[QUOTE=Bricker]
You don’t remember any posts in that thread that alluded to his name and based on his name suggested that he harbored a bias? Really?..
[/QUOTE]
No I remember (I slogged through that too many times, but once more just for you), what I don’t see it being a big deal, it didn’t add up to a distraction.
'Cause that’s all it was a post or two.
To put it harshly, there’s more evidence for the “War on Christmas”.
CMC fnord!
There’s a caustic irony here that I’m guessing only holmes has suspected.
For all those who keep telling ywtf that white-on-black rape is vanishingly rare, you are talking to a woman who has evidence of white-on-black rape in her bloodstream.
Every goddamn time the two of us look in the mirror, we see the white-on-black rape you buffoons kept trying to tell us doesn’t exist. I’m positive this is why ywtf’s temper has reached a fever pitch.
I didn’t want to play this card, because it makes this thread even more personal than it was before, but we’ve tried every other avenue. We’ve tried reason, cites, sidetracks into hypotheticals, illustration through analogy. We’ve fluctuated between being patient and being “hysterical”. I don’t know what else we can do or say to convince people their logic is severely faulty.
Bricker thinks he’s right. It doesn’t matter that people more experienced in this area have told him he’s not. He’s not going to give up because giving up would be admitting that he backed the wrong horse.
If Qadgop the Mercotan ever had to correct me about some misconception I had about some disease or medical condition, I would thank him for the lesson and move on. Bricker admitted this is a field he has doesn’t have much of a background in. Why can’t he concede that he may be wrong and that others, like those with “Dr.” in front of their names, be correct?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Why is it that I have dutifully answered hypothetical question posed to me, in great detail, and everyone has avoided answering the questions I have posed?
Here’s another one:
Jack says, “When I was in Vegas I bet on 16 on the roulette wheel, and it came up! I won $36 on one spin!”
Jill says, “When i was in Vegas I bet on red on the roulette wheel, and it came up! I won $2 on one spin!”
Which story, if either, is more credible?
[/QUOTE]
Assuming both people are considered equally credible to begin with, both are equally credible. Since both examples are perfectly possible to replicate by any individual dozens of times in a single visit to a casino, neither one would be considered incredible. Sure, you can stretch the story to multiple hits in a row until it does become incredible, but the odds of a single hit are good enough that there is no reason not to believe the story, without other evidence to cause the cynicism. The funny thing is that the odds of hitting on the number, which as I noted, happens many times every single minute in Las Vegas is pretty close to the odds of a rape in North Carolina being a white man raping a black woman. In other words, perfectly credible.
[QUOTE=monstro]
I’m positive this is why ywtf’s temper has reached a fever pitch.
[/QUOTE]
It’s the pure irrationality of it that galls me, monstro. It’s not the fact that we are the products of rape. That’s not running through my head when reading Bricker’s nonsense. It’s the notion that someone would doubt me–even just a little bit–if I said I was raped by a white guy. Not because I have a history of lying. Not because I’ve made false reports of rape before.
But because the box I check on the census form is “Black/African-American”.
How can anyone harbor this rationale and find it acceptable? Since the dawn of the LW thread, I’ve been reading the most absurd things ever to hit this message board. Just when I thought the nonsense couldn’t get more illogical, someone would come along and top it. But for some reason the stuff that is coming out of Bricker’s keyboard is taking the cake. I guess because I figured he’d be a lot smarter than this, or if not smarter, a lot more humble. Certainly more adept at seeing the flaws in his own reasoning and not having to have it spelled out for him.
The great irony is that when white-on-rape was at its highest, there was no prevalence data on this crime. The information wasn’t collected and the victims had no one to report it to. Yet it happened all the time and everyone knew that it happen. “Master McGee has a slave woman, slave woman can’t say no to his advances, ergo McGee gonna get his screw on, yessiree!” Gee, I wonder how they were able to deduce all of this? Could it be that folks back in the day had more common sense than they do now? It certainly feels that way.
Why would anyone need to see stats to gauge the plausibility of this type of crime when we know that rape happens commonly enough, regardless of the race of those involved? I didn’t see anyone scrambling for DoJ stats when Kobe was in trouble. But for some reason, people suddenly need to factor in the frequency of a crime involving X and Y criteria before they can say an allegation involving X and Y sounds credible. Even though it hasn’t been shown that X and Y have any bearing on risk. I keep asking for evidence to support this assumption and I’ve received nothing. Not a damn thing.
And I still can’t get over the fact that people putting forth this position have the direct potential to affect justice. I can’t believe this at all.
