"IMMA FAMILIA GORILLA!" - U.N.L.V.
GANG MEMBERS, JUVENILE DELINQUENTS, AND OTHER CRIMINALLY MINDED DEVIANTS, READ THIS ENTIRE POST BELOW. TEACHERS, I'LL GIVE YOU A POST TO READ LATER. HERE IT IS, TEACHERS: http://veryayshun.blogspot.com/2012/06/im-going-to-elaborate-on-two-posts_14.html (SCROLL TO THE THE BOTTOM OF THE PAIGE AND START READING WHEN YOU FIND THE TITLE GROUPNESS I THE CLASSROOM.)
"Use To Call Us Monkeys My Youngins Turn Into Gorillas" - A.theltic D.irector (AD)
The victims
were members of a new group, the Kahama community, which had split apart from
the larger one, the Kasakela community, after many years of close association.
For a while the members of the two communities continued to interact from time
to time on a friendly basis, but eventually that ceased and they began to avoid
each other and, if they met by chance (they occupied adjacent and somewhat
overlapping territories), to put on a display of belligerence.
About a year
after the members of the two groups stopped being friendly, the first of a
series of attacks was launched by the Kasakela community against the upstart
Kahamans. It began when a party of eight Kasakela chimpanzees headed southward
toward Kahaman territory, moving quickly and silently through the trees. (Chimpanzees
are ordinarily very noisy.)
Suddenly they came upon Godi [a Kahaman], who was feeding in a tree. He leaped down and fled. Humphrey, Jomeo, and Figan [all Kasakelans] were close on his heels, running three abreast; the others followed. Humphrey grabbed Godi's leg, pulled him to the ground, then sat on his head and held his legs with both hands, pinning him to the ground. Humphrey remained in this position while the other males attacked, so that Godi had no chance to escape or defend himself.18
After
hurling a large rock at the badly wounded chimpanzee, the Kasakelans went home.
Godi was never seen again and presumably died of his injuries.
In the same
fashion, giving the same impression of malice aforethought, the Kasakela
chimpanzees picked off the other Kahamans one by one. Juveniles and adult
females were not spared. Only young nubile females were allowed to live, and
they were recruited into the Kasakela community. I am reminded of the story of
Joshua in the Old Testament. When he and his troops overran the city of
Jericho, they killed every man, woman, and child, sparing only Rahab the
harlot.19
“There is no such thing as an instinct to make war,” said Ashley Montagu in 1976. 20 The word war was in disrepute at the time—people were being exhorted to make love instead, as though the two were incompatible—but the word that Montagu really hated was instinct. Now, after a long period of being out of fashion, that word is making a comeback. The psycholinguist Steven Pinker even used it in the title of his excellent book The Language Instinct.2' Perhaps it is possible to again consider* the hypothesis that humans have an instinct for making war and that we inherited it from our primate ancestors.
Jane Goodall considers that hypothesis very seriously and, though she doesn’t put it in exactly those words—she uses “preadaptation” instead of “instinct”—she clearly considers it tenable. She points out that chimpanzees have all the “preadaptations” necessary to permit the emergence of war, including group living, territoriality, hunting skills, and an aversion to strangers. Moreover, she says, male chimpanzees are strongly attracted to scenes of intergroup violence—they appear to be “inherently disposed to find aggression attractive, particularly aggression directed against neighbors.”22 Goodall believes that such traits might form a biological basis underlying the more sophisticated forms of warfare practiced by our own species. As Jericho is to Hiroshima, Kahama is to Jericho.
Some
theorists get hung up on the apparent contradiction between humans as killer
apes and humans as party animals. Charles Darwin, for one, was not bothered by
it:
Every one will admit that man is a social being. We see this in his dislike of solitude, and in his wish for society beyond that of his own family. Solitary confinement is one of the severest punishments which can be inflicted. ... It is no argument against savage man being a social animal, that the tribes inhabiting adjacent districts are almost always at war with each other; for the social instincts never extend to all the individuals of the same species.23
No, never to
all the individuals of one’s species—only to the members of one’s
own troop, tribe, community, nation, or ethnic group. The commandment “Thou
shalt not kill,” fresh from Mount Sinai, did not hinder Joshua in his wholesale
slaughter of the inhabitants of Jericho, Ai, Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, and
Eglon. The idea that God might prohibit him from killing them never
crossed his mind.
