Whites more likely than blacks to be shot by police in violent crimes

[Guest]

Racial Bias.pdf

The attached file essentially says that while black suspects are more prone to having uses of force applied to them, white suspects are more likely to get shot by police.

You can site all sorts of individual examples, anecdotal evidence, and short news spots that only tell part of the story.  But the statistics bear out that the racial bias or prejudice is not the over-riding force behind the great majority police actions.

[LeSellers]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

the basis of violence is outside such parameters

I'm not sure there is a singular "basis of violence".

However, there are four things that contribute mightily to it:

1. IQ is one. Most criminals, especially violent criminals, have an IQ between 75 and 95, with a mean of 85.
2. I've forgotten the name of the gene (it's "rr" or something similar), but in the presence of high levels of testosterone, in a person who inherited a copy of it from each parent, and whose (usually) mother uses harsh discipline on him in childhood, the (almost invariably) boy/man has a significantly higher tendency to be violent.
3. Having a man in the home (not just any man, but either a biological or adoptive father – others need not apply) increases a child's empathy and compassion. This is even more important for girls than for boys, but each sex benefits from having his father at home. Compassionate, empathetic people are not often violent. However, if the majority of "families" in a culture are fatherless, even a father in a specific child's home is not as important in crating empathetic, compassionate children.
4. Living in a culture with large proportions (i.e., < 40%) of people who receive welfare and who have received welfare for more than two generations leads to violence, primarily because of an inability to see other people as important. This is almost exactly the same as empathy and compassion, but not identical.

No one can choose his child's IQ. No one can control his child's genetic structure. But one can control whether his child is subjected to brutal discipline and whether there is a paycheck or a welfare check driving the economy in the home.

If you love your children, get married, don't take welfare, and don't hit them; and don't live in a neighborhood where your child will never see a man go to work.

Lehi

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

This is a beautifully worded blog post that might provide us with a bit of common ground.  Here's a quote from the blog as a teaser.  I hope you will consider reading the whole post. 

Quote

 

When Suddenly No Lives Matter

So what do you do now? Now that 5 police officers are dead because of the bad decisions of other PEOPLE. What has that fixed? How many people are going to bed tonight wishing their loved one had come home, black or white, but because of hate they will never walk in the door? All I keep seeing are officers who are afraid of my husband now more than ever. I see wives begging their husbands not to leave whether they are leaving the house with a badge or black skin. I see parents teaching their children to be afraid of the police instead of teaching them to respect those that put their lives on the line to keep us safe. Or parents who pull their children closer when a black man sits to closely on the bus.

https://3boys1blogandme.com/2016/07/09/when-suddenly-no-lives-matter/

 

P.S. I shared this on Facebook and it got 14 shares...that has never happened to me before.  

Edited July 11, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest MormonGator]

54 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

 The claim that, "You do not understand because you are not ---------"  Is a bias that some humans are illogical and incapable of rational projective thinking - which is one of the worse kinds of bias and prejudices.

 

No, it isn't.

I can't claim to know what it was like growing up poor and black in the 1950's. And neither can you unless you are, well, poor and black and grew up in the 1950s. I also can't claim to know what it was like to experience anti-LDS prejudice because I never have. Do I think anti-LDS prejudice exists? You bet I do. Do I think anti-black prejudice exists? Yes, but I think it's shrinking. Generally, the younger you are the less bigoted you are. That doesn't mean everyone over the age of X is bigoted of course-but it does mean that someone growing up in the Jim Crow era (north or south) is more likely to be bigoted. 

I get what you are saying Traveler, I just see it differently. 

[Guest]

I believe white privilege exists, as much as I could gag on the term. I hate hearing it, and I will tell you why: I only hear it from people who want to talk (or rather scream) at you, not dialogue about anything. The purpose of the term doesn't seem to be education, but a ubiquitous shame. I and people close to me have extended empathy and wanted to know what we can do to change things, and by and large are met with hostility. Our white privilege makes us blind. It's not the job of any colored person to teach me how to do better. Okay.. well... I acknowledge that I have lived a privileged life, by and large (though not a wealthy or easy one). I acknowledge my ignorance, having spent my life in a state that isn't very diverse. But now what? What does it change for me to know that? How can I learn what I need to do to interact with and love my brothers and sisters of color better. If it's no one's responsibility to teach/show me, or rather if no one will take the responsibility, where and how can I learn? It's like shaming me for not knowing calculus, and then getting angry at me for wanting to learn, and telling me that if I really cared about math, I would just do calculus. It doesn't make sense. 

