Oakland plunges from 2nd to 10th on Ranking of Most Dangerous Cities

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Nice cherry picking by not providing the language before the quoted language. The language you quote is simply implying a possible social mechanism to deal with the high T in these black males through early intervention/coping.

Here it is:

The biosocial model sketched here raises issues of scientific validity and policy ethics. The link between T and dominance has primarily correlational support and may be causally inaccurate. Any parsing of biomarkers by race and social class must be sensitive to the potential for invidious comparisons of groups. If high T does facilitate the high violence rate among young black men, there would be a troubling policy question of what, if anything, to do about it. Any notion of a medical or pharmaceutical fix, rather like prescribing Ritalin for hyperactivity, would reek of race-based chemical castration and should be regarded as outside the pale. However, social interventions might be workable and ethically acceptable. In one program, kindergarten boys were randomly assigned to a 10-year intervention or to a control group. The intervention attempted to develop social competencies and classroom performance, as well as training for parents to manage their child’s behavior. Years later, at a mean age of 26 years, participants responded to laboratory provocations. Results indicated that relative to control participants, men from the intervention demonstrated reduced aggression and T reactivity to social provocations (though not reduced basal T). Moreover, reduced T reactivity mediated the effect of intervention on aggressive behavior (Carré et al., 2014).

and then there's this:

First, there is no consistent relationship between normal circulating testosterone levels and violence in teenagers....Deprivation may be a more important determinant of teenage violence. The theory - and there is a wealth of literature on this subject - is that if low-status males are to avoid the road to genetic nothingness (the words of neuroscientist Steven Pinker), they may have to adopt aggressive, high-risk strategies. If you've got nothing, you have nothing to lose through your behaviour. Certainly, in humans, both violence and risk-taking behaviour show a pronounced social gradient, being least in the highest social classes and most in the lowest ones. This is surely not what you would expect if testosterone were the only driver of violence.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/mar/03/1

I don't see anything in that article claiming that only black boys have 'testosterone issues', do you?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by PixelatedTherapy

You see, this is racism. Antioch, despite popular belief, has always had trouble with crime, only people started to complain about it after black people began to move in. Concord has never truly had a real issue with crime, Pittsburg has actually gotten safer in recent years, and I can't really say about Tracy and Stockton, not really up with crime stats for the valley.


Antioch Crime 1985-1994 population 50,000

https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/crime...mes-clearances Antioch's population was half of what it is now.

Antioch Crime 2007-2016 population 110,000

https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/crime...mes-clearances


You can use this site to check every city you mentioned, all of them either stayed the same or had gone down with the exception being Stockton. I'm not talking about number of incidents, I'm talking about rate, as in amount per 100k. So, in other words, what you're implying is wrong.

Concord's crime rates are actually lower than the state average. It's no more dangerous than Walnut Creek which has a similar crime rate.

[PixelatedTherapy]

Originally Posted by majoun

Concord's crime rates are actually lower than the state average

I know. When it comes to Bay Area cities with populations of over 100k, Concord is actually the second safest city, behind Daly City. A lot of the beef with Concord I believe to be with the large Hispanic community, not crime.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by PixelatedTherapy

I know. When it comes to Bay Area cities with populations of over 100k, Concord is actually the second safest city, behind Daly City. A lot of the beef with Concord I believe to be with the large Hispanic community, not crime.

Concord's crime rate is similar to Walnut Creek's, nearby. How many people call Walnut Creek "ghetto"?