The traditional family

[MoreQuestions]

... Are prisoners in prison simply because they are - to put it bluntly - stupid? Or are there other factors - aggression, poor impulse control, propensity to risk-taking behaviour - which ought to be taken into account? ...

I suspect the three factors you mention are linked to IQ.
About 10% of the population have IQ under 80.
About 43% of prisoners have an IQ under 80.
As you can see from the graph its pretty much all men.

 

[Paidiske]

I suspect the three factors you mention are linked to IQ.
About 10% of the population have IQ under 80.
About 43% of prisoners have an IQ under 80.
As you can see from the graph its pretty much all men.

But is their low IQ the causative factor for their imprisonment? Why are women in prison at lower rates than men? Is it because women commit, proportionately, lower levels of violent crime, as the stats I can find suggest? Is violence caused by low IQ, or by something else?

Don't misunderstand me, I understand that of two criminals, the one who is stupid is more likely to end up being caught and punished for the crime; but I'm not sure it's what makes that person a criminal in the first place.

 

[MoreQuestions]

But is their low IQ the causative factor for their imprisonment? Why are women in prison at lower rates than men? Is it because women commit, proportionately, lower levels of violent crime, as the stats I can find suggest? Is violence caused by low IQ, or by something else?

Don't misunderstand me, I understand that of two criminals, the one who is stupid is more likely to end up being caught and punished for the crime; but I'm not sure it's what makes that person a criminal in the first place.

Here's one review that I found interesting.
Intelligence and Crime - Criminal Justice - IResearchNet
"Causitive factors"? There are many, but I think that for most of them, eg poverty, anti-social behaviour and getting in with the wrong crowd, you can track back to IQ as the underlying cause of the causes.
I have already explained the main reason why women are less likely to be in prison. It's because fewer have very low IQs.
Clever people don't get caught? This is refuted in the link.
I'm not sure why you seem to be looking for non IQ reasons for people being in prison. I hope it's because you are genuinely looking into this rather than avoiding the issue. I think you are.
People avoid this topic because it's uncomfortable. It gets even more uncomfortable when you compare the IQs of different races. That also seems to be a core reason why a higher proportion of African Black and Caribbean Black people are in prison compared to white and Asian (UK and USA). People don't like to hear these things and often wish the world to be as they want it to be rather than as it is.

 

[Speedwell]

But is their low IQ the causative factor for their imprisonment? Why are women in prison at lower rates than men? Is it because women commit, proportionately, lower levels of violent crime, as the stats I can find suggest? Is violence caused by low IQ, or by something else?

Don't misunderstand me, I understand that of two criminals, the one who is stupid is more likely to end up being caught and punished for the crime; but I'm not sure it's what makes that person a criminal in the first place.

No, it's just a confusion of correlation with causality. IQ is not a magic number which is assigned to us at birth, nor does it completely and accurately measure that amorphous thing we call "intelligence.". I see no evidence being presented to rule out the possibility that low IQ is at least in part a product of the same factors (whatever they may be) which lead to criminal behavior.

 

[pleinmont]

Here's one review that I found interesting.
Intelligence and Crime - Criminal Justice - IResearchNet
"Causitive factors"? There are many, but I think that for most of them, eg poverty, anti-social behaviour and getting in with the wrong crowd, you can track back to IQ as the underlying cause of the causes.
I have already explained the main reason why women are less likely to be in prison. It's because fewer have very low IQs.
Clever people don't get caught? This is refuted in the link.
I'm not sure why you seem to be looking for non IQ reasons for people being in prison. I hope it's because you are genuinely looking into this rather than avoiding the issue. I think you are.
People avoid this topic because it's uncomfortable. It gets even more uncomfortable when you compare the IQs of different races. That also seems to be a core reason why a higher proportion of African Black and Caribbean Black people are in prison compared to white and Asian (UK and USA). People don't like to hear these things and often wish the world to be as they want it to be rather than as it is.

What a highly unpleasant post.

 

[MoreQuestions]

No, it's just a confusion of correlation with causality. IQ is not a magic number which is assigned to us at birth, nor does it completely and accurately measure that amorphous thing we call "intelligence.". I see no evidence being presented to rule out the possibility that low IQ is at least in part a product of the same factors (whatever they may be) which lead to criminal behavior.

