r/AgainstHateSubreddits • u/[deleted] • Jun 10 '15

Meta Welcome to AHS

From everyone who came from /r/AgainstTheChimpire; we've chosen to expand! Now /r/GasTheKikes, /r/PissBeUponHim, and others will be fair targets for mockery and refutation. We also have better CSS (no fish), more clarified rules, and so on.

ATC has been closed; please post all instances of racist idiocy in this subreddit from now on! Thank you!

11 Upvotes

53% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '15

Courtesy of u/jay520:

17

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '15

A few quick stats to refute the "Blacks will always be extremely violent savages" argument.

A lot of the racists on reddit theorize that the vast majority of Black crime in America is caused by their faulty genes. The logical conclusion from this theory is that Black criminality in America will always be rampant. Many of them argue that this is the reason that Blacks cannot function in civilized society, and that this is the reason why they are justified in being racist. But when we look at the data, we can see that the conclusion is unsupported. I'm just going to post some quick statistics that I believe indicate that future Black criminality will be extremely less rampant than it is today, which puts doubt to the genetic theory and to the justifications that many people use for their racism.

First, let's look at the general change in imprisonment rate for Whites and Blacks over the past thirteen years. Number of non-Hispanic male prisoners per 100,000 populations:

Year White Black
2000 [1] 449 3,457
2010 [2] 459 3,074
2013 [3] 466 2,805

Between the years 2000 and 2013, the imprisonment rate for White males increased by 3.79%. For Black males during this same period, the imprisonment decreased by 18.86%. That's pretty good news in itself, but there's two particularly interesting facts about this data: (1) the decline is most sharp in the past 2-3 years, and (2) the decline is most sharp in young Blacks, particularly those aged 18-19. Here's the imprisonment rate for young Blacks by age by year:

Number of Black male prisoners per 100,000 population by age by year

Year ages 18-19 ages 20-24 ages 25-29
2000 [1] 2,679 7,276 9,749
2011 [4] 1,544 4,702 6,883
2013 [3] 1,092 3,956 5,730

Percent change (from above stats):

age range 2000 - 2013 2011 - 2013
18-19 -59.2% -29.3%
20-24 -45.6% -15.9%
25-29 -41.2% -16.8%

As you can see, the young Black imprisonment rate is nearly half of its rate thirteen years ago. In particular, the rate for Black males aged 18-19 decreased by 60% since 2000. More impressively, in my opinion, is the fact that the rate for this group has decreased by 30% in just the past two years. That's a huge drop. To illustrate how massive this drop is, let's calculate what the Black teen imprisonment rate would be in the future if this trend continued. If the rate continued to drop by 30% every two years, then that would imply that the rate in the year 2020 would be 313 prisoners per 100,000 population; this is lower than the imprisonment rate for White males aged 18-19 in the year 2002 [5].

Of course, crime and imprisonment trends can change dramatically year-by-year, and criminologists have always struggled to predict future crime trends; so it's best not to place too much faith over a two-year trend. However, it should probably be relatively safe to make predictions based on more long-term trends. If we do that, then the results are still optimistic. As stated earlier, since 2000, then Black imprisonment rate for males aged 18-19 has decreased by 60% and the rate for males in their 20s has decreased by nearly 50%. Therefore, even if the trends over the past two years are a fluke, the long-term trends still indicate that Blacks will see massive drops in imprisonment in the future.

Conclusion: Based on my personal experience, crime seems to be the number-one excuse racists use to rationalize their racism. It is alleged that Blacks will always be savage criminals because of their genes. This is the justification, they argue, for their racism; they should have a right to demonize and hate a group that lacks the ability to live peacefully in their society. Hopefully, this post has shown that this justification is unsound. I believe that the data indicates that Black criminality will not always be extremely high. Black crime has been decreasing massively in the past two decades, particularly in most recent years, and particularly among the youngest Blacks. These trends indicate that Black criminality will continue to drop massively in the future.

EDIT: I may or may not add more stats to this post, depending on my mood.

