the have nots in poverty, poor nutrition, lack of education, disenfranchisment, bad environment, drug abuse, unemployment and crime, as does the simplistic prejudice of numerically pigeonholing people. The operative word is poor, the cause is often ignorant greed, and the solution is making a good faith effort to respect and even enjoy how we complement each other, to make a long-term, personal investment in people.

Nereid

May10-04, 05:58 PM

BlackVision

May10-04, 08:13 PM

Worthy sentiments Loren, and good advice.

However, I believe that BlackVision posted an opinion that is, in all likelihood, rather more common than many of us would wish. That he hasn't been able to defend his assertion is both unsurprising and disappointing. Unsurprising because I suspect his statements have essentially no basis; disappointing because without a discussion we cannot show clearly that the assertions are empty.

To summarise: we didn't even get to first base - the very terms that BV used have not been defined with any rigour or consistency.

I'm curious though - why did BlackVision make these indefensible statements?
Simply stating that I didn't defend my position doesn't make it so. Do you even remember my one and ONLY statement? Did you forget already? I thought I made it quite clear when I told you that you kept twisting my words. Here it is again, DO NOT make me repeat it again in the future.

"The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."

Are you honestly gonna sit there and tell me that I haven't provided evidence to support this? While you go on and blab gonna crime rates in Estonia. a homogeneous country, which is completely irrelevant to the matter? But if it makes you happier you can PRETEND that no evidence was provided. If it allows you to sleep at night, you can pretend all you want.

BlackVision

May10-04, 08:21 PM

And for those who think different races aren't genetically real, here's proof that different races does in fact have genetic basis:

"Every one of us has DNA that is 99.9 percent identical to everyone else, despite our differences in appearance. But as this IOL article reports, researchers have found that the 0.1 percent variations in DNA can provide enough information to accurately identify an individual's geographic ancestry. A recent study "Genetic Structures of Human Populations" published in Science Magazine, attempted to predict where an individual was from by taking DNA samples from from 1,056 people from 52 populations in five major regions--Africa, Eurasia (Europe, the Middle East, Central and South Asia), East Asia, Oceania and the Americas. After removing the labels from all the individuals so they would not know where they came from, researchers looked at the DNA and tried to detect where groups of individuals form clusters that are genetically related to one another. They then applied a statistical technique using many independent genes to detect the geographic patterns of ancestry in samples. The result was that they were able to accurately pinpoint the ancestral continent of virtually every individual from Africa, East Asia, Oceania and the Americas"

Source: Science Magazine. http://www.sciencemag.com

Loren Booda

May10-04, 08:56 PM

What about the trait of a race to impose upon others the ultimate in genetic crimes against humanity, racial cleansing? Is not this perceived superiority itself just an expression of inferior breeding?

BlackVision

May10-04, 09:11 PM

Loren Booda

May10-04, 10:06 PM

I would guess that most men who commit murder were brought up by a single mother, a female role model who until recently was almost always of the same race. Men in this situation act out to protect or reject their mom. Women, for instance, are said not to rape, but can nevethless provide the vital link for their progeny to behave in such extremely antisocial manners.

Evo

May10-04, 11:45 PM

Also I must ask. Why so much heat on races? I did also post gender statistics that show that men commit about 90% of homicides, yet nobody gives a dime's worth about that. It seems society is far more willing to accept this difference but not the race ones. There's far too much people that cannot carry a race related discussion without letting their emotions and PC getting in the way.In your fiirst post, the breakdown by "Homicide Rate by Age Group and Gender" was also by race, the first two groups in that post were by race. The tone you set with your second post "Most violent crime in our country is committed by blacks" drove the discussion to that of race.

I think it is more the poverty, the feeling of despair these people have that they cannot escape their environment and the conditions they live in that are more conducive to violence.

If blacks as a race are more prone to violence, how do you explain why blacks in better socio-economic environments do not have the same crime ratio?

BlackVision

May11-04, 05:05 AM

BlackVision

May11-04, 05:10 AM

In your fiirst post, the breakdown by "Homicide Rate by Age Group and Gender" was also by race, the first two groups in that post were by race. The tone you set with your second post "Most violent crime in our country is committed by blacks" drove the discussion to that of race.
You're telling me if I didn't post that article, this discussion would of went to gender? You and I both know that anything racial related, immediately causes a spark.

I think it is more the poverty, the feeling of despair these people have that they cannot escape their environment and the conditions they live in that are more conducive to violence.
There are environmental issues. But then why don't white trash trailor parks have high murder rates?

If blacks as a race are more prone to violence, how do you explain why blacks in better socio-economic environments do not have the same crime ratio?
Blacks in better SES do have lower crime rates than their poorer SES counterparts, however is still substantially higher than white counterparts in the same SES.

Nereid

May11-04, 06:06 AM

There are environmental issues. But then why don't white trash trailor parks have high murder rates?Evidence?
Blacks in better SES do have lower crime rates than their poorer SES counterparts, however is still substantially higher than white counterparts in the same SES.Evidence?

Nereid

May11-04, 06:10 AM

Nereid

May11-04, 06:35 AM

Simply stating that I didn't defend my position doesn't make it so. Do you even remember my one and ONLY statement? Did you forget already? I thought I made it quite clear when I told you that you kept twisting my words. Here it is again, DO NOT make me repeat it again in the future.

"The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."Yes, you did make this statement.Are you honestly gonna sit there and tell me that I haven't provided evidence to support this?Yes, that's precisely what I am saying.

Let's take it step by step, shall we?
There are at least two ways to do this - by poring over your posts and extensively quoting from them, or asking you simple, straight-forward questions (which may or may not have already been covered).

"white, asian, black":
1) How are these terms defined?
2) If, as you assert, we should examine each country in terms of its own stats (no cross-country comparisons), what consistency *between* countries is there?
3) If, as you assert, these terms are somehow related to Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Melanesian, please show that the 'white, asian, black' categories in any crime stats that you cite are indeed directly related to Caucasian etc.
4) Many people in the US (and UK, and probably many other countries) likely have ancestors who belong to more than one of your groups, whether 'white, asian, black', or 'Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, Melanesian'. For the purposes of showing the gap that you assert, how do you classify such people?

'crime rate':
5) How do you define this term?

'consistent':
6) How do you measure consistency?

'each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist':
7) What are these countries? Please list them
8) For each country in your list, please provide age, sex, and 'white, asian, black' demographics
9) If you succeed in providing good support for your overall assertion, a likely hypothesis for explaining such a trend would involve (socio-economic) class (or SES) and immigration status. So please provide relevant data on accepted measures for these too, by your 'white, asian, black' categories

For the record, you asserted that the specific countries to be considered are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and Germany. You provided some stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for the UK. The former is certainly something we can discuss further; the latter has no apparent relationship with your assertion. Despite being asked for them, you have provided no data for any other country.

BlackVision

May11-04, 06:52 AM

Evidence?
Evidence?
You gotta be kidding me. I actually have to post statistics on black ghettos versus white trailor parks? Ah yes cause South Dakota is just known for their murder rates. Nebraska oh yes another deadly zone with drivebys everyday. Or if you wanna look at bit cities, look at Oklahoma City. One of the poorest major cities in America. Yet has a relatively low crime rate.

As for Black SES and White SES comparison. I have many hard copies showing that SES has little effect on crime and that even after adjusting for SES, blacks still do have a higher crime rate. This information can be found in "The Bell Curve" and "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" I will try to find sources on the internet, but check out the hard copy sources I named in the meanwhile if you can.

Nereid

May11-04, 07:00 AM

You gotta be kidding me. I actually have to post statistics on black ghettos versus white trailor parks? Ah yes cause South Dakota is just known for their murder rates. Nebraska oh yes another deadly zone with drivebys everyday. Or if you wanna look at bit cities, look at Oklahoma City. One of the poorest major cities in America. Yet has a relatively low crime rate.

As for Black SES and White SES comparison. I have many hard copies showing that SES has little effect on crime and that even after adjusting for SES, blacks still do have a higher crime rate. This information can be found in "The Bell Curve" and "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" I will try to find sources on the internet, but check out the hard copy sources I named in the meanwhile if you can.No, I am not kidding. If you make an assertion in Physics Forums, you can expect to be challenged to provide support for your assertion; that's what happens in science. :eek:

Please be sure to be quite clear on what you mean by 'crime rate', 'black ghettos', 'white trailor parks' and so on.

BlackVision

May11-04, 07:11 AM

Yes, you did make this statement.Yes, that's precisely what I am saying.
You notice that you are the ONLY one arguing against that? Everyone else has already accepted the fact that blacks do commit far more crime than other groups. Some are obviously trying to contribute it to environmental issues but you are the ONLY one trying to say this gap doesn't exist. It makes you look really silly here.

1) How are these terms defined?
Did I not answer this already. Hell I even gave the specific definitions used by the government.

2) If, as you assert, we should examine each country in terms of its own stats (no cross-country comparisons), what consistency *between* countries is there?
The white, asian, black gap is consistent in each diverse country. E.g. USA, Canada, UK, Australia, etc.

3) If, as you assert, these terms are somehow related to Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Melanesian, please show that the 'white, asian, black' categories in any crime stats that you cite are indeed directly related to Caucasian etc.
What the hell are you even talking about here? Crime stats are directly related to Caucasian? Cause the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not gonna put a murder done by Native Americans on the white homicide rate chart.

4) Many people in the US (and UK, and probably many other countries) likely have ancestors who belong to more than one of your groups, whether 'white, asian, black', or 'Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, Melanesian'. For the purposes of showing the gap that you assert, how do you classify such people?
This is of complete irrelevance since mixed races are not THAT common. In the US, 2.4% of the population is considered 2 or more races as reported by the US Census Bureau. Regardless of how this 2.4% is classified would mean literally nothing to the statistics at hand.

'crime rate':
5) How do you define this term?
Questions that beat around the bush alright. Crime is murder, rape, robbery, etc.

'consistent':
6) How do you measure consistency?
In that the gaps exist in every country that has that diverse population.

'each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist':
7) What are these countries? Please list them
Why are you constantly making me repeat myself of statements that I've already said not once, not twice, but numerous times. This time, I'm gonna kindly ask you to scroll up.

8) For each country in your list, please provide age, sex, and 'white, asian, black' demographics
Look I already gave you a link to an almanac. For petty simple things, you do it on your own.

9) If you succeed in providing good support for your overall assertion, a likely hypothesis for explaining such a trend would involve (socio-economic) class (or SES) and immigration status.
SES is heavily addressed in books such as "The Bell Curve" and "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" I recommend these books for you to read.

Immigration status. Asians have high level of 1st wave immigration in USA, Canada, Australia, and the UK and yet have lower crime rates than even whites in all these countries.

For the record, you asserted that the specific countries to be considered are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and Germany. You provided some stats for the US, and 'inceration rates' for the UK. The former is certainly something we can discuss further; the latter has no apparent relationship with your assertion. Despite being asked for them, you have provided no data for any other country.
The later has no relationship? Wtf? Just cause you want to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la" doesn't mean it'll go away or have no relation. I already provided 2 countries. Another to add to the list is South Africa. I'm sure even you will be well aware of the white-black crime gap there. Look, as many has already said, the GAP is not in question. The question is why. YOU are the only one trying to argue that the gap doesn't exist.

BlackVision

May11-04, 07:17 AM

No, I am not kidding. If you make an assertion in Physics Forums, you can expect to be challenged to provide support for your assertion; that's what happens in science. :eek:
Yet you showed absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your claims. I sure as hell provided my evidence for a gap, did you show anything to counter that? Ah nope.

Please be sure to be quite clear on what you mean by 'crime rate', 'black ghettos', 'white trailor parks' and so on.
No more ignorant beating around the bush type of questions. I will also not tell you what the definition of the sun and the earth and a flower and an umbrella is.

Nereid

May11-04, 05:01 PM

You notice that you are the ONLY one arguing against that? Everyone else has already accepted the fact that blacks do commit far more crime than other groups. Some are obviously trying to contribute it to environmental issues but you are the ONLY one trying to say this gap doesn't exist. It makes you look really silly here.Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Perhaps because no one else has posted questions?

BTW, whether there is a gap or not has yet to be established; it's your assertion and I'm challenging you to provide solid evidence for it.
"white, asian, black"
1) How are these terms defined?
Did I not answer this already. Hell I even gave the specific definitions used by the government.No, you did not answer this question. You provided the definitions that are used by the Census Bureau for conducting censuses. Your assertion is about crime rates, and my question is how are the terms that you use ('white', 'asian', 'black') defined in respect of crime rates (once more, with feeling, NOT in respect of censuses).The white, asian, black gap is consistent in each diverse country. E.g. USA, Canada, UK, Australia, etc.Maybe, maybe not; but you've provided no data to support this racist claim, nor have you even defined what you mean by 'white', 'asian', 'black' in countries other than the US.3) If, as you assert, these terms are somehow related to Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Melanesian, please show that the 'white, asian, black' categories in any crime stats that you cite are indeed directly related to Caucasian etc.What the hell are you even talking about here? Crime stats are directly related to Caucasian? Cause the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not gonna put a murder done by Native Americans on the white homicide rate chart.Really? And how, precisely, does the FBI put down a murder in a 'white homicide rate chart'? Do they test the DNA of the perp and determine that he cannot possibly have any African ancestry? Or, if it's a 'black' perp, when the DNA results come in and he's got a 65% non-African ancestry (assuming such a thing is possible to determine), do they add .65 to the 'white homicide' stat and .35 to the 'black' one? 4) Many people in the US (and UK, and probably many other countries) likely have ancestors who belong to more than one of your groups, whether 'white, asian, black', or 'Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, Melanesian'. For the purposes of showing the gap that you assert, how do you classify such people?This is of complete irrelevance since mixed races are not THAT common. In the US, 2.4% of the population is considered 2 or more races as reported by the US Census Bureau. Regardless of how this 2.4% is classified would mean literally nothing to the statistics at hand.Er, no, that would only be true if the 'race' of the perps was indeed self-reported (under the CB's definition) or mixed ancestry was uncommon. However, if you take the time to read some of the other threads in this sub-forum, or ask hitssquad, you will learn that there are essentially NO 'pure' ancestral groups in the US. This is particularly true for 'blacks' - most have some 'white' ancestry, and many have a great deal indeed (and many 'whites' aren't). You might like to read a book such as "The Seven Daughters of Eve (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393323145/002-4601991-8422452?v=glance)" 'crime rate':
5) How do you define this term?Questions that beat around the bush alright. Crime is murder, rape, robbery, etc.Actually, this goes to the heart of your assertion; at the very least I would expect you could easily define - in clear, unambiguous terms - the key concept in your assertion.

(to be continued)

Nereid

May11-04, 05:33 PM

'each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist':
7) What are these countries? Please list them

....

For the record, you asserted that the specific countries to be considered are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and Germany. You provided some stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for the UK. The former is certainly something we can discuss further; the latter has no apparent relationship with your assertion. Despite being asked for them, you have provided no data for any other country.
Why are you constantly making me repeat myself of statements that I've already said not once, not twice, but numerous times. This time, I'm gonna kindly ask you to scroll up.

....

I already provided 2 countries. Another to add to the list is South Africa. I'm sure even you will be well aware of the white-black crime gap there.That's two countries for which you have provided at least some data, and four for which you have made an assertion without any support whatsoever for blatantly racist claims. 8) For each country in your list, please provide age, sex, and 'white, asian, black' demographicsLook I already gave you a link to an almanac. For petty simple things, you do it on your own.As has already been discussed (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201365&postcount=8), the link you provided does NOT give 'white', 'asian', 'black' demographics. Please provide the 'white', 'asian', 'black' age and sex demographics of the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, and South Africa (and any other country for which you assert there is this "'white', 'asian', 'black' crime gap").You provided some stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for the UK. The former is certainly something we can discuss further; the latter has no apparent relationship with your assertion.The later [sic] has no relationship? Wtf? Perhaps 'crime' means 'found guilty by a court of committing an offense' (perhaps it doesn't; you haven't defined the term); perhaps 'incarceration' means 'sent to prison, either for being an asylum seeker/refugee without papers, or for being denied bail after being charged with an offense, or as a penalty, after being found guilty of an offense'. or perhaps not. Perhaps 'white' criminals in the UK get far lighter sentences, for the same crime, than 'black' criminals do. Perhaps, in the UK, 'asian' criminals are deported (so are not 'incarcerated'); or perhaps not.

As *you* provided 'incarceration rates' as data to support your assertion, I'm asking you to show, clearly and unambiguously, how UK incarceration rates are related to 'crime rates'.
Look, as many has already said, the GAP is not in question. The question is why. YOU are the only one trying to argue that the gap doesn't exist.I haven't even started to discuss 'the gap'! :eek:

At this stage, I'm simply trying to get you to state your assertion in terms that are clear and unambiguous (and not, IMHO, merely baseless racist propoganda), so that we can start to discuss this topic.

Nereid

May11-04, 05:38 PM

Yet you showed absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your claims. I sure as hell provided my evidence for a gap, did you show anything to counter that? Ah nope.What claims? What evidence (other than for the US, perhaps)?No more ignorant beating around the bush type of questions.So you concede that you cannot support your racist assertions?

Evo

May11-04, 07:09 PM

You're telling me if I didn't post that article, this discussion would of went to gender? You and I both know that anything racial related, immediately causes a spark.No, I believe that the predominant amount of racial data in your first post would have been sufficient.

There are environmental issues. But then why don't white trash trailor parks have high murder rates?From what I've seen, inner city slums are worse than low income trailer parks. What data do you have on murder rates in low income trailer parks?

Blacks in better SES do have lower crime rates than their poorer SES counterparts, however is still substantially higher than white counterparts in the same SES.I'm not aware of higher crime rates by blacks in higher SES. Do you have data on that?

BlackVision

May11-04, 07:46 PM

Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Perhaps because no one else has posted questions?

"If we are going to identify and address these problems, we need to first acknowledge they exist. The data are not in question, the interpretation is."---Moonbear

And I doubt even Evo will argue that the statistics given on the first page is inaccurate. But she, like Moonbear, will give their interpretations to why the gap exists. YOU are the only one trying to argue against it. Do you have any clue how inconceivable you sound? Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks. This conversation cannot go any further without you at least acknowledging there is a gap. It shows your ignorance/stubbornness on the subject.

BTW, whether there is a gap or not has yet to be established; it's your assertion and I'm challenging you to provide solid evidence for it.
See above comment.

No, you did not answer this question. You provided the definitions that are used by the Census Bureau for conducting censuses.
Which are standard definitions used by all government agencies

Your assertion is about crime rates, and my question is how are the terms that you use ('white', 'asian', 'black') defined in respect of crime rates (once more, with feeling, NOT in respect of censuses).Maybe, maybe not; but you've provided no data to support this racist claim
LOL. Ok you have lost all ability to carry this conversation. Read way back, where I stated, that there are people that put their emotions and PC into an argument when the issue deals with race which prevents them from carrying a proper and refined discussion. You fit into this description.

Really? And how, precisely, does the FBI put down a murder in a 'white homicide rate chart'? Do they test the DNA of the perp and determine that he cannot possibly have any African ancestry? Or, if it's a 'black' perp, when the DNA results come in and he's got a 65% non-African ancestry (assuming such a thing is possible to determine), do they add .65 to the 'white homicide' stat and .35 to the 'black' one?
This is your own research to do. Why you expect other people to do your work for you I have no clue. I posted statistics. That's all I did. You are free to interpret them however you wish and post your thoughts. But don't expect anyone to tell you what the definition of an umbrella or a cat is.

Er, no, that would only be true if the 'race' of the perps was indeed self-reported (under the CB's definition) or mixed ancestry was uncommon. However, if you take the time to read some of the other threads in this sub-forum, or ask hitssquad, you will learn that there are essentially NO 'pure' ancestral groups in the US. This is particularly true for 'blacks' - most have some 'white' ancestry, and many have a great deal indeed (and many 'whites' aren't). You might like to read a book such as "The Seven Daughters of Eve"
Actually Whites in America would rank over 95% Caucasian in genetic testing. Blacks would rank 80% African in genetic testing. Again you need to quit beating around the bush.

Actually, this goes to the heart of your assertion; at the very least I would expect you could easily define - in clear, unambiguous terms - the key concept in your assertion.
Look you wanna do your research, do your research. If you have any thoughts on this matter, you are free to state them. But asking someone else to do YOUR homework, is quite pathetic. The one and only statement I've made, I've defended quite well. If you wanna know how the Census Bureau ranks different races, that is your research to do. If you find out anything useful, you are free to post them.

BlackVision

May11-04, 07:59 PM

That's two countries for which you have provided at least some data, and four for which you have made an assertion without any support whatsoever for blatantly racist claims.
Just simply cause you're completely ignorant on this topic, doesn't make anything less true. Study Europe's melting pot in recent years. You will notice that one of the biggest debates among the flex of incoming immigration, is the vast surplus of crime rates that comes with it. But this surplus doesn't seem to apply to East Asian or South Asian immigration for whatever reason.

And again, calling it racist claims, you have lost all ability to carry a race related discussion. PC is a term that comes for you before science.

As has already been discussed, the link you provided does NOT give 'white', 'asian', 'black' demographics. Please provide the 'white', 'asian', 'black' age and sex demographics of the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, and South Africa (and any other country for which you assert there is this "'white', 'asian', 'black' crime gap").
Look if you're ignorant, you're ignorant. If you can't figure out that if it says English origin or French origin or German origin, that it means white, how much do you think I can help you. You're going back to 3rd grade material on race now.

Perhaps 'crime' means 'found guilty by a court of committing an offense' (perhaps it doesn't; you haven't defined the term); perhaps 'incarceration' means 'sent to prison, either for being an asylum seeker/refugee without papers, or for being denied bail after being charged with an offense, or as a penalty, after being found guilty of an offense'. or perhaps not. Perhaps 'white' criminals in the UK get far lighter sentences, for the same crime, than 'black' criminals do. Perhaps, in the UK, 'asian' criminals are deported (so are not 'incarcerated'); or perhaps not.

As *you* provided 'incarceration rates' as data to support your assertion, I'm asking you to show, clearly and unambiguously, how UK incarceration rates are related to 'crime rates'.
Again your research to do. But continue to pretend a gap doesn't exist. Something that everyone already has. Although Evo and Moonbear will contribute the gap to environmental differences, they at least acknowledge the gap. You didn't even pass the first gate.

Evo

May11-04, 08:17 PM

I thought this was interesting. This is from the department of Justice. Seems that the homicides commited by blacks that make up the disproportionate gap between white & black homicide is due to drugs and arguments, whereas whites are more likely to murder their friends, family, co-workers, children and the elderly.

Whites are more likely to kill multiple people.

Whites commit more sex related murders.

Whites commit more gang related murders.

Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2000

Offenders - All Homicide White - 46.4%, Black - 51.5%

Victim/Offender Relationship

Intimate White - 53.5%, Black - 44.4%

Family White - 58.3%, Black - 39.4%

Infanticide White - 55.2%, Black - 42.1%

Eldercide White - 54.5%, Black - 44.0%

Circumstances

Felony Murder White - 39.2%, Black - 59.2%

Sex Related White - 56.8%, Black - 41.3%

Drug Related White - 32.7, Black - 66.3%

Gang Related White - 56.7%, Black - 39.1%

Argument White - 45.7%, Black - 52.1%

Work Related White - 70.2%, Black - 26.9%

Weapon

Gun Homicide White - 43.7%, Black - 54.6%

Arson White - 54.5%, Black - 43.1%

Poison White - 74.3%, Black - 23.0%

Multiple Offenders

Multiple Victims White - 57.9%, Black - 38.6%

Multiple Offenders White - 46.1%, Black - 51.6%

BlackVision

May11-04, 08:19 PM

This isn't funny.

--Tom Mattson

BlackVision

May11-04, 08:24 PM

Evo I commend you for never using this "questions" tactic. :biggrin: And at least did attempt to have a debate.

Nereid

May11-04, 09:05 PM

"If we are going to identify and address these problems, we need to first acknowledge they exist. The data are not in question, the interpretation is."---Moonbear

And I doubt even Evo will argue that the statistics given on the first page is inaccurate. But she, like Moonbear, will give their interpretations to why the gap exists. YOU are the only one trying to argue against it.I don't recall stating that the stats that you posted were inaccurate, nor arguing that a gap exists (or doesn't); I'm merely asking you to provide a clear, unambiguous set of definitions of the terms which you use in your assertion - which is, at the risk of boring everyone silly, a racist one ("The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist.", my emphasis)Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks.How did you conclude that "provide clear, unambiguous definitions of the terms you use in your assertion" is the same as "Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks."?This conversation cannot go any further without you at least acknowledging there is a gap. It shows your ignorance/stubbornness on the subject.Er, with respect, I disagree. Regarding the US, we may be able to proceed ... to discuss the statistics which you posted. However, we cannot proceed to discuss your assertion without you first defining, clearly and unambiguously, the key terms in that assertion. And we certainly cannot discuss the racist core of your assertion ("in each and every country") without any statistics, or definitions. No, you did not answer this question. You provided the definitions that are used by the Census Bureau for conducting censuses.Which are standard definitions used by all government agenciesEarlier (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=202949&postcount=47) you weren't so certain, so excuse me if I remain skeptical ... do I understand you to say that all players in the US criminal justice system (or at least those who play a part in collecting and processing data which subsequently becomes 'crime rates') ask every criminal for their race? whether they are Hispanic or not? I'm curious - at what stage(s) are such questions asked? What happens if the criminal wishes to change her answer? Is there a category called 'refused to answer' (or similar)?LOL. Ok you have lost all ability to carry this conversation. Read way back, where I stated, that there are people that put their emotions and PC into an argument when the issue deals with race which prevents them from carrying a proper and refined discussion. You fit into this description.Does this same apply to those who make racist assertions and are unable to substantiate them?This is your own research to do. Why you expect other people to do your work for you I have no clue. I posted statistics. That's all I did. You are free to interpret them however you wish and post your thoughts. But don't expect anyone to tell you what the definition of an umbrella or a cat is.Actually, you did much more than just post stats; you made a racist assertion, and claimed that the (US) stats you posted are evidence for the (global) claim.Actually Whites in America would rank over 95% Caucasian in genetic testing. Blacks would rank 80% African in genetic testing. Again you need to quit beating around the bush.So perhaps some Jensen might clarify things: "M varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states" ([i]Source: Jensen, "The g Factor"; this quote is from an extract, posted in an earlier thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=149529&postcount=2)). For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying these are good data, merely those used by an academic figure who I hope BlackVision will acknowledge as having some authority.Look you wanna do your research, do your research. If you have any thoughts on this matter, you are free to state them. But asking someone else to do YOUR homework, is quite pathetic. The one and only statement I've made, I've defended quite well. If you wanna know how the Census Bureau ranks different races, that is your research to do. If you find out anything useful, you are free to post them.Let's re-examine BlackVision's "one and only statement": The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist.
BlackVision's 'defence'?
1) A set (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=200956&postcount=1) of 'homicide statistics by race and gender' (US only)
2) An excerpt (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=200957&postcount=2) from an article about violent crime and 'blacks', in the US
3) A link (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201468&postcount=21) to a (dated) chart on incarceration rates in the UK
4) Selected (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201498&postcount=26) US city homicide rates (with the addition of the Hispanic category)
5) Definitions (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201498&postcount=43) of 'race', as used by the US Census Bureau

What's missing? Definitions of 'crime rate'; any statistics whatsover for countries listed as having 'white, asian, black crime rate gaps' (other than the US); definitions for 'white', 'asian', 'black' in all countries listed (except the US); and more.

Nereid

May11-04, 09:28 PM

I wanna show everyone what Nereid is doing here. It's called the "questions" tactic. In an debate where you have absolutely nothing to make your claim, you ask tedious questions one after the next. Let me show you what I mean.

Let's say someone posted a research that states "Watermelons have one of the highest level of percentage of water of all fruits"

What Nereid would do, if he had no argument against it but yet want to give an illusion as though he's refuting it, he would ask:

"How do you define watermelon?"

Now once this question gets answered he will then ask "How do you define water?" You're doing OK up to here ... these are key terms in the proposal.After at which point he will ask "Did any of these watermelons have seeds?" Leaving aside whether Nereid (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=202969&postcount=49) is a 'he', this is where BlackVision goes off the rails; first, no "What is the class 'fruits'?" (BlackVision introduces it later, but way out of sequence) nor "How is the measure 'percentage of water' determined?"; second, there's no need to ask about seeds (unless an answer to an earlier question demands it).

IMHO, it's not a debating tactic, it's fairly standard proceedure for doing science ... define the terms, explain clearly how measurements (data) are taken, state the hypothesis in a form that can be tested. AFAIK, all good science teachers try to get this elementary concept across ... even if the students forget all the 'facts', if they remember only how the scientific method works, the teacher will have done a sterling job.

Did this thread get moved to Politics and World Affairs? or General Discussion? No, it seems to be still in "Other Sciences".

BlackVision, are you going to define your terms, explain clearly how data are collected, etc? Or do you concede that your assertion is an unsubstantiated racist one?

