46 Comments

1. 

   @Edwordless

   October 30, 2024 at 10:20 am

   Thanks for revisiting this. However, there are some ongoing flaws with this analysis as well. One mechanism well researched for behavior change is interruption and redirection. That may be part of the explanation for the decline. In addition without some sort of experimental reversal, these anecdotes tell an incomplete story at best, and don’t provide enough control over the variables to make a firm conclusion. Finally, something can dually be effective, like stop and frisk or policing minor crimes, and unethical at the same time. It’s important moving forward to do deeper dives to better understand the mechanisms around the ebb and flow of crime, so that we can better plan and minimize it.

   Reply
2. 

   @robertolson7304

   October 30, 2024 at 10:25 am

   Safer in New york. 😂. Most crimes aren’t reported in the slums. The wages and housing are so bad that they keep the crimes in the slums. Police don’t go into the slums because they see too much crime. You got to pick and choose what you deal with. They system would be overloaded if they document all crimes.

   Reply
3. 

   @harrypearle9781

   October 30, 2024 at 10:50 am

   DUMP TRUMP or TRUMP DUMPS, US!
   Perhaps, perhaps, the voters will FLIP over and HARRIS will win, now!
   ================================================ tnx Malcolm

   Reply
   • 

     @ozgoodphotos

     October 30, 2024 at 5:16 pm

     God help us if she wins. 😢😢😢

     Reply
4. 

   @whybegin1285

   October 30, 2024 at 10:55 am

   If the system boosted you into being famous for academia, then you probably were wrong in your analysis

   Reply
5. 

   @whybegin1285

   October 30, 2024 at 11:01 am

   What is this stupid logic lmao he STILL is convinced the police are the ones stopping crime even after stop and frisk? They are reactors not preventers. The crime statistic doesn’t change based on their presence. Has he ever considered gentrification perhaps? A decline of poverty via relocation of said people leading to less crime?

   Reply
6. 

   @Humandriver5280

   October 30, 2024 at 11:41 am

   Gentrification caused crime to fall.

   Reply
7. 

   @ClydsdaleVI

   October 30, 2024 at 12:08 pm

   Was “stop and frisk” just one of numerous factors in the “broken windows” policing approach? Did the other broken windows policies continue? To what do you attribute the second drop in crime post 2013 and to what do you attribute the more recent spike in crime in NYC over the last number of years?

   Reply
8. 

   @eliasnystrom1161

   October 30, 2024 at 12:27 pm

   Couldn’t the natural experiment point towards stop and frisk simply not making a difference when the crime rate is already low? Does anyone know if the effectiveness of stop and frisk varies based on crime rate? Spontaneously, I would believe that stop and frisk would be effective were the odds of finding a criminal would be high.

   Reply
9. 

   @hikerstl

   October 30, 2024 at 1:42 pm

   Well, he officially asking to be granted back into the ultra liberal world, What a jerk. Has he looked at the crime rates in various cities run by liberal idiots. This is speech is nothing about the facts but his need to be forgiven by left where he circulates.

   Reply
10. 

    @homewall744

    October 30, 2024 at 2:09 pm

    I thought you said it was abortion that lowered crime. And clearly a place that allows lawless behavior encourages more such actions, though to say a broken window causes murder was always absurd and fully unsupported. And stop and frisk increases crime because it increases hatred of the police and government in general.

    Liberty is the solution. There’s no “price to pay” to be “safe” when it means more government force and violence. It fell BECAUSE they stopped harassing the people AND because reports of crime went down once the people no longer cared about the police and the police didn’t care about crime.

    Reply
11. 

    @MellyBelle

    October 30, 2024 at 2:13 pm

    The rebuttal that my sister would employ is that the drop in violent crime is an illusion because of the times that various crimes are removed from the category of violent crime when being classified. This is a claim that I could not easily find information on. A researcher who dedicates their work to this subject could investigate this potentially confounding variable and discuss how it fits in the overall picture of crime trends. Otherwise, it remains a reasonable talking point to discredit any conclusions about what interventions are truly effective.

    Reply
12. 

    @AThirstyPhilosopher

    October 30, 2024 at 2:34 pm

    More of this! Id love to see TED be a place for examples of admitting mistakes, apologizing in meaningful ways, reparations, tips to young people on how to think critically and see other perspectives.

    Reply
13. 

    @AThirstyPhilosopher

    October 30, 2024 at 2:35 pm

    More of this! I’d love to see TED be a place for examples of admitting mistakes, apologizing in meaningful ways, reparations, tips to young people on how to think critically and see other perspectives.

