I ended up debunking the MAOA-L, so-called "Warrior Gene" claims a few days ago, using

the very studies cited as supporting evidence of the alt-right's so-called "alternative"
hypothesis as the cause of African crime, of which they'd invite you to a program of
eugenics. Never sacrifice your honor, the truth, for political expediency. Here you go:

MAOA-3R was found in 56% of Maori males, it occurred in 58% of African American males
and 34% of European males, yet we ignored studies indicating that the 3R variant occurred
in 61% of Taiwanese males and 56% of Chinese males. This goes back to the Maori study's
findings, one of the initial causes of inquiry. Furthermore, the studies conducted by Guang
Guo, a University of North Carolina Sociologist, and Kevin Beaver, University of Florida
Biosocial Criminologist, focusing on 2R, are statistically flawed, as the sample data was
limited to a little more than a hundred students in the Add Health database. You require
nearly 10,000 samples to close the margin of error to gleam anything of a statistically
accurate reflection of a broader population. The more samples you analyze, the more
accurate the data become; and you must also account for the inherent sampling bias, as it
may be the case 2R, in fact, is present among a greater or lower percentage of Africans and
Caucasians, who've no self-reported serious or violent delinquency, and by limiting
yourself to the dataset used in this study, you're already unable to determine the
percentage of Africans or Caucasians who actually possess 2R, which is required to
establish whether it is a contributing factor. Further, what if the samples are collected by
questionnaire and analysis of more people in a particular group than another, or of one SES
over another as he had - he admitted to deliberately over-sampling middle and upper
income African patients, which obviously distorts the results, as lower-income patients
may have had an increased statistical likelihood of possessing the trait. Contrasting the 133
African samples, he included very few samples from Caucasians, because he only screened
for patients possessing this marker, if they had self-reported cases of serious and violent
delinquency. So, you don’t know what percentage of Caucasians possess 2R, nor could you,
without thousands of samples. Exacerbating the statistical issues with the study, you
cannot use 133 samples to purport a statistic of 5.5%, itself a figure that discredits the
claim to be the cause of their crime, of all Africans possessing this genetic marker when
there are billions of Africans throughout the world. Furthermore, what about the other
94.5% of participants who didn't possess 2R, yet self-reported serious and violent
delinquency? How can you logically conflate 2R as the cause of their crime when 94.5% of
African patients did not possess it? Beyond this, the very author of the study wrote “even if
MAOA-2R is causally linked with antisocial behaviors, it is not common enough in African
Americans to solely account for crime rates in blacks.” With that being said, I’ve thoroughly
reviewed the literature you've cited to support your hypothesis. I conclude the very
findings of the studies speak for themselves and undermine it, self-evidently so, while
submission of this research as supporting evidence of your hypothesis wouldn’t pass a
freshman peer-review.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886912004047
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/books/nicholas-wades-a-troublesome-
inheritance.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326626
http://www.journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/120-1250/2441/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11999895
https://bmcmedgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2350-12-74
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39103-7
https://bioone.org/journals/human-biology/volume-86/issue-
3/humanbiology.86.3.0215/iA-Troublesome-Inheritance-i--Nicholas-Wades-Botched-
Interpretation-of/10.13110/humanbiology.86.3.0215.pdf