I never said anyone was lying, I never said only one was true. I asked why you would believe one was lying or less credible over the other. It’s just that simple.
Perhaps this is the disconnect? You guys are assuming that one person is lying and you have to pick which one and we’re not making that judgement call.
If your answer is because statistically on average people wearing seatbelts tend to survive certain types of accidents more than others; that’s seems to be a pretty weak reason to tell someone who’s looking you in the eye, that they aren’t a credible.
I’m not making a huge leap, that’s the point. I’m following your lead. You just said, based on statistics you find people who claim opposite of the ‘majority’, less credible, yes? So what does it matter if it’s a seatbelt, a good job or a rape? If I’m not reading you correctly please clarify.
Let’s use your school example.
Let’s say I agree and we have statistics to show that people with higher education do better.
All we know is this:
Person A tells you he has a Master’s degree and owns his own business
Person B tells you he never went to College and owns his own business
We have no proof that anyone is lying OR telling the truth.
According to your use of statistics Person B is less credible than Person A.
Re Post #180. You with the face has a point there. However, the very point behind stereotypes is that (a) populations do tend towards behavior characterized by the stereotype, even though (b) no single individual from that population should be targeted because of the stereotype.
As it happens, the only two people I have known with full-blown AIDS were chaste: one the loyal wife of a man who unfortunately slept around and infected her, and the other a gay man who was infected by his first lover, in the early “GRID” days when the danger of AIDS was not yet known. But the odds of that quite real situation being duplicated in the life of another are, I think, very small.
Nobody is saying anything about statistics influencing the way a rapist would think aside from you.
In our situation the rapist has no alternative but to rape either a white or black woman.
Not even when that human behavior is being shown to lean towards a partiuclar preference?
What if the man raping the 200 lbs weight-lifter had a gun? What if the 100 lbs waif was trained in military styled Krav Maga? You are going off odds when you say it’s less likely a 200 lb woman would be raped, because it is. Doesn’t mean the 200 lb woman who says she was raped is lying does it? No, but it is less probable than the 100 lb woman who says she was raped. You are repeatedly reaffiriming my stance, and doing so under the guise that your cause is somehow more noble. Once you start adding in more variables the odds change on which STORY is more credible. That is why we purposely omitted them in the beginning.
Using common sense I could say, white men are not around black women as often due to the varying concentration of races and where they tend to live. Additionally, there are some white men who prefer white women, and rapists are not known for being fair in their actions to begin with. Furthermore, there are fewer numbers of black women available in comparison to number of white women. Common sense would lead us to conclude that white on white rapes will happen far more frequently than white on black rapes. Ergo, a claim of white on white rape will be more credible than a claim of white on black rape, much like a claim of a 100 lb woman being raped is more credible than a claim of a 200 lb body-builder being raped.
The only reason these odds don’t apply to this scenario is because you are hiding your own eyes under the veil of race and statistics together in the same situation is bad and wrong. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong or racist or nonracist that the numbers show that, but it is still what the numbers show.
Once again, this is a theoretical discussion (in other words chances are I would’nt say that someone were a liar in response to that story despite what some may believe), but no it would not be a weak reason to look them in the eye and tell them the story is not as credible as if the story were changed to them wearing a seatbelt. If they had any knowledge whatsoever pertaining to probability they would agree as well that it’s highly unlikely that the scenario played out that way and they were lucky that it did so. I, myself, would be amazed to walk away from a bad car accident without wearing a seatbelt, and the biggest reason is how rarely it happens. That is why the story is not as credible. It would be great if we could concentrate the likelihood of the stories away from this notion of indivudals, and rather focus on which scenario is more credible like the initial setup was designed to.
Regarding one being true and one being untrue, that’s a simplification to make it easier for some to comprehend. We can maintain the discussion along the lines of which is more credible, but if we say only one story can be true, which is the one most would chose as being more likely to have occured? The one that is more credible. They are both identifying the same thing, however phrasing it one way may make it easier for some to understand.
No you are not reading me correectly, I said that the story (the scenario, the accusation) is not as likely to have occured. It has nothing to do with the person themself and how credible they are. That is what you both are getting hung up on.
In order to apply it to the example I gave lets change that to say:
Person A says he makes ten million dollars a year and did graduate from highschool.
Person B says he makes ten million dollars a year and did not graduate from highschool.
Which story is more credible? Sure there are stories about the millionare high school dropout that you hear from time to time in the news, but the very thing that makes the story newsworthy is the same thing makes the story less credible, the fact that that it is not very likely to happen.
