"the modal length of an unsuspended prison sentence is one to two months in Denmark"
Does that mean comparing Danish prisons to prisons in the USA is an apples-to-oranges comparison?
In the USA, short sentences are served as jail time, while longer sentences are for prison (typically a year). But in Denmark maybe they don't have this distinction?
Denmark does have such a distinction. But yes, it's very likely the case that prisoners in USA aren't equivalent to prisoners in Denmark. The groups probably aren't equally selected, etc. I take an even stronger view that it's very hard to meaningfully compare almost any crime figure across different countries, except in a few cases like homicide. In many cases, rough but imperfect comparisons is all you have. I have multiple articles that discuss such issues (for example, one on global crime, and the challenges of such comparisons; and another on the comparison of recidivism rates across countries).
βit is certainly true that a large share of crime is committed by a small number of persistent offenders, there are still more criminals than you might expect.β
Gee, I wonder why. Must be racism on the part of the host country. ;-)
Why are you injecting racial snark into an article like this?
The article is merely making a mathematical point. Crime counts are different from criminal counts - if you define a criminal as someone ever imprisoned.
There are more criminals than you expect across all racial categories (or at least than I do expected.) But it is also true many of these people donβt individually commit a lot of crimes. Most crime incidents are caused by a small number of habitual offenders.
Thereβs some important nuance to consider here. For one, police are more likely to patrol Black neighborhoods, which creates a recursive cycle: increased policing leads to more arrestsβnot necessarily because violent crime is more prevalent, but because thereβs greater surveillance. This doesnβt mean violent crimes havenβt been committed, but it does suggest that the data may reflect policing patterns as much as actual criminal behavior.
A second factor is that African Americans are more likely to come from single-mother households, often due to systemic and historical inequities. This can contribute to higher rates of childhood trauma, which in turn may increase the likelihood of violent behavior later in life.
Another possible factor is the influence of "ghetto culture," where being seen as tough or rebellious can be socially rewardedβsometimes even perceived as attractive or desirable, particularly to potential romantic partners. This can create a feedback loop: if such traits are culturally reinforced, there may be increased social selection for more aggressive or sexually dimorphic men. At the same time, the prevalence of single-mother households can reduce the number of men who are willing or able to settle down, further destabilizing family structures.
Over time, this can erode trust in institutions, leading some individuals to disengage from the system and turn to criminal activity.
Itβs also possible that genetic factors play a minor roleβthough this is highly controversial and often misused. More likely, the truth lies in a combination of factors: systemic inequality, cultural dynamics, historical trauma, socioeconomic conditions, and yes, possibly some biological influences. Itβs rarely a case of one cause. The reality is probably a complex interplay of all these elements.
However single mother hood is a massive fucking factor which is amped up by hood culture
"Itβs also possible that genetic factors play a minor role"
It's the dominant role.
The other "cultural" factors are just the kind of things impulsive low IQ people do when confronted with modern incentive structures.
Single motherhood is a rational response to the welfare state being a better provider than low IQ men, especially when marrying a man usually means much lower access to that welfare state.
Crime is a rational response to low arrest and conviction rates, combined with lax punishment. The murder clear rate is 58% nationally, meaning 42% get away with it. My wife was once on an attempted murder trial where the obviously guilty guy got off. In Baltimore where I lived for awhile (and is heavily black) the clear rate on non-fatal shootings was 26.2% one year. The clear rate on property crime and assault is something like 0% from my experience.
You could eliminate crime overnight by going Bukele. When the clear rate approaches 100% crime no longer pays.
The single mother issue could be addressed by making changes to the welfare system. It won't be a foolproof solution but you want to stop punishing people for being married.
The police patrols certain neighborhoods more often because there is more crime in those neighborhoods to begin with.
The causes of high crimes are certainly important. But please donβt use them to mitigate the fact that certain demographics are more prone to violent crimes. A fact is a fact.
This is circular reasoning. If the whole argument is that they police those neighborhoods more because of crime rates, itβs really more that because they police them more, they pick up more. That doesnβt mean people there actually consume or commit more.
Not all crimes are even real crimesβsome are things that shouldnβt be crimes at all, like trading drugs. This is the U.S.βs fault. The War on Drugs caused Mexicans and Latin Americans to enter into an arms race, which led to violent, dysfunctional gangs like MS-13. Peacefully trading drugs shouldnβt be criminalized. When you ban it, you create militias, as we see today in Latin America.
Other factors matter too. Itβs more to be expected in poor areas, and poor areas commit more crimes. There has been a long history of poverty in those neighborhoods. All of these combineβitβs not a single factor. Overall, the crime rate is higher per capita because itβs poorer, but Black people today are leagues and bounds above where they were 50 years ago, even without the advantages Europeans had. Itβs like they started with a wooden house, while Europeans got a mansion.
