UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

observations on the matter...

>'Human Behavior' researchers are endeavoring to find out if there are genetic markers that might help to explain 'Anti-Social' behaviors...not unlike finding the BRCA1/2 genetic mutations that indicate a higher than normal potential for breast cancer...to date, as best I can tell, they haven't found any. Unlike finding the BRCA mutations, human behaviors are significantly affected by a multitude of environmental factors, so the challenge of testing and proving that such a marker or markers exist is daunting.

>From your posts, it appears to me that you are equating the searches with definitive results...more than that, you seem to be asserting that there must be a racial factor involved that would lead one to believe that Black people were more inclined to have this...as yet unfound...genetic marker. In short, if this is what you're trying to convey, you are 'way over your ski tips' with this line of thinking

>More importantly, at least to me, I am at a loss as to understanding what value/usage you would find should such a marker be identified...what would you do with that knowledge?...would you insist that everyone be tested for the marker?...would those with the "ASB" marker be 'tagged' in a police data base? would they be denied access to government jobs?...any jobs?...denied marriage licenses for fear of passing on those genes?...would you want them segregated from society and kept in a 'gulag' somewhere as a prophylactic measure to protect society?...help me out here...what's your "End Game" with all of this?

>Another question...how do you define "Anti-Social Behavior", especially when it comes to races?...do you consider the murders of millions of Jews by 'Pure White" German Nazis "Anti-Social"?...or, the enslavement of Black Africans by White Europeans "Anti-Social"?...or the seizure of foreign lands by several 'White' European Nations "Anti-Social"?...or is it just the venting of accumulated frustrations by those formerly enslaved Black Americans that strikes you as being "Anti-Social"?

>I'd also like to hear your reply to my prior link regarding the utterly despicable racial hate crime in Jasper, Texas...and whether that changes the 'color' of your thinking on all of this.

(no message)

Is this topic too challenging for you?...c'mon, man...let's hear what you have to say about genetics, race and anti-social behavior.

btw, had the tables been turned and you were Black, I strongly suspect that you would have had no trouble 'venting' your frustrations with such a lived experience...just a hunch.

I haven't personally done any genetics research regarding its impact on violent behavior. But only a fool would dismiss its influence altogether.

I do think that if environmental influence were better than it is, the statistical anomaly of one community's criminal activity would look way better than it does. Unfortunately, low-IQ, leftist scum like yourself blaming some imaginary system holding people down as the excuse for disproportionate violent crime is just an ignorant way of excusing people from their individual responsibility for their actions.

it missed the entirety of MAS's hypothesis and the essence of my own reply. He's trying to build a case for the theory that Black people have a genetic mutation that makes them more prone to anti-social behavior...

My reply suggests that in actuality there might be a stronger rationale for shifting attention toward malignant genetic mutations among White people, due to their history of enormous anti-social transgressions (e.g. Nazi Holocaust; U.S. Slavery, and European Imperialism (seizing property and resources of other lands)...you somehow let that fly right by you...can't refute it?...or can't comprehend it?...which is it?

The problem is that you're wrong. Another asinine strawman you've put together. It's your shtick- we've all seen your impotent work here.

You can't win the debates with your limited ammo, so you fabricate things that were never said, then spin some cliche about "nazis" or "racists." Weak.

so you don't even have a batting average yet for all your ad hominems...see you on another thread.

(no message)

Link: https://www.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118

(no message)

for what it is Margaret?

I will let MAS confirm or deny this before passing judgment.

(no message)

Or just clam up. He won’t own this “hypothesis.”

(no message)

Hey, Frank? Who's the puppet?

Go buy some Roman candles and enjoy yourself.

(no message)

That genetics influence antisocial behavior isn't in dispute scientically. Genes are passed down from parents. It's an entirely plausible hypothesis that some groups have, proportionally, passed down more genes that influence antisocial behavior. If you have a refutation of that that doesn't involve logical fallacies - "That sounds like the eugenicists of the early 1900s!" or "Environment plays by far the biggest role because I say it does!" or "You're a dogmatist, therefore your hypothesis must be wrong" or "You believe only black people display antisocial behavior" - I'm all ears. Where is the science behind your assertions? I gave you some of mine. The meta-analysis, I repeat, the meta-analysis, demonstrates that genetics plays possibly a 50/50 role in antisocial behavior, and the more violent the antisocial behavior, the more likely that genetics play a role. You've given me bupkis to refute that in the way of science. Go for it. Do you honestly believe that this genetic influence is distributed equally across groups? Seriously? Leave aside this issue. What is distributed equally among racial groups? Tell me. I'm dying to hear it.

