# Bricker is a disingenous punk. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 9, 2006, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049 "2006-08-09T20:07:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![psychloan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4bbf92/32.png) [@psychloan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychloan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/241 "2006-08-12T03:10:18Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] Now you can say that 1 occurs 99.9% percent of the time in a given sample and 2 occurs only.1% percent of the time, but that tells us nothing about the **credibility** of 1 versus 2. [/QUOTE] Why not? ---
**Author:** ![psychloan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4bbf92/32.png) [@psychloan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychloan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/242 "2006-08-12T03:13:55Z")
[QUOTE=psychloan] Why not? [/QUOTE] Just to elaborate on my response, you seem to be basically saying that my calculation is incorrect because background statistics don’t matter. But the calculation is an example that shows how background statistics DO matter. So basically you are saying my calculation is wrong because you think it’s wrong. Unless I misunderstood you. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/243 "2006-08-12T03:18:16Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] Or like when Yul Brynner blew a head pipe in _Westworld_. Unfortunately, encountering illogic seems to make androids, robots and computers self-destruct as often as they go haywire (see e.g. 27 episodes of Star Trek, where Kirk outwits computers and androids in such a manner). [/QUOTE] Yeah, but if I were an android, I like to think I’d go out like HAL. If I’m going down, other people are going to go down with me. 'Cause that’s the kind of person I am. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/244 "2006-08-12T03:26:35Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] _Barring any other information_, wouldn’t you say that a claim of an event that is more likely to occur is a more credible claim? [/QUOTE] No. That’s faulty thinking. For example, give me a deck of cards and allow me to pick one and look at it and direct me to tell you something about it. I say: “I picked a heart.” Now give the pack to somebody else. Ask them to pick a card and tell you something about it: They say: “I picked a seven.” Which is more credible? See the problem? The problem is not about the probabilty of a given event occuring. I’m much more likely to pick a heart than a seven. The problem is about somebody lying about a given event. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/245 "2006-08-12T03:36:51Z")
[QUOTE=psychloan] Why not? [/QUOTE] Because the accusations for analyses are **selected** and not randomly generated. Since they are selected, their probability for occuring is moot as long as they do, in fact, occur. Let me reframe the question differently, so you can see where your mistake is: We examine a pool of 100,000 reported rapes. 99,000 of these rapes are white women accusing white men. 1,000 are black women accusing white men. If we randomly select 1 white woman and 1 black woman from this sample, which is more credible an accusation? You are saying, black women are only 1/99th as likely to report rape by a white man than a white woman, therefore the accusation by the black woman is less credible. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/246 "2006-08-12T03:40:16Z")
Or: From that same sample of 100,000 you could select 10 accusations from black women and one accusation from a white woman and ask which are more credible. As long as you are **selecting** from a sample the probability distribution of what you are selecting is moot so long as it actually exists for you to select. ---
**Author:** ![psychloan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4bbf92/32.png) [@psychloan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychloan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/247 "2006-08-12T03:40:52Z")
[QUOTE=you with the face] No. The only way you can make your conclusion correct is: A) if you completely disregard your assumption that blacks and whites are equally honest, [/quote] Not true. > [@](#): > > B) if you assume that white men rape at random, which means 50% of the white man’s victims will be black and 50% white. Not true. > [@](#): > > C) if you assume that conviction rates represent veracity rates. Which is perhaps the most shakiest assumption of them all. Especially if this thread is any indication of the level of thinking going on in our justice system. Not true. > [@](#): > > D) You’d also have to assume that whites and blacks are equally likely to _report_ rape as well. In my calculation, I assumed that all rapes are reported. Anyway, my conclusion follows from my assumptions. > [@](#): > > The assumption you made contradicts your conclusion. Not at all. If you can’t understand why it’s not a contradiction to assume women of both races are equally likely to fabricate a rape claim and, after considering the backround statistics, conclude that a black woman’s claim is more likely to be false, then it is you who have failed to think critically. Background statistics matter. And yes, it’s about math. Why not point to the line post 207 that you disagree with? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/248 "2006-08-12T03:46:12Z")
