What's the deal with the Southern US? [Archive]

BRussell

03-09-2002, 05:04 PM

I was thinking about this because of the thread about the woman who killed the guy in her windshield. I was wondering why it seems like these things always happen in Texas.

Well, I did a little digging, and it's true - there's more violent crime, and especially gun-based crime in the south, especially Texas.

But they execute more people which is supposedly a deterrent, and more people have guns which supposedly protects you from crime.

What's the deal? You Southerners got some 'splainin' to do.
:razz:

<a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm" target="_blank">Homicide is higher in the South.</a>

<a href="http://www.vpc.org/studies/norckey.htm" target="_blank">Gun ownership is higher in the South.</a>

Executions are higher in the South:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execbyreg700.GIF

FotNS

03-09-2002, 05:21 PM

About the death penalty, deterrence is not its main objective. First and foremost, it is punishment. It is the ultimate price so justice may be served. If it deters others, so much the better, but even if it doesn't, that does not negate its importance in the criminal justice system.

agent302

03-09-2002, 07:17 PM

[quote]Originally posted by FotNS:
About the death penalty, deterrence is not its main objective. First and foremost, it is punishment. It is the ultimate price so justice may be served. If it deters others, so much the better, but even if it doesn't, that does not negate its importance in the criminal justice system.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, deterrence is a main concept put forth by groups trying to lobby for the introduction of the death penalty. Life without parole is just as much punishment.

ThinkingDifferent

03-09-2002, 08:35 PM

Last week I heard a story on Public Radio that was talking about how racism was increasing in the deep south, specifically Texas. It seems that ever since the mid 60's, the south has become more republican. This is being attributed to the democracts passing anti discrimination laws in the '60s. Right or wrong, racism will always be around, deal with it.

Splinemodel

03-09-2002, 10:22 PM

Alright, bear with me here:

The racial climate in the South has always been shaky. First it was white vs. black in master vs. slave, then white vs. Mexican in the wars, and etc. In the North there never was the direct racial conflict that there was in the South.

The Southerners I know who are big-time Republicans are more in favor of the party, not for any racial reasons, but because Republicans tend to lobby towards policies that are genuinely in line with the way of life down there. I'd guess that the biggest reason why most Southern blacks are Dems is because many Southern whites are Republicans. Economic factors come second.

As for Public Radio, it's something not to be trusted in the same way that right-wing journals are a bit untrustworthy. It's run by a bunch of socialist, intellectual-aristocrats who think that they are keepers of culture. To say that racism is increasing in the South is dead wrong. Perhaps there are spikes in some regions, but I'm sure that it has greatly decreased overall in the past 20 years. The folks at NPR were using skewed surveys, without a doubt.

_ alliance _

03-10-2002, 01:04 AM

we gotta have our guns. its as simple as that. its security. (i dont own a gun btw...)

in the south, we have to deal w/ all this racist bullsh*t. in the north, u have to deal w/ the canadians. it seems that we got the good end of that deal. :D

torifile

03-10-2002, 01:20 AM

The south has it's fair bit of racial tension, but I don't think that that's the main reason for the higher crime rates. I think it actually has more to do with the higher rates of poverty down here. The south, as a whole, is poorer than the north. Also, there have been several studies that look at the way violence is perceived in the south, and it appears to be more acceptable.

For example, there's something that social psychologists like to call a "culture of honor." Basically what this boils down to is that committing an act of violence that is perceived as being provoked because of a slight to one's honor, is looked upon more favorably in the south than in the north (how's that for an awkwardly worded sentence??). What several studies have shown is that the south has such a culture. They sent out fake resumes to random employers, both in the south and the north, identical in all ways. For the question about being convicted of a felony on the application, they answered yes and provided an explanation something like "I killed a man because he was sleeping with my wife." There was a significant difference in the number of telephone inquiries for followup interviews at the employers who were based in the south. I'm sure I forgot some of the methodology, but that's the gist.

Another study looked at the terms used to describe violent crimes on the local news in the south and the north. They coded stories for the "tone" (warmth, positivity, negativity, etc.) and they found that the newscasts in the south tended to use more positive terms overall for acts of violence.

It's just more accepted down here. There's more of a sense of vigilante justice, if you will. You take care of your property, however you can. Of course, there could be other reasons, but I'm sure that these are just as logical explanations as any. (Personally, I like to laugh when all the gun-toting rednecks around here say that the guns make them safer. Just look at the stats for god's sake!)

[edit: I forgot to mention the heat/aggression connection. People tend to be more aggressive when it's hotter and it's hotter in the south. (This could also be a cause of the poverty, leading to the aggression. That is, poverty mediates the relationship between heat and aggression, at least partially.) Just something else to chew on.]

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]

spaceman_spiff

03-10-2002, 01:29 AM

[quote]Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent:

Last week I heard a story on Public Radio that was talking about how racism was increasing in the deep south, specifically Texas...<hr></blockquote>

More racist than during Jim Crow? Yeah, right.

