Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Are accusations of raicsm/sexism/bigotry abused? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=862238)

Damuri Ajashi 10-16-2018 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21270002)
No, I'm very interested in the studies you cited, and I'm very interested in finding more data, both since the data available is so sparse, and since the ProPublica study directly conflicts with the data you cited.

Pro publica didn't do a study.

They did some simple math.

Quote:

But because your mind is already made up on this, and you're choosing to dismiss any data that doesn't match your preconceived notions, I'm not really interested in further exploration of your opinions on the issue.
Its not data. 37 deaths over 3 years is simply not data.

Neither of us are going to change each others minds.
My mind will not change until the facts change.
Your mind will not change until your feelings change.

Quote:

And not surprisingly, you're misstating my views on some other things, a discussion of which would probably belong in another thread.
I'm sorry you're right, you did not say you were disregarding the peer reviewed studies. You simply went ahead and placed it on even footing with the pro publica crap. If anyone other than a liberal on this board tried to pull this sort of bullshit, they would be buried under a mountain of jeers and ridicule.

The FACT of the matter is that accusations of racism as you expressed in your last post are abused to vilify those that disagree with you and allow you to close your mind to the notion that you might be wrong.

iiandyiiii 10-16-2018 04:13 PM

Any study about police violence would be "some simple math", since such a study would involve nothing more than mathematical analysis of statistics. But okay, we're done on this. You're not interested in any information that doesn't confirm your own preconceived notions. And manufacturing accusations of racism, apparently, since I didn't call you a racist (but hey, cry wolf if that's your thing).

Damuri Ajashi 10-16-2018 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21270428)
Any study about police violence would be "some simple math", since such a study would involve nothing more than mathematical analysis of statistics. But okay, we're done on this. You're not interested in any information that doesn't confirm your own preconceived notions. And manufacturing accusations of racism, apparently, since I didn't call you a racist (but hey, cry wolf if that's your thing).

So when you say "considering what you've said before about black culture..." you are NOT implying that I may be racist? :dubious:
What you're doing is plain for all to see.

And no, the studies on police violence did more than just crunch numbers. It was an actual study that analyzed the numbers and compared them ti the situations when deaths occurred and they came to the conclusion that cops do not kill blacks more often than whites.

Pro publica seems to have gone through the numbers and said, "hey, lets see if there is some sliver of the data set where we see really big disparities and call that a statistic and rile up the rubes into thinking that the number is indicative of something" They found 37 deaths out of thousands over three years and call it an epidemic of some sort. Its statistical noise.

Like I said, based on pro-publica's methodology, cops kill asian teenagers at 3 times the rate they kill white kids.

Banquet Bear 10-16-2018 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21270919)
What you're doing is plain for all to see.

...no it isn't. iiandyiiii has a reputation for being a "straight shooter." If he intended to call you racist he would have just called you racist. He didn't: he gave you a careful, specific and nuanced reply. What is plain to see is that you have chosen to interpret his reply in the worst possible of ways.

MrDibble 10-17-2018 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21267388)
How many arguments have you won with racists?

All of them?
Quote:

Have you changed even one racist mind in your life? Probably not.
At least 5 that I know of...
Quote:

But unless you are saying that all Trump supporters are racists and bigots
It's an interesting question - I would say "all Trump supporters are unquestionably supporters of racism and bigotry" and argue that it's a picayune distinction.
Quote:

there are in fact people whose minds can be changed and shouting them down with accusations of racism isn't going to do it.
Once again - it's not the racists I expect will change. It's the subsequent generations.
Quote:

No, I think they can debate just fine. I know Mari Matsuda
Oh, and have you told her your views on CRT?
Quote:

and as Posner says, she is among the most likely contemporary legal scholars to have a long lasting effect on society. She uses Crit race theory to try and provide another lens through which we can [should?] view the law. She doesn't use it as the foundation for legal arguments.
I wouldn't know, I don't follow her cases. But you admit she uses it for arguing what the law should be. How does that gel with CRT only gaining traction with losers?
Quote:

No that's not what crit race theory does. Here is the wiki link for our viewers at home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

From your own cite:
Quote:

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.
I'm sorry, what about what I said disagrees with that?
Quote:

Science and facts beg to differ.
Give me the scientific definition of "Truth", then...
Quote:

You can proselityze on this board but the board does in fact have a mission. Its right there in the banner (its in a small font tho).
Dude, that's a (stupid) fucking marketing slogan. Not holy writ. Don't make the mistake of thinking it is.
Quote:

I think you are misinterpreting the notion that race is a social construct.
No, I'm just highlighting one implication of that fact.Social constructs are inherently subjective. You disagree?
Quote:

So you think that you photo proves that America is Naziland? Really?
Are those not Nazis?
Quote:

It seems like you do.
I'd say the same for you.

As your refusal to carry out empirical studies shows.
Quote:

I think I have some idea what your political goals are (or at least your political views). I think any7one reading this thread does.
Oh, really? From this thread(not elsewhere on the Dope) you think you can identify my political views? What would those be, then, pray tell? In 5 words or less.
Quote:

OK fine. Do you think the civil rights movement could have stopped the Holocaust?
Sure. Of course, it wouldn't look like the Civil Rights movement of King by the end. Probably end up a lot more like the ANC...
Quote:

I take your point, and not to quibble but those were widely regarded as revolutions not civil rights movements.
"Not to quibble" but you're going to anyway. And like all quibbles it's a distinction without real difference you choose to make.

Let me expand - the first sentence of your cite is:
The Revolutions of 1989 formed part of a revolutionary wave in the late 1980s and early 1990s that resulted in the end of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe and beyond.
What do we find under the heading of "20th C" at that 1st link?
The Black Power movement and the Civil Rights Movement organized successful protests against government and private discrimination. Continuing unrest in African-American communities led to the multi-city riots during the "Long Hot Summer of 1967" and the various 1968 riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. In Trinidad the Black Power Revolution is successful.
Please, by all means continue to give cites that undercut your own arguments...

Quote:

It does when I am repeating an actual argument.
Except you're not, though. You're just posting a link. "making an argument" would be, you know, actually making all those critique points in this thread,
Quote:

"shit in one hand democracy in the other" is an argument? I STILL don't know WTF that was about.
Try it and see. It doesn't have to be your own shit. You could try a big handful of bullshit, for instance...
Quote:

Who said that again?
Peter Wood. More specifically, he said "Its pretense, [...], is that the Civil Rights Movement was hollow and that we continue to live in a nation the laws of which are pervasively racist."

Oh, I bet you're going to "quibble" that that's not exactly the same as "no white racism inherent in the US legal system" - knock yourself out.
Quote:

Just FYI history and actual laws on the books are not generally considered subjective anecdotes or storytelling.
People's experience of same, is.
Quote:

Brack Obama
Mark Zuckerberg
Hillary Clinton
Firstly, "general rule". Secondly -
  • Not allowed to fully succeed - by a Congress of mostly White Males, I might add
  • Zuckerberg is a White Male, what is that supposed to refute?
  • Is Clinton president? Stop making my arguments for me.
Quote:

See Jewish-Americans Generally
White
Quote:

See Asian-Americans generally
How many Asian congresspeople? How many Presidents?
Quote:

See African immigrants generally
Are you fucking kidding me?
Quote:

See Cuban-Americans generally
The White ones, like Cruz and Rubio...
Quote:

Because the argument of crit race theory isn't that white males have an advantage (which, I think most people could agree with). Its that white males have an almost unassailable advantage.
You saying that's not the case? And "But, Barack Obama..." is, under it all,the sum total of your "logical" reasoning for that?
Quote:

Because knew that white males had it easier long before crit race theory came along. What crit race theory adds to the mix is the notion that this advantage is almost insurmountable.
No, CRT is not that fatalistic. What CRT points out is that not only is the deck stacked, it's that way by design. And purposefully kept that way.
Quote:

Once again, that's called a revolution.
Errm, no. Learn about South African history before you attempt a gotchya at me about it, please. The faction that set Apartheid in place got into power through a democratic process.
Quote:

Pure ideal or not, democracy is what we have and its better than anything else we've come up with to date.
We've come up with better. They just weren't allowed to succeed by outside forces.
Quote:

And in fact I bet you probably are more in favor of the "pure ideal" of democracy rather than what we have now with the gerrymandering and the voter suppression and all that shit.
Well, I am even less in favour of false dichotomies compared to "pure ideal" democracy, so in a way you're probably right. Of course, it's possible to have a modern non-pure democracy without "all that shit", which would be even better. Still not my first choice, but of course you know that, since you know all about my political leanings and all.

MrDibble 10-17-2018 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21269978)
So you don't find facts convincing because you think I'm racist? Or are you calling me racist because you want to ignore the peer reviewed studies that I am presenting to rebutt your pro-publica article?

Where did andy call you a racist? Did you report him? This is GD after all, can't have that sort of thing here. Quote where he did so, and hell, I'll report it for you.

iiandyiiii 10-17-2018 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21270919)
Pro publica seems to have gone through the numbers and said, "hey, lets see if there is some sliver of the data set where we see really big disparities and call that a statistic and rile up the rubes into thinking that the number is indicative of something" They found 37 deaths out of thousands over three years and call it an epidemic of some sort. Its statistical noise.

This isn't how statistics work. Like it or not, there's a lot of science to statistics, and things like risk ratio and confidence level are based in good science. That's how we can extrapolate from polling and margins of error to the feelings of the whole country. It's no more "statistical noise" than a poll of ~800 people is. It's by no means a perfect and conclusive measure, but it's a piece of data that provides useful information.

Quote:

Like I said, based on pro-publica's methodology, cops kill asian teenagers at 3 times the rate they kill white kids.
Maybe this is true. I'd certainly be interested in looking further into it.

Damuri Ajashi 10-17-2018 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear (Post 21270949)
...no it isn't. iiandyiiii has a reputation for being a "straight shooter." If he intended to call you racist he would have just called you racist. He didn't: he gave you a careful, specific and nuanced reply. What is plain to see is that you have chosen to interpret his reply in the worst possible of ways.

No. He has a reputation for being polite and cordial while putting up with impolite rude posters.

If he just called me a racist as he intended to, he would get modded or banned in great debates. Or did you not know that you weren't allowed to call people racist in great debates? Yeah, neither did I.

iiandyiiii 10-17-2018 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21271408)
No. He has a reputation for being polite and cordial while putting up with impolite rude posters.

If he just called me a racist as he intended to, he would get modded or banned in great debates. Or did you not know that you weren't allowed to call people racist in great debates? Yeah, neither did I.

Another Doper prospective mind-reader, and like the rest, you're failing at it.

Damuri Ajashi 10-17-2018 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21271136)
Oh, and have you told her your views on CRT?

Yes in conversations about how CRT and law and economics intersect. One of the basic premises of law & economics is that in a system without transaction costs, society still ends up maximizing value so society is no better or worse off regardless of where the law places a burden. CRT intersects with law and econ by saying that society has historically placed that burden on the shoulders of women and minorities and contrary to law and econ's premise that all we have to do is sufficiently reduce transaction costs and the rest basically takes care of itself; the racial architecture in this country places a disproportionate amount of the burden of reaching optimal outcomes is placed on women and minorities. So while society might still maximizes value, the individual identity of who benefits from the maximization of value is not equitably distributed. There's a lot more to it but you get the flavor.

She does not really defend the use of CRT outside of legal scholarship. She certainly doesn't go as far as some people do to say that minorities are virtually precluded from success in this country.

Quote:

I wouldn't know, I don't follow her cases. But you admit she uses it for arguing what the law should be. How does that gel with CRT only gaining traction with losers?
Losers? I don't recall calling you a loser. Matsuda doesn't use it in cases, she uses it in law review articles and essays. She uses it in those sort of arguments. She uses it to explain how the apparently fair laws are distorted because they have been set up so the toast always lands buttered side up for some groups and buttered side down for others. And even if the laws were entirely fair, they administered by human lawyers and judges who have implicit biases.

Quote:

Give me the scientific definition of "Truth", then...
Off the top of my head, facts.

You cannot create stories and narratives and treat them like facts.

You cannot pluck out an anecdote and treat them like data.

Quote:

Dude, that's a (stupid) fucking marketing slogan. Not holy writ. Don't make the mistake of thinking it is.
Never said it was. Like I said, you are free to proselytize and you are effectively preaching Christianity in Kansas here. But I still think it is a worthwhile endeavor to fight ignorance.

Quote:

No, I'm just highlighting one implication of that fact.Social constructs are inherently subjective. You disagree?
No but the effects of racism are not.

Quote:

Are those not Nazis?
Yes but I can show you a picture of BLM and that wouldn't make this BLM land.

Quote:

I'd say the same for you
You would be wrong.

Quote:

As your refusal to carry out empirical studies shows.
Wait, when did I refuse to carry out empirical studies? Why the fuck should I when others have already done so?

Quote:

Oh, really? From this thread(not elsewhere on the Dope) you think you can identify my political views? What would those be, then, pray tell? In 5 words or less.
Really, that's your quibble? That I couldn't tell from only reading the 5 pages of this thread rather than the hundreds of other pages of your posts that make your political views pretty clear. Your beliefs are no secret, I do not distort them or misrepresent them. I believe you on the other hand have almost no idea what I believe. I suspect it is because you don't care what I believe, you only know that I am not toeing the ultra-liberal CRT orthodoxy that this site seems to require these days.

Quote:

Sure. Of course, it wouldn't look like the Civil Rights movement of King by the end. Probably end up a lot more like the ANC...
"Not to quibble" but you're going to anyway. And like all quibbles it's a distinction without real difference you choose to make.

Let me expand - the first sentence of your cite is:
The Revolutions of 1989 formed part of a revolutionary wave in the late 1980s and early 1990s that resulted in the end of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe and beyond.
What do we find under the heading of "20th C" at that 1st link?
The Black Power movement and the Civil Rights Movement organized successful protests against government and private discrimination. Continuing unrest in African-American communities led to the multi-city riots during the "Long Hot Summer of 1967" and the various 1968 riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. In Trinidad the Black Power Revolution is successful.
Please, by all means continue to give cites that undercut your own arguments...
How does this undercut my argument? None of those are examples of minorities getting what they want from a tyrannical government through a civil rights movement like the one we had. In fact one of the quoted examples IS the civil rights movement that we had.

Quote:

Except you're not, though. You're just posting a link. "making an argument" would be, you know, actually making all those critique points in this thread,
OK CR is bullshit because it relies on subjective experience, anecdotes and storytelling. It plays upon emotion rather than reason.

Quote:

Try it and see. It doesn't have to be your own shit. You could try a big handful of bullshit, for instance...
:rolleyes:

Quote:

Peter Wood. More specifically, he said "Its pretense, [...], is that the Civil Rights Movement was hollow and that we continue to live in a nation the laws of which are pervasively racist."

Oh, I bet you're going to "quibble" that that's not exactly the same as "no white racism inherent in the US legal system" - knock yourself out.
WTF!?!?! You think there is negligible distance between "there is no white racism in the US legal system" and we do not "continue to live in a world that is a nation of laws that is pervasively racist"

That is in fact a common criticism of CRT. CRT would have you believe that racism is so bad in America that the American dream is an illusion.

Quote:

People's experience of same, is.
Firstly, "general rule". Secondly -
  • Not allowed to fully succeed - by a Congress of mostly White Males, I might add
  • Zuckerberg is a White Male, what is that supposed to refute?

