|>> || >>208149 |
I've learned that refuting X8 is mostly a waste of time, because not only is he cartoonishly smug, he does not value argumentative rigor. His arguments, such that they bloom and rot in the course of exchanges with clearer thinkers, bear all the telltale signs of having been cobbled together on the fly from express-purpose Google searches, rather than any kind of good-faith deep engagement with data. That's why you'll find a lot of right-wing blogs and stuff like KKK websites and Metapedia among his sources. One time, trying to establish the depth of his grounding in climate studies, he linked me to skepticalscience.org, a repository of counterarguments to climate-change skepticism, in between a bunch of links to stale old strawmen about sea ice.
On the rare occasion that he finds himself cornered but wishes to stay involved in the thread, he'll double down on that maddening didacticism and unload a bunch of pompous bullshit about the joy of having found a worthy adversary, oh what a rapturous day in this intellectual slum of an imageboard, blah blah blah, really just an excuse to complain more about how nobody ever comes correct with facts. Then he'll throw in something unverifiable about the accolades he's earned from some august and unnamed institution, or a five-figure research grant he's got to get to work on. He's also been involved in numerous secret raids on al-Qaeda, and has over 300 confirmed kills.
As to the shit he wrote in >>208081, I'm not disputing the Bureau of Justice study or those claims it supports regarding the criminology of class. The disproportionate representation of blacks among both the victims and perpetrators of violent crime follows from a few common-sense facts: poor people commit more crime and have higher recidivism rates, poor people rarely leave their neighborhooods, and guess which race inhabits all the poor neighborhoods in America (and is persistently gerrymandered around and targeted for effective disenfranchisement with voter ID legislation)? In fact, the hypothesis of a race-independent statistical basis for crime is supported by the second study cited in that Metapedia snippet—and here's where you've really put your foot in your mouth, you poor braying ass. /me clears throat
Removed from context, the figure sounds damning, doesn't it? It's a figure for psychopathy, somehow, that comes out to 3.86 for blacks against 1.7 for whites—that's more than double! But in fact this is a starting point for the paper's analysis, not a conclusion; this figure (called a PCL:SV) is a statistical quantification of Hare's four-factor checklist model of psychopathy (PCL), accounting for interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and overtly antisocial features as indicators permitting a diagnosis. Here's the next few lines:
>As indicated in Figure 1, over half of the total sample had a score of 0 or 1, and about two thirds had a score of 2 or less. A score of at least 13, used in the MacArthur Civil Psychiatric Study as an indication of “potential psychopathy” (Monahan et al., 2001), was obtained by 1.2% of the total sample, 1.0% of men, 1.2% of women, 1.9% of African Americans, and approximately 1% of Whites. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .84; the four PCL: SV facet alphas ranged from .65 (Interpersonal) to .75 (Lifestyle), which were acceptable given only three items per facet.
There is indeed a higher mean score on the assessment among blacks, but this is accompanied by a higher standard deviation; in other words, the incidence of a high score among blacks is amplified by a greater incidence of outliers. This is what we would expect of a condition subject to exacerbation by such socioeconomically predictable factors as alcoholism and nonnuclear upbringing. And sure enough, the only factor correlations found to be significantly at variance between demographics in the study were the Affective–Violence correlation (greater among whites) against the Antisocial–Violence correlation (greater among blacks). Meaning that >>208077's stereotypical assertion about heartless white serial killers, if a little crude and exaggerated, reflects an empirical reality: among clinical psychopaths, whites tend less often to be antisocial with poor impulse control, and more often to exhibit remorselessness and lack of empathy, those classical traits of inborn evil.
The purpose of the study is to gauge the correlations of PCL-measured traits with IQ, violent behavior and rates of alcohol use.
>The current study is the first to demonstrate invariance of alatent PCL: SV model across sex and ethnicity in a large, randomly
ascertained, community sample. Thus, the results provide addi-
tional support for the four-factor model of psychopathy, consistent
with studies of offender (Neumann et al., 2007), psychiatric (Jack-
son et al., 2007; Vitacco et al., 2005), and adolescent (Neumann et
al., 2006) samples. ... Overall, the associations between the
psychopathy factors and the external correlates were similar across
the sex and ethnic subgroups, with few statistical differences in
these associations between groups.
That's all it comes down to. The study does not purport to show blacks to be violent crazy criminals in any exceptional proportion, it's to investigate patterns of factor covariance in the population at large. But then, real science is rarely so sensationalistic as "race realists" like to read it.
The other part of the Metapedia link cites the scholarship of eugenicist Richard Lynn, who has published a paper  using Penthouse Forum and the anonymous World Penis Size site as major sources for data . X8 seems suddenly very skeptical of the Wikipedia he usually defends so ardently, so I'd invite him to take a quick glance through the rest of the sources section to find such sterling sources as Breitbart, the Daily Mail, the American Renaisssance, the Law and Freedom Foundation, the Gatestone Institute, VDARE, and what seems to be a delightful personal blog, darkmoon.me. Wild conspiracy ravings and a pageful of original poetry!