Source Information:

14

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '15

A refutation of the "the majority of Black crime & incarceration is caused by genetics" argument

Many Chimpire residents argue that Black imprisonment is mainly the result of their genes, rather than their environment. Quantifying this statement, their position is that genetics accounts for at least 50% of Black crime and imprisonment. I will refer to this position several times as the 'genetic position.' Based on what I have observed, the main reasoning behind the genetic position (other than racism) can be split into three distinct arguments: (1) Blacks have low IQ, (2) Blacks are more likely to carry the MAOA gene, and (3) Blacks have more testosterone. I will consider each of these arguments to estimate how much they could independently explain Black crime & imprisonment. Then I will consider them all at once to determine their potential collective influence on Black crime.

Note: as I consider the genetic position, I will make several assumptions in favor of the genetic position. Hopefully, this will show you how ridiculous the position is.

Argument 1: "Blacks' low IQ is a major cause of their high crime rate"

There is a somewhat implicit assertion in this statement. Not only does this statement assert that IQ is the cause of much of Black crime, but it also implies that the low IQ of Blacks is mostly the result of bad genes (otherwise, it would not support the genetic position). However, I will not cover the genetic component of the Black-White IQ gap because it's extremely complex and it's not necessary to support my argument; meaning it's not worth the trouble. Instead, I will make my first assumption and assume that the IQ gap is 100% genetic (which very few scientists would agree with).

The principle behind this argument is that Blacks' are cognitively incapable of avoiding prison. Their IQ is allegedly just too low. But what IQ is exactly 'too low'? The middle 50% of Americans have IQs between 90 and 110. So surely IQs in this range are not too low for people to avoid prison. Instead, the premise of this argument must be that some persons with IQs below this range are genetically incapable of avoiding prison.

Now we have to quantify that statement. If someone has an IQ below 90, then exactly how likely are they to be imprisoned? According to research published by Charles Murray, White males with IQs below 90 have a 7% probability of being imprisoned [1]. Of course some of these men will be imprisoned because of unfortunate environments; but let's make assumption 2 and assume that these 7% of men will be imprisoned solely because of their IQ, and not because of any environmental factors. If that were the case, then what would that say about Blacks? Well, about 60% of Black males have an IQ below 90. If we expect that 7% of this group will be imprisoned because of their IQ alone, then we can say that (60%)(7%) = 4.2% of Black males will be imprisoned because of their IQ alone.

Hmm...only 4.2% of Black males are genetically forced into prison based on their poor IQ. Considering the two assumptions we made so far, that 4.2% number seems rather low. Perhaps the MAOA gene explains more.

Argument 2: "The MOAO gene surely explains why much of Blacks are imprisoned"

This second argument is the only one I have heard that actually identifies a specific gene. It is true that Blacks are more likely to carry the MAOA gene that Whites. For the 3R allele, 59% of Black men carry it, while only 34% of White men carry it [2]. Perhaps this is the smoking gun that explains Black crime! Well...not really, 54% of Chinese men carry the 3R allele as well, and they are relatively non-violent. Okay, so it's not the 3R allele. Maybe it's the 2R allele? For this allele, it is true that both Asian and White males are unlikely to carry it compared to Black males. However, it is also extremely unlikely that Black males will carry it. It's estimated that only about about 5.5% of Black males will carry the 2R allele [2].

Let's make a pretty huge assumption for assumption 3: let's assume that every single person with the 2R allele MAOA gene will eventually be incarcerated. Again, I'm giving the genetic position the benefit of the doubt because of a lack of information. Even if we make this huge assumption, then the result is that only 5.5% of Black males will be imprisoned because of the MAOA gene. If genetics is supposed to play this massive role in Black imprisonment, then 5.5% seems pretty underwhelming. Just like with IQ, I heavily assumed in favor of the genetic position, and yet the genetic position seems very weak.

Argument 3: "Maybe it's their testosterone that makes them criminals?'"

This is by far the weakest argument that the racists have. Firstly, it's estimated that Blacks' testosterone levels are only 15% higher than that of Whites, after controlling for factors such as age, weight, alcohol use, etc. [3] It's highly unlikely that 15% more testosterone accounts for a significant portion of a 500%+ higher imprisonment rate. Secondly, it's not even clear that the 15% higher testosterone rate is due purely due to genetics. A person's testosterone can be influenced by their environmental factors, some of which were not controlled in the linked study. So not only is the testosterone difference very small, but the difference may not even be due to genetics.

