Not the Daily Hate, but The Times.

“Political correctness gone mad innit.”

What a depressive paper. I didn’t know how powerful and mainstream these racial “scientists” were in the 60′s, and how active they were to undermine racial integration in schools at that time.

Further, that the intentions of the author(s) is not pertinent to the validity of the statistical analysis itself. For example, reportedly Isaac Newton was a mystic, yet this has no bearing on the validity of his calculations or of his theories.

Oh i see, you just wanted to make the point that Rushton was good at sums. Right.

To what extent r-K Theory is a “pup” will no doubt emerge in the fullness of time; it is clearly heretical at present.

Political correctness gone mad innit.

“This statement contradicts the INTERPOL and U.S. Department of Justice data linked to above.”

Where exactly does it contradict?

“To clarify, the point of the quote is on victim selection, not on the relative rate of rape perpetrated by whites or blacks. “

So what can one conclude with victim selection?

“I would be grateful if you could provide a reference which in your opinion gives a better explanation of the mass of empirical data than Rushton’s current r-K Theory.”

You must be kidding me. r-K theory has no scientific, biological or genetic basis. It’s funny that a psychologist would promote such theories. Much of the discrepancy can be easily explained based on what I’ve laid down in #93.

Ravi Naik 93 wrote … Other factors that seem to influence … Do you mean that they are positively correlated?

Ravi Naik 93 wrote … the chances of an individual being an offender of violent crime includes: individuals born in low-income dysfunctional families, where one or both parents are absent or abusive, being born in tough communities … Are you saying that correlation means causation? Many individuals with this background are pillars of the community.

Ravi Naik 93 wrote … There is some correlation between being black and violent crime: but you are falling for the same old fallacy that correlation means causation … Where have I asserted or implied that correlation means causation?

Ravi Naik 93 wrote … Whites under the same conditions will be equally likely to to be involved in that sort of crime. … This statement contradicts the INTERPOL and U.S. Department of Justice data linked to above. Please provide a quantitative reference supporting your assertion.

Ravi Naik 93 wrote … That’s a fact. But not all the facts, and cherry-picking one statistic and hiding the whole picture is a damn lie. … I provide a link to all the spreadsheets, not a particular one, which is not cherry-picking, in my opinion. Kulvinder above has apparently already done some analysis on this data.

Ravi Naik 93 wrote … The complete picture is this: whites committed 50.000 rapes in 2005, while blacks 75.000. Blacks are still over-represented … To clarify, the point of the quote is on victim selection, not on the relative rate of rape perpetrated by whites or blacks.

Ravi Naik 93 wrote … Rushton’s assertations are incredibly outdated and flawed. … I would be grateful if you could provide a reference which in your opinion gives a better explanation of the mass of empirical data than Rushton’s current r-K Theory.

To what extent r-K Theory is a “pup” will no doubt emerge in the fullness of time; it is clearly heretical at present.

Ala 35 wrote … As for more relevant common denominators, how about the fact they’re all poor? … They are also all male. What is the predictive power of your classification? If poverty is a cause of such violence, why are there so few female perpetrators?
Does poverty cause rape?

Under the same light, one could ask the same thing about race: if it is a black-thing, why are offenders of rape/assault predominantly males, and not females – regardless of race? Other factors that seem to influence the chances of an individual being an offender of violent crime includes: individuals born in low-income dysfunctional families, where one or both parents are absent or abusive, being born in tough communities, etc. Needless to say, these problems accentuate generation after generation.

There is some correlation between being black and violent crime: but you are falling for the same old fallacy that correlation means causation: being black causes you to do crime, which is the mantra of white power groups. The correlation comes from the factors I just pointed out: there are more African-americans than whites living in poverty, where parents have little education, where fathers are absent, etc. Get it? Whites under the same conditions will be equally likely to to be involved in that sort of crime.

And now let’s look at the figure you have presented several times.

” In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.
What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.”

That’s a fact. But not all the facts, and cherry-picking one statistic and hiding the whole picture is a damn lie. The complete picture is this: whites committed 50.000 rapes in 2005, while blacks 75.000. Blacks are still over-represented (but it gives a slightly more complete picture than saying Whites raped 0 to 10 females with some particular physical characteristics).

Rushton’s assertations are incredibly outdated and flawed. He basically says that there is a tradeoff between your penis and atheletic capabilities, and your brain. Get it? Blacks have a larger penis, whites a medium-size penis, and (East) Asians the smallest. The brains are in inverse proportion to that. I have never heard biologists claim there is a link between one the other, but let’s leave it to people in psychology to conjure the mighty powers of statistics to come with these conclusions.

To what extent r-K Theory is a “dog” will no doubt emerge in the fullness of time; it is clearly heretical at present

The r-K Theory is nothing new. It is just a rehash of the racial scientific crap that came out a 100 years ago. It was wrong back then, and it is still wrong now until biologists and geneticists (the proper scientists) find a link.