[QUOTE=you with the face] No. The only way you can make your conclusion correct is: A) if you completely disregard your assumption that blacks and whites are equally honest, B) if you assume that white men rape at random, which means 50% of the white man’s victims will be black and 50% white. C) if you assume that conviction rates represent veracity rates. Which is perhaps the most shakiest assumption of them all. Especially if this thread is any indication of the level of thinking going on in our justice system. D) You’d also have to assume that whites and blacks are equally likely to _report_ rape as well. If 25% of all rape accusations against white men are false AND 50% of all rape accusations come from black women AND\*\* only 1% of the white men convicted of rape have black victims\*\*, THEN and only then can you conclude that black women _as a group_ are more likely to make false rape accusations than white women. [/quote] Actually, now that I look over this, that 1% should be 50% if we are to assume randomness. If a white man rapes at random, then 50% of the whites convicted of rape should have black victims. In order to conclude that black women makes disproportionately more false rape accusations, you need to assume that black women _report_ disproportionately more accusations of rape. So assumption D should be modified to " You’d also have to assume that whites and blacks are equally likely to report rape _when it truly happens_ as well." In your givens, you’d need to be told that white women are responsible for a smaller percent of accusations than black women. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/249 "2006-08-12T03:57:08Z")
[QUOTE=psychloan] But please, feel free to SHOW ME WHERE MY MATH IS WRONG. [/QUOTE] I ALREADY DID. First, you said that X = the total number of rapes (we’ll make an assumption to correct your first mistake; you haven’t accounted for rapes within the same ethnicity, so we’ll assume that X is the total number of interracial rapes and set aside the other cases). If the total number of interracial rapes is X, and the numbers of false reports of such rapes by both African Americans and Caucasians is X/6 (given a rate of false reporting of 1/6 for each ethnicity), that means that not only are the numbers of rapes for each the same, but they are both equal to the total number of rapes. I already pointed out your fuck up, and said that the numbers should be Y/6 and Z/6. Thus, not only do you introduce the frequency of rapes incorrectly, you suggest that they are equal, but then introduce different prevalence rates (99 versus 1) later on. Which is it, equal or vastly different? Then, in your equations, X suddenly becomes equal to 1. Why even bother with all the definitions of X, which are fucked up anyways, when you set X equal to 1? But all the equations are not even necessary. If you say that the rate of lying is 1/6 for both races, you can make Y and Z whatever you like. Say 1 and 99. If they both lie 1/6 of the time, the total numbers of lies will be 1/6 and 99/6. There will be more total lies, but the probability of a lie will remain 1 out of 6. Given a Caucasian and African American woman, their credibility will remain the same because they are equally likely to tell the truth (1 out of 6 will lie). Think hard about my penny and nickel example. The raw number of lies or the raw number of heads is determined by the number of occurances, but the rate of the process will be the same. What you’ve done is talked yourself around in a circle from the raw number of rapes being greater for one race to the raw number of lies being greater for one race, but the credibility of reports will remain the same, 1/6. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/250 "2006-08-12T04:00:57Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] No. That’s faulty thinking. For example, give me a deck of cards and allow me to pick one and look at it and direct me to tell you something about it. I say: “I picked a heart.” Now give the pack to somebody else. Ask them to pick a card and tell you something about it: They say: “I picked a seven.” Which is more credible? See the problem? The problem is not about the probabilty of a given event occuring. I’m much more likely to pick a heart than a seven. The problem is about somebody lying about a given event. [/QUOTE] But if we take any information about the propensity for lying completely out of the equation, we can still make logical choices. Working with your deck of cards, I will pick a card and make three claims about what the card might be. Only one is true. The claims are: I have a seven. I have a jack. I have a heart. You pick the correct statement and you win a 50% stake in The Bellagio. (Obvioulsy these three claims could be made by three different people, as well. I was just trying to restrict as many variables as possible.) ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/251 "2006-08-12T04:03:05Z")
Maybe if Bricker would stop abandoning these threads whenever somebody proves him wrong, we could settle this issue once and for all. ---