They are far better off than before, but Europeans had 400 years of building up material wealth in America. Thatβs what it is. Itβs not as simple as βBlack skin = more violent, lower IQ.β Thatβs not how humans work.
You are playing with words. Let me illustrate my point with an extreme example. Consider a posh neighborhood on Long Island, say Great Neck and the Bronx. It should go without saying that the former has far fewer violent crimes per capita than the latter. That doesnβt depend on how often the police patrols each area.
Also, one would think that if two areas are roughly equal in terms of violent crimes per capital to begin with, the more the police patrols, the more the reduced crime rate, because of the deterrence factor.
Again, you are not using your head. You are being evasive. I donβt care about the cause of the crimes. There may be historical circumstances and grievances behind the crimes. But East Asians suffered a great deal in America yet they didnβt become criminals.
And this debate is not about the root cause but the overrepresentation of certain groups in crimes. Letβs acknowledge the fact first and the deal with the cause and the cure. The cause may not be what you alluded to. Some people are just more prone to violence. Iβm sorry if this fact bursts your utopia bubble. If you really believe your theory, why donβt you go and live in one of those South American countries?
Get out of this country, please. You are worse than the criminals.
Nothing you said follows your using poor communities and saying race is the casual aspect I pointed to you 3 points it's poverty over policing and over representation on victimless crimes like drugs
Root causes are the only thing olin this debate that matters why are you brushing around this
Single motherhood is not at all important as an explanatory variable. In 1950, when roughly 70% of black adults were married (as opposed to about 25% today), the ratio of black:white murder rate was exactly the same as it is today.
But it would be relative to population, right? They were also objectively poorer back then as well, because national wages and innovations made things cheaper. Wealth also matters.
But it leads to dysgenic practice, so this is what I don't get: Africans in the US, right, were heavily stopped and barred from getting jobs, and they were slaves for a lot of history. They couldn't build up generational wealth. That's not modern white people's fault, but that is history.
So what I'm saying, as a result, is what leads toβif you're not in a free marketβis dysgenics. The IQ isn't random; it's selective. If you select for it, it goes up. They didn't have that 400-year gap; you did.
It's also why Africa today is a shithole. I think Plato's ideas on this aspect were correct: you need a cognitive elite to control the population and birth rates, like in China or Singapore, but you also need to make sure the poor don't outbreed the rich.
It's less about race and more about, in your own ethnicity, which is reproducing. Think of it like this: if you had European whites with an average of 100 and you gave them the same ghetto culture, within 3 generations the IQ would lower due to dysgenics.
Or even internally in your own race, 85 IQ is still 16 percent of the European population, and they have higher birth rates. If they reproduce more, the averageβwithout any ethnic import.
That's my whole point: Eugenics never stops, and neither does dysgenics. The solution is embryo selection and iterative embryo selection, but I'm pointing out slavery and colonialism is the reason those places didn't industrialize, because when they left, they built institutional integrity, and the people adopted dysgenic behavior by adopting socialism. As a result, you got even poorer, and the poor outbreed the rich. This creates a dysgenic selection, and over generations it leads to civilizations collapsing. It's why you see lots of African and Indian civilizations in the past, because of a small cognitive elite.
βAs a result, you got even poorer, and the poor outbreed the rich. This creates a dysgenic selection, and over generations it leads to civilizations collapsing.β
One aspect left out, our modern welfare State which allows such folly from dysgenic selection to propagate (occur). If one reads βThe Son Also Risesβ, which analyses birth and death rates in medieval England, one sees that the rich, or rather the well to do, hence superior genetic stock, out bred the poor, or lessor genetic stockβby leaving more (surviving) heirs and wealth. The poor, not so much. Multiply this phenomenon across centuries and dozens of generations and violaβthe Industrial Revolution. From there an amazing amount of wealth, then the welfare State. The demise of such folly (creation of the welfare State) we are now experiencing in real time.
I actually agree with this. Maybe you think Iβm against hereditarians, but all I said was that colonialism disrupted the eugenic structures in societies. I donβt know enough about Africaβyouβd have to ask an Africanβbut if you read the ArthaΕΔstra or the Laws of Manu, youβll see those societies had proto-eugenic elements that were raising the average IQ. Thatβs why India once had around 25% of the worldβs GDP.
Colonialism, however, cucked your own people. It brought in slavery and destroyed existing systems. At least, thatβs the case in IndiaβI canβt really speak for Africa. But I do know that historically India was a very proud civilization. The so-called βcentury of humiliationβ only happened because of the dysgenic influence of democracy, which the British left behind. Yes, colonialism did some goodβlike ending certain practices such as slaveryβbut it also introduced dysgenic factors that increased the number of poor relative to the wealthy.
