arkaimcity:

no-more-mediation:

arkaimcity:

no-more-mediation:

arkaimcity:

fen-1994:

arkaimcity:

Those studies were incredibly confusingly written, could you make them easier to understand somehow? I’m aware of literature, but no, you’re right, I’m…

Right. Yeah. So what’s going on here is you were oblivious to the research in behavioural genetics and are subsequently puzzled by the data. That’s become beside the issue and was to be expected. The dispute is now that you’re disagreeing with the framework under discussion, I know why you disagree, but on no grounds have you shown why your point of view is at all relevant. You continue to use this casual know-nothingness as the basis of your recurring arguments for why you *think* you can question the data based entirely off of nothing other than the usual trenchant reality denial typical of liberals.

Clearly, there is only one of us speaking with insight and citing objective peer-reviewed scientific papers. You don’t like the results, so you conveniently dismiss them as racist - again, with neither an informed opinion nor objective evidence to support this.

Let’s be clear, for virtually every single behavioural trait ever documented among human beings is heritable, this enough for us to acknowledge that no two humans are alike in behaviour. Yes, the behavioural and physical traits of people are context-dependent. The broad environmental context regulates the expression of the genes. Yes, there is not a dichotomy between genes and “environment.” But you’re not aware, by any stretch of the imagination, how this manipulation works over the entire human genome. And this is implying that you’re even acknowledge the impact of genetics at large. For instance, you start from the premise that long-standing group differences and attitudes towards "outgroup" individuals can be substantially subverted and removed by some sort of non-genetic manipulation, and this is why you’re wrong.

In the West at large, there is a legal mandate to eliminate any such racial ability and/or achievement gaps, as well as to eliminate prejudices (especially at the racial level) over broad society - but none of the postmodernist, self-appointed intellectuals and policy makers have any idea how to go about this, nor have they succeeded in doing anything to eliminate such anomalies. It is as though there is some underlying component that no one wants to acknowledge. Huh.

Like most people, you aren’t necessarily interested in heritability per se; I see you half-heartedly accept this component, but do not accept it for all traits, and you deny the data point black when you do this. You really just want to know about changeability. Let’s make this clear: You cannot shape traits to be what you want them to be, even if you limit the target range. Because what you’re doing, although you do not realise it, is conflating phenotypic plasticity with sources of environmental *variance* - you’ve learnt about this unique environmental factor, the factor that neither you, I, or anyone else knows anything about other than that it’s probably not accounted for by hereditary (but not necessarily genetics at large) and you’ve latched onto it to use as the only way to form an argument - in other cases you’ll outright deny the data which presents you with this component to argue with. You can’t decide what the hell you’re doing.

In terms of the "flexibility" of traits, for instance, average height among European populations differs and has increased by several cm since the Victorian era. Of course, height is plastic, changeable, sure it is. But that would hardly prove that a 5’4” male could have greatly increased his height by several inches, if he had only had the *willpower* and the right circumstances to do so. For healthy individuals height is highly heritable (with the usual insignificant impact from the shared environment and a nice unique environmental variable), and on this trait, as on all others, there are individual and racial differences, even among more closely related populations such as Europeans, as above. Rational people know how plastic, yet fixed a trait like height is. They know that such a highly heritable trait cannot be markedly manipulated from its genetically determined outcome. Yet, when it comes to other heritable traits, i.e., ingroup/outgroup favourtism, you seem to think that population-wide non-genetic manipulation can produce results compatible with a perceived achievable goal of a peaceful multicultural utopia.

Traits such as skin colour are relatively easy to comprehend, as only about half a dozen loci account for nearly all the between-population differences in complexion, whereas only a small fraction of the genetic variation of complex traits (such as height, intelligence, etc) in humans is yet detected. Most complex traits like this encompass thousands of genes of small effect, unlike skin colour which is compromised of just a few genes of large effect.

This is why you should not think of single genes coding for specific complex human traits — if two individuals, or particularly two populations, differ at one gene, they likely also differ at many other genes. A selection pressure that caused one difference will almost certainly have caused others. For instance, the effects of the MAO-A “warrior gene,” that is linked to increased criminality and is found at 10x higher rates among blacks, is by itself is only probabilistic in nature (again, its context-dependent, as noted above), but it then still needs to be taken in the context of the entire genome; i.e., it is impacted by other genes. Within-population variation is not comparable to between-population variation for this reason, but this is why we consistently see the differences we do - people of every race can theoretically be found at every level of distribution on any given trait, but there is not some magical non-genetic component that if removed will see people making voluntary and individual choices independent of their genes and inconsistent with their ancestry: The genetic history of a population affects its genome, and its genome effects the nature of its traits (and diseases).

Ergo, the evolutionary evolved mechanism of in group/out group favouritism will always exist, and the expression will vary among individuals. E.g., some individuals may only become determined racists after experiencing mass-immigration, or by becoming a victim of racial crime. Similarly, a black male in possession of the aforementioned 2-repeat allele of the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) “warrior gene” will not necessarily commit violent crime, but it will interfere with how he reacts in certain environmental contexts. Moreover, all behaviour is in the context of genes - either you acknowledge that all traits are, or you deny the data outright. You cannot manipulate population-wide variation in a non-genetic context to a point where a trait is removed of its original function and functions only the way you want it to among the populous. This is why your liberal cronies constantly fail to eliminate achievement gaps and group prejudices.

Behavioural genetics studies are not simple observational studies, which just look at associations and then emboldens others to draw conclusions in a classic confusion of correlation with causation. “Heritability”, as the term is implemented in quantitative genetics, refers to the portion of variation in a phenotype within a population that may be attributed to heritable differences. A heritability estimate below 1.0 simply proves some source of variation that is exogenous to the germ plasm, or perhaps a statistical source that is generated in the process of (imperfectly) measuring the trait in question. Who really knows what the unaccounted “unique environmental” variance is or does. You certainly don’t.

The aim here is not to overwhelm you with impenetrable rhetoric on a subject you know nothing about, as said I expected that, it’s become irrelevant at this point. Key is that you still disagree, but you cannot explain why you disagree, and you continue to come with up wrong ideas about everything, and then go on and on forever, arguing like a possessed lawyer. You can’t even decide whether you agree with the data or not:

You asserted from the start that "statistics are biased because people are biased" - again, with no evidence of any such bias in the data, whilst at the same time outright affirming my position on the nature of said bias. You’re the first to use racism (by whites) to explain seemingly any form of ethnic conflict in discussion, yet fail to accept the exact same phenomena in any other context. With this, you still do not understand that you dismantled your own position from the start. These kind of oblivious never-ending series of contradictory opinions typifies you people.

And yet again, here I am, arguing about the general inflexibility of social attitudes and individual behaviours, whilst explaining why you’re wrong for disagreeing. It’s ridiculous at this point, but I know to grant yourself the “last word” you’re still going to come back with more drivel, backed up by nothing other than personal opinion, that I have to endlessly refute.

I know why people like you disagree, because human genetics produces results that are racist, and therefore must be invalid. There is never any interrogation of the data except to refute it, by any dishonest approach you people can conjure up.

Q

sturmbannfuehrer asked:

1—I think many liberals, including the one you are currently speaking to, fails to acknowledge the historical multinational empires as what they were: They were not multicultural, but multiracial. And often they employed policies of atomization and ethnic replacement to counter the possible rise of regional resistance. They were very much aware of the natural ethnic kinship people had and actively worked against it, sending out imperial officers of different descents from the local people, etc.

A

2—The current phase of the modern states faces the issue of not directly addressing, or even admitting, the ethnic issue within multiracial societies that replicating a multinational empire is improbable, and only ethnic conflicts are achieved. On the other hand, the West, especially the US for example, is already experiencing increased societal atomization of the individuals and the psychological consequences on a mass generational scale, as a result of attempting at maintaining multiracialism.

no-more-mediation [x]

no-more-mediation:

arkaimcity:

no-more-mediation:

arkaimcity:

fen-1994:

arkaimcity:

(Same person)
I’m saying, these statistics are biased, because people are biased.
Why are these cultural reasons irrelevant? Other than because you don’t want to believe them? “Unfounded”…perhaps to you, but there are plenty of racially profiled scandanavian people of colour who would like to offer their lived experience as evidence, of course, only if it is worthy of your superior white gaze (sarcasm).

Not true, multi-ethnic societies can work, but you’re right that people can use them to justify hate and social divisions…I’d say that’s a failure related to human failings/ignorance, not to the cultural divides alone.

Speaking as a pretty blonde girl, I haven’t experienced this, I’m English, not Norweigan. Plus, just because someone might be sexist or rude doesn’t inherently make them a criminal and it certainly doesn’t make them sub-human: humans are all pretty weak, morally-speaking. 
Society has a sexism problem, but we aren’t going to solve that through racism, don’t use women to excuse your racism. I’m not your maiden to “protect”.

That is not the same phenomenom at all. That is paedophilia. It is ONE ring, which had white members, which the police department failed for a long time with. A less overwhelmingly white force would have felt less self-conscious about race and been able to handle it sensibly.

You are right it is a poor post, there is no context, and it’s old. But it bought us here, to your racism and my abhorrence of racism. And I doubt any of the notes on this are positive about the gif.

They’re inadequate explanations because criminality, like all behavioural and psychological traits, is highly heritable. That includes social attitudes such as racism. Differences not only exist at the individual level, but at the group (racial) level. Most people are simply unaware of such data from human genetics, or simply deny the facts outright. I reckon both in your case.

Present an argument illustrating that multi-ethnic societies do in fact work. Ethnic diversity is a modern phenomenon. Recent conflicts the world over have had ethnically based internal implications [see: the massacres in Rwanda, the Congo, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, Indonesia, etc]. Regardless of what social measures you implement, we continue to experience racial conflict, by whatever means defined, in multi-ethnic societies.

All liberals acknowledge that racism is a problem, but despite what was predicted, modernisation will not sweep aside the old basis for divisions, because like everything, they too have a genetic substrate, but you’ll never even attempt to understand ethnic tension, bigotry, and racism from an evolutionary standpoint, because you’re too stuck in your political views. You acknowledged exactly that in your first sentence. In fact, you agree outright that people are biased. Present evidence that this can be changed by social reform.

Yes, one paedophile ring, with a bare minimum of 1400 victims. Look at how easily you trivialised that. You won’t even acknowledge the clear racial underpinnings, in Britain or otherwise, will you?

I know exactly what I was doing with this original post. I’ve confirmed this. If you won’t acknowledge your clear bias is there any point in continuing this? Plus, when I’m the one that argues human attitudes are genetic, essentially fixed, and therefore inflexible to change, nonsensical back and forth arguments become highly ironic and a waste of time, especially when I know if this continues I’m going to be the only one speaking with insight and providing sources.

I know you’re going to attempt to address some of the points, but are you going to approach them with fresh insight and not the typical, banal rhetoric we see all the time on Tumblr? How many times can you hark back to white prejudice for every argument? Your first challenge would be to acknowledge and accept the importance of genetics, but as soon as you do this a majority of your political perspectives and the points you’ve raised here fail at the first hurdle. So it’s a trap. You’re better off ending this now and going on with life pretending that genetics is of no importance, pretending that individuals, good or bad, are all a product of their culture and upbringing. I know some of you lefties do this anyway.

Those studies were incredibly confusingly written, could you make them easier to understand somehow? I’m aware of literature, but no, you’re right, I’m not convinced (“yet”).

I am not going to take the responsibility of convincing you alone. But I will share with you some resources that explain my insight and hope. Here is an anecdotal piece about mulit-cultural multi-ethnic egypt, with possible nostalgia goggles. And here is a discussion of multicultural society with a bit of a christian slant, which goes more deeply into causes and solutions to tensions.
Those were not ethicnally motivated massacres, they were culturally motivated.

