I don’t care how credible a person is, if they claimed to hit the jackpot playing Keno, I would call bullshit, based on nothing but statistical likelihood.
And I’d be right.
Don’t know. I’ll let you know when I see someone doing that.
I won’t speak for Bricker, but for some of us, it’s good to find out that not everyone is immune to logic.
Hey, you try fighting ignorance for more than a month and see how compassionate and gentle you are with folks who put forth arguments like this…
Can you imagine any credible actuary saying something like “The statistical odds that a 17-year old unmarried male will drag race is 1 to 100”. Of course not! The most they can do is take population data for a variety of risk behaviors, subcategorized by different demographic groups and use those numbers to assess risk for those demographic groups.
Groups, not individuals.
A statement such as “17-year old unmarried men are X% more likely to engage in Y behavor than any other group” DOES NOT mean that all 17-year old unmarried men are X% likely to do Y. Afterall, a 17-year old unmarried man who happens to be a quadraplegic is going to have a difficult time doing stuff like drag racing, for instance. Yet taking a look at the actuary’s data won’t tell you this. At some point you have to use your brain, not a bunch of numbers.
The whole notion of trying to predict a person’s behavior based on “statistical odds” is absurd on its face. We choose our own behaviors, not probability.
Good luck convincing that congregation of fundamentalist Baptists that the earth has been here for billions of years. After that, there’s a Klan meeting that needs to learn that there’s no genetic link between race and intelligence.
Can you rephrase this? I don’t follow.
It’s hard to skim that many pages, but what I saw: huerta88 is an idiot, an asshole, and if not maliciously racist, then very racially insensitive.
However, and do not take this personally, I think just about every poster towards the end had a lot of time keeping focus. Most everyone spun off on their own little tangent. Shodan is babbling. John Mace is being hypersensitive to whether you think the victim’s more honest because she’s black. I don’t even get why huerta88 thinks the particular statistics are relevant to the case.
I could be wrong, but I don’t see anyone defending huerta88’s crap as much as nitpicking at your and monstro’s rebuttals to his posts, following the typical Internet “if this little point collapses then my entire position collapses, so I won’t concede anything” mentality. What makes them so egregious is that they are refusing to condemn a person who you (and I) perceive as indefensible, but they obviously don’t see the sensitivity in it.
What are the odds that you’ll be right? I’m betting I’ll flip 10 heads in a row before that happens.
I posted the stats. Feel free to tell me what you feel is wrong. A white man raped a black woman approximately 1 time every single week in the year of 2004 in North Carolina. This is not some freak occurrence.
It’s not supposed to increase the credibility. It’s simply to demonstrate that without any other evidence, the frequency of a white man raping a black woman in North Carolina is frequent enough that it doesn’t have any bearing on the credibility of the claimant.
I didn’t say that. I simply stated the facts that white men rape black women often enough in North Carolina that one shouldn’t be surprised when it happens again.
No, I’m showing that the event isn’t statistically unlikely at all.
But it’s not unlikely at all, as the statistics show.
Because a black woman is raped every single week by a white man in North Carolina. I haven’t seen a Great Dane walk down my street this week.
Once again, in case you haven’t gotten it. It’s not an anomaly. This shit happens every single fucking week. If it happens next week, no one will be surprised. When it happens the week after that, still no surprise. When it happens 50 times this year, it still won’t be a shock. It will be normal. Why is this so foreign to you?
No, that’s not what they do. If I am an individual 17-year-old, and tell my State Farminsurance agent “I’m an individual! And human! Those actuarial stats say nothing about me! Don’t charge me more for car insurance!”, will he respond: (a) “Damn, you’re right! Here’s a policy at 40 year old married woman rates.”;
(b) “Hahaha! Very funny! Wait, you weren’t serious, were you?”
© “No.”
Sigh. No, the statistics do not conclusively prove anything as to any specific individual. That’s been said, what, 150 times? But the stat does correctly predict that a random 17-year-old is a poorer risk than the average driver, even if he swears he’ll never break the speed limit.