Well, he's Jewish.
And what do you mean fully succeed?

Quote:

[*]Is Clinton president? Stop making my arguments for me.
She is successful by every reasonable measurement.
Nothing stopped her from becoming the "presumptive nominee of a major political party and frankly the favorite to win the general election.

Quote:

White
Do those Nazis/White Supremecists think Jews are white too? Whiteness is not something you can measure with a Pantene color swatch. Some Jews may have convinced themselves that they are white, the Nazis aren't convinced.

Quote:

How many Asian congresspeople?
About a dozen. A bit less than their percentage of the population if you only count citizens that are able to vote.

Quote:

How many Presidents?
How many Jewish presidents? I mean, they white, right? This is indicative of nothing.

Quote:

Are you fucking kidding me?
Nope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_...rity:_Africans

Quote:

The White ones, like Cruz and Rubio...
No, just run of the mill Cubans in Miami. I mean unless your definition of success is becoming president or senator or something, I think most people consider the Cuban community to be reasonably well off. This is all just a list of model minorities. Model minorities are a prickly issue for CRT academics because its hard to explain why they aren't all living in abject poverty under the overwhelming racism in society.

Quote:

You saying that's not the case? And "But, Barack Obama..." is, under it all,the sum total of your "logical" reasoning for that?
It is one example that provides strong evidence against the notion.

If you said women can't fight on the front lines and then a woman earned a congressional medal of honor for singlehandedly punching every terrorist in the balls, it would make your statement much less tenable. So, while an Obama presidency doesn't prove that racism doesn't exist it does prove that it can be overcome.

Quote:

No, CRT is not that fatalistic. What CRT points out is that not only is the deck stacked, it's that way by design. And purposefully kept that way.
By who? Who is this conspiracy that is Purposely designing and maintaining this white supremacist society?

ISTM that CRT doesn't believe that society can be made fair and that we must have things like AA until we achieve fairness (which will be evidenced by the lack of a need for AA to achieve proportional representation at every socio economic level). It is ends driven and not intellectually honest or principled.

Quote:

Errm, no. Learn about South African history before you attempt a gotchya at me about it, please. The faction that set Apartheid in place got into power through a democratic process.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about America and the American Revolution. I didn't realize you were pontificating about the situation in America from fucking South Africa. So the end of Apartheid was not the result of a movement by a minority, was it?

Quote:

We've come up with better. They just weren't allowed to succeed by outside forces.
Like what? I'm sure it will be practical.

Damuri Ajashi 10-17-2018 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21271200)
This isn't how statistics work. Like it or not, there's a lot of science to statistics, and things like risk ratio and confidence level are based in good science. That's how we can extrapolate from polling and margins of error to the feelings of the whole country. It's no more "statistical noise" than a poll of ~800 people is. It's by no means a perfect and conclusive measure, but it's a piece of data that provides useful information.

It provides about as much useful "data" as the one shooting of an Asian boy does on police inclination to shoot Asian boys. The ONE statistician that they used for this backed away from the "study"

So I understand something about statistics. Do you?

What pro-publica did was engage in P-mining or data dredging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

If you pick through a data set looking for a particular relationship long enough, you will find a statistically significant relationship somewhere. Statistical significance just tells us that there is a 95% chance that a result is not random. It doesn't tell you what might cause the non-randomness. That is what a study does. N The Pro-Publica "study" just throws the number out there with no context other than "look, cops killed a disproportionate of black people" with the implication that it is racism.

You ever play roulette and sometimes you see a long line of red or black numbers. If you just took that clump of red numbers you would might be able to reach the conclusion that red is more likely to be rolled than a black number. But its just noise.

Quote:

Maybe this is true. I'd certainly be interested in looking further into it.
Why? It's statistical noise

iiandyiiii 10-17-2018 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21272017)
It provides about as much useful "data" as the one shooting of an Asian boy does on police inclination to shoot Asian boys. The ONE statistician that they used for this backed away from the "study"

So I understand something about statistics. Do you?

What pro-publica did was engage in P-mining or data dredging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

If you pick through a data set looking for a particular relationship long enough, you will find a statistically significant relationship somewhere. Statistical significance just tells us that there is a 95% chance that a result is not random. It doesn't tell you what might cause the non-randomness. That is what a study does. N The Pro-Publica "study" just throws the number out there with no context other than "look, cops killed a disproportionate of black people" with the implication that it is racism.

You ever play roulette and sometimes you see a long line of red or black numbers. If you just took that clump of red numbers you would might be able to reach the conclusion that red is more likely to be rolled than a black number. But its just noise.

Why? It's statistical noise

They didn't data dredge. They were specifically looking for data about shootings of black and white people by police. And they presented that data. They're not saying, and I'm not saying, "this is conclusive evidence of racism". They're just saying "this is interesting and should be studied further", which is what I'm saying as well.

You appear to have made a conclusion based on other studies, and no other data presented can affect your conclusion. IMO, that's ridiculous and unscientific, but you're free to make such a conclusion if you wish.

As to whether such numbers are "noise" or not, further investigation might reveal this. We certainly don't have enough information to make such a conclusion at this point.

Your certainty is unconvincing to me.

MrDibble 10-17-2018 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21271965)
She does not really defend the use of CRT outside of legal scholarship. She certainly doesn't go as far as some people do to say that minorities are virtually precluded from success in this country.

Have you ever asked her?
Quote:

Losers? I don't recall calling you a loser.
I'm not referring to myself. Reread post #186.
Quote:

She uses it in those sort of arguments.
You didn't specify "only losers at legal arguments" when you called CRT a cancer or a loser's tactic.
Quote:

Off the top of my head, facts.
Naah, sorry, facts and truth are not synonymous, and the fact/truth (synthetic/analytic) distinction has been the subject of endless debate. You don't get to declare that resolved for all of Science.
Quote:

You cannot create stories and narratives and treat them like facts.
No, you cannot pretend like narratives and stories of e.g. experiences of racism are complete fiction unrelated to real lived experience.
Quote:

You cannot pluck out an anecdote and treat them like data.
Anecdotes are data.

"The plural of anecdote is not data" is a terrible guideline in social sciences, and anyway, it's a horrible misquote of the original.
Quote:

Never said it was.
:rolleyes: Naah, you just treat it that way.
Quote:

No but the effects of racism are not.
Really? You're blithely saying that on this board, where people will quite happily tell you things were better for everyone 50 years ago? You'd think if the effects of racism are so purely objective, there'd be so much doubting of its existence here?
Quote:

Yes but I can show you a picture of BLM and that wouldn't make this BLM land.
This would be a fair point ... if BLM had a President and Congress behind it, the way the Nazis continue to have.
Quote:

You would be wrong.
Not from the posts I'm reading...
Quote:


Wait, when did I refuse to carry out empirical studies?
I've repeatedly suggested on you refuse to carry out...
Quote:

Really, that's your quibble?
It's not a "quibble" - you're the one who brought up the self-evident-within-this-thread nature of my politics:
"I think any7one reading this thread does."[sic]
And don't think I didn't notice that you didn't even try to actually answer the question.
Quote:

How does this undercut my argument?
You're trying to draw an artificial distinction between Civil Rights and Revolutions, but your own cite's cite includes Civil Rights movements in the same class of movement as the Revolutions you cited. Proving the distinction is artificial.
Quote:

OK CR is bullshit because it relies on subjective experience, anecdotes and storytelling. It plays upon emotion rather than reason.
Like I said, we aren't robots, and there's nothing wrong with emotion.
Quote:

:rolleyes:
So much for empiricism, eh?
Quote:

You think there is negligible distance between "there is no white racism in the US legal system" and we do not "continue to live in a world that is a nation of laws that is pervasively racist"
Since neither of those is an accurate quote of what either I or Wood actually wrote, I don't have an opinion on the truth value of your statement.
Quote:

That is in fact a common criticism of CRT. CRT would have you believe that racism is so bad in America that the American dream is an illusion.
It's not?
Quote:

Well, he's Jewish.
...who would be White men
Quote:

And what do you mean fully succeed?
Not be held back by a gang of White Men.
Quote:

She is successful by every reasonable measurement.
She did not succeed at the biggest thing she set out to do. That's failure.
Quote:

Nothing stopped her from becoming the "presumptive nominee of a major political party and frankly the favorite to win the general election.
Do you also excessively celebrate the award of Junior League "Just For Participating" trophies?
Quote:

Do those Nazis/White Supremecists think Jews are white too? Whiteness is not something you can measure with a Pantene color swatch. Some Jews may have convinced themselves that they are white, the Nazis aren't convinced.
The nazis aren't the gatekeepers of whiteness, nor success. They just hang on its coat-tails.
Quote:

About a dozen. A bit less than their percentage of the population if you only count citizens that are able to vote.
...point made...
Quote:

How many Jewish presidents? I mean, they white, right?
How many Finns? How many Italians? You don't get to ask "why not this subgroup" when the point is about the group as a whole.
Quote:

This is indicative of nothing.
Of course it is.I'm aware of the success of African immigrants and the factors involved. The "are you fucking kidding me" was because you already had Barack Obama...consider it exasperation at your repeating yourself.
Quote:

I mean unless your definition of success is becoming president or senator or something
It's a good proxy measure for the issue under discussion. More so than, say, financial success, because that has more paths which could bypass the routes traditionally blocked or limited to non-White Men.
Quote:

, I think most people consider the Cuban community to be reasonably well off. This is all just a list of model minorities. Model minorities are a prickly issue for CRT academics because its hard to explain why they aren't all living in abject poverty under the overwhelming racism in society.
It's not prickly at all. They're a smaller, often much more self-selected sample, compared to the other minorities like African-Americans or Mexicans. And many of them do get to benefit from Whiteness as well.

The argument isn't that no minority would ever succeed. In fact, one could argue that it benefits Whiteness even more to have some smaller, less threatening minorities do just that.
Quote:

It is one example that provides strong evidence against the notion.

If you said women can't fight on the front lines and then a woman earned a congressional medal of honor for singlehandedly punching every terrorist in the balls, it would make your statement much less tenable. So, while an Obama presidency doesn't prove that racism doesn't exist it does prove that it can be overcome.
And if anyone made such a strawman argument, Barack Obama is the example that would put them in their place. Well done, you!
Quote:

By who? Who is this conspiracy that is Purposely designing and maintaining this white supremacist society?
More-or-less the top 1%. Note that "purposefully" doesn't mean "white supremacy" is the intended purpose. It's more like a side-effect of the actual purpose of maintaining the status quo, wealth and power for oneself and one's heirs.
Quote:

It is [...] not intellectually honest or principled.
Have you said that to Matsuda?
Quote:

Sorry, I thought you were talking about America and the American Revolution.
Why the hell would you think that? I specifically said "here", and I'm not American - I'm assuming you know this from reading "the hundreds of other pages of your posts "
Quote:

I didn't realize you were pontificating about the situation in America from fucking South Africa.
You think racism is a uniquely American problem?

And - "pontificating"? Is that an example of you arguing with logic and reason rather than emotion?
Quote:

So the end of Apartheid was not the result of a movement by a minority, was it?
Nope. But I wasn't talking about the end, I was talking about the beginning. Which should have been evident from me saying "50 years"
Quote:

Like what? I'm sure it will be practical.
In the way "pure democracy" is practical?

Banquet Bear 10-17-2018 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21271408)
No.

...what do you mean "no?" You don't think its possible to have a reputation for being different things?

Quote:

He has a reputation for being polite and cordial while putting up with impolite rude posters.
He has indeed. An all around nice guy :)

Quote:

If he just called me a racist as he intended to, he would get modded or banned in great debates.
Does it make any sense that a guy who you consider to be "polite and cordial" would intentionally post in a manner that skirts the boundaries of the rules of this forum?

Quote:

Or did you not know that you weren't allowed to call people racist in great debates?
Yep.

Quote:

Yeah, neither did I.
No, its just you.

Damuri Ajashi 10-17-2018 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21272049)
They didn't data dredge. They were specifically looking for data about shootings of black and white people by police. And they presented that data. They're not saying, and I'm not saying, "this is conclusive evidence of racism". They're just saying "this is interesting and should be studied further", which is what I'm saying as well.

Did they analyze the data or did they present a small subset of the dataset that presents a gross disparity when you look at only that small dataset? They are reaching a conclusion from about a 3 dozen killings out of 3000 over 3 years. They didn't go into wondering what the murder rate was for 15-19 year olds. Based on Pro-Publica's agenda, I suspect they went into this looking for large disparities because 3::1 isn't shocking enough. Especially when you have studies saying that there are all these factors that makes the disparity disappear. That is data dredging.

Quote:

You appear to have made a conclusion based on other studies, and no other data presented can affect your conclusion. IMO, that's ridiculous and unscientific, but you're free to make such a conclusion if you wish.
Because those other studies were ACTUAL STUDIES. My mind cannot be changed by bullshit statistical tricks and sleight of hand. And neither should yours. There is NO value to the pro-publica "study" None. All it does is a calculation. No analysis just "HEY LOOK BLACK KIDS GET KILLED 21 TIMES AS OFTEN AS WHITE KIDS. AREN'T YOU OUTRAGED!!!!! that is the sole purpose of that "study" Its not trying to uncover some truth. it is playing statistical games.


Quote:

As to whether such numbers are "noise" or not, further investigation might reveal this. We certainly don't have enough information to make such a conclusion at this point.
No further investigation necessary. We have enough information to make a pretty good guess that the Pro-Publica "study" is bullshit. This is not a "teach the controveersy sort of situation. This is like flipping a coin 100 times, picking out a series where you got 5 heads in a row and concluding that the coin only comes mostly heads.

Quote:

Your certainty is unconvincing to me.
Do you know any statisticians? Please. Go to them. Ask them about data dredging and then ask them if pulling a subset of 3 dozen out of 3 THOUSAND datapoints is generally good statistical science.

The actual peer reviewed studies (and ask your statistician friends if the pro-publica calculation qualifies as a study) say that cops do not shoot blacks more frequently than they shoot whites. Until you provide a peer reviewed study that legitimizes what pro-publica presents, you are comparing science with factoids.

You are effectively the guy who thinks vaccines cause autism because you know some kid that got autism, that thinks that global warming is a myth because the weather got cooler over the last few weeks, that thinks women always lie about rape because of Tawana Brawley and the Rolling Stone article.

Like I said, one the one hand two peer reviewed studies that contradict your point of view and one back of the napkin calculation that the statistician that did the calculation won't stand behind but at least it is consistent with what you believe. At least global warming deniers have actual scientists willing to stand behind the notion that global warming is a myth.

Damuri Ajashi 10-17-2018 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21272323)
Have you ever asked her?
I'm not referring to myself. Reread post #186.

You didn't specify "only losers at legal arguments" when you called CRT a cancer or a loser's tactic.


Naah, sorry, facts and truth are not synonymous, and the fact/truth (synthetic/analytic) distinction has been the subject of endless debate. You don't get to declare that resolved for all of Science.No, you cannot pretend like narratives and stories of e.g. experiences of racism are complete fiction unrelated to real lived experience.
Anecdotes are data.

"The plural of anecdote is not data" is a terrible guideline in social sciences, and anyway, it's a horrible misquote of the original.
:rolleyes: Naah, you just treat it that way.
Really? You're blithely saying that on this board, where people will quite happily tell you things were better for everyone 50 years ago? You'd think if the effects of racism are so purely objective, there'd be so much doubting of its existence here?

