Race and violence

  • Thread starter tumor
  • Start date
  • #26
Waterdog
you can compare anything with anything

hitssquad said:
So, a premise in operation here might be at least either that races do not differ genetically or that sexes do not differ genetically. For if both sexes and races differ genetically, and behavior is observed to differ in one, then would not that indeed constitute a reason to believe that behavior might differ in the other as well?



So, a premise in operation here might be at least either that dog breeds do not differ genetically or that human races do not differ genetically. For if both human races and dog breeds differ genetically, and behavior is observed to differ in one, then would not that indeed constitute a reason to believe that behavior might differ in the other as well?
These comparisons are inherently silly because there is far less genetic variation between human "races" than their is between the two sexes of the human species or between different breeds of dogs. The human species has less genetic variation than most other species currently in existence. These are facts that are well known to evolutionary biologists. So, the only purpose of making such comparisons can be to suggest, misleadingly, the plausability of something that is, in fact, quite unlikely. Yes, behavior "might differ" in the other as well, but by comparing something where there is relatively little genetic difference to something where there is much more genetic difference, you are trying to fudge your "might" from the realm of "there's no evidence, but anything's possible" and towards "probably"--a move that is simply not supported by anything we know about human genetics.

BTW, the reason different breeds of dogs exhibit different behaviors is that they were BRED to have those behaviors. If humans stopped breeding dogs (artificial selection) and just let them mate at random, then within a few generations those breeds and their distinctive behaviors would no longer be distinct.
 
  • #27
271
3
for asians
the rape of nanking is a good example
That was Japan against China. 1 country in all of Asia, while another person mentioned Spain, Rome, and Germany for Europe.
 
  • #28
143
4
Dagenais said:
That was Japan against China. 1 country in all of Asia, while another person mentioned Spain, Rome, and Germany for Europe.
See my first post in this thread.
 
  • #29
Waterdog said:
The human species has less genetic variation than most other species currently in existence.
Whether small or large, there is still distinguishable genetic variations from one human race to the next.

Yes, behavior "might differ" in the other as well, but by comparing something where there is relatively little genetic difference
Distinguishable differences does not require a large genetic difference. Any genetic difference, however small, can be significant.

BTW, the reason different breeds of dogs exhibit different behaviors is that they were BRED to have those behaviors. If humans stopped breeding dogs (artificial selection) and just let them mate at random, then within a few generations those breeds and their distinctive behaviors would no longer be distinct.
What? So there is no genetic variation in Mother Nature? Ever hear of the Galapagos Islands? Humans and modern chimps share the same common ancestor but have quite distinctive behaviors. Lions and tigers which have the ability to interbreed are quite different physically, mentally, and in behavior. Would you say snakes and lizards are different and have distinctive behaviors? Even though they have common ancestors?

By trying to state that nature doesn't allow genetic variation, you are going against every rule of evolution.
 
  • #30
Waterdog
missed the point

CloakNight said:
Whether small or large, there is still distinguishable genetic variations from one human race to the next.


Distinguishable differences does not require a large genetic difference. Any genetic difference, however small, can be significant.


What? So there is no genetic variation in Mother Nature? Ever hear of the Galapagos Islands? Humans and modern chimps share the same common ancestor but have quite distinctive behaviors. Lions and tigers which have the ability to interbreed are quite different physically, mentally, and in behavior. Would you say snakes and lizards are different and have distinctive behaviors? Even though they have common ancestors?

By trying to state that nature doesn't allow genetic variation, you are going against every rule of evolution.

The point isn't that there is no genetic variation in nature. The point is that comparing a case in which phenomenon X occurs to a relatively smaller extent, to a case in which phenomenon X occurs to a much greater extent (relative, of course, to the first case), is specious logic. By comparing the relatively minor genetic variation between human races to the much larger genetic variation between the sexes or between breeds of dogs, the poster was attempting to imply by analogy that it is common sense to suppose that there will be behavioral differences between races just as there are between the sexes or between breeds of dogs. In fact, the way the poster framed the issue was that in order to claim that there are no significant behavioral differences between the races, one must be operating under the premise that there are no genetic differences between breeds of dogs. Since this is clearly absurd, the poster tries to lead us to believe that it must also be absurd to imagine that that there are not genetically determined behavioral differences between human races. The poster's "logic" is not sound. It's a spurious argument based on two misleading analogies. You just reproduce the same spurious logic when you compare different human races to different species (lions and tigers). Africans and Asians have genetic differences that are incredibly small compared to the differences between lions and tigers.

