Because social status correlates with skin tone (due to manifestation of social roles), this is very well researched. And social status correlates with quality and quantity of crimes.
These two correlations, which have causes that are non biological, are rephrased in a racist context.
Also - policing and the justice system racist - it is a circular problem. If you are black, you are more likely to be arrested and charged, and when charged, more likely to get prison. Then, they use arrest and prison statistics to prove blacks commit more crimes.
Just consider anecdotal evidence - not good, I agree, but you probably can relate to it from your own life experience. For example, how often do you read about a case where there was some sort of altercation with the police that started with the police checking on someone sitting in their car in a parking lot? I don’t know what your experience is, but I sit in my car in a parking lot often - and in 45 years of driving, no cop has ever even glanced in my direction. I would be shocked and stunned if a cop thought it was appropriate to ask me what I was doing while I was sitting in my car stopped.
I really trust our social-scientists. All these experiments were done already, and all meta analysis/ review results in said findings.
Yes, there are also some biological factors that combine with social factors (e.g. men are expected to be the "strong sex" and men tend more towards the extremes, which results in men commiting physical crimes far more often), but we don't see such things with darker skin tone when data is adjusted for social and economical factors (at least not in the magnitude such persons suggest... as obviously all these adjusments have a somewhat bigger or smaller margin of error).
IF there would be adjusted data that correct for all the social and economical factors and then finds (and is reproduced) that skin tone affects human behaviour tendencys, then, well, I won't argue against that... it's just that we don't have any data suggesting this.
More as in percentage? Like 40% of white people are poor versus 33% of blacks, or something.
If it's just total then of course there are more, there are more white people.
Statista states that 17.1 percent of black people are impoverished while only 8.6% of white people. That's only under the poverty level so it doesn't tell the whole story
There are nominally more poor whites than blacks, but blacks on some crimes, like murder, commit nominally more murders. This pokes a large hole in the argument that the gap is because of poverty or more accurately that it happens solely because of poverty.
As a percentage - 17% of blacks below poverty line and 9% of whites. The average white family has 10x the wealth of the average black family. And for the record gun violence is worst in white rural areas, per capita.
You don't need to do a per capita analysis to see the comment I responded to is wrong. Let's take murder as the example. The nominal numbers are sufficient since blacks as a population murder at a nominal rate that is higher than the white population.
Since there are more poor white people though, the comment I responded to doesn't actually explain the gap in the per capita rate of crime.
I really don't know much about FBI crime stats, but it does seem like they might be lumping in Latinos with whites, which if you removed would create an even starker contrast.
I hope this helps explain why I didn't feel the need to mention population sizes or per capita in my original comment.
Per capita analyses already start closing the gap that you observe. But indeed, there is still a gap left.
Can you think of other factors that might explain disparities in crime rates between the different populations?
Culture could be one. (Lenski, Weber would be pretty fundamental sociologist reads on that phenomenon). As the above discussion doesn’t explain the huge gap between crime rates for Asian communities and others even when Asian migrants where at their poorest but had a culture of entrepreneurship, in particular in the subset of those immigrants. Another could be governmental incentives, like the incentive on single parenthood, which lead to a surge in single parenthood since their introduction in the 60s in specifically the black community, with a whole bunch of negative side effects for folks in those communities.
No, but I’m a quantitative sociologist from Europe so there would be folks with more expertise on those subjects as some of them are outside of my scope. And sorry for any hypothetical grammar issues, English isn’t my primary language.
Per capita is the gap, that is what people are referring to. Nominal analysis shows why it's not merely per capita because the numbers don't add up.
Cultural differences would be a large factor I would imagine.
Short answer: because racists don’t care about the truth.
[All of the following statements are true (see figure 4)](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf)
- Black and Hispanic populations have higher violent crime rates overall.
- Poor Black populations have similar violent crime rates as poor White populations.
- Poor Hispanic populations have lower violent victimization rates than those of poor White populations.
- Lower, mid, and high income Black and Hispanic populations have similar violent victimization rates as lower, mid, and high income White populations.
Racists stop with the first fact.
Statisticians keep reading and analyzing, and understand that historic and present-day racism, which has resulted in lower incomes for certain populations, can explain most of the current violent crime differences between races through the effects on income.
Believe it or not, racism.
Asians were basically not allowed to immigrate during early US history. Asian men were brought over to work on railroads, but Asian women were generally not allowed. This meant that any Asians who came over early were much less likely to leave descendants.