Nevertheless, as soon as India becomes rich again, I expect most of its people to return home. Keep in mind: 1,000 years ago, Europe was a backwater. Its rise to the top is due to recent eugenic practices, not its ancient past.
I donβt know enough about Africa, but regarding Indian skulls from that eraβIndia has a temperate climate, so there arenβt as many fossils, plus South Asians have smaller biobanks compared to others. Still, in terms of genetic accuracy, South Asians would probably show much higher precision than East Asians or Africans, even with less advanced technology. Thatβs because the genetic distance between Europeans and South Asians is much smaller than the distance between Europeans and East Asians, let alone Sub-Saharan Africans.
And remember: cross-ancestry estimates only work if thereβs enough linkage.
My core disagreement isnβt whether the results are true or geneticβitβs more about how quickly traits change and how much selection plays a role.
Just use the equation . If the is 80% and the selection differential is higher than the average, then IQ obviously increases. Thatβs how it works. Eugenics is always happeningβit happened in the past, itβs happening today, and it will happen in the future.
Look at it like this: if the Gaussian distribution for whites is 100, then in America 16 million people would have an IQ of 85. If they bred more, the ratio would increase.
Now, in America, 16% of Africans have an IQ of 100 and above. If they bred more, they would start to match the white average.
Now letβs look at embryo selection via PGTs (polygenic test scores). If you had embryos, the maximum would be 3 SDs, which is massive. What matters is the selection differential and the trait being selected for.
The issue with race realism is that 100 seems like a fixed archetypical abstractβbut it isnβt. IQ keeps changing even without total autosomal changes. Alleles for low cognitive ability can increase, and alleles for high cognitive ability can as well.
The problem is women. The selection differential they act on isnβt intelligenceβitβs physical attractiveness. Thatβs why lower selection differentials occur in certain races.
The more barriers you remove in the dating market, the more the top 20% breed for traits not tied to cognitive ability. So the selection differential isnβt for intelligenceβitβs for looks.
If this werenβt the case, every generation would be rapidly catching up. But women select for looks, not IQ. Physical attractiveness is a separate domain under selectionβitβs higher in African Americans, hence average IQ is lower. To be fair, it could even be lower than 85 on average, because women select for looks rather than cognitive ability.
Iβll comment upon one point in your overly long response, too many aspects for my limited time:
βThatβs why India once had around 25% of the worldβs GDP.β
India had 25% of worldβs GDP? Need proof/clarificationβsince I strongly suspect those aspects of economics were in infancy and statistics hard to come by, and Iβm pretty sure there is much error in such a sweeping statement.
Want to know about India from a hereditarian view point? Read Reichβs book, βWho We Are and How We Got Hereβ. Heβs got a chapter or two on India. Of particular note is the aspect of a millennial old βcasteβ system coupled with the cultural norm of arranged marriages between families. Caste system is basically a form of eugenicsβin practice if not at that time in name. Given such and also that the national average IQ of India is estimated today to be in the mid-80βs, we see that there is no eugenics here in the manner you might assume. The upper castes have continued to intermarry and families make the best arrangements for their offspring, which of course produces βassortive matingβ. The rest of the populace need not apply. Hence we are led into the theory of the βsmart fractionβ, which in Indiaβs case explains much.
As far as bright people always producing brighter offspring, itβs not always better and better. We are fighting population-wise the growth of dysgenics due to the absence of strict Darwinian selection (evolution). We (Darwinism) no longer cull the sick, weak, and incompetent as we did in prior times. Dutton wrote a book on this in which he terms our problem today, βSpiteful Mutantsβ. IQ tests no longer really measure our intelligence level decline since they are renormed to the mythical average score of 100 every so often. When one applies an IQ test given 100 years ago to todayβs respondent they perform more poorly than expected.
I briefly read the document you linked β it clearly addresses the claim that growth is purely about aggregate population size. I'd find it hypocritical if someone were to dismiss this argument but then uncritically accept data on Ancient Romeβs economic growth, or IQ traits of ancient populations, given how limited those datasets are. On one hand, people claim Europeans achieved growth recently, but theyβre unwilling to extend that same skepticism to historical generalizations. Thatβs inconsistent.
As for India, the situation was more complex than just "Europe bankrupted India." When India was colonized, the British implemented the Zamindari system and a harsh taxation regime. These systems effectively funneled Indian wealth as remittances to fund cheaper British goods. Because Indians were being taxed so heavily, they couldn't accumulate capital. Add in British control of the seas and restrictive tariffs, and they couldnβt trade with regional competitors either. Over time, this led to deindustrialization β and yes, racism played a major role in this process.
The IQ estimate for India (mid-80s) also doesnβt account for phenotypic depression. With a corrected environment, estimates would likely fall around 90β92 β not a massive gap. So even here, context matters.
