The Heartbeat Of Crime

Dr. James Thompson writes: The conclusion was that adolescents with low resting heart rate were more likely to go on to commit crimes, including violent crimes, possibly because they did not get too fussed when attacking others. Cool, calm, collected and lethal. All this takes place in the city of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil…

Conclusions: Low resting heart rate predicted violent and non-violent crime for males, and was cross-sectionally associated with crime for females. Biological factors may contribute to individual propensity to commit crime, even in a middle-income setting with high rates of violence…

The key finding of this study is that lower heart rate was a robust predictor of male violent and non-violent crime.

So, something raises the level of violence in Brazil 30 times above Sweden, and 21 times above England and Wales. In the grizzly list of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world, Brazil accounts for 21 of them and Pelotas, violent as it is at 19 homicides per 10,000, is not one of them…

First, there is some evidence that heart rates vary by racial background…

From Richard Lynn’s The Global Bell Curve:

Statistics on race differences in crime indexed by rates of imprisonment are given by Telles (2004, p. 169) who reports that in Sao Paulo in 2000 blacks were 5.6 times over-represented in the prison population, while mulattos were 1.5 times over-represented, as compared with whites. Further statistics on race differences in crime were collected in the 1988 National Household Survey, a study of a representative sample of approximately 80,000 citizens. The survey asked the respondents whether they had been assaulted during the last year and if so, by whom. The results have been analyzed by Mitchell and Wood (1998), who calculated that compared with whites, mulattos were 1.2 times more likely to have been assaulted and blacks 1.5 times more likely to have been assaulted. Most of the assaults were perpetrated by acquaintances or police. In regard to assault by acquaintances, mulattos were 1.2 times more likely to have been assaulted than whites, and blacks were 1.9 times more likely to have been assaulted. Because most people’s acquaintances are of the same racial group as themselves, this indicates that assault rates are highest among blacks, lower among mulattos, and lowest among whites. In regard to assaults by police, blacks were 2.4 times more likely to have been assaulted than whites. There was no difference between mulattos and whites in the reported rates of assault by the police. The results suggest that police violence is much more strongly directed against blacks than against whites and mulattos.

Convictions for homicide in 2000 in Sao Paulo have been reported as 56.5 per 100,000 population for whites and 94.4 per 100,000 for blacks and Mulattos combined (Kilsztajn et al., 2000). The percentages of the races convicted of homicide for 2003 for the whole of Brazil have been given by Lopes (2006) and are shown in Table 4.10, together with their percentages in the population in 2000. It will be seen that the Asians have the lowest homicide rate at 0.4 percent drawn from 1 percent of the population; whites also have a relatively low homicide rate at 39.7 percent drawn from 53 percent of the population. Mulattos have a relatively high homicide rate at 49.9 percent for 40 percent of the population, while blacks have the highest homicide rate at 9.8 percent drawn from 6 percent of the population.

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on The Heartbeat Of Crime

There Are Probably No Cognitive Benefits to Bilingualism

Razib Khan writes: About one week ago I wrote about bilingual education, and I admitted my mild skepticism about the research about the benefits of bilingualism. A friend emailed me and wondered why I was only “mildly skeptical.” Partly I didn’t want the comments to get sidetracked, but recently friends on Facebook have started to get exercised that Ron Unz is running for the Senate, and how bad he is for not giving the children the opportunity to be bilingual. And of course all the research that confirms how great bilingualism is referenced.

So here’s an article from last month that my friend sent me. I’ll quote the appropriate section, you’ve seen this movie before, The Bitter Fight Over the Benefits of Bilingualism: For decades, some psychologists have claimed that bilinguals have better mental control. Their work is now being called into question:

But a growing number of psychologists say that this mountain of evidence is actually a house of cards, built upon flimsy foundations. According to Kenneth Paap, a psychologist at San Francisco State University and the most prominent of the critics, bilingual advantages in executive function “either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances.”

