Was Lombroso right?

Discuss various aspects of ancient civilizations and humanity in general.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#21  Postby Matthew Shute » Sep 11, 2012 5:39 pm

akigr8 wrote:30% correct.

Same here. I thought they all looked guilty of something nefarious, and so I aired on the side of caution, calling them all criminals. :grin:
"Change will preserve us. It is the lifeblood of the Isles. It will move mountains! It will mount movements!" - Sheogorath
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 3676
Age: 42

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Was Lombroso right?

#22  Postby Regina » Sep 11, 2012 6:02 pm

WalterMitty wrote:Reminds me of the Blackadder episode "The Witchsmeller Pursuivant":

"Its the 'air, he's guilty!"

I'm reminded of something else entirely.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15618
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#23  Postby Regina » Sep 11, 2012 6:05 pm

Spearthrower wrote:I was going to say that this is guff, then I got 100% right on the first try! :o

But I still think it's guff! :D

How do you know that you have got 100% right? You have only this webmaster's word that he's giving you the right information as to who is who.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15618
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#24  Postby NamelessFaceless » Sep 11, 2012 6:10 pm

50%. :dunno:
User avatar
NamelessFaceless
 
Posts: 6108
Female

Country: USA (Pensacola, FL)
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#25  Postby Dickens » Sep 11, 2012 6:28 pm

Regina wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I was going to say that this is guff, then I got 100% right on the first try! :o

But I still think it's guff! :D

How do you know that you have got 100% right? You have only this webmaster's word that he's giving you the right information as to who is who.

You mean that they are all Michealangelos?
User avatar
Dickens
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 93

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#26  Postby Regina » Sep 11, 2012 6:34 pm

Michelangelos.
No, they all have the wrong noses.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15618
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#27  Postby Dickens » Sep 11, 2012 6:40 pm

Regina wrote:Michelangelos.
No, they all have the wrong noses.

De Bergeracs? All of them?
User avatar
Dickens
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 93

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Was Lombroso right?

#28  Postby Regina » Sep 11, 2012 6:41 pm

I said wrong noses, not long noses.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15618
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#29  Postby Dickens » Sep 11, 2012 6:56 pm

Regina wrote:I said wrong noses, not long noses.

So whats wrong about their noses? To short? All of them?
User avatar
Dickens
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 93

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#30  Postby Sovereign » Sep 11, 2012 9:21 pm

Dickens wrote:
Lance wrote:There was a period about 30 years ago when customs officials relied heavily on 'experience' and the belief they could detect smugglers. This was widely believed. Then some scientists came along and spoiled the party, setting up real life scenarios with smugglers, to see how well the officials performed at detecting them.

The result was indistinguishable from random chance.

What you call real life scenarios are in fact fake scenarios. Suppose that the officials could detect a smuggler because he is nervous. Obviously, you "real life" smugglers are not going to be nervous since they are not risking jail.


Lance wrote: In fact, it appeared that the main criterion by which officials decided someone was a likely smuggler was prejudice. Skin colour. hair style, clothes etc. Yet a clean cut man in a suit is just as likely to be a smuggler. Certainly, if I was a smuggler and I knew the officials were relying on their 'instinct', I would dress that way, and get through without any suspicion.

Needless to say, customs no longer rely on 'experience'. I believe that random checks are more the order of the day.

Do you suggest that crime rates do not depend on skin color? I don't know about smuggling, but black commit 7-8 times more murders per capita than whites. This is about as much difference as between men and women.

http://www.colorofcrime.com/

Suppose that you perform an act of an extreme prejudice and arrest all black men. Assuming that 15% of population is black and 85% - white you will arrest only 7.5% of the population. But the arrested will include a half of all murderers. This will well above statistically random result.


No more like socioeconomic status. Turn of the century it was the Irish.
Sovereign
 
Posts: 2989
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#31  Postby Regina » Sep 11, 2012 9:25 pm

From 1939 onwards it was the Germans. Albeit only for six years.
Twas the economy, indeed.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15618
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#32  Postby Dickens » Sep 12, 2012 5:52 pm

Sovereign wrote:No more like socioeconomic status. Turn of the century it was the Irish.

Even if the crime rates are a result of a socioeconomic status, this does not refute the argument that a method based on what you call bigotry and prejudice yields a better than random results. Seven times better in my example.

Next, what is the similarity with the Irish? Did they at the turn of the century commit 7-8 times more murders per capita than the WASPs?
User avatar
Dickens
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 93

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#33  Postby Regina » Sep 12, 2012 6:01 pm

They committed considerably fewer murders than the whities around 30 years later. In the name of whitiness.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15618
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#34  Postby Sovereign » Sep 12, 2012 6:22 pm

Dickens wrote:
Sovereign wrote:No more like socioeconomic status. Turn of the century it was the Irish.

Even if the crime rates are a result of a socioeconomic status, this does not refute the argument that a method based on what you call bigotry and prejudice yields a better than random results. Seven times better in my example.

Next, what is the similarity with the Irish? Did they at the turn of the century commit 7-8 times more murders per capita than the WASPs?


Even those stats are being called into question lately. What is your argument exactly?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones ... _8398.html

http://www.civilrights.org/publications ... ncing.html

https://lib.law.washington.edu/content/guides/racecrim
Sovereign
 
Posts: 2989
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#35  Postby Regina » Sep 12, 2012 6:26 pm

You don't really want to know what he's up to.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15618
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Was Lombroso right?

