Why the Question of Nature or Nature Really Is Not Even Important

At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter. All that matters are the statistics, not how the numbers ended up that way.
Let us take an example:
Group B has a crime rate 7X that of Group A. Who cares whether it’s due to their genes or environment or God cursed them or it’s something in the air?
I am sitting here in my country, Group A’s country. We are thinking of taking in a bunch of Group B immigrants. We figure they are going to have 7X elevated crime rate over our own people. Why would it matter what’s causing the elevated crime rate? Genes? Environment? Why is this even an important question that we need to debate?
If I were sitting on a committee of Group A’s country trying to figure out whether we should flood ourselves with Group B’s people, I would say, “No, we should not.” You figure these people are going to have a 7X elevated crime rate over our own.
If you want to be very selective, set an IQ limit for them – in the US, I might say “Ok, take Group B’s people, but only if they have an IQ of 100+.”
Or you can say, “Ok, we will take them, but only if they have an advanced degree. Otherwise we are turning down 99.5% of them.”
Can someone please tell me why this is bad policy?
Can someone please tell me why it is so important that we learn whether it’s genes or environment that’s causing Group B to act up so much? Why is this such a crucial question for everyone? Someone fill me in here.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

35 thoughts on “Why the Question of Nature or Nature Really Is Not Even Important”

  1. What I don’t get, notwithstanding the suggestion that crime is justice to those for whom law is injustice, why you think ‘criminals’ with an above-average IQ are any less dangerous than those with a lesser IQ?
    There are two Gods. One is Good, one is Evil.
    The Good God must defeat the Evil God by doing only Good things.
    The Evil God must defeat the Good God, and has the option of doing all the Good things that a Good God can do, and also all the Evil things that an Evil God is allowed to do.
    Which god wins?

  2. Mostly Outside of the Dark Enlightenment/HBD/Race Realist community, “environmental causes” means “oppresion.”

    1. There is a gentleman of colour who lives next door to me, currently he and his family are being evicted. He’s not a crook, and he’s being subjected to pressures that could not be applied to me as an indigenous white middle class Brit. There is plausibly deniable institutional racism sewn into the livery of the white empire and everyone of poor fortune knows this, whatever their colour. When we know this, crime can become justice.

  3. The reason it matters is that “nuture” in practice ends up being “blame whitey”. So long as there is an argument that it is the “environment” that did it, there will be excuse making to no end: “poverty made him do it”, “he didn’t have a good education”, etc etc.
    An understanding of the genertic contribution is the first step to the end of blaming “racism” on bad minority behavior.
    So it does make a huge difference.
    How many untold billions have been spent (i.e. wasted) on education of uneducable people based, precisely, on a “nuture” theory of human development?

    1. Of course, because God forbid that whitey has a responsibility to the greater good.
      “How many untold billions have been spent (i.e. wasted) on education of uneducable people based, precisely, on a “nuture” theory of human development?”
      What are you, a tea partier?

  4. I believe it’s important to find out why things are the way they are so you gain a better understanding of reality, but, that’s just for science not politics. In reality I don’t think anyone knows why. But it makes sense to not allow criminals into the country. You could say there is island of psychopathic cannibals and it’d be insane to let them loose in country A.

  5. “Why would it matter what’s causing the elevated crime rate? Genes? Environment? Why is this even an important question that we need to debate?”
    I guess because if its genetic its less likely to change when they come to your country. If its environment, you imagine they could adapt to their new environment (your country) and change. I guess that’s why.
    I get your point though because when it comes to certain groups, you can be pretty sure the crime rate will stay high for some time at least. The generation that comes is probably already set in their behaviour, whatever the causes.

    1. The liberal attitude is they’re human beings just like us with exactly the same potential for crime…they’re just ordinary people looking for a better life and if they have high crime rates in our country over generations, it must be because of racism/social exclusion/lack of opportunity etc.

        1. He’s not a Tea Partier. He’s an HBD’er. Not a lot of difference really. HBD’ers are usually racist Libertarians. LRR has always attracted such types, but they usually don’t stick around. That’s the problem. Any form of race realism will attract these guys. There’s nothing to be done about it. He’s not an LRR though because he’s not a liberal, and he’s a racist.

        2. ??????????????? Are you calling me vermin?
          I was stating the typical liberal attitude ie the attitude of those who subscribe to the environmental explanation. I wasn’t espousing it.

      1. “??????????????? Are you calling me vermin?
        I was stating the typical liberal attitude ie the attitude of those who subscribe to the environmental explanation. I wasn’t espousing it.”
        This is a SOCIALIST blog. Conservative libertarian types are anathema here.