Moogs

03-10-2002, 12:39 PM

I don't know if a study has ever been done on this, but my theory is that racism doesn't have so much to do with southern vs. northern, as it does rural vs. urban (or whether your parents grew up in a rural area vs. an urban one).

[While in college] I found some seriously f*cked up redneck bastards from Iowa (a supposedly calm, friendly place to all who visit), Illinois, Wisconsin - even Minnesota. Many didn't even attempt to hide their racist attitudes in public places. And almost without exception, the people who held these views - they all came from farm communities or places that were otherwise isolated from urban areas.

Now think about this: the deep south is a LOT more tomato field than it is Atlanta or Charlotte, if you take my meaning. Most of Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama (and the others) - it's all farmland or empty tracts of pine forrest. And much of it is dirt-poor also - which could cerainly be a related factor. Poverty tends to bring out the worst in people... jealousy, bitterness towards outsiders, etc.

I don't know exactly what it is that skews the opinions of people in rural areas - maybe it's just a simple lack of contact with those they hate. It seemed many of the people I noted above basically never had to deal with anyone of color until they got to college (too late for change, obviously). Another thing I don't get is that supposedly people in rural communities are *more* ethical as a group than us urban dwellers, *more* "do unto others", etc.

But if you ask me, the behavior of people who come from rural areas doesn't bear this out too well. Now it could just be that I ran into all the wrong people in this regard and so, the vast majority of farm families and rural dwellers are kind as can be - but the odds seem against it from my perspective. Almost every racist dickhead I had the displeasure of meeting during my college years, came from rural places (even though the largest percentage of students were from the city - by FAR).

Thus I think racism in large part has to do with the type of community you grew up in (in terms of urban or rural), not how far north or south of the Mason-Dixon line you are. That's NOT to say there are no cross-burning dip-shits in the big city, just far fewer of them as a percentage of their community.

An takers?

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ™ ]

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ™ ]

Outsider

03-10-2002, 02:02 PM

in the south, we have to deal w/ all this racist bullsh*t. in the north, u have to deal w/ the canadians. it seems that we got the good end of that deal.

I know you're just kidding, but I can't think of any better neighbors than Canada. You should see how lax the borders are.

_ alliance _

03-10-2002, 02:16 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
in the south, we have to deal w/ all this racist bullsh*t. in the north, u have to deal w/ the canadians. it seems that we got the good end of that deal.

I know you're just kidding, but I can't think of any better neighbors than Canada. You should see how lax the borders are.<hr></blockquote>

so they DO intermingle w/ americans...
something must be done before they run wild.

spaceman_spiff

03-10-2002, 02:26 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ™:

Thus I think racism in large part has to do with the type of community you grew up in (in terms of urban or rural), not how far north or south of the Mason-Dixon line you are...

An takers?<hr></blockquote>

I dunno. NYC (as much as I love the place) at times displays a frightening amount of racial polarization. And it's not just the "cross burning dipshits" who are the problem. There are also the Al Sharptons on the other side of the divide.

But wasn't this thread supposed to be about murder rates and captital punishment? Racism isn't the only reason people commit murder. I'll bet it isn't even in the top five.

Samantha Joanne Ollendale

03-10-2002, 02:50 PM

I lived in Texas for a year, and from unfortunate first hand observation, for every Al Sharpton, there must be at least 10,000 David Dukes.

Scott_H

03-10-2002, 03:22 PM

There was a report out several years ago that was much more intelligent and substantial than the replies here. I think I read about it in Scientific American? The increased violence in the south was linked to .... can't remember .... the culture that solves problems via the dual. That is one's "honor" is involved in situation in the south much more than in other parts of the country. Something like that.

spaceman_spiff

03-10-2002, 03:42 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

I lived in Texas for a year, and from unfortunate first hand observation, for every Al Sharpton, there must be at least 10,000 David Dukes.<hr></blockquote>

Wow! Ten thousand! No hyperbole here folks. :rolleyes:

Scott_H

03-10-2002, 03:46 PM

Of course the liberal knee jerk reaction is to blame white racism for everything.

torifile

03-10-2002, 05:17 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
There was a report out several years ago that was much more intelligent and substantial than the replies here. I think I read about it in Scientific American? The increased violence in the south was linked to .... can't remember .... the culture that solves problems via the dual. That is one's "honor" is involved in situation in the south much more than in other parts of the country. Something like that.<hr></blockquote>

I guess you didn't read my post, did you? It's the culture of honor and I describe a couple of the studies examining it.

torifile

03-10-2002, 05:19 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
Of course the liberal knee jerk reaction is to blame white racism for everything.<hr></blockquote>

It's not the cause for everything, but it is the cause of a lot of things. Don't be so closed minded. Whites have caused more than their fair share of suffering in the world. Accept that and move on.

