Crime and human nature

I just saw a link on Steve Sailer’s blog to a month-old NY Times article about the link between body type (somatype) and criminal behavior.

I first thought, “this is really old news.” James Q Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein discussed this issue in detail in their 1985 book Crime & Human Nature. But that book has been in ill repute because it discovered that there are correlations between biological characteristics, such as IQ and body type, and likelihood to commit crime. And the interesting issue of somatypes (mesomorphs, ectomorphs, and endomorphs) has been derided by enlightened social scientists for many decades because Sheldon, the guy who originally invented the idea, believed that there was a correlation between somatype and various behavioral characteristics. This, of course, violates the precious left-wing blank slate hypothesis, and it seems that in the social sciences, liberal ideology always trumps empirical research.

My theory on this is really simple. A guy with big muscles is better able to commit violent crime. A weak skinny guy like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs isn’t going to mug anyone. This is why I think it’s a really bad idea to let inmates lift weights. They come out of prison better criminals.

There's also the possibility that mesomorphs have a personality type that makes them more aggressive and violent. If so, women are stupid for preferring mesomorphs as husbands. They should prefer the nice ectomorphs like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who are clearly better providers in a modern society that requires brains rather than brawn. Sheldon believed that ectomorphs matured later than other somatypes, and thus developed superior brains, especially superior spacial abilities.

FEW MORE THOUGHTS

Sheldon found, through empirical research, that endomorphs were sociable and outgoing, mesomorphs were energetic and aggressive, and ectomorphs were shy and inhibited. It's interesting to note that these are all factors of extroversion/introversion, but Sheldon subdivided it into three components. Shy and inhibited is also correlated with neuroticism.

The first comment below says "testosterone!" Testosterone seems to be positively correlated with larger muscles and physical strength, but it's only one of many factors that's correlated with muscles. I think that people on HBD forums give testosterone too much credit. I would like to be pointed to some solid research linking testosterone to personality, besides anecdotal stories of "roid rage." Testosterone levels in the developing fetus may have more impact on personality than adult levels of testosterone.

UPDATE

A reader linked to an interesting article on testosterone:

Based on the work at hand, especially the methodologically strong studies by Udry's group, we believe that around puberty, the effect of T on behavior works primarily through long-term reorganization of the body, including increased size, muscle mass, and the appearance of secondary sexual characteristics. (This physical transition from boy to young man probably builds upon structures laid down perinatally.) Maturation produces profound social effects on the adolescent. His peers, parents, and other authorities all treat him differently because he has "suddenly" grown up. Thus, T affects adolescent behavior mostly through indirect social responses, elicited by maturation, rather than through direct activation of target receptors by T in the bloodstream.

So it's the human body shape that influences personality, and testosterone influences personality INDIRECTLY by causing the person to mature earlier and grow bigger. Interesting.

Comments

[red grange]

Mesomorphs have more testosterone.

[Peter]

I'll repeat and expand upon a comment I already made at Steve's site. This link between mesomorphs and crime was based on a study of inmates in Arkansas upon their admission to prisons. A crucial question not addressed in the Times article is whether the study was limited to inmates going to prison for the first time.

Pumping iron is a staple activity in prison recreation yards. If a significant percentage of the inmates in the study had previously done time, which wouldn't be surprising given high recidivism rates, it stands to reason that many of them were quite muscular because they had started doing weights during their previous stays behind bars. It does not necessarily mean that they were "mesomorphs" to begin with.

Sometimes after doing a really good set at the gym I have a feeling of well-being that might be described as aggression, but it's aggession in an on-top-of-the-world sense rather than a kick-in-someone's-face sense. In any event it doesn't last long.

[the_alpha_male]

"I would like to be pointed to some solid research linking testosterone to personality"

Testosterone and Dominance in Men - Allan Mazur and Alan Booth:
http://cogprints.org/663/0/bbs_mazur.html

I think James Dabbs book Heroes, Rogues and Lovers had some data regarding this as well.

[kurt9]

A guy with big muscles is better able to commit violent crime.

This is a very astute observation that seems to be beyond the cognitive capabilities of NY Times Journalists.

