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.
In english so the folks at home can understand that it wouldn’t take a lot to cherrypick this data.
I thought I was pretty clear. 6 black deaths with zero white deaths.
And now that you understand the data a bit more, do you think it is possible the data was cherrypicked?
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”?