Who is to blame for the recent hate crimes?

[Backroads]

53 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Try Googling John Paul Wright on crime studies. You will find plenty of peer reviewed reading material for the next year or so. 

There is a plethora of other authoritative studies, including 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/305240780/The-Color-of-Crime

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=922

If you need more, I can provide them.

Thanks, Wade Englund

 

Those are on crime stats. And no, they're not peer-reviewed.  Where is the geneticists speaking about this? That video failed to name the gene responsible. 

Does it make you upset to see black people in the Church?

Edited January 9, 2017 by Backroads

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Eowyn said:

Not in so many words.

Not in any words. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Thanks, Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Backroads said:

 

Those are on crime stats. And no, they're not peer-reviewed.  Where is the geneticists speaking about this? That video failed to name the gene responsible. 

Does it make you upset to see black people in the Church?

Do you not understand the relationship between crime and violence? If you don't, then check out the stats for and studies on violent crimes.

Yes, there are peer-reviewed articles by John Paul Wright. . For a list of over 50, along with his impressive credential, see here: http://cech.uc.edu/content/dam/cech/programs/criminaljustice/Docs/Vitaes/wrightww.pdf

Do you question the raw data from the DOJ or the BJS?

As indicated in Wikipedia, " Behavioural genetics is highly interdisciplinary, using methods and techniques from biology, neuroscience, genetics, epigenetics, ethology, psychology, and statistics. Psychiatric genetics, epigenetic research on behaviour, and genetic research in neuroscience are related subfields within behavioural genetics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics. So, geneticist would only be one of a number of disciplines that could speak authoritatively on the general topic of behavioral genetics. Criminologists can also speak authoritatively on the subcategory of criminal behavior and genetics. 

Regarding identifying a specific gene or set of genes, it isn't important, However, I doubt that even you would question the higher rates of violence among those with XY chromosomes vs those with XX. Nevertheless, violent crimes have been linked to at least two genes: MAOA and CDH13:  https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/29/genes-linked-to-violent-crime-but-can-they-explain-criminal-behavior/ and http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212

Of course it doesn't upset me to see black people in Church,? Why would it? In fact, the question confuses me since we are all of God's children. In other words, we ought not think in terms of black and white,but as brothers and sisters in the gospel.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@wenglund nothing you have shown here backs up that video.  I checked ProQuest, for some peer-reviewed articles to support your claims, but I didn't find anything.  I'm calling this voodoo science unless you can back it up better than you have. 

[anatess2]

On 1/6/2017 at 2:52 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

  Pile enough of these Catch 22s on top of each other, and viola!--you get a Trump in the White House.

You got Trump in the White House because he was the only one who identified the real issues instead of just finding issues to blame the opposition on.  And on top of that, he was the only one who offered a vision of the way forward.  You got the political left who preaches that the #1 issue is climate change and gay rights and you got the political right who preaches that the #1 issue is abortion and gay marriage.  Meanwhile, the people keep putting politicians in power to deal with the economy and they get up there and accomplish nothing towards that end.  That's how you got Trump in the White House.  Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania... Hello...

Edited January 9, 2017 by anatess2

[wenglund]

On 1/9/2017 at 5:55 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

@wenglund nothing you have shown here backs up that video.  I checked ProQuest, for some peer-reviewed articles to support your claims, but I didn't find anything.  I'm calling this voodoo science unless you can back it up better than you have. 

So, Dr. Wright's more than 50 relevant (criminalogy, and many on genetics) peer-reviewed articles aren't sufficient in your eyes to give him anything more than voodoo science creds? 

Whether you accept the studies that causally or correlationly link crimes and violence to genetics and race, do you dispute the federal government data showing a significant disproportionately higher rate of crime among certain races, and this even controlling for other variables like poverty and social statis?

If so, then I am not sure you are all that open to reason. In which case, I won't bother.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

For those who balk at the suggestion of genetic/race as a predictor of violence/crime, would you likewise balk at the video's suggestion that the single greatest predictor of social male-adaption--i.e. crime, poverty, drop-out, drug use, etc., is single parents?

Are you open to the prospect that the creation of an unsustainable welfare state by the Left, has led to the increase in single mothers (particularly in the black community), which in turn has led to a disproportionate incidence of crime (particularly violent crimes) among the races?

