Search Box

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Blacks less poisonous

It  seems to me that in my lifetime I've met plenty of whites who are brimming over with hostility and resentment, and full of schadenfreude, while at the same time making an effort to appear the opposite. They actively root for -- and sometimes facilitate -- others' downfalls, while simultaneously wanting a reputation for being good people.

You've undoubtedly met people like this, the type who seem to always be able to find a reason to hate somebody. They'll even hate people they barely know, simply because they're jealous of them for some reason.

One racial difference I've noticed is that you simply don't meet black people like this. I'm not saying black sociopaths don't exist. There are black serial killers, and people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in public life. But I honestly can't think of a single black I've ever known personally who was just constantly filled with poison.

For whatever reason, far fewer of them are just constantly full of malice. I knew one, in high school, who lied to her friend about me and told her I had said bad thing about her when I hadn't. But even that girl never struck me as all that evil. And I've never met a black who was into humiliating others the same way certain whites do. Which is probably I've never personally known one I'd like to see dead -- something I can't say about whites.

Obviously, blacks commit more violent crime. But it seems to be more a matter of low impulse control. And while racial politics, best exemplified by the BLM movement, may be poisonous, the vast majority of blacks I've had personal contact with have been more congenial, and lighthearted. They simply seem to be friendlier and more easy-going by nature.

Blacks are responsible for the majority of shooting deaths in this country; but you never seem to hear of one who slowly poisons her husbands to death. Or of long term Hatfield-McCoy style vendettas. Black murders tend to be more spur of the moment affairs.

Anyway, I'm the first to point out racial differences in IQ, I ought to also point out that blacks generally aren't the type to bitterly nurse a grudge forever and ever.

Update, 7/8/16: not a very timely post, I guess. 

16 comments:

Rifleman said...

And while racial politics, best exemplified by the BLM movement, may be poisonous,

And what percentage of BLM creeps are mixed race, generally with White mothers. Seems to be a high percentage of those and also gay.

Notice how many bitter blacks look clearly mixed in ancestry if not first generation. Eric Holder and others.

Maybe some not so helpful White genes in the mix.

I've lived in some significantly black areas in medium sized east coast cities, incl poor areas and I have lived in moderate to upscale White west coast areas and overall the White areas were cleaner, safer, prettier and filled with FAR more irritating people.

Also, you need to get Colin Quinn's book The Coloring Book about race, ethnicity and his years in New York city growing up.

I ought to also point out that blacks generally aren't the type to bitterly nurse a grudge forever and ever.

It might be related to physical coordination. Maybe dorky, more physically uncoordinated White people have traits - can't dance, no sense of humor, bad timing, etc - related to being "up in their head" and not coordinated with the world around them.

Might be related to the "nerd rage" I have seen among people on the autism spectrum/aspergers. It seems related. Not that the more unappealing White individuals have aspergers but that there is some underlying link involving lack of real world "coordination" which does require some amount of "forgive and forget" tendencies.

Maybe related to OCD issues as well.

Some people with biomed/psyche training should make a study of this.

Not that they would ever get funding or academic approval.LOL.

John Craig said...

Rifleman --
A lot of interesting thoughts there. Coincidentally, I was just having a conversation with someone recently, and relating the story of how, a few months ago when Biden was still thinking about tossing his hat in the ring, the rumor was that Obama was going to withhold his endorsement unless Biden agreed to take on Deval Patrick (the light-skinned black Governor of Massachusetts) as his Vice Presidential running mate. The guy I was speaking to shook his head and said, "You know, I've known a fair number of blacks, and I swear, I've liked every single dark-skinned one I've ever met. Why is it that so many of the ones with a significant percentage of white blood are just intolerable?"

I've heard that the BLM movement is filled with gays; I hadn't realize that a lot of them are light-skinned, though that also makes sense. There's a definite dynamic within the community whereby light-skinned blacks like Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama feel obliged to "prove their blackness" in a way that dark-skinned blacks never do. So, you get…..Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama.