This would be a fair point ... if BLM had a President and Congress behind it, the way the Nazis continue to have.
Not from the posts I'm reading...I've repeatedly suggested on you refuse to carry out...
It's not a "quibble" - you're the one who brought up the self-evident-within-this-thread nature of my politics:
"I think any7one reading this thread does."[sic]
And don't think I didn't notice that you didn't even try to actually answer the question.

You're trying to draw an artificial distinction between Civil Rights and Revolutions, but your own cite's cite includes Civil Rights movements in the same class of movement as the Revolutions you cited. Proving the distinction is artificial.

Like I said, we aren't robots, and there's nothing wrong with emotion.
So much for empiricism, eh?Since neither of those is an accurate quote of what either I or Wood actually wrote, I don't have an opinion on the truth value of your statement.It's not?...who would be White menNot be held back by a gang of White Men.She did not succeed at the biggest thing she set out to do. That's failure.Do you also excessively celebrate the award of Junior League "Just For Participating" trophies?The nazis aren't the gatekeepers of whiteness, nor success. They just hang on its coat-tails....point made...How many Finns? How many Italians? You don't get to ask "why not this subgroup" when the point is about the group as a whole.Of course it is.I'm aware of the success of African immigrants and the factors involved. The "are you fucking kidding me" was because you already had Barack Obama...consider it exasperation at your repeating yourself.
It's a good proxy measure for the issue under discussion. More so than, say, financial success, because that has more paths which could bypass the routes traditionally blocked or limited to non-White Men.It's not prickly at all. They're a smaller, often much more self-selected sample, compared to the other minorities like African-Americans or Mexicans. And many of them do get to benefit from Whiteness as well.

The argument isn't that no minority would ever succeed. In fact, one could argue that it benefits Whiteness even more to have some smaller, less threatening minorities do just that.

And if anyone made such a strawman argument, Barack Obama is the example that would put them in their place. Well done, you!

More-or-less the top 1%. Note that "purposefully" doesn't mean "white supremacy" is the intended purpose. It's more like a side-effect of the actual purpose of maintaining the status quo, wealth and power for oneself and one's heirs.

Have you said that to Matsuda?
Why the hell would you think that? I specifically said "here", and I'm not American - I'm assuming you know this from reading "the hundreds of other pages of your posts "You think racism is a uniquely American problem?

And - "pontificating"? Is that an example of you arguing with logic and reason rather than emotion?Nope. But I wasn't talking about the end, I was talking about the beginning. Which should have been evident from me saying "50 years"In the way "pure democracy" is practical?

I don't know her that well. I've met her at events and we have mutual acquaintances. Its mostly in the legal context.

Storytelling and anecdote is STILL storytelling and anecdote. I just want to be clear, you are eschewing logic and reason for anecdote. Have you read their writing? These legal scholars talk about their personal experiences and then extrapolate that onto society. This is how institutional racism came into existence. Mostly rich white guys used the perspective of their life experiences and extrapolated that experience into how society was sculpted and voila inadvertant white supremecist society. Logic and reason is the minority's friend, subjectivity is his enemy. Because all the subjective calls are not going to go your way over the long term.

iiandyiiii 10-17-2018 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21272701)
Did they analyze the data or did they present a small subset of the dataset that presents a gross disparity when you look at only that small dataset? They are reaching a conclusion from about a 3 dozen killings out of 3000 over 3 years. They didn't go into wondering what the murder rate was for 15-19 year olds. Based on Pro-Publica's agenda, I suspect they went into this looking for large disparities because 3::1 isn't shocking enough. Especially when you have studies saying that there are all these factors that makes the disparity disappear. That is data dredging.

Because those other studies were ACTUAL STUDIES. My mind cannot be changed by bullshit statistical tricks and sleight of hand. And neither should yours. There is NO value to the pro-publica "study" None. All it does is a calculation. No analysis just "HEY LOOK BLACK KIDS GET KILLED 21 TIMES AS OFTEN AS WHITE KIDS. AREN'T YOU OUTRAGED!!!!! that is the sole purpose of that "study" Its not trying to uncover some truth. it is playing statistical games.

No further investigation necessary. We have enough information to make a pretty good guess that the Pro-Publica "study" is bullshit. This is not a "teach the controveersy sort of situation. This is like flipping a coin 100 times, picking out a series where you got 5 heads in a row and concluding that the coin only comes mostly heads.

Do you know any statisticians? Please. Go to them. Ask them about data dredging and then ask them if pulling a subset of 3 dozen out of 3 THOUSAND datapoints is generally good statistical science.

The actual peer reviewed studies (and ask your statistician friends if the pro-publica calculation qualifies as a study) say that cops do not shoot blacks more frequently than they shoot whites. Until you provide a peer reviewed study that legitimizes what pro-publica presents, you are comparing science with factoids.

You are effectively the guy who thinks vaccines cause autism because you know some kid that got autism, that thinks that global warming is a myth because the weather got cooler over the last few weeks, that thinks women always lie about rape because of Tawana Brawley and the Rolling Stone article.

Like I said, one the one hand two peer reviewed studies that contradict your point of view and one back of the napkin calculation that the statistician that did the calculation won't stand behind but at least it is consistent with what you believe. At least global warming deniers have actual scientists willing to stand behind the notion that global warming is a myth.

Yeah, I don't believe you, I think your description of this study is incorrect (and entirely uncited), and I'm not interested in discussing this further with you at this point. Let me know when you're willing to look at data in an open-minded and unbiased way, and not dismiss something just because it conflicts with your preconceived notions.

iiandyiiii 10-17-2018 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21272735)
Yeah, I don't believe you, I think your description of this study is incorrect (and entirely uncited), and I'm not interested in discussing this further with you at this point. Let me know when you're willing to look at data in an open-minded and unbiased way, and not dismiss something just because it conflicts with your preconceived notions.

Forgot to mention that the professor that disavowed involvement with the ProPublica is not a statistician, but a criminologist. They go into more detail here: https://www.propublica.org/article/a...ly-force-story

MrDibble 10-18-2018 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21272728)
Storytelling and anecdote is STILL storytelling and anecdote.

And also - data.
Quote:

I just want to be clear, you are eschewing logic and reason for anecdote.
False dichotomy - I use both. Because I'm not a robot.
Quote:

Logic and reason is the minority's friend, subjectivity is his enemy.
Naah, sorry - "logic and reason" is also how you get eugenics, "Social Darwinism", and related ills. "Logic and reason" is only as useful as its predicates, and subjectivity is a useful approach to human-human interactions.

Because humans are not robots.
Quote:

Because all the subjective calls are not going to go your way over the long term.
That's not exactly a new thing. But neither has the application of "reason and logic" been particularly favourable, historically. You just have to look at the scientific racists right here to see that. They think they're being completely reasonable and logical...

Damuri Ajashi 10-18-2018 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21272735)
Yeah, I don't believe you, I think your description of this study is incorrect (and entirely uncited), and I'm not interested in discussing this further with you at this point. Let me know when you're willing to look at data in an open-minded and unbiased way, and not dismiss something just because it conflicts with your preconceived notions.

I am not dismissing anything. I have looked at the pro publica article. Its partisan bullshit. The information you provided is not data and its bullshit. Like I said, talk to your statistician friends and present them with the pro-publica article and ask them if taking 37 incidents out of a database of 3000 incidents is an example of data dredging/p hacking or if that is more likely to be a good "study". Ask them if it what pro-publica is a "study" when it provides no analysis and only provides numerical relationships between small series of data in a much larger dataset and just invites you to reach your own conclusions.

I get the feeling you won't believe anyone that doesn't drink your particular brand of kool aid. I don't think you are capable of believing anything that is inconsistent with your belief, as long as someone is willing to provide you with a shred of hope that you may still be right. So find a statistician (or scientist) and ask them about P Hacking and data dredging and then give them the pro-publica article and ask if this is good science.

Contrary to what the mods may think I was barely aware of Dibble's existence until they claimed we had some sort of rivalry, he kind of faded into the background noise of the liberal choir that can only survive in a liberal echo chamber like this one. I consider you to be the most dangerous poster on the board. You're smart, patient, affable, and make compelling emotion based arguments, and you go unchallenged when wrong. You appear to be open minded but you are not. You are pleasant to a fault in a "bless his heart" sort of way. People want to believe you even when you present horseshit like that pro-publica article.

I am not posting to convince you. I am posting so people don't think that you are presenting actual facts.

Damuri Ajashi 10-18-2018 10:09 AM

nm

Damuri Ajashi 10-18-2018 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21272754)
Forgot to mention that the professor that disavowed involvement with the ProPublica is not a statistician, but a criminologist. They go into more detail here: https://www.propublica.org/article/a...ly-force-story

"ProPublica found evidence of a disparity in the risks faced by young black and white men. This does not prove that police officers target any age or racial group – the data is far too limited to point to a cause for the disparity. We hoped that our analysis would spur further inquiry into why this disparity exists, which it has done, and we stand by it."

Those studies have been done. At least twice that I know of and that police do not kill blacks more frequently than whites after taking variables into account.

See Roland Fryer.

Age was taken into account.

Once again, we are talking about 37 police killings out of 3000.

If pro-publica wanted to do an ACTUAL study, nothing is stopping them but the raw data on a data series that represents about 1& of the data set is meaningless and best (and a deliberate lie at worst).

MrDibble 10-18-2018 10:12 AM

Hah. You think I'm a liberal?

If that was what you got from reading " hundreds of other pages" of my posts, you clearly have been reading " hundreds of other pages" by the wrong poster. I am not a liberal.

iiandyiiii 10-18-2018 10:15 AM

Apparently I'm "the most dangerous poster on this board". Awesome!

MrDibble 10-18-2018 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21273770)
Apparently I'm "the most dangerous poster on this board". Awesome!

So jealous!

Damuri Ajashi 10-18-2018 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21273367)
And also - data.

I think you are confusing emotions with data. There may even be information there but its not data.

Lets say that we wanted to determine whether Harvard is discriminating against Asians in the admissions process. Could we listen to the story of one Asian student that was denied by Harvard and call that data? Of course not. We would need a systematic attempt to collect relevant information that is collected in a way to weed out distortive factors and constructed to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

Some law professor talking about how lonely they felt as the only black male at Yale law school is not data. Its just a story, even though he gets to teach an entire law school lecture on those feelings, its still just a story.

Quote:

False dichotomy - I use both. Because I'm not a robot.
I'm not sure how a robot would be any worse at confusing anecdote (essentially emotion) from logic and reason.

Quote:

Naah, sorry - "logic and reason" is also how you get eugenics, "Social Darwinism", and related ills. "Logic and reason" is only as useful as its predicates, and subjectivity is a useful approach to human-human interactions.

Because humans are not robots.
Emotion and anecdote is how you get Willie Horton, racism, lynching.

Quote:

That's not exactly a new thing. But neither has the application of "reason and logic" been particularly favourable, historically. You just have to look at the scientific racists right here to see that. They think they're being completely reasonable and logical...
Just because they THINK they are being reasonable and logical doesn't mean they are. Every scientific racist I have ever heard ignores the effects of racism and cherry-pick's data. There are too many studies that document things like stereotype threat that you can't simply say "hey look rich black kids do worse on IQ tests than poor white kids so it couldn't be environmental and therefore its is a genetic difference in IQ, no need to look any further"

MrDibble 10-18-2018 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21274013)
There may even be information there but its not data.

Are you even reading what you're writing?
Quote:

Could we listen to the story of one Asian student that was denied by Harvard and call that data?
No, I'd call it a datum.
Quote:

anecdote (essentially emotion)
I'm not being insulting here, honestly, but are you a second-language English speaker?
Quote:

Emotion and anecdote is how you get Willie Horton, racism, lynching.
"Logic and reason" is how you get gas chambers and Unit Unit 731.

Whee, this is fun. Ok, your turn for using argumentum ad passiones.
Quote:

Just because they THINK they are being reasonable and logical doesn't mean they are.
Yes, funny that. Almost ironic, really...

Damuri Ajashi 10-18-2018 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21274028)
Are you even reading what you're writing?

Yes. If we are doing an analysis of racism in the law and you tell me how you lonely you felt in law school. That is not data.

Quote:

No, I'd call it a datum.
That is meaningless in this conversation. Data as we are discussing it is a pool of information that we can use to test a hypothesis. A single point of data is useless. An emotional rendition of that data through storytelling is more entertaining but just as useless.

Quote:

I'm not being insulting here, honestly, but are you a second-language English speaker?
Third but I speak and read at native levels. I think the confusion you are sensing is the result of thinking that all information is data. While the saying that "the plural of anecdote is not data" is too simplistic its not entirely inaccurate either. A couple of anecdotes is not really enough information to draw any conclusions or develop any sort of policy.

Quote:

"Logic and reason" is how you get gas chambers and Unit Unit 731.

Whee, this is fun. Ok, your turn for using argumentum ad passiones.
You started it. Logic and reason did not get us gas chambers. The desire to exterminate people did. Whether they used gas chambers or firing squads, it was the desire to exterminate that did it unless you think the extermination of jews was logical and rational.

Unit 731 was inhumane.

We are talking about CRT. Is CRT using loosey goosey emotional arguments to stop genocide or human medical experimentation? Of course not.

Quote:

Yes, funny that. Almost ironic, really...
I can point to where they are not being logical. Can you point me to where I am not being logical?

The scientific racists are not being rebutted by arguments that logic and reason can be ignored. They are being rebutted by better logic and reason. You are rebutting logic and reason with anecdotes, feelings and emotions.

You have the scientific racists cherry-picking information, ignoring other variables, and using the raw unanalyzed data to reach their conclusions (sort of like how iiandyiiii is taking 37 deaths out of 3000 to imply that cops like killing young black males). Objective facts, logic and reason are almost always better for minorities and the politically weak than subjectivity. If subjectivity is working in your favor, you have to wonder how politically weak you are.

iiandyiiii 10-18-2018 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21274127)
(sort of like how iiandyiiii is taking 37 deaths out of 3000 to imply that cops like killing young black males)

...apparently I'm such a danger to this board that you are forced to say incorrect things about me. Apologies for being so, so dangerous. I'd say you have nothing to fear, but like a poor friendly dog that got caught on the edge of nuclear fallout testing, I probably don't fully understand the extent of the danger I present to others.

MrDibble 10-18-2018 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21274127)
Yes. If we are doing an analysis of racism in the law and you tell me how you lonely you felt in law school. That is not data.

