What easily observable features statistically indicate amounts of crime likely to happen? In order.
- Maleness. More males, more crime. Given Sailer's option walking choice to pass a rough looking group of black girls as compared to a group of Asian boys, walk past the black girls.
- Youth. More youth more crime. Given Sailer's option to walk past a group of Morgan-freeman-aged (and looking) black men as compared to a group of White teens, pick the old guys.
- Wealth. Simply look at the social class of the groups of teens by means of observing their dress. Walk towards the rich group. This may or may not beat #2.
- Athleticism/likely testosterone. A bunch of kids wearing glasses, and holding MTG cards is pretty low danger, regardless of race. A bunch of burly football-player types is moderate danger, regardless of race. This mitigates 3. I'm not entirely convinced that blood-serum testosterone level isn't just the complete winner here for danger-level. Femaleness, Age, and Race all impact said testosterone level. And it may be possible that some/many black women have higher testosterone levels than some/many Asian men.
- Race. On average...which you should damn well pay attention to if you know nothing else...then for safety reasons, you should choose to dodge black kids over Indian kids...and that includes my 16yo SWTOR-playing, football-player built, dark-black stepson. You should also know that this decision, entirely correct for statistical reasons, is painful to him (if he notices) and that every time you make a decision like that, it will be noticed...and he will emotionally (correctly) observe the fear/dislike of blacks, which will (on the margin) push him towards bullshit black race-baiters like Farrakhan. Statistically aware correct behavior from you, the crime avoider...creates ripple effects that suck for everyone.
Posts
34 comments:
1)Where there are black females, there are black males who want to impress them. What happens when a male offends a black female who loudly complains? Yikes. Youtube gave me nightmares. It's probably safer for a non-black male to avoid groups of black females.
2)I agree.
3)Clothing is easily changed and too noisy a signal.
4)Mostly true, but lots of the most-dangerous, highest-T people I've known have been weight-class-conscious MMA types. Good look recognizing the short, skinny dude in casual clothes as Kenny Florian.
5) Black men know that black men are more dangerous to them than whites. Maybe what actually happens at the margin is that liberals (I'm including you in this one instance) push black men in the wrong direction by partially or fully excusing Farrakhan, etc. instead of being open and honest about this question the way conservatives want to. Liberal shaming encrapulates everything it touches.
1. Side-issue. The black females are themselves less dangerous than the indian guys.
3. While in theory you're right...in practice, it's simply not true. Clothing/wealth markers are tremendously good...even though in theory folks could fake it.
4. Agreement.
5. Farrakhan is inexcuseable. My black wife and me were talking about how inexcusable Farrakhan et. al were with the teen last week (Re: Trayvon Martin). My point here was that there are 2 sides to the issue. White folks avoiding black folks brings up deep, strong, monkeybrain half-violent groupisms in the black folks being avoided. Ignoring that fact is something conservatives seem very willing to do, very unwilling to talk about.
MMA and weight-conscious implies discipline. Disciplined people with capacity for violence are great neighbours.
Phlebas brought up face reading on Foseti's a little back. Discipline's mark blares.
Come to think, what Jehu calls my threat software simply looks for discipline directly. I only fall back on maleness/youth et cetera when the reading isn't clear.
Excellent counterpoint to Derbyshire, as well. Clearly shows that that one piece inspires some broken window fallacy reasoning, though likely due to space constraints.
By focusing on race, it fails to remind the reader that they'd respond similarly to several race-indifferent situations.
As to your stepson, I've converted similarly painful things into fun and useful, and it is possible it could work for not-me.
First important point is to emotionally understand it isn't about you. Second is to view it as a resource. Every time someone views me wrongly, it is an opportunity for me to use that impression for my own convenience.
In this example, being black at first feels like being socially inferior. However, it can be used to obtain the markers of superiority. Walking on the sidewalk, they'll move aside for you.
"First important point is to emotionally understand it isn't about you."
Any time that a benevolant person (like me, for example) is asked for proof of ID or photoed for security reasons or watched while shopping, he can view it as an opportunity to get pissed, or... he can practice empathy. The offender has incomplete information and is just responding to prior experiences.
By "weight conscious" I mean "has to make weight." The MMA fighters I've known have gotten into a lot more street fights than anyone else I've known.
Googling "mma assault and battery" seems to get a lot of hits.
BYF,
I'm personally just not socially aware enough to detect bias against me. I do what you suggest naturally. I also know that anyone with functioning social receptors needs heavy meditation practice in order to get the response you're talking about. And I know that anyone who isn't a meditative guru or an aspie has a hard time making that a pattern.