The indivduals as living, breathing people do not come into play, the story itself is the issue at hand.
Again you have to push the envelope in order to make your point. Remember this all stems from whether or not a black woman is less credible than a white woman in the same circumstances. Not is not an extreme circumstance. **that was the original situation and what at least I’m trying to understand.
Yet in the case that spawned this, the black woman was in proximity of white men. Yet the same conclusion was reached. She on the basis of statistics was deemed less credible, than had she been white.
These are simple things, there’s no need to go to the extreme of millions of dollars, typewriting monkeys, zombie Abe Lincons or theory, if you can’t make and I don’t think you have, but that’s my opinion; on everyday events, then what’s the point?
I’m not talking theory and never have been, I thought I made that clear. If not, then that’s on me.
I’ve been using real world everyday hypotheticals…most people don’t make 10 million dollars a year, but every day a woman is being raped or some guy without a seatbelt has an accident and I find it strange that you and the others would consider their story, which happens everyday less credible based on a statistic based on averages.
I don’t see the difference. If you don’t believe my story, my accusation, then you don’t believe me, as I’m the one telling you the story.
Perhaps we’re crossed wires, but when I say Person B walked again from a car accident, I’m speaking in the first person, the same as when a women tells you she was raped and this is the person who did it.
If you don’t believe the story, the scenario, the accusation, which they’re telling you, then it follows you don’t believe them.
Let’s say for the sake of argument everything you said is true and now I’m refering specifically to the Lying Whore thread and the conclusions which spawned this what… fourth thread?
Using your common sense rule listed above:
The black woman was in proximity of white men. Yes.
There was a sexually charged situation. Yes.
There was liquor involved. Yes.
Most raped victims know their attackers.Yes
Why with all this stuff going on, whould youstill find a claim of white on black rape to be less credible? In this instance? 'cause I don’t see it.
Forget all the other stuff we know about her now and I’m not saying she was raped and the guys deserved to have their lives messed with.
Using your common sense rules which this case goes against, do you find this black woman’s story of rape less credible, than had she been white in the same circumstances?
Look, these examples have been offered to you to help you see that a claim’s credibility is linked to the likelihood of it occurring. You are evidently unable to see it in the rape scenario, thinking that a claim’s credibilty has something to do with the people, even though it has been stated repeatedly that it does not reflect on the cedibility of the people in any larger sense—only to this specific claim.
There is a greater likelihood in the real world that if a woman claims to have been raped by a white male that she will be a white woman, small it may be. These other examples have presented scenarios where that that slightly greater likelihood is exaggerated. When it stares you in the face, you turn away and change the subject. Fine.
By the way, the nickle examlpe was perfectly apt. A nickle, more than another coin, will wind up on its edge every now and then. But you would like to run away from this because it makes it more difficult for you to obfuscate or shroud your stubborness.
Bu since you are bored and I am beyond bored, I will let you skip off into your own little world without facts following you like persistent mosquitoes.
If you think you won, or are winning this debate, congratulations.
You’re saying a white woman by the name of Janice has more of a chance being raped by her white boyfriend than a black woman by the name of Marie, who also has a white boyfriend.
How do you reach this conclusion if you are not using to statistics to predict both of these boyfriends’ behavior?
Alleged rapist, remember. And yes, these people have plenty of alernatives. If we are concerned about one of these claims being false, then clearly one of these guys saw an alternative to raping.
You don’t know Marie’s boyfriend. You know nothing about him except that he is white. Clearly, if he is Marie’s boyfriend, then you can not assume that he has a “particular preference” that would make him less likely to rape Marie. That assumption is ridiculous given that he’s her freaking boyfriend.
Well, I still wouldn’t have enough information to say which of their claims is more credible. But get this: * if I had to make a PREDICTION about who’d be more at-risk, I’d say the waif. *
Just like magellan, you are merging the concept of prior prediction with assessing a claim about a past event.
No, I’m not. You can attach a numerical figure to odds. I can’t attach a numerical figure to my intuitive hunch that a weight-lifter is less vunerable than a waif. I haven’t consulted any statistics at all. This is deductive reasoning at work. But it still doesn’t mean that her claim is less credible, because it isn’t. Her claim is just credible as Marie’s.
But Marie has a white boyfriend. So all these predictions about what white men do become entirely irrelevant when we know that they don’t apply to this particular white guy!!!
Why is this so hard to understand, Brandon? I’m scratching my head, wondering why something that seems so basic is not getting through to you.
Yes, if the case was that I don’t believe the story, the scenario, or the accusation. However finding one more likely does not signify automatic disbelief in the other.
