Country of Origin and Social Success in Denmark

One reason Danes may not wish to receive increased immigration from Islamic countries is that Danes are intolerant haters.

Another reason may be that these immigrants (.pdf) have much higher crime rates, higher use of social benefits, and lower employment than the Danish-origin population and even immigrants from non-Islamic countries. The following illustration shows that the group with the highest crime rates is second-generation immigrants from non-Western countries — significantly higher than the first generation:

Pages from educationalattainmentetcDenmark

9 thoughts on “Country of Origin and Social Success in Denmark

  1. I don’t really care about the normative aspects of your post, but the paper you’re linking to looks like the worst academic paper I have ever seen. I wouldn’t even let undergrads pass a course based on such a paper. I see why the authors submitted the paper to a psychology journal and not to a journal in a field where people actually know something about the topic.

    Like

  2. Have you looked at the site this paper appears on (http://openpsych.net)? It seems to me no coincidence that this seems to be a collection of papers like this one, which appear to have been rejected by the scientific community. But hey, it’s probably a global conspiracy.

    Like

  3. @Mutter: What flaws do you find the in the paper? I have enough of a background in statistics to know that the methods of analysis are reliable and well-accepted. You’re not just upset because the paper seems to reveal uncomfortable facts about immigration, are you? That would hardly be scientific.

    In any event, since this journal requires publishing all of your data with your paper, it should be easy to point out the statistical errors you think Kirkegard has made. I look forward to your critique!

    @Tilkov: The site the paper appears on is indeed not your normal academic publishing site, since it has adopted several revolutionary policies to reduce the notorious corruption of the academic peer-review process, including mandatory publication of all datasets, transparent peer review, and required publication of negative outcomes:

    Oh, and it publishes all of its papers for free.

    “OpenPsych accepts both theoretical and original papers based on empirical data, either obtained from pre-existing or novel datasets. A mandatory data sharing policy ensures that authors share their data prior to publication. Reports of negative results and brief communications are also welcome.

    For guidelines on submission, please consult the relevant forum thread.

    Editors at OpenPsych are editors in the literal sense of “someone who edits written material for publication”, where ”to edit” means to prepare for publication by ensuring that the text meets the editorial guidelines. As such,unlike in traditional journals, editors do not have the powers that have (perhaps unfortunately) become traditionally associated with them. Thus, at OP editors CANNOT: a) choose reviewers for a submitted article; b) reject a paper either before or after review. This is a bottom-up process, “headless” in the sense of lacking a leader and not that of lacking intelligence.

    The review process is completely transparent and interactive, to ensure reviewers’ accountability and intelligent discussion among authors and reviewers.”

    Like

  4. Also, one of the authors of the paper, Emil Kirkegard, has produced a series of interactive visualizations demonstrating typical ways in which statistical analysis can be subtly manipulated (with a view toward discouraging these practices):

    http://emilkirkegaard.dk/understanding_statistics/

    If you’re going to critique his paper, I’m going to need to see proof that you have a deeper understanding of multilinear regression analysis than he does.

    Like

  5. That “Danes are intolerant haters” is a generalization I can’t agree with, unless you mean it ironically as an intriguing lede. However, I don’t need to question the methodology behind the graph.

    I’m all for an orderly process of immigration. But current immigration can’t be called “orderly” by any stretch. Asylum laws are misapplied. Immigration enforcement is even more slack than border controls. The huge scale of migration makes cultural assimilation very difficult.

    As you point out, Europeans are grumbling, as the recent political upheaval in Denmark proves.

    I fear a rise of extremist parties and xenophobic backlash against foreigners in general.

    Like

  6. @Mutt

    please keep it real, last time you got a most basic causation exactly backwards, so the worrying aspect here is how you should get to pass anyone anywhere. this is just a bad dream I’m having, right? anyway, your claim as it stands–pompously unsubstantiated– amounts to FUD. as it’s you, let’s spell that FUDD, as in fear, uncertainty, doubt, and doofery. do you, ugh, teach at a fachhochschule? than it’s applied doofery, else, you’re in the theory department.

    @Stefan
    > this seems to be a collection of papers like this one, which appear
    > to have been rejected by the scientific community.

    actually this seems to be a paper where you get to check the data for yourself if you’re so inclined. elsewhere you get what the welfare industry paid for* and you’re not expected to even want to check it.

    * actually tax payers did, but never mind

    Like

  7. It’s always that way with people who don’t like what the numbers show. You ask them what’s wrong with the statistical techniques the author used and…crickets. You ask them to propose an alternative method of statistical analysis (there are plenty out there) and…crickets. You ask them to point you to a solid peer-reviewed publication that challenges what the number show and…crickets.

    Eventually it just boils down to (spoiler alert) the fact that the numbers make them feel sad. Or, as the old lawyer joke goes, “Your Honor, I strongly object to the witness’ last statement on the grounds that it tends to hurt my client’s case!”

    Like

  8. This reminds me of an issue in the US, where the higher incarceration rates of African Americans are taken by some (say, Coulter) as evidence that police tactics should include racial profiling because they can then target those more likely to commit crime. Of course the problem with that reasoning is its circularity — if the police are already targeting a certain group, then the “crime rate” itself might be suspect, and not necessarily a valid indicator of the likelihood of members of a group to engage in criminal activity. So, in this context, is it implausible that the higher crime rate reflects discrimination rather than just a problem by people with non-Western backgrounds?

    (As an aside, I don’t see why anyone would know anything more about this topic than psychologists! They are usually skilled at statistics and study human behavior. That said, the journal does not appear to be of high standing but that is not necessarily an indicator of anything other than author preference for open access outlets.)

    Like

  9. ‘Editors at OpenPsych are editors in the literal sense of “someone who edits written material for publication”’ is particularly funny, given that the first sentence of the paper reads ‘We obtained data from Denmark for the largest 71 immigrants by country of origin.’

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s