Of course your cartoon rendition of CRT is not the actual substance of it. And if the actual question is "Why are most judges white men", how PoCs feel about law school is very much relevant data.
Quote:

That is meaningless in this conversation.
Nope.
Quote:

Data as we are discussing it is a pool of information that we can use to test a hypothesis.
Sure.
Quote:

A single point of data is useless.
That's ... just not true.
A single datum can sometimes blow an entire thesis out of the water. If it's the right datum.
Quote:

Third but I speak and read at native levels.
Native American levels?
Quote:

I think the confusion you are sensing is the result of thinking that all information is data.
All information is data. It just wants the right processing.
Quote:

While the saying that "the plural of anecdote is not data" is too simplistic its not entirely inaccurate either.
It's an idiotic homily people who have never done a day of research like to use to pat themselves on their (virtual) backs.
Quote:

A couple of anecdotes is not really enough information to draw any conclusions or develop any sort of policy.
Good thing the narrative of racism isn't just a "couple of anecdotes", then...
Quote:

You started it.
Did I?
Quote:

Logic and reason did not get us gas chambers.
Oh, they very much did.
Quote:

The desire to exterminate people did.
No, that gets people shot in the woods. It takes "logic and reason" to get to gaschambers.
Quote:

unless you think the extermination of jews was logical and rational.
The Nazis certainly thought it was. Their thinking is laid quite plain. "Problem"->"Solution (Final)" is the language of "reason", not emotion.
Quote:

Unit 731 was inhumane.
And yet, to the people doing it, "logical and reasonable"
Quote:

We are talking about CRT.
Were we? I thought we were talking about how I'm a liberal and andy is a most dangerous man...
Quote:

Is CRT using loosey goosey emotional arguments to stop genocide or human medical experimentation? Of course not.
"loosey goosey"? Is that your empirical analysis?
Quote:

I can point to where they are not being logical. Can you point me to where I am not being logical?
There was that time you called an established academic school a "cancer"... that didn't seem very logical...
Quote:

The scientific racists are not being rebutted by arguments that logic and reason can be ignored. They are being rebutted by better logic and reason. You are rebutting logic and reason with anecdotes, feelings and emotions.
Where have I done that?
Quote:

Objective facts, logic and reason are almost always better for minorities and the politically weak than subjectivity.
Many minorities don't seem to agree with you...
Quote:

If subjectivity is working in your favor, you have to wonder how politically weak you are.
We already know how the deck is stacked, thanks .

Buck Godot 10-18-2018 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21272701)
Do you know any statisticians? Please. Go to them. Ask them about data dredging and then ask them if pulling a subset of 3 dozen out of 3 THOUSAND datapoints is generally good statistical science.

Ask and the Dope will provide.

There is nothing inherently bad about taking a small subset of say 40 samples out of a larger set of 1200, if that smaller subset is the data of interest. All that you have to do is to treat it as though it was a study of 40 samples rather than a study of 1200. I understand your concern about data mining. When looking at the data you do need to account for the number of different subsets you looked at.

Since I haven't seen the data I can't be certain how it was organized and what different analyses they considered before settling on this one. Age is an obvious divisor to look at and it is possible that the sole hypothesis going in was to look specifically at the shootings of black youth (14-19 years) since anecdotally this is the group that appears to get the worst rap in the media. If that is the case than there is no need for p-value adjustement.

Otherwise you would have to consider whether they analyzed a number of different subgroups and only focussed on this group when they found that the other groups weren't significant. For example they could have fully data mined by looking at every possible lower cut-point and every possibly upper cut-point until they found the one that gave the best results. I doubt they did this for two reasons. First, subgroups a division into under 14 (pre-teen), 14-19 (teen) and, 19+ (adult) with possibly a few other older subgroups seems natural rather than data derived. Secondly if they did this I would expect them to report 19 and under, since the under 14 group also showed significant bias and including them would probably improve their statistics. What I actually think is probably most likely is that the data the got from the FBI was already divided into age groups that they analyzed directly. Worst case scenario you should multiply any p-value you come up with by the number of different groups they looked at (although you could then divided by 2 to create a false discover rate to account for the fact that both the under14 and 14-19 groups appeared significant.)

There could also be some concern about the independence of the shootings. Correlated data will act to increase the variance of any estimates although not change the point estimates directly, I suspect however that most of the shootings are independent, given the fact that I haven't hear any reports along the lines of Police slay 3 black teenagers in mass shootout, which would make national headlines.

So following Damuri Ajash back of the envelope calculation with a black/white ratio of with a black vs white relative risk of 31.17/1.47=21.2. According to the article, if blacks and whites were killed at equal rates, than there would be 185 additional deaths implying that N*21.2=N+185 so the number of white deaths was about 9. The ratio of blacks to whites aged 15-24 in the population is about 33.3/7.32 = 3.54, and so the number of black youths shot in the study was about 9*21.2/3.54 =54.


So the log odds ratio is equal to log(21.2)=3.05
The standard error of this is approximately sqrt(1/8+1/54) =.378
resulting in a 95% confidence interval of (2.31 - 3.79) corresponding to a relative risks of 10.1-44.3. (about the same as they report)
and a Z-score of 3.05/.378 = 8.07 and a (two sided) p-value of 7.1*10^-16

So while it is possible that the authors might of taken multiple looks at the data, I think it rather unlikely that that the number of looks were greater than the 7x10^13 that would be required to make their result insignificant due to multiple comparisons (or data drudging as you call it).

A better complaint is that they didn't take into account other covariates (different poverty rates between whites and blacks is the most obvious), this plus the issue of correlated data (which is very hard to account for) might lead me to hold off on fully endorsing the final number, but I find it difficult to believe that any alternative analysis would fully eliminate such a massive effect.

- Buck Godot Statistics PhD.

iiandyiiii 10-18-2018 02:27 PM

Wow, what a wonderfully dangerous post! Kudos, Buck Godot!

Damuri Ajashi 10-18-2018 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21274145)
...apparently I'm such a danger to this board that you are forced to say incorrect things about me. Apologies for being so, so dangerous. I'd say you have nothing to fear, but like a poor friendly dog that got caught on the edge of nuclear fallout testing, I probably don't fully understand the extent of the danger I present to others.

The danger you present (IMO) is the same danger that all attractive packaging presents. It is easy to believe you. You're seem like a nice person who cares about people and you certainly sound reasonable and I suspect you are genuinely a nice person, the sort of person I would leave my children to if my wife and I were killed in a car accident. However this makes people believe you just because you believe what you are saying. Even if its wrong.

You are very sincere and earnest but your fuzzy thinking and emotion laden arguments lead you to the conclusions you wanted to reach before you started your inquiry, almost without fail. I mean geez, I like you and if it wasn't for the frustration I feel at someone being wrong on the internet, I'd probably just go along with you too and then we'd both be wrong.

MrDibble 10-18-2018 03:02 PM

"emotion laden arguments"? Arguing just to get to a desired conclusion? Being wrong on the internet?iiandyiiii?

I haven't seen that much projection since I last visited the IMAX...

iiandyiiii 10-18-2018 03:06 PM

And my danger is so great that apparently I've sucked in a professional statistician, poster Buck Godot. Wow, how dangerous can one poster be?

Banquet Bear 10-18-2018 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21274508)
Wow, how dangerous can one poster be?

...this dangerous.

manson1972 10-18-2018 07:40 PM

I am anxiously awaiting any reply to the statistics PhD by Damuri Ajashi.


Nice job by the way, Buck Godot, even if I don't understand a lot of it.

iiandyiiii 10-18-2018 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21275037)
I am anxiously awaiting any reply to the statistics PhD by Damuri Ajashi.


Nice job by the way, Buck Godot, even if I don't understand a lot of it.

Here's a dangerous statement: it doesn't really matter what a random internet person thinks about the professional opinion of a statistician about a statistical question. So I'm not sure if you need to anxiously await it.

manson1972 10-18-2018 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21275055)
Here's a dangerous statement: it doesn't really matter what a random internet person thinks about the professional opinion of a statistician about a statistical question. So I'm not sure if you need to anxiously await it.

Sorry. I'll limit my statements to those that are non-dangerous.

Hey, I like kittens!

Damuri Ajashi 10-18-2018 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Godot (Post 21274410)
Ask and the Dope will provide.

There is nothing inherently bad about taking a small subset of say 40 samples out of a larger set of 1200, if that smaller subset is the data of interest. All that you have to do is to treat it as though it was a study of 40 samples rather than a study of 1200. I understand your concern about data mining. When looking at the data you do need to account for the number of different subsets you looked at.

Since I haven't seen the data I can't be certain how it was organized and what different analyses they considered before settling on this one. Age is an obvious divisor to look at and it is possible that the sole hypothesis going in was to look specifically at the shootings of black youth (14-19 years) since anecdotally this is the group that appears to get the worst rap in the media.

If that is the case than there is no need for p-value adjustment.

It's broken down granularly by exact age at death. We should get your hands on the raw numbers but based on a more granular analysis by realclearpolicy, it appears that there are statistics kept much more granularly than 14-19.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog...ings_1107.html

Quote:

Otherwise you would have to consider whether they analyzed a number of different subgroups and only focussed on this group when they found that the other groups weren't significant. For example they could have fully data mined by looking at every possible lower cut-point and every possibly upper cut-point until they found the one that gave the best results. I doubt they did this for two reasons. First, subgroups a division into under 14 (pre-teen), 14-19 (teen) and, 19+ (adult) with possibly a few other older subgroups seems natural rather than data derived. Secondly if they did this I would expect them to report 19 and under, since the under 14 group also showed significant bias and including them would probably improve their statistics.
There were only 2 murders in the under 14 age group in those three years. One black kid and one hispanic kid. (according to the footnotes in the pro-publica article). The numbers in the article go back to 1980.

Quote:

What I actually think is probably most likely is that the data the got from the FBI was already divided into age groups that they analyzed directly. Worst case scenario you should multiply any p-value you come up with by the number of different groups they looked at (although you could then divided by 2 to create a false discover rate to account for the fact that both the under14 and 14-19 groups appeared significant.)
And what if there are actually 80 age groups from 0-80?

Would it be fair for me to point out that cops kill old white men age 74-79 INFINITELY more frequently than black men age 74-79? Cops killed 6 white men in that age group and no black men. What is the statistical significance of that?

Quote:

There could also be some concern about the independence of the shootings. Correlated data will act to increase the variance of any estimates although not change the point estimates directly, I suspect however that most of the shootings are independent, given the fact that I haven't hear any reports along the lines of Police slay 3 black teenagers in mass shootout, which would make national headlines.
Yeah, I don't think that's a concern unless there are gangland type shootouts.

Quote:

So following Damuri Ajash back of the envelope calculation with a black/white ratio of with a black vs white relative risk of 31.17/1.47=21.2. According to the article, if blacks and whites were killed at equal rates, than there would be 185 additional deaths implying that N*21.2=N+185 so the number of white deaths was about 9. The ratio of blacks to whites aged 15-24 in the population is about 33.3/7.32 = 3.54, and so the number of black youths shot in the study was about 9*21.2/3.54 =54.
Ah OK I missed the fact that the 185 deaths were ADDITIONAL deaths.

Quote:

So the log odds ratio is equal to log(21.2)=3.05
The standard error of this is approximately sqrt(1/8+1/54) =.378
resulting in a 95% confidence interval of (2.31 - 3.79) corresponding to a relative risks of 10.1-44.3. (about the same as they report)
and a Z-score of 3.05/.378 = 8.07 and a (two sided) p-value of 7.1*10^-16
I'm not arguing the math. I'm arguing the logic of even applying the math.

Quote:

So while it is possible that the authors might of taken multiple looks at the data, I think it rather unlikely that that the number of looks were greater than the 7x10^13 that would be required to make their result insignificant due to multiple comparisons (or data drudging as you call it).
There are only ~3000 deaths to cherry pick. Are you saying that I have to run 70,000,000,000,000 simulations to figure out how to come up with skewed numbers? I literally just looked at the numbers for about 10 seconds to come up with the fact that white men between 74-79 are murdered by police infinitely more frequently than black men 74-79.

Quote:

A better complaint is that they didn't take into account other covariates (different poverty rates between whites and blacks is the most obvious), this plus the issue of correlated data (which is very hard to account for) might lead me to hold off on fully endorsing the final number, but I find it difficult to believe that any alternative analysis would fully eliminate such a massive effect.

- Buck Godot Statistics PhD.
Recent paper by Roland Fryer says almost exactly but with more variables.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/pu...lice-use-force

Damuri Ajashi 10-18-2018 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21274421)
Wow, what a wonderfully dangerous post! Kudos, Buck Godot!

His post is factual (with a bit of opinion). I see almost no appeals to emotion in his post.

Damuri Ajashi 10-19-2018 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21275060)
Sorry. I'll limit my statements to those that are non-dangerous.

Hey, I like kittens!

Don't worry, I don't think there is anything dangerous about you. Noone will be enticed to agree with you the way they might be with iiandyiiii. Noone else on this board has people standing up and saying "well, if manson1972 is getting mad at you, then you MUST be an asshole" This isn't a swipe at you (noone says that about someone that I get mad at either) it's merely my observation that iiandyiiii has a reputation for being noticably and remarkably affable, patient and pleasant. People mistake this for level-headedness rationality and logic when its really just a symptom of politeness. iiandyiiii is polite and sometimes wrong. He is no more open to ideas he doesn't like than you are but I bet a lot of posters think he is.

manson1972 10-19-2018 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21275906)
Don't worry, I don't think there is anything dangerous about you. Noone will be enticed to agree with you the way they might be with iiandyiiii. Noone else on this board has people standing up and saying "well, if manson1972 is getting mad at you, then you MUST be an asshole" This isn't a swipe at you (noone says that about someone that I get mad at either) it's merely my observation that iiandyiiii has a reputation for being noticably and remarkably affable, patient and pleasant. People mistake this for level-headedness rationality and logic when its really just a symptom of politeness. iiandyiiii is polite and sometimes wrong. He is no more open to ideas he doesn't like than you are but I bet a lot of posters think he is.

Aw man :(

And I soooooo wanted to be a dangerous poster too! Dream killer!

Damuri Ajashi 10-19-2018 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21275947)
Aw man :(

And I soooooo wanted to be a dangerous poster too! Dream killer!

I think its something you're born with. Perhaps years of training with a zen yogi might get you there but its relative so if iiandyiiii started training with that same zen yogi, he would probably outstrip you fairly quickly. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I am double jointed and can whistle with perfect pitch.

iiandyiiii 10-19-2018 11:21 AM

A professional statistician came into this thread and said that ProPublica's analysis was actually pretty decent.

That's what I call dangerous.

Damuri Ajashi 10-19-2018 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21276171)
A professional statistician came into this thread and said that ProPublica's analysis was actually pretty decent.

That's what I call dangerous.

Nothing dangerous about it. Facts are not dangerous because they usually get you to the right result.

There are about half a dozen "ifs" in his statement.

One of his bigger assumptions was that the ages were already clustered in the 14-19 category. They were not.

Perhaps he will return and address the fact that some of his assumptions were incorrect. He may end up at the same place or he may not.

iiandyiiii 10-19-2018 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21276247)
Nothing dangerous about it. Facts are not dangerous because they usually get you to the right result.

There are about half a dozen "ifs" in his statement.

One of his bigger assumptions was that the ages were already clustered in the 14-19 category. They were not.

Perhaps he will return and address the fact that some of his assumptions were incorrect. He may end up at the same place or he may not.

Perhaps you'll also admit that a reasonable person can look at the ProPublica report and honestly think it's decent data -- not conclusive by any means, but reasonable to consider when looking at the entire picture. And that your dismissal of the data was highly overstated.

Or would that be too dangerous for you?

Damuri Ajashi 10-19-2018 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21276262)
Perhaps you'll also admit that a reasonable person can look at the ProPublica report and honestly think it's decent data -- not conclusive by any means, but reasonable to consider when looking at the entire picture. And that your dismissal of the data was highly overstated.

Or would that be too dangerous for you?

Perhaps I haven't spelled it out in enough detail.

in 2005, Pro-Publica came up with this highly sensational ratio of cops killing 14-19 year old black males 21 times more frequently than 14-19 year old white males. This received a lot of criticism at the time but at the time it was something that was worth looking into.