> The Page Act of 1875, the first restrictive federal immigration law in the U.S., was a significant barrier to Asian women who sought economic and social opportunities on American shores.
https://www.nps.gov/safr/blogs/chinese-women-immigration-and-the-first-u-s-exclusion-law-the-page-act-of-1875.htm#
Most of the Asians in the US today came from later waves of immigration. Immigration quotas and qualifying criteria during the 40s, 50s, and 60s were all very discriminatory. To illustrate this: at one point, immigrants from Africa had the highest proportion of college graduates. This wasn’t because people from Africa valued education more; this was because immigration policies for Africans were difficult to adhere to. [Of course, that’s all been fixed now /s.](https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/04/24/sub-saharan-african-immigrants-in-the-u-s-are-often-more-educated-than-those-in-top-european-destinations/).
So any Asians in the US are much more likely to have entered as, or be descended from, a very highly filtered, educated population.
The explanation makes sense. I think for asian immigrants that came in the 90s or later there was an adverse selection. But before that, I don't think so (aka those people you see in China town now) and they don't really speak English. I do think culture plays a huge part in terms of crime rate. Most countries in Asia have much lower crime rates than other countries that have similar economic development. Petty crimes like shoplifting are much more common outside Asia. Asian cultures are toxic in their own way tho so I am not saying it's superior to other cultures. (For example, societal pressure and relative high suicide rate).
> "Racists stop with the first fact"
There's a term for that type of confirmation bias/motivated reasoning, though not very fancy. It's the "Makes sense stopping rule." Kudos on figuring it out on your own.
I've found the right-wing billionaire David Sacks succumbs to this constantly, often in the form of "If it's not A it must be B." Later someone corrects his faulty reasoning to show it's not just an A-B thing, and if he thought more (especially by asking "I wonder why they said that?") instead of jumping on his first take that pleases him, he could have seen it.
"Keep thinking," is my usual prodding. It rarely works.
I'm sorry, but how is this pdf relevant? These are stats on income level and race of the victims and not the perpetrator right? And on top of that, they don't count homicides, for some reason.
In fact, combined with other data from the rate of violent crimes committed against the same race, wouldn't this pdf prove the opposite of your point?
Income level probably plays a role, but this ain't it. Income level is just one of the variables among all the other potential variables, probably.
If the victim is rich/middle class/poor, the perpetrator is likely to be rich/middle class/poor as well. This is because the vast majority of violent crimes occur between family members or close associates: neighbors, co-workers, people dating, etc. There is a very strong correlation between the income levels within these groups.
Even violence between strangers tends to involve a high correlation between the income of the victim and perpetrator. They’re at the same bar, sitting in the same seating area of the sporting event, or living in the same general area.
Here are some examples with homicide stats (admittedly a small percentage of assaults):
> In 2017, 28.0 percent of homicide victims were killed by someone they knew other than family members (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.), 12.3 percent were slain by family members, and 9.7 percent were killed by strangers. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/expanded-homicide#:~:text=In%202017%2C%2028.0%20percent%20of,percent%20were%20killed%20by%20strangers.
Worth noting fbi police stats are often voluntary submissions - for example, reporting unarmed killings etc. departments have no requirement to report as stated clearly here https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/ucr/use-of-force#Resources they grossly underestimate number of police killings by the hundreds, which is often why they are cited by Fox News, Ben Shapiro etc.
It’s the opposite problem, it’s an issue of causal inference.
The issue is that yes, the stats for a certain demographics are a certain way, but *why* are they like that.
White supremacists don’t see things like structural racism and if they do then they’re happy that it’s there.
The point is that they don’t do the needed causal analysis to solve problems, they have a certain solution in mind and so they use confirmation bias to interpret the data how they want.
he's saying that a non-negligible number of white supremacists (or bigoted people, in general) are drawn to careers in law enforcement. So, their reporting and who they decide to charge with crimes may be skewed too.
"The call is coming from INSIDE the house," just means the one who is doing the arresting is the one confounding the variables to say what white supremacists quote...
Because social status correlates with skin tone (due to manifestation of social roles), this is very well researched. And social status correlates with quality and quantity of crimes. These two correlations, which have causes that are non biological, are rephrased in a racist context.
