[QUOTE=Malacandra]
While we’re addressing hypotheticals, suppose we compare the following two claims:
“In the 1850s, my great-great-grandfather was scalped by the Comanches”
“In the 1850s, my great-great-grandfather was scalped by the Apaches”
Which is more likely, if we happen to know that Apaches did not practise scalping?
[/QUOTE]
That would be relevant if whites didn’t practice rape. Not only do they practice rape, they practice it on black women once every week in North Carolina.
[QUOTE=monstro]
But I’m failing to see how this is at all relevant to the discussion. I’m not being snarky; I just don’t understand why you would assume I don’t get this basic principal based on what I’ve said.
[/quote]
Because it’s what Bricker was talking about, and what it appeared he was getting pilloried for. I see a whole bunch of people denying that probability can even be applied to humans, and find it bizarre. So if I’ve responded to something you’re not saying, my apologies; it just seems as if this is the crux of the argument. Several people seem to be taking umbrage at the suggestion of the use of statistics in this particular instance, and are going way the hell overboard in denying that it can even be used at all. If your only objections are that a) you don’t believe race has been demonstrated to be a useful predictor in this instance, and that b) even if it had been, it shouldn’t be used to colour our investigative our judicial process, then you and I don’t disagree at all.
Absolutely; but the claim was made that, observationally, we see that white-on-black (and black-on-white) rape occur at a far lower rate than one would expect if rapists picked their victims indiscriminately. I don’t know if you’re disputing that, but if this is the case, then we can start making predictions based on that - for example, if we take a rape allegation from a given person against an unknown assailant, we would be able to make an assessment of the likely race of the attacker based on that of the victim, which would deviate from a model of purely indiscriminate attacks. My point to Bricker is that this tells us absolutely nothing about rape claim reliability. My point to you with the face etc. is that we could collect data that would tell us something about how often certain types of rape claims turn out to be true. I personally believe that we would find that people of all colours lie with remarkable consistency, but that’s beside the point.
I don’t think an individual should give any weight to race in this instance; I think an individual might reasonably study it, and would find it to be irrelevant. This is my point; I believe that we’d find cross-race rape claims are made in direct proportion to the actual incidence of those attacks, demonstrating that such claim are equally plausible. I’m not suggesting that anyone should “use” race at all; I’m just saying that the analysis can be made. I don’t think likelihood assessments have any practical use in a judicial system, whose job is observing individual outcomes. But that doesn’t mean that those assessments don’t exist, or aren’t valid.
Well of course; just as betting on sports becomes easier if you watch the match first. I’m just talking probability here, I’m not advocating using it as an investigative technique in these sort of instances, or having it be admissible in court or anything. I’m merely saying that one can in fact study the behaviour of populations, and use various factors to make predictions about the likelihood of certain outcomes.
But before you observe what the actual outcome is (i.e. by investigating the claim with an open mind), all you have is the prior probability. Take a dice with 5 blue sides and one red side. Roll it. Don’t look at it! Now, try and predict what colour is facing up. The event has happened: you can’t use prior probability, apparently. I will happily say that there’s an 83% chance you’ve rolled a blue. You appear to be hung up on the fact that there is indeed a side facing up, and won’t let me make any such statement. I don’t understand this. It’s not like if we actually look at the dice and observe a red, I’ll cry, “no way, this is clearly a blue!” It’s just a statement of likelihood. We use past events to predict future outcomes. We then observe those outcomes, and add them to our data corpus, thus modifying the prediction we make about outcomes after that.
[QUOTE=Lama Pacos]
It seems to me that Bricker is dead wrong. He said that “Janice’s” story was more credible. If he had said her story is more likely to be credible, it would be more or less accurate in a maddeningly irrelevant sort of way, but he did not say that. In my understanding of the concept of credibility, it has squat-diddly to do with statistics and literally only hinges on the specific situation. Looking at a case as a set of data from a distance, one could possibly say that Janice will be “more likely to be credible” (though I strongly question the usefulness of this), but once one actually zooms in on the case as a unique situation, one can’t apply statistics to credibility.
[/QUOTE]
Is it possible to ask, in a non-confrontational way, for an explanation of the difference between “more credible” and “more likely to be credible”?
