Political Roundtable Part XV

[nate33]

Oof

Nate, buddy, it's that you think black people are genetically predisposed to violence instead of the far more obvious and commonly accepted belief that black people commit more crime because of massive socioeconomic factors and institutionalized inequality.

I think the genetic argument is much more likely than any other explanation, or at least it's a significant contributing factor. If it was exclusively due to cultural factors, then surely there would be some country, some city, some town somewhere in the world where blacks have a lower crime rate than whites.

I don't understand why this is so controversial. It's accepted that different population groups have genetically adapted to different environmental and cultural pressures. West African blacks are the best sprinters in the world and have constituted 64 of the last 64 finalists in the Olympic 100M dash. East African plateau blacks are the best distance runners in the world. Tibetians have the best oxygen carrying capacity in the blood. Northern Europeans have lactose tolerance. Why in the world would all of these physical adaptions be confined below the neck? Why wouldn't cognitive and behavioral tendencies also show measurable deviations among regionally isolated population groups?

[dckingsfan]

Guys, remember, to our knowledge Nate has never said anything racist before. Let's cut him some slack, folks.

Since you post wasn't in green - I am going to agree with you. Let's cut Nate some slack. I may completely disagree with his posts but I do like to better understand what is driving his opinions.

Even though his post might not have fit your narrative, it was well put together. Just dismissing it as a post from a deplorable doesn't do the hard work of being able to explain why those narratives aren't correct.

Your posts here are getting more and more toward the "if you don't agree with me, you are (pick the label)" vs. actually contributing.

[gtn130]

Guys, remember, to our knowledge Nate has never said anything racist before. Let's cut him some slack, folks.

Since you post wasn't in green - I am going to agree with you. Let's cut Nate some slack. I may completely disagree with his posts but I do like to better understand what is driving his opinions.

Even though his post might not have fit your narrative, it was well put together. Just dismissing it as a post from a deplorable doesn't do the hard work of being able to explain why those narratives aren't correct.

Your posts here are getting more and more toward the "if you don't agree with me, you are (pick the label)" vs. actually contributing.

I earnestly believe that the result of having this dialog with Nate will be that he feels validated in his 'side' of the argument, and onlookers may also feel like Nate's argument simply represents the other side of the coin. I've already explained this, but my posting on the topic of racism is totally 100% by thoughtful design.

It requires a certain level of nuance to explain to Nate how dumb and wrong his beliefs are. It's far more efficient and less damaging to simply tell him his beliefs are wrong and racist and illegitimate instead of continuing to many-sides everything and act like Nate's position is totally legitimate and reasonable. Casually disagreeing with him doesn't cut it.

And, DC, you seem to think it's noble and virtuous to be a moderate centrist, but you're wrong. There is no inherent good in that position.

[gtn130]

Oof

Nate, buddy, it's that you think black people are genetically predisposed to violence instead of the far more obvious and commonly accepted belief that black people commit more crime because of massive socioeconomic factors and institutionalized inequality.

I think the genetic argument is much more likely than any other explanation, or at least it's a significant contributing factor. If it was exclusively due to cultural factors, then surely there would be some country, some city, some town somewhere in the world where blacks have a lower crime rate than whites.

Black people have been historically oppressed across the world. There is no subset of black people that is even remotely analogous to privileged white americans/europeans.

[nate33]

Differences between races don't just show up in violence, or other metrics that might be perceived negatively. There are positive (for blacks) differences as well. For example, look at suicide rates:



Blacks are much less likely to commit suicide, despite typically being poorer and suffering from greater discrimination. Why is this? It's a huge discrepancy. I suspect there's a genetic component because you would think that cultural and socio-economic issues would be increasing the likelihood of black suicide. Blacks are somehow intrinsically happier, or mentally tougher, or have a stronger survival instinct, or some combination of the three.

[gtn130]

Differences between races don't just show up in violence, or other metrics that might be perceived negatively. There are positive (for blacks) differences as well. For example, look at suicide rates:



Blacks are much less likely to commit suicide, despite typically being poorer and suffering from greater discrimination. Why is this? It's a huge discrepancy. I suspect there's a genetic component because you would think that cultural and socio-economic issues would be increasing the likelihood of black suicide. Blacks are somehow intrinsically happier, or mentally tougher, or have a stronger survival instinct, or some combination of the three.

