Search Box

Saturday, March 12, 2016

The biggest difference between whites and blacks

Many people think that the biggest difference between the races is intelligence. But differences between the races go beyond that; whites with IQ's of 85 simply don't act like blacks.

The biggest difference between the races seems to be, in many ways, their levels of inhibition. Inhibitions have many roots: worry about how one will be perceived, one's performance, one's social standing, and the future. But the net effect of all those worries is to make us hesitant, install a sort of inner censor, which keeps us from acting on our initial urges.

Alcohol can dull those worries, while also inducing a mild euphoria. I've always thought that whites tend to act a little like Asians who've had a couple of drinks, and blacks tend to act a little like whites who've had a couple of drinks. This is a tendency, obviously, not a blanket rule. But, on average, when it comes to how uninhibitedly people act, it tends to be true.

Think of some of the traits and behaviors you associate more with blacks than with whites: spontaneously breaking out into a dance, end zone celebrations, making lascivious comments on the street, high rates of violence, an emphatic manner of speaking, performing well on stage, and being warmer and friendlier when so inclined. Put it all together and you'll see a pattern: the common thread seems to be a lack of inhibition.

If you've ever watched one of those Sunday morning cable shows which show services at various churches, it's hard not to be struck by how differently the parishioners at a black church behave. They'll cry out, "Amen!" and "Praise the Lord!" with complete abandon, and no self-consciousness whatsoever. Some parishioners spontaneously break out into dance. There are white churches where people handle rattlesnakes and speak in tongues; but those are rarities. And there are certainly black churchgoers who act with more decorum. But, on average, there is a striking racial difference.

The way the black pastors themselves speak is also telling. Their manner of delivery is generally far more forceful, far more emphatic, and far less inhibited. They are far likelier to work up a sweat during a sermon than a white pastor is.

What goes on in church is, in microcosm, what happens in society at large.

Manner of speaking

To accurately transcribe black speech you'd often have to italicize every third or fourth word. Think of the way Al Sharpton speaks, investing all sorts of words with extra, portentous meaning (which they may or may not be able to sustain). There is no sense of shyness, or feeling abashed.

White people-type concerns -- like worrying that their voices will crack, or fretting too much about how they're coming across -- rarely seem to enter their minds.

Stage fright

This may be why there are proportionately more good black comedians. There are plenty of whites who are funny, but few of them are uninhibited enough to get up on a stage and be relaxed to deliver their riffs in front of a large audience without being crippled by self-doubt. Call it shyness, or stage fright, or worry about the reception they going to get. All of those things have an inhibiting effect, which hampers performance.

Richard Pryor, (the young) Eddy Murphy, Chris Rock, and Dave Chappelle were all comedic geniuses, with great material. But what made them great performers wasn't just their material, it was their ability to be relaxed enough on stage to allow for perfect delivery of that material. Humor does seem to be correlated with intelligence, but blacks have always been able to punch above their weight in that regard. Part of the answer to that has to do with lack of inhibition.

The lack of inhibition may also be partly why there are proportionally more successful black singers. Part of singing ability is obviously voice, and also pitch. But getting up on a stage and passionately singing your heart out also takes a certain lack of inhibition.

Body language

Blacks also tend to have more expressive body language. While speaking, they will often punctuate or emphasize their statements with a craning of the neck or exaggerated expressions. And laughter often involves their entire body, jumping around and waving their arms with glee. White laughter may involve convulsing, but it is rarely accompanied by much limb movement.

Clutch performances

This lack of self-doubt and neurosis also translates to better performance on the athletic field. There are significant physical differences between the races that account for blacks outperforming in sports requiring speed and jumping ability. But the subject here is not racial differences in physique, but clutch performance -- whether or not an athlete is at his best when the pressure is on. There simply seem to be fewer blacks who choke. Again, this is not a blanket rule; there are plenty of exceptions on both sides. But it seems to be less a part of black nature to worry and obsess as much. Thus, fewer nerves to deal with when the big moment arrives.

