Oh, wow! One racist patting another on the back for #owning those libs! What a shocker.
Incidentally, while looking at that thread, the one belittling iiandyiii declared that experts in statistics will laugh at the Pro-Publica article, only to have Buck Godot (statistics PhD) come to defend iiandyiii and the article.
Umm, did you mean to reply to me?
They have all those wide open spaces, though, plus plenty of poor Whites in trailer parks, and also that partly-mythologized history of “Wagons West!”, so I wouldn’t expect them to react the same, no.
I don’t find it hard to believe, I was just surprised. I know little about racial divides in Nigeria, and nothing about those in Cambodia, but Canada and the USA are in general a lot more similar to the UK than those two countries.
Yep. I remember that. And at one point, IIRC, @damuriajashi triumphantly quoted/cited his own words, as if they were the argument clincher. Somehow he’d forgotten that they were his own words and he thought it was someone else supporting his argument, even though it was only a few posts before.
True.
Now that I think of it, there is one group of nomads that Americans fear, mistrust and despise - Carnies. They’re not really an ethnic group, though.
Yes, and the statistics phd reassessed after I pointed out that there were actually peer reviewed studies so we didn’t have to rely on the back of the envelope calculations by pro-publica. I don’t know if you knew this but just posted this anyway or you were so eager to take a stab at me that you didn’t look further.
"Well, I guess I should say that after the two studies, the calculation didn’t need to be made. It was fine to throw numbers around and stab in the dark before we had any real facts.
Yes, there is a difference if you ignore all other variables. Hell you don’t need to cherry pick the data to see statistically significant differences. The confidence interval is even better when you look at ALL the data. Peer reviewed studies saw these differences and they say that the difference is basically illusory. When comparing like to like, there is no difference between blacks and whites."
For someone who complains about me engaging in “point scoring” (I pointed out the bad math you adopted in when you claimed that police in the USA killed 14000 times as many people as police in the UK), you seem to be engaging in point scoring based on a stupid but innocent mistake I admit to making. It should be noted that when I point out your bad math, you just give yourself a pass and don’t even bother to admit your error.
You still have trouble accepting peer reviewed studies over back of the envelope calculations by pro-publica. All the way to the end, you lean on back of the envelope calculations of a tiny subset of data to counter the evidence of a peer reviewed study. You are placing your ideology ahead of science and in this ideologically driven forum, that makes you popular but still wrong.
And I did, Buck pointed that there were more studies and also said that while more studies are needed, your conclusion that it was bullshit was not granted.
[quote=“Buck_Godot, post:288, topic:821332”]
Its possible, but I see no reason that it is necessarily so and even if it was its not enough to fully explain their results.
Well, I guess I should say that after the two studies, the calculation didn’t need to be made. It was fine to throw numbers around and stab in the dark before we had any real facts.
Yes, there is a difference if you ignore all other variables. Hell you don’t need to cherry pick the data to see statistically significant differences. The confidence interval is even better when you look at ALL the data. Peer reviewed studies saw these differences and they say that the difference is basically illusory. When comparing like to like, there is no difference between blacks and whites.
And that, really does say that while not very formal, other studies are coming with similar results. what this tell me once again is that more studies are needed, not to just come out and declare them bullshit.
No need to rehash that silliness in this thread to. Suffice to say, I trust a professional in statistics more than @damuriajashi.
I guess it’s not too much of a surprise, then, that he doesn’t grasp the difference between a mean and a median or how average is most commonly used to apply to the former, and how when one means the latter, one should just straight up say the latter rather than introduce ambiguity. Unless, of course, on wants to be a disingenuous fucktard and play the “Gotcha!” game with the first person to wander in and question their meaning.
Probably also helps to explain how he managed to become so entrenched in “scientific” racism. It’s the same shitty arguments relying on cherry-picked data and mere coincidence and correlation going round and round the toilet bowl. There are really no fresh/original arguments, and so when someone who endorses that kind of crap sees an argument that they agree with–looks like exactly the sort of thing they’d say–they may not be well-primed to realize that’s because they really are the one who said it.
Except that professional statistician reassessed after being presented with peer reviewed research. I understand why you would want to ignore everything that happened after Buck supported your position but that wasn’t the end of the story.
What happened was that you continued to misunderstand and misrepresent what Buck said, because it didn’t match your preconceived notions. And there’s no need to rehash it here (if you really want to discuss it more, that thread is still open – do it there); I only brought up that thread because of the comical “most dangerous poster” thing that still gives me a giggle.
Also, lest we forget, he does have his own Pit thread that dates to around the same period of time as that thread:
I’d say you made a good choice of avatar.
Wow, I didn’t think you’d be stupid enough to point out your own errors and then make those same errors again.
Here is the post where you fail to recognize median as a form of average (or perhaps you are simply conflating average and mean but in either event it was a stupid mistake that you can’t seem to admit to, a character flaw that you and iiandyii seem to share):
I continue to consider lies wrapped in pretty packaging to be dangerous. Sweet lies are far more dangerous than bitter ones.
I will have to agree here with iiandyiii, because in that previous thread he did report also that the number could be smaller when taking into account other studies. And more recent ones do agree with the overall point, Blacks and other minorities are more in danger when police enters the picture.
And more studies have come too, science does not stop just because you say so.
Findings from a new study by Harvard researchers underscore the concerns of protesters calling for racial justice and an end to police violence.
Black people are three times more likely on average than white people to be killed during police contact, and the rate varies widely by geographic location, according to peer-reviewed research published this week in the journal PLOS One. The authors, Gabriel Schwartz and Jaquelyn Jahn of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, examined racial and ethnic inequities in fatal police violence across 382 U.S. metropolitan statistical areas between 2013 and 2017.
The ratios comparing Black and white incidence rates of fatal police encounters were “markedly high” and “nearly all statistically significant,” the authors wrote: The Chicago metro area had the largest racial inequity in police killings, with Black people 6.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people. These ratios were also high in the metropolitan areas of San Francisco; New York; St. Louis, Mo., Columbus, Ohio; Milwaukee, Wis.; Trenton, N.J.; Asheville, N.C.; Dayton, Ohio; and Reno, Nev., ranging from 4.3 to 5.9 times more likely.
The study, published in the midst of widespread unrest and course correction on racial inequality in the U.S., adds to a body of literature showing significant racial disparities in policing. One 2019 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, concluded that “young men of color face exceptionally high risk of being killed by police.”