I know I’m going to regret this, but…
I read his statement as saying that he is slightly more inclined to believe Jill’s story given no further evidence. It does not mean that he disbelieves Jack, just that he’d feel a little more comfortable if Jack had some other backing for his story. Jill’s story is commonplace enough that it doesn’t require the same level of backing. That’s it.
Absolutely. I agree with you 100%, hence the numerous times I have stated that this is not how criminial investigations or judicial processes should function. That is also why I said that this question was purely hypothetical. Please show me where I said that once we find out the races of the parties involved that’s it, game over, the case is solved. I did say in the hypothetical situation that all you could know and ever know is the race involved, you could make an educated guess on what the safe bet would be. I even specified that the likelihood of the situations change once more evidenece is discovered, and the importance of the races involved becomes nearly nonexistent.
To your point about green dragons, of course they have no relevance to the crime levels in Puxatawny, as green dragons are model citizens as far as I know and have committed no crimes that I’m aware of, but your saying that an actual statistic on crime levels and in what variations their commited would bear no relevance to crime levels? Of course it would have some relevance, it’s reporting actual crime levels.
If you were having a purely academic discussion about green dragons and the probability of their crime rate , would it make sense for me to come in and start changing the way you had laid the scenario out? If it is a purely theoretical disccusion to begin with, it would make little sense for me to come in and say it has no real world applicability, because that was already a given considering it was not based on the way green dragons and their hypothetical crimes should be treated in the real world.
Once again that is exactly the point I’m making, that humans dont pick their targets indiscriminately, hence the variation in white on white rape to white on black rape. Now if they were compeletly impartial in the way they chose their victim you would have something to argue. If you know they are being picky in the way they chose their victim, why is that one combination can’t be more likely than the other?
You made it clear that you thought CEOs were more likely to commit a crime like that than most other professions, especially when you wrote:
Yes they both are CEO’s so that makes it more likely they’ll commit crime in a white collar fashion than a blue collar worker. And in the first scenario both of the rapists are men, making it more likely they would commit rape against a woman when compared to a female on female rape. If you are already correlating preference with the way crimes are commited by certain groups of criminals, why not take it a step further? Because the statistic in question was based on race and that somehow offends you?
Which is no different than saying the following things:
He is less likely to believe Jack.
He is more apt to disbelieve Jack.
Jack’s story is less believable than Jill’s.
He believes Jill more than he believes Jack.
Jack’s story is less credible than Jill’s.
Jack’s story is more implausible than Jill’s.
Jack’s story is less likely to be true than Jill’s.
The problem is is that Jack’s story is just as believable as Jill’s, in the absence of other evidence. There is no logical reason to think that Jack’s story is less likely to be true. We have no reason to think that Jack would lie about his experience and we know that it is perfectly possible to hit a number as he did. So why is his experience more worthy of skepticism? It makes no sense.
What it has no relevance on is whether we believe a particular claim.
While y’all are arguing over how many angels can dance on the red face of a die, I’ll be going over and lifting the cover off the die, seeing which face is up.
Daniel
…and you’ll say it’s red and be less credible, than if you said blue and have to throw it again.
Because race, by itself, does not determine human behavior.
I’m a black woman who dates whites and blacks. Another black women may only date blacks. One white woman may date only whites. Another white woman may date whites and blacks.
It’s only when we look at groups that we see that there is a correlation between dating and race. But you not assume anything about an individual’s dating preferences using data that only tells what how a population behaves.
I, a black woman, say I’m date raped by a white feller. And another woman, who is white, says that she was date raped by a white guy. Without knowing more about our situations, you can not assume that her claim is more likely.
Please note that I said nothing about other professions. I made no references to any groups that fell outside of my hypothetical statistic. I simply said that as a CEO they are in a position that favors fraud to happen. Being a CEO affords a person an opportunity to commit white-collar crime. Just as being in a prison grants one an opportunity to commit prison rape. Just as being on a ship grants one an opportunity to commit mutiny. And so on and so forth.
Let me ask you this: does being white, by virtue of being white, grant one a opportunity to commit fraud that being black does not?
The only one who has said anything about blue collar workers is you, dearie.
Stupidity offends me, as I stated in the OP.