Nereid

May11-04, 10:26 PM

Just simply cause you're completely ignorant on this topic, doesn't make anything less true. Study Europe's melting pot in recent years. You will notice that one of the biggest debates among the flex of incoming immigration, is the vast surplus of crime rates that comes with it. But this surplus doesn't seem to apply to East Asian or South Asian immigration for whatever reason.So let's see the data! arildno (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201391&postcount=10) earlier provided data that the crime rates (in Norway) are related to socio-economic status, with recent migrants (of whatever ethnic origin) over-represented due to their immigrant status (not their ethnic origin).
Nereid 1, BlackVision 0.

0TheSwerve0 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201033&postcount=7) asked you about socioeconomic class; Monique asked about racial bias; Russ re-iterated 0TheSwerve0's question, ...

In BlackVision's own post (with England and Wales incarceration rates), two separate snapshots of data are provided (June 1996 and June 1997); the change over a year, for all groups except "Indian" and "Chinese" is >10%, and >50% for two of the 'black' groups. To understand how there can be such huge changes, in only one year, would clearly be important in determining how relevant the data are to BlackVision's assertion (which, by the way, has no time dimension).And again, calling it racist claims, you have lost all ability to carry a race related discussion. PC is a term that comes for you before science.Er, do I need to provide the links to BlackVision's own statements about 'race'? To Andre's comment (and link) "there are no human races"? To the census websites of many nations - including most (all?) of those in BlackVision's list (except the US) - where 'race' is not used (let alone 'white', 'asian', 'black')?Look if you're ignorant, you're ignorant. If you can't figure out that if it says English origin or French origin or German origin, that it means white, how much do you think I can help you. You're going back to 3rd grade material on race now.Can I infer from this statement that outdated and inaccurate concepts ('race') are still being taught in US schools?

Here (http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3110124.NSF/0/52c075a57302d0feca256bce000412b3?OpenDocument) is some info on how the 2001 Australian census was conducted; note the terms 'ancestry' and 'cultural and ethnic groups'.Again your research to do. But continue to pretend a gap doesn't exist.What gap? Something that everyone already has. Although Evo and Moonbear will contribute the gap to environmental differences, they at least acknowledge the gap. You didn't even pass the first gate.I've read this thread again; neither Evo nor Moonbear commented on any gap, except that in the US, as portrayed by homicide stats. I'm still waiting for evidence of a 'white, asian, black crime rate gap' in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, .... After all, BlackVision's racist assertion is: "The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."

BlackVision

May11-04, 10:31 PM

No, I believe that the predominant amount of racial data in your first post would have been sufficient.
Racial data? I had as much data on gender as on race. Did you miss these?

Homicide Rate by Gender:

Males. Age 14-17:
Males. Age 18-24:
Males. Age 25+:

Females. Age 14-17:
Females. Age 18-24:
Females. Age 25+:

From what I've seen, inner city slums are worse than low income trailer parks. What data do you have on murder rates in low income trailer parks?
The Midwest is quite poor but have low crime rates. Here's Washington DC as compared to Oklahoma City:

Washington DC

Population: 572,059

Ethnic Races:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Median Household Income: $40,127
Households Under $20,000 income: 26%

Homicide Rate: 45.82 per 100,000

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030616-093406-7084r.htm

Oklahoma City

Population: 506,132

Ethnic Races:
White: 64.7%
Black 15.2%
Hispanic 10.1%
Asian 3.4%

Median household income: $34,947
Households Under $20,000 income: 27%

Homicide Rate: 7.41 per 100,000

Source: http://statestats.com/

So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?

I'm not aware of higher crime rates by blacks in higher SES. Do you have data on that?
I've seen many sources. It is heavily addressed in "The Bell Curve" and "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" Although you will probably just dismiss these sources.

Nereid

May11-04, 10:46 PM

The Midwest is quite poor but have low crime rates. Here's Washington DC as compared to Oklahoma City:

Washington DC

Population: 572,059

Ethnic Races:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Median Household Income: $40,127
Households Under $20,000 income: 26%

Homicide Rate: 45.82 per 100,000

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030616-093406-7084r.htm

Oklahoma City

Population: 506,132

Ethnic Races:
White: 64.7%
Black 15.2%
Hispanic 10.1%
Asian 3.4%

Median household income: $34,947
Households Under $20,000 income: 27%

Homicide Rate: 7.41 per 100,000

Source: http://statestats.com/What about the relative incidence of all other types of crime? After all, BlackVision starts with by saying 'crime rates'.

Does "White" mean 'non-Hispanic white'?
So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?Maybe because it has different age and sex demographics? After all, BlackVision earlier posted stats showing that young men are considerably over-represented in homicide stats.

Maybe because there are fewer families (per 100 adults) in DC?

BlackVision

May11-04, 10:58 PM

I don't recall stating that the stats that you posted were inaccurate, nor arguing that a gap exists (or doesn't); I'm merely asking you to provide a clear, unambiguous set of definitions of the terms which you use in your assertion - which is, at the risk of boring everyone silly, a racist one ("The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist.", my emphasis)
If you wanna get into a discussion, that is fine. I encourage that. There have been many here that I've been able to get into a healthy debate with. If you're gonna use the "watermelon" argument aka the "Nereid" tactic, you will be dismissed. Understand?

And continuing to state that the statistics are racist, again makes you lose credibility. No more putting PC into this, actually try to attempt to debate this with a more scientific approach.

The white, asian, black gap is very apparent in each diverse countries yes. I already provided 2. And it was untrue, you should EASILY be able to provide 1, a single ONE, to refute me, have you? No. Again I'm not here to do your entire research for you.

How did you conclude that "provide clear, unambiguous definitions of the terms you use in your assertion" is the same as "Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks."?
No more repetitive questions that have already been addressed. See "watermelon" tactic above.

Er, with respect, I disagree. Regarding the US, we may be able to proceed ... to discuss the statistics which you posted. However, we cannot proceed to discuss your assertion without you first defining, clearly and unambiguously, the key terms in that assertion. And we certainly cannot discuss the racist core of your assertion ("in each and every country") without any statistics, or definitions.
You know what, here I'll make a deal with you. If you wanna prove to me that you're not simply using the watermelon tactic, You are allowed to ask me ONE question. With that one question, we will have a FULL discussion with it. After that discussion, I will ask you ONE question, and we will have a discussion with it. I'll even allow you to go first. Pick your ONE question. After that we are actually gonna have a debate alright? Instead of the watermelon BS you've been stringing along up until now.

Earlier you weren't so certain, so excuse me if I remain skeptical ... do I understand you to say that all players in the US criminal justice system (or at least those who play a part in collecting and processing data which subsequently becomes 'crime rates') ask every criminal for their race? whether they are Hispanic or not? I'm curious - at what stage(s) are such questions asked? What happens if the criminal wishes to change her answer? Is there a category called 'refused to answer' (or similar)?
Another watermelon question. Great. See above comments.

Does this same apply to those who make racist assertions and are unable to substantiate them?
Simply stating that blacks have higher crime rates is racist? Oh gee, forget science and facts and statistical data, we must remain PC and live in our fairy little fantasy world. I suppose the statistics that men are on average 6 inches taller than women area also sexist. Again quit involving your personal emotions and PC into what should be a scientific debate.

Actually, you did much more than just post stats; you made a racist assertion, and claimed that the (US) stats you posted are evidence for the (global) claim.
Once again, simply stating it's racist, doesn't make it so. And yes the trend is quite global. I provided 2 countries which directly corresponded with each other. And there's tons of articles on others, just google for them. How many did you provide? Oh yes zero. When you attempt to refute, you should at least bring in some countering statistics which you are yet to do.

So perhaps some Jensen might clarify things: "M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states" (Source: Jensen, "The g Factor"; this quote is from an extract, posted in an earlier thread). For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying these are good data, merely those used by an academic figure who I hope BlackVision will acknowledge as having some authority.
Isn't Hispanic very mixed? Hispanic by definition are heavily mixed of 3 primary races. So the fact that "some" Americans are heavily mixed are of absolute no surprise. White Americans and probably Asian Americans mixing rate is not heavily significant. Blacks do have about a 20% mixture rate but are still predominately African in descent.

Let's re-examine BlackVision's "one and only statement": The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist.
BlackVision's 'defence'?
1) A set of 'homicide statistics by race and gender' (US only)
2) An excerpt from an article about violent crime and 'blacks', in the US
3) A link to a (dated) chart on incarceration rates in the UK
4) Selected US city homicide rates (with the addition of the Hispanic category)
5) Definitions of 'race', as used by the US Census Bureau

I have provided evidence to support my one and only statement. Can you say the same for you? You are yet to give a single countering statistic to refute any claims. If what I stated is false, I would be completely bombarded by everyone saying "no no this is not true, here are statistics for this country" Is that yet to happen? Are you yet to do this? Why is that there is absolutely ZERO evidence that you brought to the table?

BlackVision

May11-04, 11:07 PM

Leaving aside whether Nereid is a 'he'
So it's a she? Well that would certainly make more sense. Women tend to be far more PC. Not that men aren't either. But it does tend to be tilted toward a certain direction.

second, there's no need to ask about seeds
Oh yes cause so many of your questions had so much validity behind it.

IMHO, it's not a debating tactic, it's fairly standard proceedure for doing science
There's a CLEAR distinction between a scientific procedure, and what you have been attempting as I have thoroughly show in the watermelon analogy.

Did this thread get moved to Politics and World Affairs? or General Discussion? No, it seems to be still in "Other Sciences".
Shouldn't you approach it more with a scientific mind rather than with a PC mind then?

BlackVision, are you going to define your terms, explain clearly how data are collected, etc? Or do you concede that your assertion is an unsubstantiated racist one?
No more watermelon tactics. You have any idea how easily visible this is? As a science forum, the level of intellect is not low enough for this to work on anybody.

I already suggested an agreement with you. You will get to ask one question and we will have a discussion. But the watermelon tactic of asking one question after the next after the next the next, after a failed attempt to refute anything, is not something that will be tolerated.

BlackVision

May11-04, 11:26 PM

So let's see the data! arildno earlier provided data that the crime rates (in Norway) are related to socio-economic status, with recent migrants (of whatever ethnic origin) over-represented due to their immigrant status (not their ethnic origin).
Nereid 1, BlackVision 0.
Acutally SES has very little effect on SES and even after adjusting for SES, blacks have a higher crime rate. Read pages 235-251 in "The Bell Curve" They go into full depth in it and even have nifty graphs. So in all you failed to score. You didn't even make it to first base.

In BlackVision's own post (with England and Wales incarceration rates), two separate snapshots of data are provided (June 1996 and June 1997); the change over a year, for all groups except "Indian" and "Chinese" is >10%, and >50% for two of the 'black' groups. To understand how there can be such huge changes, in only one year, would clearly be important in determining how relevant the data are to BlackVision's assertion (which, by the way, has no time dimension).
The so called "huge" changes is simply due to lack of a large enough sample. One must remember that although UK has been admitting thousands of immigrants, it is still over 97% white.

Er, do I need to provide the links to BlackVision's own statements about 'race'? To Andre's comment (and link) "there are no human races"? To the census websites of many nations - including most (all?) of those in BlackVision's list (except the US) - where 'race' is not used (let alone 'white', 'asian', 'black')?
Well there are human races. And there are certainly genetic basis to human races. As I have shown clear evidence for by geneticists being able to pinpoint the ancestral continent of a random individual simply by looking at their DNA.

Can I infer from this statement that outdated and inaccurate concepts ('race') are still being taught in US schools?

Here is some info on how the 2001 Australian census was conducted; note the terms 'ancestry' and 'cultural and ethnic groups'.
What you are attempting to do is state that human races don't exist. That there are no scientific basis for it. Which is a failed attempt. Races are real and are indeed genetically based. However this plays with people's emotions becomes irrelevant.

What gap?
The white-black crime gap. You need to at least acknowledge this first before moving on. Everyone already has. They've moved on to attempting to explain why this gap exists. You're still stuck in the dugout while everyone else is playing.

I've read this thread again; neither Evo nor Moonbear commented on any gap, except that in the US, as portrayed by homicide stats. I'm still waiting for evidence of a 'white, asian, black crime rate gap' in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, .... After all, BlackVision's racist assertion is: "The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."
Moonbear specifically stated the DATA is not in question. I'm quite sure Evo will agree with that as well. What the debate is explaining the data.

LOL. I find it so funny that Nereid tries to input the word "racist" in as many times as she(?) can. Hoping that if she does it enough times, it somehow will become true. But yes the white, asian, black gap is consistent in melting pot countries and no I will not do your research for you as I've already done enough. I have my own work to do. And as I've said before, demanding demanding demanding, without providing a SINGLE evidence a single statistic to support your claim, makes you look weak. In your attempted counter argument, you should provide at least one evidence, one statistic to show the contrary. But of course you haven't.

Loren Booda

May12-04, 01:35 AM

Planet Green has 100,000 inhabitants, each of whose skin is identically genotypically green. All of these inhabitants, with one immaculately innocent exception, have committed murder.

Are we to say there is a true correlation between the genotype of green skin and acts of murder on Planet Green - that the the one pacifist is a statistical anomaly to be "tarred with the same brush"? Should we be swayed by the exception to the rule, whether it be moderate (an assumption in the rate of murder by "blacks," posted above) or limiting (the one pacifist on Planet Green), that a genetic interpretation is inappropriate?

Using Occam's razor, I conclude that inhabitants' green skin on Planet Green, while seemingly a predictor of future behavior, is actually not so genetically. Genetics in conjunction with environment may have unpredictable nonlinear effects as well. Translated to labeling "blacks" on Earth, we realize the complex sociological mileau we must account for, rather than risk repeating history. The glee with which some invite ignorant distortion of statistics recalls the "schadenfreude" and eugenics of Nazi Germany.

hitssquad

May12-04, 04:13 AM

Planet Green has 100,000 inhabitants, each of whose skin is identically genotypically green.A genotype can neither be, nor discretely code for, a color. The skin might be identically phenotypically green, and if that were the case then the genetic contribution to variance in skin color in that particular case would have to be zero.

All of these inhabitants, with one ... exception, have committed murder.... there is a ... correlation between the genotype of green skin and acts of murderThere cannot be a correlation when there is no variance in at least one of the variables.

Nereid

May12-04, 06:18 AM

Once again, simply stating it's racist, doesn't make it so. And yes the trend is quite global. I provided 2 countries which directly corresponded with each other. And there's tons of articles on others, just google for them. How many did you provide? Oh yes zero. When you attempt to refute, you should at least bring in some countering statistics which you are yet to do.Please try again; you provided several stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for England and Wales, for 1996 and 1997 (which, BTW, you claimed were 'UK figures'). Your racist assertion is about 'crime rates', which is not the same as 'incarceration rates'

Earlier BlackVision mentioned debating tactics, and characterised the scientific method as 'watermelon tactics'. Here is another example of failure to follow the scientific method: repeatedly stating an assertion instead of addressing questions about the assertion, and repeatedly failing to provide data to support the assetion.Isn't Hispanic very mixed? Hispanic by definition are heavily mixed of 3 primary races. So the fact that "some" Americans are heavily mixed are of absolute no surprise. White Americans and probably Asian Americans mixing rate is not heavily significant. Blacks do have about a 20% mixture rate but are still predominately African in descent.Please check the sources; the Jensen quote* refers to US 'blacks'I have provided evidence to support my one and only statement. Can you say the same for you? You are yet to give a single countering statistic to refute any claims. If what I stated is false, I would be completely bombarded by everyone saying "no no this is not true, here are statistics for this country" Is that yet to happen? Are you yet to do this? Why is that there is absolutely ZERO evidence that you brought to the table?Here is some info on how the 2001 Australian census was conducted; note the terms 'ancestry' and 'cultural and ethnic groups'.What you are attempting to do is state that human races don't exist. That there are no scientific basis for it. Which is a failed attempt. Races are real and are indeed genetically based. However this plays with people's emotions becomes irrelevant.Here (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@census.nsf/Census_BCP_ASGC_ViewTemplate?ReadForm&Expand=1) is an Australian Bureau of Statistics website, on the 2001 Census. Earlier (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201011&postcount=4) BlackVision wrote: "the same racial gaps [in crime statistics] exists in every country. Canada, United Kingdom, Australia." BlackVision, please use this data to show, in terms of your 'white', 'asian', and 'black' definitions, the 'racial' makeup of the Australian population. Here's my assertion: there were fewer than 150,000 people in Australia in 2001 who claimed to have been born in Sub-Saharan Africa, out of a total population of over 18 million.

I will start a new thread on whether there are 'human races' or not, and I will insist that the discussion be conducted following a clearly defined protocol, consistent with the scientific method.

*"M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states"

Nereid

May12-04, 06:36 AM

Nereid

May12-04, 08:11 AM

So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?Perhaps because DC has an exceptionally high average educational attainment (http://about.dc.gov/about2.asp)?

Nereid

May12-04, 09:02 AM

Washington DC
Population: 572,059
Homicide Rate: 45.82 per 100,000

Oklahoma City
Population: 506,132
Homicide Rate: 7.41 per 100,000

So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?Perhaps because DC (http://www.kiat.net/dc/) has more visitors ("over 20 million" each year) than Oklahoma City (approx 3 million (http://www.bricktownokc.com/press/pr31.html) commuting workers and visitors is the best stat I could find in a quick Google search). I assume that the DC homicide rate refers to homicides committed in DC, no matter where the perp(s) or victim(s) live(d).

Maybe because "More than 359,000 people living in the metropolitan area are on the federal payroll" ... out of a population of only ~600,000 (I don't have a stat for Oklahoma City, but I rather doubt it's over 30,000).

Maybe I'm in the slow class today; isn't Oklahoma City where Timothy did his thing? Weren't 168 people killed in the bombing? Wasn't that homicide? My calculator says that 168/5.06 = 33.2. IOW, if this multiple victims, white offender homcide is included, the homicide rates for the two cities become much more equal.

Nereid

May12-04, 09:48 AM

Here is a good example of why one needs to take the statistics which BlackVision provides with some skepticism:One must remember that although UK has been admitting thousands of immigrants, it is still over 97% white.In April 2001, the UK conducted a census, and "respondents were asked to which ethnic group they considered themselves to belong", among many other things (note: no question about 'race').

Here are the results:

Ethnic group . . . . . . Total Population . . %
White . . . . . . . . . . . 54153898 . . . . . 92.1
Mixed . . . . . . . . . . . . 677177 . . . . . . 1.2
Asian or Asian British . 2331423 . . . . . .. 4.0
Black or Black British . 1148738 . . . . . . . 2.0
Chinese . . . . . . . . . . 247403 . . . . . . . 0.4
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . 230615 . . . . . . . 0.4
Total . . . . . . . . . .. 58789194

Source (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=273)

Nereid

May12-04, 12:10 PM

And does "homocide" mean killing homosexuals, as it seems to? Homicide, on the other hand is defined (slightly differently) in the laws of every state of the US and the Federal code, and in the codes of all the nation states. When they report homicides, they are presumably using the definitions in their codes. This means a slightly various population of course, since what is a homicide over here might not be over there and vice versa.In terms of the US stats which BlackVision posted, at the beginning of this thread, here are some answers (the source is one of the two links in BV's post):

"Homicide as defined here includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. Excluded are deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation, as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body.

Not all agencies which report offense information to the FBI also submit supplemental data on homicides. About 91% of homicides reported in the UCR are included in the SHR. To account for the total number of homicides, this analysis weighted the SHR data to match national and State estimates prepared by the FBI. All victim-based analyses are adjusted in this manner.

While many agencies report supplemental data on homicides, much of the data concerning offenders may not be reported because no suspects were identified. The most significant problem in using SHR data to analyze offender characteristics is the sizable and growing number of unsolved homicides contained in the data file. Ignoring unsolved homicides, of course, would seriously understate calculated rates of offending by particular subgroups of the population, distort trends over time among these same subgroups, and bias observed patterns of offending to the extent that the rate of missing offender data is associated with offender characteristics.

To adjust for unsolved homicides, a method for offender imputation has been devised ..."

Further material, also from the site BV provided a link to, details the procedures used in the SHR; methodology for the National Crime Victimization Survey, and more.

Regarding 'crime rates' (a question which Nereid had asked BV repeatedly about, only to get vague, inconsistent answers), the site has this to say:

"Launched 70 years ago, the Uniform Crime Reporting Program collects and publishes criminal offense, arrest, and law enforcement personnel statistics. Under the UCR program, law enforcement agencies submit information to the FBI monthly. Offense information is collected on the eight Index offenses of homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Information on the the number of persons arrested includes many additional crime types such as drug abuse violations and driving under the influence." Note that the kind of crimes which are alleged to have been committed in the Enron, WorldCom, etc scandals are not included. Nor is a leading cause of death in the US - drunk driving.

Finally, to 'race': as BV 'supposed', the instructions to those who provide the data (which later become the stats) are in line with the Census Bureau's definitions and approach. I haven't read enough yet to see how a) 'more than one race' answers are analysed, b) ditto 'refused to answer', c) time series are constructed (the data collection methodology changed with the CB's change in approach re 'race').

Nereid

May12-04, 06:45 PM

The "Homicide Offending Rate per 100,000 Population", according to official US Department of Justice figures, is more than seven times higher for 'whites' than 'blacks'!

Whites: 32.6
Blacks: 4.6

Source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oarstab.htm)

BlackVision's assertion clearly wrong, in the US, according to stats provided by BV himself! :eek:

Now that I have your undivided attention ... you'll recall that Nereid kept insisting that BlackVision define the key terms he used in his assertion, clearly and unambiguously? And that BV got really annoyed with this, calling it 'watermelon tactics', and denying it played any role in science?

The example above was created to show what can happen if you aren't very clear in your definitions etc.

BV's assertion, to refresh our memories: "The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."

So, let's examine the data above, in light of this assertion:
"white, asian, black [...] populations": Yes, those groups exist in the US.
"in each country ... where a mixture of these populations exist": Yep, the US qualifies.
"crime rate": Yes, homicide rates are crime rates.
"gap": clearly there's a gap! (But not the one BV wished to show) :grumpy:
"consistent": two sets of data are the minimum needed to establish consistency, so here is a second set: White 31.6, Black 4.9.

To quote BV, "Wtf?"

The "White" rates are 18-24 White male, 1991 (1995); the "Black" 25+ (14-17) Black female, 2000.

Of course no one would consider this a serious rebuttal :rolleyes: It's not intended to be.

But who can say what (slightly) more subtle considerations need to be made, before a serious examination of BV's assertion can be undertaken?

hitssquad

May12-04, 07:17 PM

The "Homicide Offending Rate per 100,000 Population", according to official US Department of Justice figures, is more than seven times higher for 'whites' than 'blacks'

Whites: 32.6
Blacks: 4.632.6 is 6.09 times higher than 4.6.

BlackVision

May12-04, 08:23 PM

Please try again; you provided several stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for England and Wales, for 1996 and 1997 (which, BTW, you claimed were 'UK figures'). Your racist assertion is about 'crime rates', which is not the same as 'incarceration rates'

Earlier BlackVision mentioned debating tactics, and characterised the scientific method as 'watermelon tactics'. Here is another example of failure to follow the scientific method: repeatedly stating an assertion instead of addressing questions about the assertion, and repeatedly failing to provide data to support the assetion.
I see that you clearly and conveniently skipped over my question. You can't tell me that I've provided no evidence. However we can all agree that YOU have provided absolutely nothing.

Please check the sources; the Jensen quote* refers to US 'blacks'
20% black, 60% black, 80% black. Regardless. Genetics plays a role. Race is genetically linked. You can try to deny it but it doesn't mean anyone will agree with you.

Here is an Australian Bureau of Statistics website, on the 2001 Census. Earlier BlackVision wrote: "the same racial gaps [in crime statistics] exists in every country. Canada, United Kingdom, Australia." BlackVision, please use this data to show, in terms of your 'white', 'asian', and 'black' definitions, the 'racial' makeup of the Australian population. Here's my assertion: there were fewer than 150,000 people in Australia in 2001 who claimed to have been born in Sub-Saharan Africa, out of a total population of over 18 million.
Small sample but sample nonetheless. Aborigines also have an extraordinarily high crime rate. East Asians in Australia have a lower crime rate than the White population. Although Southeast Asia does have a higher one although not as high as the Aborigine population.

I will start a new thread on whether there are 'human races' or not, and I will insist that the discussion be conducted following a clearly defined protocol, consistent with the scientific method.
You might wanna go back to lesson #1 in evolution if you're actually gonna argue against the genetic basis of human races.

*"M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states"
I already addressed this above. The mixing becomes a moot point. If someone is 50/50 of one race, he/she would get a great deal of mix of the genetic pool of both races. Genetic testing will also confirm this.

BlackVision

May12-04, 08:37 PM

Now we are getting close to BlackVision's apparent ignorance (or racism). As was discussed extensively here in Social Sciences earlier, not even the authors of "The Bell Curve" - not even Jensen - claim that their research and conclusions have validity outside the US. Those racists - such as Lynn and Rushton - who do claim some global validity for their racist views base their conclusions on very sloppy science, not to mention claims not even substantiated by their own data (also discussed here earlier)
Ah yes the racist tactic again. Fail to provide any contrary evidence, use "racist" as a last resort. The work of Murray, Herrnstein, Jensen, Lynn, and Rushton does have a high level of support in the academic circles. These are all respectable academics of their fields. Coming from the most prestigious universities.

Let's have a contest, how many more times will Nereid say the word "racist" in this thread. :biggrin:

BlackVision, your assertion is a racist one (it claims some global validity for a crime-'race' relationship). A reasonable counter to such a claim is that crime rates are more closely related to socio-economic class. In one European country (Norway), a PF member asserts that this socio-economic dimension accounts for much of the variation in crime rates between ethnic groups. You assert that 'race' has a correlation with 'crime rate' in the US, independent of SES (at least for 'blacks'). On the surface, your racist assertion is inconsistent with these two data points (if indeed that's what they are).
There is a global crime-race relationship. If you want to be completely oblivious to it that's your problem. The data however, as some have stated, is not in question. The crime gap between races is very consistent from country to country from region to region. You can explain WHY that is but you STILL haven't been able to get on first base.

And the relation of SES to crime I already addressed. And did you bother reading the article that is the 2nd post of this thread. Let me quote it:

"Experts love to blame crime on poverty. That's nonsense! From 1900 to 1929, the nation's murder rate rose from 1.2 per 1 00,000 of the population to 8.4. However, during parts of the 1930s, when the unemployment rate stood at 37 percent, the murder rate had fallen to 6.3 per 1 00,000 and to 4.7 per 100,000 by 1960. After 1960, violent crime rates shot up. By 1993, the murder rate was 9.5 per 100,000, falling to 8.2 in 1995. Rather than poverty causing crime, one might more easily make the case that crime causes poverty."---Walter E. Williams

This is said by a BLACK professor. Your hypothesis is just getting blown out of the water.

BlackVision

May12-04, 08:44 PM

Now that I have your undivided attention ... you'll recall that Nereid kept insisting that BlackVision define the key terms he used in his assertion, clearly and unambiguously? And that BV got really annoyed with this, calling it 'watermelon tactics', and denying it played any role in science?
You do know that repetition gets you nowhere right? I made it VERY distinctively clear between the difference of the scientific method and what YOU have been doing. And I've repeatedly asked you to provide ANY contrary data whatsoever and you have yet to do so. It seems you're getting annoyed.

"consistent": two sets of data are the minimum needed to establish consistency, so here is a second set: White 31.6, Black 4.9.

To quote BV, "Wtf?"

The "White" rates are 18-24 White male, 1991 (1995); the "Black" 25+ (14-17) Black female, 2000.

Of course no one would consider this a serious rebuttal It's not intended to be.
Yes gender is also a factor. Men and women do indeed have genetical differences. Are you gonna argue this as well? Men have a far higher testostereone level which contributes to aggressive behavior. Aggressive behavior will often times turn criminal. Certain races have been shown to have a higher mean testosterone level than others.

Moonbear

May12-04, 11:38 PM

The Midwest is quite poor but have low crime rates. Here's Washington DC as compared to Oklahoma City:

Washington DC

Population: 572,059

Ethnic Races:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Median Household Income: $40,127
Households Under $20,000 income: 26%

Homicide Rate: 45.82 per 100,000

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030616-093406-7084r.htm

Oklahoma City

Population: 506,132

Ethnic Races:
White: 64.7%
Black 15.2%
Hispanic 10.1%
Asian 3.4%

Median household income: $34,947
Households Under $20,000 income: 27%

Homicide Rate: 7.41 per 100,000

Source: http://statestats.com/

So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?

These stats don't take into account cost of living. In the midwest, you can live fairly comfortably on $35K, even afford to buy a small house. In DC, to live at the same comfort level, you'd need to be earning about $80-$100K. Of course, interesting you should choose Oklahoma City as your example, since in recent years, the bombing of the Federal Building there is one of the bigger stories of mass murder by a white person.

Loren Booda

May13-04, 12:11 AM

It must now be obvious that the reduction and dehumanization of a people is very effective with the authority of numbers, even without addressing a single individual.

Here (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM) is a link that lists "20TH CENTURY DEMOCIDE," genocide by the 20 worst offending governments last century. Of the regimes listed, not one is a sub-Saharan state.

