What's said about those who *kept* that wealth? What's said about those who had access to ways of getting more wealth or at least keeping a stable position in terms of income?

But let's get to the really fun part: *the discussion*.

>Separating by race, we showed that blacks had lower odds of incarceration in the short term, in their early twenties to thirties, when they possessed more wealth. The odds of such incarceration for black males who possessed as little as $2000 in 1985 were only half the odds for black males who possessed very little or no wealth and collectively had an incarceration rate of 10 % in the next 5 years. For black females, possessing more wealth meant virtually eliminating incarceration chances in the short term.

>lack of black
male observations at the very high levels of net worth

Small sample size for that particular demographic - a statistician's nightmare.

>__Personal and family human capital levels such as education, job experience and social connections also may differ greatly among those with similar wealth levels.__ Therefore, observed racial differences in male incarceration rates despite similar wealth levels may be explained once those factors are taken into account.

>**The reasons for which respondents were incarcerated also may be salient, but were not available in the NLSY79 data.** These limitations invite further study through the collection and use of additional data sources, particularly for unpacking the economic impact of incarceration on the broader household as well as for studying the impact of disparate, and possibly racially relevant, reasons for incarceration.

***You can cry 'connect the dots between studies' as much as you want, since I know that's what you'll do, but not only do you fall into the infinite studies trap, but you also have to deal with what the authors of the studies themselves have to say about it!***

```"my study" Which study would that be?? i dont recall posting a study, and if i did it would not exclude the enviormental effects. This is nearly a biased assumtion, Yet another one on which you waste so much time typing all that non argumental text
```

***Now I know that you're grasping at straws.***

When I said 'your study', I was very clearly talking about Beaver 2003 - __the study that you brought up about how some genetic differences leads to African-Americans being violent__.

And there's the 'you said i excldeud enviromentla efects' straw man again.

No, I'm saying that not only is your focus glued to such effects, but you are pretending that we can't do anything about those effects in the first place because we would be destroying people and we're never gonna develop the technology to do it.

Lastly, let's get back to this:

```which diproves his "philisopucal tclaim. There isnt much philisophical to it it is pure statistics, and it shows that heritability is a thing. Which he claims its not because of my philisopical arguments```

**Data does not speak for itself. We do not craft political actions based on data alone. 'Pure statistics' are not even meaningless with regards to politics, but they don't actually exist. There is always some kind of interpretation and meaning that's bolted onto those statistics and it is up to us to make sure that it's a practical one.**

This is why I mentioned epicycles and heliocentrism. No amount statistics confirms one or the other out of them - the heliocentric model simply requires less variables and is far more extensible. What makes a theory scientific is that it is most *practical*.

It is the same with biological determinism. No amount of statistics justifies biological determinism, because one can easily say 'we could modify that in some way'. The point that must be deployed to counter such an assertion would be that we could and should never even motion do so, which rests on a *philosophical* argument which would draw upon moral philosophy (though not exclusively).

**Furthermore, I did not deny that heritability is a real metric related to a real phenomenon. I said that *biological determinism* is kaput - not because of the philosophical arguments you make, but the fact that it is impossible for one to completely understand themselves because they would have to understand the fact that they have understood themselves and so on.**

***It just so happens that the same goes for you, and I can always include you into the picture even as far as saying that the stray photons that reflected off the clothing that you chose to wear contributed to the development of an Atlantic hurricane (an example of the 'butterfly effect').***

@Garbage

to which i have the simple explanation that you dodged. The parrents would have had the same genetics, so they created the bad enviorment .

You said that i had the stance that there was no enviormental effect. This is a false assumtion.
You said that my sources which ever you mean as i posted very little, did not included the enviormental factor. This is plain wrong and slander

```The parrents would have had the same genetics, so they created the bad enviorment .```

i ask you ones more, which sources nigger

And that would've been enabled by social factors.

What

if the parrents have the same impuls controll issues they would be bad parrents

pretty plain to me

But that would be enabled and exacerbated by social factors, would it not?

Impulses require triggers.

here let me debunk this ones more as you didnt get it when i did it the first time

And violence requires justifications in people's minds - even if it's just a 'feeling'.

Notice how you dodged the claim about biological determinism.

Again, pulling up any number of studies doesn't prove the claim. How is this not related to *social factors which are based upon things like systemic racism*?

", I was very clearly talking about Beaver 2003 " did you even mention this. lmao

did beaver ever even came up here lol