    Reply
14. 

    @peacepeach6377

    October 30, 2024 at 3:16 pm

    There was a national shift in the cultural awareness around violent policing practices after Floyd, and I’m sure there are other factors that lead to the drop in violent crime after that point. We can’t point to only one factor and call it the defining one. Many factors come into play to create the outcomes that we had, and attributing the outcomes to one factor while largely igoring the others is a little shortsighted

    Reply
15. 

    @BobbbyJoeKlop

    October 30, 2024 at 3:27 pm

    He’s completely missing the lead–crime hypothesis in his analysis here. Which goes far further in accurately describing the GLOBAL downtrend in crime after the phase out of leaded gasoline throughout the world. Even further, atmospheric lead may also be the reason why the 1960s saw such levels of unrest and social turmoil throughout much of the industrialized world. Lead exposure does incredible damage to the pre-frontal cortex, which is the seat of behavior, cultural norms, and self-control.

    Reply
16. 

    @PhoebeFayRuthLouise

    October 30, 2024 at 3:51 pm

    I appreciate the courage it takes to admit you were wrong and that your mistake had real negative impacts on people. Well done!

    Reply
17. 

    @harrypearle9781

    October 30, 2024 at 3:52 pm

    DUMP TRUMP or TRUMP DUMPS, US !
    Try simple ;repeated sayings, rhyming words, etc, MG
    Complex arguments only confuse and ANGER voters, turning them to TRUMP!
    ========================================================

    1

    Reply

    Reply
18. 

    @MichelleCarithersAuthor

    October 30, 2024 at 5:07 pm

    ❤

    Reply
19. 

    @KimZhou-x1c

    October 30, 2024 at 6:47 pm

    ” as safe as paris” , the “Paris” of what time? nowadays?🤔

    Reply
20. 

    @Matt-dt7cf

    October 30, 2024 at 7:52 pm

    So what did cause the crime to go down?

    Reply
21. 

    @chuckhall5347

    October 30, 2024 at 8:13 pm

    Stop and frisk was a travesty of justice. Too bad it took so long for the courts to stop it. Lower courts were obviously complict.

    Reply
22. 

    @WarrenAbrey

    October 30, 2024 at 8:21 pm

    I Like Gladwell’s books, and enjoy his podcast, and am comfortable saying that even while admitting he was wrong, his ego shines through claiming credit for why everyone believes something.

    Reply
23. 

    @kmacgregor6361

    October 30, 2024 at 9:00 pm

    I wholeheartedly support the goal of embracing uncertainty in journalism, and I would add equally important in politics. But I also think we need better math and science literacy for everyone. Because this should have been understandable to both the writer and readers: if crime fell everywhere at the same time it fell in New York, then it’s unlikely you can attribute the drop to a change in New York. And if you want to look for the cause of something like that, you need a whole lot more context and data than just one correlation.

    Reply
24. 

    @agusbattocarol

    October 30, 2024 at 9:08 pm

    Great example of human evolution, learning and humbleness.

    Reply
25. 

    @nassimsabba8922

    October 30, 2024 at 9:13 pm

    A highly probable cause of drop in crime may have been abortion rights of mid 70s. A lot less people who couldn’t support their children properly, decided to terminate their earlier pregnancies, including lots of teenagers. People with both parents around don’t act out of innate anger. It doesn’t exist in normally raised people, it is not a miracle, it is our evolution. Parents are needed to raise us.

    I wish he had looked at this theory too. It has been around since late 2000s.

    Crime fell everywhere in the US right when the youth that would have had been angry and desperate were not born, when they’d be around 24 or 25, which is actually exactly when human brains finalizes the wiring of our “ethics region”, our prefrontal cortical region. But, I imagine that just not being raised by a desperate parent who has no free moment to show love is sufficient to give you a different view of society. Ability to decide if you want or can support a child was national, and so was the resulting drop in number of people who’d have been raised prone to anti-social views. Individual freedom seems to work better than not.

    Reply
26. 

    @no_one514

    October 30, 2024 at 11:48 pm

    11:48am 10-31-24 THUR

    Reply
27. 

    @HenggaoCai

    October 30, 2024 at 11:59 pm

    I hope you guys buy his new book, Revenge of the Tipping Point, in triplicate.

    Reply
28. 

