## Never a thank you

It’s strange, but every time I help someone in a substantial way over the internet they turn around and treat me like garbage. Maybe it’s my fault, and I’m just oblivious to my deficiencies. More likely, being helpful makes me look like a doormat. So I’ll just be a jackass from now on.

Kidding, of course. Stress is bad for my beautiful ginger complexion.

Here’s the latest installment, which occurred over in the Audacious Epigone’s aetherspace. I tried to tabulate the conversation as best as possible, but james’ cross-posting made that somewhat difficult.

I have two questions. Can anybody answer it? Ok, the US homicide rate is 4.2 per 100,000. What percentage of that homicide rate is the result of the black homicide rate? Is it half? How would I calculate a racial breakdown of the US homicide rate? My second question is: what percentage of negroes do you need before you start seeing a major effect on the overall crime rate?

Thanx

Anonymous
Comment cross-posted on Buy You a New LifeVox Popoli, The Inductivist, and others

Anonymous,

No offense, but I refuse to spend more than 10 minutes navigating the BJS site.

Oh, and I should mention that you need to choose a pseudonym before Vox boots you. It’s a rule of the blog.

E.g. Anonymous1 would be fine.

Aeoli Pera,

This is my source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

go to pg. 3

james
Comment on Oh Noes

The population of whites is 82.9%, of blacks it is 12.6%, and other is 4.5%. The homicide rates for each group are: 4.5 for whites, 34.4 for blacks, and 4.1 for other (1980-2008 DOJ stats). Now, (.829 * 4.5) + (.126 * 34.4) + (.044 * 4.1) = 3.7305 + 4.3344 + 0.1804 = 8.2453

4.3344 of 8.2453 = 52.5%

Blacks are responsible for 52.5% of an average US homicide rate of 8.2453 per 100,000.

Is this correct?

Here, I use other expanded population data:

US population breakdown: 16.3% Hispanic, 63.7% white, 12.2% black, AI/AN 0.7%, A/PI 4.9%. Homicide rate from CDC 2007 stats.

(.163 * 7.6) + (.637 * 2.7) + (.122 * 23.1) + (.007 * 7.8) + (.049 * 2.4) = 1.2388 + 1.7199 + 2.8182 + 0.0546 + 0.1176 = 5.9491 per 100,000

2.8182 of 5.9491 = 47.3%

47.3% of the US homicide rate of 5.9491 per 100,000 is because of blacks. Is this correct and why?

Anonymous
Comment on Buy You a New Life, again (as is the rest of the discussion)

Anonymous,

I answered your initial question at Vox Popoli. As for “why”, we can only speculate, absent controlled experiments.

Please note that cross-posting is generally frowned upon on the internet. I can explain the reason for that, but I shouldn’t need to.

I suspect your first language is not American English. Do you have any familiarity with American culture?

Oh you’re right. I’m not an American, so forgive me.

Anyway, I know I shouldn’t be cross-posting, it’s just that I’m writing something and I’m in a hurry because the deadline is today. Here’s my source:

go to page 3, Table 1

It won’t happen again, it’s just that I’m in such a big rush.

If you have a deadline, then this must be for school. If it’s for school, then I’m guessing you’ll want to explain the homicide rate in a way that will win you the best grade from your teacher.

First, I’ll explain the orthodox interpretation, according to most academics in America:

“Crime is mostly caused by socioeconomic inequality, and blacks in America are disproportionately poor (as a group; some are middle-class and a few are wealthy). Therefore, it is not surprising that blacks turn to crime to satisfy their needs.”

But you’re in the wrong part of the internet for orthodoxy. The collection of websites you’ve been cross-posting across is called the “alternative right wing”, because it is a small offshoot from the old right wing politics (variously branded as paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism, classical liberalism, and so on).

Now I’ll try to generalize what the alternative right thinks are the causes for disproportionate black crime:

“Crime is mostly caused by a mixture of genetics and culture. Genetically, blacks tend to have lower IQs and several other unfortunate traits (such as a higher rate of psychopathy) that make them susceptible to the temptation to commit crimes. Culturally, black celebrities (rappers) glorify the system of crime, crass hedonism, and ‘gangster’ tribalism that resulted from the drug conflicts of the 1980s. Also, the federal government has made the problem worse by giving money to blacks who live bad lifestyles, which allows them to continue living in bad conditions and have lots of children, who go on to be ‘gangsters’.”

Most agree that the low socioeconomic status of most blacks is a contributing factor, but the alternative right believes it is a small factor compared to genetics and culture. Instead, genetics and culture cause both crime and poverty more than poverty causes crime.

-Thank you for providing the source.

-I’m not going to check your math for the second set of numbers. The two schools of interpretation are no different than before.

-It is almost impossible to discuss causality in a constructive way without controlled experiments.

“My second question is: what percentage of negroes do you need before you start seeing a major effect on the overall crime rate?”

-This ^ is not a good question. The strengths of the causal factors are still unknown. If they were known, you would need to choose a number to represent “a major effect”. And after all of that, extrapolation would be very unreliable. You can’t predict the future according to what happened in the past, you can only make educated guesses. (All of this ought to be covered in a textbook on basic statistics.)

-Sharing knowledge is a beautiful and wonderful thing. When you cross-post, it shows a lack of respect for the time of the experts who are answering you. If more than one answers you, then you are wasting their time.

Fortunately, I enjoy lecturing, so you get off with a warning this time :-)

Don’t do it again!

This ^ is not a good question. The strengths of the causal factors are still unknown. If they were known, you would need to choose a number to represent “a major effect”. And after all of that, extrapolation would be very unreliable. You can’t predict the future according to what happened in the past, you can only make educated guesses. (All of this ought to be covered in a textbook on basic statistics.)

Absent any change in the genetics (eg, but eliminating genes with a propensity for violence from the gene pool as whites have done) then we can predict the future from the past.

That is, blacks will continue to be a violent and murderous as they always have been.

Anonymous
(Maybe this was james, but probably not. The faux intellectual writing style is different and suggests an American writer. E.g. the incorrect use of “e.g.”)

Absent any change in the genetics (eg, but eliminating genes with a propensity for violence from the gene pool as whites have done) then we can predict the future from the past.

That is, blacks will continue to be a violent and murderous as they always have been.

This is an elementary misinterpretation of statistical induction. Do I need to educate you on the fundamentals or do I need to educate you on the specific application? This is not a false dichotomy, nor is it merely rhetorical.