Speaking with Dr. Martin Daly, who has determined that economic inequality and male on male homicide rates are strongly linked.
I started listening to this podcast on my way to the park to catch a short spell of relative dryness between bouts of heavy rain. It went smoothly – the familiar patterns of Peterson’s speech interleaved with the unfamiliar and irritating voice and strange logic of his interlocutor.
Martin Daly’s point is that higher competition between males in high inequality areas/countries leads to a higher murder rate. Correlation is about 70%, which is unusually high for social sciences. Leaving his main point aside for a while I want to focus on the following idea: that men at the top of the social hierarchy achieve their success at the expense of those at the bottom. Daly seems to be convinced that this represents an objective, impartial, even obvious truth.
There seem to be plenty of circumstantial evidence that this is indeed true to a degree – even though it’s a fact that your plumber might get the latest iPhone before you, there is little sense to deny that there are periods when the rich get richer faster than the median or the poor get richer.
Fair enough. But what would be the proper technique to disprove this statement, though?
For if there is no such technique, then the statement is a conviction, a belief and therefore has no plausible policy implications.
And if there is such technique, it should be fairly precise regarding what “at the expense of” actually means.