I think it's fair to point out that men commit most violent crimes. That's not good/normal/expected it's just a fact.
AI could be used to better understand these associations (e.g. why is there a correlation between Asians and academic performance) and maybe help social leverage advantages more equitably.
Parent's point was that it wouldn't be acceptable when done regarding some protected group (ex. blacks vs whites), so it shouldn't be acceptable when it comes to men vs women
Especially when the world never stops turning and social change / idea propagation move orders of magnitude faster than they did for most of human history.
Consider one of the (largely liberal) discourses rising in the past few years that many vital social metrics and trends indicate men/boys are screwed and women/girls are outcompeting them and thriving much better in present era.
There is no reason to think that interpretation of metric that compared "men" and "women" must be aligned with that same metric when men/women is substituted with some other populations. When you make the substitution you completly change the nature of the comparison. Whether either comparison is "acceptable" depends on the metric and the populations. There is no ethical rule that says all comparisons for group X must be acceptable or all comparisons for group Y must be unacceptable.
Then that's a lazy point, because it should be immediately obvious that studies for gender can be conducted easily across time and space whereas most demographic splits being discussed in this thread cannot because they are highly dependent on time/space and have therefore have endless variables that cannot be controlled for.
Per the FBI:
"White individuals were arrested more often for violent crimes than individuals of any other race and accounted for 59.1 percent of those arrests."
Whites are 60% of the population though, so they're being arrested in proportion with their representation. They also do not separate white-latino and white-non-latino, so the colloquial "white" is being lumped in with another ethnicity. Also, in 2019, blacks were just under 13% of the population, yet they are represented 2x-4x over in virtually ever crime category in that table.
You're responsible for the truthfulness of the statements that you make, especially when the data is right there on the page for you to verify for yourself. "Oh I'm just parroting someone else's distortion as fact" is not a defense.
>the picture you're suggesting is itself distorted given that other correlating factors such as social class, are ignored.
The picture I'm suggesting is that which the data shows, and you seem to be making some other leap to say something that I have not said.
But I'm repeating what the actual purveyors of the data said about their own data? They analyzed their data and came to the conclusion you seem to have an issue with- that whites account for 59.1% of violent crimes.
In any case, the picture the data suggests is incomplete (because it is missing a crucial data point: social class), therefore the picture you're suggesting is also incomplete.
So if 100 people in group A average a total of 10 crimes, and 5 people in group B average a total of 9 crimes, you think you are being intellectually honest when you say "group A commits more crimes" in the context of comparing the crime levels of those two groups?
the thing that's always confused me is why would this category of white lumping together latino even be a thing in the first place? Just seems like a really harebrained idea. That association always confuses many hispanics I know during each census. Was there a rationale for this lumping? I never understood it, just seemed to beg for fuzzy/blurred/confusing metrics.
Maybe it's something that made sense at some point in the past and now it's too difficult to change because it will mess up historical analysis/trends? Not to mention motives will immediately be questioned by anyone who tries to fix it and who really wants to die on that hill in the current political climate?
South Asian vs East asian is another group that often gets lumped together in demographic statistics as 'Asian'. Despite significant differences in geography/race/culture/etc.
Regardless, I'd also be curious to hear the real rational for the Latino one
yah I'm fuzzy on what white is too precisely. I was going to say caucasian but I don't even know what caucasian means exactly. I guess going by today's landscape I think most people would assume European, but that's a pretty broad swath too with lots of variation in it.
they certainly do. You know I wonder if the mixing of the category was a reflection of what the majority of latinos presented as in some region in the US at the point in time the category was developed. Most of the latinos in the US dating around the time of the genesis of the white category were European phenotype looking. Who knows.
Maybe I'm not looking at the right number[0] (there is a 59.3% lower on the page which appears to be a more specific response: "White alone, not Hispanic or Latino") but it looks like 59.1% of arrests are against 75.8% of the population. Inversely, 40.9% of arrests are against 24.2% of the population.
