Super Nova wrote
No, I agree that it is in our nature to be aggressive and violent.
If it is "in our
nature to be aggressive and violent." then what other "natural factor" other than genetics is involved in that? I am absolutely fascinated as to what these other "natural" factors might be?
Super Nova wrote
I also stated it was more complex than just genetics.
It is more complex. And nurture can be very important too. But genetics is probably equally as important. Nobody knows to what degree nature and nurture affects an individuals behaviour, only that both factors are important. I don't suppose that you bothered to look up the IAC white paper issue 263, "Is There A Genetic Susceptibility To Engage In criminal Acts"? So I will submit part of the report.
Excerpts from the Australian Institute of Criminology report on Genetic factors in crime.
Recent twin studies show persuasive evidence that both genetic and environmental factors contribute to antisocial behaviour.
This review of genetic research on anti social behaviour has summarized growing evidence for a genetic contribution to anti social behaviour, but it has also indicated that it is highly unlikely that variants of a single gene will be found that very substantially increase the risk of engaging in criminal behaviour.
Instead, it is much more likely that a large number of genetic variants will be identified, that, in the presence of the necessary environmental factors, will increase the likelihood that some individuals develop behavioral traits that will make them more likely to engage in criminal activities.
Antisocial behaviour often clusters within families, suggesting that both inherited genetic factors and family environment are risk factors for this behaviour.
The inconclusive results from studies of individual candidate genes for antisocial behaviour reflect the fact that these behaviours are likely to be influenced by the interaction of multiple genes.
Super Nova wrote
If I was to call out which one is a more important factor, I would say it is our nature.
the AIC says both are significant, and it does not specify whether nature or nurture are the more significant. It probably differs from individual to individual, and from race to race.
Super Nova wrote
I will look that up. i am busy so I will make some time.
Good, it is a great read and can probably be bought from ebay. The most interesting thing about it, is that the six page AIC report could be a summary of the book. That's when you know that people are telling the truth. Facts from one reliable source back up facts from another.
Super Nova wrote
Sure simple explanations are easier to understand but it is more complex than just genetics. You have made a point about people in a civilization. In a civilization we all adapt and in most cases override our natural instincts, those attributes built into our DNA (nature). So it stands to reason that a males aggression and urges need to be controlled by all. Those that cannot become the violent criminal you talk about. That is, behaviour that is unacceptable in a civilized society. In the good old days, the most violent and strongest may have ruled a small tribe but is not acceptable in a civilized society that has rules of conduct. (Laws)
In western jurisprudence it has been taken for granted for a hundred years that some violent offenders are just naturally extremely violent, and they can not help doing otherwise. In such cases where offenders are before the courts, such people can, and do, appeal to the courts that they have little or no control over their violent compulsions, and they can, and do, request to be taken into medical care and treated with drugs that may control their violent impulses. Wise judges recognise that some people are just born violent and provided that the offender recognises that they have an intrinsic medical problem, give serious consideration to that fact in sentencing.
The first court in history to recognise that some people have little or no control over their anger and violent tendencies, was in late 1800's Italy. The offender was an upper class woman who was well known and very well liked, but whenever the hormonal surges which occur during menstrual cycles manifested themselves, turned into an extremely violent and angry Neferti. Without knowing anything about genetics or hormones, the court properly concluded that something intrinsic in the woman's biological makeup during her menstrual periods was causing her to act in ways which were completely uncharacteristic of her normal behaviour. The fact that some women act extremely out of character during their menstrual cycles is well known and appreciated today. And that is genetics. It has nothing at all to do with their upbringing.
Super Nova wrote
So even tough I have an aggressive nature or even sexual urges, I don't run around beating up weaker people and raping every girl with big tits. Also there are sort of macho codes that men feel they need to follow to maintain their Becking order amongst men. Men from poor antisocial environment (e.g. Gettos) operate under a criminal code and they do not really learn the same codes of conduct and learn to restrain their instincts for violence. If this due to a lower IQ ... no. This part of Nature.
Dear Mr Super Nova.
If there was a country town in Australia completely populated by white Anglo Saxons, and in that town, there were 23 year old grandmothers with grandchildren born with foetal alcohol syndrome. And, there was rampant sexual abuse of children with kids under five being routinely screened for gonorrhoea. And, the women in the town alleged widespread sexual abuse committed upon them by the town's male leaders. And, these women were 34 times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic violence and 15 times more likely to be murdered than the women in surrounding towns.
And, the entire adult population of that white town was entirely on intergenerational social welfare, and every two weeks when the government cheques rolled in, the whole town went on a three day drinking binge resulting in widespread violence and even riots where government supplied houses were burned to the ground.
And, the town's children suffered from lice and ringworm. The kids would not go to school, and the government had to bribe parents with extra benefits to make their kids go to school. And, in addition, the government had to provide cars and chauffeurs to take the kids to school and feed the kids, because their parents didn't bother. These kids were five times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic assaults than the kids from surrounding towns.
And, the only way that jobs could be created for the town's residents was to either make them public servants or by inventing taxpayer subsidised non jobs like picking up trash if they felt like it. And, when their young men were farmed out to government subsidised jobs outside of their community, most had to be sent back because 75% of them failed drug and alcohol testing.
Then, Mr Super Nova, I don't think you would have any trouble at all in recognising all of the inhabitants of that town as a bunch of low IQ morons, commonly referred to as white trash.
But woke people like good your self, who think that displaying how non racist you are is more important than recognising self evident reality, will look for any reason to explain away the very noticeable phenomenon of aboriginal dysfunction, or any other high incidences of ethnic criminal dysfunction, except the screamingly obvious one.