THEN several studies were conducted and they concluded that cops do not kill black men at higher rates than white men. That makes the Pro-Publica calculations no more than interesting factoids. Do you understand why a subsequent study that addresses the "issue" that you think the pro-publica article brings up, makes the pro-publica factoid irrelevant?

I would have probably dismissed the data back then for the same reason that all the critics of Pro-Publica dismissed it. I think its cherrypicking information for maximum sensational effect but I would have said that there might be something to it; especially because at the time I thought cops were in fact killing blacks more frequently than whites. My posts on this board at the time are consistent with this view. But after the Fryer study, the already weak evidence it provided evaporated. And with the change in facts, my view changed. Why hasn't yours?

iiandyiiii 10-19-2018 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21276518)
Perhaps I haven't spelled it out in enough detail.

in 2005, Pro-Publica came up with this highly sensational ratio of cops killing 14-19 year old black males 21 times more frequently than 14-19 year old white males. This received a lot of criticism at the time but at the time it was something that was worth looking into.

THEN several studies were conducted and they concluded that cops do not kill black men at higher rates than white men. That makes the Pro-Publica calculations no more than interesting factoids. Do you understand why a subsequent study that addresses the "issue" that you think the pro-publica article brings up, makes the pro-publica factoid irrelevant?

I would have probably dismissed the data back then for the same reason that all the critics of Pro-Publica dismissed it. I think its cherrypicking information for maximum sensational effect but I would have said that there might be something to it; especially because at the time I thought cops were in fact killing blacks more frequently than whites. My posts on this board at the time are consistent with this view. But after the Fryer study, the already weak evidence it provided evaporated. And with the change in facts, my view changed. Why hasn't yours?

It was 2014, not 2005.

The data is extremely deficient -- most police departments don't report on who they kill and their demographic data. These studies have to rely on the limited data that's out there -- and a couple of studies that conflict with another study, all based on a few limited sets of data, can't possibly be relied on to make anything close to a final conclusion on such a challenging issue. It's all potentially useful data, but it paints, at best, a very incomplete picture. No final conclusion can be made without much, much more data, and accompanying studies of that data.

Damuri Ajashi 10-22-2018 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21276607)
It was 2014, not 2005.

Sorry, I knew that. I meant to say 2014 (maybe 2015?) BLM wasn't even a ting in 2005. I don't know what happened.

Quote:

The data is extremely deficient -- most police departments don't report on who they kill and their demographic data. These studies have to rely on the limited data that's out there -- and a couple of studies that conflict with another study, all based on a few limited sets of data, can't possibly be relied on to make anything close to a final conclusion on such a challenging issue. It's all potentially useful data, but it paints, at best, a very incomplete picture. No final conclusion can be made without much, much more data, and accompanying studies of that data.
I see, so the thousands of cops killing in the database are insufficient to draw any conclusions but you think that we really ought to consider the pro-publia report that cops kill black men 21 times more frequently based on 54 killings?

You started this subthread with the statement that:

Quote:

I've referenced statistics that dispute your 3x number -- specifically, the Pro Publica report (linked multiple times -- I can find it again if someone needs it) that found that young black men were 21 times more likely to be shot by police than young white men,
There is no dispute about the 3X number. EVERYONE agrees that black men are killed by cops at 3X the rate of white men. Pro-Publica carved out a subset of the data where they found that cops killed black men at 21X the rate of white men. I could use the same technique to say that cops killed old white men infinitely more frequently than old black men. Or that they killed pre-pubscent Asian boys 3 times more frequently than pre-pubscent white boys.

There is no conflict between studies. There is a conflict between Pro-Publica's calculation based on a small set of cherry-picked numbers and 2 actual peer reviewed studies.

This is not a "teach the controversy" moment. This is a "hey wait a minute, maybe we ought to revisit the assumption that cops are killing black men like people have been telling us" moment.

How open are you to the notion that cops are NOT killing black men at higher rates than white men? I am pretty sure that I am open to the notion that cops are killing black men at higher rates because this is exactly what I believed before these studies came out. But, when the facts changed, I changed my mind. Why didn't you?

Why were you able to reach the conclusion that cops killed black me more frequently on imperfect information but now need so much more certainty before you will discard the conclusion that cops disproportionately kill blacks based on what you now consider flawed incomplete data?

Did you always consider the data flawed and unreliable or did it suddenly become flawed and unreliable when the pier reviewed studies were published?

iiandyiiii 10-22-2018 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21280162)
Sorry, I knew that. I meant to say 2014 (maybe 2015?) BLM wasn't even a ting in 2005. I don't know what happened.



I see, so the thousands of cops killing in the database are insufficient to draw any conclusions but you think that we really ought to consider the pro-publia report that cops kill black men 21 times more frequently based on 54 killings?

You started this subthread with the statement that:



There is no dispute about the 3X number. EVERYONE agrees that black men are killed by cops at 3X the rate of white men. Pro-Publica carved out a subset of the data where they found that cops killed black men at 21X the rate of white men. I could use the same technique to say that cops killed old white men infinitely more frequently than old black men. Or that they killed pre-pubscent Asian boys 3 times more frequently than pre-pubscent white boys.

There is no conflict between studies. There is a conflict between Pro-Publica's calculation based on a small set of cherry-picked numbers and 2 actual peer reviewed studies.

This is not a "teach the controversy" moment. This is a "hey wait a minute, maybe we ought to revisit the assumption that cops are killing black men like people have been telling us" moment.

How open are you to the notion that cops are NOT killing black men at higher rates than white men? I am pretty sure that I am open to the notion that cops are killing black men at higher rates because this is exactly what I believed before these studies came out. But, when the facts changed, I changed my mind. Why didn't you?

Why were you able to reach the conclusion that cops killed black me more frequently on imperfect information but now need so much more certainty before you will discard the conclusion that cops disproportionately kill blacks based on what you now consider flawed incomplete data?

Did you always consider the data flawed and unreliable or did it suddenly become flawed and unreliable when the pier reviewed studies were published?

This doesn't seem to dispute anything I've posted. All I'm saying is that there is not nearly enough data to make a conclusion on how large the disparity is for police shootings, and this is a serious and troubling issue that should be studied further (including demanding that police departments cooperate in collecting and reporting such data).

Buck Godot 10-22-2018 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21275267)
It's broken down granularly by exact age at death. We should get your hands on the raw numbers but based on a more granular analysis by realclearpolicy, it appears that there are statistics kept much more granularly than 14-19.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog...ings_1107.html

OK, As I indicated I hadn't seen the raw data. If there was more granularity than it is possible that they looked as more than just the subset indicated. Still in order to check the hypothesis of youth killed these cutoffs seem relatively natural, so it possible that they were naturally derived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21275267)
There were only 2 murders in the under 14 age group in those three years. One black kid and one hispanic kid. (according to the footnotes in the pro-publica article). The numbers in the article go back to 1980.

OK, I hadn't noticed that so I withdraw my comment that the numbers could have been could have been combined and just note that there seems to be consistancy with younger shootings as well.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21275267)
And what if there are actually 80 age groups from 0-80?

Then there could theoretically been up to 3160 (80 choose 2) different hypotheses that could have been looked at. Although in this case multiplying the p-value by 3160 would have been overly conservative since many of those subsets would contain too few events to have any hope of being significant, and the other hypotheses are very dependent on each other (the 14-19 subroup will give very similar results to the 13-19 subgroup). So one would probably want to bootstrap or run a permutation test to determine the statistical significance and confidence intervals for the odds ratio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21275267)
Would it be fair for me to point out that cops kill old white men age 74-79 INFINITELY more frequently than black men age 74-79? Cops killed 6 white men in that age group and no black men. What is the statistical significance of that?

You could point that out, but then I would ask whether you could calculate a lower confidence interval on that frequency and what the p-value would be. If it was something like 2 white deaths and no black deaths I can guarantee its not statistically significant. If it was significant, than I would say that you have a finding that for some reason police are more likely to kill older white men than older black men and write your own paper. That still wouldn't change the fact that we had significantly more younger blacks killed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21275267)
I'm not arguing the math. I'm arguing the logic of even applying the math.

why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21275267)
There are only ~3000 deaths to cherry pick. Are you saying that I have to run 70,000,000,000,000 simulations to figure out how to come up with skewed numbers? I literally just looked at the numbers for about 10 seconds to come up with the fact that white men between 74-79 are murdered by police infinitely more frequently than black men 74-79.

No, I am saying that it is extremely unlikely (to the point of impossibility) that if there was no difference between the shooting prevalence of blacks and whites, that there would by chance be a subset of the data that would have as strong statistical significance for any age subgroup as what was observed in this data in the 14-19 age group.

As for the 74-79 data, yes you can find a larger point estimate, but the confidence interval and p-value will likely not be significant. If the p-value was say 0.35 that would mean that even if there wasn't a difference in the level of shootings you would get that type of result purely by chance 35% of the time. IF you cherry picked to find that result than additional increases to the p-value might be necessary to account for it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21275267)
Recent paper by Roland Fryer says almost exactly but with more variables.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/pu...lice-use-force


I can't access the full paper, and (unusually) the abstract doesn't provide any hard numbers so I can't really comment on this. All I will say is that negative results are often more difficult to interpret than positive results, particularly in multivariate analyses. If you add enough extraneous variables any result can be made insignificant simply because the more variables you add to the model the more difficult it is to model all of the different parameters and so the more uncertain you are about the accuracy of the final model.

Statistically you can never prove a negative. There is always the possibility that there was a small effect that your data was insufficient to suss out. What is important to look at in these case is the confidence interval which even though you can't prove a negative rules out certain levels of positives. For example if the paper reports a confidence interval for the difference between black and white shooting prevalence of (0.8 - 1.2) then that would be good proof that if there is a difference, it is modest. But if the confidence interval is (0.25-30.2) than that result (although still statistically insignificant since the confidence interval contains 1) wouldn't contradict the results of the proPublica study.

iiandyiiii 10-22-2018 02:33 PM

Another great (and, dare I say, dangerous) post, Buck Godot!

Damuri Ajashi 10-22-2018 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21280196)
This doesn't seem to dispute anything I've posted. All I'm saying is that there is not nearly enough data to make a conclusion on how large the disparity is for police shootings, and this is a serious and troubling issue that should be studied further (including demanding that police departments cooperate in collecting and reporting such data).

Even though the data is not comprehensive for the country as a whole it is comprehensive for the several jurisdictions that reported comprehensive data; and based on PEER REVIEWED studies of that data, cops in those jurisdictions do not kill blacks more frequently than white men. They DO harass and use force against black men more frequently but not lethal force.

This conclusion is FAR better grounded than the notion that you can look at a 1%-2%subset of that data, do a few calculations, then say that you have good arguments on both sides. The evidence on one side is significantly better than the evidence on the other.

And, frankly you didn't seem to think the data was so insufficient back when it looked like the data seemed to support your preconceived notions. Frankly (as my posts during the time showed) I also thought the data looked pretty damning and I formed an opinion about it and I believe so did you. Now that we have new facts presented to us by the peer reviewed studies show u we were wrong, my opinion changed. Why hasn't yours?

Damuri Ajashi 10-22-2018 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21280969)
Another great (and, dare I say, dangerous) post, Buck Godot!

Did you read the same post I did?

iiandyiiii 10-22-2018 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21281013)
Even though the data is not comprehensive for the country as a whole it is comprehensive for the several jurisdictions that reported comprehensive data; and based on PEER REVIEWED studies of that data, cops in those jurisdictions do not kill blacks more frequently than white men. They DO harass and use force against black men more frequently but not lethal force.

This conclusion is FAR better grounded than the notion that you can look at a 1%-2%subset of that data, do a few calculations, then say that you have good arguments on both sides. The evidence on one side is significantly better than the evidence on the other.

And, frankly you didn't seem to think the data was so insufficient back when it looked like the data seemed to support your preconceived notions. Frankly (as my posts during the time showed) I also thought the data looked pretty damning and I formed an opinion about it and I believe so did you. Now that we have new facts presented to us by the peer reviewed studies show u we were wrong, my opinion changed. Why hasn't yours?

You haven't showed this. You showed conflicting data. A professional statistician has endorsed the ProPublica report as reasonable and valid. I accept that the reports you offered may also be reasonable and valid based on the statistics they used.

When valid reports have such widely varying conclusions, then it's reasonable to suspect that there hasn't been enough data gathered to make anything close to a final conclusion.

So why are you making one? Is it just too dangerous to say that maybe we need more data?

iiandyiiii 10-22-2018 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21281018)
Did you read the same post I did?

The post I read continued to find no mathematical fault with the ProPublica analysis.

Is that too dangerous for you?

Damuri Ajashi 10-22-2018 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21281024)
The post I read continued to find no mathematical fault with the ProPublica analysis.

Is that too dangerous for you?

He effectively went from "its unlikely they cheated" to "its STILL possible they didn't cheat"

iiandyiiii 10-22-2018 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21281183)
He effectively went from "its unlikely they cheated" to "its STILL possible they didn't cheat"

I don't think so, but then I'm dangerous. Maybe you can't think dangerously enough to see it.

Damuri Ajashi 10-22-2018 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Godot (Post 21280875)
OK, As I indicated I hadn't seen the raw data. If there was more granularity than it is possible that they looked as more than just the subset indicated. Still in order to check the hypothesis of youth killed these cutoffs seem relatively natural, so it possible that they were naturally derived.

Right but now you're not so sure, now are you? Admit it, this might very well be an instance of data dredging. When you have data with these sort of relationships regurgitated like this with no analysis behind it (the way the two peer reviewed studies have), when you have a group with an agenda picking out a series of 54 data points out of over 3000 data points to achieve shocking ratios, you still don't think something fishy might be going on? Like cherrypicking of data?

Quote:

OK, I hadn't noticed that so I withdraw my comment that the numbers could have been could have been combined and just note that there seems to be consistancy with younger shootings as well.
And the opposite with older shootings. On average the ratio is 3::1. to the extent that there is a higher ratio one subset,, there will be a lower one in other subsets. That's just math.

Quote:

Then there could theoretically been up to 3160 (80 choose 2) different hypotheses that could have been looked at. Although in this case multiplying the p-value by 3160 would have been overly conservative since many of those subsets would contain too few events to have any hope of being significant, and the other hypotheses are very dependent on each other (the 14-19 subroup will give very similar results to the 13-19 subgroup). So one would probably want to bootstrap or run a permutation test to determine the statistical significance and confidence intervals for the odds ratio.
In english so the folks at home can understand that it wouldn't take a lot to cherrypick this data.

Quote:

You could point that out, but then I would ask whether you could calculate a lower confidence interval on that frequency and what the p-value would be. If it was something like 2 white deaths and no black deaths I can guarantee its not statistically significant.
I thought I was pretty clear. 6 black deaths with zero white deaths.

Quote:

If it was significant, than I would say that you have a finding that for some reason police are more likely to kill older white men than older black men and write your own paper. That still wouldn't change the fact that we had significantly more younger blacks killed.
And now that you understand the data a bit more, do you think it is possible the data was cherrypicked?

Quote:

why?
Well, I guess I should say that after the two studies, the calculation didn't need to be made. It was fine to throw numbers around and stab in the dark before we had any real facts.

