Friday, October 15, 2010

London blacks have higher pedestrian injury rates

According to this study of London children, blacks are found to have higher rates of pedestrian injury from cars. Living in wealthier neighborhoods tends to protect Caucasian and Asian children, but not blacks. The authors are baffled over this finding. Since group-difference explanations are out-of-bounds--ethnicity must always be a proxy for something else--they can offer no explanation. In a intellectually responsible world, we might be able to suggest cultural or biological differences, but the authors won't whisper a word about such possibilities. I guess the answer is that the cars and/or their drivers are racist.

5 comments:

Saint Louis said...

Maybe they're just harder to see at night.

Black Sea said...

On the other hand, if they can run faster . . . .

Anonymous said...

Probably because White/Asian people are more rule bound/less reckless. "Ey blud, I'm gonna take a chance and run it, y'know".

Maybe they're just harder to see at night.

Anonymous said...

Plus I hope they bore in mind that London is kinda weak on the socio-economic zoning and we have plenty of deprived estates in rich areas (relative to Sim City like US cities). But this is basic stuff, so I bet they did.

Anonymous said...

To me the most annoying factor about The Taboo is that it skews anti-tabooist's views in the other direction. I feel this viscerally as both the son of Jews and someone somewhat liberal minded.

The pure racists have always been morons - no matter how smart they are. Mencius Moldbug's inability to imagine Obama as anything but a ventriloquist's dummy and Steve Sailer's persistent implications that secular Jews prefer to hire other Jews over non-Jews (a thing that's true about religious Jews but counter to the truth among 95% of Jews with lots of power or money) can be excused by the fact that such ideas as persistently tribal Jews (persistent even post-success and secularization) and overwhelmingly retarded blacks (overwhelming as in 'all of them') can't even be raised as a hypothesis, a thing that drives even the smartest among us into paranoiac and ignorant delusions.

I'm noting all this here because it seems by the way that you phrased this post that you recognize this as well. It MAY in this instance be that some socio-economic issue, some geographical one or some fluke would best explain the gap but, of course, the disallowance of looking at the evolutionary issue warps most anyone's judgement on the subject.

In a better world (for scientists at least) racial matters could be as freely discussed as anything else. In that world no sane person would regard Obama as having an under 100 IQ and no sane person would regard Israel Shamir as anything but a crank. (Then again, I'm not at all confident that these taboos aren't beneficial in keeping us from some potentially worse outcomes than the present one. I don't think these taboos do more good than harm but I'd be foolish to confidentally make that claim considering how deeply ingrained bias is in the human psyche. Still, it'd be damn cool if we could try it. Heck, at least let the Canadians and Australians try it and see how it goes.)