> However, a large genome-wide association study has failed to find any large or statistically significant effects of the MAOA gene on aggression.[47] A separate GWAS on antisocial personality disorder likewise did not report a significant effect of MAOA.[48] Another study, while finding effects from a candidate gene search, failed to find any evidence in a large GWAS.[46] A separate analysis of human and rat genome wide association studies, Mandelian randomization studies, and causal pathway analyses likewise failed to reveal robust evidence of MAOA in aggression.[49] This lack of replication is predicted from the known issues of candidate gene research, which can produce many substantial false positives.[50]
>In humans, an association between the 2R allele of the VNTR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found. The VNTR 2R allele of MAOA has been found to be a risk factor for violent delinquency, when present in association with stresses, i.e. family issues, low popularity or failing school.[36][37][38][11]
If any experts in this field are available to explain the discrepancy, I'd love to hear from them.
The first study, which "failed to find any large or statistically significant effects of the MAOA gene on aggression", actually did find one statistically significant link between male MAOA gene expression and violence [0]:
>For studies with categorical outcomes (Supplementary Figure 1), the following associations were found: (1) COMT-Val158Met was significantly associated with violence (P=0.02) as a categorical outcome; (2) when examining violence as a categorical outcome only, there was an association for MAOA promoter 30 bpVNTR in males with a history of violence (P=0.023)
The second study isn't cited correctly. The results are taken from another study cited in the one listed [1]. The results of that study are intriguing, as they do fail to find a link between MAOA and violence in a GWAS of 4816 individuals. However, their data on subjects' violent behavior comes entirely from self-reported questionnaires.
This study also lumps the 3-repeat MAOA allele in with the 2-repeat allele variant. This is a common confounding factor in studies on violence and MAOA [2]. MAOA-3R is far more common in the populations of all racial/ancestral groups compared to the 2-repeat allele, and its measured effect on aggressive behavior is much smaller. Defining L-MAOA, or the low-activity MAOA gene as both MAOA-3R and MAOA-2R dilutes the value of any study on the 2-repeat allele, which is the specific allele I brought up in my first comment.
The third study, which "failed to find any evidence in a large GWAS", found highly significant effects in their candidate study while the GWAS was hampered by a lack of data [3]:
>Therefore, it is plausible that while research of the genetic background of criminal or violent behavior is hampered by many confounding factors, focusing on extreme phenotypes might yield more robust results. This was demonstrated in our analysis on the association between rs11649622 and MAOA genotypes vs the number of committed violent crimes, showing clear dose–response effects. However, collecting data from extreme phenotypes is difficult. For this reason, our number of study subjects was relatively small, which resulted in a rather low statistical power in the GWAS.
>Concerning statistical significance, the P-value of 2.9 × 10−5 for the low-activity MAOA variant can be considered as extremely significant, as the Bonferroni-corrected level of significance in the candidate gene study was 0.025.
>The results indicate both low monoamine metabolism and neuronal membrane dysfunction as plausible factors in the etiology of extreme criminal violent behavior, and a conservative estimate implies that 5–10% of all severe violent crime in Finland is attributable to specific MAOA and CDH13 genotypes.
The last study, which "failed to reveal robust evidence of MAOA in aggression", actually ranked MAOA first as a risk factor for aggressive behavior [4]:
>Also, individual genes were ranked based on their cumulative weights to quantify their importance as risk factors for aggressive behavior, which resulted in 40 top-ranked and highly interconnected genes.
>Supplementary Table 4 lists all the 1767 genes from the eight aggression gene sets (adult and children GWAS, transcriptomics in four rodent models, KO mice and OMIM) and ranks them based on their number of occurrences and weighted ranks for aggression (only human orthologs were included from the rodent genes). MAOA was ranked highest with both methods.
Ultimately, I'm inclined to believe those meta-analyses which do find an effect on MAOA-2R and agression because the mechanism of action of this gene is not entirely a mystery. Low-repeat versions of the MAOA allele result in less MAOA in the brain. We know what severe MAOA deficiency looks like; it's called Brunner syndrome [5]. Symptoms include violence, agression, and impulsive behavior. I think it's reasonable to hypothesize a continuum of increased aggression between normal MAOA levels and the extreme lows of Brunner syndrome.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3965568/
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5048197/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4369574/
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4776744/
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6274606/
It means that regardless of whether you are an athletic prodigy, someone with developmental disabilities, or anybody else, you are deserving of equal share in governance — in contrast with aristocracy where some are considered more worthy to rule over others by dint of who they are.
With a different version of "created equal", the whole meaning of the rest of your post changes.
What does "an equal share of governance" mean? The question right now isn't enfranchisement, it's whether racial groups-- or ancestral groups, or ethnic cateories-- should have forced proportional representation in things like college admissions, med school admissions, or criminal arrest rates. The assumption put forth by self-labeled antiracists is that disproportionate representation is by itself evidence of racism. That's their core axiom, and it totally ignores signficant heritable (or cultural or environmental) differences between groups. It's an inherently disingenuous ideology, as nobody complains about the overrepresentation of NFL players with African ancestry, for example, but it's an idea with a whole lot of capital behind it.
To use the Enlightenment terminology of the time, it's that each person has the same "Natural Rights" per John Locke. Another popular way of putting it was "Equal before God". Again, this is in contrast to e.g. the divine right of kings. And it was practically expressed (for white male land owners) at the dawn of the U.S.A in terms of an equal franchise.