Quote:

No, I am saying that it is extremely unlikely (to the point of impossibility) that if there was no difference between the shooting prevalence of blacks and whites, that there would by chance be a subset of the data that would have as strong statistical significance for any age subgroup as what was observed in this data in the 14-19 age group.
Yes, there is a difference if you ignore all other variables. Hell you don't need to cherry pick the data to see statistically significant differences. The confidence interval is even better when you look at ALL the data. Peer reviewed studies saw these differences and they say that the difference is basically illusory. When comparing like to like, there is no difference between blacks and whites.

Do you dismiss those studies in favor of the pro-publica bullshit as well? Or even put the Pro-Publica factoid on the same level as those peer reviewed studies?

And do you really consider what Pro-Publica did to be a "study"?

iiandyiiii 10-22-2018 04:57 PM

Hmmm, which opinion should I take more seriously on a matter of statistics? That of a professional statistician, or random internet person who disputes the professional statistician's opinion? Such a dilemma...

Damuri Ajashi 10-22-2018 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21281021)
You haven't showed this. You showed conflicting data. A professional statistician has endorsed the ProPublica report as reasonable and valid. I accept that the reports you offered may also be reasonable and valid based on the statistics they used.

No he hasn't. He certainly hasn't put them anywhere near the same league as actual peer reviewed studies.

Quote:

When valid reports have such widely varying conclusions, then it's reasonable to suspect that there hasn't been enough data gathered to make anything close to a final conclusion.
You cannot put Pro-Publica's observation in the same category as two peer reviewed studies. That's like taking the tempurature in July then again in November and declaring Global warming up in the air because according to your readings the temperature of the earth is actually going down.

Quote:

So why are you making one? Is it just too dangerous to say that maybe we need more data?
No its just wrong.

Damuri Ajashi 10-22-2018 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21281024)
The post I read continued to find no mathematical fault with the ProPublica analysis.

Is that too dangerous for you?

The math isn't wrong any more than the temperature readings between July and November are wrong. But that doesn't really put all the global warming studies in doubt.

Your desperation is showing. Its now becoming clear that you either don't understand or don't care to understand. You just want to live in a world where you can say that cops are disproportionately killing black people. Because if they weren't then much of the BLM outrage would be fucking embarassing.

You might be too invested in the notion that cops are disproportionately killing black people.

Damuri Ajashi 10-22-2018 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21281246)
Hmmm, which opinion should I take more seriously on a matter of statistics? That of a professional statistician, or random internet person who disputes the professional statistician's opinion? Such a dilemma...

So you got real cocky after Buck Godot made his first post and then when I pointed out that his assumptions were flawed, you got awfully quiet.

Then Buck came back and said that the flaws in the assumptions still left room for you to be correct and you got all cocky again.

Read his post again.

You are not dangerous because of your ideas. Your ideas are crap. What makes you dangerous is that people take your crap ideas seriously because they think you're a nice guy with an open mind. When in reality you're just polite.

Lets see what Buck thinks about comparing the pro-publica's observation to actual studies.

iiandyiiii 10-23-2018 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21281563)
So you got real cocky after Buck Godot made his first post and then when I pointed out that his assumptions were flawed, you got awfully quiet.

Then Buck came back and said that the flaws in the assumptions still left room for you to be correct and you got all cocky again.

Read his post again.

You are not dangerous because of your ideas. Your ideas are crap. What makes you dangerous is that people take your crap ideas seriously because they think you're a nice guy with an open mind. When in reality you're just polite.

Lets see what Buck thinks about comparing the pro-publica's observation to actual studies.

I'm sorry I'm just so damn dangerous that you need to consistently mischaracterize what I post ("awfully quiet"? LOL). My danger is leading me to believe, based on your posts, that your command of math and statistics is just not very good.

It's just too dangerous, apparently, for you to admit that perhaps a few conflicting studies based on very, very limited data isn't enough to make a conclusion about such a fraught issue.

Damuri Ajashi 10-23-2018 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21281888)
I'm sorry I'm just so damn dangerous that you need to consistently mischaracterize what I post ("awfully quiet"? LOL). My danger is leading me to believe, based on your posts, that your command of math and statistics is just not very good.

It's just too dangerous, apparently, for you to admit that perhaps a few conflicting studies based on very, very limited data isn't enough to make a conclusion about such a fraught issue.

No this is pretty clear. There is not a lot of "conflict" here. You have an observation by pro-publica based on 1%-2% of the dataset on the one hand and you have two peer reviewed studies of ALL the data on the other hand. We can reach conclusions. They may be disproven later but we have sufficient information to draw conclusions.

You certainly seemed to think we had enough information to draw conclusions when all we had were the raw numbers showing black men getting shot at 3 times the rate of white men.

You are basically the guy that say that global warming is still just a theory because it got colder in the Fall. Your mind has never been open on anything having to do with race AFAICT.

iiandyiiii 10-23-2018 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21282092)
No this is pretty clear. There is not a lot of "conflict" here. You have an observation by pro-publica based on 1%-2% of the dataset on the one hand and you have two peer reviewed studies of ALL the data on the other hand. We can reach conclusions. They may be disproven later but we have sufficient information to draw conclusions.

You certainly seemed to think we had enough information to draw conclusions when all we had were the raw numbers showing black men getting shot at 3 times the rate of white men.

You are basically the guy that say that global warming is still just a theory because it got colder in the Fall. Your mind has never been open on anything having to do with race AFAICT.

Your mind reading fails again, but that's probably because I'm just so damned dangerous. ;)

Damuri Ajashi 10-23-2018 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21282116)
Your mind reading fails again, but that's probably because I'm just so damned dangerous. ;)

You were making some pretty strong statements about police killings for someone who hadn't reached any conclusions about whether cops kill black men more than white men. I don't think you need to be a mind reader to conclude that you had reached conclusions months if not years ago.

iiandyiiii 10-23-2018 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21282614)
You were making some pretty strong statements about police killings for someone who hadn't reached any conclusions about whether cops kill black men more than white men. I don't think you need to be a mind reader to conclude that you had reached conclusions months if not years ago.

Apparently citing posts is too dangerous for you, so you'll settle for vague and unsupported statements about me. IIRC, I've been quite consistent for a long time, that I have very strong and serious concerns about police violence (especially against people of color and in particular young black men), and think it would be appropriate to investigate further. But my memory may just be too damn dangerous for you...

Left Hand of Dorkness 10-23-2018 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21282672)
Apparently citing posts is too dangerous for you, so you'll settle for vague and unsupported statements about me. IIRC, I've been quite consistent for a long time, that I have very strong and serious concerns about police violence (especially against people of color and in particular young black men), and think it would be appropriate to investigate further. But my memory may just be too damn dangerous for you...

In the latest episode of The Good Place--spoiler alert!--Chidi's mind finally snaps. Instead of being a calm, soft-spoken voice of reason, he buys hundreds of dollars worth of canned chili and peeps and cooks them together and starts to eat and won't stop.

iiandyiiii, and I say this with great affection, the more you write about being dangerous, the more I hear your posts in the voice of mind-snapped Chidi.

Damuri said something hilariously ridiculous. We get it :).

k9bfriender 10-23-2018 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21282689)
In the latest episode of The Good Place--spoiler alert!--Chidi's mind finally snaps. Instead of being a calm, soft-spoken voice of reason, he buys hundreds of dollars worth of canned chili and peeps and cooks them together and starts to eat and won't stop.

iiandyiiii, and I say this with great affection, the more you write about being dangerous, the more I hear your posts in the voice of mind-snapped Chidi.

Damuri said something hilariously ridiculous. We get it :).

That's odd, as I was starting to hear him as Dark Wing Duck.

Kadmos1 10-23-2018 02:27 PM

They are overused but at the same time sometimes actual cases of racism/sexism are under-reported.

iiandyiiii 10-23-2018 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21282689)
In the latest episode of The Good Place--spoiler alert!--Chidi's mind finally snaps. Instead of being a calm, soft-spoken voice of reason, he buys hundreds of dollars worth of canned chili and peeps and cooks them together and starts to eat and won't stop.

iiandyiiii, and I say this with great affection, the more you write about being dangerous, the more I hear your posts in the voice of mind-snapped Chidi.

Damuri said something hilariously ridiculous. We get it :).

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 21282695)
That's odd, as I was starting to hear him as Dark Wing Duck.

I can't help it. I'm just too dangerous, even for my own good...

k9bfriender 10-23-2018 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21282746)
I can't help it. I'm just too dangerous, even for my own good...

Sayin... Ever since I posted that, I've had the DWD theme song stuck in my head, and I haven't even seen it in nearly 30 years.

Danger and a menace to society, you are!

Bone 10-23-2018 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21282672)
Apparently citing posts is too dangerous for you, so you'll settle for vague and unsupported statements about me. IIRC, I've been quite consistent for a long time, that I have very strong and serious concerns about police violence (especially against people of color and in particular young black men), and think it would be appropriate to investigate further. But my memory may just be too damn dangerous for you...

You seemed to blame the perceived results collectively on police, blaming their organizational culture. Assigning blame seems inconsistent with simply investigating further.

When you posted the thread originally in 2014 I thought the conclusions were far fetched and still do. Using the ProPublica data as a cite is completely unpersuasive. Here is the cite:
Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 17811749)
I am assigning collective responsibility to police (while recognizing that most police officers are fine individuals). This is entirely different. Police are not a "demographic" -- it's an occupation. They are trained and organized. They have formal, organized leadership with an organizational culture. This organizational culture is the critical difference -- there is no organization culture for young black males (or any other ethnic/age demographic). And this organizational culture is the problem. This organizational culture, I believe, tolerates and even encourages young black males to be treated differently than young white males for their race and race alone. And this statistic demonstrates this.

...

The majority of young black males is not the problem. The majority of police officers, similarly, is not the problem. The organizational culture of many or most American police forces are the problem, in my opinion. There is no analogous organizational culture for young black males to criticize.


iiandyiiii 10-23-2018 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21282821)
You seemed to blame the perceived results collectively on police, blaming their organizational culture. Assigning blame seems inconsistent with simply investigating further.

When you posted the thread originally in 2014 I thought the conclusions were far fetched and still do. Using the ProPublica data as a cite is completely unpersuasive. Here is the cite:

Not sure what you're disputing here. I still endorse this broad critique of police culture, and base it on a very broad set of evidence that goes far, far beyond any single report. As to the exact disparity in police killings by race, I'm skeptical of claims that there's absolutely nothing to be concerned about and believe that deep investigation, including requiring departments to keep such data and report it, is warranted.

Budget Player Cadet 10-23-2018 03:54 PM

I feel like we've quite thoroughly lost the forest for the trees, which is a shame, because the individual trees of this one single study on a tiny number of police shootings seems pretty unimportant contrasted with the forest of institutional racism and accusations of racism potentially being overused as a weapon to silence people.

Seriously, this thread was interesting for a good long while, then you guys devolved into bizarre minutia and bickering over one silly little study that doesn't actually matter. This seems rather silly.

iiandyiiii 10-23-2018 03:56 PM

Based on the studies presented that conflict with the ProPublica study, I think it's perfectly reasonable to not be convinced that the disparity in shootings is as large as 21 times.

Dangerous idea, huh?

Bone 10-23-2018 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21282853)
Not sure what you're disputing here. I still endorse this broad critique of police culture, and base it on a very broad set of evidence that goes far, far beyond any single report. As to the exact disparity in police killings by race, I'm skeptical of claims that there's absolutely nothing to be concerned about and believe that deep investigation, including requiring departments to keep such data and report it, is warranted.

I'm saying the relative certainty that you held in the 2014 thread was misplaced.

iiandyiiii 10-23-2018 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21282894)
I'm saying the relative certainty that you held in the 2014 thread was misplaced.

If I was absolutely certain that the ProPublica study was the end-all be-all of police shooting disparity statistics, that would indeed have been misplaced. However, I believe I was just going on something like "this study appears to be the only one out there to have studied this particular issue, and it appears to be based on good math and analysis even though the data available is very limited, so let's have a discussion about it under the assumption it's good data". If there were conflicting studies at the time, skimming the thread doesn't reveal any of them.

And skimming that thread, I think we did indeed have a good discussion.

DrFidelius 10-23-2018 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21282894)
I'm saying the relative certainty that you held in the 2014 thread was misplaced.

My god! It is almost as if someone could modify their opinion on something over four years..

Bone 10-23-2018 05:48 PM

It's reasonable to interpret iiandyiiii's position as unchanged based on posts in this thread.

iiandyiiii 10-23-2018 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21283080)
It's reasonable to interpret iiandyiiii's position as unchanged based on posts in this thread.

Which ones in this thread? Assuming you're talking about the shooting disparity numbers, I looked back and I alluded to my own lack of certainty multiple times. Not that I think I was certain in the other thread, either.

Damuri Ajashi 10-24-2018 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrFidelius (Post 21283001)
My god! It is almost as if someone could modify their opinion on something over four years..

What he as modified is his standards of evidence. Pro-Publica's statistical observation was enough to be damning but two peer reviewed studies are merely a counterpoint.

Damuri Ajashi 10-24-2018 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 21282689)
Damuri said something hilariously ridiculous. We get it :).

People thought saying that Trump would be our next POTUS was ridiculous and hilarious too.

Just wait until iiandyiiii declares martial law "for our own good"

manson1972 10-24-2018 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21283834)
People thought saying that Trump would be our next POTUS was ridiculous and hilarious too.

Just wait until iiandyiiii declares martial law "for our own good"

I think it would be great that a member of the government out there has the power to declare martial law, and in his free time, posts on this message board.

*** starts scouring the government rosters for people named "Andrew"

Damuri Ajashi 10-24-2018 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21282866)
I feel like we've quite thoroughly lost the forest for the trees, which is a shame, because the individual trees of this one single study on a tiny number of police shootings seems pretty unimportant contrasted with the forest of institutional racism and accusations of racism potentially being overused as a weapon to silence people.

The response was "nuh uh" and even if they are, I'm cool with it because there is no real societal harm.

Quote:

Seriously, this thread was interesting for a good long while, then you guys devolved into bizarre minutia and bickering over one silly little study that doesn't actually matter. This seems rather silly.
Sometimes I have to just let people be wrong. Its particularly hard on the internet.

Buck Godot 10-25-2018 11:20 AM

First let me apologize for taking so long between posts. Since the thread isn't titled "Statistical analysis of Police shootings" I forget to check it. Second, I'm mostly just reading Damuri Ajashi's comments on my posts so if I missed something that has already been covered previously in the thread I further apolgize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21281230)
Right but now you're not so sure, now are you? Admit it, this might very well be an instance of data dredging. When you have data with these sort of relationships regurgitated like this with no analysis behind it (the way the two peer reviewed studies have), when you have a group with an agenda picking out a series of 54 data points out of over 3000 data points to achieve shocking ratios, you still don't think something fishy might be going on? Like cherrypicking of data?

And the opposite with older shootings. On average the ratio is 3::1. to the extent that there is a higher ratio one subset,, there will be a lower one in other subsets. That's just math.

No what I am saying is that they did a subset analysis that resulted in a result so significant that it didn't matter whether they data dredged or not. Perhaps and example of what is or is not data dredging might be useful.

Suppose I was doing a study of lead levels in children and I report that "Dreadville California has a lead level in its children that is 2 times the national average with a p-value of 10^-5 (one chance in 100,000 that this could have happened by chance)" On its own that would seem to indicate that there was something wrong with Dreadville. But if it was later pointed out that Dreadville was to top city of 70,000 cities that I had looked at, then it becomes less interesting. I rolled that dice 70,000 times and one time I got a very high results, purely by chance this would have occurred 70% of the time. Dreadville just happened to be the (un)lucky one. This is an example of data dredging.