Again, I honestly would appreciate that study being explained.

My evidence, other than that second resource, is personal experience and basic logic.
People are biased, because it is easy, and, from evolutionary standpoint, easy = safer. It makes sense. But, obviously, we are mostly not in the same fight for survival any more. We can afford to take time to understand situations at more complex levels.  We don’t have to be biased, we can address it. E.g I can meet two people with blue hair who are spiteful. I can talk to others, who confirm that they have met people with blue hair who are spiteful. I then meet another person with blue hair, and instinctively think: This person will be spiteful. Now, I have a choice. To run with that view (my distrustful attitude combined with confirmation bias consolidates my preconcieved distrust of blue hair.) Or to recognise that people are individuals, and make an effort to see past that and judge merely the individuals. They could still be a spiteful person. It’s not one and the same as having blue hair though.

I did trivialise it as evidence, because one case is not particularly strong, even if it was an extreme case, and obviously horrifically widespread.
However, “clear racial underpinnings”? Excuse me, there were white members? Also, there are other rings which are predominantly white, you cannot honestly be telling me that this is a racially-profilable crime.

I am acknowleging my bias, as are you. I understand you feel it’s pointless defending your view that peoples’ attitudes don’t/can’t change. But that’s because you think people’s views/behaviours can’t change.  I do. This is our area of conflict. 

Again, I wait for your explanation of your evidence before I will reject or accept it. Bearing in mind that science and racism are not mutually exclusive.

I’ll humour you once more. If you continue to spew the same kind of elementary tumblr knowledge expected of a typical urban liberal knitwit, and still have no interest in taking on board the data to consider re-evaluating your views accordingly, then there’s no point continuing this. It’d mean we fundamentally disagree.

There’s no quick way of explaining. Those posts cover studies from the field of behavioural genetics, which is the study of inheritance. As alluded to, the predominant idea that became the cornerstone of the Enlightenment (that human nature is shaped only by the environment) was thoroughly dismantled by the time of the 1980s, when they had conducted studies demonstrating that all human traits are in fact heritable. At this point the research was so extensive and of such quality that they simply couldn’t be ignored.

What behavioural genetics does is look at how closely identical twins resemble each other compared to same-sex fraternal twins. With random mating identical twins share 100% of their genes and fraternal twins only 50%. Under any reasonable assumption environments will be equally similar for fraternal as for identical twins. If genetics made no difference to a trait the trait’s correlation for identical and fraternal twins would be the same. In fact, identical twins show a stronger correlation on some traits than for fraternal twins. E.g. 0.4 versus 0.2, which implies that at least 50% of the transmission on one trait from parents to children is genetic.

There have been those who long doubt the validity of these twin adoption studies. Their validity (which was never really up for question) was the last hope in defending the “nurture only” argument. Since then, a newer and more advanced technique known as Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis (GCTA), allows estimation of heritability due to common SNPs using relatively small sample sizes. It has been applied to height, intelligence, and many medical and psychiatric conditions. It examines pairs of unrelated individuals and computes the correlation between pairwise phenotype similarity and genotype similarity (relatedness). The point is that this newer, more accurate method found similar measurements as estimated by the old (but evidently still completely valid) twin and adoption studies.

In such studies you’ll always see traits measured by their influence from genetics (genes), the shared environment, and the unshared (unique) environment. The shared environment (e.g. parenting) signifies events that happen to both twins, affecting them in the same way. This force is found to have insignificant (or even statistically zero) impact on adult outcomes on seemingly any trait analysed. It is the unshared, or unique environment— events that occur to one twin but not the other, or events that affect either twin in a different way—is something we know little about and may not deserve it’s “environment” title, yet seems to influence traits in a way that can’t seem to be accounted for by genes. On an overall scale, we’re talking about at least 50% influence from genes (~81% for important life outcomes such as intelligence), a portion from the unique environment, and an insignificant amount from the shared environment.

The other source of information used in behavioural genetics to identify the role of genes is the outcomes for adopted children compared to their biological and adoptive parents. These work very much in the same way. E.g., in the case of criminality, the chance an adoptee would end up with a criminal record when neither set of parents had one is found to be rather low, when only the adoptive parent had a criminal record this chance would only rise (if at all) very slightly, indicating very little (or just insignificant) influence from the share-environment. However if only the biological parent had a criminal record the chance of the adoptee having a criminal record would rise much more, and so on. This is what the data finds.

You have nothing to suggest those massacres I listed were ultimately culturally motivated, to make such a claim entails you have little knowledge of them. Here’s a paper that is a summary of findings from previous studies (these massacres included) regarding the causations and implications of global violent conflict since the end of WWII. Extract:

[…] “nearly two-thirds of all [the world’s] armed conflicts [at that time] included an ethnic component. [In fact], ethnic conflicts [were] four times more likely than interstate wars.” Another study claimed that 80 percent of “major conflicts” in the 1990s had an ethnic element.

People outside of the West still practice cousin marriage, which produce close-knit tribal-like communities which are marked by cultural, religious, and ethnic animosities. Are you even aware that the estimate is around 5 million deaths, as a result of ethnic conflict in the massacre I alluded to in Congo, with hundreds of thousands more in Sudan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere? Your only ethnic frame of reference is one of white people on one side, and "people of colour" on the other. At most you place people into categories of Asian, black, and white. Not all brown people are the same. They certainly don’t think they are. Research the caste system in India if you want to see what a millennia worth of ethnic discrimination looks like.

Little point in me repeating, so on the topic of ethnic conflict, and the evolutionary causations for bigotry and racism, see here and here. Key here is that ingroup/outgroup recognition, however defined, is instinctive, and the influence from the shared-environment (i.e., what your parents taught you) is again of no significance. Think about that for a second. A prime example of recent ethnic conflict in Europe is of course the collapse of Yugoslavia; a forced multicultural, multi-ethnic experiment that failed.

Finally, individual attitude is constrained by genetics, with attitudes of higher heritability more resistant to change, population-wide alteration and/or subversion is a complete and utter impossibility, as a vast majority of people actually have little control over their innate beliefs, attitudes, thoughts, decisions, and behaviours—they’re "born this way."

If after all this, you continue to believe attitude change is all that malleable, I’d be interested in seeing how you apply this to a trait like homosexuality. What happens now then, are gays born this way or with the use of social conditioning can they too be mass converted? It’s another trap, isn’t it? In fact, I wouldn’t be at all interested. I don’t want to read some nonsensical rambling argument based on entirely nothing about why homosexuality ought to be genetic, essentially fixed, and inflexible to change, yet traits such as bias and bigotry, however defined, can be altered under the right conditions.

When Britain is on the order ~87% white, Polish, English, Irish or otherwise, no, it does not surprise me that white paedophiles exist. You keep putting this in bold formatting, as though the presence of white paedophiles in the mix refutes the topic at hand. It’s telling how your feminist rhetoric appears to be impeded by the racial element: again, to you there is no underlying racial element to these cases? In fact, foreign men of certain backgrounds do not have preconceived notions and opinions about women, in whatever regard, which would fall under your definition of sexism, and that such notions aimed at Western white women often tend to differ from that aimed at women of their own culture and/or ethnic background?

Since “personal experience and basic logic” is apparently a good enough backing for your arguments, consider then the issue of popular British travel destinations such as Turkey or Tunisia, where away from the hotel and tourist hotspots your young blonde white daughter, or a group of young, fair-haired, fair-skinned girls, are likely to attract some unwanted attention from the male locals. This is pretty much routine common knowledge among British families considering holidaying aboard, particularly in Arab and Middle-Eastern countries, and enough for concerned parents to take to the forums of the internet to discuss other people’s experiences (have a quick google search).

You, the identified feminist, I’m sure believes that there is a problem of sexualistion of women and a phenomenon of rape culture, but as of now you’re then saying white women are in no way sexualised and/or viewed by foreign men in a manner on the order different from the way in which said men view their own women? I’m guessing you believe any such notions only exist as a result of white prejudice which has debased their social attitudes towards [white] women? Your “PoC” pets are not all that innocent, and they are racist and prejudice enough on their own, because after all, such traits are genetic anyway.

Oh, and I can assure you that science is mutually exclusive with racism, as defined by people like you. Oh you have no idea - bigotry as an evolutionary evolved mechanism; innate differences in abilities between racial groups; observable racial differences present at birth.

I would actually afford you some praise if you acknowledge any of this, as it’s quite rare for those who hold such views to do so since it largely invalidates them outright and requires you to reassess your worldview, but perhaps I can be your "unique environmental effect" that causes you to shift to your genetic predisposition of ethnic favouritism and acceptance of human nature, if you are at all structured that way, heh.

tminor4:

arkaimcity:


Is there an epidemic of racial violence in America today?  There is.  According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010,  62,593 blacks where the victims of white violence, and 320,082 whites where the victims of black violence, that’s 5x the amount of violent attacks, but that number is misleading, because the black and white populations are not the same size. 
When 38 million black Americans commit 5x the amount of violent crimes on 197 millions whites, as they receive, what you discover is, that black perpetrators violently assault white victims 25x more frequently.  And when it comes to a specific kind of crime, Aggravated Assault, the number of black on white crimes, is 200x higher, than white on black crimes.
Also in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black on white rapes, and 39,000 black on white robberies, both violent crimes.  The statistics show, that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small, that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was 0. 
source; Video

People in human genetics generally know that the race/crime and/or race/IQ issues are toxic to anyone who dares touch them. They can’t risk being involved. This is easier if their research interests lie elsewhere, true for most. Most of them know there is a genetic component of population differences in criminality and IQ, but simple say nothing in public.
People of sub-Saharan descent in the US have very high crime rates, and there is a very high correlation between the local crime rate and the local sub-Saharan percentage anywhere in the world. That’s the way it is.
We’re still waiting for people to come around to the reality that there is genetic component to all this though. Looks unlikely at this point, people still believe that the way in which people raise their kids, particularly when it comes to antisocial behaviour, actually has a significant impact over how people turn out. Oh dear.

….this makes no sense at all„„where’s the discussion about the sociology and historical context and current progress in social work behind all these numbers, for starters??
….is that last paragraph even real. I mean look at that irony. It’s so ironic goddamn.
..Even if we completely overlook how the stats are presented here and shit and straight follow the logic of “black people are more criminal in proportion to their smaller population”; how does one directly conclude that genetics is the factor at work??
this is pseudo science….please don’t seek solutions to your societal problems from such things america, please

"how does one directly conclude that genetics is the factor at work??"
Because that’s what all of the data shows. In fact I provided one or two links in the prior post. Criminality is highly heritable, as are all human behavioural and physiological traits. The shared environment - parenting, community, generally how people are raised; essentially all the elements that influence social reform - is found to have insignificant (or statistically zero) impact over how people eventually turn out.
The data has also identified some of the genes involved [an index of MAOA-3R (the “warrior gene”), ANKK1, DAT1, DRD4, 5-HTTLPR, etc], and we know that genetic differences impacting criminality exist not only on the individual level, but on the group (racial) level - here and here.
Everyone is constructed from a genetic blueprint, and then born into a world of circumstances that they cannot control - an individual’s genes act accordingly, determining their behaviours and attitudes. That is the reality. The parents of black kids cannot do much to alter the way in which they turn out, other than by passing on their genes. tminor4:

arkaimcity:


Is there an epidemic of racial violence in America today?  There is.  According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010,  62,593 blacks where the victims of white violence, and 320,082 whites where the victims of black violence, that’s 5x the amount of violent attacks, but that number is misleading, because the black and white populations are not the same size. 
When 38 million black Americans commit 5x the amount of violent crimes on 197 millions whites, as they receive, what you discover is, that black perpetrators violently assault white victims 25x more frequently.  And when it comes to a specific kind of crime, Aggravated Assault, the number of black on white crimes, is 200x higher, than white on black crimes.
Also in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black on white rapes, and 39,000 black on white robberies, both violent crimes.  The statistics show, that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small, that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was 0. 
source; Video

People in human genetics generally know that the race/crime and/or race/IQ issues are toxic to anyone who dares touch them. They can’t risk being involved. This is easier if their research interests lie elsewhere, true for most. Most of them know there is a genetic component of population differences in criminality and IQ, but simple say nothing in public.
People of sub-Saharan descent in the US have very high crime rates, and there is a very high correlation between the local crime rate and the local sub-Saharan percentage anywhere in the world. That’s the way it is.
We’re still waiting for people to come around to the reality that there is genetic component to all this though. Looks unlikely at this point, people still believe that the way in which people raise their kids, particularly when it comes to antisocial behaviour, actually has a significant impact over how people turn out. Oh dear.