At some point, you need to use logic and the available predictive evidence rather than preconceived ideas about what you wish the world was like.
“I’m not a number! I’m a free man!” Gosh, wouldn’t it be nice if people weren’t affected by their biology, upbringing, education, or social pressure?
Sure. Let’s use this case, as we’re all familiar with it.
You have a stat that says, that white men raping black women is rare.
The question is why is it rare? Is it rare because white men don’t find black women “attractive” enough to rape? Well that doesn’t make sense.
So then what’s the next logical step? There must be something separating the two. I don’t think it’s a big leap to realize that the reason interracial rape is “rare” is because we still live in a segregrated society to some extent.
Which brings us to this case. We have a black woman who is no longer segregated from white men. You have a woman who is in an environment which we know ‘aids’ in the mindset the allows for a group rape to occur. Booze, sexual tension, egging on, a profession that leads to objectification. Yes?
So if the main reason why interracial rape rarely occurs isn’t because of some inbred dislike of sex with black women, but simply because there’s not enough interaction between the two, doesn’t it make sense when you’re concerned about if there’s no other evidence, to consider the reason why the stat is what it is?
So if X% corresponds to lack of contact, and in this case there is contact, then doesn’t X% lose it’s value? In other words, why should this stat, be of any value at all, when there are so many stats that are better?
The question again is why is the interracial rape “rare”?
I hope that made sense.
As monstro pointed out, you guys are conflating the probability of random events with numerical summaries of reported information. Two vastly different things.
If I flip a coin one million times, I can mathematically derive my expected outcome and know it before I even perform the experiment. If I get a result that deviates signficantly from this outcome, then we aren’t talking about something just being unlikely anymore. We are talking about something falling into the realm of the supernatural. I should hope that anyone who confronts claims of the supernatural would be a bit incredulous, not because of statistical rarity, but because its freaking supernatural.
If I am mugged in broad daylight on the corner of 10th and Main Street, crime statistics may tell me this was a rare occurence. After all, how many people have been mugged in broad daylight on the same exact spot where I stood on 10th and Main Streett? Probably not that many. But according to the stats, this doesn’t happen much. Is it rare, then? Sure. Unlikely? No.
There’s nothing implausible about being mugged. So what if its during the day? So what if that particular type of crime had never occured at that location before? Just because it qualifies as a rare event, it does not make it unlikely!
In order to say something is unlikely, the determinant factors for the outcome have to be blantantly absent. A claim that I was mugged by a man who was 10 miles away at the time is implausible, because the major determinate (proximity) is absent. Not because of “statistical odds”. But because there is no way the crime could have occured if the assailant was no where near the victim!!
It’s foreign to us because its irrational. You’re method of assigning “rarity” is flawed because you think statistical probability and is the same thing as statistical information. It is not.
…huh. I meant to say Jill. But as I had no knowledge of the game of roulette, how would I know the odds?
…so seriously: whats your problem with you with the face’s arguement, which began in post 162ish of the other thread?
In order, by sentence: (a) You and I are not using the word “unlikely” in the same way. You appear to be equating “unlikely” and “rare”. If I attempt to roll a 3 on a 6-sided die, my success (on one attempt) is unlikely, but not rare.
(b) I expect that this is true. Doesn’t mean that it isn’t an unlikely event.
(c) I expect that this is true as well. (I haven’t either) But I haven’t seen any rapes at all this week, no matter what the racial component. I’m sorry, that may look as if I am trying to be offensive, or insensitive. I’m not. My point is, you seem to accept the point that walks by Great Danes are rarer than walks by dogs in general. You may even be accepting the point that a claim by someone that he saw a Great Dane walking today is slightly less believable that a claim that he saw a dog. Yet I’m absolutely sure that there were several dozens of Great Danes walked in my city yesterday. Probably hundreds of people here saw a Great Dane walking. Still, I’d be (slightly) less believing of such a claim.
