This same kind of corruption is found more generally in peer reviewed psychology journals and related publications in any articles related to black and brown ethnic groups and street addicts of any ethnicity. The reporting on quantitative research, to the extent that it happens at all, commonly includes biased, superficial or incompetent…
This same kind of corruption is found more generally in peer reviewed psychology journals and related publications in any articles related to black and brown ethnic groups and street addicts of any ethnicity. The reporting on quantitative research, to the extent that it happens at all, commonly includes biased, superficial or incompetent reviews of prior investigations, and does not include critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of those studies. Direct instructions are typically given to the reader to accept without any evidence that a range of mental health problems in black, brown and addicted populations are all directly and completely attributable to "minority stress." On the American Psychological Association site I found "review articles" on race and crime in which the authors claimed that murder rates in black neighborhoods are entirely a function of the level of poverty and not ethnicity of the killers, without providing any evidence for that claim. In technical terms, the reviewers claimed that there was a "main effect" for level of income, but not an "interaction effect" for ethnicity x income. What is actually found is that people of various ethnicities in the U.S., when income is held constant, show variable rates of murder committed by their members. Murder is primarily perpetrated by males between about 15-35 years old, and rates are highest in large urban neighborhoods with high concentrations of black people. Accurate reporting should indicate effects on rate of murders for age, sex of the killer, his socioeconomic status, his ethnicity and ethnic concentration makeup of the neighborhood where crimes occurred.
In articles that review public health interventions for various populations many authors recommend interventions based on "harm reduction" ideology, without offering evidence that the "harm reduction" strategies they recommend are safe and effective. These strategies usually amount to enabling of the problem behaviors that led to the existing harms to the population being served. For example, decriminalizing hard drugs, supplying addicts with drug paraphrenalia (and even a steady supply of free drugs) is recommended to reduce harms like incarceration, overdoses and even withdrawal symptoms. In actual practice strategies like these have been associated with massive increases in the number of addicts on the streets in the cities that implement them, as well as increases in the number of overdose deaths.
The above behaviors on the part of authors of research reports and reviews violate scientific ethics regarding presentation of all findings, and reveal the authors' unwillingness or inability to critically analyze the full scope of research previously conducted on the same and related topics. The papers on recommendations for public health programs violate both scientific ethics for program evaluation and clinical ethics regarding documented safety and effectiveness of interventions.
The data I discussed above is coded in terms of "black," "white," "HIspanic," and sometimes also "Asian," Pacific Islander," and maybe other ethnicities. The data on murder can be found in the FBI databases on violent crime. All police agencies are supposed to report violent crimes to the FBI but they have not been fully compliant for various reasons, so the data base has not ever been complete. Even so, there are a lot of crimes recorded.
The Washington Post also kept a data base on violent crimes for some years. I don't know if they still do so. I don't subscribe and don't know anything more about how to access their data base. What I have read is that the WaPo had some more details in some cases than did the police, and that they had begun collecting this data because they thought they could get results that differed from the FBI data. So their data does include whatever they found out about "race" or ethnicity of killers, victims, and in some cases witnesses.
This same kind of corruption is found more generally in peer reviewed psychology journals and related publications in any articles related to black and brown ethnic groups and street addicts of any ethnicity. The reporting on quantitative research, to the extent that it happens at all, commonly includes biased, superficial or incompetent reviews of prior investigations, and does not include critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of those studies. Direct instructions are typically given to the reader to accept without any evidence that a range of mental health problems in black, brown and addicted populations are all directly and completely attributable to "minority stress." On the American Psychological Association site I found "review articles" on race and crime in which the authors claimed that murder rates in black neighborhoods are entirely a function of the level of poverty and not ethnicity of the killers, without providing any evidence for that claim. In technical terms, the reviewers claimed that there was a "main effect" for level of income, but not an "interaction effect" for ethnicity x income. What is actually found is that people of various ethnicities in the U.S., when income is held constant, show variable rates of murder committed by their members. Murder is primarily perpetrated by males between about 15-35 years old, and rates are highest in large urban neighborhoods with high concentrations of black people. Accurate reporting should indicate effects on rate of murders for age, sex of the killer, his socioeconomic status, his ethnicity and ethnic concentration makeup of the neighborhood where crimes occurred.
In articles that review public health interventions for various populations many authors recommend interventions based on "harm reduction" ideology, without offering evidence that the "harm reduction" strategies they recommend are safe and effective. These strategies usually amount to enabling of the problem behaviors that led to the existing harms to the population being served. For example, decriminalizing hard drugs, supplying addicts with drug paraphrenalia (and even a steady supply of free drugs) is recommended to reduce harms like incarceration, overdoses and even withdrawal symptoms. In actual practice strategies like these have been associated with massive increases in the number of addicts on the streets in the cities that implement them, as well as increases in the number of overdose deaths.
The above behaviors on the part of authors of research reports and reviews violate scientific ethics regarding presentation of all findings, and reveal the authors' unwillingness or inability to critically analyze the full scope of research previously conducted on the same and related topics. The papers on recommendations for public health programs violate both scientific ethics for program evaluation and clinical ethics regarding documented safety and effectiveness of interventions.
I hope you mean "culture" not "ethnicity ". As in "gun culture," "rape culture," and "drug culture."
The data I discussed above is coded in terms of "black," "white," "HIspanic," and sometimes also "Asian," Pacific Islander," and maybe other ethnicities. The data on murder can be found in the FBI databases on violent crime. All police agencies are supposed to report violent crimes to the FBI but they have not been fully compliant for various reasons, so the data base has not ever been complete. Even so, there are a lot of crimes recorded.
The Washington Post also kept a data base on violent crimes for some years. I don't know if they still do so. I don't subscribe and don't know anything more about how to access their data base. What I have read is that the WaPo had some more details in some cases than did the police, and that they had begun collecting this data because they thought they could get results that differed from the FBI data. So their data does include whatever they found out about "race" or ethnicity of killers, victims, and in some cases witnesses.