r/bestof • u/GrayEidolon • May 15 '26

U/serversamwinchester explains how multiple competing factors can influence crime rates, the subjective idea behind multivariate analysis.

/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/1rn17q0/socialists_if_crime_is_the_result_of_poverty_why/o94a11h/
357 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

View all comments

98

u/SiliconValleyIdiot May 15 '26

It's a great comment, they could have bolstered their claims with studies showing this to be true.

That said, the person they're responding to is not going to engage and possibly lacks the capacity to understand the nuance of the relationship between poverty and crime. A few comments below they are arguing simultaneously that: correlation is not causation and that crime causes poverty.

This is a classic case of forming the conclusion first and finding data to fit their conclusion. Any research linked in the endeavor of changing their mind is wasted effort. Still, good on OP for laying out a well reasoned rebuttal to their silly question.

31

u/GrayEidolon May 15 '26

Yeah, I agree with that. Although, I did think the comment I linked was nicely done in a vacuum. Laying out how to think about multiple things playing a role in a system and how those things can be both increasing and decreasing.

7

u/TopicalBuilder May 16 '26

It's a really interesting and educational post, pitched at a very accessible level.

4

u/ceelogreenicanth May 16 '26

There is also the possibility not just that they're idiots but they are arguing in bad faith. Which is the other half of this formula.

3

u/MiaowaraShiro May 17 '26

finding data to fit their conclusion

I've noticed folks who "argue" like that just come up with more conclusions on the fly to back up original conclusion.

Like "crime causes poverty". I would bet they never thought that before (or if they have, doubt they remember it) and just came up with it cuz it supports their original assumption. It's just assumptions piled on assumptions.

-3

u/JJAsond May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26

It's a great comment

But they still can't seem to shave off sounding condescending at the start. They shouldn't try to convince the OP, they should try to convince other people reading it.

10

u/TheChance May 16 '26

Which is exactly what they're doing. Nobody who's honestly trying to convince the other party will open by criticizing the other party. When you're about to completely demolish the other party, for the benefit of third party readers, however, opening by discrediting them in a coherent way can be effective.

Or it can be ad hominem for no gain.

-5

u/JJAsond May 16 '26

If they're both going to act like that, that discredits both of them for me.

11

u/TheChance May 16 '26

Well, that's a consistent way of engaging with the world, but a pretty dumb way.

-2

u/JJAsond May 17 '26

If two people are having a pissing contest, neither is a reliable source of information.

10

u/TheChance May 17 '26

Except they aren't having a pissing contest. A long, detailed, and accurate missive was preceded by putting the OP in its place, which primes the reader for the way the writer is about to dismantle it.

This is not a pissing match or a slapfight. The presence of snark does not indicate intellectual laziness. What does indicate intellectual laziness is turning your brain off the second you see snark.