….this makes no sense at all„„where’s the discussion about the sociology and historical context and current progress in social work behind all these numbers, for starters??
….is that last paragraph even real. I mean look at that irony. It’s so ironic goddamn.
..Even if we completely overlook how the stats are presented here and shit and straight follow the logic of “black people are more criminal in proportion to their smaller population”; how does one directly conclude that genetics is the factor at work??
this is pseudo science….please don’t seek solutions to your societal problems from such things america, please

"how does one directly conclude that genetics is the factor at work??"
Because that’s what all of the data shows. In fact I provided one or two links in the prior post. Criminality is highly heritable, as are all human behavioural and physiological traits. The shared environment - parenting, community, generally how people are raised; essentially all the elements that influence social reform - is found to have insignificant (or statistically zero) impact over how people eventually turn out.
The data has also identified some of the genes involved [an index of MAOA-3R (the “warrior gene”), ANKK1, DAT1, DRD4, 5-HTTLPR, etc], and we know that genetic differences impacting criminality exist not only on the individual level, but on the group (racial) level - here and here.
Everyone is constructed from a genetic blueprint, and then born into a world of circumstances that they cannot control - an individual’s genes act accordingly, determining their behaviours and attitudes. That is the reality. The parents of black kids cannot do much to alter the way in which they turn out, other than by passing on their genes. tminor4:

arkaimcity:


Is there an epidemic of racial violence in America today?  There is.  According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010,  62,593 blacks where the victims of white violence, and 320,082 whites where the victims of black violence, that’s 5x the amount of violent attacks, but that number is misleading, because the black and white populations are not the same size. 
When 38 million black Americans commit 5x the amount of violent crimes on 197 millions whites, as they receive, what you discover is, that black perpetrators violently assault white victims 25x more frequently.  And when it comes to a specific kind of crime, Aggravated Assault, the number of black on white crimes, is 200x higher, than white on black crimes.
Also in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black on white rapes, and 39,000 black on white robberies, both violent crimes.  The statistics show, that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small, that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was 0. 
source; Video

People in human genetics generally know that the race/crime and/or race/IQ issues are toxic to anyone who dares touch them. They can’t risk being involved. This is easier if their research interests lie elsewhere, true for most. Most of them know there is a genetic component of population differences in criminality and IQ, but simple say nothing in public.
People of sub-Saharan descent in the US have very high crime rates, and there is a very high correlation between the local crime rate and the local sub-Saharan percentage anywhere in the world. That’s the way it is.
We’re still waiting for people to come around to the reality that there is genetic component to all this though. Looks unlikely at this point, people still believe that the way in which people raise their kids, particularly when it comes to antisocial behaviour, actually has a significant impact over how people turn out. Oh dear.

….this makes no sense at all„„where’s the discussion about the sociology and historical context and current progress in social work behind all these numbers, for starters??
….is that last paragraph even real. I mean look at that irony. It’s so ironic goddamn.
..Even if we completely overlook how the stats are presented here and shit and straight follow the logic of “black people are more criminal in proportion to their smaller population”; how does one directly conclude that genetics is the factor at work??
this is pseudo science….please don’t seek solutions to your societal problems from such things america, please

"how does one directly conclude that genetics is the factor at work??"
Because that’s what all of the data shows. In fact I provided one or two links in the prior post. Criminality is highly heritable, as are all human behavioural and physiological traits. The shared environment - parenting, community, generally how people are raised; essentially all the elements that influence social reform - is found to have insignificant (or statistically zero) impact over how people eventually turn out.
The data has also identified some of the genes involved [an index of MAOA-3R (the “warrior gene”), ANKK1, DAT1, DRD4, 5-HTTLPR, etc], and we know that genetic differences impacting criminality exist not only on the individual level, but on the group (racial) level - here and here.
Everyone is constructed from a genetic blueprint, and then born into a world of circumstances that they cannot control - an individual’s genes act accordingly, determining their behaviours and attitudes. That is the reality. The parents of black kids cannot do much to alter the way in which they turn out, other than by passing on their genes. tminor4:

arkaimcity:


Is there an epidemic of racial violence in America today?  There is.  According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010,  62,593 blacks where the victims of white violence, and 320,082 whites where the victims of black violence, that’s 5x the amount of violent attacks, but that number is misleading, because the black and white populations are not the same size. 
When 38 million black Americans commit 5x the amount of violent crimes on 197 millions whites, as they receive, what you discover is, that black perpetrators violently assault white victims 25x more frequently.  And when it comes to a specific kind of crime, Aggravated Assault, the number of black on white crimes, is 200x higher, than white on black crimes.
Also in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black on white rapes, and 39,000 black on white robberies, both violent crimes.  The statistics show, that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small, that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was 0. 
source; Video

People in human genetics generally know that the race/crime and/or race/IQ issues are toxic to anyone who dares touch them. They can’t risk being involved. This is easier if their research interests lie elsewhere, true for most. Most of them know there is a genetic component of population differences in criminality and IQ, but simple say nothing in public.
People of sub-Saharan descent in the US have very high crime rates, and there is a very high correlation between the local crime rate and the local sub-Saharan percentage anywhere in the world. That’s the way it is.
We’re still waiting for people to come around to the reality that there is genetic component to all this though. Looks unlikely at this point, people still believe that the way in which people raise their kids, particularly when it comes to antisocial behaviour, actually has a significant impact over how people turn out. Oh dear.

….this makes no sense at all„„where’s the discussion about the sociology and historical context and current progress in social work behind all these numbers, for starters??
….is that last paragraph even real. I mean look at that irony. It’s so ironic goddamn.
..Even if we completely overlook how the stats are presented here and shit and straight follow the logic of “black people are more criminal in proportion to their smaller population”; how does one directly conclude that genetics is the factor at work??
this is pseudo science….please don’t seek solutions to your societal problems from such things america, please

"how does one directly conclude that genetics is the factor at work??"
Because that’s what all of the data shows. In fact I provided one or two links in the prior post. Criminality is highly heritable, as are all human behavioural and physiological traits. The shared environment - parenting, community, generally how people are raised; essentially all the elements that influence social reform - is found to have insignificant (or statistically zero) impact over how people eventually turn out.
The data has also identified some of the genes involved [an index of MAOA-3R (the “warrior gene”), ANKK1, DAT1, DRD4, 5-HTTLPR, etc], and we know that genetic differences impacting criminality exist not only on the individual level, but on the group (racial) level - here and here.
Everyone is constructed from a genetic blueprint, and then born into a world of circumstances that they cannot control - an individual’s genes act accordingly, determining their behaviours and attitudes. That is the reality. The parents of black kids cannot do much to alter the way in which they turn out, other than by passing on their genes. tminor4:

arkaimcity:


Is there an epidemic of racial violence in America today?  There is.  According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010,  62,593 blacks where the victims of white violence, and 320,082 whites where the victims of black violence, that’s 5x the amount of violent attacks, but that number is misleading, because the black and white populations are not the same size. 
When 38 million black Americans commit 5x the amount of violent crimes on 197 millions whites, as they receive, what you discover is, that black perpetrators violently assault white victims 25x more frequently.  And when it comes to a specific kind of crime, Aggravated Assault, the number of black on white crimes, is 200x higher, than white on black crimes.
Also in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black on white rapes, and 39,000 black on white robberies, both violent crimes.  The statistics show, that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small, that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was 0. 
source; Video

People in human genetics generally know that the race/crime and/or race/IQ issues are toxic to anyone who dares touch them. They can’t risk being involved. This is easier if their research interests lie elsewhere, true for most. Most of them know there is a genetic component of population differences in criminality and IQ, but simple say nothing in public.
People of sub-Saharan descent in the US have very high crime rates, and there is a very high correlation between the local crime rate and the local sub-Saharan percentage anywhere in the world. That’s the way it is.
We’re still waiting for people to come around to the reality that there is genetic component to all this though. Looks unlikely at this point, people still believe that the way in which people raise their kids, particularly when it comes to antisocial behaviour, actually has a significant impact over how people turn out. Oh dear.

….this makes no sense at all„„where’s the discussion about the sociology and historical context and current progress in social work behind all these numbers, for starters??
….is that last paragraph even real. I mean look at that irony. It’s so ironic goddamn.
..Even if we completely overlook how the stats are presented here and shit and straight follow the logic of “black people are more criminal in proportion to their smaller population”; how does one directly conclude that genetics is the factor at work??
this is pseudo science….please don’t seek solutions to your societal problems from such things america, please

"how does one directly conclude that genetics is the factor at work??"
Because that’s what all of the data shows. In fact I provided one or two links in the prior post. Criminality is highly heritable, as are all human behavioural and physiological traits. The shared environment - parenting, community, generally how people are raised; essentially all the elements that influence social reform - is found to have insignificant (or statistically zero) impact over how people eventually turn out.
The data has also identified some of the genes involved [an index of MAOA-3R (the “warrior gene”), ANKK1, DAT1, DRD4, 5-HTTLPR, etc], and we know that genetic differences impacting criminality exist not only on the individual level, but on the group (racial) level - here and here.
Everyone is constructed from a genetic blueprint, and then born into a world of circumstances that they cannot control - an individual’s genes act accordingly, determining their behaviours and attitudes. That is the reality. The parents of black kids cannot do much to alter the way in which they turn out, other than by passing on their genes.

tminor4:

arkaimcity:

Is there an epidemic of racial violence in America today?  There is.  According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010,  62,593 blacks where the victims of white violence, and 320,082 whites where the victims of black violence, that’s 5x the amount of violent attacks, but that number is misleading, because the black and white populations are not the same size. 

When 38 million black Americans commit 5x the amount of violent crimes on 197 millions whites, as they receive, what you discover is, that black perpetrators violently assault white victims 25x more frequently.  And when it comes to a specific kind of crime, Aggravated Assault, the number of black on white crimes, is 200x higher, than white on black crimes.

Also in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black on white rapes, and 39,000 black on white robberies, both violent crimes.  The statistics show, that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small, that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was 0. 

source; Video

People in human genetics generally know that the race/crime and/or race/IQ issues are toxic to anyone who dares touch them. They can’t risk being involved. This is easier if their research interests lie elsewhere, true for most. Most of them know there is a genetic component of population differences in criminality and IQ, but simple say nothing in public.

People of sub-Saharan descent in the US have very high crime rates, and there is a very high correlation between the local crime rate and the local sub-Saharan percentage anywhere in the world. That’s the way it is.

We’re still waiting for people to come around to the reality that there is genetic component to all this though. Looks unlikely at this point, people still believe that the way in which people raise their kids, particularly when it comes to antisocial behaviour, actually has a significant impact over how people turn out. Oh dear.

….this makes no sense at all„„
where’s the discussion about the sociology and historical context and current progress in social work behind all these numbers, for starters??

….is that last paragraph even real. I mean look at that irony. It’s so ironic goddamn.