**Author:** ![psychloan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4bbf92/32.png) [@psychloan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychloan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/252 "2006-08-12T04:06:37Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] I ALREADY DID. First, you said that X = the total number of rapes (we’ll make an assumption to correct your first mistake; you haven’t accounted for rapes within the same ethnicity, so we’ll assume that X is the total number of interracial rapes and set aside the other cases). [/quote] You didn’t read the question I was answering, which **specifically** asked me to assume that 99% of rapes were black on white and 1% were white on black. Idiot. > [@](#): > > If the total number of interracial rapes is X, and the numbers of false reports of such rapes by both African Americans and Caucasians is X/6 (given a rate of false reporting of 1/6 for each ethnicity) Nowhere did I assume a rate of false reporting of 1/6 for each ethnicity. > [@](#): > > , that means that not only are the numbers of rapes for each the same, but they are both equal to the total number of rapes. Absolutely not. The number of rapes is different. The original question specified that 99% of rapes are black on white and 1% are white on black. Try reading a little before you post, moron. > [@](#): > > you suggest that they are equal, but then introduce different prevalence rates (99 versus 1) later on. Which is it, equal or vastly different? I never suggest the prevalences are equal. I suggest that the rate of false reporting is equal. > [@](#): > > Then, in your equations, X suddenly becomes equal to 1. Why even bother with all the definitions of X, which are fucked up anyways, when you set X equal to 1? What a moron you are. The X’s cancel out. Anyway, you admit that you aren’t familiar with Bayesian reasoning. Why don’t you go educate yourself a little before posting about things you don’t understand? ---
**Author:** ![psychloan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4bbf92/32.png) [@psychloan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychloan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/253 "2006-08-12T04:10:37Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] You are saying, black women are only 1/99th as likely to report rape by a white man than a white woman, therefore the accusation by the black woman is less credible. [/QUOTE] No I’m not. In plain English, I’m saying that if the number of false reports is the same for two groups; while at the same time the actual incidence is a lot less for one group; then a report by a member of that group is more likely to be false. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/254 "2006-08-12T04:21:24Z")
[QUOTE=psychloan] Nowhere did I assume a rate of false reporting of 1/6 for each ethnicity. [/quote] Then explain what you mean by this: > [@psychloan](#): > > Thus, the number of false accusations made by white women is X/6 and the number made by black women is also X/6. X/6 does equal X/6, right? > [@](#): > > Absolutely not. The number of rapes is different. The original question specified that 99% of rapes are black on white and 1% are white on black. Try reading a little before you post, moron. Then how does the number of false reports for both black and white women equal the total number of rapes divided by six? > [@](#): > > I never suggest the prevalences are equal. I suggest that the rate of false reporting is equal. Then the credibility for both is equal, and only the raw number changes. > [@](#): > > Anyway, you admit that you aren’t familiar with Bayesian reasoning. Why don’t you go educate yourself a little before posting about things you don’t understand? Your errors are at a level far below that required of any advanced reasoning of any kind. I’m starting to feel a little like I’m picking on you, so if you can’t demonstrate that you are not challenged in some way, I’ll have to back off out of guilt. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/255 "2006-08-12T04:22:19Z")
[QUOTE=psychloan] If you can’t understand why it’s not a contradiction to assume women of both races are equally likely to fabricate a rape claim and, after considering the backround statistics, conclude that a black woman’s claim is more likely to be false, then it is you who have failed to think critically [/quote] Let me take you by the hand and guide you through this step by step. A. Your assumption: black and white women are equally honest. B. Given #1: 25% of rape accusations about white men are false. C. Given #2: 1% of rapes are white on black. D. If black and white women are equally likely to lie, then the false accusation rate for black women is 12.5% of the total accusations made. The same for white women. SCREEECH! Stop the presses! That’s a bad assumption. There’s no reason to assume that black women are reporting the same number of complaints as white women. But that’s the only way you could assume that black women contribute to half of the false accusations made. If there are more white women being raped than black women, then you’d expect white women to contribute more false accusations than black women. Assuming that both groups are equally honest, this contribution would be proportionate to the number of white women being raped, _but in an absolute sense there would more false claims assoicated with white women._ And that’s where the rest of your problem falls apart. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/256 "2006-08-12T04:23:27Z")
[QUOTE=psychloan] No I’m not. In plain English, I’m saying that if the number of false reports is the same for two groups; while at the same time the actual incidence is a lot less for one group; then a report by a member of that group is more likely to be false. [/QUOTE] 😕 The number of false reports is different than the incidence of false reports? Yeah, I’m going to have to excuse myself now. Sorry for your troubles. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/257 "2006-08-12T04:25:22Z")