Re: weight class.
Ah, right, I see my mistake. Now I need to find some of these people to test against my discipline markers.
Links concerning 3?
"Ignoring that fact is something conservatives seem very willing to do, very unwilling to talk about."
How does a conservative talk about these things and stay employed and unshunned by the liberals around him? When I talk about race with liberals, they will look horrified and clam up, start crying (literally), or become sarcastic and question all of my govt. data before... crying. I would LOVE to have an open and reasonable discussion about this stuff, but the only people I know who have those are recent immigrants from Africa and cons.
I wonder if the Ad Council could do some good here. It sucks for people to take this stuff personally when it actually improves their lives; greater security for merchants, etc. internalizes the costs of bad behavior, leading to less of it. Hence, goods or whatever are cheaper for the benevolant, even when they feel butt-hurt about being profiled.
People should work on their signaling if they want less profiling, too. When immigrant Japanese friends got bad service because they used to be (justifiably) known as non-tippers, I explained tipping and told them to ask their server what a normal tip was at the beginning of a meal.
MESSAGE RECEIVED.
I'd quibble with your #3, in that IMO social class is the driving variable, not wealth. In modern America, clothes and other outward projections are much more a feature of class than wealth. A wealthy man wearing a hoodie and pants around his knees should be avoided. A poor man in a suit is not a danger.
I might add glasses to #3. Not a tremendously useful profiler any more because they are rare, due to lasik and contacts. Still, glasses signal a less aggressive person.
As for #5, yeah, I am aware of it. Doesn't really affect my calculus much; perhaps a little at the margin.
(a) My safety is my responsibility.
(b) His feelings are his responsibility.
(c) What he does with his feelings may be both negative or positive (or more likely nothing), and in any case is completely out of my control.
I agree that the whole thing sucks, particularly for him.
Leonard,
I am perfectly happy saying social class instead of wealth. I remember considering that in the first place, but thought wealth was the stronger line. I was probably wrong.
(only-half-joking) I think your line on #5 is the atomistic view that I as a libertarian always get yelled at about.
I'm glad you see the complexity of the problem, and how it sucks for him. And I don't blame you for your choice...though the results suck.
Either it's worth the effort of making it a pattern, or it's not painful enough for anyone to worry about.
I'm not even sure if this is relevant to your thoughts, but it's one of my favourite logical structures.
Still, if they won't bother to do something about it themselves, you can't expect me to care. This is true regardless of what individuals and issues you fit into those pronouns.
Alrenous,
Only for the Non-neurotypical is that a reasonable line.
Human beings (as opposed to crazies like us) don't/can't operate that way without 10 years of training.
You have a choice of responses to that belief.
1. "Oh well, I guess that sucks for them, then."
2. "So, what would work?"
Alrenous,
Without descending into typology... there are other options.
I happen to be mostly an observer of the world...and only lightly a fixer. I prefer to have an awareness of the actual state of affairs. The business of fixing just isn't as interesting to me as trying to capture a multifaceted view of the problem.
As to fixing: I expect most attempts to sound reasonable and fail. Because that's how fixing works: Sound reasonable, fail, repeat. if (lucky) {break;}
1.Maleness
2.Youth
3.Wealth/Dress
4.Athleticism/likely testosterone
5.Race
So if your a black male, you can easily not be profiled by dressing and acting higher class. Seems pretty straightforward. What's the problem?
Is the case that low class blacks get profiled more then low class whites? Is that really a pressing social concern, given that it's really easy to fix if the black guy wants too (yeah yeah, monkeybrain toughguy doesn't like changing for the man)?
I was born ugly and weak. Whenever I go anywhere, the women give me a look that says, "he's a threat to my survival if I have to accept his inferior seed." The men give me the look, "how can I intimidate him for personal gain." I mostly hang out with college grad professionals now, so it's not as bad as prole school, but the attitudes are the same (they are just polite about it).
I don't think they are giving any AA for being ugly. I just gotta man up and live with it. And I can't just dress like Carlton Banks and solve the problem.
I get this is an issue, but the main issue seems to be low IQ, testosterone, and pride. IWSBs have no problem. If anything IWSBs are basically in the best situation in the entire world. Basically, IWSBs get easy admission to Harvard because 80 IQ black guys that have nothing to do with them get profiled at department stores because they dress and act like thugs.