History
records many such wars, from Jericho and Troy to Bosnia and Rwanda, and
archeological evidence proves that waging war and slaughtering our enemies are
things we knew how to do long before we learned how to leave written records of
our victories. War between groups, says evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond,
“has been part of our human and prehuman heritage for millions of years.”24
Had Ngogo meeting in ATL last night & found ourselves walking in familiar formation on way back to hotel #onpatrol
Primatologist
Richard Wrangham agrees. He believes our species is descended from a primate
ancestor that looked and behaved a lot like the modern chimpanzee (which is
descended from the same ancestor). From this common ancestor, the chimp and the
human inherited their similar lifestyles. Both species live (or used to live)
in communities defended by coalitions of males that were born there; the females
traditionally transfer to a different community when they reach reproductive
age. And in both species the coalitions of males not only defend their
territory but also launch offensive attacks on neighboring communities. The
pattern of attacking one’s neighbors may have begun as a drive for more
territory or more females, but once it got going it became self-perpetuating
and the original motive became unimportant. Once it got going, there was a new
and better motive for killing one’s neighbors: let’s kill them before they can
kill us.25
-
In large evolutionary analysis, humans are violent mammals, but on par with primates.
CARTAUCSD
"Now YO Monkey Ass Is Mine!" - Pacman (CRIP)
Six million
years of evolution divides us from that chimpanzee-like ancestor, and all
during that six million years—all but the last little bit of it—we lived in
much the same way. We lived in smallish communities composed of our close
relatives (in the case of males) or our mate’s relatives (in the case of
females). We depended on the other members of our group for protection; we
weren’t designed to live alone. When meat was available—and our appetite for
meat soon overtook our appetite for veggies—it was probably shared among the
members of the group. And all during those six million years we fought with our
neighbors. Successful communities increased in size, split in two, and sooner
or later the two halves would go to war against each other. Sometimes one
succeeded in wiping out the other. “Of all our human hallmarks,” says Jared
Diamond, “the one that has been derived most straightforwardly from animal
precursors is genocide.”26
But we are
not only killer apes: we are nice guys, too. Darwin pointed out that “A savage
will risk his own life to save that of a member of the same community.”27 If
the savage risks his life and loses it, he has suddenly become, in Darwinian
terms, unfit; therefore an explanation of his behavior is called for. The
explanation is that the man who gives up his life to save his group may thereby
be preserving the lives of his brothers, sisters, and children—people with whom
he shares 50 percent of his genes. If we define fitness in terms of the
successfulness of genes in propagating themselves, rather than the
successfulness of individuals in living to a ripe old age, altruism toward
one’s close relatives makes sense.28
You may have
heard this referred to as the “selfish gene” theory, and perhaps it gave you
the idea that the products of evolution are bound to be selfish. Occasionally
it has had that unfortunate effect even on its promulgators. “Be warned,”
declared the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, “that if you wish, as I
do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and
unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological
nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we
are born selfish.”29 But selfish genes do not imply selfish organisms: a gene
can be perfectly selfish and yet contain the instructions for building a
perfect altruist, if that’s what it took to succeed under the conditions the
gene evolved in.
Clearly, we
are not perfect altruists, any more than we are perfect killer apes. In fact we
are a little of each, and that is why writers like Ashley Montagu can see us as
flower children while writers like Richard Wrangham see us as born to kill. It
all depends on whether you look at our behavior toward the members of our own
group or our behavior toward the members of other groups. We are born to be
nice to our groupmates because for millions of years our lives and the lives of
our children depended on them. And we are born to be hostile toward the members
of other groups, because six million years of history taught us to beware of
them.
In the thick
of battle, our groupmates were our allies, our comrades in arms. Between
battles we competed with them for food and for access to desirable mates. But
in good times and bad we cooperated with them—call it altruism if you
will—because cooperation had long-term survival value. I will help you today if
you will help me tomorrow. Such a system tends to give rise to cheaters—those
who take and do not give in return. But minds are good for other things than
making tools and weapons. Over the millennia, we learned how to watch out for
cheaters. Eventually we also learned how to warn our friends against them.
