This is actually a good argument, but for anyone deploying it against leftists, you'll be hit with the "ackshually muh racism is a systemic construct of muh endemic racist structures blah blah blah".
Counter with: crime in communities is also systemic and structural. It is created by an endemic plague of fatherlessness and community-fostered resentment and irresponsibility. Gangs are structures and systems.
It's not though, it's genetic. The black crime rate in the 60s was as high as it is now, and they had higher marriage rates, lower single mother rates, and higher rates of religion. Fatherless homes are a symptom, not a cause. Our last common ancestor was 50,000 years ago, and we know (via genetic studies) that the rate of brain evolution increased 100x in the last 10,000 outside of Africa, due to the discovery of agriculture. You can't take the jungle out of the African man.
Perhaps, but this kind of racism has a name: Social Darwinism. You're making a series of unsourced assertions and claims as if they are axiomatic truth, when they are simply a fallacious Argument from Nature coupled with a causation/correlation fallacy. A lot of it is from the "Bell Curve".
Human migration and organisational behaviour is far more complex than this kind of low-resolution theory. For example, crime rates change, as do population sizes and concentrations. There's no doubt family structure and relative poverty is correlated to crime, but you're going way past this and attributing cause and ignoring the influence of societal/development problems.
it's complex: we want easy answers to hard problems. They don't exist.
Quite the opposite, I did not cite sources, but in the last 15 years, due to mapping of the genome and the increase in gene testing accuracy, we have discovered quite a bit about our genetic history as it relates to our intelligence. Here is a normie friendly article for you https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to. You're attempting to muddy the issue by asserting I am making logical fallacies, however, the requirements for them to be logical fallacies are not met in this case. It is not "social Darwinism", it's memetic evolution, and is strongly supported by genetic data. In addition to genetic data, we have detailed brain scans of Africans that show nontrivial morphological differences, such as fewer cortical convolutions (which indicates lower processing power), a smaller prefrontal cortex, and less gray matter. These are biologically correlates to differences in behavior, for example people with smaller prefrontal cortices generally have poor impulse control. And lastly, we measure similar behavioral differences cross culturally, which indicates a strong biological component. That is the basis of evolutionary psychology.
Your argument is very common, but is actually an argument about creationism. Evolution did not stop when humans came about, and our divergent history is apparent from our phenotypical differences, both in the body and the brain. What you are asserting a form of "blank slate" theory, which is just left wing creationism as it asserts that genes do not affect things like behavior, temperament, and intelligence. This is absurd to think because all behavior has a neurological correlate. The base neural networks are formed in the womb; society can adjust them somewhat, but it can't overhaul them, only fine tune them. Hell, twin studies have shown that intelligence is at least 60% heritable, and upwards of 90%.
Yes, this is the internet, and it's going to sound like I'm making an appeal to authority, but I do have a background in neuroscience, and most of those classical arguments have been almost completely disproven in the last 10 years. I'm not saying you should just believe me, but rather I invite you to start looking at some modern research as it pertains to genes and behavior.
I'm not making an argument (and i particularly hate Black Slate theory). I'm saying your argument is poor, on multiple grounds. If there is evidence here which is reproducible and supports that hypothesis, it should be investigated. I just see a more sophisticated attempt at scientific justification of subspecies categorisation which lacks empirical merit. I'm actually not too concerned about the sociological so-called "consequences" than i am about objective truth.
Of course there will be phenotypic and genotypic variations across time and geography, and of course evolution is an ongoing process. Nobody's denying that. I'm saying you have taken a leap of faith way too far, destabilising your argument. There are just too many variables to make such a sweeping conclusion.
Humans are wired differently, yes. Can we correlate populations and behaviour? Somewhat. Can we connect that wiring to different behaviour which is consistently predictable on a biological level? Not even close. Can we group traits which suggest that badly-defined wiring? No. I think you are dangerously over-confident in our ability to ascertain the things you think we have in evolutionary psychology, and naive presume they lead to reliable conclusions.
It's also reductive, in the same way Sam Harris' can be. It's the other way around: of course it's absurd to believe all behaviour doesn't have a correlation with neurology; but it's even more absurd to believe that means neurology is exclusively causative. It doesn't tell us anything. It merely means brain activity is observable. You can make this argument the same way as Harris does: i took MDMA and feel empathy; MDMA affects reuptake of serotonin; therefore the origin of empathy is neurological. If we could even study "race" as a thing accurately, we'd have a better chance - i'm waiting for anyone to actually scientific define it in the first place.
The #1 correlation, by far, is IQ, and IQ is 50-80% genetic. Even mainstreamers like Jordan Peterson say this is true, and that our IQ sciences are some of the most solid science in all of the social sciences. Average IQ ranks by race/ethnicity. So crime correlates to IQ regardless of race, but the collective average IQ of black America is in the mid 80's, which is exactly where crime/violence statistics peak.
(That's the cold reality, and race-realism is not racism.)