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

r. Okay.. well... I acknowledge that I have lived a privileged life, by and large (though not a wealthy or easy one). I acknowledge my ignorance, having spent my life in a state that isn't very diverse. But now what? What does it change for me to know that? How can I learn what I need to do to interact with and love my brothers and sisters of color better.

Eowyn, this is beautifully said. I think "White privilege" exists too-but usually (key word, usually) skills and ability will get you very far in a free market. If you are looking for evidence of racism you'll find it-but if you are looking for an opportunity to succeed, that's there too. 

I have great skepticism towards both extremes. The guys who say "Get over racism! There is no such thing as racism! How dare you!" and the guys who say "Everyone keeps me down but myself." There really is a middle ground here. 

[Just_A_Guy]

11 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You lost me here in the first paragraph. You are the one who brought up the topic of blaming the victim.  I was just responding to you.  Yet, somehow I was wrong in this,  and then you proceeded to continue with the discussion that you seem not to care for.  I'm seriously unclear on your point here.

I don't want to debate Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown, I think it is well-know that not everyone agrees with the way you presented the stories, but i see no point in going down that road again.

I feel really badly that we seem to be talking past each other; and I apologize for my part--I probably didn't express myself particularly well.  It just seemed jarring to me that the discussion seemed to revert back immediately to blacks as "victims" (the implicit assumption being, blacks are victims of cops--the same class who just saw five of their brothers murdered in cold blood) and I probably made too much out of it.  The more I digest your post, the more I realize that that wasn't really the thrust of your argument.

I understand your reluctance to re-tread the Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown debates, but I confess I also find it unfortunate; because I'm honestly confused at what apologists for those two individuals honestly think that George Zimmerman/Darren Phillips were supposed to do under the circumstances.  (Yes, it's easy to retort "well, they weren't supposed to shoot the kids--duh!!!"--but what does that really mean, in the fact patterns that applied in those cases?  That otherwise-suspicious activity should be ignored, so long as the apparent perpetrator is a racial minority?  I honestly don't know what to make of all this.)

Edited July 11, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I feel really badly that we seem to be talking past each other; and I apologize for my part--I probably didn't express myself particularly clearly. 

Jag, you really are a great guy. It's usually the people that admit this that don't do it-the people that do talk past one another are usually too obtuse to see it.  

[LeSellers]

3 hours ago, Eowyn said:

I believe white privilege exists

So do I, every time I'm required to pay taxes so the welfare classes (much more than ²/₃ of whom are not White). If this is privilege, I say, let them have the privilege for a change.

3 hours ago, Eowyn said:

The purpose of the term doesn't seem to be education, but a ubiquitous shame.

European culture is a shame-based culture: we feel shame and we keep ourselves in line. That's why we don't need huge police forces: we police ourselves.

Non-European (and non-north Asian) cultures are aggression based: that is, they can use our shame to force us to give them our stuff, out of shame for what we've supposedly done to them. The odd thing is, for example, it was Muslims who (for the most part) initiated the African slave trade. but no one is demanding that Arabs pay reparations. Why? Arabs do not have a shame culture. They wouldn't tolerate such nonsense. We do. Yet it was the European culture that ended the slave trade, not only for ourselves, but around the world. Where it still exists, and it does exist, it's still perpetrated by Muslims.

3 hours ago, Eowyn said:

It doesn't make sense. 

No, it does not.

Europeans are tolerant of others, and will put up with a lot of idiocy and demands from others. It's our shame-based culture. We are tolerant, that is, until we are not. I fear that we are fast approaching that point.

When we reach that point in the not-so-distant future, it will be terrible, for us, and for them. But between the two cultures, I'd much rather be European.

