# In the history of the SDMB has anyone ever been wrong about more things than adaher? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 31, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639 "2013-08-31T04:55:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/221 "2013-09-07T04:55:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There is zero correlation between poverty rates and crime. While it’s true that most criminals are poor, you don’t get more criminals when you get more poor people, which would imply that it’s not the poverty that’s causing the criminal behavior. And thugs don’t stop being thugs when they get money. In fact, they often become more thuggish and even more likely to end up in prison. It is actually [more straightforward than that](http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/poverty.htm): **Why does there appear to be so much confusion within the contemporary study of whether crime and economics are related?** _The fact that these studies are based on 2 contradictory theoretical assumptions: (1) the relation between economic conditions and crime is an inverse one (2) the relation between economic conditions and crime is a positive one. As economic conditions improve crime increases because criminality is an extension of normal economic activity. For example, people with more disposable income will be able to spend that money on illegal activities like drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. As underground organizations emerge to meet these needs they create even more crime (i.e. turf wars among drug dealing organizations). Periods of depression should see a decrease in crime. Plascowe felt he could justify this model as a long-term historical explanation because while the quality of life has risen dramatically for all in western societies, so has the crime rate. Durkheim also supported this view._ It is not obvious that we can discover a way to correlate crime and poverty because our economic system tends to facilitate, even thrive on criminal activity. One might even suggest that the relationship is being viewed backwardly: poverty is the symptom of despicable activity, some of which is literally criminal and other of which is legal but we are not sure why (e.g., Payday Loan operations). “Zero correlation” is clearly not correct, it depends on how one measures. Crime is a pretty vast, complicated and subjective landscape which involves a whole lot of vectors. Economics is most certainly one of them, one way or the other. “Liberals” may infer that poverty is a contributing factor (or perhaps an indicator), but when assholes like you claim that liberals say poverty _causes_ crime, that is just dishonest (even, dare I say it, criminal). ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/222 "2013-09-07T04:57:13Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Your cites don’t say anything to contradict my argument. **Poor people are more likely to be criminals, but if poverty was the CAUSE of crime,** then you’d get more crime as you got more poverty, and less crime as you got less poverty. > > The correlation between crime rates and the poverty rate is non-existent. Thus, poverty is not a cause of crime. More likely, criminal behavior is a cause of poverty. > > there was just an intersting op-ed about how David Dinkins, the worst mayor in NYC’s history, resisted police recommendations for getting crime under control because he thought there was no police solution to crime, that the key to solving crime was to solve poverty and other social maladies. He wasn’t alone. Most liberals, armed with the latest in sociology studies, were sure the science was settled. It wasn’t. Why are the poor more likely to be criminals? Do you think if they made a middle class income(say 50,000) they would still engage in crime? Poverty is a factor. Maybe not the whole picture but I fail to see how **it doesn’t have an effect.** You made that claim, cite it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/223 "2013-09-07T05:00:27Z")
Problem is, liberals do say poverty is the root cause of crime. If the Dopers are an exception, I’ll gladly be wrong about that, but it is the liberal mainstream view and has been for a long time. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/224 "2013-09-07T05:03:49Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > Why are the poor more likely to be criminals? Do you think if they made a middle class income(say 50,000) they would still engage in crime? > Poverty is a factor. Maybe not the whole picture but I fail to see how **it doesn’t have an effect.** > > You made that claim, cite it. I think it’s not so much that poor people are likely to be criminals so much as criminals are likely to end up poor, since being criminal tends to shut you out of mainstream life. I can’t prove that, of course, it’s just a theory to explain the facts. To me, the fact that a lot of formerly poor celebrities often continue to be criminals even after making lots of money suggests that money wasn’t the cause of their issues, since having money didn’t solve anything for them. But I don’t think anyone’s done studies on how many formerly poor celebrities relapse into a life of crime. If lead is the primary cause of criminal behavior, then taking a lead-addled person and giving him money doesn’t make him any less dangerous to the people around him. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/225 "2013-09-07T05:10:56Z")