Paap started looking into bilingualism in 2009, having spent 30 years studying the psychology of language. He began by trying to replicate some seminal experiments, including a classic 2004 paper by Bialystok involving the Simon task. In that task, volunteers press two keys in response to colored objects on a screen—for example, right key for red objects, left for green. People react faster if the position of the keys and objects match (red object on right half of the screen) than if they don’t (red object on left). But Bialystok found that twenty Tamil-English bilinguals from India were faster and more accurate at these mismatched trials than twenty English-speaking monolinguals from Canada. They were better at suppressing the location of the objects and focusing on their color—a sign of superior executive function.

“It was a really exciting finding and one that I thought would be easy to study with my students,” says Paap. “But we just couldn’t replicate any of the effects.” After years of struggling, he published his results in 2013: three studies, 280 local college students, four tests of mental control including the Simon task, and no sign of a bilingual advantage.“That broke the dam,” he says. “Others started submitting negative results and getting their articles published.”

Jon Andoni Duñabeitia, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Basque Center on Cognition, Brain, and Language, was one of them. In two large studies, involving 360 and 504 children respectively, he found no evidence that Basque kids, raised on Basque and Spanish at home and at school, had better mental control than monolingual Spanish children. “I am a multilingual researcher working in a multilingual society,” says Duñabeitia. “I’d be very happy to see an advantage for bilinguals! But science is what it is. We find no difference and we have replicated it several times, in older adults, kids, and young adults at university.”

For example, one group of researchers analyzed 104 abstracts on bilingualism that were presented at scientific conferences. They found that 68 percent of abstracts that found an executive-function advantage were eventually published in journals, compared to just 29 percent that found no advantage. This publication bias, a common problem in psychology and science as a whole, means that the evidence for the phenomenon seems stronger than it actually is.

But Paap doesn’t think much of the published evidence either. He found that a bilingual advantage only shows up in one in six tests of executive function, and mostly in small studies involving 30 or fewer volunteers. The largest studies, involving a hundred or more, all found negative results.

The proponents of bilingualism as a cognitive benefit have reacted angrily. Read the whole thing. But it’s probably not a real strong effect if there is any at all. Just another battle in the replication wars….

Comments:

* I always get annoyed a bit when some Tiger Mom or Dad goes on about the supposed “IQ-raising benefits” of early total immersion in a second language. They just don’t seem to be able to be upfront and admit that they do this for their kids, because “it’s cool” for their kids to start speaking another language in front of their peers and show off.

Posted in Health | Comments Off on There Are Probably No Cognitive Benefits to Bilingualism

To Kill A Mockingbird

Comments: To Kill a Mockingbird was very heavily fictionalized account of Harper Lee’s real lawyer and journalist father. It was written and rewritten to suit the left-wing New York literary tastes of the times.

In reality Harper Lee’s lawyer father was assigned the defense a black father and son who were tried, found guilty and executed(hanged) by the state of Alabama for the murder of a store owner. I could not find evidence of a lynching but there was the possibility of post execution mutilation of the bodies. This caused a great strain on the Lee family with Harper Lee’s mother having mental health problems for the rest of her life. She died when Harper Lee was 25.

Harper Lee’s father left the law and became a small time Journalist. In the later matter of a rape case, where the evidence was conflicted, and both the black rapist , an ex-con, and the white victim were believed to have serious mental health and cognitive issues, Mr Lee argued that capital punishment was too harsh a penalty for the crime. His argument carried the day. There was no serious threat of lynching.

Harper Lee had a interesting and at times courageous father. He was not a saint or a staunch champion of southern blacks. He seems to have been a realist and not a Hollywood left-wing icon by any means.

Harper Lee went on to be of great help to Truman Capote in developing In Cold Blood the first landmark true crime novel. That is her true literary legacy IMHO.

Perhaps Harper Lee became a famous recluse because deep down inside she feels she sold out her convictions and wished To Kill a Mockingbird was more factual.

Posted in America | Comments Off on To Kill A Mockingbird

Will Ireland Give Away Their Land To Immigrants?

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* If the contemporary Irish I’ve met are any indication, the Irish seem intent on giving away their country in a few years. Tiz a puzzlement.

If you’ve fought for something for about a thousand years and finally get it, you should immediately throw it away, that’s what I always say!