Lehi

Edited July 12, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

So do I, every time I'm required to pay taxes so the welfare classes (much more than ²/₃ of whom are not White). If this is privilege, I say, let them have the privilege for a change.

European culture is a shame-based culture: we feel shame and we keep ourselves in line. That's why we don't need huge police forces: we police ourselves.

Non-European (and non-north Asian) cultures are aggression based: that is, they can use our shame to force us to give them our stuff, out of shame for what we've supposedly done to them. The odd thing is, for example, it was Muslims who (for the most part) initiated the African slave trade. but no one is demanding that Arabs pay reparations. Why? Arabs do not have a shame culture. They wouldn't tolerate such nonsense. We do. Yet it was the European culture that ended the slave trade, not only for ourselves, but around the world. Where it still exists, and it does exist, it's still perpetrated by Muslims.

No, it does not.

Europeans are tolerant of others, and will put up with a lot of idiocy and demands from others. It's our shame-based culture. We are tolerant, that is, until we are not. I fear that we are fast approaching that point.

When we reach that point in the not-so-distant future, it will be terrible, for us, and for them. But between the two cultures, I'd much rather be European.

Lehi

These are the opinions of LeSellers, and do not represent the opinions of Eowyn, even though Eowyn's words are attached. 

[prisonchaplain]

On 7/10/2016 at 2:41 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

On 7/10/2016 at 2:41 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

FWIW, I am always against blaming the victim.  I certainly do not blame the police in Dallas, what happened there is horrific and is the fault of the twisted minds (four snipers, correct? that did the crime, no one else).  And it goes without saying how I feel about blaming rape victims.

What I see is a lot of blaming black victims.  Conservatives say, "Well he had a record" or "He was a suspect in a robbery".   I've been thinking about this all day and can think of two reasons that people blame the victim (in any situation).  

 

 

In the case of rape the victim is clearly a victim (unless there are questions over whether the incident was really love-maker's regret). However, in cases where a black person is shot by a white police officer, it's not so clear if the shot person is a victim. If s/he just came from a robbery, or has a record, there is an increased possibility that the shooting was necessary. It gets mentioned against blacks more because their shootings tend to get publicized and politicized. So, many of us "law and order whites" get defensive about accusations of police racism and brutality, and grab hold of mitigating factors that seem to support the officer's actions.

BTW, if a defense attorney argues that an alleged rape victim consenting to the encounter, is that automatically deemed "blaming the victim?"  I understand the inclination to err on the side of those shot. Others err on the side of police. BUT the "never blame the victim" line, imho, should be used sparingly.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I feel really badly that we seem to be talking past each other; and I apologize for my part--I probably didn't express myself particularly well.  It just seemed jarring to me that the discussion seemed to revert back immediately to blacks as "victims" (the implicit assumption being, blacks are victims of cops--the same class who just saw five of their brothers murdered in cold blood) and I probably made too much out of it.  The more I digest your post, the more I realize that that wasn't really the thrust of your argument.

I understand your reluctance to re-tread the Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown debates, but I confess I also find it unfortunate; because I'm honestly confused at what apologists for those two individuals honestly think that George Zimmerman/Darren Phillips were supposed to do under the circumstances.  (Yes, it's easy to retort "well, they weren't supposed to shoot the kids--duh!!!"--but what does that really mean, in the fact patterns that applied in those cases?  That otherwise-suspicious activity should be ignored, so long as the apparent perpetrator is a racial minority?  I honestly don't know what to make of all this.)

Thanks for your post, JAG.   I have been guilty of talking past people myself.  Of course, we try not to, right? But it still happens sometimes.

Alright, you persuaded me.  I'll talk with you a little about Trayvon and Michael. The difficulty in discussing these cases (any case really) is perspective.  We weren't there and we can only rely on what the people involved or witnesses say.  I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't know here, but I guess just establishing common ground . . . each side views the incident from their bias--we both get that. With Trayvon, the only witness we have is George Zimmerman.  As someone who has also been charged with domestic abuse, IMO he is not a very reliable witness.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/10/george-zimmerman-back-in-court-after-domestic-violence-incident/?utm_term=.9a4b2780806e 

He also sold the gun he used that night.  He said he got $250G, that is disgusting on so many levels. On the night in question, wikipedia (I know, I know)  says that Zimmerman called the police.