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]

MacsKickAss

03-10-2002, 05:23 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
Of course the liberal knee jerk reaction is to blame white racism for everything.<hr></blockquote>

Of course the white racist conservative reaction is to blame everything on liberals.

nonhuman

03-10-2002, 05:23 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
Of course the liberal knee jerk reaction is to blame white racism for everything.<hr></blockquote>

Which brings up an interesting point. When not at school in Minnesota, I live in Berkeley and Oakland in California (parents are divorced thus two houses...). While there is some white racism, what I've run into the most is black racism. There have been many many times when I've been made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, unwanted, and on the very rare occasion fearful for no reason other than that I am white and in a predominately black area (not that Berkeley and Oakland are, but parts of them are). And it is black racism mostly, not non-white racism. While it does exist, I almost never get the same hostility from Hispanics who are vastly more numerous or Asians who are also pretty numerous.

The only times I've really experience white racism is when we lived in New Jersey (where we were in a small town, and previous to that way out in the Pine Barrens).

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: nonhuman ]

BRussell

03-10-2002, 05:26 PM

<a href="http://www.sciam.com/2000/1000issue/1000numbers.html" target="_blank">Here's another article about homicides</a> in the southern US vs. the world. Look at Alaska - even though it's more north, it still has higher homicide rates compared to Canada.
http://www.sciam.com/2000/1000issue/IMG/numbers.gif

<a href="http://reason.com/9702/bk.wright.shtml" target="_blank">Here's a review of the theory torifile and Scott_H are talking about - the culture of honor in the South.</a>

[quote]Southerners and Northerners have different attitudes about violence--not across the board (as might be expected) but in certain specific areas, all of which seem linked to notions of honor and respect. Southerners, for example, are more likely to agree that violence is acceptable in defense of home and family and as a mechanism of social control, and they are especially likely to endorse violence as a response to insults and affronts, most of all when they involve women. This pattern suggests a culture in which honor threatened is honor lost and no response to the possible loss of honor is too extreme. Nisbett and Cohen note the evident similarities between this Southern code and the new culture of violence in the inner cities, where "dissing" often leads to death.<hr></blockquote>

torifile

03-10-2002, 05:34 PM

[quote]Originally posted by nonhuman:


Which brings up an interesting point. When not at school in Minnesota, I live in Berkeley and Oakland in California (parents are divorced thus two houses...). While there is some white racism, what I've run into the most is black racism. There have been many many times when I've been made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, unwanted, and on the very rare occasion fearful for no reason other than that I am white and in a predominately black area (not that Berkeley and Oakland are, but parts of them are). And it is black racism mostly, not non-white racism. While it does exist, I almost never get the same hostility from Hispanics who are vastly more numerous or Asians who are also pretty numerous.

The only times I've really experience white racism is when we lived in New Jersey (where we were in a small town, and previous to that way out in the Pine Barrens).

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: nonhuman ]<hr></blockquote>

You expect to experience white racism when you're white? How's that again? Don't be so thick. White racism exists. You want me to quote you some stats and studies on it, I will (just give me a couple of days to get relevant references).

[note: I'm not saying that it doesn't go the other way around, as well. But white (at least, european) racism has caused a lot more trouble than any other kind in the history of the modern world.

spaceman_spiff

03-10-2002, 05:54 PM

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:

You expect to experience white racism when you're white? How's that again? Don't be so thick. White racism exists... <hr></blockquote>

Speaking of thick, nonhuman wasn't arguing that white racism doesn't exist. As for experiencing white racism well, no, but a white person can certainly witness it. In fact, a white person may have more opportunites to witness racism simply because he or she might be more likely to catch another white person in an unguarded moment. Moreover, a lot of what is percieved by blacks to be racism isn't that at all. If I'm critical of a white person it's because of the thing I'm criticizing. But if I did the same thing to a black person it can easily be percieved as "evidence" of racism.

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]

nonhuman

03-10-2002, 06:04 PM

Yeah, I meant to say witnessed, not experienced.

torifile

03-10-2002, 06:24 PM

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:


Speaking of thick, nonhuman wasn't arguing that white racism doesn't exist.
<hr></blockquote>
Point taken.
[quote]
In fact, a white person may have more opportunites to witness racism simply because he or she might be more likely to catch another white person in an unguarded moment.
<hr></blockquote>
Really? You have any proof of that? Or are you just making up some psychological theory?

[quote]
Moreover, a lot of what is percieved by blacks to be racism isn't that at all. If I'm critical of a white person it's because of the thing I'm criticizing. But if I did the same thing to a black person it can easily be percieved as "evidence" of racism.
<hr></blockquote>
And how do you know that part of your criticism isn't unconsciously fueled by racism? And how do you know that's what a black would think? I guess because it's ok for you to read into their motives but not for them to read into yours :rolleyes: It goes both ways.

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]

spaceman_spiff

03-10-2002, 06:30 PM

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:

And how do you know that part of your criticism isn't unconsciously fueled by racism?<hr></blockquote>

Now who's reading into another person's motives?

[quote]Moreover, a lot of what is percieved by blacks to be racism isn't that at all. If I'm critical of a white person it's because of the thing I'm criticizing. But if I did the same thing to a black person it can easily be percieved as "evidence" of racism.