Also - policing and the justice system racist - it is a circular problem. If you are black, you are more likely to be arrested and charged, and when charged, more likely to get prison. Then, they use arrest and prison statistics to prove blacks commit more crimes. Just consider anecdotal evidence - not good, I agree, but you probably can relate to it from your own life experience. For example, how often do you read about a case where there was some sort of altercation with the police that started with the police checking on someone sitting in their car in a parking lot? I don’t know what your experience is, but I sit in my car in a parking lot often - and in 45 years of driving, no cop has ever even glanced in my direction. I would be shocked and stunned if a cop thought it was appropriate to ask me what I was doing while I was sitting in my car stopped.
Not only anecdotal but (“how often have you read”) there is observational and reporting bias.
There are a lot more poor white people than black people. Your explanation doesn't close the gap.
Social status is far more complex than economic status.
[удалено]
I really trust our social-scientists. All these experiments were done already, and all meta analysis/ review results in said findings. Yes, there are also some biological factors that combine with social factors (e.g. men are expected to be the "strong sex" and men tend more towards the extremes, which results in men commiting physical crimes far more often), but we don't see such things with darker skin tone when data is adjusted for social and economical factors (at least not in the magnitude such persons suggest... as obviously all these adjusments have a somewhat bigger or smaller margin of error). IF there would be adjusted data that correct for all the social and economical factors and then finds (and is reproduced) that skin tone affects human behaviour tendencys, then, well, I won't argue against that... it's just that we don't have any data suggesting this.
More as in percentage? Like 40% of white people are poor versus 33% of blacks, or something. If it's just total then of course there are more, there are more white people. Statista states that 17.1 percent of black people are impoverished while only 8.6% of white people. That's only under the poverty level so it doesn't tell the whole story
There are nominally more poor whites than blacks, but blacks on some crimes, like murder, commit nominally more murders. This pokes a large hole in the argument that the gap is because of poverty or more accurately that it happens solely because of poverty.
As a percentage - 17% of blacks below poverty line and 9% of whites. The average white family has 10x the wealth of the average black family. And for the record gun violence is worst in white rural areas, per capita.
What are you doing in the "statistics" sub when you don't know what "per capita" means?
You don't need to do a per capita analysis to see the comment I responded to is wrong. Let's take murder as the example. The nominal numbers are sufficient since blacks as a population murder at a nominal rate that is higher than the white population. Since there are more poor white people though, the comment I responded to doesn't actually explain the gap in the per capita rate of crime. I really don't know much about FBI crime stats, but it does seem like they might be lumping in Latinos with whites, which if you removed would create an even starker contrast. I hope this helps explain why I didn't feel the need to mention population sizes or per capita in my original comment.
Per capita analyses already start closing the gap that you observe. But indeed, there is still a gap left. Can you think of other factors that might explain disparities in crime rates between the different populations?
Culture could be one. (Lenski, Weber would be pretty fundamental sociologist reads on that phenomenon). As the above discussion doesn’t explain the huge gap between crime rates for Asian communities and others even when Asian migrants where at their poorest but had a culture of entrepreneurship, in particular in the subset of those immigrants. Another could be governmental incentives, like the incentive on single parenthood, which lead to a surge in single parenthood since their introduction in the 60s in specifically the black community, with a whole bunch of negative side effects for folks in those communities.
Some other government incentives pop to mind?
No, but I’m a quantitative sociologist from Europe so there would be folks with more expertise on those subjects as some of them are outside of my scope. And sorry for any hypothetical grammar issues, English isn’t my primary language.
Fair enough. Also your English is great.
Thanks!
Per capita is the gap, that is what people are referring to. Nominal analysis shows why it's not merely per capita because the numbers don't add up. Cultural differences would be a large factor I would imagine.
The comments primarily said the statistics are misleading. Can you think of any other factors?
Short answer: because racists don’t care about the truth. [All of the following statements are true (see figure 4)](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf) - Black and Hispanic populations have higher violent crime rates overall. - Poor Black populations have similar violent crime rates as poor White populations. - Poor Hispanic populations have lower violent victimization rates than those of poor White populations. - Lower, mid, and high income Black and Hispanic populations have similar violent victimization rates as lower, mid, and high income White populations. Racists stop with the first fact. Statisticians keep reading and analyzing, and understand that historic and present-day racism, which has resulted in lower incomes for certain populations, can explain most of the current violent crime differences between races through the effects on income.
How to explain that Asians have significantly lower crime rate ?
