Hello There, Guest!  

[ODP] Criminality among Norwegian immigrant populations

#1
Abstract
A previous study found that criminality among immigrant groups in Denmark was highly predictable by their countries of origin's Islam belief, IQ, GDP and height. This study replicates the study for Norway with similar results.

PDF (layout), LATEX (source), SPSS (dataset) and LibreOffice (dataset and calculations) files attached.


Attached Files
.pdf   criminality_norway.pdf (Size: 339.2 KB / Downloads: 369)
.tex   criminality_norway.tex (Size: 13.09 KB / Downloads: 243)
.sav   SPSS.sav (Size: 10 KB / Downloads: 227)
.sav   SPSS2_1.sav (Size: 2.94 KB / Downloads: 220)
.ods   Norway, persons charged with criminality.ods (Size: 85.38 KB / Downloads: 215)
 Reply
#2
As before, I think you should use as predictors the national K numbers in Meisenberg & Woodley, 2013. Other than that, this is a good study.
 Reply
#3
(2014-Mar-20, 22:04:01)Elijah Q. Armstrong Wrote: As before, I think you should use as predictors the national K numbers in Meisenberg & Woodley, 2013. Other than that, this is a good study.


I looked into that. First, as far as I can tell, they only cite regional/race group values, not national values. I would need to calculate them myself for each country. Second, I don't like r-K theory and have not read the theoretical underpinnings of it (i.e. Rushton's books), so I'm a bit wary to apply it. For these reasons I did not use it here or in the previous study.
 Reply
#4
OK. Then I approve the paper.
 Reply
#5
This is a sound replication of the previous study. I approve its publication.


(2014-Mar-19, 01:22:11)Emil Wrote: Abstract
A previous study found that criminality among immigrant groups in Denmark was highly predictable by their countries of origin's Islam belief, IQ, GDP and height. This study replicates the study for Norway with similar results.

PDF (layout), LATEX (source), SPSS (dataset) and LibreOffice (dataset and calculations) files attached.

 Reply
#6
(2014-Mar-19, 01:22:11)Emil Wrote: AbstractA previous study found that criminality among immigrant groups in Denmark was highly predictable by their countries of origin's Islam belief, IQ, GDP and height. This study replicates the study for Norway with similar results.



You wrote: "Recently I analyzed crime and fertility among immigrant groups in Denmark by their country of origin[1]. I found that they were highly predictable using information about their countries of origin using only 3 predictors..."

This is incoherent. Try:

"Recently, I decomposed the crime and fertility rates of Danish immigrants by country of origin[1]. I found that these rates could be predicted with a high degree of accuracy by three nation of origin variables: Islamic belief, average height and either national IQ or GDP. Other predictors like country of origin murder rates were not good predictors. Here I extend this analysis using two datasets from Norway. The first data set is from the social statistics agency (Statistisk Sentralbyr a). The second is from a 2011 report, "Criminality and Punishment Among Immigrants and the Rest of the Population (Kriminalitet og strablant innvandrere og vrig befolkning)" [2], which was released by the social statistics agency. "

You wrote: "Initial results showed that data for Mongolia was an extreme outlier and it was therefore deleted. Most likely due to data error."

Data error or sampling error?

You wrote: "There are a number of reasons to believe the dataset to have some systematic error that reduces all the correlations with predictors."

Could you explain why this is surprising? What, for example, was the NIQ-National crime rate correlations. And why aren't you using national crime rates as a predictor?

You wrote: "Third, calculating the correlations between the predictors (IQ, GDP, Islam) and crime rates for the individual years shows that all 11 correlations are negative for r (IQ x crime), all 11 are negative for r (GDP x crime) and 10 of 11 are positive for r (Islam x crime). These results are very unlikely if crime rates were not predictable, but expected if correlations are systematically reduced."

You could just compute the cross year joint probability.

You wrote: "Fourth, the extreme differences between immigrant groups are not believable. The most criminal group is Georgia with a rate of 79 charges per 100 persons (!).

Ok, are you weighting these groups by e.g., sample size or SQRT of population size?

You said: " I contacted the author of the report to hear if there were more information available, especially for a larger country sample set. He told me that this was not the case and that one needs to request speci_c data from the statistics agency to acquire the data. If it is like in Denmark, this can be quite costly."

Get rid of this nonsense.

You said: " Next up..."

Rewrite.
 Reply
#7
This is a good paper, but I would like to see the author clarify one point. Just what relationship is being postulated between criminality and belief in Islam? Is the author suggesting a direct relationship? In other words, belief in Islam, even among converts, leads to increased criminality. Or is the relationship more distal? In other words, most Muslims lived until recently in pastoral societies with weak State formation. Every adult male was expected to use violence pro-actively to defend himself and his family from real or perceived threats. Gene-culture co-evolution thus favoured lower thresholds for expression of anger and greater pleasure from ideation of violence.

