You mean personal experiences don't really happen? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><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.
<strong>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?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah I think from now on before anyone posts here you have to carry out a study with an appropriate control condition.
<strong>It's all the evil white peoples' fault.</strong><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?
<strong>Yeah I think from now on before anyone posts here you have to carry out a study with an appropriate control condition.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course 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.
[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?
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>Hmm, using an internet-based behavior therapy to cure ASPD. I think we have a dissertation!
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.
<strong>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...?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks Hitler (Are you an Ubermensch?) <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>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. ]</strong><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.
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.</strong><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.
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.</strong><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...
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]" />
<strong>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]" />
And just for the record... Texans come from CA,NY,NJ,FL...
</strong><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]" />
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.
Comments
<strong>
People would rather talk about personal experiences than what actually happens.
You mean personal experiences don't really happen? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
You mean personal experiences don't really happen? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><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.
<strong>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?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah I think from now on before anyone posts here you have to carry out a study with an appropriate control condition.
<strong>It's all the evil white peoples' fault.</strong><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?
<strong>Yeah I think from now on before anyone posts here you have to carry out a study with an appropriate control condition.
Of course
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.
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?
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>Hmm, using an internet-based behavior therapy to cure ASPD. I think we have a dissertation!
<strong>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...?</strong><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 ]</p>
<strong>
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 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>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. ]</strong><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.
<strong>
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.</strong><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.
<strong>
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.</strong><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 ]</p>
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 ]</p>
<strong>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 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amen!
keep up the good work!
<strong>!
And just for the record... Texans come from CA,NY,NJ,FL...
</strong><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]" />
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.