Culture Why would blacks be more psychopathic? - It’s More Than IQ

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

It’s More Than IQ​


Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, April 16, 2021



Why do blacks behave the way they do?

This video is available on BitChute and Brighteon.
Why do blacks behave the way they do? Why is it that whenever we read certain headlines, we can be almost certain that the story is about black people? For example, “Four Dead, Including Child, After Stimulus Check Dispute Leads to Gunfire.” Or how about “Toddler Died After Being Left Alone for Six Days as Mother Celebrated 18th Birthday”? Or “Two Schoolgirl Carjackers, Aged 13 and 15, are Pulled from Overturned Vehicle in DC and Arrested for Murder.How about “Postal Worker in Michigan Brutally Beaten by two Women, Video Shows”? And then there is the perennial, “55 Shot, 10 Fatally, in Chicago Weekend Gun Violence.”
Even the most committed liberals must know those stories are going to be about blacks, and anyone whose eyes aren’t shut tight knows that IQ has a lot to do with it. Even the very leftist Wikipedia recognizes that on intelligence tests there is “a difference in average scores between black people and white people of 1.1 standard deviations.” HIGHLIGHT WORDS In practical terms, that means only 16 percent of blacks have an IQ of 100 or higher, and it means that whites are 30 times more likely than blacks to have an IQ over 125.
Back in 1994, the famous book The Bell Curve reported long established findings on the correlation of low IQ with all kinds of behavior we don’t want: crime, poverty, illegitimacy, shiftlessness, obesity, you name it. All these things are a lot more likely in people with low IQs than in smart people. But IQ isn’t the whole story. If you compare blacks and whites with the same IQs, black behavior is still different. For example, look at these tables showing the likelihood of a 29-year-old woman ever having been on welfare.
7-600x555.jpg

The top graph shows 13 percent of white women and 49 percent of black women. A black woman is 3.8 times more likely. But if you look at the second graph, only of women with IQs of 100, it’s 12 percent of white women but still 30 percent for black women. A black woman with a 100 IQ is still 2.5 times more likely that a white woman with the same IQ to have been on welfare.
Look at the likelihood of having an illegitimate child.
8-300x228.jpg

Without controlling for IQ, the figures are 12 percent for white women, 62 percent for black women. Control for IQ, and the figures are still 10 percent and 51 percent. Black women are still five times more likely to have illegitimate babies.
You get similar data for the likelihood that men will be in prison. If you don’t control for IQ, black men are 6.5 times more likely than white men to be in jail. If you limit the sample to men with an IQ of 100, blacks are still 2.5 times more likely to be in jail.

So, what’s going on? The obligatory explanation is that systemic racism and white supremacy are making life miserable for blacks. There is a better explanation, and Professor Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster has done the most important work on the question. He has written a book showing that blacks, across the board, are more likely than whites to be psychopaths. There is a good summary of his findings in an article at AmRen.com called “Race and Psychopathic Personality.”
The American Psychiatric Association defines psychopathic personality as including such things as breaking rules, failure to plan ahead, aggressiveness and frequent fighting, risk taking, failure to honor financial obligations, being a bad parent, and inability to be sexually faithful. Blacks are more psychopathic than whites on all counts and, by the way, whites are more psychopathic than Asians.

This is shown in personality tests. The MMPI or Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory has been used since the 1930. Blacks and American Indians get the highest scores on psychopathy, followed by Hispanics, then whites, then Asians.
There are similar results on tests of what are called the big five personality traits: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Unusually low scores on agreeableness and conscientiousness are associated with psychopathic personality. This paper from 2014 finds that blacks are significantly lower than whites on those two important traits.
As noted earlier, psychopaths have trouble planning ahead, and you can test whether people live in the present or think about the future. In the 1970s, Walter Mischel came up with the marshmallow test, in which he gave children a choice between one marshmallow now or two marshmallows at some point in the future. This and similar studies with older children find that people who can delay rewards – that is, who think in terms of the future – get better grades, are less likely to smoke and take drugs, and are more successful in life. These results have been widely reported. Much less widely reported are the racial differences, with the usual pattern: whites are more willing than blacks to wait for a greater reward, and Asians are more willing than whites.

You get the same race differences when you control for IQ, because the ability to delay gratification is correlated with intelligence but is not the same thing as intelligence. That is probably why when whites and blacks get the same SAT scores – that is, have the same basic intelligence – whites get better grades in college. Whites are less likely to goof off, skip class, or wait until the last minute to study for exams.