* Knowing the character of Irish people – particularly the lower type of Irish people, I doubt if this immigrationism of the past few decades will work out well.

If one cares to remember the horrific deaths of those two unfortunate plainclothes British Army corporals in Belfast back in 1988, then that gives you some sort of idea of what the Irish are capable of.
Indeed the character and behavior of the Irish are a constant theme running through the English reportage and literature on the subject for centuries.

* You’re right about the political-economic effects of Ireland as a safety valve for inhibiting wealth concentration within England. This allowed for the development and maintenance of the yeomanry – independent farmers with relatively small landholdings – the precursor to the modern middle-class. Of course it also had the effect of inhibiting the formation of a yeomanry in Ireland. Ireland became organized into huge estates owned by absentee English landlords and worked by Irish tenants, most of whose labor output would go to rents, with little left for wages. Whereas for the yeomanry, labor output is returned to the yeoman himself as his wage. This is why Ireland became a hotbed of Royalism. Thomas Wentworth, the infamous Earl of Strafford, was a staunch Royalist and favorite of King Charles and had gained his fortune in Ireland through basically graft after he was appointed as an administrator for the Crown there. By exporting this sort of thing to Ireland, England was protected from it, which set up the Royalist vs. Parliamentarian conflict, as Parliament’s base was the yeomanry and minor gentry of smaller landholders. Wentworth himself, after serving the Crown and acquiring a huge fortune for himself in Ireland, ended up being executed by Parliament, whose base grew in power because guys like Wentworth were off in Ireland predating over there rather than in England.

The New World later on served a similar purpose as an outlet for labor which kept wages higher in England than it would have been otherwise.

* Just as liberals and Muslims think its the right thing to destroy us. Subconsciously many liberals have already submitted to Islam, and are only waiting for the slightest pressure to publicly proclaim the Shahadah. (Its not hard to imagine some dejected rightists of the future to join the Shi’a variant.) The Muslims have a moral imperative to conquest, and a selfish goal of white woman to rape.

Interestingly, liberals are not so good at convincing other civilizations to commit suicide. Mass immigration is a problem only of Western civilization. Latin Americans and Orthodox* countries don’t appear to have this problem, yet. East Asians care not about the tenets of political correctness, and will likely remain hostile to an African/Muslim invasion.

* American “dissident right” types are renowned for their Jew obsession. So, looking at Ireland they find the ONE Jewish politician and attribute all sorts of ruin to his influence. Shatter was never popular, or influential, and was eventually fired. His Jewishness is irrelevant, and I doubt the vast majority of Irish people know or care that he’s Jewish.

As usual, the self-abolishing tendency of Europeans is pinned on The Jew. How pathetic the “white race” must be! The kings of the world, yet also the hapless marionettes of Zionists. Huh. Make up your mind.

Posted in Ireland | Comments Off on Will Ireland Give Away Their Land To Immigrants?

The Strange Case of a Nazi Who Became an Israeli Hitman

Only a naive person could think this story strange. There are no permanent allies, there are only shifting alliances.

Report: “Otto Skorzeny, one of the Mossad’s most valuable assets, was a former lieutenant colonel in Nazi Germany’s Waffen-SS and one of Adolf Hitler’s favorites.”

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I thought he was in charge of the Werewolves, a Nazi outfit designed to fight on after the fall of the Reich and death of Hitler? Seems very at odds with this new story.

Hard to imagine a dude with that face blending in anywhere either…

* I’d really love a Hollywood production that treated the Germans with a little more depth and complexity and made some characters serving Wehrmacht or other Nazi forces look sympathetic or perhaps even heroic. I’m sure even Germans are capable of saving cats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Snyder#Origin_of_the_title

After seeing so many movies where the Yankees are the heroes, it’s hard to be surprised about who is going to win in the end. Hollywood usually is a sucker for the “underdog.” Well there have been hundreds of movies about World War II and the Holocaust, and so far the Yanks and the Allies are still as good as undefeated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_films

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_films

It’d sure be interesting for Hollywood to produce a story with a more nuanced characterization of the Germans and Nazis. The usual caricature of the Germans as inhuman monsters really does the crimes of that era an injustice. Animals and monsters can’t sin because they lack normal human feelings. Only humans with a full emotional range are at all capable of knowing moral good and evil. Hollywood’s usual depiction of Nazis has the usual depth and complexity as if they were portraying zombies. Can they do better? I doubt it and suspect well be served up much more a la Inglorious Basterds before they give us anything of real substance.