BTW, I'm getting really tired of talking about race. This guy summed up opinions pretty good.
http://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/on-tribalism/
Lizard Boy said…
Reading this article, it finally hit me why Multicultural societies always fail: Because they are so goddamn boring. Everyone is forced to sit around discussing race and ethnicity all day long. In a creative White society, the main issues circle around new ideas and new inventions. Are we socialists or capitalists? What kind of society will technology bring us? What can we do with new engineering knowledge? That’s the conversation in a homogeneous society with a decent IQ and level of creativity (most Western European people).
But from now on in America, it will be Diversity and Sensitivity training. It will be this tribe vs that tribe. It will all revolve around how to carve up power. No more productivity or creativity.
It will be this goddamn “Who Whom?” question for the rest of your life, then you die.
Anon,
re: race.
I personally like Houston. 30% black, 30% white, 30% hispanic, 10% asian. No one has time to talk about race, because they're all busy making money. Best race relations I've seen in the country/world. It's just the rest of the country that sucks.
And BloodyShovel's on my feedreader.
What constitutes good race relations? Honest question.
I've spent most of my time in the I-95 cities (DC through Boston). I really wouldn't know how to classify good race relations versus bad ones. These places are heavily focused on money making, I don't think that mattes.
Mostly I've lived in semi-segregated areas with high earners, so basically that means almost no NAMs. The few NAMs I do know are mostly IWSBs. To the extent I've dealt with low IQ blacks it's been a universally negative experience. Whether it be DMV lady or the hoodlums that kept breaking into my car. I wouldn't say low IQ whites are much better, but for a given IQ level below 100 I've always found blacks worse to deal with then whites (because they have an attitude).
Houston seems like an odd city. It's richer then most, lots of land and loose zoning (less pressure to make $500k/year just so you can move away from NAMs), and the industries are real stuff industries (rather then asymetric info industries).
You should also know that this decision, entirely correct for statistical reasons, is painful to him (if he notices) and that every time you make a decision like that, it will be noticed...and he will emotionally (correctly) observe the fear/dislike of blacks, which will (on the margin) push him towards bullshit black race-baiters like Farrakhan. Statistically aware correct behavior from you, the crime avoider...creates ripple effects that suck for everyone.
I'm uncomfortable with the extortive nature of this. Everyone has suffered "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune", but to threaten violence for a kind of (social) market failure is not something a libertarian should countenance.
RSF,
1. I appreciate the line. At the same time...the (core?) conservative argument against the libertarian is that we ignore the ripple effects of our own actions on the community...even when the action is not itself wrong... and so we should have laws that prohibit victimless crimes. This argument is largely on that line.
2. It's not intended as a threat. It's intended as an observation of human psychology. One unfortunate feature of seeing farther than others is that you have to (are incapable of ignoring) the likely effects of actions...and can't just act on first or 2nd order effects.
OK I give up.
What does IWSB mean?
Intelligent well socialized black. Generally a black with a college level IQ who "acts white". Obama is the perfect version of an IWSB, because he graduated Harvard and is extremely SWPL while retaining his black "coolness". Second sigmas love IWSBs and compete to associate with them, but dislike median blacks and pay lots of money to avoid them.
It's not intended as a threat. It's intended as an observation of human psychology...
Your observation here of the sensitivity to ethnic/racial treatment seems to negate your hope for a robust universalism that trumps petty ethnic/racial issues.
Black females are more violent than white males. Blacks of all ages are more violent than young males. Blackness trumps pretty much everything else.
But the biggest factor of all is that groups of blacks are more violent than individual blacks.
James,
Can you cite papers here? I've seen other evidence strongly suggesting you're wrong...and I'd like to know where you're coming from.
Violent crime is 95% male...90% male between 16-30...and 50% young black male. Yes, that's strongly disproportionate black maleness...but the other factors are clearly MUCH larger.
...but the other factors are clearly MUCH larger.
??? But if Blacks are 14% of the population, this makes their criminality 7x that of their White(ish) cohorts, making it the largest indicator of violent criminality.
If we set the White male youth crime index to one, then elderly ladies get an index of zero, and Black male youths get an index of seven.
Apologists will say, "you are infinitely more likely to be violated by either a White or Black young male than by an elderly woman of any race", implying equal criminality, but this is misleading.
RSF,
I think your math is wrong.
50% male 50% female...male:female ratio of violent criminality is roughly 20x....substantially higher than the 7x for blackness. Ditto the age bit.
I'm not saying blackness isn't an issue...nor have I here. I have just said that that's not factor #1 or #2.
The 20x figure is misleading, since it mixes all youth. When you break it out by race, we have half the violent crimes committed by 7% (Black males) of the population, and half the violent crimes committed by 43% (Whitish males) of the population.