Unless it will create another twenty-nine page thread. But I really don’t understand the difference.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=DMC]
That would be relevant if whites didn’t practice rape. Not only do they practice rape, they practice it on black women once every week in North Carolina.
[/QUOTE]
That’s as may be, but like any good teacher, I was starting off with the simple stuff before getting on to the real-world applications.
See, if you can demonstrate that the rate at which black women complain of rape by white men is broadly in accord with the actual incidence of such rape - and that this mirrors the corresponding figures for white-on-white rapes and complaints - then the credibility of black complainants is established right there. And I don’t believe I ever said otherwise.
Yes, but as I noted in both threads, that rate is such because of a reason. If the reason is a matter of proximity, then you to adjust your ‘credibility’ standards. If the black women is in promixity of the white person who she says raped her, then your level has to change.
The problem that had with the original thread and most examples, is that they ignored what really happened, and instead created this fantasy world of 00001111 and that simply wasn’t right.
So when judging your level of credibility you need to take into account all the information and there was plenty…unless you belief that rape is primary a matter of attraction and white men aren’t attracted to black women and so don’t rape them, which is crap.
On this Bricker’s been talking theory and we all missed it line. I’ll say this, Bricker had ample opportunity in three threads to explain exactly what he meant. It was clear that most of the posters who were debating him on this, were treating his position as if he was applying it to real world events…no, not the criminal justice system, but Average Joe thinking.:
Clearly this poster, didn’t think it was theory either and that was what, yesterday?
Not once did Bricker say, “Hold it guys, this is what I mean.” Not once when Huerta88 and the rest were hammering YWTF on this issue, did Bricker step up and say, “No guys you can’t use this datapoint, it’s not of value, I’m only speaking in theory…” Instead as I noted earlier, Bricker praised them on their use of logic and joined in on offensive on YWTF, in the second thread that spinned off of the Whore thread, not a word and in the latest hijake the same, nothing…only now when tossed the theory bone, does he use it and disappers; as per his MO.
One can say that YWTF misunderstood, or I, but when you have many posters of different positions and ideas, coming to the same conclusion, don’t you think that perhaps Bricker should have stood up and clearly stated he was speaking in theory?
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
See, if you can demonstrate that the rate at which black women complain of rape by white men is broadly in accord with the actual incidence of such rape - and that this mirrors the corresponding figures for white-on-white rapes and complaints - then the credibility of black complainants is established right there. And I don’t believe I ever said otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
Which is exactly the point many of us were making in that thread. The rarity or lack thereof of a certain population group raping another population group has no bearing on the credibility. The rarity or lack thereof of a certain population group falsely claiming to have been raped by another population group does.
In other words, just because one completely plausible event is rarer than another completely plausible event doesn’t mean that the rarer one deserves any less credence. If it’s shown that lying about one completely plausible event is more frequent than lying about another completely plausible event, then there is reason for varying levels of suspicion. It was not shown to be the case in that thread that black women falsely accusing white men of rape happens more frequently than any other grouping falsely accusing any other grouping.
[QUOTE=Brandon]
I agree this thread is not about stats but let’s state for the sake of the argument at hand that Bricker’s statistics on the prevalance of inter-racial rape are indeed true and the only knowledge of the case is the race of those involved. You would have to be a fool to discredit the only evidence you have in the case simply on the grounds that you don’t like what it points to.
[/QUOTE]
Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, you would have to be a fool to stop gathering evidence once you have only the race of those involved. That’s not how the justice system works, that’s not how it’s ever worked, that’s not how it ever will work, and that’s not how it should work. Any hypothetical that says, “Q may or may not have happened, and all you know is X, and the prevalence of X in the past; do you believe Q happened this time?” is idiotic, because it bears no more relevance to reality than my green dragon does.
This seems to me to be the overwhelming point. I love discussing green dragons, but I don’t pretend they have any relevance at all to crime levels in Puxatawny. These dice, these sports cars, these numbers in hats–none of them bear any relevance at all to the way that rape cases are, have been, will be, or should be investigated.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Depends. What was wrong with the original question that you had to change the hypothetical?