And how do you know that's what a black would think? <hr></blockquote>

Are you implying that this never happens?

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]

torifile

03-10-2002, 06:39 PM

I'm not implying anything. I'm merely pointing out the double standard that many people have in their thinking. Namely, that it's ok for you to read someone else's mind but it's not ok for them to do the same to you. Do you get it or shall I clarify further? Either it's acceptable to do that, or it's not. If it's not, then don't go saying that that's what they are thinking. If it is, then deal with it.

[edit: Next time, don't take my post out of context. The two questions were related and both rhetorical.]

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]

Eugene

03-10-2002, 07:17 PM

Alaska's population is in the hundreds of thousands and Canada's is in double-digit millions.

You can't really compare the two.

Samantha Joanne Ollendale

03-10-2002, 07:36 PM

[quote]Alaska's population is in the hundreds of thousands and Canada's is in double-digit millions.
You can't really compare the two.<hr></blockquote>

Why not? Its a homicide *rate* he's quoting, not comparing totals.

spaceman_spiff

03-10-2002, 07:56 PM

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:

I'm not implying anything. I'm merely pointing out the double standard that many people have in their thinking. Namely, that it's ok for you to read someone else's mind but it's not ok for them to do the same to you. <hr></blockquote>

Read someone's mind? What are you talking about? Are you unaware that there are black people who openly say whether or not they think they are the victim of racism? (If it's true, they should speak up.)

[quote]Do you get it or shall I clarify further? Either it's acceptable to do that, or it's not. If it's not, then don't go saying that that's what they are thinking. If it is, then deal with it.
<hr></blockquote>

Clarify this. This is a true story. I have two friends. One is black the other is white. One of them wanted to rent a car for a weekend. He went to the car rental place saw a car over by the fence that he wanted to rent. The car rental place didn't want to rent that car for some reason or other. They brought up an identical (his words) car but it was a different color instead. The other friend wanted to buy a treadmill. He shopped around and saw the make and model he wanted. When he went to buy it, he was told that the only one they had was the floor model. They had none in inventory. He asked the sales person to check to see if they had one at one of their other stores. The sales person said he'd check. Came back and said, sorry, no. Later, after my friend got home, he called some of the other stores and found out that one of them had the treadmill he wanted in stock. Which friend told me he was the victim of racism and which one chalked it up to bad customer service?

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]

groverat

03-10-2002, 11:39 PM

[quote]I lived in Texas for a year, and from unfortunate first hand observation, for every Al Sharpton, there must be at least 10,000 David Dukes.<hr></blockquote>

For every racist, there are 10,000 racists?

I'm not following what you're saying.

This is one of the more humorous threads I've seen today...

BRussell, your nicely colored map there kind of shows that the northern states are quite fond of murder as well. The Midwest is relatively calm, however.

A very profound bigot, you are.

BRussell

03-10-2002, 11:46 PM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
BRussell, your nicely colored map there kind of shows that the northern states are quite fond of murder as well. The Midwest is relatively calm, however.

A very profound bigot, you are.<hr></blockquote>Well, at least I'm profound.
:p

finboy

03-11-2002, 01:35 PM

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
Well, at least I'm profound.
:p <hr></blockquote>

As always.

I think it's good that you folks are talking about this, but make sure that you're covering everything.

Crime is more of a personal threat in the South because law enforcement is spread out and the chance of getting busted is slim. That's also one reason that we need our own personal protection.

As for the DEATH penalty, we won't ever know whether or not it's a deterrent in this country, because there's no way to link the verdict with the execution. When it takes 15 years to carry out the sentence, it kinda loses its impact. And it serves as a deterrent, but it also serves to keep the crud off of the street. The deterrent effect is clearly the reason to do it. I'd like to see the heads on posts outside the town gate, but those days are passed.

And as for RACISM -- I've always understood that minorities are far more closely scrutinized up north, where there are fewer minorities. Not that I have personal knowledge, but this is from friends of mine who've tried to live up north. You see, where I grew up there was almost no discrimination, since just about everyone was poor as hell, and that tended to unite us. Same for the prior generation or so, as well.

As for stupid and backwards Southerners, that's ridiculous. I've known plenty of stupid and backwards Yankees. Case in point: wrestling venues fill up on BOTH SIDES of the Mason/Dixon line.

[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: finboy ]

LoCash

03-11-2002, 02:28 PM

[quote]Originally posted by _ alliance _:
we gotta have our guns. its as simple as that. its security. (i dont own a gun btw...)

in the south, we have to deal w/ all this racist bullsh*t. in the north, u have to deal w/ the canadians. it seems that we got the good end of that deal. :D <hr></blockquote>

I grew up in Atlanta, and I've met more racist people in New England than I ever met in Atlanta. I lived in Midtown though, not in the sticks, so maybe you see less of it in an urban setting. Nevertheless, I live two blocks from Fenway Park in Boston, and living around here, I can still say I've met more racists here than Atlanta.

finboy

03-11-2002, 02:53 PM

A good friend of mine says that he'd never seen anything like the racism around Boston. That's after having grown up in the middle of Virginia cow country. Plus, he's lived all over the country since, including Atlanta.