Meanwhile the cheaters were getting smarter, too. While we were evolving ways
to detect cheaters, the cheaters were evolving ways to outwit our
cheater-detectors. That led, in turn, to the evolution of ways to detect
cheater-detector outwitters.30 A “cognitive arms race,” some have called it.
But cheaters
were a minor threat. A graver danger lay on the other side of the hill, where
the enemy was assembling its forces. In the words of Jane Goodall,
The early practice of warfare would have put considerable selective pressure on the development of intelligence and of increasingly sophisticated cooperation among group members. This process would escalate, for the greater the intelligence, cooperation, and courage of one group, the greater the demands placed on its enemies.31
When the
smoke cleared over Jericho, the cheaters were as dead as the sharers. The
cowards were as dead as the fighters. Evolution gives the prize to the winners
of such wars. Much as we might deplore their tactics, they are the ones who
became our ancestors.
...
That left us
the victors, the sole hominid to make the cut. Our only surviving close relatives
are the gorilla, the chimpanzee, and the bonobo (or “pygmy chimpanzee”), all
restricted to small ranges in remote parts of Africa, and the orangutan, found
only on the islands of Borneo and Sumatra. All the others are gone. Over a
relatively short period of time—around six million years—we went from being
apes to being humans, and behind us we left a trail of dust and ashes. We took
no prisoners.
Let me tell
you how I think it happened. It began when a community of apes got too large
and split in two. The two daughter communities (as biologists call them) were
now occupying neighboring territories and sooner or later hostility broke out
between them. In fact, hostility may have preceded the break and led to its
occurrence.
When human
groups split up, the chances are good that the daughter groups will become
enemies, if they aren’t already. As an anthropologist observed, “A village’s
mortal enemy is the group from which it has recently split.”36 There may be
occasional truces for the purposes of trade or matchmaking, but the smallest
misunderstanding will set them off and they’ll be at each other’s throats
again. Groups don’t need a reason to hate other groups: just the fact that
they’re them and we’re us is usually enough. And
just in case it isn’t, there’s always territory to fight about. Joshua wiped
out all those cities because, he said, God had promised his people the land.
But it wasn’t merely a land-clearing expedition: there was hatred, too. The king
of each conquered city was captured and hanged from a tree, after (at least in
some cases) being roughed up.37
Hunter-gatherer
societies are reputed to be peaceful and nomadic, with no territory to fight
over and no desire to fight. But according to ethologist Irenaus
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, that is just another flower-power myth. He reports that the
large majority of surviving hunter-gatherer groups are neither peaceful nor
lacking in territoriality. It is true that a few groups have given up war
(perhaps because they no longer have any territory worth fighting over), but of
ninety- nine hunter-gatherer groups that have been studied, “Not a single group
was claimed to have never known war.”38
We hate what
we fear because we don’t like being afraid. As Eibl-Eibesfeldt points out,
human babies in all societies start becoming afraid of strangers when they’re
about six months old. By then, in a typical hunter-gatherer or small village
society, they have usually had a chance to meet all the members of their community,
so a stranger is valid cause for concern. What is he here for? Does he want to
steal me? Make me a slave? Maybe even eat me? The baby watches its mother for
clues; if she seems to think the stranger is okay, the baby is reassured.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt calls the baby’s reaction to strangers “childhood xenophobia”
and considers it the first sign of a built-in predisposition to see the world
in terms of us versus them,39
Ed West
tribalism is strange
"Planet Of The Apes" - Coon (The Con Federation)
Many people
believe that children have to be taught how to hate. Eibl- Eibesfeldt doesn’t
think so and neither do I. Hating the members of other groups is part of human
(and chimpanzee) nature—the most repugnant part. What children have to be
taught is how not to hate. We are not born selfish but we are
born xenophobic.
…
Six million
years have gone by since our ancestors parted company with the ancestors of the
chimpanzee. We spent most of that time on the ground, not in the trees. We
spent it getting along with the members of our own group and fighting with the
members of other groups. We spent it honing our ability to detect cheaters and
honing our ability to outwit cheater-detectors.
We lived,
for most of that time, in small groups of hunters and gatherers. When a group
was successful it got bigger, split in two, and then the more successful of the
daughter groups outfought or outcompeted the less successful one. That happened
over and over again.