One of the more obvious examples of this is Usain Bolt. He clowns around in the starting blocks, even at the World Championships and Olympics, up until right before the race. Then he's all business for ten or twenty seconds. Then, after his race is over, it's time to joke and dance again. There simply are no white athletes who give off that sort of vibe.

Blacks and whites tend to have different styles of victory celebration. The most obvious example of this are the end zone dances by blacks, who are uninhibited in their ebullience. There are whites who imitate such celebrations; but that's definitely the whites adopting black culture, and not the other way around. A certain style of physical preening seems to come more naturally to blacks.


Blacks also tend to be more uninhibited in their egotism. Muhammad Ali was the originator of the line "I am the greatest of all-time!" Since him, a host of black athletes have made similar statements. Think of how black and white athletes act when interviewed after a win. Blacks are more likely to talk about how great they are, whereas whites are far more likely to thank their coaches, or praise their teammates or competitors. This, by the way, doesn't mean whites are more genuinely humble; they're just more likely to say what they think they're supposed to say, rather than exult.

There are certainly white egomaniacs. But blacks seem to have more Kanye Wests and Jaden Smiths per capita than whites have Donald Trumps.


Blacks are rarely shy about talking to strangers. (That briefly famous Hollaback video was unwitting proof of that.) But even apart from men who try to hit on women, blacks tend to be more chatty, even with strangers. When asking someone I don't know for directions, I've often found that whites will react with fear, or at least a little defensiveness, at first; blacks rarely do. 

Wherever there is a crowd of blacks, the noise level is usually higher. I've heard that both white and Hispanic inmates will tell you that any prison area where blacks predominate is always noisier, with more shrieking, chattering, raucous laughter, and loud music. In movie theaters, blacks will talk while the movie is playing, sometimes even directing their comments to the characters onscreen.


Blacks are more uninhibited with money. You may have heard the expression "black rich," the definition of which is: to have come into a windfall which is shortly to be spent. Blacks who come into money are far more likely to go out and buy flashy cars, a flashy house, flashy clothes, and flashy bling. This has something to do with why over half of NFL players are bankrupt within two years of leaving the league.

(In all fairness, that also has something to do with young black professional athletes being more likely to have a lot of poor relatives to whom they will be generous -- in a spontaneous sort of way.)

In keeping with their more celebratory nature, blacks are also more likely to see anytime as good for a party. We even saw it with President Obama throwing all those celebrity-filled parties in the White House during his first term. Or, look at all of the lavish vacations the Obamas take.

Carpe diem

Whites tend to live in the future; as Voltaire said, "We never live; we are always in the expectation of living." Horace said, "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero," which translates as, "Seize the day, put very little trust in tomorrow." (The expression is usually shortened to just "Carpe Diem.") Blacks are more likely to actually live by that philosophy.

Ethnic groups which evolved in colder climates had to think in terms of making it through a long, cold winter. Putting little trust in tomorrow would have had fatal consequences for Stone Age northern Europeans, or northern Asians.


Blacks tend more towards promiscuity, which is in keeping with their general lack of inhibition. They generally lose their virginity at an earlier age, and have a much higher illegitimacy rate. Again, the reasons for these things are complex, and include, among other things, higher testosterone levels. But both statistics are what you'd expect given the difference in inhibition.

I remember watching Dennis Rodman once on the Howard Stern Show, back when it was televised in the late 90's. Stern told Rodman to go over and feel up Robin Quivers, his assistant. When Rodman did so, the camera focused on his crotch and it was apparent that he was getting an erection. The lack of inhibition necessary to start getting turned on while on national TV is stunning.


Another outgrowth of both higher testosterone levels and lower inhibitions is more violence. The rates for blacks in all four major categories of violent crime -- murder, assault and battery, rape, and armed robbery -- are all roughly eight to ten times higher than the comparable rates for whites. The case can be made that armed robbery is a crime driven by poverty, and there is some truth to that. But committing rape is not a function of poverty, it's an indication of lack of impulse control.

There's also a difference in the types of murders the races commit. A black is more likely to commit an impulsive, unplanned killing involving a firearm. A white is more likely, say, to slowly poison his or her spouse to death. (One type of murder is a function of lack of impulse control, the other of evil.)

