This thread is the ultimate troll job. Bravo lead belly. This is a work of art...
Last edited:
He'll always have and had the same immovable position, no matter the evidence, argument or reality to the contrary.
Doesn't matter, trolling or not, people believe these misguided lies and it costs lives, generates profit, monetarily and otherwise.
You are being manipulated.
Doesn't matter, trolling or not, people believe these misguided lies and it costs lives, generates profit, monetarily and otherwise.
You are being manipulated.
Last edited:
When less than than .01 of 1% of the US cities are experiencing this kind of turmoil, I think it's you who is manipulated into the mass hysteria that the US is on fire or under chaos. There is just no truth to that narrative. A certain political ideology wanted to gain your vote and targeted people, like yourself, that lack the knowledge and education to breakdown the reality into what it actually is. You are just another victim of the gaslighting and fear-mongering. Fortunately, it doesn't appear to be working to the level they aspired to.
Last edited:
I had to skim through the paper just to verify my suspicions and they were correct. All you did was mimic his own commentary about the data in his paper. I wouldn't call that a critique. I doubt you have the statistical background to truly provide insight into the validity and shortcomings of what he is doing.
I gave you my analysis. I can't help it if you weren't prepared to handle that.
I gave you a pretty logical explanation of a few pluses and minuses. I don't know what else you wan't. If you researched into it, you will see he is pretty qualified and well-respected. Many of his peers seem supportive of his reasarch and conclusions. And he hasn't been suspended by his research institution for immoral behavior.
Last edited:
It appears it was. What would you say your original point was?
this explains everything happening right now in america, it also explains why people today are defending marxist values and ideologies. If you need proof that this is real look at some of the posters in this thread.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the lie, distorted reality is that it was successfully exported.
Anyone who has spent time in Britain knows that what this lady says is 100% true and actual reality, no speculation required or jumping to conclusions necessary... you (who might read this and buy the lies) should know it about your country if you can successfully pull the wool from your eyes.
Anyone who has spent time in Britain knows that what this lady says is 100% true and actual reality, no speculation required or jumping to conclusions necessary... you (who might read this and buy the lies) should know it about your country if you can successfully pull the wool from your eyes.
No point in commenting. They know they have no position and are just trolling.
The original point was that someone who does not have a strong math and statistics background can't really evaluate whether or not a study has fatal flaws. In other words, there are studies that contradict each other. I'm not going to read each of them and try to determine which study is better because, while I work with numbers every day, I'm not an expert in statistical modeling and can't do an adequate job of determining the quality of someone's study. That would be true of the vast majority of people, including you.
I agree! I think you likely aren't qualified to and wouldn't have an adequate understanding of the data or modeling to be able to reach any reasonable conclusion. That, however, does not make it true of others.
I think you might lose your argument when you state we can't compare the US to other countries, and the follow that up with a tweet about BLM in Europe/UK. Particularly when the video even highlights the difference in police forces between the 2.
It makes it true of anyone who doesn't have a strong background in statistical modeling, which is the vast majority of people. From our conversation, it is clear you don't have the math skills to evaluate such studies. That's why I ask for your critique. It was clear from your answer that you didn't evaluate the modeling from someone with a math background. You simply read the paper and tried to reword and embellish some of the comments the author made. I do a little statistical modeling, but it is very basic stuff. My math skills are stronger than most people's, but I wouldn't feel qualified to judge the validity of sophisticated modeling techniques, and the vast majority of people aren't qualified to judge that either. That's why it is important to be able to think for yourself. Studies like those can be biased and performed to get the answer they want. It would be hard for a lay person to tell the difference between a study designed to get a specific answer and a well designed study trying to find the truth.
It's easier to see the logical errors that they always have. They presume race causal when they would be better served to look at all the factors involved in the type of interactions, like demeanor of citizen.
When those factors are properly accounted for, the rate and disproportionate and other tricks all disappear, and even the anthropologists or other publish or perish lesser academics know this.
But you will never see the weak and misleading argument made by a hard scientist, not one with a reputation of objectivity and competence to maintain. You'll only ever see it as mentioned before, made by journalists, artists and athletes, or those educated in non-scientific fields, or in soft sciences with an agenda to push.
That doesn't mean there aren't racist cops and racist incidents, it means it's not the primary problem with police brutality until you can prove it by falsifying the null hypothesis, which no competent statistical analysis has ever accomplished.
When those factors are properly accounted for, the rate and disproportionate and other tricks all disappear, and even the anthropologists or other publish or perish lesser academics know this.