Risk-taking is part of psychopathic personality. This paper finds that blacks are more likely than whites to take risks, and men are more likely than women. This 2015 article on “Race Differences in Patterns of Risky Behavior in Adolescents” is even more straightforward. It found some teenagers who are very high in different kinds of “diverse” risk taking: drugs, running away, fighting, delinquency. As you can see on this page (p. 15), “We identified a similar group (i.e., high risk, diverse behavior) among the Black subgroup only.” On the same page, the authors write: “Finally, a class of adolescents specializing in risky sexual behavior was unique among the Black adolescents. These results underscore the importance of accounting for race when examining patterns of adolescent behavior. It is clear from our results that applying a “one shoe fits all” approach to adolescent risk behavior limits our understanding of how these behaviors coalesce.” Needless to say, you never read about this study in the New York Times.

One of the best predictors of adult psychopathic personality is wild behavior as a child, and there are consistent race differences. There is probably not one school district in the country where students of different races are punished or disciplined at the same rate. Here is a typical headline: “School Suspension Data Shows Glaring Disparities in Discipline by Race.” This reports that nationally, black students are suspended at five times the white rate. Supposedly racist white teachers always get the blame for this, but does anyone really believe that in this hypersensitive time, white teachers are systematically punishing black students unfairly? This article claims that if black students have black teachers, they are less likely to be punished, but the difference was only a few percentage points. Black teachers are still much more likely to punish black students than white students. The obvious reason is that black children behave badly. By the way, differences of this kind have been found in Britain, Canada, and in Europe.

One of the most extreme forms of psychopathic behavior is murder, and we can learn a lot from this report from the Justice Department. Table 1 shows how much more likely blacks are than whites to commit murder.
23-600x545.jpg

The right-most figures in the last three lines tell the story. These are murder rates by race per 100,000 people. The white rate of 4.5 is one seventh the black rate of 34.4. The real difference is even greater because Hispanics — who have higher murder rates than whites — are lumped in with whites. Blacks probably commit murder at eight, nine, maybe even 10 times the white rate.

It’s all very well to blame this on white supremacy, but how, exactly, do white people force or trick black people into killing each other? Or into having illegitimate children?

Psychopathic behavior explains not just gruesome crimes in the United States, but also in Africa. Mass slaughter by machete, the barbaric torture/murder of white farmers in South Africa, killing albinos to use their body parts in black magic, burning witches – all these things show the heartless disregard for others that is typical of psychopaths.

Why would blacks be more psychopathic? In his excellent book, Making Sense of Race, Edward Dutton argues that it’s because of evolution. Whites and Asians evolved in harsh, northern climates, in which people had to make plans to make it through the winter, they had to cooperate to hunt and share food, and couples had to stay together for children to survive. Africa was more forgiving. Cooperation, planning ahead, and care for children were less important. Psychopaths could survive, reproduce, and pass along their genes.

I think this is as good an explanation as any. The point is, however they got that way, people of different races are, on average, different. Expecting everyone to be the same is crazy. Blaming whites when blacks fail is not just crazy, it’s vicious. Until we understand this, we can’t even begin to talk about America’s problems, much less solve them.

 
It's poverty. American Indians are horrifically poor, have very little chance for economic opportunities and are isolated from most of the rest of the population. It's why I call this whole thing fucking retarded. Blacks aren't more likely to be psychopathic because of being black, they're more likely to be psychopathic by being in the poorest and roughest areas. I bet you that Italians and Irish in the 1800's in the US would have scored similarly on the psychopathic ratings.
Poverty fucks you up. I believe a part of it is that it impacts your diet but also your mental state. Just having the basic essentials won’t keep you sane. Having free medical care, food, and shelter but at the cost of freedom will crush you mentally and spiritually. It’s why reservations are depressing and why socialism will ultimately fail even if it can provide the basic essentials.
You ever see a twitter thread about Black people asking how much their mom's hit them? Tons of response about their mom's laying the smack down and all I'm thinking is I wonder if all these young black women had kids they could not handle while taking it out on them for the dad not being there.