Scott_H

03-11-2002, 04:23 PM

I can back that up. I had a roommate at Virginia Tech that grew up in cow country Virginia. His roommate before me was a black guy. His father was a truck driver so it wasn't like he was some NoVA upper middle class guy. We all got a long just fine. Who'da thunk it? Not the knee jerk liberals that's for sure.

[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]

crawlingparanoia

03-11-2002, 08:36 PM

I live in California so I don't see a lot of racism first hand... everywhere I've lived has been real diverse which is nice.

Now that I'm at a University I hear a lot more about the racism that people have experienced throughout the country. One person in my dorm is of Middle Eastern descent, and lives in Georgia. He said every white person down there is racist, and when he got here he just figured it'd be the same way. He said he was really surprised to find that it's not, and that he still has a hard time dealing with it.

BRussell

03-11-2002, 08:52 PM

I don't see how the violent crime could be accounted for by racism. Unless you mean the long-term after effects of slavery and denial of civil rights.

I personally think it's guns. The gun rates are higher in the South, and so are the murder rates.

About half of all household in the South have a gun, compared to about 1/3 in the rest of the country.

And virtually all homicides are with guns. Seems pretty clear to me.

groverat

03-11-2002, 10:23 PM

Guns are a tool, not a cause.

You are a tool with a cause. ;)

Crimes are committed mainly by people. Seems pretty clear to me. Ban people.

_ alliance _

03-11-2002, 10:30 PM

put all the stupid people in one state that noone cares about (like minnesota or alaska) and lock it up. then let the real people have the rest of the country.

or...we can go back to social darwinism...survival of the fittest always works. no more letting the stupid and weak survive. if they arent fit to live, then they die. at the very least, STOP LETTING THEM BREED!!!

only the strong must pass on genetics.

that sound better...?

torifile

03-12-2002, 02:17 AM

So, basically, what all of you are saying is that it's better for us to generate our own half-assed theories about why murder rates are higher in the south than to discuss the actual results of several (well-conducted) psychological studies? BRussell, you're a psychologist, back me up on this one.

All you armchair psychologists need to read the link that BRussell provided a few posts back. Then come back here and discuss. No wonder I don't get into discussions in this forum more often. People would rather talk about personal experiences than what actually happens. :rolleyes:

spaceman_spiff

03-12-2002, 05:09 AM

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:

People would rather talk about personal experiences than what actually happens. :rolleyes: <hr></blockquote>

You mean personal experiences don't really happen? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

torifile

03-12-2002, 11:00 AM

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:


You mean personal experiences don't really happen? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <hr></blockquote>

Not at all, just that they don't make a good basis for theories about human behavior. I mis-spoke in my earlier post and I stand corrected. I do believe, however, that personal experience makes a bad basis for scientific theory. As Freud about the rigors of a single-case design and see how scientific he is. Experience is good, but since most of us are either not poor, racist, gun-toting, southern, etc, etc. I don't believe that we can accurately draw on our experience and generalize it to that of the people we are talking about. Maybe that explains my point a little better. :)

BRussell

03-12-2002, 01:02 PM

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
So, basically, what all of you are saying is that it's better for us to generate our own half-assed theories about why murder rates are higher in the south than to discuss the actual results of several (well-conducted) psychological studies?<hr></blockquote>Yeah I think from now on before anyone posts here you have to carry out a study with an appropriate control condition.
:p

Scott_H

03-12-2002, 01:31 PM

It's all the evil white peoples' fault.

torifile

03-12-2002, 01:51 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
It's all the evil white peoples' fault.<hr></blockquote>

What the hell are you talking about? Do you have a sticky note with your pat responses ready to post or do you just have a script that automatically posts for you? :rolleyes:

torifile

03-12-2002, 01:54 PM

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
Yeah I think from now on before anyone posts here you have to carry out a study with an appropriate control condition.
:p <hr></blockquote>

Of course :D Seriously, though, we're ignoring all the information that we have to answer this question and making up our own reasons. In the process, we're also ignoring Scott H.'s one (somewhat) reasonable response to the thread. He said there were some studies that looked at this and maybe we should be thinking about those studies.

We should all make a concerted effort to positively reinforce Scott for being a relatively mature adult who thinks out his responses those extremely few times he does.

groverat

03-12-2002, 02:00 PM

[quote]Experience is good, but since most of us are either not poor, racist, gun-toting, southern, etc, etc.<hr></blockquote>

You want poor, gun-toting rednecks then look no farther than my mother's side of the family. East Texas dwellers from Alabama and Arkansas. There are more fake teeth at those family reunions than in your local nursing home.

In my experience (which is more significant among the rednecks and hillbillies than most) racism is a non-issue. Note the lack of KKK (and related group) influence and power.

I've met as many racist rich kids in frats as I have gun-toting rednecks.