This is why blacks account for fewer than half of all death penalty convictions even though they commit over half the homicides in this country: premeditated murder carries a stiffer penalty.

Criminals, but not necessarily sociopaths

I'm often asked, is such and such a black criminal a sociopath? I sometimes shrug and say, well, no, not really -- he's just black. His crime may be bad, but at the same time it's not as if he has all the other sociopathic traits that go along with the impulsiveness -- the false emotionality, pathological lying, manipulativeness, destructiveness, disloyalty, bitterness, envy, and hatred. He's just...uninhibited.

People have asked me if Mike Tyson is a sociopath. On the surface, he would seem a likely candidate: he's violent, has gotten into frequent trouble, and has seemed at times to be out of control. But as I explained here, Tyson is more noble savage than scheming conniver. He has few brakes on his personality, which is basically just one big primal scream. But he has none of the other characteristics of a sociopath, in fact these days is painfully honest about himself, which is basically the opposite of sociopathy.

This, of course, is not to say there aren't black sociopaths. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two prominent examples. But, in general, the kind of wanton lack of inhibition which typically indicates sociopathy in a white person often does not indicate the same set of despicable characteristics for a black.


This blog has noted before that white mobs are usually fueled by alcohol, whereas blacks don't need to be drunk to riot. Expressing displeasure with arson, looting, turning over cars, and throwing rocks at the police are usually the acts of people who, one way or another, are without inhibition. White civil disobedience is often chemically driven; the black variety seems more opportunistic (think power outages, hurricanes, or perceived miscarriages of justice).

It always seems that, whatever the black percentage of a local population, a disproportionate number of them will be milling about on the street, joking with each other, panhandling, hitting on women, brazenly smoking grass, etc. The lack of a sense of purpose doesn't seem to worry any of these men. Nor do they seem particularly concerned about the impression they are creating.


Being uninhibited can also mean less artifice. I've always had the impression that on those occasions when blacks act warmly toward me, their friendliness is more genuine. With whites, you never know what they're really thinking: most whites will generally just say whatever it is they think they're supposed to say at the moment. And I often end up with the impression that what they were really thinking was entirely different.

This may surprise some given what I've said elsewhere in this post, but for that reason, I've often found blacks -- once it's established that they're friendly -- at that level to be better company than whites. Whites are far more likely to put on false (socially acceptable) faces; their friendliness is often a matter of social convention rather than goodwill. It's not real warmth, merely good manners. With blacks, it's actually goodwill. They are uninhibited in the way they like people, too.

Of course, if people don't fulfill their expected social roles, a civilization won't work. But the price for that is, most people you meet will simply be playing a role: friendly coworker, wise elder, vivacious housewife, polite student. And you often have no idea what's lurking behind the facade. With blacks, I've found there's usually less of a facade.


One area where lack of inhibition is downright endearing is when it comes to giving compliments. As I explained here, blacks give far more effusive -- and meaningful -- compliments than whites do. White guys are always afraid of appearing gay, so will rarely compliment another guy on his looks, or build, or voice, or attractiveness to women. Instead, they will restrict themselves to compliments about one's performance on an exam, or one's team spirit, or other innocuous things that most of us couldn't care less about. Black guys feel no such qualms, and so will deliver the type of compliment you'll remember.

Likewise, white women are often concerned that their flattery will be misconstrued as invitation, so usually refrain from heartfelt compliments, at least to men; black women tend to exhibit more enthusiasm.

If you're receiving a compliment, uninhibitedly is definitely how you want it delivered.

How blacks feel about whites

It's hard to blame blacks for thinking of whites as phony. Especially since few whites feel comfortable enough around blacks to say what's really on their minds anyway. (Not that you can blame whites for that, given the current climate.)

It's also hard to blame blacks for thinking of whites as being stiff and boring. The best analogy there is how you (whites) feel about Asians: you know they're smart, and hard-working, and generally won't cause trouble. But, let's face it, they're not a lot of fun to hang out with, and sometimes it almost seems as if they all have the same personality. Well, blacks generally think of whites the same way.