In other words, is it possible to your mind that Leftist policies are responsible for the disproportionate incidence of crime among the races, and even for the recent hate crimes?

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

So, Dr. Wright's more than 50 relevant (criminalogy, and many on genetics) peer-reviewed articles aren't sufficient in your eyes to give him anything more than voodoo science creds? 

I searched for his name on Proquest and EBSCO, no peer reviewed articles came up. Just a few classes he has taught. 

I also searched the databases for the genes you mentioned. I got ONE return. First time that has happened. And it didnt verify your claim.

So I dont know what you are calling peer reviewed, but its not in the data bases. 

Regarding your other question, correlation is not causation.

Edited January 10, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

For those who balk at the suggestion of genetic/race as a predictor of violence/crime, would you likewise balk at the video's suggestion that the single greatest predictor of social male-adaption--i.e. crime, poverty, drop-out, drug use, etc., is single parents?

Are you open to the prospect that the creation of an unsustainable welfare state by the Left, has led to the increase in single mothers (particularly in the black community), which in turn has led to a disproportionate incidence of crime (particularly violent crimes) among the races?

In other words, is it possible to your mind that Leftist policies are responsible for the disproportionate incidence of crime among the races, and even for the recent hate crimes?

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

No, as I said, correlation is not causation.

[Guest]

On 1/6/2017 at 0:50 PM, zil said:

Reaction before reading anything: Every person who has reached an age of maturity and who still has control of their own mind (e.g. not damaged or diseased) is responsible for their own actions.  Thus, the criminal is responsible for the crimes he commits.  The end.

I'll go read now.

Dang, I've been missing this thread and I was going to respond with this.  But you beat me to it in the VERY FIRST RESPONSE!!!  DOH!!!

What can I say?  I've been busy.

[wenglund]

18 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I searched for his name on Proquest and EBSCO, no peer reviewed articles came up. Just a few classes he has taught. 

I also searched the databases for the genes you mentioned. I got ONE return. First time that has happened. And it didnt verify your claim.

So I dont know what you are calling peer reviewed, but its not in the data bases. 

I have no idea if those databases are exhaustive or not, but Dr. Wright lists his 50+ peer reviewed articles on the linked page I supplied above.

Regarding your other question, correlation is not causation.

That doesn't answer my question. I wasn't asking whether correlation is causation,  Rather, I was asking whether you would balk at raw government data showing a sizable disparity in crime rates between the races. In other words, I am trying to see if you understand the difference between raw data and studies, and realize that the former need not be peer reviewed unlike possibly with the latter. In short, I am testing to see if you and others recognize the important distinction between acknowledging the significant disparity in crime rates between the races, and providing explanation as to why those disparities exist.

Thanks, Wade Englund

 

[wenglund]

19 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

No, as I said, correlation is not causation.

Again, you didn't answer my questions. I wasn't asking whether correlation is causation. Rather, I was asking about PREDICTORS of behavior. Do you not understand the difference?

Furthermore, aren't you preemptively assuming correlation rather than causation prior to even considering evidence and reasoning? Aren't you being overly dismissive in excluding anything that isn't peer reviewed or that doesn't shows up on your preferred peer reviewed lists?

If so, then I am not sure there is much chance of productive interaction with you on this topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

51 minutes ago, wenglund said:

If so, then I am not sure there is much chance of productive interaction with you on this topic.

No problem, I feel the same way about discussing this with you. 

This guy claims 50 peer reviewed articles, but I didn't see them in the databases for scholarly articles. Can you show me where these articles are so that I can actually read them? And verify that they are in a journal. 

When I said correlation is not causation, I meant just because you see a correlation does not mean that the cause is what you assume it to be. There could be no connection whatsoever. Just because a rooster crows before the sun comes up does not mean that the rooster cause the sun to come up. 

I am Left-leaning politically and I reject your ideas. There are other possible explanations for the crime data you cite.  If you are interested, my theories come from The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander and The Warmth of Other Suns by Isabel Wilkerson.

I out right reject the idea that there is a gene that make people more violent. As I said, I couldn't find any studies to verify that claim. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

This guy claims 50 peer reviewed articles, but I didn't see them in the databases for scholarly articles. Can you show me where these articles are so that I can actually read them? And verify that they are in a journal. 