Or maybe suicide is treated differently within their culture? Maybe they're more religious? Maybe you should do more research on this subject before immediately concluding it's genetic without any evidence at all?

[nate33]

I didn't conclude. I suspected. It's a preliminary hypothesis that I agree requires research.

[payitforward]

There are so many intellectual problems with your position, nate, that it would be impossible to address them all in a forum of this kind. At the same time, I appreciate & accept what you say about your attitude towards individuals as you meet them or interact with them. The latter is why, a page or so back in this thread, I wanted to distinguish between, on the one hand, your claim that blacks (as a global population) are less intelligent than whites and a quite different claim (that I haven't heard you make) that blacks are "genetically inferior" to whites.

I.e. you are claiming a set of differences. & that these have genetic causes (I'm assuming that you would trace the violence "difference" to such causes as well -- happy to be corrected in that if I'm wrong). The overall goal of statements of this kind is to try to establish that blacks & whites are deeply different, I.e. that there is some kind of "essential" difference (or set of differences) between the populations which explains the differences in the data we are looking at (crime rates, etc.).

IOW, we are to take behaviors that are the same (violence or whatever) but occur at different rates in these populations, & argue that the rates (not the behaviors) are somehow "essential elements" which must therefore have causes (genetic) that come from essential differences between the populations. Then, usually (including in your case, nate), we conclude therefrom that the populations are different races. In short, this is what we usually call "racism."

Now, the issue of superiority or inferiority doesn't need to come up in that sequence of specious arguments. It may come up later, & in fact it usually does. But, it doesn't need to come up in order to serve the purpose it has in the political positions (which I'd describe as quasi-Fascist) nate has taken here.

E.g. once "difference" is established in a person's mind, then the position -- which nate has explicitly supported -- that it's best for a society to consist of a single more or less homogeneous population immediately supports actions to make that so.

But that's only one example. Overall, this line of thought supports the idea that it's ok (it's "science-based") for the state (the social order, the political structures, the government) to treat these (and other) different populations differently.

& that is where we get to the issue of "Fascism" or "quasi-Fascism." Without any question, this whole way of thinking & its conclusions are utterly counter to the notions that founded this country & that are expressed (however incompletely &/or imperfectly) in this country's founding documents.

The ideas behind the US come from the Enlightenment, the great secularizing, rationalist movement of the late 17th & 18th centuries. Racism, otoh, has its source in the rise of "nationalism." Now, the world is not a simple place, & these two strains of thought overlap & affect one another. But... I can't teach a college course in this post!

I hope the above is reasonably clear.

Could I go on to illustrate the ways that the "racist" line of thought is non-scientific? Sure. Do you really want me to? Maybe another day, right?

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[payitforward]

Differences between races don't just show up in violence, or other metrics that might be perceived negatively. There are positive (for blacks) differences as well. For example, look at suicide rates:



Blacks are much less likely to commit suicide, despite typically being poorer and suffering from greater discrimination. Why is this? It's a huge discrepancy. I suspect there's a genetic component because you would think that cultural and socio-economic issues would be increasing the likelihood of black suicide. Blacks are somehow intrinsically happier, or mentally tougher, or have a stronger survival instinct, or some combination of the three.

This is a perfect example of what I just posted. Same behavior, different rates, "genetic component" proposed as causal, hence there's an essential difference ("Blacks are ...intrinsically" something or other) between 2 different "races." &, as I suggested, racism doesn't require one race to be "superior."

[dckingsfan]

Guys, remember, to our knowledge Nate has never said anything racist before. Let's cut him some slack, folks.

Since you post wasn't in green - I am going to agree with you. Let's cut Nate some slack. I may completely disagree with his posts but I do like to better understand what is driving his opinions.

Even though his post might not have fit your narrative, it was well put together. Just dismissing it as a post from a deplorable doesn't do the hard work of being able to explain why those narratives aren't correct.

Your posts here are getting more and more toward the "if you don't agree with me, you are (pick the label)" vs. actually contributing.

I earnestly believe that the result of having this dialog with Nate will be that he feels validated in his 'side' of the argument, and onlookers may also feel like Nate's argument simply represents the other side of the coin. I've already explained this, but my posting on the topic of racism is totally 100% by thoughtful design.