As for your other point, yes, it is possible that a small differences in genes could lead to a big difference in behavior, but since there is no evidence for the existence of such differences associated with race (pace Phillipe Rushton's many attempts worthy of the most fanciful science fiction writer), we are just back to square one. In my view, the null hypothesis would be that such differences do not exist. This doesn't prove that they don't exist, but, in the absence of proof to the contrary, we should remain with the null hypothesis. That is the scientific method.
 
  • #31
912
0
Reported evidence of behavioral differences between human inbreeding groups

Waterdog said:
it is possible that a ... differences in genes could lead to a ... difference in behavior, but since there is no evidence for the existence of such differences associated with race
It is scientifically nonsensical to speak of anything "leading" to anything else. Discrete cause is a barrister's concept. Regarding variance in group genetics accounting for variance in group behavioral phenotypes, Arthur Jensen has reported a mean g factor difference of 1.31σ between American Blacks and American Whites. (Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p377.)
 
  • #32
Waterdog
nonsense and nonsense

hitssquad said:
It is scientifically nonsensical to speak of anything "leading" to anything else. Discrete cause is a barrister's concept. Regarding variance in group genetics accounting for variance in group behavioral phenotypes, Arthur Jensen has reported a mean g factor difference of 1.31? between American Blacks and American Whites. (Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p377.)
Umm, causality happens to be part of the real world, therefore, it would be a poor scientist who chose to ignore it. Anyway, I think it is funny and revealing that you would choose to argue over semantics rather than try to defend the ideas expressed in what you wrote. And how is "accounting for" not a statement of causality? Finally, g is not a "behavioral" phenotype. Intelligence is a faculty of mind, not a form of behavior.

To save time, I will write Hitssquad's response for him: "Arthur Jensen has associated g with behavior. Low g has been associated with higher levels of criminality, sexual promiscuity, and watching Fox News Channel." Except that this will be expressed in some sort of tortured pseudo-scientific jargon, whose purpose is to disguise the absurdity of the argument.

Or maybe Hitssquad will actually try to explain why his earlier post employed such a misleading analogy.

Well?
 
  • #33
912
0
g as a latent behavioral trait

Waterdog said:
g is not a "behavioral" phenotype. Intelligence is a faculty of mind, not a form of behavior.
Behavior is defined in the M-W Unabridged 3.0 as "1 c (1) : anything that an organism does that involves action and response to stimulation." G is a latent factor of behavior. It expresses in humans as a phenotypic (visibly characteristic) trait, and is studied as such by students of behavior genetics.
 
  • #34
15
0
selfAdjoint said:
Robert, I wouldn't go so far as to say there is no influence on violence from genes. Sociopathy may be a genetic condition. My position is that widespread violence in SOCIETY should be attributed to social and economic causes more than to genes. Like so much in life, there is a gray area.
Hello Selfadjoint,

I widely agree with you. The individuals may have higher or lower genetic disposition to turn into an aggressive being. Depending on the society and upbringing this aggressive disposition will either be 'oppressed' or furthered.

What I meant was that it is pointless and incorrect to attribute any observed aggressions to racial differences. On average, the inherent aggression level in races is the same or, if there really was any difference, it is negligible when compared to the influence of the social factors.

There is, of course, genetic aggression in humans. Aggression is very useful in the Darwinian survival mechanism.

Even with sociopathy, social factors have a very high effect. One of the greatest psychologists of all time, R.D. Laing, 'healed' many patients by not acknowledging the predeterminism of some presumed genetic disorder. In a few cases, he tried to imitate the patients feelings in himself and 'went through the hell of the patient's world and came out on the other side' to be able to bring lost cases back into a normal life.