Your fear and discomfort discussing this issue won't be settled by your name-calling and lying and fallacious arguing. You need to put something up.

It’s racist bullshit which you are trying to mask in pseudo science.

Gosh, you're taking it on the chin this Sabbath.

“entirely plausible hypothesis”.

You are the one claiming that genes predisposing one to violence are “plausibly” disproportionately contained in one one racial group as opposed to others. You have zero evidence or studies to support this eugenic hypothesis.

I'm 100% confident you learned this at ND at some point.

But, please, explain what is illogical about the hypothesis?

(no message)

It is a fact that the arrest rates for violent crime are heavily skewed by race. For example, the arrest rate for murder among black men is 18.1 times higher per 100,000 population in NYC versus white men. The same figure in Washington DC is 84.9 times higher.

Can we agree that there is a massive skew?

Is your position that this is purely socioeconomic? Is it purely the effect of racist policing? Is it purely cultural?

There are more poor white people than poor black people in the nation.

Can we simply not consider this question because it is racist? What’s your hypothesis?

be more violent than others. In other words there is no black violence gene.

You think there is one?

There are a variety of cultural, historical, economic, and environmental factors that are determinative IMHO. I know of no credible scientific evidence supporting the position of MAS. Point me to the study if there is.

Frank’s mind left him years ago.

Who in the world claimed that there is a "black violence gene?" Are you that frightened and hurt that you must keep up these easily deconstructed strawmen? Certainly not me. You asserted that antisocial behavior is mostly environmental. Please post evidence of this. I'm begging you. I posted links to two studies, one a metanalysis, both of which clearly demonstrate that antisocial behavior is a product of both. Honestly, only a fool would assert that it is entirely environmental or that genetics play an insignificant role. It's certainly not controversial among geneticists. It's only controversial among people who wish to subscribe to an 18th century concept of tabula rasa, which, amazingly, is what many lapse into to avoid discussing things about genetics that make them uncomfortable.

Here is what we know: Certain genes influence impulsivity within individuals. We see a wide variation in impulsivity among all individual human beings. Your explanation is that it is due to environment. The problem is that we find impulsive, antisocial individuals greatly outnumbered by non-impulsive individuals in the same environments. In fact, as I noted, we find them in the same families as non-impulsive, non-antisocial siblings. How do you explain that with your assertion? You should consult some of the studies on identical twins adopted by separate families as it relates to this issue. Doh!

I also asked you before to come up with anything that is distributed equally among different racial groups, be it height, upper body strength, intelligence, eye color, hair color, bodyfat distribution, whatever. Please. Again, I'm begging you.

Are you seriously prepared to:
a. Argue the science on genetics and antisocial behavior is bunk and your opinion, uninformed by science, is the correct one? If so, please share the evidence that refutes the research I shared in the original thread, which makes clear that genetics play a large role, and that as antisocial behavior is more violent, the greater the factor that genetics plays. You can't produce it, thus your shuffles, fallacies, and name-calling. Dead giveaways.

Or

b. Yes, genes that influence impulsivity play a role, but they play a role at proportionally identical percentages among racial groups. In other words, there simply cannot be a higher percentage of blacks with a genetic makeup that makes them more impulsive than Asians, or Caucasians. Is that another hunch? If so, what environmental phenomena among lower-class blacks differs from those of other racial/ethnic groups in similar socioeconomic strata? Illegitimacy rates continue to rise among Hispanics and whites. I take it you think that lower-class Hispanics often live in dreadful situations, with poor nutrition, high levels of abuse, broken families, and so forth. Why do the aforementioned homicide rates even among Hispanics pale in comparison, given the similar conditions in which they live compared to blacks? It simply cannot be that different racial groups procreate at different rates, and therefore, some groups produce more individuals with genetic makeups that make them more impulsive. Again, we already know that certain genes affect impulsivity. This isn't in dispute among geneticists. And to further short-circuit your brain, I'm going mention this: there tends to be an inverse relationship between intelligence/reasoning ability and impulsivity. The link below lists numerous studies. Then again, you already know this on some level from your experiences growing up and who were the chronic miscreants and frightening kids. Maybe, and hold onto something, the reason Asians commit crimes and demonstrate impulsive, antisocial behavior at drastically lower levels than other racial groups is because they have a mean IQ of 108. Or is that utterly impossible? If so, why?

