5 ms·

You're claiming Japanese in America are representative of Japanese in Japan which is not the case. It's straight up racist too.

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
I'm making the point that the base rate of criminality needs to be taken into account if you want to compare incarceration rates. For many different reasons people in one society might commit more crime than people in another society. Though I do not use the example myself, preferring the murder rate example, the parent's suggestion is a reasonable way to control for this inter-society difference. I would bet that Japanese in the U.S. evince rates of criminality more similar to those of Japanese in Japan than to the rest of American society. It's an empirical question; whether merely asking the question is racist or not given your particular sentiments about what's racist is beside the point.
- alksjdalkj 5y ago
  > I would bet that Japanese in the U.S. evince rates of criminality more similar to those of Japanese in Japan than to the rest of American society What makes you believe that? If true, what might cause that to be the case?
  - Google234 5y ago
    I think most people know that Asians in the US commit less crime than other races. As for why, there are probably cultural reasons.
    - wwtrv 5y ago
      Or rather economic reasons, the difference between the median income for Asian Americans is about the same as the difference between white people and African Americans.
      - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
        Or both! Or a bunch of other stuff too!
  - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
    I've realized we're probably confused about whether we're talking about Japanese in America vs. Japanese-Americans. I was talking about Japanese in America (the article is about a foreigner in Japan), but I'd make roughly the same claims in either case. Empirically, I would bet that both Japanese in America and Japanese-Americans both show rates of criminality more similar to Japan's than to the remainder of the U.S. population's. In the case of Japanese-Americans, I'd bet it's higher than Japan's. I haven't looked any numbers up or attempted to figure it out in detail. As for why, there are a few reasons. One interesting one is selection effects (immigrants to a new country are not a random sample of the old country's population). There is culture, of course, probably the biggest factor, as well as other inheritances (material goods / wealth, genes, disease burden...).
    - forty 5y ago
      I think listing genes is probably crossing the line. It's not like there is a gene for crime that some category of people would have more or less...
      - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
        I'm genuinely curious to know how you think about that line. What is the transgression here in your mind? Merely mentioning that genes affect behavior is not allowed (even though it's true, or maybe it doesn't matter if it's true), or you actually believe the claim "genes affect behavior within the human species" is false? I agree with you that we can't tell from a single gene whether someone is likely to be a criminal or not. I'd like you to consider this example, where hopefully I only use premises you already believe: Some people are predisposed to becoming addicted to drugs. We can make better-than-chance bets about who these people are based on their genomes. We also know that people who are addicted to drugs are more likely to be on the wrong side of the law (and, sadly, are often by definition on the wrong side of the law). So, we conclude that, given someone's genome, we can make better-than-chance bets about that person's likelihood of being on the wrong side of the law. It's a simplistic example, but hopefully that helps get the idea across. Doing this sort of thing isn't super practical right now, but it will be soon! [oh boy.]
bpodgursky 5y ago
Actually the OP asked the question. By assuming a particular answer, you are providing the racism.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  No, it is the question that is racist. The assumption that because of your ethnicity, you would have some kind of specific level of criminality. That is extremely racist.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
    You're assuming a causal relationship when the claim is correlational. The claim is not that because of a person's ethnicity that person will commit crimes at a certain rate, the claim is that you can make a good guess about criminality based on ethnicity. That is to say, there is a correlation. Which is unambiguously true--just look up the numbers. Only takes a moment. In either case, whether it's racist or not is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      > the claim is that you can make a good guess about criminality based on ethnicity Yes. That is the claim that is racist.
      - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
        It is empirically true. It is, of course, possible for things to be both true and racist, for some definition of racist.
        user-the-name 5y ago
        The fact that you just stop the train of thought there is the racist part.

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago

I'm making the point that the base rate of criminality needs to be taken into account if you want to compare incarceration rates. For many different reasons people in one society might commit more crime than people in another society. Though I do not use the example myself, preferring the murder rate example, the parent's suggestion is a reasonable way to control for this inter-society difference. I would bet that Japanese in the U.S. evince rates of criminality more similar to those of Japanese in Japan than to the rest of American society. It's an empirical question; whether merely asking the question is racist or not given your particular sentiments about what's racist is beside the point.

alksjdalkj 5y ago
> I would bet that Japanese in the U.S. evince rates of criminality more similar to those of Japanese in Japan than to the rest of American society What makes you believe that? If true, what might cause that to be the case?
- Google234 5y ago
  I think most people know that Asians in the US commit less crime than other races. As for why, there are probably cultural reasons.
  - wwtrv 5y ago
    Or rather economic reasons, the difference between the median income for Asian Americans is about the same as the difference between white people and African Americans.
    - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
      Or both! Or a bunch of other stuff too!
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  I've realized we're probably confused about whether we're talking about Japanese in America vs. Japanese-Americans. I was talking about Japanese in America (the article is about a foreigner in Japan), but I'd make roughly the same claims in either case. Empirically, I would bet that both Japanese in America and Japanese-Americans both show rates of criminality more similar to Japan's than to the remainder of the U.S. population's. In the case of Japanese-Americans, I'd bet it's higher than Japan's. I haven't looked any numbers up or attempted to figure it out in detail. As for why, there are a few reasons. One interesting one is selection effects (immigrants to a new country are not a random sample of the old country's population). There is culture, of course, probably the biggest factor, as well as other inheritances (material goods / wealth, genes, disease burden...).
  - forty 5y ago
    I think listing genes is probably crossing the line. It's not like there is a gene for crime that some category of people would have more or less...
    - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
      I'm genuinely curious to know how you think about that line. What is the transgression here in your mind? Merely mentioning that genes affect behavior is not allowed (even though it's true, or maybe it doesn't matter if it's true), or you actually believe the claim "genes affect behavior within the human species" is false? I agree with you that we can't tell from a single gene whether someone is likely to be a criminal or not. I'd like you to consider this example, where hopefully I only use premises you already believe: Some people are predisposed to becoming addicted to drugs. We can make better-than-chance bets about who these people are based on their genomes. We also know that people who are addicted to drugs are more likely to be on the wrong side of the law (and, sadly, are often by definition on the wrong side of the law). So, we conclude that, given someone's genome, we can make better-than-chance bets about that person's likelihood of being on the wrong side of the law. It's a simplistic example, but hopefully that helps get the idea across. Doing this sort of thing isn't super practical right now, but it will be soon! [oh boy.]

bpodgursky 5y ago

Actually the OP asked the question. By assuming a particular answer, you are providing the racism.

user-the-name 5y ago
No, it is the question that is racist. The assumption that because of your ethnicity, you would have some kind of specific level of criminality. That is extremely racist.
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  You're assuming a causal relationship when the claim is correlational. The claim is not that because of a person's ethnicity that person will commit crimes at a certain rate, the claim is that you can make a good guess about criminality based on ethnicity. That is to say, there is a correlation. Which is unambiguously true--just look up the numbers. Only takes a moment. In either case, whether it's racist or not is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    > the claim is that you can make a good guess about criminality based on ethnicity Yes. That is the claim that is racist.
    - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
      It is empirically true. It is, of course, possible for things to be both true and racist, for some definition of racist.
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        The fact that you just stop the train of thought there is the racist part.