Like the first two arguments, I will make another assumption in favor of the genetic position. Let assumption 4 be the assumption that Blacks' 15% higher testosterone is completely the result of genetics. And for assumption 5, let's assume that there is a one-to-one relationship between testosterone levels and criminality. If these two assumptions were true, then we would expect Black imprisonment to be 15% higher than if they had average testosterone levels. Considering these assumptions we have made (which may not be true), that does not explain a significant portion of the 500% higher imprisonment rate for Blacks.

Putting these three arguments together: Let's recall the percentage of Black males that can be expected to be imprisoned because of these three arguments. We calculated that low IQ will force 4.2% of Black males to be imprisoned. The MAOA gene will force 5.5% of Black males to be imprisoned. And we can expect a 15% increase in incarceration rate because of testosterone. Let's put this all together. The percentage of Black males who are expected to be imprisoned because of IQ and MAOA gene is equal to the following formula:

X + Y - (X*Y)

  • where X = percentage of Black males who will be imprisoned because of IQ, and

  • where Y = percentage of Black males who will be imprisoned because of carrying the MAOA gene

We subtract the product of X & Y because of the inclusion-exclusion principle. When we add just X + Y, we add some persons more than once; namely, if a male has a low IQ and has the MAOA gene, then he is added twice. Therefore, we subtract the percentage of people who fit this criteria, which is given by X*Y. So, the number of Black males who we expect will be imprisoned because of IQ and MAOA gene is:

4.2% + 5.5% - (4.2% * 5.5%) = ~9.5%

Increase that 9.5% by 15% to account for higher testosterone, and we can conclude that ~10.9% of Black males can be expected to be imprisoned because of genetic factors (note that about about 11.3% of males can be expected to be imprisoned in America today). So, is this an argument in support or against the genetic position? Well, about 32.2% of Black males born today can be expected to be imprisoned at some point in their life [4]. This means that the three main arguments for the genetic position - IQ, testosterone, and the MAOA gene - account for only one-third (~33.9%) of Black imprisonment. That's a far-cry from the 50% touted by many racists. Keep in mind that this number is an extreme over-prediction because of the assumptions I made. I'll list the assumptions again for reference:

Assumptions:

  1. The Black-White IQ gap is 100% genetic.

  2. Everyone who is imprisoned with an IQ below 90 is imprisoned because of their IQ only.

  3. Everyone with the 2R allele MAOA gene will be imprisoned.

  4. Blacks have 15% higher testosterone purely because of genetics.

  5. There is a one-to-one correlation between testosterone level and criminality.

All of these assumptions were in favor of the genetic position. Even with these assumptions, genetics could only account for one-third of Black imprisonment. Considering many of those assumptions are probably wrong (or at least exaggerations), it's more likely that genetics accounts for one-fourth or one-fifth of Black imprisonment, if not less. In any case, it should be shockingly clear that anyone who says 'genetics explains the majority of Black crime' is probably pulling shit out of their ass. Even if we make every single assumption in favor of the genetic position, environment explains at least ~66% of Black crime and imprisonment. In actuality, that figure is probably closer to 70-80% when corrected for the many assumptions I made in favor of the genetic position.

Sources:

12

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '15

A comprehensive look at adoption studies to refute the "the black-white IQ gap is caused mainly by genetics" argument

Adoption studies are the most effective method for attempting to quantify just how much of the black-white IQ gap is genetic versus environmental. By ensuring that blacks & whites are reared in the same environment, one can conclude any differences that arise are genetic. Inversely, by ensuring that two groups of blacks are genetically similar, we can conclude that any differences that arise are environmental. There are four major transracial adoption studies that I know of. I will consider each.

