Blacks far more likely to commit crimes against Whites and Hispanics than the inverse

So what do we take away from these statistics? 

One possible solution to your question at the end...Black community is among if not the most impoverished community in America. Historically this community observed the most financial and social barriers compared to any other community. All these things impact crime. 

You if you like.  It's just more evidence for my claim.   What clear here is you want this to be about race.....when other factors are bigger determinants of crime

I do have one question though

Let's pretend it is about race.....what is YOUR solution?

Wrong: Blacks far more likely to commit crimes against Whites and Hispanics than the inverse (debateart.com)

I'm not sure if you're ignorant about genetics or you're just being how you really are, but I see you're forcing your conclusions to the detriment of some ethnic groups.

You claimed based on a paper that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites and asians. That is not true, or at least it's a half truth. What the data shows is that blacks have poor results in IQ tests, which is not the same to say they're genetically less intelligent. Intelligence is determined by genes and the environment the person grows up. It's not only genes, so if a child is born in a poor family, there is a lot of chances he ends up being less intelligent than he should be because he is not well nourished nor well educated in his early years. www.unesco.org/en/articles/why-early-childhood-care-and-education-matters. I think I don't need to prove blacks are poorer than whites mainly because of their attitudes and their culture as TWS pointed out.

You also said high levels of testosterone is associated to more violence and agression, and as blacks have more levels of testosterone than whites then they are more violent. This is also a half truth. Actually, researchers are pointing out that culture has something to do with the increase of T levels, it's not a genenital issue. According to the article, "...a growing body of evidence suggests that testosterone is as much the result of violence as its cause. Indeed, both winning a sporting match and beating an opponent at chess can boost testosterone levels. (On the other hand, losing a sporting match, growing old and becoming obese all reduce levels of testosterone.)". The article provides an example of it comparing southerners and northerners young americans blacks, the first have more T levels because of a practice called "culture of honor" that makes southerners to increase their T levels. In other words, high T levels responds to a cultural behaviour rather than a genetic trait.

Blacks and Whites need to be separated. Give Blacks and Whites some good land and let's move past the utter disaster of attempting to create a sustainable multi-racial country.

Kaitlyn de mi corazón, you don't know what you're talking about. As far as I know America already had this racial segregation system and it worsened the american social problems. But at least we all start to know you better and your racist thinking.

I have responded to everything with my own counter evidence which shows poverty is the biggest determinant of crime.  Read rhd thread.  The evidence is clear 

So let me get this straight.   You want to abandon our constitution and form a new country based on racism 

How does one even define black?  The one drop policy?  

Not going to happen.

muh constitution

we get it: you hate black people.   

To be fair, I wouldn't say OP provided a reasonable explanation or a solution.

Firstly, IQ is a proxy for intelligence, and it's by far the best by far because it has a ton of predictive validity. I.Q. Validity (debateart.com) I.Q. attempts to determine g factor (generally intelligence) by using g loaded questions (i.e. questions that test for mental ability, avoiding knowledge tests wherever possible). So, when someone scores poorly in a test, unless they're badly sleep deprived or intoxicated, it's a mostly accurate measurement of their intelligence, and that intelligence is mostly heritable.

Secondly, intelligence is impacted by environment, but I.Q. is roughly 80% heritable (leaving 20% to environmental impacts -- happy to expand upon this point if needed). Poverty has virtually zero impact on intelligence, unless the child is severely malnourished (which is exceedingly rare in 1st world countries) or sleep deprived (can't find a safe place to sleep). Even in the case of being severely malnourished, it doesn't affect intelligence that much. It's only recently that Eastern Asian brain size exceeded that of White brain size, and that was due to lack of nutrition for China's poorer people, particularly during the Great Leap Forward (historical Eastern Asian-White difference: Imgur: The magic of the Internet ) (modern Eastern-Asian-White difference: The Construction of a Chinese MRI Brain Atlas: A Morphometric Comparison Study between Chinese and Caucasian Cohorts - PMC (nih.gov) ) . Despite this, brain size only correlates with I.Q. at 0.24-0.4 (depending on the study you read), so East Asians were only marginally less intelligent than what they should have been had they been well-fed.

Thirdly, education doesn't impact intelligence to any serious degree, unless it's at early childhood (but this doesn't matter in the long run). Intelligence (g factor) is latent cognitive ability, not learned knowledge. Being poorly educated is pretty much a result of not having the right genetics for education, of which is compounded by having parents who have bad genetics for education, too (of which are inherited as well). Intelligence becomes more and more expressed as a child ages, so by the time they are 12-18 years old, genetics is the overwhelming factor in intelligence (relevant graph: Imgur: The magic of the Internet ; taken from: The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood - PMC (archive.org) ) (relevant graph: Imgur: The magic of the Internet ; taken from: Behavioral genetics of cognitive ability: A life-span perspective. (apa.org) )

Lastly, Black culture is a result of Black genetics impacting the environment, thus making a new environment, thus creating a feedback loop. You wouldn't have "Black culture" without Black genetics (a prominent, stifling genetic component being Black's lower impulse control, of which badly hurts their ability to save/invest long-term: (controls for parental SES and IQ A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety (pnas.org) ) (meta-analysis of relevant data Racial Differences in Self Control – The Alternative Hypothesis (archive.org) )

What you appear to be trying to say is that it's not heritable, in that instance, which is plausible. However, this doesn't dismiss the idea that there are differing levels of testosterone in Blacks versus Whites, both due to environment and naturally, and thereby cause Blacks to be more aggressive. You haven't actually counterargued what I said.