A few weeks or months from now, there will inevitiably be another race-related thread and posters will try to convince me that the US is color-blind and impartial and never discriminates against blacks and “racism is a thing of the past” and race-card-Jesse Jackson-victimization blah blah blah…and there will be no way I can believe them. Not after this saga. If anyone demands me to support my disbelief I’m citing “Lying Whore” as Exhibit A and this thread as Exhibit B.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
You call that an answer?
I asked a very simple question. Jack says I bet on a roulette number and won, Jill says I bet on a roulette color and won. Which is more credible? If the answer is that they are equally credible, then the new scenario is that Jack says he bets on two roulette numbers in a row and won both, Jill’s story remains the same. Which is more credible? If the answer is that they are equall credible, Jack’s story is three wins in a row. And so forth.
Answer the damn question. At what point, if ever, does Jack’s story become less credible than Jill’s? Simple question. Answer it.
[/QUOTE]
The issue is stats, right? Not probability. The two aren’t the same at all, and that’s where your reasoning is all screwed up. But I’ll play anyway.
Jill’s story is more probable. Just as if I had a bag full of 19 marbles and 1 red one, it would be more probable that I would draw a white marble from a red one. But we aren’t using statistics to come to this conclusion. We are using–well–probability.
You call ywtf stupid for saying that humans do not act randomly, and therefore we can’t use the rules of probability to predict what they will do. Can you elucidate for us why this is wrong? Makes perfect sense to me.
Because I know for a fact that I do NOT use probability to determine where fish are going to distribute themselves in the Florida Everglades. I don’t use probability to determine how many young-of-the-year will be recruited next year. I don’t use probability to estimate how many shrimp will be present in the gut a largemouth bass I catch. If I don’t use “probabilitic models” for simple organisms like mosquitofish, I’m DAMN sure people don’t use the rules of probability to predict what people will do.
Out of all the behaviors we do that aren’t random, who we have sex with is differently up in the list of in non-random behaviors.
But as I said, your hypothetical isn’t applicable to what we are talking about in the other thread. We are talking about statistics. A statistic is either a record of what is reported (like the post count that changes each time you press “SUBMIT REPLY”) or a descriptive figure meant to represent a population of observations (like the average number of posts per day). Statistics can be used to confirm a null hypothesis, which is based on the assumption of randomness (for instance, we could test whether or not the roullete wheel was skewed by tallying the results of a 100 spins and doing a goodness-of-fit test.) But statistics do not inherently reflect what is probable. Only what is recorded.
Your logic, Bricker, boils down to this: The more people report something happening (which is what stats reflect), the more credible a future claim is.
What if I told you that the FBI received last year 25,000 reports of UFO sightings, versus the 1000 they received the previous year. Does that mean the stories that are received this year are more credible than the ones from two years ago?
I addressed your question. I hope you address mine.
Bricker, you are looking very, very bad right now. I say this as someone who believes that the victim is probably lying (though, of course, perfectly happy to leave that determination up to the legal system).
When my father just wouldn’t something I couldn’t understand, I’d finally say in frustration “you just won’t get it”. He would always respond that when someone is not understanding, it’s very rarely the fault of that person; rather, it’s the failure of the speaker to communicate enough. That’s what’s happening here, Bricker. You’re doing a piss-poor job of communicating here. The only thing people are seeing is that you’re comparing rape to winning the lottery, and it’s your fault.
Now, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that ywtf did not present a good rebuttal to Huerta88’s idiotic arguments because she is arguing that you can’t apply statistics to individual cases, but statistics -can- sometimes be relevant, as well as carry legal evidence.
Now, that’s fine. However you did a poor job of separating that argument from Huerta’s particular statistics, and therefore this case. Everyone, including me, is wondering just how far you would apply these statistics in a legal system. And you can’t seem to decide whether credibility is a continuum (less credible versus more credible) or a quantization (credible versus not credible) which makes you look pretty bad when you’re talking about whether the black accuser would be more credible had she been white.
Another hypothetical (they’re fun to make up):
I assemble a group of different professionals: 1000 lawyers, 1000 teachers, 1000 doctors, and 1000 plumbers. I give them a test with simple questions, like “How much do you weigh?” and “When did you lose your virginity?” Unbeknowst to them, they are sitting in chairs hooked up to machinary that can measure the same parameters as a polygraph machine.
After we send the people home home with punch and cookies, we look at that data. We find that 80% of lawyers failed the test (lying on at least half the questions). 50% of the teachers failed, 20% of the doctors failed, and 5% of the plumbers failed.
We are called by Bricker to gauge the credibility of Jack and Jill. This is the info he gives:
Jack is a plumber. Jill is a lawyer.
We calculate the probability of Jill’s claim. Probability-wise, it is more likely that Jill’s claim happened.
But based on our"credibility score" based on their professions, we judge that Jill is more likely to be lying.
What EVER shall we tell Bricker?
