[IkmoIkmo]

What do you mean by demographics? If you mean age, sure, 10 year olds or 60 year olds show lower crimerates than 25 year olds. But you linked specifically to an article that discusses various ethnic migrants. So again, you seem to be saying that ethnicity matters in crime.

And to this point, we all agree, there is a correlation. But what most of us don't agree with, but it almost seems as if you're implying it, is that there's something inherent about the ethnicity that makes one prone to crime. As if there's a genetic predisposition to theft, violence, rape, murder.

So you've left at least me curious as to what you're really saying.

[yummyfajitas]

By your definition of "inherent", that is what I'm saying. The data suggests there is some trait which is correlated with ethnicity and also with crime. Because this trait seems to be a strong driver of crime, it is unreasonable to suggest that a simple policy change will reduce crime to Scandinavian levels. For all we know, it might reduce crime to "Somalian in Scandinavia" levels rather than "Scandinavian in Scandinavia" levels - these are both crime levels which exist under Scandinavian policy.

There are many traits which are correlated with ethnicity, and hereditary, but not genetic - religion and accent for example. I'm not opposed to a genetic explanation, I just don't think the evidence strongly favors it.

It's also irrelevant to the policy question unless the policy directly addresses those traits. For example, if the trait is genetic as you hypothesize, then adopting a socialized genetic engineering policy might help. Or if the trait is, e.g. Islam, then a policy focused on converting Muslims into Buddhists might help.

[IkmoIkmo]

> if the trait is genetic as you hypothesize

Oh, no, to the contrary. I was merely saying it felt as if YOU implied this. If you want to know my position, no, I completely reject the notion that e.g. Somalians carry genes that make them more prone to violence, murder, theft, rape etc. There are barely any studies that support it, the few that do are from notorious researchers that pretty much everyone regard as blatant racists (e.g. look up Rushton). While there is evidence to suggest the contrary. (e.g. when comparing an adopted child from a minority background into a majority family shows the impact of socioeconomic status rather than DNA.)

> The data suggests there is some trait which is correlated with ethnicity and also with crime

Anyway, back to my point... You still don't seem to be at all open to the notion that there may be no 'traits' or that their influence aren't very great.

That is, where traits describe (usually genetic) characteristics of a person, which could explain a person's behavior in his environment, have you considered the opposite? That the environment's characteristics affect the behavior of the individual? That's overwhelmingly what sociologists have concluded (studied sociology in undergrad, my gf in grad). Fact is, a lot of immigrants in Europe came for menial labor in the 60s and 70s, were put in housing next to the factories they worked in, besides having barely been educated (overwhelmingly illiterate) as children, receive no form of education after their arrival in Europe (e.g. language or cultural education). Hundreds of thousands grew up isolated from any natives, worked daily in the factories, and at some point after 10-20 years moved to the cities when the industry shifted away from menial labor in Europe and the jobs dried up. So now you have people with absolutely no skills fit for the modern economy, no ability to read or write, no affiliation with local culture etc. That creates unemployment, poverty, it creates tensions, it creates conflicts. These people had zero political representation in government, zero representation in the media, no voice, and absolutely no competitive position in the marketplace. People with a gigantic social, financial and human capital disadvantages, and anyone from this minority who tries to escape from situation is met with stigma, with the stereotype views, which often leads to discrimination in the workplace even for highly educated individuals with that ethnic background. Indeed to the extent that there are lots of people walking around with an unsubstantiated notion that immigrants are genetically less able, less intelligent, less moral, the very definition of the nazi untermensch doctrine, which feeds into the discrimination, isolation and ostracizing of members of this minority, in school, work, politics, media. And this is what perpetuates the problems. The next generation of kids are born to illiterate unemployed parents with very limited financial means for education, self-exploration, extra-curricular activities, creative materials (toys, computers), no books or newspapers in the house, a language deficit etc etc. These kids don't have a fair shot and by age 6 they already are behind in school, and if you know one thing about education is that when you are behind on this week's homework, then understanding next week's becomes more difficult, and the deficit becomes greater and greater, to the point a kid isn't learning anymore, doesn't feel comfortable in school, loses confidence. That's when you see the dropout rate spike. Now you have kids 14 years old who barely go to school, aren't able to land a job a few years later.

THAT is what causes so many issues. Bad policies for people of the lowest socioeconomic class that starts a cascading effect and perpetuates throughout multiple generations. This isn't controversial among the sociologists that research it. What is extremely controversial is the notion of the untermensch, that some ethnicities are genetically lesser than others, and some ethnicities are superior. It's inherently racist, and time and time again we see these things come out of the mouths of extreme right-wing political leaders of various parties in Europe.