Crime is related to class, not race. People will do anything to get ahead, people just have different options. Bo-Bo and Knuck-Knuck from the boonies can hold up a few convenience stores, Thaddeus from the financial district can extort money from big corporations and ruin jobs. What is a "crime", really?

Outsider

03-12-2002, 02:22 PM

Maybe the 'kind' of crime. Violent crime usually brings forth more emotion, and it's reflected in the news media.

BRussell

03-12-2002, 02:42 PM

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
We should all make a concerted effort to positively reinforce Scott for being a relatively mature adult who thinks out his responses those extremely few times he does.<hr></blockquote>Hmm, using an internet-based behavior therapy to cure ASPD. I think we have a dissertation!
;)

pusherman

03-12-2002, 03:55 PM

i grew up in alabama and now i live in georgia. there's definately something to be said, from my experience, about differences in rural and urban environments. i grew up in a small town and -isms and phobias were really common. however the violent crime was much much lower. here in savannah it's a lot more urban, and i don't witness as much racism, but there is a lot more violent crime. most of it is black on black crime, but every now and then a white or foreign student will get knocked off in a gang initiation or something. i feel a lot safer back in alabama, even though there homophobia is a bigger problem than in savannah. but from all my time living down here, it definately seems that poverty is the common link in those who commit violent crimes. Seems like most of the news comes from either the trailer parks outside of town, or from the ghetto.

thentro

03-13-2002, 12:07 AM

[quote]Originally posted by _ alliance _:
put all the stupid people in one state that noone cares about (like minnesota or alaska) and lock it up. then let the real people have the rest of the country.

or...we can go back to social darwinism...survival of the fittest always works. no more letting the stupid and weak survive. if they arent fit to live, then they die. at the very least, STOP LETTING THEM BREED!!!

only the strong must pass on genetics.

that sound better...?<hr></blockquote>

Thanks Hitler (Are you an Ubermensch?) <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

And what have you got against Minnesota!

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: thentro ]

_ alliance _

03-13-2002, 01:22 AM

[quote]Originally posted by thentro:


Thanks Hitler (Are you an Ubermensch?) <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

And what have you got against Minnesota!

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: thentro ]<hr></blockquote>

;) :D

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

finboy

03-14-2002, 08:21 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
I can back that up. I had a roommate at Virginia Tech that grew up in cow country Virginia. His roommate before me was a black guy. His father was a truck driver so it wasn't like he was some NoVA upper middle class guy. We all got a long just fine. Who'da thunk it? Not the knee jerk liberals that's for sure.

[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]<hr></blockquote>

NoVA is Northern Virginia, for those of you who wondered. That is a DIFFERENT FRIGGIN WORLD compared with the rest of the South.

finboy

03-14-2002, 08:29 PM

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

I personally think it's guns. The gun rates are higher in the South, and so are the murder rates.

About half of all household in the South have a gun, compared to about 1/3 in the rest of the country.

And virtually all homicides are with guns. Seems pretty clear to me.<hr></blockquote>

And I think that murder rates would be HIGHER in the South without gun ownership by responsible citizens. But I know that BRussell and pfflam and I could argue about that one forever.

I still live my life according to the belief that my personal security is my responsibility, and my duty. I will have a gun in my home as long as the benefits outweigh the costs. I also believe that MY gun means less violence or threat of harm to those of you out there who DON'T have guns. My gun keeps the crooks guessing, and they're LESS LIKELY to break into your home because they know that behind door number one, two or three there's a loaded shotgun waiting. Do I have a study that proves that? No, but gun crime rates are lower in states with concealed-carry and "shall issue" gun laws, according to John Lott and other reputable economists. Makes sense to me, so I choose to believe it.

And, torifile, if the reputable "studies" are clearly contrary to one's own experience and understanding of human behavior, one shouldn't believe them. That's what science is all about. Also, one shouldn't believe them if they're produced with an agenda in mind -- that ain't science, it's politics.

TJM

03-14-2002, 10:47 PM

[quote]Originally posted by finboy:


And, torifile, if the reputable "studies" are clearly contrary to one's own experience and understanding of human behavior, one shouldn't believe them. That's what science is all about. Also, one shouldn't believe them if they're produced with an agenda in mind -- that ain't science, it's politics.<hr></blockquote>

Umm, if the studies are properly done and peer reviewed, then they very likely represent their subject accurately. 50 years ago it was "clearly contrary to one's experience and understanding of human behavior" (from the white man's point of view) that African-Americans weren't inferior and deserved equal rights. It is "science" (as you put it) to question your own perceptions if a well-designed study contradicts your own experiences. The "scientific" point of view is to question all assumptions - question the research, yes, but also question why you see things differently. You have to allow for the possibility that the study is right and your perceptions are wrong. And usually, someone with an agenda is someone who's research tells me I'm wrong - I just declare that they have an "agenda" and ignore their results because it's easier to kill the messenger than believe the message. Yes, some researchers are biased. I think that goes for all of us, though...