..Even if we completely overlook how the stats are presented here and shit and straight follow the logic of “black people are more criminal in proportion to their smaller population”; how does one directly conclude that genetics is the factor at work??

this is pseudo science….please don’t seek solutions to your societal problems from such things america, please

"how does one directly conclude that genetics is the factor at work??"

Because that’s what all of the data shows. In fact I provided one or two links in the prior post. Criminality is highly heritable, as are all human behavioural and physiological traits. The shared environment - parenting, community, generally how people are raised; essentially all the elements that influence social reform - is found to have insignificant (or statistically zero) impact over how people eventually turn out.

The data has also identified some of the genes involved [an index of MAOA-3R (the “warrior gene”), ANKK1, DAT1, DRD4, 5-HTTLPR, etc], and we know that genetic differences impacting criminality exist not only on the individual level, but on the group (racial) level - here and here.

Everyone is constructed from a genetic blueprint, and then born into a world of circumstances that they cannot control - an individual’s genes act accordingly, determining their behaviours and attitudes. That is the reality. The parents of black kids cannot do much to alter the way in which they turn out, other than by passing on their genes.

Q

sturmbannfuehrer asked:

Have you done or have you considered doing a post about the now debunked feminist myth of a matriarchal stage in human prehistory, since I still often find it taught and accepted as factual in areas of history and anthropology, let alone upheld by feminists, frequently linked with the "goddess worship" element of archaic paganism and leading to bullshit in modern neopaganism?

A

There’s little to say, because there are no matriarchal societies, nor have there ever been any. Gimbutas linked the female figurines of Old Europe with Lithuanian old wive’s tales and that was apparently enough to demonstrate that Old Europe’s societies, and archaic paganism, were matriarchal, as you say.

Matriarchal societies where females dominate men, or females predominantly run things rather than men, have never existed in the historical record, and even if they did, their number would have been so small and simply constitute aberrations from some previous norm. Two reasons why any such cases revert to the natural order in a timely manner 1) human nature 2) the neighbouring patriarchy would swoop in, take all the young women worth taking and kill or drive off the men. Perhaps enslave the able bodied boys and tractable men. Matriarchal societies would get overrun. Female militarisation only exists in fantasy.

Matriarchy—the vesting of political power in women—is unknown. The only thing that exists is matrilineage, which is more common in Africans because of widespread polygyny in the history sub-Saharan Africans, as noted before. In such societies, women provisioned for themselves and their children independently, and the men engage in minimal paternal investment. I guess a woman with five children by four fathers, all of them absent, is an indication of a "female-run" household. That is matriarchy.

no-more-mediation:

arkaimcity:

fen-1994:

arkaimcity:
Apart from those links are bullshit, because they are not what you say they are.I mean, I’m sureee racism has noo part to play in those statistics…
Oh wait, what’s this?"At the same time part of the explanation may be that the inclination to report on the part of women is greater when unwanted or degrading events take place in connection with non-Norwegian persons than when Norwegian men are involved. It is easier to report "aliens" than people you know yourself or are networked to"  - Source 2."According to the report, submitted to the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusionon on May 10, no evidence was found of a serious problem for the country’s welfare system from the increase in immigration in the short term. However, the report added that despite this, “between a third and a quarter of the opinion in Norway believes in the idea of a ‘two-tier’ welfare system” that disproportionately benefits immigrants.” -Source 3.
"For a long time, during the post-war period, there was full employment for both immigrants and natives….This was the case not only for labour immigrants, but also for refugees who arrived in Sweden at the end of the war… At the end of the 1970s, the first signs of a worsening labour market situation among immigrants appeared and since then it has been intensified up to the mid 1990s. …..This occurred despite the 1980s boom in the Swedish economy, despite the fact that 1980s immigrants were better educated than former immigrants and despite the government policy goal to integrate immigrants(also refugees) as much as natives in the labour market”-Source 4.
"The starting point must be human rights obligations. Today there are Somalis who are fleeing from war. We have no guarantee that our descendants will not need a safe haven. We must take our part and we are the richest country in the world.What we should be discussing instead of putting price tags on people and putting people into profitability categories, is how we can ensure that people as quickly as possible should be integrated, get work and become taxpayers - Inga Marte Thorkildsen, Minister at Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, Sweden. -Source 5 (translated)
"Judges can have a unconscious tendency to exonerate the nice Hellerup-boy, where he judges the young floes(sp:foes?) from Nørrebro....And then Danish girls also learn that there are differences in how to behave towards people of different cultures, says senior Karin Helweg-Larsen.v.” -Source 6. (translated)
Perhaps actually read the sources before confirmation bias sets in( theporcelainwhitegirl you really should read this too.)

Here’s what’s going on - considering their numbers, men of non-native backgrounds are vastly overrepresented in criminal statistics in the Scandinavian countries. Even for “nationals” who have full citizenship and/or are born in said countries, shockingly, the victims tend not to opt for terms such as “white” or “Westerner” to describe their perpetrators.
You can find a never-ending series of links affirming this, mostly accompanied by the unfounded yuppie liberal excuses purporting to explain why immigrants are prone to criminality: the usual cultural/environmental excuses, of course. In comparison to native standards, as a collective unrestricted immigrants tend to be a bad bunch by whatever measure. In multi-ethnic societies suspicion and elevated risk of bigotry is to be expected. That is what we see the world over.
Equally, a class of foreign men have their own perceptions and act accordingly, particularly when it comes young, pretty blonde girls. Same phenomenon as observed in Britain on a larger scale. Dismiss it as you wish, but then all it is that you end up doing is making excuses for rapists, isn’t it? Think about that.
It’s a social issue that is well-founded, but the telling part is that this old post is more or less propaganda. By using an eyecatching graphic notes are easily generated as it instantly invokes emotional reactionary responses that tend to biases peoples’ opinions. Tumblr is filled with such posts. I had a go myself. It’s easy, but by this measure it should be considered a poor post. Oh well.

(Same person)I’m saying, these statistics are biased, because people are biased.Why are these cultural reasons irrelevant? Other than because you don’t want to believe them? “Unfounded”…perhaps to you, but there are plenty of racially profiled scandanavian people of colour who would like to offer their lived experience as evidence, of course, only if it is worthy of your superior white gaze (sarcasm).Not true, multi-ethnic societies can work, but you’re right that people can use them to justify hate and social divisions…I’d say that’s a failure related to human failings/ignorance, not to the cultural divides alone.Speaking as a pretty blonde girl, I haven’t experienced this, I’m English, not Norweigan. Plus, just because someone might be sexist or rude doesn’t inherently make them a criminal and it certainly doesn’t make them sub-human: humans are all pretty weak, morally-speaking. Society has a sexism problem, but we aren’t going to solve that through racism, don’t use women to excuse your racism. I’m not your maiden to “protect”.That is not the same phenomenom at all. That is paedophilia. It is ONE ring, which had white members, which the police department failed for a long time with. A less overwhelmingly white force would have felt less self-conscious about race and been able to handle it sensibly.You are right it is a poor post, there is no context, and it’s old. But it bought us here, to your racism and my abhorrence of racism. And I doubt any of the notes on this are positive about the gif.

They’re inadequate explanations because criminality, like all behavioural and psychological traits, is highly heritable. That includes social attitudes such as racism. Differences not only exist at the individual level, but at the group (racial) level. Most people are simply unaware of such data from human genetics, or simply deny the facts outright. I reckon both in your case.
Present an argument illustrating that multi-ethnic societies do in fact work. Ethnic diversity is a modern phenomenon. Recent conflicts the world over have had ethnically based internal implications [see: the massacres in Rwanda, the Congo, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, Indonesia, etc]. Regardless of what social measures you implement, we continue to experience racial conflict, by whatever means defined, in multi-ethnic societies.
All liberals acknowledge that racism is a problem, but despite what was predicted, modernisation will not sweep aside the old basis for divisions, because like everything, they too have a genetic substrate, but you’ll never even attempt to understand ethnic tension, bigotry, and racism from an evolutionary standpoint, because you’re too stuck in your political views. You acknowledged exactly that in your first sentence. In fact, you agree outright that people are biased. Present evidence that this can be changed by social reform.
Yes, one paedophile ring, with a bare minimum of 1400 victims. Look at how easily you trivialised that. You won’t even acknowledge the clear racial underpinnings, in Britain or otherwise, will you?
I know exactly what I was doing with this original post. I’ve confirmed this. If you won’t acknowledge your clear bias is there any point in continuing this? Plus, when I’m the one that argues human attitudes are genetic, essentially fixed, and therefore inflexible to change, nonsensical back and forth arguments become highly ironic and a waste of time, especially when I know if this continues I’m going to be the only one speaking with insight and providing sources.
I know you’re going to attempt to address some of the points, but are you going to approach them with fresh insight and not the typical, banal rhetoric we see all the time on Tumblr? How many times can you hark back to white prejudice for every argument? Your first challenge would be to acknowledge and accept the importance of genetics, but as soon as you do this a majority of your political perspectives and the points you’ve raised here fail at the first hurdle. So it’s a trap. You’re better off ending this now and going on with life pretending that genetics is of no importance, pretending that individuals, good or bad, are all a product of their culture and upbringing. I know some of you lefties do this anyway.

no-more-mediation:

arkaimcity:

fen-1994:

arkaimcity:

Apart from those links are bullshit, because they are not what you say they are.
I mean, I’m sureee racism has noo part to play in those statistics…

Oh wait, what’s this?

"At the same time part of the explanation may be that the inclination to report on the part of women is greater when unwanted or degrading events take place in connection with non-Norwegian persons than when Norwegian men are involved. It is easier to report "aliens" than people you know yourself or are networked to"  - Source 2.

"According to the report, submitted to the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusionon on May 10, no evidence was found of a serious problem for the country’s welfare system from the increase in immigration in the short term. However, the report added that despite this, “between a third and a quarter of the opinion in Norway believes in the idea of a ‘two-tier’ welfare system” that disproportionately benefits immigrants.” -Source 3.

"For a long time, during the post-war period, there was full employment for both immigrants and natives….This was the case not only for labour immigrants, but also for refugees who arrived in Sweden at the end of the war… At the end of the 1970s, the first signs of a worsening labour market situation among immigrants appeared and since then it has been intensified up to the mid 1990s. …..This occurred despite the 1980s boom in the Swedish economy, despite the fact that 1980s immigrants were better educated than former immigrants and despite the government policy goal to integrate immigrants(also refugees) as much as natives in the labour market”
-Source 4.

"The starting point must be human rights obligations. Today there are Somalis who are fleeing from war. We have no guarantee that our descendants will not need a safe haven. We must take our part and we are the richest country in the world.
What we should be discussing instead of putting price tags on people and putting people into profitability categories, is how we can ensure that people as quickly as possible should be integrated, get work and become taxpayers - Inga Marte Thorkildsen, Minister at Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, Sweden. -Source 5 (translated)

"Judges can have a unconscious tendency to exonerate the nice Hellerup-boy, where he judges the young floes(sp:foes?) from Nørrebro....And then Danish girls also learn that there are differences in how to behave towards people of different cultures, says senior Karin Helweg-Larsen.v.” -Source 6. (translated)


Perhaps actually read the sources before confirmation bias sets in
( theporcelainwhitegirl you really should read this too.)

Here’s what’s going on - considering their numbers, men of non-native backgrounds are vastly overrepresented in criminal statistics in the Scandinavian countries. Even for “nationals” who have full citizenship and/or are born in said countries, shockingly, the victims tend not to opt for terms such as “white” or “Westerner” to describe their perpetrators.

You can find a never-ending series of links affirming this, mostly accompanied by the unfounded yuppie liberal excuses purporting to explain why immigrants are prone to criminality: the usual cultural/environmental excuses, of course. In comparison to native standards, as a collective unrestricted immigrants tend to be a bad bunch by whatever measure. In multi-ethnic societies suspicion and elevated risk of bigotry is to be expected. That is what we see the world over.