Where I disagree with Dutton is on the solution. I think the answer lies in embryo selection and, more importantly, CRISPR. Even individuals with suboptimal genetics could benefit significantly. With enough embryos β say, selecting from 1,000 β you could increase cognitive ability by around 3 standard deviations. Thatβs a massive jump: for someone starting at an IQ of 85, that could mean reaching 100 or higher. The key variable is the number of embryos. Polygenic selection is the real game-changer.
India though has it's own problems currently that's due to do with economics but to get back to the past mentality it needs to move away from socialist planning bearing in mind socialism is so Anti thetical to Indian history you never have policies similar to it
Appreciate the post! Perhaps someone here knows the answer to my question:
Since a quarter or a third of black men in the US are (violent?) criminals, how high is the percentage of criminals in the many infamous inner-city black ghettos of the US? Would it be wrong to assume that they make up the majority of the men there, and that almost everyone there is related to or friends with a criminal? Apart from ethno-nationalism, this might explain why the residents there so readily side with vicious thugs against the police. Nobody wants to become the victim of a crime, but they obviously resent the police if they themselves frequently run afoul of the law.
How are you attempting to define who is and who isn't a criminal? How long are you a criminal after you commit any particular crime?
As an example of why this is difficult, probably most men the world over have been in a fistfight at some point, or done some other sort of assholish thing that is technically illegal, but 90%+ of us weren't arrested for it. On the other end , defining a "criminal" as only someone who is in the midst of committing a crime is far too narrow a definition.
For context on how many might be (violent?) this is a good breakdown of the categories of crime that people are in prison for in the USA:
In Sweden, at any rate, many people side with the thugs out of fear. It's one reason it is hard to get people to testify about domestic violence or gang activity.
This comment is a monument to deflection and hiding from the truth.
The policing argument is SO tired. WHY do YOU think police patrol bad neighborhood? It's because that's where the victims of violent crimes live. Your misuse of Bayesian principles just makes you look stupid and makes the people who live in those unsafe neighborhoods more unsafe.
Bingo. But perhaps the telling part is that there are comparisons to equally poor non-minority areas (White) where these crime rates are lower and not comparable to inner city minority (Black, Hispanic) rates. At any rate, one has a cause and effect argument, which is not proven by the evidence. Does poor environment cause criminal behavior, or does criminal behavior cause poor environment? Even if we leave the Whites completely out of the comparisons, the two major minorities in the USAβBlacks and Hispanicsβhave stark differences in crime rates, both of which are higher than Whites. However, if you had a choice, living in an Hispanic dominated neighborhood would be preferable (survivable?) if you are White.
I especially appreciated the statistical correction for prison term. I've seen those stats bandied about for years, and your breakdown is a real indictment of their overly credulous use.
I'd be quite interested in one more layer of accuracy in the comparison of criminal-code violations, by coding for severity. E.g., are we comparing an early convictions for, say, a bar fight, followed by a clean-up life, versus aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, followed by further criminality and recidivism? There's a broad span of anti-social-ness to even the category of statutory criminal violence.
I'm not sure I agree that it doesn't boost their crime rate. I think a country like Denmark would have an even lower crime rate if they had longer incarceration.
But, as I mentioned, many factors contribute to national crime disparities. Imprisonment is just one, and countries like USA and Denmark differ in many other respects too.
I have two posts where I compare recidivism rates Nordic and American recidivism rates. In those I attempt to address some of the factors that contribute:
What's consider crime is an essential concept not addressed in the article. I assume the statistics refer mainly to 'violent' crimes, those more likely to be committed by poor people. I'm pretty sure that if white collar crimes like scams, frauds, tax avoidance, etc, which actually affect to more people, were considered, you'd be surprised on how many actual (white rich) criminals there are.
I meant what's NOT consider crime (Typing on my phone) Those white collar crimes that doesn't fill the stats (or the criminals get away with it) but actually affect more people and happen everyday.
Absolutely, see the citation for further details. As the title of my chart says, it's the real and *projected* cumulative risk of imprisonment. The projected part is visualized by the line being more transparent.
It's a common exercise to project lifetime incarceration risk from incomplete data. For an old and often cited example, see, e.g., Bonczar (2003), "Prevalence of Imprisonment in the U.S. Population, 1974-2001".
"the modal length of an unsuspended prison sentence is one to two months in Denmark"
Does that mean comparing Danish prisons to prisons in the USA is an apples-to-oranges comparison?
In the USA, short sentences are served as jail time, while longer sentences are for prison (typically a year). But in Denmark maybe they don't have this distinction?
Denmark does have such a distinction. But yes, it's very likely the case that prisoners in USA aren't equivalent to prisoners in Denmark. The groups probably aren't equally selected, etc. I take an even stronger view that it's very hard to meaningfully compare almost any crime figure across different countries, except in a few cases like homicide. In many cases, rough but imperfect comparisons is all you have. I have multiple articles that discuss such issues (for example, one on global crime, and the challenges of such comparisons; and another on the comparison of recidivism rates across countries).
