Correlation does not imply causation.

http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node42.html

I agree with Dan's prior comment. However, that doesn't mean we can't determine causation.

Ever hear of Steven Levitt's book Freakonomics? In this book he argues that declining crime rates begining in the 1990s are directly related to the fact that many of the people who would have been likely to become criminals at this time were never born. This he claims is becasue they were aborted as a result of legalized abortion under the Roe vs. Wade decision. You can't do the crime if you are never born.

While I'd say his argument is still a theory, Levitt does present evidence that this is a causal connection and not merely correlation. Specifically, he claims that in several states where abortions was legal before Roe v. Wade, crime rates began dropping earlier and that the drop in crime rate did not occur among older criminals. The five states were New York, California, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. He also says that states with high abortion rates have experienced more significant drops in crime rates and that crime rates and abortion rates are correlated after 1980.

http://www.freakonomics.com

I think it could be true, I just wanted people to know that the correlation might not mean anything on it's own. I can see how the internet reduces alienation, providing everyone with a peer group of like minded people and it's my opinion that urban alienation is a cause of crime. It's just that these stats don't change that from an opinion to a fact.

Agreed. I think the problem with this theory is that Interent use is actually low among the group of individuals who typically commit crimes. You need to look at Internet use among poor inner city youth (the group commiting less crimes) not just the population as a whole in order to show causation here.

Certainly the number of web hosts connected to the Internet has nothing directly to do with reducing alienation. Its also not clear from the original posting that the number of hosts is at all correlated with Internet use. That may be true, but we can't prove it from this data.

Pew Internet reports that the number of people who are "disconencted" from the net has remained pretty stable for the last 3 years. So the number of trully alienated and disconnected has remained about the same, but crime rates continue to drop. This theory fails to explain this phenomena IMO.

http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/165/report_display.asp

its all true..!

one doesnt need to add up the stats to see that these things are taking place.

crime is an imbalance between right and wrong.

more people, more young people, are becoming aware of right&wrong, what they will declare or support as right and/or wrong and align themselves with ethical and connected behaviour.

passed on to their friends, family, children, village, town, city, world-

great post

Paul, you wascally-wabbit you--you're back with the O'Neil Space Colonization post. Which is as it should be, Paul. By which I mean: Do your thing(s), take care of all the other stuff, then bop in here (FutureHi) as/when you can. We love ya, Kid-O. So you do what ya gotta do, post here when you can/wish-to, and a good time (as usual with us reg'lars) will be had by all.

Best wishes for all the stuff you're tending-to, Paul, and with love always,

Thanks for the comments.

I actually did quite a bit of research for this post.

The abortion twist is interesting, I hadn't heard that.

Dan, I wasn't making this argument solely on the correlation of the timing. There is solid evidence that kids now are feeling much more empowered and enfranchised than kids 12 years ago. This is a direct result of the Internet, and has been documented by a study of a quarter million students in 2003.

http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/theplan/ANationontheMove.asp

I found another long pdf study (which I can't find at the moment to give you a link) which demonstrated that young people are the greatest determinant in changes in the crime rate. In essence, each new crop of kids determines the change in the crime rate for the coming year. Appearently older folks stop becoming violent criminals in a predictable manner.

And even poor kids have access to the Internet in school. It can have a proportionally greater impact on a poor child's life who has nothing and is surrounded by dis-empowered people, to jump on the Internet and discover the whole world at his/her fingertips.

-------------------------

The Good News is:

A> For some mysterious reason, the violent crime rate has steadily dropped since 1994 to 1/3 of its previous level.

B> Kids today are hyper-empowered and excited about the future as a direct result of the awesome potential the Internet provides.

C> We all know how amazing the Internet is, but it's cool to see it possibly having such an important and measurable effect on our society.