I mean look at this graph:

View attachment 2125866

I honestly don't know how a person can't claim there is some correlations between the two and I don't know how to change the culture through to help improve this. The Dems are certainly not going to do anything since its get them a locked in voting base.
I don’t get why it can’t be multiple factors. Why do people insist it has to be just genetic or just social? IMO the world is too complex and has too many factors for a grossly simplified take. IMO genes, culture, single moms, chemicals, diet, etc., are all contributing factors. IMO race is a gross oversimplification as well. An Eastern European is genetically distinct from a Frenchman who is also genetically different from a Swede. Likewise a Northern African is genetically different from a Zulu. Their environments are different and therefore human evolution would have taken different turns. The way Amerimutts focus on race simply by a phenotype, specifically skin color, is a gross oversimplification.

1633284178911.jpeg


D9F6D39E-C128-481C-AD56-88264DB0D4E0.png

How is Africa "more forgiving?" All the link takes you to is a picture of elephants at sunset. 🙄

Aside from the Nile (and that's more Arab than African) there's no navigable rivers. Horses and oxen cannot survive to plow fields due to the heat and I believe the diseases native to the region. (I think South Africa's climate is actually temperate enough that this may not apply.) Droughts hit Africa harder than most of the globe, etc. Prior to modern medicine Europeans found equatorial African virtually unlivable.

Not saying the article is necessarily wrong, merely that the point is not proven.

What's odd is you can sometimes read the same rhetoric from black supremacist types, except they couch their language in terms of it being some sort of a Garden of Eden from which they were expelled.

One of those things that's always struck me as an odd take, whoever makes the claim.
IMO if anything else the opposite is true especially in sub Sahara. It’s hard to build up civilization if nature overtakes everything. Also a lot of the animals there aren’t predisposed to domestication. Zebras can’t be domesticated like horses. Even their elephants aren’t as pliable as Asian elephants.
 
I hate all the excuses made for black people. They are just deficient. Deal with it.
 
the majority of white racists aren’t saying “shucks, we just think this isn’t a tenable situation and we just want what’s best for everyone!”, they’re instead making calls for violence and I think any rational person should be able to understand why that makes people uncomfortable.
Your perspective is incredibly narrow. The majority of "white racists" say nothing while they go about their daily lives; they're your neighbours, your colleagues and, more than likely, your friends. They have conversations about how they feel on the internet, or in hushed tones behind closed doors with like-minded people. The vast majority of these people just want to live in a goddamn neighbourhood where they don't have to lock their doors at night or worry about getting mugged on the street, and they have enough of the basic pattern recognition that has kept our species going to figure out why some places are safer, nicer and cleaner than others. For some reason, you think the average race realist is some Aryan Brotherhood sperg; in reality, it's more likely to be an average dude who's sick of seeing his cities burned, his women raped, and his friends shot for the $28 in their wallet when it's the same group of people committing these crimes, over and over and over. By and large, white people do not want to live like this and are willing to put the work in to ensure their communities are not like this...and that's why the poorest whites have lower violent crime rates than the wealthiest blacks.

If white people had wanted to genocide other races, they had thousands of years to do so, yet they didn't. I can't even name a single well-known white race realist that's "calling for violence", and neither can you (although I can find you plenty of black race realists who do, apparently with few consequences for their own careers--hell, half of them are teaching your children as college diversity hires). Even George Lincoln Rockwell just wanted to be left the fuck alone, which is why he was friends with Malcom X--they both recognized that the multiracial experiment was failing.
We know slippery slopes are real, so if society came out and said “yeah, ok, the races are different at a fundamental level” what’s going to stop the supremacists who want violence?
What stops them from saying that now? What stops anyone from solving their problems with violence? I think it's telling that you're more concerned with the hypothetical interracial violence that might occur if we acknowledge race is real than the current, real world interracial violence that occurs from forcing us to all live together. Even the most ardent liberals engage in white flight when whites become a minority in an area, because they know in their bones that they aren't safe either.
You’re going to have that much less of an argument against it and less of a way to stop it if you go down that path.
So we ought to ignore the truth because it is socially inconvenient? Is that how you think we should live our lives? It's this exact cowardice that is now forcing the population to concede that men can actually be women, even though we know that isn't true either.

Pathetic.
 
