5 ms·

In America, skin color is a good predictor of class. The barometer isn't being right more than you're wrong; it's being more accurate than assuming everyone ear

by natrius 17y ago

In America, skin color is a good predictor of class. The barometer isn't being right more than you're wrong; it's being more accurate than assuming everyone earns the average income. You will be able to make a more accurate guess of an American's income if you know their race. When you add in clothing, hair and accent, it'd be pretty difficult to misidentify someone's class, or more importantly, culture. Identifying members of subcultures with criminal tendencies is a skill that anyone who has walked around in a city late at night has put to use. Class isn't a great predictor of behavior, but culture is. Moreover, I think it's safe to assume that people with lower incomes commit violent crime, for instance, at a higher rate than the rest of society. All other things being equal, the better the risk to reward ratio of an action, the more likely someone is to take it.

najirama 17y ago
A "good" predictor must be useful, correct? Well, then how can it be useful if it is wrong more than it is right....? Simply stated, being right more than one is wrong is the same thing as being more accurate than a random assignment (as we approach a large number of "trials") if the outcomes are equally likely. And that is the point - race tells you nothing more significant about class then guessing does (if we remove 'middle class' as a selection), and class tells you nothing significant about behavior. Also, you seem to be conflating 'class' and 'culture' now. Culture is a much, much better indicator of behavior than class, as culture speaks to beliefs and value judgements. As such, they are not interchangable ideas (that is, the propostion that 'Skin color is a good predictor of culture' is not the same as the one you made prior, 'Skin color is a good predictor of class' - but is probably just as fallacious). Clothing and hair (God only knows what you meant by 'accent.' Care to clarify?) in isolation are strong enough indicators of culture, that race quite literally adds nothing to their accuracy - the same can be said of 'style of dress' and 'price of car driven,' for class. Race is superfluous.
- natrius 17y ago
  "And that is the point - race tells you nothing more significant about class then guessing does" That's just mathematically incorrect. Different races have different average incomes. If you guess that average for each person, you'll be more accurate than guessing the overall average for everyone. If you're measuring at such a coarse level as upper/middle/lower class, then sure, that doesn't help. Since we're not relying on race alone, we don't need that kind of accuracy. "Also, you seem to be conflating 'class' and 'culture' now." I don't think culture and class are interchangeable. I think class is an indicator of culture, which I would then use to predict someone's behavior. I probably should've made that clear earlier. In America, any skin color except for white is a pretty good indicator of culture. Racial comedy is fairly large industry that only succeeds because it does a decent job of poking fun at behaviors that correlate with race. "God only knows what you meant by 'accent.' Care to clarify?" If someone speaks the Queen's English, you'll assign different probabilities to behaviors than if they spoke inner-city English. I think race is useful in addition to the other indicators, but neither of us have any data on this, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
  - najirama 17y ago
    You continue to shift terms, so it makes it more difficult to pin you down. My math is pretty solid - socio-economic classes are defined by values in intervals. So guessing the average income for each race would be guessing what interval? It would be guessing middle class for each race! Remember, you stated the proposition that, 'race is a good class indicator' - thus, we don't care about variance in the interval called middle class... That is why I explicitly removed it from my analysis - if the only information(class-related) you get from a person's skin color is that they are middle-class, then you have effectively received no information. Certainly you can't be suggesting that those in the middle-class are more likely to commit crimes - can you be?
    - natrius 17y ago
      First of all, socioeconomic classes are artificial constructs. There's no reason to believe that there are large discontinuities in the probabilities of certain behaviors as income increases, though that is likely the case around poverty level. From the census document you linked to, here are average household incomes by race: Asian: $86,185 White, non-Hispanic: $74,102 Hispanic: $51,572 Black: $46,533 If you don't think there are substantial differences there, then we're not going to agree on anything.
      - najirama 17y ago
        [Edit: Moved up a node to reflect the actual reply] 1. Socio-econonic classes are artificial constructs - so what? The point is that race is demonstrably unable to map the set of 'people' to the set of 'classes.' 2. If you are not able to accurately quote the figures from the pdf I linked to prior, then what is the likelyhood you even read it? The ACTUAL median incomes can be found on pages 6-7: Asian: $65,637 White, non-Hispanic: $55,530 Average: $50,000 Black: $34,218 The differences fall in the interval known as middle-class as I said before - so for the purposes of this discussion, they are not substantial.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]