The discussion of correlation versus causation makes me think of synchronicity. I don't understand synchronicities - are these "coincidences" significant because at one point or another there was an event that somehow indirectly affected both events in the "coincidence"? Suppose there is a factor that is responsible for the correlation of increased internet usage, decreased crime rate, and increased abortion rates. Are these occurrences synchronicities? How can it be known that these are synchronicities, and not mere coincidences? It seems that if you beleive that everything affects everything, then every coincidence is a synchronicity. I just don't get it. ...ha, this post is sounding pretty unintelligible. I got the idea of synchronicity from Cosmic Trigger if you are wondering what else sparked these ravings.

Not to belabor the point, but while Rove vs. Wade was decided in 1973, abortion rates did not peak until 1980.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html

I don't think its as simple as the Internet ending crime. Overall the situation for "at risk" populations had been improving during the time period in question. For example, there are fewer teenage pregancies, fewer births to unmarried mothers, etc. There's also been increased spending per pupil in the conventional education system during this period.

It seems to me that improvements in education and reductions in family stress are likely to have greater impact than the minimal access which poor students are given to the Internet in public schools. I have two children in urban public schools (SFUSD) and in my experience their access to computers and the Internet inside of school is minimal at best. When kids do get access, they are most frequently given drill and practice activities and are not free to raom the Internet.

Not to belabor the point, but while Rove vs. Wade was decided in 1973, abortion rates did not peak until 1980.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html

I don't think its as simple as the Internet ending crime. Overall the situation for "at risk" populations had been improving during the time period in question. For example, there are fewer teenage pregancies, fewer births to unmarried mothers, etc. There's also been increased spending per pupil in the conventional education system during this period.

It seems to me that improvements in education and reductions in family stress are likely to have greater impact than the minimal access which poor students are given to the Internet in public schools. I have two children in urban public schools (SFUSD) and in my experience their access to computers and the Internet inside of school is minimal at best. When kids do get access, they are most frequently given drill and practice activities and are not free to raom the Internet.

Peter and Dan, it is certainly possible that reductions in family stress and other social programs are having an effect. However the way that you first characterized it, namely that unborn fetuses that would have committed crimes were aborted instead is highly Orwellian. I don’t think that any group of unborn fetuses is any more likely to commit crimes than any other group.

The experts are for the most part stumped. It’s certainly not the economy.

Here’s an article from 2003 where they actually blame it on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Go figure!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0825/p01s01-usju.html

The amazing thing about this drop in violent crime is that it’s not just “at-risk” people, it’s across all walks of life:

“Almost every demographic group identified in the survey experienced less violent crime in 2000, than they did in 1999.” http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229548&&

By the way, that article attributes it to Joseph Biden 1994 crime bill which gave more money for cops. But if that were the reason, then it would have been logical that violent crime would have dropped fast and plateaued, since the extra spending and police would remain constant.

Similarly, since the abortion rate peaked in 1980, why does the violent crime rate continue to drop precipitously, 9% in the last year?

The only social revolution of this magnitude occurring in the United States steadily from 1994 to now that I can think of is the Internet revolution.

How does this theory account for the fact that property related crime peaked in the 1970s and has been declining since?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/prop.gif

Mosaic was released in 1993 if memory serves me correctly. Is it only "violent" crime that is reduced by Internet access? Why?

Peter,
You're raising excellent questions. Obviously this theory doesn't account for the drop in property crime since the 70's.

I'm not claiming that I've proven this relationship. If I had to guess, the distinction is that violent crime is more an issue of extreme alienation or desperation. Someone who is committed a violent crime is playing russian roulette with their lives and doesn't much care. And it is specifically a sense of alienation and hopelessness that I think the Internet can help remedy in a child.

Property crime on the other hand, is almost like a profession and a good burgler may never be caught.

I don't really mean to push this argument too far.

The main point of the post is that:

A. Something is dramatically improving in our society which is resulting in a huge and continuing drop in violent crime.

B. Kids are feeling highly empowered, which is a huge change from a 15 years ago, and it's the Internet that has made the difference.

