Bricker is a disingenous punk.

The BBQ Pit
461

Right, but I think had this been an issue of people who use DOS accusing people who use Windows XP of stealing, this train of thought would not even been explored.

I and maybe it’s just me, believe that the race of the participants is what prompted this whole issue of trying to add more reasons to doubt the accuser. Cause we know the accused wouldn’t have anything to do with her cause she wasn’t white. (I’m not referring to Bricker)

I don’t want to keep harping on the Lying Whore thread, but all this stems from that and I think any agreement we come to, if we do; needs to be applicable to that issue.

Hence using Red Hair, to create a statistical minority that’s making a claim.

462

[QUOTE=holmes]
Yes, but probability isn’t the same as credibility. If i know you have blue marbles and red marbles and you say you picked a red one; it doesn’t matter whether you have 1 red marble or 99; all that matters is whether or not you could have picked a red marble. If the answer is yes, then that should be good enough..if I have no reason to doubt your credibilty.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t you always have a reason to doubt somebody’s credibility, though? Unless you know beforehand that someone is always honest, it’s possible that they’re lying. Since the question we’re asking is, “Is this person telling the truth (that they have a red marble, that there’s a black sheep in their garden, that they were raped)?”, it’s the credibility in this instance that’s being questioned.

And if we assume that both people are equally generally credible, then using your sheep example, it’s more likely that the person who says a white sheep is in his garden is telling the truth than it is the person who’s saying a black sheep is in his garden. This doesn’t mean that the person who says a black sheep is in his garden is lying, though.

463

[QUOTE=holmes]

I don’t want to keep harping on the Lying Whore thread, but all this stems from that and I think any agreement we come to, if we do; needs to be applicable to that issue.

[/QUOTE]

I disagree personally. I don’t see why a conclusion, if there is one to be found, has to be applicable to that case. If you were going for an agreement to image onto that event it would explain quite a bit of the rift. I won’t say with any certainty whether anyone else was trying to reach a conclusion to utilize in that case, but I have a feeling that most of the ones who are trying to apply it to that issue will be on one side of the arguement, and those who aren’t will be on the other side.

The red head scenario is off key in at least one way if your trying to replicate our inital hypothetical. For one, we know nothing about the tendency of a black, white, or any kind of sheep to be more likely to wander into a red head’s garden or not. In the original situation we knew the tendency of white rapists was to choose white victims. If a certain color sheep are shown to traditionally wander into gardens that are possessed by those with brown hair that changes things quite a bit, would you not agree?

No, I don’t believe it is, due to the fact that we dont know the tendency of black or white sheep in general to prefer brunettes or redheads.

No it is not enough to say Mr. Jones himself is less credible. Once again, you are not following the logic correctly. I believe the claim Mr. Jones makes is indeed less credible, despite the fact that it is not a fitting example that pertains to our initial situation. It is far less likely for a red headed person to have a sheep in his garden, let alone a black sheep, still that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

No it would not, just as it wouldn’t make sense for me to say black people are less credible than white people because of the way the stats are laid out. In this case, a claim by the red head is less credible than a similar claim by a person with brown hair. It is rather unfair to not distinguish a person from a claim.

I will reread it to make sure I am understanding your hypothetical, as it seems to be presented in a rather haphazard way. If I am misunderstanding your line of thought please correct me. If I realize I made an error I will reasses it again.

464

[QUOTE=Brandon]
I disagree personally. I don’t see why a conclusion, if there is one to be found, has to be applicable to that case. If you were going for an agreement to image onto that event it would explain quite a bit of the rift. I won’t say with any certainty whether anyone else was trying to reach a conclusion to utilize in that case, but I have a feeling that most of the ones who are trying to apply it to that issue will be on one side of the arguement, and those who aren’t will be on the other side.
[/quote]

That’s the direction I’m heading in, but if I’m alone; then either the thread will shift directions or it won’t, but I’m not going to force it that way; but nothing’s off-limits as long as it’s plausible.