It's also because IQ tests are kind of wonky to begin with. The way questions are phrased can wildly effect test scores, and it focuses heavily on mathematics as evidence of intelligence.
point of personal contention but IQ has been replaced by G-factor and are now tested by chronometry: gauging reaction times (how fast can the subject press the button when the yellow light turns on) and pattern recognition speeds.

the idea is that low intelligence take longer to process things compared to high intelligence. Arthur Jensen spent the last portion of his career doing g-factor shit. Black kids have tons of lead in their blood and it's no surprise their developments are stunted.
 
How is Africa "more forgiving?" All the link takes you to is a picture of elephants at sunset.

It's forgiving in the sense it's difficult to make a mistake that has consequences beyond a single family group.

The climate doesn't change much near the equator whereas people who Migrated north had to adapt to a lifestyle where they could be wiped out entirely if they couldn't work together.

Australia's the same way only more extreme. Aboriginal's are worse than any African black because they're entire existence prior to Europeans arriving was hunting small mammals and reptiles. Leaving no need for any type of cooperation or specialization.
 
IMO if anything else the opposite is true especially in sub Sahara. It’s hard to build up civilization if nature overtakes everything. Also a lot of the animals there aren’t predisposed to domestication. Zebras can’t be domesticated like horses. Even their elephants aren’t as pliable as Asian elephants.
This "African animals are harder to domesticate" is a completely bullshit argument. No wild animal is predisposed to domestication. Cows come from Aurochs which were some of the most violent animals in Europe. The original wild horses looked nothing like modern horses and they needed thousands of years of artificial selection to get to where we are. The reason Eurasians were able to domesticate animals was because they kept at it for millennia, not because they just lucked out with sissy animals.

When it comes to geography, it's not necessarily that Africa is kinder or harsher, it's that it doesn't select for long term thinking as much as other continents where the difference between summer and winter is more pronounced. You can see the same impact on intelligence for other animals, like bees.

>But, as it turns out, European honeybees perform significantly better in a learning assay that Africanized honeybees do.

>I would guess that the selective pressure for better learning in European bees is due to the payoff for remembering prime nectar and honey locations over the several months of winter. Africanized bees don’t have that kind of long pause in foraging, have less need to remember such patterns for long periods.


 
Your perspective is incredibly narrow. The majority of "white racists" say nothing while they go about their daily lives; they're your neighbours, your colleagues and, more than likely, your friends. They have conversations about how they feel on the internet, or in hushed tones behind closed doors with like-minded people. The vast majority of these people just want to live in a goddamn neighbourhood where they don't have to lock their doors at night or worry about getting mugged on the street, and they have enough of the basic pattern recognition that has kept our species going to figure out why some places are safer, nicer and cleaner than others. For some reason, you think the average race realist is some Aryan Brotherhood sperg; in reality, it's more likely to be an average dude who's sick of seeing his cities burned, his women raped, and his friends shot for the $28 in their wallet when it's the same group of people committing these crimes, over and over and over. By and large, white people do not want to live like this and are willing to put the work in to ensure their communities are not like this...and that's why the poorest whites have lower violent crime rates than the wealthiest blacks.

If white people had wanted to genocide other races, they had thousands of years to do so, yet they didn't. I can't even name a single well-known white race realist that's "calling for violence", and neither can you (although I can find you plenty of black race realists who do, apparently with few consequences for their own careers--hell, half of them are teaching your children as college diversity hires). Even George Lincoln Rockwell just wanted to be left the fuck alone, which is why he was friends with Malcom X--they both recognized that the multiracial experiment was failing.
This is hilariously similar to Woke gaslighting, "can you cite any specific examples?", you know the type of person I'm talking about, the hardcore racists you see all over places like /pol/ and Stormfront, he's dead now but William Luther Pierce is a well known figure that wanted genocide if you want someone specific person and a lot of white supremacists are of a similar mindset.

What stops them from saying that now? What stops anyone from solving their problems with violence? I think it's telling that you're more concerned with the hypothetical interracial violence that might occur if we acknowledge race is real than the current, real world interracial violence that occurs from forcing us to all live together. Even the most ardent liberals engage in white flight when whites become a minority in an area, because they know in their bones that they aren't safe either.
The violence we have now is a problem, but the violence could be so much worse if something like a race war happened.

So we ought to ignore the truth because it is socially inconvenient? Is that how you think we should live our lives? It's this exact cowardice that is now forcing the population to concede that men can actually be women, even though we know that isn't true either.

Pathetic.
First of all, who says it's the truth? I was playing Devil's advocate.

