My emotional security? You’re the only one here talking to people like they’re Richard Spencer II for correlating crime and race and calling them “brainlets“ for not “studying the mechanisms behind the statistics”. You said you would explain the mysterious mechanisms behind the race/crime statistics and you still haven’t replied to my post containing them.
I'm not familiar with Richard Spencer's manner of speaking, but you haven't been too flattering, yourself. That's why I even bothered bringing up emotional security-- well, that, and my impression of "race realists" has largely been that they have an almost pathological need to use poorly interpreted statistics in order to stave off suicide by convincing themselves of a scapegoat uniformly worse and less accomplished than them, employing principally motte-and-bailey to worm in racist theories that they don't have the guts to outright say in the way they would actually want as well as egregious logical jumps (e.g. "the average IQ of the African is 85" --> "hardly any African has an IQ greater than 85").
He didn’t even mention crime in this post lmao. He mentioned problems (which isn’t only crime, black people have a bad rep when it comes to other things like noise disturbance, general lack of care for property, etc) and data.
Don't do that. Whenever we talk "problems" and "data", we are almost always referring to "crime" and there's no reason to suppose otherwise. Even if it's multiple matters, we're invariably talking about crime.
Except that the statistics literally
correlate race and crime.
So you don't understand what correlation
isn't.
This is what I was referring to with "egregious logical jumps". That there's a correlation between race and crime, statistically speaking, means
something. What may that something be? It may mean that race has a
causal relationship with crime, and it may not, because correlation doesn't equal causation. The correlation itself has to be
explained. You can easily correlate two different things however you want, and then come up with whatever explanation you have for it-- race vs. income isn't such an arbitrary relationship to examine, but the entire system of causality isn't
just race and income.
That said, you've all but denied that the issues I've brought up thus far (poverty, income inequality, the former two causing cultural rot) could be contributors, and presumably you don't think that anything outside of race (including single motherhood) would be a contributing factor. Or, maybe you think that all such issues are downstream from race-- of course, different African communities don't have the same internal issues that the African-American community has, as Africans outside America are pretty good at maintaining the nuclear family structure. Even the article you cite says that immigrant Africans have incarceration rates comparable to that of whites.
Thing is, you're not actually making that jump yourself. You're not actually explaining what about race-- and only race-- would cause higher crime rates. You're assaulting me with the perceived shock of this correlation... and you're trying to do something and nothing with it at the same time.
My “rule” is supported by statistics, and just plain reason. Example: the most dangerous cities in America are Bessemer (AL), East St. Louis (IL), and Monroe (LA). Bessemer - 70% black, East St. Louis - 98% black, Monroe - 63% black.
On the contrary, you're using a correlation without attempting to interpret that correlation, all while assuming race is the only active factor in here based on a statistical proposition that recognizes itself as purely a statistical statistical proposition. Your takeaway from that writing, for example, doesn't account for immigrant blacks being incarcerated at similar rates as white people. It doesn't acknowledge that single motherhood is stated to be a "close second", and with that, it doesn't discuss the cultural and developmental effects of such a circumstance.
You don't even discuss this from your article:
Although the data are somewhat noisy and single-motherhood is quite strongly associated with the black population (r=0.76 at the county level), it seems to me that:
- there is a non-linear relationship between single-motherhood and homicide (which may be throwing off the linear model estimates somewhat)
- counties with very high rates of single-motherhood have very high homicide rates even with negligible black populations
- blacker counties with low-rates of single-motherhood seem to have homicide rates much closer to the national average (the same cannot be said for other covariates)
Based on the other evidence I have seen, I have come to view the single-motherhood being at least a very strong proxy for community health is and, in many respects, a stronger predictor of inter-racial differences than other measures like poverty rates. It does not entirely explain the observed racial differences here, but it mediates much of the relationship and does so more effectively than other common measures.
And one could easily understand why single motherhood would correlate with crime rates. We know what single motherhood can do en masse. That
still isn't the whole story, of course.