I’m not sure your ‘traditionally’ means much in the case of rape. Sure there are patterns, however rapists will rape old women, or children or coma-victims or members of the same sex. I don’t think we would consider the claim of an eighty year of white woman, less credible than that of twenty year old white one, yet I doubt the stats will show eighty year olds being raped more that 20 years olds.

So again I ask, if this hadn’t been a black woman making the claim and instead had been an 80 year old white woman, would stats had been dug up to question her credibility? Even if they did, would we be creating equations to judge it or would we just say, WTF?

I don’t know, I’m just asking.

Back to your point, what does matter is proximity and usually knowing the victim. While I agree that segregation is a part of what you call traditional patterns, once that’s gone, then I think we need to stop using that as a method of judging.

You’ve said this a few times now and I still say it is unrealistic not to tie the person to the claim they make. It’s simply not IMO the normal way people judge such things.

I gotta run, and will drop back when I can… .don’t want to be called a punk.

465

[QUOTE=you with the face]
When you are working with data collected from human beings, you can not make assumptions that amount to leaps of faith. The fewer and smaller the assumptions made, the better. Epidemiology–the study of diseases within populations–uses the same tools as economics, but a completely different kind of thinking.

For a mathematician, making numbers add up to the right thing is key. For someone trained to look at animal herds (whether those animals are human or not), assuming the right thing is far more important. Because if your assumptions are baseless and arbitrary, then whatever digits you come up will amount to shit. “All things being equal” is one of these baseless assumptions, because few things are equal, including populations. It makes little sense to say “all things being equal” and then make one group subject to rape 99 times more than the other, just to make some useless point about what happen if this assumption was true.
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, reasonable people make decisions about other people based on statistical analysis all the time. It’s called “taking a survey”. And yes, surveys makes assumptions too; yes, they’re assumptions geared as strongly as possible to conform to reality, but they are assumptions nonetheless.

And you seem to have some wild ideas about what knowing the odds based on ‘flimsy assumptions’ is going to make me do. Allow me to assure you that I am well aware that when I draw conclusions based on loose assumptions, the credibility of the conclusion is similarly loose. You don’t fricking ignore it though…even when people are involved.

On as related note, I have to wonder what you think I’m going to do based on a, what? Difference of six or eight or fourty percent in the probability that woman W and woman B got raped? Well, just in case you were wondering that, I’ll just give you a hint. There are four scenarios, three that might happen in real life, and one that has come up in the context of the thread.

  1. The person is just telling me, for no particular reason. Well, in that case, I don’t mind knowing the odds, but do you think they are the be-all and end-all of my reasoning? Of course not. 1/99 odds aren’t even near enough for me to express doubt about the conclusion. Heck, I won’t ask for evidence even if somebody told me they were dealt a straight flush once in one of last night thirty-or-so poker hands, and the odds of that are, what, something like 1/21000? Now if you tell me you won the lottery I’ll express a little doubt; one-in-a-billion odds are pretty long after all.

  2. You want something from me, like, for example, money. I will be more skeptical. In this case, a mere 75% chance of telling the truth isn’t enough to sell me; you’d have to be all convincing and stuff too, preferably with some sort of supporting evidence as well. 'Cause it’s, you know, my money and all.

  3. I’m a juror in court. In that case, I’m required by LAW to make decisions based on a level of ‘reasonable doubt’, or put the other way, ‘reasonable certainty’. And as nice as it is to know the odds, in that case I’m still going to want to see some supporting evidence, pretty much fucking regardless. So what if all you’re trying to convince me is that you didn’t win the lottery that day? I’d like to see some evidence please.

And 4): this is the scenario where some psycho has me slammed up against the wall with a gun pressed to my head and says in a raspy voice in my ear, “A black woman and white women each claim to be raped. Tell me which of these women’s rape claims you find more credible”. Well, in that case, yeah, if I have to make a decision, I’ll make it based on everything I know, and if all I know is the odds, then yeah, I’ll use the odds, flimsy though they might be. Sorry about making a hasty decision ladies, but frankly I’ve got problems enough of my own.