        1. What are you talking about? Do you think I’m a conservative libertarian type?
          And its a socialist blog, its a race realist blog just as much, a bigfoot blog and more. Its not a single topic blog.

        2. The way I read Steven is that he is a progressive guy, a man of the Left. Now I could be reading him wrong. In particular, he goes in for the PC or Cultural Marxist line of the Left pretty heavily, especially on race. But really all of the Left and liberal commenters on here do that. On the Left, if you don’t take the PC line on race, you’re a Nazi.
          On economics, I think he is also pretty much on the Left. He likes worker self-management a lot.
          He is a Sociology grad, and most of those folks are pretty progressive.
          I have never thought of Steven as a rightwing guy. He is anti-abortion though, but quite a few Lefties are.

        3. Robert,
          I am a man of the left on economic matters. Yes, I would like big companies to be cooperatives or at least there to be legislation which limits top wages in them to a reasonable multiple of the median wage. Nobody deserves to end up with so many more of the resources than anyone else and its only a recipe for too much power. One of the first things you learn as a child is to share yet adults don’t do it.
          I’m not sure why you say I’m pc or cultural Marxist. I am a HBDer when it comes to gender differences; I don’t think they’re socially constructed, at least not entirely. I also think the left get a lot wrong about race, factually speaking, although their hearts are in the right place.
          When it comes to social issues, I don’t fit either the left or right entirely. I have a live and let live attitude to LGBT folks and I’m pretty much on board with gay rights. i’m especially sympathetic to the feelings of transgender people since I think you really can be born in the wrong body. I’m undecided on drug legalisation; I can see the argument for it but I’m not sure.
          I don’t see why I’m such a bad guy for accurately stating the liberal attitude to immigration and discussing the logical implications of whether the crime differences are nature or nurture. That’s not my opinion, its fact: if the criminal behaviour is entirely nurture, two populations could come in line if they live in the same circumstances. If its nature, not so. I didn’t even say which I thought was the case….so where is the racist rhetoric?
          The crazy thing is that I tend to argue against Robert’s more extreme statements about race. See the top comment on this article: http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/westernization-and-re-africanization-of-new-world-blacks/
          How this nominay guy is cool with Robert if he isn’t cool with me I’ve got no idea.
          I hope he has the balls to casually calls somebody vermin in real life where they might punch him for it. Cheeky bastard. I’m not the ass here.

      2. “How this nominay guy is cool with Robert if he isn’t cool with me I’ve got no idea.”
        He splits his hairs better than you do.
        “I hope he has the balls to casually calls somebody vermin in real life where they might punch him for it. Cheeky bastard.”
        Internet etiquette is different. So many claim that they, unlike others, treat others online exactly like they would in real life, but that’s bullshit. So I don’t believe that you are more sincere and a better Joe than me.
        I don’t believe you’d punch me if I called you vermin in real life. I don’t know you, but the social norm on that one would be to tell me to fuck off. Only thin skin, redneck brutes would punch over it.
        I’m not the ass here.”
        On this point, I don’t care what you think.

        1. “I don’t believe you’d punch me if I called you vermin in real life. I don’t know you, but the social norm on that one would be to tell me to fuck off. Only thin skin, redneck brutes would punch over it.”
          And you don’t think I am one. Thanks. Calling somebody vermin is a pretty extreme expression of contempt and disrespect. I wouldn’t call somebody vermin unless they molested a child or something, online or off. In fact, I probably just wouldn’t call somebody vermin but I might go for scumbag.
          I never claimed to be better than you. You insulted me out of nowhere. I never thought we were friends but I never thought we had a problem with each other so it was a little surprising.
          I don’t know what Robert splits hairs better than I do means.

      3. “The liberal attitude is they’re human beings just like us with exactly the same potential for crime…they’re just ordinary people looking for a better life and if they have high crime rates in our country over generations, it must be because of racism/social exclusion/lack of opportunity etc.”
        So blacks are not “just human beings like ‘us'” and they’re not “ordinary people”. In other words, they are subhuman.
        “The liberal attitude – … and if they have high crime rates in our country over generations, it must be because of racism/social exclusion/lack of opportunity etc.”
        In other words, they’re hopeless. No point investing in them – just let them rot on their own.
        And you wonder why I’m antagonistic towards you.