There is a long standing, decades old correlation between poverty and crime established through peer reviewed literature, so entrenched that there are multiple competing theories to explain the correlation. One might somehow argue that poverty is not itself _causative_ of crime, but the correlation has been established. It’s not even counterintuitive - the general perception that more crime occurs in impoverished neighborhoods is correct. One example: > [@](#): > > The Dynamics of Poverty and Crime > MTBI-02-08M > Haiyun Zhao1, Zhilan Feng2, Carlos Castillo-Ch´avez3 > 1 Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ > 2 Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN > 3 Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ > > Abstract > Poverty and crime are two maladies that plague metropolitan areas. > The economic theory of crime (Becker, 1968) demonstrates a direct > correlation between poverty and crime. The model seeks to examine > the dynamics of the poverty-crime system through stability analysis > of a system of ODEs in order to identify cost-effective strategies to > combat crime in metropolises. > > 1 Introduction > There is a direct correlation between poverty and criminality (Kelly, 2000; > Block and Heineke, 1975). Becker’s economic theory of crime (1968) assumes > that people resort to crime only if the costs of committing the crime are > lower than the benefits gained. Those living in poverty, therefore, have a > much greater chance of committing property crime (Kelly, 2000, Chiu and > Madden, 1998) than the general population. Property crime is defined as > burglary, larceny, or theft (O’Connor, 2005). In his 1968 paper, Becker used > statistical and economic analysis to determine the optimal control of crime. > Here, we use a system of ODEs to try and get a more realistic, dynamical > solution to that same question. [The Dynamics of Poverty and Crime](http://mtbi.asu.edu/downloads/Document8.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/226 "2013-09-07T05:14:38Z")
Okay, then if poverty increases, crime should increase. This was predicted by all those peer-reviewed studies. It didn’t happen. really, this is simple, even for an Ivy Leaguer. If you observe something(poor people are more likely to be criminal), and come up with a hypothesis(being poor makes them criminal), then empirically you should be able to demonstrate a higher crime rate when poverty increases. Since the “experiment” disproved the hypothesis, the hypothesis should be discarded. And would have been, if sociology was a hard science. But the soft sciences seem especially prone to advocacy and faddishness, so old theories die hard. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/227 "2013-09-07T05:19:01Z")
I guess the biggest problem is that liberal ivory tower types would have to admit that conservative common sense won out over their complex peer-reviewed studies. Criminals lack moral discipline and intelligence, and THAT’s the cause of their behavior. And it turns out that exposure to too much lead as a child makes you lack impulse control and intelligence. So there ya go. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/228 "2013-09-07T05:19:58Z")
Showing a correlation between crime and poverty isn’t even sociology, it’s just statistics at that point. The assertion that there is no correlation between poverty and crime can be shown to be statistically wrong without invoking theory at all. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/229 "2013-09-07T05:21:10Z")
And so the drop in crime as poverty has increased is explained by… I’ve already conceded that criminals are likely to live in poverty. You’re just repeating something we all agree on, while trying to draw an incorrect conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/230 "2013-09-07T05:34:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’ve already conceded that criminals are likely to live in poverty. If you’re conceding that then you’re conceding this: > [@adaher](#): > > There is zero correlation between poverty rates and crime. and this: > [@](#): > > Here’s another: poverty causes crime…is just demonstrably and provably wrong. are not correct. I’m not jumping on you because I have a beef with you politically, but crime statistics a professional interest for me. I avoided this for several days because I like you and don’t want to pile on you, but shit, man. That shit’s just flat out wrong. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/231 "2013-09-07T05:47:14Z")
I’m trying to be clear, but I think you’re misunderstanding. I said, “There is zero correlation between poverty RATES and crime”. That is factually correct. I also said, as you quoted, “Poverty causes crime… is just demonstrably and provably wrong.” What you’re arguing is that there is a correlation between the STATE of poverty and crime, whereas I was talking about rates. We agree that there is this correlation. However, causation is disproven by the fact that the correlation collapses when the poverty rate increases while the crime rate decreases. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/232 "2013-09-07T06:14:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > However, causation is disproven by the fact that the correlation collapses when the poverty rate increases while the crime rate decreases. No, causation isn’t disproven at all. This is the same problem another poster complained of earlier, assuming that identifying one cause of crime disproves all possible others. That’s not the case. Even if you were correct that poverty has risen while crime has fallen over the last few decades, it still is a fact that poverty and crime are correlated; that simply shows that the effect of another possible causative factor has decreased, or that a preventative factor has worked. To use the lead example, if increased lead exposure were a major causative factor in criminality, decreasing that exposure across the board would lead to an overall decrease in criminality in general, even if poverty was an independent cause and increased poverty merely caused the decrease of eliminating lead to be less than it would be otherwise. Another is an independent preventative measure like longer sentencing, which is another provable trend. If longer sentences decrease crime even as poverty rises that doesn’t mean that poverty wasn’t causative of crime, it just means that longer sentences work. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/233 "2013-09-07T06:24:40Z")
