Writing a blog can be fun. Post something up one day, get someone writing in with a good tip about another subject for the next day.
The notion that immigrants are criminal has been described as a stereotype. As you know, a stereotype is a preliminary insight, the first step in noticing differences and encapsulating them into an association. Holding a stereotype about immigrants being criminals could be wrong and unfair. It could also be accurate and prudent.
How accurate are stereotypes about immigrants and crime? Here is a relevant paper from the United Kingdom.
Noah Carl. NET OPPOSITION TO IMMIGRANTS OF DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES CORRELATES STRONGLY WITH THEIR ARREST RATES IN THE UK. Open Quantitative Sociology and Political Science. 10th November, 2016
The author says: Public beliefs about immigrants and immigration are widely regarded as erroneous. For example, members of the public typically overestimate the immigrant fraction of the population by ~10–15 percentage points. On the other hand, popular stereotypes about the respective characteristics of different groups (e.g., sexes, races, nationalities) are generally found to be quite accurate.
The present study shows that, in the UK, net opposition to immigrants of different nationalities correlates strongly with the log of immigrant arrests rates (r= .77; p= 0.00002; 95% CI = [.52, .90]) and with the log of their arrest rates for violent crime (r= .77; p= 0.00001; 95% CI = [.52, .90]).
This is particularly noteworthy given that Britons reportedly think that an immigrant’s criminal history should be one of the most important characteristics when considering whether he or she should be allowed in to the country. Moreover, the associations are not accounted for by a general opposition to non-Whites, non-Westerners, foreigners who do not speak English, Muslims, or those from countries with low average IQ. While circumstantial in nature, the study’s findings suggest that public beliefs about immigrants are more accurate than is often assumed.
He adds: In Europe, immigrants from the West and East Asia tend to have lower crime rates, while those from the Middle East, Africa and South Asia tend to have higher crime rates (Kirkegaard, 2014; Kirkegaard, 2015). Note that this disparity is probably due to a combination of factors: relatively stable country-of-origin characteristics, the selectivity of immigrants with respect to their countries-of-origin, and perhaps differences in the treatment of immigrant groups upon arrival.
Crime figures from the Metropolitan Police for arrests 2008-2012 were used as the comparison.
Public beliefs about immigrants and immigration are widely regarded as erroneous. Yet popular stereotypes about the respective characteristics of different groups are generally found to be quite accurate. The present study has shown that, in the UK, net opposition to immigrants of different nationalities correlates strongly with the log of immigrant arrests rates and the log of their arrest rates for violent crime.
Indeed, they are consistent with a model of immigration preferences in which individuals’ expressed support or opposition to immigrants from different nationalities is informed by rational beliefs about the respective characteristics of those immigrant groups. The main limitation of this study is the lack of data on other characteristics of immigrant groups living in the UK, such as education, income or welfare usage (see Kirkegaard, 2014; Kirkegaard, 2015).
Read the whole paper here:
I thought I'd check my own stereotypes.
ReplyDelete(i) I was mildly surprised that the French and Swedes are as criminal as they seem to be. And then an explanation struck me.
(ii) I was astonished that so many people are so opposed to Thai immigrants. I've always thought of them as cheerful and pretty young women who run restaurants specialising in delicious food. On reflection, I suppose there is an obvious part of the population who might harbour reservations about floods of pretty agreeable girls entering the country.
Ah, what can't one rationalise?
People weren't very opposed to Thai immigrants. The net opposition score was ~5. So basically, the general attitude was 'shrug'.
Delete"shrug" might be a balance between enthusiastic men and unenthusiastic women.
DeleteHow leftoid or rightoid media interfer in this stereotypes seems important too, for example, the ''romeinians'' in UK or in Italy. Many people in this two countries seems really believe that ethnic romanians are overwhelming represented in the crime scene while in the true this ''romeinians'' tend to be ethnic roma gypsies.
ReplyDeleteSeems the human disposition to the conformity tend to make most of us suscetible to micro-adapt to the current collective views.
Stereotypes are natural results of the generalized way to think among majority of the humans. What tend to differentiate ''brighter thinkers'' than ''normal thinkers'' is exactly this level of subtle thinking. Subtlety require extra skills to manipulate and re-manipulate the information, looking for more than one perspective, and most people seems too anxious to find the ''right answer'' via personal instinct than really to deepen, a extremist nature, or you over-generalize or over-exceptionalize...
leftists are over-exceptionalizers, less with their ''natural' enemies, the white straight males. rightists are over-generalizers with outsiders, and over-exceptionalizers with their '' biologically-related friends''. The empathy of the rightoids tend to be based and or directed to their related-people, a case of indirect self-empathy while leftoids, namely the true believers, tend to be based and or directed to their ''vibe-related people'', whatever the race or any other particularity they are.
the race for leftoids is indeed abstract and it's psychological probably because their more intense empathy while rightoids appear to be more cold in their social relations, or ''formal''.
Yes, i believe ''you'' can create a ''psychological race'' or group-related, and religions tend to show for us that this reality is possible.
I believe that what we understand generally as ''race'', is ''in the true'' the combination and or correlative interactio between a psychological and a physiological breeds.
All beliefs must stem from some degree of empirical observation, for the most part, with respect to real-world entities, objections and relations.
ReplyDeleteIn the same manner that we observe males to commit more violent crime (and henceforth presuppose guilt by association, e.g. rape) and in the same manner that we observe males to be stronger by average strength (and henceforth bare the greater share of responsibilities in relation to his wife/girlfriend), and in the same manner that we observe young people as more susceptible to crime than old people (by relation of fragility and ideation as well as non-homogenous growth), so on and so on forth.
This does not strike me any surprise, we may overestimate the degree or extent of absolute risk, but in terms of relative risks, we are usually more accurate than not.
By now many people have a subconscious impression that most of stereotypes are superficially but consistently correct... they have a fluid understanding, but the ideology, the translation of our intuitions has been leftized... or whatever other magical thinking...
ReplyDeleteyes, language serve to translate the fluid/intuitive information to the verbalized/chrystalized way. People capture stereotypes, basically patterns, but their translation system has been corrupted by leftism or by any other magical-thinking filter.
Why?? Follow the patterns;) and you will find other old but gold "popular wisdom", say: Quite over-generalized...but quite factual.
ReplyDelete