(d) Anomaly? How are you using that term? Impossible? Very rare? Unlikely? Anything expected less that 50%? of the time?
(e) Already answered this one. It’s just a repitition of the same thing you said in (b)
(f)-(end) And Great Danes and horses will walk the streets of Chicago tomorrow. Still, it’s unlikely that I will see either one. (Hell, it’s just about certain that, somewhere in this city, both deer and coyotes are taking a stroll right now. Doubt I’ll catch a glimpse, though.) Do you accept that a claim that I saw a horse is less credible than my claim that I saw a dog? If so, why? It could have happened. What if I claim a deer? My point is, it’s a continuum, not a yes/no analysis. All claims are not equally credible until we reach some magic level of extreme rarity.
It did, thanks.
I agree that the predictive value of the stat is subject to challenge. All of the reasons that you list could lessen, or even eliminate, its utility. I have no problem with this kind of argument.
I do object to those who automatically reject the idea that such evidence could possibly have even slight predictive value, because it offends them, or because the hate even the suggestion that there may be some correlation, or it doesn’t fit their preconceived ideas about human free will, or equality, or something.
Random, your arguments are complete and utter bullshit in relation to the question at hand. It was posited that the event was so rare that it affected the credibility of the claimant. I showed that to not be the case.
If someone tells you that they rolled 2 3s in a row, are you not going to believe them? Hell, I did it twice just messing around while reading a few posts in this thread. If someone said they saw a Great Dane walking down the street, my response will be “And?”. It’s not the fucking second coming, and it’s not invisible pink unicorns being ridden by a midget albino Bigfoot with leprechaun-enchanted alien probes sticking out of his flying-pig spewing anus. A black woman in North Carolina is more likely to be raped by a white man than be killed by an assualt with a gun. If I hear a report that a black woman was killed by an assault with a gun, I don’t question it. It happens. Less frequently than they get raped by white men, but often enough that it’s not surprising.
Hell, Bricker hasn’t shown up yet, but when he does, I’ll bet he’ll acknowledge that the frequency is high enough that it shouldn’t have any bearing on her credibility by itself. I guess you can try your unicorn arguments on him then.
ever heard the phrase “corelation does not equal causation”? the fact that two data points (racial identification and rape convictions) share corelation does not imply that one causes the other.
in the case of human interactions there are any number of factors, some of which are tracked, others are not. it is absurd to decide that a particular data point of correlation has some predictive quality. and that was done here.
You mean the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy?
No, never heard of it.
So suggest alternative reasons for the statistical result. Or cite a better study that shows that it is flawed. That I’ll listen to.
Dismissive hand-waving and general platitudes, I won’t.
I’ll take that bet.
Last one. I thought I was done, but this one was too good to ignore.
Already answered this part with my two insurance posts.
Really? Past statistics have no value to you? I know you claim to be a scientist of some kind, but this is … surprising. (Well, maybe it’s not. But that’s even worse.)
No one’s saying that field observations – actual fish counts – aren’t the correct way for you to do your job. But statistically rare results have no effect on you? Not even for confirmation retest purposes?
Let’s say you’re the newly appointed head of the Florida Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Division. You supervise two biologists who are responsible for evaluating levels of Toola fly larvae in ponds. One covers the north part of the state. The other, the south. Your budget doesn’t cover all the pond Toola fly testing you’d like to do, so only 1/4 of the state’s ponds get tested each year.
Toola flies are extremely common in South Florida. In fact, every pond will have a substantial population, unless the pond is very heavily polluted. 20 years of historical statistics reveal that 97% of ponds here have had live Toola larvae levels of between 68 and 246 larva per unit sampled. Annual variance in this numbers has been minimal
In the North, the flies are far less common. Climate & soil acidity make the difference. Some ponds have no Toola fly larva. Still, 80% of ponds have some measurable level.