And I see no evidence that criminality (or the factors behind it) causes low IQ.
What do you think are say the top 5 causes of criminality?

 

[MoreQuestions]

What a highly unpleasant post.

Can you help me understand why, please? If I have said anything wrong I'd like to know and will gladly correct it.

 

[pleinmont]

Can you help me understand why, please? If I have said anything wrong I'd like to know and will gladly correct it.

You give the impression that people with non white skins are less intelligent!

 

[Quartermaine]

Care to answer my question? If a good cop will never resort to violence, how would a good cop force someone to comply with the law?

if you are stopped while driving by a police officer who then asks to see your driver's licence....do you comply? or woudl you only do so if first dragged out of your vehicle and beaten to near unconsciousness by the officer?

 

[Quartermaine]

We know the absence of fathers which seems to be common today influences child behavior and development. We know that single parents have higher rates of poor child behavior and development. We also know that what ever we are doing today it is not working as there is a very high rate of family breakup.

We also know that the rates of poor educational outcomes and problem behaviors disappear when differences in income are accounted for. Single parent households have a yearly income of less than a third of two parent families. When researchers match the children of single parents with children of two parent households the negative differences between the two groups vanishes as long as the families are matched financially

So, logic tells us that two parents are better than one,

No logic doesn't say that not when money can be show to negate the differences between single parent children and two parent children

kids need both a mother and a father in their lives

unsupported

and an infant need to bond with a caregiver (especially the mother).

again unsupported

If anything, some are ignoring the science in favor of supporting their own ideas about parenthood and the family and this is what is compromising families.

yes, you seem to be doing just that

 

[Paidiske]

Here's one review that I found interesting.
Intelligence and Crime - Criminal Justice - IResearchNet
"Causitive factors"? There are many, but I think that for most of them, eg poverty, anti-social behaviour and getting in with the wrong crowd, you can track back to IQ as the underlying cause of the causes.

IQ is not the main underlying cause of poverty. In America, the main causes of poverty are lack of access to education and health problems. These tend, of course, to involve vicious cycles; but that doesn't mean that the people caught in those vicious cycles don't have average or higher IQ.

I have already explained the main reason why women are less likely to be in prison. It's because fewer have very low IQs.

You claim that, but what I can find online says that fewer women are in prison, not because of IQ, but because they commit violent crimes (which attract more and longer prison sentences) at a much lower rate than men. Now IQ might be a component of a tendency to violence in some people, but it's not the whole answer.

I'm not sure why you seem to be looking for non IQ reasons for people being in prison.

Because I know enough about the prison system - and our society more broadly - that to me, the claim that "more men are in prison because they're dumb" is highly suspect. And also because it's being used as part of an argument to keep women to "traditional" roles, so the agenda behind it is also highly suspect.

That also seems to be a core reason why a higher proportion of African Black and Caribbean Black people are in prison compared to white and Asian (UK and USA). People don't like to hear these things and often wish the world to be as they want it to be rather than as it is.

There are so many other more important factors here than intelligence. Like poverty, and systemic racism.

 

[Ken-1122]

if you are stopped while driving by a police officer who then asks to see your driver's licence....do you comply? or woudl you only do so if first dragged out of your vehicle and beaten to near unconsciousness by the officer?

Answer my question first, then I will answer yours. Again; if a good cop would never resort to violence, how does he get someone who refuses to comply with the law?

 

[muichimotsu]

Answer my question first, then I will answer yours. Again; if a good cop would never resort to violence, how does he get someone who refuses to comply with the law?

Diplomacy/de escalation first, then force, then violence if necessary, last resort

 

[Ken-1122]

Diplomacy/de escalation first, then force, then violence if necessary, last resort

Of course! But the person I'm responding to disagrees with you; he says a cop should never resort to violence.

 

[Quartermaine]

Of course! But the person I'm responding to disagrees with you; he says a cop should never resort to violence.

i said nothing of the sort. Please try to be honest.

 

[muichimotsu]

Of course! But the person I'm responding to disagrees with you; he says a cop should never resort to violence.

They may be in agreement with me that it should be a last resort, which is close to never, but not never in the literal sense one might interpret their expression

 

[Quartermaine]

Answer my question first, then I will answer yours.

leaving aside my doubt that you ever would answer the question i have answered your question

Again; if a good cop would never resort to violence, how does he get someone who refuses to comply with the law?

this was not your question....again please try to be honest

your original question was: "How about if a cop use violence against your child to instill boundaries, does that make him a very bad cop?"
and i answered.