Equally, a class of foreign men have their own perceptions and act accordingly, particularly when it comes young, pretty blonde girls. Same phenomenon as observed in Britain on a larger scale. Dismiss it as you wish, but then all it is that you end up doing is making excuses for rapists, isn’t it? Think about that.

It’s a social issue that is well-founded, but the telling part is that this old post is more or less propaganda. By using an eyecatching graphic notes are easily generated as it instantly invokes emotional reactionary responses that tend to biases peoples’ opinions. Tumblr is filled with such posts. I had a go myself. It’s easy, but by this measure it should be considered a poor post. Oh well.

(Same person)
I’m saying, these statistics are biased, because people are biased.
Why are these cultural reasons irrelevant? Other than because you don’t want to believe them? “Unfounded”…perhaps to you, but there are plenty of racially profiled scandanavian people of colour who would like to offer their lived experience as evidence, of course, only if it is worthy of your superior white gaze (sarcasm).

Not true, multi-ethnic societies can work, but you’re right that people can use them to justify hate and social divisions…I’d say that’s a failure related to human failings/ignorance, not to the cultural divides alone.

Speaking as a pretty blonde girl, I haven’t experienced this, I’m English, not Norweigan. Plus, just because someone might be sexist or rude doesn’t inherently make them a criminal and it certainly doesn’t make them sub-human: humans are all pretty weak, morally-speaking. 
Society has a sexism problem, but we aren’t going to solve that through racism, don’t use women to excuse your racism. I’m not your maiden to “protect”.

That is not the same phenomenom at all. That is paedophilia. It is ONE ring, which had white members, which the police department failed for a long time with. A less overwhelmingly white force would have felt less self-conscious about race and been able to handle it sensibly.

You are right it is a poor post, there is no context, and it’s old. But it bought us here, to your racism and my abhorrence of racism. And I doubt any of the notes on this are positive about the gif.

They’re inadequate explanations because criminality, like all behavioural and psychological traits, is highly heritable. That includes social attitudes such as racism. Differences not only exist at the individual level, but at the group (racial) level. Most people are simply unaware of such data from human genetics, or simply deny the facts outright. I reckon both in your case.

Present an argument illustrating that multi-ethnic societies do in fact work. Ethnic diversity is a modern phenomenon. Recent conflicts the world over have had ethnically based internal implications [see: the massacres in Rwanda, the Congo, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, Indonesia, etc]. Regardless of what social measures you implement, we continue to experience racial conflict, by whatever means defined, in multi-ethnic societies.

All liberals acknowledge that racism is a problem, but despite what was predicted, modernisation will not sweep aside the old basis for divisions, because like everything, they too have a genetic substrate, but you’ll never even attempt to understand ethnic tension, bigotry, and racism from an evolutionary standpoint, because you’re too stuck in your political views. You acknowledged exactly that in your first sentence. In fact, you agree outright that people are biased. Present evidence that this can be changed by social reform.

Yes, one paedophile ring, with a bare minimum of 1400 victims. Look at how easily you trivialised that. You won’t even acknowledge the clear racial underpinnings, in Britain or otherwise, will you?

I know exactly what I was doing with this original post. I’ve confirmed this. If you won’t acknowledge your clear bias is there any point in continuing this? Plus, when I’m the one that argues human attitudes are genetic, essentially fixed, and therefore inflexible to change, nonsensical back and forth arguments become highly ironic and a waste of time, especially when I know if this continues I’m going to be the only one speaking with insight and providing sources.

I know you’re going to attempt to address some of the points, but are you going to approach them with fresh insight and not the typical, banal rhetoric we see all the time on Tumblr? How many times can you hark back to white prejudice for every argument? Your first challenge would be to acknowledge and accept the importance of genetics, but as soon as you do this a majority of your political perspectives and the points you’ve raised here fail at the first hurdle. So it’s a trap. You’re better off ending this now and going on with life pretending that genetics is of no importance, pretending that individuals, good or bad, are all a product of their culture and upbringing. I know some of you lefties do this anyway.

fen-1994:

arkaimcity:

Meanwhile in multicultural Europe…
Norway: in the last year 94% of rape suspects overall were “non-Western-looking:”http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/45-av-48-voldtektsmistenkte-av-utenlandsk-opprinnelse—6681203.html
Norway: all assault rapes last 5 years have been committed by non-Western immigrants:http://www.scribd.com/doc/76695373/Excerpt-From-Oslo-Police-District-Report-on-Rape
Immigrants in Norway are a net loss to the economy:http://www.emnbelgium.be/publication/report-norwegian-welfare-and-migration-committee
Immigrants in Sweden are a net loss to the economy:http://www.amid.dk/pub/papers/AMID_48-2006_Jan_Ekberg.pdf
The Average Somali Immigrant Costs Norwegian Taxpayers More Than 1 Million Euros Each:http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/2013/09/07/hver-somalier-koster-staten-9-millioner-kroner
Denmark: In 2010, 51.5% of all convicted rapists had immigrant backgrounds:http://www.bt.dk/danmark/hveranden-voldtaegtsdoemt-er-udlaending
These are disproportionate rates considering the demographics of the Scandinavian countries:86.2% of Norway’s population is of Norwegian descent79.9% of Sweden’s population is of Swedish descent89.6% of Denmark’s population is of Danish descent

Apart from those links are bullshit, because they are not what you say they are.I mean, I’m sureee racism has noo part to play in those statistics…
Oh wait, what’s this?"At the same time part of the explanation may be that the inclination to report on the part of women is greater when unwanted or degrading events take place in connection with non-Norwegian persons than when Norwegian men are involved. It is easier to report "aliens" than people you know yourself or are networked to"  - Source 2."According to the report, submitted to the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusionon on May 10, no evidence was found of a serious problem for the country’s welfare system from the increase in immigration in the short term. However, the report added that despite this, “between a third and a quarter of the opinion in Norway believes in the idea of a ‘two-tier’ welfare system” that disproportionately benefits immigrants.” -Source 3.
"For a long time, during the post-war period, there was full employment for both immigrants and natives….This was the case not only for labour immigrants, but also for refugees who arrived in Sweden at the end of the war… At the end of the 1970s, the first signs of a worsening labour market situation among immigrants appeared and since then it has been intensified up to the mid 1990s. …..This occurred despite the 1980s boom in the Swedish economy, despite the fact that 1980s immigrants were better educated than former immigrants and despite the government policy goal to integrate immigrants(also refugees) as much as natives in the labour market”-Source 4.
"The starting point must be human rights obligations. Today there are Somalis who are fleeing from war. We have no guarantee that our descendants will not need a safe haven. We must take our part and we are the richest country in the world.What we should be discussing instead of putting price tags on people and putting people into profitability categories, is how we can ensure that people as quickly as possible should be integrated, get work and become taxpayers - Inga Marte Thorkildsen, Minister at Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, Sweden. -Source 5 (translated)
"Judges can have a unconscious tendency to exonerate the nice Hellerup-boy, where he judges the young floes(sp:foes?) from Nørrebro....And then Danish girls also learn that there are differences in how to behave towards people of different cultures, says senior Karin Helweg-Larsen.v.” -Source 6. (translated)
Perhaps actually read the sources before confirmation bias sets in( theporcelainwhitegirl you really should read this too.)

Here’s what’s going on - considering their numbers, men of non-native backgrounds are vastly overrepresented in criminal statistics in the Scandinavian countries. Even for “nationals” who have full citizenship and/or are born in said countries, shockingly, the victims tend not to opt for terms such as “white” or “Westerner” to describe their perpetrators.
You can find a never-ending series of links affirming this, mostly accompanied by the unfounded yuppie liberal excuses purporting to explain why immigrants are prone to criminality: the usual cultural/environmental excuses, of course. In comparison to native standards, as a collective unrestricted immigrants tend to be a bad bunch by whatever measure. In multi-ethnic societies suspicion and elevated risk of bigotry is to be expected. That is what we see the world over.
Equally, a class of foreign men have their own perceptions and act accordingly, particularly when it comes young, pretty blonde girls. Same phenomenon as observed in Britain on a larger scale. Dismiss it as you wish, but then all it is that you end up doing is making excuses for rapists, isn’t it? Think about that.
It’s a social issue that is well-founded, but the telling part is that this old post is more or less propaganda. By using an eyecatching graphic notes are easily generated as it instantly invokes emotional reactionary responses that tend to biases peoples’ opinions. Tumblr is filled with such posts. I had a go myself. It’s easy, but by this measure it should be considered a poor post. Oh well.

fen-1994:

arkaimcity:

  • Meanwhile in multicultural Europe…

Norway: in the last year 94% of rape suspects overall were “non-Western-looking:”
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/45-av-48-voldtektsmistenkte-av-utenlandsk-opprinnelse—6681203.html

Norway: all assault rapes last 5 years have been committed by non-Western immigrants:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/76695373/Excerpt-From-Oslo-Police-District-Report-on-Rape

Immigrants in Norway are a net loss to the economy:
http://www.emnbelgium.be/publication/report-norwegian-welfare-and-migration-committee

Immigrants in Sweden are a net loss to the economy:
http://www.amid.dk/pub/papers/AMID_48-2006_Jan_Ekberg.pdf

The Average Somali Immigrant Costs Norwegian Taxpayers More Than 1 Million Euros Each:
http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/2013/09/07/hver-somalier-koster-staten-9-millioner-kroner

Denmark: In 2010, 51.5% of all convicted rapists had immigrant backgrounds:
http://www.bt.dk/danmark/hveranden-voldtaegtsdoemt-er-udlaending

These are disproportionate rates considering the demographics of the Scandinavian countries:
86.2% of Norway’s population is of Norwegian descent
79.9% of Sweden’s population is of Swedish descent
89.6% of Denmark’s population is of Danish descent

Apart from those links are bullshit, because they are not what you say they are.
I mean, I’m sureee racism has noo part to play in those statistics…

Oh wait, what’s this?

"At the same time part of the explanation may be that the inclination to report on the part of women is greater when unwanted or degrading events take place in connection with non-Norwegian persons than when Norwegian men are involved. It is easier to report "aliens" than people you know yourself or are networked to"  - Source 2.

"According to the report, submitted to the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusionon on May 10, no evidence was found of a serious problem for the country’s welfare system from the increase in immigration in the short term. However, the report added that despite this, “between a third and a quarter of the opinion in Norway believes in the idea of a ‘two-tier’ welfare system” that disproportionately benefits immigrants.” -Source 3.

"For a long time, during the post-war period, there was full employment for both immigrants and natives….This was the case not only for labour immigrants, but also for refugees who arrived in Sweden at the end of the war… At the end of the 1970s, the first signs of a worsening labour market situation among immigrants appeared and since then it has been intensified up to the mid 1990s. …..This occurred despite the 1980s boom in the Swedish economy, despite the fact that 1980s immigrants were better educated than former immigrants and despite the government policy goal to integrate immigrants(also refugees) as much as natives in the labour market”
-Source 4.

"The starting point must be human rights obligations. Today there are Somalis who are fleeing from war. We have no guarantee that our descendants will not need a safe haven. We must take our part and we are the richest country in the world.
What we should be discussing instead of putting price tags on people and putting people into profitability categories, is how we can ensure that people as quickly as possible should be integrated, get work and become taxpayers - Inga Marte Thorkildsen, Minister at Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, Sweden. -Source 5 (translated)

"Judges can have a unconscious tendency to exonerate the nice Hellerup-boy, where he judges the young floes(sp:foes?) from Nørrebro....And then Danish girls also learn that there are differences in how to behave towards people of different cultures, says senior Karin Helweg-Larsen.v.” -Source 6. (translated)


Perhaps actually read the sources before confirmation bias sets in
( theporcelainwhitegirl you really should read this too.)