Study 1: Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study

I'm sure many of you have heard of this study, so I need not give it too much detail. Basically, the study examined the IQ test scores of adopted children of different races & of non-adopted white children, all of whom were raised by white families. The study found higher IQ for the whites adoptees compared to the black adoptees [1]. If this study did indeed equalize the environments for blacks & whites, then the results would seem to indicate that the IQ gap is largely genetic. However, there are two reasons to doubt that the study equalized the environments for blacks & whites:

(a) the children with two black parents were adopted substantially later than the other children. The average white child was adopted at about 19 months old, but the average child with two black parents was adopted at 32 months old [2]. The results of the study showed that children who were adopted later had much lower IQs than those who were adopted earlier. Black children adopted within one year of birth had IQs 7 points higher than those adopted later, for example [3].

(b), while the study did somewhat equalize environments after adoption, they failed to equalize environments before adoption. This can be extremely important as well. For example, a high blood lead level in infants can result in a noticeable reduction in IQ during adulthood [4]. Blood lead level is particularly important for the blacks in this study because when this study was published in the 1970s, the blood lead level of black children aged 6 months-5 years was extremely higher than the level for white children of the same age [5]. Thus, lead could have played a significant role in the black children's IQ. Blood lead level is just one example. Factors such as social stimulation before adoption are also important to a child's cognitive development, but the study could not have equalize such factors.

Study 2 German IQ study by Klaus Eyferth

This was a study conducted by psychologist Klaus Eyferth concerning the IQs of white and racially mixed children in West Germany. The mothers of the children studied were white German women, while their fathers were white or black members of the US occupation forces. The white children recorded an average IQ of 97.2, whereas the mixed children recorded an average of 96.5, a negligible difference [6].

Some have discounted this data by asserting that the samples aren't representative of the average population because about 30% of black applicants were rejected and not admitted to the armed forces, while only about 3% of whites were rejected. It is true that the samples are not representative, but that doesn't discount the results of the study. Despite the unrepresentative sample, if IQ were genetic, then we would still expect the white children to have much higher scores that the black children because:

(a) The white GIs should have had higher scores than the black GIs. It is true that both the white soldiers and the black soldiers in this study had IQs above a certain threshold; however, the IQ scores for the white soldiers would be distributed higher than the blacks, leading to a higher average score. If the IQ gap were genetic, then we would expect this difference to be found in their children as well.

(b) Regression to the mean. Even if the white soldiers and black soldiers had similar IQ scores, then, if the IQ gap were genetic, we would still expect the black children to have lower IQs than the white children. The reason is because the black kids' IQs would regress downward to the black mean of 85, while the whites kids' IQs would regress to the white mean of 100. Of course the gap between the white & black kids would be smaller because both groups would have white mothers, but the gap would be larger than 0.7 points.

The lack of an IQ difference in this study means that the results are not compatible with genetics being the biggest cause of the IQ gap. Like the Minnesota study, the study is flawed in its own way. Nevertheless, it is compatible with a 100% environmental explanation.

Study 3 British study of young children in nurseries

In this study, psychologist Barbara Tizard studied black, white, and mixed-race children raised in British long-stay residential nurseries. The children were given psychological tests to determine their cognitive abilities. The scores were converted to give a mean of 100, and a standard deviation of 10. On one test, the white children scored 102.6 and the black/mixed children scored 106.3. On another test, the white children scored 98.5 and the black/mixed children scored 98.6. On the Minnesota Nonverbal test, the white children scored 101.3 and the black/mixed children scored 107.7 [7]. Apparently there is a fourth test, but I didn't manage to see it in the pdf. In any case, this study clearly does not support the genetic theory. This study is compatible with a 100% environmental explanation of the IQ gap.

Study 4: IQ scores of black children raised by white families versus Black families

In this study, psychologist Elsie Moore compared IQ test scores among 23 black children adopted by middle-class white families and 23 age-matched black children adopted by middle-class black families. Their findings indicate that the black children adopted by black families scored a 104 IQ, while the black children adopted by white families scored a 117 IQ [8]. Clearly, these two groups of blacks differed in their environment and not their genes. Therefore, the difference in the black/white family environments must account for the 13 IQ points. Keep in mind that the black & white families were of similar socioeconomic status (middle-class). In actuality, the average black family has a much lower socioeconomic status than the average white family, therefore the difference in black/white environments would account for more than 13 points, accounting for essentially the entire IQ gap. Clearly, this study is compatible with a 100% environmental explanation of the IQ gap.