And no this isn't 'white supremacy' because these studies explain why east-Asians are 'superior' to whites when it comes to health/wealth/income/violence/etc. - they have a higher collective average IQ than whites.
IQ is immutable, for sure. Entirely fixed. And it decreases with age.
Here's where that argument gets completely derailed: It's impossible to measure collective IQ. You can take a statistical sample, sure. But then you have to look at heritage and the entire nebulous idea of race appears.
Do you seriously believe we can determine the national IQ distribution of Angola?
If a child has a black Zimbabwean mother from China, and a ginger Scottish father from Jamaica, which race box do you tick?
The experts in the field of human intelligence have been working carefully on those issues for decades, and the results they have are a product of doing enormous controls for those factors. Like JBP says, it's "some of the most solid science in all of the social sciences".
We'd all know this stuff but it's ultra suppressed as being 'racist' or 'scientific racism', plus we're all buried under a mountain of leftist/SJW post-modernist propaganda that insists that there's no such thing as race, etc.
The stats shake out perfectly when you rank collective average IQ by race/ethnicity and then rank those races/ethnicities by their crime/violence/health/wealth. No other correlation (especially 'poverty', which is the politically-correct go-to) comes anywhere near as close/tight.
Yeh, but again that doesn't make sense - they can't have been doing lots of work into it if it's also been simultaneously suppressed and taboo; also, social science can't simultaneously be good if it's controlled by SJW nonsense. I love Jordan but he's a little hopeless when it comes to science and political history, like all soft science types.
Where i'm going with this is you seem to be letting the conclusion gather the facts: the hypothesis is dodgy at best on its face. I don't see how you can actually get to racial origin other than phenotypic traits like eye shape and skin colour, which are so varying. I sincerely doubt almost anything that comes out of the humanities.
I actually agree wholeheartedly we need this research, and that IQ is immutable; but i think the better argument is IQ is correlated with success, as it's a smaller population and more observable, making its opposite thesis more plausible. Jordan's thesis about Ashkenazi Jews comes to mind.
But before any of that we have to realise there are serious scientific problems with this, not political:
How do you define and agree on a race (subspecies)? Is it really SJW propaganda, or is the concept nebulous on an intellectual level? Does the concept even make sense when the offspring of two subspecies is indeterminate after 2-3 generations?
How do you agree on what constitutes collective? 2000? 500,000? Mean? Median? How do you compensate for migration and/or diaspora, and control against social conditions?
How can we make best efforts to make sure the results aren't misused and misapplied by bad actors for nefarious purposes? It may not be possible, so how would we limit damage?
This is actually a good argument, but for anyone deploying it against leftists, you'll be hit with the "ackshually muh racism is a systemic construct of muh endemic racist structures blah blah blah".
Counter with: crime in communities is also systemic and structural. It is created by an endemic plague of fatherlessness and community-fostered resentment and irresponsibility. Gangs are structures and systems.
It's not though, it's genetic. The black crime rate in the 60s was as high as it is now, and they had higher marriage rates, lower single mother rates, and higher rates of religion. Fatherless homes are a symptom, not a cause. Our last common ancestor was 50,000 years ago, and we know (via genetic studies) that the rate of brain evolution increased 100x in the last 10,000 outside of Africa, due to the discovery of agriculture. You can't take the jungle out of the African man.
Perhaps, but this kind of racism has a name: Social Darwinism. You're making a series of unsourced assertions and claims as if they are axiomatic truth, when they are simply a fallacious Argument from Nature coupled with a causation/correlation fallacy. A lot of it is from the "Bell Curve".
Human migration and organisational behaviour is far more complex than this kind of low-resolution theory. For example, crime rates change, as do population sizes and concentrations. There's no doubt family structure and relative poverty is correlated to crime, but you're going way past this and attributing cause and ignoring the influence of societal/development problems.
it's complex: we want easy answers to hard problems. They don't exist.
Quite the opposite, I did not cite sources, but in the last 15 years, due to mapping of the genome and the increase in gene testing accuracy, we have discovered quite a bit about our genetic history as it relates to our intelligence. Here is a normie friendly article for you https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to. You're attempting to muddy the issue by asserting I am making logical fallacies, however, the requirements for them to be logical fallacies are not met in this case. It is not "social Darwinism", it's memetic evolution, and is strongly supported by genetic data. In addition to genetic data, we have detailed brain scans of Africans that show nontrivial morphological differences, such as fewer cortical convolutions (which indicates lower processing power), a smaller prefrontal cortex, and less gray matter. These are biologically correlates to differences in behavior, for example people with smaller prefrontal cortices generally have poor impulse control. And lastly, we measure similar behavioral differences cross culturally, which indicates a strong biological component. That is the basis of evolutionary psychology.
Your argument is very common, but is actually an argument about creationism. Evolution did not stop when humans came about, and our divergent history is apparent from our phenotypical differences, both in the body and the brain. What you are asserting a form of "blank slate" theory, which is just left wing creationism as it asserts that genes do not affect things like behavior, temperament, and intelligence. This is absurd to think because all behavior has a neurological correlate. The base neural networks are formed in the womb; society can adjust them somewhat, but it can't overhaul them, only fine tune them. Hell, twin studies have shown that intelligence is at least 60% heritable, and upwards of 90%.
