...Continued

To add to all this, our mobility and the conquering that often accompanied it, over the last 200,000 odd years, has helped to mix up the genes in our already very small gene pool faster than other species, whose mobility tends only to be influenced by food and environmental factors. Not the desire to explore or conquer.

<<You have already admitted that within all human subspecies, personality traits such as a proneness towards criminal behaviour is heritable.>>

I like how you say “admitted”. It makes it sound like I was pinned into a corner, or something.

Yes, within all of them. “Race” isn’t a factor. You’re riding this one for all it’s worth, aren’t you. I should point out here that there is still no definitive evidence and, so far, it only APPEARS as though genetics plays a role. The only evidence for this is that children born into families with a criminal past have a higher chance of offending later on in life, but that could just be a learned behaviour. A study of 14,000 adoptees (Mednick, Gabrielli and Hutchings, 1994) also suggested a genetic link, but this only turned out to be true of property crimes, not violent.

<<So, if genetically heritable physical features such as skin colour and nose size is common within geographically localised human subspecies, caused by natural selection within that localised environment, how could it be that behaviour (which you have already conceded can be genetically heritable) could not also be common within that localised subgroup?>>

Oh yes, I forced to “concede”! I refer you back to my first post today.

<<To put it more generally, in the higher classes, title marries title, money marries money, and brains marries brains … Whereas the marriage of high born females to low born men is socially unacceptable in the upper classes.>>

What era do you live in? The same one your debunked racist ideas come from, I suppose...

You’ve been talking about entire races, not classes (and brains do not always marry brains - what an absurd generalisation).

Continued…

…Continued

Nor do different classes gas or lock those with undesirable traits away and prevent them from breeding. This does not rescue you from your natural/artificial selection blunder, sorry.

<<It is very common for the most violent and psychotic male to murder his way to the top.>>

Which might explain why men are generally more aggressive than women. How, incidentally, do alleles, gene expression and chromosomes fit into these overly simplistic racial theories of yours? You seem to be disregarding them an awful lot.

<<It is hardly a "conspiracy theory" that the ABC and the humanities departments of universities are hotbeds of socialist advocacy.>>

Sheesh, now reds under the bed. Again, you ignore how universities got to where they are: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275086
I know what James Watson said too. And I don’t care what he’s accomplished either. That would be an argument from authority fallacy. He was famous for few stupid comments that had no evidentiary support.
<<…just like Galilieo before him, he was forced to recant what he said. But it wasn't enough, an intellectual fatwa was put on him and he was sacked anyway. >>

Then why has he continued to “recant” after leaving?

<<Now we get down to the premise that ethnic criminal behaviour is a figment of the public's imagination brought on by sensationalist news reporting.>>

Who’s premise? I certainly haven’t said that. I only vouched for the mountains of evidence supporting the media’s influence on the public’s perception of crime.

<<Surprisingly. you disagreed.>>

No, I didn’t. That would contradict what I’ve said about the effects of marginalisation. I did, however, suggest that it had been *exaggerated* by the media.

<<Are you seriously suggesting that the drive by killings in primarily the Arab areas of Sydney have always occurred?>>

No, and I’d doubt that’s what the paper that you’re referring to is suggesting either. Could you tell me which paper this is that you’re referring to so I can check it out? And again, did you check their sources and their sources too?

Continued…

…Continued

<<As being intimidated by your claim that you have all the facts…>>

The facts are for all of us. Some of us are just too lazy to look for them or would prefer to write them off as Leftist propaganda without investigating the sources to see if this really is the case.

<<…hey mate, I am just getting warmed up.>>

Well, I would certainly hope that was the case!

<<Please keep it up. I am really enjoying our exchanges.>>

I could almost detect a nervous giggle in this. How you could possibly be having fun here? None of your arguments have held so far and the only way you can continue to argue is to misrepresent what I’ve said and then respond to that instead. You haven’t had a hit yet. This is like watching someone completely unable to ‘pin the tail on the donkey’ despite having no blindfold on. Nothing I’ve said has been cryptic here.

<<Please post up your little "Strain Theory" so that I can amuse myself by poking holes in it>>

Brave words for someone who has not yet done any hole poking. Your need to ignore half of what I’m saying and then misrepresent the other half, use logical fallacies and resort to conspiracy theories - when I have had to do nothing of the sort - just to keep going, speaks volumes.