You can hypothesize that other factors continued to reduce crime despite the increase in poverty, but you have not actually demonstrated a correlation between poverty rates and crime rates since those things have been measured. Poverty has bounced up and down over the decades, peaking in 1983, 1993, and 2010. Crime rates have not shown such a variable trend. Crime simply went up and up and up until 1991, and since have gone down and down and down. It’s two completely uncorrelated data sets. > **[United States Crime Rates 1960 t0 2019](https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)** > > United States crime statistics, United States , United States rape, United States murder, United States property crime, United States crime index, United States violent crime, violent crime in State, United States burglary, United States vehicle... The reason the lead theory is so attractive is because it almost perfectly correlates with the rise and fall of crime. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/234 "2013-09-07T06:32:15Z")
And BTW, even if I end up being totally full of shit, thank you for being nice. Even outside the Pit, this place has some people with issues. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/235 "2013-09-07T07:03:54Z")
In this message board, there is always going to many that have an issue with people that are proud of their ignorance . ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/236 "2013-09-07T07:40:29Z")
Or people like you who don’t seek to fight ignorance so much as try to discredit those who dare to have an opinion you don’t approve of. The difference between you and me is that when I see someone say something spectacularly wrong, it’s enough to just correct the bad argument. You seek to destroy the credibility of the person making the argument. But I shouldn’t pick on you, you represent the majority of discussion board denizens. While the discussion tends to be more intellectual than your average internet fare, the maturity level is no better, and the best moderators in the world can only keep it under control so well. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/237 "2013-09-07T08:00:27Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Or people like you who don’t seek to fight ignorance so much as try to discredit those who dare to have an opinion you don’t approve of. The reality is that I have more of a beef with the lies from groups like the tea party that are certifiably so. That you want to follow that ignorance is bad enough, that you want to be their pamphleteer is worse. > [@adaher](#): > > The difference between you and me is that when I see someone say something spectacularly wrong, it’s enough to just correct the bad argument. You seek to destroy the credibility of the person making the argument. A lie in reality as seen in your previous efforts in the past election. It was never enough to say it once, it was needed for you to make it a relentless day in and day out defense of ridiculous sources. If correcting a bad argument was the point for you, you should had stopped the attempt at discrediting the good sources early. > [@adaher](#): > > But I shouldn’t pick on you, you represent the majority of discussion board denizens. While the discussion tends to be more intellectual than your average internet fare, the maturity level is no better, and the best moderators in the world can only keep it under control so well. And yet the warning from the moderators was for you, in reality you are also lying to yourself, the problem is you. And there cannot be a better pit thread when the one that is directed to just brings more examples that shows that the OP was indeed right. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/238 "2013-09-07T08:39:49Z")
Adaher, it’s not just “once”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/239 "2013-09-07T08:49:54Z")
Doesn’t matter how many times it is. The purpose of this board is to fight ignorance, not the ignorant. If you prefer the latter, may I suggest Paul Krugman’s site? He’s probably the best example of a prominent genius who isn’t satisfied with just refuting bad arguments, he also needs to call everyone he disagrees with idiots. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639/240 "2013-09-07T09:12:34Z")
BTW, what’s the standard here? Am I as much of an idiot as Barack Obama? > **[PolitiFact | Barack Obama](https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/)** > > PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter. Barack Obama is wrong more than half the time he opens his mouth, and he has people to help him. If we’re really generous and count half-true statements as close enough, he’s wrong more than a quarter of the time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-history-of-the-sdmb-has-anyone-ever-been-wrong-about-more-things-than-adaher/667639.md?page=13)