October 13, 2003
No racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality
Personality and Individual Differences
Volume 35, Issue 6 , October 2003, Pages 1463-1469
Are there racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality? A critique of Lynn's (2002) racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality
Marvin Zuckerman
Abstract
Lynn's claim that certain races or ethnic groups have a higher incidence of psychopathic personality is not substantiated by large scale community studies in America that show no differences between these groups in the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. No consistent racial differences are found in traits closely associated with psychopathy, sensation seeking and psychoticism, and, Lynn to the contrary, the Psychopathic Deviate scale of the MMPI. Antisocial behavior in Blacks is less related to personality than in Whites. The results on criminality are not compatible with Rushton's r/K theory of evolutionary selection, as claimed by Lynn, because Native Americans and Hispanic groups are of Siberian Mongoloid origin in the case of the former and mixed Central-American Indian and Spanish Caucasoid in the case of the latter. The differences between African-American, Native-American, Hispanic, and European-American groups in antisocial behavior seems to be more a function of social class, historical circumstance, and their position in Western society rather than racial genetics. Following [Rushton, 1988 and Lynn, 2002] has presented a pastiche of population statistics on delinquency, criminal and sexual behavior, truancy, parenting, aggression, and disorders like Conduct Disorder (CD) and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to support the hypotheses that: (1) the races and ethnic groups differ in the incidence of "psychopathic personality"; (2) these population differences are based in strong part to genetic differences between the populations; (3) the differences have their distal origins in the different evolutionary histories of the races (Rushton's r–K theory of race differences). Lynn claims that Rushton's theory "...has now become widely accepted by scholars", citing only those who support the theory and ignoring those who have criticized it ( [Lynn, 1989, Weizmann et al., 1990, Zuckerman, 1990 and Zuckerman and Brody, 1988]). Consequently, some of those criticisms as well as those based on more recent data are addressed to the specific arguments in Lynn's article.
Posted by Dienekes at October 13, 2003 06:44 PM | PermaLinkWhat the author does is to equate Amerindians, which are often mixed with Europeans and Negroes, with Chinese and Japanese people.
Thats absurd.
Even if you call the Amerindians Mongolid, its wrong to say they are the same like the Sinid or Tungid type.
The difference is quite big between Indianid people and the East Asian Mongolids in the narrower sence.
So this doesnt contradict the Rusthon hypothesis if the Amerindians which are maybe mixed people from beginning and no clear Mongolids are in between.
"For prototypes of psychopathic leadership who can top the Mongolian Ghengis Khan or the European Hitler?"
This sentence is really very scientific...especially if all what it should be about is the discipline of a society and not the brutality.
We all know that disciplined societies can be as brutal as savage-primitive societies.
If Rushton would have meant that all people of the major races were highly civilized people through time than he would be wrong, yes.
But I interpreted Rushton that way, that Europid and Mongolid people are MORE ABLE to establish disciplined societies.
That culture is still a major factor is nothing he negated, or did he?
And all what this study say is that they just dont know anything about the population differences.
They just say they falsificated the theory of the difference in the frequence of psychopathic personalities in the major races.
(Which is problematic for "blacks" in the USA because they are not all typical Negrid)
Interesting their definition:
"At the offset, a distinction must be made between psychopathic personality, now called Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), and criminal behavior. APD is diagnosed only in those persons whose history of antisocial behavior begins before the age of 15 and persists beyond the age of 18."
Persists beyond the age of 18 sounds logical to me, but why it must began before 15?
I mean I didnt studied psychology but I know something about, and I just ask myself why this is necessary?
Many disorders of the Psyche coming later in life.
Just look for Schizophrenia and Manic-depressive people etc.
I'm just asking what set did they used and was it really useful for what it is all about.
The important question is, are Europids and Mongolids better adapted on average to modern-civilized and disciplined societies than Negrids or other races.
The said not to much about hormons, or violence, they just stated that there are more criminal blacks but its just environmental...
Their tests are lacking consistence, but thats no problem for them, because they say what they want.
I mean if Rushton is right or wrong, this study definetely dont brought too much light in the story.
They totally confused some things...
Its not about brutality or something like that, its about social discipline IN THE GROUP not there behaviour to other groups.
Because this is something which is for sure more determined by culture.
But are you more or less able to integrate you in a socially disciplined society with rigid rules and a strong common sence, thats really a total other question.
This control over aggression and the instincts is the main thing, and about that they said nothing.