This is a failure of mathematical (and, frankly, verbal and philosophical) understanding. If you have 10 arrests shared between 7 white men and 3 black, with 1 black man having allegedly offended 5 times and 5 white men having allegedly offended once, where do your resources go? Or the opposite, 1 white guy with 5 arrests, 5 split between 2 black men? Howsabout in a country with presumed innocence? In a country - in individual police jurisdictions - with a history, in living memory, of frivolous arrests made for economic purposes? In a country whose only peers in incarceration are dysfunctional, systemic human rights abusers?
Yep, the data was counting arrests, not individuals.
You raise some great points, but in the context of the discussion I don't see how any of the comments represent a failure of mathematical, verbal, and philosophical understanding.
Comment inspired me to ask it about rape stats in men women. Fist prompt was calling my information incorrect. Second prompt I told it to include prisons, said I was right and then contradicted itself. Go figure.
It makes sense for someone to say "most" in the dichotomy of man / woman more so than it does in the polychotomy of white / black / hispanic or latino / etc. This argument relies on that phrasing to Dwight Schrute them on a technicality rather than arguing related points.
People of color are also more likely to be arrested without having committed a crime.
Arrest statistics are also self-reported by police, both on an individual officer and department-to-FBI level, with no accountability for the accuracy or completeness thereof that I'm aware of.
Violent crimes also account for only a portion of the economic damage crime-in-general deals to society, if we want to get utilitarian. Wage theft dwarfs all types of robbery and burglary, and that's only one type of white-collar theft (perpetrated, in the US, overwhelmingly by white people).
Thank you for correcting this disinformation. It's something that gets trotted out regularly without acknowledgement of how ridiculously imperfect our law enforcement and justice systems are.
Is there anything we could point about women? Nothing as terrible as being violent as far as I know, but what about other things? I agree with your premise but I believe it follows we must speak clearly in all cases.
Women are a protected group, so people have biases that prevent them from seeing the reality when it comes to this topic. As evolved beings made to maximize fitness, there were a lot of strategies that worked for women and shaped their psychology that noone dare point out. Also anyone coming too close to the truth will quickly get banned.
Women tend to be bad at salary negotiation, and less likely to change jobs. Middle aged women being taken advantage of in the corporate world is tragic.
This 'men are violent, therefore women must also be bad in some way' rhetoric makes no sense. There's no purpose for it other than assuaging sore feelings.
Women are bad at higher level math in the same way men are violent. Not all are, but its a trend.
However you aren't allowed to say that for one group, but you are allowed for the other. So this has nothing to do about statistical accuracy, its just political pressure from one side.
It's nothing to do with political pressure and more to do with ill-formed comparisons.
You can't just substitute in random groups for another. In order to make a statement you need to know what you're talking about. And it seems like the HN crowd that so desperately wants to say blacks are more violent than whites, these people have no clue what they're talking about. If you go and look at history you'll quickly see how that statement is just ill-formed.
A woman walking alone at night who encounters a stranger does not care what generative process led to a group disparity, she cares whether she is likely to be in danger. It is politically palatable in polite society for her to be afraid of an unknown man on the basis of his sex. But it is not acceptable for her to even consider that a statistical disparity may exist on the basis of race, or take precautions on that basis, unless it is in the context of condemning society as solely responsible for creating that disparity.
A statement of empirical observation cannot be "ill-formed" unless you have appointed yourself ultimate arbiter over why a person might care.
I didn't say they must be bad. I asked if we could make any group-based observation at all.
Also, your implied statement of "women, on average, have no traits that are unhelpful to the flourishing of human civilization", strikes me as terribly naive.
You should look up the definition of the word "imply" if you're confused about it. Arguments have implications. Disagree with that rather than lazily claiming I'm misquoting you when I didn't quote you.
Then I would agree with you that women don't have those traits just because men do. But they do have them. We're all human. I wasn't trying to argue the former. Your original response to my comment was disrespectful and uncharitable which is why I responded in kind, despite that generally being an inferior strategy.
Nothing is just a fact. If it's fair to point out that men are charged/arrested/convicted at a higher rate, it's also fair to point out that black people are charged/arrested/convicted at a higher rate. Neither of those statistics are "just a fact". They are complex phenomena that we don't fully understand the cause of and should avoid drawing unsupported conclusions from.
AI could be used to better understand these associations (e.g. why is there a correlation between Asians and academic performance) and maybe help social leverage advantages more equitably.