Because unlikely events are less likely to happen (or to have happened). It’s that simple. I wouldn’t call Jack a liar. I wouldn’t demand evidence that it did happen. I would almost completely believe him especially if I’d no indication that he lies about other things. Still, my gut reaction would be “man, that’s unusual” and I would feel some slight curiousity about whether or not he was telling the truth. That’s all. As Bricker said many many times, it’s not determinative.
Is hitting a number on a roulette table “unlikely” just because it doesn’t happen as much as hitting a color? The answer is no. That’s where your thinking falls to pieces. It’s that simple.
Why do you think hitting a number on a roulette table is “unusual” when it probably happens every minute of every hour of every day in casinos across the nation?
“Have to throw it again?” BUgger that for a barrel of monkeys; I’ll show folks what color it is. That, after all, is the point of a criminal investigation: you gather data so that your investigation isn’t analogous to a crapshoot.
Daniel
What? Yes, it is more unlikely that a particular number was hit than a particular color. It’s that simple. Note the “more”. I didn’t say it was unlikely. I said it was less likely than hitting one of the two colors. The words “more” and “less” are comparative. Please stop equating “less likely” with “unlikely”.
I disagree with that. On most tables that I’ve ever played at, not every number is covered on every spin. The two colors are almost always covered. Thus, there are many spins where a player wins a color bet, but no player wins a number bet.
Oh come on! Of course you did did. Remember this?
With this statement, you implied that hitting a number is unlikely in an absolute sense.
And? That still doesn’t change the fact that hitting a number is hardly an “unusual” occurence. It’s probably happening right now as we speak.
I’m very well aware of what’s being argued. And to demonstrate this, I will explain yet again. I don’t defend this particular example Bricker gives, and indeed in the recently hijacked thread I gave a comprehensive indication of why it is flawed, and why it is wrong to give Jack less credence given the information presented. So far, we agree. Where I disagree with you is that you contend that statistics are inapplicable to the problem at all, whereas I believe that they are entirely applicable; we just don’t have the necessary data in the scenario Bricker presents, and in the instance of rape claims I believe that such data, were it available, would show that neither race makes false allegations more frequently. Please pay attention to that last bit: it’s utterly crucial.
I agree that Bricker is wrong. But you’re wrong about why he’s wrong.
I hesitate to get in here because of our history of antagonism in the other thread, but what hell. I don’t think anyone has argued that race determines behavior, and it seems to me that that is the crux of the issue that eludes you. Just MHO.
I would also like to take this opportunity to extend an olive branch with respect to future conversations.
And who exactly makes up a population? Individuals perhaps? I understand that humans are not forced into a position where they will only do things one way or another based on population disposition, the fact there are white on black rapes proves that, however there are more incidents of white on white rape. There are people who prefer to have sexual intercourse with farm animals, but when a male tells you they hooked up with someone last weekend who do you assume they are talking about? First off you’d assume it was most likely a female if you know nothing else other than he’s a male, then you might think that it’s possible that he hooked up with another male, though odds would show that it’s not as likely as him hooking up with a female. Furthest from your thought would be that his new hot hookup would be an emu on his neighbor’s farm. Why is that? Is he not human? Does he not have individual preferences? What right do you have to assume that he doesn’t have a preference for farm animals, just because the population statistics show that most men aren’t sexually interested in emus? It’s all about the likelihood, no one is saying concretely that black woman aren’t raped by white men and any black woman who would say otherwise is a liar.
You can say which one has been shown to happen more often, and if you can say that you can say which one was more likely to have occured. Like I have said ealier, knowing more about the situations at hand changes the scenario quite a bit.
Yes it probably does, considering that statistics show being white does have an impact on the occurence of fraud. Now for whatever reason that may be is not what’s under discussion, but I don’t see how you can argue the fact that a greater precentage of white people committing fraud shows anything but that.
The same goes for statistics on rape, whatever the reason may be, white on white rape is reported at a greater frequency than white on black rape. This may be due to white rapists being around white women more, racism or sexual preference on the part of these white men, or a lack of black women. None of that matters, what does matter is a white on white rape is more likely to occur than a white on black rape, hence chances are greater that a white woman was raped by a white man when compared to a black woman being raped by a white man.
I am saying, much as how you are, that there are individual human preferences, and those preferences lean towards white rapists victimizing white women.
Well if I could just wave a magic wand and know immediately which woman actually was raped I would say bugger to this talk of likelihood and say which one was raped. But if we KNOW who did it, that defeats the entire purpose of making an educated guess to begin with. You take what your given to work with and make the best possible informed decision you can.