It requires a certain level of nuance to explain to Nate how dumb and wrong his beliefs are. It's far more efficient and less damaging to simply tell him his beliefs are wrong and racist and illegitimate instead of continuing to many-sides everything and act like Nate's position is totally legitimate and reasonable. Casually disagreeing with him doesn't cut it.

And, DC, you seem to think it's noble and virtuous to be a moderate centrist, but you're wrong. There is no inherent good in that position.

Okay, we get to agree to disagree on this one. Hillary also felt it easier to just cast a group as deplorable and not take the time to make that "nuanced" discussion.

And there you have it as with all your discussions. There is no middle ground - it is your way or the other person has no clue. If you right or center - you must be wrong on all things.

Monte had a great idea on the statues - put them in a museum with context. And you blasted that one too. That is a Ted Cruz approach for the left.

[nate33]

There are so many intellectual problems with your position, nate, that it would be impossible to address them all in a forum of this kind. At the same time, I appreciate & accept what you say about your attitude towards individuals as you meet them or interact with them. The latter is why, a page or so back in this thread, I wanted to distinguish between, on the one hand, your claim that blacks (as a global population) are less intelligent than whites and a quite different claim (that I haven't heard you make) that blacks are "genetically inferior" to whites.

I.e. you are claiming a set of differences. & that these have genetic causes (I'm assuming that you would trace the violence "difference" to such causes as well -- happy to be corrected in that if I'm wrong). The overall goal of statements of this kind is to try to establish that blacks & whites are deeply different, I.e. that there is some kind of "essential" difference (or set of differences) between the populations which explains the differences in the data we are looking at (crime rates, etc.).

IOW, we are to take behaviors that are the same (violence or whatever) but occur at different rates in these populations, & argue that the rates (not the behaviors) are somehow "essential elements" which must therefore have causes (genetic) that come from essential differences between the populations. Then, usually (including in your case, nate), we conclude therefrom that the populations are different races. In short, this is what we usually call "racism."

Now, the issue of superiority or inferiority doesn't need to come up in that sequence of specious arguments. It may come up later, & in fact it usually does. But, it doesn't need to come up in order to serve the purpose it has in the political positions (which I'd describe as quasi-Fascist) nate has taken here.

E.g. once "difference" is established in a person's mind, then the position -- which nate has explicitly supported -- that it's best for a society to consist of a single more or less homogeneous population immediately supports actions to make that so.

But that's only one example. Overall, this line of thought supports the idea that it's ok (it's "science-based") for the state (the social order, the political structures, the government) to treat these (and other) different populations differently.

& that is where we get to the issue of "Fascism" or "quasi-Fascism." Without any question, this whole way of thinking & its conclusions are utterly counter to the notions that founded this country & that are expressed (however incompletely &/or imperfectly) in this country's founding documents.

The ideas behind the US come from the Enlightenment, the great secularizing, rationalist movement of the late 17th & 18th centuries. Racism, otoh, has its source in the rise of "nationalism." Now, the world is not a simple place, & these two strains of thought overlap & affect one another. But... I can't teach a college course in this post!

I hope the above is reasonably clear.

Could I go on to illustrate the ways that the "racist" line of thought is non-scientific? Sure. Do you really want me to? Maybe another day, right?

I think those first 3 paragraphs are a fair summary of my position.

I disagree that these opinions have anything whatsoever to do with fascism however. Recognizing and discussing supportable scientific theories (or at least strong, supportable hypotheses) about biology is not a political philosophy.

I also never advocated that the state treat different races differently, certainly not from a legal rights perspective. Now, to the extent that different races might possibly learn differently and/or react to medical treatment differently, I suppose that there may be some small differences in how they're treated by the state, but if so, those difference would be an attempt at improving things, not make them worse. I would absolutely oppose any denial of rights or any unequal treatment under the law due to race.

I can also understand your concerns with the slippery slope argument. If we as a society conclude and accept that there are some minor but relevant differences between the races, it opens the door to rationalize flagrant, scientifically supported racism. But the denial of legitimate scientific research isn't a very good option either. It's certainly not going to work in an era of the free flow of information.

[gtn130]

Since you post wasn't in green - I am going to agree with you. Let's cut Nate some slack. I may completely disagree with his posts but I do like to better understand what is driving his opinions.

Even though his post might not have fit your narrative, it was well put together. Just dismissing it as a post from a deplorable doesn't do the hard work of being able to explain why those narratives aren't correct.

