You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Jiro comments on [Link] Hacking Technological Determinism for Fun and Profit - Less Wrong Discussion

3 [deleted] 10 March 2015 09:03AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (36)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jiro 10 March 2015 07:12:55PM 1 point [-]

Once you tease out these factors, does Europe actually end up being better at all?

Comment author: eternal_neophyte 10 March 2015 08:40:52PM *  2 points [-]

Well one thing you could look at is the level of criminality in the homogenous but poor European societies - most Eastern European countries fit that description.

I haven't investigated this map, though google images turn up several which show a similar pattern so I'm guessing it's not nonsense: http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/World-Murder-Rate-map.png

Assuming it's accurate, that at least provides a prima-facie case that inequality does cause crime. I suspect however the existence of a ceiling past which reducing inequality no longer depresses crime rates. And ofcourse criminality and inequality could have a common cause, such as lower IQ. If we look at a world IQ map:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v0ofzbpEfd8/VOyorckWQvI/AAAAAAAAFFM/6H0UFN5tFKY/s1600/world_average_iq_2000.png

IQ does seem to interact with criminality.

Comment author: TezlaKoil 11 March 2015 12:06:07AM 2 points [-]

That particular idea has been widely explored in the literature. E.g. Fajnzylber does it in Inequality and violent crime, finding a significant correlation of 0.54 between income inequality and log of homicide rate. This is pretty strong by social science standards. The correlation with other types of crime is much lower.

Curiously, If you restrict to Europe, the correlation is negative, but it is positive if you restrict to East and South Asia, which has Gini coefficients and murder rates comparable to European countries.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 March 2015 09:58:10AM 1 point [-]

IMHO murder rates are incredibly gun-dependent, and I don't meant it as a gun-control argument, because politics is downstream from culture, so they are gun-culture dependent, not gun-law dependent. (Pro-gun culture with restrictive laws just means a huge black market, like drugs.)

Anecdotally, it is not easy to find black market guns in Eastern Europe. The supply of the ex-Yugo civil wars and drunk Soviet soldiers dried up, the international dealers and organized crime simply do not care about the minimal profits they could make on retail, they want it wholesale into conflict zones and whatnot. It is not a good black market retail business, unlike drugs, customers won't return every day or week. Retail black market could be based people owning 10-20 guns, private collectors, and occasionally sell one, there are a lot of people in the US who are like that but almost none in EE.

Things like not having a lot of game around to hunt play a role. But more likely, there are only two stable equilibria, everybody or nobody having guns, EE is tending towards nobody, the US has so many already that the only possible equilibrium state is everybody.

Comment author: Lalartu 12 March 2015 04:41:12PM *  0 points [-]

I think that is not true at all. That is, there is no significant dependency between availability of firearms and murder rate. Where aren't many guns, most common murder weapon is knife, it is the only difference.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 March 2015 05:00:21PM 1 point [-]

Availability or widespread ownership?