No question, dorkiness is a white thing. And OCD tends to be a white thing as well. Of course, without those, you tend not to get the Nicola Tesla's and Michelangelo's and Thomas Edison's or Isaac Newton's of the world. None of those guys were socially normal, but without them, science would not have moved forward the same way.

And I'm not even making Asians part of this discussion; a higher percentage of them seem to have a sort of low level Aspergers thing going on as part of their personality, though you meet very few of them who have full blown Aspergers. Asians, now that I think of it, are all sort of the Toyota Camry's of humanity: above average, efficient, and economical, but the model doesn't seem to ever vary all that much. (I say this as someone who's half-Asian.)

C'mon, you don't think the Obama administration would want to do a study of all these differences?

Anonymous said...

Good post and interesting comments, thought provoking.

- Susan

John Craig said...

Susan --
Thank you. I liked Rifleman's comment too.

Anonymous said...

I find all comments to be true regarding Blacks, Whites, and Asians. Again, my thinking has been expanded.

- Susan

Anonymous said...

The simple drilldown: Blacks are like small children, in adult bodies.

A child can hate you one minute and love you the next. Deep seated grudges and animosities are the stuff of those with long time horizons, and blacks live in the moment. They "hate whitey" to the extent that is the popular and expected thing for them to do, as they learn from the media, their peers at the time and the black institutions that shape them. But it isn't strategic, it's ad hoc and situational.

The South had it pretty well figured out between Reconstruction and the civil 'rights' era. They left the blacks largely alone and let them do as well as they could while controlling their baser urges and kept them from being provoked most of the time. Civil rights agitators were hated-and accurately-for the oft-repeated crime of "agitating the n*****s", as any reading of the contemporary press will reveal.

Mark Caplan said...

Psychological surveys have long shown that blacks have higher self-esteem and are less stressed out than whites. Imagine how happy they'd if they didn't have to confront on a daily basis institutionalized racism, a sh*t-storm of microaggressions, and an honorary Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan running for president on a major ticket.

A sickening 57% of black women are clinically obese; 82% are either obese or overweight (2011 data). Yet those figures don't even put a dimple into the high self-esteem of black women. Somebody needs to check out what these people are smoking.

"Less Stress, Higher Self-Esteem"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-omero/stress-levels-poll_b_1231444.html

John Craig said...

Mark --
Yes, I remember how for a while the psychologists made a big deal out of the fact that in one experiment young black girls chose white dolls over back dolls, and this was supposed to mean that blacks had lower self-esteem. But then there were several studies done directly about self-esteem, and blacks always scored higher than whites.

All the stuff whites have to remind themselves of constantly, like "Don't sweat the small stuff," seems to come more naturally to blacks. I mentioned this in the post I wrote back in March, about the biggest difference between the races being the level of inhibitions. Whites have expressions like "Carpe Diem," seize the day, but they in fact spend their lives living in the future or the past. Blacks seem to actually be able to live in the moment much better. They don't have to remind themselves to do that.

No question about the self-esteem. Just look at the difference in behavior when athletes are interviewed after a victory. Blacks are far more likely to say either (A) something religious, like thank the Lord, or Praise be to Jesus, or (B), something egotistical, about how good they are. Whites, on the other hand, will generally just say whatever it is they figure they're expected to say at the moment. One thing I'll add about that, at least the blacks are more genuine.

Rona said...

John,
very interesting post about some of the good qualities blacks have more than whites. I like reading this kind of honest observations about ethnic groups.

Would love to read your impression about Asians in the US, how they view whites, blacks, and mestizos, and especially how they feel about their own ethnic group vs. other Asians, given that different ethnic groups in Asia often see each other as enemies, or, in some way, inferior.

"I mentioned this in the post I wrote back in March, about the biggest difference between the races being the level of inhibitions. "

Yes, I think lack of inhibition (within reason) makes for a happier life. One dares to try things and not worry that much if occasionally they don't work out. No wonder blacks are the race least likely to commit suicide. They aren't neurotic and obsessive and have a more natural, easy-going approach to life.