Of course, blacks' feelings are more complicated than that. Imagine that Asian-Americans used to own your ancestors, and even after they freed them they had two separate sets of laws regarding them and you, with whites as second class citizens. Now, imagine that you're constantly reminded of this by the media, and constantly told that whatever failings whites show vis-à-vis Asians is due to Asian racism toward you. Now, combine all that with the paragraph above and you get a more complete picture of how blacks feel about whites.

Most people -- black and white alike -- hold wiggers in contempt; trying to appear what one is not usually evokes that response. But exactly what it is about blacks that the wiggers find so appealing? It seems to be in large part that blacks represent a freer, more spontaneous, less inhibited way of being. This is instinctively appealing for young people who've been brought up in a more restrictive, regimented environment. (At some level or other, don't we all want to let our passions flow more freely?)


Anyway, the point of this post is that many of the behaviors that whites associate with blacks -- both good and bad -- are all of a piece. And what connects all of those behaviors is lack of inhibition.

You may occasionally wonder why we're called a multicultural society. Every American has access to the same television shows, the same movies, the same newspapers, and are governed by the same laws and politicians. We speak the same language and go to the same schools and play the same sports. We're multiracial, yes, but multicultural? Only to the extent this post has just described: the gap between black and white "culture," really, is mostly just the difference between black and white personality -- which is just another way of saying, nature.


Anonymous said...

I understand exactly what you are saying, or at least I think I do.

Blacks, when you don't particularly have to worry about being assaulted by them, can be a lot of fun to be around, at least for awhile. Whites in the entertainment and sports industries, especially wind up being around blacks, and while some of them are treacherous, usually if one has some judgment one can avoid most of the danger most of the time. This is also true to a good extent in the military, where the ASVAB/AFQT filters out the really dumb ones and military discipline with its sure and swift consequences moderates their tendencies quite a bit.

With blacks, generally you know where you stand, because the lack of long term orientation and self-control keeps them from being as able to conceal a long term animosity.

Asians, particularly Japanese, are at the opposite end of this continuum. The Japanese are very reserved and are capable of holding a long term animus for a lifetime, or generations. Revilo Oliver tells a good story in one of the posthumously published works issued some time ago:

When the United States was preparing to start shooting in Korea, a ranking officer of our Military Intelligence was sent to Japan to supervise from his headquarters there certain intelligence operations in Korea. He provided himself with a Japanese mistress from a very good middle-class family. His cover was some position in the Quartermaster's Corps, and, of course, he was careful not to let his concubine know that he had any other military function. She was, in every way, a perfect mate, who seemed to anticipate his every wish and desire by some kind of instinct, sometimes when he was scarcely aware himself of precisely what he wanted.

The young woman's two or three brothers had been officers in the Japanese army and had been killed in action. Her uncle and aunt had perished during our fire-bombing of Tokyo, when we destroyed sixteen square miles of the city and made a million persons homeless after a hundred thousand had been burned alive, boiled in the canals, or suffocated by the fire-storm. She and her mother had barely escaped alive from their burning home. The American tried to discover what his perfect concubine was really thinking, so, after many months of conjugal intimacy, he asked her about that American raid on Tokyo. Oh, yes, she remembered it vividly: she had seen the American planes come in like celestial butterflies, "silver wings in the moonlight, very pretty, very pretty!" It was only then that the American, being a highly intelligent man, realized how she hated him – hated him with an implacable – and noble hatred.

Whether she was watching him for a Japanese intelligence service (their maid, who did not live in, but came every day, would have made a perfect messenger), the American never knew, but that did not matter. Being, as I have said, a highly intelligent man, he realized that he had glimpsed for a moment the soul of a great race.

As I said earlier blacks can be fun to be around for a while, but most of them are not very interesting and one quickly figures them out. Black culture in general is not terribly deep. The Japanese, though, are very fascinating and really studying them is a long term proposition. You always feel like there is more to learn and that it is not offered up for the taking: it requires diligence and careful observation.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Interesting story, thank you. Yes, Asians, at least Northeast Asians, represent the other end of the continuum in most categories of racial differences. This post was mostly about differences between whites and blacks -- what most in the US focus on -- but what you say is true.