Quote

 

He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[55] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.[56] On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away."[57][58]

About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running".[59] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[60] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[61] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[59] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[62] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[59] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.

After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

 

Notice that Zimmerman was suspicious, but had no real proof.  The dispatcher told him not to follow Martin.  Then the call ends.  My question is if Zimmerman had stayed in the car instead of getting out and playing cop, would Trayvon still be alive.  I think that is probable.  Zimmerman is not a cop, he should have stayed in the car.  We don't know what happened next, but it appears to me that he followed Trayvon and an altercation ensued.  Sounds like a pretty unfair fight given that I think Zimmerman started it and ended it.  

Do we really know that Trayvon was casing the neighborhood?  He was staying there with a relative, not some random stranger walking through.  It's all highly debatable. 

The Michael Brown case is harder to sort out.  I gave up on debating that one because it could have gone either way.  Witnesses say Michael's hand's were up when he was shot.  Darren Phillips says Michael was rushing him.  Our bias in large part determines which scenario we believe.  But here's the thing about victim blaming (dare I go there, LOL)  After Michael's death, stories surfaced about him robbing a convenience store that were proven to be untrue.  But while people thought that, they used it as some sort of justification.  Oh, well he robbed a store so therefore he brought this on himself.  Okay, if it were armed robbery yes, but not only did Michael not do the robbery, but he was not armed.  

Where things get even more complicated to me, is when there is a video and we still can't agree on it.  To me the most egregious of these is the death of Eric Garner.  I watched the video.  The police were talking to Eric about illegally selling cigarettes.  Eric denies that it is illegal and says he has been harassed unfairly by police.  Then suddenly one of the officers jumps him (the reason for that was never clear to me) they wrestled him to the ground using a debatable move.  While on the ground, Eric tells them "I can't breathe" several times, which the officers ignore and he died.

Some people have said to me, "Well how did he say that if he couldn't breathe."  To me that is the weakest argument out there.  "I can't breathe" means you are having trouble breathing.  I have said it myself when I had panic attacks and felt like a boa constrictor was squeezing my chest.  My focus was on staying alive (because I felt like I was dying) not on being articulate and saying, "I am struggling to breath right now."  Nonsense.

The next excuse I hear from people is that people probably all say that to the police.  No doubt.  But here's the thing.  In my previous job working with at risk youth were taught a technique to secure them when necessary to keep them from harming themselves or others.  In this hold, the youth ends up lying on the ground, face down, with staff holding their arms out in T-postiion and another staff holding their legs.  It was stressed to us not to put an arm or elbow on their back because it could restrict breathing.  And if a child says, "I can't breathe" you MUST always, always assume it is true and ease off the hold a little bit. 

Yes, I did participate in using that hold on kids on several occasions (these were very troubled youth).  And yes they did say "I can't breathe."  Most of the time we didn't believe them, but we eased up a bit anyway.  They also claimed they needed to use the restroom, which we ignored, and no one had any accidents.  So to me there is no reason those officers could not have eased up on their hold on Eric Garner a bit...just in case.  Never mind that I don't think they should have had him on the ground in the first place. 

I hope that helps. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

7 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

In the case of rape the victim is clearly a victim (unless there are questions over whether the incident was really love-maker's regret). However, in cases where a black person is shot by a white police officer, it's not so clear if the shot person is a victim. If s/he just came from a robbery, or has a record, there is an increased possibility that the shooting was necessary. It gets mentioned against blacks more because their shootings tend to get publicized and politicized. So, many of us "law and order whites" get defensive about accusations of police racism and brutality, and grab hold of mitigating factors that seem to support the officer's actions.

BTW, if a defense attorney argues that an alleged rape victim consenting to the encounter, is that automatically deemed "blaming the victim?"  I understand the inclination to err on the side of those shot. Others err on the side of police. BUT the "never blame the victim" line, imho, should be used sparingly.