The only thing I've been able to find online is a transcript of Dr. Wright on NPR with some other sociologist and psychologists, none of whom seemed eager to be in his camp and most of whom were skeptical of his methods. 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 

I am Left-leaning politically and I reject your ideas.

I'm not left leaning (I only seem it because I'm not in the breakdown lane of right wing politics) and I totally agree.

[zil]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm not left leaning...

But that's just because a youthful adventure resulted in the right leg being shorter than the left - so he leans a bit to the right.  It's hardly noticeable really.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, zil said:

But that's just because a youthful adventure resulted in the right leg being shorter than the left - so he leans a bit to the right.  It's hardly noticeable really.

Ha! It's funny because I recently heard almost the exact same thing from my chiropractor (seriously). 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Godless

[wenglund]

Just curious. For those of you outright rejecting the notion of genetics as a contributing factor to violence, do you agree that men are more violent than women? And if so, how do you explain the difference non-genetically or non-biologically? (peer reviewed studies required--just kidding)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 12, 2017 by wenglund
Spelling

[wenglund]

21 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

No problem, I feel the same way about discussing this with you. 

I am not sure why since I am perfectly willing to thoughtfully consider your point of view. I am willing to engage whatever reasoning you may bring to bear. Unlike you, I won't reject your position outright or dismiss it if it doesn't happen to show up on a peer review list.

Quote

This guy claims 50 peer reviewed articles, but I didn't see them in the databases for scholarly articles. Can you show me where these articles are so that I can actually read them? And verify that they are in a journal. 

The linked list included the names of the Journals in which the peer reviewed studies or published.

Quote

When I said correlation is not causation, I meant just because you see a correlation does not mean that the cause is what you assume it to be. There could be no connection whatsoever. Just because a rooster crows before the sun comes up does not mean that the rooster cause the sun to come up. 

Again, I fully understand what you mean by correlation is not causation. I happen to agree with you. What I was questioning is why you are assuming the race component is correlation rather than, to some degree, causation? Or, better yet, why you mention correlation/causation when I was speaking about predictability?

Quote

I am Left-leaning politically and I reject your ideas. There are other possible explanations for the crime data you cite.  If you are interested, my theories come from The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander and The Warmth of Other Suns by Isabel Wilkerson.

It is not surprising that you are Left-leaning politically. Our public school systems, particularly colleges, have long been Leftist indoctrination centers. But, that is a subject for another time.

Anyway, are those peer-reviewed publications? (Just kidding) Can you briefly summarize the argument they make in relation to race and violent crime? Do they acknowledge that certain races commit more crimes?

Quote

I out right reject the idea that there is a gene that make people more violent. As I said, I couldn't find any studies to verify that claim. 

Do you agree that men are more violent than women? If so, then how do you explain this non-genetically or non-biologically?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[unixknight]

38 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Just curious. For those of you outright rejecting the notion of genetics as a contributing factor to violence, do you agree that men are more violent than women? And if so, how do you explain the difference non-genetically or non-biologically? (peer reviewed studies required--just kidding)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that there may be genetic predictors to violent behavior, just as there are genetic predictors for alcoholism and a few other traits. 

That said, it falls far short of being a cause, and certainly nothing that is useful in an effort to "assign blame" beyond the obvious:  A person who commits a crime is the one to blame.  Period. 

To the original topic:  To me it's pointless to assign blame for "hate crimes" because the only pattern I can discern is that bad people do bad things.  In other news, water is still wet.  I'm not going to blame Trump for some white guy beating up a black guy any more than I'll blame Clinton for some black guy beating up a white guy.  I'm also not very interested in blaming political movements beyond calling out their hypocrisy when it occurs.

As was said back in the beginning:  Blame the person performing the action.  Their motives are an academic matter.

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that there may be genetic predictors to violent behavior, just as there are genetic predictors for alcoholism and a few other traits. 

That said, it falls far short of being a cause, and certainly nothing that is useful in an effort to "assign blame" beyond the obvious:  A person who commits a crime is the one to blame.  Period. 

I agree with what you said, for sure. (Welcome back to the forums too bro. Hope your holidays were great!) 