[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]

elppa cam

03-15-2002, 01:00 AM

When "King Of The Hill" first aired, I asked a friend, "Do people up north get this stuff?" His answer was, "Oh, there are hicks everywhere." And he was as liberal a guy you'll ever find.

If you want to believe Texas is a violent, gun shooting place, there's not much one can do about stereotypcasting. And that falls close to racism.

We tried to recruit Rodney King to come to Texas but California BEAT us to him.

There were some nice kids in Colorado we wanted for our schools... but SHOOT... they were busy making plans.

And although we like to do things in a big way down here in Texas... we just could not top New York back in Septmeber.

Violence is everywhere. We hope we can kill as many Yates as there are. Is it a deterence? Well, if she gets the death penalty... it'll certainly deter her from doing it again!

And just for the record... Texans come from CA,NY,NJ,FL...

Here's the bottom line: Bush in Whitehouse--Bush popular--Liberals paniced = Let's bash the South where Republicans are strong.

Beware of the Texan... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: elppa cam ]

imacman287

03-15-2002, 01:13 AM

[quote]Originally posted by elppa cam:
When "King Of The Hill" first aired, I asked a friend, "Do people up north get this stuff?" His answer was, "Oh, there are hicks everywhere." And he was as liberal a guy you'll ever find.

If you want to believe Texas is a violent, gun shooting place, there's not much one can do about stereotypcasting. And that falls close to racism.

We tried to recruit Rodney King to come to Texas but California BEAT us to him.

There were some nice kids in Colorado we wanted for our schools... but SHOOT... they were busy making plans.

And although we like to do things in a big way down here in Texas... we just could not top New York back in Septmeber.

Violence is everywhere. We hope we can kill as many Yates as there are. Is it a deterence? Well, if she gets the death penalty... it'll certainly deter her from doing it again!

And just for the record... Texans come from CA,NY,NJ,FL...

Here's the bottom line: Bush in Whitehouse--Bush popular--Liberals paniced = Let's bash the South where Republicans are strong.

Beware of the Texan... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: elppa cam ]<hr></blockquote>

Amen!

Outsider

03-15-2002, 09:06 AM

Uh, elppa cam, cool rational discussion will get you nowhere here. Fast.

keep up the good work!

TJM

03-15-2002, 10:04 AM

[quote]Originally posted by elppa cam:
!

And just for the record... Texans come from CA,NY,NJ,FL...

<hr></blockquote>

If I recall my American History correctly, many of the early settlers of Texas actually came from Tennessee. Davy Crockett, for example, was a Tennessean (he died defending the Alamo, for those who don't remember him). As a resident of Tennessee, that fact explains an awful lot to me about Texas... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Eugene

03-17-2002, 09:44 AM

This reply is a bit late, Samantha Joanne Ollendale, but do you really need for me to explain how percentages can be skewed by using smaller samples?

If there's a murder in a city of 100,000, that's 1 in 100,000. There was a murder in my hometown once many years ago. For that year, the homicide rate was pretty darn high because the population is <30,000 people.

Referring to Alaska above, imagine how a Columbine type of mass-murder could have completely skewed its murders per 100,000 people figures vs the same type of murder in a more populated state or Canada.

_ alliance _

03-17-2002, 01:45 PM

[quote]Originally posted by TJM:


If I recall my American History correctly, many of the early settlers of Texas actually came from Tennessee. Davy Crockett, for example, was a Tennessean (he died defending the Alamo, for those who don't remember him). As a resident of Tennessee, that fact explains an awful lot to me about Texas... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <hr></blockquote>

:rolleyes:

many of the immigration to texas of the past 10-20 years come from california--i am included in this group. i am kinda confused by the ignorance in this conversation and am somewhat surprised that it is still going...
oh well--ignorance is bliss, eh?
as long as it makes u northerners feel better about yerselves, then go right ahead and keep bashing away... :rolleyes:

finboy

03-18-2002, 05:26 PM

[quote]Originally posted by TJM:


Umm, if the studies are properly done and peer reviewed, then they very likely represent their subject accurately. 50 years ago it was "clearly contrary to one's experience and understanding of human behavior" (from the white man's point of view) that African-Americans weren't inferior and deserved equal rights. It is "science" (as you put it) to question your own perceptions if a well-designed study contradicts your own experiences. The "scientific" point of view is to question all assumptions - question the research, yes, but also question why you see things differently. You have to allow for the possibility that the study is right and your perceptions are wrong. And usually, someone with an agenda is someone who's research tells me I'm wrong - I just declare that they have an "agenda" and ignore their results because it's easier to kill the messenger than believe the message. Yes, some researchers are biased. I think that goes for all of us, though...

[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]<hr></blockquote>

And 50 years ago, there were Nazis who had produced studies that said that Jews were inferior. And Soviets that produced studies that showed the New Soviet Man to be advancing. We know now that all of those things were incomplete.