Here’s what’s going on - considering their numbers, men of non-native backgrounds are vastly overrepresented in criminal statistics in the Scandinavian countries. Even for “nationals” who have full citizenship and/or are born in said countries, shockingly, the victims tend not to opt for terms such as “white” or “Westerner” to describe their perpetrators.

You can find a never-ending series of links affirming this, mostly accompanied by the unfounded yuppie liberal excuses purporting to explain why immigrants are prone to criminality: the usual cultural/environmental excuses, of course. In comparison to native standards, as a collective unrestricted immigrants tend to be a bad bunch by whatever measure. In multi-ethnic societies suspicion and elevated risk of bigotry is to be expected. That is what we see the world over.

Equally, a class of foreign men have their own perceptions and act accordingly, particularly when it comes young, pretty blonde girls. Same phenomenon as observed in Britain on a larger scale. Dismiss it as you wish, but then all it is that you end up doing is making excuses for rapists, isn’t it? Think about that.

It’s a social issue that is well-founded, but the telling part is that this old post is more or less propaganda. By using an eyecatching graphic notes are easily generated as it instantly invokes emotional reactionary responses that tend to biases peoples’ opinions. Tumblr is filled with such posts. I had a go myself. It’s easy, but by this measure it should be considered a poor post. Oh well.


Is there an epidemic of racial violence in America today?  There is.  According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010,  62,593 blacks where the victims of white violence, and 320,082 whites where the victims of black violence, that’s 5x the amount of violent attacks, but that number is misleading, because the black and white populations are not the same size. 
When 38 million black Americans commit 5x the amount of violent crimes on 197 millions whites, as they receive, what you discover is, that black perpetrators violently assault white victims 25x more frequently.  And when it comes to a specific kind of crime, Aggravated Assault, the number of black on white crimes, is 200x higher, than white on black crimes.
Also in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black on white rapes, and 39,000 black on white robberies, both violent crimes.  The statistics show, that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small, that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was 0. 
source; Video

People in human genetics generally know that the race/crime and/or race/IQ issues are toxic to anyone who dares touch them. They can’t risk being involved. This is easier if their research interests lie elsewhere, true for most. Most of them know there is a genetic component of population differences in criminality and IQ, but simple say nothing in public.
People of sub-Saharan descent in the US have very high crime rates, and there is a very high correlation between the local crime rate and the local sub-Saharan percentage anywhere in the world. That’s the way it is.
We’re still waiting for people to come around to the reality that there is genetic component to all this though. Looks unlikely at this point, people still believe that the way in which people raise their kids, particularly when it comes to antisocial behaviour, actually has a significant impact over how people turn out. Oh dear. 
Is there an epidemic of racial violence in America today?  There is.  According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010,  62,593 blacks where the victims of white violence, and 320,082 whites where the victims of black violence, that’s 5x the amount of violent attacks, but that number is misleading, because the black and white populations are not the same size. 
When 38 million black Americans commit 5x the amount of violent crimes on 197 millions whites, as they receive, what you discover is, that black perpetrators violently assault white victims 25x more frequently.  And when it comes to a specific kind of crime, Aggravated Assault, the number of black on white crimes, is 200x higher, than white on black crimes.
Also in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black on white rapes, and 39,000 black on white robberies, both violent crimes.  The statistics show, that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small, that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was 0. 
source; Video

People in human genetics generally know that the race/crime and/or race/IQ issues are toxic to anyone who dares touch them. They can’t risk being involved. This is easier if their research interests lie elsewhere, true for most. Most of them know there is a genetic component of population differences in criminality and IQ, but simple say nothing in public.
People of sub-Saharan descent in the US have very high crime rates, and there is a very high correlation between the local crime rate and the local sub-Saharan percentage anywhere in the world. That’s the way it is.
We’re still waiting for people to come around to the reality that there is genetic component to all this though. Looks unlikely at this point, people still believe that the way in which people raise their kids, particularly when it comes to antisocial behaviour, actually has a significant impact over how people turn out. Oh dear. 
Is there an epidemic of racial violence in America today?  There is.  According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010,  62,593 blacks where the victims of white violence, and 320,082 whites where the victims of black violence, that’s 5x the amount of violent attacks, but that number is misleading, because the black and white populations are not the same size. 
When 38 million black Americans commit 5x the amount of violent crimes on 197 millions whites, as they receive, what you discover is, that black perpetrators violently assault white victims 25x more frequently.  And when it comes to a specific kind of crime, Aggravated Assault, the number of black on white crimes, is 200x higher, than white on black crimes.
Also in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black on white rapes, and 39,000 black on white robberies, both violent crimes.  The statistics show, that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small, that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was 0. 
source; Video

People in human genetics generally know that the race/crime and/or race/IQ issues are toxic to anyone who dares touch them. They can’t risk being involved. This is easier if their research interests lie elsewhere, true for most. Most of them know there is a genetic component of population differences in criminality and IQ, but simple say nothing in public.
People of sub-Saharan descent in the US have very high crime rates, and there is a very high correlation between the local crime rate and the local sub-Saharan percentage anywhere in the world. That’s the way it is.
We’re still waiting for people to come around to the reality that there is genetic component to all this though. Looks unlikely at this point, people still believe that the way in which people raise their kids, particularly when it comes to antisocial behaviour, actually has a significant impact over how people turn out. Oh dear. 
Is there an epidemic of racial violence in America today?  There is.  According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010,  62,593 blacks where the victims of white violence, and 320,082 whites where the victims of black violence, that’s 5x the amount of violent attacks, but that number is misleading, because the black and white populations are not the same size. 
When 38 million black Americans commit 5x the amount of violent crimes on 197 millions whites, as they receive, what you discover is, that black perpetrators violently assault white victims 25x more frequently.  And when it comes to a specific kind of crime, Aggravated Assault, the number of black on white crimes, is 200x higher, than white on black crimes.
Also in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black on white rapes, and 39,000 black on white robberies, both violent crimes.  The statistics show, that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small, that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was 0. 
source; Video

People in human genetics generally know that the race/crime and/or race/IQ issues are toxic to anyone who dares touch them. They can’t risk being involved. This is easier if their research interests lie elsewhere, true for most. Most of them know there is a genetic component of population differences in criminality and IQ, but simple say nothing in public.
People of sub-Saharan descent in the US have very high crime rates, and there is a very high correlation between the local crime rate and the local sub-Saharan percentage anywhere in the world. That’s the way it is.
We’re still waiting for people to come around to the reality that there is genetic component to all this though. Looks unlikely at this point, people still believe that the way in which people raise their kids, particularly when it comes to antisocial behaviour, actually has a significant impact over how people turn out. Oh dear. 
Is there an epidemic of racial violence in America today?  There is.  According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010,  62,593 blacks where the victims of white violence, and 320,082 whites where the victims of black violence, that’s 5x the amount of violent attacks, but that number is misleading, because the black and white populations are not the same size. 
When 38 million black Americans commit 5x the amount of violent crimes on 197 millions whites, as they receive, what you discover is, that black perpetrators violently assault white victims 25x more frequently.  And when it comes to a specific kind of crime, Aggravated Assault, the number of black on white crimes, is 200x higher, than white on black crimes.
Also in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black on white rapes, and 39,000 black on white robberies, both violent crimes.  The statistics show, that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small, that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was 0. 
source; Video

People in human genetics generally know that the race/crime and/or race/IQ issues are toxic to anyone who dares touch them. They can’t risk being involved. This is easier if their research interests lie elsewhere, true for most. Most of them know there is a genetic component of population differences in criminality and IQ, but simple say nothing in public.
People of sub-Saharan descent in the US have very high crime rates, and there is a very high correlation between the local crime rate and the local sub-Saharan percentage anywhere in the world. That’s the way it is.
We’re still waiting for people to come around to the reality that there is genetic component to all this though. Looks unlikely at this point, people still believe that the way in which people raise their kids, particularly when it comes to antisocial behaviour, actually has a significant impact over how people turn out. Oh dear.

Is there an epidemic of racial violence in America today?  There is.  According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2010,  62,593 blacks where the victims of white violence, and 320,082 whites where the victims of black violence, that’s 5x the amount of violent attacks, but that number is misleading, because the black and white populations are not the same size. 

When 38 million black Americans commit 5x the amount of violent crimes on 197 millions whites, as they receive, what you discover is, that black perpetrators violently assault white victims 25x more frequently.  And when it comes to a specific kind of crime, Aggravated Assault, the number of black on white crimes, is 200x higher, than white on black crimes.

Also in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black on white rapes, and 39,000 black on white robberies, both violent crimes.  The statistics show, that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small, that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was 0. 

source; Video

People in human genetics generally know that the race/crime and/or race/IQ issues are toxic to anyone who dares touch them. They can’t risk being involved. This is easier if their research interests lie elsewhere, true for most. Most of them know there is a genetic component of population differences in criminality and IQ, but simple say nothing in public.

People of sub-Saharan descent in the US have very high crime rates, and there is a very high correlation between the local crime rate and the local sub-Saharan percentage anywhere in the world. That’s the way it is.

We’re still waiting for people to come around to the reality that there is genetic component to all this though. Looks unlikely at this point, people still believe that the way in which people raise their kids, particularly when it comes to antisocial behaviour, actually has a significant impact over how people turn out. Oh dear.

(via meinkrieg)

  • Eugenics, Natural Selection, and Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence

Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence:

This paper elaborates the hypothesis that the unique demography and sociology of Ashkenazim in medieval Europe selected for intelligence. Ashkenazi literacy, economic specialization, and closure to inward gene flow led to a social environment in which there was high fitness payoff to intelligence, specifically verbal and mathematical intelligence but not spatial ability. As with any regime of strong directional selection on a quantitative trait, genetic variants that were otherwise fitness reducing rose in frequency. In particular we propose that the well-known clusters of Ashkenazi genetic diseases, the sphingolipid cluster and the DNA repair cluster in particular, increase intelligence in heterozygotes. Other Ashkenazi disorders are known to increase intelligence…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16867211

This speculates that selection of many Ashkenazi Jewish-prevalent diseases, especially the lysosomal diseases, rose in frequency during strong selectional pressures that increased intelligence and reflect the historic economic positions of Ashkenazi Jews. As a generally small, historically high-level academia-based population, many Ashkenazis vested their lives to jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors in the countries they inhabited; the wealthiest survived, and with a shift to strict endogamy (avoiding intermarriage with other ethnicities) this appears to have been beneficial for their verbal and mathematical (but not spatial) ability over the Middle Ages.

The Ashkenazi posses many genetic diseases that fall into just a few categories of metabolic function such as the sphingolipid storage diseases. Such high disease rates suggest that their incidence must be the result of either a recent genetic bottleneck where the Ashkenazi population was very small, or natural selective pressures aimed at some other phenotype(s) selected for these genotypes due to advantages that those genotypes offer for other functionality.

The latter implies that mutated genes are being preserved by natural selection and that evolution is even encouraging genetic diseases. In certain circumstances, this is the case. For instance, genetic defects, such as sickle-cell anemia, require two copies of the mutation for the disease to occur, but if someone has only one copy of the mutation it then provides resistance against malaria. It is proposed that similar disease-related mutations in the Ashkenazi Jewish population could be a result of a similar hidden positive effect; in this case increase in intelligence. The sphingolipid (a kind of fats) storage diseases, Gaucher and Tay-Sachs, are both common in Ashkenazi Jews, both affect the same enzyme path, and both stimulate neuron growth:

[…] Figure 1, from Schwartz et al. (1995), shows the effect of glucosylceramide, the sphingolipid that accumulates in Gaucher disease. These camera lucida drawings of cultured rat hippocampal neurones show the effect of fumonisin, which inhibits glucosylceramide synthesis, and of conduritol B-epoxide (CBE), which inhibits lysosomal glycocerebrosidase and leads to the accumulation of glucosylceramide, thus mimicking Gaucher disease. Decreased levels of glucosylceramide stunt neural growth, while increased levels caused increased axonal growth and branching.