Anonymous said...

Spartan said….

I have also found that blacks are more forgiving and rarely hold grudges. I've had many arguments with my tenants, and the very next day it was like we never fought. A cop friend of mine told me that as well. He would see someone that he arrested and would go talk to him.

John Craig said...

Spartan --
That's an admirable quality; sort of a Christian forgiveness. Can't say I have it myself.

europeasant said...

"In keeping with their more celebratory nature, blacks are also more likely to see anytime as good for a party"

I was at the canceled Trump rally in Chicago and I also noticed the exuberance and energy of blacks. When the announcement came that the event was cancelled, a large group of protestors, maybe a hundred or more, mostly blacks, started jumping up and down, chanting "party, party".
I'm thinking that perhaps there were some additional substances that contributed to that energy. This large group arrived inside close to about the time for the rally to start and I don't understand how they got in because they were obviously there to disrupt the event.

Mark Caplan said...

Spartan wrote: "I have also found that blacks are more forgiving and rarely hold grudges."

That's an interesting proposition. I feel there is some truth to it, but then you have blacks constantly throwing slavery back in the face of whites, slavery that ended eight generations ago. That grudge will probably last the duration of humankind.

In Between the World and Me, MacArthur genius Ta-Nehisi Coates says he still gets worked up into a fury when he recalls the white woman on an escalator who pushed his lollygagging little boy out of her way. That racially motivated atrocity occurred about ten years ago and accounts for much of his black rage today.

Of course, when it comes to nursing grudges, the Muslims take the prize. That blacks have an affinity for Islam perhaps explains why blacks cling to preceived grievances. For Muslims, no skirmish, no loss of acreage is ever forgotten or forgiven or can go unavenged, no matter how far back in the Dark Ages it occurred.

John Craig said...

Europeasant --
I can't think of a better way to sum up the differences between the Left and the Right than to point out that the Left is constantly trying to shut down the Right's right to free speech, whereas the Right does not do that to the Left.

John Craig said...

Mark --
You're 100% right in what you've said, but you're speaking of a more generalized, racial resentment, whereas I think Spartan was referring to more personal grudges. I haven't experienced this myself, but I've actually heard from people who've actually gotten into fistfights with blacks that they are willing to forgive and forget the very next day. That surprised me when I heard it, but what Spartan said bears that out.

I also think there's a difference between college-educated blacks, who've gone through more brainwashing (about hating Whitey), than, say, blacks who go into the military.

Gilbert Ratchet said...

"Wherever there is a crowd of blacks, the noise level is usually higher. I've heard that both white and Hispanic inmates will tell you that any prison area where blacks predominate is always noisier, with more shrieking, chattering, raucous laughter, and loud music."

You don't need to go to jail to see this. Just go to your local university's cafeteria. The black table is always louder and physically boisterous than all the other ones. (In my case I always got the impression that this was not entirely unselfconscious, but a bold statement of their identity on a largely-white campus.)

Steven said...

You are totally right. Black people often seem different and I think this is the essence of it.

btw Chris Rock said in an interview that black people laugh with their whole bodies, whereas white people laugh from the neck up, or something like that.

As it seems I am the relative liberal of the blog, I will note that the majority of black people are not violent criminals (a very high murder rate of 20/100,000/a still means only 1 in 5000 people commit murder every year, assuming there is one murderer for every murder) and that I find ordinary black Africans often quite charming. They can be really fun to be around.

Also, there are quite notable cultural differences between African Americans and Africans, and its worth comparing them to separate what is culture and what is genetic. Africans can come across as quite different to American ghetto blacks, though you can definitely see the similarities too.

Samuel Nock said...

Important post because anything that gets us away from the over-simplified and reductionist IQ fetishism is a good thing, in my view. People are more complicated than just how smart (or not) they are.

Another aspect of lack of inhibition, in the case of blacks, is readiness to make demands that others would find embarrassing or humiliating. All the recent campus protests are a good example of this: ANY student on a major college campus is almost by definition a highly privileged person compared to almost anyone else on earth. To have the chutzpah to make demands and show one's dissatisfaction in such ostentatious and immature ways takes a good deal of inhibition, to put it mildly.

Another quality blacks have in general is a much higher degree of tribal loyalty. They almost always stand together, regardless of the righteousness of the cause. Examples include the Jena Six as well as the Central Park "wilding" rapists. Most people would shudder at the idea of jumping to the defense of such a group of criminals on grounds of RACIAL SOLIDARITY. Indeed, for whites it would be well nigh impossible. Whether this trait is innate or conditioned is an open question. Whites were not always so loath to feel tribal loyalties, and Asians (who score high on inhibition) actually show a lot of tribal loyalty.

John Craig said...

Samuel --
You're absolutely right about tribal loyalty. I had originally had a paragraph in the post about that, but took it out because I wanted to concentrate on the things that are examples of the different natures of the races, as opposed to learned and reinforced behaviors which are a result of the current zeitgeist. The fact that, as you say, whites have changed so much on that issue over time shows that it's not something endemic to whites per se, but a more recent phenomenon. That said, I too am often struck at how uninhibited blacks are about demonstrating their own tribal solidarity and demands. But even that has changed over time. That wasn't the case 300 years ago in African when some African blacks were selling other blacks to white slave traders. And it wasn't really the case 80 years ago, either, during Jim Crow.

Mark Caplan said...

Steven wrote: "Only 1 in 5000 [black] people commit murder every year."

We don't worry about black women killing us. Speaking only of black males brings the ratio to 1 in 2,500. We also don't worry about babies or old geezers killing us. We worry about black males between roughly 15 and 50 killing us (OJ was 47). That brings the ratio to around 1 in 1,200, as a ballpark estimate.

Then there are roughly 10 attempted murders or violent assaults for every actual murder. This is partly because Western medical care saves the lives of so many shooting victims nowadays. The victims end up quadriplegics rather than corpses. In Chicago recently, for instance, there were roughly 16 people shot at a neighborhood barbecue and none died. So multiplying by 10 takes you to 1 in 120, PER YEAR. Looking over a decade takes you to 1 in 12.

Mark Caplan said...

In Charlotte, NC, there was one extraordinarily colorful, highly successful black lawyer whose lack of inhibition and unbridled audacity of hope, even by black standards, was something to behold. The NY Daily News's recent sick-humored profile of the man hits most of the low points:

The article doesn't mention that Mackey went to law school, racked up $400,000 in debt, then with his law degree in hand declared bankruptcy and erased the debt. According to LegalZoom: "The U.S. Bankruptcy Code expressly prohibits the denial, revocation or suspension of a professional license solely because the licensee has filed for relief under the Bankruptcy Act."

John Craig said...

Mark --
That's an amazing story, sort of funny, actually. I kept asking myself, is this guy a sociopath? I honestly can't answer that. He was incredibly irresponsible and derelict in his duty to his various clients, but there didn't seem to be any ill will attached to his actions, mostly just laziness.

Baloo said...

Dang, you're good, John. I've reblogged this and done a quibcag:
John Craig on racial differences, but not the ones you might expect

Steven said...


You've made your point and I can buy that something like 1 in 120 prime age black males commit murder over a decade but I doubt that 1 in 12 attempt murder in a decade (or 1 in 6 over 20 years). It seems too high to me. don't you think?

Maybe the problem is that the murders and/or attempted murders are not all done by different individuals ie each one done by a different guy (for e.g., how many shooters shot those 16?). There are some very violent individuals with psychopathic tendencies and there are gang members. I wonder how it really works out once you factor in repeat offenders and do the maths more precisely.

Could a crude estimate of 1 in 12 actually be 1 in 30 (or just over 3 in 100...over 10 years)??

Bluff Creek1967 said...

John, that was an excellent post! I first read it on the 'American Renaissance' website which featured it today, but I had to come back here and at least make a comment. You've said many of the same things I've noted on my blog, but I think you said it much clearer and with better examples, so I give you credit for that.