As for my own personal security, the flaws of most research is in extrapolating the behavior of others to situations close to my heart. For instance, when my life is threatened, that represents ONE incident which has occurred with 100% probability. What I use to get out of danger is then important. Statistics, however, refuse to adequately address isolated incidents such as my being confronted with personal injury. When it happens to YOU, I'm sure you'll feel the same way.

TJM

03-18-2002, 09:55 PM

[quote]Originally posted by finboy:


And 50 years ago, there were Nazis who had produced studies that said that Jews were inferior. And Soviets that produced studies that showed the New Soviet Man to be advancing. We know now that all of those things were incomplete.

<hr></blockquote>

Well, I did say IF the studies were properly designed and peer-reviewed. The studies you refer to were neither. They were indeed propaganda from some people with an agenda. Their "studies" were horribly flawed, however, from a scientific standpoint and never published in a peer-reviewed journal (that I'm aware of, anyway).

There was actually a controversy a few years ago whether or not to use the data the Nazis had gathered during WWII. It was finally decided that even though innocent people had been killed to acquire it, it could possibly be useful to save lives in the future. When they actually got out the lab notebooks and internal reports, though, they found that most of it was so horribly done and badly designed to be all but worthless.

So I stand by my earlier comment. IF a study is well designed and peer-reviewed, it very likely represents its subject accurately. It is good scientific procedure to question the results and the metholdology, but also good scientific procedure to question your own thoughts and assumptions if they seems to contradict the results.

And, I agree with you that in a 1-on-1 encounter, all the studies and statistics go out the window.

finboy

03-19-2002, 05:55 PM

[quote]Originally posted by TJM:


Well, I did say IF the studies were properly designed and peer-reviewed. The studies you refer to were neither. They were indeed propaganda from some people with an agenda. Their "studies" were horribly flawed, however, from a scientific standpoint and never published in a peer-reviewed journal (that I'm aware of, anyway).

<hr></blockquote>

I think if you'll look you'll find that "peer-reviewed" can be shaped into whatever you want it to mean.

TJM

03-19-2002, 06:46 PM

[quote]Originally posted by finboy:


I think if you'll look you'll find that "peer-reviewed" can be shaped into whatever you want it to mean.<hr></blockquote>

Peer-review means a lot more than passing it around to your buddies for an opinion. In scientific circles it has a very specific meaning. All submissions for publication are sent to 6 to 10 (sometimes more, sometimes less) anonymous reviewers from around the world who are considered by the editor of the journal to be experts in the field. They will recommend changes, additional research, clearer conclusions, etc. It is then cleaned up based on these recommendations. The process is repeated until it is cleared by all the reviewers. Journals develop reputations just as researchers do. Ones that have a habit of publishing bad stuff get extremely unpopular with authors because no one will believe anything they publish. So, the peer-review process is crucial to scientific validity. It is only when the experts deem something worthy of being published that it gets into print. It's not foolproof, but it generally does very well.

[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]

BRussell

03-19-2002, 06:54 PM

finboy has personal experience with peer review, as do I and probably quite a few of us here. But thanks for the lesson.
:p

TJM

03-19-2002, 07:16 PM

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
finboy has personal experience with peer review, as do I and probably quite a few of us here. But thanks for the lesson.
:p <hr></blockquote>

Based on what he has been posting, that did not seem at all obvious. :p

Finboy: My apologies. I have apparently misunderstood your intention in your posts.

[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]

BRussell

03-19-2002, 11:34 PM

[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
Based on what he has been posting, that did not seem at all obvious. :p <hr></blockquote> :D
BTW: 6-10 reviewers? Maybe more? Are there really journals that use more than 10 reviewers?
:eek:

TJM

03-20-2002, 09:14 AM

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
 :D
BTW: 6-10 reviewers? Maybe more? Are there really journals that use more than 10 reviewers?
:eek: <hr></blockquote>

Well I'm not that familiar with the social sciences and psychology end of things. 4 - 6 is more typical in the "real" sciences. :D I exaggerated a bit because I knew if I just said 4 - 6, somebody else would say, "Hey, dumbbutt, I submitted a paper to the International Journal of Broccoli Phobias and it had to go through 15 reviewers before it got published!" So, c'est la vie.

finboy

03-21-2002, 02:12 PM

[quote]Originally posted by TJM:


Based on what he has been posting, that did not seem at all obvious. :p

Finboy: My apologies. I have apparently misunderstood your intention in your posts.

[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]<hr></blockquote>

Accepted. I started to say something in the last post about "peer review" having a specific meaning.

In most disciplines, "peer review" means about 2 or 3 people at most, but many many more responsible scientists have read it before it goes out. Also, editors must respond to criticism from established academics once the study is published. Unfortunately, when there is an agenda within the discipline (read: almost all of the social sciences today) there isn't an objective process taking place. The system depends upon the responsibility of professionals, and pushing an agenda ISN'T what professionals do.

Most of the Nazi stuff and Soviet stuff was done within the academic system, after the thugs had forced responsible academics out.

In other words, (and I'm sure most of you guys would agree) don't take things at their face value.