Interesting essay by J. Taylor about black people:

http://www.unz.com/article/what-i-like-about-blacks/

John Craig said...

Rona --
Thank you.

I'm actually the "half-Asian friend" that Jared mentions at the beginning of that article, and I actually made some suggestions about the article before he published it, though he didn't take all of my suggestions.

I actually can't speak with any authority about Asian attitudes in this country; I don't really hang out with any, and I'd only be able to relate my weird half-Asian experiences, most of which would not reflect any sort of mainstream Asian experience or viewpoints. For one thing, I don't really look that Asian -- I look more vaguely ethnic, or Hispanic, or Mediterranean of some sort -- and l although I spent three years in Japan while growing up, and Japanese was my first language, I've never really had the Asian-American experience.

Plus, somehow, Asians are not only the model minority in this country, but also the invisible minority (along with Amerindian Hispanics), and most of the discussion of race in the public sphere is about the black-white fault line. (And thus, most of the lies in the public sphere are about the differences between those races; and what I react to most strongly is lies, especially obvious ones.)

I did write a post about "Asian-itis" way back in January of '09:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2009/01/asian-itis.html

You're right about the intra-Asian rivalries. And I get the sense that some of the Old World rivalries have found their way to this country, although on a much more muted basis. But anyway, if some insight about Asians occurs to me, I'll blog about it, but the average Asian-American knows more their attitudes towards the other races than I do. (Though most of them would be far too polite to be blunt about it the way I am.) Actually, though, you just reminded me of something I meant to write about: why Asians, although they average higher IQ's than whites, never had any of the great scientists of seminal thinkers the way that whites did. (A higher, narrower bell curve, in my opinion.) I'll write about that at some point.

High Arka said...

John,

Your perspective is probably correct among middle- or upper-income groups with a low and by-choice exposure. Two things to take note of: firstly, when a certain group numerically dominates an area, that preponderance affects behavior. Africans feel more in control of an area when there are mostly Africans there, so you'll encounter different behavior from Afro employees working at a majority-Euro (or -Mongol) company than you will from Afro residents in a majority-Afro neighborhood. E.g., driving through East SL.

Secondly, the power differential matters. When you're in situations where you're a colleague, acquaintance, passer-by, et cetera, you experience a person differently than when you're a rival, subordinate, et cetera. To offer anecdotal evidence from watching young folk, I've seen really friendly, respectful blacks chumming it up with whites and being, on the whole, less objectionable than the average white person in a workplace situation. If you rewound time a few years, though, and put those same people back in high school or middle school, you'd see hellish prison-style behavior from the same blacks toward the same whites. Seems to work the same with other ethnic majorities (planetwide), too--aside from physically small members of some groups, e.g. the average Filipino, students who are not wholly European or northeast Asian (who are called "minorities" in the U.S.) seem to become violently territorial when placed in a situation where (1) there are large numbers of them, even if not a majority, and (2) there aren't strongly established social hierarchies.

Once in adulthood, in a dwindling number of regions, economic divisions and what remains of a social hierarchy seem to repress this effect, and yes, some blacks in certain areas are a jovial relief compared to the white social-climbers. Outside of that bubble, it's like middle school with guns and brass knuckles--which, for the unlucky ones living outside those bubbles, is middle school anyway.

John Craig said...

High Arka --
You're right. I've driven through East St. Louis, btw, and certainly didn't feel like getting out of my car.

I've heard that 40% in a high school is generally the tipping point, where once blacks reach that percentage, they'll basically take over a high school and just run roughshod over the whites. And it's true, I currently live in an area which is less than 1% black, and any blacks who are willing to live in an area like this are going to be disposed toward being friendly to whites in the first place.

I suppose I was talking about the ones who are "a jovial relief compared to the white social-climbers." But, with those, there does seem to b a difference in nature: they are simply more relaxed, and less full of malice, than whites tend to be. I will say that I've met plenty of blacks outside the bubble who are also relaxed and congenial. Then again, I never venture into the inner city.