PC, I understand what you are saying here and don't disagree completely.  FWIW, I hold any woman who lies about being raped in high contempt.  That is almost worse than being a rapist in my mind, because lying about rape makes it so much harder for true victims to be believed.  I would support jail time for false allegations of rape---but only if we start doing a better job of putting the actual rapists in jail. I admit that in most cases rape is difficult to find justice because it's a he said/she said situation.  However, sometimes we have witnesses and rapists still get a slap on the wrist, i.e. the Stanford Rape case.

As far as police shootings, I understand there are cases of suicide by cop, or bad guys that don't want to get caught that threaten cops lives.  So I see what you are saying there.  

For the most part I think we agree, though I think I would use the don't blame the victim less sparingly that you would...but still, we basically agree. 

Edited July 12, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

White privilege is a topic that I would rather discuss one to one...because of (forgive me) white fragility.  It's a topic that gets people angered easily, and so I avoid group discussions.  Send me a PM if you would like to discuss it....I mean friendly discussion, not debate.  

Edited July 12, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[anatess2]

Sometimes it's great to be Asian.  We are not guilted into white privilege and we are not told we are black victims.  People look at us and think we eat calculus for breakfast.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I hope that helps. 

It does help; and FWIW I'm inclined to agree with you about Eric Garner.  But with regard to Martin and Brown, my thoughts are the following:

Quote

The dispatcher told him not to follow Martin.  Then the call ends.  My question is if Zimmerman had stayed in the car instead of getting out and playing cop, would Trayvon still be alive.  I think that is probable.

I think from the full transcript of the call it is pretty clear that as soon as dispatch told Zimmerman that they didn't need him to follow Martin, Zimmerman broke off the chase and began returning to the rendezvous point he had established with dispatch.  The conversation actually considered for at least another 30 seconds or so after the "we don't need you to follow him" line, and my recollection is that if you look at a map of the shooting, Martin's body was found along the natural route from where Zimmerman broke off his chase to the rendezvous point.

As to your question, of course the only possible answer is "yes".  But that doesn't really end the inquiry, because Trayvon would also be alive if Zimmerman had stubbed his toe, or had mechanical problems with his car, or simply chosen not to get out of bed that morning.  Zimmerman is an unsympathetic and possibly dishonest character, to be sure; but for all his faults I think it's clear that he sincerely did sincerely believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that Martin was up to no good; and a death--or even a violent altercation--is not, to my mind, a reasonably inevitable consequence of following a suspected miscreant (from a safe distance, obviously).  And witnesses did corroborate that once the altercation was underway, Martin was on top of Zimmerman "MMA-style" and was repeatedly pounding Zimmerman's head into the concrete sidewalk.  That's why, to my mind, the entire BLM argument with regard to Martin boils down to a) "black kids should be able to continue, unmonitored, activities that would be considered "suspicious" when committed by a member of any other race"; and/or b) "In a physical altercation with a black person, the non-black person has a moral obligation to lie back and take whatever violence the black person chooses to dish out". 

Quote

The Michael Brown case is harder to sort out.  I gave up on debating that one because it could have gone either way.  Witnesses say Michael's hand's were up when he was shot.  Darren Phillips says Michael was rushing him.  Our bias in large part determines which scenario we believe.  But here's the thing about victim blaming (dare I go there, LOL)  After Michael's death, stories surfaced about him robbing a convenience store that were proven to be untrue.  But while people thought that, they used it as some sort of justification.  Oh, well he robbed a store so therefore he brought this on himself.  Okay, if it were armed robbery yes, but not only did Michael not do the robbery, but he was not armed.  

There were conflicting witnesses as to whether Brown's hands were up or not, and the (Obama/Holder) Department of Justice ultimately concluded that those claiming his hands were up, were lying.  Moreover, a plethora of forensic evidence--blood spatter, ballistics, autopsy results--corroborated Phillips' story.  And this feeds back into my mistrust of BLM--obviously, we hoi polloi can only argue on the facts made available to us; but the guys originating these tales knew they were lies.