But suppose instead I reported "Flint Michigan has a lead level 20 times the national average with a p-value of 10^-16". Then we have a different story even if I rolled the dice 70,000 times there is no way I would be able to get a result this high purely by chance. There must be something different going on in Flint that makes its lead levels so high. Now this result would only apply to Flint and doesn't say anything in particular about the rest of the Detroit Metro area. In fact it might be that Grosse Pointe Shores has a level of lead poisoning that is significantly lower than the national average with a very significant p-vlaue. That is a different headline which in no way disputes what was found in Flint.

The Pro publica analysis fits more in this latter category. With the added proviso that given the strong notion in society that young black men are thugs, there is a compelling reason to concentrate on this group.


Incidentally data dredging and cherry picking is my bread and butter. I analyze genetic data that involves looking at tens of thousands of genes to find the ones that are likely to be important. Those at the top of the list always look great, and its hard to convince the biologists, (who can always make a compelling story after the fact as to why this makes perfect sense) that these are just random noise. But if there is something in the data it will come out from picking a few strong results out of tens of thousands of garbage. The key is to be able to tell the difference.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21281230)
In english so the folks at home can understand that it wouldn't take a lot to cherrypick this data.

Sorry I was trying to combine my explanation with a bit of a statistics tutorial for those that were interested and no something of the subject. Long story short, the worst case scenario there could be around 3,000 possible cuts of the data (3,160 rolls of the dice) so we could multiply our p-value by 3,160. However many of these would result in subsets that have no chance of ever producing a significant result because the subsets are too small, and also many of those that remain are highly correlated since they include many of the same shootings. So in fact the actual amount that the p-value should be adjusted is probably much less than 3,160.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21281230)
I thought I was pretty clear. 6 black deaths with zero white deaths.

Sorry must have missed it in skimming. Given that the ratio of blacks to whites 1 to 3.54 we would only expect about 2 black so that we found 0 is low but not out of the realms of probable chance. Even without any adjustments due to the multiple comparisons you admit to, we get a p-value of .175 or a little more than one chance in 6. The 95% confidence interval for ratio of blacks to white being shot is (0-1.44) on this data meaning that if this was the only data you looked at, you could be pretty sure that the ratio between blacks to whites in this age group was less than 1.44 to 1. But since this was cherry picked, the results may be biased.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21281230)
And now that you understand the data a bit more, do you think it is possible the data was cherrypicked?

Its possible, but I see no reason that it is necessarily so and even if it was its not enough to fully explain their results.



Well, I guess I should say that after the two studies, the calculation didn't need to be made. It was fine to throw numbers around and stab in the dark before we had any real facts.



Yes, there is a difference if you ignore all other variables. Hell you don't need to cherry pick the data to see statistically significant differences. The confidence interval is even better when you look at ALL the data. Peer reviewed studies saw these differences and they say that the difference is basically illusory. When comparing like to like, there is no difference between blacks and whites.

Do you dismiss those studies in favor of the pro-publica bullshit as well? Or even put the Pro-Publica factoid on the same level as those peer reviewed studies?

And do you really consider what Pro-Publica did to be a "study"?[/QUOTE]

I would say that the Pro-Publica was a subset analysis of another study that demonstrated that there was a subset of the data, namely those between the ages of 14-19, that had a much higher discrepancy between blacks and whites than was present in the data as a whole.

Buck Godot 10-25-2018 11:43 AM

Too late to edit:
when doing the 6 vs 0 old age confidence interval I forgot to account for the larger number of blacks to whites in the population, and then whether I was doing white/black or black/white. :smack:

The confidence interval should actually be (0-1.86) with no accounting for cherry picking. If Damuri Ajashi looked at around 10 independent sets before settling on this one as the best, than the confidence interval might increase to be around (0-2.6).

iiandyiiii 10-25-2018 02:26 PM

Another wonderfully dangerous post, Buck! Kudos on your dangerousness!

Damuri Ajashi 10-29-2018 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Godot (Post 21286313)
No what I am saying is that they did a subset analysis that resulted in a result so significant that it didn't matter whether they data dredged or not. Perhaps and example of what is or is not data dredging might be useful.

Suppose I was doing a study of lead levels in children and I report that "Dreadville California has a lead level in its children that is 2 times the national average with a p-value of 10^-5 (one chance in 100,000 that this could have happened by chance)"

But you are not comparing the death rate of black youth from 14-19 with the death rate of all blacks. You are comparing it to what you would have in the absence of any disparity. IOW aren't you increasing the disparity by a factor of 3.

Quote:

However many of these would result in subsets that have no chance of ever producing a significant result because the subsets are too small,
At what point do you consider a subset to be too small? I mean we are looking at a subset of less than 2% here and its big enough but at .2% its not.

Quote:

Well, I guess I should say that after the two studies, the calculation didn't need to be made. It was fine to throw numbers around and stab in the dark before we had any real facts.
Here you are referring to the Pro-Publica "study" as "calculations"? You are saying that Pro-Publica was throwing numbers around and stabbing in the dark, which is fine when there is nothing else to go by?

Quote:

Peer reviewed studies saw these differences and they say that the difference is basically illusory. When comparing like to like, there is no difference between blacks and whites.
Just wanted to point this out because iiandyiiii seems to have read only the 4 sentences in your post that he thinks helps him.

Quote:

I would say that the Pro-Publica was a subset analysis of another study that demonstrated that there was a subset of the data, namely those between the ages of 14-19, that had a much higher discrepancy between blacks and whites than was present in the data as a whole.
Once again, aren't you increasing the discrepancy by a factor of three? I mean the data as a whole already has a 3::1 discrepancy.

Damuri Ajashi 10-29-2018 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21286727)
Another wonderfully dangerous post, Buck! Kudos on your dangerousness!

/taps iiandyiiii on the head

"Well, I guess I should say that after the two studies, the calculation didn't need to be made. It was fine to throw numbers around and stab in the dark before we had any real facts."

"Peer reviewed studies saw these differences and they say that the difference is basically illusory. When comparing like to like, there is no difference between blacks and whites."

If I understand him correctly, he is basically saying that my hypothesis that this was cherrypicking is STILL unlikely given how dramatically the subset of 54 diverges from parity (I still think he should be comparing it to the dataset as a whole (3::1) but I don't do it for a living so I will defer to him). However peer reviewed studies makes those ad hoc calculations made by pro-publica interesting but irrelevant.

Damuri Ajashi 10-29-2018 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21286727)
Another wonderfully dangerous post, Buck! Kudos on your dangerousness!

"Well, I guess I should say that after the two studies, the calculation didn't need to be made. It was fine to throw numbers around and stab in the dark before we had any real facts."

"Peer reviewed studies saw these differences and they say that the difference is basically illusory. When comparing like to like, there is no difference between blacks and whites."

If I understand him correctly, he is basically saying that my hypothesis that this was cherrypicking is STILL unlikely given how dramatically the subset of 54 diverges from parity (I still think he should be comparing it to the dataset as a whole (3::1) but I don't do it for a living so I will defer to him). However peer reviewed studies makes those ad hoc calculations made by pro-publica interesting but irrelevant. Notice how he doesn't call it a study like you do? Probably because its not.

And there is nothing dangerous about Buck Godot and his facts. And as your credibility is slowly being undermined, you are also becoming less dangerous, pretty soon you will just be another partisan hack, a polite one, but just another partisan hack nonetheless. The reason I think you are dangerous is not because your ideas are dangerous, they are not, they are mundane.

What makes you dangerous is that people get fooled into agreeing with you because of how agreeable you seem to be. I mean how much more agreeable can you get than to say "well you have some stuff (2 peer reviewed studies and I have some stuff (a calculation made by a partisan organization), can't we agree that there is room for disagreement?"

What you are doing is injecting undue uncertainty into something that is reasonably well established. If a more transparent partisan hack proposed these things, people would just chuckle and ignore them. You are sort of like someone who points to some factoids published by the Petroleum Institute of America on the one hand and peer reviewed studies on the other and saying "hey lets teach the controversy"

You don't go where the facts lead you unless you want to go there in the first place, in all other cases you can't seem to find the map.

iiandyiiii 10-29-2018 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21292154)
"Well, I guess I should say that after the two studies, the calculation didn't need to be made. It was fine to throw numbers around and stab in the dark before we had any real facts."

"Peer reviewed studies saw these differences and they say that the difference is basically illusory. When comparing like to like, there is no difference between blacks and whites."

If I understand him correctly, he is basically saying that my hypothesis that this was cherrypicking is STILL unlikely given how dramatically the subset of 54 diverges from parity (I still think he should be comparing it to the dataset as a whole (3::1) but I don't do it for a living so I will defer to him). However peer reviewed studies makes those ad hoc calculations made by pro-publica interesting but irrelevant. Notice how he doesn't call it a study like you do? Probably because its not.

And there is nothing dangerous about Buck Godot and his facts. And as your credibility is slowly being undermined, you are also becoming less dangerous, pretty soon you will just be another partisan hack, a polite one, but just another partisan hack nonetheless. The reason I think you are dangerous is not because your ideas are dangerous, they are not, they are mundane.

What makes you dangerous is that people get fooled into agreeing with you because of how agreeable you seem to be. I mean how much more agreeable can you get than to say "well you have some stuff (2 peer reviewed studies and I have some stuff (a calculation made by a partisan organization), can't we agree that there is room for disagreement?"

What you are doing is injecting undue uncertainty into something that is reasonably well established. If a more transparent partisan hack proposed these things, people would just chuckle and ignore them. You are sort of like someone who points to some factoids published by the Petroleum Institute of America on the one hand and peer reviewed studies on the other and saying "hey lets teach the controversy"

You don't go where the facts lead you unless you want to go there in the first place, in all other cases you can't seem to find the map.

Wonderful job quoting yourself from post #260! Buck appeared to miss a quote tag, but those are your exact words that you quoted (seriously -- both of those quotes are your own exact words. Check the tape!). Quoting your own non-professional argument to support your opinion must be very convincing to you. Alas, it's not terribly convincing to me.

Maybe my danger is rubbing off on you. Quoting yourself to support your opinion sounds like just the kind of dangerous post you're afraid of!

Damuri Ajashi 10-29-2018 08:04 AM

Hmm that's a weird double post. Ignore post 292 and stick with post 293.

iiandyiiii 10-29-2018 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21292162)
Hmm that's a weird double post. Ignore post 292 and stick with post 293.

Yes, I'll keep giggling about how triumphant you must feel after quoting your own exact words! Keep it up... dangerously! ;)

Damuri Ajashi 10-29-2018 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21292160)
Wonderful job quoting yourself from post #260! Buck appeared to miss a quote tag, but those are your exact words that you quoted. Quoting your own non-professional argument to support your opinion must be very convincing to you. Alas, it's not terribly convincing to me.

Maybe my danger is rubbing off on you. Quoting yourself sounds like just the kind of dangerous post you're afraid of!

Damn good point. Lets see if Buck Godot will come back and actually answer the question then.

In light of two subsequent studies, how relevant is the pro-publica analysis?

iiandyiiii 10-29-2018 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21292173)
Damn good point. Lets see if Buck Godot will come back and actually answer the question then.

In light of two subsequent studies, how relevant is the pro-publica analysis?

Okay, I'll try to step back from the silliness.

We really don't know much about police shootings in terms of data. Very little data is publicly available -- most police departments don't keep or report data on who they shoot (race, age, etc.). So some organizations did some studies and analysis on the limited data that is out there. And they found some conflicting results.

Which, IMO, means that a lot more study is needed. And a lot more pressure ought to be put on departments to keep and report this data. And no one should be convinced by an single, or pair, of studies, with such limited data, that everything is hunky-dory and there's absolutely no problem with police shootings.

iiandyiiii 10-29-2018 08:31 AM

Another important thing to consider -- regardless of race, American police kill tons of people. From some back of the envelope math I did in a previous thread, American police kill over 10,000 times as many people as UK police on a per capita basis. Sure, there are more murders and more guns in America, but on a per capita basis those differences are less than a factor of 10. That can't reasonably explain a difference in police killings of over 10,000.

So just as important (or maybe even more so) as possible racial bias in shootings is just the incredibly high rate of overall killings by police in America. It seems reasonable to suspect that maybe American police culture, practice, and policy lead to more usage of deadly force than necesary.

Damuri Ajashi 10-29-2018 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21292181)
Okay, I'll try to step back from the silliness.

We really don't know much about police shootings in terms of data. Very little data is publicly available -- most police departments don't keep or report data on who they shoot (race, age, etc.). So some organizations did some studies and analysis on the limited data that is out there. And they found some conflicting results.

Which, IMO, means that a lot more study is needed. And a lot more pressure ought to be put on departments to keep and report this data. And no one should be convinced by an single, or pair, of studies, with such limited data, that everything is hunky-dory and there's absolutely no problem with police shootings.

I can agree that more data is better than less data, that is completely separate from the question of whether we have enough data to start drawing conclusions.

And we do have enough data to start drawing conclusions. The data was sifted to make sure that we only counted jurisdictions that provided complete data. There is no reason to believe that these jurisdictions are any different than anywhere else. We may not have the entire universe of data, but we are no longer at the "we don't really know" stage.

We KNOW that disparities as large as 3::1 can be fully explained by the differences in the circumstances of the shooting. Are 2 studies enough to put the matter to rest especially since so many people seem to doubt the conclusions? Probably not. Just like we STILL don't have a consensus that tax cuts in the current environment don't increase revenue. All you need is someone saying "nuh uh"

iiandyiiii 10-29-2018 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21292592)
I can agree that more data is better than less data, that is completely separate from the question of whether we have enough data to start drawing conclusions.

And we do have enough data to start drawing conclusions. The data was sifted to make sure that we only counted jurisdictions that provided complete data. There is no reason to believe that these jurisdictions are any different than anywhere else. We may not have the entire universe of data, but we are no longer at the "we don't really know" stage.

I think there's plenty of reason to suspect that cooperative jurisdictions might have different policies/practices/cultures than non-cooperative jurisdictions. Maybe there's a reason they're happy to share their data... and maybe there's a reason the other ones refuse to do so.

That's just one concern I have. There are many others.

Damuri Ajashi 10-29-2018 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21292203)
Another important thing to consider -- regardless of race, American police kill tons of people. From some back of the envelope math I did in a previous thread, American police kill over 10,000 times as many people as UK police on a per capita basis. Sure, there are more murders and more guns in America, but on a per capita basis those differences are less than a factor of 10. That can't reasonably explain a difference in police killings of over 10,000.

So just as important (or maybe even more so) as possible racial bias in shootings is just the incredibly high rate of overall killings by police in America. It seems reasonable to suspect that maybe American police culture, practice, and policy lead to more usage of deadly force than necesary.

I agree. Cops kill too much. We need more non-lethal methods of neutralizing threats. But they do not appear to be disproportionately killing blacks (when all other things are equal). And THAT has been the source of considerable outrage from places like BLM.

BTW I don't think your math of the 10,000::1 is accurate. You would need to conclude that UK law enforcement only killed 28 people before 2000. I suspect that cops in this country use more unnecessary force than other countries. But I suspect that even a small elevation of the risk of police death has a fairly large effect on the use of force, particularly deadly force.

In any event back to the OP. Accusations of racism/sexism/bigotry are abused.