What data do you think you’d need in order to estimate the likelihood that I, a black woman, am telling the truth when I say that my white boyfriend raped me?
Rather than insisting over and over again that if you had the right kind of statistics then you’d be able “solve” this problem, please tell me specifically what kind of data you’re talking about. Because I know of none that exists in either theory or practice.
What if, instead of waving a magic wand, you could investigate the crime? I’m not talking about magic, I’m talking about letting detectives do their work, and treating it like an investigation instead of a casino game.
I know of no real-world case in which the best possible informed decision you can make about a crime is based on the race of those involved. That’s why folks keep coming up with progressively more ridiculous analogies: because it doesn’t work that way in real life.
Daniel
Brandon asked why we can’t assume that race would make it unlikely for a particular rape to occur.
I answered him by saying that race that doesn’t dictate behavior. That’s why we can’t make that assumption.
I know no one has explicitly argued that race determines behavior. But when someone asks a question that can only be answered with “because race doesn’t dictate behavior”, then that is what I will say.
I appreciate that. Right back at you.
Only because there are more whites that are in at-risk situations with other whites than with blacks (and vice versa).
If I’m in at-risk situation with a white person, and I just happen to be black, then you have no reason to say that my rape accusation is less credible than someone else’s. So what if I’m black? I’m in an at-risk situation.
Remember the CEO hypothetical? The set up is the same.
Right, but if he says he hooked up with a male, then I’m not going to be skeptical unless I have a reason to believe he’d lie to me. Plenty of men have sex with men. Just because there are more men out there who sleep with women doesn’t matter.
It’s really simple.
As I have said repeatedly in my rebuttals to Bricker’s claims, which of course you have failed to either read or understand, we would need some indication of how often, relatively speaking, black people and white people made allegations of rape against white people in relation to how often those sorts of attacks actually occur. If (IF IF IF) 9 out of 10 white rapists attack white women, but 9 out of 10 allegations against white attackers come from black people, then we would have an indication that black people are making allegations against whites at a disproportionate rate, and that a given claim from a black person against a white stands less chance of being true. Conversely, if (IF IF IF) we discovered that pretty much precisely 90% of rape allegations against whites came from whites, then we would assume that all is right with the world, and that race does not indicate that someone is more likely to make up an allegation. This latter case is what we would discover, IMHO, but we could most certainly discover it.
Again, I state that if we did have those statistics, they would almost certainly show that race does not have any predictive value in determining the likely truth, and that black people and white people make false allegations with precisely the same likelihood. But we can show this with data, rather than simply declaring the question to be stupid. Bricker is utterly, utterly wrong to state that crime prevalence rates alone give us any indication as to the probable truth outcome of a given claim. But your assertion that there is no way, in theory or in practice, by which prior probabilities can be assigned to claims based on race or any other factor is completely and utterly mistaken.
Considering that not only did I fail to make any such claim of this being applicable towards actual criminal investigations, I actually claimed exactly the opposite and said it isn’t nor should it be, I don’t understand what your trying to say. Did you even read all of the posts, or are you trying to be antagonistic? Just to give you another opportunity to read it, I am not suggesting this information be used by detectives to distinguish what cases they should investigate and in what manner. Read again: this is not a real world case that I am advocating here, rape is a very serious crime, and nothing, including race of either of the parties involved, should interfere with the investigation of one.
That is a straw man tactic to the highest degree, I have specified that I am not talking about applying this to criminal investigations, and yet you insist on arguing as if I am.
In order to estimate the likelihood that your telling the truth one would require more information about yourself as a person and the circumstances you describe in your accusation, the same information you’d need to judge the white woman’s trustworthiness. Personally, I would feel it is quite likely that you are telling the truth, and regardless would treat the situation as such. However that is not to say that white woman aren’t raped by white men more often than black females are. You can still make that claim without making any assumption of falsehood on your behalf. Like it has been said, without knowing anything (including the tendency to be honest) but the race of the parties involved, it is more likely the white woman was raped.
Also you with the face, there is a difference between saying one case is more likely than another as opposed to saying one case is unlikely to have ever happened. One scenario can have a greater probability of happening without affecting the probablity of another scenario. The two are independent of one another, one just happens more.