βit is certainly true that a large share of crime is committed by a small number of persistent offenders, there are still more criminals than you might expect.β
Gee, I wonder why. Must be racism on the part of the host country. ;-)
Why are you injecting racial snark into an article like this?
The article is merely making a mathematical point. Crime counts are different from criminal counts - if you define a criminal as someone ever imprisoned.
There are more criminals than you expect across all racial categories (or at least than I do expected.) But it is also true many of these people donβt individually commit a lot of crimes. Most crime incidents are caused by a small number of habitual offenders.
Because of the disparity of crime rates across racial classifications. Just that simple.
Thereβs some important nuance to consider here. For one, police are more likely to patrol Black neighborhoods, which creates a recursive cycle: increased policing leads to more arrestsβnot necessarily because violent crime is more prevalent, but because thereβs greater surveillance. This doesnβt mean violent crimes havenβt been committed, but it does suggest that the data may reflect policing patterns as much as actual criminal behavior.
A second factor is that African Americans are more likely to come from single-mother households, often due to systemic and historical inequities. This can contribute to higher rates of childhood trauma, which in turn may increase the likelihood of violent behavior later in life.
Another possible factor is the influence of "ghetto culture," where being seen as tough or rebellious can be socially rewardedβsometimes even perceived as attractive or desirable, particularly to potential romantic partners. This can create a feedback loop: if such traits are culturally reinforced, there may be increased social selection for more aggressive or sexually dimorphic men. At the same time, the prevalence of single-mother households can reduce the number of men who are willing or able to settle down, further destabilizing family structures.
Over time, this can erode trust in institutions, leading some individuals to disengage from the system and turn to criminal activity.
Itβs also possible that genetic factors play a minor roleβthough this is highly controversial and often misused. More likely, the truth lies in a combination of factors: systemic inequality, cultural dynamics, historical trauma, socioeconomic conditions, and yes, possibly some biological influences. Itβs rarely a case of one cause. The reality is probably a complex interplay of all these elements.
However single mother hood is a massive fucking factor which is amped up by hood culture
"Itβs also possible that genetic factors play a minor role"
It's the dominant role.
The other "cultural" factors are just the kind of things impulsive low IQ people do when confronted with modern incentive structures.
Single motherhood is a rational response to the welfare state being a better provider than low IQ men, especially when marrying a man usually means much lower access to that welfare state.
Crime is a rational response to low arrest and conviction rates, combined with lax punishment. The murder clear rate is 58% nationally, meaning 42% get away with it. My wife was once on an attempted murder trial where the obviously guilty guy got off. In Baltimore where I lived for awhile (and is heavily black) the clear rate on non-fatal shootings was 26.2% one year. The clear rate on property crime and assault is something like 0% from my experience.
You could eliminate crime overnight by going Bukele. When the clear rate approaches 100% crime no longer pays.
The single mother issue could be addressed by making changes to the welfare system. It won't be a foolproof solution but you want to stop punishing people for being married.
The police patrols certain neighborhoods more often because there is more crime in those neighborhoods to begin with.
The causes of high crimes are certainly important. But please donβt use them to mitigate the fact that certain demographics are more prone to violent crimes. A fact is a fact.
You need to get your head checked.
This is circular reasoning. If the whole argument is that they police those neighborhoods more because of crime rates, itβs really more that because they police them more, they pick up more. That doesnβt mean people there actually consume or commit more.
Not all crimes are even real crimesβsome are things that shouldnβt be crimes at all, like trading drugs. This is the U.S.βs fault. The War on Drugs caused Mexicans and Latin Americans to enter into an arms race, which led to violent, dysfunctional gangs like MS-13. Peacefully trading drugs shouldnβt be criminalized. When you ban it, you create militias, as we see today in Latin America.
Other factors matter too. Itβs more to be expected in poor areas, and poor areas commit more crimes. There has been a long history of poverty in those neighborhoods. All of these combineβitβs not a single factor. Overall, the crime rate is higher per capita because itβs poorer, but Black people today are leagues and bounds above where they were 50 years ago, even without the advantages Europeans had. Itβs like they started with a wooden house, while Europeans got a mansion.
They are far better off than before, but Europeans had 400 years of building up material wealth in America. Thatβs what it is. Itβs not as simple as βBlack skin = more violent, lower IQ.β Thatβs not how humans work.
You are playing with words. Let me illustrate my point with an extreme example. Consider a posh neighborhood on Long Island, say Great Neck and the Bronx. It should go without saying that the former has far fewer violent crimes per capita than the latter. That doesnβt depend on how often the police patrols each area.
Also, one would think that if two areas are roughly equal in terms of violent crimes per capital to begin with, the more the police patrols, the more the reduced crime rate, because of the deterrence factor.
Again, you are not using your head. You are being evasive. I donβt care about the cause of the crimes. There may be historical circumstances and grievances behind the crimes. But East Asians suffered a great deal in America yet they didnβt become criminals.
And this debate is not about the root cause but the overrepresentation of certain groups in crimes. Letβs acknowledge the fact first and the deal with the cause and the cure. The cause may not be what you alluded to. Some people are just more prone to violence. Iβm sorry if this fact bursts your utopia bubble. If you really believe your theory, why donβt you go and live in one of those South American countries?
Get out of this country, please. You are worse than the criminals.
Nothing you said follows your using poor communities and saying race is the casual aspect I pointed to you 3 points it's poverty over policing and over representation on victimless crimes like drugs
Root causes are the only thing olin this debate that matters why are you brushing around this
Single motherhood is not at all important as an explanatory variable. In 1950, when roughly 70% of black adults were married (as opposed to about 25% today), the ratio of black:white murder rate was exactly the same as it is today.
But it would be relative to population, right? They were also objectively poorer back then as well, because national wages and innovations made things cheaper. Wealth also matters.
But it leads to dysgenic practice, so this is what I don't get: Africans in the US, right, were heavily stopped and barred from getting jobs, and they were slaves for a lot of history. They couldn't build up generational wealth. That's not modern white people's fault, but that is history.
So what I'm saying, as a result, is what leads toβif you're not in a free marketβis dysgenics. The IQ isn't random; it's selective. If you select for it, it goes up. They didn't have that 400-year gap; you did.
It's also why Africa today is a shithole. I think Plato's ideas on this aspect were correct: you need a cognitive elite to control the population and birth rates, like in China or Singapore, but you also need to make sure the poor don't outbreed the rich.
It's less about race and more about, in your own ethnicity, which is reproducing. Think of it like this: if you had European whites with an average of 100 and you gave them the same ghetto culture, within 3 generations the IQ would lower due to dysgenics.
Or even internally in your own race, 85 IQ is still 16 percent of the European population, and they have higher birth rates. If they reproduce more, the averageβwithout any ethnic import.
That's my whole point: Eugenics never stops, and neither does dysgenics. The solution is embryo selection and iterative embryo selection, but I'm pointing out slavery and colonialism is the reason those places didn't industrialize, because when they left, they built institutional integrity, and the people adopted dysgenic behavior by adopting socialism. As a result, you got even poorer, and the poor outbreed the rich. This creates a dysgenic selection, and over generations it leads to civilizations collapsing. It's why you see lots of African and Indian civilizations in the past, because of a small cognitive elite.
βAs a result, you got even poorer, and the poor outbreed the rich. This creates a dysgenic selection, and over generations it leads to civilizations collapsing.β
One aspect left out, our modern welfare State which allows such folly from dysgenic selection to propagate (occur). If one reads βThe Son Also Risesβ, which analyses birth and death rates in medieval England, one sees that the rich, or rather the well to do, hence superior genetic stock, out bred the poor, or lessor genetic stockβby leaving more (surviving) heirs and wealth. The poor, not so much. Multiply this phenomenon across centuries and dozens of generations and violaβthe Industrial Revolution. From there an amazing amount of wealth, then the welfare State. The demise of such folly (creation of the welfare State) we are now experiencing in real time.
I actually agree with this. Maybe you think Iβm against hereditarians, but all I said was that colonialism disrupted the eugenic structures in societies. I donβt know enough about Africaβyouβd have to ask an Africanβbut if you read the ArthaΕΔstra or the Laws of Manu, youβll see those societies had proto-eugenic elements that were raising the average IQ. Thatβs why India once had around 25% of the worldβs GDP.
Colonialism, however, cucked your own people. It brought in slavery and destroyed existing systems. At least, thatβs the case in IndiaβI canβt really speak for Africa. But I do know that historically India was a very proud civilization. The so-called βcentury of humiliationβ only happened because of the dysgenic influence of democracy, which the British left behind. Yes, colonialism did some goodβlike ending certain practices such as slaveryβbut it also introduced dysgenic factors that increased the number of poor relative to the wealthy.
Nevertheless, as soon as India becomes rich again, I expect most of its people to return home. Keep in mind: 1,000 years ago, Europe was a backwater. Its rise to the top is due to recent eugenic practices, not its ancient past.
I donβt know enough about Africa, but regarding Indian skulls from that eraβIndia has a temperate climate, so there arenβt as many fossils, plus South Asians have smaller biobanks compared to others. Still, in terms of genetic accuracy, South Asians would probably show much higher precision than East Asians or Africans, even with less advanced technology. Thatβs because the genetic distance between Europeans and South Asians is much smaller than the distance between Europeans and East Asians, let alone Sub-Saharan Africans.