But no human civilization has ever been predicated on 100% cold, hard truth, we're emotional creatures, not coldly logical Mr Spock types, take the concept of a king, what actually makes the king different from the commoner? Nothing in an objectively true sense, but that's how some societies structured because that's what worked best for them at the time.

Or take a look at Religion, do you think it's good for someone to have faith? I do, but it's also true that Religion is not something 100% provably true in the way science is, so people have moved away from it, which is one of the places where our society has gone wrong.

This is where Woke has a grain of truth to it and why it's so dangerous, people have realized "oh wait, none of this shit is based on 100% cold, hard truth" and have taken that to an extreme where they want to make everything subjective and based on personal feelings.

But when it comes to civilization it's less about truth versus untruth, it's about what actually works and what doesn't, this is where Woke goes wrong.

The point is, what works for modern civilization is the ideal of "judge a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character" and it's only ceased to work because we've started to move away from that ideal, modern civilization decided to, like putting a lot of pomp and circumstance around the kings and emperors of old, create a lot of good, positive feeling arounds concepts like compassion and kindness, the whole Ghandi, Martin Luther King jr, Mr Rogers thing, because in our world of nuclear weapons maybe that's what's needed for civilization to continue to work?

But the Woke have hypocritically moved away from all that, they might talk a big talk about compassion but they're the most hate fueled people imaginable and responding t their hate with more hate is not what's going to work and lead to anything good and placing great emphasis on people's differences, with human nature that leads to hate.

I mean that's kind of what happened with Woke, minorities stopped and said "gosh, you know what, white people are actually pretty different than us" and it very quickly lead to hate, maybe realizing someone is different than you shouldn't lead to hate, but that's how human nature works and while it sucks, avoiding that is what works for this modern civilization.

Sometimes it really does help to stop and take a step back from the interwebs and go outside, you'll find an America where diverse groups of people are living and working together just fine, sure, it doesn't always work and you'll be able to find plenty examples of that because journalism almost never covers "everything was fine and nothing bad happened" in a "man bites dog" way, but I don't think things are actually too bad yet to the point where something crazy like a race war is necessary.
 
Nogs would occupy a large portion of lolcow threads if their self destructive actions didn't result in death, with the retarded accidents/failed crimes they suffer/commit.
Low impulse control and inability to plan ahead is a core trait of the more infamous cows.
 
This "African animals are harder to domesticate" is a completely bullshit argument.
No wild animal is predisposed to domestication.
These two statements are not relevant to each other. No animal is "predisposed" to being domesticated sure, but some are easier to domesticate for a myriad of factors. Animals with social structures are easier to domesticate, smaller and less aggressive animals are easier to domesticate, smarter animals, etc. You pointing out cows and horses were not easy to domesticate means nothing, because it's still easier to tame a wolf than a hyena.
When it comes to geography, it's not necessarily that Africa is kinder or harsher, it's that it doesn't select for long term thinking as much as other continents where the difference between summer and winter is more pronounced.
Stop trying to reduce this to a single point, there is no reason both can't contribute. Also I'm loling at the notion Africa isn't harsher. Practically everything is harsher in Africa. The ticks, the mosquitoes, the soil, the predators, hell even the fucking herbivores. For anything that there is a comparable comparison in other countries Africa has a more brutal counterpart.
You can see the same impact on intelligence for other animals, like bees.
Bees would be a poor comparison with humans, we face very different selective pressures. Bees don't give a shit about lions, hippos, crocodiles, malaria, etc.

@Dom Cruise
This is hilariously similar to Woke gaslighting, "can you cite any specific examples?", you know the type of person I'm talking about, the hardcore racists you see all over places like /pol/
>unironically siting /pol/ as an example of real racists

Also I have to point out that "you know the type I'm talking about" is actually a woke gaslighting tactic.
 
For some reason, you think the average race realist is some Aryan Brotherhood sperg; in reality, it's more likely to be an average dude who's sick of seeing his cities burned, his women raped, and his friends shot for the $28 in their wallet when it's the same group of people committing these crimes, over and over and over.
Nationally, African-Americans are represented in 52% of violent crime, but that doesn't speak to the geographic distribution of that crime, the 48% of crime committed anywhere else, or the proportion of crimedoers relative to the demographic (they're always a stark minority, regardless of race).
By and large, white people do not want to live like this and are willing to put the work in to ensure their communities are not like this...and that's why the poorest whites have lower violent crime rates than the wealthiest blacks.
Given what's been shared in this forum that I've seen thus far, I have yet to find conclusive evidence of this-- and let me be clear: when this is said, one white community is being compared to one black community. This comparison is accepted as meaning something by people I can only imagine are socially stunted and have no idea that you can't just compare one point out of thousands with another point in a context defined by two factors and come to a broad conclusion such as what I quoted.
So we ought to ignore the truth because it is socially inconvenient? Is that how you think we should live our lives?
Factuality and rationality notwithstanding: what exactly is your game plan, given this information?
 
