[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
And we’re back to discussing the IQ of blacks vs the rest of the world… DEEP SIGH[/quote]
LOL…Mind you, have you ever been contacted for these massive studies done on all of us? I mean, I have been on the planet for a while now and not one person has tested my IQ for the purposes of collecting data on all blacks in the country.
Where are these stats coming from if I don’t know one black person who was tested?
I think discussing this shit more will just take the thread further off course. Tiger Time has issues. The thing is, had this been about 4 years ago when it was thought there weren’t many minorities here, this thread would be going way different by now.
This is actually the most civil race discussion I’ve seen.
I guess realizing they aren’t just fighting one black guy changes the responses.[/quote]
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
And we’re back to discussing the IQ of blacks vs the rest of the world… DEEP SIGH[/quote]
LOL…Mind you, have you ever been contacted for these massive studies done on all of us? I mean, I have been on the planet for a while now and not one person has tested my IQ for the purposes of collecting data on all blacks in the country.
Where are these stats coming from if I don’t know one black person who was tested?
I think discussing this shit more will just take the thread further off course. Tiger Time has issues. The thing is, had this been about 4 years ago when it was thought there weren’t many minorities here, this thread would be going way different by now.
This is actually the most civil race discussion I’ve seen.
I guess realizing they aren’t just fighting one black guy changes the responses.[/quote]
This actually reminded me of another one of my main problems with statistics: They pick a small sample of a larger whole (say 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc) subjects depending on how much time and money/resources available and use that data to make conclusions about the whole.
And IQs are pretty worthless as well. I have been teaching at the undergrad level since I was 18 and at the graduate level since I was 25 and I have had more than a few students with IQs above 160 fail out of my basic calculus based physics class and I have had more than a few students with IQs barely above 100 obtain a PhD or other graduate degree. The one thing my successful students seem to have in common is that they put in the time and effort needed to learn the material. They show up to class and take detailed notes, they go to the recitations, they come see me and my grad students about problems they can’t figure out and concepts they don’t understand, they do the homework problems I assign even though I don’t grade them. Yes, the students with higher IQs generally have to put in less time to understand the material than others which makes it easier, but that is it. There is nothing about having a high IQ that guarantees you will be great and successful at anything, and it certainly has nothing to do with a predisposition for criminal activity.
[/quote]
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
And we’re back to discussing the IQ of blacks vs the rest of the world… DEEP SIGH[/quote]
LOL…Mind you, have you ever been contacted for these massive studies done on all of us? I mean, I have been on the planet for a while now and not one person has tested my IQ for the purposes of collecting data on all blacks in the country.
Where are these stats coming from if I don’t know one black person who was tested?
I think discussing this shit more will just take the thread further off course. Tiger Time has issues. The thing is, had this been about 4 years ago when it was thought there weren’t many minorities here, this thread would be going way different by now.
This is actually the most civil race discussion I’ve seen.
I guess realizing they aren’t just fighting one black guy changes the responses.[/quote]
Oh it does![/quote]
My probability discombobulator has just exploded. According to official stats, two black people can’t have a discussion without attempting to kill each other.
My probability discombobulator has just exploded. According to official stats, two black people can’t have a discussion without attempting to kill each other.[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.
One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.
The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?
Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.
[/quote]
What aboriginal tribes recently discovered and still living in the stone age?
I do find it interesting that through out history, certain regions grew, prospered, developed technology and then of course dominated regions still throwing stones and using sticks for self defense.
Take the middle east for example, obviously a pioneer in science, math, culture et cetera and bordering Asia, Europe and Africa.
Look at the technological advances of European and Asian countries at any point in history compared to Africa.
I realize I’ll probably get crucified for this musing, but it’s interesting when viewed objectively.
Societal support is helpful of course, take a tribesman and throw him in modern society and he will adapt to the best of his abilities but, as a whole, why did one region lag so far behind?[/quote]
The most common theory is that moving out of Africa meant food would be harder to find and it would take more intelligence in order to cultivate a sustainable tribe. As it happens, the gap necessary to survive in the frigid climate of ancient Europe also gave rise to the intelligence levels necessary to build western civilization to what it is today.
Something along those lines. [/quote]
???Unless you are talking about the Middle East I’m not sure what part of Ancient Western Europe was any more advanced than any place else.
Wow.
Ok on this note I am out. hahahaha wow.[/quote]
? I’m talking about why all non-African societies continued advancing while Africa stayed relatively stagnant. In the case of Europe, this is why.