And remember: cross-ancestry estimates only work if thereβs enough linkage.
My core disagreement isnβt whether the results are true or geneticβitβs more about how quickly traits change and how much selection plays a role.
Just use the equation . If the is 80% and the selection differential is higher than the average, then IQ obviously increases. Thatβs how it works. Eugenics is always happeningβit happened in the past, itβs happening today, and it will happen in the future.
Look at it like this: if the Gaussian distribution for whites is 100, then in America 16 million people would have an IQ of 85. If they bred more, the ratio would increase.
Now, in America, 16% of Africans have an IQ of 100 and above. If they bred more, they would start to match the white average.
Now letβs look at embryo selection via PGTs (polygenic test scores). If you had embryos, the maximum would be 3 SDs, which is massive. What matters is the selection differential and the trait being selected for.
The issue with race realism is that 100 seems like a fixed archetypical abstractβbut it isnβt. IQ keeps changing even without total autosomal changes. Alleles for low cognitive ability can increase, and alleles for high cognitive ability can as well.
The problem is women. The selection differential they act on isnβt intelligenceβitβs physical attractiveness. Thatβs why lower selection differentials occur in certain races.
The more barriers you remove in the dating market, the more the top 20% breed for traits not tied to cognitive ability. So the selection differential isnβt for intelligenceβitβs for looks.
If this werenβt the case, every generation would be rapidly catching up. But women select for looks, not IQ. Physical attractiveness is a separate domain under selectionβitβs higher in African Americans, hence average IQ is lower. To be fair, it could even be lower than 85 on average, because women select for looks rather than cognitive ability.
Iβll comment upon one point in your overly long response, too many aspects for my limited time:
βThatβs why India once had around 25% of the worldβs GDP.β
India had 25% of worldβs GDP? Need proof/clarificationβsince I strongly suspect those aspects of economics were in infancy and statistics hard to come by, and Iβm pretty sure there is much error in such a sweeping statement.
Want to know about India from a hereditarian view point? Read Reichβs book, βWho We Are and How We Got Hereβ. Heβs got a chapter or two on India. Of particular note is the aspect of a millennial old βcasteβ system coupled with the cultural norm of arranged marriages between families. Caste system is basically a form of eugenicsβin practice if not at that time in name. Given such and also that the national average IQ of India is estimated today to be in the mid-80βs, we see that there is no eugenics here in the manner you might assume. The upper castes have continued to intermarry and families make the best arrangements for their offspring, which of course produces βassortive matingβ. The rest of the populace need not apply. Hence we are led into the theory of the βsmart fractionβ, which in Indiaβs case explains much.
As far as bright people always producing brighter offspring, itβs not always better and better. We are fighting population-wise the growth of dysgenics due to the absence of strict Darwinian selection (evolution). We (Darwinism) no longer cull the sick, weak, and incompetent as we did in prior times. Dutton wrote a book on this in which he terms our problem today, βSpiteful Mutantsβ. IQ tests no longer really measure our intelligence level decline since they are renormed to the mythical average score of 100 every so often. When one applies an IQ test given 100 years ago to todayβs respondent they perform more poorly than expected.
Now Iβm rambling, so Iβll end.
I briefly read the document you linked β it clearly addresses the claim that growth is purely about aggregate population size. I'd find it hypocritical if someone were to dismiss this argument but then uncritically accept data on Ancient Romeβs economic growth, or IQ traits of ancient populations, given how limited those datasets are. On one hand, people claim Europeans achieved growth recently, but theyβre unwilling to extend that same skepticism to historical generalizations. Thatβs inconsistent.
As for India, the situation was more complex than just "Europe bankrupted India." When India was colonized, the British implemented the Zamindari system and a harsh taxation regime. These systems effectively funneled Indian wealth as remittances to fund cheaper British goods. Because Indians were being taxed so heavily, they couldn't accumulate capital. Add in British control of the seas and restrictive tariffs, and they couldnβt trade with regional competitors either. Over time, this led to deindustrialization β and yes, racism played a major role in this process.
The IQ estimate for India (mid-80s) also doesnβt account for phenotypic depression. With a corrected environment, estimates would likely fall around 90β92 β not a massive gap. So even here, context matters.
Where I disagree with Dutton is on the solution. I think the answer lies in embryo selection and, more importantly, CRISPR. Even individuals with suboptimal genetics could benefit significantly. With enough embryos β say, selecting from 1,000 β you could increase cognitive ability by around 3 standard deviations. Thatβs a massive jump: for someone starting at an IQ of 85, that could mean reaching 100 or higher. The key variable is the number of embryos. Polygenic selection is the real game-changer.
