Buck and I have derived the underlying numbers upon which all three graphs are based, and in post #37 I have back-checked to show how those figures are consistent with chart 1 (58%) chart 2 (20%) and chart 3 (64%).
I’m really not sure how we can explain it any more clearly, but if you’re no longer interested, bye bye.
That 73% number is the most shocking to me. I thought everyone was in more danger from people close to them. Who are all these people who go around killing people they don’t know?
I’m not contesting that point. I’m concerned about the overall figures.
Then, overall, as stated, of the set of people who were killed by partners or family members, women outnumber men. Stated as a percentage or raw numbers, it’s the same thing. If in a dataset of homicides, there were 100 that were committed by a partner or family member, 64 of the victims would be women, and 36 would be men.
Homicides occurring in other crimes - e.g. muggings, assaults, robbery; homicides connected with substance abuse and/or fights; gang killings. I suspect “stranger” here is shorthand for “anyne who isn’t a member of your immediate family”.
The exact wording in the U.N. report is “intimate partner or family member”. So stranger would be anyone else, yes.
This is global, remember, and it will be disproportionately weighted toward lawless places where overall murder rates are high. I can’t find that broken out by country in the report, but I suspect in First World countries a smaller proportion of murders are committed by strangers.
So, are you saying it’s merely a good habit?
BTW, I didn’t come into this thread to ask “who cares”. I got frustrated by my inability to make the numbers say what I wanted them to and by Riemann’s futzing with minute changes to his (and your) numbers when the numbers you guys based them on were only estimates to begin with.
The fact that you don’t have the high school level math required to manipulate simple marginal/conditional probabilities does not mean that the numbers were “only estimates”.
See, if I came into a thread and claimed that I had the right answer and it turned out I was wrong, I would probably say something like this:
Oh, I see where I went wrong. You guys are right. My bad.
…instead of refusing to admit my error and then threadshitting with something like this:
This thread isn’t even really a discussion of the whole article, it’s about one part of it. And, it’s not just that over half of all women murdered are killed by a partner or relative, it’s more than half of all people who are murdered by a partner or relative are women. That’s really worse, since women only make up 20% of the total number of people murdered but 64% of people murdered by partners, etc.
No, of course not, but my lack of math skills has no bearing on my reading skills, and the article clearly stated the figures being used were estimates.
The problem with that is I’m not convinced you’re right. As Riemann pointed out, I don’t have the high school level math skills to determine that. So, until I’m sure I made an error, I won’t admit to one.
You’re right. My bad.
The raw data are statistical estimates from national crime data, of course. But the manipulation of the given data to work out the implied matrix of probabilities as laid out in post #37 is simple math, not estimation.
Your incorrect calculation (post #32) of the proportion of all murders where the perpetrator is a stranger and the victim is male was 28.8%, when the correct figure implied by the stated data is 6.5%. It seems that understanding how to do the math correctly is rather important, even when the primary data are “only estimates”, don’t you think?
That’s not what I said, but now that you mention it, it doesn’t matter if the math isn’t estimation. When you start with estimates, you can only arrive at estimates.
What I said was changing a number from 9.4% to 8.4% is trivial, especially considering you are only working with estimates. If you can tell me that using 9.4% would have changed your conclusion that more women were killed by those close to them, then I will withdraw my conclusion that it’s trivial. I’ll even throw in a “You’re right. My bad”
Yes, it does seem important, but haven’t you already made this point elsewhere? More than once? If you want to ridicule me, at least be creative about it.
It’s incredibly unproductive for you that you are persisting in trying to find little things to criticize in the methods of those who can do the math. Rather than trying to “score points” in an area where you have less expertise than others, why not try to learn something instead?
I made the minor correction of Buck’s typo because without the correction the four probabilities would not sum to 100%; and because without the correction, the calculations I did in post #37 to double check and show that the matrix of probabilities are consistent with the data shown in charts 1, 2 and 3 would not have worked, everything would have been off slightly.
Even with simple calculations like this it’s a good idea to do checks like this to be sure that you haven’t made a mistake. If the calculations are correct everything should tally exactly. If they don’t, and you can’t see where the mistake is, you don’t know if the mistake is significant.
So long as you keep coming back with ignorant but belligerent comments, and so long as I’m not busy with something else, you can expect pushback.
If at some point you want to show some maturity and use the board as a resource to learn something, you will find that there are many of knowledgable people here in a wide diversity of fields.
I have learned from this. I checked out your math with others, and yes, you’re conclusion is correct. My bad. I’ve also learned that I should read carefully and have my ducks in a row before jumping into a discussion. Again, my bad.
I guess this is as close as you can get to admitting that your pedantic tweaking of numbers made not a whit of difference to the point you had already made.
The comment you quoted was neither ignorant nor belligerent. I merely pointed out that you kept harping on my poor math skills to the point of tedium, which is something you still continue to do. I had already admitted that my knowledge in this area was lacking, so there was, and is, no good reason to continue.
I think your comment preceding this clearly shows your continuing lack of maturity in this discussion, so at the very best, you’re just the pot calling the kettle black.
Perhaps. But sometimes I’ve found I can learn more by jumping into a discussion early and stating a position that’s not fully thought out, because that may be a quicker way to discover things I had not considered. The way an adult discussion of a more technical issue like this works is with a certain amount of back and forth and discussion, in which even experienced specialists in a field may realize they have missed something or made a mistake, and through which we eventually reach a consensus on what’s correct.
The thing you need to adjust is your immature attitude: your petulant responses, shifting to “who cares” and “only estimates to begin with” when you realized that your calculation was wrong.
I took the time to explain to you that the reason to get the numbers to tally exactly in the calculation was to facilitate an error check. But you ignore the explanation, and come back with another petulant response.
I don’t believe I have to adjust my attitude anymore than you do. Shifting to “who cares” was an attempt to stop you from prattling on about trivial stuff that didn’t matter when I sincerely believed it was irrelevant to the point of this thread. I have since realized, and conceded the fact, that I misinterpreted that point, and yet, you keep harping on the same sort of stuff in a condescending manner. And mentioning your results are only estimates still seems relevant in discussing your pedantry.
I understand that you felt the need to be fussy about your numbers. I have a perfectionist streak also. What I don’t understand was your need to demonstrate this fussiness to everyone when it did nothing to bolster your position or contribute meaningfully to this thread.
It’s obvious to me (and probably lots of others) that, based on our exchanges, we are both sometimes assholes, so I’m willing to stop whenever you are.
Since you and others kept repeating the same errors without accepting that Buck & I had interpreted the data correctly, the purpose of my post #37 was to lay out clearly how the probability matrix that we calculated was consistent with all the data presented in the article in charts 1, 2 and 3.
To call my post #37 “pedantic tweaking” or “fussiness” that “did nothing…to contribute meaningfully” is once again pathetic and inappropriate petulance when in the very next post (#38) you showed that you were indeed still very confused on this exact issue:
Yes, I can be an asshole sometimes. But I try not to act like an asshole when somebody is trying to explain something that I don’t understand.
I think it would be really cool if Quartz came back in and stated that he now understands that his numbers and his initial take on the BBC article were wrong.
To answer the question asked in the the thread title, yes.
???