3 ms·

What does per capita homicide have to do with a culture's being accepting of violence? I mean we're still talking about very low absolute levels. Anecdotally, h

by aluren 8y ago

What does per capita homicide have to do with a culture's being accepting of violence? I mean we're still talking about very low absolute levels. Anecdotally, having been to all three countries, I approximately encountered the same level of violence, i.e. nil. So really, I'm lost here. Are there any specific violence-proscribing laws in Germany that somehow don't apply in Turkey or Croatia?

travmatt 8y ago
If a given place has a higher level of homicide, doesn’t it logically follow that more people there resort to violence as a means to solve problems? Your personal anecdote doesn’t really disprove the actual statistics. Most countries have laws against bribery and corruption, although I doubt you’d define a countries acceptance of bribery and corruption on the basis of whether there are laws prohibiting it.
- aluren 8y ago
  You missed that one part: >I mean we're still talking about very low absolute levels. So no, I don't see how it logically follows, whatever that means, that people Turkey or Croatia would be more likely to resort to violence to solve problems: -Germany's crime rate is very low, and even 3.5x a very small amount is still very small. Croatia's is lower, but it apparently doesn't count because reasons. (For information, the US has never had any war on its own soil since 1865 and still sports higher homicide rates than all three of these countries). -Unless a country is literally at war or does lynchings or something, most violence typically happens within an underclass and rarely spreads to the middle to upper classes and becomes a cultural trait affecting the general population. -Cities are often more developed than the countryside, and the original poster was mentioning Istanbul. I get that there may be dodgy areas like in every city in the world, but does it logically follow that a whole culture shift in the entire city (or even country) stemmed from that specific number increase, and led to a peculiar general attitude when bumping people in the street? Here I'm lost.
  - travmatt 8y ago
    No, I didn’t miss that part, I just don’t understand what that has to do with which societies have marginally more violence. And I didn’t discount Croatia at all, if you read my comment you’ll notice that I explicitly mention Croatia has lower per capita homicides. You’d then notice that I speculate as to why some people may have a mistaken impression of them, based on their history. You’re trying to argue against claims that I explicitly introduced contradictory evidence against, as if I support them. As for Turkey, I’m saying that a higher per capita homicide rate is indicative that more people commit homicide on a per capita basis. People who look at a country with a higher Per Capita homicide rate may come to the conclusion that there are more people there who may commit a homicide - that is what I mean by logically follows. I don’t know how the US, or it’s wars, factors into this discussion at all, but I think the per capita homicide rate of a country is a heuristic to the countries relative acceptance of violence. I think American culture is very violent, but that’s irrelevant to the question at hand.
    - aluren 8y ago
      Maybe the point was lost in discussion but the original post was not about absolute, hard numbers at all - it was about people being accepting of violence. About violence being so ingrained that everyday folks such as what you may bump into in the streets may casually resort to it to solve problems. Germany's homicide rate (per 100,000 people) is approximately 1. Turkey's is 4. If you lived in a city with population 100,000, would the extra three homicides be so impactful that the remaining 99,996 people would shift their whole attitudes so that they'd be careful not to bump people in the street? What I'm arguing is: no, they wouldn't. I'm not arguing anything else, so please don't shift this away from the original point.
      - travmatt 8y ago
        I think you are reversing the points, and putting needless emphasis on irrelevant factors. I think in marginally more violent cultures, violent acts of all kinds are marginally more common - murder is just the most extreme outlier. I think these marginal acts of violence set a window on the possibilities in any confrontation and people in society respect that. In NYC subways people usually mind their business, even when they see someone acting inappropriately- by masturbating in public, for example. I think this norm of minding their business is set by the window of possible outcomes - most people are aware of stories about people being assaulted or worse by others on a subway that they confront. In the extreme, people in prison place an enormous emphasis on respect, and gangs routinely and violently check members who disrespect others, whether against another gang or against other members. The more plausible that these outcomes are absolutely influences people’s actions. I’m familiar with plenty of areas where violent crime is commonplace, and I can absolutely tell you that it’s entirely possible to be assaulted (or killed, in the extreme) over disrespecting someone. If you’re really interested in this I’d suggest reading about what an honor culture is.
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  > If a given place has a higher level of homicide, doesn’t it logically follow that more people there resort to violence as a means to solve problems? Correlation is not causation, and definitely not logic. A high homicide rate is not indicative of a trend in problem solving, it is indicative of a safety issue. Specially, a high homicide rate is often the result of warfare. In the absence of conflict with a different nation, usually this means gang warfare. In that case, homicide is sometimes a business tactic, and sometimes tribal. In some societies, human life isn't as valuable, or there is a precedent for settling disputes with violence, or insignificant problems are dealt with harshly, and so homicide sometimes is a problem solving tool. But it's also sometimes a cultural quirk. My example is Baltimore, Maryland. Often the city with the highest murder rate, this is a result of gang disputes and the drug trade. The people are friendly and neighborly, and it's got a similar culture to a liberal Southern city.
  - travmatt 8y ago
    So you’re saying that more people committing violent crimes doesn’t indicate that more people there commit violent crime? I don’t think your example really helps your point at all - more people probably die in Baltimore as a victim of a random act of violence than similar people in marginally less violent places.