Does this give you some idea of what “it’s a small, infintessimal difference that will be overridden by any evidence” means? Yes. We like knowing the odds. And, yeah, it effects our decision making…a little. I’m pretty sure you do the same thing.

But if you don’t…

Hey, I’ve got a gold mine here, but I need just a few more investors before I can start digging and make us BOTH rich! Just paypal me a few thousand dollars and we’ll be millionares in a year!! And remember, it’s not right to judge a person’s honesty based on the credibility of what he’s saying!

466

Bricker is correct. Another, more obvious example of his point would be:

An 80 year-old white woman claims she was raped by a 20 year-old black male.

A 20-year old black male claims he was attacked by an 80-year old white woman.

With no other info, which is more beliveable, if you just HAD to pick one?

This has nothing to do with race, just probability based on well documented crime statistics. Bob died of heart disease, or Bob died after being bitten by a rabid monkey. Not knowing Bob, which would you bet money on being true?

467

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Firstly, reasonable people make decisions about other people based on statistical analysis all the time. It’s called “taking a survey”.
[/quote]

Of course they do. I’m an epidemiologist, so I know that this is true. I do it all the time.

My point, though, is that the heart of the analysis is not in the math. Any high schooler can make numbers add up to the right thing. The science is in understanding populations well enough to know which assumptions are foolish and which are reasonable.

“All other things being equal” is a foolish assumption when it comes to people, because it automatically removes the scenario from the realm of reality. A mathematician may not blink an eye at such a notion, but someone who studies animal herds would laugh at any premise that assumes such a thing. It is because populations are not equal that you see differences between them, like rape discrepancies. In this country, if you have two populations that differ by race, then they also probably differ by socioeconomic status, education, health status, life expectancy, religious affiliations, drug abuse rates, etc. To assume that they are equal in every other way except race is to ignore what we know about race and what it is associated with.

Yeah, you do. If the main assumptions that you are working with are A) untested, b) completely determine the outcome of your analysis, and B) go completely against what we know is true about populations, then whatever numbers you come up with has as much practical value as used kitty litter. So why wouldn’t you ignore them? What can you do with such arbitrary malarkey?

Can I ask what you do for a living?

468

[QUOTE=Jean Poutine]
Bricker is correct. Another, more obvious example of his point would be:

An 80 year-old white woman claims she was raped by a 20 year-old black male.

A 20-year old black male claims he was attacked by an 80-year old white woman.

With no other info, which is more beliveable, if you just HAD to pick one?
[/quote]
Bricker is incorrect, as are you. Your’s is, however, a good example of how there must be a tipping point within the plausibility dimension to these hypotheticals. It isn’t as obvious as dead Lincoln ninjas assaulting a drugstore run by out of work writer monkeys, but it seems to me that your hypothetical falls on the other side of wherever that tipping point is.

That is, even though you say “with no other info available,” you’ve introduced age and gender in combinations that makes one of your possibilities much more physically unlikely. To illustrate this, you can play with your hypothetical choices.

  • A 20 year old black male claims he was raped by an 80 year old white woman
  • An 80 year old white woman claims she was raped by a 3 year old black man

Which is more credible?

It’s nonsense to characterize interracial rape statistics as well-documented.

I’d say the statistics on cancer and on heart disease are much more thoroughly documented. I’m sure that the rates differ as well. So, how about:

Bob tells you his brother died of cancer.
Tom tells you his brother died of heart disease.

Is Bob more credible than Tom? Is Tom more credible than Bob?

469

[QUOTE=Jean Poutine]
Bricker is correct. Another, more obvious example of his point would be:

An 80 year-old white woman claims she was raped by a 20 year-old black male.

A 20-year old black male claims he was attacked by an 80-year old white woman.

[/quote]

Can you not see that your hypotheticals bear no symmetry to the ones under discussion?

Forget about credibility of the reporter for a minute, because my position on that is the same; I don’t have enough information to say with situation is more credible. For all I know, the 20 year old is alleging that the old lady was attacking him with her purse because she thought he was about to steal it, when he was just trying to help her with her groceries. Certainly plausible, since such prejudice is hardly unheard of. (I’m wondering what signficance race is supposed to bring to your hypotheticals…none..but whatever.)