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
And we’re back to discussing the IQ of blacks vs the rest of the world… DEEP SIGH[/quote]
LOL…Mind you, have you ever been contacted for these massive studies done on all of us? I mean, I have been on the planet for a while now and not one person has tested my IQ for the purposes of collecting data on all blacks in the country.
Where are these stats coming from if I don’t know one black person who was tested?
I think discussing this shit more will just take the thread further off course. Tiger Time has issues. The thing is, had this been about 4 years ago when it was thought there weren’t many minorities here, this thread would be going way different by now.
This is actually the most civil race discussion I’ve seen.
I guess realizing they aren’t just fighting one black guy changes the responses.[/quote]
You’re not stupid, X. I know you know that your personal life does not make or break national and international trends.
Maybe you’ve never gotten your IQ tested, but I’m assuming you’ve taken the SAT’s. The SAT’s are essentially an over-glorified IQ test and I’m sure you can find an online conversion calculator.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
A stats “game” is all it is. [/quote]
Well, that’s a cop-out if I ever heard one. You don’t have to like it, but don’t pretend like these statistics don’t match up with reality by virtue of being statistics. [/quote]
That’s tautological.
If you believe this you do not understand statistics.[/quote]
Yes it’s tautological. So? I’m pointing out his error. If you made a red-herring and I pointed it out, am I guilty of making a red-herring?
[quote]LHT wrote:
Until about 600 years ago, the countries, and the populations, that are being portrayed on this thread (by some) as genetically superior, were pretty damned primitive.
For example… England, northern France, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, Germany. Today, these regions, and their descendant populations, represent a disproportionate percentage of wealth, health, and education compared to the rest of the world. Before the past half-millineum, the people of these regions were nowhere near the peak of civilization either in Europe or compared to other civilized centers of the world.
For that matter, same with Japan…sure, they were clean and organized, but the Japanese islands were an isolated backwater that were not regarded for a moment by the civilizations around them, until a wide variety of circumstances allowed them an opportunity to shine on the international scene – circumstances that didn’t really even start to get into place until a couple of centuries ago.
Are we to assume that there was some enormous mutation that changed northern and western Europeans from disease-ridden, ignorant, impoverished, violent, completely inconsequential bumpkins of the planet, into the gleaming beacons of everything wonderful?
I have little if any doubt that genetics play a major role in how civilizations develop, and in the behavior of individuals and societies, but it’s also very easy to become so enamored with such a tidy world view that you tend to ignore all the other potential factors for what we call civilization.
Studies like history and sociology are a lot more squishy than that. Over-reliance on one ‘thing’ (such as genetics) as your sine qua non for something as sweeping as the rise and fall of human populations is innately self-limiting, bordering on delusional. [/quote]
Good on you for coming up with legitimate criticism and not just denying the evidence.
Yes, there are more factors at play than just genetics, but also keep in mind that the IQ gap between Caucasian/zoid and Mongoloid populations is much smaller than the Caucazoid/Mongoloid to Negroid IQ gap. When European colonists first went to Africa, there were still parts of Africa that didn’t have so much as the wheel yet.
Caucasians score around 100 and north east Asian Mongoloids score around 105. With a gap this size, I can see how it would come down to other factors, but Africa has whole populations scoring around 55 and capping off around the low 70’s. To me, this is a significant enough of a difference to explain the societal gaps.
I’m not saying this is the case entirely because of genetics, but genetics is the heavy hitter.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.
One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.
The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?
Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.
[/quote]
What aboriginal tribes recently discovered and still living in the stone age?
I do find it interesting that through out history, certain regions grew, prospered, developed technology and then of course dominated regions still throwing stones and using sticks for self defense.
Take the middle east for example, obviously a pioneer in science, math, culture et cetera and bordering Asia, Europe and Africa.
Look at the technological advances of European and Asian countries at any point in history compared to Africa.
I realize I’ll probably get crucified for this musing, but it’s interesting when viewed objectively.
Societal support is helpful of course, take a tribesman and throw him in modern society and he will adapt to the best of his abilities but, as a whole, why did one region lag so far behind?[/quote]
The most common theory is that moving out of Africa meant food would be harder to find and it would take more intelligence in order to cultivate a sustainable tribe. As it happens, the gap necessary to survive in the frigid climate of ancient Europe also gave rise to the intelligence levels necessary to build western civilization to what it is today.
Something along those lines. [/quote]
Greece has a frigid climate?