I have not asserted the validity or otherwise of any particular theory, rather I linked to and abstracted from a paper which includes an statistical analysis of empirical data. To whatever extent this statistical analysis supports any particular theory is not pertinent to the validity of the statistical analysis itself. Indeed, you state … The ’sums’ for lack of a better word are correct … so we appear to be in agreement regarding the statistical analysis.

Further, that the intentions of the author(s) is not pertinent to the validity of the statistical analysis itself. For example, reportedly Isaac Newton was a mystic, yet this has no bearing on the validity of his calculations or of his theories.

Kulvinder 90 wrote … you’re saying (and the statistics support) more black men rape white women than white men rape black women … so we appear to be in agreement regarding the statistical analysis.

Kulvinder 90 wrote … that doesn’t take into account the TOTAL number of rapes comitted by either demographic. … This is an additional point raised by you, not me.

Kulvinder 90 wrote … this is THE most novel debating strategy i have ever come across. … It could be construed that you are employing a debating strategy where you argue points which I have not made, which is neither novel nor helpful. However it could also be that we are simply at cross-purposes and indeed we appear to be in agreement regarding the statistical analysis which I highlighted.

To what extent r-K Theory is a “dog” will no doubt emerge in the fullness of time; it is clearly heretical at present.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2008/07/04/newsstory11603039t0.asp

Please explain how Rushton’s views on race and society or indeed any other topics affect the statistical analysis of empirical data which is presented in the paper.

If his views were different the tools he’d use would be affected by his views. For the sake of argument there is no stochastic calculus present in his paper.

Do you mean the intention of the author?

Yup.

By which mechanism do you know these intentions?

What mechanism!?! Writing?.

The opening sentence of the first paragraph gives the game away

‘J. P. Rushton (2000) has proposed an evolutionary life-history theory
to account for racial differences in a host of demographic, populational,
and environmental variables. The theory proposes a gene-based Negroid-
Caucasoid-Mongoloid gradient of r/K reproductive strategies.’

The analysis of any data is in relation to that hypotheses.

Does this assertion apply to any other papers which any of these editors have published in any other journals? If so, which editors, journals or papers?

Very probably. Although its impossible to give an account of every paper Rushton has ever written as i haven’t read them all, every one i have read has been along the same lines and certainly Rushton hasn’t made any public statement that fundamentally contracdicted the opinions he expressed in those papers that i have read. The list of journals and papers can be found under publications.

More generally, is the data employed doctored? Is the statistical analysis invalid? Are the conclusions drawn not supported by the analysis?

This depends on what you mean by ‘doctored’ he is certainly no Jan Hendrik Schön. The ‘sums’ for lack of a better word are correct, but no the conclusions drawn are not in my opinion and in the opinion of the prevailing consensus supported by the analysis.

I would be interested to see supported criticisms of the data, methods or conclusions of the paper. In this instance r-K Theory is not pertinent, however I would be grateful for quantitative references to it.

This is utterly utterly brilliant. r-K theory (as used by Rushton) is mentioned in the title of the paper, its mentioned in the opening sentence of the opening paragraph. Its mentioned in the opening sentence of the discussion yet you say it isn’t pertinent!! I have to say this is THE most novel debating strategy i have ever come across.

Just deny it all.

I can’t find a responce specific to that paper – which isn’t unsual as noone has the time to respond in that way (paper to paper to paper), but taking in Rushton’s hypotheses, read that

By which mechanism can arguments against Rushton (in)validate paper(s) (co-)authored by Rushton?

If the underlying premise is the same in those different papers he co-authors; the criticisms against his particular use of r-K don’t magically dissapear when he publishes that same opinion in another paper.

Regarding the paper i linked to, i’ve tried the link and it works fine (i reiterate you have to click manual download), here it is again in full copied and pasted from the site

http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/4/231

if you still can’t see it go to sage and search for ‘Economic Inequality, Legitimacy, and Cross-National Homicide Rates’

The ratio against Euro-Americans is in excess of 3,500 to 1.” is supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs rape and sexual assault data or it is not. I contend that it is. If you dispute this, please detail why.

You’re saying (and the statistics support) more black men rape white women than white men rape black women, that doesn’t take into account the TOTAL number of rapes comitted by either demographic.

More white collar fraud is committed by white men than say latinos; that doesn’t provide any insight into the total amount of fraud committed by either group.

Kulvinder 88 wrote … Rushton’s views on race and society are well known … Please explain how Rushton’s views on race and society or indeed any other topics affect the statistical analysis of empirical data which is presented in the paper.

Kulvinder 88 wrote … I’m unsure why you’re quering my assertion of its intention to genetically link race to crime … I’m unsure why you’re asserting that a statistical analysis of empirical data has an intention. Do you mean the intention of the author? Do you mean the intention of the referees of the paper? Do you mean the intention of the editors of the journal? By which mechanism do you know these intentions? Does this assertion apply to any other papers which any of these editors have published in any other journals? If so, which editors, journals or papers? If not, why not?

More generally, is the data employed doctored? Is the statistical analysis invalid? Are the conclusions drawn not supported by the analysis?

Kulvinder 88 wrote … The paper … was explicitly written to support the idea of ‘the black criminal’ … Please support this statement. Please be precise.