* Fascinating story. According to Wikipedia (yeah I know) he wanted Mossad, in return, to wipe his name off the Wiesenthal list and take his name off the international warrant. Mossad/Wiesenthal refused, but he did the job anyway–probably to avoid a Mossad assassination of him. But I can’t help thinking Mossad also promised to make sure Wiesenthal’s efforts were sabotaged by Mossad, and that Mossad would tip Skorzeny off if the Nazi Hunters were close.

It also could turn out Skorzeny was some sort of double agent, infiltrating Neo-Nazi groups and militias due to his impeccable credentials and then informing on them to Mossad and other government officials. That would seem likely: he seemed to have a lot of contact with Nazi groups post -war, even allegedly leading some, and yet he got a slap on the wrist at his trial, and various governments and Mossad never went after him for his later Nazi collaboration, despite his obvious dangerous skills and his obvious drawing power for the groups.

* Maybe they can start with a movie about the forced expulsion of 15 million Germans from their ancestral homes in the east with 3 million dying from various causes including mass murder.

But that doesn’t really sound like the kind of thing Hollywood would be interested in does it?

* Israelis are the plucky sort of people who don’t blanche at making Faustian bargains.

Also I don’t think that the English are an underrated people, in any sense, in the modern world (as De Gaulle always hectored on about the triumphalism of the Anglo-Saxons) but I do sympathise with the Germans who are far and away have the most disproportionate metrics between achievements & recognition. I also think the Russians, post Cold War, & Persians, post Revolution, have had the same issues but now it seems that the balance is tipping; Germany controls the EU, Russian is rising again & Iran straddles the Middle East. History has way of making itself go full-circle!

I wish this book was updated for a 2016 edition – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_World

* Hollywood movies in the 1950s-1970s tended to be more than fair to the WWII Germans. Rommel, for example, was over-emphasized by Hollywood as the Worthy Foe.

Germans As Demonic may not have emerged as a consistent Hollywood theme until the early 1980s with Raiders of the Lost Ark and Sophie’s Choice.

* The Hollywood and UK WWII movies I remember until that transition did depict Germans as the enemy and oftentimes as crude or rough, but rarely as evil. Genocide and race supremacy were rarely alluded to.

Looking back, this is striking, because those movies were made by people who lived through the war, and in many cases, actually fought in the war. It’s the boomer generation, starting with Steven Spielberg (though not Alan Pakula, who was a young teen during the war) that has consistently used the demon Nazi theme, most memorably in Quentin Tarantino’s fantasy “Inglourious Basterds.”

* The scar is a duelling scar (“schmisse”), which was a popular sport among university students in Germany and Austria until WWI and then vanished by WWII. Typically, the scar was acquired in student days and serve both as a badge of honor and a class marker.

So, even in the 1960s, Skorzeny would have been far from unique in having that scar, though it would have immediately identified him as Germanic to anyone acquainted with pre-war haute bourgeois European society.

As an aside, it is hard to see any of our latter day college students even being able to comprehend that mileu or mindset.

* Funny thing about Valkyrie was that Claus von Stauffenberg was played by Tom Cruise, who’s like a foot shorter than real von Stauffenberg. Also Cruise’s mannerisms in Valkyrie were very similar to his mannerisms in Edge of Tomorrow… or maybe it’s just Cruise being himself.

* [he was acquitted on the grounds that Operation Griffin was a “ruse of war.” I don’t exactly understand that defense]

You’re allowed to put on the other side’s uniforms for purposes of deception, just not to open fire on the other side while wearing their own uniforms.

* In The Sea Chase, made in 1955, John Wayne (!) plays a German World War II merchant marine captain who is determined to avoid capture by the British Navy on the outbreak of World War II. He is sympathetically portrayed as a patriotic German, but anti-Nazi. There is a bad Nazi, as well, just to keep things PC. In the final scene, Wayne brings down the ensign of the Third Reich and hoists the Imperial Merchant Marine ensign that he has kept in his cabin. It’s quite well done.