[QUOTE=psychloan] Fine. Let X = the total number of rapes per year. Then the number of false accusations is X/3. Thus, the number of false accusations made by white women is X/6 and the number made by black women is also X/6. [/quote] That only works if 50% of women raped are white and 50% black. You derive x/6 from this but then apply it to .01x in your next sentence. > [@](#): > > The total number of black on white rapes is .99X by your assumption. The total number of white on black rapes is .01X, again by your assumption. > > Thus, the percentage of accusations by black women that is false is > > (X / 6) / (X/6 + .01X) = (1/6) / (1/6 + 1/100) = (1/6) / (106 /600) = 100/106 = 94%. No. No. No. This is just embarassing. Lets make it simple. We start with 100,000 reported rapes. According to your data 99,000 of these are white women reporting white men and 1,000 are black women reporting white men. 25% of each group is a false accusation. 250 black women are lying out of a 100,000 > [@](#): > > For white women, the percentage is > > (X/6) / (X/6 + .99X) = (1/6) / (1/6 + 99/100) = (1/6) / (694/600) = 100/694 = 14%. Again, embarassing. If you start with 25% of accusations are false, than you regardless of the distribution of other factors that 25% must hold since it is a **given** condition. > [@](#): > > So, all things being equal, if we assume that > > (1) 99% of rapes are black on white and 1% of rapes are white on black; > > (2) black and white women are roughly equally likely to fabricate a rape claim; > > (3) all other things are equal, then > > If a black woman makes a rape accusation, there is a 94% chance the claim is false, and if a white woman makes a rape accusation, there is a 14% chance that her claim is false. No. Again, we can do this with simple math rather than bad algebra. Let’s start with a pool of 100,000 and apply your steps. I’ll put you in quotes and apply your steps outside of quotes. 1. “99% of rapes are black on white and 1% of rapes are white on black;” 99,000 black on white rapes. 1,000 white on black. 1. “black and white women are roughly equally likely to fabricate a rape claim;” Ok. We apply a 1 in four fabrication rate to both groups giving: 24,750 false black on white rapes. 250 false white on black rapes. 1. "all other things are equal, then If a black woman makes a rape accusation, there is a 94% chance the claim is false, and if a white woman makes a rape accusation, there is a 14% chance that her claim is false." No. If a blackwoman makes an accusation the chances of it being false are 1 in four. Since we have selected a black woman, we apply the math to her. > [@](#): > > Again, what is fascinating about this example is that it assumes that black and white women are roughly equally likely to fabricate a rape claim. You start with that assumption. You do not follow it in your math. > [@](#): > > Even so, the probability that any given black woman’s claim is false is much much higher. In a later post you ask what step or line is wrong. Your first mistake is when you generate x/6 in your third line as the number of false accusations made by black women. Since black women making accusations represent 1 percent of your population the actual number should be .0025x. You mistakenly assume that being equally likely to make a false accusation means that they represent half the population of false accusations. This directly contradicts the later statement that only 1% of the population is black woman making accusations. They cannot be both 1% of the total population yet have one half of that number equal 12.5% of the total population at the same time as you state. This is an inherent contradiction in violation of the givens you accepted as well as being simultaneously a logical impossibility. You make a whole lot of other mistakes too. In fact, I can’t find very much that you did right. The whole thing is screwed from the beginning. Your math sucks dick. ---
**Author:** ![psychloan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4bbf92/32.png) [@psychloan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychloan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/258 "2006-08-12T04:28:26Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] Then explain what you mean by this: [/quote] It means that if there are 10,000 rape reports, 7,500 represent real rapes and 2,500 are false reports. > [@](#): > > Then how does the number of false reports for both black and white women equal the total number of rapes divided by six? Half the false reports are made by black women. That’s 1,250. 1,250 = 7,500 / 6. The other half are by white women. Simple. > [@](#): > > Then the credibility for both is equal, and only the raw number changes. I have no idea what this means. > [@](#): > > Your errors are at a level far below that required of any advanced reasoning of any kind. GMAB. Did you or did you not accuse me of making an error by not counting intraracial rapes? > [@](#): > > I’m starting to feel a little like I’m picking on you, so if you can’t demonstrate that you are not challenged in some way, I’ll have to back off out of guilt. LOLOLOL. BYEEEEE. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/259 "2006-08-12T04:30:45Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] Your math sucks dick. [/QUOTE] but consensually, hence, no rape. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2006, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049/260 "2006-08-12T04:31:07Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] You make a whole lot of other mistakes too. In fact, I can’t find very much that you did right. The whole thing is screwed from the beginning. Your math sucks dick. [/QUOTE] How’s the Mustang? I actually thought of you while getting out of mine a couple weeks back. Odd, isn’t that? Mine’s actually pretty dirty because my driveway is full of deck-building material. It’s a little embarrassing, but I don’t want to take it to some carwash and end up with some kind of scratches. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-disingenous-punk/368049.md?page=14)