[/quote]
Well, not any more. However, the take home notes here is that leaving the security of Africa placed a demand on higher intelligence levels in order to find and sustain a food supply. If this isn’t the case, then you would expect to see other population with the same IQ’s as Africans when instead you see that the farther a certain population went away from Africa, the more intelligent they became.
Actually, most of these statistics are gathered from victim interviews, in order to control for police bias.
We aren’t talking about blacks committing 10% more homicides for their population, they’re committing 52% of total homicides. That much of a discrepancy cannot be brushed off as racial profiling. [/quote]
Damn it, I told myself I was done posting in this thread, and then I read this. Now, I have a low opinion of statistics as a mathematical discipline in general, and it is practically useless in many cases. Crime statistics is one of those cases. There are way too many unknowns to possibly be able to draw any useful conclusions. The only thing that those statistics have to go on is conviction rates. Think of all the unsolved murders in this country alone. Think about all the wrongful convictions that we do not know about. Think of all the missing people and others who may have been murdered but we don’t know because no bodies have been found. There is no real and reliable way of accounting for these unknowns. The only real piece of knowledge we can get from these statistics is that 52% of murder convictions are against black people.
Oh, and I agree with whoever said that genetic predisposition to crime based on race is a load of crap. There could, however be a cultural factor here but I don’t really know. I majored in physics, not African American studies, so I don’t really know much about African American culture except what I see in movies and television.
EDIT: I totally left two sentences half finished. See how useless IQ tests/having a high IQ is?[/quote]
Again, we’re not talking about a small discrepancy here. We’re talking about 13% of your population committing over half of all homicide. This simply isn’t something you can brush off as investigative error.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.
One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.
The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?
Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.
[/quote]
What Mr. KKK suggested is hateful and asinine just in case that had to be mentioned. There’s probably more crimes for blacks across socio-economic lines because of racial profiling like what happened in this gated community. Even Mark Twain said, ‘there’s lies, damned lies, and then there’s statistics’. Racism is very real and prominent and I’ve seen it happen to my friends and I hate it. It hurts us all. [/quote]
Exactly. You can not ignore the existence of increased attention to black individuals as “potential criminals” which could no doubt lead to more arrests whether there are more blacks truly committing more crimes or not.
If you aren’t even looking at the white guys (or non-minorities), what else would you expect from many of these statistics?
They weren’t even apparently concerned about any potential criminals in that neighborhood who were WHITE. They were only looking for blacks. It makes perfect sense that in cases like that you either find a black criminal…or you CREATE one.
Where are the stats on that?[/quote]
Actually, most of these statistics are gathered from victim interviews, in order to control for police bias.
We aren’t talking about blacks committing 10% more homicides for their population, they’re committing 52% of total homicides. That much of a discrepancy cannot be brushed off as racial profiling. [/quote]
Which statistics? This is absolutely not the case in the case of the FBI which generates them mostly from law enforcement reports.
How could you possibly prove your last statement?
In a prior post you brought up IQ testing. What do you think these tests actually measure? Why do you think that scores have moved forward generationally calling for recalibration? In the largest study of true success why do you think there wasn’t even correlation found between IQ and success much less causality? Once you reach a baseline intelligence being successful has little to do with the IQ being higher. In fact there is some evidence of just the opposite as the IQ increases.
[/quote]
“Despite the differences in the amount of crime reported, comparisons of the UCR and NCVS data sets show there to be a high degree of correspondence between the two systems.[18] This correspondence extends to the racial demography of both perpetrators and victims of violent crime reported in both systems.”
So can we all now stop making fools of ourselves by suggesting that the violent crime discrepancy is caused by investigative error?
IQ is an imperfect measure of intelligence, but it does match up with income. In fact, once you control for income, the black/white IQ gap disappears. Actually, it still favours whites by about $400 per year, so there’s your white privilege.
For the record, the correlation between income and IQ is about 0.266. If this sounds underwhelming to you, keep in mind that the correlation between arm size and arm strength (isometric) is only about 0.24.
Actually, most of these statistics are gathered from victim interviews, in order to control for police bias.
