On the contrary, AJ, I think that your last post is a wonderful example of how ideologues with your peculiar worldview will perform the most incredible mental gymnastics to deny self evident connections that most people can easily see. By doing that, you are destroying your own credibility.

Criminals generally have low intelligence compared to the general population. Therefore, low intelligence is a major factor in criminal behaviour. Any person not blinded by ideology can easily see that. That this fact straightaway demolishes your implication about environmental reasons being the only factors in criminal behaviour, causes you to go into creative overdrive. Your response is to create a scenario which our readers can see is plainly ridiculous. Whereas there is some truth that correlation does not automatically denote causation, it is obvious that in many cases statistical correlation does point to causation. If it did not, then the science of statistics would have no reason to exist. Statistics is all about finding reasons for correlations, and most people can easily understand that.

You can claim that ice cream sales have a correlation with murder rates, and our readers will agree with you that if ice cream sales did correlate to homicide rates, it is simply a coincidence. In that case, statistical correlation most definitely does not denote causation. But my information is that homicide rates in the USA have been found to rise during periods of well publicised prize fights. In such a case, our readers would agree that there is probably a connection between the two factors.

My position on criminal behaviour is based around the fact that in general, criminals have low intelligence. And low intelligence is heritable. This is a fact our readers can understand and appreciate. (Like father, like son) If you wish to claim that low intelligence is not a factor in criminal behaviour, by dismissing my premise with the trite phrase "correlation does not denote causation", my opinion is, that you are treating our readers like fools. They would see my argument as very strong, and your "explanation" as very weak.

.

Dear LEGO,

.

You wrote:

« It was discovered that all races can have people with very low intelligence, and people with very high intelligence. But the "curves" were different in terms of median intelligence. White Americans has a mean intelligence of 103, Asian Americans 106, Hispanics 95, and African Americans 85 … You seem to be claiming that black people in general are just as smart as white people in general … "The Bell curve" was correct »
.

You did not indicate in your post, LEGO, to whom you were referring as “you”. I presume you mean everybody other than yourself. So as I feel included, I offer the following reply.

Personally, I see no reason to believe that the human faculty of intelligence varies according to biological factors such as genetics. I understand that we all dispose of the same intellectual faculties but that our different lifestyles, languages and cultures have developed these same faculties differently and to different degrees.

I take as example, our Australian Aboriginal peoples. Their lifestyles, languages and culture hardly evolved for 60 000 years until British colonisation almost wiped them out. If they had taken IQ tests at the time, I suspect they would have failed miserably.

But, lo and behold, one of those black native savages by the name of Charlie Perkins graduated from Sydney university, just 178 years later, with a Batchelor of Arts degree. While at university, he worked for the City of South Sydney cleaning toilettes. He was the very first Aboriginal university graduate.

Joe Lane estimates that there will probably be 2 400 university graduates this year, making a total of around 40-44 000.

I don’t think that would be possible in such a short time-frame, after 60 000 long years of hunter-gatherer lifestyle with its corresponding limited literacy and numeracy possibilities, if the Australian Aboriginal peoples were not equipped with intellectual faculties similar to those of the invading white British colonisers. Here are two articles that tend to validate this impression :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Genetics_of_race_and_intelligence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Race_and_intelligence

But don’t worry, LEGO, it’s not written in stone !

.

LEGO,

I could see how anything beyond oversimplifications and a black and white view of the world would seem like mental gymnastics to you. But the fact that correlation does not imply causation is a basic truism in statistics. One you appear to have grudgingly conceded.

<<Criminals generally have low intelligence compared to the general population.>>

Where conventional crimes are concerned, yes.

<<Therefore, low intelligence is a major factor in criminal behaviour.>>

It’s bound to play some role for some individuals in some instances of their criminal behaviour. No factors exist in isolation. But there is not enough evidence to say that it is a “major” factor. That will vary from individual to individual. The interplay between the various factors that contribute to criminal behaviour are far too complex for such a sweeping statement as this.

<<That this fact straightaway demolishes your implication about environmental reasons being the only factors in criminal behaviour …>>

I have not said that environmental factors are the only causes of offending behaviour.

Speaking of which, how have your dodgy theories accounted for factors such as poor nutrition, poor education, poor parenting, low socioeconomic status, postcode and the resulting high stress levels during the developmental years, for criminal behaviour and low IQ?

<<Whereas there is some truth that correlation does not automatically denote causation, it is obvious that in many cases statistical correlation does point to causation.>>

Yes, but most of the time that’s not the case.

<<If [correlation] did not [imply causation], then the science of statistics would have no reason to exist.>>

How do you figure that? Correlations are still useful for identifying the driving factor(s).

<<... low intelligence is heritable.>>

Yes, there are other factors that play a role too, though. Co-incidentally, these can also contribute to an individual's chances of offending. So how do you know what's influencing what and where? You don't. You just make it up as you go.

Incidentally, where do white-collar criminals fit into your simplistic view of the world? They’re usually very intelligent, after all. How does LEGO’s dodgy criminology account for that?

Dear Rodney.