You ever see a twitter thread about Black people asking how much their mom's hit them? Tons of response about their mom's laying the smack down and all I'm thinking is I wonder if all these young black women had kids they could not handle while taking it out on them for the dad not being there.

I mean look at this graph:

View attachment 2125866

I honestly don't know how a person can't claim there is some correlations between the two and I don't know how to change the culture through to help improve this. The Dems are certainly not going to do anything since its get them a locked in voting base.
I know I'm late to the party here, but I just thought I could put my two cents in here since this thread has been revived for some reason.

This trend continues to exist in a multitude of topics: Asians on top, followed by Whites, then Hispanics, then Blacks.

For example, black people watch an average of 44 hours of television per week, more than any other group. That's more than your average work schedule. And then compare that to less than 15 hours per week for Asians. No correlation?

Correlation does not imply causation. The problem is that there is a boatload of correlation to the point where some causation might be warranted.
Why the fuck would Injuns get the second highest score on psychopathy when they're most closely related to East Asians like the Yakutians/Siberians?

Also weird showing for Asia in general, I'd have rated them higher on psychopathy than white people at least, given what a lot of their countries look and act like. Then again, maybe they know something we don't.
Because not all Asians even are the same. Or at least their circumstances. At least, that's my impression.For example, two percent of immigrants from Japan in the United States go on welfare, and then compare that to 46 percent of immigrants from Laos.

It's poverty. American Indians are horrifically poor, have very little chance for economic opportunities and are isolated from most of the rest of the population. It's why I call this whole thing fucking retarded. Blacks aren't more likely to be psychopathic because of being black, they're more likely to be psychopathic by being in the poorest and roughest areas. I bet you that Italians and Irish in the 1800's in the US would have scored similarly on the psychopathic ratings.
There is truth to this. A lot of black culture dates back to the impoverished in the UK in the 1700s, but attempts to solve the problem seem to reenforce that it's more than just poverty doing this.

Like in the American Indians example. Despite having sovereinty in various areas in the US and having a relatively thriving gambling business, only a small fraction of Native Americans make enough money to help their tribes.

One of the ways to improve the family is to incentivize prison reform.
As much as this had been paraded, this does not fix the out-of-wedlock problem. You're talking about an era in time that had large amounts of crime, not just marijuana possession. You're also talking about an era where the focus of the War on Drugs was decreasing drug use in adolescents (which they ended up doing), not locking up black people. Even in 1961, MLK was frustrated that despite being 10% of the population in St. Louis, blacks committed 58% of all the crimes there.

But that's not the real issue here. 40% of blacks were already born out of wedlock before a War on Drugs even came to fruition. The Clinton administration put people in drugs for marijuana possession longer and gave harsher punshments than even Reagan did. He also virtually eradicated welfare. That was the only time between the 1960s and now where out-of-wedlock birthrates went down.
 
Nationally, African-Americans are represented in 52% of violent crime, but that doesn't speak to the geographic distribution of that crime, the 48% of crime committed anywhere else, or the proportion of crimedoers relative to the demographic (they're always a stark minority, regardless of race).
Is one third a "stark minority" now?
Instead of having to wade through more articles to disprove your faggy pilpul, I'll leave observers of this argument with this: when's the last time you heard about 50 white people rushing into a store at once to steal everything that isn't nailed down? When's the last time you saw white people featured in a video of a knock-down, drag-out fight in a fast food establishment? Hell, when's the last time you heard about a white man raping a black woman?

Perhaps you've seen one or two examples of these at one time or another, but you've seen dozens of these incidents featuring blacks. This isn't about wealth or class; this is about race, culture and the intersection between the two, and deep down, you know that in your bones. Everyone knows that, and no homosexual vacillating about "muh outliers" and "muh selection bias" is going to change the fact that a black man is fifteen times more likely to commit a murder than a white man, at virtually every income level.

