Homicide Statistics by Race & Gender

[BlackVision]

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 going to 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]

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

Washington DC [/color]

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:[/color] 45.82 per 100,000

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



Oklahoma City [/color]

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:[/color] 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]

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 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]

"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.

For clarity, when I referred to the data, I was referring only to the statistics for US murder rates, not worldwide differences. Nereid's questions are all valid questions and I'm still waiting for the answers too, I'm just getting bored of seeing them repeated over and over without any further answers, so don't see the point of asking them too.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[hitssquad]

Racial categorizations of individuals vs. groups

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]

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 going to 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]

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]

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]

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?

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

Washington DC [/color]

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:[/color] 45.82 per 100,000

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

Oklahoma City [/color]

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:[/color] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

J Rushton has quite a comprehensive study on this. But I'm assuming you're going to 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]

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]

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 no one 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]

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]

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]

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 going to 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 want to 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]

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]

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 want to 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]

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?

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[/color]

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[/color]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I said that the first post alone was enough, but the combination of the two definitely led it to race.

Ok I'm going to 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]

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]

Looks like Moonbear is correct.

You might want to 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]

Ok I'm going to 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]

You might want to 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]

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.

 

[Moonbear]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 happened 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. And actually played a lot in his favor.

 

[Moonbear]

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]

And I think we can all agree that OJ being black did NOT hurt him at all. 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]

And whatever happened 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]

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]

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]

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.