Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

demographics.coopercenter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 122 posts

Re: The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

#91

Post by lttlrck »

Groxx wrote: post #79

I wish maps like this would label in which order they draw the dots. It makes a difference. This one, for instance, appears to draw (bottom up) "White", "Black", "Hispanic", "Other", "Asian" - this over-represents the races higher up on the list, especially in densely populated areas. That solid block of red? It probably has other colors underneath, but you can't see them, and they don't tell you this . This is one o…

1 dot = 1 person. Zooming in and out doesn't expose any particularly bad distortion of the underlying data at the lower zoom levels. It seems to work really well to me, is there region in particular where you see a problem?

Re: The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

#92

Post by aetherson »

rayiner wrote: post #82
aetherson wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fair amount of crime which is not narrowly "drug crime" is at least partially ascribable to the drug war. In decreasing order of being "drug caused," we have: 1. Violence over territory from drug dealers can lead to various violence-related charges. 2. Drug addicts may commit monetary crimes in order to pay for drugs. 3. The general mess that the black market drug trade makes of some neighborhoods creates an enviro…

I think the kinds of people who engage in gang violence or monetary crimes over drugs fit into the category of "bad, antisocial" people I mentioned. Society would have to deal with their proclivities whether or not their energies were directed towards illegal drugs or something else.

That's quite an amazingly strong claim of biological essentialism. Got any data to back it up?

It would be naive to imagine that there is no "fundamental nature" element to people. That your genes or early childhood experiences or whatever do not make some people more prone to antisocial behavior, and indeed do not make some people guaranteed to be extremely antisocial. Some people who are now criminals connected with the drug trade would, in a counter-factual world of legalized drugs, find other outlets for their antisocial tendencies.

But it's just as naive, perhaps more so, to imagine that the circumstances that people find themselves in do not also affect their social/antisocial behavior. A hundred and sixty years ago, millions of people in the United States actively participated in a monstrous crime perpetrated against an entire race of people, the equivalent of what in the modern world would be multiple felonies per day across their lifetimes. It was certainly antisocial. Was that destiny? Were all those people just inherently bad? If so, what happened to them? Why doesn't modern Georgia have most whites being serial felons?

Re: The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

#93

Post by lotharbot »

thornygreb wrote: post #87
lotharbot wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the down side, this appears to show "white Hispanic" as white, which makes Denver look like a giant sea of sameness instead of one of the most diverse cities in the country.

That is because hispanic is not a separate race according to the census it is an ethnicity. There are white hispanics and black hispanics, etc.

I understand and reject that reasoning. When you're mapping diversity, put me and my pasty-white Anglo-Dutch ancestry and my neighbors who grew up in Mexico in different categories.

Re: The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

#94

Post by nemo »

ctdonath wrote: post #51
calinet6 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is truly another world, with so much wilderness. This difference changes the culture greatly as well, and how people think about land, the earth, and other people. You can find good people and good places everywhere, but the west really is better in nearly all respects.

This difference changes the culture greatly Hence the importance of liberty as an axiom of federal governance: one group with particular cultural interests (say, deep urban) should not impose their situation-specific views on others far away with radically different cultural interests (say, rank wilderness). What some may find need to prohibit in one situation, others may find necessary to survival in another. The la…

Very true. Sadly, the reality of the structure of our government is such that rural areas have a greater representation in our governance than denser more urban areas.

Re: The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

#95

Post by Groxx »

lttlrck wrote: post #91
Groxx wrote: post #79

I wish maps like this would label in which order they draw the dots. It makes a difference. This one, for instance, appears to draw (bottom up) "White", "Black", "Hispanic", "Other", "Asian" - this over-represents the races higher up on the list, especially in densely populated areas. That solid block of red? It probably has other colors underneath, but you can't see them, and they don't tell you this . This is one o…

1 dot = 1 person. Zooming in and out doesn't expose any particularly bad distortion of the underlying data at the lower zoom levels. It seems to work really well to me, is there region in particular where you see a problem?

ecdavis notices this inconsistency: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8303845 plus has a second source to back it up.

Otherwise, just look around at densely populated areas. Like this asian-heavy area: http://cl.ly/image/1z0Q1T1V2V0N (edit 2: turned off smoothing, that's actual pixels) note that immediately-surrounding areas have blue dots, but not that one. Meanwhile, you can see less than one dot sized dots for orange and blue poking out, but no orange or blue complete dots on top of the red. Look at other dense areas, you'll see the same thing - some colors are exclusively on top of others, and it's always the same ones. (edit: for context, that block is in the middle here, in San Francisco: http://cl.ly/image/3m3N3f423S0M)

There isn't enough room for them to have fit one person per pixel, so they're stacked (somewhat). This favors the ones stacked on top.