Also, I personally occupy a sort of weird space. Although I'm a half-Anglo, half-Japanese race realist, as I said in my reply to Rona above, I look vaguely Hispanic. I'm also fairly athletic, and still look both younger than I am, and tougher than I am. So I suspect that when blacks see me, they see someone with whom they have more in common than if I was, say, blond, freckled, and jowly. So they are probably friendlier to me as a result.

Rona said...

I just read your "Asian-itis" post and it's one of the funniest on the blog. Especially the part about your daughter and her Japanese cousins.

I knew that northeast Asians have higher mean IQ but didn't know about steeper distribution and narrower tails. It's thought provoking to see how differences in distribution of two population groups with high IQs can lead to very dissimilar societies. It's sort of how India has a national IQ of 82 but because of caste system that created a separate society with no out group marriage and sheer numbers of people it has, was able to create advanced cities as well as scientific infrastructure, nuclear weapons and has long complex religious tradition.

Of course a person of low to average intelligence is much better of living in Japan than in India. Then again, he's better of being dirt poor in India than poor and abused in 82 IQ Zimbabwe.

In addition to different IQ distribution in Asians and Europeans, and to culture that promotes conformity vs. individualism, there are innate differences in temperament and personality. This would also mean that culture is not something seperate that can be transplanted to other races, but is organic and develops out of inborn characteristics.

See this study and video at second link. I imagine that when egalitarians watch it they want to tear their hair out.

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/dan-freedmans-babies/

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/dan-freedmans-babies-part-deux/

John Craig said...

Rona --
Fascinating; that's the first I'd ever heard of those studies. And I agree, culture is very much an outgrowth of temperament and personality. All of this is actually fairly obvious to anybody who wants to look at it with an even gaze; but we've all been brainwashed into thinking that we're all the same, it's just the "color of our skin," etc.

I haven't seen actual figures on the higher, narrower distribution among Asians, though I have heard it, and it makes sense.

I'd never heard that about India, though I remember being surprised in the past when seeing their national average IQ. The Indians who come here seem to do very well in school, in terms of getting advanced degrees, in the Westinghouse Science Fair, etc. And it's usually the lower classes (in this case, I would guess castes) of a country who are more predisposed to emigrate.

Rona said...

I'd never heard that about India, though I remember being surprised in the past when seeing their national average IQ. The Indians who come here seem to do very well in school, in terms of getting advanced degrees, in the Westinghouse Science Fair, etc. And it's usually the lower classes (in this case, I would guess castes) of a country who are more predisposed to emigrate.


Yes, India seems to be a sea of poverty and backwardness with a considerable population at the top that is smart, capable and able to run civilized country. For whatever reason, it is these high IQ Indians that emigrate to USA rather than the poor. Maybe it is because it's harder to pack up your life and leave for the unknown if you are without skills and don't speak the language than if you're educated and come sponsored by university or employer.

It is also easier to emigrate to a country that shares a land border, like Mexico, than one oversees.

This was also true, until recently, about African immigration to US. Many were educated and came from relatively successful families in Africa and often looked down upon American blacks. This is now changing with importation of refugees but went on since 1965.

It is another way for liberals to screw up peoples who they supposedly care about and want to see do well. Is there anything worse for a nation than siphoning the most intelligent and productive while subsidizing the worst elements of society via foreign aid allowing them to reproduce to uncontrollable numbers.

Liberals effectively ensure that each new generation of Africans is less intelligent, more violent and grows up in more corrupt society with ever smaller productive class that could take charge of the nation and improve things for everyone.

They are simultaneously destroying the third world and the first. But they get to feel good about themselves so I'm sure it's worth it.

John Craig said...

Rona --
Ha, yes, that's the important thing, that liberals feel good about themselves.

You're absolutely right about the population problem, and the current dysgenic effect liberals encourage. We have some dysgenic trends going on in the US right now, but our problems are going to be nothing compared to what's going to happen in Africa .