It looks as if there was an unusual reproductive advantage (and therefore selection) for people who were good at certain kinds of white-collar jobs. Along with this is the possibility that high degree of reproductive isolation resulted in rapid genetic drift and impacted the random sampling of Ashkenazi Jewish-prevalent diseases. Bizarre changes like this can be observed in other isolated populations which originally have small basal populations, such as in the Icelanders, for instance.

When intelligence is found to be as heritable as height (~81%) in the developed world, under the right pressures eugenics is trivially easy within a few generations. This correlates rather nicely with the eugenic practices among the Ashkenazi over the last few centuries, in particular their regulation of the marriages of the lower classes that contributed to population-wide IQ gain:

Further extracts from the paper:

[…] The key cultural precondition among the Jews was a pattern of social organization that required literacy, strongly discouraged intermarriage, and that could propagate itself over long periods of time with little change. […] Since strong selection for IQ seems to be unusual in humans (few populations have had most members performing high-complexity jobs) and since near-total reproductive isolation is also unusual, the Ashkenazim may be the only extant human population with polymorphic frequencies of IQ-boosting disease mutations, although another place to look for a similar phenomenon is in India. In particular, the Parsi are an endogamous group with high levels of economic achievement, a history of long-distance trading, business and management, and who suffer high prevalences of Parkinson disease, breast cancer and tremor disorders, diseases not present in their neighbours.

[…] The second is that the Ashkenazim experienced very low inward gene flow, which created a very favourable situation for natural selection. The third is that they experienced unusual selective pressures that were likely to have favoured increased intelligence. For the most part they had jobs in which increased IQ strongly favoured economic success, in contrast with other populations, who were mostly peasant farmers. They lived in circumstances in which economic success led to increased reproductive success. […] First, their jobs were cognitively demanding since they were essentially restricted to entrepreneurial and managerial roles as financiers, estate managers, tax farmers and merchants. These are jobs that people with an IQ below 100 essentially cannot do.

[…] Still, for 800–900 years, from roughly AD 800 to AD 1650 or 1700, the great majority of the Ashkenazi Jews had managerial and financial jobs, jobs of high complexity, and were neither farmers nor craftsmen. In this they differed from all other settled peoples of which we have knowledge. Jews who were particularly good at these jobs enjoyed increased reproductive success. […] Ashkenazi Jews have an unusual ability profile as well as higher than average IQ. They have high verbal and mathematical scores, while their visuo-spatial abilities are typically somewhat lower, by about one half a standard deviation, than the European average. Han Eysenck (Eysenck, 1995) noted ‘The correlation between verbal and performance tests is about 0·77 in the Ashkenazi intelligence general population, but only 0·31 among Jewish children. […] The Ashkenazi pattern of success is what one would expect from this ability distribution: great success in mathematics and literature, and more typical results in representational painting, sculpture and architecture.

[…] It is noteworthy that non-Ashkenazi Jews do not have high average IQ test scores, nor are they over-represented in cognitively demanding fields. This is important in developing any causal explanation of Ashkenazi cognitive abilities: any such theory must explain high Ashkenazi IQ, the unusual structure of their cognitive abilities, and the lack of these traits among Sephardic and Oriental Jews.
http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf

Populations that exhibit high levels of intellectual achievement in one country do so in others. Chinese do well everywhere. Sub-saharan Africans do poorly in every country they inhabit. Swedes at home perform as well as their cousins do in America, etc. Ashkenazi intelligence is not a consequence of Talmudic study – you see the same results in religious and irreligious people of Ashkenazi descent and it shows up everywhere, whereas Sephardic and Oriental Jews, in or outside of Israel, perform nowhere near as well as their Ashkenazi cousins.

Another population cited in excerpts are the Parsees of India. The Parsees, like the Ashkenazi, are an endogamous merchant caste. Although they only number about 100,000 in the world, their achievement stands out (as does the achievement of some other high Indian castes). As with the Ashkenazi, these qualities too likely became embedded through gene-culture evolution. Like the Ashkenazi, they also posses ethnic-specific neurologic diseases, and they are also descended from a smaller founder population and are thus more likely to diverge, genetically, from other humans: the smaller the founder group, the less it will genetically represent the source population, and the higher will be the incidence of certain genetic diseases.

Once again, this presence of these diseases could be a side effect of strong natural selection (on an hidden, positive effect) over a relatively short time scale. Over a longer time scale, and with continuing selection, it’s possible that Nature would have ironed out the reduction in reproductive fitness caused by the deleterious side effects on some of those who received intelligence-aiding mutations.

On a final note, with low birthrates the Parsee ethnic group are facing extinction. The latest data, from 2001-2006, indicate a total fertility rate of 0.88, down from an equally meager 1.12 in the 80s.

heartbloodspirit:

Diversity research | Frank Salter

'Salter’s realization that ethnicity is extended kinship at the genetic level led to his conclusion that individuals have a large genetic stake in their ethnic groups, which could help explain the ubiquitousness of ethnic identity, solidarity and conflict from tribal times to the present. From the late 1990s Salter began studying the strategies used in group competition, with a particular interest in win-win strategies, those that would be adaptive to all groups. The outcome of this analysis was Salter’s theory of  'Universal Nationalism' , described in his book On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration.  Salter has argued that “multi-ethnic societies are often confronted with the problem of discrimination and group conflict.  He has written’:

"More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid. Moreover, they are less prone to civil war or ‘Fratricides’, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century." 

- Frank Salter

'Salter has also argued that it is often the original majority group who suffer the most as a result of immigration-induced ethnic diversity' :

"They are pushed out of areas of employment and business; they suffer from the higher rates of crime often shown by immigrant communities; they become the minority in poorer suburbs; and they sense a threat to their continuity as a people belonging to a particular place. They observe that the newcomers have a different group identity, one that excludes them, and that where there were few, now there are many. They sense, sometimes with justification, that they are losing their country." 

- Frank Salter

The “pull” of genetic similarity, essentially an extension of kin selection and inclusive fitness from 1964, demonstrates that people give preferential treatment to others in whom they detect genetic resemblance and that such behaviour enhances genetic fitness. It helps explain core features of ethnicity, including its basis in putative kinship and correlation with population-specific gene frequencies.

The basis of inclusive fitness is that since full siblings share half their genomes, thus anything one does for the other also propagates his own genome, discounted by one half — one half between full siblings or between parent and offspring; one quarter between grandparent and grandchild, and so on. In terms of genetic similarity, in comparison to the total genetic variance around the world, random co-ethnics are related to each other on the order of first cousins.The degree of consanguinity first cousins share with each corresponds roughly to a great-grandchild. Thus, anything you do for your nearest cryptic kinsman is equivalent to doing 12.5% of the same thing for yourself, or rather for your Darwinian fitness. This is how bigotry and racism is understood from an evolutionary perspective.

(via fjorgynns-maiden)

Human Genetic Variation
Previous posts here and here.

Source of image: Publicly funded misinformation, courtesy of the RACE - The Power of an Illusion project.

According to Richard Lewontin in 1972, and every graduate student in anthropology ever since, 85.4% of the genetic variation in humans is found within populations, hence forth concluding that race is of no genetic or taxonomic significance. It was an assertion that befitted the hyperbole of the occasion and persists to this day. However, this same kind of genetic overlap exists between many sibling species that are nonetheless distinct in anatomy and behaviour: 
Human nature or human natures?

Most evolutionary psychologists share a belief in one key concept: the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA), i.e., the ancestral environment that shaped the heritable mental and behavioral traits of present-day humans. […] New complex traits can arise over a relatively short time through additions, deletions, or modifications to existing complex traits, and genetic overlap can be considerable even between species that are morphologically, behaviorally, and physiologically distinct.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328711001248
Full .pdf

Invariably then, genes vary a lot in adaptive value. Different populations occupy different environments and are thus exposed to differences in natural selection. When a gene varies between two populations the cause is probably a difference in natural selection, since the population boundary also separates different selection pressures. 
Contra to Lewontin, within-population variation is not comparable to between-population variation. Awareness of this became known as the Lewontin’s fallacy. Within-population variation tends to consist of different gene variants at different loci whose effects nonetheless look to serve the same purpose. Thus, natural selection tends to produce effects at many different genes.
Population differences are more sharply defined if several gene loci are compared simultaneously. 
When several genes that vary geographically are compared with other genes, a resulting composite map will show population differences in sharper relief; the more you aggregate; the more the genetic variation will exist between populations and not within them: Varying gene frequencies are present among even closely related populations. Among the French who settled Québec there was strong selection for married women to get pregnant faster. A genetic difference thus developed between French Canadians and the French who remained in France. This was a significant finding, as it demonstrated direct evidence of a genetic response to selection in a recent, almost contemporary, human population, between two closely-related populations no less—recent human evolution writ small.
Of course, global human variation is much more distinct. Again, the key here is that differences are not due to just a few genes, as natural selection tends to produce unique effects at many different genes. You should not think of single genes that code for specific traits. Most traits (e.g., intelligence), to the extent they are genetic, are polygenic—no single genes have large effects — there are many genes involved, each with a very small effect.
Thus, if two populations differ at one gene, and if the difference is sensitive to natural selection, they likely also differ at many other genes. The same selection pressure that caused one difference has almost certainly caused others. With time, and reproductive isolation, two sibling species will gradually lose their genetic overlap, as a result of random mutations over the entire genome.
Trans-Species Polymorphisms:

[…] Trans-species polymorphism (TSP) is the occurrence of similar alleles in related species. Excluding instances in which the similarity arose by convergent evolution, TSP is generated by the passage of alleles from ancestral to descendant species.

One example of trans-species polymorphism is the ABO blood group system. On this specific gene marker, a human likely has more in common with certain apes than they do with other humans. Polymorphisms persist across multiple speciations and they are more than just an oddity:When ancestry runs deep: Trans-species polymorphisms in apes:

[…] We searched for trans-species polymorphisms between humans and chimpanzees using genome-wide resequencing data for 10 western chimpanzees from the PanMap project and 179 humans from the 1000 Genomes Pilot 1 data. […] To further rule out the possibility of deep coalescent events by chance, we examined patterns of variation in seven samples of Gorilla gorilla. We discovered 25 cases shared among all three species, which we verified by Sanger sequencing. In a subset, within species diversity levels were unusually high and the tree of haplotypes clustered by allelic type rather than by species, providing definitive evidence for trans-species polymorphisms.http://www.ashg.org/2012meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f120121882.htm

Evidently, this illustrates the importance of examining genes at several loci. Lewontin’s 1972 assertion was based on an analysis of only five individual genomes; a shocking statistical fallacy in itself that the entire, “more variation exists between races” mantra relies upon. Sibling species (e.g., chimps and bonobos) are quite different from each other both anatomically and behaviourally, yet genetic analysis of such species shows considerable genetic overlap. If only the usual genetic markers (blood groups, enzymes, etc) are used, individuals may not even be assignable to a single species with reasonable certainty.
What is the driving factor behind genetic variation, then? Precisely the different ways in which populations adapt to different environments:

Judging from the number of studies devoted to it, the nature of a reproductive barrier is currently central to the interests of researchers working on speciation. It seems to us, however, that the process of adaptation to the environment is a much more important and interesting part of speciation. The erection of the reproductive barrier may mark the end of speciation, but it tells us little about the process that makes the species differ from one to another, the process that creates biological diversity.http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.genet.41.110306.130137

Human Genetic Variation

Source of image: Publicly funded misinformation, courtesy of the RACE - The Power of an Illusion project.