For example, whatever the crime rate of White female octogenarians, the rate for young White males will be a "zillion" times higher, and the rate for young Black males will be 6.2 "zillion" times higher. The violent crime risk from young Black males is an order of magnitude larger than that from other groups.
Counterpoint: to first order approximation, all crime is actually due to the non-existence of rule of law. A 1900-England-style justice system would reduce black crime to below the current level of white crime.
Maybe if the justice system were fixed, it'd worth worrying about whether crime is linked to race or not. I also +1 the quote spandrell found. Proggies are so goddamn boring. Everyone is forced to sit around discussing race and ethnicity all day long. It will be this goddamn “Who Whom?” question for the rest of their lives, then they die.
RSF,
While I think my original post agrees completely with what you said...
My point was: Check the important factors first. Race is somewhere between #4 and #5 on important factors.
If you ignored race entirely, and simply avoided poor young males....you'd do better than if you ignored age or gender or wealth, and just avoided blacks.
I never dispute ... indeed I explicitly support the fact that blacks have more crime than whites. I just want everyone to remember that race isn't the primary issue. It's #5-ish on the list of crime-avoidance issues.
The metric is: Avoid lower class young men with muscles. Compared to this metric...race is at best a side-issue. It's enough of a statistical factor that it's not worth ignoring... but it's definitely not on the top tier of concerns.
I think you are missing the point on the relative weights here:
>>Sort everyone into the usual groups.
>>Rank the groups by likelihood of violence.
>>Set 2nd highest group to an index value of one.
>>Every lower group has an index value between zero and one.
>>The highest, most dangerous group, has an index value of 6.2 .
RSF,
That approach doesn't rank the issues...it just highlights the LEAST important issue...and discusses the absolute size of the least important issue under discussion.
If we grouped JUST males and females according to your indexing path...the weight of female is 1, and the weight on male is 20.
I don't understand why we care about the number 6 vs. the number 20. (or 18 for age, or....).
I guess I don't understand the post
It is basically true that there is no violent crime committed by women, old people, rich people, or skinny guys. It is effectively true that all crime is committed by lower-class, young, muscular, boys. Now...you want to bring up a relatively minor factor (which race of lower-class, young, muscular, men) that I admit to be a minor (if still relevant) factor....but the point of my post was that it really lands at #5 on what to check for...in the situation of Steve Sailer's example (which I linked to).
So...longwindedly...I agree...I don't know how what your saying has to do with my post, or why it's relevant.
I think you are missing something major here (or I am).
I don't want to just pick on Black youth--I realize they come from a milieu not of their making that manufactures some of these statistics (see Alrenous above).
Yes, females would index at a 1, males at a 20, BUT when you break it out by race, Whitish youths get a 3 and Blacks get a 17. Race becomes a factor that overwhelms age. If you are looking for the one most important factor here, just going by the numbers, it is race.
RSF,
I think your method will get the least important factor and make it look big.
But as usual, I'm willing to entertain my being wrong.
We all agree that young, poor, black, muscular, men cause more problems than any other single group. The question is how to tease out which factors are more important to their causing problems and which are less.
One possible question is:
What are the factors for the 5 factors I listed.
We agree that for maleness, the factor is near 20.
We agree that for blackness, the factor is near 6.
I'm asserting that the factors for
1. Age (16-30) vs. older
2. Upper class vs. lower class and
3 muscular vs. not.
All fall between 6 and 20...making blackness a lower priority thing than any of the others. I'd rather any other factor on the less dangerous side + blackness than non-blackness + the other danger factor.
In particular, my more aggressive claim is that young-poor-male vs. any other group has a factor of something like 50. (quick calc: males between 16 and 30 commit ~90% of violent crime, and constitute near 10% of the population...that looks like a factor of 81....and that hasn't excluded the rich). It looks to me like if you avoid young males you win...and checking skin color is a rounding issue.
Another approach...breaking out any particular two groups...young black women vs. young white men... will pairwise demonstrate that the blackness is something you should be aware of...but only
after you check the other 4 factors, all of which are more important.
Per capita...who causes more violent crime:
Young black women, or young white men? -- seems like this is the core question...and has a pretty clear answer.
Young white men, or Old black men...again, the answer is obvious.
Young rich blacks, or young poor whites?
Young chess-club looking blacks, or young white athletes?
My claim...on every one of those pairwise comparisons...blackness is a weaker predictor of crime than the other factor.
Post a Comment