Das Boot was a fairly sympathetic portrayal of U-boat personnel in the World War II Kriegsmarine. Rommel the Desert Fox featured James Mason as the famous Afrika Korps commander. The Cross of Iron was based on Willi Heinrich’s Das Geduldige Fleisch, but James Coburn was much too American to portray a German non-commissioned officer. One occasionally encounters sympathetic German characters in otherwise Germanophobic movies (e.g., a German enlisted man who returns a lost child in Europa, Europa or the German tank commander who blows open the bank vault door in Kelly’s Heroes).

If I were to make a WWII German-sympathetic movie, the German Merchant Marine would be a good subject. Its 1945 sea evacuations from the Baltic countries and East Prussia were epic, saving thousands of lives in appalling weather and under constant Russian attack. It was marred by the loss of the Wilhelm Gustloff with possibly 9,400, sunk by a Soviet submarine, but it was one of the most successful naval evacuations ever, far surpassing Dunquerque. But I’m not on the edge of my seat-I expect we’ll see twenty more Holocaust movies before we’ll see one that is a more balanced exposition of personalities during the Second World War.

* Otto Skorzeny was a person who I wished had been on our side. I think that it’s a fairly English (Scotts-Irish?) trait to be able to admire the fighting qualities of an opponent, even as one does one’s best to destroy him. I’ve read that Erwin Rommel, had he survived the war, would have been the guest of honor at reunions of the British 8th Army.

Maybe it was the Crow Indians who thought that a man’s prowess as a warrior was defined by the skill and valor of his opponents.

* This may have been the reverse for the Pacific War, where, due to truly barbarous treatment of American prisoners, the Japanese were rarely portrayed in a nuanced way. Pacific War movies tend not to do well at the box office, or so I’ve heard. Hell in the Pacific, featuring WWII Marine veteran Lee Marvin and Flags of our Fathers, may have been exceptions and Bridge over the River Kwai is a fairly sympathetic portrayal of the Japanese commander, although it sugar-coated the conditions at the camp. I think that it was in Road Past Mandalay that the author paid tribute to the superb fighting qualities of the Japanese soldier. I had a language student in Paris whose uncle fought the Japanese, the Chinese (in Korea), and the Vietnamese. He said that the Japanese were far and away the toughest–they never gave up and had to be killed.

I’m not sure what campaign or engagement I would choose to try and achieve a nuanced view of the Japanese in WWII.

* I read Skorzeny’s memoirs as a young man which left me with the impression of a pretty straight-forward warrior whose instinct was for action rather than reflection. I gathered that he thought he was fighting for Germany qua Germany rather than any ideology IIRC.

Clearly the memoirs were self-serving but I would be slightly surprised if he had turned into a Mossad murderer, especially as they have never been short of such.

I do remember his concluding that the Russians were so careless in throwing away their own lives because they were essentially oriental rather than European.

* Martin Van Creveld, the foremost Israeli military historian, has written that the Mossad was essentially founded by Jews who had fled Germany before the war. They received their initial experience when the British used them, and their perfect German language skills, for intelligence work during the war. It would make sense that they might have reached out to their ex-countrymen floating around after the war. Who else would understand an exile from Germany better than they? Van Creveld also noted that the Israeli attitude towards German soldiers was admiring, stating that Moshe Dayan (and Israelis) considered Germans as the best soldiers of all.

* Even movies of that era with fictional stories (Guns of Navarone, etc.) portrayed the Germans more realisticly than did the cartoonish portrayals of them that became common with and after “Raiders of the Lost Ark”.

“Band of Brothers”, which Spielberg produced, had a rather even-handed portrayal of Germans, and did not seem to demonize them. For that matter, “Schindler’s List” did not either.