Super Nova wrote
In a society sometime connections and relationship are more important for mobility. A bit of luck helps
Smart people cultivate smart friends and associate with people who are as smart as themselves. 'A Mind To Crime" claimed that where people of different races have the same IQ's and more or less the same social values, racial tensions disappear.
Super Nova wrote
Just being smarter should provide them with a greater chance to get up I expect. But the shifty streetwise dumb f..k can sometimes do better.
I think I can score that as a win. With great reluctance, you seem to agree with my premise that smart people are usually upwardly mobile. Good, you may be starting to think straight. Now make the other obvious connection. Dumb people generally inhabit the lowest strata of society and they are rarely upwardly mobile unless they win the lottery. Gee, I wonder which races inhabit the lowest and most crime and welfare prone strata of society? Ummmmm? Think that there might be a connection?
Super Nova wrote
No, all of the above doesn't just apply to dumb f..ks.
That's interesting. You are beginning to adopt John Smith's, Aussie's, and Nom de Plume's tactic of dismissing well reasoned arguments with sneery one liners. I think that you are starting to crack.
Super Nova wrote
Man you do have a problem with dumb people. You do know that based on the bell curve distribution of IQ, half the people in the world have less than or equal to average intelligence. What do you call dumb/ Is it less than 90 IQ points, less than 100?
As stated previously in one of my posts, the US Armed forces use IQ tests to find out whether potential recruits have enough intelligence to do any task, and 10% fail. Western nations can not do much about the 10% of people who are too dumb to become productive citizens. But the survival of our civilisation depends upon not importing people from overseas who are just going to be a crime and welfare burden on our society. One way we can achieve that is recognising that most people from some notoriously dysfunctional ethnicities have low intelligence, and probably a genetic susceptibility to criminal behaviour.
But it is the fashion among fairly well off, virtue signalling people who consider themselves smarter and more moral than other demographic groups in society, to claim that those who are racist are cretins, while those who defend the "oppressed" dysfunctional and crime prone ethnicities, are moral superiors. Because these elites link the belief in racial equality with their own self esteem, they are almost impossible to reason with. To admit they are wrong would be to lower their own self image of themselves, and they can't do that. To admit that most people from some ethnicities are just too dumb to stand on their own two feet in a competitive western society, would be to lower ones social status to the level of a deplorable, redneck peasant. So they will ignore every self evident fact and dream up the most ludicrous excuses, and even condemn the very civilisation that they prefer to live in, rather than acknowledge what they do not want to even think about.
Super Nova wrote
You are linking that men are aggressive my nature and commit most crimes of violence, at least in the eyes of the law to racial factors. I do not agree that a race is dumber or more prone to crime. I would agree some cultures and societies are. If those cultures a predominately a single group of peoples, that doesn't win the race assertions you make.
I am making the rather self evident assertion that genetics is a major factor in criminal behaviour. And the proof of that is the undeniable fact that around 95% of incarcerated criminals are males. Males are very disproportionately crime prone compared to females. That is a very powerful example which proves that genetics and crime are linked. Even the AIC admits they are linked. And if genetics are a significant factor in crime, and certain ethnicities are very disproportionately involved in serious crime, and these same ethnicities ALWAYS form an underclass within every European country they seek to barge into, and if even their own homelands are dysfunctional, then..............?
I am sure that you are smart enough to fill in the blank.
Super Nova wrote
That is just bollocks. I respect scientific enquiry and will change my view when presented with evidence that contradicts my understanding.
Well, you could start with the AIC report, next, "A Mind To Crime," and then "The Bell Curve." Then read an opposing view to see who has the better argument. My choice was "The War Against Children" by Peter R Breggin, Ginger Ross Breggin. I was interested to understand how the authors of this book would counter the very convincing scientific arguments in the other two books. But they did not bother. They just said that thinking that genetics was a factor in criminal behaviour is eugenics, and eugenics is bad because Hitler believed in eugenics. And the idea that people could have genetic problems associated with very violent behaviour was all a conspiracy between drug companies, especially Ely Lilly.
Super Nova wrote
Elon musk's father owned an emrald mine in apartheid South Africa-MONEY
Jeff Bezos started Amazon with 300,000 dollars that he got from his parents and from his rich friends-MONEY
Bill Gate's mum sat on the same board as the CEO of IBM and convinced him to take a risk on her son's new company- Connection.
Mark Zukerbeg was attending one of the best universities in the world, Harvard. he dropped out to focus on Facebook and he was given the opportunity to showcase what he had- working system
Warren Buffett is the son of a powerful congressman who owned an investment company-family background.
The fact is, it's harder for a person who has no connection, no money, no family support, or a working system to make it than a person who has one or even all of these.
Another way of looking at it is that smart couples do well in life and have smart kids who also do well in life. Smart people have connections. Hey man, I was a Houso who lived in a block of 84 Housing Commission units and when my mother and I moved in, all we had for furniture was a small black and white TV, an ironing board, and a folding card table. We slept on the concrete rolled up in blankets. The flat echoed because we had no furniture. My mother worked as a waitress, a cook on sheep stations, an usherette, a sandwich maker, and finally a dressmaker. She ended up as wardrobe mistress of Channel 10. An executive. Why? Because she worked hard and she had brains.
All I could manage was to become an electrician. But that put me light years ahead of my dole bludging, thieving, and drug ingesting mates in the flats, who's main focus in life was how to get on the Disability Support Pension. They thought I was crazy for going to work. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
You do not have to be a captain of industry to lead a productive and generally law abiding life. Anyone with a work ethic and near average intelligence can do it. But for some ethnicities, that is the real problem.