Damuri Ajashi 10-29-2018 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21292615)
I think there's plenty of reason to suspect that cooperative jurisdictions might have different policies/practices/cultures than non-cooperative jurisdictions. Maybe there's a reason they're happy to share their data... and maybe there's a reason the other ones refuse to do so.

That's just one concern I have. There are many others.

I suspect there will be a never ending parade of "concerns" that are not much different than the concerns of anti-vaxxers, global warming deniers, GMO alarmists, etc.

iiandyiiii 10-29-2018 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21292627)
I suspect there will be a never ending parade of "concerns" that are not much different than the concerns of anti-vaxxers, global warming deniers, GMO alarmists, etc.

My suspicions must be too dangerous for you, then.

We should probably stop here; I attempted to step away from the silliness, but you decided to go back to it in this post.

magellan01 10-29-2018 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21292203)
Another important thing to consider -- regardless of race, American police kill tons of people. From some back of the envelope math I did in a previous thread, American police kill over 10,000 times as many people as UK police on a per capita basis. Sure, there are more murders and more guns in America, but on a per capita basis those differences are less than a factor of 10. That can't reasonably explain a difference in police killings of over 10,000.

So just as important (or maybe even more so) as possible racial bias in shootings is just the incredibly high rate of overall killings by police in America. It seems reasonable to suspect that maybe American police culture, practice, and policy lead to more usage of deadly force than necesary.

Seems like one would need to know the number of people killed in the U.S. by cops who were armed vs unarmed, and then compare those numbers to the UK.

iiandyiiii 10-29-2018 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magellan01 (Post 21292973)
Seems like one would need to know the number of people killed in the U.S. by cops who were armed vs unarmed, and then compare those numbers to the UK.

I don't have those numbers. We could estimate - the US has, IIRC, about 5 times as many guns, per capita, as the UK. We probably have about the same number of knives, and other melee weapons, per capita. So we could expect that American suspects would have about 5 times the likelihood of being armed as UK suspects.

Which is pretty different than 10,000.

magellan01 10-29-2018 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21293022)
I don't have those numbers. We could estimate - the US has, IIRC, about 5 times as many guns, per capita, as the UK. We probably have about the same number of knives, and other melee weapons, per capita. So we could expect that American suspects would have about 5 times the likelihood of being armed as UK suspects.

Which is pretty different than 10,000.

That doesn't sound right First, the 5x number seems absurdly low. This Wikipedia page has the difference as 120.5 civilian firearms per 100 people in the US vs 3.79 civilian firearms per 100 people in the UK. That's about 32X!

But again, to draw any comparison we need to know the number of people killed by cops that were armed. Without those numbers the conclusions you're trying to draw are just wild guesses.

iiandyiiii 10-30-2018 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magellan01 (Post 21293594)
That doesn't sound right First, the 5x number seems absurdly low. This Wikipedia page has the difference as 120.5 civilian firearms per 100 people in the US vs 3.79 civilian firearms per 100 people in the UK. That's about 32X!

But again, to draw any comparison we need to know the number of people killed by cops that were armed. Without those numbers the conclusions you're trying to draw are just wild guesses.

Okay, 32X. But that wouldn't be a "wild guess", it'd be an educated guess. It could be more or less than 32X, but the idea that it could be anything close to as high as 10,000X sounds totally nuts to me.

magellan01 10-30-2018 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21293757)
Okay, 32X. But that wouldn't be a "wild guess", it'd be an educated guess. It could be more or less than 32X, but the idea that it could be anything close to as high as 10,000X sounds totally nuts to me.

Yes, you were WAY off. But, AGAIN, you can't just look at deaths by police, you need to look at deaths by police where they were confronted with an armed suspect.

From The Atlantic:

Quote:

Of the 1,146 and 1,092 victims of police violence in 2015 and 2016, respectively, the authors found 52 percent were white, 26 percent were black, and 17 percent were Hispanic.

...

In 2017, police killed 19 unarmed black males, down from 36 in 2015, according to The Washington Post. The Post analyses also showed that police usually use fatal force against people armed with knives or guns. (The FBI counted 435 “justifiable homicides” by police officers in 2016, and in 429 of the cases, the person had a firearm when killed.)
Do you have similar info from the UK to come to the conclusion you have? And here's an interesting stat that has relevance on what cops are up against in the US:
Number of cops killed by guns in the US in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018: 177

Number of cops killed by guns in the UK in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018: 0

Also, I don't know where your getting your 10,000X number. Can you explain?

iiandyiiii 10-30-2018 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magellan01 (Post 21294359)
Yes, you were WAY off. But, AGAIN, you can't just look at deaths by police, you need to look at deaths by police where they were confronted with an armed suspect.

From The Atlantic:

Do you have similar info from the UK to come to the conclusion you have? And here's an interesting stat that has relevance on what cops are up against in the US:
Number of cops killed by guns in the US in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018: 177

Number of cops killed by guns in the UK in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018: 0
Also, I don't know where your getting your 10,000X number. Can you explain?

The 10,000X (actually 14,000X, per capita) comes from a back-of-the-envelope calculation, linked in the post you quoted in post #305.

No, I don't have more details about those shot by police in the two countries, I was just looking at the total numbers. And the utterly massive discrepancy, which completely swamps (by several orders of magnitude) any differences in per capita crime or firearm ownership, struck me as notable.

But it's a back-of-the-envelope calculation, not a detailed study, so feel free to dismiss it if you like. I'm certainly not going to go to the mat to defend it.

magellan01 10-30-2018 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21294414)
The 10,000X (actually 14,000X, per capita) comes from a back-of-the-envelope calculation, linked in the post you quoted in post #305.

No, I don't have more details about those shot by police in the two countries, I was just looking at the total numbers. And the utterly massive discrepancy, which completely swamps (by several orders of magnitude) any differences in per capita crime or firearm ownership, struck me as notable.

But it's a back-of-the-envelope calculation, not a detailed study, so feel free to dismiss it if you like. I'm certainly not going to go to the mat to defend it.

Consider it dismissed. That's some far-fetched guesstimating-squinting-hoping and then guesstimating again. And I'd suggest that you not cite it again as you waste people's time thinking that it has any validity whatsoever. Because it doesn't.

Hopefully the numbers I cited will give you pause before assuming the worst about the US and or cops in the US. Somehow, I'm not so hopeful on that.

iiandyiiii 10-30-2018 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magellan01 (Post 21294445)
Consider it dismissed. That's some far-fetched guesstimating-squinting-hoping and then guesstimating again. And I'd suggest that you not cite it again as you waste people's time thinking that it has any validity whatsoever. Because it doesn't.

LOL. Sorry that taking a look at big numbers and broad trends (and my calculation was indeed based on real historical statistics), just to see if anything is interesting, causes you so much heartache. I still find it interesting.

Quote:

Hopefully the numbers I cited will give you pause before assuming the worst about the US and or cops in the US. Somehow, I'm not so hopeful on that.
I don't "assume the worst", so nothing to worry about here. Thanks for the cites (which don't refute anything I've said, aside from my guess on per-capita guns in the UK).

manson1972 10-30-2018 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magellan01 (Post 21294359)
Number of cops killed by guns in the UK in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018: 0[/INDENT]

Any thoughts on what leads to such a dramatic lack of British police officers being killed by guns?

magellan01 10-30-2018 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21294501)
Any thoughts on what leads to such a dramatic lack of British police officers being killed by guns?

It's a mystery. No one knows. I think the leading theory has something to do with a link between dental hygiene and poor eyesight which makes the British bad shots.

manson1972 10-30-2018 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magellan01 (Post 21294786)
It's a mystery. No one knows. I think the leading theory has something to do with a link between dental hygiene and poor eyesight which makes the British bad shots.

Ah...thanks. I thought it might have something to do with gun laws, but I guess I was mistaken.

Damuri Ajashi 11-01-2018 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21292640)
My suspicions must be too dangerous for you, then.

We should probably stop here; I attempted to step away from the silliness, but you decided to go back to it in this post.

Your suspicions are not dangerous. Its the practice of presenting "suspicions" as facts that is dangerous.

I don't see what is silly about comparing you to a global warming denialist, anti-vaxxer of GMO alarmist. it's what you are. You are willing to go where the facts lead you but only so long as they lead you where you want to go.

You hold on to that small shred of doubt that always remains in science and act as if we don't really have any idea of what the answer is so your position is just as well supported as any other position. Its not. Your position has a calculation done by a partisan group with an agenda. My position has two peer reviewed studies, one by an award winning Harvard economist.

To be fair we do not have comprehensive data yet but 3000+ data points for a study is probably going to get us pretty close.

iiandyiiii 11-01-2018 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21298133)
Your suspicions are not dangerous. Its the practice of presenting "suspicions" as facts that is dangerous.

I don't see what is silly about comparing you to a global warming denialist, anti-vaxxer of GMO alarmist. it's what you are. You are willing to go where the facts lead you but only so long as they lead you where you want to go.

You hold on to that small shred of doubt that always remains in science and act as if we don't really have any idea of what the answer is so your position is just as well supported as any other position. Its not. Your position has a calculation done by a partisan group with an agenda. My position has two peer reviewed studies, one by an award winning Harvard economist.

To be fair we do not have comprehensive data yet but 3000+ data points for a study is probably going to get us pretty close.

This is basically a "no u!" and has pretty much nothing to do with my posts, so it's probably a good place to stop.

Damuri Ajashi 11-01-2018 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21294467)
LOL. Sorry that taking a look at big numbers and broad trends (and my calculation was indeed based on real historical statistics), just to see if anything is interesting, causes you so much heartache. I still find it interesting.

You reach that "big number" by relying on very dubious assumptions. Your "real historical data" is a wiki page that only shows 55 deaths between 1687 and 2000. I'm almost positive that this is incorrect.

It might be more accurate to look at the deaths since 2000, which seem to be better documented. ~2.5/year compared to 1200/year. That leaves us with about 400 times as many cop killings in the US compared to the UK. The USA has about 5.5 times as many people so that is a population adjusted 14 killings/year in the UK compared to ~1200/year in the US or about 90 times more. So the multiple is still staggeringly large but nowhere near the laughable 14,000 multiple you are presenting.

Have you considered that perhaps you are too attracted to big numbers. They are frequently wrong and/or deceptive. You seem eager to believe ridiculous things that align with your preconceived notions.

iiandyiiii 11-01-2018 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21298204)
You reach that "big number" by relying on very dubious assumptions. Your "real historical data" is a wiki page that only shows 55 deaths between 1687 and 2000. I'm almost positive that this is incorrect.

It might be more accurate to look at the deaths since 2000, which seem to be better documented. ~2.5/year compared to 1200/year. That leaves us with about 400 times as many cop killings in the US compared to the UK. The USA has about 5.5 times as many people so that is a population adjusted 14 killings/year in the UK compared to ~1200/year in the US or about 90 times more. So the multiple is still staggeringly large but nowhere near the laughable 14,000 multiple you are presenting.

Have you considered that perhaps you are too attracted to big numbers. They are frequently wrong and/or deceptive. You seem eager to believe ridiculous things that align with your preconceived notions.

If I suspected you were actually interested in a discussion, rather than "gotcha" and points-scoring, I might go further with you on this. But I no longer think this is possible, so I won't. Best wishes and happiness in your life.

Maybe I'm just too dangerous.

Damuri Ajashi 11-01-2018 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21294913)
Ah...thanks. I thought it might have something to do with gun laws, but I guess I was mistaken.

There are all sorts of theories depending on who you listen to.

The prevailing theory is that cops are not really killed that often:

https://fee.org/articles/by-the-numb...t-to-be-a-cop/

As you can see, the spikes in police deaths have to deal with prohibition and fighting the war on drugs.

The easiest way to reduce police deaths is probably to legalize marijuana.

Gun laws might have some sort of effect. Cops are shot less frequently in places with strict gun control laws. But it cannot be the whole story. Mexico has pretty tough gun control laws and their police mortality rate makes ours look pretty rosy.

magellan01 11-01-2018 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21298222)
Maybe I'm just too dangerous.

Maybe you're just wrong.

Damuri Ajashi 11-01-2018 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21298144)
This is basically a "no u!" and has pretty much nothing to do with my posts, so it's probably a good place to stop.

No, its me saying "hey look at these two peer reviewed studies saying you're wrong" and you saying "but I've got an analysis done by a partisan group so its still up in the air"

I believed the same thing you believed before we had studies showing us we were wrong. but the facts changed and so did my opinion. Why didn't your opinion change with the change in facts?

magellan01 11-01-2018 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21298204)
You reach that "big number" by relying on very dubious assumptions. Your "real historical data" is a wiki page that only shows 55 deaths between 1687 and 2000. I'm almost positive that this is incorrect.

It might be more accurate to look at the deaths since 2000, which seem to be better documented. ~2.5/year compared to 1200/year. That leaves us with about 400 times as many cop killings in the US compared to the UK. The USA has about 5.5 times as many people so that is a population adjusted 14 killings/year in the UK compared to ~1200/year in the US or about 90 times more. So the multiple is still staggeringly large but nowhere near the laughable 14,000 multiple you are presenting.

Have you considered that perhaps you are too attracted to big numbers. They are frequently wrong and/or deceptive. You seem eager to believe ridiculous things that align with your preconceived notions.

And if the starting point is 90X, when you introduce the fact that cops in the UK have a much, much smaller chance of being killed by a gun, that 90X seems to maybe be reasonable.

iiandyiiii 11-01-2018 09:04 AM

It was when you quoted yourself and triumphantly claimed that Buck was saying this. That's when I realized this was just about "gotcha" and points-scoring, and too silly to continue. And some of your posts since, with so much wild mischaracterization of my views, has doubly made this clear. Sorry for continuing to drag this out for so long.

Damuri Ajashi 11-01-2018 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21298222)
If I suspected you were actually interested in a discussion, rather than "gotcha" and points-scoring, I might go further with you on this. But I no longer think this is possible, so I won't. Best wishes and happiness in your life.

Maybe I'm just too dangerous.

Its not gotcha and points scoring when I prove you wrong time and time again. Frankly it wouldn't be as embarrassing for you if you simply accepted peer reviewed studies as trumping analysis by a partisan organization, this would be less embarrassing for you. Pretty much everyone other than hard core SJW CRTs considers peer reviewed studies to be better than a pro-publica analysis.

To some people, facts can be racist.

manson1972 11-01-2018 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21298226)
There are all sorts of theories depending on who you listen to.

The prevailing theory is that cops are not really killed that often:

https://fee.org/articles/by-the-numb...t-to-be-a-cop/

That's strange. I thought it was so dangerous to be a cop, that we have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were so scared by a black man with a cell phone that they had to shoot him?

iiandyiiii 11-01-2018 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21298261)
Its not gotcha and points scoring when I prove you wrong time and time again. Frankly it wouldn't be as embarrassing for you if you simply accepted peer reviewed studies as trumping analysis by a partisan organization, this would be less embarrassing for you. Pretty much everyone other than hard core SJW CRTs considers peer reviewed studies to be better than a pro-publica analysis.

To some people, facts can be racist.

Congratulations for your well-declared victory! Declaring your own triumph is an amazing accomplishment. Kudos to you, and best wishes on your future endeavors. I'm sure you will declare much success in the future!

elucidator 11-01-2018 11:29 AM

Why are you pro-leprosy?

Kearsen 11-01-2018 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 21298532)
Why are you pro-leprosy?

Maybe I'll get called by Lord Foul to the land so I can be healed!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.