/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5359539]

Good evening /sci/. I normally stumble across this graph on 4chan and i was wondering is this graph misleading, BS or completely inaccurate. Also, if the graph proves to be accurate, do you think it's a genetic or cultural factor that contributes to the high violent crime rate of African American race. Obviously it could be both but what do you think is a bigger factor. I am African American, I've never been to prison or committed any violent crime and i am currently in college studying biology to be a forensic scientist. My family never had a history of violent crime, but i can't use anecdotal evidence to negate this graph, I can only attest for my actions, but as you know minor exceptions don't completely refute the rule.

I know race could be a taboo topic in science, and it can really break someones career but this is an anonymous image board. so if you guys would be so kind to provide me with answers, i would greatly appreciate it. Also, some ideas to fix this problem would be nice, besides better education.

[Anonymous No.5359570]

In each graph there seems to be one single fucking dot all the way up top for some odd fucking reason.

Seems shady.

[Anonymous No.5359648]

the problem is not race, but the emvironment that we are raised in, i bet you are the son of middle class parents living on a nice suburban neighborhood right?
well people that are born and raised in slums, regardless of race/skin colour are bound to adopt the behaviour of the people around them, gangs pop up more gangs because kids look at them and think ¨i want to be cool like them¨
asians are ¨smart¨ because their parent push them really hard in that direction, i recommend the book ¨guns, germs and steel¨ to learn more about the subject

[Anonymous No.5359659]

>>>/pol/
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.5359680]

>>5359570

well, each of the graphs has violent crime on the y-axis, so of course that one dot always has to have the same y-value

[Anonymous No.5359685]

Read "American Homicide" by Randolph Roth. He explains clearly that violent crime is related to how people feel about the government and their neighbors. It has nothing to do with poverty, drugs, or race.

[Anonymous No.5359688]

what does each dot represent? a city?

[Anonymous No.5359697]

For starters, the R values are way too low to conclude any trends.

And then there's the matter of extrapolation... you don't have a graph going over 40% composition. One could easily hypothesize that it's a mixing of races that causes violence, and that a 100% black society would be just like a 100% white society. You get a bell-shaped curve over the full range of compositions.

But anyway, too many variables are uncontrolled. Graphs are meaningless.
> so is "race"

[Anonymous No.5359730]

>>5359539
You have presented us not with a racial problem, but a data representation one.

All 4 graphs are relative to violence and only one is to ethnics. In other words, all you can say is that there is some sort of relation between violence and, skin color, poverty, unemployment and education.
The graphs however do not speak about the relation between color and the other 3 factors.
In other words a copy-pasted set of graphs is not equivalent to a complete paper ;)

[Anonymous No.5359765]

>>5359730

but that's not what these graphs are trying to show.

i think the point here is to show that violent crimes are linked with race. it is often argued that, while minorities commit more violent crimes, this is because they are often poorer and more likely to be unemployed or uneducated, i.e their living conditions cause the crime, not their race.

what these graphs try to show is that there is a fair correlation between color and violent crime rates, but only a weak correlation between violent crime and poverty, education and employment. thus meaning that the first argument is invalid and that race does cause the violence and not any of the other factors.

although with no source, these graphs could be pulled out of anyone's ass and correlation does not imply causation as everyone should know by know. that and /pol/ shit is retarded.

and yes, this kind of research is controversial and that is bullshit. if anything, the research should be done and done properly, not swept under the carpet or by drawing hasty conclusions by some idiot supremacist. we know there are clear physical differences between the races, but about behavioral or mental differences we are not allowed to publicly speak, which will not fix anything.

[Anonymous No.5359810]

Hurr well maybe you chucklefucks could try reading the whole report rather than trying to conclude how valid the graphs are simply by looking at them.

http://www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2005-Color-of-Crime-Report.pdf

[Anonymous No.5359819]

>> /pol/

[Anonymous No.5359839]

>>5359810
amren
virulent racism is awesome, amirite?
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.5359845]

>>5359539
it's actually well established in academia that race predicts crime even after all meaureable socioeconomic variables have been accounted for.

By predict I mean that if you chose a random black person with certain socioeconomics variables, and a random white person with the same variables, the black person would be much more likely to commit a crime.

The problem with academia is that it is a bit like religion. These facts are only spoken openly in places where everyone is known to be "trustworthy" from a liberal perspective.

People who know these facts make no effort to defend people outside academia who are called bigots for saying the exact same facts. They would usually justify this by saying that even though the person was quoting true facts, a person (who wasn't a liberal academic) who went out of their way to find these facts out must surely be an actual bigot.

[Anonymous No.5359851]

Correlation does not imply causation.

[Anonymous No.5359855]

>>5359845
btw by "trustworthy" I mean a person who is already committed to the idea that the fact the race predicts crime is *not* because of genetic factors, but because of social factors like discrimination and (for advanced liberals) aspects of Black culture.

So it's a matter of "if you believe that the fact that race predicts crime doesn't prove anything about race, then you are allowed to believe it, otherwise you better believe that race doesn't predict crime"

[Anonymous No.5359856]

>>5359839
I wantto try and understand you.

You're okay with pondering pointlessly over teh validity of graphs concerning crime rate that you have no context for whatsoever and thus can draw no sensible conclusions about at all.

But actually providing the context for those graphs so you can get some idea about the methodology involved and thus possibly make some kind of sensible statements about those graphs is unacceptable behaviour.


Okay. Just so we understand each other.

[Anonymous No.5359857]

>>5359570
Probably just Detroit.

[Anonymous No.5359904]

>>5359810
Thats odd none of the sources of those graphs could be found in the american census database.
Cannot verify.

[Anonymous No.5359911]

>>5359904
Is that so?
and you say you checked the relevant footnote with it's explicit link and citations?
Footnote number 35?

[Anonymous No.5359921]

>>5359911
Have you tested the links?
I did.

[Anonymous No.5360006]

>>5359921
So you're right. the url is not valid, or is no longer valid.
I suppose then you would have to look up the census citation without a convenient link to follow in order to prove that the citations fail to provide the purported evidence.

[Anonymous No.5360033]

>>5360006
> WATS BURR DEN OF PRUFE?

[Anonymous No.5360091]

>>5359765
>it is often argued that, while minorities commit more violent crimes, this is because they are often poorer and more likely to be unemployed or uneducated, i.e their living conditions cause the crime, not their race.

>thus meaning that the first argument is invalid and that race does cause the violence and not any of the other factors.


The problem is that none of the other factors are controlled for in each graph, it could easily be the case that black people (for whatever reason) have a higher chance of suffering from a combination of the problems wheras other races may only suffer from one. Meaning that the results for race are just an accumulation of the problems caused by other factors.

[Anonymous No.5360108]

>>5359539
Just a friendly reminder: Graphs don't mean shit without context, and context don't mean shit without credible sources, and credible sources don't mean shit without the body of peer-reviewed literature from technical experts and scholars.

>muh rational inquiry
>muh independent research
>muh technical expertise

[Anonymous No.5360246]

(follow up from >>5359845 )
Google "White, Black, and Latino Homicide Rates: Why the Difference." by
Julie A. Phillips, Dept of Sociology and Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University.

From the abstract:
>about half of the white-black homicide gap could be reduced if the characteristic of minorities were improved to the levels currently exhibited by whites.
In plain language: after accounting for factors like poverty, poor education, etc., only half of the difference between homicide rates of whites and blacks is accounted for.

[Anonymous No.5360303]

>>5359648
>>5359685
These. OP or anyone else interested please read no further than these posts, else be subjected to ignorant storm-fagging.