What those six million years of evolution bought us was a giant brain—a mixed blessing. It is a prodigious user of energy, makes childbirth risky, and pins down our infants for the better part of a year like a ball and chain. Its fragility and size make it an inviting target whenever push comes to shove.
But consider its advantages. Jane Goodall’s chimpanzees had to pick off the
members of the neighboring community one by one, but Joshua could slaughter the
inhabitants of entire cities in one fell swoop. That was not easy, since most
of the cities were walled. The trick with the trumpets worked only once, at
Jericho. Joshua had to breach the walls of the other cities without the aid of
heavenly intervention. At Ai, he used guile. He sent a small force to attack
the city and a much larger force to wait in ambush in a hidden spot. The small
force attacked and then retreated, and the people of Ai chased after it,
believing that they had defeated their enemies and now had only to administer
the coup de grace. They left the city open and unguarded behind them and ran
straight into Joshuas ambush.46
Guile is one of the things were good at, and this brings us back to the theory of mind. Joshua was able to guess what the citizens of Ai would do because he could imagine their thought processes. He knew they could be deceived and he was able to think up a complex plan for deceiving them. Another crucial asset was his ability to communicate his plan to his generals.
Of course, the fact that he also commanded a very large army didn’t hurt his cause. But that, too, was a kind of cognitive achievement.47 For the members of a chimpanzee community, us includes only individuals that are recognized. An unfamiliar individual is automatically considered one of them. By Joshua’s time, human groups had gotten so large that not everyone in them knew everyone else—the group had become a concept, an idea. When Joshua met a stranger outside the walls of Jericho, he had to ask him, “Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?”—are you one of us or one of them?48 The ability to form groups larger than one’s adversaries is a cognitive advance with obvious payoffs. One wonders what the outcome would have been if Jericho, Ai, Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, and Eglon had been able to join together against Joshua. But there was a reason why those cities had walls around them: it was to guard the citizens of each of them against the others.
Although
chimpanzees cannot make the cognitive leap involved in considering a stranger
one of us, many of our other abilities exist, in embryonic form,
in that species. Even guile. Jane Goodall witnessed a number of occasions in
which chimpanzees used deception to get something they wanted. There was, for
instance, the incident of Figan and the banana. During Goodall’s first few
years in Tanzania, she used to put out boxes of bananas to attract chimpanzees.
Usually the high-ranking males would eat most of them. To enable the females
and younger males to get their share, she would hide some bananas in the trees.
One day a young chimpanzee named Figan spotted a banana hanging in a tree
directly above a high-ranking male. If Figan had reached for it, the big male would
have taken it away from him. Instead, Figan moved to a spot where he couldn’t
see the banana and waited. As soon as the big male moved away, Figan retrieved
the banana. By sitting in a spot where he couldn’t see the object of his
desire, he made sure he wouldn’t give away the secret with his eyes.49
.jpg)
.jpg)
"GORILLA MILK" - MOSSIE NISSAN
.jpg)
.jpg)
"I HAD TO TAME MY CHIMP" - MARVIN'S FRIEND
"HO TAMIN' NIGGA KEEP MA BITCH ON A LEASH" - LILO
"HO TAMIN' NIGGA KEEP MA BITCH ON A LEASH" - LILO
"They Letta Gorilla On The Loose...I Had To Tame Myself" - Mr. Free Ackrite From Tha Norf
Criminal
Behavior
How would
you go about making a child into a thief? Fagin, of Charles Dickens’ Oliver
Twist, could have told Watson a thing or two. Take four or five hungry
boys, make them into an us, give them a pep talk and a course in
pocket-picking, and sic ’em on them, the rich folk. It’s
intergroup warfare, a tradition of our species, and the potential for it can be
found in almost any normal human, particularly those of the male variety. Your
schoolboy with his shining morning face is but a warrior in thin disguise.
But Fagin’s
method, which had worked flawlessly on the London slum children who were his
other pupils, didn’t work on Oliver. Dickens seemed to think it was because
Oliver was born good, but there is another possibility: Oliver didn’t identify
with the other boys in Fagin’s ring. They were Londoners and he was not. They
spoke in a thieves’ argot that was almost a foreign language to him. There were
too many differences, and Oliver’s run-in with the law came too soon to allow
him to adapt to his new companions.7
Oliver
Twist was published in 1838, a time when it was still politically
correct to believe that people could be born good or born bad—when it was still
politically correct, in fact, to believe that badness could be predicted on the
basis of one’s racial or ethnic group membership. Dickens’ other name for Fagin
was “the Jew.” It was by no means the worst of times, but it was certainly not
the best of times.
