« Racism as emergence | Main | Origins of a disaster »

June 06, 2020



1. the right to own property off any description is a fundamental right in a free society. If you don't agree then perhaps you could let us know when we can occupy your place in Rutland as if it were our own?

2. As I said on the previous post, I was born in Rochdale, so when I read "The role of the police is not merely to uphold the law, but to uphold law and order. This earns them the gratitude of the ruling class, and hence its tolerance." I possibly read this a bit differently to how you meant. Are bad apples in the police limited to those who use more violence than a situation warrants against particle races? Does it also include police who see mass child sex abuse happening in front of them and do nothing?

Jacques René Giguère

The question is « Who is abusing whose children and does it threaten the ruling classes? »
Poor people abusing poor children is of no interest, rich and powerful abusing poor and powerless will be papered over, rich abusing rich will be treated internally with no interference by the lower class mercenaries, poor abusing rich will be treated to the full extent of the law.
In Roman times, a citizen raping a child slave or non-citizen would pay a compensation to the owner or the parents. If the child was a citizen, a guilty slave or free non citizen would receive as many lashes as he could endure before crucifixion. A poor citizen would receive 39 lashes before beheading. A rich citizen was allowed to negotiate a way out.


«Making a profit in 99 days out of 100 is little use if the hundredth day wipes you out.»

It is instead of great use if you get 50% of those profits in those 99 days, and the 100th day your employers, not you, are wiped out and the taxpayers bail them out. That's pretty much the operating model of the City and Wall Street.


«You might find it odd that I'm drawing analogies between finance and attitudes to policing. You shouldn't. There's a common theme here - cognitive biases.»

And here we go again: our authors "misunderstands" what are self-dealing behaviours as "cognitive biases", self-dealing driven by very large material interests. That does not mean that cognitive biases don't exit, just that self-interest is even more pervasive.

When the police are given a blank cheque to deal with the riff-raff, "accidents" are not a tail risk understimated because of underestimated tail risk, they are regarded as the cost to someone else of doing business in a certain way. When "accidents" happen to "our own", the "bad apples" get whacked soon and hard so they learn the difference between importuning "respectable members of the local community" and teaching object lessons "to the residuum".

The same for finance: if the profits of taking on tail risk go to "our own" and the costs of tail risk are borne by someone else, that's not a cognitive biases, it is material interests driving rational behaviour.

Using fancy terms like "ingroup heterogeneity bias" seems to me utterly misleading to describe self-dealing by "screw everybody else" people of power.

Robert Mitchell

> the right to own property off any description is a fundamental right in a free society.

The Lockean Proviso requires "as much and as good" land left in common. The Lockean Proviso has been blatantly violated, thus property rights today are unethical.

> if the profits of taking on tail risk go to "our own" and the costs of tail risk are borne by someone else,

Correct, but the Fed insures tail risk, not taxpayers. Currently the Fed's balance sheet is at $7 trillion, expected to reach $12 trillion by the end of 2020; no tax increases are involved in funding this reserve increase. The Fed has a vertical supply curve on reserves. That's how the prevented the 1987 crash from becoming a depression, by insuring the transpired tail risk. The Fed is currently insuring the pandemic tail risk, without needing taxpayer money. (Some Treasury money was allocated but that is really for show. The Fed could lend to main street without needing to leverage Treasury capital.)

the truth

Again your broader point is true but your application is false. Some American police are sadly brutal. But BLM is based on a lie. On a per violent arrest basis whites are more likely to be killed than blacks in America.

But proportionally blacks commit many times more crime in America though and some American police are stupidly brutal (part of a terrible culture that is IMO spreading internationally btw)

It’s not a racial issue


@ the truth

well, quite.

I note banners with the names of Black people killed by police with a few names going back over thirty years. All deaths are regrettable, and where police have been at fault they should be brought to account, but literally hundreds of young black peple have met violent and premature deaths in recent times due to knife crime and other criminal activities, and not a peep from BLM. It appears Black Lives Matter when they can be used to attack Authority and claim racism, but when Blacks are victims of crime from others including other Blacks, then BLM doesn't think Black Lives Matter.