Now given the above, it's clear that of COURSE there's an explanation for the obvious correlation between the average immigrant and crime. And the data shows it's rooted in things like financial, social and human capital. Not genes. And guess what, policies are THE instrument to improving that. e.g. providing language and networking opportunities for illiterate immigrants helps. Providing extra language classes and reading sessions for kids with illiterate parents, helps. Removing the financial barriers to education for financially disadvantaged kids, helps. All of these things are pretty elementary, right? So yes, countries with better policies to crime get less crime than they otherwise would, and that has nothing to do with that country having less people from an ethnicity that has a genetic disposition to violence, rape, theft, murder. Why is this even a debate?

[yummyfajitas]

There are a variety of studies on genetic correlations of behavioral traits, based on twin and adoption studies, and they do suggest genetic links. Read Bryan Caplan's "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids" for a good overview (his intellectual goal is a completely different topic).

Indeed to the extent that there are lots of people walking around with an unsubstantiated notion that immigrants are genetically less able, less intelligent, less moral...perpetuates the problems.

Some immigrant groups (e.g., Vietnamese refugees) don't seem to need a "fair shot". They do well all by themselves. Why is that?

Scroll up - the numbers just don't add for poverty as an explanation. If you think your other factors do explain variation well, lets see some numbers.

Racism by the rest of society doesn't work well as the sole additional variable, since African and Caribbean immigrants tend to outperform African Americans. That also cuts against genetic explanations, BTW.

I just don't think the story is as simple as you or the OP are making it out to be - too much unexplained variation.

[IkmoIkmo]

> Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids

Not aware of any grand genetic behavioral traits to things like theft, murder, violence, rape discussed in this book. Nor does it particularly concern itself with the effect of socioeconomic status or the environment(low-income, illiterate parents, lack of books/newspapers in the home etc, stigma of members of certain minorities etc). It really only concerns itself with parenting style ('tiger mom' vs 'sure you can watch TV and eat pizza') and even here he suggests that there are indeed effects of parenting on intelligence up to a certain age. And within even this limited frakework it's quite a contrarian view that many sociologists don't share, most I would even say from my experience in the field.

But beyond that, it doesn't provide an argument for the case that entire ethnic groups are genetically lesser persons. I mean really, what are we debating here. Just say it straight up, do you really believe in this idea of the untermensch ubermensch, because that's what it comes down to. I reject such a notion that one ethnic or racial group is better than the other, I'm curious if you don't.

Some immigrant groups (e.g., Vietnamese refugees) don't seem to need a "fair shot". They do well all by themselves. Why is that?

There are many reasons, because they are genetically better is not one of them according to me. And this is the overwhelming view in academia. You keep leaving me curious where you stand with questions that seem rhetorical, so as to continuously imply 'why is that? well it must be that some ethnicities or countries have better genes', not asked merely in curiosity of an answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority

> Racism by the rest of society doesn't work well as the sole additional variable

Agreed, nobody said it was the sole variable. But to go against decades and decades of conclusions of the effect of discrimination is laughable, even to imply it or hint at it. Of course it doesn't mean there's zero success in people from minority backgrounds, and that the moment there's one segment of a minority who succeeds you can claim 'oh, but then racism didn't matter at all'. Why even bring this up if you know better. This will probably be my last post.

Especially as you've essentially agreed and raised the final point I wanted to make, that this indeed cuts against genetic explanations. As does the earlier wiki link I posted, where you see that each society has a model minority and they're wildly different, and are generally explained by socioeconomic status or attitudes towards e.g. education, the family etc. Again, I've lived in Europe all my life, born and raised here, I've lived with the North-African immigrants who were illiterate and uneducated people who live in little moutain villages isolated from modernity. The Arab equivalent of the stereotypical redneck with all due respect, only without literacy or any education. Of course they'll perform poorly in the city-life of a different country, culture. But I've also lived with North African immigrants with similar genes, who were university schooled and lived in cities, and they perform very well here, with no difference in genes.

>> I just don't think the story is as simple as you or the OP are making it out to be

That's fine, it indeed is a very complex subject and any posts totaling 2 pages of text of course aren't enough to explain the complete economic, cultural, social, financial and political success of natives and immigrants in tens of countries and wildly different situations. To say anything about such a large group of people in such a large set of different situations in one or two pages of text requires an oversimplification!

I agree with you here. I've merely tried to hint at some of the ideas that sociologists in my experience and study seem to overwhelmingly hold, which is simply NOT a race-based theory of genetically inferior and superior races/ethnicities/countries, I hope that much is clear.

Anyway thanks for the chat :)