I sort of agree with you about victim blaming--death is clearly a disproportionate penalty for a robbery.  (By the way, what source do you have saying that Brown was uninvolved in the store robbery?  The Daily Kos and Wikipedia (yeah, I know--right? ) both confirm his involvement; and I believe Dorian Johnson did, too.)  But, the nuance to this is that a good share of the victim blaming--both with Brown and with Martin--were responses to allegations by both families that these were innocent, peaceful, good kids (the release of photos of a pre-pubescent Martin that were 3-4 years out-of-date, the story about Brown taking an innocent trip down the street to "buy" cigarillos and attempts to suppress the surveillance video of the Ferguson Market robbery, etc)--and those allegations, of course, were intended to suggest that Messrs Zimmerman and Phillips, respectively, could only have acted out of animus and to bolster the case for their conviction.  With the Martin and Brown families having, in legal parlance, "opened the door" into discussions of their heroes' moral characters; it was inevitable that some folks would dig deeper and then say "hey, wait a minute . . ."

Edited July 12, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I'm not sure there is a singular "basis of violence".

However, there are four things that contribute mightily to it:

1. IQ is one. Most criminals, especially violent criminals, have an IQ between 75 and 95, with a mean of 85.
2. I've forgotten the name of the gene (it's "rr" or something similar), but in the presence of high levels of testosterone, in a person who inherited a copy of it from each parent, and whose (usually) mother uses harsh discipline on him in childhood, the (almost invariably) boy/man has a significantly higher tendency to be violent.
3. Having a man in the home (not just any man, but either a biological or adoptive father – others need not apply) increases a child's empathy and compassion. This is even more important for girls than for boys, but each sex benefits from having his father at home. Compassionate, empathetic people are not often violent. However, if the majority of "families" in a culture are fatherless, even a father in a specific child's home is not as important in crating empathetic, compassionate children.
4. Living in a culture with large proportions (i.e., < 40%) of people who receive welfare and who have received welfare for more than two generations leads to violence, primarily because of an inability to see other people as important. This is almost exactly the same as empathy and compassion, but not identical.

No one can choose his child's IQ. No one can control his child's genetic structure. But one can control whether his child is subjected to brutal discipline and whether there is a paycheck or a welfare check driving the economy in the home.

If you love your children, get married, don't take welfare, and don't hit them; and don't live in a neighborhood where your child will never see a man go to work.

Lehi

 

I am not sure I go along with your conclusions.  Unless someone is physically impaired (including the physical brain) I do not believe that they cannot display intelligence – meaning to learn and change their behavior.  If this is not possible then we should test an individual as soon as they are born, or perhaps before, and remove them from fulfilling the only possible result of their circumstance.   If there is any other possibility to such circumstance then we cannot conclude that such circumstance is actual cause and as yet we have not identified that cause.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, MormonGator said:

No, it isn't.

I can't claim to know what it was like growing up poor and black in the 1950's. And neither can you unless you are, well, poor and black and grew up in the 1950s. I also can't claim to know what it was like to experience anti-LDS prejudice because I never have. Do I think anti-LDS prejudice exists? You bet I do. Do I think anti-black prejudice exists? Yes, but I think it's shrinking. Generally, the younger you are the less bigoted you are. That doesn't mean everyone over the age of X is bigoted of course-but it does mean that someone growing up in the Jim Crow era (north or south) is more likely to be bigoted. 

I get what you are saying Traveler, I just see it differently. 

 

I happen to believe that we are an intelligent species capable of communicating and learning.  Your example of growing up poor and black in the 1950's assumes that either those poor and black are incapable of communicating or white people are incapable of learning - neither of which am I willing to accept.  Difficult perhaps but I totally reject that it is impossible.  I believe we are all the same species – which happens to be intelligent and capable of communicating and learning.

Thinking others cannot understand what we know is a direct affront to their intelligence and learning capabilities – which is the worst kind of bigoted prejudice that is taught and must be learned.  I reject the very idea at its very core.  It is a false belief that brings about and escalates far more problems than it could possibly solve in those that believe it so.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Thinking others cannot understand what we know is a direct affront to their intelligence and learning capabilities – which is the worst kind of bigoted prejudice that is taught and must be learned.  I reject the very idea at its very core.  It is a false belief that brings about and escalates far more problems than it could possibly solve in those that believe it so.