[/QUOTE]
Wasn’t a change in the hypothetical, just an examination of the historical circumstances. I got an ancestor who suvived being scalped back during the French and Indian War, and walked home. Up Deerfield Mass way. I studied it a little when I was reading bout Rogers Rangers.
People’ll do things if they get paid for it. Even if they don’t normally do so. One person can do things they wouldn’t be expected to do statistically.
That said, Bricker’s still disingenous, but very precise. I never got a reply from him about the last time I caught him dissembling, about the proposed legislation Bush was pushing.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Wasn’t a change in the hypothetical, just an examination of the historical circumstances. I got an ancestor who suvived being scalped back during the French and Indian War, and walked home. Up Deerfield Mass way. I studied it a little when I was reading bout Rogers Rangers.
People’ll do things if they get paid for it. Even if they don’t normally do so. One person can do things they wouldn’t be expected to do statistically.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and the real world doesn’t just have one colour that we call “red” and another colour that we call “maroon”, but has a whole load of other shades of reddish hues too. Which doesn’t alter the fact that the original question was posed about two Indian tribes, one of which is supposed for the purposes of the question to have practised scalping and the other not, and you ignored the question in favour of answering one you liked better.
Two people come into ER, both badly burned.
Person 1 says “I am Bricker, and I got burnt in a forest fire”
Person 2 says “I am You With The Face, and I got burnt by a young Green Dragon’s flame breath”
Neither are suffering from chemical burns.
who are you going to believe? Well obviously Person1 because Green Dragons have Cone of Acid breath and not Cone of Fire breath. Unless Person2 is colour blind and was actually attacked by a red dragon.
[QUOTE=Bippy the Beardless]
Two people come into ER, both badly burned.
Person 1 says “I am Bricker, and I got burnt in a forest fire”
Person 2 says “I am You With The Face, and I got burnt by a young Green Dragon’s flame breath”
Neither are suffering from chemical burns.
who are you going to believe? Well obviously Person1 because Green Dragons have Cone of Acid breath and not Cone of Fire breath. Unless Person2 is colour blind and was actually attacked by a red dragon.
[/QUOTE]
Young red dragons have caster level 1. Disguise Self is a first-level spell. It would be trivially easy for a red dragon to disguise itself as a green dragon, and would be a good idea: enemies might therefore waste fire attacks against it, and wouldn’t prepare themselves for acid attacks.
I therefore see no reason to disbelieve either of them, and would investigate the situation further before making any judgment calls.
Booyah!
Daniel
[QUOTE=Brandon]
Which is exactly my point as well, once again your proving nothing other than what I’m saying. So you will concede that CEO’s tend to commit crimes in a white collar fashion, moreso than perhaps a construction worker?
[/quote]
No I’m not saying that. I’m saying if all your data tells you is one particular thing (the racial profile of crimes committed by CEOs), that is insufficient information to decide which claim is more credible. Especially if both claims are made about guys who are CEOs.
I never said this. I never attempted to compare professions to one another. My hypothetical statistic provided no information about the rate of CEO-associated fraud versus the rate of construction worker-associated fraud.
You have missed the point entirely if you think anything I’ve written is in agreement with what you believe. Add or remove CEO from the equation and my answer still remains: “There is not enough information to go by”. You, on the other hand, maintain that an allegation about a white CEO is more plausible than a charge against a black CEO. And I think that is all kinds of stupid.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Yes, and the real world doesn’t just have one colour that we call “red” and another colour that we call “maroon”, but has a whole load of other shades of reddish hues too. Which doesn’t alter the fact that the original question was posed about two Indian tribes, one of which is supposed for the purposes of the question to have practised scalping and the other not, and you ignored the question in favour of answering one you liked better.
[/QUOTE]
But if there was a bounty on scalps, as there happened to be most of the time, then it could have been some guy from either tribe who wanted some quick money. Or maybe a guy from the tribe who didn’t practice scalping wanted to impress a girl from the tribe that did.
Either a bad analogy, or a really good one, just not in your favor, man.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
But before you observe what the actual outcome is (i.e. by investigating the claim with an open mind), all you have is the prior probability.
