Sunday, December 22, 2013

Most people know blacks more violent than non-blacks

The GSS is a gift that keeps on giving. I was unaware of a series of questions the survey put to respondents in 1990 and again in 2000 about the perceived proneness to violence among members of different racial groups. Inexcusable on my part, really, as that sort of thing is this blog's bread and butter. Better late than never, though. For contemporary relevance and because of the finer racial distinctions among participants that are possible in the data from 2000-onward than from before the turn of the millennium, the following comes from the later results.

Despite the Cathedral's intentional obfuscation of disparities in violence and criminality--and, when it's adherents think they can get away with it, blatant inversion of reality--people still tend to believe their own lying eyes rather than their mendacious overlords. The following graph shows the perceived proneness to violence by members of the four conventionally major 'racial' groupings in the US. The higher the score, the more violent the group is perceived to be*:


Blacks are perceived as the most violent, followed by Hispanics, then whites, and finally Asians. Irrational racism or racial realism? The data overwhelmingly support the latter, of course.

Although in a few short decades it will cease to be the case, non-Hispanic whites still form a majority in the US. Surely it is the oppressive majority's anti-NAM and pro-yellow biases that are skewing overall perceptions of racial differences in propensities for violence! Well, let's take a look.

Bear with me, the following graph is a bit difficult to comprehend at first blush. The racial categories along the x-axis (the horizontal line along the bottom) depict groups of survey respondents while the colored bars that run parallel to the y-axis (vertical line) illustrate how each category of survey respondents perceive each racial group's tendencies towards violence. So the first cluster shows how whites view each of the four groups, the second cluster shows how blacks view each of the groups, etc:


It's not only whites who correctly perceive the associations between race and violence. Hispanics and Asians do as well. Blacks present the only stark contrast with reality, perceiving whites and blacks to be (essentially) equally violent, with Hispanics and Asians less so. Grievance peddling race hustlers and their allies in the Media are relentless in their attempts to recast reality in such a way that it actually becomes blacks who need to be weary of whites rather than the other way around, and their efforts appear to be most successful among blacks, many of whom are more than happy to blame whitey for their problems.

What about SWPLs? Don't they see blacks with rose-colored tints and whites, uh, a little more darkly? Than conservative whites, yes, but reality even shakes this more pious contingent's faith in the Narrative. The following graph compares and contrasts the perceptions of liberal and conservative whites:


Less racial variance detected by leftists than by conservatives, but the general pattern is accurate perceived by both. While some credit is due, there is (faux^) ethnomasochism evident among white leftists worth remarking upon as well. Compared to their conservative co-racialists, liberal whites see blacks, Hispanics, and Asians as relatively pacific. When it comes to whites, however, liberals shelve some of their belief in the goodness of mankind and judge whites more harshly than conservatives do. Conservative whites, on the other hand, should come in for a bit of criticism for perhaps being too forgiving when it comes to whites vis-a-vis Asians.

Honest whites--even SWPLs--are having conversations with their children that are similar to the one prescribed by the Derb that subsequently led to his termination from the Cathedral's journalistic equivalent of the Washington Generals.

GSS variables used: YEAR(2000), POLVIEWS(1-2)(5-6), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10)(15-16), VIOLWHTS, VIOLBLKS, VIOLHSPS, VIOLASNS

** To facilitate viewing, I've inverted the GSS' scale, for which higher numbers illustrate less proneness to violence.

^ The qualifier here serving as a note that SWPLs are probably mostly thinking of the wrong kind of whites rather than of themselves when passing judgment on the violent tendencies of whites in general. They voted for Barack Obama and all that.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

And what is the relationship between perception and reality? Can you plot the out real crime rates for those years?

Skrimp Skreet said...

Perception is nowhere near as strong as the reality.

Blacks are 6-10x more likely to commit murder than Whites.

Blacks, despite being about 1/8th of the total population, commit 1/2 of all the violent crime in the United States.

An accurate perception would be, if "White" was 2.75, to have the "Black" rating be over 10.0.

Google is your friend. Search for the "Color of Crime" report.

Audacious Epigone said...

No, the multiples are not accurate, and the standard deviations in responses across all groups are narrower than the real violent crime gaps are.

Still, it's rather remarkable (in the literal sense of the word) that most people, when asked, say that blacks are more violent than Hispanics, Hispanics more than whites, whites more than Asians. Participants in the module were asked about all four racial groups, so a lot of the noise is eliminated.

Skrimp,

I linked to it in the body of the post. I am quite aware.

Skrimp Skreet said...

@ Epigone

Knew YOU were aware, my response was to anon. Missed the link in the post, otherwise I would have directed anon to it.

Just for giggles, it would be "fun" to add a chart which details the reality. You know, put the "Black" at the max possible response, the "Hispanic" at a bit less than 1/2 the max possible response, the "White" at 1/7 to 1/8 of the max possible response, and the "Asian" at a mere 1/30 the "Black" rate.

And put that chart right next to the "perceived" levels.

IMO would be a great laugh-getter.

Anonymous said...

Just a question,

If we have a population of 100 million people with an average IQ of 70, who are 2 standard deviations below the mean (30 points), how would we go about calculating the percentage of the population that has an IQ over 140? thanks guys

Nanonymous said...

Blacks present the only stark contrast with reality, perceiving whites and blacks to be (essentially) equally violent, with Hispanics and Asians less so.

Not really. The graph you show says that blacks perceive Hispanics as the most violent group, followed, inexplicably, by Asians and only then by essentially equally violent whites and blacks. It's probably not statistically significant, but your graph shows that blacks think of themselves the the least violent group!

JayMan said...

"Less racial variance detected by leftists than by conservatives, but the general pattern is accurate perceived by both. While some credit is due, there is (faux^) ethnomasochism evident among white leftists worth remarking upon as well. Compared to their conservative co-racialists, liberal whites see blacks, Hispanics, and Asians as relatively pacific. When it comes to whites, however, liberals shelve some of their belief in the goodness of mankind and judge whites more harshly than conservatives do."

Perhaps, more accurately, liberals are merely leveling the difference across the races. In keeping with their beliefs, they are less likely to think that there are differences across groups.

Anonymous said...

Goes to show that White conservatives are just as deluded, if not more so than White liberals. White liberals may underestimate the frequency of African American violence, relative to non-African Americans, but at least they still think that African Americans commit more acts of violence per capita than Latinos, who in turn commit more violence than White people, who commit more violence than Asian people. White conservatives, while correctly guessing that the African American rate of violence is very high, are also just as self serving and non-sensical as African Americans when it comes to guessing their own rate of violence. African Americans erroneously believe that they are just as peaceful as White people. Conservative Whites erroneously believe that they are more peaceful than Asians.

Hate to say it, but White conservatives are just as delusional as White liberals and African Americans. The three groups of people are just deluded about different things.

Anonymous said...

Re the question about IQ of 140: If the mean is 70, the SD is 15 and IQ is normally distributed, the percentage with an IQ of 140 or above would be 0.00015306%.

Anonymous said...

Alternatively, if the mean is 100, the SD is 15 and the distribution is "normal", the percentage with an IQ of 140 or above would be 0.38303806%.

JayMan said...

IQ deviates from a normal distribution on the tails, at least at the high end.

Anonymous said...

Can you provide the correct distribution or point me to a source?

Anonymous said...

Asians > Whites > Hispanics > Blacks is a pattern I keep seeing.

Audacious Epigone said...

Skrimp,

It's a seven point scale, so that would definitely make for a stark contrast indeed, even among those with the most accurate perception. In fairness, though, the question asks about a proneness to violence, not for a multiplier of actual rates of violence.

Does it take seven times as much provocation of the average white guy to get him to respond violently as it does the average black guy? I'm not even sure how that would be quantified, let alone the answer.

Anthony said...

The perceptions of Asians are interesting. Asians in the U.S. are particularly non-violent, but Asians are responsible for some of the worst violence in the world during the 20th century. And the 19th...

While Asian crime rates are low, some groups of Asians are more prone to crime than others. Car theft for profit has become a Vietnamese specialty in Oakland, for example. The more criminal Asian groups are more likely to live near blacks and Hispanics, while the less criminal groups tend to live more isolated, or only near whites, which would affect perceptions.

I also wonder whether the typical black person, when asked about whites, thinks about cops, who are more violent than average (almost definitionally), especially around blacks.

Anonymous said...

Huh? By that token whites are more violent than blacks. Same delusions that blacks supposedly suffer from.

Anonymous said...

Possible explanation for the white libcon cap in Asian: Maybe white cons lump Arab Muslims in with Asians, while libs don't? Or maybe cons don't know many Asians and don't live in heavily Asian areas, but libs do? Maybe switch and replace Asians with blacks to partly explain the gap wrt blacks.

Gottlieb said...

Liberals are part of the natural and expected evolution of northern European Caucasians . The trend towards individualism . First you create the authoritarian family, since a fraction of the old clans . From there , the divisions still happen even result in a composite society and seen as individuals and not as groups or entire populations .
When 'you become' an individual comes to see people separately and not in collective formats . Also comes to believe in the role of the environment instead of nature . The natural evolution of whites and of humanity itself would be complete rejection of nature, a anti-natural evolution. When you reject the nature , shall play God and see themselves as '' holder of the reins of your own destiny '' and happen to be in a position of social prominence , going to see themselves as responsible for changes aimed at welfare of human beings . This process started from the time when the human being passed to modify their environment and not to depend on it .
When liberals are confronted with this type of issue, they tend to see their experiences with individuals of every race and not as large systems. Their perceptions of analyzing an individual other individuals. You could say that it is impossible for a liberal, immediately recognize the systemic chain of large and small social and historical events that corroborate the idea in relation to qualitative behavioral differences between human groups.
And their dogmatic beliefs in equality and nurture based on their first own self perceptions (genetically oriented) on the equality of individuals as independent parts of a system and therefore mutually dependent on each other (independent culturally, systemically dependent). Therefore they are to rationalize the weakness that an individual has by a mass society. The idea of ​​nurture emphasizes the idea of the individual as a separate part, assuming that for genetics has logic, it becomes necessary for comparison and for comparison it is necessary that there are differences and similarities. But as liberals emphasize only the individual, then there are no differences between two different and independent beings, so the difference results in equal condition. Condition of complete human beings and therefore individuals.

Alliumnsk said...

Nice post.
Though, the _captions_ seem do contradict the text. I'm not a native English speaker, but I suggest you change the captions. Also it would make sense to put coloring inscription on the top so it doesn't interfere.

Also, which software do you use do dig GSS? The figure drawing seems to be of MS Excel.