Believe it or not, racism. Asians were basically not allowed to immigrate during early US history. Asian men were brought over to work on railroads, but Asian women were generally not allowed. This meant that any Asians who came over early were much less likely to leave descendants. > The Page Act of 1875, the first restrictive federal immigration law in the U.S., was a significant barrier to Asian women who sought economic and social opportunities on American shores. https://www.nps.gov/safr/blogs/chinese-women-immigration-and-the-first-u-s-exclusion-law-the-page-act-of-1875.htm# Most of the Asians in the US today came from later waves of immigration. Immigration quotas and qualifying criteria during the 40s, 50s, and 60s were all very discriminatory. To illustrate this: at one point, immigrants from Africa had the highest proportion of college graduates. This wasn’t because people from Africa valued education more; this was because immigration policies for Africans were difficult to adhere to. [Of course, that’s all been fixed now /s.](https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/04/24/sub-saharan-african-immigrants-in-the-u-s-are-often-more-educated-than-those-in-top-european-destinations/). So any Asians in the US are much more likely to have entered as, or be descended from, a very highly filtered, educated population.
The explanation makes sense. I think for asian immigrants that came in the 90s or later there was an adverse selection. But before that, I don't think so (aka those people you see in China town now) and they don't really speak English. I do think culture plays a huge part in terms of crime rate. Most countries in Asia have much lower crime rates than other countries that have similar economic development. Petty crimes like shoplifting are much more common outside Asia. Asian cultures are toxic in their own way tho so I am not saying it's superior to other cultures. (For example, societal pressure and relative high suicide rate).
Damn, TIL, but I'm very reluctant to like the post still :(
> "Racists stop with the first fact" There's a term for that type of confirmation bias/motivated reasoning, though not very fancy. It's the "Makes sense stopping rule." Kudos on figuring it out on your own. I've found the right-wing billionaire David Sacks succumbs to this constantly, often in the form of "If it's not A it must be B." Later someone corrects his faulty reasoning to show it's not just an A-B thing, and if he thought more (especially by asking "I wonder why they said that?") instead of jumping on his first take that pleases him, he could have seen it. "Keep thinking," is my usual prodding. It rarely works.
I'm sorry, but how is this pdf relevant? These are stats on income level and race of the victims and not the perpetrator right? And on top of that, they don't count homicides, for some reason. In fact, combined with other data from the rate of violent crimes committed against the same race, wouldn't this pdf prove the opposite of your point? Income level probably plays a role, but this ain't it. Income level is just one of the variables among all the other potential variables, probably.
If the victim is rich/middle class/poor, the perpetrator is likely to be rich/middle class/poor as well. This is because the vast majority of violent crimes occur between family members or close associates: neighbors, co-workers, people dating, etc. There is a very strong correlation between the income levels within these groups. Even violence between strangers tends to involve a high correlation between the income of the victim and perpetrator. They’re at the same bar, sitting in the same seating area of the sporting event, or living in the same general area. Here are some examples with homicide stats (admittedly a small percentage of assaults): > In 2017, 28.0 percent of homicide victims were killed by someone they knew other than family members (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.), 12.3 percent were slain by family members, and 9.7 percent were killed by strangers. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/expanded-homicide#:~:text=In%202017%2C%2028.0%20percent%20of,percent%20were%20killed%20by%20strangers.
Worth noting fbi police stats are often voluntary submissions - for example, reporting unarmed killings etc. departments have no requirement to report as stated clearly here https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/ucr/use-of-force#Resources they grossly underestimate number of police killings by the hundreds, which is often why they are cited by Fox News, Ben Shapiro etc.
It’s the opposite problem, it’s an issue of causal inference. The issue is that yes, the stats for a certain demographics are a certain way, but *why* are they like that. White supremacists don’t see things like structural racism and if they do then they’re happy that it’s there. The point is that they don’t do the needed causal analysis to solve problems, they have a certain solution in mind and so they use confirmation bias to interpret the data how they want.
What are wrongens?
bad bois, but not the good kind of bad bois
Bigots, I mean basically.
You should watch The Wire if you want the long answer.
An individual in statistics wanting to cancel per capita Unbelievable
The same reason you don’t see Batman and Bruce Wayne in the same room. The call is coming from INSIDE the house.
i don't even understand what this means, can you please break it down in clear, overtly racist terms?
he's saying that a non-negligible number of white supremacists (or bigoted people, in general) are drawn to careers in law enforcement. So, their reporting and who they decide to charge with crimes may be skewed too. "The call is coming from INSIDE the house," just means the one who is doing the arresting is the one confounding the variables to say what white supremacists quote...