Homicide Statistics by Race & Gender

[BlackVision]

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]

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]

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.

These 'extrapolations' can be very accurate. If you flip a fair coin 100000000 times, there will be almost 50% showing heads and 50% showing tails. There may be exactly 50%, but this is unlikely. You could extrapolate from similar experiments such as this that the coin has a certain probability of landing heads and another tails.

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.

It is you who is strutting in this manner, and the 'racist' white society does nothing to discourage this behaviour whilst condomning any of their own race who do the same as racist.

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.

As has been said before, I would like to see proper statistics for this as I have not been able to find any. And no, just because the police don't prosecute anyone in these places does not make them crime free.

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!

Again, you are appealing to other people in a manner as to imply that you are suffering from racism. One other point is that just because the average black IQ is lower than white or chinese average does not mean that there are no intelligent blacks.

 

[NoahAfrican]

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

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]

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]

BTW there are no human races.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? https://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.[/color]"

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?[/color]

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?[/color]"

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'.[/color]" 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.[/color]"

Looks like the section from Cavalli-Sforza et al's work is sorely needed.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

 

[NoahAfrican]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ass 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.

 

[Monique]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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?