[whiskey]

Women aren't necessarily stupid if they don't want/need husbands. West African agriculture did not need men to cultivate or stick around, as Steve Sailer has noted. The modern welfare state and modern economy can function in the same manner.

Women can do as they like, and not suffer the consequences other than personal physical brutality. In the meantime, they get the excitement of the most high-testosterone, masculine man around. It's the equivalent of the breast implant porn star.

Perhaps the prominence and preference for high testosterone men reflects a profound shift in women's desires -- short term relationships only?

[blah]

Can't do better than this old thread with Darth Quixote and Godless Capitalist vs. Ben Barres on gender.

http://www.plos.org/cms/node/75

Yes, lots of hard evidence that testosterone affects behavior. Injection causes predictable consequences. See that thread.

[Peter]

This is why I think it’s a really bad idea to let inmates lift weights. They come out of prison better criminals.

Prison officials generally are in favor of letting inmates lift weights and are opposed to state laws banning the practice. They see pumping iron as a safe outlet for aggressive tendencies, and can use threats of withholding weightroom privileges as an effective tool for keeping inmates in line. Here is some information on the issue.

Prison officials generally are in favor of letting inmates lift weights and are opposed to state laws banning the practice. They see pumping iron as a safe outlet for aggressive tendencies, and can use threats of withholding weightroom privileges as an effective tool for keeping inmates in line. Here is some information on the issue

Fuck that. How about breaking rocks and chain gangs?

[Half Sigma]

It's liberal bureaucrats and not the corrections officers who favor prisoners lifting weights.

Talk to any cop, they think it's an incredibly dumb idea.

It's liberal bureaucrats and not the corrections officers who favor prisoners lifting weights.

I'm not surprised. Liberals have no idea what kind of hardened scum there is in the world, or maybe they don't care. No doubt from the same morons who brought us the "furlough" and then Willie Horton. Hey, what could go wrong?

[David Alexander]

West African agriculture did not need men to cultivate or stick around, as Steve Sailer has noted.

If you're a race realist, this may also explains the average low IQ amongst those of African descent. Since the women were able to feed themselves with minimal male support, the low IQ were able to support themselves with minimal effort while their counterparts in Europe and Asia failed in this aspect.

The modern welfare state and modern economy can function in the same manner.

I'll give you some credit for including the phrase "modern economy".

Thanks to shift from manufacturing to services in our post-industrial economy, and changes in cultural mores, more women are engaged in the workforce than before. In regards to women in the middle and upper classes, they are considerably more selective for their long-term partners due to their high self-worth when compared to their mothers and grandmothers. These women eventually luck out or lower their standards and the majority end up married at some point in their life. I think the stories of these women mixing up with bad boys is overblown, and these women are the least likely to have children out of wedlock. The so-called bad boys that they're dating in most cases are really players like Roissy who are from the same social milieu, who are just white guys who seem cool, confident, and interesting. These men are not criminals.

In contrast, lower class women despite various social welfare programmes, are employed at higher levels than their male counterparts, especially in the black community. While middle class women can settle down from their brief affairs with "bad boys", lower class women are stuck with few alternatives to the real bad boys in their communities. Due to the weird social quirk of some poor women being some-what materialistic, the few men with jobs are undesirable because they don't make enough, and the rest of the men are burdens due to their lack of skills and schooling. In turn, the men have violent or criminalistic tendencies, which leaves a pool of women with no real options other than celibacy. Assortative mating has essentially closed off the path for low IQ women to marry successful average IQ men which may also have some effects in terms of IQ distribution.

[blah]

Prisoners should be used for borderline scientific experiments. At least then we'd get some value out of them.

(Yes, I am aware that this creates an incentive to put people in jail. One might restrict it for violent crimes with eyewitnesses.)

[whiskey]

Well, David Alexander, there's enough evidence in the New Yorker, New York Times magazine (sorry, lost the URLs for the moment) on women delaying marriage and childbirth until the last possible moment ... then using sperm donors to conceive.

As you might expect due to cost (~ $20K per treatment) these are all upper class, high income women. Sperm donors from Germany, blue eyed and blonde, are often preferred, though African donors also are popular.