Today both
the individual explanation—that certain children are born bad—and the group
explanation are held to be politically incorrect. Western culture has swung
back to the view associated with the philosopher Rousseau: that all children
are born good and it is society—their environment—that corrupts them. I’m not
sure if this is optimism or pessimism, but it leaves too much unexplained. Even
in the London slums of Dickens’ time, not every child became an Artful Dodger.
Even in the same family, one child may become a law-abiding citizen while
another pursues a career as a criminal.
Like Father, Like Son!
Though we no
longer say that some children are born bad, the facts are such, unfortunately,
that a euphemism is needed. Now psychologists say that some children are born
with “difficult” temperaments—difficult for their parents to rear, difficult to
socialize. I can list for you some of the things that make a child difficult to
rear and difficult to socialize: a tendency to be active, impulsive,
aggressive, and quick to anger; a tendency to get bored with routine activities
and to seek excitement; a tendency to be unafraid of getting hurt; an
insensitivity to the feelings of others; and, more often than not, a muscular
build and an IQ a little lower than average.8 All of these characteristics have
a significant genetic component.
Developmentalists
have described how things go wrong when a child who is difficult to manage is
born to a parent with poor management skills— something that happens, thanks to
the unfairness of nature, more often than it would if genes were dealt out
randomly to each new generation. The boy (usually it’s a boy) and his mother
(often there is no father) get into a vicious spiral in which bad leads to
worse. The mother tells the boy to do something or not to do something; he
ignores her; she tells him again; he gets mad; she gives up. Eventually she
gets mad too, and punishes him harshly, but too late and too inconsistently for
it to have any educational benefits.9 Anyway, this is a child who is not very
afraid of getting hurt—at least it relieves his boredom.
The
dysfunctional family. Oh yes, such families exist—there is no question about
it! They are no fun to visit and you wouldn’t want to live there. Even the biological
father of this child doesn’t want to live there. There’s an old joke that goes
like this:
Psychologist:
You should be kind to Johnny. He comes from a broken home.
Teacher:
I’m not surprised. Johnny could break any hoe.
Difficult
for their parents to rear, difficult to socialize. For most psychologists these
two phrases are virtually synonymous, because socialization is assumed to be
the parents’ job. For me they are two different things. It is true that there
tends to be a correlation between them, due to the fact that children take
their inherited characteristics with them wherever they go. But the correlation
is not strong, because the social context within the home, where the rearing
goes on, is very different from the social context outside the home, where the
socialization goes on. Children who are obnoxious at home are not necessarily
obnoxious outside the home.10 Johnny may be obnoxious everywhere he goes, but
fortunately such kids are uncommon.
The word socialization
is most often used to refer to the training in morality that children
are presumed to get at home. Parents are held to be responsible for teaching
their children not to steal, not to lie, not to cheat. But here again, there is
little correlation between how children behave at home and how they behave
elsewhere. Children who were observed to break rules at home when they thought
no one was looking were not noticeably more likely than anyone else to cheat on
a test at school or in a game on the playground." Morality, like other
forms of learned social behavior, is tied to the context in which it is
acquired. The Artful Dodger might have been as good as gold to his ol' mum, if
he had had one.
It’s harder
to believe that Oliver might have been a thorn in his mother’s side if she had
lived. Oliver made friends wherever he went; women fell all over him. A sweet
nature and a pretty face will do it every time. As Dickens described him,
Oliver had precisely those traits that make a child easy to deal with. He was
sensitive to the feelings of others and fearful of punishment and pain—timid,
almost. He was bright, unimpulsive, and unaggressive.12
Was Dickens
right? Are some children born good? Let us do an experiment that John Watson
would have approved of. Place in adoptive homes a bunch of infant boys whose
biological parents had been convicted (or will later be convicted) of crimes,
and a second bunch whose biological parents were, as far as anyone knows,
honest. Mix them up: place some of each bunch in homes with honest adoptive
parents and let others be reared by crooks. An unethical experiment, you say?