Many have criticized the three latter studies because they did not do follow-up testing on the children. It is true that the genetic component of IQ increases as children age. However, this decline is not necessarily relevant. We are concerned with the gap between blacks & whites. The Minnesota Transracial Study implies that there is no significant change in the gap after age 7. Looking at this study, the black-white IQ gap fluctuated by only about 2 points after age 7. Therefore, the lack of a follow-up study is no good reason to discount the latter three studies. If the IQ gap was small for younger children, then it would likely remain as such.

Conclusion: It seems to me that the evidence suggests that the IQ gap is almost entirely environmental. The Minnesota is the only adoption study that suggests otherwise, but it has flaws, as I've indicated earlier. The German study also has its flaws, so it's not clear which of those two studies should be preferred. In any case, the latter two studies seem to confirm the German study. So three of the studies are compatible with a 100% environmental explanation of the IQ gap. Taking a comprehensive account of all of the adoption studies seems to suggest that the IQ gap is, for the most part, environmental. The only way one could conclude otherwise is if they blindly accepted only one of the studies and ignored the other three that contradicted it. At best, one could argue that there's a negligible 1-5 point genetic IQ gap between blacks & whites. Anything more is wishful thinking, based on the data.

Sources

3

u/umBSBG Jul 07 '15

Can you explain why you are using prison population to make a statement about violence? Prison is notoriously full of non-violent offenders such as pot smokers... Why aren't you looking at declining violent crimes from the FBI database or something?

3

u/jay520 Jul 07 '15

The FBI gets the race of criminals from reporting police departments. The problem is not all police departments report the race of offenders. I believe for some crimes the FBI knows the race of under 50% of the offenders. I don't want people to discount the stats because of underreported crimes.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '15

I'm quoting from u/jay520, so I would suggest you ask him.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '15

1

u/AutoModerator Jul 06 '15

Your account is too young. Please wait at least two weeks (14 days) old to begin posting.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

3

u/jay520 Aug 01 '15

A look at decreasing violent Black crime since 1995

As many of you may know, I have written posts about the decreasing Black crime rate by looking at decreasing incarceration rates. Some have recently asked that I observe FBI violent crime rates instead, because incarceration is not necessarily perfectly correlated with violent crime. Originally, I decided against doing so because I thought the statistics from the FBI did not track the race of most persons arrested. However, I recently looked over the FBI tables and noticed that I was wrong; they do track the race of the vast majority of persons arrested (over 80% in recent years). Therefore, the FBI statistics should be much more useful than I originally suspected.

I will be looking at the change in violent crime from 1995 to 2013, because 1995 is the earliest UCR Publication on Crime in the United States that I can find, and 2013 is the latest. The year 1995 is convenient because this is a few years after a peak in violent crime (for all races), and it's exactly 18 years before the most recent UCR Publication - which is a nice number to mark a generation.

Looking at Table 43 of both the 1995 and 2013 editions of the Crime in the United States, I obtain the following figures for number of violent crimes committed by Blacks in both years.

Number of violent crimes:

Year Total Homicide Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault
1995 270,122 9,074 11,234 81,957 167,857
2013 151,627 4,379 4,229 44,271 98,748

Clearly, these are some rather large drops. But keep in mind these figures give the absolute number of violent crimes committed, not the violent crime rate, which is a more useful figure. To get the violent crime rate for both years, we need to know the Black population in both years. The Black population in 1995 was 33,116,000. In 2013, the population was 13.2% of 316,497,531, which is 41,777,674. I will represent violent crime rate as number of violent crimes committed per 100,000 population. For example, the number of total violent crimes committed per 100,000 population is given by the formula 270,122 * (100,000 / 33,116,000), which gives 816.7 violent crimes committed per 100,000 population. The numbers that I get are given in the following table.