We aren’t talking about blacks committing 10% more homicides for their population, they’re committing 52% of total homicides. That much of a discrepancy cannot be brushed off as racial profiling. [/quote]
Damn it, I told myself I was done posting in this thread, and then I read this. Now, I have a low opinion of statistics as a mathematical discipline in general, and it is practically useless in many cases. Crime statistics is one of those cases. There are way too many unknowns to possibly be able. The only thing that those statistics have to go on is conviction rates. Think of all the unsolved murders in this country alone. Think about all the wrongful convictions that we do not know about. Think of all the missing people and others who may have been murdered but we don’t know because no bodies have been found. There is no real and reliable way of accounting for these unknowns. The only real piece of knowledge we can get from these statistics is that 52% of murder convictions are against black people.
Oh, and I agree with whoever said that genetic predisposition to crime based on race is a load of crap. There could, however be a cultural factor here but I don’t really know. I majored in physics, not African American studies, so I don’t really know much about African American culture except what I see in movies and television.[/quote]
We could also get into the literal hundreds of blacks who have been released from death row due to current DNA testing finding them to be wrongly convicted.
Other issues:
-If you already think blacks commit more crimes and are therefore looking for more blacks doing crime, what a surprise that black arrest rates are higher. Gee, what a shock.
-That article posted earlier showed blacks get greater convictions for many of the same crimes.
These are not minor factors when trying to pen “criminal activity” on a specific race. Racial bias is a giant factor if you can still get shot for being black in 2012.[/quote]
Mmm, this isn’t a very solid argument.
Point by point.
Victimization studies match up with police reports.
Repeat offenders tend to get harsher punishments. As it happens, blacks are more likely to be repeat offenders
One case is not statistically significant.
Once again, these aren’t conclusions I’ve come to lightly. You aren’t going to come up with a possible “out” that I haven’t already considered and looked into myself. If you can, fantastic, but don’t hold your breath.
Hmm? You think my point is “Well-to-do” (whatever that means) blacks are violent psychopaths and criminals? I’m not the caricature you’d like me to be. [/quote]
Well-to- do, well-off, high earners, wealthy, rich. Since you seem to have time gathering ‘‘stats’’ on the Black race, a few seconds of googling a word shouldn’t be too hard for you to do, Far Right Boy.
You basically stated in that pile of shit you posted that, regardless of social status and, compared to other races, blacks are inferior, barbaric and criminals.
Now I ask you again: please, show me the statistics that prove…
Actually fuck it.
My bad. I admit it. Got my hands up. Replying to such magnitude of ignorance was a mistake.
[/quote]
You are far too wound up to have a real discussion about this. Take a breather. I’m not trying to attack you and I’m not trying to say that you, personally, are limited by the tendencies of your race.
I’m not the mindless bigot you think I am and I will hear you out if you have legitimate criticism of the information I’m presenting.
Again, we’re not talking about a small discrepancy here. We’re talking about 13% of your population committing over half of all homicide. This simply isn’t something you can brush off as investigative error. [/quote]
Okay, stop trying to set a record for the most responses you can type in 10 minutes and go back and read my post again, or even a few times since your reading comprehension and critical reasoning skills seem to be on the same level as a teenager who has completed all of one semester at a third rate college.
Since you seem to love statistics so much, here is one from the FBI for you: the percentage of REPORTED MURDERS that remain unsolved each year is over 30%. That is 30% of the total number of REPORTED MURDERS that we have NO IDEA what the race of the murderer was.
Now, I put reported murders in all caps so that you understand that reported murders DOES NOT EQUAL THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MURDERS THAT OCCUR. We have NO POSSIBLE WAY OF KNOWING OR EVEN ESTIMATING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MURDERS THAT OCCUR EACH YEAR.
These are not minor sampling problems, they are MASSIVE UNKNOWNS that render the entire statistical survey unreliable because there is no way of getting a useful margin of error with unknowns of this magnitude.
One more thing before I go for the night. Not one of you took issue with me stating that blacks out-perform all other races in athletic proficiency, nor did any of you take issue with Asians being the least athletically proficient.
I don’t expect honest answers, but at least ask yourselves why you so readily accept the physical racial hierarchy, but so readily oppose the cognitive and behavioural racial hierarchies.
My guess is it’s both years of being told these positions are akin to Nazism and the social belief that ones intelligence defines one’s value.
Once again, these aren’t conclusions I’ve come to lightly. You aren’t going to come up with a possible “out” that I haven’t already considered and looked into myself. If you can, fantastic, but don’t hold your breath. [/quote]
You didn’t come to a real conclusion at all. Reaching a conclusion implies that you actually understand how the information that you used to come to a conclusion was obtained, and you clearly have very little understanding of statistics. Definitely not enough to understand when a statistical analysis is useful and when it is not. You just looked at some numbers posted on a website or in a journal/magazine and assumed they were accurate and valid to the “conclusion” you came to.