But you will never see the weak and misleading argument made by a hard scientist, not one with a reputation of objectivity and competence to maintain. You'll only ever see it as mentioned before, made by journalists, artists and athletes, or those educated in non-scientific fields, or in soft sciences with an agenda to push.
That doesn't mean there aren't racist cops and racist incidents, it means it's not the primary problem with police brutality until you can prove it by falsifying the null hypothesis, which no competent statistical analysis has ever accomplished.
"British police perhaps the most demilitarized police in western society..."
seems like that should be super relevant here. You all even ever think to check any of your sources?
seems like that should be super relevant here. You all even ever think to check any of your sources?
I agree with demilitarizing the police, that's the problem, not race.
Our police force is too excessive because our crime is too excessive.
Also, European countries have actual military police, not just dudes with batons, guarding places of public interest. Something you never see here unless you are going to DC maybe or on to a military base or the like.
Our police force is too excessive because our crime is too excessive.
Also, European countries have actual military police, not just dudes with batons, guarding places of public interest. Something you never see here unless you are going to DC maybe or on to a military base or the like.
You simply stating conjecture doesn't make it true. I think it's far more evident you got an answer you didn't expect and could to refute, so the ad hominem fallacy has been utilized in an effort to negate that.
I think I will trust the wide array of experts that agree with his assessment. We are talking about someone with far more of a background in research, analytics, application, theories and modeling structures and techniques than anyone on here will learn from Google.
When people in hard sciences agree, you just make up some excuse to discredit them. You have credited a false illusion in your head that is easily negated with facts and evidence. You walk in circles claiming we can't compare it to certain things, then you compare it to those things when you find something in agreement with that false narrative that you have accepted. You are constantly contradicting and dissolving your own argument.
The point is, lots of things are relevant, often times way more relevant... lots of things the partisans and other purveryors of lies willfully? ignore as they bastardize statistical analysis.
They are dishonest or incompetent.
So you are arguing that people ignore the statistics to bastardize the data, while you are also ignoring things that include the analytics and statistical data? Do you not seeing the circular logic that presents?
I think you are reading what you want into my comments. I have never said his study is not valid, nor have I said other studies are or are not valid. So your assumption is pretty off base. Maybe you're not an English major after all. All I have said is that I'm not qualified to judge any sophisticated statistical modeling so I don't try to do that. If you want to put that much stock in his study, you are welcome to do so.
You could take that Bayesian model, isolate tattoos or clothing type instead of race and draw the same "valid" conclusion.
Your intuition even tells you that it's true, but that's the same trick.
That's all it looked at, probability, and then they assigned causation. The color of your skin was proven no more causal for any disproportionality than Fubu vs Polo clothing would've been causal.
It's a racism of the gaps argument, wouldn't and can't stand up to serious scientific rigor, atleast in the manner they want you to think it does. It's no different than 8 out of 10 doctors prefer Camel cigarettes.
Your intuition even tells you that it's true, but that's the same trick.
That's all it looked at, probability, and then they assigned causation. The color of your skin was proven no more causal for any disproportionality than Fubu vs Polo clothing would've been causal.
It's a racism of the gaps argument, wouldn't and can't stand up to serious scientific rigor, atleast in the manner they want you to think it does. It's no different than 8 out of 10 doctors prefer Camel cigarettes.
Not at all. I am just restating your words and statements.
You have insinuated it was multiple times.
I definitely was not an English major. However, that was just a belief you concocted after you reading into my posts. It's odd you keep accusing me of utilizing the very tactics you are using.
I agree, I don't think you are qualified to do that either.
Many Bayesian methods required much computation to complete, and most methods that were widely used during the century were based on the frequentist interpretation. However, with the advent of powerful computers and new algorithms, like Markov Carlo, Bayesian methods have seen increasing use within statistics in the 21st century.
In Bayesian inference, Bayes' theorem can be used to estimate the parameters of a probability distribution or statistical modeling. Since Bayesian statistics treat probability as a degree of belief, Bayes' theorem can directly assign a probability distribution that quantifies the belief to the parameter or set of parameters.
The inference process generates a posterior distribution, which has a central role in Bayesian statistics, together with other distributions like the posterior predictive distribution and the prior predictive distribution. The correct visualization, analysis, and interpretation of these distributions is key to properly answer the questions that motivate the inference process.
When working with Bayesian models there are a series of related tasks that need to be addressed besides inference itself:
In Bayesian inference, Bayes' theorem can be used to estimate the parameters of a probability distribution or statistical modeling. Since Bayesian statistics treat probability as a degree of belief, Bayes' theorem can directly assign a probability distribution that quantifies the belief to the parameter or set of parameters.