We decide we don’t have enough reason to doubt or believe either story. Both events are likely enough, existing within the range of possibility. We also decide a person’s profession is just one facet of their being, one aspect mixed with many others. Since our tests have indicated that men lie more often than women, non-athletes (Jack) lie more than athletes (Jill), and Methodists (Jill) lie more than Baptists (Jack), we have to spend too much time plumbing data to make a predication (and we ain’t getting paid for all this work!) We’d be better off giving them their own credibility tests rather than relying on information gathered at the level of a population.
Better yet…we could just accept that the stories are true–giving both parties the benefit of the doubt–and then have Jill and Jack show us the winnings as evidence. I bet we’re going to find out that BOTH were telling the truth. People don’t really lie over trivial things (like winning $2). Rarely are we forced to compare the likelihood of two totally independent events occurring. It is possible to wait for evidence or proof without making any a priori assumptions.
We have no reason to keep our default settings to “the whore is lying” in the absence of evidence.
[QUOTE=dre2xl]
Bricker, you are looking very, very bad right now. I say this as someone who believes that the victim is probably lying (though, of course, perfectly happy to leave that determination up to the legal system).
When my father just wouldn’t something I couldn’t understand, I’d finally say in frustration “you just won’t get it”. He would always respond that when someone is not understanding, it’s very rarely the fault of that person; rather, it’s the failure of the speaker to communicate enough. That’s what’s happening here, Bricker. You’re doing a piss-poor job of communicating here.
[/QUOTE]
dre2xl, with all due respect to your father, is it not possible (in theory) that the (theorectical) audience is (a) stupid; (b) uneducated, and therefore prone to evaluate statements on emotion, rather than logic; or (c) subject to strongly-held preconceptions or biases, and therefore is unable to comprehend or evaluate a message that is being well-communicated?
Bricker, as you’re well aware, you’re communicating your points effectively. The fact that some here are unable or unwilling to accept them (and instead are attacking you) doesn’t change that. Give it up. They’ll just keep dumping on you for your insensitivity, in refusing to agree that "Human beings are not subject to “statistical odds”, and accept that she’s right because she “has evidence of white-on-black rape in her bloodstream”.
(It’s amazingly stupid that I have to include what follows, as it’s been repeated ad nauseum already: I don’t conclusively assume that anyone is lying based on non-zero probabilities. I don’t think anyone should be convicted based on statistics. There are many, many other bases for evaluating a claim that are more meaningful. Even if the state cited in the other thread is true, which it may not be. But if it is, and if there is no other evidence to evaluate the claim, it has some small (but non-zero) relevance to me, a person who is reading a thread about a newsstory.)
Bricker, I do have one criminal law question for you.
I was not surprised (for the reason you cited) to see your confirmation that a prosecutor would not be allowed to use statistical evidence to show guilt or bolster credibility. How about a defendant, though?
Let’s say that someone is charged with shooting a woman as she steps into her backyard one morning. He’s a complete stranger - has no connection to the victim at all. Street crime is almost unknown in this town. The defense believes that the police have done a shoddy job in investigating other possible offenders, including the victim’s current and ex-boyfriends.
May the defense, as part of its case, offer the statistic that 72.3% (If it’s true - I just made that up) of female murder victims are killed by current or former partners, and then assert that the police failure to investigate that possibility creates reasonable doubt? I know the defense can argue the second part - my question is, can it bolster that argument with statistics?
What if it were 95%?
What if the primary witness for the prosecution was the current partner?
[QUOTE=Random]
Bricker, as you’re well aware, you’re communicating your points effectively. The fact that some here are unable or unwilling to accept them (and instead are attacking you) doesn’t change that. Give it up. They’ll just keep dumping on you for your insensitivity, in refusing to agree that "Human beings are not subject to “statistical odds”, and accept that she’s right because she “has evidence of white-on-black rape in her bloodstream”.
[/QUOTE]
And what of those who are effectively rebutting the argument without attacking Bricker?
On the other hand, everyone needs a good cheerleader now and again! Gimme a B!
[QUOTE=Random]
dre2xl, with all due respect to your father, is it not possible (in theory) that the (theorectical) audience is (a) stupid; (b) uneducated, and therefore prone to evaluate statements on emotion, rather than logic; or (c) subject to strongly-held preconceptions or biases, and therefore is unable to comprehend or evaluate a message that is being well-communicated?
[/quote]
(a) doesn’t apply here. (b) and (c) means you have to change your method of communication. I have been able to have some great discussions on advanced computer science topics with my father, a technophobe.
Either way, one person might be stupid. But a whole audience ain’t.
[QUOTE=Random]
They’ll just keep dumping on you for your insensitivity, in refusing to agree that "Human beings are not subject to “statistical odds” […]
[/quote]
So since this claim about humans and statistical odds is so ridiculous, surely you’ll demonstrate why. Right? Otherwise, it looks like you are just sticking your head in here and squawking gibberish.