Re: The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

#96

Post by ecdavis »

bsamuels wrote: post #86

does anyone have a good explanation as to why each side of the US has such dramatically different population patterns?

Geography and climate. The western US is very mountainous with lots of desert areas.[0] The east, in comparison, is very flat with plenty of water and climates more suitable for farming.[1] Population in the west is therefore more clustered around the few areas suitable for human settlement.

If you're talking about the racial population patterns, that's a product of history and geography (again). European settlement of the US started in the north-east, African slaves were brought mainly to the south-east and Hispanic migrants come largely from the south, across the border with Mexico.

[0] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/USA_topo_...

[1] http://www.okatlas.org/okatlas/weather/climate/usa/climate.g...

Re: The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

#97

Post by rayiner »

Gracana wrote: post #88
rayiner wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the kinds of people who engage in gang violence or monetary crimes over drugs fit into the category of "bad, antisocial" people I mentioned. Society would have to deal with their proclivities whether or not their energies were directed towards illegal drugs or something else.

The other article that was posted here today about the US prison problem noted that crime went down significantly after prices of crack cocaine dropped, which would be a counterpoint to the conclusion you've drawn.

The per capita homicide rate in the U.S. more than doubled from 1950 to 1973, in a consistent trend. The peak happened in 1980, but most of the increase happened in the late 1960's. Nixon didn't even coin the term "war on drugs" until 1971, and the real crackdown and jump in incarceration didn't happen until Reagan in the 1980's.

The drug war isn't helping, of course, but its unlikely to be the root cause given the timing of things. More likely the root cause is the ghettoization of the cities due to white flight and wealth flight in the 1950's and 1960's, along with the continued effects of trade liberalization taking away low-skill jobs.

Re: The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

#98

Post by tptacek »

aetherson wrote: post #78
rayiner wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a state institution, and only 17% of state prisoners are there for a drug offenses. 83% of those dots are in for something else. There is some sort of weird need for certain groups of people to ascribe all crime to the drug war. I assume its a result of their holding worldviews incompatible with the fact that the world has lots of bad, antisocial, people.

A fair amount of crime which is not narrowly "drug crime" is at least partially ascribable to the drug war. In decreasing order of being "drug caused," we have: 1. Violence over territory from drug dealers can lead to various violence-related charges. 2. Drug addicts may commit monetary crimes in order to pay for drugs. 3. The general mess that the black market drug trade makes of some neighborhoods creates an enviro…

If Indianapolis's incarceration stats are similar to those of Illinois, a plurality of inmates are there for domestic violence.

Later

Nope; significant domestic violence, but mostly property crimes. Lots of drugs, too; Indiana breaks out meth (a scourge in the midwest), and meth seems to be the dominant component of drug incarcerations.

Re: The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

#99

Post by smackfu »

ecdavis wrote: post #90

I don't know if it's the color choices, the dot placement, or some combination of the two, but this appears misleading to me. Looking at the Central District in Seattle, one could be forgiven for thinking it is a majority black area.[0] In fact, African-Americans only make up ~20% of the population there (very high for the PNW, but hardly a majority). The New York Times census map gives a far more accurate image of t…

Yeah, colors are hard. Compare the full saturation red they are using for Asian to the baby blue for White. The red stands out more than the blue, even though they are both supposed to represent one person.

Re: The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

#100

Post by MichaelGG »

rayiner wrote: post #82
aetherson wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fair amount of crime which is not narrowly "drug crime" is at least partially ascribable to the drug war. In decreasing order of being "drug caused," we have: 1. Violence over territory from drug dealers can lead to various violence-related charges. 2. Drug addicts may commit monetary crimes in order to pay for drugs. 3. The general mess that the black market drug trade makes of some neighborhoods creates an enviro…

I think the kinds of people who engage in gang violence or monetary crimes over drugs fit into the category of "bad, antisocial" people I mentioned. Society would have to deal with their proclivities whether or not their energies were directed towards illegal drugs or something else.

I tend to agree. Except that going through withdrawal is one of the most painful, tortuous experiences modern humans are likely to find themselves in. It's truly dreadful. Just knowing that torture is waiting for you around the corner can make you extremely anxious. Knowing that relief can't be found easily because of arbitrary rules makes it even worse.

Faced with such torture, people might do things they might not otherwise do.

Post reply on HN