    @_anyone5962

    October 31, 2024 at 12:31 am

    Ya, never take those xx-science theories seriously. Psychology, sociology, economics, political “science” etc are just some very eloquent people talking for a living. I remembered that shortly after Tipping Point, another best selling bull-shxxter said the drop of crime was because of abortion. The mothers killed off future criminals!…. let’s talk about cold-blood and decency.

    Reply
29. 

    @seattlegrrlie

    October 31, 2024 at 1:09 am

    I moved to Seattle in ’99 and everyone thought I was going to get robbed, murdered, raped on the street. It’s been 25yrs and I’ve not had any of those things. Cities are pretty safe if you’re not a tourist stumbling to a hotel at 3am

    Reply
30. 

    @AlistairAVogan

    October 31, 2024 at 1:18 am

    His refutation of his original thesis feels like he is trying to align with critics to avoid discomfort or inject humility into his persona (because this is considered a social value). While perhaps there is merit in arguing that his thesis is too reductive, it doesn’t mean that there is no power in it. The original framework (social epidemics/‘broken window phenomenon’) and the resulting actions that were engaged in and which also support his thesis may still have set in motion the social change that was documented. If you put all your effort into getting an object in motion and the object continues to move after you stop pushing it, you wouldn’t say that that because the object sustains its momentum the method you used was ineffective…

    Reply
31. 

    @AlistairAVogan

    October 31, 2024 at 1:52 am

    As non-hedge fund viewers and/or non-successful hedge fund viewers, it is OFTEN pleasurable to have the opportunity to feel superior to these imagined wealthy and successful people who engage in practices I only have a rudimentary understanding of. It is also uplifting to consider these members of the 5% engaging in the buffoonery of navigating the world with out-of-date internalizations. (Boy they are dumb.) But wait. I feel like I’m bonding with a celebrity who has embraced in a ritual of public self-deprecation and come out ‘the other side’. We’re all too comfortable with ourselves: Now he’s back on top. Now he’s got us ready to listen again – because ‘we’ve’ engaged our critical ractulties. “We’re not naive,” “We’re intelligent and responsible,”we tell ourselves… (Yes. We have rules and takeaways in this ritual too, don’t we?) But this phenomenon of ‘internalization’ that Malcolm Gladwell invokes to bring us to his side might be equally applicable to those influential elements that produced positive change in NYC. A thought. Why doesn’t he explore this, rather that nominally deconstruct and refute his own argument, rather than go off track and stroke our egos? … because it’s not about the truth, or getting the facts or arguments right. It’s about how we FEEL about Malcolm Gladwell. So we can keep respecting ourselves, while we read this books. Why don’t we act like adults? We don’t need others to tell us they might be wrong. We need to consider the arguments and the facts, think critically, and reach our own decisions, rather than contract out to others to communicate to us that their position may be fragile. Truth and integrity of argument should be values in society, but the extent of your expressed humility and self deprecation should not be factored into our consideration of the strength or weakness of an argument. It feels here like we’re at risk of conflating humility with truth. I hope this isn’t the new entertainment spectacle. It would be the beginning of a downward spiral.

    Reply
32. 

    @AlistairAVogan

    October 31, 2024 at 2:06 am

    Before: “I thought that if you wanted to win over an audience, you had to communicate certainty.” Now:”… You’re more capable of winning over an audience when you admit to the uncertainty and fragility of your position. People want that. They like that.” I really enjoy reading his books and listening to Revisionist History. But I’d suggest reading this again not for what you want to hear – but for what is there.

    Reply
33. 

    @petesyoutube

    October 31, 2024 at 2:35 am

    What level of gentrification occurred during that time frame though? Maybe particular demographics were squeezed out of particular areas?

    Reply
34. 

    @mariaantoniettamontella9173

    October 31, 2024 at 5:58 am

    grande

    Reply
35. 

    @sls6056

    October 31, 2024 at 6:03 am

    i love this video

    Reply
36. 

    @stevie-p228

    October 31, 2024 at 8:54 am

    Yeah but the theory was unscientific in the first place. Have there been conrolled trials? It was the opinion of one person with hindsight and sample size of 1.

    Reply
37. 

    @lm_b5080

    October 31, 2024 at 8:57 am

    this guy has always had a very restricted worldview with lots of blindspots

    Reply
38. 

    @crystalhutchison8546

    October 31, 2024 at 9:50 am

    I hope fake news and social media who push agenas for their own self gain look back to realize they are no different.

    Reply
39. 