But all that shit aside: do you really think an 80 year old woman attacking a 20 year old is anything like w-o-b rape? Old ladies are generally a lot weaker than young adult males, which makes them more vulnerable to being attacked by them. No need to look at stats to figure this out, because we all know what age does to physical strength.

Can you say that race makes one physically vulnerable in the same way? Do we have evidence that black women are more capable of warding off attack from a white male than a white woman? Is there any evidence that race determines anything about a person’s physical condition? No, no, and no. I’m black and if a white guy jumped me in an alley, I’d be just as helpless as a white woman. My race determines nothing.

Janice, a white woman, claims that she was raped by her white boyfriend.
Marie, a black woman, claims that she was raped by her white boyfriend.

Notice that both claims are equal in every way except the race of the claimant. So what would make Marie’s story to be less likely true than Janice’s? They are both women (risk factor #1). They both have white boyfriends (risk factor #2). What does it matter if Marie’s ancestors came from Africa? How does this heritage limit her white boyfriend’s proclivity to rape? How does this heritage make it more likely that she is not being truthful? How does this heritage change the credibility of her claim?

Bricker is not correct. The white woman’s claim is just as credible as a black woman’s claim, in the absence of evidence. I don’t care if he thinks its just a scintilla less credible or whatever. In terms of what is relevant when it comes to rape, both claims are exactly identical. You might as well take the clause about rape out of both scenarios and just say “Janice claims she was raped” and “Marie claims she was raped”.

470

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Of course they do. I’m an epidemiologist, so I know that this is true. I do it all the time.

My point, though, is that the heart of the analysis is not in the math. Any high schooler can make numbers add up to the right thing. The science is in understanding populations well enough to know which assumptions are foolish and which are reasonable.

“All other things being equal” is a foolish assumption when it comes to people, because it automatically removes the scenario from the realm of reality. A mathematician may not blink an eye at such a notion, but someone who studies animal herds would laugh at any premise that assumes such a thing. It is because populations are not equal that you see differences between them, like rape discrepancies. In this country, if you have two populations that differ by race, then they also probably differ by socioeconomic status, education, health status, life expectancy, religious affiliations, drug abuse rates, etc. To assume that they are equal in every other way except race is to ignore what we know about race and what it is associated with.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you have to start somewhere. If you go into you analysis with the statement “And there must be some strange and inexplicable factor changing something so that the numbers are crap” then you’re not going to get anything done. The trick is to remember where all your numbers came from, and which assumations are flimsier than others, and to use that to your advantage when you get to the end. I will comment more on this anon.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Yeah, you do. If the main assumptions that you are working with are A) untested, b) completely determine the outcome of your analysis, and B) go completely against what we know is true about populations, then whatever numbers you come up with has as much practical value as used kitty litter. So why wouldn’t you ignore them? What can you do with such arbitrary malarkey?

Can I ask what you do for a living?
[/QUOTE]
Certainly; I am a computer programmer, so you can be safely assured that my career never involves me making a life-changing decision regarding anybody, regardless of their race, creed, color, sexual preference, blood type, shoe size, or anything else. So you can rest easy on that point.

What do you do with such ‘arbitrary malarky’? Well, if you actually have an untested assumption that directly leads to a known false conclusion, then the most obvious thing to do is a proof by contradiction.

Take the issue at hand for example. You’ll note that in my write-up, I actually wrote all the stuff we knew first, based on the stuff that was considered to be knowable (total population; rape rates. It didn’t matter if the numbers were real; the relationship between the factors is what is of interest here). Somewhere around the end of that I drew the conclusion that the credibility of rape claimants of different races is only statistically equal if their races’ rates of making false reports approximately equate to the rates of actual rapes for those races.

In theory, I could have stopped there. I could have simply pointed out that because it is reasonable to assume that (sans other information) rape claimants are equally credible regardless of race, we can take that in combination with my previous statement and bang! Zam! Zoom! We now know that the ratio of false rape claims to actual rate claims is appromiately constant across races.