The Toola fly larva testing protocol is not simple. It has to be carefully done, and takes time. All in all, each test costs the state $1000. If done correctly, the test is 99% accurate. However, studies show that human error (carelessness, failure to know test protocols, or deliberate skipping of an essential step) actually reduce the overall accuracy of the test to 95%.
Biologist North comes back with 50 tests. 38 show larvae, and the distribution of the positives is close to historical records. You question her, and she tells you that she carefully followed test protocols.
Biologist South comes back with 50 tests. 43 show larvae, Of these, 10 show live larvae levels below 30. You question him, and he tells you that he carefully followed test protocols.
You’ve got an extra day in your schedule to restest 10 ponds in one region. Do you drive north or south? Is it because you find one report more credible?
Or do you say, animal (and human) behavior can in no way be predicted by statistics, and file away both reports?
Last one. I thought I was done, but this one was too good to ignore.
Already answered this part with my two insurance posts.
Really? Past statistics have no value to you? I know you claim to be a scientist of some kind, but this is … surprising. (Well, maybe it’s not. But that’s even worse.)
No one’s saying that field observations – actual fish counts – aren’t the correct way for you to do your job. But statistically rare results have no effect on you? Not even for confirmation retest purposes?
Let’s say you’re the newly appointed head of the Florida Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Division. You supervise two biologists who are responsible for evaluating levels of Toola fly larvae in ponds. One covers the north part of the state. The other, the south. Your budget doesn’t cover all the pond Toola fly testing you’d like to do, so only 1/4 of the state’s ponds get tested each year.
Toola flies are extremely common in South Florida. In fact, every pond will have a substantial population, unless the pond is very heavily polluted. 20 years of historical statistics reveal that 97% of ponds here have had live Toola larvae levels of between 68 and 246 larva per unit sampled. Annual variance in this numbers has been minimal
In the North, the flies are far less common. Climate & soil acidity make the difference. Some ponds have no Toola fly larva. Still, 80% of ponds have some measurable level.
The Toola fly larva testing protocol is not simple. It has to be carefully done, and takes time. All in all, each test costs the state $1000. If done correctly, the test is 99% accurate. However, studies show that human error (carelessness, failure to know test protocols, or deliberate skipping of an essential step) actually reduce the overall accuracy of the test to 95%.
Biologist North comes back with 50 tests. 36 show larvae, and the distribution of the positives is close to historical records. You question her, and she tells you that she carefully followed test protocols.
Biologist South comes back with 50 tests. 43 show larvae, Of these, 10 show live larvae levels below 30. You question him, and he tells you that he carefully followed test protocols.
You’ve got an extra day in your schedule to restest 10 ponds in one region. Do you drive north or south? Is it because you find one report more credible?
Or do you say, animal (and human) behavior can in no way be predicted by statistics, and file away both reports?
Dopers sometimes ask if posts or threads ever change other Dopers’ minds. This thread and the LW thread have changed mine. We haven’t come nearly as far as I thought we had in the 1980’s when I retired from teaching. Either that or we’ve regressed. Does the bigotry and blindness still come from all over the country or are all of these assholes fellow Southerners?
You and monstro make such a difference to me.
monstro, old friend, sometimes the revolution is within and sometimes it’s not. I wish I had your gift of words. I am with you 100%.
Ensign Edison, you are always, always so right on!
Bricker, I had no idea you could be like this. It is a a bitter pill to swallow. I feel like I don’t know you at all – you or Shodan. Thank goodness that John Mace has kept his focus.
I’m so damned medicated that I can’t argue the issues anymore. But I recognize what’s cold and analytical as opposed to what’s compassionate and decent – and I want to make sure that people know where I stand.
I don’t want to throw too many handfuls of Rice Krispies to the fish, so I may be in and out of this thread. It seems to have turned into “LW Part Deux” anyway.
I wish you all peace, but not at the cost of basic human decency.