India though has it's own problems currently that's due to do with economics but to get back to the past mentality it needs to move away from socialist planning bearing in mind socialism is so Anti thetical to Indian history you never have policies similar to it
Appreciate the post! Perhaps someone here knows the answer to my question:
Since a quarter or a third of black men in the US are (violent?) criminals, how high is the percentage of criminals in the many infamous inner-city black ghettos of the US? Would it be wrong to assume that they make up the majority of the men there, and that almost everyone there is related to or friends with a criminal? Apart from ethno-nationalism, this might explain why the residents there so readily side with vicious thugs against the police. Nobody wants to become the victim of a crime, but they obviously resent the police if they themselves frequently run afoul of the law.
How are you attempting to define who is and who isn't a criminal? How long are you a criminal after you commit any particular crime?
As an example of why this is difficult, probably most men the world over have been in a fistfight at some point, or done some other sort of assholish thing that is technically illegal, but 90%+ of us weren't arrested for it. On the other end , defining a "criminal" as only someone who is in the midst of committing a crime is far too narrow a definition.
For context on how many might be (violent?) this is a good breakdown of the categories of crime that people are in prison for in the USA:
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2025.html
Itβs not true that inner city residents side with criminals.
In Sweden, at any rate, many people side with the thugs out of fear. It's one reason it is hard to get people to testify about domestic violence or gang activity.
This comment is a monument to deflection and hiding from the truth.
The policing argument is SO tired. WHY do YOU think police patrol bad neighborhood? It's because that's where the victims of violent crimes live. Your misuse of Bayesian principles just makes you look stupid and makes the people who live in those unsafe neighborhoods more unsafe.
Bingo. But perhaps the telling part is that there are comparisons to equally poor non-minority areas (White) where these crime rates are lower and not comparable to inner city minority (Black, Hispanic) rates. At any rate, one has a cause and effect argument, which is not proven by the evidence. Does poor environment cause criminal behavior, or does criminal behavior cause poor environment? Even if we leave the Whites completely out of the comparisons, the two major minorities in the USAβBlacks and Hispanicsβhave stark differences in crime rates, both of which are higher than Whites. However, if you had a choice, living in an Hispanic dominated neighborhood would be preferable (survivable?) if you are White.
I especially appreciated the statistical correction for prison term. I've seen those stats bandied about for years, and your breakdown is a real indictment of their overly credulous use.
I'd be quite interested in one more layer of accuracy in the comparison of criminal-code violations, by coding for severity. E.g., are we comparing an early convictions for, say, a bar fight, followed by a clean-up life, versus aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, followed by further criminality and recidivism? There's a broad span of anti-social-ness to even the category of statutory criminal violence.
Why does the shorter length of sentence (ie: incapacitation) in countries like Denmark not boost their crime rate?
Is it because their composition of criminals is different such that
A. they commit less severe offenses and thus present a lower risk of reoffending and/or
B. Their criminals generally, even controlling for offense type, present a lower risk of reoffending
I'm not sure I agree that it doesn't boost their crime rate. I think a country like Denmark would have an even lower crime rate if they had longer incarceration.
But, as I mentioned, many factors contribute to national crime disparities. Imprisonment is just one, and countries like USA and Denmark differ in many other respects too.
I have two posts where I compare recidivism rates Nordic and American recidivism rates. In those I attempt to address some of the factors that contribute:
https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/the-myth-of-the-nordic-rehabilitative
https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/recidivism-in-norway
Hey, love reading your work
I recently came across this smug race denialist
https://youtu.be/CntemqZAvEs?si=8YOCYBsz4k65ZpRm
Could you make a post debunking him, it would be beneficial for future race realists imo, thanks.
Sure there are a lot of sexual crimes among danish men..
Sure there are a lot of sexual crimes among danish men..
What's consider crime is an essential concept not addressed in the article. I assume the statistics refer mainly to 'violent' crimes, those more likely to be committed by poor people. I'm pretty sure that if white collar crimes like scams, frauds, tax avoidance, etc, which actually affect to more people, were considered, you'd be surprised on how many actual (white rich) criminals there are.
It is addressed in the article on multiple occasions, including in the very first paragraph.
I meant what's NOT consider crime (Typing on my phone) Those white collar crimes that doesn't fill the stats (or the criminals get away with it) but actually affect more people and happen everyday.
Oh you go to jail for that if you defraud the wrong people β¦
I assume Robey (2023) must have explained how the chart is extended to age 50 even though nobody born in 1981 or 1991 had yet reached 50 before 2023?
Absolutely, see the citation for further details. As the title of my chart says, it's the real and *projected* cumulative risk of imprisonment. The projected part is visualized by the line being more transparent.
It's a common exercise to project lifetime incarceration risk from incomplete data. For an old and often cited example, see, e.g., Bonczar (2003), "Prevalence of Imprisonment in the U.S. Population, 1974-2001".