Well, that’s what adoption agencies do. Of course, they don’t purposely put
babies in the homes of criminals, but sometimes it works out that way, and in places
where careful records are kept both of adoptions and of criminal
convictions—Denmark, for example—it’s possible to study the results.
Researchers were able to obtain background data on over four thousand Danish
men who had been placed for adoption in infancy.13
The story is
a little different for the boys whose biological parents were criminals. Of
those who were reared by honest folk, 20 percent became criminals. And of the
small group who came up unlucky both times—criminal biological fathers and
criminal adoptive fathers—almost 25 percent went wrong. So it’s not
just heredity: it looks like the home environment does count for something
after all. Try as you might, you can’t make a criminal out of a kid like
Oliver, but a kid like the Artful Dodger can go either way. Give him to a
criminal family to raise and he is a little more likely to become a criminal.
Not so fast.
It turns out that the ability of a criminal adoptive family to produce a
criminal child—given suitable material to work with—depends on where the family
happens to live. The increase in criminality among Danish adoptees reared in
criminal homes was found only for a minority of the subjects in this study:
those who grew up in or around Copenhagen. In small towns and rural areas, an
adoptee reared in a criminal home was no more likely to become a criminal than
one reared by honest adoptive parents.14
It wasn’t
the criminal adoptive parents who made the biological son of criminals into a
criminal: it was the neighborhood in which they reared him. Neighborhoods
differ in rates of criminal behavior, and I would guess that neighborhoods with
high rates of criminal behavior are exceedingly hard to find in rural areas of
Denmark.
People
generally live in places where they share a lifestyle and a set of values with
their neighbors; this is due both to mutual influence and, especially in
cities, to birds of a feather flocking together. Children grow up with other
children who are the offspring of their parents’ friends and neighbors. These
are the children who form their peer group. This is the peer group in which
they are socialized. If their own parents are criminals, their friends’ parents
may also be inclined in that direction. The children bring to the peer group
the attitudes and behaviors they learned at home, and if these attitudes and behaviors
are similar, in all probability the peer group will retain them.
I have told
you about an adoption study of criminality; there are also twin and sibling
studies. Behavioral genetic studies of twins or siblings usually show that the
environment shared by children who grow up in the same home has little or no
effect, but we’ve come to one of the exceptions. Twins or siblings who grow up
in the same home are more likely to match in criminality—to both be criminals
or both be honest. This correlation is often attributed to the home environment
that the twins or siblings share—in other words, to the influence of the
parents. But kids who share a home also share a neighborhood and, in some
cases, a peer group. The likelihood that two siblings will match in criminality
is higher if they are the same sex and close together in age. It is higher in
twins (even if they’re not identical) than in ordinary siblings, and higher in
twins who spend a lot of time together outside the home than in those who lead
separate lives.15
The evidence
shows that the environment has an effect on criminality but it doesn’t show
that the relevant environment is the home; in fact, it suggests a different
explanation. When both twins or both siblings get into trouble, it is due to their
influence on each other and to the influence of the peer group they belong to.
nick vanexel Retweeted
Who you hang around is who you become. Who you run with determines the direction that you run!
"Cain't Hang Wit Us Gorillas Mane You Just An Orangutan!" -Nigger
In the
previous chapter I talked about Terrie Moffitt and her views on teenage
delinquency.16 Moffitt distinguishes between two types of criminal behavior:
the type that appears with the first pimple and is outgrown by the time the
last tube of Clearasil hits the trash can, and the type that lasts a lifetime.
Kids who were reasonably well-behaved in childhood and who will be reasonably
law-abiding in adulthood often go through a phase in between where they are
neither. As I said in the previous chapter, it’s a group thing: a war between
age groups. There is nothing psychologically wrong with most of these kids and
it’s not their parents’ fault. They are socialized, all right— socialized by
their peers.
Joel Francisco
That's what I tell my kids in my world history class...you are who you hang out with... And You Are What You Eat.
The lifetime
type of criminal behavior is far less common; it involves a small fraction of
the population, mostly males. Their criminal behavior begins early—Carl
McElhinney was a murderer at seven—and has the persistence of the Energizer
bunny without its charm. Career criminals tend to have high levels of the
characteristics I listed earlier: aggressiveness, lack of fear, lack of
empathy, desire for excitement. Such people turn up from time to time in every
society, even in those where their propensities are likely to lead to social ostracism
or an early death. The members of an Eskimo group in northwest Alaska told an
anthropologist that in the old days, when a man kept making trouble and nothing
seemed to stop him, somebody would quietly push him off the ice.17 He was, as
the JAMA editorialist said about Carl McElhinney, “dangerous to
the community.”
