Those sissified lightweights over in Fireside Chat ain't got nothin' on me!
Any schmo can argue about religion and politics. Oooo!
But it takes a little something extra to start a thread about a van wreck and have it slowly devolve into a debate about genetics and racial profiling.
Once again, my work here is done...
[rubs hands together in self-satisfied manner, then flies off, with cape ruffling in the wind...]
Just kidding about all the above, of course. I just went back and re-read this entire thread and was laughing at how it wound its way around to its present status.
And no tool is 100% accurate, especially not our entire justice system.<hr></blockquote>
Our justice system at least has checks and balances built into it. Where are the checks and balances in racial profiling?
Our legal system presumes innocence until guilt is proven. With racial profiling, people are presumed guilty (of agression, being car theives, being good at math) because of their race, until they prove themselves innocent.
[quote]And the supposition that race profiling is never helpful is any better? It's called an audit. It happens all the time.<hr></blockquote>
Are you talking about the IRS? I thought I already covered that. The IRS uses profiling for a very specific function--to identify people for an audit. Race probably is a part of the profile, but it isn't the only part. Other factors (employment, age, etc.) are a part of the equation.
I tried finding some numbers about tax evasion and the estimated cost to the IRS each year, but I'm sure it's in the millions, if not billions, which I think says something about the IRS methodology. (But hey, I'm not complaining...)
Sure it does. You've just admitted they're bolder and more aggressive...but no, they're not inherently more dangerous. <hr></blockquote>
No. What I am suggesting is, assuming you have a standard PBT that was not born in say a puppy mill, with bad blood lines ... what you then have is a dog that is more aggressive in the sense of being more energetic, curious, fearless (less likely to cower in the face of larger animals for example), etc. That does not equate to [more dangerous]. The potential for the dogs to become dangerous comes from the behavior of the owner, not the dog. Can meanness be carried down through bloodlines in dogs? Sometimes. And with people? Maybe. But unlike dogs, humans have the ability to reason and learn from the example of others.
In general, I don't care for the analogy because it can be proven over and over (and over) again that human beings are a product of their environment (how and where they are raised) much more than genetics or any other single factor.
Let's take the stereotypical made-for-TV case. Black baby, born in a family with generations of criminal history ... and a white baby, born into a family with everything going for them. Switch the kids around at the hospital, let the rich family take the black kid home and the crime family take the white kid home ... which one is going to grow up predisposed to criminal activity? Answer: not the black kid.
If you want to profile people based on their actual criminal records, their associations, even their financial history (have they purchased weapons, donated money to radical groups, etc)...fine...but you can't make assumptions about a person's potential to commit a criminal act based on their genetics or cultural heritage.
There are way too many possibilities for meaningful exceptions. You think we put too many innocent people away now - wait until we start profiling on the basis of things a person cannot control (their genes, their parents' behavior, initial economic status, etc.).
<strong>\\In general, I don't care for the analogy because it can be proven over and over (and over) again that human beings are a product of their environment (how and where they are raised) much more than genetics or any other single factor.
Let's take the stereotypical made-for-TV case. Black baby, born in a family with generations of criminal history ... and a white baby, born into a family with everything going for them. Switch the kids around at the hospital, let the rich family take the black kid home and the crime family take the white kid home ... which one is going to grow up predisposed to criminal activity? Answer: not the black kid.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Actually there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Criminality is inherited to a large extent.
There is a greater relation between a biological parents' criminality and the offspring than there is to the adoptive parents.
That's on an individual basis - racial and other group differences are much different, especially when you have such massive environmental factors as decades and decades of slavery and legalized discrimination as little as a generation or two ago.
And I disagree that it's been proven over and over that how kids were raised determines their behavior more than genes or anything else.
An interesting read: "The Nurture Assumption," by (I think) Judith Harris, who suggests that the effect of envirnoment is a cultural assumption in our society that all the studies on intelligence, personality, aggression, etc., just don't bear out. There's a very large genetic basis to these things (again, on an individual basis) and little evidence tracing them to specific parenting practices.
Actually there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Criminality is inherited to a large extent.
There is a greater relation between a biological parents' criminality and the offspring than there is to the adoptive parents.<hr></blockquote>
I've not heard anything to substantiate this, and have actually been in contact with families that have adopted minority kids where at least one parent has a criminal record. The adopted kids are much better adjusted socially and behaviorally than the kids the original parents didn't put up for adoption, even though genetically they're very similar.
Can you cite any university research findings, statistical reports or the like? Not being snide, just asking so I can maybe find a link and check it out.
That book by Harris is a good one that cites lots of studies. Most university studies tend not to be on the internet, though.
But I did a search on "Lykken," who is a very famous psychologist who studies behavioral genetics, and found this: <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lykken/index.html"; target="_blank">How can educated people continue to be radical environmentalists?</a>
(By environmentalist he means someone who believes in nurture over nature, not a tree-hugger. )
It's not technical, but he has plenty of journal articles and books if you want to look.
By the way, Lykken has proposed a prominent theory of criminality a long time ago that's very similar to your statements about dogs; he says that some people are born with risk-taking, assertive, fearless personalities, not criminal personalities. But when those people are in the wrong environment they can be psychopaths. If they are in a good environment, they can be even more successful than most people.
Comments
And no tool is 100% accurate, especially not our entire justice system.