    @leehansen5527

    October 31, 2024 at 12:19 pm

    Why was Malcom’s certainty 25 years ago acceptable? Why is the type of acedemic certainty he applied back then still such a norm? I was very turned off to acedamia in general as a young human. For example I stopped reading Malcom’s books, among others, due to the level of certainty he and those others in acedamia convey in their work. I am 9 years his junior, uneducated, and frankly no where near as intelligent. I sincerley beleive I have one advantage though. I have rarely, if ever, viewed the world through a lens of certainty. There is very little truth available to beings whose perceptions are as limited as ours. Let us discuss, argue, contemplate, make decisions, advance, but can we do so knowing we do not know? Can we do so with an inherent bent toward the reflective nature exemplified here by an older, more mature acedemic? An example I would add that appears to be an exception among his peers, and by extension an exception in our larger society.
    Why is acedemic certainty in communicating any information not more “I believe” than “I know”. Perhaps managing societal fear is one reason, but in most cases the conveyance of information and managing the fear of a society do not overlap. I guess that leaves the management of the personal fears of the one conveying. As he said, he was very scared living in New York. I wonder how much effect his book had on normalizing broken windows to other fear riddled folks. It seems so obvious stop and frisk is an over reach. It was always hard for me to believe it even came to pass and then had to become a discussion to filter it out of other forms of “intelligent and thoughtful and selective application of police authority”. Grow up. “Dance the wild dance of no hope” (Jennifer Weldwood). Come down from the ivory, or depart from your prison, or perhaps just get out, and face fear. Join the human race in knowing we do not know.

    Reply
40. 

    @RussellFineArt

    October 31, 2024 at 1:20 pm

    Funny how a non-stereotypical white/orange wealthy man with a long red tie-business suit in New York City during the ’90’s and 2000’s, was a serial criminal who was stealing MILLIONS of dollars, lying his butt off and never got stopped and frisked, one time.

    Reply
41. 

    @ravibalaji863

    October 31, 2024 at 1:42 pm

    I was expecting he will say why it dropped after the stop of stop and frisk?
    What if the drop is because of fake cases stopped? What if the actual crime has gone up?
    Will it help to compare records of convicted crimes

    Reply
42. 

    @Big_Island_Boi

    October 31, 2024 at 3:13 pm

    Meh. First of all, it’s quite narcissistic to assume that some book you wrote–one of millions of books–somehow has something to do with the implementation of “stop & frisk” policing. It didn’t. And second, correlation is not causation. And the impacts of this or that policy (such as stop & frisk) are rarely if ever immediate. So… the drop in NY crime (if that’s even real… anyone that has taken even just a basic Statistics class knows that data is easily manipulated to say whatever it is you want it to say) COULD actually be the result of stop & frisk policing… a delayed result… and in much the same fashion, stopping the practice may result in a future increase in crime. (Oh, and if you don’t the police manipulate crime data to skew the results and make themselves look better–just google “city of Houston police department scandal” and read about how the police department there used a simple “lack of personnel” code to basically “disappear” police reports and crimes–for YEARS–including rapes–which made it look like (a) there was LESS crime than there actually was and (b) that the police had a higher closure / solve rate than they actually did. (They basically “closed” over 250,000 cases without actually solving or investigating them.)) I have no doubt in my mind that the New York police have done similar things to improve their stats–as have many other departments around the country. Oh, and in the Houston, currently, the government CLAIMS that crime is down… but the nightly news is filled with violent crimes, murders, road rage incidents, robberies, etc. So, it certainly FEELS as bad or worse there than it ever has. Don’t believe the hype.

    Reply
43. 

    @tintingengen5601

    October 31, 2024 at 4:05 pm

    This is total bullshit. He’s actually using his previous mistake, which, yes, he realises he has made, but he is using it as a prop or vehicle to suggest he now knows. He is actually again as certain now as he was back then. He does not appear to have really worked out how certainty counts for nothing as it is only an emotion. And he is using the same TED talk processes to do it. It is flagrant ignorance being sold as wisdom.

    Reply
44. 

    @artchesterfitzsimmonsiii4245

    October 31, 2024 at 7:15 pm

    “NYC is as safe as Paris” Paris isnt safe at all

    Reply
45. 

    @tonyhill2318

    October 31, 2024 at 8:49 pm

    The primary cause of the crime drop was roe v. Wade, as researched by Steven Levitt et al. It’s an uncomfortable explanation, but it is also the correct one. I would have hoped Malcolm would’ve gotten around to telling everyone the actual primary cause.

    Reply