The Macpherson Report has been a disaster. It has allowed a narrative of institutional racism to take hold that has resulted in pull back of police from any issues of race and created a gap in which black on black murders are almost everyday occurrences and the police are largely powerless to intervene.


@The truth.
"American police are stupidly brutal (part of a terrible culture that is IMO spreading internationally btw)

It’s not a racial issue"... but isn't that just your hunch? An assertion?

Contra to that idea. One investigation has shown that around 1 in 5 police officers in the 8 cities looked at, have posted either flagrantly racist remarks or derogatory/hateful comments on social media in relation to cases or incidents involving ethnic minorities.


Along with entrenched racist attitudes upport for white supremacist and far right groups amongst serving law enforcement officials is long standing issue in the US that has only been emboldened by the election of the current President

The truth

No I’m saying they have a bad culture that always resorts to force first.

What I’m also saying is that they are not (on average) being racist. Here are the stats:

For every 10,000 black people arrested for violent crime, 3 are killed

For every 10,000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed

Here are the references:


2018 FBI UCR:

2018 Police Shootings:


Well why might those figures be misleading? I can think of a few reasons.
For example, it may be the case that African Americans are unjustly arrested for violent crimes more often. And you can imagine that a person that has not committed a violent crime is much less likely to engage in behavior that would result in the police killing them vs a person that has committed a violent crime.

In any case let's just consider Minneapolis, the epicentre of the current furore:
"Minneapolis Police Use Force Against Black People at 7 Times the Rate of Whites" As per the city's own figures.


So it may a coincidence that whilst pushing marginal theories about blacks having a biologically driven deficit in intelligence you also pursue the notion that US police generally don't have a racial bias. But then again, maybe not.

The truth

There is no coincidence. Violent criminality is correlated with lower intelligence. There are countless studies.

Yep police use more force against groups that comitt more crimes. But if you look further into the stats you quote my point is proven

Blacks are 10 times more likely to be convicted and incarcerated in Minnesota. So Minneapolis police are less likely to use force against blacks in proportion to the crimes they are committing..

Or are you now going to say the judges are racists as well?





"There is no coincidence. Violent criminality is correlated with lower intelligence."

The coincidence I was referring to was the alacrity with which 'you' pushed your 'marginal views' linking biological determinism with intelligence on the one hand and the insistence that race played little role in the brutality meted out to black people.
Perhaps one in 5 serving police officers expressing overtly racist views on social media is a bit of a tricky one if your own views are set in stone in the first place?

"Blacks are 10 times more likely to be convicted and incarcerated in Minnesota. So Minneapolis police are less likely to use force against blacks in proportion to the crimes they are committing..

Or are you now going to say the judges are racists as well?"

...'The truth' never heard the following
Caucasian joke...What do you call a black man in court? Answer _ _ _ _ _ _.
So your question is a classic case of confusing correlation with causation...confirmation bias in action?!

It's almost as if you weren't aware that systemic discrimination in the social, economic AND judicial systems started a long time ago ( Jim Crow anyone?) and are still prevalent.
Like drug use among African Americans being similar to that amongst white Americans but the former group are nearly 4 times as likely to be incarcerated.


Drugs legislation is a classic example of a law used to encourage police and judges to discriminate quite 'legally' against people of colour.
Eg: "Ehrlichman (Nixon's domestic policy chief) was quoted as saying: “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did.”
Then under Reagan in 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses. This law was later heavily criticized as having racist ramifications because it allocated longer prison sentences for offenses involving the same amount of crack cocaine (used more often by black Americans) as powder cocaine (used more often by white Americans). Five grams of crack triggered an automatic five-year sentence, while it took 500 grams of powder cocaine to merit the same sentence."


Thats the real 'truth'.

The truth

There is no coincidence, my whole point is that bad outcomes for blacks vs the rest of the population are primarily driven by lower mean iq rather than racism. People like you clutch at examples to show “racism” but they are either anecdotes or isolated data points, that when viewed in context of the entire data show the opposite.