The statistics may vary source-to-source, but my position remains: the vast majority of mass murder (per capita) in the 20th century has been perpetrated by "non-black" peoples. As sub-Saharan states acquired more lethal weapons from whites, their incidence of mass killings increased toward the end of the 20th century.

A side note: Serial killers, those who kill sporadically more than three persons, are almost invariably white.

Moonbear

May13-04, 12:15 AM

hitssquad

May13-04, 01:45 AM

the bombing of the Federal Building ... is one of the bigger stories of mass murder by a white person.What makes you think Timothy McVeigh was a "white" person?

BlackVision

May13-04, 07:00 AM

For clarity, when I referred to the data, I was referring only to the statistics for US murder rates, not worldwide differences.
Yeah I know. But Nereid seems to challenge even that.

As for worldwide, there are tons of articles of the problem of high crime rates involving incoming immigrants in Europe. A simple google search should provide many.

I don't think anyone would be naive to state that the high crimes of whites and blacks are equal in ANY country. Whether the US, whether South Africa, whether United Kingdom, etc.

Nereid's questions are all valid questions
Not true. She is not interested in any answers, she simply wants to ask one question after another after. It's called the "questions" defense. When you have nothing to present, this is a common tactic used. Go back and read this thread from page 1. Read all her threads. Tell me you don't notice a trend.

I even gave her the option to actually have a debate. That we would each be allowed to ask one question at a time. Of course she refused. Most likely cause she isn't interested in having a debate but simply wants to just mouth off.

I think the point Nereid is trying to make regarding the racial classifications is that in the US, it wasn't too far back in history that 1/8 black was defined as white, any higher percentage and they were defined as black. So, someone who is 50% black and 50% white would still wind up in the black category rather than half of those people being randomly assigned to the black group and the other half to the white group. And what about hispanics? Hispanic is a general term for someone of South American heritage who can be of Caucasian, African, or Native American ancestry (or a mix of any combination of those).
NOTHING here is related to the fact that there are crime gaps between races. How a mixed race person gets classified is absolutely futile and completely irrelevant. Unless you actually want to argue that there is a more proper way of classification that would eliminate the gap altogether. But I doubt you're trying to state that. This is just an example of moving away from the core topic simply cause it is not an easy topic to discuss for many people.

Then, to support your point about crime rates being similarly racially split in around the world, you compare murder rates in the US to overall crime rates in the UK...apples and oranges. I also have not seen stats presented on the distribution of races in the UK. Further, if you want to show that there is a racial factor, then show the stats for some African nations...what percentages of crimes are committed by blacks vs whites in countries that have a predominantly black population?
South Africa. There is a good example of a predominately black country of an enormous white-black crime gap. Study the black rule handover of 1993 of South Africa.

And I see you're back to claiming testosterone levels differ between the races, despite my offering several sources of evidence this is not the case.
J Rushton has quite a comprehensive study on this. But I'm assuming you're gonna ignore it. And even with your study, it STILL showed an increase of testosterone of blacks. And who are you to decide that it's too small of a number to be noticeable. Is the 0.6% DNA difference between humans and chimps too small to be noticeable?

In your study, what is the testosterone level between males and females?

As for the issue of differences between the genders, since the discussion has led primarily down the race/ethnicity/ancestry question, it seems best to focus on that one issue first, then address the second issue of gender differences.
Why? Afterall there was as much gender data as there was race data in my 1st post. And the reason why men have a higher homicide rate and why blacks do would probably be at least partly the same reason. The reason of course being testosterone level. Also does your study happen to mention the testosterone level of asians?

If you want us to accept your hypothesis, then you need to first demonstrate, with valid studies, that ALL of the other alternative hypotheses can be disproven. Basically, Nereid's questions are all directing you toward those alternative hypotheses, so by dismissing her questions, you are choosing to not disprove the alternatives, thus weakening your own argument.
I GAVE Nereid the opportunity to have a debate. A debate is not where she asks a question and I have to answer. And then she asks 3 more questions and then I have to answer. And she asks 5 more questions and I have to answer. Also the vast majority of Nereid's questions were completely irrelevant. If she wants to attack the source then fine. But she should at least present some evidence to support it. Has she done this? No. I would say that makes her case very weak. Not to mention her lack of desire to have a proper debate.

BlackVision

May13-04, 07:19 AM

the bombing of the Federal Building ... is one of the bigger stories of mass murder by a white person.
What makes you think he was white? Was there genetic testing after he got arrested to see how much Caucasian blood he had? Did they ask Timothy McVeigh what race he was when he got arrested?

russ_watters

May13-04, 03:38 PM

What makes you think he was white? Was there genetic testing after he got arrested to see how much Caucasian blood he had? Did they ask Timothy McVeigh what race he was when he got arrested? I haven't dropped in on this thread in a while, and this is the only one I've read today, but its too funny to pass up: how many black Irismen do you know? Don't be absurd, it really doesn't help your argument.

Evo

May13-04, 05:48 PM

Racial data? I had as much data on gender as on race. Did you miss these?

Homicide Rate by Gender:

Males. Age 14-17:
Males. Age 18-24:
Males. Age 25+:

Females. Age 14-17:
Females. Age 18-24:
Females. Age 25+:Wrong. This is the only part of your post that did not include race.

Homicide Rate by Gender:

Male: 16.7 per 100,000
Female: 2.2 per 100,000

The gender information you show is not as it appears in your post. All other age and gender data you provided was listed by race.

Do you think I can't go back and look at your post? :wink:

The Midwest is quite poor but have low crime rates. Here's Washington DC as compared to Oklahoma City:

Washington DC

Population: 572,059

Ethnic Races:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Median Household Income: $40,127
Households Under $20,000 income: 26%

Homicide Rate: 45.82 per 100,000

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030616-093406-7084r.htm

Oklahoma City

Population: 506,132

Ethnic Races:
White: 64.7%
Black 15.2%
Hispanic 10.1%
Asian 3.4%

Median household income: $34,947
Households Under $20,000 income: 27%

Homicide Rate: 7.41 per 100,000

Source: http://statestats.com/

So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?You're forgetting that Washington DC actually has areas of more severe inner city poverty than Oklahoma City. Cost of living is very high in DC. People earning $20k annually in DC are much poorer than a person earning $20k annually in Oklahoma City.

Cost of living is lower in Oklahoma City, people with lower incomes can live more comfortably.

Evo

May13-04, 06:17 PM

As for worldwide, there are tons of articles of the problem of high crime rates involving incoming immigrants in Europe. A simple google search should provide many.Here at PF if you make a claim, it is your responsibility to provide the data and list the source. This keeps information in the threads accurate. If people are allowed to just throw out vague or unsubstantiated information, what is the point of discussing it? PF has higher standards than other forums.

I GAVE Nereid the opportunity to have a debate. A debate is not where she asks a question and I have to answer. And then she asks 3 more questions and then I have to answer. And she asks 5 more questions and I have to answer. Nereid uses a scientific approach to evaluate information. It is a very good way to clarify issues. This is Nereid's normal style, which you will notice if you read any of her posts in other forums here, she's not after you. I've never seen anyone complain about her style, quite the opposite, she is very highly regarded because of how she looks at data.

Moonbear

May13-04, 09:22 PM

What makes you think he was white? Was there genetic testing after he got arrested to see how much Caucasian blood he had? Did they ask Timothy McVeigh what race he was when he got arrested?

So, you concede that when someone is arrested, they are not tested to determine accurately their ethnicity/race, and you're asserting that self-report of this information is not sufficient. Therefore, all the qualitative divisions of the population used in your previously reported statistics have these same flaws in their collection, and can now be considered invalid.

BlackVision

May13-04, 09:24 PM

I haven't dropped in on this thread in a while, and this is the only one I've read today, but its too funny to pass up: how many black Irismen do you know? Don't be absurd, it really doesn't help your argument.
Apparently you missed the joke. If you had been keeping up with this thread, you would of gotten it. It was a Nereid mimic.

BlackVision

May13-04, 09:29 PM

Wrong. This is the only part of your post that did not include race.
ONLY part? Ok you need to go back to the first post and read again.

The gender information you show is not as it appears in your post. All other age and gender data you provided was listed by race.
It was a COMBINATION of race and gender. But it's not surprising that you would completely focus on the race part and completely dismiss the gender issue.

Do you think I can't go back and look at your post?
That's EXACTLY what I'm telling you to do.

You're forgetting that Washington DC actually has areas of more severe inner city poverty than Oklahoma City. Cost of living is very high in DC. People earning $20k annually in DC are much poorer than a person earning $20k annually in Oklahoma City.
Cost of living is heavily dependent on how much the average person makes in that area. Since the average person in DC makes more money than Oklahoma City, of course the cost of living will be higher. You know what the metropolitian with the highest cost of living in America is? San Francisco. Do you see San Francisco with an absurdly high crime rate?

BlackVision

May13-04, 09:36 PM

Here at PF if you make a claim, it is your responsibility to provide the data and list the source. This keeps information in the threads accurate. If people are allowed to just throw out vague or unsubstantiated information, what is the point of discussing it? PF has higher standards than other forums.
Right and I have provided NO data whatsoever yes? And you're right, people shouldn't be just allowed to throw out vague and unsubstantiated information. Which would mean it completely throws out any argument made by Nereid whatsoever since she has provided absolutely nothing. NOTHING.

Nereid uses a scientific approach to evaluate information. It is a very good way to clarify issues. This is Nereid's normal style, which you will notice if you read any of her posts in other forums here, she's not after you. I've never seen anyone complain about her style, quite the opposite, she is very highly regarded because of how she looks at data.
I already broke down Nereid quite a bit. You will also notice I mimicked Nereid with the Timothy McVeigh post, if you can't clearly see the difference between a proper scientific approach and what Nereid did, and what I did with the Timothy McVeigh post, you need to reevaluate your understanding of the scientific method.

BlackVision

May13-04, 09:41 PM

So, you concede that when someone is arrested, they are not tested to determine accurately their ethnicity/race, and you're asserting that self-report of this information is not sufficient. Therefore, all the qualitative divisions of the population used in your previously reported statistics have these same flaws in their collection, and can now be considered invalid.
That's what you got out of that? I thought I made it VERY obvious what it was. It was simply the Nereid approach of "debating"

And since you didn't respond to me the 1st time, I will ask once again, do you think there is some sort of racial classification, that is proper, that is decent, that is fair, that would have even the remote of chance of balancing out the race-crime gap. If you do I'll all ears to hear.

Moonbear

May13-04, 11:14 PM

As for worldwide, there are tons of articles of the problem of high crime rates involving incoming immigrants in Europe. A simple google search should provide many.

Then please do the google search and report back. That's the evidence we're asking you to provide.

I don't think anyone would be naive to state that the high crimes of whites and blacks are equal in ANY country. Whether the US, whether South Africa, whether United Kingdom, etc.

Equal, no, but statistically different in the same direction for every country of the world, we're still waiting for you to back up your claim on that

Not true. She is not interested in any answers, she simply wants to ask one question after another after. It's called the "questions" defense. When you have nothing to present, this is a common tactic used. Go back and read this thread from page 1. Read all her threads. Tell me you don't notice a trend.

The trend I notice is she asks you to support your claims, she inquires about the details of how your statistics were generated, which is a valid question in a scientific discussion (you cannot evaluate results and conclusions if you do not know how the data were obtained).

NOTHING here is related to the fact that there are crime gaps between races. How a mixed race person gets classified is absolutely futile and completely irrelevant. Unless you actually want to argue that there is a more proper way of classification that would eliminate the gap altogether. But I doubt you're trying to state that. This is just an example of moving away from the core topic simply cause it is not an easy topic to discuss for many people.

What we are saying is that, yes, it's possible that accounting for mixed races differently would change the outcome of the statistics. If everyone who was a mix of white and black who commits a crime is lumped into the "black" category, it artificially inflates that category.

South Africa. There is a good example of a predominately black country of an enormous white-black crime gap. Study the black rule handover of 1993 of South Africa.

Do you have any examples of countries that were not under British rule/oppression in the past few hundred years? Perhaps all the differences are in the way former British colonies, or Britain herself, treated blacks.

To be continued...

Moonbear

May13-04, 11:17 PM

J Rushton has quite a comprehensive study on this. But I'm assuming you're gonna ignore it. And even with your study, it STILL showed an increase of testosterone of blacks. And who are you to decide that it's too small of a number to be noticeable.

I've cited you multiple studies that refute your claim. The most recent and most preponderant evidence shows there are no differences in testosterone between whites and blacks. And, that study showed only a tiny increase in ONE of 10 years of testing. Did you look at the data? And I didn't say too small of a number to be noticeable, I said too small to be biologically meaningful. And who I am is a reproductive neuroendocrinologist. I happen to have a good deal of expertise on functions of steroid hormones.

I am not arguing that androgens can affect aggression, just that the very small difference in the two populations in the study I cited was not sufficient to account for population differences in aggression. Here's a reference for a study that shows an initial episode of aggression in mice will LEAD TO an increase in testosterone for the "winner", and that increase will increase the likelihood of further aggression, but is not the initial cause for aggression.

Horm Behav. 2004 Feb;45(2):115-21.
**
Opposing hormonal mechanisms of aggression revealed through short-lived testosterone manipulations and multiple winning experiences.
Trainor BC, Bird IM, Marler CA.
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA. btrainor@cgr.harvard.edu
Territorial aggression is influenced by many social and environmental factors. Since aggression is a costly behavior, individuals should account for multiple factors such as population density or reproductive status before engaging in aggression. Previous work has shown that male California mice (Peromyscus californicus) respond to winning aggressive encounters by initiating aggression more quickly in future encounters, and we investigated the physiological basis for this effect. We found that injections that produced a transient increase in testosterone (T) following an aggressive encounter caused males to behave more aggressively in an encounter the following day. Experience alone was not enough to change aggression, as males treated with saline injections showed no change in aggression. The effect of T injections on aggression was androgen-based, as the inhibition of aromatase did not block the T injections from increasing aggression. Aromatase inhibition did, however, increase aggression in the initial aggression tests (before application of T or saline injections), and aromatase activity in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) was negatively correlated with aggression. A previous study suggested that aromatase activity in the BNST decreases after males become fathers. Thus, distinct neuroendocrine mechanisms allow male California mice to adjust aggressive behavior in response to changes in social and reproductive status.

Social factors are also involved. There is actually more evidence that serotonin mediates aggression rather than a direct action of androgens. Stress hormone levels (cortisol) also affect aggression, especially in combination with androgens. Someone living in a higher stress environment, then, becomes more sensitive to the SAME levels of testosterone.

Even more to come...

Moonbear

May13-04, 11:22 PM

In your study, what is the testosterone level between males and females?

That study did not refer to females. Obviously you didn't read it. But, since you ask, and since you earlier questioned the link between testosterone and obesity, here is another reference, that addresses both of those questions.

Horm Metab Res. 2003 Jun;35(6):362-6.
Sex difference in the effect of obesity on 24-hour mean serum gonadotropin levels.
Strain GW, Zumoff B, Miller LK, Rosner W.

To determine the effect of obesity on serum gonadotropin levels and any possible sex difference in the effect, we measured the 24-hour mean serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) concentrations in 62 healthy men with Body Mass Index (BMI) ranging from 20 - 94 and 61 healthy, regularly cycling women with BMIs ranging from 19 - 76. We also measured free testosterone (T) and estradiol (E2) in these subjects. There was a significant negative correlation between serum FSH and BMI in men: FSH(IU/L) = 49.9 x BMI -0.567; r = - 0.376, p = 0.0026; but a significant positive correlation between serum FSH and BMI in women: FSH(IU/L) =7.66 +/- 0.071 x BMI; r = 0.302, p = 0.018. Serum LH was weight-invariant in both sexes. In men, free T was negatively correlated with BMI: Free T (nmol/L) = 0.74 - 0.0068 x BMI; r = 0.585, p = 0.0381; and free E2 was positively correlated with BMI: Free E2 (pmol/L) = - 1.03 +/- 0.057 x BMI; r = 0.50, p = 0.0014. In obese women as a group, free T was higher than in lean women (33 +/- 6.8 S.E.M. vs. 17.4 +/- 2.0 pmol/L; p < 0.0001), and free E2 was also higher than in lean women: (6.90 +/- 0.80 vs. 4.84 +/- 0.55 pmol/L; p = 0.046). Of the many cases of hypothalamic-pituitary hormonal dysregulation that have been reported in obesity, none has been studied for sex differences. Our results mandate that possible sex differences be investigated in all cases of dysregulation.

And the reason why men have a higher homicide rate and why blacks do would probably be at least partly the same reason. The reason of course being testosterone level. Also does your study happen to mention the testosterone level of asians?

Again, it becomes obvious you are refuting a study you did not read. And you complain of Nereid's questions! I could use your tactic and tell you to do a literature search as the information must be readily available. But, here are more references for your edification.
First, a review article:
Asian J Androl. 2000 Mar;2(1):13-20.
Differences in reproductive endocrinology between Asian men and Caucasian men--a literature review.
van Houten ME, Gooren LJ.

"A later study[26], however, demonstrated that the decreased levels of 5?Á-reduced androgen metabolites in Asian men was not explained by a genetically determined low 5?Á-reductase activity. Instead, reduced levels of the androgenic ketosteroid precursors of these plasma metabolites are a more likely reason. They found a significant reduction in the production of testosterone and plasma testosterone in Chinese residents compared to Chinese migrants in Pennsylvania. No difference was found between Chinese residents and Caucasians living in Pennsylvania. No information was provided in the study regarding the amount of years for which the Chinese migrants had already resided in Pennsylvania. The study of Lookingbill DP et al, 1991[18] showed no obvious difference in serum total and free testosterone levels between Asian and Caucasian men. "

And so you know what references they are citing here, I will include those also (of course you could look them up yourself when you read the article).

[18] Lookingbill DP, Demers LM, Wang C, Leung A, Rittmaster RS, Santen RJ.Clinical and biochemical parameters of androgen action in normal healthy Caucasian versus Chinese subjects.*J Clinical Endocrinol Metab 1991; 72: 1242-8.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991 Jun;72(6):1242-8. Related Articles, Links

Stimulation of androgen-sensitive hair follicles is mediated by dihydrotestosterone (DHT), which is formed in these tissues by 5 alpha-reduction of testosterone. A possible mechanism for increased body hair in some human populations might, therefore, be an increase in 5 alpha-reductase activity, resulting in elevated tissue levels of DHT. If present, this finding could have other important clinical implications, since the 5 alpha-reductase enzyme is pivotal in the pathophysiology of prostatic disease. To explore differences in clinical and biochemical parameters of androgen action, we conducted a study of 184 caucasian and Chinese subjects in whom we evaluated chest hair density and serum levels of androgen precursors and 5 alpha-reduced androgen metabolites. Differences in chest hair density were most notable in the men, in whom comparative mean chest hair scores (using a scale of 0-4) were 3.0 vs. 0.8 (P less than 0.0001), caucasian vs. Chinese. Levels of 5 alpha-reduced androgen products were also strikingly higher in the caucasian vs. Chinese subjects. Serum 3 alpha-androstanediol glucuronide levels (nanomoles per L) were 34.7 +/- 2.4 vs. 19.7 +/- 0.9 (P less than 0.001) for the men and 21.5 +/- 3.2 vs. 9.4 +/- 0.6 (P less than 0.001) for the women, and serum levels of androsterone glucuronide (nanomoles per L) were 179 +/- 26 vs. 107 +/- 7 (P less than 0.01) for the caucasian vs. Chinese men and 173 +/- 23 vs. 81 +/- 9 (P less than 0.001) for the women. Serum levels of total and bioavailable testosterone did not differ between the racial groups, but serum levels of the precursor androgens, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate and androstenedione, were significantly higher in the caucasian vs. Chinese men, but not in the women. We conclude that increased serum levels of 5 alpha-reduced androgen metabolites in caucasians vs. Chinese subjects provide circumstantial evidence for a racial difference in 5 alpha-reductase activity and suggest a mechanism for the increased body hair observed in the caucasian men. Increased levels of precursor androgens may also play a role.

[26] Santner SJ, Albertson B, Zhang G, Zhang GH, Santulli M, Wang C, et al. Comparative rates of androgen production and metabolism in Caucasian men and Chinese subjects.*J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998; 83: 2104-9.

Clinically apparent prostate cancer occurs more commonly among Caucasians living in Western countries than in Chinese in the Far East. Prior studies demonstrated diminished facial and body hair and lower levels of plasma 3 alpha-androstanediol glucuronide and androsterone glucuronide in Chinese than in Caucasian men. Based upon these findings, investigators postulated that Chinese men could have diminished 5 alpha-reductase activity with a resultant decrease in prostate tissue dihydrotestosterone levels and clinically apparent prostate cancer. An alternative hypothesis suggests that decreased 3 alpha-androstanediol glucuronide and androsterone glucuronide levels might reflect reduced production of androgenic ketosteroid precursors as a result of genetic or environmental factors. The present study examined 5 alpha-reductase activity, androgenic ketosteroid precursors, and the influence of genetic and environmental/dietary factors in groups of Chinese and Caucasian men. We found no significant differences in the ratios of 5 beta-:5 alpha-reduced urinary steroids (a marker of 5 alpha-reductase activity) between Chinese subjects living in Beijing, China, and Caucasians living in Pennsylvania. To enhance the sensitivity of detection, we used an isotopic kinetic method to directly measure 5 alpha-reductase activity and found no difference in testosterone to dihydrotestosterone conversion ratios between groups. Then, addressing the alternative hypothesis, we found that the Caucasian subjects excreted significantly higher levels of individual and total androgenic ketosteroids than did their Chinese counterparts. To distinguish genetic from environmental/dietary factors as a cause of these differences, we compared Chinese men living in Pennsylvania and a similar group living in Beijing, China. We detected a reduction in testosterone production rates and total plasma testosterone and sex hormone-binding levels, but not in testosterone MCRs in Beijing Chinese as a opposed to those living in Pennsylvania. Comparing Pennsylvania Chinese with their Caucasian counterparts, we detected no significant differences in total testosterone, free and weakly bound testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin levels, and testosterone production rates. Taken together, these studies suggest that environmental/dietary, but not genetic, factors influence androgen production and explain the differences between Caucasian and Chinese men.

Now, yet another study finds something different. The more I delve into this for you, the more I see a major problem arising...lack of repeatability. In other words, the connection is not reliable between ethnic groups and testosterone concentrations. Here, this one does show ethnic differences in serum total and free testosterone.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1995 Oct-Nov;4(7):735-41.
Serum androgens and sex hormone-binding globulins in relation to lifestyle factors in older African-American, white, and Asian men in the United States and Canada.
Wu AH, Whittemore AS, Kolonel LN, John EM, Gallagher RP, West DW, Hankin J, Teh CZ, Dreon DM, Paffenbarger RS Jr.
"After adjustment for age and Quetelet's index, the levels of total and bioavailable testosterone were highest in Asian-Americans, intermediate in African-Americans, and lowest in whites."

If your prediction that higher levels of testosterone in a population result in increased crime/murder rates in a population, then Asian-Americans should have the highest crime/murder rate. They don't, therefore your hypothesis that it is all about testosterone must be rejected.

Moonbear

May13-04, 11:39 PM

That's what you got out of that? I thought I made it VERY obvious what it was. It was simply the Nereid approach of "debating"

No, you did not make that at all obvious. This is why we are asking you so many questions. Whatever point you are trying to make is certainly not coming through clearly. When we ask questions, it is to clarify points. If you ask a question, I assume the same thing, that you are trying to clarify a point. I saw nothing wrong with you asking, just that it opposed your argument better than supporting it.

And since you didn't respond to me the 1st time, I will ask once again, do you think there is some sort of racial classification, that is proper, that is decent, that is fair, that would have even the remote of chance of balancing out the race-crime gap. If you do I'll all ears to hear.

I cannot provide you with such a classification. I know of noone who has attempted to collect data in such a way, so don't know if it is possible. What happened to your argument that a "proper" debate included addressing only one point at a time? I miss one question out of a myriad number of points I was busy responding to, and you take me to task on it. However, the point is that there are more questions than answers provided by those statistics. The point in asking the questions is not that we actually expect you to have an answer, but that we don't think the answers currently exist. This needs to be pointed out, because any or all of these other factors could potentially explain all the apparent racial differences provided by those statistics. If you have answers to those questions, it would help to support your side of the debate. If you do not have answers, then there is insufficient information to come to your conclusions. When all the alternatives have been carefully eliminated, only then can anyone draw the conclusion it is ethnicity or genetics alone leading to the differences in crime rates.

Moonbear

May13-04, 11:58 PM

Cost of living is heavily dependent on how much the average person makes in that area. Since the average person in DC makes more money than Oklahoma City, of course the cost of living will be higher. You know what the metropolitian with the highest cost of living in America is? San Francisco. Do you see San Francisco with an absurdly high crime rate?

There are two problems with this statement. First, cost of living is not dependent on how much people makes, typically, the cause-effect relationship is the opposite. As cost of living increases, due to the economics of supply and demand (population increases, demand increase, supply remains the same or decreases, prices increase), people begin to demand higher salaries to keep up with the cost of living. Those who do not have an option to negotiate salaries, such as the working poor who can't afford to move to find a job elsewhere (moving costs money), they have no leverage for negotiating better wages, so get trapped. Keep in mind that Washington, DC is not just a city stuck in the middle of nothing, it is a city surrounded by more highly populated areas. You can't just leave the city and find wide open spaces in the surrounding country when you need to escape the stresses of city living.

Second, you used Oklahoma City and Washington, DC as examples of two cities that had similar populations and average household incomes. Now you're arguing that income is higher in Washington, DC.

And there you go with more questions again. If you're going to introduce San Francisco into the argument, please include the same information about median wages, percent of the population living below IRS defined poverty level (that's what $20,000 is, poverty level on the federal level isn't adjusted for cost of living, so someone earning $40,000 in San Francisco is still probably barely subsisting, even though it's not defined as poverty level), population statistics, crime rates, racial distribution, etc.

Evo

May14-04, 12:11 AM

It was a COMBINATION of race and gender. But it's not surprising that you would completely focus on the race part and completely dismiss the gender issue.As I said earlier, it was the combination of your first two posts. It was your second post that led the discussion to one of race.

Cost of living is heavily dependent on how much the average person makes in that area. Since the average person in DC makes more money than Oklahoma City, of course the cost of living will be higher. You know what the metropolitian with the highest cost of living in America is? San Francisco. Do you see San Francisco with an absurdly high crime rate?Cost of living dictates how much the average person makes in that area. But that is not the point here. The point is that a person making the same amount of money as someone in a low cost of living area will suffer more in a high cost of living area. You can't compare DC & Oklahoma City.

BlackVision

May14-04, 03:03 AM

Then please do the google search and report back. That's the evidence we're asking you to provide.
I've done quite enough. I'm not here to serve you hand and foot. Especially for relatively easy to obtain information while refusing to provide any evidence of your own.

Equal, no, but statistically different in the same direction for every country of the world, we're still waiting for you to back up your claim on that
I posted US and United Kingdom statistics. You want more countries? Look up South Africa, look up Australia, look up Germany. The simple fact is that it doesn't matter how many countries I give statistics for you. You will ask one after another after another until all over 200+ countries are given. This is why I'm asking you at least TRY to help yourself. I will assist of course but I'm not here to do EVERYTHING for you.

The trend I notice is she asks you to support your claims, she inquires about the details of how your statistics were generated, which is a valid question in a scientific discussion (you cannot evaluate results and conclusions if you do not know how the data were obtained).
Valid questions are of ONLY questions that you think will support or refute the data given. Let me show you what Nereid has done.

"DarkVision, do you have comparable figures for serious fraud, etc (the kind of crimes which were committed in the WorldCom, Enron etc scandals)?"--Nereid

Cause this of course related to my homicide stats and crime gap. And somehow any answer to this will have a profound impact of the overall statistics.

"Do you know if there is any move to reclassify some of the suicides which followed the massive destruction of value by the senior managers in such companies (e.g. when a retiree's entire life savings - held in company stock, as mandated by the company - is wiped out) as murder or manslaughter?"

Again addressing the crime-race gap oh so nicely.

"And how does 'the incarceration rate' relate to homicides?"

Once again this has of course has relation to the crime-race gap.

"So are we talking about 'races', 'ethnic groups', or 'ethnic races'? Maybe you'd like to propose a definition so that we can have a consistent discussion?"

Answered. Yet still up to this point, still repeatedly asks.

"What is 'the Caucasian race'? 'Far East and the Southeast Race'? 'Sub-Sahara race'?"

Answered. Still asks. And easily obtainable information even if your own common sense couldn't answer it for you.

"I mean, when a US Marine kills an Iraqi 'soldier' or an Afghan 'terrorist', is he committing 'homicide'?"

Cause of course any answer to this could possibly refute the white-black crime gap.

"What about the people who executed Timothy McVeigh, did they commit 'homicide'?"

How this question passed even her own common sense test is beyond me.

"How about doctors whose sloppiness or inattention results in the death of the patient?"

Here she shows she doesn't even understand the elementary edition of homicide.