This point is important because there is a strong tendency, particularly among "anti-jihadists" to frame this question in ideological terms. From this standpoint, the solution is therefore not to restrict Muslim immigration but rather to secularize Muslim immigrants and reduce the influence of Islam on their behaviour.

I have seen no studies on the relative criminality of practising Muslims and nonpractising Muslims, but the perception, particularly in France, is that criminality is much higher among assimilated secularized Muslims of the 2nd and 2rd generations.

It is important, here, to distinguish between "assimilation" and "acculturation." Most immigrants assimilate when they come to the West, but very few acculturate, if only because Western societies have largely become acultural. Assimilation thus becomes a process of casting off the traditions that used to constrain one's behaviour and learning to live in a much freer social environment.

This is why, in the United States, the crime rate is much higher among the 2nd and 3rd generations of immigrant communities. First-generation immigrants actually tend to have crime rates lower than the American average (although this partly reflects the ease with which they can flee the country to avoid prosecution). Americanization simply means the liquidation of traditions and belief systems , like Islam, that formerly prevented disruptive and/or antisocial behaviour.
 Reply
#8
(2014-Mar-29, 16:32:48)Peter Frost Wrote: This is a good paper, but I would like to see the author clarify one point. Just what relationship is being postulated between criminality and belief in Islam?


I suppose that to answer this question, one would have to gain access to criminality data for first, second and third generations immigrants, but it may be very difficult.
 Reply
#9
(2014-Mar-29, 16:32:48)Peter Frost Wrote: Or is the relationship more distal? In other words, most Muslims lived until recently in pastoral societies with weak State formation.


Regrading Peter's point, Gerhard Meisenberg has historic pastoral rates by nation. He used them in the paper below. If you ask, I am sure that he will send them to you. This variable wasn't a good predictor of super-K, so it might not be a good one of crime rates.

Meisenberg, G., & Woodley, M. A. (2013). Global behavioral variation: A test of differential-< i> K</i>. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(3), 273-278.


Attached Files
.pdf   Global behavioral variation A test of differential - Copy.pdf (Size: 313.57 KB / Downloads: 641)
 Reply
#10
Peter and Duxide,

Peter Frost Wrote:This is a good paper, but I would like to see the author clarify one point. Just what relationship is being postulated between criminality and belief in Islam? Is the author suggesting a direct relationship? In other words, belief in Islam, even among converts, leads to increased criminality. Or is the relationship more distal? In other words, most Muslims lived until recently in pastoral societies with weak State formation. Every adult male was expected to use violence pro-actively to defend himself and his family from real or perceived threats. Gene-culture co-evolution thus favoured lower thresholds for expression of anger and greater pleasure from ideation of violence.


In the paper I postulate no particular causal connection. I want to save discussions of causality to another paper.

I have some thoughts, of course. I think some kind of causal connection is plausible. The correlations are very high, also for the Danish data and not did become small even after using partial correlations with IQ, GDP, height as controlled. It is possible, of course, that the correlation is due to some confound, but we just haven't found it. Hopefully, others will run the data too with other predictor variables. There are a lot one could try.

I'm not particularly well learned on Islam, but supposedly Islam or just imams often preach that one should not respect the local authorities and instead follow only Islamic law (Sharia). This would make the causal model something like this:

Model: Islam belief causes hostility or disrespect towards local authorities, and this in turn causes crime.

One can find hidden camera recordings of typical (?) imam preachings from the UK and they are quite disturbing. I collected a few I found here:

Here are the three I have in mind:
http://vimeo.com/19598947
http://vimeo.com/85362804
http://vimeo.com/85376088

Peter Frost Wrote:I have seen no studies on the relative criminality of practising Muslims and nonpractising Muslims, but the perception, particularly in France, is that criminality is much higher among assimilated secularized Muslims of the 2nd and 2rd generations.


Me neither, but good idea. In Denmark the later generations are much more criminal than the first. One can see this in the annual "Immigrants in Denmark" reports.

Here is the most recent one (for 2013 data):
http://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/Publikati...?cid=17961

[Image: krim.png]

This figure from the report (p. 99 in PDF) shows the crime rates for later immigrants by generation (first and later) and by macro-origin (western vs. non-western). As one can see the crime rates for western immigrants are lower than the Danish for first generation and about equal in the later generations. Similarly, the crime rate for first gen. non-westerns is lower than for that later gen. non-westerns.

In Denmark, one could redo the analyses with separate first gen. and later gen. numbers, but I didn't do so. This might attenuate the correlations between predictors and crime because the relative proportion of the first and later gen. changes the criminality rate. So one should do that analysis. The data are here: http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a...asp?w=1920

For Norway, no such data is available as far as I know so this analysis cannot be performed.

For Denmark, numbers are not yet available for 3. gen because they are still too young (discussed in the report, Chapter 6). Denmark did not start the mass immigration before the 1982 (IIRC), so they have only had that much time to breed. The data that are available in the report show that 3. gen. still do not perform as well as those of Danish origin in the educational system (Figure 6.7).
 Reply
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)