I think upbringing has more to do with behavior than genetics sometimes. IE-No one of any race is predetermined to be a shoplifter or a drug dealer but if my parents were lifelong shoplifters and dealt meth, the odds are pretty good that I'd learn that behavior and think it's okay. In the end though, you make a great point by saying it's not the sole cause. 

 

15 minutes ago, unixknight said:

To the original topic:  To me it's pointless to assign blame for "hate crimes" because the only pattern I can discern is that bad people do bad things.  In other news, water is still wet.  I'm not going to blame Trump for some white guy beating up a black guy any more than I'll blame Clinton for some black guy beating up a white guy.  I'm also not very interested in blaming political movements beyond calling out their hypocrisy when it occurs.

As was said back in the beginning:  Blame the person performing the action.  Their motives are an academic matter.

Amen. Love it. 

[zil]

23 minutes ago, unixknight said:

In other news, water is still wet.

What!?  I swore I had that fixed.  Back to the drawing board... 

[wenglund]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that there may be genetic predictors to violent behavior, just as there are genetic predictors for alcoholism and a few other traits. 

That said, it falls far short of being a cause, and certainly nothing that is useful in an effort to "assign blame" beyond the obvious:  A person who commits a crime is the one to blame.  Period

To the original topic:  To me it's pointless to assign blame for "hate crimes" because the only pattern I can discern is that bad people do bad things.  In other news, water is still wet.  I'm not going to blame Trump for some white guy beating up a black guy any more than I'll blame Clinton for some black guy beating up a white guy.  I'm also not very interested in blaming political movements beyond calling out their hypocrisy when it occurs.

As was said back in the beginning:  Blame the person performing the action.  Their motives are an academic matter.

I am pleased to see that someone here understand the difference between predictors and causation. And, while I agree that ultimately criminals are responsible for the crimes they commit, there may be some public policy benefits to considering the prospect of systematic and other contributing factors to crime. For example, if it can be convincingly shown that children of single mothers are at significantly higher risk for committing crimes, then we as a society or culture or even the government may protect ourselves by encouraging long-term traditional marriage and discouraging divorce and promiscuity. Right?

Likewise, if it can be reasonably shown that certain neighborhoods are far more prone to crime, it would make public policy sense to devote more effective crime deterring resources to those neighborhoods. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Welcome back to the forums too bro. Hope your holidays were great!

Thanks man.  I was always watching I just decided to take a break from posting until I felt like I had something useful to contribute.  Sometimes I get diarrhea of the mouth (fingers?) and speak much but say little.  I should have been in politics.

And I think you're 100% right about environment being a bigger factor than genetics.  A person may be genetically vulnerable to alcoholism but it will never come up unless that person lives in a culture where drinking goes on... and even then, being vulnerable to it isn't the same as being guaranteed to succumb.  Ultimately we're responsible for our own choices, and I get nervous when people look to assign blame elsewhere.  Once we're absolved of responsibility for our own bad behavior, chaos follows rapidly.

Yes, I do admit that our decisions are influenced by outside factors, but nobody's raised to believe that torturing someone on Facebook is A-OK.  We all learn the same basic lessons about right and wrong.

 

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

I agree that ultimately criminals are responsible for the crimes they commit, there may be some public policy benefits to considering the prospect of systematic and other contributing factors to crime. For example, if it can be convincingly shown that children of single mothers are at significantly higher risk for committing crimes, then we as a society or culture or even the government may protect ourselves by encouraging long-term traditional marriage and discouraging divorce and promiscuity. Right?

I understand what you're saying, but the problem I have with that approach is that however well intentioned it may be, it can eventually lead to legislation to control peoples' choices over when to end a marriage or when it's okay to become pregnant, all because of something the child(ren) might someday do.

 

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

Likewise, if it can be reasonably shown that certain neighborhoods are far more prone to crime, it would make public policy sense to devote more effective crime deterring resources to those neighborhoods. Right?

Maybe, but that feels like tackling the symptom and not the cause.  Why is a particular neighborhood more prone to crime?  Is it a cultural issue?  Economic?  Boosting the ratio of police to civilians to 2:1 isn't going to fix any of the underlying problems.  Yes, greater law enforcement efforts make sense in that environment, but that shouldn't be seen as the ultimate solution.