Kulvinder 88 wrote … I’m uncertain what studies you want that contradict that theory … I would be interested to see supported criticisms of the data, methods or conclusions of the paper. In this instance r-K Theory is not pertinent, however I would be grateful for quantitative references to it.

Kulvinder 88 wrote … i could link to arguments against Rushton but that wouldn’t really be a different point of view in keeping with the paper … By which mechanism can arguments against Rushton (in)validate paper(s) (co-)authored by Rushton?

Kulvinder 88 wrote … nor can i link to anyone who used that same data to present a different theory … Which would be indeed be helpful.

Kulvinder 88 wrote … im limited – in fairness – to papers that are published and freely available, the alternative would be only pointing to the abstract. …. I would be grateful for any such references, I am unable to follow the link http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/10/4/231 which you kindly provided; a standard reference would be helpful.

Kulvinder 88 wrote … the crime figures aren’t as simplistic as you made out. … Either the statement “The ratio against Euro-Americans is in excess of 3,500 to 1.” is supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs rape and sexual assault data or it is not. I contend that it is. If you dispute this, please detail why.

An article by Laurence Auster may be of general interest The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States .

… In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course, to verified reports. …

Linking to a statistical analysis of INTERPOL data which demonstrates that… is very enlightening, in my opinion.

Then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

The paper does not “support the idea of the black criminal”, it demonstrates the relative difference of rates in violent crime, as recorded by INTERPOL. What do you mean b y “a tad obvious”? Please be precise.

I’ve always been precise!

Rushton’s views on race and society are well known; there was nothing about the paper that was ‘new’. I’m unsure why you’re quering my assertion of its intention to genetically link race to crime – and specifically black people to crime – since that is a fundamental aspect of Rushton’s r-K theory. If nothing else i refer you to the first sentence of the discussion section.

The paper very much supports, in fact it was explicitly written to support the idea of ‘the black criminal’ (ie the ‘black race’ averages higher violent crimes than others). I’m uncertain what studies you want that contradict that theory, i could link to arguments against Rushton but that wouldn’t really be a different point of view in keeping with the paper nor can i link to anyone who used that same data to present a different theory, in addition im limited – in fairness – to papers that are published and freely available, the alternative would be only pointing to the abstract.

So in the vein of comparing serious cross-national crime rates with the intention of explaining why, read this(click manual download). I’ll point out that the hypotheses that paper was trying to test regarding the links between cross national crime rates, legitimacy and economic inequality didn’t work out exactly as they planned, nonetheless the basis of the research was the previous studies showing a positive correlation between economic deprivation and cross-national murder rates (ie im pointing out their explanations for the phenomena didn’t correlate adequately, but that phenomena – the murder rate – was based on economic inequality and not race).

What they did find (which i found interesting) was that perceptions of illigitmacy (economic or political) positively affected the homicide rate in developed nations.

Regarding the rape of black women by white men or vice versa, that isn’t the rape rate per head but with regards to another race – ie white men also rape white women. More black men per head of the black population in the US do commit rape than the comparable rate in white men, but the crime figures aren’t as simplistic as you made out. If you look at the tables for the victimisation rates by race and annual income things are far less clear (table 15(b) for 2005).

For those earning $7,500 – $14,999 the rate of white people committing assualt is higher than that of black people; for those earning $15,000 – $24,999 its higher for black people as it is when comparisons are made $25,000 – $34,999, but white people have a higher comparable rate to black people for those earning $35,000 – $49,999. That kind of fluctuation wouldn’t occur in a simplisitc race based assessment of crime.

Thanks for that. You’ve got to love the cat owner:

Steve Ross, of Fleming Gardens, said, “Tayside Police may be forced to spend valuable funds on changing the postcard they have produced to advertise their new non-emergency phone number because a certain section of the community consider a dog to be dirty—just let’s get on with our lives and preserve British culture.

“As a cat owner I don’t care too much for dogs but I do about the spending of what I assume to be public money to pacify a few.”

Now there is a balanced opinion!

As the letter in the Courier pointed out, you never see a corner shop that doesn’t stock dog food. The issue never existed. As for Mr Asif, I repeat – point and laugh is the appropriate response.

You can’t really blame the media when they are just quoting government officials.

The Courier does seem to get it.

Despite the controversy caused by his comments, Mr Asif has, to date, declined to clarify his position on the postcards.

Despite numerous attempts by The Courier to contact him, he has remained unavailable for comment for more than 48 hours.

“Yeah, the Daily Mail must be really embarrassed…”

I can’t wait to see the follow-up article.

Lucky, really, because I’m sure that I’d be waiting for a while.

“I had a huge post up. But it is irrelevant. Fact is, I think you are ace.

Many thanks, Douglas. The feeling is mutual.

The local paper takes a more reasonable view

Yeah, the Daily Mail must be really embarrassed…

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2008/07/02/newsstory11590817t0.asp

I had a huge post up. But it is irrelevant. Fact is, I think you are ace.

Wish I had your patience…