Some of the Amren commentators had discussed whether the traits you mentioned about lack of inhibition were due to the generally lower IQ levels of Blacks. Some felt it was due exclusively to lower IQs, while others said it was reflection of their culture and/or low impulse control.

Where do you stand on this question? Personally, I'm not sure that it originates exclusively from one aspect of the person such as his or her IQ, but probably from a combination of things that make up the entirety of one's personality (genetics, culture, parental influences, societal influences, religious values).

Anyway, thanks for the fine article!

John Craig said...

Ambrose --
Thank you so much.

To answer your question, I think that low impulse control is negatively correlated with intelligence, but also sort of separate. I actually took a lot of stuff out of the post before putting it up, and one of the things I took out was a listing of the parts of the brain which are responsible for impulse control, and also the parts of the brain which control fear (I think the two are related -- if you fear the consequences of your actions, you're less likely to take them). The reason I took that stuff out was partly because the post was too long as it was, but also partly because getting into the neurophysiology of the brain is getting way beyond my pay grade, I'm just a guy who notices behavior, and all I would have been doing would have been basically just quoting stuff from Wikipedia and elsewhere. But, that said, the frontal lobe (or frontal cortex) does seem to have a lot to do with impulse control, and the ability to feel embarrassment, and a lot of other related things. And it does seem as if there's a racial difference there that goes beyond just intelligence as measured by IQ. And the proof of that is that, as I said at the outset of the post, whites with IQ's of 85 just don't act like blacks (and whites with IQ's of 115 don't act like blacks with IQ's of 115, although those blacks can do a pretty good imitation of whites when so inclined).

By the way, the existence of a differences in the way the frontal lobe functions doesn't negate the influence of the other things you list, like culture, parental influences, and religious values.

Thanks again.

Mark Caplan said...

Steven wrote: I doubt that 1 in 12 attempt murder in a decade.

I was just doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation to get within an order of magnitude of the right figure. Maybe it's 1 in 50 young black men that commit murder, attempted murder, or violent assault (including rape) over a given decade. The statistic repeated over and over is that 1 in 3 young black men are entangled with the justice system at any given time.

Look at the Wikipedia article "Statistics of incarceration of African-American males" for some really hair-raising figures:

1 in 3 black men will be sent to prison in their lifetime.

In 2014, 1 in 16 black men between the ages 30-39 were in prison.

And those are just the men who got caught. A third of murders in America go unsolved.

By the way, you're not the only liberal posting comments here. I'm a liberal. Closing the borders to mass immigration had long been a liberal position. The NAACP, the trade unions, and commonsense liberals in general understood the devastation of mass immigration on the poorest members of society. Bernie Sanders said the unemployment rate of young black men with high school diplomas is 51 percent! That those so-called liberal groups -- including Sanders -- now have aligned themselves solidly with the plutocrats and the GOP establishment on mass immigration has been a sickening development for me and, given Trump's amazing success, for many others too.

Mark Caplan said...

Liberals supposedly care about the environment, endangered species and global warming. Obviously rapid U.S. population growth fueled by mass immigration is devastating to all areas of the environment.

John Craig said...

Mark --
The Sierra Club used to make that point until George Soros bought them off by making a big contribution contingent on them shutting up about immigration.

Conatus said...

One thing I would mention is Blacks awareness of tone of voice and body language.
It is my experience they are hyper-aware of these two elements of communication, whereas while you talk to Whites, they are thinking in the abstract but while you talk to Blacks, they are measuring your body stance for relaxation and aggressiveness and also calculating whether your tone of voice corroborates your body's language. They put a lot more mental energy into these aspects of human interaction because a higher incidence of their communications can turn on a dime and pivot from friendly to deadly.
You got to read the moves brother.

Steven said...


'I was just doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation to get within an order of magnitude of the right figure.'


btw I'm not actually that liberal in the way it is currently understood. I would like strong external border control for Europe, my own continent. I'm wary of Islam; highly critical of feminism. I'm into hbd. I'm anti-drugs and anti-prostitution, whether they are legal or not. I'm pretty radically anti-abortion. I'm pro marriage and family values, tho accepting of gay marriage. (I probably have more of an affinity with the religious part of the republican party than John does). I'm anti-communist and firmly on America's side in the cold war (retrospectively). I favour lower taxes but am interested in workplace democracy/cooperativism and want a firm but compassionate social safety net. Economically I'm more left but above all a pragmatist, while socially more conservative. I'd probably vote democrat against Trump but wouldn't rule out voting Republican other times, so I guess I'd call my self an independent if American.