According to Richard Lewontin in 1972, and every graduate student in anthropology ever since, 85.4% of the genetic variation in humans is found within populations, hence forth concluding that race is of no genetic or taxonomic significance. It was an assertion that befitted the hyperbole of the occasion and persists to this day. However, this same kind of genetic overlap exists between many sibling species that are nonetheless distinct in anatomy and behaviour:

Human nature or human natures?

Most evolutionary psychologists share a belief in one key concept: the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA), i.e., the ancestral environment that shaped the heritable mental and behavioral traits of present-day humans. […] New complex traits can arise over a relatively short time through additions, deletions, or modifications to existing complex traits, and genetic overlap can be considerable even between species that are morphologically, behaviorally, and physiologically distinct.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328711001248

Invariably then, genes vary a lot in adaptive value. Different populations occupy different environments and are thus exposed to differences in natural selection. When a gene varies between two populations the cause is probably a difference in natural selection, since the population boundary also separates different selection pressures. 

Contra to Lewontin, within-population variation is not comparable to between-population variation. Awareness of this became known as the Lewontin’s fallacy. Within-population variation tends to consist of different gene variants at different loci whose effects nonetheless look to serve the same purpose. Thus, natural selection tends to produce effects at many different genes.

  • Population differences are more sharply defined if several gene loci are compared simultaneously.

When several genes that vary geographically are compared with other genes, a resulting composite map will show population differences in sharper relief; the more you aggregate; the more the genetic variation will exist between populations and not within them: Varying gene frequencies are present among even closely related populations. Among the French who settled Québec there was strong selection for married women to get pregnant faster. A genetic difference thus developed between French Canadians and the French who remained in France. This was a significant finding, as it demonstrated direct evidence of a genetic response to selection in a recent, almost contemporary, human population, between two closely-related populations no less—recent human evolution writ small.

Of course, global human variation is much more distinct. Again, the key here is that differences are not due to just a few genes, as natural selection tends to produce unique effects at many different genes. You should not think of single genes that code for specific traits. Most traits (e.g., intelligence), to the extent they are genetic, are polygenic—no single genes have large effects — there are many genes involved, each with a very small effect.

Thus, if two populations differ at one gene, and if the difference is sensitive to natural selection, they likely also differ at many other genes. The same selection pressure that caused one difference has almost certainly caused others. With time, and reproductive isolation, two sibling species will gradually lose their genetic overlap, as a result of random mutations over the entire genome.

[…] Trans-species polymorphism (TSP) is the occurrence of similar alleles in related species. Excluding instances in which the similarity arose by convergent evolution, TSP is generated by the passage of alleles from ancestral to descendant species.

One example of trans-species polymorphism is the ABO blood group system. On this specific gene marker, a human likely has more in common with certain apes than they do with other humans. Polymorphisms persist across multiple speciations and they are more than just an oddity:

When ancestry runs deep: Trans-species polymorphisms in apes:

[…] We searched for trans-species polymorphisms between humans and chimpanzees using genome-wide resequencing data for 10 western chimpanzees from the PanMap project and 179 humans from the 1000 Genomes Pilot 1 data. […] To further rule out the possibility of deep coalescent events by chance, we examined patterns of variation in seven samples of Gorilla gorilla. We discovered 25 cases shared among all three species, which we verified by Sanger sequencing. In a subset, within species diversity levels were unusually high and the tree of haplotypes clustered by allelic type rather than by species, providing definitive evidence for trans-species polymorphisms.
http://www.ashg.org/2012meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f120121882.htm

Evidently, this illustrates the importance of examining genes at several loci. Lewontin’s 1972 assertion was based on an analysis of only five individual genomes; a shocking statistical fallacy in itself that the entire, “more variation exists between races” mantra relies upon. Sibling species (e.g., chimps and bonobos) are quite different from each other both anatomically and behaviourally, yet genetic analysis of such species shows considerable genetic overlap. If only the usual genetic markers (blood groups, enzymes, etc) are used, individuals may not even be assignable to a single species with reasonable certainty.

What is the driving factor behind genetic variation, then? Precisely the different ways in which populations adapt to different environments:

Judging from the number of studies devoted to it, the nature of a reproductive barrier is currently central to the interests of researchers working on speciation. It seems to us, however, that the process of adaptation to the environment is a much more important and interesting part of speciation. The erection of the reproductive barrier may mark the end of speciation, but it tells us little about the process that makes the species differ from one to another, the process that creates biological diversity.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.genet.41.110306.130137

optimistic-pessimisms:

arkaimcity:

  • IQ

Noticing the psychometric evidence, or even mentioning the well-established differences in brain size between different populations, can drastically alter your chances of employability in certain disciplines. But that is how things are. For instance, in American blacks, the variance in IQ tests (and similar) is significantly smaller than it is in whites, or about 1 standard deviation lower: Smaller for IQ, SAT, MCAT, etc:

Figure 11.1 (above): When IQ is scaled to a mean of 100 and a standard deviation (SD) of 15 in the white population, large representative samples of the black population of the whole United States (rather than a local subgroup) show a mean close to 85. For most samples and tests, the range is 80 to 90. The black SD of IQ is approximately 12, ranging in most samples from 11 to 14.
The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability

Such tests predict performance on complex tasks moderately well. You do not see people with sub-average scores doing well in, or even passing, difficult subjects like engineering, mathematics, or the natural sciences. This predictive value is about the same for blacks and whites (and other groups). If these tests didn’t predict performance—if people with low scores excelled, the tests would be worthless. But this isn’t the case.

  • Figure 11.1: As can be seen even a moderate difference in means between two populations makes a big difference in the fraction that exceeds a high threshold: that’s just a consequence of the shape of the distribution, which falls off more and more rapidly as you get farther from the mean. So the difference in the mean between two groups has many implications. For one thing, it implies that between-population differences become much larger at the highest levels of ability.

Thus, since blacks in the US score about one standard deviation lower in IQ than whites, you would expect to see differences in representation that varied according to the intelligence threshold requires for the particular job or field – and there are such thresholds. And that’s what you see.

This raises implications for the theory that people possess different “types of intelligence.” Populations with low average IQ produce very few individuals that are good at innovation. Very few. If there were one or a few kinds of intelligence that were not measured well by IQ tests, but allowed people with low IQs to accomplish remarkable things – you’d think we would notice. We know that they don’t invent railroads or transistors or penicillin: what comparably important and useful things have they done? The answer is invariably dependant upon their IQ.

Furthermore, intelligence as measured by IQ is simply a quantitative trait which is normally distributed within populations. People of every race can be theoretically be found at every level of the IQ distribution. It’s just a question of probability, and differences are always more pronounced at the edge of the distribution, just like any other quantitative trait. 

You also see between-group differences of this magnitude in many places. (e.g., the Chinese in Malaysia). Most people think that they must be environmental group differences – but no one has succeeded in substantially changing them. In the US and the West at large, there is a legal mandate to eliminate such gaps – but nobody knows how to do it. Moreover, racism is not more pronounced in the more difficult fields of study, in fact when cognitive ability is accounted for, the racial (black-white) income gap does not exist in the U.S. Equally, the same holds true for the racial economic mobility gap. Nor is wealth or income driving IQ differences – it’s simply not the case. They’ve looked.

While I agree with most of this as there is no real evidence to contradict the theory of a (partially)biological cause of differentiation in average IQ between human populations.

However my ex-girlfriend who works with mentally retarded kids noticed something very interesting about low IQ whites vs low IQ blacks. In her time at her job she noticed that whites with an IQ’s (below 70) tend to be severely handicapped in their social as well as academic development and are largely functionally useless. While blacks kids with the same low IQ perform academically at about the low level of the whites, the blacks fair much better in terms of their social skills. It’s actually to the point where unlike with low IQ whites where upon a short conversation you can clearly determine that there is something off, with low IQ blacks it’s only after much closer inspection that you become aware of their cognitive deficiency.

IQ does a good job at predicting life outcomes in a agricultural/industrial society where problem solving is(was) key to survival. However is it possible that there is a social element that IQ is not capturing when it comes to the black white difference? Could it be that africans evolved to depend more on social cooperation as opposed to problem solving skills? 

A reply with some insight is always refreshing, and yeah, you’re onto something. More often you see blacks functioning with low (<70) IQs, whereas whites with around the same IQs tend to suffer from motor coordination deficiencies and often look kind of funny (think; kids with down syndrome). So what’s going on? I remember first reading more into this here:

Among blacks and whites with comparable cognitive deficits, blacks generally show a better ability to adapt to the rigors of everyday life. The difference is pronounced. Arthur Jensen observed in The g Factor that black pupils with IQ deficiencies often socially integrate well with their brighter peers. They seem quite normal when engaging in non-cerebral activities like play. In contrast, many cognitively impaired white children have difficulty integrating socially and often have physical abnormalities such as flat-footed gaits. Jensen attributes this racial divergence to different etiologies that are transparent to IQ tests. Two types of mental retardation can be differentiated. Organic retardation is due to a genetic anomaly or brain damage brought about by disease or trauma. Familial retardation results from normal variations in intelligence. Among whites with IQ < 70, between 25 and 50 percent are diagnosed as organic. Since 2 percent of whites have IQ < 70, 0.5 to 1.0 percent of the entire white population is organically retarded. Jensen estimates that of the blacks with IQ < 70, only 12.5 percent are organically retarded. (We estimate the number closer to 16.7 percent.) Thus for blacks, we expect 16.7 percent of the 12 percent with IQs < 70 to have organic etiologies. That is, about 2.0 percent of the black population at large is organically retarded.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/retard.htm

More to the point then, you need to be considering different origins for disease and burden of genetic mutations between blacks and whites. On that note, see these few posts on genetic load here, here and here. For one, intelligence is polygenic (many genes of small effect) and high IQ is largely a product of possessing fewer bad mutations (many mild mutations of small effect are the norm, everyone has them; geniuses notably less so).

As anyone knows, the lower the IQ, the more funny looking people you’ll see, but as noted above, there is a distinction between organic and familial retardation. With organic you’re talking about a product of one or a few really bad mutations of large effect. It’s where pleiotropic "funny looking" effects are more clear. So when it comes to low IQ in white kids it’s often a result of genetic anomalies or brain damage brought about by disease or trauma—genuine genetic deviations, essentially. Familial is different, as the name suggests it’s heritable and is on the order much more mild, with this you instead see a lot of bad mutations of small effect, which although may have some pleiotropic effect themselves, they mostly just cancel out and you get more normal looking individuals who are by all means functional retards.

Slightly deleterious mutations seem to affect mostly the brain in whites and mostly less complex organs in blacks. I.e., more than half of all genes are expressed in the brain.

With familial retardation most mutations are to be expected and consistent with ancestry. For instance, polygamy results in older paternal age, which increases genetic load; and we know that polygamy (or rather, polygyny) in the ancestors of sub-Saharan Africans was widespread. A long history of high paternal age is observed in Aborigine Australians too. Blacks don’t necessarily have more mutations, but populations with high average paternal age certainly have higher-than-average mutation rates. Thus then, the the black-white gap here looks to be caused by differences in the amount of mild genetic load, not by differences in large-effect load. Refer back to this post.

Similarly, bad mutations occur more often on the X chromosome, and boys only inherit one, so any such bad copy is deleterious in boys. With this knowledge we then should expect to see more funny looking boys than girls, and we do.

Also, at this point it’s hard to factor in a non-genetic impetus (aside from things like extreme malnutrition) in explaining IQ differences between populations—we know it’s highly heritable. The modern, more advanced GWAS analyses have estimates now at ~81% heritable (the old twin studies were equally as high). I don’t advocate hard determinism for… Anything, but intelligence is one human trait where nature certainly dominates nurture. There is no disputing this. Those of sub-Saharan African descent do poorly everywhere, whereas Chinese who arrive as illiterate tin miners do as well as they do in China within a few generations. Again, see: the Chinese in Malaysia.