 

[Ken-1122]

leaving aside my doubt that you ever would answer the question i have answered your question

this was not your question....again please try to be honest

your original question was: "How about if a cop use violence against your child to instill boundaries, does that make him a very bad cop?"
and i answered.

Do you see a difference between instilling boundaries vs complying with the law?

 

[muichimotsu]

Do you see a difference between instilling boundaries vs complying with the law?

One is theoretical, one is applied. They interact with each other, but laws are not set in stone necessarily if context is considered that can then adjust how they are applied in asking for compliance, etc

 

[stevevw]

We also know that the rates of poor educational outcomes and problem behaviors disappear when differences in income are accounted for. Single parent households have a yearly income of less than a third of two parent families. When researchers match the children of single parents with children of two parent households the negative differences between the two groups vanishes as long as the families are matched financially

That doesn't make sense. For one how does matching finances make up for say the absence of a father figure if the single parent is a mother. Research shows that the lack of a father causes children problems. The same with a missing mother. What if both the single parent and couple were on the same income. Doesn't the fact that the couple have two people available to care for the children and do all the other things in managing a household make them better off then the single person who has to do the job of two.

But I agree that money is a big factor in contributing to problems. Most issues with children's development and behavior are associated with lower socioeconomic status. But that is part of the problem why single parents have more problems because income is a big factor. The reality is no one is going to increase a single persons income so the problem remains and in that case couples with children is a better situation.

No logic doesn't say that not when money can be show to negate the differences between single parent children and two parent children

But we are dealing with what is actually happening and not what ideally could or should be happening. We could say that about every problem that people in lower socioeconomic status have. But that isn't the case. Part of the problem is lack of money but ending up with a lack of money is caused by other problems like poor education.

What your not taking into consideration is how did these people end up in single parent families in the first place and that is not always caused by lack of money. It is also caused by the values people have about families. Those couples who usually stay together and end up better off financially value traditional families.

unsupported

As a father I find that disturbing. Are you are father. If so do you make a difference in your kids lives. What about a mother, the one who carries the baby and gives birth. Are you saying they make no difference if a child never had a mother or father in their life. I don't know why you say that as the scientific support is obvious.

Why Children Need a Mother and a Father
There are many thousands of studies which have appeared over the past four to five decades showing quite clearly how absolutely important biological mothers and fathers are to the well-being of their children. Study after study has shown that no other factor is more vital to the healthy development of children than having a mum and a dad.
Why Children Need a Mother and a Father - CultureWatch

Study: Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families
Study: Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families
Marriage Matters, and Redefining It Has Social Costs
Sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University explains, “[t]he burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.” Popenoe concludes:

We should disavow the notion that “mommies can make good daddies,” just as we should disavow the popular notion . . . that “daddies can make good mommies.” . . . The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being.
Marriage Matters, and Redefining It Has Social Costs - Public Discourse

again unsupported

Once again this is pretty obvious. It is a field I have studied academically and have ample support for. In fact the basis for a child's bond with its caregiver which is predominately the mother is know as attachment theory which has been recognized for over 50 years.

The Science of Attachment:
Attachment theory is based on the belief that the mother-child bond is the essential and primary force in infant development, and thus forms the basis of coping, negotiation of relationships, and personality development.
The Science of Attachment: The Biological Roots of Love - The Natural Child Project
The Scientific Reason the Mother-Child Bond Is So Powerful
The Scientific Reason the Mother-Child Bond Is So Powerful

What is ironic is that many people will support the importance of developing a prenatal bond with their child (maintaining a stress free environment, touching and communicating with unborn baby) which contributes to the mother child bond after the baby is born. But then disregard the science if it goes against their ideology that the biological mother is irrelevant to the child. The child is a part of the mother and the mother is a part of the child. That bond is special and both know it.

Bonding with your baby during pregnancy
You don’t need to wait until your baby is born to bond with them. Pregnancy can be the perfect time to start forming an attachment with your baby, which is very important for their development once your baby has actually arrived.

yes, you seem to be doing just that

Well now I have supplied the scientific support.