Violent crimes per 100,000 population:

Year Total Homicide Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault
1995 816.7 27.4 33.9 247.4 506.9
2013 362.9 10.5 10.1 106.0 236.4

As you can see, the drop in violent crime rate is much sharper than the drop in absolute violent crime, since the Black population increased by about 25% between 1995 and 2013. In fact, every single index of violent crime dropped by over 50%, and total violent crime dropped by over 55%.

Change in Crime Rate from 1995 to 2013:

Crime Type % Change
Total - 55.6%
Homicide - 61.7%
Rape - 70.2%
Robbery - 57.2%
Aggravated Assault - 53.4%

These drops in violent crime are actually slight underestimates of the actual drop in violent crime. The reason is because in 1995, the FBI only recorded the race of 77.7% of persons arrested for violent crimes (618,657 of 796,250 arrests, figures given in Tables 43 and 29, respectively - both found on this page). On the other hand, in 2013, the FBI recorded the race of 81.5% of persons arrested for violent crimes (391,467 of 480,360 arrests, figures given in Table 43 and Table 29, respectively). Had the FBI recorded the race of 81.5% of persons arrested in 1995, then the number of violent crimes in 1995 would have been higher, meaning the drop in violent crime between 1995 and 2013 would have been larger. However, the drop would have only been about 2-3 percentage points larger, according to my calculations.

In any case, the drops are pretty dramatic. I have not checked this, but I'm willing to bet that there hasn't been such a sharp drop in violent crime during such a small period of time for any group in America, excluding groups with extreme demographic changes such as mass immigration or emigration. I could be wrong about that, so don't take my word for it.

Hopefully these figures discourage people (from both sides) from forming conclusions using data from only one point in time. It should be obvious that if a problem has influences across several countries, then one should not determine its cause by using data from only one city. By that same token, if a problem has influences across several decades, then one should not determine its cause by using data from only one year. One cannot simply look at a year's worth of crime data and form a conclusion about the nature of crime. Crime does not spontaneously appear one year, and disappear the next, with no discernible patterns. Crime follows historical trends with complex historical causes. Blacks and Whites have vastly different histories, which leads to vastly different environments and cultures, which have different effects on Black & White crime trends. To ignore these historical differences by focusing on one year is a gross mistake.

If you look at the crime trends, then you will see that crime is dropping for both Blacks and Whites. Black crime is presently higher because it is dropping from a higher starting point (the reasons for which are touched on in the sidebar of this sub). It's quite unrealistic (and rather absurd) to expect similar crime rates today given the huge differences in past decades. The good news is that recent trends suggest that the Black crime rate is dropping faster than the White crime rate. It's not clear if this means that the Black crime rate will drop to White levels in the near future. We'll just have to wait and see.

It is clear, however, to anyone with half a brain that these changes are not genetically caused. You're not going to see such extreme genetic changes in less than a generation without any extreme causes. As far as I know, there have been no such extreme causes in the last 18 years. I can't exactly assert the cause of the crime drop, but I can conclude that it has mainly environmental (i.e. not genetic) causes. In fact, the environment of Blacks during the past 18 years hasn't exactly been ideal (it's been rather bad actually). I would posit that the vast majority (90% - 95%) of Black crime could be eradicated under a more ideal environment. You may or may not agree with that proposition, but I believe the reasonable person must agree that the Black crime drop in the past 18 years has mainly environmental causes, and that the majority of Black violent crime can be eradicated under a proper environment, rather than being genetically determined.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '15

I like how this only address the black crime rates in America. And not in South America, Africa, Europe, Asia(yes, japan and china are taking in some black as well and their behaviour is EXACTLY) the same. It's almost like regardless of their history, of the circumstances they are in, they seem to act the same.

4

u/jay520 Dec 01 '15

If you have decades of annual crime rates broken down by race in each of those regions, then color me surprised. In any event, I'm not sure what that has to do with the statistically verifiable extreme decrease we are seeing in America.

1

u/parampcea Oct 21 '15

what you intentionally omit is comparison of the number of crimes african americans commit compared to other races per capita.

3

u/jay520 Oct 21 '15

Read the title of the post. Read the post again. Then read your post again. Then you will see why your post doesn't make sense.

1

u/TotesMessenger Jul 20 '15

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / ^Contact)