Your posts here are getting more and more toward the "if you don't agree with me, you are (pick the label)" vs. actually contributing.

I earnestly believe that the result of having this dialog with Nate will be that he feels validated in his 'side' of the argument, and onlookers may also feel like Nate's argument simply represents the other side of the coin. I've already explained this, but my posting on the topic of racism is totally 100% by thoughtful design.

It requires a certain level of nuance to explain to Nate how dumb and wrong his beliefs are. It's far more efficient and less damaging to simply tell him his beliefs are wrong and racist and illegitimate instead of continuing to many-sides everything and act like Nate's position is totally legitimate and reasonable. Casually disagreeing with him doesn't cut it.

And, DC, you seem to think it's noble and virtuous to be a moderate centrist, but you're wrong. There is no inherent good in that position.

Okay, we get to agree to disagree on this one. Hillary also felt it easier to just cast a group as deplorable and not take the time to make that "nuanced" discussion.

And there you have it as with all your discussions. There is no middle ground - it is your way or the other person has no clue. If you right or center - you must be wrong on all things.

Monte had a great idea on the statues - put them in a museum with context. And you blasted that one too. That is a Ted Cruz approach for the left.

Dude, I listened to Monte's strategy, disagreed with it, and I explained why.

[Dat2U]

In what way do you think I'm being intellectually dishonest. Is my data false? Do you have other data to prove otherwise?

I agree with you completely that one must not draw conclusions about individuals based on skin color. Individual blacks can be good or bad, bright or stupid, peaceful or violent, just like anybody else. Do you think I've treated you differently because you are black? I knew you were black the moment I joined this board because you used to have an "N" in your name. But for 15 years I've treated you fairly and honestly and have always praised your contribution to this board and your understanding of the game. Heck, I went to bat for you to rescind your ban from the General Board.

But treating people as individuals does not preclude one from recognizing patterns among large population groups. Me saying blacks are more likely to be violent than whites is no different than me saying men are more likely to be violent than women. It's obviously not true for every individual man and woman, but it's always true that a large population of randomly selected men will have a higher violent crime rate than a large population of randomly selected women.

I'm just applying pattern recognition. It's something everyone else does too, but I'm honest enough to admit it. How many nice white liberal guys on this board are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in property costs and endure longer commute times just to avoid living among blacks in the city and inner suburbs? They'll commute from freaking Frederick or Manassas instead of living in Glenarden or Cheverly. And if they happen to live in an area with a high percentage of blacks, I can guarantee that they're sending their kids to private school. Heck, rich blacks do the same thing. How many black congressmen live in the inner suburbs of Maryland or in eastern Washington DC? Nope, they'll live in Georgetown or Arlington.

You know d*mn well you wouldn't compare the WS48 of a 10-yr vet vs a rookie and use the WS48 to validate the 10-yr vet as the better basketball player going forward. That logic could lead you to choose a guy like Nick Collison over Anthony Davis.

You look at all sorts of variables when judging players. You just don't look at the stats, you look at their situation, their experience, their potential/upside. It's funny you don't use the same logic when judging your fellow humans. It's all statistics with suddenly zero ability to comprehend the reasons why stats might look a particular way. That's why your 'pattern recognition' holds zero weight with me. I don't need you to show me some d*mned statistics, I've lived the statistics. I grew up poor, in the worst neighborhood in DC in single parent household. And that parent was sick. I've seen rape, murder first hand. I grew up with friends who would live and die on the same block where we'd play kickball. So when I say your intellectually dishonest, this is what I'm referring to. You refuse to acknowledge to outside factors that create the environment for the statistics to say what they say. However when it comes to basketball, you obviously see the importance of looking at the whole picture.

[dckingsfan]

But enough with the numbers. You are an economist and I'm sure you understand that we don't often get opportunities to run massive social experiments over a period of decades with perfect control groups. It would be nice to run the experiment that you suggest, but we both know it'll never happen. You have to go with the data that you have. For now, ALL the data we have, in whatever country, city or county you want to pick, whether you normalize for poverty or not, will show blacks having a higher violent crime rate than whites. At some point, you need to apply Occum's Razor.