 

That's fine my friend, you can reject that belief to your very core and that's okay. Honestly I still really like your posts and your perspective. 

 

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Unless someone is physically impaired (including the physical brain) I do not believe that they cannot display intelligence – meaning to learn and change their behavior. 

Not seeing where this was an issue in my message. Anyone with an IQ at all can "display intelligence", and yes, he can "learn and change [his] behavior." but that is not the same thing as increasing his IQ.

A person's IQ is limited at birth. While, say, bad nutrition can reduce it, more of the best food will only result in a fat child at his IQ potential, not a smarter child. Exposure to art, language, or anything else at an early age does not change IQ. Lack of such exposure can and does. But while a person's IQ can change marginally before age ~10, it is essentially fixed by age ~18.

IQ is heavily influenced by genetics. This unpleasant truth is no  less true because unpleasant. People who refuse to entertain this fact as a part of humanity cause more problems than they could hope to avoid. It's like a doctor who, knowing how little his patient likes the concept "cancer", says, "It's nothing to worry about, just a bit of pain and some lack of breath. You'll be fine." He'd be rightly sued for malpractice. But to ignore the genetic component of IQ is just as dangerous.

We aren't worried about the genetic component of height.  We recognize the genetic component in heart disease and obesity. We understand and discuss the genetic component in a host of human traits. But we refuse to notice the genetic component in IQ. Why?

Statistics show this component exists. Statistics going back more than a century give us the data we need to address the question. And, unless and until we do, we're going to have endless trouble dealing with the irrefutable outcomes of genetic-based IQ differences.

Lehi

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

IQ is heavily influenced by genetics.

Just so I'm clear... what are you getting at? A genetic component in IQ that applies to a whole race? 

[LeSellers]

2 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Just so I'm clear... what are you getting at? A genetic component in IQ that applies to a whole race? 

Just so I'm clear, what do you understand about statistics and averages? Because this is very clear:

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

Statistics going back more than a century give us the data we need to address the question. And, unless and until we do, we're going to have endless trouble dealing with the irrefutable outcomes of genetic-based IQ differences.

Lehi

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

Not seeing where this was an issue in my message. Anyone with an IQ at all can "display intelligence", and yes, he can "learn and change [his] behavior." but that is not the same thing as increasing his IQ.

A person's IQ is limited at birth. While, say, bad nutrition can reduce it, more of the best food will only result in a fat child at his IQ potential, not a smarter child. Exposure to art, language, or anything else at an early age does not change IQ. Lack of such exposure can and does. But while a person's IQ can change marginally before age ~10, it is essentially fixed by age ~18.

IQ is heavily influenced by genetics. This unpleasant truth is no  less true because unpleasant. People who refuse to entertain this fact as a part of humanity cause more problems than they could hope to avoid. It's like a doctor who, knowing how little his patient likes the concept "cancer", says, "It's nothing to worry about, just a bit of pain and some lack of breath. You'll be fine." He'd be rightly sued for malpractice. But to ignore the genetic component of IQ is just as dangerous.

We aren't worried about the genetic component of height.  We recognize the genetic component in heart disease and obesity. We understand and discuss the genetic component in a host of human traits. But we refuse to notice the genetic component in IQ. Why?

Statistics show this component exists. Statistics going back more than a century give us the data we need to address the question. And, unless and until we do, we're going to have endless trouble dealing with the irrefutable outcomes of genetic-based IQ differences.

Lehi

Actually there are many studies that include the work of Skinner, Pavlov and even Joseph Goebbels indicated that much of what we think of as learning capacity or IQ is related to learning or “acquired” abilities.   It is currently estimated that 50% of this country’s genius is not identified until an individual reaches college – couple this with the statistic that many of our country’s known genius does not even go to college and we have documented learning problems identifying genius capability. 

I would refer you to a number of documented exceptions to what you are espousing.  Back in (I think) the 70’s was a popular song titled “To Sir with Love” that was part of music with a popular movie with a reoccurring theme of a teacher that turns poor performing stupid students born with low IQ’s into high achievers smart kids with high IQ’s.   Though there are many that point to exceptions – I am of the opinion that the first lesson in learning is learning to learn and that many with so-called learning disabilities are less reality and more excuse than many are willing to accept.  I understand there are those with problems such as Down syndrome – but even that condition presents a wide range of learning capability.