Physical appearances are caused by genetics. The different physical appearances between a Scandinavian and a Zulu are caused by genetic variability in which genetics selects those physical characteristics most suitable for survival within particular types of environments.

Your premise, that all humans are born with equal intelligence, and it is just environmental factors which cause the differences in intelligence, simply does not stack up. Firstly, within the animal world, certain breeds of dogs, cats, and horses are noted for their differences in temperament and intelligence. Any brochure advertising the differences between animal breeds can tell you that. These differences must be genetic, as animal breeds do not have different culture, language, or lifestyles.

I am certain that the homosexual community would be outraged if you told them that their disgusting behaviour was all learned behaviour caused by their culture, language and lifestyles. Even children from very religious families where homosexuality is most definitely frowned upon can be homosexual. So culture is not a factor in homosexual dysfunction, nor can it be caused by "language" or lifestyle. What is left is genetics. And most homosexuals will claim that their mixed up sexual feelings are intrinsic to themselves.

Smart parents generally produce smart children, and dumb parents almost always produce dumb children. The idea that any child can be an Einstein with enough nutrition, education, and parental guidance, was once a cherished goal of the Socialist "Behavioural" School of Psychology. Attempts were made by the "Behaviourists" to turn disadvantaged class children into brainiacs but they failed miserably. Nobody but you and AJ still believe that a London flower girl can be passed off as a Bohemian princes with a few elocution lessons from Rex Harrison. It's a nice Cinderella story, but you must not take it seriously.

Charlie Perkins was a half caste aboriginal person who once tried to start an "aboriginal only" club in Sydney, in which he said that half caste "yeller fellers" (like himself) would not be welcome. He was therefore a racist, one whom you apparently admire.

To AJ

If fifty years of IQ testing in US prisons has revealed that most US prisoners have below average IQ's, so how can you possibly claim that low intelligence is not a major factor in criminal behaviour? Have you spent some time in a US clink yourself? 95% of people in jail are males. That fact by itself is a very powerful argument that genetics and crime are linked. Especially when Australia's own Australian Institute of Criminology's own white paper (Trends and Issues, Number 263, asked the question 'Is there a genetic susceptability to engage in criminal acts?") To which the AIC's publication reluctently answered "yes."

Although, the publication qualified their answer with "Many criminologists are understandably concerned about the potential misuse of this research given the historical experiences with the Eugenic use of biological explanations of crime, and genetic explanations in particular."

That's politically correct criminologist Newspeak for "The racists were right, but we can't let the public know." First Watergate, then Climategate, now Criminalgate.

I might not know much about statistical analysis, but when I go outside and it starts raining, I correlate the presence of big, black clouds with the causation of rain. I correlate the presence of large numbers of Muslims within a suburb, with the causation that most whites have fled to anywhere that there are no Muslims. So correlation can obviously denote causation. "Correlation does not denote causation" is simply a statistical principle, like the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty." But if the legal fraternity really believed that, then every suspect would be free prior to trial.

White collar criminals may be intelligent, but whereas intelligence is a very important factor, it is not the only important factor. And , surprise, surprise, African American white collar criminals are disproportionately represented in white collar crime. Here in Australia, the supposedly "intelligent", sometimes university educated leaders of aboriginal communities seem to have very sticky fingers. ATSIC was closed down because of the kleptomaniac behaviour of some aboriginal leaders, some of whom were also accused of rape and spousal abuse by numerous aboriginal women.

Because correlation doesn't necessitate causation, LEGO.

<<... US prisoners have below average IQ's, so how can you possibly claim that low intelligence is not a major factor in criminal behaviour?>>

However, I would be willing to say that low intelligence is indirectly a major risk factor. Those with low intelligence are more likely to offend because they generally have less opportunities, not just because they're too dumb to understand right from wrong or consequences. If that's all you meant, then I agree.

<<[Male criminality] by itself is a very powerful argument that genetics and crime are linked.>>

“Biological sex is a chromosomal difference determined at conception, not a heritable trait.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330402)

Otherwise, I agree there is a link.

“A genetic disposition for aggressive behaviour, for example, can help one to become a good soldier, a good rugby league player or a good wife beater. How the genetic disposition to aggression manifests, however, depends on one’s current environment and their environment throughout the various stages of their development.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17092#301805)

<<That's politically correct criminologist Newspeak for "The racists were right, but we can't let the public know.">>

Rubbish. Just because there is a link between crime and genetics, that doesn't mean that some races are more genetically prone to crime. We've already been through this (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276108)

There is no one 'crime' gene and an individual can be more genetically similar to someone of a different race than to another of their own race. You know nothing about genetics.

<<"Correlation does not denote causation" is simply a statistical principle ...>>

And it's also the case in the vast majority of instances.

<<... African American[s] are disproportionately represented in white collar crime.>>

Only in low-level white-collar crimes (something as simple as stealing stationery is classed as a white-collar crime). Whites are disproportionately represented in high-level white-collar crimes.

<<... some of whom were also accused of rape and spousal abuse by numerous aboriginal women>>

So how did you rule out socio-cultural factors to arrive at the conclusion that racial genetics play a role? You never seem to explain this, funnily enough.