As you can easily see, I am not the author of that post. Although, I wish I was that smart.

Its the evening news shows. Not 20/20 and 48 hours and that crap, I mean the local evening news.

Im pretty sure you don't watch the same news we do, where they glorify police chases, talk about shootings all the time, its morbid.

Also, I don't know what your local and national news shows report from various war reports, but ours are very graphic. Seeing dead bodies during dinner is nothing new.

You cannot compare Canada to the US. The US has 10 times the population so it should have 10 times the violence and such. However it is well known the US is high in gun violence compared to other countries.

Who you calling 10x more violent Willis? |angry|


|boobies| |boobies| |boobies|


|escape|

there are, of course, variables which need to be statistically accounted for before a summation of the data can be made such as; per capita crime rate, socioeconomic status, race, and others that are "controversial". It is a well known fact that blacks commit more violent crime per capita that other races in the united states, is this "controversial"? why? because of race? is it not a well known fact that races are different? isn't that why they are called "races?

There is also an unfortunate occurence called the "cinderella effect" by evolutionary psychologists that says stepparents will not treat their stepchildren as well as their own children and will treat them with less than favorable affection. Statistics prove this as well, determining that step children are up to 40x more likely to be mistreated and killed by a stepparent than by a bilogical parent.

They are slightly different, sure, but that doesn't mean those differences necessarily account for things like level of violence. There are interim causes here. Poor people are more involved in crime, and blacks on general are more poor, so blacks are more involved in crime. This is not necessarily some genetic thing related to their race... The right way to check and see if the race is the cause would be to compare groups of blacks and whites of the same socio-economic status. I am not aware of any such studies and would be interesting to see if they find a difference.

Assuming that it's simply a matter of "races being different" is very very dangerous. It would imply that someone is more prone to violence solely because he was born into a certain ethnic group, something which he has zero control of and will never be able to change. I do believe it's callled racism?

Again, that statistic isn't really surprising, if you consider some of the interim causes involved here. I don't know about other countries, but here the state encourages families to adopt children by offering monetary incentives. It's more than possible that some of these families adopt the children, at least partially because of financial reasons and not out of true commitment. What's more, adopted children, especially those adopted at an older age (though not only), maybe more likely to have behavioral problems (no fault of theirs perhaps, given the poor start in life), hence bring about a less favorable treatment from the adopting parents. Just thoughts here, not saying this is the case, only that you need to treat researches with a grain of salt and look at them in a critical way.

tigermom, Are you familiar with evolutionary psychology? or cognitive science? It is difficult to entertain your comments seriously if you are unfamiliar with the topic being discussed. I realize that many have been given a short stick;I had some really rough times in the past, so what. Does that mean I have a right to commit crimes and put my fellow citizenry in fear because I "had a rough start"?I moved on with my life and tried to better myself, that is what others should do as well.

I treat alot of researchers with that grain of salt you speak of, but when there are mountains of evidence in their favor I am reluctant to disagree with the findings.I could point you to a few of the sources of my information, here are two for your review http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...blications.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Baysiean statistics are a favorite of mine due to their inherent ability to gather accurate data sets based on vague information like fuzzy logic. That is what I use to determine what researchers are worth listening to, I can wade through the rivers of bullshit in science while attempting to find the gold nuggets that exist for the determined.

As it happens, I am quite familiar with research methods. Hopefully 5 university courses on the subject, both in BA and MA studies are enough for you to entertain my comments seriously?


This is hardly the issue here. No one is talking about what any other individual should or should not do or even does or does not do. This is about proper analysis of research data. Saying that race correlates to the level of crime is a simplistic reading of statistics, that was all I was saying. Being as there are so many other factors involved.

My point was that lower socio-economic status correlates to crime. And that race and socio-economic status also correlate. Does that mean that either one's socio economic background, or one's race, should be used as an excuse to commit crime? of course not.

I am glad to see that you do so much reading. If you can kindly refer me to a specific research that compares crime level by race and includes the socio-economic factor into the equation, that would certainly make an interesting read for me.

BTW, forgot to mention I did take several courses in psychology/cognitive science, but that's not really the relevant field here. This is social sciences - it's a matter of knowing how to interpret statistics collected in research, not understanding the individual.

These methods are about as thorough as you can get.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics
and this
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer.html