Unfortunately, I’m not quite as quick a thinker as I look; I was caught up in the flow of the thread, the clear sides that had been formed, and the fact that I was definitely not on the side of people who think that math results (or math in general) should be waved away. So, as had been done elsewhere, I then took the assumption that rape rates were proportional to population and careened off to the ostensibly false conclusion. At the time of reaching the conclusion, I had already took long enough writing it that I was impatient to post it, and so I concluded there. It wasn’t until I was in the middle of my second post on this topic that I realized that the most obvious resolution to this would be to revise the assumption about claim rates per population per race; I alluded to that at the end of that post and stated it explicitly in the next.

I wouldn’t have gained my new more-reliable assumption if I hadn’t gone through the math, which hilighted and clarified the relationships. But I did go through the math, and feel I learned something. And that, my fine fellow hominid, is why we (or at least I) do it.

471

[QUOTE=Jean Poutine]
Bricker is correct. Another, more obvious example of his point would be:

An 80 year-old white woman claims she was raped by a 20 year-old black male.

A 20-year old black male claims he was attacked by an 80-year old white woman.

With no other info, which is more beliveable, if you just HAD to pick one?

This has nothing to do with race, just probability based on well documented crime statistics. Bob died of heart disease, or Bob died after being bitten by a rabid monkey. Not knowing Bob, which would you bet money on being true?
[/QUOTE]

And you are correct. Your example is excellent, as it gets to the heart of it. Well done.

472

[QUOTE=Jean Poutine]
An 80 year-old white woman claims she was raped by a 20 year-old black male.

A 20-year old black male claims he was attacked by an 80-year old white woman.
[/QUOTE]
Well, since one is implausible, and since we keep bringing up over and over and over and fucking over again that we’re applying equal credibility only when both events are what would be considered plausible by most, it’s a pretty silly comparison.

If you want to use numbers to come to a conclusion, use the actual numbers that we’ve posted. In the year 2004 in the state of North Carolina, who is more credible when claiming she was raped, a black woman or a white woman, and why?

473

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Bricker is incorrect, as are you. Your’s is, however, a good example of how there must be a tipping point within the plausibility dimension to these hypotheticals. It isn’t as obvious as dead Lincoln ninjas assaulting a drugstore run by out of work writer monkeys, but it seems to me that your hypothetical falls on the other side of wherever that tipping point is.
[/QUOTE]

The absolute plausibility has no bearing on anything. The only thing that matters is the relative plausibility of the two events having occurred. So it matters not if we are talking about who is more likely to be able to dunk a basketball, someone 6’3" or someone 6’4" tall. Or if the people are 5’5" and 5’6" tall.

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
That is, even though you say “with no other info available,” you’ve introduced age and gender in combinations that makes one of your possibilities much more physically unlikely. To illustrate this, you can play with your hypothetical choices.
[/QUOTE]

Gender is part of her example. It’s one of the givens. You don’t question the givens.

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]

  • A 20 year old black male claims he was raped by an 80 year old white woman
  • An 80 year old white woman claims she was raped by a 3 year old black man
    [/QUOTE]

What does this have to do with what she presented.? You’ve simply constructed a different hypothetical. We can construct hypotheticals all day where answers will be different or, as in yours, there is not enough info.

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
We can’t tell with the information you provided. It’s nonsense to characterize interracial rape statistics as well-documented.I’d say the statistics on cancer and on heart disease are much more thoroughly documented. I’m sure that the rates differ as well.
[/QUOTE]

The rape statistics were also one of the givens. You don’t get to question the givens in a hypothetical.

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
So, how about:

Bob tells you his brother died of cancer.
Tom tells you his brother died of heart disease.

Is Bob more credible than Tom? Is Tom more credible than Bob?
[/QUOTE]

This is a good example. The answer to what you constructed is that there is not enough information. But if you provided another piece of info, making it more analagous to the original hypothetical we might be able to. For instance, if you said that another “given” is that more people of one of those disease than the other, then we’d have enough information to make a “better guess” and a “worse guess”. Not that we would be right, just that it would be more logical for us to—if we had to—choose one claim as being more credible than the other.