"The drunk whose car he is driving kills a cyclist?"

Are you seriously gonna tell me you don't see the watermelon tactic I showed earlier? This is only the first two pages and it gets worst from here but you see pretty much where this is going and Nereid's illogical approach to a debate.

What we are saying is that, yes, it's possible that accounting for mixed races differently would change the outcome of the statistics. If everyone who was a mix of white and black who commits a crime is lumped into the "black" category, it artificially inflates that category.
Most people are considered largely 1 race. Especially for whites but even for blacks. An average person LISTED as black in the United States has been shown to have over 80% African in origin. Your Arthur Jensen source that you said was linked to black, you said the high was 40 and the low was about 4 correct? Which does perfectly fit with the average black person in American having a 20% non African mix.

However this is really getting away from the topic at hand. It is solely your own duty to find out how each race is classified if you want to prove that the data given could be drastically different if a more "proper" classification approach was used. Why I have to work to prove your own claim is beyond me. You wanna refute it, YOU do the research. Otherwise let's just move on with the standard classification shall we?

Do you have any examples of countries that were not under British rule/oppression in the past few hundred years? Perhaps all the differences are in the way former British colonies, or Britain herself, treated blacks.
Ok you seriously need to research this. Regardless of British rule, everyone will tell you that South Africa was far better off pre 1993. The period of white rule. And South Africa at that point could have been regarded as a 1st world country. Black rule was handed over in 1993 by order of the UN. And you can pretty much guess what happened after that. The crime, the corruption, the rape, the murder skyrocketed to levels you wouldn't believe. There was mass white emigration out of South Africa due to it. The more it moved AWAY from foreign rule, the worst off it became. South Africa is turning into the the status of the rest of Africa, day by day.

BlackVision

May14-04, 03:17 AM

I've cited you multiple studies that refute your claim.
Are you yet to refute the J Rushton research? No. Let me know when you do.

Again, it becomes obvious you are refuting a study you did not read.
Why don't you post the whole study. Of course your bias didn't allow you to do it. Let me help you. And even after adjusting for BMI, which it SHOULD NOT have done, blacks STILL had a 3% increase in testosterone. You're getting proven wrong by your own source. Now I know why you didn't give a link. Here it is for EVERYONE to see:

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/11/10/1041

Serum testosterone concentration appears to be higher in black men than white men, particularly at younger ages. The higher incidence of prostate cancer in blacks has been attributed, at least in part, to this difference. Other factors associated with androgen levels in men include age and obesity. However, most of the studies of adult androgen levels are limited by their cross-sectional design. We conducted longitudinal analyses (Generalized Estimating Equation) of the associations of age, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference with total and free testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) concentrations during an 8-year period and compared these hormonal factors between black (n = 483) and white (n = 695) male participants of the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study. For men ages 24 years and older at the time of the first hormone measurement, increasing age was associated with a statistically significant decrease in serum total and free testosterone and an increase in SHBG (P < 0.05). BMI and waist circumference were inversely associated with total testosterone and SHBG, but only BMI was inversely associated with free testosterone. After adjustment for age and BMI, total testosterone was higher in blacks (0.21 ng/ml; P = 0.028) than whites, an approximately 3% difference. However, after further adjustment for waist circumference, there was no black-white difference (0.05 ng/ml; P = 0.62). These results indicate that the age-associated decrease in circulating testosterone and increase in SHBG begin during the 3rd decade of life, and that increasing obesity, particularly central obesity, is associated with decreasing total testosterone and SHBG. Results also suggest that the previously observed difference in total testosterone between black and white men could be attributed, for the most part, to racial differences in abdominal obesity.

The CARDIA study is a longitudinal study of young black and white men and women. This cohort provides a unique opportunity for disentangling the associations of age, obesity, and race with hormone levels. The large size of the cohort allows for the detection of small differences in hormone levels between black and white men that could be important biologically, because these differences may act cumulatively over many years. In addition, repeat measurements of body size and blood sampling provide a basis for examining longitudinal changes in serum androgen levels beginning during young adulthood, when many lifestyle changes are occurring. The CMHS was designed to compare 8-year changes in serum hormone levels between black and white male CARDIA participants. In this longitudinal analysis, we compared serum total and free testosterone and SHBG concentrations between black and white men. We also examined the relationships of age and measures of overall obesity (BMI), as well as central obesity (waist circumference; Refs. 16 , 17 ) with androgen and SHBG levels, and on black-white differences in particular.

Among men living in the United States, prostate cancer is the most commonly occurring non-skin cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality (1) . However, across all age groups, incidence and mortality rates are considerably higher among blacks compared with whites. Investigators have proposed (2) that differences in testosterone levels between black and white men could account, at least in part, for the disparate rates of prostate cancer between these two populations. Some studies have reported higher concentrations of total testosterone in black men compared with white men (2, 3, 4, 5) . Results of one of these studies (3) suggest that the black-white difference in testosterone is reduced in older- compared with younger-age groups.

And you complain of Nereid's questions!
To call them questions would be a vast overexaggeration.

BlackVision

May14-04, 03:31 AM

No, you did not make that at all obvious. This is why we are asking you so many questions. Whatever point you are trying to make is certainly not coming through clearly. When we ask questions, it is to clarify points. If you ask a question, I assume the same thing, that you are trying to clarify a point. I saw nothing wrong with you asking, just that it opposed your argument better than supporting it.
Ah yes please ask me whether or not American soldiers killing Iraqi soldiers constitutes as a homicide or not. Be just like Nereid. Have the same level of relevance of these so called "questions"

However, the point is that there are more questions than answers provided by those statistics. The point in asking the questions is not that we actually expect you to have an answer, but that we don't think the answers currently exist. This needs to be pointed out, because any or all of these other factors could potentially explain all the apparent racial differences provided by those statistics. If you have answers to those questions, it would help to support your side of the debate. If you do not have answers, then there is insufficient information to come to your conclusions. When all the alternatives have been carefully eliminated, only then can anyone draw the conclusion it is ethnicity or genetics alone leading to the differences in crime rates.
What you wanna do is eliminate ANY racial discussion. Any study other that than it showing "all races are the same in every way" you will react in the EXACT same manner. You put too much of your own political agenda in this. Instead of gibbering on about what is the proper way to classify races, perhaps more focus on what we as a society can do to help assist and eliminate the gap. With your method, fixing the problem, can't even get addressed.

BlackVision

May14-04, 03:54 AM

First, cost of living is not dependent on how much people makes, typically, the cause-effect relationship is the opposite.
Not true. It's all about supply and demand. With a high surplus of people with higher salaries comes higher demand for the area.

As cost of living increases due to the economics of supply and demand (population increases, demand increase, supply remains the same or decreases, prices increase), people begin to demand higher salaries to keep up with the cost of living.
Again NOT true. The increase of property value can ONLY happen if there is demand for it.

Keep in mind that Washington, DC is not just a city stuck in the middle of nothing, it is a city surrounded by more highly populated areas.
So is New York but it's crime rate is nowhere near the amount of Washington DC. Newark is however. The city right across the river from New York. Hmmm say what's the ethnic makeup of Newark? :smile:

Second, you used Oklahoma City and Washington, DC as examples of two cities that had similar populations and average household incomes. Now you're arguing that income is higher in Washington, DC.
I never stated that they were equal level income. Obviously Oklahoma City is lower. Yet has a far lower homicide rate. Putting a huge taint in your SES argument.

And there you go with more questions again. If you're going to introduce San Francisco into the argument, please include the same information about median wages, percent of the population living below IRS defined poverty level (that's what $20,000 is, poverty level on the federal level isn't adjusted for cost of living, so someone earning $40,000 in San Francisco is still probably barely subsisting, even though it's not defined as poverty level), population statistics, crime rates, racial distribution, etc.
You and I both know San Francisco metro area is probably the most expensive city to live in America with ceiling high housing and rental costsand that it's crime rate is not that of Washington DC. But here goes:

San Francisco

Population: 776,733

Ethnic Races:
White: 43.6%
Asian: 30.6%
Hispanic: 14.1%
Black: 7.5%

Median household income: $55,221
Households under $20,000: 19%

Homicide rate: 5.92 per 100,000

The figure $55,221 is kinda misleading since San Francisco County is actually the poorest county in the Bay Area metropolitian. Silicon Valley, the area right below San Francisco, is absolutely crazy in property value and cost of living.

San Jose, another major city in the Bay Area metropolitian, has a population of 894,943 with a median household income over $70,000. Which is twice as high as New York City.

BlackVision

May14-04, 04:02 AM

As I said earlier, it was the combination of your first two posts. It was your second post that led the discussion to one of race.
No. You specifically stated that even with my 1st post alone, it still would of lead to race. Don't try to go back on your word now.

Cost of living dictates how much the average person makes in that area. But that is not the point here. The point is that a person making the same amount of money as someone in a low cost of living area will suffer more in a high cost of living area. You can't compare DC & Oklahoma City.
Whether you compare a city with lower SES, like Oklahoma City, or higher SES, like San Francisco, either way it makes Washington DC look bad, and puts a major taint on the SES argument.

Evo

May14-04, 02:52 PM

No. You specifically stated that even with my 1st post alone, it still would of lead to race. Don't try to go back on your word now.I said that the first post alone was enough, but the combination of the two definitely led it to race.

Whether you compare a city with lower SES, like Oklahoma City, or higher SES, like San Francisco, either way it makes Washington DC look bad, and puts a major taint on the SES argument.No, DC has an unusually large and very poor inner city slum area. San Francisco and Oklahoma City do not. Have you ever been to DC?

Cost of living is definitely a factor when you look at income and quality of life.

Evo

May14-04, 02:59 PM

I never stated that they were equal level income. Obviously Oklahoma City is lower. Yet has a far lower homicide rate. Putting a huge taint in your SES argument.No, it supports it.

Evo

May14-04, 03:05 PM

However, after further adjustment for waist circumference, there was no black-white difference (0.05 ng/ml; P = 0.62).Looks like Moonbear is correct.

BlackVision

May14-04, 08:50 PM

I said that the first post alone was enough, but the combination of the two definitely led it to race.
Ok I'm gonna ask again. Answer directly please. How is the first post skewed toward race when it's equally half about race and half about gender?

No, DC has an unusually large and very poor inner city slum area. San Francisco and Oklahoma City do not. Have you ever been to DC?
EVERY city, especially every American city, has a poor inner city. San Francisco and Oklahoma City wouldn't be different in that regard. The bottom line is that DC overall is NOT a poor city.

Cost of living is definitely a factor when you look at income and quality of life.
Yes and the San Francisco Bay Area has an extraordinary high cost of living. That doesn't mean people kill each other.

BlackVision

May14-04, 08:51 PM

No, it supports it.
Try explaining how. When both a city with very low SES like Oklahoma City doesn't have a high crime rate, and a city with a very high SES like San Francisco also doesn't have a high crime rate.

BlackVision

May14-04, 08:56 PM

Looks like Moonbear is correct.
You might wanna read it more clearly. They had to make THREE adjustments to make it even. Age, BMI, and waist circumference. The bottom line is with no adjustments, blacks do have a much higher testostereone level. And with 2 adjustments STILL have a higher testostereone level. Read throughout that entire article, it mentions blacks having a higher testostereone level completely throughout it. And attributes several characteristics directly related to that gap.

The fact is that anyone can make 3 so called "adjustments" to show that men and women have EQUAL average height. Bottom line, blacks have higher testostereone level and men are on average 5-6 inches taller.

Evo

May14-04, 09:23 PM

Ok I'm gonna ask again. Answer directly please. How is the first post skewed toward race when it's equally half about race and half about gender?Your post had 8 male or female gender listings and 16 white or black race listings.

EVERY city, especially every American city, has a poor inner city. San Francisco and Oklahoma City wouldn't be different in that regard. The bottom line is that DC overall is NOT a poor city.The difference is the number of people and the conditions. As I've already said.

Yes and the San Francisco Bay Area has an extraordinary high cost of living. That doesn't mean people kill each other.

Try explaining how. When both a city with very low SES like Oklahoma City doesn't have a high crime rate, and a city with a very high SES like San Francisco also doesn't have a high crime rate.
Read the entry above. I can't believe that you think that ghettos and slums and the number of people below the poverty level are identical in every city. And that you don't understand that in a low cost of living area that poor people can get more for their money is mind boggling.

Evo

May14-04, 09:27 PM

You might wanna read it more clearly. They had to make THREE adjustments to make it even. Age, BMI, and waist circumference. The bottom line is with no adjustments, blacks do have a much higher testostereone level. And with 2 adjustments STILL have a higher testostereone level. Read throughout that entire article, it mentions blacks having a higher testostereone level completely throughout it. And attributes several characteristics directly related to that gap.

The fact is that anyone can make 3 so called "adjustments" to show that men and women have EQUAL average height. Bottom line, blacks have higher testostereone level and men are on average 5-6 inches taller.Those adjustments are required otherwise the study would not be accurate. Moonbear is correct.

Loren Booda

May15-04, 01:02 AM

Moonbear

May15-04, 01:03 AM

Why don't you post the whole study. Of course your bias didn't allow you to do it. Let me help you. And even after adjusting for BMI, which it SHOULD NOT have done, blacks STILL had a 3% increase in testosterone. You're getting proven wrong by your own source. Now I know why you didn't give a link.

I didn't post the whole study because of something called copyright laws. I posted the full citation necessary to look it up, and with only one exception, I've been attempting to post only articles available online so the articles are readily available. In my post, I DID point out that correction factors were included. I have since then posted references explaining the obesity/testosterone link. I have also since then posted references showing both differences AND lack of differences among different ethnic groups, including a study showing differences in testosterone according to where a particular ethnic group lives (in that example, Chinese men living in China vs US), showing that environmental factors contribute more strongly than racial factors to differences in testosterone. The key point is that the finding of racial differences is not repeatable. I also cited a study that does show racial differences, with Chinese men having the highest testosterone concentrations compared to African-American and Caucasian men. Yet, according to your statistics, Asian men have the lowest crime rates. If testosterone concentrations are the primary cause of the differences in crime rates, then Asian men should be at the top of the list!

Moonbear

May15-04, 02:27 AM

Are you yet to refute the J Rushton research? No. Let me know when you do.

Which of his research would you like me to refute? I do not have access to his book, but from his online essays and list of publications, it does not appear he has studied for himself any relationship between testosterone and race. Instead, he cites this study: Ellis, L. & Nyborg, H. (1992). Racial/ethnic variations in male testosterone levels: A probable contributor to group differences in health. Steroids, 57, 72-75.

It is not available online, so I can't post a link for you, but since I'm hunting down the source you've cited, I assume you have it readily on hand yourself. Interestingly, in that study, they correct for age and body fat too, even though you say it is not valid to use correction factors. Without the correction factors, Asians have the highest testosterone concentrations, not blacks.

Moonbear

May15-04, 02:53 AM

I've done quite enough. I'm not here to serve you hand and foot. Especially for relatively easy to obtain information while refusing to provide any evidence of your own.

While refusing to provide any evidence of my own? I have cited study after study after study for you. We're asking you to back up your claims with sources.

Valid questions are of ONLY questions that you think will support or refute the data given. Let me show you what Nereid has done.

"DarkVision, do you have comparable figures for serious fraud, etc (the kind of crimes which were committed in the WorldCom, Enron etc scandals)?"--Nereid

Cause this of course related to my homicide stats and crime gap. And somehow any answer to this will have a profound impact of the overall statistics.

Not related to the homicide stats, but is related to the crime stats. Fraud is a crime. If you're being selective about the types of crime you are including to purposely leave out the crimes committed by a particular ethnic grouping, then you are biasing the statistics. Does crime only refer to violent crime, or all crime? This also relates to the testosterone/aggression argument. If your huge difference in crimes are mostly nonviolent crimes, then the testosterone connection you're trying to make doesn't fit with those data.

"And how does 'the incarceration rate' relate to homicides?"

Once again this has of course has relation to the crime-race gap.

Well, I'm going to make the assumption your statistics refer to convictions, not arrests, though that's not overtly stated (correct me if this is a wrong assumption). If juries have a greater tendency to convict blacks based on weaker evidence, and/or to let off whites even with greater evidence against them, or blacks get worse legal representation than whites, then the actual rate of committing homicide would be different than the incarceration/convinction rate.

Most people are considered largely 1 race. Especially for whites but even for blacks. An average person LISTED as black in the United States has been shown to have over 80% African in origin. Your Arthur Jensen source that you said was linked to black, you said the high was 40 and the low was about 4 correct? Which does perfectly fit with the average black person in American having a 20% non African mix.

My Arthur Jensen source? I've cited plenty of sources, but that's not one of them.

BlackVision

May15-04, 03:37 AM

Your post had 8 male or female gender listings and 16 white or black race listings.
Ok let me help you count.

Homicide Offense Rate by Race (1976-2000):

White 5.1 per 100,000
Blacks 39.3 per 100,000
Others: 5.2 per 100,000

This one is race.

Homicide Victim Rate by Race: (1976-2000):

Whites: 5.0 per 100,000
Blacks: 31.9 per 100,000
Others: 4.9 per 100,000

Also race.

Homicide Rate by Gender:

Male: 16.7 per 100,000
Female: 2.2 per 100,000

This one is gender.

Source: US Department of Justice
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm#longterm

Homicide Rate by Age Group and Gender (2000):

Males. Age 14-17:

Whites: 7.9 per 100,000
Blacks: 62.8 per 100,000

Gender, age, and race.

Males. Age 18-24:

Whites: 23.9 per 100,000
Blacks: 205.8 per 100,000

Gender, age, and race.

Males. Age 25+:

Whites: 5.3 per 100,000
Blacks: 39.2 per 100,000

Gender, age, and race.

Females. Age 14-17:

Whites: 1.0 per 100,000
Blacks: 4.9 per 100,000

Gender, age, and race.

Females. Age 18-24:

Whites: 1.8 per 100,000
Blacks: 12.6 per 100,000

Gender, age, and race.

Females. Age 25+:

Whites: 0.8 per 100,000
Blacks: 4.6 per 100,000

Gender, age, and race.

Source: US Department of Justice
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homici...les/oarstab.htm

The difference is the number of people and the conditions. As I've already said.
Number of people? New York City. I believe is the most populated and most crowded city in America correct? Why does New York not have an extraordinarily high crime rate as Washington DC. New York even has a lower median household income than DC.

So let's sum it all up. New York is more populated, more crowded, has a higher cost of living, and has a lower median house value, but has a crime rate about 6 times less than DC. Hmm.

Read the entry above. I can't believe that you think that ghettos and slums and the number of people below the poverty level are identical in every city. And that you don't understand that in a low cost of living area that poor people can get more for their money is mind boggling.
What's mind boggling is that you refuse to accept New York ghettos. New York's got some shi*ty ghettos. LA also has shi*ty ghettos. Ever hear of South Central? There's a higher percentage of people in New York below the poverty line in a city that has a HIGHER cost of living than DC. Now what do you think of that? What weird twisted story will you come up with to explain this one?

BlackVision

May15-04, 03:40 AM

Those adjustments are required otherwise the study would not be accurate. Moonbear is correct.
This is absolutely hilarious. Because when someone commits a crime, they're first adjusted for BMI and waist circumference too?

Bottom line, blacks have a higher testostereone level in the general population than ANY other race. That article, her OWN source, states this SEVERAL times in the article. And attributes MANY characteristics directly to the fact that blacks have a higher testostereone level. You can run run run. It doesn't mean it'll go away.

BlackVision

May15-04, 03:48 AM

The characteristic that murder rate follows most closely is the perceived value of the victim and attacker by society as a whole. When a people had been reduced to institutionalized slavery only 140 years ago, and segregation mostly since, it follows that they are still regarded by many racists as subhuman and dispensible.

Such an attitude by a hateful culture would enable the degradation of self-esteem in any community. When your reality has been hundreds of years under imposed ignorance when your life could be purchased for pocket change, the whole world comes to see you as without monetary, intellectual, personal or familial value - much as a gladiator of the inner city surrounded by a coliseum of fanatic bigots.

Try working this into your statistics.
And why exactly are Jews exempt from this. Jews is probably the most discriminated against, the most hated, the most degraded ethnic group in history. Going back THOUSANDS of years. And slavery for blacks were bad yes but it's NOTHING like the holocaust which caused 2/3 of the Jewish population to be wiped out in Europe.

But have Jews ever faultered in society? No. Despite everything they went to, the discrimination, the genocide, Jews get the highest paying jobs, have the highest college graduation rate. 25% of the world's billionaires are Jewish even though they comprise of only 0.2% of the world population. 27% of students in Ivy League universities are Jewish even though they comprise of 2% of the US population.

But if course for whatever reason, if this group ever DID faulter, did start committing high crime rates, and couldn't get merits to get into a university, people like Moonbear and Evo will jump on the "it's cause of their history and what they went through" in a heartbeat. They have this whole "blame someone else" mentality.

BlackVision

May15-04, 03:53 AM

I didn't post the whole study because of something called copyright laws. I posted the full citation necessary to look it up, and with only one exception, I've been attempting to post only articles available online so the articles are readily available. In my post, I DID point out that correction factors were included. I have since then posted references explaining the obesity/testosterone link. I have also since then posted references showing both differences AND lack of differences among different ethnic groups, including a study showing differences in testosterone according to where a particular ethnic group lives (in that example, Chinese men living in China vs US), showing that environmental factors contribute more strongly than racial factors to differences in testosterone. The key point is that the finding of racial differences is not repeatable. I also cited a study that does show racial differences, with Chinese men having the highest testosterone concentrations compared to African-American and Caucasian men. Yet, according to your statistics, Asian men have the lowest crime rates. If testosterone concentrations are the primary cause of the differences in crime rates, then Asian men should be at the top of the list!
I never recall you giving a link to your so "source" Bottom line, your source specifically states that blacks have a higher testostereone level. Period. Why they do, is far more irrelevant than the fact that they DO. Meaning you take 100 random blacks and 100 random whites, and tested their testostereone level and averaged it out, the mean level WILL be higher for blacks correct? After all it took THREE "adjustments", and I heavily emphasize the quotes, in order to "equalize" the gap.

And asian men have the highest testostereone level? What are you smoking? You really need to read J Rushton's book. Next thing you'll say is that asian men are the tallest of all races.

BlackVision

May15-04, 03:58 AM

It is not available online, so I can't post a link for you, but since I'm hunting down the source you've cited, I assume you have it readily on hand yourself. Interestingly, in that study, they correct for age and body fat too, even though you say it is not valid to use correction factors. Without the correction factors, Asians have the highest testosterone concentrations, not blacks.
Who exactly are you trying to fool with your lies?

"Blacks have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or East Asians. The testosterone translates into more explosive energy."

"East Asians run even less well than Whites. The same narrow hips, longer legs, more muscle, and more testosterone that give Blacks an advantage over Whites, give Whites an advantage over East Asians."

"The reason why Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners is because they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women had to have a wider pelvis. Further, the hormones that give Blacks an edge at sports makes them restless in school and prone to crime."

Source: Race, Evolution, and Behavior by J Rushton

BlackVision

May15-04, 04:14 AM

While refusing to provide any evidence of my own? I have cited study after study after study for you. We're asking you to back up your claims with sources.
You mean your testosterone source that I completely debunked? Oh yes that.

And whatever happend to your argument that a more crowded area induces crime. I gave you the example of New York, an extremely crowded city, not having an overly high crime rate and you never said anything after that. Can we at least agree here that a more crowded area has little or no impact on overall crime rate?

Not related to the homicide stats, but is related to the crime stats. Fraud is a crime. If you're being selective about the types of crime you are including to purposely leave out the crimes committed by a particular ethnic grouping, then you are biasing the statistics. Does crime only refer to violent crime, or all crime? This also relates to the testosterone/aggression argument. If your huge difference in crimes are mostly nonviolent crimes, then the testosterone connection you're trying to make doesn't fit with those data.
Since white collar is mostly whites and not blacks, not many blacks even have the opportunity to commit such a crime. So of course most white collar crimes will be white.

Well, I'm going to make the assumption your statistics refer to convictions, not arrests, though that's not overtly stated (correct me if this is a wrong assumption).
The offending rate is, the victim rate isn't. And the offending and victim rate are very close which verifies one another.

If juries have a greater tendency to convict blacks based on weaker evidence, and/or to let off whites even with greater evidence against them, or blacks get worse legal representation than whites, then the actual rate of committing homicide would be different than the incarceration/convinction rate.
A possibility but even if there is a slight truth to this, the victim rate still shows that there is indeed a major gap.

And I think we can all agree that OJ being black did NOT hurt him at all. :biggrin: And actually played a lot in his favor.

Moonbear

May15-04, 11:38 AM

Who exactly are you trying to fool with your lies?

"Blacks have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or East Asians. The testosterone translates into more explosive energy."

"East Asians run even less well than Whites. The same narrow hips, longer legs, more muscle, and more testosterone that give Blacks an advantage over Whites, give Whites an advantage over East Asians."

"The reason why Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners is because they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women had to have a wider pelvis. Further, the hormones that give Blacks an edge at sports makes them restless in school and prone to crime."

Source: Race, Evolution, and Behavior by J Rushton

He says this, I saw those same quotes on his website, but he does not cite sources for those statements. This is not based on his own work, he isn't reporting experiments or studies and their methodology. There's a saying in science, "anyone can write a book." Which means, if you write a book, you can say anything you want, there's no criteria for truth or fiction, fiction sells very well. Show me a study that shows a causal relationship between testosterone and "explosive energy." If a white man increases his testosterone concentrations (many do so illegally), he doesn't become a better runner or jumper, he adds muscle mass. Higher testosterone concentrations do not explain these characteristics in blacks. That's also a pretty huge leap from athletic ability to hip size (hip size is different than pelvic girth, and completely ignores the relaxation and expansion of the pelvis during labor and delivery). It also glosses over how evolution works. Women aren't going to get a wider pelvis because their baby has a bigger head, indeed, bigger heads during birth in the days before c-sections would have meant mother and baby both probably would have died during child birth. This also ignores that the cranial bones compress during delivery to permit the baby to get out. He also makes a huge leap between his studies of cranial size in adults (which have been debunked in other threads here, and is not relevant to this debate), and cranial size in babies. Besides, athletes competing at the elite levels are not representative of entire groups, they are at the extremes of those population distributions. What is Rushton's evidence that testosterone increases restlessness in school? And what is his evidence that it makes someone more prone to committing crimes?

If you're going to continue to argue that higher testosterone does result in increased crime rates, then let's try to look at it from a different angle. The testosterone concentrations reported are means, those means are pretty close between blacks and whites, so plenty of individuals overlap between the two groups. What you would be trying to suggest by saying the higher mean among black men is related to the higher crime rates among black men is that there is a level of testosterone that would be a "threshold" for committing crime. If your testosterone concentrations surpass that level, you are going to commit crime, and if they are below that level, you won't, and then you would argue more black men than white men have testosterone levels above that threshold. So, what is that threshold? And what percentage of black men and white men have testosterone concentrations above that threshold? Do those percentages match the crime rates? Can a direct, one-to-one relationship be proven between someone with a particular testosterone concentration and that same person's criminal history? You can claim all you want at a population level, but correlation does not equate with causation.

Moonbear

May15-04, 11:40 AM

And I think we can all agree that OJ being black did NOT hurt him at all. :biggrin: And actually played a lot in his favor.

OJ is also filthy rich and could afford all the best lawyers. There are many more blacks below the poverty level than whites. So, this still doesn't refute that ability to hire a good lawyer is the critical factor in whether one is convicted of a crime or not.

Moonbear

May15-04, 11:52 AM

And whatever happend to your argument that a more crowded area induces crime. I gave you the example of New York, an extremely crowded city, not having an overly high crime rate and you never said anything after that. Can we at least agree here that a more crowded area has little or no impact on overall crime rate?

No, we don't agree on that. I am focusing on the testosterone argument for now. I don't have time to debate every issue all at once. I'm willing to table my argument that overcrowding is the issue until we resolve your argument that testosterone is the issue.

Moonbear

May15-04, 12:08 PM

I never recall you giving a link to your so "source"

I did not provide a link, I provided the full citation. That's all you need to find the article. You also don't have to look it up online, you can go to the library and get the paper version if you want. Obviously, the information was sufficient since you found the article.

Bottom line, your source specifically states that blacks have a higher testostereone level. Period. Why they do, is far more irrelevant than the fact that they DO. Meaning you take 100 random blacks and 100 random whites, and tested their testostereone level and averaged it out, the mean level WILL be higher for blacks correct? After all it took THREE "adjustments", and I heavily emphasize the quotes, in order to "equalize" the gap.

No, what the authors are saying is their population did not start out equal. If you started out with a group of men who were the same age and same body fat content, you would not get these differences.

And asian men have the highest testostereone level? What are you smoking? You really need to read J Rushton's book. Next thing you'll say is that asian men are the tallest of all races.

I'm just telling you that based on your criterion that adjustments for body fat and age are not valid for assessing testosterone concentrations, then the source cited by the person you are saying is the authority on the subject shows that, indeed, Asian men, on average, have the highest testosterone concentrations. Otherwise, you have to accept that the age and body fat adjustments are acceptable.