But, what has happened is that the "data" was used in the worst possible way. We used the data to have a "war on crime" and a "war on drugs" and those initiatives have turned out the same way as the prohibition - we wasted our resources and treasure. Also look at our numbers of incarcerated as a percentage of our population - we have a systematic problem driven by fear.

Let's take it another way.

Let's let all out of jail that have committed non-violent crimes (especially those having to deal with drugs) immediately. We know that economically this is the right decision - especially against backdrop of continually dropping crime.

Let's take some of those funds and put it against all those that are incarcerated on violent behavior that didn't result in fatalities and get them out of the system just as fast as possible.

But that won't happen - they will just look at "data" of violent behavior and use fear to continue to incarcerate people at high rates. And this will result in an ever shrinking pool of money that goes toward education and infrastructure and ever increasing taxes.

So, although you may focus on the "data", those same numbers drove really bad decisions for this country.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I won't be as civil as Zonk. I'll call a spade a spade. Nate33, at the very least is intellectually dishonest. Which basically makes him a pathetic piece of sh*t. I could use the word "racist" to describe Nate and it would fit quite comfortably. However It also lets him off easy. I find racism & ignorance go hand & hand. The more racist a person is, generally the less educated they tend to be. I find no redeeming quality in a person that should be smart & educated enough to not draw conclusions based on skin color but does so anyway. I'm even more personally insulted when this a**hole tries to use statistics and science to make a case that someone like myself is predisposed to violence. That basically I'm not much better than an undomesticated animal b/c I don't know any better!

In what way do you think I'm being intellectually dishonest. Is my data false? Do you have other data to prove otherwise?

I agree with you completely that one must not draw conclusions about individuals based on skin color. Individual blacks can be good or bad, bright or stupid, peaceful or violent, just like anybody else. Do you think I've treated you differently because you are black? I knew you were black the moment I joined this board because you used to have an "N" in your name. But for 15 years I've treated you fairly and honestly and have always praised your contribution to this board and your understanding of the game. Heck, I went to bat for you to rescind your ban from the General Board.

But treating people as individuals does not preclude one from recognizing patterns among large population groups. Me saying blacks are more likely to be violent than whites is no different than me saying men are more likely to be violent than women. It's obviously not true for every individual man and woman, but it's always true that a large population of randomly selected men will have a higher violent crime rate than a large population of randomly selected women.

I'm just applying pattern recognition. It's something everyone else does too, but I'm honest enough to admit it. How many nice white liberal guys on this board are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in property costs and endure longer commute times just to avoid living among blacks in the city and inner suburbs? They'll commute from freaking Frederick or Manassas instead of living in Glenarden or Cheverly. And if they happen to live in an area with a high percentage of blacks, I can guarantee that they're sending their kids to private school. Heck, rich blacks do the same thing. How many black congressmen live in the inner suburbs of Maryland or in eastern Washington DC? Nope, they'll live in Georgetown or Arlington.

Wow, suddenly the Politics Thread has a "who farted" feel, complete with an Occum's Razor, for that close AFM shave.

Nate, you're one of a handful of people I know who openly apply a razor sharp intellect to racialist hooey.

You've painted yourself into too many corners to leap out of all at once, but your statement:

But you are incorrectly summarizing why I believe blacks (on average, as a population group) are intrinsically more violent.

doesn't do much for your statement:

I agree with you completely that one must not draw conclusions about individuals based on skin color.

and you migrate back to the original sentiment with:

I'm honest enough to admit it. How many nice white liberal guys on this board are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in property costs and endure longer commute times just to avoid living among blacks...

What a mess! A bottomless file cabinet of stats and facts supporting the lesserness of blacks, but I wonder why you have bothered to compile such an arsenal of data to support a claim that you surely know is getting no mileage around here. Who are you trying to convince?

Oh. He doesn't want to live among blacks...

Dat2U, I was wrong. You're right.



Sent from my Moto G (4) using RealGM mobile app

[payitforward]

There are so many intellectual problems with your position, nate, that it would be impossible to address them all in a forum of this kind. At the same time, I appreciate & accept what you say about your attitude towards individuals as you meet them or interact with them. The latter is why, a page or so back in this thread, I wanted to distinguish between, on the one hand, your claim that blacks (as a global population) are less intelligent than whites and a quite different claim (that I haven't heard you make) that blacks are "genetically inferior" to whites.