The inference process generates a posterior distribution, which has a central role in Bayesian statistics, together with other distributions like the posterior predictive distribution and the prior predictive distribution. The correct visualization, analysis, and interpretation of these distributions is key to properly answer the questions that motivate the inference process.
When working with Bayesian models there are a series of related tasks that need to be addressed besides inference itself:
- Diagnoses of the quality of the inference, this is needed when using numerical methods such as Markov Carlo techniques
- Model criticism, including evaluations of both model assumptions and model predictions
- Comparison of models, including model selection or model averaging
- Preparation of the results for a particular audience
Reading about science is not the same as understanding it.
“For all of us who are frustrated about decades of racial disparities that have gone unchecked, this is our Gettysburg. Yet we do ourselves a disservice in the battle against racial inequality if we don’t adhere to rigorous standards of evidence, if we cherry-pick data based on our preconceptions. The truth is enough to justify sweeping reform. “
Mr. Fryer is a professor of economics at Harvard.
Mr. Fryer is a professor of economics at Harvard.
That is why we are so thankful to Mr. Ross, who was able to apply those rigorous standards of evidence in his study. He did us a great service in proving a very quality study that confirms a glaring issue in our society.
Also, Mr. Fryer is currently serving a 2-year suspension from Harvard for multiple sexual assault allegations and accusations of creating an unprofessional working environment. He also blamed the accusations on race, even though ample evidence existed to show it was in fact true. His research on the pertaining subject was widely discredited.
Also, Mr. Fryer is currently serving a 2-year suspension from Harvard for multiple sexual assault allegations and accusations of creating an unprofessional working environment. He also blamed the accusations on race, even though ample evidence existed to show it was in fact true. His research on the pertaining subject was widely discredited.
Racism may explain the findings, but the statistical evidence doesn’t prove it. As economists, we don’t get to label unexplained racial disparities “racism.”
"In 2019, Fryer's paper was published in the Journal of Political Economy. Other scholars criticized Fryer's study, arguing that due to selection bias, he was unable to draw any conclusions about racial bias in shootings from police stops. If police are more likely to stop a black person than a white person, then the average white person that they stop might be dissimilar to the average black person (for example, the white person might be behaving in a more threatening manner), thus leading to faulty inferences about racial bias in shootings. A 2020 study by Princeton University political scientists disputed the findings by Fryer, saying that if police had a higher threshold for stopping whites, this might mean that the whites, Hispanics and blacks in Fryer's data are not similar. Nobel-laureate James Heckman and Steven Durlauf, both University of Chicago economists, published a response to the Fryer study, writing that the paper "does not establish credible evidence on the presence or absence of discrimination against African Americans in police shootings" due to issues with selection bias.
In March 2018, Harvard barred Fryer from his research lab, the Education Innovation Laboratory (EdLabs), upon launching an investigation into Title IX complaints against him alleging sexual harassment. Fryer alleged that he was "unfairly scrutinized ... for his skin color." Harvard confirmed that its Office for Dispute Resolution received complaints against Fryer in January, March, and April 2018.
In December 2018, Fryer resigned from the executive committee of the American Economic Association, to which he had been elected (but had not yet taken up his seat); Fryer submitted his resignation after coming under pressure from fellow economists to step down due to the sexual harassment allegations against him. In a letter to the New York Times later that month, Fryer expressed regret for having "allowed, encouraged and participated" an atmosphere at EdLabs that included "off-color jokes" and comments about personal lives, but denied bullying, retaliating against employees, or making sexual advances to any employee.
Harvard's investigation concluded that Fryer had "engaged in unwanted sexual conduct toward several individuals" and "exhibited a pattern of behavior that failed to meet expectations of conduct within our community and was harmful to the well-being of its members." In July 2019, Fryer was suspended from the Harvard faculty for two years without pay, a disciplinary action determined by a panel of tenured faculty. Harvard also determined that, after returning from suspension, Fryer cannot be an adviser or supervisor, have access to graduate fellows, or teach graduate workshops, but can teach graduate classes. Fryer had been one of Harvard's most highly paid professors. As the sanctions took effect, Harvard permanently closed EdLabs in September 2019.
In March 2018, Harvard barred Fryer from his research lab, the Education Innovation Laboratory (EdLabs), upon launching an investigation into Title IX complaints against him alleging sexual harassment. Fryer alleged that he was "unfairly scrutinized ... for his skin color." Harvard confirmed that its Office for Dispute Resolution received complaints against Fryer in January, March, and April 2018.
