4 ms·

Okay, but crime is actually rising now in 2021 and late 2020, at least in my city of Portland. Again, I was not part of the people who have said over the last d

Okay, but crime is actually rising now in 2021 and late 2020, at least in my city of Portland. Again, I was not part of the people who have said over the last decade that crime is rising, because it's not. I'm just pointing out that it is right now, so these same people are going to become even more concerned, spooked, and make choices respecting that. This is what I don't understand about most people, especially those who look to the government for solutions. Instead of accepting people as they are, the arguments are over whether those people are wrong. If you want to influence human behavior, first you have to understand how they behave, not tell them their behavior is wrong.

whakim 5y ago
> So these same people are going to become even more concerned, spooked, and make choices respecting that. That's exactly what I'm arguing against - where is the evidence that people are "more concerned"? The evidence suggests that people's concerns have no relationship to actual crime rates. Your statements about cities "descending into chaos" could have just as easily come from 1995, or 2005, or 2015. > This is what I don't understand about most people, especially those who look to the government for solutions. Instead of accepting people as they are, the arguments are over whether those people are wrong. If you want to influence human behavior, first you have to understand how they behave, not tell them their behavior is wrong. I'm not telling anyone their behavior is wrong. I'm saying that I don't think it's a good idea to base public policy primarily on peoples' perceptions of crime rates when those perceptions don't seem to have any bearing on reality. (Consider the counterfactual: if crime rates were continuously rising, and everyone thought they were decreasing, should we do nothing?) I think we should instead look at the actual facts on the ground before going crazy with the "cities decesnding into chaos" narrative: 1) violent crime rose 3% in 2020; 2) nonviolent crime actually fell in 2020; 3) the rise in violent crime was fueled by a rise in murder specifically - but murder rates have actually been rising since 2014 so this isn't a new phenomenon. This isn't a policy prescription and crime is not a simple subject, but I think if we want to solve issues (crime and homelessness) we have to be able to agree about a basic set of facts on the ground without resorting to hyperbole.
- iammisc 5y ago
  > Your statements about cities "descending into chaos" could have just as easily come from 1995, or 2005, or 2015. Except right now they're backed by an actual recent increase in crime! You yourself said: > ; 3) the rise in violent crime was fueled by a rise in murder specifically - but murder rates have actually been rising since 2014 so this isn't a new phenomenon. So how can you both say the facts are that murder has increased, even though overall crime has decreased, but that people's perceptions of crime are wrong in that they believe it's increased. It's no wonder people think violence has increased... as you yourself said, there are more murders! Here's yet another gotcha when evaluating crime stats: the idea that any crime is interchangeable is silly. Some crimes are many orders of magnitude worse than others.
  - whakim 5y ago
    > It's no wonder people think violence has increased... as you yourself said, there are more murders! Well, no. People think crime has increased because that's what people always seem to think. Why is that the case? I don't think anyone knows for sure, but probably some combination of the media amplifying the most egregious crimes ("if it bleeds, it leads" etc.) and politicians (of both parties, historically) hoping to gain an advantage from painting their opponents as "soft on crime." > but that people's perceptions of crime are wrong in that they believe it's increased I never claimed this. I claimed that the evidence shows that people's perceptions of crime bear no relationship to actual crime stats. (And therefore "perceptions" are a bad way to make policy in this particular case.) > Here's yet another gotcha when evaluating crime stats: the idea that any crime is interchangeable is silly. Some crimes are many orders of magnitude worse than others. This is true of course, but as far as perceptions go the most egregious forms of crime are actually the ones most people are least likely to be exposed to (thankfully!). I am with you in that the rises in murder rates are concerning. But - as I've been saying all along - to have a reasonable discussion about what we ought to do about it requires first laying out the facts.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      > the ones most people are least likely to be exposed to (thankfully!) Really? Again, using my city of Portland. Whereas murders have always happened, typically it's in places I don't frequent, at times I'm not out, and people I don't associate with. But just recently, I can count two people who are 'friends-of-friends' who were shot. I don't know them personally, but knowing someone who knows them, even as acquaintances, strikes disturbingly close to home.

whakim 5y ago

> So these same people are going to become even more concerned, spooked, and make choices respecting that. That's exactly what I'm arguing against - where is the evidence that people are "more concerned"? The evidence suggests that people's concerns have no relationship to actual crime rates. Your statements about cities "descending into chaos" could have just as easily come from 1995, or 2005, or 2015. > This is what I don't understand about most people, especially those who look to the government for solutions. Instead of accepting people as they are, the arguments are over whether those people are wrong. If you want to influence human behavior, first you have to understand how they behave, not tell them their behavior is wrong. I'm not telling anyone their behavior is wrong. I'm saying that I don't think it's a good idea to base public policy primarily on peoples' perceptions of crime rates when those perceptions don't seem to have any bearing on reality. (Consider the counterfactual: if crime rates were continuously rising, and everyone thought they were decreasing, should we do nothing?) I think we should instead look at the actual facts on the ground before going crazy with the "cities decesnding into chaos" narrative: 1) violent crime rose 3% in 2020; 2) nonviolent crime actually fell in 2020; 3) the rise in violent crime was fueled by a rise in murder specifically - but murder rates have actually been rising since 2014 so this isn't a new phenomenon. This isn't a policy prescription and crime is not a simple subject, but I think if we want to solve issues (crime and homelessness) we have to be able to agree about a basic set of facts on the ground without resorting to hyperbole.

iammisc 5y ago
> Your statements about cities "descending into chaos" could have just as easily come from 1995, or 2005, or 2015. Except right now they're backed by an actual recent increase in crime! You yourself said: > ; 3) the rise in violent crime was fueled by a rise in murder specifically - but murder rates have actually been rising since 2014 so this isn't a new phenomenon. So how can you both say the facts are that murder has increased, even though overall crime has decreased, but that people's perceptions of crime are wrong in that they believe it's increased. It's no wonder people think violence has increased... as you yourself said, there are more murders! Here's yet another gotcha when evaluating crime stats: the idea that any crime is interchangeable is silly. Some crimes are many orders of magnitude worse than others.
- whakim 5y ago
  > It's no wonder people think violence has increased... as you yourself said, there are more murders! Well, no. People think crime has increased because that's what people always seem to think. Why is that the case? I don't think anyone knows for sure, but probably some combination of the media amplifying the most egregious crimes ("if it bleeds, it leads" etc.) and politicians (of both parties, historically) hoping to gain an advantage from painting their opponents as "soft on crime." > but that people's perceptions of crime are wrong in that they believe it's increased I never claimed this. I claimed that the evidence shows that people's perceptions of crime bear no relationship to actual crime stats. (And therefore "perceptions" are a bad way to make policy in this particular case.) > Here's yet another gotcha when evaluating crime stats: the idea that any crime is interchangeable is silly. Some crimes are many orders of magnitude worse than others. This is true of course, but as far as perceptions go the most egregious forms of crime are actually the ones most people are least likely to be exposed to (thankfully!). I am with you in that the rises in murder rates are concerning. But - as I've been saying all along - to have a reasonable discussion about what we ought to do about it requires first laying out the facts.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    > the ones most people are least likely to be exposed to (thankfully!) Really? Again, using my city of Portland. Whereas murders have always happened, typically it's in places I don't frequent, at times I'm not out, and people I don't associate with. But just recently, I can count two people who are 'friends-of-friends' who were shot. I don't know them personally, but knowing someone who knows them, even as acquaintances, strikes disturbingly close to home.