https://altright.com/2016/10/29/pseudo-science-and-bias-in-the-academic-establishment/

So we have the notion that ‘the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree’ for good or ill, or that some people are ‘bad to the bone’. At the same time, we had the notions of willpower and self-discipline and various attitudes on whether and how these could be reinforced.

Put that into modern idiom, perhaps one could say that one’s genetic makeup [ie. heredity] establishes a set of probabilities for ones behavior under a range of circumstances, one’s environment establishes learned patterns of response, and within that one’s brain is capable of both impulsive reaction and controlled direction on a moment to moment basis.

That the range of control and the degree of consciousness are, respectively, within a framework and directed by probabilities is exceptionally important but almost beside the point on a day to day basis.

The people who can’t exercise a brake on their impulses at all are typically recognized as ‘touched’ in primitive societies or as ‘insane’ or ‘mentally ill’ in more scientific ones. The inbred qualities of their condition are recognized either way, and perhaps by implication the inbred nature of the ability to direct action is too.

When most people historically have spoken of free will and choice, I’m not sure they meant more than this. I wonder at what point the notion of free will acquired the connotations of self-directing the entirety of one’s personal nature, interaction with the universe, and the nature of reality itself? Nietszche? Anthony Kennedy?

Free will defined that way is definitely extreme.

I’ve got a somewhat pronounced history of alcoholism in my family, along with chronic emphysema. Knowing this, I avoid becoming dependent on alcohol, and smoking. The fact that I have a set of alleles in my genes that predisposes me towards these things, I make the conscious choice not to enable them. Likewise, the fact that one might possess a similar set of alleles predisposing one toward criminal behavior does not imply that one is predestined to commit crimes. There is still a choice, and if you make it, you are still responsible for your actions–No amount of excuse-making, like “…I come from a family of criminals…” will change that fact: You made the choices that led you to committing those acts.

Excusing this crap because of “bad childhoods” or other such BS is a huge part of the reason society is breaking down around us. The “dindu” syndrome is another facet, where parents and other family members refuse to admit their progeny did something wrong. No matter what, there is still the objective fact: You made the decision, and you committed the crime. Perhaps you were predisposed, but “predisposed” is not “doomed to become”, is it?

As science advances it often shows that basic human intuitions are incorrect. The ancient Greeks discovered that the Earth is a ball not a flat surface. Modern physics has shown that our basic intuitions about space and time are profoundly mistaken. Our intuitions about the basic nature of human behavior will eventually meet a similar end.

In the end, the only thing you can do is go on actual behavior–The criminality of an individual should not be determined based on what things might be in his or her genes, but in their actual behavior. Anything else just substitutes science for the religious mumbo-jumbo of predestination and divine intent.

One of the big issues I have with all this crap is the fact that while we’ve done a lot of studies on the insane and the criminal, a similar amount of work has not been done in the population of “normals”. It may be that these supposed “criminal indicators” in the genes are more commonly distributed than we think, and that the fact that there could be a bunch of people out there with them who haven’t committed any crimes at all sort of argues that we don’t even know what we don’t know.

Just like the friggin’ idiots back in the days when eugenics was a popular thing, we truly don’t know what the hell goes into this stuff like intelligence and criminality. Sure, we’re scraping at the doorstep of it all, but the state of the art, today? Nowhere near enough is known to say anything at all beyond “Yeah, there’s some statistical correlation here, but that’s about all I’m willing to say…”.

It’s just like sanity and creativity–The insane are sometimes incredibly creative and artistic. Is that because they’re operating on the ragged edge of human intellectual potential, and are incredibly fragile because of it, or is the creativity a function of a lessened grip on reality? Is madness a necessary component of high art?

I’ll happily pull the trigger on a murderer; someone who merely has “murderer’s genes”, and who hasn’t committed any crime…? Oh, hell no…

But, I very much doubt a continued conversation on this topic will be profitable, so I’m bowing out.

The monoamine oxidase-A enzyme plays an important role in regulating the levels of various neurotransmitters which in turn greatly affects neurological functioning hence also behavior.

Alleles associated with hyperactivity also show large racial differences. Some South American Amerindian populations have very high levels of such alleles whereas the Han Chinese have very low levels.

Northeast Asians show remarkably low levels of criminal behavior in comparison to other racial groups both in their ancestral lands and as emigrants all over the world.

Studies of the behavior of newborn infants have shown strong racial differences in behavior. Chinese babies are much less inclined to cry for example than white babies. These differences show up in very early infancy.

Higher levels of criminal behavior are strongly associated with lower IQ particularly lower verbal IQ. There are large racial differences in average IQ between racial groups with average IQ ranging from about 55 for Mbuti pygmies to about 110-115 for Ashkenazi Jews.

Modern genetic studies of human behavior involving identical twins raised apart indicate that genetics is the most important factor in human behavior. The next most important factor is “non-shared environment” the nature of which is not presently known. Least important are “shared environment” factors such as SES, family structure, parental style, type of schooling, viz. everything that was once thought to be important.

Crime in the US is to a very great extent a problem involving blacks. The most reliable predictor of the level of crime in different areas of the US is the proportion of the population which is black.

Please explain, with citations and evidence to back up your assertion. I’m all ears.