Moonbear

May15-04, 01:16 PM

This is absolutely hilarious. Because when someone commits a crime, they're first adjusted for BMI and waist circumference too?

Nope, they aren't. But in the CARDIA study, they also showed that the UNADJUSTED means did not differ between the two groups in years 2 and 7 of the study, only in year 10. Since your crime stats indicate younger men have higher crime rates than older men, then we should focus on year 2 when the men in the study were younger. No difference in unadjusted means. When they corrected for age alone, they still found no differences. When they corrected for age and BMI alone, they found a difference, but recognizing that BMI is not always an accurate measure of adiposity, which can influence testosterone concentrations, they further corrected for waist circumference so that the combination of BMI and waist circumference is a better reflection of adiposity. Free testosterone is the bioavailable form. In year 2 of the study, both groups had mean concentrations of 0.17 ng/ml of free testosterone (before any correction for age or BMI or waist circumference). In year 10, the blacks had a mean free testosterone concentration of 0.16 ng/ml and the whites 0.15 ng/ml.

Also, from the statistics you provided:

Males. Age 25+:

Whites: 5.3 per 100,000
Blacks: 39.2 per 100,000

Females. Age 18-24:

Whites: 1.8 per 100,000
Blacks: 12.6 per 100,000

If testosterone is the cause of higher crime rates, then does this mean black females age 18-24 have higher testosterone than white males aged 25+? Of course this is not the case. Adult women have free testosterone concentrations of approximately 1 - 1.5 pg/ml (that's .001 to .0015 ng/ml).

Loren Booda

May15-04, 01:49 PM

BlackVision,

Jews have had solidarity from a common religion proven over thousands of years. Their particular culture has survived and thrived much the same way that other minority religions of today have. Jewish people had the eventual support of the allies in WWII, establishing a homeland for their diaspora. Few, if any, African nations have benefitted from such support. Even my neighborhood, in a suburb of Washington DC, has had dozens of Jewish families, but only one or two black families (I invite any good people).And slavery for blacks were bad yes but it's NOTHING like the holocaust which caused 2/3 of the Jewish population to be wiped out in Europe. How do you justify such relative experience ("NOTHING") of suffering? I think that the vast majority of Jews would be more forgiving than you.25% of the world's billionaires are Jewish even though they comprise of only 0.2% of the world population. 27% of students in Ivy League universities are Jewish even though they comprise of 2% of the US population.
You imply with your statistics Jews to be so socially respected in one breath, yet simultaneously Jews is probably the most discriminated against, the most hated, the most degraded ethnic group in history. I can tell you from the kindnesses I have receive from both Jews and blacks that they needn't be billionaires (although one family I know is - it's the alms as well as the geld). Jews have been for the most part tolerated, not constantly branded by their skin color, and had endured especially one decade of terrifying devastation, whereas African Americans had many generations without the privilages (education, leisure, some civil rights, etc.) Jews enjoyed despite endemic discrimination. Even if Jews were perceived as moneylenders, at least they had some value above a dispensible beast of burden. And why exactly are Jews exempt from this. It would not surprise me from your attitude to find out that you are capable of instigating a parallel thread demeaning Jews.

Evo

May15-04, 02:01 PM

Number of people? New York City. I believe is the most populated and most crowded city in America correct? Why does New York not have an extraordinarily high crime rate as Washington DC. New York even has a lower median household income than DC.

So let's sum it all up. New York is more populated, more crowded, has a higher cost of living, and has a lower median house value, but has a crime rate about 6 times less than DC. Hmm.

What's mind boggling is that you refuse to accept New York ghettos. New York's got some shi*ty ghettos. LA also has shi*ty ghettos. Ever hear of South Central? There's a higher percentage of people in New York below the poverty line in a city that has a HIGHER cost of living than DC. Now what do you think of that? What weird twisted story will you come up with to explain this one?The number of people living below the poverty level, not the population of the city, why do you keep pulling things out of context?

Showing homicide rates proves nothing if you do not factor in all the variables that affect the numbers. Of course you refuse to do that because it would disprove your little theory. Until you take these other factors into consideration, there is no point discussing this, it's meaningless.

This is absolutely hilarious. Because when someone commits a crime, they're first adjusted for BMI and waist circumference too?Your comment doesn't even make sense.

Evo

May15-04, 02:06 PM

Source: Race, Evolution, and Behavior by J RushtonDo you have a source that is not a known racist that was investigated for hate crimes and is on several "watch lists"?

Moonbear

May15-04, 05:51 PM

Since BlackVision won't define his own terms, I thought I'd go find the information for myself. The White/Black/Other categories used by the BJS website (source of the stats in the first post of this thread) are based on the DOJ Uniform Crime Reporting guidelines. I've included these below. Note in reporting statistics they have two separate categories, race, which is white, black, American Indian/Alaskan native, and Asian or Pacific Islander. The other category is ethnicity, which distinguishes between Hispanic and non-Hispanic. This is not the same set of categories used by the Census Bureau, as BlackVision earlier implied. Under DOJ guidelines, Hispanic individuals are included under the white category, then later divided by ethnicity as non-Hispanic White and Hispanic White. In the excerpt below, the definitions refer to the victims, because that is where the specific definitions were provided. The same definitions are used for offenders.

From:
U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Criminal Justice Information Services Division Uniform Crime Reporting
National Incident-Based Reporting System
Volume 1: Data Collection Guidelines

28 Race (of Victim) - one character (A): If the victim was a person (I = Individual was entered into Data Element 25 [Type of Victim]), his/her race should be indicated in this data element.
Allowed entries: (Enter only one.)
W = White
B = Black
I = American Indian/Alaskan Native A = Asian/Pacific Islander U = Unknown
According to page 48 of the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, NIBRS Edition, racial designations are as follows:
White–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
Black–A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
American Indian or Alaskan Native–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
Asian or Pacific Islander–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
92
Data Elements and Data Values Example: If the victim was a white person, W = White should be entered.
29 Ethnicity (of Victim) - one character (A): If the victim was a person (I = Individual was entered into Data Element 25 [Type of Victim]), his/her ethnic origin should be entered into this data element.
Allowed entries: (Enter only one.)
H = Hispanic Origin N = Not of Hispanic Origin U = Unknown
Example: If the victim was not of Hispanic origin, N = Not of Hispanic Origin should be entered.
Note: This is an optional data element. Ethnic origin is recorded at the discretion of the reporting agency.

I also checked on the BJS definition of an offender, since that's what we are discussing statistics about. Offender information is collected at the time of the incident report, and does not rely on arrest or conviction. The description of the offender, when a suspect is not caught, is based on the victim's or witness' description of the offender. The site has a disclaimer that it recognizes there is inherent bias in this system, especially for homicides in which there are no witnesses and that remain unsolved.

hitssquad

May15-04, 07:00 PM

I also checked on the BJS definition of an offender, since that's what we are discussing statistics about.Could you provide links to this sort of information, so readers can see what it is (instead of just your personal interpretations) that you are discussing?

Offender information is collected at the time of the incident report, and does not rely on arrest or conviction. The description of the offender, when a suspect is not caught, is based on the victim's or witness' description of the offender. The site has a disclaimer that it recognizes there is inherent bias in this systemDoesn't it seem strange that they would report bias without saying what direction it runs in or along what axis or axes it runs along?

especially for homicides in which there are no witnesses and that remain unsolved.There does not seem to be a clear connection between non-witness and unsolved status, and introduction of bias.

BlackVision

May15-04, 09:44 PM

He says this, I saw those same quotes on his website, but he does not cite sources for those statements. This is not based on his own work, he isn't reporting experiments or studies and their methodology. There's a saying in science, "anyone can write a book." Which means, if you write a book, you can say anything you want, there's no criteria for truth or fiction, fiction sells very well. Show me a study that shows a causal relationship between testosterone and "explosive energy." If a white man increases his testosterone concentrations (many do so illegally), he doesn't become a better runner or jumper, he adds muscle mass. Higher testosterone concentrations do not explain these characteristics in blacks. That's also a pretty huge leap from athletic ability to hip size (hip size is different than pelvic girth, and completely ignores the relaxation and expansion of the pelvis during labor and delivery). It also glosses over how evolution works. Women aren't going to get a wider pelvis because their baby has a bigger head, indeed, bigger heads during birth in the days before c-sections would have meant mother and baby both probably would have died during child birth. This also ignores that the cranial bones compress during delivery to permit the baby to get out. He also makes a huge leap between his studies of cranial size in adults (which have been debunked in other threads here, and is not relevant to this debate), and cranial size in babies. Besides, athletes competing at the elite levels are not representative of entire groups, they are at the extremes of those population distributions. What is Rushton's evidence that testosterone increases restlessness in school? And what is his evidence that it makes someone more prone to committing crimes?
Step #1: You need to stop lying and trying to twist statistics. Each time you do, your credibility drops further lower and lower. You stated that you didn't write the whole article to your source cause it was "copyrighted" NOTHING prevented you from providing a link, yet you did not do this. And even if you did not wanna provide a link, you could of at least given an unbias summary of that whole study which clearly you did not do. Anything that irrefutably mentioned the white-black testosterone gap, anywhere where it stated that the reasons why blacks are more prone to cancer or etc is due to that gap, you seemed to have "conveniently" omitted. I kindly ask you not to lie and twist data whenever you "think" you can get away with it.

Women aren't going to get a wider pelvis because their baby has a bigger head, indeed, bigger heads during birth in the days before c-sections would have meant mother and baby both probably would have died during child birth.
I'm not gonna even bother explaining to you the fundamentals of evolution but it's very clear you lack that knowledge. But to help you, bigger heads, causing more small pelvis women to die, will change the gene pool.

Besides, athletes competing at the elite levels are not representative of entire groups, they are at the extremes of those population distributions.
Every characteristic, be it intelligence, be it atheletic abiliity, be it motor skills, etc has a bell curve. With the majority in the middle. And an extreme on both ends. Blacks have a higher median level in testosterone driven sports than whites do. They also completely dominant the very high end of the bell curve in athletic ability which is somewhat expected since they would have a higher median level.

If you're going to continue to argue that higher testosterone does result in increased crime rates
This one is NOT in question. Higher testosterone level IS an increased risk of crime. There is more evidence to support this than the theory of evolution. You can try to argue that the reason why men commit about 90% of murders is due to the environment, but I assure you, you will look very silly doing so.

The testosterone concentrations reported are means, those means are pretty close between blacks and whites, so plenty of individuals overlap between the two groups.
The vast majority of both whites AND blacks do not commit murder correct? But as blacks have a higher median level, they will also have a higher extreme level and have a higher abundance of people on the very right hand tail of the hormone bell curve. The group most at risk.

What you would be trying to suggest by saying the higher mean among black men is related to the higher crime rates among black men is that there is a level of testosterone that would be a "threshold" for committing crime. If your testosterone concentrations surpass that level, you are going to commit crime, and if they are below that level, you won't, and then you would argue more black men than white men have testosterone levels above that threshold. So, what is that threshold?
Ok before we go further. You need to understand the difference between "increased risk of" and "threshold" With higher testosterone level comes increased risk of criminal behavior. It DOES NOT mean one will commit criminal acts. A person with an extremely low dose of testosterone will still have the ability to commit murder. A person with a extremely high dose of testosterone will still have the ability not to commit murder. But odds, the risk increase and decrease with that level.

BlackVision

May15-04, 09:46 PM

OJ is also filthy rich and could afford all the best lawyers. There are many more blacks below the poverty level than whites. So, this still doesn't refute that ability to hire a good lawyer is the critical factor in whether one is convicted of a crime or not.
It still doesn't change the fact that the victim homicide rate, which is not based on conviction, correlates to the offending homicide rate. Anyway you look at it, there is a gap.

BlackVision

May15-04, 09:47 PM

No, we don't agree on that. I am focusing on the testosterone argument for now. I don't have time to debate every issue all at once. I'm willing to table my argument that overcrowding is the issue until we resolve your argument that testosterone is the issue.
The testosterone debate is already done. Settled by even your own source. No more beating a dead horse, move on to the next.

BlackVision

May15-04, 09:54 PM

I did not provide a link, I provided the full citation. That's all you need to find the article. You also don't have to look it up online, you can go to the library and get the paper version if you want. Obviously, the information was sufficient since you found the article.
Again that doesn't change the fact that you omitted a lot of important information. That study was showing many instances of blacks being more prone to such thing as cancer, due to the testosterone gap. You conveniently didn't mention this, nor anything else that would put a damper on your argument.

No, what the authors are saying is their population did not start out equal. If you started out with a group of men who were the same age and same body fat content, you would not get these differences.
Again you need to directly answer my question, a random population sample WILL show blacks having a higher testosterone level? Yes or no. Answer DIRECTLY.

And same age and same body fat content, you WILL get these differences, go back and read again. With this it states a 3% testosterone difference.

I'm just telling you that based on your criterion that adjustments for body fat and age are not valid for assessing testosterone concentrations, then the source cited by the person you are saying is the authority on the subject shows that, indeed, Asian men, on average, have the highest testosterone concentrations. Otherwise, you have to accept that the age and body fat adjustments are acceptable.
Since asians have the lowest body fat and the smallest waist circumferences, your argument is just getting thrown out the door. Stop trying to twist statistics.

BlackVision

May15-04, 10:05 PM

Nope, they aren't. But in the CARDIA study, they also showed that the UNADJUSTED means did not differ between the two groups in years 2 and 7 of the study, only in year 10.
Why you constantly think you can get away with lying, I have no clue. Here are the data from your OWN source:

Total testosterone level:

Year 2:
White: 6.4
Black: 6.5

Year 7:
White: 5.75
Black: 5.8

Year 10:
White: 5.69
Black: 5.8

Here is the link:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/11/10/1041/T1

If testosterone is the cause of higher crime rates, then does this mean black females age 18-24 have higher testosterone than white males aged 25+? Of course this is not the case. Adult women have free testosterone concentrations of approximately 1 - 1.5 pg/ml (that's .001 to .0015 ng/ml).
Who here ever stated that testosterone level was the ONLY factor in crime risk? It is a large factor yes. It is NOT the only factor.

Such things as intelligence is also a factor, the mean IQ in the prison population is approximately 90. About 10 points below the national average.

BlackVision

May15-04, 10:19 PM

Jews have been for the most part tolerated, not constantly branded by their skin color
Not true at all. Although there have been major improvements in the acceptance of both Jews and Blacks today, Jews historically, were very hated.

and had endured especially one decade of terrifying devastation, whereas African Americans had many generations without the privilages
One decade?? You need to look back on history a little bit more. The mass hatred of Jews goes back 5,000 years.

African Americans had many generations without the privilages (education, leisure, some civil rights, etc.)
Africans never even had this in their own homeland. Way before "white man" even stepped foot into the place. And Hispanics, I assure you had far more privileges than Jews during the mass immigration of Jews during WWII.

It would not surprise me from your attitude to find out that you are capable of instigating a parallel thread demeaning Jews.
I have a high deal of respect of the Jewish community. To be able to go through everything they have. The discrimination, the genocide, and still be able to accomplish everything they have done.

BlackVision

May15-04, 10:25 PM

The number of people living below the poverty level, not the population of the city, why do you keep pulling things out of context?
Again completely faulters since both Oklahoma City and New York City has a higher population under the poverty level than Washington DC. And don't try to tell me that NYC doesn't have high cost of living.

Showing homicide rates proves nothing if you do not factor in all the variables that affect the numbers. Of course you refuse to do that because it would disprove your little theory. Until you take these other factors into consideration, there is no point discussing this, it's meaningless.
Yes yes all the variables such as if a US soldier killing an Iraqi soldier constitutes as a homicide and all the other lovely "questions" that Nereid asks. These will of course disprove my fact. Oh how well the logic flows from this.

Your comment doesn't even make sense.
You mean yours right? Yeah I know it doesn't.

Evo

May15-04, 10:45 PM

I can't take it any longer. BlackVision says he is a student at a university, yet he writes like an uneducated hick. Step #1: You need to stop lying and trying to twist statistics. Each time you do, your credibility drops further lower and lower.Ok, probably an editing mishap. You stated that you didn't write the whole article to your source whole article to your source? What? cause it was "copyrighted" CAUSE?? Did you mean "because"? NOTHING prevented you from providing a link, yet you did not do this. And even if you did not wanna provide WANNA? Did you mean "want to"? a link, you could of COULD OF? did you mean could have? at least given an unbias summary unbiased of that whole study which clearly you did not do. Anything that irrefutably mentioned the white-black testosterone gap, anywhere where it stated that the reasons why blacks are more prone to cancer or etc is due to that gap, you seemed to have "conveniently" omitted. I kindly ask you not to lie and twist data whenever you "think" you can get away with it.

I'm not gonna GONNA :grumpy: even bother explaining to you the fundamentals of evolution but it's very clear you lack that knowledge. But to help you, bigger heads, causing more small pelvis women to die, will change the gene pool.

I have left out all the punctuation errors and additional spelling errors.

BlackVision, don't pretend to be highly educated when it is so obvious that you are not. I am tired of wasting my time with you.

Loren Booda

May15-04, 10:57 PM

BlackVisionI have a high deal of respect of the Jewish community.Including their continuing brotherhood and solidarity with a good part of the African American community?

The billionaires whom I have come to know are a Jewish family whose philanthropy includes volunteerism with Goodwill Industries, along with the respect of the hardest working, lowest paid (by technicality) black people in the DC "ghetto." It is not a shame to these impoverished folks that they themselves are also disabled, and must live in substandard neighborhoods. An evident statistic there is that the average (95% black) DC Goodwill worker is genuinely superior to comparatively overprivilaged, unconcerned whites.

BlackVision

May15-04, 11:11 PM

I thought I'd go find the information for myself.
Good job you're starting to help yourself as you should.

White–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
Black–A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
American Indian or Alaskan Native–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
Asian or Pacific Islander–A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
How are these different from the Census Bureau guidelines again?

BlackVision

May15-04, 11:17 PM

BlackVision, don't pretend to be highly educated when it is so obvious that you are not. I am tired of wasting my time with you.
LOL. When you can't argue the facts, spelling is the way to go. And Lord knows in your 493 posts, you didn't make one single spelling or grammatical error yes? And also "wanna" and "gonna" are considered proper slangs. I didn't know this was such a formal gathering. And if you even try to say that you never used the word "wanna" or "gonna" in your lifetime, you just proved yourself to be the biggest liar on this board.

Also I have a 4.0 GPA at UCLA. So let's see, I have straight As in one of the most respected universities in the country. I also have Professors writing letter of recommendations for Ivy Leagues for post grad. So I'm not pretending to be anything. I am who I am.

Charles Murray was who he was, Harvard and MIT grad. And Arthur Jensen is who he is, a Berkeley and Columbia grad.

Evo

May15-04, 11:23 PM

LOL. When you can't argue the facts, spelling is the way to go. And Lord knows in your 493 posts, you didn't make one single spelling or grammatical error yes? And also "wanna" and "gonna" are considered proper slangs. I didn't know this was such a formal gathering. And if you even try to say that you never used the word "wanna" or "gonna" in your lifetime, you just proved yourself to be the biggest liar on this board.I never use wanna or gonna or could of, I have an education. Your posts are painful to read, they are so full of errors.
Also I have a 4.0 GPA at UCLA. So let's see, I have straight As in one of the most respected universities in the country. I also have Professors writing letter of recommendations for Ivy Leagues for post grad. So I'm not pretending to be anything. I am who I am.ROTFLMAO!! BlackVision, wanna & gonna aren't even in the dictionary, and the dictionary contains slang. "Could of". HAH!

BlackVision

May15-04, 11:27 PM

whole article to your source? What?
Yes. Having trouble understanding?

CAUSE?? Did you mean "because"?
Cause is short for because. Did your mental capacity fail to get this?

WANNA? Did you mean "want to"?
Ah another one that just zips over Evo's head.

GONNA
Opps this seemed to fly over her head as well. Sad.

BlackVision

May15-04, 11:33 PM

I never use wanna or gonna or could of, I have an education. Your posts are painful to read, they are so full of errors.
Ok so you are the biggest liar on the board. Not actually a surprise.

ROTFLMAO!! BlackVision, wanna & gonna aren't even in the dictionary, and the dictionary contains slang. "Could of".
You're making yourself look foolish. You might wanna get yourself a new dictionary. Yes I said wanna. Have a problem with it? Tough luck.

wanna 1: Contraction of want to 2: Contraction of want a:

gonna 1. Contraction of going to:

Source: American Heritage Dictionary.

HAH! I think you are some skinhead from Alabama.
Strange as you're the one that lives in Middle America. A red state. A bush state. An excessively conservative zone. Whereas, I live in Los Angeles. Born and raised. One of the most liberal cities of America.

BlackVision

May15-04, 11:39 PM

ROTFLMAO!!
This of course is an intellectual phrase. I see it very often in all my books. :rofl: :rofl:

Evo

May15-04, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Evo -
whole article to your source? What?
Yes. Having trouble understanding? It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Evo - CAUSE?? Did you mean "because"? Cause is short for because. Did your mental capacity fail to get this? 'cause is an illiterate slang for because. You didn't even use it correctly.

Originally Posted by Evo - WANNA? Did you mean "want to"?
Ah another one that just zips over Evo's head.Not in the dictionary. You sound like a 10 year old. Grownups don't talk that way BV.

Originally Posted by Evo - GONNA?

Opps this seemed to fly over her head as well. Sad.Not in the dictionary either.

BlackVision you are speaking with educated adults here. I haven't even seen the children on PF speaking the way you do.

BV it is obvious you lack an education. Who else here talks like that?

BlackVision

May15-04, 11:54 PM

It makes no sense.
Only you would think it made no sense which isn't surprising.

'cause is an iliterate slang for because. You didn't even use it correctly.
ILLITERATE you mean? Learn to spell why don't you.

Not in the dictionary.
I POSTED the source. American Heritage Dictionary is a HIGHLY respected dictionary. Go look it up now.

You sound like a 10 year old. Grownups don't talk that way BV.
What generation are you in?? You're a baby boomer aren't you? I assure you Gen X & Y talk that way regardless of level of eduacation. Actually baby boomers do also. You must be in some strange foreign alien universe.

Not in the dictionary either.
Aw poor Evo. Doesn't even have the ability to open a dictionary. Opps can't use contracting words in front of Evo. Does not even have the ability. Ah. Evo should be happy now.

BlackVision you are speaking with educated adults here. I haven't even seen the children on PF speaking the way you do.
Educated adults? Or people that have too much free time?

BV it is obvious you lack an education.
My credentials would say otherwise. You do not get into UCLA without having a high academic profile. What is obvious though is that you lack the ability to logically carry on a debate and have shown to be nothing more than a sore loser. When you lose a debate, just leave graciously like a normal person.

Evo

May16-04, 12:02 AM

My credentials would say otherwise. You do not get into UCLA without having a high academic profile. What is obvious though is that you lack the ability to logically carry on a debate and have shown to be nothing more than a sore loser. When you lose a debate, just leave graciously like a normal person.You aren't in UCLA, what a joke. I think you are a high school kid. Just because you found a dictionary with more slang doesn't make it correct. Here is the definition of slang.

Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: 1slang
Pronunciation: 'sla[ng]
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 : language peculiar to a particular group: as a : ARGOT b : JARGON 2
2 : an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech

If you are trying to act adult, don't use slang.

BlackVision

May16-04, 12:07 AM

Just because you found a dictionary with more slang doesn't make it correct. Here is the definition of slang.
It seems that you are absolutely unaware that slangs are highly rampant among social gatherings. You're a loner aren't you? Make some friends.

You aren't in UCLA
Want me to scan my student ID? I advise you though if you make this request, after I provide it, you have to agree to stfu. Agree?

P.S. Did you learn how to spell illiterate yet? :rofl: :rofl:

Evo

May16-04, 12:15 AM

It seems that you are absolutely unaware that slangs are highly rampant among social gatherings. You're a loner aren't you? Make some friends.Among children, yes. But an intellectual doesn't use slang.

Want me to scan my student ID? I advise you though if you make this request, after I provide it, you have to agree to stfu. Agree?Fake ID's are easy to get. Or did mommy & daddy buy your way in?

P.S. Did you learn how to spell illiterate yet? :rofl: :rofl:My keyboard sticks. I corrected it when I proof read it, long before you pointed it out. Check the times dear.

BlackVision

May16-04, 01:07 AM

WANNA? Did you mean "want to"? GONNA? BV it is obvious you lack an education. Who else here talks like that?

List of people Evo considers uneducated: (the following have used the word "gonna" in their comments)

russ_watters
Hurkyl
Zero
p-brane
chroot
phoenixthoth
LURCH
Ivan Seeking
sbenj
Averagesupernova
jimmy p
Mr. Robin Parsons
Stevo
Chen
turin
Antonio Lao
Arsonade
salamander
gizzybeans
humanino
quddusaliquddus
aroha
PrudensOptimus
ExecNight
oscar
tribdog
the number 42
KingNothing
Ikovian
tribdog
Noah
deimos
Janitor
olde drunk
Lubos Motl
ProdQuanta
AndyPIXEL
Tsunami
Moorglade
mhernan
master_coda
Cliff_J
Imparcticle
ydnef
The_Professional
to_son
the hanged man
anti-christ
pattiecake
peter444
Rut Roh
Hatim Hegab
Gara
olde drunk
xerox2ooo
faust9
cytokinesis
KSCphysics
pantalaimon

Source: The "search" feature of this board (Only a partial list. There's way too many. I have no time to go through them all)

BlackVision

May16-04, 01:08 AM

Evo I believe the admins on this board will be happy to hear that you called many of them uneducated. :biggrin:

Loren Booda

May16-04, 01:12 AM

At Yale I remember these two guys, obvious bigots who had nothing better to do but pathologically complain about blacks. There they made no academic distinction for themselves, but I do think they had something for each other.

Here's a statistic - what's the male/female ratio for members of hate groups? It's no wonder they compensate by homophobia!

Evo

May16-04, 01:16 AM

Evo I believe the admins on this board will be happy to hear that you called many of them uneducated. :biggrin:When you're fooling around, it's acceptable, because you're not trying to hold an intellectual discussion. You however ARE trying to hold an intellectual discussion. :approve:

It is so funny that you would go to such lengths to see if I ever used any of those words!!!!! :biggrin: Found out I don't, right? :biggrin: :biggrin:

BlackVision

May16-04, 01:20 AM

When you're fooling around, it's acceptable, because you're not trying to hold an intellectual discussion. You however ARE trying to hold an intellectual discussion.
What are you talking about? These are full length debates. Go read them yourself. It's not like I'm gonna post entire debates here. You're just mad cause you're getting told. :D

It is so funny that you would go to such lengths to see if I ever used any of those words!!!!! Found out I don't, right?
How would I know? You think I bothered reading ALL the posts that contained the word "gonna"? You have any idea how many that is? Do a search and see the listings.

You sure go to great lengths to show your spite.

BlackVision

May16-04, 01:22 AM

Who else here talks like that?
A lot. As I have just proven. :rofl:

Evo

May16-04, 01:30 AM

A lot. As I have just proven. :rofl:No one uses all of the gramatically incorrect words you do. If you exclude those where English is not their first language and those that are not academic discussions, you'll have virtually nothing left.

The fact is that you have shown you don't know any other way to speak.

Evo

May16-04, 01:39 AM

How would I know? You think I bothered reading ALL the posts that contained the word "gonna"? You have any idea how many that is? Do a search and see the listings.

You sure go to great lengths to show your spite.Yeah, actually I was watching you read all of those posts and was wondering why. I watch that part to find threads that might be of interest and saw you looking at an odd variety of threads. You were trying to see if I was the one that said "gonna". You are obsessed. :biggrin:

BlackVision

May16-04, 02:12 AM

No one uses all of the gramatically incorrect words you do. If you exclude those where English is not their first language and those that are not academic discussions, you'll have virtually nothing left.

The fact is that you have shown you don't know any other way to speak.
Um quite a lot of PF admins and PF mentors seemed to have used the words. Are you really gonna make me search for "wanna" as well? Come on I dare you to make this request. If the list comes out similiar, showing the same PF admins and PF mentors using them, you will agree to concede that you have made a mockery of yourself deal?

Much like Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, and others, you're just upset that someone with an excellent education level makes you look absolutely foolish. Spite. A word you should look up in your dictionary.

BlackVision

May16-04, 02:15 AM

Yeah, actually I was watching you read all of those posts and was wondering why. I watch that part to find threads that might be of interest and saw you looking at an odd variety of threads. You were trying to see if I was the one that said "gonna". You are obsessed.
Actually searching for if you ever said the word "gonna" I never did. If I wanted to do that, I would have included your name in the search field. I never did. I was only comprising a short list of people that have used the word "gonna" Many of course, came out to be some of the most respected people on this board.

Evo

May16-04, 11:43 AM

Um quite a lot of PF admins and PF mentors seemed to have used the words. Are you really gonna make me search for "wanna" as well? Come on I dare you to make this request. If the list comes out similiar, showing the same PF admins and PF mentors using them, you will agree to concede that you have made a mockery of yourself deal?Using a slang word occasionally is one thing, when they comprise your entire vocabulary, that is something completely different.