From a religious standpoint I would point to Moroni chapter 10 that indicates everybody (note everybody) comes into this life with spiritual gifts and that these gifts are given to help prepare (learn) to come closer to G-d and his plan of eternal life and salvation which it a very high and sophisticated intelligence.

I believe that we should consider and believe everyone has the potential to be genius and that if there is an exception – then that exception must be proven.  I do not believe we should think that everybody is stupid until they prove otherwise.  I believe in education and that education improves people that learn to take advantage of education.

 

The Traveler

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

I happen to believe that we are an intelligent species capable of communicating and learning.  Your example of growing up poor and black in the 1950's assumes that either those poor and black are incapable of communicating or white people are incapable of learning - neither of which am I willing to accept.  Difficult perhaps but I totally reject that it is impossible.  I believe we are all the same species – which happens to be intelligent and capable of communicating and learning.

Thinking others cannot understand what we know is a direct affront to their intelligence and learning capabilities – which is the worst kind of bigoted prejudice that is taught and must be learned.  I reject the very idea at its very core.  It is a false belief that brings about and escalates far more problems than it could possibly solve in those that believe it so.

 

The Traveler

We can share knowledge with others to enhance and broaden their perspective, but experience can only be taught to a certain degree. I can write 20 paragraphs about the things I saw, did, and experienced in Iraq, and you may learn a lot from it. But that's not the same as fully and completely understanding the entirety of the experience. There aren't enough words I can write to give you that. Let me be clear, this doesn't mean that I shouldn't try to educate people about my experiences, or that others shouldn't try to learn from them. The same is true of the struggle of black communities and white privilege. There should absolutely be a great deal more dialogue and listening to the other side. There is much that can be learned from it, and it is our best chance at stemming the recent tide of violence and division. But as a white man (even one who grew up surrounded by black neighborhoods and went to predominately black schools), I will never fully understand the totality of life as a person of color any more than you will every perfectly understand the life of an Army truck driver in war-torn Iraq no matter how many words I dedicate to educating you about it.

[Traveler]

38 minutes ago, Godless said:

We can share knowledge with others to enhance and broaden their perspective, but experience can only be taught to a certain degree. I can write 20 paragraphs about the things I saw, did, and experienced in Iraq, and you may learn a lot from it. But that's not the same as fully and completely understanding the entirety of the experience. There aren't enough words I can write to give you that. Let me be clear, this doesn't mean that I shouldn't try to educate people about my experiences, or that others shouldn't try to learn from them. The same is true of the struggle of black communities and white privilege. There should absolutely be a great deal more dialogue and listening to the other side. There is much that can be learned from it, and it is our best chance at stemming the recent tide of violence and division. But as a white man (even one who grew up surrounded by black neighborhoods and went to predominately black schools), I will never fully understand the totality of life as a person of color any more than you will every perfectly understand the life of an Army truck driver in war-torn Iraq no matter how many words I dedicate to educating you about it.

The notion of perfectly understanding is unacceptable to me - we either understand each other or we don't.  Just because you were an army truck driver in war-torn Iraq does not mean that you understand something that I or millions of others is incapable of understanding.  My initial response is that you as well lack a "perfect" understanding and likely have forgot essential elements of what it is all about. 

I also reject the idea that similar experience cannot be utilized to create understanding.  Every person that lives is very likely to have experienced being picked on.  My stand is that those that reject in some way, that others cannot understand basic human experience (including how they were picked on) and expand on such understanding - is a mistake.  Rather than look for excuses for misunderstanding we are all better served by finding ways to understand each other and assume that we can understand.  I am 100% convinced that anyone that thinks they and others can communicate what they have learned through their life lesson experiences are correct – those that think they and others cannot communicate what is behind their life lessons and believes are also right to think so – but the limitation when they exist is in the teachers not the learners.  

 

The Traveler

Edited July 12, 2016 by Traveler