Cheers,
Roberth
 
Last edited:
  • #35
15
0
Mandrake said:
These nations are less aggressive today because they have become weak, and in some cases cowardly..
Don't mistake social adulthood and insight for weakness or cowardness.

Mandrake said:
You don't know if I "get it" or not. Your comment pertaining to security was ill considered.
Yes, I unfortunately do know that you don't get it.

Roberth
 
  • #36
Waterdog
hitssquad said:
Behavior is defined in the M-W Unabridged 3.0 as "1 c (1) : anything that an organism does that involves action and response to stimulation." G is a latent factor of behavior. It expresses in humans as a phenotypic (visibly characteristic) trait, and is studied as such by students of behavior genetics.
Hmm let's see. The definition you quote from the M-W (btw, why are you using a general dictionary? words have specific meanings in particular scientific fields), does not correspond with your usage of the term. Yet, you seem to think it does. Then you say that g must be a behavior because it is studied in "behavior genetics." Well, any capability of an organism could be considered a "latent factor" in behavior, couldn't it? For example, the fact that humans have opposable thumbs allows them to use tools, just as possessing intelligence makes certain behaviors possible that wouldn't be possible otherwise. This doesn't mean that a thumb is a form of behavior. You have rendered the term meaningless.

It seems that in the world you inhabit, there is no such thing as causality and words can be defined to mean whatever we want them to mean. You have gone through the looking glass. Sorry, but it is just not worthwhile to continue such an absurd conversation. See you later.
 
  • #37
912
0
Unabridged dictionaries as reference texts for general science

Waterdog said:
why are you using a general dictionary? words have specific meanings in particular scientific fields
  • A NOTE TO THE READER

    Although much of the material in this book is admittedly, though unavoidably, at a fairly difficult conceptual level, I have tried to present it in such a way that it can be understood not only by specialized readers with a background in psychology, psychometrics, statistics, or behavioral genetics, but by any interested persons of whatever educational background whose reading comprehension is up to the level of what I presume is typical of college graduates. I had thought of providing a glossary of the more specialized terms, but discovered that nearly all of the entries I would have included are given quite adequate definitions in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (Second Edition, 1993).
(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. page xii.)
 
  • #38
912
0
R. D. Laing and his particular focus

Roberth said:
One of the greatest psychologists of all time, R.D. Laing,
R. D. Laing was a psychiatrist.



'healed' many patients by not acknowledging the predeterminism of some presumed genetic disorder.
As I understand, it was not a traditional psychiatric focus on genetics Laing contested but a traditional psychiatric focus on biology:

  • Laing never denied the value of treating mental distress, but simply wanted to challege the core values of contemporary psychiatry which considered (and some would say still considers) mental illness as primarily a biological phenomenon of no intrinsic value.
 
  • #39
Waterdog
hitssquad said:
  • A NOTE TO THE READER

    Although much of the material in this book is admittedly, though unavoidably, at a fairly difficult conceptual level, I have tried to present it in such a way that it can be understood not only by specialized readers with a background in psychology, psychometrics, statistics, or behavioral genetics, but by any interested persons of whatever educational background whose reading comprehension is up to the level of what I presume is typical of college graduates. I had thought of providing a glossary of the more specialized terms, but discovered that nearly all of the entries I would have included are given quite adequate definitions in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (Second Edition, 1993).
(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. page xii.)

Oh, that's the problem! You have been trying to read books that are intended for people with reading comprehension typical of college graduates! LOL.... :smile:have a nice weekend! plonk.
 
  • #40
15
0
hitssquad said:
R. D. Laing was a psychiatrist.
A psychiatrist is a psychologist and psychotherapy is part of psychology. In any case, although Laing was trained as a psychiatrist his later methods were those of a psychotherapist.

