« Isabel, whither goest thou? | Main | The Whining Clown: A Review of Bowlng for Columbine »

Comments

Zeyneb

It's one thing to critically discuss someone's viewpoint or way of presenting 'reality'. It is necessary and good for open-minded critical reflexion. It's another thing to commit even more stupid research or reasoning mistakes than the documentary you're attacking. Numbers are THE way to alter reality in such a way that it is presented the way YOU want it to be presented. What a beautiful survey you managed to pull out of the 'useless survey numbers -box' but there are two questions to be asked here:
What is the representativeness of this survey you quote (which I, being quite familiar with social sciences, have never heard of)?
and
What is the relevance? You can always read numbers the way you like to read them.
There's another flaw in your reasoning: why are you explaining a phenomenon by other means, if you later state that the phenomenon isn't even empirically true? Why not dismiss it altogether?

Van der Leun

Reasoning mistakes? Reasoning mistakes?

As in: "You can always read numbers the way you like to read them" ?

Try this little experiment:
How many fingers am I holding up?

2+2= ?

You can read the first anyway you like.

How do you read the second?

Scott

Zeyneb:

It's one thing to critically discuss someone's viewpoint or way of presenting 'reality'. It is necessary and good for open-minded critical reflexion. It's another thing to commit even more stupid research or reasoning mistakes than the documentary you're attacking. Numbers are THE way to alter reality in such a way that it is presented the way YOU want it to be presented. What a beautiful survey you managed to pull out of the 'useless survey numbers -box' but there are two questions to be asked here:
What is the representativeness of this survey you quote (which I, being quite familiar with social sciences, have never heard of)?

You've never heard of Ronald Inglehart's World Values Survey? And you're "quite familiar" with social sciences? I'd be interested to know in what social science universe you reside?

and
What is the relevance? You can always read numbers the way you like to read them.

Unlike the sort of touchy-feely logic used in Moore's documentary, that eschews any sort of un-fooled-around-with empirical evidence, about the most you can do to quibble with the WVS evidence is to make some sort of bogus argument that the sampling wasn't sufficiently random. I could have used the supplied weights, which adjust essentially for an oversampling of urban vs rural respondents in non-US populations, but if anything the results would have been even more favorable to may conclusion, especially since the US urban/rural mix is the baseline. I did, however, report the chi-square... which you either failed to note or don't understand. Essentially it says that the overall pattern of the results could not have occurred by chance.

There's another flaw in your reasoning: why are you explaining a phenomenon by other means, if you later state that the phenomenon isn't even empirically true? Why not dismiss it altogether?

I stated that the explanation for the phenomenon wasn't empirically true. The phenomenon, that the US is more violent than most other Western Societies, I'm willing to concede. The issue is that Moore doesn't address it in a responsible way. Indeed, I don't even thing he gives a shit.

Scott: Addendum

Zeyneb:

My partial apology for suggesting that you don't understand the chi-square. I thought I had included it, but apparently forgot. That has been corrected. However they were both higher than 370 and the probability that the pattern occurred by chance was therefore effectively zero. The number of respondents per country, by the way, averaged a little more than 2,000 and ranged from 307 (N. Ireland) to 5,358 (Spain). Only N. Ireland had less than 1,000 respondents.

As I said, I've corrected the chi-square. Also, apparently I can't include links in the comments section, so in case you're interested you can find out about the World Values Survey at the following URL:

http://wvs.isr.umich.edu/

I've also added the same link to the essay.


andursonne

This is certainly an interesting theory but one of the things I've read is that the crime rate among white Americans is similar to the crime rate among white Europeans. In Europe and in the US, the vast majority of crime is caused by (to put it delicately) a small percentage of minorities and unassimilated immigrants. 30% of federal prison inmates are illegal immigrants. Perhaps economic status, social status and real or perceived acceptance in society has more to do with the crime rates. Countries with high immigration rates will have more crime, etc. I'm reminded of how during the 1800s there were violent ethnic ghettoes of recent Euro immigrants but then in the early 1900s the amount of immigration decreased considerably and (with the exception of Prohibition-related violence in the 20s) crime decreased dramatically.

Scott (to andursonne)
one of the things I've read is that the crime rate among white Americans is similar to the crime rate among white Europeans

Cite?

amine

what the crime rate among european

Dom

I think Moore's political agenda sucks. He's not a politician so it's not up to him to tell us what kind of society America ought to have, but I do think he does a good job of raising awareness about the issue of gun culture which seems to be big in the US. I think it's not so much that the yanks are bigoted, unfriendly and violent, more that they are used to having WMD around the home. We now live in a world with all kinds of truely nasty weaponds and of course sometimes thay get used, but I don't think that means that humanity is more barbaric now than it was 200 years ago.
As a pacifist I refuse to work for anyone in the business of making or selling weaponds and I have plenty of respect for Moore's message that we can do better. I just wish he'd drop the fat scruffy working class loser persona.

Scott (to Dom)
but I do think he does a good job of raising awareness about the issue of gun culture which seems to be big in the US.

Well, it was big with Jefforson, Washington and Adams and the other founders, so perhaps that's why it's still around? By the way, there aren't any WMD around *my* home. Do you figure most Americans have nukes or bio-weapons in their back yards? (You also have a typing tic that wants to tap out "nd" instead of just "n," but no harm done.)

The bottom line is that Michael Moore simply isn't right about anything... which ultimately isn't a very good policy position to take. And if you're British you also ought to know that the social contract struck with the people whereby they give up not only their weapons, but the philosphical primacy of their self-defense right, in exchange for a constabulary that'll protect them from criminals, isn't working. And it's not working, because... (as the noted Public Choice enconomist Mansur Olsen noted) it *can't* work. Without the active participation of the pupblic in their own defense the statist protection simply isn't economically viable.

And if you're a pacifist then all you're doing is free-riding on the commitment of others to protect you, thanklessly and without recompense. Doctrinaire pacifism (as distinguished from pragmatic or strategic pacifism) is a fundamentally immoral position.

The comments to this entry are closed.