Yes, please do a search on wanna. :biggrin:

Evo

May16-04, 12:10 PM

Actually searching for if you ever said the word "gonna" I never did. If I wanted to do that, I would have included your name in the search field. I never did. I was only comprising a short list of people that have used the word "gonna" Many of course, came out to be some of the most respected people on this board.Yes, and one was using it in a "quote", as an imitation. Another used it humorously to say he was too tired to continue writing. They are not using slang in place of regular words on a consistant basis the way you are. Big difference.

Moonbear

May16-04, 07:58 PM

Well, I'm impressed. It took a long time for such a heated topic to degenerate to ad hominem attacks. I really didn't expect it to take this long. It's a tough topic to keep one's cool on. Since it now looks futile to attempt to continue any sort of serious debate, I'll just toss in that there's a lot of useful information at www.city-data.com for anyone interested in looking at more information about differences among various cities cited in this debate, particularly in terms of median house value relative to median income, and a plethora of information about cities other than the select few listed here, cities that show opposite trends than those presented. Anyone interested can go to the site and draw your own conclusions.

BlackVision

May16-04, 10:22 PM

Yes, please do a search on wanna.
You have to first state that you will agree that you have made a complete mockery of yourself if the results match. No ifs, ands, or buts. None of this "i'm gonna twist my story here and there as new evidence comes in" You look like a fundamental christian that goes "yes the earth was created in 6 days" and once dinosaur fossils are discovered change it to "oh no no what I meant was that a day is just a figure of speech which could equal 100 million years" So if you're gonna waste my time, you will have to agree to concede once the facts come in and will not use the creationist tactic.

But try using your own logic.....eh maybe the standard definition of logic, not your own. :biggrin: If a person uses the word "gonna", why on earth would they have any objection whatsoever with using the world "wanna" Sometimes using simply logic is the best way to go.

BlackVision

May16-04, 10:28 PM

Yes, and one was using it in a "quote", as an imitation. Another used it humorously to say he was too tired to continue writing. They are not using slang in place of regular words on a consistant basis the way you are. Big difference.
LOL. Forget the "wanna" I think we'll do this one instead. You want me to show PF admins and mentors repeatedly using the word "gonna" over and over, post after post? Cause I can do that.

BlackVision

May16-04, 10:31 PM

www.city-data.com for anyone interested in looking at more information about differences among various cities cited in this debate, particularly in terms of median house value relative to median income, and a plethora of information about cities other than the select few listed here, cities that show opposite trends than those presented. Anyone interested can go to the site and draw your own conclusions.
Thanks. Good information. Here's another one. www.ersys.com

Evo

May16-04, 11:54 PM

You have to first state that you will agree that you have made a complete mockery of yourself if the results match. No ifs, ands, or buts. None of this "i'm gonna twist my story here and there as new evidence comes in" You look like a fundamental christian that goes "yes the earth was created in 6 days" and once dinosaur fossils are discovered change it to "oh no no what I meant was that a day is just a figure of speech which could equal 100 million years" So if you're gonna waste my time, you will have to agree to concede once the facts come in and will not use the creationist tactic.

But try using your own logic.....eh maybe the standard definition of logic, not your own. :biggrin: If a person uses the word "gonna", why on earth would they have any objection whatsoever with using the world "wanna" Sometimes using simply logic is the best way to go.BlackVision, one of my pet peeves is grammar, sorry I went off on you, but can you try to use at least some proper grammar?

Can you please refrain from calling people liars and making condescending remarks when you reply to posts? It is very tiresome and makes discussion difficult.

Moonbear is right, we need to get this thread back on track. She has been spending time finding some great information. Moonbear, feel free to slap me back any time I lose my temper.

BlackVision

May17-04, 12:16 AM

BlackVision, one of my pet peeves is grammar, sorry I went off on you, but can you try to use at least some proper grammar?
My use of spelling and grammar is not severely flawed. Everyone makes a mistake here and there from the hundreds to thousands of posts people type and that is very well expected. This would include you as well I am quite sure. But come on, cause and 'cause, that is very ticky tacky.

On this board, I will speak as if I'm in a social gathering, rather than as if it was a major speech or if I'm writing my thesis. Which probably means the word "gonna" and "wanna" will show up. Even if you do not use these words very often or at all, you should understand that many do. Regardless of level of education. I can't remember the last time I've ever heard someone say "Well I'm going to go now" rather than "Well I'm gonna go now" Social gatherings are different from formal presentations. It's not like I use "gonna" when I write term papers.

BlackVision

May17-04, 12:28 AM

Can you please refrain from calling people liars and making condescending remarks when you reply to posts? It is very tiresome and makes discussion difficult.
I was upset with Moonbear very delicately handpicking certain lines from that article while completely ignoring lines that say the contrary. I also got more upset when she stated that there were no difference in year 2 or year 7 in testosterone level between white and black when her own study that she posted showed differently. I don't know if it was on purpose or not but honestly is crucial in a debate.

Janitor

May17-04, 12:57 AM

Fox news just ran a brief story on the O.J. Simpson trial. One comment was that the evidence was enough to convict Simpson in the criminal trial, but the black jurors were not going to let Furman off the hook for lying about his past. It was also pointed out that Simpson has been far from sympathetic and compassionate toward inner city blacks and toward black females in general.

NoahAfrican

Aug1-04, 08:12 AM

Ok first off you would have to equalize the environment. Comparing America to Russia does not work. My original point was that gaps exist WITHIN a country. I never brought this country to country comparision into the debate. Mainly cause the political and economical structure from country to country is excessively drastic to warrant any fair comparison. So I don't have a prove a thing in this retrospect.

White is anyone of the Caucasian race. This does include the Middle East and this group will inflate the score if there's a heavy surplus of them. (UK groups Middle East with Asian however) Asian is Far East and the Southeast Race. The Southeast will inflate the score. Black is the Sub-Sahara race. From what I know there isn't a particular Sub-Sahara group that will inflate the score and is quite even across the board.

You're right the burden is on me to support evidence for the gap and I did just that. Comparison of white, asian, blacks in countries that have these volumes. I provided US and United Kingdom. The same gap exists in Australia, Canada, and other countries that have volumes of these races. I have seen statistics for these countries before and will post them once I find them again. But like i said WITHIN a country, the gaps are very consistent.

As I was googling the web for information regarding international homicide statistics, the search engine offered up a link to this forum and to Black Vision’s (BV) post on racial homicide statistics. I found the conversation intriguing so I decided to join the forum to add in my observations.

I would like to know the motivation which lead BV to conclude that inter country homicide statistics could not be compared to the USA, because there was not an equalization of environment. If his abstract point is true, then why does he not see that the same argument can be made towards intra-country homicide statistics? The fallacy I see in BV’s reasoning is that he erroneously assumes that intra-country racial homicide statistics has an equalization of environment for the races.

One cannot assume that just because people live in the same nation that they are exposed to the same environmental stimuli. Indeed, here in America and the Western Hemisphere, over 90% of the blacks that are here is due to the enslavement of their ancestors. Furthermore, aside from the enslavement was the general degree of mistreatment codified into law and hearts of the society. Consequently, this created a much different environment for blacks (if not in kind…certainly in degree) than for whites. Thus, in order to equalize the environments, whites need to experience the same degree of enslavement, subordination and mistreatment as have blacks in this nation, in degree and kind.

We also must remain cognizant of the fact that the past creates the present. I am sure many will argue that much of these environmental differences existed in the past. However, every action manifest a reaction and the reaction always manifest in the future, relative to when the original action takes place. It is the initial condition of the past that creates the butterfly effect of the present and future. Thus, for a people to spend 3 centuries in various degrees of violent oppression will no doubt reverberate a reaction upon the present and future. For a people to spend 200 years in slavery, followed by 100 years of apartheid (Jim Crow laws) will not have the effects of those causes fatigue in some 30 years of the absence of legalized oppression.

I will agree that homogenous nations experience less problems with violence than does heterogeneous nations. However, the reason that most nations are heterogeneous are linked to European imperialism, colonization and forced enslavement and transportation of people against there will. As I stated, nearly all of the blacks in the western hemisphere come by virtue of enslavement and transport to these places by Whites. Also, most of the conflicts in the world, such as civil wars and wars with neighboring countries are the butterfly effect emanating from the initial actions of European nations colonizing and creating borders to serve its imperialistic purposes. The resultant was that non-homogenous peoples or tribes were grouped together under on nation and pitted against one and other to keep the nation divided and conquered. In other cases homogenous peoples were split by borders and today fight to have their former territory back.

I could go on and on but I think you get my point. It is one thing to have the ability to note statistics. However, statistics do not explain the WHY. Just throwing out statistics that are negative only serves the purpose of the doctrine of racial inferiority/superiority racism.

PS...also, let me add that homogenous black nations have homicide rates that are among the lowest in the world. For example, Burkina Faso, Benin and Camaroon have extremly low homicide rates. Given that many of this current black nations are the roots of a blacks in in the West, one must therefore conclude that it is something about the western (white culture) that creates such an environment that is conducive to this type of criminal behavior.

plus

Aug1-04, 12:10 PM

I would like to know the motivation which lead BV to conclude that inter country homicide statistics could not be compared to the USA, because there was not an equalization of environment. If his abstract point is true, then why does he not see that the same argument can be made towards intra-country homicide statistics? The fallacy I see in BV’s reasoning is that he erroneously assumes that intra-country racial homicide statistics has an equalization of environment for the races.

I think that it is obvious that the environment is not the same for any two people, never mind any two races or groups of people. I presume that his point was that intra country homicide statistics can be compared. To say that these statistics are irrelevant and should be ignored is ridiculous.

Thus, in order to equalize the environments, whites need to experience the same degree of enslavement, subordination and mistreatment as have blacks in this nation, in degree and kind.

I presume that you are not calling for the enslavement of people with the white skin color. What about the black africans who owned and captured slaves? The Arabs?

I will agree that homogenous nations experience less problems with violence than does heterogeneous nations. However, the reason that most nations are heterogeneous are linked to European imperialism, colonization and forced enslavement and transportation of people against there will. Also, most of the conflicts in the world, such as civil wars and wars with neighboring countries are the butterfly effect emanating from the initial actions of European nations colonizing and creating borders to serve its imperialistic purposes. The resultant was that non-homogenous peoples or tribes were grouped together under on nation and pitted against one and other to keep the nation divided and conquered. In other cases homogenous peoples were split by borders and today fight to have their former territory back.

I could go on and on but I think you get my point. It is one thing to have the ability to note statistics. However, statistics do not explain the WHY. Just throwing out statistics that are negative only serves the purpose of the doctrine of racial inferiority/superiority racism.

Most conflicts in the world today involve Islam. And nations today are becoming heterogeneous due to immigration of peoples from poor areas (even the hallowed grail of homogeneous areas) to rich areas which become heterogeneous.

PS...also, let me add that homogenous black nations have homicide rates that are among the lowest in the world. For example, Burkina Faso, Benin and Camaroon have extremly low homicide rates. Given that many of this current black nations are the roots of a blacks in in the West, one must therefore conclude that it is something about the western (white culture) that creates such an environment that is conducive to this type of criminal behavior.

Sub sahara africa has the highest homicide rate in the world. I see no reason for you to believe otherwise other than the fact that you are biased.

In 1990, there were an estimated 1,851,000 violence related deaths (35.3 per 100,000) in the world (table 1 and fig 1). Overall rates of violence related deaths ranged from 12.5 per 100,000 in EME excluding the United States (-US) to 101.0 per 100,000 in SSA. Rates of violence related deaths were highest in SSA, MEC, and ESE and lowest in EME (-US). In 1990, an estimated 3.7% of all deaths in the world were violence related (table 2). Suicide was the most frequent form of violent death followed by homicide and then war related deaths. The global risk of suicide was 1.7 times that of war related deaths and 1.4 times that of homicide. Violence accounted for a greater proportion of total deaths in SSA than in any other region of the world (table 2).

From http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/epi_of_violence.htm

NoahAfrican

Aug1-04, 01:36 PM

Lets try to stick with the premise here or if there is not one stated, please have the character to state it, regardless of its possible racist intent and or effect. You have keenly stated the obvious in that no two people can have the same life experience. Also, no two people are genetically identical, not even twins. There is always a mutation that makes everyone unique. Thus, you take the combination of over 6 billion unique identities, married with over 6 billion unique environmental stimuli, then you have almost a zero probability that one life’s outcome and behavior can intelligently be compared with another.

Be that as it may, even though humans genetics and experiences are all different, we are still much more similar than we are different, especially in regards to genetics. If there is a difference in human outcomes amongst individuals, its origin is invariable environment, genetics or a combination there of. In regards to race, which is not a natural biological construct with clear demarcation, the genetic difference is primarily phenotypic to promote an efficient survival evolution and adaptation to a given environment. Among groups of people, such as races, environment and conditions vary to a higher degree than genetics. Thus, varying rates of homicides between races is linked to environment and not genetics, as what is being implied here by omission.

The Africans who were brought to the West were never enslaved by other Africans. They were simply prisoners of wars and raids who were kept in staging areas to later be picked up, transported and converted to slaves by the white man in the new world. I know that it eases whites moral pains by suggesting that blacks were equally guilty and complicit in the slave trade but that is not true in degree, even if it is true in name. There is a difference that is not represented by the semantics of such a broad term as slavery.

The term slavery is similar to the term criminal in that both come in varying degrees. A pick pocket and a serial killer both can be correctly termed criminal, but there is an obvious degree of difference between the two practices. In Africa, prior to Arab and White influence, slavery was simply the resultant of war and what to do with war captives, or the punitive price for societal transgression such as crimes. These so called slaves had nearly all the rights and privileges as non head of household members of a family that owned them. They were allowed to marry into the capturing tribe or family and there children were not slaves by the default of their parent. There were not brutalized, whipped or castrated to force servitude. That contrast sharply with what the white man practice on the African for several brutal centuries, with a unique psychological racial component, that enslaved the mind as well as the body.

Most conflicts of the world today are not rooted in Islam, even if Islam is invoved in many In fact, one can argue that Christian nations are involved in as many conflicts as Islamic nations. Most of the conflicts in the world are rooted in economics and not religion, however. Land or territory has always been one of the primacy cause of conflict and the white man has went way beyond his natural borders in Europe shaping the boundaries and borders of non white people. In fact, when Iraq invaded Kuwait they did so under the rational that Kuwait is historically part of Iraq, but the British made separate entities after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, whites and not Islam, was the cause of the first gulf war.

Also, it was the white Europeans who decided to take white Jews from Europe and superimpose them over people indigenous to that area, not by religion, but by birth and genetics. The creation of the state of Israel in 1947 was cause by white Christians. That was the initial condition or action that resulted in the butterfly effect of the Middle East conflicts of today. That plus a double standard foreign policy by white America towards Israel and its neighbors.

In regards to homicides rates in sub Saharan Africa being the highest in the world, that is simply more misinformation. It is true of South Africa, Namibia and other countries where whites violently oppressed the indigenous population in the quest for land, wealth and power as they chose new homelands. However, there are 50 black African nations and what is true for a few parts cannot be assumed true for the whole, which many people out of ignorance or malice intent of making blacks look as if they are there worst enemy.

Prometheus

Aug1-04, 02:01 PM

Everyone makes a mistake here and there from the hundreds to thousands of posts people type and that is very well expected.
I guess that you are correct. Alongside your name, the number of posts accredited to you is just over 300. Yet, if you have posted hundreds of thousands, then you are certainly due your number of typos.

On this board, I will speak as if I'm in a social gathering, rather than as if it was a major speech or if I'm writing my thesis.
Yes, I agree again. These are the only 2 options possible.

Which probably means the word "gonna" and "wanna" will show up. Even if you do not use these words very often or at all, you should understand that many do.
Yes, just look around. Most everyone on this forum speaks like you, right? Well, at least you do.

Regardless of level of education. I can't remember the last time I've ever heard someone say "Well I'm going to go now" rather than "Well I'm gonna go now"
My, you must run in poorly educated circles. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone older than 10 use gonna.

Social gatherings are different from formal presentations. It's not like I use "gonna" when I write term papers.
Stick to your guns. Don't let the quality of your peers bring out the better side of your grammar. Continue to equate decent grammar with "term paper" grammar. Don't strive to better yourself to the level of your peers, but instead try to bring them down to your level.

BlackVision

Aug1-04, 07:31 PM

BlackVision

Aug1-04, 07:48 PM

Be that as it may, even though humans genetics and experiences are all different, we are still much more similar than we are different, especially in regards to genetics.
No one argued that. But it does not mean slight differences do not exist.

Thus, varying rates of homicides between races is linked to environment and not genetics, as what is being implied here by omission.
If you have any evidence to support this stance, I will be here. But it seems quite consistent in that blacks have the highest crime rate whereever they are. And asians have lower crime rate than whites, even if they are 1st wave immigrants that are poor.

As shown before on this thread, blacks do have a higher average of testostereone level than any other race. Testosterone has been linked to aggressive behavior. Which can often lead to criminal behavior.

Also if you can explain why 90% of homicides are done by males and contribute that to environmental factors. That would be great.

It is true of South Africa, Namibia and other countries where whites violently oppressed the indigenous population in the quest for land, wealth and power as they chose new homelands.
I'm sorry to say that it is you that is misinformed. South Africa is the only African nation that is even remotely successful in terms of development. They actually have phones and electricity and running water. It is also the civilization that White Europeans built and where the White Europeans still live. To think that South Africa could be where it is today, a GDP per capita of 20 times that of other African nations, without Europeans, would be quite absurd.

Also you do know that power of South Africa was handed over to blacks in 1993 if I remember correctly. What happened then? Crime skyrocketed, economy suffered, they have had more problems than they ever had before.

Also I would like you to tell me the interracial murder rate of South Africa. Blacks killing whites versus whites killing blacks. I think you will find it quite astonishing.

BlackVision

Aug1-04, 08:04 PM

I guess that you are correct. Alongside your name, the number of posts accredited to you is just over 300. Yet, if you have posted hundreds of thousands, then you are certainly due your number of typos.
Ah because if I searched all your posts, I will not find one single error correct? What do I win if I find one?

Yes, just look around. Most everyone on this forum speaks like you, right?
That is correct.

My, you must run in poorly educated circles.
Incorrect, I attend a university that is one of the most prominent universities of this nation.

I can't remember the last time I heard anyone older than 10 use gonna.
Yes yes because most people, including intellectuals, say "going to run" instead of "gotta run" correct? Common sense seems to be something you lack here.

As demonstrated before, even most of the PF Admins and Mentors of this very board use "gonna" If you want to go ahead and insult quite a high percentage of this board, go ahead.

Don't let the quality of your peers bring out the better side of your grammar. Continue to equate decent grammar with "term paper" grammar. Don't strive to better yourself to the level of your peers, but instead try to bring them down to your level.
If that was the case, I would never use contractions and neither would you. But I noticed you just said "don't" When's the last time you heard a President in a speech say "don't"? You will notice Presidential speeches as well as most formal speeches avoid contractions. And what is "gonna"? All that is is a contraction which YOU YOURSELF used just now. So it seems as though you have some work to do.

selfAdjoint

Aug1-04, 08:36 PM

I use gonna when I'm feelin' frisky. Aetatum meum LXX annos. (Case? It's been a long time.)

plus

Aug2-04, 05:37 AM

Thus, varying rates of homicides between races is linked to environment and not genetics,

You certainly did not reach this conclusion by the reasoning given. To state this fact that genetics has nothing to do with the homicide rates goes against modern science. If you have some new revelation which goes against decades of study, then I expect you to be on the cover of some science journal.

The Africans who were brought to the West were never enslaved by other Africans.
Where is the proof of this? And I think that this contradicts to this:

In Africa, prior to Arab and White influence, slavery was simply the resultant of war and what to do with war captives, or the punitive price for societal transgression such as crimes. These so called slaves had nearly all the rights and privileges as non head of household members of a family that owned them.

In fact, when Iraq invaded Kuwait they did so under the rational that Kuwait is historically part of Iraq, but the British made separate entities after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, whites and not Islam, was the cause of the first gulf war.
According to your 'Butterfly effect' reasoning you can extrapolate that anyone who breathed 200 years ago is responsible for every sin commited today. You are using this reasoning as a tool to insult and pin blame upon the whites.

In regards to homicides rates in sub Saharan Africa being the highest in the world, that is simply more misinformation. It is true of South Africa, Namibia and other countries where whites violently oppressed the indigenous population in the quest for land, wealth and power as they chose new homelands. However, there are 50 black African nations and what is true for a few parts cannot be assumed true for the whole, which many people out of ignorance or malice intent of making blacks look as if they are there worst enemy.

I am surprised that you are not trying to claim that homogeneous black nations are the richest in the world, and that in USA the blacks are far far poorer that what they would be in Africa.

NoahAfrican

Aug2-04, 07:29 PM

Well, the fact is this. There is about ¾ a billion black people on this earth and more than 6 billion humans. Now the fact is that no one has did any type of genetic testing, such as for testosterone levels relative to other races, on all ¾ billion black people or the over 6 billion humans that we are juxtaposed against. Thus, there is a whole lot of extrapolation from relatively extremely small sample sets of human populations. I am one who is of the so called Negro race who has never been part of any genetic testosterone testing. Yet, you all hold to such test results for the simply fact that it coincides with your preexisting notions and or your white superiority forgone conclusion. As the say, statistics don’t lie but liars sure use lots of statistics.

Even it is a truth that blacks have higher testosterone levels, there is no proof that the higher homicide rates are directly or indirectly correlated with these levels. The fact that women have lower testosterone levels and lower homicide rates is not correlation or causation, but likely coincidence. Men have higher suicide rates than women. White men have higher suicide rates that black men. Thus, this violent ending of white male life is rooted in what? Lower testosterone levels? Can some say that having lower testosterone in men leads to higher suicide rates? Can some argue that races with males having lower testosterone levels are actually less manly or more feminine. Can someone therefore conclude that the white male is more female like than the black man?

What about social conditioning? Have any of you geniuses wondered why there are more male engineers per capita than female engineers per capita. Oh right. Men have balls and women don’t. There fore there are more male engineers because we got the balls. Hahahahahahah. How about social conditioning and steering that compels certain genders into certain occupations. How about nurses. Women have vaginas’ therefore vaginas make women better nurses, than men. You guys kill me.

In regards to BV and his non germane tirade about white people being responsible for the modernizing of South Africa….whooop dee doo. One can draw a correlation between the advancement of society and exploitation. The reason being is that through most of human history survival has been an overtime occupation. It is extremely hard to study after toiling hours working trying to provide sustenance to you and your family. People simply did not have the time for learning that was not directly relevant to their daily survival. Many did not have the luxury of time to sit around philosophizing, studying, experimenting, exploring and learning new things because they were too dang busy working However, exploitation allowed one group of people wealth and the leisure of time by virtue of making another group of people the beast of burden. The elite thus became the learned class who then advanced society from the learning and adventures, while the poor provided their income and sustenance.

More egalitarian societies and cultures would therefore not advance as rapidly, because one group of people did not create wealth and leisure for another group of people who in turn would advance science. Thus, strutting around like a peacock talking about what the white did to advance the world and South Africa may simply an admission of the degree that whites have exploited their own, as well as others.

Anyway, it is funny that high testosterone levels of Negroes is able to manifest one of the lowest, if not the lowest, homicide rates in the world in the Negro nation of Burkina Faso. Cameroon, Benin, Togo and many other nations in Africa have lower homicide and suicide rates than the typical whites of the world. However, what the hell do I know….I am just an inferior stupid Negro with high testosterone and a lust for white women….Hahahahahah….NOT!!!

Loren Booda

Aug2-04, 09:38 PM

NoahAfrican,

I felt enlightened and refreshed after reading your response. The statistics this thread misrepresents will eventually expose its own worldview of racism.

Averagesupernova

Aug2-04, 10:28 PM

I want to add something to this thread concerning the wanna, gonna, cause, etc. B.S.

Some of you are hitting below the belt with this crap. You acuse BV of trying to pull everyone else down to his 'lowly' level. You compare BV to a 10 year old. Let's please give BV the benefit of the doubt concerning his story. You imply that you are above BV by saying that you NEVER speak that way. You acuse BV of forging identification. You acuse BV of having his way paid by mom and dad. By doing all of this you are basically putting yourselves above BV. Nothing like stomping on someone else to raise your own self up. By doing these things you have just drawn a line in the sand that separates you from others. By acting like this you are not doing your cause any good.

I read alot of internet forums and when someone sinks to the level of nit-picking grammar, typos and things of this nature I usually determine that those who are doing the nit-picking have just run out of valid arguments to support their case and quite likely ARE 10 year olds. It seems you have more interest in winning the argument then anything else. Can you just bow out politely if you've run out of constructive input? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying EITHER side is correct. But I DO suspect that the pot is calling the kettle black.

Prometheus

Aug2-04, 11:58 PM

What do I win if I find one?

Your posting is hilarious.

You place such stress on your conclusions, which you draw on the basis of your own fabricated presuppositions.

I think that you might consider becoming a political speech writer.

BlackVision

Aug3-04, 06:29 AM

The statistics this thread misrepresents will eventually expose its own worldview of racism.
How do you define racism? If I were to accept that Jews are far more likely to obtain Tay-Sachs is that racism? If I accept that Blacks are far more likely to obtain sickle cell would that be racism? Has political correctness become far more important than accuracy and honesty? Would you go as far as to deny any differences between races whatsoever that would be advantageous to one race to another regardless of the evidence behind it?

Race is an exceptionally sensitive issue. That is a given. But because it is such a sensitive issue, many seem to want to dilute the truth if the truth happened to not paint a pretty picture. While their intentions are good, it determines honesty.

BlackVision

Aug3-04, 06:30 AM

Your posting is hilarious.

You place such stress on your conclusions, which you draw on the basis of your own fabricated presuppositions.

I think that you might consider becoming a political speech writer.
What is this? Zero refute to anything I have stated? Ah yes. I found it quite solid myself. :smile:

BlackVision

Aug3-04, 06:33 AM

BlackVision

Aug3-04, 06:47 AM

Now the fact is that no one has did any type of genetic testing, such as for testosterone levels relative to other races
Earlier in this thread, you will notice a study that showed that blacks do have elevated testostereone levels compared to whites.

Even it is a truth that blacks have higher testosterone levels, there is no proof that the higher homicide rates are directly or indirectly correlated with these levels.
Testosterone level is known to cause aggressive behavior. I would say most will agree that murder and aggression at least has SOME connection.

The fact that women have lower testosterone levels and lower homicide rates is not correlation or causation, but likely coincidence.
That would be a huge HUGE coincidence. For the murder rate to be lopsided toward the male side and consistently for all known history.

Men have higher suicide rates than women. White men have higher suicide rates that black men.
Suicide is not an act of aggression. It is an act of depression.

What about social conditioning? Have any of you geniuses wondered why there are more male engineers per capita than female engineers per capita.
Men have been shown to have slightly elevated spatial IQ. Which has a strong relation to math and science.

How about social conditioning and steering that compels certain genders into certain occupations. How about nurses. Women have vaginas’ therefore vaginas make women better nurses, than men. You guys kill me.
When you have studies suggesting any of this with evidence supporting it, I will look into it. There are many studies showing a link between testosterone level and aggressive behavior. There are many studies showing that blacks have an elevated level of testosterone level. I am yet to know of any study that show women are better nurses because they have vaginas.

Anyway, it is funny that high testosterone levels of Negroes is able to manifest one of the lowest, if not the lowest, homicide rates in the world in the Negro nation of Burkina Faso. Cameroon, Benin, Togo and many other nations in Africa have lower homicide and suicide rates than the typical whites of the world.
I have no clue where you are getting this from. A source would be nice. Also the statistical gathering ability of most African Nations are well under par so a UN statistic would be even better but I will be curious to see either.

selfAdjoint

Aug3-04, 11:12 AM

There are also many studies showing a correlation between long term poverty and violent behavior. Genetics plays a part in behavior, even sometimes a strong part, but not the only part.

plus

Aug3-04, 11:47 AM

NoahAfrican

Aug3-04, 05:50 PM

I think that BV is doing a fairly good job at discrediting himself. The reason that I say such is that he chose to take my statements out of its complete context in regards to testosterone testing of blacks. I said that I was not aware of any test that was done on ¾ a billion black people. BV truncated my the complete quote just so he could deny the truth of my statement. I see these types of acts as being intellectually disingenuous…and what would be a person motive for being intellectually disingenuous (controled for ignorance or stupidity), if not the fear the general truth?

Accepting that someone or organization has done such a study ( I do not doubt it), it is obvious that they did not test ¾ billion black people. Moreover, I do have at least a cursory understanding of statistical sampling and that it can be used to accurately reflect the dominant truth of a phenomenon, with some standard deviation of error. However, without knowing the methodology used to create the sample set in the study group, or how the study controlled for variables, or if there was any bias on the part of the researchers, I cannot simply accept such studies as truth. I have no trouble with you accepting it however, because I am sure that such a study serves your self interest and preconceived notions and thus, you would not look for any studies but those that corroborate those preexisting notions.