Again, your “conclusion” was something along the lines of “This statistic says that 52% of convicted murderers are black, therefore 52% of all murders are committed by black people.” If any of my students, even freshman, came to a similar conclusion in any of my classes, they would fail. One of the first things taught in any intro to statistics class is that a statistical analysis is only useful if the parameters are met. This statistical analysis was conducted under the restraint that it was only conducted on convicted murderers. That means that it is only applicable for convicted murderers. It has ZERO applicability outside of that constraint due to the unknowns.
Again, we’re not talking about a small discrepancy here. We’re talking about 13% of your population committing over half of all homicide. This simply isn’t something you can brush off as investigative error. [/quote]
Okay, stop trying to set a record for the most responses you can type in 10 minutes and go back and read my post again, or even a few times since your reading comprehension and critical reasoning skills seem to be on the same level as a teenager who has completed all of one semester at a third rate college.
Since you seem to love statistics so much, here is one from the FBI for you: the percentage of REPORTED MURDERS that remain unsolved each year is over 30%. That is 30% of the total number of REPORTED MURDERS that we have NO IDEA what the race of the murderer was.
Now, I put reported murders in all caps so that you understand that reported murders DOES NOT EQUAL THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MURDERS THAT OCCUR. We have NO POSSIBLE WAY OF KNOWING OR EVEN ESTIMATING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MURDERS THAT OCCUR EACH YEAR.
These are not minor sampling problems, they are MASSIVE UNKNOWNS that render the entire statistical survey unreliable because there is no way of getting a useful margin of error with unknowns of this magnitude.
TL;DR, The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.
Or, are you contending that nearly all of the unsolved murders are made by whites? Again, victimization studies and police reports match up. For you to be right, it would take both an absolute critical failure of the U.S. police force and an absolute critical failure of the American people’s ability to determine race to the exact same degree for one race to be mistakenly made out to be responsible for 37 times the amount of murders as whites.
But, let’s play with the number you’ve just given me and I’ll show you why it means absolutely nothing. Let’s assume that all 30% of unsolved murders are made by whites (“white”, being a mixture of mestizo and caucasian American’s, according to the FBI). This means that blacks now drop to 50% of 60%, or 30% of total homicide. I don’t know how to split the remaining 60% because the distinction between mestizo and caucasian isn’t made, but I’ll be generous to you and assume it’s an even 50/50 split despite higher reported violent crime by Latinos. This means the total numbers are about 30% white, 30% mestizo and 30% black. I’m leaving out the “other races” category because it’s statistically insignificant.
What are we left with? A population making up 13% of the population causing the same amount of murders as the population making up 80% of the population.
Now, just for fun, let’s say all unsolved murder is caucasian only. For simplicity’s sake I’m going to split the known white murder equally and not add to the mestizo murder rates whatsoever. The numbers now come up to around 45% white, 15% mestizo and 30% black. Great, we have finally brought the total black homicide below the total white homicide, but as a % of population, even these statistics still show that the average black person is 4 times as likely to commit homicide as any given white person.
Do you get it now? Even assuming that literally all 30% of unsolved murder is “white” crime, this 52% is just too monolithic of a number to take down. Your “massive unknown” is little more than a toothless lion.
Once again, these aren’t conclusions I’ve come to lightly. You aren’t going to come up with a possible “out” that I haven’t already considered and looked into myself. If you can, fantastic, but don’t hold your breath. [/quote]
You didn’t come to a real conclusion at all. Reaching a conclusion implies that you actually understand how the information that you used to come to a conclusion was obtained, and you clearly have very little understanding of statistics. Definitely not enough to understand when a statistical analysis is useful and when it is not. You just looked at some numbers posted on a website or in a journal/magazine and assumed they were accurate and valid to the “conclusion” you came to.
Again, your “conclusion” was something along the lines of “This statistic says that 52% of convicted murderers are black, therefore 52% of all murders are committed by black people.” If any of my students, even freshman, came to a similar conclusion in any of my classes, they would fail. One of the first things taught in any intro to statistics class is that a statistical analysis is only useful if the parameters are met. This statistical analysis was conducted under the restraint that it was only conducted on convicted murderers. That means that it is only applicable for convicted murderers. It has ZERO applicability outside of that constraint due to the unknowns.[/quote]
I had a good chuckle at this after posting my last response to you.