> It's an inherently disingenuous ideology,
Well, you're starting from the bogus notion that "created equal" meant genetically equivalent ("more or less"); you might consider grappling with that before worrying about whether others are disingenuous.
From my experience people belonging to a certain group of concerned citizenry seem to be complaining about over-representation of black people in the NFL quite regularly.
I'd prefer it if you explicitly stated your bad-faith assumptions about my character instead of blowing negative smoke signals and putting scare quotes around words like "scientific."
I believe you’re using discredited research that's popular amount the race realism crowd and feigning ignorance by acting as if it’s unpalatable but true to you.
To be painstakingly clear about what I'm saying here: while the 2R MAO-A allele is more common among black males than in other groups, it's only present in a single-digit percentage of even that most-affected group. Of all those men with the allele, most don't commit any crime. Only <0.01% of Americans of all races are arrested for violent crime each year. When we discuss violent criminals with a genetic predisposition to aggression, we're talking about a tiny minority of a minority of a minority, way below single-digit percentages, not all members of a particular racial group.
The trouble is, that tiny minority of a minority of a minority can still skew total arrest numbers. If 0.02% of one racial group commits violent crime in a year versus 0.01% for members of another group, comparitive arrest rates will seem racially disproportionate. If that difference is seen as "police are all racist, and have a negative overall impact on black communities", bad policy may result. See recent crime spikes in American cities for examples, where de-policed minority communities have been among the hardest hit by rising violence.
The good news is that MAO-A deficiency can be identified and treated pharmacologically with progesterone supplementation. Researchers have also explored CRISPR-based therapies to boost MAO-A expression. I see this condition and its treatment as analogous to Vitamin D deficiency, which for obvious genetic reasons disproportionately affects people with dark skin. If we decide we're finally allowed to talk about it, the problem can be tackled constructively and the problems caused by ignoring it will vanish.
I don't believe you're sincere in your interest in the research, but in case you are, here are a few recent studies w/ relevant quotes from each abstract. Please tell me which ones you think are discredited:
University of Kentucky, 2015: "Low functioning MAOA genotypes have been reliably linked to increased reactive aggression" - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25637908/
National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland, 2015: "Our results, from two independent cohorts of Finnish prisoners, revealed that a monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) low-activity genotype (contributing to low dopamine turnover rate) as well as the CDH13 gene (coding for neuronal membrane adhesion protein) are associated with extremely violent behavior (at least 10 committed homicides, attempted homicides or batteries)." - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25349169/
University of Kansas, 2016: "In particular, converging lines of evidence have documented that these maladaptive manifestations of aggression are influenced by monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), the enzyme that catalyzes the degradation of brain serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine." - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26776902/
University of Heidelberg, 2019: "Previous studies have linked the low expression variant of a variable number of tandem repeat polymorphism in the monoamine oxidase A gene (MAOA-L) to the risk for impulsivity and aggression" - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31441562/
University of Toronto, 2020: "Over the past two decades, research has revealed that genetic factors shape the propensity for aggressive, antisocial, and violent behavior. The best-documented gene implicated in aggression is MAOA (Monoamine oxidase A), which encodes the key enzyme for the degradation of serotonin and catecholamines. Congenital MAOA deficiency, as well as low-activity MAOA variants, has been associated with a higher risk for antisocial behavior (ASB) and violence, particularly in males with a history of child maltreatment." - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32574581/
What you’ve posted tells me I was exactly on point with what you’re getting at. I’m familiar with race realism, science used to support it, and the people who believe in it.
I believe you’re probably well-intentioned, but you know what they say about that.
> recent crime spikes in American cities for examples, where de-policed minority communities have been among the hardest hit by rising violence.
They probably appreciate your concern, but how can you list so many studies and still assert something widely untrue like the “de-policed minority communities”.
My issue isn’t with the science. It’s that people like yourself take the science and attempt to use it to justify circumstances or policy while ignoring seemingly all else.
I’ve seen all but the last study you’ve listed before, but I'm not interested in engaging with you further. I'm certain there are plenty that are willing to hear and share your ideas.
Maybe you could even make some money and write for them; https://prowhiteparty.wordpress.com/2020/12/17/black-people-...
>but how can you list so many studies and still assert something widely untrue like the “de-policed minority communities”
To illustrate how wrong you are with just a few examples:
* Portland abolished their gun violence unit in 2020 in response to the George Floyd protests. Gun homicides have soared as a result to their highest level in 30 years, mostly in minority communities [0].
* While violent crime soared in Chicago last year, also chiefly in minority communities, arrest rates for violent crime fell. The UChicago crime lab attributes this in part to a "pulling back of proactive policing" [1].
* "In a reversal of plans to divert funding from police to social services, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said Monday that she'll push to reverse planned cuts to the city's police department and seek to quickly hire more officers amid a spike in violence and homicides that has left some residents afraid to leave their homes" [2].
>Maybe you could even make some money and write for them; https://prowhiteparty.wordpress.com/2020/12/17/black-people-...
I'm not interested in race chauvanism, race-based nationalism, or racist politics generally. I support colorblind policy with class-based affirmative action, and the vigorous enforcement of laws against racial discrimination.
>I'm not interested in engaging with you further.
Good, I'm done responding to your repeated falsehoods and bad-faith accusations. Thanks for revealing your true nature to the reader.
[0] https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/10/under-the-gun-who-h...
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/chicago-violent-crime-arrests-down-12...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oakland-mayor-seeks-reve...