Marriage is declining among all classes of women, obviously faster among some classes than others. But largely, the same preference for mesomorphic men is taking hold because there's no need for a long-term relationship.

Single motherhood is celebrated not denigrated, and does not entail messy domestic compromises, while leaving the romance door open, eternally.

As for "race realism" it's quite true that objectively, Blacks had an illegitimacy rate of 24% in 1965, whites a rate of 4%, compared to 70% nationwide currently and 34% for whites respectively. So clearly something cultural changed (environmental selection changes) since that's too small a time frame for genetic changes.

[blah]

We might also think about offering a year or two off a sentence if a prisoner accepts chemical castration.

One of the few eugenic bright spots in our society has been locking up many criminal males for at least some portion of their peak reproductive years.

...On a related note, subsidies for children don't work well as they tend to select for children from the poorest/dumbest classes (much like welfare dollars). It's actually kind of hard to think about any way of selecting for intelligence without using genetic engineering, given current societal constraints (where having a kid is a hit to your net worth rather than a bonus as it used to be).

The best I could come up with after some reflection was the development of an addictive drug which caused sterility as a side effect. Ideally it wouldn't cause violence, but would nevertheless be undesirable among the upper classes.

AIDS is actually kind of in this ballpark, as it selects strongly against people who don't plan for the future. It's probably pushing up IQ in Africa by a point or so each generation (you'd have to do the math). See:

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/05/30_aids.html

AIDS in Africa has potential to affect human evolution, UC Berkeley scientists report
30 May 2001

By Robert Sanders

Three biologists from the University of California, Berkeley, show in this week's issue of Nature (May 31, 2001) that over a period of several generations, AIDS could alter the frequency of specific genetic mutations in African populations, delaying the average time between HIV infection and onset of disease.

[Buckwheat]

The thoughts of Michael Levin on this topic (Levin's a philosophy professor at City College):

Levin points out that black/white differences on the MMPI scales suggest greater criminal behavioral characteristics among black males and that black males and criminals tend to be more mesomorphic than the general population. Across races, mesomorphs "tend to 'unrestrained, impulsive self gratification' " Levin's final word is that the much higher rate of criminality among blacks than either whites or Asians is probably a result of "lower Kantianism, facilitated by lower intelligence and greater impulsivity themselves probably biological in origin." Finally Levin argues that probably race and crime are causally related. He opines that "mean black levels of intelligence and aggressivity appear to be joint adaptations to an African environment, so, while indications like skin color do not cause the behavior with which they associate, the association is not accidental."

[David Alexander]

delaying marriage and childbirth until the last possible moment ... then using sperm donors to conceive.

These are women who are holding out for the best men possible, and instead of settling for men who may have quirks, they simply opt for a sperm donor from male who represents their ideal mate. For a highly successful college educated woman, marrying the loser male down the hall is pointless since it will lead to a frustrating and miserable marriage that can end in divorce. She will simply live in jealousy of her female friend who did marry the successful male, and as far as I'm concerned, I would refuse to be the idiot husband who has to deal with her misery.

Otherwise, middle and upper middle class women are not running around with low IQ, criminally inclined men and getting pregnant. Due to opportunity costs, these women are simply too involved in their careers to waste their time on having children.

BTW, as anecdotal evidence, I'll present my college educated female friends as examples of women who are not running around dating criminals and becoming single mothers.

Marriage is declining among all classes of women, obviously faster among some classes than others.

I wonder if marriage rates are on the decline due to the fact that the Generation Xers are delaying marriage, more hospitable to cohabitation in lieu of short marriages that fail, and their smaller population when compared to the baby boomers.

I also suspect that men are avoiding marriage as well. Why get married and have kids when you can stay single and have fun? Why get married to somebody who will age and become ugly and reduce sexual output when you can stay single and have sex with good looking women?

So clearly something cultural changed

One of the fun quirks that I've noticed is that until the early 1970s, black men earned more college degrees than their female counterparts. It also seems as if the was a magical ceiling on black women that was removed during the late 60s that allowed black women to out earn and out-educate their males.