Are some
people born bad? A better way of putting it is that some people are born with
characteristics that make them poor fits for most of the honest jobs available
in most societies, and so far we haven’t learned how to deal with them. We are
at risk of becoming their victims but they are victims, too—victims of the
evolutionary history of our species. No process is perfect, not even evolution.
Evolution gave us big heads, but sometimes a baby has a head so big it can’t
fit through the birth canal. In earlier times these babies invariably died, as
did their mothers. In the same way, evolution selected for other
characteristics that sometimes overshoot their mark and become liabilities
rather than assets. Almost all the characteristics of the “born criminal” would
be, in slightly watered-down form, useful to a male in a hunter-gatherer society
and useful to his group. His lack of fear, desire for excitement, and impulsiveness
make him a formidable weapon against rival groups. His aggressiveness,
strength, and lack of compassion enable him to dominate his groupmates and give
him first shot at hunter-gatherer perks.
Unlike the
successful hunter-gatherer, however, the career criminal tends to be below
average in intelligence. I take this to be a hopeful sign: it suggests that
temperament can be overridden by reason. Those individuals born with the other
characteristics on the list but who also have above-average intelligence are
evidently smart enough to figure out that crime does not pay and to find other
ways of gratifying their desire for excitement.
THE DICKENS!
The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out The Way They Do. Harris, p. 295-300.
 |
Chimpanzees who had been taught sign language not only resorted to swearing, but also to the use of a racial slur. https://www.amazon.com/Swearing-Good-You-Emma-Byrne/dp/1781255776/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512223939&sr=1-1&keywords=Emma+Byrne …
ROGER THAT JACK! (MONKEY MOUTH NIGGER!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKwPQ-BJ0AU
GANGS IN AMERICA!
Gangs Are A Reflection Of Human Nature. Humans Are Genetically Inclined To Form Groups Based On Similarity (Similar Race, Similar Social Class, Similar Beliefs, Similar Interests, Etc.) And Once These Groups Are Formed An US VERSUS THEM Mindset Develops (Takes Root). Members Of The In-Group Distinguish Themselves From Members Of The Out-Group, Think Of Themselves As Being A Certain Way (Categorize Themselves) Based On Their Commonalities, And Believe That They're Different Than And Superior To The Out-Group. This Is Innate. Humans Have Mental Adaptations That Make Them Think And Behave This Way.
So Black Gangs Would Have Formed In LA Regardless Of What White Mobs Or The Black Panther Party Did. In Fact, Black Gangs Existed Before There Was White Mob Violence In LA (If There Ever Was) And Before The Black Panther Party Was Established. Why? Because We Evolved To Form And Be A Part Of Groups (i.e. Gangs, Cliques, Teams, Communities, Business Groups, Etc). This Is Part Of Our Genetic Makeup. We Do This Without Being Forced To. It Comes Instinctively And Automatically To Us.
Why Are There Gangs? We Have Psychological Adaptations That Predispose Us To Form And Associate With Groups (Gangs).
Therefore we divided the world into “them” and “us” based through a process of social categorization (i.e. we put people into social groups). This is known as in-group (us) and out-group (them). Social identity theory states that the in-group will discriminate against the out-group to enhance their self-image. The central hypothesis of social identity theory is that group members of an in-group will seek to find negative aspects of an out-group, thus enhancing their self-image.
VAI OH LEI SHUN
Actually, My Intelligent, Educated, Scholarly Niggas, SEX Dictates Your Behavior. SEX Motivates You To Make Money And Gain Status. Your Desire To Attract The Opposite SEX And Have SEX With The Opposite SEX Is What Ultimately Drives You. Even If You're In A Relationship With A Member Of The Opposite SEX (A Female) You're Still Motivated To Attract The Opposite SEX (Other Females Besides The One You're In A Relationship With) Even Though You May Never Act On Your Desire To Have SEX With These Other Females. In Other Words, My Niggas, You May Remain Faithful In A Monogamous Relationship, But Sexual Lust For Other Females Besides Your Current Mate Is Driving You To Accumulate Wealth And Gain Status (You're Trying To Keep Your Current Mate While Impressing Other Females At The Same Time Via Your Personality Traits, Wealth, Status, Power, Etc.).
