Again another good interview that gets one thinking. I believe that the possibility of a genetic component may be present, I find it hard to follow as only a small proportion of the Black male population are committing crimes. Is there even a way to assess the genetic component that is the same or similar in these men vs those that do not commit crime despite coming from the same or similar ancestries. The study of such is fraught with potential 3rd-rails I don't see it ever happening. I do wonder if you could trace back the lineage to a far distant time could these criminal propensities be related to a Jared Diamond-like, environmental (hunter/gatherer in jungle) survival mechanism different then in other hostile environments. Or could there be a relationship with any existing Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Homo Habilis, etc. DNA which in the "wrong" mix with environment, diet, cultural factors become no longer latent? Any really smart physical anthropologists out there?
I am not an anthropologist, but I have read quite a lot about the physical differences in race. There is an easily identifiable genetic component that occurs in males which is directly linked to aggression: testosterone. In addition to aggression, higher testosterone levels can also be linked to chronic disease and mortality.
Globally, urine samples have shown males of African descent have the highest testosterone levels. Then Caucasians, then Latinos and the lowest levels of testosterone are found in the Han Chinese. To me, this data explains why more violent crimes are committed by one group of people and the least amount of violent crime by another.
Additionally, differences in testosterone levels in men vary depending on where you are growing up as well as your level of education.
One multi varied analysis titled "Racial variation in sex steroid hormone concentration in black and white men: a meta-analysis" shows "Black men had significantly higher unadjusted (WMD = 0.27 ng/mL, 95% CI 0.16–0.39), and multivariable-adjusted (WMD = 0.27 ng/mL, 95% CI 0.15–0.38) total testosterone levels than white men" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327897/
"Testosterone Is High among Young Black Men with Little Education"
No, of course not however it is a measurable and well studied area . We see evolution and adaptation in every single aspect of nature, including humans. We see and admit the biological differences between males and females. We are quick to understand that a finch in one part of the US developed over time different physical attributes (beak shape, size) than one from another region.
We can measure other differences in biological race down to the milliseconds. Why is it people of East African descent own nearly all of the top 100 marathon times globally and people of West African descent nearly all of the top 500 sprint races (100M, 200M)? Why are these groups of people so much more able in athletics than the Han Chinese? East Africans have longer legs, shorter torsos and a pelvis ever so slightly tilted forward to which the physics of this makes the more efficient at running long distances. West Africans have dense muscles along with the fast twitch gene. These are undeniable facts... not based on training or education or food consumption.... it's clearly based on measurable biological, genetic markers.
If we can identify the physical differences between certain groups of people, like what I mentioned above or even facts like Africans are taller than Chinese on average... (and this is ALL from hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution), why are we so hesitant to say that perhaps one group is significantly more aggressive and violent than the other?
Sorry to get to this so late. Been to busy to get to some emails, but I thank you for responding and the studies cited. I guess I was really looking for more evolutionary/natural selection rationale. As relates to your email, what were the genetic advantages for higher T levels? Why did these advantages not transfer to other races? Or why selected out/lower?
And most importantly... our differences should be acknowledged for what they are and celebrated. In my opinion, it is all perfect and beautiful in natures scheme. We are different in many, many ways. Even within the race. Let's own it and move forward on how to maximize our strengths and minimize our weaknesses because we all need each other cooperation to make this life a good one.
Again another good interview that gets one thinking. I believe that the possibility of a genetic component may be present, I find it hard to follow as only a small proportion of the Black male population are committing crimes. Is there even a way to assess the genetic component that is the same or similar in these men vs those that do not commit crime despite coming from the same or similar ancestries. The study of such is fraught with potential 3rd-rails I don't see it ever happening. I do wonder if you could trace back the lineage to a far distant time could these criminal propensities be related to a Jared Diamond-like, environmental (hunter/gatherer in jungle) survival mechanism different then in other hostile environments. Or could there be a relationship with any existing Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Homo Habilis, etc. DNA which in the "wrong" mix with environment, diet, cultural factors become no longer latent? Any really smart physical anthropologists out there?
I am not an anthropologist, but I have read quite a lot about the physical differences in race. There is an easily identifiable genetic component that occurs in males which is directly linked to aggression: testosterone. In addition to aggression, higher testosterone levels can also be linked to chronic disease and mortality.
Globally, urine samples have shown males of African descent have the highest testosterone levels. Then Caucasians, then Latinos and the lowest levels of testosterone are found in the Han Chinese. To me, this data explains why more violent crimes are committed by one group of people and the least amount of violent crime by another.
Additionally, differences in testosterone levels in men vary depending on where you are growing up as well as your level of education.
One multi varied analysis titled "Racial variation in sex steroid hormone concentration in black and white men: a meta-analysis" shows "Black men had significantly higher unadjusted (WMD = 0.27 ng/mL, 95% CI 0.16–0.39), and multivariable-adjusted (WMD = 0.27 ng/mL, 95% CI 0.15–0.38) total testosterone levels than white men" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327897/
"Testosterone Is High among Young Black Men with Little Education"
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2016.00001/full
Does this answer everything...?
No, of course not however it is a measurable and well studied area . We see evolution and adaptation in every single aspect of nature, including humans. We see and admit the biological differences between males and females. We are quick to understand that a finch in one part of the US developed over time different physical attributes (beak shape, size) than one from another region.
We can measure other differences in biological race down to the milliseconds. Why is it people of East African descent own nearly all of the top 100 marathon times globally and people of West African descent nearly all of the top 500 sprint races (100M, 200M)? Why are these groups of people so much more able in athletics than the Han Chinese? East Africans have longer legs, shorter torsos and a pelvis ever so slightly tilted forward to which the physics of this makes the more efficient at running long distances. West Africans have dense muscles along with the fast twitch gene. These are undeniable facts... not based on training or education or food consumption.... it's clearly based on measurable biological, genetic markers.
If we can identify the physical differences between certain groups of people, like what I mentioned above or even facts like Africans are taller than Chinese on average... (and this is ALL from hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution), why are we so hesitant to say that perhaps one group is significantly more aggressive and violent than the other?
Sorry to get to this so late. Been to busy to get to some emails, but I thank you for responding and the studies cited. I guess I was really looking for more evolutionary/natural selection rationale. As relates to your email, what were the genetic advantages for higher T levels? Why did these advantages not transfer to other races? Or why selected out/lower?
And most importantly... our differences should be acknowledged for what they are and celebrated. In my opinion, it is all perfect and beautiful in natures scheme. We are different in many, many ways. Even within the race. Let's own it and move forward on how to maximize our strengths and minimize our weaknesses because we all need each other cooperation to make this life a good one.