Unless you are wilfully blind the long term success of north Asians and Jews makes my points obvious. Both groups have mean iq at or above 100 and within a generation or two perform as well or better on most measures.

But there is now ample scientific and statistical evidence


Anecdotal my tuchus.
Your dismissal of a century of blatant and even explicitly articulated systematic racial discrimination as 'anecdotal' even when the architect of said discrimination explicitly fesses up to it belies your own disregard for inconvenient truths.

And how on earth you think a biological deterministic explanation for higher intelligence is the best or main explanation for ...higher performance in intelligence tests, defies explanation on scientific grounds alone. There is another component at play. I guess only you would know what that is.
You seem blissfully unaware your hypothesis is an outlier. You've just gone back to early 20th century race genetics and married it with cherry picking data that reinforces your preferred conclusion.

Even a 10 minute perusal of the Wiki entry on Race and Intelligence would demand a more cautious approach to the subject. That you rather throw caution to to the wind says more about you than the subject matter you engage in.


The truth

I quote your article, a section that suprisingly got past the wikipedia thought police:

"Roth et al. (2001), in a review of the results of a total of 6,246,729 participants in other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude, found a difference in mean scores between black people and white people of 1.1 SD."

But if you must continue with blaming it all on racism then please exaplain why racism has not effected (in the long term) north asians and jews in the USA?

Explain why subharan Africa has the poorest countries in the world

Explain why throughout the the Carribean the whiter countries are the richer countries.

For some reason (that you can´t explain) blacks can´t shake of the effects of colonialism/racism/war/communism anywhere. BUT north asians and jews do so within 1-2 generations everywhere.


It's quite ironic that from a piece which offers considerably more refutation than support for your preferred hypothesis you clutch at some data which you feel justified your position! Confirmation bias anyone?!

First of all I don't need to "blame it all on racism" to render your contention that it is 'mostly biological' flat wrong.
Please identify the gene or genes which are responsible for the black populations dire condition...

As for the article perhaps whilst trawling the data you noted the following:
"...However, since high heritability is simply a correlation between child and parents, it does not describe the causes of heritability which in humans can be either genetic or environmental.

Therefore, a high heritability measure does not imply that a trait is genetic or unchangeable. In addition, environmental factors that affect all group members equally will not be measured by heritability..."

You can not discredit environmental explanations with innapropriate comparison of test marks over 1,2 or however many generations so why bother!

Why did Jews and Asians overcome their conditions and Blacks haven't?
The Jews were slaves in Egypt not America and Asians were not replacements for Blacks on plantations either.
So when Jim Crow did his thing it was intended solely to keep the black man down and when Ehrlichman launched his war on drugs and specifically heroin, it was (he later admited) a way to hit the black community who largely opposed the war in Vietnam. Ditto when Reagan did likewise with his crack cocaine 5gram for 5 years versus 500g for 5 years for the powder variety the disparity and severity of the impact on the black community was no accident. Duh!

As for the poverty of sub Saharan Africa...
For a start you could try reading Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for a host of compelling 'environmental' explanations for your great conundrum and as a bonus you will also read about African civilisations from the middle ages which put medieval Europe in the shade.

You see the problem you are finding is the one ascribed to the workman...whose only tool is a hammer. :)

The truth

If you apply your Guns and Steel argument then Australia and NZ would be poor like Africa, but they aren’t.

Also what about the Carribean? The more blacks there the poorer the country. Cuba is wealthier than Jamaica despite communism.

But then also Japan, completely devastated 75 years ago. Now one of the richest in the world.

Israel did not even exist 75 years ago, now one of the richest countries.

The scientific method is about is about testing a thesis against reality. Variance in mean iq by race (and it consequent outcomes) is not only appears when tested but is demonstrated throughout the world with few exceptions.

Your explanations on the other hand have so many exceptions and inconsistencies because they are just excuses to make people feel better

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad