Hacker News Reader

Comment by scythe | Hacker News Reader

>the very strong link between poverty and (certain types of) crime [0].

"Very strong" is not a very useful description. Quantitative explanations are important. Unfortunately, your linked paper is not available. This one is:

https://www.academia.edu/download/3521147/Pratt___Cullen_200...

Poverty is listed, but it is not a stronger effect than religiosity, family disruption, or firearms ownership. The strongest effects found in this meta-analysis were from "strength of non-economic institutions" and "unemployment (length considered)".

It is always a little frustrating to hear from a certain kind of politically motivated poster who is very interested in in-depth critiques of any theory of crime except their own conviction that poverty is the sine qua non of theft and violence. The evidence does not support this view.

View on HN

> It is always a little frustrating to hear from a certain kind of politically motivated poster who is very interested in in-depth critiques of any theory of crime except their own conviction that poverty is the sine qua non of theft and violence.

I don't know if I said anywhere that poverty is the only contributing factor, or is fully required for crime to occur (clearly white collar crime is a counterexample), but I do strongly believe that it is a leading factor for many varieties of crime, particularly the "guns and drugs on the table" types of crimes that the police love to prosecute. Thanks for your condescending evaluation of my motivations and your correction of my language summarizing a study. I disagree that "very strong" isn't a useful descriptor of quantitative findings, but I suppose everyone is free to have their own preferences. Sorry for your frustration, but I do think that it's misguided.

> The strongest effects found in this meta-analysis were from "strength of non-economic institutions" and "unemployment (length considered)".

Unsure how strong your understanding of multivariate regression is, but I would imagine that including two big covariates of poverty in an analysis would reduce the effect size of the actual poverty variable. "Family disruption" seems like another big correlate of poverty. The link you provided doesn't work for me so can't investigate any of these deeper, but I imagine that drawing out a little causal diagram of all these possible causes might help you reconcile the study you found with the one I provided. Have a good one!

It’s no mystery that “guns and drugs on the table” crime is perpetrated by low-IQ psychopaths. I’m tired of people’s political views unleashing this group of people in my neighborhood. I would appreciate another approach.

> It’s no mystery that “guns and drugs on the table” crime is perpetrated by low-IQ psychopaths.

This is simply and empirically wrong, but you're free to believe it if you find simple falsehoods more comfortable than nuanced truths.

> I’m tired of people’s political views unleashing this group of people in my neighborhood.

People need to stop using "political" when they mean "contrary to my prejudices about the world".

> I would appreciate another approach.

Likewise.

There are multiple replies linking you to studies which speak to the contrary. You are of course, free to selectively address them (or ignore altogether) if they cause mental discomfort, but please do not make sweeping generalizations that they are "simply and empirically wrong".

In your own words, the truth might be more nuanced than the current falsehood-du-jour.

All the studies linked in this thread agree with what I'm saying, please feel free to provide counterexamples

> All the studies linked in this thread agree with what I'm saying

Exhibit A: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37756115

Can't tell if this is a low effort troll, or if you're just confused about who you're replying to or what this comment was saying. The linked comment has a quote from the article confirming the points I made in my initial post:

> Indicators of "concentrated disadvantage" (e.g., racial heterogeneity, poverty, and family disruption) are among the strongest and most stable predictors.

Absolutely nothing in the article being discussed in this comment aligns with the comment I was replying to:

> It’s no mystery that “guns and drugs on the table” crime is perpetrated by low-IQ psychopaths

Moreover, I both saw and discussed this article, so it's absolutely not the case that I'm ignoring inconvenient truths. The truths under discussion are both extremely convenient to my point, and directly addressed by me.

> Very strong" is not a very useful description. Quantitative explanations are important. Unfortunately, your linked paper is not available. This one is:

> https://www.academia.edu/download/3521147/Pratt___Cullen_200...

Err, not for me, it isn't.

So I looked up the Pratt/Cullen 2005 paper (https://sci-hub.se/10.1086/655357), and right off the bat, the abstract doesn't seem to agree with you:

> Indicators of "concentrated disadvantage" (e.g., racial heterogeneity, poverty, and family disruption) are among the strongest and most stable predictors.

Also, what makes you think your counterexamples are unrelated to poverty? I would expect "unemployment length" and "poverty" to be HIGHLY correlated, and unemployment is #2 on the list.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com