I.e. you are claiming a set of differences. & that these have genetic causes (I'm assuming that you would trace the violence "difference" to such causes as well -- happy to be corrected in that if I'm wrong). The overall goal of statements of this kind is to try to establish that blacks & whites are deeply different, I.e. that there is some kind of "essential" difference (or set of differences) between the populations which explains the differences in the data we are looking at (crime rates, etc.).

IOW, we are to take behaviors that are the same (violence or whatever) but occur at different rates in these populations, & argue that the rates (not the behaviors) are somehow "essential elements" which must therefore have causes (genetic) that come from essential differences between the populations. Then, usually (including in your case, nate), we conclude therefrom that the populations are different races. In short, this is what we usually call "racism."

Now, the issue of superiority or inferiority doesn't need to come up in that sequence of specious arguments. It may come up later, & in fact it usually does. But, it doesn't need to come up in order to serve the purpose it has in the political positions (which I'd describe as quasi-Fascist) nate has taken here.

E.g. once "difference" is established in a person's mind, then the position -- which nate has explicitly supported -- that it's best for a society to consist of a single more or less homogeneous population immediately supports actions to make that so.

But that's only one example. Overall, this line of thought supports the idea that it's ok (it's "science-based") for the state (the social order, the political structures, the government) to treat these (and other) different populations differently.

& that is where we get to the issue of "Fascism" or "quasi-Fascism." Without any question, this whole way of thinking & its conclusions are utterly counter to the notions that founded this country & that are expressed (however incompletely &/or imperfectly) in this country's founding documents.

The ideas behind the US come from the Enlightenment, the great secularizing, rationalist movement of the late 17th & 18th centuries. Racism, otoh, has its source in the rise of "nationalism." Now, the world is not a simple place, & these two strains of thought overlap & affect one another. But... I can't teach a college course in this post!

I hope the above is reasonably clear.

Could I go on to illustrate the ways that the "racist" line of thought is non-scientific? Sure. Do you really want me to? Maybe another day, right?

I think those first 3 paragraphs are a fair summary of my position.

I disagree that these opinions have anything whatsoever to do with fascism however. Recognizing and discussing supportable scientific theories (or at least strong, supportable hypotheses) about biology is not a political philosophy.

Nate, I'm sorry but it does not a matter whether you agree or disagree whether this line of thinking & its conclusions are associated with fascism. They are demonstrably associated with fascism. This in itself has no bearing on whether there are any "supportable scientific theories" behind the thinking -- though in fact there aren't any.

I also never advocated that the state treat different races differently, certainly not from a legal rights perspective....
I would absolutely oppose any denial of rights or any unequal treatment under the law due to race.

Understood. & I didn't claim that you had so advocated. Or think you had. & I'm happy to read those words.

Just to be completely explicit, I wouldn't accuse you of being a Fascist, nate. I don't believe that I have. If something I said gave a different impression, then I am happy to have an occasion to correct that impression.

What I have said is that you express some opinions whose sources are Fascist -- e.g. the argument in favor of a homogeneous, non-diverse population. TBH, I have wondered how deeply held these opinions are on your part. In particular, the homogeneity idea accords poorly with a serious interest in the NBA! All the same, you have so written.

I can also understand your concerns with the slippery slope argument. If we as a society conclude and accept that there are some minor but relevant differences between the races, it opens the door to rationalize flagrant, scientifically supported racism. But the denial of legitimate scientific research isn't a very good option either. It's certainly not going to work in an era of the free flow of information.

To take this in reverse order: I'm all for scientific research; nor should the findings of science be subjected to any political, religious or social filters.

The problem lies in the preceding sentences. The phrase "differences between the races" is meaningless if there are no such things as races. If we change the phrase to "differences between populations" (i.e. groups under study), the phrase becomes altogether anodyne -- of course there are differences between populations! That's why we study them! To understand those differences.

But this has nothing whatever to do with a jump from studying/understanding populations to speculations about genetics! That's not how geneticists do their work. I don't want to make myself look like an arrogant jerk by giving you a reading list, nate. &, of course, I don't actually know what kind of training you have in science or the philosophy of science. But I can tell you that your intuitive sense of the subject, if that's what it is, is not serving you well.

Just to use the subject of "violence" to brush your thinking off the table, nate, let me ask this: who has been responsible for more violence, who has killed more people for no reason whatever, who has been more unprovokedly aggressive -- the Germans or the Poles?