In December 2018, Fryer resigned from the executive committee of the American Economic Association, to which he had been elected (but had not yet taken up his seat); Fryer submitted his resignation after coming under pressure from fellow economists to step down due to the sexual harassment allegations against him. In a letter to the New York Times later that month, Fryer expressed regret for having "allowed, encouraged and participated" an atmosphere at EdLabs that included "off-color jokes" and comments about personal lives, but denied bullying, retaliating against employees, or making sexual advances to any employee.
Harvard's investigation concluded that Fryer had "engaged in unwanted sexual conduct toward several individuals" and "exhibited a pattern of behavior that failed to meet expectations of conduct within our community and was harmful to the well-being of its members." In July 2019, Fryer was suspended from the Harvard faculty for two years without pay, a disciplinary action determined by a panel of tenured faculty. Harvard also determined that, after returning from suspension, Fryer cannot be an adviser or supervisor, have access to graduate fellows, or teach graduate workshops, but can teach graduate classes. Fryer had been one of Harvard's most highly paid professors. As the sanctions took effect, Harvard permanently closed EdLabs in September 2019.
No matter how we analyzed the data, we found no racial differences in shootings overall, in any city in particular, or in any subset of the data. I have grappled with these results for years as I witnessed videos of unmistakable police brutality against black men. How can the data tell a story so different from what we see with our eyes?
Our analysis tells us what happens on average. It isn’t average when a police officer casually kneels on someone’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. Are there racial differences in the most extreme forms of police violence? The Southern boy in me says yes; the economist says we don’t know.
Mr. Fryer is a professor of economics at Harvard
Our analysis tells us what happens on average. It isn’t average when a police officer casually kneels on someone’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. Are there racial differences in the most extreme forms of police violence? The Southern boy in me says yes; the economist says we don’t know.
Mr. Fryer is a professor of economics at Harvard
Other scholars criticized Fryer's study, arguing that due to selection bias, he was unable to draw any conclusions about racial bias in shootings from police stops. If police are more likely to stop a black person than a white person, then the average white person that they stop might be dissimilar to the average black person (for example, the white person might be behaving in a more threatening manner), thus leading to faulty inferences about racial bias in shootings. A 2020 study by Princeton University political scientists disputed the findings by Fryer, saying that if police had a higher threshold for stopping whites, this might mean that the whites, Hispanics and blacks in Fryer's data are not similar. Nobel-laureate James Heckman and Steven Durlauf, both University of Chicago economists, published a response to the Fryer study, writing that the paper "does not establish credible evidence on the presence or absence of discrimination against African Americans in police shootings" due to issues with selection bias.
upon launching an investigation into Title IX complaints against him alleging sexual harassment. Fryer alleged that he was "unfairly scrutinized ... for his skin color." Harvard confirmed that its Office for Dispute Resolution received complaints against Fryer in January, March, and April 2018.
In July 2019, Fryer was suspended from the Harvard faculty for two years without pay, a disciplinary action determined by a panel of tenured faculty. Harvard also determined that, after returning from suspension, Fryer cannot be an adviser or supervisor, have access to graduate fellows, or teach graduate workshops, but can teach graduate classes. Fryer had been one of Harvard's most highly paid professors. As the sanctions took effect, Harvard permanently closed EdLabs in September 2019.
You use a whole lot of words to cover up the fact that the entire basis of your argument is "nuh uh!" You failed to ever one actually refute what you're arguing against. You just attempt to discredit "soft science" as you call it as inherently untrustworthy, make a whole bunch of general statements, and don't actually address any of the specifics of the linked study. You're like so many of these debate bros - all rhetoric, zero substance.
In 2008 The Economist listed Fryer as one of the top eight young economists in the world.[29] In 2011, Fryer was a recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship, commonly referred to as a "Genius Grant".[30] He is the recipient of the 2015 John Bates Clark Medal, awarded by the American Economic Association to "that American economist under the age of forty who is judged to have made the most significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge."[31]
No, I'd be willing to look deeply at the data and reasoning (or lack thereof) with anyone who is competent and good-willed.
Gladly.
Other scholars criticized Fryer's study, arguing that due to selection bias, he was unable to draw any conclusions about racial bias in shootings from police stops. If police are more likely to stop a black person than a white person, then the average white person that they stop might be dissimilar to the average black person (for example, the white person might be behaving in a more threatening manner), thus leading to faulty inferences about racial bias in shootings. A 2020 study by Princeton University political scientists disputed the findings by Fryer, saying that if police had a higher threshold for stopping whites, this might mean that the whites, Hispanics and blacks in Fryer's data are not similar. Nobel-laureate James Heckman and Steven Durlauf, both University of Chicago economists, published a response to the Fryer study, writing that the paper "does not establish credible evidence on the presence or absence of discrimination against African Americans in police shootings" due to issues with selection bias