Be that as it may, the one thing that you might want to consider, and that you two have yet to address and explain, is why Burkina Faso, Guinea, Benin, Togo and other Negro nations have among the lowest homicide rates in the world, despite having higher testosterone levels than the average person in the world. Also, you might want to consider why mixed black people, such as most African Americans, the Coloreds of South Africa, the Blacks of Brazil and most of the Caribbean, have higher homicide rates than the pure blacks in Africa? In South Africa, it is the Colored, not the pure Africans, who have the highest homicide rates. One would think that once you mix black with white that such would dilute the potent testosterone levels of the pure Negro in the mixed offspring. The fact is that were blacks have mixed or have been acculturated , socialized and conditioned by and among whites, they are more violent then where such things are to a much less degree...like Africa. Take South Africa, Jamaica, Brazil and the homicide rates of blacks in the US, all above 20 homicides per 100,000, that is well above the homicide rates found in Nearly all of West Africa, which is the roots of the diasporas blacks. Scroll to bottom Matrix in the report to see the Black Negro nation with the lowest homicide rate in the world (http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/world.htm)

Also, it is true that suicide is an act of depression, but it is also and act of aggression against the self caused by the stated depression. It is argued that many blacks place themselves in violent predicament that lead to killing or being killed because they lack the same respect and value for their life as does the person who commits suiced. Also, the size or degree of a coincidence does not refute it from being a coincidence.

I knew you were going to come back with your spatial analysis theory of men and women. Note that you said that men have a SLIGHT spatial advantage, according to your studies. However, the difference between the per capita rate of male engineers vs. female engineers is not SLIGHT. Can we say then that the majority of this gender difference is social and cultural conditioning? If not, then what is the large difference attributed to?

Don’t hold your breaths waiting for me to present studies, because they are not forthcoming. I do not debate that way. Besides, I do not accept the validity of your studies, so why would I expect for you to accept the validity of mine? Again, I do not know the motivation of the researchers and their ability not to be biased, thus, I rely on my own ability to be honest and objective, because I know that the only variable that I can control for is myself.

I am not appealing to others to compel them that I am suffering from racism. Rather, I try to get people to self introspect for the possibility that they just might be a racist. Noting differences of races does not make one a racist. The racism comes only when one places a value or rank upon those differences in juxtaposition with other races.

Lastly, one needs to take into account that in Africa there are lots of homicides related to civil and tribal conflict that has to do with BORDERS and or non homogenous population grouping created by European imperialism. Furthermore, considering poverty is nearly ubiquitous as being a contributing factor to crime and violence, it stands to reason that the poorest content in the world would therefore have homicide rates higher than wealthier places.

When one looks at African nations that are more tribally homogeneous, and where whites have not attempted long term settlement, the homicide rates are extremely low. Burkina Faso is a perfect example of this theory.

BlackVision

Aug3-04, 10:28 PM

I think that BV is doing a fairly good job at discrediting himself.
Nah you have yet to refute anything I stated so the job I did was quite solid. But your lack of evidence to support your statements is something to look into.

I said that I was not aware of any test that was done on ¾ a billion black people.
Because one needs to test every single black person to know that blacks are elevated in testosterone level right? Perhaps we will also not know that blacks are more likely to obtain sickle cell until we determine the status of every single black person living on this planet yes? You are showlng an extraordinary poor sense of logic here.

what would be a person motive for being intellectually disingenuous (controled for ignorance or stupidity), if not the fear the general truth?
Something you should ask yourself don't you think?

Accepting that someone or organization has done such a study ( I do not doubt it), it is obvious that they did not test ¾ billion black people.
As they did not need to.

Moreover, I do have at least a cursory understanding of statistical sampling and that it can be used to accurately reflect the dominant truth of a phenomenon, with some standard deviation of error. However, without knowing the methodology used to create the sample set in the study group, or how the study controlled for variables, or if there was any bias on the part of the researchers, I cannot simply accept such studies as truth.
There was a link to this study earlier in this thread. The study was quite thorough in it's work. Try going through it all. If you find something that causes doubt, let us know.

I have no trouble with you accepting it however, because I am sure that such a study serves your self interest and preconceived notions and thus, you would not look for any studies but those that corroborate those preexisting notions.
Incorrect. I do not have a self interest in this matter nor did I have any preconceived notions before studying this matter. I have meticulously looked through all the data and I have reached the conclusion I have based on it. And while I admit it is not the prettiest answer, I do see it as the honest answer.

Scroll to bottom Matrix in the report to see the Black Negro nation with the lowest homicide rate in the world
This is your source?? Something some guy put together while drunk? This guy couldn't even copy and paste correctly. For one thing why does this guy put that South Korea's homicide rate is 65.46 when every single source says it's 1.60? Also he can't even list sources for any of the stats. Absolutely messy messy work I must say.

Another thing is you seem to be picking countries where gathering statistics would be extraordinarily difficult. Countries that do not even have a central statistic gathering center. This seems quite in purpose by you.

Be that as it may, the one thing that you might want to consider, and that you two have yet to address and explain, is why Burkina Faso, Guinea, Benin, Togo and other Negro nations have among the lowest homicide rates in the world, despite having higher testosterone levels than the average person in the world.
Because they wouldn't. Someone who tries to argue that the previously mentioned countries are safe to live, their sanity must be severely questioned. If you can post government statistics or UN statistics for ANY of them. I will be interested. You have yet to do so.

Also, it is true that suicide is an act of depression, but it is also and act of aggression against the self caused by the stated depression.
No it's simply an act of depression. The feeling of depression is what one feels when committing suicide. Not anger. Anger causes one to be vengeful (leading murder) rather than suicidal.

I knew you were going to come back with your spatial analysis theory of men and women. Note that you said that men have a SLIGHT spatial advantage, according to your studies. However, the difference between the per capita rate of male engineers vs. female engineers is not SLIGHT. Can we say then that the majority of this gender difference is social and cultural conditioning? If not, then what is the large difference attributed to?
Men have a slightly elevated spatial IQ as well as a flatter IQ bell curve. Meaning there are more men on the extreme ends of low and high IQ then there are women. Also the more you move away from the middle of the bell curve, the more visible the difference becomes. A hypothetical 2 point gap between men and women at the 50th percentile will grow to over 10 points on the far end of the bell curve. So all the above mentioned reasons are likely the cause of the gap between men and women in fields that relate to math and science.

Jin314159

Aug4-04, 01:21 AM

BTW there are no human races (http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/22/apr04/race.htm).

Perhaps there are no well defined boundaries for human races (ie. is a Turk a European or a SouthWest Asian?) but to dismiss the existence of race altogether, is absurd.

If race is not real, then why do the admissions board at most colleges makes decision based on race (ie. affirmative action)? Why do police officers often describe suspects by race (i.e there is a tall Caucasian male running from the scene of the crime)? Why is it that certain drugs react differently when administered to different races? In fact, there was a recent news article about a new drug for heart failure, created specifically for blacks. Just google it.

Jin314159

Aug4-04, 02:03 AM

There is about ¾ a billion black people on this earth and more than 6 billion humans. Now the fact is that no one has did any type of genetic testing, such as for testosterone levels relative to other races, on all ¾ billion black people or the over 6 billion humans that we are juxtaposed against. Thus, there is a whole lot of extrapolation from relatively extremely small sample sets of human populations. I am one who is of the so called Negro race who has never been part of any genetic testosterone testing.

That's what the study of statistics is all about: Drawing conclusions about the population from a small sample size. The accuracy of the estimate pretty much depends on the confidence level (or conversely, the level of error you are willing to tolerate). I don't know the exact details of the experiments done to determine testerone levels across race, but I will assume they follow the 95% Confidence Level Industry Standard, and hence, are fairly accurate. Depending on the standard of deviation of the population, sometimes you only need a very small sample to draw accurate conclusions about the population.

Some of you are hitting below the belt with this crap. You acuse BV of trying to pull everyone else down to his 'lowly' level. You compare BV to a 10 year old. Let's please give BV the benefit of the doubt concerning his story. You imply that you are above BV by saying that you NEVER speak that way. You acuse BV of forging identification. You acuse BV of having his way paid by mom and dad. By doing all of this you are basically putting yourselves above BV. Nothing like stomping on someone else to raise your own self up. By doing these things you have just drawn a line in the sand that separates you from others. By acting like this you are not doing your cause any good.

Race is a very controversial topic (Ha! That must be the understatement of the year). I think all the antagonism being thrown at BV comes from the unsettling nature of discussing racial differences (particularly those with regards to intelligence and behavior). If what BV argues is true, then it's quite discerning to many because we have not yet developed a proper ethical approach to dealing with these racial differences. Suppose race-X is indeed more violent than race-Y in an integrated society. What would be the proper and moral approach to dealing with these differences?

Take South Africa, Jamaica, Brazil and the homicide rates of blacks in the US, all above 20 homicides per 100,000, that is well above the homicide rates found in Nearly all of West Africa, which is the roots of the diasporas blacks. Scroll to bottom Matrix in the report to see the Black Negro nation with the lowest homicide rate in the world

You do know that the charts refer to firearm homocide rates, right? In fact, the website you're referring to is an anti-firearms website. The fact that Black negro nations are the lowest on the chart only means they have low firearm homocide rates, not the lowest homocide rates. They could still be killing each other with knives, spears and non-firearm methods.

Nereid

Aug4-04, 02:21 AM

Perhaps there are no well defined boundaries for human races (ie. is a Turk a European or a SouthWest Asian?) but to dismiss the existence of race altogether, is absurd.

If race is not real, then why do the admissions board at most colleges makes decision based on race (ie. affirmative action)? Why do police officers often describe suspects by race (i.e there is a tall Caucasian male running from the scene of the crime)? Why is it that certain drugs react differently when administered to different races? In fact, there was a recent news article about a new drug for heart failure, created specifically for blacks. Just google it.There is great confusion about the term 'race' and how it is used in the US. We have discussed this topic extensively here in Social Sciences (and a few threads in Biology); in a nutshell, there are no races of the animal homo sap, in the sense used by biologists. The term as commonly used in the US is sociological, not biological, as can be seen in the US Census Bureau's definitions - self-selection. Further, some fields (e.g. crime forensics) use the term for narrow, specific purposes. Following the decoding of the human genome, there is a great deal of work being done on individual variation in drug response - see the HapMap project for example.

Yes, there are population groups among humans, which show genetic differences; no, there are no human races.

BlackVision

Aug4-04, 03:22 AM

There is great confusion about the term 'race' and how it is used in the US. We have discussed this topic extensively here in Social Sciences (and a few threads in Biology); in a nutshell, there are no races of the animal homo sap, in the sense used by biologists.
That is not the conclusion everyone drew although I'm sure you wish that it was. There are many that feel that there are legit biological factors in the use of race.

NoahAfrican

Aug4-04, 07:15 AM

BV, what I am trying to drive home to you is that you are neither the creator nor an eye witness to the creation and methodology of the study. Thus, you don’t KNOW, that this information is TRUE. You simply TRUST it. One must ask why you put so much trust in that which you cannot see or corroborate independently. It is tantamount why so many people believed and accepted (likely including yourself) that Iraq currently had WMD’s. Yet, none have been found to date. Thus, you should learn to be careful of what and who you place your trust in, because many people or institutions you trust could have nefarious motives or hidden agendas.

Thus, I do not argue with you from the point of studies. I can recall when white men used to dominate long distance running. Then some whites did a study saying that there are slow and fast twitch muscles and somehow black muscles were geared more toward sprinting while whites were geared more towards endurance. Now today, you have Kenyan and Ethiopian men dominating the distance races. So much for those studies and theories.

In regards to sickle cell anemia manifest in illness that requires medical attention. Thus, it is easy to not the racial difference as people go to get treated and diagnosed, the discrepancy becomes obvious. Such is not the case for testosterone levels. This is something that would only come to light by people being willfully tested. I know and stated that the statistical sampling is a proven valid methodology of extrapolating a truth for the whole, however, that does not mean that EVERY statically sampling done is valid. It all comes down to what people are willing to trust and believe, in the absence of the ability to know first hand.

I have traveled in West Africa. I am an African American. I don’t need a study to tell me about black behavior because I see it, live it and understand what provokes it. On the other hand, you have to rely on here say.

Nereid

Aug4-04, 11:42 AM

That is not the conclusion everyone drew although I'm sure you wish that it was. There are many that feel that there are legit biological factors in the use of race.Let's let the PF readers on this thread decide for themselves, shall we? Here's the relevant thread. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=25340) - "Is there a scientific basis for 'human races'?

The last post in that thread reads: "There's an interesting book on how white settlers in Brazil tried to classify others in races. After 200 years, they gave up because there were over 350 "races".

Not one serious scientist considers there to be "human races". It's basically a 19th century concept, clearly linked to the classification paranoia of colonizers."

As BV didn't respond to this, it seems reasonable to assume that he agrees with it.

IMHO, the consensus was that 'race' as a sociological concept ('self-selection', not 'genetics') could well be quite OK; 'race' in the biological sense was an impossible concept to define, in any general, scientific fashion (for the mammal, Homo sap.).

Here are some questions asked of BV that were not answered:
1) " Does Prof Gill give a comprehensive list of 'human races' (as well as definitions)? Does he assert that each of the six billion humans (well, >99.99% of them) belongs to one, and only one, race?

2) "If we study social groups, how they form, interact, etc - as part of a sociological study - what does it matter that some members of some groups have blood type A, others B, and so on?"

3) "Unfortunately, this extract, and the map, look like a crude, sloppy summary of Cavalli-Sforza et al's work (e.g. "The History and Geography of Human Genes") - who among PF readers of this thread have read that work? (SelfAdjoint, possibly hitssquad). If it would be helpful, I will post some extracts, on 'scientific failure of the concept of human races'." Re BV's excerpt from 'World Book Encylopedia'

4) "What would you have called him [BV article excerpt: 'Tony Frudakis, scientific director of DNAPrint Genomics, said Wednesday that an analysis of DNA evidence from one of the crime scenes showed the killer was a man of 85 percent African ancestry and 15 percent Native American ancestry.'] if he'd been a she and had 16% African ancestry, 16% Melanesian ancestry, 16% Asian ... (you get the picture)?

Have you read Bryan Sykes' "The Seven Daughters of Eve"? Seems Mr Frudakis is doing something similar, but not using mitochondrial DNA.

Seems there's still a piece of logic missing - non-arbitrary, unambiguous definitions of each 'race'; a taxonomy if you will."

Looks like the section from Cavalli-Sforza et al's work is sorely needed.

selfAdjoint

Aug4-04, 01:25 PM

NoahAfrican

Aug4-04, 05:26 PM

BV and Plus...Regardless of your intent, the effect of your propositions is not simply to inform, but to persuade people to believe that there is a genetic racial link to homicides. The effect of your presentation is to compel people to believe that, in general, the races are different, by virtue of genetics, and that these differences account for variations in behavior…like homicides. You have not directly stated such but I am sure that you believe that these differences attribute to variations in intelligence quotients as well.

For all intents and purposes the options of cause, in regards to behavior behavior, using scientific analysis, is binary. Human resultant behavior and performance is rooted in either environment and or genetics. Your presentation and propositions focused narrowly on homicide statistics and a study that showed that blacks have higher levels of testosterone than others. You then presented the connecter theory that higher testosterone levels are known to promote aggressive behavior. You then used deductive logic to conclude that if A = B and B = C, then A must = C, which in essence is the conclusion that high black homicide rate of blacks are genetic or racial.

The fallacy here is that neither you nor anyone else has established the validity of proposition B, which is that higher testosterone is the cause of higher homicides. High levels of cholesterol are known to cause heart and artery disease. However, not everyone with high cholesterol develop heart or artery disease. Furthermore, a person can have a high level of cholesterol, but more of the “good” kind as opposed to the “bad” kind. Thus, high cholesterol, in and of itself does not predispose an individual to ill health. I am not saying that there is “good” testosterone and “bad” testosterone, but rather that all the information on how testosterone interacts with other chemicals and a protein in the body is not fully known yet. It could be that it is not high levels of testosterone, but rather the body’s inability to handle a certain testosterone levels, which therefore creates a chemical reaction and imbalance that, leads to aggression.

Some people can handle more liquor in their system than others, assuming body composition and mass being the same. I do not drink alcohol personally. But if someone of my same body composition, who was a regular consumer of liquor were to be juxtaposes with me, after a few drinks, it is highly probable that the person whose body was acclimated to liquor would not have his motor skills effected by a few drinks to the same degree that I would be after a few drinks. The human body acclimates and adapts to promote survival. This is why vaccines work; because it introduces something into the body and the body learns to defend and or acclimate against it. If high testosterone is genetically normal for blacks, than our bodies have adjusted to it, over the centuries, and it does not likely produce negative chemical reactions such as aggression.

In light of this, you might want to considering puzzling out why homicide rates have fluctuated rapidly over the last 50 years in the USA, while testosterone levels, I believe, are a constant in the male population? If testosterone levels are not a variable, but a constant, and testosterone levels are correlated with homicides, then homicide rates should therefore be less fluctuating. However, that is not the case. The homicide rate in the USA skyrocketed after the 50’s. Was there a proportional increase in the testosterone levels in males and females?

Also, when I lived in Detroit I learned that not all homicides were rooted in anger. The drug trade causes lots of homicides and many people killed to protect their business interest. Thus…killing was profit motivated (is the desire for profit/money related to testosterone?). There were also people who killed other people for the money…like hit men. Someone would hire them to kill a rival drug dealer. Some people killed out of fear. In a city with lots of guns and homicides…when conflict arose they felt that the other guy might be armed and kill them, so they just killed the other guy first. That is linked to the survival instinct of all humans (is the survival instinct rooted in testosterone levels). If the choice is kill or be killed, then most would chose to kill. In general, homicides are prevalent where there is a lack of respect for life, ones own and that of others. The lack of respect for life is not rooted in genetics or testosterone, but rather it is a learned behavior emanating from environmental conditioning, culture and ones reaction to it.

You might want to start looking more at poverty, guns, drugs, hopelessness, history of oppression and capitalistic democracies (communist nations have few homicides relative to capitalistic democracies as a general rule…why is this true?) By only focusing on one contributing factor, one that has not been a proven link to homicides, the effect is racist. Why, because ignoring all these other contributing factors would not be the act of an open and intellectually honest person.

BlackVision

Aug4-04, 07:33 PM

BV, what I am trying to drive home to you is that you are neither the creator nor an eye witness to the creation and methodology of the study. Thus, you don’t KNOW, that this information is TRUE. You simply TRUST it. One must ask why you put so much trust in that which you cannot see or corroborate independently. It is tantamount why so many people believed and accepted (likely including yourself) that Iraq currently had WMD’s. Yet, none have been found to date. Thus, you should learn to be careful of what and who you place your trust in, because many people or institutions you trust could have nefarious motives or hidden agendas.

Thus, I do not argue with you from the point of studies. I can recall when white men used to dominate long distance running. Then some whites did a study saying that there are slow and fast twitch muscles and somehow black muscles were geared more toward sprinting while whites were geared more towards endurance. Now today, you have Kenyan and Ethiopian men dominating the distance races. So much for those studies and theories.
This is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. First off, how you brought Iraq into this I have no clue. You seem to be attempting to say that ALL studies should be dismissed. Furthermore, that nothing should be accepted. Nothing. You also do not believe George Washington ever existed because if you did it would certainly contradict everything you stated and make you a complete hypocrite.

The very fact that you refused to see the study yourself. Refused to read it. Refused to take notes of it's references. Does say quite a lot.

I have traveled in West Africa. I am an African American. I don’t need a study to tell me about black behavior because I see it, live it and understand what provokes it. On the other hand, you have to rely on here say.
Yes yes because your eyes has better reliance than scientists with money grants and meticulously detailed researches. Gee I don't know why everyone in the world isn't taking your word for it. What is wrong with this world?

But we can have it your way. Forget science. Forget research. Forget logic. Let's just be ignorant little monkeys and be clueless about everything.

BlackVision

Aug4-04, 08:13 PM

Let's let the PF readers on this thread decide for themselves, shall we?
Yes let's. You certainly are not the correct spokesperson for this board.

The last post in that thread reads: "There's an interesting book on how white settlers in Brazil tried to classify others in races. After 200 years, they gave up because there were over 350 "races".

Not one serious scientist considers there to be "human races". It's basically a 19th century concept, clearly linked to the classification paranoia of colonizers."
Gee nice job carefully handpicking certain lines only. At least you flaunt your bias instead of pretending to be on the center.

If you're going to actually tell me that a large portion of this board does not believe in the biological sense of race, you would only be lying to yourself. As I do not feel like wasting my time digging through all the race related threads yet, I will certainly do so if you continue to spew this nonsense.

Does Prof Gill give a comprehensive list of 'human races' (as well as definitions)? Does he assert that each of the six billion humans (well, >99.99% of them) belongs to one, and only one, race?
See below in regards to definition of races. But by this point, you should have been well aware that Professor Gill strongly believes in the biological notion of race.

"If we study social groups, how they form, interact, etc - as part of a sociological study - what does it matter that some members of some groups have blood type A, others B, and so on?"
Race is not determined by a single factor. This is probably not the first time someone told you this and probably wouldn't be the last. A combination of many factors makes race quite reliable. As someone's race can be determined solely by looking at their DNA, that does show some degree of genetic pattern in races.

"Unfortunately, this extract, and the map, look like a crude, sloppy summary of Cavalli-Sforza et al's work
The map is what it is. The origins of different races of the world. What exactly are you disagreeing with here? Where exactly to set the boundaries?

"What would you have called him [BV article excerpt: 'Tony Frudakis, scientific director of DNAPrint Genomics, said Wednesday that an analysis of DNA evidence from one of the crime scenes showed the killer was a man of 85 percent African ancestry and 15 percent Native American ancestry.'] if he'd been a she and had 16% African ancestry, 16% Melanesian ancestry, 16% Asian ... (you get the picture)?
What are you even asking here? If who'd had been a she? The person they caught that is said to have 85 percent African ancestry and 15 percent Native American ancestry? The person who they caught was exactly what the DNA test stated it would be.

Seems there's still a piece of logic missing - non-arbitrary, unambiguous definitions of each 'race'; a taxonomy if you will."
I do recall posting a very broad definition of different races before. But the notion that "race is biological" does not need to rely on specific definitions.

Blacks are far more likely to obtain sickle cell. But not having sickle cell certainly does not mean that person is not black. However the ratio of sickle cell from one given race to another certainly is vast. This is simply one example of race having genetic roots.

BlackVision

Aug4-04, 08:39 PM

Your presentation and propositions focused narrowly on homicide statistics
Did you happen to notice the title of this thread?

You then presented the connecter theory that higher testosterone levels are known to promote aggressive behavior.
Are you having trouble understanding that aggressive behavior is linked to testosterone level? If you couldn't even get past this part, I see why you might have troubles in the higher level.

High levels of cholesterol are known to cause heart and artery disease. However, not everyone with high cholesterol develop heart or artery disease.
Who says every black person commits a homicide?

If high testosterone is genetically normal for blacks, than our bodies have adjusted to it, over the centuries, and it does not likely produce negative chemical reactions such as aggression.
No. Our genetic roots goes back far more than just a few centuries. And certainly to a large extent we still have characteristics that goes back countless generations.

And who says aggression is negative? Aggression can certainly be positive. A person with more aggression is likely to be more competitive. Many will see that as a positive.

In light of this, you might want to considering puzzling out why homicide rates have fluctuated rapidly over the last 50 years in the USA, while testosterone levels
There is no one. No one that will argue that testosterone level is the sole and only factor in determining the potential for homicide. However it is an extraordinarily large factor which you seem to want to dismiss completely.

And how much of a fluctuation are you even talking about? In 1950 the homicide rate in America was 4.6 per 100,000. In 2000 it was 5.5 per 100,000. With the homicide rate of blacks consistently being approximately 8 times the homicide rate of whites every single year. This gap does not close and never does it give any impression that it will ever close.

The drug trade causes lots of homicides and many people killed to protect their business interest.
This is still an act of aggression. A person with lower aggression is unlikely to pull the trigger as quickly regardless of the situation. Even in cases of self defense.

communist nations have few homicides relative to capitalistic democracies as a general rule…why is this true?
Because it's not true. I have no clue where you got this from but the communist block has higher homicide rates than the capitalistic ones. Compare the homicide rates of Russia and Eastern Europe to that of Western Europe.

By only focusing on one contributing factor, one that has not been a proven link to homicides, the effect is racist.
Who says I focus on just one factor? It's simply the largest factor. There are countless factors but I assure you this will come out well out on top. And by ignoring the most important factor, the effect is ignorance.

NoahAfrican

Aug4-04, 11:09 PM

The truth is BV that you have not proven that this study you have referenced is valid. You are simply going off what the study published and accepting that as fact, but you have not proof that it is fact. Furthermore, most scientific studies rely on the resultant being able to be reproduced by other independent scientist. To rely on a single study, that has not been reproduced, is not acceptable for my trust. If one goes to the doctor and it told that they need major surgery, one will want to get second and third opinions. One should not just accept the first opinion that comes along.

Of course I see your common use of fallacy and out of context quotes to discredit my statements. I never said that all studies are invalid. What I said was that you were not the creator or a witness to the study being carried out to know that it was done without bias. It is the case, however, that most people BELIEVE far more than they actually KNOW and you can never KNOW what is true in regards these studies unless you do the study yourself. That is a FACT and not conjecture.

I put more faith and truth in information that I get that corroborated by many different independent sources, if I am and cannot be a personal witness of the phenomenon. Thus, I trust history because most of history is recorded and passed, corroborated by thousands of different independent sources. However, studies like the one that you rely on are not backed up my enough independent researchers for me to put faith in it. However, as I stated before, it makes sense that a people will gravitate to information and conclusion that fall in line with their preexisting beliefs.

I only used Iraq as a demonstration of how people can be let down by people and institutions they trust, such as the president and the CIA saying that they have PROOF that Iraq has WMD. Millions of Americans believed this simply because the TRUSTED theses institutions. They had no way of corroborating this information or KNOWING first hand what weapons exist in Iraq. In the same way, you have no way of knowing that this research is valid or if they followed the methodology that they say the did. You just don’t KNOW and you are lying if you say you do…and that is my point. Thus, you accept the study because you WANT it to be true…that there is a genetic reason that blacks commit more homicides than whites.

The fact that I am a black man, who was reared in an all black community and who have traveled to black African nation first hand, allows me to have a first hand experience that you don’t and can never have. I am on the inside looking out. You are on the outside and you are not even looking in. You are simply relying on what you hear other people conclude about black people. I grew up around many people who committed homicides. I knew them personally, some where my relatives. Pulling the trigger of the gun does not require high aggression. All it takes is a disrespect of the life at the other end of the barrel. All it takes is a disrespect for ones own future. You don’t KNOW of what you talk, you just read about what other say, while I have lived the life of a black among blacks. You have NO credibility.

If you are relying so heavily on studies, why have their not studies that make the conclusion that you have done, that homicides are correlated with high testosterone? You presented a study that says that blacks have higher levels of testosterone, but you were not able to present a study that linked homicides rates to testosterone levels. That was simply your conjecture. Where is the study that says that these levels are the most significant factor in homicides.

Around 1985 there were 685 homicides in the city proper of Detroit. A couple of years ago the level dipped below 400. Although the population of the city proper has been in steady decline, that decline is in the white population as the black population is larger than ever in the city. So is one to assume that the testosterone levels of blacks in the city declined from 1985 to 2002? Why is the murder rate of poor blacks so much higher than the homicide rate of affluent blacks? Does the rich have lower testosterone levels? You also never addressed why coloureds (Mixed with black and other) in South Africa have higher homicide rates than pure black Africans in south Africa? You have not addressed why the mixed African Americans high testosterone has not been diluted by mixing with the white race? You say that the homicide rate of blacks in America is approximately 40 per 100,000, it that is true, that is higher than the rate of the pure blacks in sub Saharan Africa. That does not make sense, because the purer blacks should have a higher homicide rate than those blacks mixed with white blood, but that not the case.

Your proposition lacks the foundation to stand.

Jin314159

Aug5-04, 12:28 AM

Yes, there are population groups among humans, which show genetic differences; no, there are no human races.

Alright, let's define race as "population groups among humans that show genetic differences."

The truth is BV that you have not proven that this study you have referenced is valid. You are simply going off what the study published and accepting that as fact, but you have not proof that it is fact.

I put more faith and truth in information that I get that corroborated by many different independent sources

I don't think BlackVision has the time and resources to conduct such a study. The topic at hand is whether or not there are differences in homocide rates across gender and race. BlackVision asserted his claim that there by using data taken from the Office of Justice Programs (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/). We have to assume that the staticians at the OJP know what they're doing.

Second, how do you know the OJP didn't corrobate with many different independent sources? They probably aggregated the data from many different police station files across the nation.

BlackVision

Aug5-04, 02:18 AM

I will not once again point out the errors of the approach you are taking as I am not a broken record. If you choose to ignore facts, so be it. Just don't expect everyone else to have the same ignorance.

What I said was that you were not the creator or a witness to the study being carried out to know that it was done without bias.
Yeah because Cancer Institutions are just known for their bias. After all they'll get so much to gain out of it. But once again, your refusal to read the study yourself does say a lot. It does say you will not block out information that you do not like at any cost.