Both of these points bode very well for the future.

Im not sure if I agree with your conclusions.

Obviously the internet is the most obvious single social change in the last 15 years, but a direct correlation between internet usage and reduction in violent crimes does seem rather simplistic.

However the case could be made that, reduction in violent crimes over the last 15 years could be attributed to the influence of the 90's.

Ofcourse this is vague, and can be interpreted in many ways as being utterly devoid of meaning, but I will expand upon my point.

Cultural and social influences in the 1990's upon 'kids', taken in the broadest and most general sense, surely put forward the arguement that for kids growing up in that period of time, in the richer developed nations, indeed forging the foundations of new lives, was taking place in arguably the most 'free' situation there possibly has ever been anywhere in the world.

Freedom in regards to drugs, freedom from established values, freedom of information both of knowledge and of current and changing dynamics of the world, freedom from social disdain and stereotype, freedom of race and religion and sexuality.

Infact when you consider the period of the 1990's to this day, it does appear, to me atleast, that inspite if the drug and spiritual freedom of the 1960's etc. and other 'periods' of freedoms being ever more vigourously excersiced, that the 1990s to just before the present time represented one of the most trully free times, free to trully persue any lifestyle, any kind of thinking, amongst almost the entirety of (many nations) youth populations.

It would appear to me that the 1990's were the culmination in the drive towards freedom after the second world war, and that the youth of today are growing up from that legacy.

When you consider that the September the 11th atrocities were almost 5 years ago (half a decade) and the political and legal ramifications are making tidal waves across the world, I fail to see how the impact on society, social and individual values, will not be fundamental and immense. Just not perhaps starkly obvious at this point.

I believe, that far from the internet empowering youth of today, that indeed the last 15 years or so has seen added an almost exponential factor to the social and individual change that has marked the second half of this century. I believe it is this marvel of our recent past that is 'empowering' people today to not be so quick to physically harm one another. Thats probably the the shining, obvious dome of a vast and perhaps infinate pyramid of change that has spread throughout society and individuals, most markedly in the last 15 years, and absolutely in the last half century and more.

Ofcourse it only takes a single powerful and brutal regime, and the cycle of several generations, to completely and totally wipe all physical trace of this from the face of the Earth and reset all social and individual progress.

Hi EH,
Thanks for the comment. I agree my case is a bit weak, but I did want to point out the awesome effect that growing up with the Internet is having on the current generation of students. Of course everyone on this site is aware of how the Internet has affected their lives.

It is very easy to underestimate the power of new media. Many people think that media simply reflects culture.

However, I'm a big fan of Marshall McLuhan who made a very strong case that media is one of the prime determinants of culture.

"The Medium is the Message"

The Internet has become a new nervous system for the global society and it has radically altered how we perceive the world, and how we perceive what's possible.

The point you make about the 90's being very free is fascinating. I don't normally think of it as that, but it was definitely a time of peace and prosperity, so perhaps you're right.

But I think that the acceleration you speak of didn't really move into full gear until the Internet revolution hit. Suddenly we're able to find like minded souls around the globe and communicate at the speed of light.

I encourage you to realize how powerful the discussion we're having here on FutureHi is. Using radical communication tools like the Internet, our personal and collective power has expanded immensely.

That is why we need to conduct ourselves with intelligence and respect, because we really can make a difference.

FutureHi is not just a debating club. It's filled with people who are determined to build something real.

Check out my website if you have any doubt that I'm personally working very hard to build a beautiful future.

Warm Regards,
Dlight

Right and wrong are just words and words lack meaning until we decide what we want call right or wrong.
Awaresness of the dicotomy does not mean one automaticly chooses to "do the right thing", to consiously do the wrong thing is as likely to happen. IMHO there are several other options in addition to right and wrong, and the opposition of good and bad is just a remainer of the moral code of the christian church.