As for Strain Theory, It’s not “my little” theory. Again, this is not about me (your words here are an obvious and bitter snarl of contempt). Decades of research support it, so you’ll want to have done your homework before trying to poke holes in it. As you may be starting to realise now, uninformed common sense isn’t very useful. Basically though, it’s to do with our varying reactions in trying to live up to high standards of a society and acheive the valued goals within it (i.e. the American dream). So if everyone is poor, then the bar is lowered and poverty is unlikely to be as criminogenic. Keeping up with the Jones’s is very easy when they’re poor too.

Perhaps I should start by giving you a biology lesson related to genetics and Evolution?

Species evolve through time to become other species. But the change from species to species is not a sudden jump. What occurs, is that geographically separated populations of a particular species genetically diverge genetically so that the separate groups can adapt to the particular habitats in which each group is living. This intermediate stage is called a "subspecies". The subspecies is still a part of the species, but it has noticeable differences in heritable traits such as appearance, behaviour and intelligence.

Eventually a subspecies will evolve genetically so far away from the other subspecies (within the same species) that the two groups can no longer interbreed to produce fertile progeny. At that point the two subspecies become two different species.

"Subspecies" occur within every species of organism on Earth, including humans. They can be the result of natural selection or artificial selection (selective breeding.) Regardless of whether natural selection or artificial selection is used, genetic transfer of alleles controlling heritable traits such as body appearance and personality will take place. Genetic transfer of heritable traits is common to every organism on planet Earth.

It does not matter if humans are "culturally, socially, emotionally, or intellectually" a more sophisticated species. Both human beings and animals can pass on heritable traits like physical appearance and personality to their offspring.

Continued

Continued

Your premise is, that human subspecies differ so little in DNA that it is "unlikely" that personality can be transmitted, even though you have already conceded that criminologists know that there is a causal link to crime and genetics. Your premise also claims that only physical appearance can be passed on by genetic transfer, a premise you have not even attempted to validate.

My premise is, that human subspecies are no different to any other organism when it comes to the genetic transfer of heritable traits, which has caused geographically isolated subspecies to evolve differing appearances and personalities more attuned to the particular environments in which they have evolved. My validation example is brown bears. If brown bear species can have two or more subspecies with entirely differing personalities, because of their separate evolution within differing environments, then exactly the same principle must apply to separate subspecies of humans. Both brown bears and human Primates are mammals.

Therefore your premise, that numerous sub species of humans must all have identical personalities, identical levels of intelligence, and identical levels of proneness to crime, is a premise you have not bothered to validate, and it does not even conform to my understanding of high school level genetics. Your premise comes from a deeply felt egalitarian ideal common in academia which you have never questioned, and it clashes with a stubborn reality.

Continued

Continued

That ideal, implicit in many popular critiques of intelligence research, are that people are all born as equals, and that social inequalities and dysfunction can only be caused by racism, discrimination, prejudice, and unjust privilege.

The reality is that Mother Nature is no egalitarian. People are unequal in intellectual potential, not just within particular subspecies, but also between subspecies. They are born that way, just as they are born with different potentials for height, physical attractiveness, artistic flair, athletic prowess, and other heritable traits. Although subsequent experience and nurture shapes this material, no amount of social engineering or humanitarian philosophizing can make individuals from differing subspecies of humans with widely divergent mental aptitudes and physical features into intellectual or physical equals.

Now you are claiming that cultural factors as pre eminent in human behavior. Nature and nurture are both important to understanding human behaviors. But which factor takes precedence is different between individuals, and groups of individuals. An individual born with a genetic susceptibility to engage in extreme violence may not become violent, if he is submerged within a culture where violent behavior is very severely frowned upon. Conversely, a genetically violent person brought up within a violent culture where violent behavior is rewarded and praised, will almost certainly become extremely violent.

You are asking how this relates to Japanese? The unique Japanese personality is result of nature, nurture, and selective breeding. Japanese people are renowned for their law abiding natures and their cringing respect to authority, even to bloodthirsty tyrants. This has come about by the swift execution over millennia of anybody who dared talk back to the local Daimyo, as well as the fact that for thousands of years, the only punishment for crimes in Japan was execution.

That does not mean that crime does not exist. But in Japan crime is unique because it is almost an unofficial arm of the government. Yakuza criminals act within a traditional set of rules, because in Japan, tradition is important. The criminal class are the descendents of samurai ronin who still strictly adhere to traditional hierarchical values.

Continued