It is rather pointless nitpicking about vocabulary. Reductionism in language does not help anybody in these discussions. If you are a student then take this comment as something to keep in mind. It will help you to learn that there are always gray areas in categorisation and language, even in science.
If you are a professional then take it as a criticism.


hitssquad said:
As I understand, it was not a traditional psychiatric focus on genetics Laing contested but a traditional psychiatric focus on biology:

  • Laing never denied the value of treating mental distress, but simply wanted to challege the core values of contemporary psychiatry which considered (and some would say still considers) mental illness as primarily a biological phenomenon of no intrinsic value.
He did basically what I said: He did not believe in a biologically determined mental state, genetically or otherwise, for this patient and this made it possible for him to heal apparently 'unhealable' cases.
 
  • #41
NoahAfrican
What can language tell us about the nature of black people? What can language tell us about the pre written history of black people? I believe that language or languages, offer a keen insight into the nature and culture of black people, relative to others. Here is how.

Lets us start from the base of what we know now and work backwards. What can we learn from the explanation of why English is such a widely spoken language around the world? How did that come about? Given the number of fluent English speakers in the world juxtaposed with the number of people whose roots are in England, the resultant ratio is likely the highest of any language.

A high ratio of language to native peoples is an indication of military dominance or of a recent war like people conquering militarily weaker nation for resources and power. The English Empire, or Great Britain, spread its language as a resultant of spreading its peoples and influence, to areas outside of England, by virtue of its maritime and army strength. Without the military, they could not and would not have spread their people and language via benevolence and acquire control of resources and wealth, thus they employed violence.

Before Britain expanded its language via violence and warring, the next best example is the Romans and the spread of the Indo-European language of Latin. Rome propagated its territory via its armies and being a war like conquering peoples. Thus, the territory that it encompassed and dominated over hundreds of years became speakers of the Latin language. Again, this represents a high ratio between the number of Latin speakers and the number of native Romans (Italians).

Now, how does this relate to black people, I am sure you ask? Well, we have to be able to recognize patterns. The pattern is that war like and violent people are characterized by a high ratio between the number of people who speak a language that originated amongst a given group of people and the number of native people to the land of the language origin. That ratio in Africa is extremely small, compared with that of Europeans. Hence, it can be argued that black people were naturally or culturally less war like or violent than Europeans.....


read more
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
NoahAfrican said:
The pattern is that war like and violent people are characterized by a high ratio between the number of people who speak a language that originated amongst a given group of people and the number of native people to the land of the language origin. That ratio in Africa is extremely small, compared with that of Europeans. Hence, it can be argued that black people were naturally or culturally less war like or violent than Europeans.....
I find I can't just accept the premises. The spread of English as a second language in the second half of the 20th century was not due to conquest but to cultural dominance (especially the delta dominance produced by the european emigres from Hitler and Stalin who began to write in English).

Then again, there is evidence of language spreading by conquest in subsaharan Africa. The Bantu speakers spread widely through central Africa, displacing the speakers of local tongues, and the Zulus (no peaceable kingdom they!) virtually eliminated !Kung and similar languages in southern Africa.
 
  • #43
15
0
NoahAfrican said:
What can language tell us about the nature of black people? What can language tell us about the pre written history of black people? I believe that language or languages, offer a keen insight into the nature and culture of black people, relative to others. Here is how.

Lets us start from the base of what we know now and work backwards. What can we learn from the explanation of why English is such a widely spoken language around the world? How did that come about? Given the number of fluent English speakers in the world juxtaposed with the number of people whose roots are in England, the resultant ratio is likely the highest of any language.

A high ratio of language to native peoples is an indication of military dominance or of a recent war like people conquering militarily weaker nation for resources and power. The English Empire, or Great Britain, spread its language as a resultant of spreading its peoples and influence, to areas outside of England, by virtue of its maritime and army strength. Without the military, they could not and would not have spread their people and language via benevolence and acquire control of resources and wealth, thus they employed violence.

Before Britain expanded its language via violence and warring, the next best example is the Romans and the spread of the Indo-European language of Latin. Rome propagated its territory via its armies and being a war like conquering peoples. Thus, the territory that it encompassed and dominated over hundreds of years became speakers of the Latin language. Again, this represents a high ratio between the number of Latin speakers and the number of native Romans (Italians).