What is it you want people to do with this information?

Sowell is entitled to his opinion but it's all he has

If black culture was the problem rich black kids would do more crimes

They don't

Sorry

So, I pose the question, are blacks getting bad results in education because of the prejudices against them? My guess is a big yes.

The NYT attributes this to racism but that’s pretty ridiculous to me. Anyone growing up in the top 1% is in a place of extreme privilege regardless of race

Maybe it's because, the majority of U.S. businesses are small, relatively new and owned by white Americans, according to new data published by the Census Bureau.

So, a black can't rob a black business because there are so few of them.

Firstly, IQ is a proxy for intelligence, and it's by far the best by far because it has a ton of predictive validity. I.Q. Validity (debateart.com) I.Q. attempts to determine g factor (generally intelligence) by using g loaded questions (i.e. questions that test for mental ability, avoiding knowledge tests wherever possible). So, when someone scores poorly in a test, unless they're badly sleep deprived or intoxicated, it's a mostly accurate measurement of their intelligence, and that intelligence is mostly heritable.

Anyway, I'll explain it again. I was refering to the intelligence written in the DNA, not the intelligence that is developed by the person which can effectively be measured by a IQ test. The point is that environment plays a huge role in the development of intelligence. But even so, the way the person faces the IQ test can influence the final score as well, because of something called the Pygmalion effect. So, I pose the question, are blacks getting bad results in education because of the prejudices against them? My guess is a big yes.

Secondly, intelligence is impacted by environment, but I.Q. is roughly 80% heritable (leaving 20% to environmental impacts -- happy to expand upon this point if needed). Poverty has virtually zero impact on intelligence, unless the child is severely malnourished (which is exceedingly rare in 1st world countries) or sleep deprived (can't find a safe place to sleep). Even in the case of being severely malnourished, it doesn't affect intelligence that much. It's only recently that Eastern Asian brain size exceeded that of White brain size, and that was due to lack of nutrition for China's poorer people, particularly during the Great Leap Forward (historical Eastern Asian-White difference: Imgur: The magic of the Internet ) (modern Eastern-Asian-White difference: The Construction of a Chinese MRI Brain Atlas: A Morphometric Comparison Study between Chinese and Caucasian Cohorts - PMC (nih.gov) ) . Despite this, brain size only correlates with I.Q. at 0.24-0.4 (depending on the study you read), so East Asians were only marginally less intelligent than what they should have been had they been well-fed.

You might have strong evidence about the percentages you just provided so categorically. I wouldn't dare to do that.

At any rate, I'll prove that you're completely wrong, my dear neonazi.

Thirdly, education doesn't impact intelligence to any serious degree, unless it's at early childhood (but this doesn't matter in the long run). Intelligence (g factor) is latent cognitive ability, not learned knowledge. Being poorly educated is pretty much a result of not having the right genetics for education, of which is compounded by having parents who have bad genetics for education, too (of which are inherited as well). Intelligence becomes more and more expressed as a child ages, so by the time they are 12-18 years old, genetics is the overwhelming factor in intelligence (relevant graph: Imgur: The magic of the Internet ; taken from: The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood - PMC (archive.org) ) (relevant graph: Imgur: The magic of the Internet ; taken from: Behavioral genetics of cognitive ability: A life-span perspective. (apa.org) )

I guess you're not aware about the last advancements of genetics. It's well know today that the environment can strongly influence the expression of certain genes and genetical traits, like intelligence. It's called epigenetics. So, I'm not surprised that blacks have low intelligence because of their low socio economic status.

By the way, when I mention education, I mean all what implies education which includes stimulation. The brain is like a muscle that we should work out, otherwise it wouldn't perform at its maximum potential, which is what happens in impoverished people. Things like playing piano, playing chess or learning several languages,are ways to stimulate the brain and intelligence.

Lastly, Black culture is a result of Black genetics impacting the environment, thus making a new environment, thus creating a feedback loop. You wouldn't have "Black culture" without Black genetics (a prominent, stifling genetic component being Black's lower impulse control, of which badly hurts their ability to save/invest long-term: (controls for parental SES and IQ A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety (pnas.org) ) (meta-analysis of relevant data Racial Differences in Self Control – The Alternative Hypothesis (archive.org) )

Are you suggesting that culture is genetic?

TWS made a good explanation about the roots of black culture, which as far as I know is related to ebonics and irish culture. So, the american black culture wasn't made up by slaves but borrowed by irish. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

What you appear to be trying to say is that it's not heritable, in that instance, which is plausible. However, this doesn't dismiss the idea that there are differing levels of testosterone in Blacks versus Whites, both due to environment and naturally, and thereby cause Blacks to be more aggressive. You haven't actually counterargued what I said.

In the same paper I provided, it says there was no difference in T levels among educated young blacks. So that proves your hypothesis is incorrect.

I'm doubtful one could get the rest of America to support legislatively forcing people out of land they have lived in for generations,

(Well, modern America, and maybe, and maybe again depending 'what people)

I suppose one could try making life for an ethnicity unpleasant, until they leave,

Such as holding Nazi flag parties or something,

But again, I doubt anyone could convince enough racists, to enact such a plan, assuming it could even work.

I'm doubtful one could even gather enough racists to make a sizeable number of functioning number of interconnected communities,

Though I suppose one might argue parts of America are already like that, where sizeable numbers of various ethnic groups live among their own ethnicities,

Eh, so maybe one could make small versions work,

Something the size of a state seems doubtful to me though.