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-iii
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-ii
"Black People Unfortunately Do Not Read!" - Kodak Scott
VAI OH LEI SHUN
Actually, My Intelligent, Educated, Scholarly Niggas, SEX Dictates Your Behavior. SEX Motivates You To Make Money And Gain Status. Your Desire To Attract The Opposite SEX And Have SEX With The Opposite SEX Is What Ultimately Drives You. Even If You're In A Relationship With A Member Of The Opposite SEX (A Female) You're Still Motivated To Attract The Opposite SEX (Other Females Besides The One You're In A Relationship With) Even Though You May Never Act On Your Desire To Have SEX With These Other Females. In Other Words, My Niggas, You May Remain Faithful In A Monogamous Relationship, But Sexual Lust For Other Females Besides Your Current Mate Is Driving You To Accumulate Wealth And Gain Status (You're Trying To Keep Your Current Mate While Impressing Other Females At The Same Time Via Your Personality Traits, Wealth, Status, Power, Etc.).
I Broke It Down A Little Further For You B-Brazy. Now, Let Mr. Kanazawa
Break It Down Even Further. (You May Get Married Or Develop A Long-Term
Relationship With A Female, But That Doesn't Mean Your Desire To Impress
Other Females Ceases To Exist, Rather, It Just Diminishes A Bit!)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-iii
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-ii
"Black People Unfortunately Do Not Read!" - Kodak Scott
SO WHAT SHOULD WE AS BLACC MENS DO TO STOP THE VIOLENCE AND INCREASE THE PEACE (REDUCE THE MURDER AND OVERALL CRIME RATE IN OUR BLACC COMMUNITIES)? CUT THE MIDDLE MAN OUT. AND WHO'S THE MIDDLE MAN? FEMALES (SEX WITH FEMALES, ESPECIALLY THE BLACC ONES). IF US NIGGAS WANNA RESTORE PEACE AND ORDER AND CIVILITY AND TRANQUILITY IN OUR COMMUNITIES WE GOTTA STOP HAVING SEX WITH FEMALES AND START HAVING SEX WITH OURSELVES BECAUSE IT IS THIS HAVING OF SEX WITH FEMALES AND THE IMPRESSING OF FEMALES TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM, IN PARTICULAR, THAT'S RESULTING IN ALL OF THIS CRIME AND VIOLENCE IN OUR BLACC COMMUNITIES. SO IF WE JUST STOP HAVING SEX WITH FEMALES AND START HAVING SEX WITH OURSELVES (FUCKING OURSELVES) WE'LL NO LONGER NEED TO IMPRESS THEM. AND IF WE DON'T HAVE TO IMPRESS FEMALES THROUGH MURDER AND OTHER FORMS OF CRIME THE CRIME AND VIOLENCE RATE WILL DROP DRAMATICALLY. (IF YOU'RE JUST FUCKING YOURSELF YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GAINING STATUS, POWER, AND WEALTH TO IMPRESS FEMALES BECAUSE YOU WON'T HAVE ANYONE TO IMPRESS OTHER THAN YOURSELF. AND IF YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO IMPRESS ANYONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF (IF YOU'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT GAINING, STATUS, POWER AND WEALTH TO IMPRESS FEMALES) YOU WON'T HAVE ANY MOTIVATION TO MURDER PEOPLE OR COMMIT OTHER CRIMES TO GAIN STATUS, POWER, AND WEALTH TO IMPRESS FEMALES. SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? SAVE YOUR COMMUNITY BY FUCKING YOURSELF AND TAKING YOURSELF OUT OF THE GAME!)
"EACH DAY I MASTURBATE!" - Lil Bricc W/S Hoover Crip!
"EACH DAY I MASTURBATE!" - Lil Bricc W/S Hoover Crip!
THERE ARE SO MANY GOOD PASSAGES IN HERE. SKIM THROUGH THIS BOOK RIGHT NOW. TOMORROW I'LL GIVE YOU EXACT PAIGES TO READ.