#36  Postby Sovereign » Sep 12, 2012 6:32 pm

Regina wrote:You don't really want to know what he's up to.


Looking for Tim Wise's Facebook page :ask: ?
Sovereign
 
Posts: 2989
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#37  Postby Dickens » Sep 13, 2012 5:48 pm



The articles you link to show that their authors are upset with the statistics and wish it to be wrong. However they do not give any rational arguments agains that statistics.

Except perhaps the one that those are conviction rates, not crime rates. Suppose that it is the racist police that frames blacks in US. Why then in South Africa the total number of murders is higher than in US (not per capita, but total)? This is while the population of South Africa is six times less than the US population.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 86,00.html

However when you take into account the fraction of black population the numbers begin to make sense.
User avatar
Dickens
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 93

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#38  Postby Mr.Samsa » Sep 14, 2012 9:00 am

Dickens wrote:
Sovereign wrote:No more like socioeconomic status. Turn of the century it was the Irish.

Even if the crime rates are a result of a socioeconomic status, this does not refute the argument that a method based on what you call bigotry and prejudice yields a better than random results. Seven times better in my example.

Next, what is the similarity with the Irish? Did they at the turn of the century commit 7-8 times more murders per capita than the WASPs?


Ignoring the significant practical and ethical issues with profiling, the problem is that the people carrying out the practice are using your irrelevant criteria (i.e. skin colour) instead of socioeconomic status. If people were targeted on the basis of their income level, then it would still be ethically horrific, but at least they'd have some justification for their action - if they target people because they're black, then their only justification is racism.

Also, going by your logic, there's no need to target blacks or SES level, as the best indicator we have of whether someone will be a criminal is whether they are male - as men, of course, are over 10 times more likely to be murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. Why did you bring up the example of black crime rates, when male crime rates are far higher and more obvious?

It's almost as if you were indicating that black people are inherently more likely to be criminals... I'm glad that you've dropped the Lombrosian notion of genetic criminality following my earlier post though.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 34

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#39  Postby Dickens » Sep 15, 2012 7:04 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote: Ignoring the significant practical and ethical issues with profiling, the problem is that the people carrying out the practice are using your irrelevant criteria (i.e. skin colour) instead of socioeconomic status. If people were targeted on the basis of their income level, then it would still be ethically horrific, but at least they'd have some justification for their action -

Is their income printed on their foreheads?

Mr.Samsa wrote: if they target people because they're black, then their only justification is racism.

Shcmasim

Mr.Samsa wrote:Also, going by your logic, there's no need to target blacks or SES level, as the best indicator we have of whether someone will be a criminal is whether they are male - as men, of course, are over 10 times more likely to be murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. Why did you bring up the example of black crime rates, when male crime rates are far higher and more obvious?

What are you suggesting to do? To arrest all men? Who will do it? You and Regina? Of course you will round up 90% of the murderers but also half of the population. You will do 2 times better than by doing random arrests. While if you arrest only black men you will do 7 times better than random.

And, of course, I did mention the men - women murder rate difference when I wrote that black - white murder rate difference is comparable.

Mr.Samsa wrote: It's almost as if you were indicating that black people are inherently more likely to be criminals... I'm glad that you've dropped the Lombrosian notion of genetic criminality following my earlier post though.
I didn't drop anything. Check out my post about South Africa.
User avatar
Dickens
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 93

Print view this post

Re: Was Lombroso right?

#40  Postby Mr.Samsa » Sep 16, 2012 9:31 am

Dickens wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote: Ignoring the significant practical and ethical issues with profiling, the problem is that the people carrying out the practice are using your irrelevant criteria (i.e. skin colour) instead of socioeconomic status. If people were targeted on the basis of their income level, then it would still be ethically horrific, but at least they'd have some justification for their action -

Is their income printed on their foreheads?


It could be - if profiling was such a good idea, then surely you'd support tattooing foreheads? If not, then the information could be easily made accessible to, for example, security at airports to refine their searches before boarding.

Dickens wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote: if they target people because they're black, then their only justification is racism.

Shcmasim


I'll take your lack of argument as agreement with my position.

Dickens wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:Also, going by your logic, there's no need to target blacks or SES level, as the best indicator we have of whether someone will be a criminal is whether they are male - as men, of course, are over 10 times more likely to be murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. Why did you bring up the example of black crime rates, when male crime rates are far higher and more obvious?

What are you suggesting to do? To arrest all men? Who will do it? You and Regina? Of course you will round up 90% of the murderers but also half of the population. You will do 2 times better than by doing random arrests. While if you arrest only black men you will do 7 times better than random.


You don't need to arrest them, just harass them and profile them - like you were suggesting we do with black people. If you're suggesting that we actually just arrest all black people, then well, that's pretty fucking insane even given the ridiculous argument we're having about profiling people based on vague generalisations.

But let's look at the situation honestly. Why is it so abhorrent and absurd to you that we target the entire group of 'men'? Because you belong to that group. Good to see your position is based on purely objective standards, with no hint of bigotry or racism.

Dickens wrote:And, of course, I did mention the men - women murder rate difference when I wrote that black - white murder rate difference is comparable.


Comparable? You're twice as successful by profiling men.

Dickens wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote: It's almost as if you were indicating that black people are inherently more likely to be criminals... I'm glad that you've dropped the Lombrosian notion of genetic criminality following my earlier post though.
I didn't drop anything. Check out my post about South Africa.


Oh my bad - I was hoping you had rejected the pseudoscientific notion that even your own sources thought was nonsense.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 34

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Anthropology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest