There's a funny symmetry to left and right uses of this theory. I definitely remember a left-wing version of broken glass theory being used to defend cracking down on offensive jokes or outdated language.
I think the reason for its attractiveness (apart from that it is intuitively plausible) is that it acts as powerful rhetorical device for taking something minor but grating and turning it into something big and urgent.
Interesting how "murder rates" are used as a proxy for crime as a whole. Last year when crime on the NYC subway was in the news and really salient, I saw people imply that anybody claiming to be unsafe on the subway must be lying because many other cities have higher murder rates than NYC. I work in a very small city. I bet that this city technically has a higher murder rate than New York City, but the murders are almost exclusively the result of personal grievances/gang related. However, I rarely hear of people getting attacked as they walk around town, I don't hear of robberies at local stores. I have, however, heard of businesses in Oakland refusing to take cash because they keep getting robbed. My brother-in-law tells me that he sees people shoplifting all the time in San Francisco. Feeling safe on the subway or walking down the street without being harassed or attacked is probably a better measure of the effect of "crime" and how it affects the vast majority of people, but people look at the murder rate because that's the number we actually have.
Steven Levitt (Freakonomics) and his co-author (Josh Donahue I think) had a follow-up paper in 2020 from their original publication about the abortion hypothesis.
In the original paper they had made some predictions about what would happen 20 years down the line and that's what the new paper is about.
They did mention in the podcast that most people have just moved on from that hypothesis since it was so heavily criticised but they still think they're onto something.
1) I saw so much litter when I was in London recently.
2) I never even considered littering myself.
3) Maybe I’m abnormal.
I think this is much more nuanced and complicated than we can measure, perhaps. Perhaps it is certain types of broken windows in proximity to other factors that will lead to additional broken windows. Perhaps those derelict factories are really just a tragedy of the commons if there is no effective ownership, the utility of breaking someone else’s window… you know.
Anyway, I think the thing that’s forgotten about NYC is the cost of lost civil liberties in the 90s due to such terrible practices as stop and frisk, that haven’t been calculated. Also, isn’t the entirety of Singapore based on broken windows?
There's a funny symmetry to left and right uses of this theory. I definitely remember a left-wing version of broken glass theory being used to defend cracking down on offensive jokes or outdated language.
I think the reason for its attractiveness (apart from that it is intuitively plausible) is that it acts as powerful rhetorical device for taking something minor but grating and turning it into something big and urgent.
I don’t know where the ‘British comedy Dutch accent’ comes from, it doesn’t sound Dutch at all
Dutch rarely uses ‘sh’ sounds at the beginning of words, that’s more of a German or Yiddish thing. ‘Stapel’ is just ‘stahpel’, not ‘shtappel’.
I used to live with a Dutch girl… the accent is funny
Interesting how "murder rates" are used as a proxy for crime as a whole. Last year when crime on the NYC subway was in the news and really salient, I saw people imply that anybody claiming to be unsafe on the subway must be lying because many other cities have higher murder rates than NYC. I work in a very small city. I bet that this city technically has a higher murder rate than New York City, but the murders are almost exclusively the result of personal grievances/gang related. However, I rarely hear of people getting attacked as they walk around town, I don't hear of robberies at local stores. I have, however, heard of businesses in Oakland refusing to take cash because they keep getting robbed. My brother-in-law tells me that he sees people shoplifting all the time in San Francisco. Feeling safe on the subway or walking down the street without being harassed or attacked is probably a better measure of the effect of "crime" and how it affects the vast majority of people, but people look at the murder rate because that's the number we actually have.
Steven Levitt (Freakonomics) and his co-author (Josh Donahue I think) had a follow-up paper in 2020 from their original publication about the abortion hypothesis.
In the original paper they had made some predictions about what would happen 20 years down the line and that's what the new paper is about.
They did mention in the podcast that most people have just moved on from that hypothesis since it was so heavily criticised but they still think they're onto something.
Maybe you guys could look into the new stuff.
I hope that in your next Mea Culpa episode you will acknowledge that the Aphex twin track is actually called "window licker", not "window lover"
1) I saw so much litter when I was in London recently.
2) I never even considered littering myself.
3) Maybe I’m abnormal.
I think this is much more nuanced and complicated than we can measure, perhaps. Perhaps it is certain types of broken windows in proximity to other factors that will lead to additional broken windows. Perhaps those derelict factories are really just a tragedy of the commons if there is no effective ownership, the utility of breaking someone else’s window… you know.
Anyway, I think the thing that’s forgotten about NYC is the cost of lost civil liberties in the 90s due to such terrible practices as stop and frisk, that haven’t been calculated. Also, isn’t the entirety of Singapore based on broken windows?