The answer is obvious. Now, should we immediately speculate that there is a significant genetic difference (& it would have to be significant to account for the significant differences in the data) between the German "race" & the Polish "race?" Yet -- as you pointed out yourself only a week ago -- these 2 populations have interbred enormously & over long periods.

I'd have plenty of reasons to hate Germans if I wanted to, nate -- they brought death to most of my family -- but I don't. & to understand German violence I have to look to another explanatory network. Not genetics but history.

[Pointgod]

In what way do you think I'm being intellectually dishonest. Is my data false? Do you have other data to prove otherwise?

I agree with you completely that one must not draw conclusions about individuals based on skin color. Individual blacks can be good or bad, bright or stupid, peaceful or violent, just like anybody else. Do you think I've treated you differently because you are black? I knew you were black the moment I joined this board because you used to have an "N" in your name. But for 15 years I've treated you fairly and honestly and have always praised your contribution to this board and your understanding of the game. Heck, I went to bat for you to rescind your ban from the General Board.

But treating people as individuals does not preclude one from recognizing patterns among large population groups. Me saying blacks are more likely to be violent than whites is no different than me saying men are more likely to be violent than women. It's obviously not true for every individual man and woman, but it's always true that a large population of randomly selected men will have a higher violent crime rate than a large population of randomly selected women.

I'm just applying pattern recognition. It's something everyone else does too, but I'm honest enough to admit it. How many nice white liberal guys on this board are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in property costs and endure longer commute times just to avoid living among blacks in the city and inner suburbs? They'll commute from freaking Frederick or Manassas instead of living in Glenarden or Cheverly. And if they happen to live in an area with a high percentage of blacks, I can guarantee that they're sending their kids to private school. Heck, rich blacks do the same thing. How many black congressmen live in the inner suburbs of Maryland or in eastern Washington DC? Nope, they'll live in Georgetown or Arlington.

You know d*mn well you wouldn't compare the WS48 of a 10-yr vet vs a rookie and use the WS48 to validate the 10-yr vet as the better basketball player going forward. That logic could lead you to choose a guy like Nick Collison over Anthony Davis.

You look at all sorts of variables when judging players. You just don't look at the stats, you look at their situation, their experience, their potential/upside. It's funny you don't use the same logic when judging your fellow humans. It's all statistics with suddenly zero ability to comprehend the reasons why stats might look a particular way. That's why your 'pattern recognition' holds zero weight with me. I don't need you to show me some d*mned statistics, I've lived the statistics. I grew up poor, in the worst neighborhood in DC in single parent household. And that parent was sick. I've seen rape, murder first hand. I grew up with friends who would live and die on the same block where we'd play kickball. So when I say your intellectually dishonest, this is what I'm referring to. You refuse to acknowledge to outside factors that create the environment for the statistics to say what they say. However when it comes to basketball, you obviously see the importance of looking at the whole picture.

Thank you for posting this. I've argued with enough posters on the internet to know the position of people who use pseudo science and sociology to make broad assumptions about race. And it's almost always used to denigrate black people. I think more people need to start asking what's the purpose of bringing up these statistics? Anyone who's claiming to use these stats to castigate a whole race while ignoring the historical context of Jim Crow, redlining, white flight, the war on drugs, the justice system, income inequality, hiring inequalities and more.

It starts with talking about why someone would choose a majority black area over a majority white area and it leads down to the path of why black people moving into the neighbourhood will increase crime rates. Like I said I've seen this story played out many times before.

[payitforward]

Some months ago, I asked that this thread be taken down. I had concluded from crappy evidence that it had come into existence as a podium for nate's ideas. Monte, doc & some others demonstrated to me that I was incorrect about that.

In the months that followed I mostly stayed away from the thread, but in the end I returned to it. & I've come to value the diversity of experience, opinion & analysis here. I'm grateful to those who helped me get past my objections.

For that reason alone I would be disappointed if things got nasty between ...well between anyone here. That will shut down discussion. Nobody says life is easy; nobody says people will agree; nobody says you won't hear people say negative things about those w/ whom you identify (or about you, for that matter).

Once, in this thread, I asked if people would talk about how they came to hold their political opinions. The response to had request was, in general, pretty negative. I still think it would increase understanding. But, if not that, then I hope something will happen to lower the heat.