And the supposition that race profiling is never helpful is any better? It's called an audit. It happens all the time.
And no tool is 100% accurate, especially not our entire justice system.
And the supposition that race profiling is never helpful is any better? It's called an audit. It happens all the time.
Those sissified lightweights over in Fireside Chat ain't got nothin' on me!
Any schmo can argue about religion and politics. Oooo!
But it takes a little something extra to start a thread about a van wreck and have it slowly devolve into a debate about genetics and racial profiling.
Once again, my work here is done...
[rubs hands together in self-satisfied manner, then flies off, with cape ruffling in the wind...]
Just struck me as funny.
And no tool is 100% accurate, especially not our entire justice system.<hr></blockquote>
Our justice system at least has checks and balances built into it. Where are the checks and balances in racial profiling?
Our legal system presumes innocence until guilt is proven. With racial profiling, people are presumed guilty (of agression, being car theives, being good at math) because of their race, until they prove themselves innocent.
[quote]And the supposition that race profiling is never helpful is any better? It's called an audit. It happens all the time.<hr></blockquote>
Are you talking about the IRS? I thought I already covered that. The IRS uses profiling for a very specific function--to identify people for an audit. Race probably is a part of the profile, but it isn't the only part. Other factors (employment, age, etc.) are a part of the equation.
I tried finding some numbers about tax evasion and the estimated cost to the IRS each year, but I'm sure it's in the millions, if not billions, which I think says something about the IRS methodology. (But hey, I'm not complaining...)
Sure it does. You've just admitted they're bolder and more aggressive...but no, they're not inherently more dangerous.
No. What I am suggesting is, assuming you have a standard PBT that was not born in say a puppy mill, with bad blood lines ... what you then have is a dog that is more aggressive in the sense of being more energetic, curious, fearless (less likely to cower in the face of larger animals for example), etc. That does not equate to [more dangerous]. The potential for the dogs to become dangerous comes from the behavior of the owner, not the dog. Can meanness be carried down through bloodlines in dogs? Sometimes. And with people? Maybe. But unlike dogs, humans have the ability to reason and learn from the example of others.
In general, I don't care for the analogy because it can be proven over and over (and over) again that human beings are a product of their environment (how and where they are raised) much more than genetics or any other single factor.
Let's take the stereotypical made-for-TV case. Black baby, born in a family with generations of criminal history ... and a white baby, born into a family with everything going for them. Switch the kids around at the hospital, let the rich family take the black kid home and the crime family take the white kid home ... which one is going to grow up predisposed to criminal activity? Answer: not the black kid.
If you want to profile people based on their actual criminal records, their associations, even their financial history (have they purchased weapons, donated money to radical groups, etc)...fine...but you can't make assumptions about a person's potential to commit a criminal act based on their genetics or cultural heritage.
There are way too many possibilities for meaningful exceptions. You think we put too many innocent people away now - wait until we start profiling on the basis of things a person cannot control (their genes, their parents' behavior, initial economic status, etc.).
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
<strong>\\In general, I don't care for the analogy because it can be proven over and over (and over) again that human beings are a product of their environment (how and where they are raised) much more than genetics or any other single factor.
Let's take the stereotypical made-for-TV case. Black baby, born in a family with generations of criminal history ... and a white baby, born into a family with everything going for them. Switch the kids around at the hospital, let the rich family take the black kid home and the crime family take the white kid home ... which one is going to grow up predisposed to criminal activity? Answer: not the black kid.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Actually there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Criminality is inherited to a large extent.
There is a greater relation between a biological parents' criminality and the offspring than there is to the adoptive parents.
That's on an individual basis - racial and other group differences are much different, especially when you have such massive environmental factors as decades and decades of slavery and legalized discrimination as little as a generation or two ago.
And I disagree that it's been proven over and over that how kids were raised determines their behavior more than genes or anything else.
An interesting read: "The Nurture Assumption," by (I think) Judith Harris, who suggests that the effect of envirnoment is a cultural assumption in our society that all the studies on intelligence, personality, aggression, etc., just don't bear out. There's a very large genetic basis to these things (again, on an individual basis) and little evidence tracing them to specific parenting practices.
Actually there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Criminality is inherited to a large extent.
There is a greater relation between a biological parents' criminality and the offspring than there is to the adoptive parents.<hr></blockquote>
I've not heard anything to substantiate this, and have actually been in contact with families that have adopted minority kids where at least one parent has a criminal record. The adopted kids are much better adjusted socially and behaviorally than the kids the original parents didn't put up for adoption, even though genetically they're very similar.
Can you cite any university research findings, statistical reports or the like? Not being snide, just asking so I can maybe find a link and check it out.
But I did a search on "Lykken," who is a very famous psychologist who studies behavioral genetics, and found this: <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lykken/index.html"; target="_blank">How can educated people continue to be radical environmentalists?</a>
(By environmentalist he means someone who believes in nurture over nature, not a tree-hugger.
It's not technical, but he has plenty of journal articles and books if you want to look.
By the way, Lykken has proposed a prominent theory of criminality a long time ago that's very similar to your statements about dogs; he says that some people are born with risk-taking, assertive, fearless personalities, not criminal personalities. But when those people are in the wrong environment they can be psychopaths. If they are in a good environment, they can be even more successful than most people.