Oh, that’s the look you’re going for?
Okay. Carry on.
[QUOTE=Random]
They’ll just keep dumping on you for your insensitivity, in refusing to agree that "Human beings are not subject to “statistical odds”, and accept that she’s right because she “has evidence of white-on-black rape in her bloodstream”.
[/QUOTE]
I just posted a link that showed for any given rape North Carolina, in the last year that statistics are available, the odds of it being a white rapist with a black victim are about the same as hitting a picked number in roulette, getting 2 sixes in a row with a standard die, or flipping heads 5 times in a row with a coin. Prior to responding to the post you made 10 minutes ago, I flipped a coin for a few minutes and actually got 6 heads in a row. So in this case, no, the odds do absolutely nothing to discount her credibility. She might be lying, and she might be telling the truth, but the odds themselves neither give credence, nor take away from it in this case.
[QUOTE=dre2xl]
Either way, one person might be stupid. But a whole audience ain’t.
[/QUOTE]
Have you read the LW thread, dre2xl?
I understand perfectly what you are saying, and maybe I would have agreed with you more than a month ago. But it’s clear that an audience can be stupid if they have their mind stuck that way.
Of course, you never know who your entire audience is because there are lurkers who don’t show themselves. But still. Bias is a bitch and once it poisons the higher thinking centers, it makes someone very difficult to reason with.
Just rolled 2 sixes in a row.
Did it again! That’s incredible!
Okay, not really incredible at all. Neither is white on black rape in North Carolina.
Random I’ll ask you. If there’s no other evidence (which isn’t the case in this case) and you have X%, does it matter what’s needs to be in place for X% to be true?
Another scenario:
Bricker, as a lawyer, is representing a CEO who’s accused of embezzling money. The CEO is a white guy. Bricker is aware of stats which show 98% of people charged with embezzlement are white CEOs.
During jury selection, Bricker asks one of the potential jury members how he feels about white-collar crime. The potential jury member responds by saying he read a piece in “Time” magazine which cited the statistic referenced above. He thought the article was insightful and rich with interesting facts.
Will Bricker strike this person from the jury? Or will he keep him?
Inquiring minds want to know.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
So since this claim about humans and statistical odds is so ridiculous, surely you’ll demonstrate why. Right? Otherwise, it looks like you are just sticking your head in here and squawking gibberish.
Oh, that’s the look you’re going for?
Okay. Carry on.
[/QUOTE]
The insults make your arguments ever so much effective. Keep it up!
Are you familiar with the term “actuary”? There’s a whole industry based upon predicting human outomes. Some of it even involves predicting behavior. A 17-year old unmarried male is more likely to engage in drag racing and drunken driving than a 40 year old married woman. So he pays higher insuance rates.
“Human beings are not subject to statistical odds”? Please.
QUOTE=DMC]I just posted a link that showed for any given rape North Carolina, in the last year that statistics are available, the odds of it being a white rapist with a black victim are about the same as hitting a picked number in roulette, getting 2 sixes in a row with a standard die, or flipping heads 5 times in a row with a coin. Prior to responding to the post you made 10 minutes ago, I flipped a coin for a few minutes and actually got 6 heads in a row. So in this case, no, the odds do absolutely nothing to discount her credibility. She might be lying, and she might be telling the truth, but the odds themselves neither give credence, nor take away from it in this case.
[/QUOTE]
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. More on this later.
I do agree that if your statistic is accurate, and Huerta’s is not, the predictive value is lessened. That’s because, using your stat, the event in question is more common
Your experiment doesn’t increase either your credibility or the likelihood of the event, though. I put it that way, because I’m not sure exactly what you are claiming.
Possibility A: You are saying that your experiment shows that I am just as likely to succeed in an attempt get 6 heads outcomes as I am to fail in that attempt. (I hope you are not saying that, because it would be moronic. But if so, let’s play poker sometime.)
Possibility B: You are saying that your experiment shows that statistically unlikely events aren’t impossible. If so, I agree. (That doesn’t mean the statistic is valueless as a predictor, though.)
Possibility C: You are saying that your experiment shows that I cannot use statistics to evaluate the truth of your claim to have successfully obtained an unlikely outcome. If so, I disagree. Nothing can be proven, certainly. But in the absence of other evidence, a claimed event that is unlikely is less believable. (If you tell me you saw an animal walk down your city street today, my willingness to believe you is very high if the claimed animal was a dog, lessened (very slightly) if you say it was a Great Dane, reduced more if you claim it was a horse, further diminished if you say it was a gorilla, near-zero if you claim it was a white rhino, and zero if if say it was a unicorn.) Why is this so foreign to some of you?