[/quote]
What’s the probability of you being robbed tomorrow?
Can you figure that out based on how many times you’ve been robbed in the past?
If you were robbed yesterday, should I be skeptical because that was the first time that had ever happened to you?
Think about this. And then think about why probability in the sense that you’re using it has no place in a discussion about nonrandom human behavior.
No, I’m hung up on people being skeptical because, to use your example, a red side came up and not a blue. Sure, if I predict beforehand which is more likely, it makes sense to say blue. But that doesn’t mean that it is less than fully plausible for a red side to come up. I should expect that to happen 17% of the time, right? A single roll will not give me sufficient stastical information to say this is an unlikely situation. It is only after the die has been rolled many times that I’ll be able to say whether or not something fishy is going on.
This still has no relationship to the chances that any given individual will be raped. Humans are not dice and their behavior is not random. You might as well be talking about snakes on a plane right now.
Predictions. For the upteenth time, I’m not arguing about predictions. Why is this so hard for you to see?
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Sure, if I predict beforehand which is more likely, it makes sense to say blue.
[/QUOTE]
So it’s impossible to predict which side a pre-rolled but hidden dice is facing, then? Utterly can’t be done? Might as well assume it’s fifty-fifty?
By God, I want to play poker with you.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
Absolutely; but the claim was made that, observationally, we see that white-on-black (and black-on-white) rape occur at a far lower rate than one would expect if rapists picked their victims indiscriminately. I don’t know if you’re disputing that, but if this is the case, then we can start making predictions based on that - for example, if we take a rape allegation from a given person against an unknown assailant, we would be able to make an assessment of the likely race of the attacker based on that of the victim, which would deviate from a model of purely indiscriminate attacks. .
[/QUOTE]
But why should we assume that is the case? Just from what we know about rape, it’s obvious that rapists do not pick their targets indiscriminately. Humans are not indiscriminate creatures, by nature. So why start off with an assumption that we know is contradictory to known facts, just so that we can make some arbitrary estimate using race. Whatever estimate we come up will be garbage because the assumptions we used were garbage.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
So it’s impossible to predict which side a pre-rolled but hidden dice is facing, then? Utterly can’t be done? Might as well assume it’s fifty-fifty?
[/quote]
Deliberate obtuseness doesn’t look good on you.
Do you not see a difference between saying
“There is an 83% chance that the die has come up blue.”
and
“It is less than fully plausible that the die has come up red.”
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Young red dragons have caster level 1. Disguise Self is a first-level spell. It would be trivially easy for a red dragon to disguise itself as a green dragon, and would be a good idea: enemies might therefore waste fire attacks against it, and wouldn’t prepare themselves for acid attacks.
I therefore see no reason to disbelieve either of them, and would investigate the situation further before making any judgment calls.
[/QUOTE]
Bah. What’s the CR of a young red dragon? What’s Bricker’s CL? What’s you with the face’s CL?
That’s what I want to know before I can determine the probability that the DM is trying for a TPK.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Do you not see a difference between saying
“There is an 83% chance that the die has come up blue.”
and
“It is less than fully plausible that the die has come up red.”
[/QUOTE]
Quit twisting words. Your second statement tries to make it sound like someone is saying that they’re not convinced a red outcome could occur. Such a statement is clearly ridiculous, but it is analagous to no-one’s position in this argument. I am talking about making statements only in the former manner, and so is/was Bricker, mistaken though his statistical methods may be.
I’m interested to see whether you choose to acknowledge this or not. Guess where my money is.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
Quit twisting words. Your second statement tries to make it sound like someone is saying that they’re not convinced a red outcome could occur.
[/quote]
You obviously are not familiar with the arguments being tossed around in the linked thread, because that is exactly what people were saying. Bricker and Malacandra both were big proponents of this theory.
Here was one of Bricker’s finest display of brilliance:
He doesn’t seem to get that both of these events are equally credible. By asking this question, he is rhetorically suggesting that it is natural to believe Jill over Jack, because Jack’s claim is more implausible. And this is why he was “pilloried”, to use your phrase.
It’s frustrating talking to you when it’s clear you either haven’t read the thread or you read it but didn’t comprehend what was being argued.