Were I put into a life or death situation where I had to choose only one to be true, the one that I would choose every time is the one most likely to have happened. I would bet dollars to donuts you would as well, it would be tantamount to a suicide wish to choose the less likely one. Doesn’t neccesarily mean I’m going to be correct every time.
So in the case of only believing one is possible, yes, I would by association not believe the person who’s story is less credible. This disbelief, though, would be based entirely on their stories credibility, not their credibility as a person. As I have said earlier, I have nothing to base their trustworthiness as an individual on, so I have no other option but to base my decision on which story is more likely to happen (credible) going from the statistics.
If I actually knew two individual people, and the frequency of their truths or untruths, I could then make a statement on their individual credibility to tell the truth. Knowing information such as that changes the credibility (likelihood) of the stories, as I have already said, and you are not privy to that knowledge. Also, I could find one person more credible when it comes to telling the truth, but find their story less credible than the person who is an habitual liar and vice versa.
Additionally, if your not talking theory, I have already said that it is nigh impossible to ever reach some sort of consensus on this topic. If you and I are arguing two entirely different debates, neither one of us is going to get anywhere, and this is just an excercise in futility.
Well you certainly clouded that aspect when you were arguing about two hypothetical situations set entirely in theory.
With all due respect, I think that adding information just confuses things. What do you think if we simlpify it like this.
Two people. You know nothing of either of them. Both claim to have been raped. Only one is telling the truth. Which one’s claim is more credible?
So far, there is no way to tell right? They’re both equally credible and uncredible. Now we add another piece of information.
One is a man, one is a woman.
Now, with this added information we still cannot tell who is telling the truth and who is lying. But if I ask you to choose who is telling the truth and say I’ll give you a miilion dollars if you choose correctly, who will you choose? The man or the woman.
I would choose the woman. Why? Well, not because she is a more credible person, but because her particular claim in this particular comparison has a greater likelihood of being true. Why? Because if you looked at the large pool of rapes, only a tiny fraction of the victims are male. So barring any other information that would allow me to make a better choice, I have to go with the woman as having the more credible claim.
You shouldn’t have to talk in theory. That’s my point.
If the question is whether or not I believe you if you told me you saw a Zombie Abe Lincoln, or a Monkey writing Hamlet, or keep flipping nickels on their edges, then the answer is I would have really, really question your credibilty.
There, we have consensus.
Now if you don’t want to discuss this in real world terms, then that’s fine too.
Hey, Dead Badger, do you see now what I’m talking about now? The illogical arguments that you’re seeing now are the very same that Bricker was pushing on the teeming masses.
This “credibility hinges on frequency” theory being promulgated has the same level of intellectual rigor that the core Creationist’s beliefs have.
The ignorance about population estimates and about probability and its application here is astounding. The fact that this is the second long thread we’ve had to have on the matter, and yet the aggressive ignorance persists, that is just sad.
Brandon, I particularly enjoyed how you stated that you were holding honesty equal, and then went on to assert differences in credibility. I don’t think you know what it means then, to hold values equal. If the variable "honesty’ were held equal, then the two are equally credible or equally incredible.
Many of you are confusing a population estimate for one type of population with another. First of all, rape is fortunately a fairly low base rate events, so rape by victim race by offender race is going to be particularly low. We saw this in the variability across years in the samples of data cited for the last thread. This means that there will be a high degree of error in the estimate, and that whatever the estimate was for a given sample will likely not generalize to other samples. You would thus be advised to not be hasty to apply your estimate willy nilly, such as by using it to make judgments about a new individual.
More importantly, however, you are attempting to apply an estimate of one particular population to an entirely different population. Your estimate of the frequency of rape by race is an estimate within the general population. You might use this to guess at the probability that a given member of that population has been raped. For example, walking down the street, you might take note of two women, and say that the probability that she has been raped is 3/1000 (if that is the stat from your population estimate).
This circumstance is of an entirely different population. That is, it is not the general population. It is a population of women who say they have been raped. The question is, how often is it the case that women in the population of those who say they have been raped have actually been raped. And more to the point, what are the frequencies by race within this population?
And that, you don’t have an estimate for, I presume. Until you do, you can say nothing about the credibility of the report from someone drawn from that population, based on a prevalence rate developed from a sample of another population.
Well, hypotheticals are often helpful, particulalry when the real world has baggage, not to mention that we are not talking about a particular white woman and a particular black woman. If we were, then we would be able to assess the credibility of each of them better. So all we have is their claims and statistics. Why you are reluctant to use the information at hand, scant as it may me, seems strange. Why do you not take advantage of what you do have?