by aluren 8y ago

travmatt 8y ago

If a given place has a higher level of homicide, doesn’t it logically follow that more people there resort to violence as a means to solve problems? Your personal anecdote doesn’t really disprove the actual statistics. Most countries have laws against bribery and corruption, although I doubt you’d define a countries acceptance of bribery and corruption on the basis of whether there are laws prohibiting it.

aluren 8y ago
You missed that one part: >I mean we're still talking about very low absolute levels. So no, I don't see how it logically follows, whatever that means, that people Turkey or Croatia would be more likely to resort to violence to solve problems: -Germany's crime rate is very low, and even 3.5x a very small amount is still very small. Croatia's is lower, but it apparently doesn't count because reasons. (For information, the US has never had any war on its own soil since 1865 and still sports higher homicide rates than all three of these countries). -Unless a country is literally at war or does lynchings or something, most violence typically happens within an underclass and rarely spreads to the middle to upper classes and becomes a cultural trait affecting the general population. -Cities are often more developed than the countryside, and the original poster was mentioning Istanbul. I get that there may be dodgy areas like in every city in the world, but does it logically follow that a whole culture shift in the entire city (or even country) stemmed from that specific number increase, and led to a peculiar general attitude when bumping people in the street? Here I'm lost.
- travmatt 8y ago
  No, I didn’t miss that part, I just don’t understand what that has to do with which societies have marginally more violence. And I didn’t discount Croatia at all, if you read my comment you’ll notice that I explicitly mention Croatia has lower per capita homicides. You’d then notice that I speculate as to why some people may have a mistaken impression of them, based on their history. You’re trying to argue against claims that I explicitly introduced contradictory evidence against, as if I support them. As for Turkey, I’m saying that a higher per capita homicide rate is indicative that more people commit homicide on a per capita basis. People who look at a country with a higher Per Capita homicide rate may come to the conclusion that there are more people there who may commit a homicide - that is what I mean by logically follows. I don’t know how the US, or it’s wars, factors into this discussion at all, but I think the per capita homicide rate of a country is a heuristic to the countries relative acceptance of violence. I think American culture is very violent, but that’s irrelevant to the question at hand.
  - aluren 8y ago
    Maybe the point was lost in discussion but the original post was not about absolute, hard numbers at all - it was about people being accepting of violence. About violence being so ingrained that everyday folks such as what you may bump into in the streets may casually resort to it to solve problems. Germany's homicide rate (per 100,000 people) is approximately 1. Turkey's is 4. If you lived in a city with population 100,000, would the extra three homicides be so impactful that the remaining 99,996 people would shift their whole attitudes so that they'd be careful not to bump people in the street? What I'm arguing is: no, they wouldn't. I'm not arguing anything else, so please don't shift this away from the original point.
    - travmatt 8y ago
      I think you are reversing the points, and putting needless emphasis on irrelevant factors. I think in marginally more violent cultures, violent acts of all kinds are marginally more common - murder is just the most extreme outlier. I think these marginal acts of violence set a window on the possibilities in any confrontation and people in society respect that. In NYC subways people usually mind their business, even when they see someone acting inappropriately- by masturbating in public, for example. I think this norm of minding their business is set by the window of possible outcomes - most people are aware of stories about people being assaulted or worse by others on a subway that they confront. In the extreme, people in prison place an enormous emphasis on respect, and gangs routinely and violently check members who disrespect others, whether against another gang or against other members. The more plausible that these outcomes are absolutely influences people’s actions. I’m familiar with plenty of areas where violent crime is commonplace, and I can absolutely tell you that it’s entirely possible to be assaulted (or killed, in the extreme) over disrespecting someone. If you’re really interested in this I’d suggest reading about what an honor culture is.
peterwwillis 8y ago
> If a given place has a higher level of homicide, doesn’t it logically follow that more people there resort to violence as a means to solve problems? Correlation is not causation, and definitely not logic. A high homicide rate is not indicative of a trend in problem solving, it is indicative of a safety issue. Specially, a high homicide rate is often the result of warfare. In the absence of conflict with a different nation, usually this means gang warfare. In that case, homicide is sometimes a business tactic, and sometimes tribal. In some societies, human life isn't as valuable, or there is a precedent for settling disputes with violence, or insignificant problems are dealt with harshly, and so homicide sometimes is a problem solving tool. But it's also sometimes a cultural quirk. My example is Baltimore, Maryland. Often the city with the highest murder rate, this is a result of gang disputes and the drug trade. The people are friendly and neighborly, and it's got a similar culture to a liberal Southern city.
- travmatt 8y ago
  So you’re saying that more people committing violent crimes doesn’t indicate that more people there commit violent crime? I don’t think your example really helps your point at all - more people probably die in Baltimore as a victim of a random act of violence than similar people in marginally less violent places.