I'm sure Siegfried thought his tiger was "one of the good ones" too, right up until the point it mauled the shit out of him. After all, a tiger is a tiger, and no amount of Pavlovian conditioning will change that.
 
Is one third a "stark minority" now?
Want to bring out stats that don't conflate all non-black groups vis-a-vis black Americans?

when's the last time you heard about 50 white people rushing into a store at once to steal everything that isn't nailed down?
Hurricane Katrina?

When's the last time you saw white people featured in a video of a knock-down, drag-out fight in a fast food establishment?
I don't search for those things. I don't think most people do, but I could probably find examples on WSHH.

Hell, when's the last time you heard about a white man raping a black woman?
The statistics aren't nonzero. You're doing the same exact thing Taylor did at the start of this article, which was appeal to personal knowledge without addressing said knowledge's inevitable incompleteness, which is why we compile statistics. For someone who dismissed every point I made as "faggy pilpul", your argumentation is rather lacking.

This isn't about wealth or class;
Again, you really have no business saying anyone is making a poor argument when you're incapable of recognizing the actual arguments that others are making. When I say that "the poorest white neighborhood is less crime-ridden than the richest black neighborhood" is a bullshit argument because you can't compare two points out of a collection of thousands of points in order to make such a broad conclusion, the point isn't to argue that poverty is an important factor (and I've argued otherwise earlier in the thread)-- the objective is to point out that your argument is bullshit.

this is about race, culture and the intersection between the two
You have to be socially stunted to assert that social phenomena boil down to a couple of factors at most while also failing to produce a theory.

Everyone knows that, and no homosexual vacillating about "muh outliers" and "muh selection bias"
Literally nobody, on either side, has done that here.

But that's not the real issue here. 40% of blacks were already born out of wedlock before a War on Drugs even came to fruition.
I'm pretty sure until ~1968, all non-whites were lumped together statistically. The census was rather inconsistent until it settled on being specific about race (and Hispanic heritage) from 1980 onwards.

1633399292500.png
 
Last edited:
Animals with social structures are easier to domesticate, smaller and less aggressive animals are easier to domesticate, smarter animals, etc.
Wow! You mean kinda like African wild dogs, some of the smallest, most intelligent and most social canine species out there? You're saying they would've been easier to domesticate than gray wolves were?
Stop trying to reduce this to a single point, there is no reason both can't contribute. Also I'm loling at the notion Africa isn't harsher. Practically everything is harsher in Africa. The ticks, the mosquitoes, the soil, the predators, hell even the fucking herbivores. For anything that there is a comparable comparison in other countries Africa has a more brutal counterpart.
I wasn't reducing it to a single point, I just pointed out that the harshness of an environment is a vague notion. Harshness itself doesn't select for intelligence either, otherwise you'd see extremophile organisms be the most intelligent.

Also, I didn't make the argument that Africa isn't harsher, but using the fauna as proof is ridiculous. Eurasians ended up taming their environment and killed off most of the big predators. The fact that Africans didn't isn't proof they were just so much tougher. Hyenas and lions used to be native to Europe as well, Aurochs were even more violent than hippos and were all over the place and cave bears were some of the biggest predators on the planet.
Bees would be a poor comparison with humans, we face very different selective pressures. Bees don't give a shit about lions, hippos, crocodiles, malaria, etc.
I was comparing, not equivalating. Obviously it isn't a 1:1 correlation, but the fact that you need to prepare for winter in cold environments is a trait shared among all organisms. Clearly that is a pretty strong selector for long term memory and planning.
 
Haven't read this yet (but will) but wanted to point out one major factor that isn't mentioned there from a quick search - blacks have a much higher prevalence of the two repeat MAOA gene. This gene is kind of amazing. A lot of complex behaviours are not much affected by a single allele - instead, they are the result of thousands of genes which each have tiny effects. But this particular variant of MAOA has, to all research so far, massive effects on the level of criminality of those who have it. And it's much more prevalent in blacks, from research done so far, with around 5% of blacks having it compared to 0.1% of whites and 0.01% of Asians. A study looking at the gene and psychopathic personality traits here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886912004047
I've been impressed with the massive price drop in 3D printers and boy, howdy... I cannot wait to CRISPR the crime right out of these nigger-genes.
 
Back
Top Bottom