5 ms·

You completely ignored the part about the 2R variant or just failed to understand the text. Also you cherry-picked one study (the Dutch family) and try to use i

• dalke 11y ago
  The word "Black" appears twice, "59% of Black men, 54% of Chinese men, 56% of Maori men, and 34% of Caucasian men carry the 3R allele. 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carry the 2R allele". (I tried to verify the Wikipedia numbers, since "Black" has no meaning in terms of genetic diversity - if it was "African Americans", which come from Kongo, Bantu, Igbo, Temne, Wolof, Fon, Malagasy, and many other African people, then what is the variance between those sub-populations? But none of the links ended up saying what "Black" meant.) You wrote "and that it has a major impact on why black people are more aggressive". I don't see that characterization anywhere in the Wikipedia page. What I do see is: > Even in the absence of such interaction factors, the 3R allele has a small main effect on aggression and antisocial behavior, according to a large meta-analysis, which found no significant publication bias The phrase "small main effect" is not the same as "major impact". Where do you get "major impact on why black people are more aggressive" from that page? I went looking for something to back you up, but ended with things like http://abcnews.go.com/beta/Nightline/warrior-gene-tied-violence/story?id=12422661 http://abcnews.go.com/beta/Nightline/warrior-gene-tied-viole... : > having the gene alone is not enough to predict a violent personality. The gene must be linked with a history of childhood trauma ... But even with that combination -- the gene variant plus childhood trauma -- that is not a guarantee that someone will be violent. There can be choice That says that other issues have a bigger impact. I then looked toward published research articles. What I found directly contradicts your interpretation. I quote now from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684565/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684565/ (emphasis mine): > Before turning to a more detailed consideration of our model and hypotheses, we feel compelled to issue the following caveat. The DRD4, 5-HTT, and MAOA polymorphisms that are the focus of our study are widely prevalent among all racial and ethnic groups and there is virtually no evidence suggesting that they are directly associated with aggression and antisocial behavior (Hohmann et al. 2009; Rutter et al. 2006). Indeed, the differential plasticity perspective predicts the absence of such direct effects (Belsky et al., 2007; Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Thus our concern is not with the main effects of genetic variation; rather our focus is on whether environmental conditions interact with 5-HTT, DRD4, and MAOA alleles in a “for better or worse” manner to predict commitment to the street code and involvement in violent behavior during early adulthood This is deliberately saying that the variation does not have "a major impact on why black people are more aggressive." I also found this news article about crime in Finland, which isn't known for its large black population, from http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212 : > The authors of the study, published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry, said at least 5-10% of all violent crime in Finland could be attributed to individuals with these genotypes. > But they stressed the genes could not be used to screen criminals. > Many more genes may be involved in violent behaviour and environmental factors are also known to have a fundamental role. > Even if an individual has a "high-risk combination" of these genes the majority will never commit a crime, the lead author of the work Jari Tiihonen of the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden said. > "Committing a severe, violent crime is extremely rare in the general population. So even though the relative risk would be increased, the absolute risk is very low," he told the BBC. This says that even if you know that someone has a gene (not secondary information like skin color), you still can't use that information usefully. So if you could break it down for me - how to you conclude from the Wikipedia page that "there is a major biological difference and that it has a major impact on why black people are more aggressive"? Because I've spent the last hour researching the topic and can't find how you drew your conclusion.
  • JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Yes, it is a wonderful fiction that 'black' means something particular. There is more genetic diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. Any genetic argument predicated on 'black' genes has to be nonsense.