As I've pointed out, single women on welfare could maximize their income by mating with employed black men while collecting welfare, yet such relationships didn't develop. Some factor that sociologists and economists have yet to discover turned the black community from its 1950s characteristics to it 1980s characteristics. The introduction of massive welfare programs is not the immediate short-term cause to spiking crime rates and illegitimacy.

"(Yes, I am aware that this creates an incentive to put people in jail. One might restrict it for violent crimes with eyewitnesses.)"

Unfortunately, eye-witness evidence is among the least reliable evidence. Most Innocence Project exonerees were convicted based on eye-witness evidence.

[Peter]

It's liberal bureaucrats and not the corrections officers who favor prisoners lifting weights.
Talk to any cop, they think it's an incredibly dumb idea.

Granted, I'm hardly an unbiased observer, but iron-pumping has therapeutic values that may be especially important in prisons. Lifting heavy weights is a fairly effective way of working out one's tensions and frustrations. While it may produce a temporary feeling of aggression, as I noted in an earlier post, it's not bad aggression and doesn't last long.

All in all, it's far preferable that prison inmates work out their frustrations via pumping iron, considering the much worse ways that can happen.

[Half Sigma]

Peter, what's wrong with marathon running? If it's good enough for whiterpeople, it should be good enough for prison inmates.

[anonymous 1]

While it may produce a temporary feeling of aggression, as I noted in an earlier post, it's not bad aggression and doesn't last long.

natural pelt guy, the problem isn't that pumping iron causes long term maladaptive aggression. it's that it increases the strength of people who already have too much aggression in the first place- allowing these individuals who are more aggressive than the average citizen to be much stronger than the average citizen. as sigma said, if they want to learn discipline, they can run laps or something.

[Gil]

I'll argue Alphas aren't all necessarily pro-violent. There are many men I'd regard as Alphas and not Betas who are decent, intelligent and have no particular desire to hurt women nor spend most of their lives in jail. Maybe there's something be said for the gentle-natured Alpha males who are nice and decent but you don't want to provoke them into a fight. They aren't prone to using violence to resolve problems but they won't be shy in using violence when sufficiently provoked. Perhaps, one trait is the Alpha, once in the fighting 'berserker' zone, don't stop until the other guy has all but stopped twitching. Indeed I met one guy, who could fit the everyday nice Alpha male who told of when he was provoked into a fight by another guy and, fortunately for the other guy, another guy arrived in the nick of time to stop the Alpha male from killing the other guy because he was in the 'zone'. However, one big trait I believe is when an Alpha male shows his dominance streak - everyone snaps to attetnion. On the other hand, when an Omega male tries the same behaviour they laughed off, beat up, and/or arrested. An Alpha male has the physical size, a deep powerful voice and the ability NOT to back down from physical when the heat is on. Compare this to an Omega male who dares to stick his neck out too far - doesn't have any real physically intimidating size (an Omega who works out with weights usually isn't as strong as an lazy Alpha male - it's embarrassing to see guys who you know don't work out, don't wdo regular labouring work or take drugs engage in feats of strengths just because they have a naturally strong frame and muscles attached to it.), has an voice with a borderline irritating pitch that sounds as though he's having a hissy-fit or a toddler-tantrum than expressing any dangerous anger, and, at the end of the day, if an Omega provokes an Alpha or a Beta into a fight, he has a capacity to get the fuck outta there when the Alpha or Beta stands to his full height and calls the Omega's bluff ("OK you want a fight, you got one!" "Holy shit! What did I get myself into here I'd better run real fast!"). At the end of the day Omegas don't tend towards aggression it just doesn't work for them.

[Peter]

natural pelt guy, the problem isn't that pumping iron causes long term maladaptive aggression. it's that it increases the strength of people who already have too much aggression in the first place- allowing these individuals who are more aggressive than the average citizen to be much stronger than the average citizen. as sigma said, if they want to learn discipline, they can run laps or something.

Violent criminals usually employ weapons, so any strength gains are likely to be unimportant. I still maintain that the risks greater strength may pose in certain situations are more than outweighed by the opportunity for safe frustration and anger release that iron-pumping accords.