by natrius 17y ago

najirama 17y ago

A "good" predictor must be useful, correct? Well, then how can it be useful if it is wrong more than it is right....? Simply stated, being right more than one is wrong is the same thing as being more accurate than a random assignment (as we approach a large number of "trials") if the outcomes are equally likely. And that is the point - race tells you nothing more significant about class then guessing does (if we remove 'middle class' as a selection), and class tells you nothing significant about behavior. Also, you seem to be conflating 'class' and 'culture' now. Culture is a much, much better indicator of behavior than class, as culture speaks to beliefs and value judgements. As such, they are not interchangable ideas (that is, the propostion that 'Skin color is a good predictor of culture' is not the same as the one you made prior, 'Skin color is a good predictor of class' - but is probably just as fallacious). Clothing and hair (God only knows what you meant by 'accent.' Care to clarify?) in isolation are strong enough indicators of culture, that race quite literally adds nothing to their accuracy - the same can be said of 'style of dress' and 'price of car driven,' for class. Race is superfluous.

natrius 17y ago
"And that is the point - race tells you nothing more significant about class then guessing does" That's just mathematically incorrect. Different races have different average incomes. If you guess that average for each person, you'll be more accurate than guessing the overall average for everyone. If you're measuring at such a coarse level as upper/middle/lower class, then sure, that doesn't help. Since we're not relying on race alone, we don't need that kind of accuracy. "Also, you seem to be conflating 'class' and 'culture' now." I don't think culture and class are interchangeable. I think class is an indicator of culture, which I would then use to predict someone's behavior. I probably should've made that clear earlier. In America, any skin color except for white is a pretty good indicator of culture. Racial comedy is fairly large industry that only succeeds because it does a decent job of poking fun at behaviors that correlate with race. "God only knows what you meant by 'accent.' Care to clarify?" If someone speaks the Queen's English, you'll assign different probabilities to behaviors than if they spoke inner-city English. I think race is useful in addition to the other indicators, but neither of us have any data on this, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
- najirama 17y ago
  You continue to shift terms, so it makes it more difficult to pin you down. My math is pretty solid - socio-economic classes are defined by values in intervals. So guessing the average income for each race would be guessing what interval? It would be guessing middle class for each race! Remember, you stated the proposition that, 'race is a good class indicator' - thus, we don't care about variance in the interval called middle class... That is why I explicitly removed it from my analysis - if the only information(class-related) you get from a person's skin color is that they are middle-class, then you have effectively received no information. Certainly you can't be suggesting that those in the middle-class are more likely to commit crimes - can you be?
  - natrius 17y ago
    First of all, socioeconomic classes are artificial constructs. There's no reason to believe that there are large discontinuities in the probabilities of certain behaviors as income increases, though that is likely the case around poverty level. From the census document you linked to, here are average household incomes by race: Asian: $86,185 White, non-Hispanic: $74,102 Hispanic: $51,572 Black: $46,533 If you don't think there are substantial differences there, then we're not going to agree on anything.
    - najirama 17y ago
      [Edit: Moved up a node to reflect the actual reply] 1. Socio-econonic classes are artificial constructs - so what? The point is that race is demonstrably unable to map the set of 'people' to the set of 'classes.' 2. If you are not able to accurately quote the figures from the pdf I linked to prior, then what is the likelyhood you even read it? The ACTUAL median incomes can be found on pages 6-7: Asian: $65,637 White, non-Hispanic: $55,530 Average: $50,000 Black: $34,218 The differences fall in the interval known as middle-class as I said before - so for the purposes of this discussion, they are not substantial.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]