Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 10-22-2018, 07:57 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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).
  #252  
Old 10-22-2018, 01:43 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
I'm not arguing the math. I'm arguing the logic of even applying the math.
why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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 View Post
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.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 10-22-2018 at 01:48 PM.
  #253  
Old 10-22-2018, 02:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Another great (and, dare I say, dangerous) post, Buck Godot!
  #254  
Old 10-22-2018, 02:52 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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?
  #255  
Old 10-22-2018, 02:56 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Another great (and, dare I say, dangerous) post, Buck Godot!
Did you read the same post I did?
  #256  
Old 10-22-2018, 02:57 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #257  
Old 10-22-2018, 02:59 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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?
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-22-2018 at 03:02 PM.
  #258  
Old 10-22-2018, 04:27 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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"

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 10-22-2018 at 04:29 PM.
  #259  
Old 10-22-2018, 04:44 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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.
  #260  
Old 10-22-2018, 04:48 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
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"?
  #261  
Old 10-22-2018, 04:57 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
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...
  #262  
Old 10-22-2018, 08:28 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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.
  #263  
Old 10-22-2018, 08:33 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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.
  #264  
Old 10-22-2018, 08:43 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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.
  #265  
Old 10-23-2018, 04:14 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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.
  #266  
Old 10-23-2018, 08:42 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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.
  #267  
Old 10-23-2018, 08:54 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-23-2018 at 08:54 AM.
  #268  
Old 10-23-2018, 01:31 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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.
  #269  
Old 10-23-2018, 01:58 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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...

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-23-2018 at 01:59 PM.
  #270  
Old 10-23-2018, 02:07 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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 .
  #271  
Old 10-23-2018, 02:10 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
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.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 10-23-2018 at 02:11 PM.
  #272  
Old 10-23-2018, 02:27 PM
Kadmos1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 174
They are overused but at the same time sometimes actual cases of racism/sexism are under-reported.
  #273  
Old 10-23-2018, 02:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
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 View Post
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...
  #274  
Old 10-23-2018, 02:50 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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!
  #275  
Old 10-23-2018, 03:24 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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 View Post
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.
  #276  
Old 10-23-2018, 03:48 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
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.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #277  
Old 10-23-2018, 03:54 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,656
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.
  #278  
Old 10-23-2018, 03:56 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
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?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #279  
Old 10-23-2018, 04:05 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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.
  #280  
Old 10-23-2018, 04:15 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
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.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-23-2018 at 04:16 PM.
  #281  
Old 10-23-2018, 05:01 PM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
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..
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #282  
Old 10-23-2018, 05:48 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,711
It's reasonable to interpret iiandyiiii's position as unchanged based on posts in this thread.
  #283  
Old 10-23-2018, 05:57 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
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.
  #284  
Old 10-24-2018, 07:25 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
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.
  #285  
Old 10-24-2018, 07:27 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
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"
  #286  
Old 10-24-2018, 07:30 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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"
  #287  
Old 10-24-2018, 07:30 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
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.
  #288  
Old 10-25-2018, 11:20 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,962
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 10-25-2018 at 11:24 AM.
  #289  
Old 10-25-2018, 11:43 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,962
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.

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).
  #290  
Old 10-25-2018, 02:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Another wonderfully dangerous post, Buck! Kudos on your dangerousness!
  #291  
Old 10-29-2018, 07:49 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
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.
  #292  
Old 10-29-2018, 07:51 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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.
  #293  
Old 10-29-2018, 08:01 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 10-29-2018 at 08:01 AM.
  #294  
Old 10-29-2018, 08:04 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
"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!

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-29-2018 at 08:07 AM.
  #295  
Old 10-29-2018, 08:04 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Hmm that's a weird double post. Ignore post 292 and stick with post 293.
  #296  
Old 10-29-2018, 08:09 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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!
  #297  
Old 10-29-2018, 08:10 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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?
  #298  
Old 10-29-2018, 08:16 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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.
  #299  
Old 10-29-2018, 08:31 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
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.
  #300  
Old 10-29-2018, 11:55 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
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"
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 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.

 
Copyright © 2017