Running does help reduce tensions, but in a different way that weight training. At least in my experience, which I have no reason to believe atypical, running is a good way to get rid of minor tension and annoyances while weights help relieve anger and frustration. It's the latter sort of release that's more important among prison inmates.

[Half Sigma]

Violent criminals usually employ weapons, so any strength gains are likely to be unimportant.

Would you rather fight Bill Gates armed with a crowbar, or Mike Tyson armed with a crowbar?

40% of robberies are the "strongarm robbery", where the victim is intimidated by the threat of being beaten up, but no weapons are involved. The majority of robberies don't involve a gun.

[Buckwheat]

Depressing Poll (And Pollsters) On Racial Divide
The most recent CBS/New York Times poll on the racial divide in the U.S. (actually, more like a chasm) is depressing, as is the NYT’s article about the poll.

You’ll need to read the article/poll for yourself. They stop just short of portraying a stark racial divide on absolutely everything. Thus, almost surprisingly, no evidence is presented showing a racial disagreement over whether the sun rises in the east.

I will leave it to others to analyze the poll’s techniques and methodology, with one exception: the question on affirmative action was maddeningly, although not unexpectedly, obfuscatory and slanted:

55. In order to make up for past discrimination, do you favor or oppose programs which make special efforts to help minorities get ahead?

44% of whites favor this version of “affirmative action”; 48% oppose. 80% of blacks favor; 13% oppose. 73% of Hispanics favor; 21% oppose.

In addition to being misleading, and thus producing misleading results, this formulation of the question is quite odd, inasmuch as special treatment of minorities “[i]n order to make up for past discrimination” has been regarded as unconstitutional, at least in higher education, ever since Bakke (except in cases where such treatment has been allowed as a remedy for proven discrimination by a specific defendant).

In addition, asking people whether they favor or oppose “programs which make special efforts to help minorities get ahead” is too broad a question to reveal anything useful. Almost everyone would favor at least some “special efforts,” and similarly almost everyone would oppose some other “special efforts.” Most people, if they thought about it, would need to know some details about the “special efforts” at issue in order to say anything meaningful about whether they favored or opposed them.

Based on other polls, I believe it’s clear beyond cavil that changing “special efforts” to “preferential treatment based on their race” would have produced a substantial majority in opposition. On the other hand, if the question concerned support for non-discriminatory “special efforts,” the majority in favor would be equally substantial.

Good evidence for the above assertion can be found in the answers to the question that immediately followed the one on affirmative action:

56. Do you favor or oppose programs that make special efforts to help people get ahead who come from low-income backgrounds, regardless of their gender or ethnicity?

Whites favored such policies by 82% to 14%; blacks by 93% to 4%; and Hispanics by 85% to 10%.

By using such a mealy-mouthed term as “special efforts” in its question on affirmative action, the CBS/New York Times poll has disguised, whether on purpose or not, the pervasive unpopularity of most of what is actually done under the rubric of “affirmative action,” which is providing preferential treatment to some individuals based solely on their race or ethnicity.

[slwerner]

Peter - "Running does help reduce tensions, but in a different way that weight training. At least in my experience, which I have no reason to believe atypical, running is a good way to get rid of minor tension and annoyances while weights help relieve anger and frustration. It's the latter sort of release that's more important among prison inmates."

As an avid weight-lifter myself, I understand exactly what you're talking about, and you are absolutely correct. People who are not regular serious weight lifters (HS?) seldom seem to understand just how much it helps to relieve stress/tension and just how euphoric one feels afterwards. Perhaps, if one isn’t a regular lifter, the times that they do lift leaves their unconditioned joints and muscles in more agony than ecstasy?

And, while I do understand the general concern regarding “stronger” criminals, it is certainly not that strength leads to thuggish behavior (I’ve been far bigger and stronger than most since high school, and have not been in one physical altercation in 30 years since); but much more likely that those who are already inclined towards such thuggish behaviors recognize the need to become bigger and stronger in order to “succeed” within that “lifestyle”.

I doubt if inmates pump iron in order to become better criminals after release ("lifers" are no doubt some of the most serious lifters), but rather in order to achieve status within prison hierarchies – if not simply for survival reasons while incarcerated.