Yes, this is the internet, and it's going to sound like I'm making an appeal to authority, but I do have a background in neuroscience, and most of those classical arguments have been almost completely disproven in the last 10 years. I'm not saying you should just believe me, but rather I invite you to start looking at some modern research as it pertains to genes and behavior.
I'm not making an argument (and i particularly hate Black Slate theory). I'm saying your argument is poor, on multiple grounds. If there is evidence here which is reproducible and supports that hypothesis, it should be investigated. I just see a more sophisticated attempt at scientific justification of subspecies categorisation which lacks empirical merit. I'm actually not too concerned about the sociological so-called "consequences" than i am about objective truth.
Of course there will be phenotypic and genotypic variations across time and geography, and of course evolution is an ongoing process. Nobody's denying that. I'm saying you have taken a leap of faith way too far, destabilising your argument. There are just too many variables to make such a sweeping conclusion.
Humans are wired differently, yes. Can we correlate populations and behaviour? Somewhat. Can we connect that wiring to different behaviour which is consistently predictable on a biological level? Not even close. Can we group traits which suggest that badly-defined wiring? No. I think you are dangerously over-confident in our ability to ascertain the things you think we have in evolutionary psychology, and naive presume they lead to reliable conclusions.
It's also reductive, in the same way Sam Harris' can be. It's the other way around: of course it's absurd to believe all behaviour doesn't have a correlation with neurology; but it's even more absurd to believe that means neurology is exclusively causative. It doesn't tell us anything. It merely means brain activity is observable. You can make this argument the same way as Harris does: i took MDMA and feel empathy; MDMA affects reuptake of serotonin; therefore the origin of empathy is neurological. If we could even study "race" as a thing accurately, we'd have a better chance - i'm waiting for anyone to actually scientific define it in the first place.
The #1 correlation, by far, is IQ, and IQ is 50-80% genetic. Even mainstreamers like Jordan Peterson say this is true, and that our IQ sciences are some of the most solid science in all of the social sciences. Average IQ ranks by race/ethnicity. So crime correlates to IQ regardless of race, but the collective average IQ of black America is in the mid 80's, which is exactly where crime/violence statistics peak.
(That's the cold reality, and race-realism is not racism.)
And no this isn't 'white supremacy' because these studies explain why east-Asians are 'superior' to whites when it comes to health/wealth/income/violence/etc. - they have a higher collective average IQ than whites.
IQ is immutable, for sure. Entirely fixed. And it decreases with age.
Here's where that argument gets completely derailed: It's impossible to measure collective IQ. You can take a statistical sample, sure. But then you have to look at heritage and the entire nebulous idea of race appears.
Do you seriously believe we can determine the national IQ distribution of Angola?
If a child has a black Zimbabwean mother from China, and a ginger Scottish father from Jamaica, which race box do you tick?
The experts in the field of human intelligence have been working carefully on those issues for decades, and the results they have are a product of doing enormous controls for those factors. Like JBP says, it's "some of the most solid science in all of the social sciences".
We'd all know this stuff but it's ultra suppressed as being 'racist' or 'scientific racism', plus we're all buried under a mountain of leftist/SJW post-modernist propaganda that insists that there's no such thing as race, etc.
The stats shake out perfectly when you rank collective average IQ by race/ethnicity and then rank those races/ethnicities by their crime/violence/health/wealth. No other correlation (especially 'poverty', which is the politically-correct go-to) comes anywhere near as close/tight.
Yeh, but again that doesn't make sense - they can't have been doing lots of work into it if it's also been simultaneously suppressed and taboo; also, social science can't simultaneously be good if it's controlled by SJW nonsense. I love Jordan but he's a little hopeless when it comes to science and political history, like all soft science types.
Where i'm going with this is you seem to be letting the conclusion gather the facts: the hypothesis is dodgy at best on its face. I don't see how you can actually get to racial origin other than phenotypic traits like eye shape and skin colour, which are so varying. I sincerely doubt almost anything that comes out of the humanities.
I actually agree wholeheartedly we need this research, and that IQ is immutable; but i think the better argument is IQ is correlated with success, as it's a smaller population and more observable, making its opposite thesis more plausible. Jordan's thesis about Ashkenazi Jews comes to mind.
But before any of that we have to realise there are serious scientific problems with this, not political:
How do you define and agree on a race (subspecies)? Is it really SJW propaganda, or is the concept nebulous on an intellectual level? Does the concept even make sense when the offspring of two subspecies is indeterminate after 2-3 generations?
How do you agree on what constitutes collective? 2000? 500,000? Mean? Median? How do you compensate for migration and/or diaspora, and control against social conditions?
How can we make best efforts to make sure the results aren't misused and misapplied by bad actors for nefarious purposes? It may not be possible, so how would we limit damage?