Look you can go for the ad hom all you want but my post was in jest (if you read the thread), yours was pretty clearly not. Either way, I haven't had to tutor freshmen psych in some time but here goes. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because blacks are more likely to commit violent crime does not mean blacks as a race are more violent. The poor are also more likely to commit violent crime. But that doesn't mean as a whole, the poor are violent. For example, the release of Nicolas Cage's movies is heavily correlated with drowning deaths. We both know Nic's movies aren't causing people to drown. Raw statistics mean almost nothing. I work with mass spec. I've got more raw data about things you can imagine. The data though is meaningless without analysis by trained experts with degrees in those fields. This is where the idea of peer reviewing comes into play and where you publish matters. That's why your source is on a joke of a site and not in Psychology Today or Science. You're using raw statistics here for confirmation bias. Because you think blacks are violent, when you see that blacks commit more violent crimes per capita, you deduce that blacks are violent or criminalistic but that's flawed logic because it isn't based in actual analysis. The reason crime is quite high in black communities is a fairly complex issue in reality, like most things about human psychology and sociology. To sit there and say that the data says blacks are criminals is nonsense. It's a common tactic used by deniers in all fields - to twist data. Holocuast deniers try to twist numbers. Climate change deniers do the same. If you're really interested in this topic, Google scholar is a good place to start. There's no reason to think blacks are violent/criminals as a race. Statistics show you would be more likely to be a criminal than someone of the middle class if you were poor. That doesn't make you a criminal and it doesn't make all of the poor criminals. It means their socioeconomic situation results in a myriad of probable and improbable behaviors in reference to other groups but once again, correlation does not equal causation in data.