474

Not knowing the two hypothetical people in question, if one must make a choice as to which event is more likely true, what other way is there to logically to do so, other than using documented statistics? Not to introduce race again, but let’s say Bill is black, Steve is white. Both are American. Who is more likely to be currently incarcerated? Or let’s remove race entirely. Jim is head of the pediatric cardiology dept. at Cedars-Sinai. Billy Bob is an umeployed mechanic in Dyersburg, TN. Who is more likely to be a crystal meth addict?

475

[QUOTE=Jean Poutine]
Not knowing the two hypothetical people in question, if one must make a choice as to which event is more likely true, what other way is there to logically to do so, other than using documented statistics?
[/QUOTE]
Then use them. The actual statistics (every relevant statistic that is availble, at least) for the state of North Carolina in 2004 are in this thread. Once again, in that year and in that state, who is more credible when claiming she was raped, a black woman or a white woman, and why?

476

[QUOTE=DMC]
Then use them. The actual statistics (every relevant statistic that is availble, at least) for the state of North Carolina in 2004 are in this thread. Once again, in that year and in that state, who is more credible when claiming she was raped, a black woman or a white woman, and why?
[/QUOTE]

Might I suggest/request that you construct the specific question you would like an answer to with ALL the information you desire be taken as givens?

477

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Might I suggest/request that you construct the specific question you would like an answer to with ALL the information you desire be taken as givens?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not trying to be smart, but isn’t that information given in the OP’s post?

I probably should stay out of it because I’m not yet a member, but I’ve been trying to follow this by reading the other two Pit threads and this thread. I have to agree with holmes & Hentor the Barbarian.

[QUOTE=holmes]
I don’t want to keep harping on the Lying Whore thread, but all this stems from that and I think any agreement we come to, if we do; needs to be applicable to that issue.
[/QUOTE]

Change the races of those involved if that’s the stumbling point, but none of the scenarios offered are remotely the same.

If the question is, and correct me if I’m wrong- Can you determine who is more credible based on race using crime statistics, my opinion would be that you can’t.
How could you?
I realize that I’m trying to put about 50 pages of posts into a nutshell but none of the examples are similiar to the original OP.

Don’t scream at me too much, it too a lot of nerve to post this. :smiley: But smack me if I deserve it.

478

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Not that we would be right, just that it would be more logical for us to—if we had to—choose one claim as being more credible than the other.
[/QUOTE]

But, is there any evidence that reports of frequent events have a higher rate of accuracy than reports of infrequent events?

If you have evidence of this (studies, etc.) then that would be the logical choice, but the logic would not be based on the statistics regarding the event, the logic would be based on the statistics regarding the reporting of the event.

479

[QUOTE=Jean Poutine]
Not knowing the two hypothetical people in question, if one must make a choice as to which event is more likely true, what other way is there to logically to do so, other than using documented statistics? Not to introduce race again, but let’s say Bill is black, Steve is white. Both are American. Who is more likely to be currently incarcerated? Or let’s remove race entirely. Jim is head of the pediatric cardiology dept. at Cedars-Sinai. Billy Bob is an umeployed mechanic in Dyersburg, TN. Who is more likely to be a crystal meth addict?
[/QUOTE]
But you’re not getting at credibility. The likelihood of certain events happening is an appropriate use of statistics. I am more likely to get hit by a city bus than I am to break my neck in a cliff diving accident. A smoker is more likely to develop lung cancer than a non-smoker. A black man is more likely to have heart disease than a white man.

But that isn’t the issue.

The issue is, if Steve and Bill both tell you “I am (or was) incarcerated,” is one more credible than the other. If Shamus and Jamal tell you “I have heart disease,” is one more credible than another.

The relative probability of a pair of woman in general being the victim of rape can be determined by reference to statistics. The relative credibility of a specific pair of women cannot.

480

Hentor, I do agree, if the point is that you are not questioning the statistics, you are questioning if the general crediblility of the two individuals can be determined, regardless of the question, or even if you don’t know the q&a at all.