I will be back in a few days and after shaming Ty a bit this morning, with perhaps a tad more shaming required, we will engage in a discussion where he offers counterevidence and some attempts at reasoning. You, on the other hand, will have answered none of my longstanding questions and will simply be namecalling.


Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7512293_How_Impulsivity_is_Related_to_Intelligence_and_Academic_Achievement

that demonstrates that blacks or any other racial group has a higher genetic propensity for violence.

You have nothing, zip, nada other than your usual BS bloviation, cap’n.

You should be embarrassed, but you obviously aren’t.

The hypothesis is that there may be a higher percentage of impulsive individuals within different groups. You then either lie or simply don't understand the difference between that hypothesis and the ridiculously stupid idea that there is a "black gene," which predisposes all black people to impulsivity or "rascality." Maybe you really can't differentiate those two propositions. If you had intellectual integrity of any sort, you'd answer my questions to you, one of them being whether you seriously believe that an equal percentage of individuals in the different racial groups have genetic predispositions to heightened impulsivity. You won't answer that because you can't think of a single other thing that is distributed equally among different racial groups, and, besides, if you started to acknowledge how unlikely it is, you'd then have to reconsider your entire assertion about the predominance of environment in antisocial behavior, and think about the scary, uncomfortable implications that might carry! "Don't go there," even if it might lead to truth! Margaret Sanger! Eugenics! Francis Galton! Nazis! Hitler! KKK! Stop! Halt! Nothing to see here!

There is clearly a very big problem. Not sure how anyone could dismiss any possible reason without countervailing evidence of their own.

(no message)

(no message)

I fully agree there is a problem there. Unlike you I don’t claim to have a dogmatic answer unsupported by any reputable scientific study. You cite study after study, yet can produce nothing that claims there is a greater genetic predisposition of blacks as a racial group to violence. You don’t, because there isn’t anything like that out there. So cut the BS or produce the evidence, instead of a claimed “plausible hypothesis”.

I asked for evidence. Why do you avoid every single question I ask in both of the threads? Because you have no evidence for this assertion and the science does not support this article of faith you hold. It makes you and Chris uncomfortable to even think about the alternative that you are left with name-calling and ad hominem attacks. It's truly all you have. You won't answer a single question I ask of you. I'll return in four days from the cabin, and you will not have answered a single thing. You know you can't and you know you can't enter into a debate where you debate honestly and avoid fallacies. It ain't in you.

Again, a hypothesis precedes testing. A hypothesis is formed based upon established facts and logical thinking. I've given you the facts on genetic influence upon impulsivity. I explained, in depth, why a plausible hypothesis is that there may be a higher percentage of impulsive individuals within different groups. You then either lie or simply don't understand the difference between that hypothesis and the ridiculously stupid idea that there is a "black gene," which predisposes all black people to impulsivity. Iggle understands this. Why can't you? Perhaps if you spent less time recalling your freshman classmates and more time learning how to formulate logical thoughts, you might do better at this whole thing.

Tell you what: you think good thoughts of me and I'll think good thoughts of you while I'm incommunicado (the old lady really wants me to ditch all devices over these days), and cut your UHND OF time in half. My hypothesis...my hypothesis is that all of these things combined will make for a happier Frank, and, in the end, don't all of us here want a happier Frank? It's July, baby! Get outside like me! Ride a bike. Go for a hike. Put a cutout Trump face on a caged dove and then shoot it! Have fun, for crying out loud!

Sad pathetic TDS sufferer.

(no message)

about Orange Man. Still. Five years later. Again, nothing will abate them.

Some people have one button that can be pushed. Others have multiple. Frank is just one large button, but I don't think he used to be like that. Trump took his soul and health.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)