Race Differences in Behavior

How Should a White Female Evaluate Potential Rape Threats?

/9 Comments/in , /by

Reginald Thompson: If a White female encounters a White man and a Black man in the same day, the Black male is at least 9 Times More Likely to Rape her.

Obviously, if a woman is wary of being raped she’ll assess a Man in his twenties as a greater potential threat than an old man or a little boy. Also, it is thought by many women that certain traits in the appearance of a Man, such as a scuzzy hairstyle and clothing, tends to correlate with an increased likelihood of him being a rapist. But what about the most obvious and unmistakable of appearance traits, whether a man is White or Black? Would it make sense for White females to assess the threat of rape as being significantly greater from the average Black male she encounters?

The answer from the Statistical Data is a very clear yes.

Looking at the 2005 FBI Uniform Crime Report we find that though Blacks are only 12.4% of the US Population, they commit 33.6% of the rapes of White females.

This means that even if we assume totally random racial assortment, where a White female is just as likely to encounter the average Black male as she is to encounter the average White male, we would still have to conclude that a Black male is 2.7 times more likely to rape a White female than the average male she encounters.

But here’s the thing: There’s clearly not random racial assortment in America, so the increased rape risk to a White female for every Black male she encounters is even greater than that.

Probably the closest thing we can find to a meaningful estimate of what percentage of the Males encountered by a White female are Black is to look at how Black a neighborhood the average White lives in.

I found some data taken from the 2000 Census saying the average White lives in a neighborhood that is 6.7% Black.

There are two problems with using this as the baseline for the Percentage of Rapes of White females committed by Blacks though:

1. It is only data for Metropolitan Counties, and leaves out Rural Counties that have fewer Blacks.

2. It fails to take into account the effects of intra-neighborhood racial assortment resulting from implicit Whiteness.  For example, it could be there’s a neighborhood that’s 50% White and 50% Black, but where the Whites primarily go to the restaurant that serves food White people like, while the Blacks go to the restaurant that serves food Black people like. This sort of thing will create a situation where even in a 50% Black neighborhood, the White females living there will have much less than 50% of the males they encounter be Black.

So bear very closely in mind that using 6.7% as the proportion of Black people met by White females is likely a strong overestimation, and therefore that the figures below underestimate the degree of increased rape risk a White female incurs when she encounters a Black male.

White Males   Black Males

Percent of Encounters          80.2%             6.7%

Percent of Rapes                   44.5%              33.6%

Impact Value                          .55                    5.01

This means that while the average Black male encountered by a White female is 5.01 Times more likely to rape her than the average male, the average White male she encounters is almost half as likely to rape her as the average male. It also implies that if a White female encounters a White and Black male, the Black is 9.1 times more likely to rape her than the White.

It is all too clear from this data that Black rapists are deliberately targeting White females.  This could be because of racial hatred for Whites, and possibly also because they perceive White females as being more sexually desirable than women of their own race.

Strong evidence in favor of the racial animus explanation playing a crucial role here can be found in the fact that when a Black man marries a White woman, he is 82% more likely to Murder her than if he was married to a Black women.

In conclusion, White women have every right to be “paranoid” about Black men. It’s the White women who aren’t afraid of Black men that have something wrong with them.

Reginald Thompson is the Pen Name of an Advisor to an International Software Company. He lives on the American East Coast and is proprietor/manager of a recently created Blog called Statsaholic.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: The Myth of Pure Science

/10 Comments/in , , , /by

Kevin MacDonald: The brouhaha over climate change science has prompted an op-ed in the LA Times  “Climate change e-mail scandal underscores myth of pure science.”  It’s interesting to substitute race science rather than climate science when pondering their comments. Some quotes:

The East Anglia controversy serves as a reminder that when the politics are divisive and the science is sufficiently complex, the boundary between the two may become indiscernible.

Race science is also complex — complex enough for obfuscation by politically motivated parties. It’s not like the double helix structure of DNA where someone who doubts it can be safely relegated to the Flat Earth Society.

Yet both parties have agreed, although tacitly, on one thing: Science is the appropriate arbiter of the political debate, and policy decisions should be determined by objective scientific assessments of future risks. This seductive idea gives politicians something to hide behind when faced with divisive decisions. If “pure” science dictates our actions, then there is no need to acknowledge the role that political interests and social values play in deciding how society should address climate change.

Politicians (and academics and journalists) often hide behind the idea that science has absolutely proved that IQ is not a valid measure or that race differences in academic success are due to White racism, etc.  No need to mention the political commitments of the people who have produced this “knowledge” — people like S. J. Gould, Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin.

In practice, science is competitive, backbiting, venal, imperfect and, indeed, political. Science, in other words, is replete with the same human failings that mark all other social activities.

For sure. I think pretty much every scientist starts out thinking science is way purer than it is. By the end of their career, they are less idealistic. In my case, it came as a result of writing The Culture of Critique. A more recent example of my disillusion is evolutionary psychology.

What is the solution? Let politics do its job; indeed, demand it. … Better to recognize that decision-makers, depending on their political beliefs, will weigh the evidence and risks of climate change differently when evaluating policy options. Voters should evaluate the decisions on that basis, rather than on the false notion that science is dictating the choices.

The problem with this is that it’s no solution at all. We are supposed to simply accept the fact that race science is politicized and that politicians are politicized in what they say about race science. Then somehow the voters are supposed to wade through all this when they decide how to vote on issues such as anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives.

But voters are completely unqualified for evaluating any of the evidence. And in any case, surely voters’ politics will affect their choices in the same way politics  influences everyone else’s choices. 

Of course, the media will weigh in heavily and predictably to convince voters against race realism because we all know they are politicized. The media will be effective because when it comes to race science, the realists are completely marginalized. So in the end, clueless voters who read the New York Times or watch Fox News will end up making these decisions. 

I think that Jewish intellectuals have always known about the politicization of truth. And if truth is politicized, all that’s left is to try to establish consensus and delegitimize everything else –forcibly if need be. This is from Ch. 6 of The Culture of Critique:

A fundamental aspect of Jewish intellectual history has been the realization that there is really no demonstrable difference between truth and consensus. Within traditional Jewish religious discourse, “truth” was the prerogative of a privileged interpretive elite that in traditional societies consisted of the scholarly class within the Jewish community. Within this community, “truth” and “reality” were nothing more (and were undoubtedly perceived as nothing more) than consensus within a sufficiently large portion of the interpretive community.

People who dissent from the manufactured consensus are simply marginalized from polite society. So the closest we can come to truth in race science is consensus and the consensus simply reflects the politics of the people with more power.

I think a lot of race scientists have had an idealistic conception of science. Until we change the people who have the power, especially in the media, there is no chance for their ideas to become mainstream.

Bookmark and Share