It is the case, however, that most people BELIEVE far more than they actually KNOW and you can never KNOW what is true in regards these studies unless you do the study yourself. That is a FACT and not conjecture.
Since there are dozens of studies that say the same and because I am yet to find one study that states otherwise, I would say the results are quite solid. But hey if you can find one single study that shows that no differences in testosterone level exists between different races, I'm all ears.

put more faith and truth in information that I get that corroborated by many different independent sources
I just stated that there are several sources that show the exact same thing and not one that shows otherwise. Did you need more than the one that was posted earlier? Alright.

http://www.cancernetwork.com/consults/ccp9904a.htm

http://foundersamerica8.blogspot.com/

http://www.sptimes.com/News/020600/Perspective/The_game_in_black_and.shtml

There are literally thousands more. This is just what I found from a quick google search. Now once again, if you can find one that states that there are no difference in testosterone level, I am willing to hear it. But to try to argue against the infinite number of sources that states the same thing while having the inability to produce one source that will counter it, makes your sanity come under question.

I only used Iraq as a demonstration of how people can be let down by people and institutions they trust, such as the president and the CIA saying that they have PROOF that Iraq has WMD.
Iraq.......scientific research......uh huh I see how you got there.

Thus, you accept the study because you WANT it to be true
Must I repeat myself that I do not give a rats *** what the study shows. I could care less if the study showed that there are no difference in testosterone level or that whites had more testosterone level or that Native Americans had no testosterone level at all. I don't care. What I DO care for is science, accuracy, and honesty. Your stance doesn't seem to be on any facts or evidence whatsoever but simply on what you wished to be true.

The fact that I am a black man
And you can honestly say that you're an unbiased black man? Because I will tell you many will not see that.

You are simply relying on what you hear other people conclude about black people.
Once again, you are far less reliable than scientists that have the time, money, and resources to fully research the matter. No one is going to take your words over scientific researches so do not expect it to happen.

You have NO credibility.
Right, using science has no credibility. On the other hand, saying "I know a few black men" somehow has credibility.

why have their not studies that make the conclusion that you have done, that homicides are correlated with high testosterone?
Believe me there is plenty of those. Including one of the new sources I just posted. It is also heavily addressed in the book "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" by Professor Rushton that crime is directly linked to testosterone level.

Around 1985 there were 685 homicides in the city proper of Detroit. A couple of years ago the level dipped below 400.
Because every single year there is suppose to be an exact same number of homicides? You might want to compare the homicide rate of black majority cities like Detriot, Washington DC, Atlanta, New Orleans, etc to those that do not have a black majority. See what it comes up with. Care to take a guess?

So is one to assume that the testosterone levels of blacks in the city declined from 1985 to 2002?
Once again, who said testosterone level is the only factor. Maybe if I beat this in enough this time, you will understand it. There are numerous factors that is the cause of homicide but testosterone level is by far the largest one and the factor that will come out on top. Black homicide rates never declines unless the white homicide rate declines also. The gap doesn't ever close nor is there any evidence whatsoever that it will ever close.

Why is the murder rate of poor blacks so much higher than the homicide rate of affluent blacks? Does the rich have lower testosterone levels?
Intelligence has been considered another factor in the risk of homocide. Prison IQ testing showed that the prison population has an average IQ of 90. 10 whole points below the general population. There are certainly more intelligent people higher up on the SES scale than there is on the bottom of it.

The better question is why do blacks that have the SAME SES level as whites, still have a higher homicide rate than whites. Again SAME SES.

You also never addressed why coloureds (Mixed with black and other) in South Africa have higher homicide rates than pure black Africans in south Africa?
Because it isn't true. Next.

You say that the homicide rate of blacks in America is approximately 40 per 100,000, it that is true, that is higher than the rate of the pure blacks in sub Saharan Africa.
Again false. Homicide statistics from African countries that actually have reliable statistics show homicide rate 70+ per 100,000. e.g. South Africa.

Your proposition lacks the foundation to stand.
Well my foundation is science and research. Countless researches that have been rock solid for countless years. What do you have? Oh that's right. Nothing. No study. No research. Nothing to present. And I lack foundation. LOL. At least you're funny. :biggrin:

Monique

Aug5-04, 05:20 AM

Again false. Homicide statistics from African countries that actually have reliable statistics show homicide rate 70+ per 100,000. e.g. South Africa.
South Africa is an extreme, you shouldn't be using that as a typical example.

I also saw Detroit in there.. wouldn't you agree that social influences would be the cause of higher crime-rates, rather than genetic ones?

NoahAfrican

Aug5-04, 06:37 AM

I never said that higher testosterone levels in blacks was not true, what I said was that I have no reason to believe that it is true or false for that matter. However, just for the sake of argument I will accept that, since it is the pillar premise of your argument. On a side not, institutions are composed of individuals and all individuals are subject to be influenced by bias, even if they work for the cancer institute. It is not as if the cancer research institute screens out racist or bigots from their staff.

Now, given black higher levels of T as being true, you still have not provided the links to the studies that link homicide rates to the T levels of the population. Now the fact that you provided links to the T level research, but failed to provide link to credible research directly stating a link between homicides and T levels in the population, means that you cannot. If there existed research you have already demonstrated that you will provide the links. Thus, the failure to provide such links is evidence that you cannot support your argument based upon your own standards….which is research study.

My argument is not based upon research study, so I do not need to provide any links.

Your argument fails the simply application test. NYC had homicides that reached over 2000 a decade or so ago. The rates now are less than 600 a year. If T levels was the many contributing factors to homicides then one would expect there to be a proportional decrease in the T levels of the NYC population. NEWS FLASH…I doubt it.

Again, T levels are not a fluctuation phenomenon, while homicide rates are. Also, since you have established that you are dependent upon research and links to back up your claims, show me the data that says Africa homicide rate is more 70 per 100,000. Again…you can’t. That statement is born from your own ignorance. Or should I say you are believing what you WANT to believe or what you EXPECT to be true of black people based upon your preconceived notions.

The fact that I live as a black person and among black people, I understand black people motives and do not walk among my people in fear, while you, would be a terrified little punk around black just because f your ignorance.

BOOOOOOO….bet I scared yah didn’t I. Hahahahahahahahah

PS...your criteria for a nation keeping valid statistics are obvioiusly nation that have white people doing them....which further shows your bias...because you do not accept that other black run nations have the competence or ability to do such....they are just dumb Negroes, with high testosterone who don't know how to couunt....your bias is glaring.

Nereid

Aug5-04, 02:16 PM

I think this is a rotten way to decide anything, counting noses of interested and randomly informed - or randomly ill-informed - partisans. The statement that no real scientist believes in race ignores that many good scientists believe in historical genetic groupings that correspond somewhat to traditional races, and the reason they don't call those groupings races is believed to be that they don't want to take the partisan flak that would incur.Would Cavalli-Sforza et al be among those 'many good scientists believe in historical genetic groupings that correspond somewhat to traditional races'? I know that you've read at least some of their work.

In light of how central 'race' is to this thread, I personally find it curious that no one seems to have taken the trouble to define it (my own view of science includes the clear definition of terms as one of the first steps to any study). It's even more curious since it's obvious to me - if not to others - that the term 'race' (as used in this thread) is used to mean a number of different things, by different posters (and sometimes by the same poster in different posts), so posters cannot be relying upon an unambiguous, common understanding among the readers (cf 'gender', for example).

Nereid

Aug5-04, 02:25 PM

Alright, let's define race as "population groups among humans that show genetic differences."In principle, there's no problem with making the term 'race' mean 'population groups among humans that show genetic differences'.

In practice, it would render this whole thread completely meaningless.

Why? Well, two families living in different locations would then constitute two different 'races'; as would two towns - e.g. Milton Utah and Toms River New Jersey (to pick two at random from my atlas) - and any pair of countries, states, provinces, counties, etc.

So, Jin314159, what do *you* mean by the term 'race'?

Jin314159

Aug5-04, 06:38 PM

In principle, there's no problem with making the term 'race' mean 'population groups among humans that show genetic differences'.

In practice, it would render this whole thread completely meaningless.

Why? Well, two families living in different locations would then constitute two different 'races'; as would two towns - e.g. Milton Utah and Toms River New Jersey (to pick two at random from my atlas) - and any pair of countries, states, provinces, counties, etc.

So, Jin314159, what do *you* mean by the term 'race'?

Families aren't races. But you can certainly think of races as "big extended families that have been interbreeding for some time." Look, if can we agree that a native East Asian has more genes in common with another native East Asian than with a native European, then race is real.

Jin314159

Aug5-04, 06:41 PM

So, Jin314159, what do *you* mean by the term 'race'?

Oops, forgot to answer your question.

When I say race, I refer to groups of people who trace their ancestry to similar parts of the world. There are problems with this definition of course. Certain regions of the world (ie. Central Asia, India) have had mass influxes of different peoples. But again, race is not neatly defined, but it is real especially if you pick people from very different parts of the world. For example, one probably can't differentiate a Greek from a Turk, but I think one can clearly differentiate a Korean from a Nigerian.

Monique

Aug5-04, 06:54 PM

In order to have a meaningfull discussion I think you need to have a deeper understanding what a population background precisely is. How different are North-Koreans from South-Koreans? Are there subpopulations in Nigeria?

Speaking in terms of black and white races is really tóo broad. Looking for social influences might work, but I'm véry skeptical about the genetics.

donnie

Aug5-04, 07:10 PM

Hello everyone

Intelligence has been considered another factor in the risk of homocide. Prison IQ testing showed that the prison population has an average IQ of 90. 10 whole points below the general population. There are certainly more intelligent people higher up on the SES scale than there is on the bottom of it.

The better question is why do blacks that have the SAME SES level as whites, still have a higher homicide rate than whites. Again SAME SES.

This I'm sure is not entirely true. Just another of a hundred ways of looking at research results. Has anyone considered the level of influence of white-collar criminals to the levels of homicide?

Again false. Homicide statistics from African countries that actually have reliable statistics show homicide rate 70+ per 100,000. e.g. South Africa.
Interesting.

NoahAfrican

Aug5-04, 07:35 PM

Aside from the fact that BV cannot explain, using testosterone theory, why the homicide rates have fluctuated in Detroit and NYC so drastically, despite testosterone levels in these populations remaining stable, here is another case study that repudiates his assertion even more.

Bordering the city of Detroit to the North is the suburban city of Southfield Michigan, a city of about 78,000 people. Southfield is a city that is 54% African American and is considered in the region to be the Mecca for middle class blacks (and white flight). Detroit, its adjacent neighbor separated only by the 9 lane 8-mile road, is a city of just under 1,000,000 people, 82 percent of whom are African American. There were 5 murders in 2001 in Southfield and there were 402 murders in 2001 in its neighbor Detroit. Now, for arguments sake, let us just assume that blacks in both cities perpetrated all the murders. Now, do the math. Adjust the population and homicides to per 100,000 scale of blacks, the resultant is that Southfield’s murder rate per 100,000 blacks is 12, while Detroit’s murder rate per 100,000 blacks is 52…a mere 400% plus differential. Hmmmmmm…. Now, how does one explain that difference given the testosterone theory, when the juxtaposed population sample sets are both African American and genetically predisposed to the same high levels of T? Take a look at the provided links below for data. Same nation, same state, same political structure, same climate, same race, nearly the same ratio of males to female, same testosterone levels, but different rates of income, poverty and wealth. Now, regardless of the weight of validity of black T levels being higher than whites, it does not appear to be a controlling factor in Detroit and Southfield’s homicide rates, since they are egregiously different. BV wants me to compare cities like Baltimore, New Orleans and Detroit because they are majority black and all have high homicide rates. However, these cities share similar rates of poverty as well and if poverty is correlated with homicide rates in blacks, then of course these urban cities with large poor black populations per capita will have similarly high homicides rates. Therefore the way to prove that testosterone is the cause, one would have to prove that the same rates of homicides occur in black populations regardless of other external factors such as income. BV theory fails this test hands down in the Detroit/Southfield case study. What an epiphany….NOT!

And in regards to BV claim that the coloreds of SA don’t have higher homicide rates than the pure black South Africans… here is an SA link that corroborates my statement, since BV likes to accredit the findings of white dominated nation only. Where is your link, BV, which serves as your proof that it is not true?

Look at the XY graphs at the rate of the black (pure Africans), it is more similar to that of the whites and Asians than it is to the coloureds or mixed blacks. How can this be given BV testosterone theory? One who accepts BV’s theory would expect that the pure blacks would have the highest rate, followed by those mixed with blacks, being next. However, that is not the case as the rate for blacks is not significantly higher than the rate of whites. As I stated before, the rate of homicides of mixed Diasporas blacks, such as African Americans, is higher than the rate of pure blacks, such as those who live in Burkina Faso, guinea or Benin. Another issue, why is the murder rate of these females in SA, higher than the murder rate of white males in America or Europe? Do these women have higher testosterone levels than white men in America and Europe? Also, why are black female homicide rates in the USA closer to the white male rates than the black male rates? Is the white male testosterone level closer to that of the black female than the black male? What say you oh Mr. Fox (Faux) News worshiper?

I do not expect this to alter BV’s beliefs, because he demonstrates willful ignorance. I have accepted the study he provided (for the sake of moving the debate forward) that blacks have higher levels of T, but have debunked his inference in regards to T levels and homicide rates, with evidence that his theory fails in application testing. I just hope that those who take note of the truth of high black homicide rates do not try to explain them with genetic predisposition. These homicides are a problem that needs to be remedied. However, BV theories do not help but only hurt. It always comes down to genetics or environment, or a combination there of. If you are a person who wants to believe that these rates are directly linked to genetic make up and predisposition, you are racist because there is no studies that have proven such. Even if there were such studies, examples such as the discrepancies between Southfield and Detroit Michigan black homicide rates failed to be explained by genetics. Also, neither does what is occurring in SA.

I think that the fallacy that people like BV think they can perpetrate is the belief that “reasoning” black inferiority, as opposed feeling an “emotional” prejudice of hate or anger, exempts one from being a racist. Many people erroneously assume that racism only manifest via emotions, like hate or via intent. That is not true. Racist people can have no emotional dislike for another race or intentions on hurting, yet feel their own race is superior, in behavior and performance due to genetic predisposition. The fact that people can reason this without emotion seems benign to them, when it is not…its racist when the argument fails to be supported in the practical field of application. BV is one of the misguided humans. I cannot speak towards his intentions, but his reasoning and effect is indeed racist.

I know many good white folks and unfortunately it is people like you who degrade the reputation of whites to the degree that minorities are always complaining about your race. However, if the good whites do not offer up a credit to offset the white racist debits on your reputation…then the racist are allowed to control the image of whites to non-white peoples. Many people read and do not comment or attempt to repudiate, save a few. To me that is tantamount to consent, which means that the negative reputation may be deserving if the majority who read BV garbage refuse to repudiate it.

You don’t have to take your argument home BV…you just need to get it the hell out of here.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Southfield-Michigan.html

http://www.city-data.com/city/Detroit-Michigan.html

http://www.iss.org.za/Pubs/CrimeQ/No.7/Thomson.htm

donnie

Aug5-04, 07:49 PM

Reference for claim that, statistically, South Africa has the highest rate of SERIAL KILLERS in the world:
"To Catch a Killer" by Nikki Pistorius, South African Publication. :wink:

Nereid

Aug5-04, 08:39 PM

Families aren't races. But you can certainly think of races as "big extended families that have been interbreeding for some time." Look, if can we agree that a native East Asian has more genes in common with another native East Asian than with a native European, then race is real.So, now we have another definition of race, but still I'm not following you ... do you mean that the people of the US are a big extended family that has been interbreeding for some time? I.e. that there's just one race in the US? Apart from immigrants of the last generation, almost all others in the US certainly meet your criterion ('interbreeding for some time').

Your rough idea '... more genes in common ... than with ...' is a lot better than your first idea.

But, to be sure I understand it: do you mean that a native from south China (say, Nanning) and one from north China (say, Qiqihar) belong to one race, and a native from south Europe (say, Sparta) and a native from north Europe (say, Ivalo) belong to a different race (four people, two races)? In other words, whether two people belong to different races can be determined by the genetic distance between them?

Nereid

Aug5-04, 08:49 PM

Oops, forgot to answer your question.

When I say race, I refer to groups of people who trace their ancestry to similar parts of the world. There are problems with this definition of course. Certain regions of the world (ie. Central Asia, India) have had mass influxes of different peoples. But again, race is not neatly defined, but it is real especially if you pick people from very different parts of the world. For example, one probably can't differentiate a Greek from a Turk, but I think one can clearly differentiate a Korean from a Nigerian.So, what race is Tiger Woods? How about the Rom? If my mother was born in Sydney Australia, and my father in Baoji China, my ancestry clearly traces to very different parts of the world. IIRC, there was a US congressman (senator?) who died recently, age >100. He was reported as being southern, and in his early years held strong segregationist views. Yet, he apparently has a daughter whose mother the reports described as a black housemaid. Where should this daughter trace her ancestry to?

BTW, have you read Cavalli-Sforza et al's book, "The History and Geography of Human Genes"?

Finally, there is a very simple application of your definition of race, one which is absolutely correct for every human on Earth - we all belong to the same race, we are all Africans. :smile:

Prometheus

Aug5-04, 09:49 PM

Finally, there is a very simple application of your definition of race, one which is absolutely correct for every human on Earth - we all belong to the same race, we are all Africans. :smile:

Everyone can agree that a precise definition of race can be problematic. You, however, would define it so that it loses all of its meaning. You then say that we ARE Africans, although this may not have been true for tens of thousands of years.

Do you consider that a word such as race is meaningless in describing differences within our species of the people in China that belong to the Han group and black people in east Africa?

If race is not an appropriate word, what word would you use to describe the physical and other differences that apply fairly regularly across these groups?

NoahAfrican

Aug5-04, 10:05 PM

I have no problem with the use of race to group people with phenotypic similarities and closer bloodlines, born from adaptation to particular regions and climates. What I have a problem with is using race as a biological phenomenon that goes beyond phenotypic differences. There is not a demarcation between races.

BlackVision

Aug6-04, 01:58 AM

South Africa is an extreme, you shouldn't be using that as a typical example.

I also saw Detroit in there.. wouldn't you agree that social influences would be the cause of higher crime-rates, rather than genetic ones?
South Africa is not an extreme. I highly doubt it would even be in the upper half as far as homicide rate goes in the African continent. But to measure exactly how South Africa is ranked becomes extraordinarily difficult due to most African countries' inability to gather accurate statistics. South Africa is actual a country where the statistics can be considered reliable.

I also saw Detroit in there.. wouldn't you agree that social influences would be the cause of higher crime-rates, rather than genetic ones
No because such an argument completely faulters. Especially the SES argument. You have to remember the homicide rate between whites and blacks is absolutely huge. The homicate rate among blacks is 8 times the figure of whites. To call it a major difference would be an understatement. No matter what factors you take into consideration, the homicide rate for blacks is still higher. Believe me, people who tried it from your perspective tried different ways to weigh EVERYTHING. They tried weighing SES, they tried to weigh for single homes, they tried to weigh level of education. No matter what they tried to take into consideration, the gap never closed. Believe me if it did, it would be splattered all over.

Can social differences cause minor fluctuation? Yes. No one will argue that the genetic correlation to homicide is 100% but based on the evidence, it seems far more genetical than environmental. As we have begun our process of unlocking the human DNA code, I would suspect that somewhere down the road, we will find genes that we consider to be crime risks.

donnie

Aug6-04, 02:07 AM

No matter what factors you take into consideration, the homicide rate for blacks is still higher. Believe me, people who tried it from your perspective tried different ways to weigh EVERYTHING. They tried weighing SES, they tried to weigh for single homes, they tried to weigh level of education. No matter what they tried to take into consideration, the gap never closed. Believe me if it did, it would be splattered all over.

Isn't there also a possibility that the simplest explanation is the best explanation? Like the fact that it just comes down to sheer numbers, that give the impression of high statistics?One also needs to consider that the social relationship in respect of the proximity of numbers, i.e. people staying in overpopulated areas aggravate the onset of 'fighting for personal space'. Nature somehow takes over in protecting personal space. Stood in a crowded bus or subway lately? How did you feel after 10 minutes? Could you actually last that long with all that body pressure, sight and smell around you?

BlackVision

Aug6-04, 02:16 AM

I never said that higher testosterone levels in blacks was not true, what I said was that I have no reason to believe that it is true or false for that matter.
If you do not accept it despite the countless number of studies confirming it, without a single research countering it, then that would be on you.

Now, given black higher levels of T as being true, you still have not provided the links to the studies that link homicide rates to the T levels of the population.
Read "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" for tons of pages consisting on explaining just this.

My argument is not based upon research study, so I do not need to provide any links.
Yes your argument is completely nonscientific. At least we agree there.

NYC had homicides that reached over 2000 a decade or so ago. The rates now are less than 600 a year.
Source please. And if you want to show an example of a fluctuating homicide rate, you should show one that fluctuates EIGHT times the rate. The rate which separates the white and black homicide rate. A rate which has been as consistent for as long as the United States has kept homicide statistics.

show me the data that says Africa homicide rate is more 70 per 100,000.
Did I just not state South Africa? What makes you think the rest of the African continent is any different?

That statement is born from your own ignorance.
You might want to go back to where you state that I'm relying on research and where you state that you are not. From that statement alone, even you should be able to figure out who the ignorant one is.

Or should I say you are believing what you WANT to believe or what you EXPECT to be true of black people based upon your preconceived notions.
Must you make me repeat it again. I honestly do not care the slightest bit who has higher testosterone level and who does not. What I do care about is science. As a future scientist, I will not ever turn my back on something which I feel is accurate and honest no matter how politically incorrect society wants to deem it. My obligation is for the truth. Nothing else but the truth.

But the argument that you are only believing what you want to, certainly seems true.

The fact that I live as a black person and among black people, I understand black people motives and do not walk among my people in fear, while you, would be a terrified little punk around black just because f your ignorance.
Once again you have far less reliability and credibility than scientists that have the will, money, and resources to explore an issue. Once again, no one with any logic whatsoever, will take your word over a scientific valid done research.

BOOOOOOO….bet I scared yah didn’t I. Hahahahahahahahah
Huh?

your criteria for a nation keeping valid statistics are obvioiusly nation that have white people doing them
My criteria is a country that actually puts the effort to gather statistics. Now can you honestly say this is true for most African countries? The only thing you have proven throughout this whole debate, is of your own prejudice. Constantly assuming what I am and what I'm not.

your bias is glaring.
Incorrect. But once again, can you honestly say "as a black man" you are having absolutely no bias here?

Nereid

Aug6-04, 02:34 AM

Everyone can agree that a precise definition of race can be problematic.Now we're getting somewhere.

We are all, on this thread, posting to a website called PF, in a section called Social Sciences. As I said in another thread (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=277169&postcount=159), PF is a forum for the discussion of physics, and other sciences. One of the cornerstones of science today is, in simple terms, the scientific method. Since PF is about science, I personally expect that everyone who posts to the science threads in PF - and that includes Social Sciences - has at least the intention of respecting the scientific method.

As I understand it, one of the key things to do in a scientific enquiry is to define the core terms of your study in a clear, unambiguous, objective fashion (let me know if you would like me to explain why I feel this is essential for the conduct of good science).

'Race' is clearly a core term for this thread, and it has been used with (to me) quite different meanings by different posters, and sometimes by the same poster in different posts. (I would have no problem with this if we were discussing politics).

You, however, would define it so that it loses all of its meaning.I wasn't aware that I had said 'race' could be defined in any particular way (I have, however, pointed out some problems with others' definitions).Do you consider that a word such as race is meaningless in describing differences within our species of the people in China that belong to the Han group and black people in east Africa?

If race is not an appropriate word, what word would you use to describe the physical and other differences that apply fairly regularly across these groups?In the case of 'race', I started a thread, (Is there a scientific basis for 'human race'? (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=25340)) to examine just this question. I am very happy to continue to discuss it there.

BlackVision

Aug6-04, 03:26 AM

Aside from the fact that BV cannot explain, using testosterone theory, why the homicide rates have fluctuated in Detroit and NYC so drastically
Because it hasn't fluctuated drastically. Fluctuating would be EIGHT times a rate. The rate which separates whites from blacks.

Adjust the population and homicides to per 100,000 scale of blacks, the resultant is that Southfield’s murder rate per 100,000 blacks is 12, while Detroit’s murder rate per 100,000 blacks is 52…a mere 400% plus differential. Hmmmmmm….
You're going to attempt to do statistics per 100,000 on a city that doesn't even have a 100,000 population? You need to learn about the errors of small samples. So if one more guy decided to murder his family of 5, the homicide rate is doubled simply because of one guy? Once again, learn about small samples. If you're actually going to use this city as an example, you have to combine the last 15 years at least, to get a reasonable sample.

By the way 12 is still extraordinarily high especially for middle class. Especially when you consider that low class white neighorhoods have a homicide rate of 4-5. You seem to be having trouble closing the gap. It is quite clear you have absolutely no ability to.

Look at the XY graphs at the rate of the black (pure Africans), it is more similar to that of the whites and Asians than it is to the coloureds or mixed blacks.
Do you even happen to know what South Africa's definition of colored is? It does not mean someone of mixed white & black ancestry. Do not use America and Europe's definition of colored. Look up what South Africa means when they say colored. It consists of groups such as Griqua, Cape, Malay, etc. White ancestry in the "colored group" is quite minimal. Also keep in mind that many, if not most, colored of South Africa is of the Muslim faith. Muslims in Europe have homicide rates closer to the African rate which seems to be the case here.

If you want to take this road, you need to use a group that is considered to be white/black mix and white/black mix ONLY. Which is certainly not the case here.

Do these women have higher testosterone levels than white men in America and Europe?
You didn't read this entire thread have you? If you did, you will notice someone else asking this question and me answering it. Once again, the fact that you are trying to insinuate that I believe testosterone is the ONLY factor in determining homicide risk, when I repeatedly told you many times that there are numerous factors, is either showing that you are paying absolutely no attention or simply choosing to not hear anything.

I will tell you again. Try to listen this time so I do not have to repeat myself again in the future. Homicide risk is not based solely on testosterone level. Did you understand so far? It is one of the factors. One of the major factors among numerous factors that overall determines homicide risk. Hope it rang through this time.

I do not expect this to alter BV’s beliefs, because he demonstrates willful ignorance.
You have absolutely no right, none whatsoever, to call anyone ignorant. You have repeatedly shown your ignorance over and over. Especially one where you admit that you are not basing this on any research whatsoever. Although there are numerous comments here that show your ignorance, that one comment is all I need right now to display it.

but have debunked his inference in regards to T levels and homicide rates
Actually you have completely failed. You have failed to show a single example of white homicide rate and black homicide rate closing in ANY region in the entire world.

There are numerous studies that show testosterone level is a risk to a multitude of different characteristics. Including criminal. You have shown no study whatsoever that will counter this.

I just hope that those who take note of the truth of high black homicide rates do not try to explain them with genetic predisposition.
There will always be a large and likely a majority that will hold on to the genetic argument as that is where most of the evidence lies. Now if new evidence happens to surface in the future that completely refutes all this evidence, then of course the perspective will change. But I sense that the evidence will be mounting as time goes by.

However, BV theories do not help but only hurt.
Quite the contrary. Better understanding, better knowledge of the situation can only bring out the proper ways to fix the problem. Trying to fix the situation without knowing the problem would be like trying to fix a car without knowing what's wrong with it.

If you are a person who wants to believe that these rates are directly linked to genetic make up and predisposition, you are racist because there is no studies that have proven such.
Calling people names, doesn't change the truth, doesn't change the facts, doesn't change reality. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that there are people that accept the genetic argument from it's evidence, NOT from any personal feelings or thoughts of that individual, only shows your own bigotry.

Even if there were such studies, examples such as the discrepancies between Southfield and Detroit Michigan black homicide rates failed to be explained by genetics.
I believe I already addressed this.

I think that the fallacy that people like BV think they can perpetrate is the belief that “reasoning” black inferiority
Who says I believe blacks are inferior? You need to stop with your prejudice, your lies, and your slander.

Racist people can have no emotional dislike for another race or intentions on hurting, yet feel their own race is superior, in behavior and performance due to genetic predisposition.
And all these researches, such as the book "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" who was written by a white person, just simply likes to state that East Asians are the lowest risk for crime? And that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ? Neither of which group he belongs to? And whose conclusions have been reaffirmed by countless other academics?

its racist when the argument fails to be supported in the practical field of application.
Since it's well supported I guess we don't have a problem.

BV is one of the misguided humans.
Quite the contrary. It is you.

I cannot speak towards his intentions, but his reasoning and effect is indeed racist.
Incorrect. It is science.

I know many good white folks and unfortunately it is people like you who degrade the reputation of whites to the degree that minorities are always complaining about your race.
Did I ever state that I was white? Hmm another prejudged statement.

you just need to get it the hell out of here.
Hey I was here first. And I was doing fine and dandy before you were here and I'll be doing fine and dandy after you leave.