Dave Moriarty said...

Hi John,
The inhibition quotient prompted thinking about dancing. White guys need to be told to dance as if no one is watching -as in do not be inhibited by anyone viewing one's dancing. No need to tell black guys to dance without inhibition so I concur with your view. Whether somebody is watching or not I am not much of a dancer but I can identify inhibition as probable contributor to that status. No rhythm might be a bigger part though.

very good read

John Craig said...

Dave --
Thank you very much.

I'd never heard that before about white guys needing to be told to dance as info one is watching, but it's good advice.

Anonymous said...

I grew up in the states and agree with the poster that black Americans dance without inhibition. Then a couple of years ago I travelled 6 months through East Africa. The East Africans dance “woodenly” – comparable to white guys at a high school prom. Plus many of them need a couple of drinks before they would even start to dance. From what I heard from other travellers – it’s the West Africans who are more the uninhibited “party” types – basically more lively in general. As far as I know – most of the African Americans came from West Africa.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Interesting about the East Africans' dancing. I've heard in the past that East Africans in general tend to think of West Africans as "crazy."

Yes, all of the slaves who were transported to the New World came from West Africa. They tend to be much more muscular the the thinner East Africans.

Andong Arikpombang said...

Very intelligent work here. I can't doubt anything written here by you, John Craig. But Steven said something, about trying to point to his feelings that African Americans to some extent put on a different attitude as compared to what is obtainable among Africans but good to know he acknowledged yet the similarities that do exist. It's really an intelligent and as well, a carefully observed analysis. The difference between African Americans and Africans is only prompted by the laws of the societies in which each of these find themselves. You still have ample similarities only because the laws and or environment has helped in shaping a little of the other part of them to be different. Is it celebrating to bankruptcy, it is all over here in Africa, approaching women or strangers, and all of that.

I really got my way here because I'm writing a book titled: "GOODBYE TO THE OLD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: At Last All Races Are Equal," and I must really appreciate this work because I have been searching for materials in hard copy to aid one of the chapters of my book (HOW ARE WHITES DIFFERENT FROM BLACKS). Even though I already have my own generic opinion and styles about this chapter, I still appreciate your analytical breakdown. And probably, I may need an adaptation of a part of your work or just brief quotes with reference depending how you may please.

I will be pleased if we may talk through my email.

More power to your elbow.

Andong Arikpombang.

John Craig said...

Mr. Arkipombang --
Thank you.

If you send me your address via a comment I'll send you an email. (And I won't publish your address.)

sestamibi said...

Re "warmth"

Yes, I emphatically agree, despite my own racial skepticism. I worked for a large company for twelve years and can honestly say that the blacks I worked with were a hell of a lot nicer and more honest with me than most of my back-stabbing white colleagues.

I recall starting my career back in the mid-70s and working with a black recruiter at the state employment office in my Midwest city. He took me under his wing, and followed up periodically even after he placed me in my first job.

John Craig said...

Sestamibi --
Yes, IF blacks are friendly, then it's far more likely to be genuine. Whites are far less likely to mug you, but also far more likely to speak with a forked tongue.

Anonymous said...

From your perspective your inhibition is good. That is a cultural bias. Second you're making sweeping generalizations based on your observations. People tend to have confirmation bias, e.g., they tend to see things that reinforce their beliefs. All of these so-called problems you are mentioning focus on pathologizing the behavior (there's something wrong). What you are really saying is the the white way/response is superior. In fact, different cultures communicate and behave in different ways, there is no superior/inferior. Ascribing superior and inferior to aspects of a certain race is by nature racist. So the problem here is not Black behavior, but the fact that you need to compare and make a value judgement.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Your comment is such a perfect example of liberal thinking and arguing style that I made a post out of it: