Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

dippin · 01-29-2009, 11:34 AM

I am a social scientist (sociologist), so here's a few things to keep in mind:
- Journalists do a dreadful job of reporting on scientific papers, specially in the social sciences. In order to attract readers they often make it sound as if the research is claiming that X factor is a leading cause of something, instead of being one of a myriad of factors.

- Social Science Quarterly is far from being a top journal.

In any case, the paper, which is quite honestly technically average but nearly irrelevant, is less about crime and more about naming conventions.

From the article's conclusion:
"We show that unpopular names are associated with juveniles who live in
nontraditional households, such as female-headed households or households
without two parents. In addition, juvenile delinquents with unpopular
names are more likely to reside in counties with lower socioeconomic status."

I.e., it is not that having an unusual name leads you to commit crime. Is that, statistically, less common names are often found within the poor and low status. Not that only poor people have unusual names, or that rich people dont, but that, statistically, unusual names are often found within lower income populations, and within lower income populations people with uncommon names tend to be slightly more likely to have been convicted of something.

But just to throw some numbers around, so you get the idea.
- the study found that an increase of 1% in the PNI index is correlated with a reduction of 0.367% in the proportion of people of that name that are delinquents.
- a 1 point increase in a county's average PNI corresponds to a 0.0018 decrease in unemployment.

That is the argument is somewhat like this: there is a very small but statistically significant effect of the commonality of the first name on delinquency. This is also related to a small but statistically significant correlation between commonality of first name and socio-economic status. The authors think that one of the reasons that might happen is this: because certain unusual names are found more often among poor populations, people end up negatively associating such names with poverty and so on. That in turn decreases employment chances and so on, which in turn leads to more crime. The effect of each of these things on the next is incredibly small, but statistically significant.

The thing is, that is how science works. There are enough people out there doing science that everyone ends up specializing in the most precise fields. If the paper is right in its assertions, the effects would still be small enough that one person would not be able to really parse out these effects through daily observation anyways. It is a very small effect that would only be "visible" when looking at large samples. Boring, I know, but that is how science is done. We basically know the things that matter a lot, now they are just looking at the things that matter a little. Journalists often blow things out of proportion, to make things a bigger deal than they are.

01-29-2009, 11:34 AM	#8 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	I am a social scientist (sociologist), so here's a few things to keep in mind: - Journalists do a dreadful job of reporting on scientific papers, specially in the social sciences. In order to attract readers they often make it sound as if the research is claiming that X factor is a leading cause of something, instead of being one of a myriad of factors. - Social Science Quarterly is far from being a top journal. In any case, the paper, which is quite honestly technically average but nearly irrelevant, is less about crime and more about naming conventions. From the article's conclusion: "We show that unpopular names are associated with juveniles who live in nontraditional households, such as female-headed households or households without two parents. In addition, juvenile delinquents with unpopular names are more likely to reside in counties with lower socioeconomic status." I.e., it is not that having an unusual name leads you to commit crime. Is that, statistically, less common names are often found within the poor and low status. Not that only poor people have unusual names, or that rich people dont, but that, statistically, unusual names are often found within lower income populations, and within lower income populations people with uncommon names tend to be slightly more likely to have been convicted of something. But just to throw some numbers around, so you get the idea. - the study found that an increase of 1% in the PNI index is correlated with a reduction of 0.367% in the proportion of people of that name that are delinquents. - a 1 point increase in a county's average PNI corresponds to a 0.0018 decrease in unemployment. That is the argument is somewhat like this: there is a very small but statistically significant effect of the commonality of the first name on delinquency. This is also related to a small but statistically significant correlation between commonality of first name and socio-economic status. The authors think that one of the reasons that might happen is this: because certain unusual names are found more often among poor populations, people end up negatively associating such names with poverty and so on. That in turn decreases employment chances and so on, which in turn leads to more crime. The effect of each of these things on the next is incredibly small, but statistically significant. The thing is, that is how science works. There are enough people out there doing science that everyone ends up specializing in the most precise fields. If the paper is right in its assertions, the effects would still be small enough that one person would not be able to really parse out these effects through daily observation anyways. It is a very small effect that would only be "visible" when looking at large samples. Boring, I know, but that is how science is done. We basically know the things that matter a lot, now they are just looking at the things that matter a little. Journalists often blow things out of proportion, to make things a bigger deal than they are.