If weight-lifting were denied them, they’d likely still do lots of pushups etc. in their cells to compensate. Personally, there’ve been times during travel when I’ve found myself in hotels with useless little “rec rooms”, and I’ve simply headed back to my room to do whatever strength exercises I could. I would suspect you do likewise?

All-in-all, better to let inmates blow of the steam pumping iron, and for citizens who fear stronger criminals to either hit the gym themselves, or arm themselves for their own defense.

[Peter]

... much more likely that those who are already inclined towards such thuggish behaviors recognize the need to become bigger and stronger in order to “succeed” within that “lifestyle”

This backwards-causation explains much of the "roid rage" phenomenon. It's not that steroid use causes people to become violent so much as that people with violent tendencies are more likely to use steroids.

--

If weight-lifting were denied them, they’d likely still do lots of pushups etc. in their cells to compensate. Personally, there’ve been times during travel when I’ve found myself in hotels with useless little “rec rooms”, and I’ve simply headed back to my room to do whatever strength exercises I could. I would suspect you do likewise?

Prison inmates can be highly resourceful. Take pruno, for example. They indeed manage to find alternatives to barbells and dumbbells when those off-limits. One bit of resourcefulness I've heard involved literal bench presses - an inmate lies down on a bench from the rec yard, and another one presses the bench with the inmate on it.

[Peter]

Violent criminals usually employ weapons, so any strength gains are likely to be unimportant.

40% of robberies are the "strongarm robbery", where the victim is intimidated by the threat of being beaten up, but no weapons are involved. The majority of robberies don't involve a gun.

It's actually better for the victims if more and more criminals are huge muscular iron-pumpers. Strongarm robberies are safer than those committed using weapons.

"It's actually better for the victims if more and more criminals are huge muscular iron-pumpers. Strongarm robberies are safer than those committed using weapons."

Thank God, I'm so relieved!

". If so, women are stupid for preferring mesomorphs as husbands. They should prefer the nice ectomorphs like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who are clearly better providers in a modern society that requires brains rather than brawn."

here's a male version of this
" If so, men are stupid for perferring pretty women as wives. They should perfer the nice loud women like rosy o donald and operah, who are clearly better suited to stand half sigma's wining in a modern that requires lettingyour eyes galaze over rather that running off with the stud because ahhh... yeah..."

oh and halvy, health is a realy signal for attraction. A lot of yupiies pride them on their health and it is a sign of higher status. Bill gates isn't really attratik,ve. At all. He's awkward looking in a "my vioce cracks and i'm clumbsy" kind of. A lot of women want a husband who can carry them over the thershold.

You want to know what's attractive?
http://www.beautycheck.de/english

Characteristics of the male "Sexy face" in the comparison to the "unsexy face":

* Browner skin
* Narrower facial shape
* Less fat
* Fuller and more symmetrical lips
* Darker eye brows
* More and darker lashes
* Upper half of the face broader in relation to the lower
* Higher cheek bones
* Prominent lower jaw
* More prominent chin
* No receding brows
* Thinner lids
* No wrinkles between nose and corner of the mouth

Characteristic features of the female "sexy face" in comparison to the "unsexy face":

* Suntanned skin
* Narrower facial shape
* Less fat
* Fuller lips
* Slightly bigger distance of eyes
* Darker, narrower eye brows
* More, longer and darker lashes
* Higher cheek bones
* Narrower nose
* No eye rings
* Thinner lids

http://www.beautycheck.de/english
check it out

[anon]

A stronger person is better able to do violence, I agree. But rigorous weight training has the potential to instill the sort of work ethic(pain now gain later, long term planning, discipline, consistency etc.) that many here think is important. This may or may not transfer to other activities besides lifting. Another benefit to lifting is that even stupid people can do it, do well and benefit.

A serious lifter is going to want to ensure he can stay on track(so no misconduct), eat a lot and sleep a lot. This seems like a pretty ideal inmate.

While stronger people are better able to fight, as I understand it even strongarm robberies generally are based on the criminal taking the initiative and leaving the victim with no time to resist. So strength may become a factor but even in unarmed crime it mostly is not.