        1. Can you not pass a day without picking up fights with other commenters? Everytime, i see your comments you are on loggerheads with one person or the other. If you can’t stand others comments, why couldn’t you just stay aloof. Also If you believe your interpretations are always always right, you should create your own blog and write whatever you want to say instead of being a crybaby here. Therein you can have your fights, your little fantasy opinions, snarky lil comments…

        2. Okay, that line about human beings was wrong as everyone agrees Africans are human beings, whether they are psychologically and ability-wise different (on average) or exactly the same. What I meant to convey was the standard sentiment that racial differences are superficial physical adaptations to climate and we are exactly the same on the inside- there are no genetically based average differences in IQ, extroversion, impulsivity etc etc. The implication is a) that there is no nature based reason whatsoever why we shouldn’t take in more and more, and b) any differences in social outcomes and achievement is the fault of discrimination and racism against them or poverty etc.
          Regarding A, I do not mean to imply that I am against immigration or interracial marriage. I was simply stating the standard liberal thoughts about it and the reasoning.
          The reason I used the term human beings was because there is this kind of sentiment: we’re all human beings, we’re exactly the same. Well yes, we definitely are all human beings but are we all exactly the same? At the individual level within and between races that’s not true; at the group level its probably not true.
          Regarding B, I don’t think there is an implication that there is no point investing in them. Everybody should be invested in. As members of our society they should receive the same benefits and privileges and opportunities. Everybody should be given as high quality an education as possible, somewhere as nice as possible to live, a share of the resources etc. I take that for granted.

        3. And of course, I will add that a facet of racism (and a logical fallacy) is judging an individual by their group average. So a black guy walks in for an interview and you think ‘I’m not hiring him, he’s a dumb n*****’. Well no, he might be a 1 in 50,000 genius among whites. Everybody MUST be judged on individual merit. If you give black people a fair opportunity to succeed, some will achieve great things.

        4. ‘The liberal attitude is they’re human beings just like us with exactly the same potential for crime…
          Okay, I can actually see how this looked to you. I hope I have addressed it now.

          1. Stephen,
            Thanks for your humility, taking the time to explain yourself in greater detail, and for mellowing out.

        5. “Can you not pass a day without picking up fights with other commenters?”
          Yes. I do all the time.
          “Everytime, i see your comments you are on loggerheads with one person or the other.”
          What an astounding coincidence that is.
          “If you can’t stand others comments, why couldn’t you just stay aloof.”
          Why should I? What’s the point in that? Hands off from debate? Exchanging ideas and viewpoints is always suppose to be pleasant? What world are you living on? I want to go there!
          “Also If you believe your interpretations are always always right, you should create your own blog and write whatever you want to say instead of being a crybaby here. Therein you can have your fights, your little fantasy opinions, snarky lil comments…”
          Jonathan,
          Fuck off. This is not a everybody-hold-hands, peace pilgrims website. That I have opinions, and strong ones at that, is not unique on here. I don’t even take the cake when it comes to that.

        6. ‘Thanks for your humility, taking the time to explain yourself in greater detail, and for mellowing out.’
          okay, that;’s that then.
          StEVEn.

  6. Well, it is important for policy making. If it is genes, no child left behind policy is wasting money and should be discarded. Also criminal rehabilitation program is also waste of money.

  7. Dear Robert
    In the short and medium term and for adults it may not matter much whether a certain behavior or condition is the product of nature or nurture. However, in the long term it is important to know what the causation is. If Peter and Paula are short adults, then they are going to remain short, whether their lack of tallness is caused by their genes or poor nutrition. For their young children, on the other hand, there is a good chance that they will be tall if their parents’ shortness is the result of inadequate nutrition.
    If something is caused by genes, it is likely to remain the same for future generations, but if the causation is environmental, then future generations can be different. Older immigrants often have a very imperfect command of English, but since the cause is not genetic, their children can learn English quite well.
    Regards. James

  8. The line between liberal race realism rhetoric and racist rhetoric is so often blurred to where it’s hard to make out the difference. You can defend him all you want, I’m not repentent. Liberal or not, he looks like an ass, not me.

      1. The most easily interpreted part as racist is the phrase “typical liberal”, and using the word liberal in a context which connotes that liberalism in general is a disease. That’s what happens when you don’t make it clear that you (in this case, Stephen) mean on this specific issue. “Typical liberal” has been used exclusively to discredit liberals generally, and with a hostile tone. It’s used like a broken record from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and their millions of sheep.

  9. This article sums up my view, it doesn’t matter to me why some groups act worse than others, I will simply avoid them more often, countries where they are in the minority should be wary of letting many of them in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.