* With personal disfigurement being so much in vogue, perhaps dueling scars such as adorn Skorzeny’s face will have a comeback. In the 19th and early 20th century, fraternity members at German universities developed a style of fencing in which there was no thrusting, only cutting, and the head and face were the only targets exposed–the rest of the body, including the arms, was swathed in heavy padding. Scars to the face, called Renommierschmisse (bragging scars), were emblems of social status, signifying that one had belonged to an exclusive fraternity. They provided entrée to top positions in the military, law, medicine, academia, and government. As the scars were prized, the stitching of them was deliberately clumsy, and it is said that students sometimes had a horsehair sewn into the gash to ensure it healed poorly or poured wine on it to inflame it. Mark Twain, who attended a German duel, or Mensur, on his European trip, described seeing students whose facial scars seemed to “form a city map.”

Apparently these illegal duels went on until recently. Fencing scholar J. Christoph Amberger participated in seven while a student at Göttingen in 1987, and carries a photogenic scar on his cheek. He describes the experience in The Secret History of the Sword.

* Blog: Like, everyone gets that the conceit of Inglourious Basterds is that the (enlisted) Basterds are all monoethnic, weakly distinguished horrific monsters driven by ethnic hatred while the Nazis are noble, individual down-home types with distinct regional accents who share tales of the homes and loved ones they’re fighting to protect?

That the Nazis are multilingual humanists with a sense of chivalric honor, a taste for art, an appreciation of the nuances of foreign cultures, and a desire to end the war with a minimum of death while the Basterds are provincial, monolingual, sadistic thugs who have a superficial understanding of German culture, kill for joy, torture their own allies, and mutilate captives they’ve promised safe passage?

That the marketing campaign for the movie involved the principals doing interviews about how awesome it was to have a movie about Us wreaking mayhem against Them, while the principal of the Nazi propaganda film-within-a-film leaves the premiere because he hates how it valorizes the act of killing?

That after the whole movie we’re expected to cheer the Basterds as they go on a nihilistic homicidal rampage, setting fire to fragile artworks to destroy a temple of high culture, because after all what matters is that they’re Us, and anyway our popular media has long constructed Them as an insect collectivity to be incinerated en masse without compunction?

Right? But, I never saw anyone mention that, even though Tarantino made it COMPLETELY FUCKING OBVIOUS.

* One true Nazi hero about whom a great Hollywood action movie could be made is general Walther Wenck.

The youngest German general, he was in command of Germany’s last functioning armored units. Instead of breaking Hitler out of encircled Berlin, as ordered, or surrendering to the Americans, he lead the last German counterattack of the war to rescue a hospital full of wounded soldiers, nurses, female military personnel, and civilians trapped in a pocket outside Berlin by the rapacious Russians. He fought his way in, the wounded soldiers and civilians helped fight their way out, and he delivered them to the Americans for surrender.

Of course, such a thrilling and heroic true story could never be made into a Hollywood movie because Nazis.

* At Skorzeny’s trial, at least one ex-Allied operative testified on Skorzeny’s behalf. He and other Allied soldiers had put on German uniforms. It was standard procedure on some Allied commando operations.

* Now that is a 180 turnaround from the last version I saw of Skorzeny’s postwar history. A documentary on The Hitler Channel, or one of those other cable channels, did a show on Skorzeny claiming that after the war he helped to create the modern Muslim terrorist system. According to the show he worked with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Al-Husseini. Al-Husseini fought before the war to overthrow the British rule of Paestine and exterminate the Jews who were flooding into Palestine. Al-Husseini spent most of the war in Germany and allegedley spent his time organizing and recruiting an all Muslim SS division, and advocating the Holocaust with the intention of bringing the gas chambers to Palestine after Germany won the war. The Nazis for their part were delighted to work with someone who hated Jews even more than they did, and charmed by the fact that Al-Husseini had fair hair and blue eyes so he even looked like a proper Nazi.
According to this documentary after the war Skorzeny lived in Egypt where he trained the nascent PLO in the terrorist tactics he had developed for the Werewolves and he was an unrepentant Nazi to the end. Nothing in the documentary would suggest that Otto would ever work for the Jews, but who knows, maybe he was just a self-promoting opportunist willing to change sides for his own benefit.

Posted in Germany, Israel, Nazi | Comments Off on The Strange Case of a Nazi Who Became an Israeli Hitman