If you prefer to not deal with nickles and monkeys, fine. Please address my last example of the man and the woman. Feel free to leave the million dollars out. It was only there to remind you that you would probably know where the odds were if you had to.
In this discussion we’ve had baggage-free hypotheticals about fraudulent CEOs, hits on a roulette table, cab drivers, dice rolls, and seatbelted drivers. They are all based on things familiar to all of us. We’re no stranger to Kenneth Lays, casino games, and car accidents.
But I’d bet that none of us have ever seen monkeys type Hamlet or nickles land on their edge.
No, we determine credibility of plausible events by the likelihood of someone lying about said event, not the likelihood of it happening. If someone says they are from Wichita, no one is going to give it a second thought. If someone says they were at Woodstock, there is a much higher probability that they are lying. More people went to Woodstock than live in Wichita, but living there is not something that many people falsely claim. There is no correlation between likelihood and credibility when dealing with plausible events. None.
How many stupid examples do you think you’ll need to come up with before we all “see the light” and decide to join the ignorant? First, there were no other stipulations regarding this issue. In fact, the argument being put forth by those we challenge was “All else being equal, is a black woman claiming to have been raped by a white man less credible than a white woman claiming to be raped by a white man, solely because the former happens less frequently than the latter”. Nothing else. That’s it. If you want to play the game, those are the rules. The correct answer is “No, she is no less credible”. Second, if you tell me what percentage of people lie about going to Paris, versus what percentage lie about going to the moon, I’ll happily give you an answer. Claiming to be an astronaut and claiming to have been to Paris are both things I’d guess that a significant number of people lie about , so without knowing which has a greater frequency of lies, I couldn’t tell you. Thirdly, I imposed no such conditions, nor were they part of the arguments set forth claiming that the black victim was less credible due to frequency.
I made it nice and easy. In fact, those of you who claim that we can assign credibility based on rarity should be able to give an actual numerical answer. I’ll give you my answer again. Both women are equally as likely to be telling the truth. Want to give your’s?
What the fuck?
So you’re saying that black woman lie about being raped by white men more often than white women lie about being raped by white men? You want to stick with that answer?
Which has no bearing on credibility.
No you can’t, unless you can show that black women lie about being raped at a higher percentage than white women.
No, you don’t need other pieces of information. The claim was made that the black woman is less credible purely because what she was claiming happens more infrequently than it does to white women. That’s it. In fact, it was stated over and over again that a requirement of that claim was all else being equal. Want to try and answer it?
Take your pick, the variable of honesty is equally credible and equally incredible at the same time. They are equal, and have always been so in this situation. That is why you can not make a decision based from how credible either victim’s honesty is, and why you are to make a decision based on the data at hand. I never once made a claim that saying which story was more credible was based on how credible the accuser’s honesty is. I particularly enjoyed how many times that has been ignored throughout this thread, the honesty is a non-factor precisely because it is held equal. I don’t think you know what it means to discount honesty because it must be held equal in the scenario.
Which is why I am not applying a judgement of crediblity to any individual, I am applying judgement to their story. The inability to differentiate a claim from an individual person is both highly disturbing and somewhat amusing.
To your point of sample pool error, I say that may be possible, but once numbers come out showing that white men rape black women more often than raping white women, then the claim I would find more credible changes. You are giving the best possible assesment of a stories crediblity with the only information you have available. Obviously if that information changes, you would utilize that new knowledge, and it’s possible the likelihood of the accusations change.
This is logical deduction, you don’t wring your hands and say oh well guess there’s nothing that can be done when you only have the smallest possible stat to go off of, you make an educated guess to the best of your ability off whatever you can use to help make a decision. Once better and more applicable evidence (honest tendencies, prior accusations, DNA, ect.) come to light you reassess what is the most likely scenario by basing credibility of the stories off the new variables.
Bottom line is credibility in a story is not an indicator of credibility in a person, and claims can be more or less likely from reviewing what is proven in the past. Once new numbers are proven, you review those, and change the way you assess credibility to claims.
If you think that nickles lending on edge are of the same probability as monkeys typing King Lear, no wonder we’re not connecting. It is a perfectly real world event. And once you admit you’re dealing in the realm of hypotheticals, non-real world examples can be better, as they will be cleaner. In fact, I think part of the trouble here is that people are uncomfortable concluding that the black woman is less credible (confusing her claim with her as a person). Even though I gave an example changing the question so she would be the one with the more credible claim.
But it seems as if we will not agree on this, so as I suggested: onward.