Crime isn’t equally distributed; criminality isn’t equally distributed; sensitivity to crime isn’t equally distributed; tolerance of criminality isn’t equally d

Crime isn’t equally distributed; criminality isn’t equally distributed; sensitivity to crime isn’t equally distributed; tolerance of criminality isn’t equally distributed. A quick informal sketch of why the “SF is hell / no it isn’t, here’s the stats, there are other places with higher crime rates / well I know SF is hell, here’s a synthetic statistic that puts SF at the top and thus reflects my experience / that synthetic statistic is bullshit / well my experience is not bullshit, so here’s another synthetic statistic” loop happens so often: Feeling safe is important to people. People have limited mobility and spend it to move themselves into areas (cities, districts, suburbs, streets, city blocks) where they feel safe. Due to a constellation of interacting factors, highly crime-sensitive individuals are exposed to high-criminality areas at a higher rate in SF than in most other places. Quick/dirty/concrete example of what I mean: I’ve lived in Sydney, New York, and San Francisco. All three places have high crime areas. In Sydney, I never see them. In NY, I saw them through the window of a Metro-North train. In SF, I saw them outside my apartment window.