| HN Mirror

Anecdote is not a study nor is it generalizable to a large population.

Not to mention your "population" in this case is preselected from your own friend group

[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15&q=bro...

>Anecdote is not a study nor is it generalizable to a large population.

The page lists many actual studies over large populations with links to read more of the research. OP may have felt since you don't believe the actual studies which were listed and are pretty conclusive, that you can test it yourself to get a feel of the phenomenon.

Don't like that, here's [1] google scholar on the broken windows theory, with scads of papers you can read to satisfy your request for studies.

The page also lists how Zimbardo demonstrated the principle by interfering with his "study"

That's alongside numerous other critiques and criticisms which are generally more recent on the wikipedia page that we are commenting on. All you have to do is scroll down.

>Zimbardo demonstrated the principle by interfering with his "study"

After he broke the car window, he noted that others would jump in and do the same. And he is by far not the only researcher to test the hypothesis on many, many areas.

As to how recent work is, the Google scholar literature is more recent than any on Wikipedia. I provided a link. Look at some.

There are thousands of papers on Google scholar, a huge amount form this year, about where the hypothesis applies. Almost none claim it is not a valid effect. The research centers around where it shows up and detailed causal effects.

A criticism of some hypothesis is not an invalidation, especially when the majority of the literature overrides.

There's published critiques of a everything from general relativity to climate change. It doesn't invalidate the overriding evidence in those cases, nor does criticism invalidate this.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02779...

From the first paper on the google scholar search you posted, which is a recent meta-analysis from 2019

>Further examination revealed that support for BWT-related hypotheses has been overstated owing to data censoring and the failure to consistently include critical covariates, like socioeconomic status and collective efficacy

I'm getting the feeling that you did not read the articles you posted. And yes, I trust the word of a large scale meta-analysis over individual studies as a general rule

[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2017.13...

> for BWT-related hypotheses has been overstated

Overstated does not mean the hypothesis is invalid, does it?

Also you realize this paper is not about the BWT as a hypothesis for more crime, which is the BWT hypothesis, but is instead applying BWT to health outcomes, right? Seems a bit odd that this is what you select.

If you want some recent papers actually about the BWT, try [1]: "The findings reported here lend support to propositions derived from broken windows theory to a major extent."

>And yes, I trust the word of a large scale meta-analysis over individual studies as a general rule

Good. Maybe read the next sentence after the one you quoted that you conveniently forgot:

"Even where there is evidence that BWT impacts outcomes, it is driven by studies that measured disorder as the perceptions of the focal individual, potentially conflating pessimism about the neighborhood with mental health."

So there is some evidence that BWT impacts outcomes, even health ones, in some situations?

When you select a paper not on topic, pull a quote out of context to make it look on topic, ignore the following sentence, that level of dishonesty is not worth dealing with. Looking at the 14 of your posts (out of 32 total posts) in this thread so far, you are not being honest with anyone here. So I'm done.

hickvision 1429 days ago

>Anecdote is not a study

And what I described is the outline of a study, not an anecdote. Small scale, limited sample size, and less well controlled than an academic study, but it's still data.

Also, as another poster already mentioned, it isn't as if there is any shortage of large scale, academic studies available showing exactly the same results, if those are more your cup of tea.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02779...

That paper is not about the BWT, but about BWT applied to health outcomes. And the next sentence you didn't quote states that even in that case BWT has truth to it.

Such dishonesty over and over...

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dang 1429 days ago

Please don't cross into flamewar or personal swipes, regardless of how you feel about someone else's comments.

No, it actually does not. Emphasis mine

>Even where there is evidence that BWT impacts outcomes, it is driven by studies that measured disorder as the perceptions of the focal individual, potentially conflating pessimism about the neighborhood with mental health.

This states that the perception of disorder does not necessarily match up with reality and that the conclusion of said study is flawed