Now, how does this relate to black people, I am sure you ask? Well, we have to be able to recognize patterns. The pattern is that war like and violent people are characterized by a high ratio between the number of people who speak a language that originated amongst a given group of people and the number of native people to the land of the language origin. That ratio in Africa is extremely small, compared with that of Europeans. Hence, it can be argued that black people were naturally or culturally less war like or violent than Europeans.....


read more

I do not agree with you. I do not believe that either the blacks or the whites or whatever colour the person or nation, has anything to do with higher or lower levels of inherent violence.

For example, in the book "The History of Mankind", you will find within the last 40 pages a brief summary of ALL nations' development in history. I found it amazing that history constantly repeats itself, regardless which continent you focus on or colour of skin you look at.

More to the point about language, the United States have undoubtedly come out as the most powerful nation in the world at the end of the 20th century. This encompasses military power but not necessarily territorial power. It also encompasses economic power (the wealthiest nation in the world) and cultural influence (yeah, Star Wars, Superman and Coca Cola are known all around the world).

It is the cultural and economic dominance of the US that makes English the most used language.

Roberth
PS: However, be careful, Spanish is coming back, hasta luego!
 
  • #44
NoahAfrican
The spread of English as the PRIMARY language was the direct result of violence. This is true for the spread of Spanish and French, over the last 2-300 years, as well. Let us remember that the Americas have non indigenous primary languages. That came about through European violence against the natives...which nearly exterminated them from the one two punch of violence and European disease. Few nations or people simply switched languages...without force of concquering violence armies.

I never said that violence did not occure in Africa. I said that the degree there of is differnt than from Europe. Much of warfare in Africa, between black tribes prior to Europeans, was demonstrative. What that means is that apposing armies would line up and demonstrate to one and other troop strenght, weaponry, defenses and what have you. Often actual killing did not have to take place. Shaka Zulu to bring a new brand of warfare to Southern Africa however.

Still, the fact remains the question of the thousands of languages and 10's of thousands of dialects. Such a reality only forms from isolation and over long periods of time. It is also theorized that language spread through parts of Africa by the growth of farming displacing hunter gathering clans. Thus, as the way of farmins spread, the language of the initiaters spread with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
NoahAfrican
RobertH, no where in my theory did I pose a racial genetic link to violence. I presented my theory in regards to a "learned behavior" born out of the necissities of ones environments. Necissity being the mother of invention, living In Europe among Barbarian tribes and among Empires created the need for violence as a form of protection...an us or them kind of mentality...if you will.
 
  • #46
15
0
NoahAfrican said:
RobertH, no where in my theory did I pose a racial genetic link to violence. I presented my theory in regards to a "learned behavior" born out of the necissities of ones environments. Necissity being the mother of invention, living In Europe among Barbarian tribes and among Empires created the need for violence as a form of protection...an us or them kind of mentality...if you will.
I believe that you have a good point here.

I interpreted your sentence from above

NoahAfrican said:
Hence, it can be argued that black people were naturally or culturally less war like or violent than Europeans.....
as an attempt to state that blacks are by nature (which can be read as genetically) less violent.


RobertH
 
  • #47
NoahAfrican
CSI Earth. Emperical evidence is a mutha f_ka aint it!!! Blacks, notwithstanding the present, simply did not have the Motive, Means and Opportunity as did whites...in regards to the crime of violence, in the summation of history.
 
  • #48
ke1n
plus said:
Clearly blacks are the most violent. I really have no idea why you could have thought that whites were more violent than blacks. Even a quick look at the white and black cultures should prove this. You seem like a racist.

its racists to label any RACE as the most violent people you twat!

Statistically blacks are more violent, but that doesnt mean everytime I walk by a black man that I ma goign to think "oh goly! this man has a 30% chance of being a felon and that means he might hurt me" like a ignorant pussy might think
 

Related Threads for: Race and violence

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
94
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
22K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
729
Top