Post #227,173
9/29/05 5:10:58 PM
|
You're right, but for the wrong reason
The statistics in the book clearly correlate increased abortion rates with decreased crime rates. Bennett combines this with the statistical fact that black youths are more likely to be convicted of crimes than white youths.
He then glosses over the fact that abortion rates represent a self-selecting sample based on complex social and economic factors, and that black vs white conviction rates may be partially due to a racially motivated justice system.
He was trying to make a perfectly valid point about the danger of relying too heavily on a statistical correlation, but then made the even larger mistake of improperly combining statistics from unrelated surveys.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #227,179
9/29/05 5:50:47 PM
|
Superbly stated reason why -
(With the exception of one Potiphar Breen, exempt because he's a Statistician, in a story.)
No One should be allowed to 'quote statistics' in an argument -
without a License
Acquired Only following:
5-years limited operation,
with a small Learner-plate velcro'ed to upper lip.
|
Post #227,187
9/29/05 6:10:03 PM
|
A slightly different view.
Too many of the right-to-lifers regard abortion as something forced upon women by ogres of various sorts. When it fact in the vast majority of cases it's a choice among several options that a woman faces. It's a decision made by a woman. Bennett said: But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That is not be supported by voluntary abortion statistics. Why not? 1) It would have to be coerced abortions. 2) Many people would resist. 3) Some of the people who resist would do so violently. 4) Some of the people who resist would flee. 5) Some of the people who resist would go into hiding. 6) Some of the people who resist would have forged documents drawn up. 2-6 would result in an increase in crime (breaking the law). It's not at all clear that the crime rate would go down under such a (stupid) policy. None of these things were relevant in the statistics used in Freakonomics. Drew writes: He was trying to make a perfectly valid point about the danger of relying too heavily on a statistical correlation, but then made the even larger mistake of improperly combining statistics from unrelated surveys.I think you give him too much credit in this instance. I don't see any mention of crime statistics in his answer. His comments seem to be very disjoint. (The discussion seemed to be about Social Security initially.) Sure, in social sciences it's impossible to control for everything and hard to know causality. But to then make the leap that because he doesn't believe the availability of legal abortion led to lower crime rates that he knows that enforced abortion would cause crime rates to drop is more than a slip up, IMO. It's letting himself be blinded by propaganda about the evils of abortion. (That abortion is always forced abortion.) It's not a matter of him presenting invalid evidence, he offers no evidence to support his position. (At least not in the excerpt that I've seen.) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #227,199
9/29/05 6:58:00 PM
|
Both your views are 'right' IMO
but about different facets of the Stat Problem, IMO.
Drew's - as simply limns the places to seek defects in any such A --> B --> C 'deduction', especially when pulled out-of-ass from unrelated dbases, say.
Yours - because well, via Einstein at best, and for just one:
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Any extrapolation of numbers into the ephemeral world of intermixed personal-dreams? 'valuez', Repo- (and even less scurrilous..) propaganda slogans
- as are so frequently intermixed in the same sentence, let alone paragragh; especially in Murican polotico-speak -
guarantees bogosity.
ie Even if the stats are gotten-Right: there is no / can be no "Ergo We Should next do This: ___" - except in very elementary cases involving say, 'triage' of bloody masses of the marginally-alive?
(If a math problem cannot be expressed clearly in words, to the minimally math-ept: the author of the formula is apt not-to comprehend what he thought she was 'showing' - that's My mantra.)
cf. ~~ any Dick Feynman essay, as my evidence. 'Math' includes Stats.
|
Post #227,203
9/29/05 7:45:25 PM
|
I think you're misunderstanding his point
The book shows an inverse corellation between abortion rates and crime rates. Some people have suggested this supports a specific policy.
He was saying that if you rely solely on the statistics, you could support a policy of genocide on the grounds that a certain race is more highly represented in crime statistics.
If you think a single statistical measure is enough to support a specific policy, he's right. That, I think, was his point.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #227,461
10/1/05 4:37:39 AM
|
Bingo
And,unfortunately for the originator of this thread, that leap of statistical logic doesn`t make him a racist.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #227,547
10/1/05 7:50:30 PM
|
Yes, but be-Not a smug Boolean-head - I know it's Hard, here
As a public performer (especially) - or even as a mere paid-polemicist - his task was to follow the advice of that General,
Gentlemen, if an order can be misunderstood, it Will be misunderstood.
Ordinary, and/or intelligent people do not parse like a Ben Tilly et al. Muricans are as innumerate as they are lately prone to other forms of illiteracy, dumbth.
For premeditatedly inserting such a loaded blabword as race (gratuitously? may be a fair inference; or a darker one, equally) - he was doubly-charged with Making The Exact Point about blind application of Any statistical datumoid:
And He Failed To Do That.
~Everyone here - cleaned up his act *For Him*, ex-post-facto: begging the original inferences many may make: from his long history of (not so Cute) didactic Right-religio utterances. (Maybe he can read some of Shockley's r-r-rebuttals in a similar vain vein.)
Let him Eat flak with the yes, buts.. and, I didn't mean That! ...
Maybe his next scriptural pronouncement shall come with a tad less Swaggart-swagger?
[But I. Doubt. That.] too. Ocelot/spots/permanent
|
Post #227,548
10/1/05 7:58:39 PM
|
From you, that's ironic
He was making a valid point about the inadequacy of simple solutions to complex problems. But he made the point at a level his average listeners -- and every talking head with an axe to grind -- didn't or wouldn't get. And you're slamming him for not realizing it would happen and dumbing it down appropriately.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #227,554
10/1/05 8:39:06 PM
|
Et tu captain clarity: Not. At. All.
NOT Dumbing-it-down. WTF did I remotely imply That?
Is that IT with you - terse/compressed OR dumbed-down == those are the Two Options?
What he omitted was:
*Introducing his example* with some of the explanatory prose ~ to that of most posts here. Not optional IMO, and that opinion based on as much experience as anyone here, I wot -- on the consequences of introducing a damaged, almost-unuseable, by previous misuse: Loaded Slogan-word, Without any Preamble.
Didn't I fucking say this just now? Or do you get Only naked symbolic expressions (and all the rest of English is just ... tooo messily imprecise to bother with?)
>> Most Folks Do Not Do Boolean Well <<
*This* is an aberrant group!
He WASN'T Talking to *US*
There, now - was that so hard?
|
Post #227,574
10/2/05 7:57:51 AM
|
If by "slogan word" you meant "racism" ... he didn't say it
Ash, we went through a very long thread with several people going into great length to lay out what we knew he meant. We got it the first time, as proven by the fact that his later explanation was pretty much exactly what we'd been saying. And even after all that, someone here -- someone who had probably read all the re-statements -- still introduced that explanation as "spin".
Do you really think any amount of preface or explanation would have allowed him to make that point without it being taken the wrong way? In the U.S. today, you can't talk about racism without being branded a racist by someone. You can't explain, "This is what some people think," without being accused of thinking it by someone. If you understand it, you must believe it.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #227,591
10/2/05 11:39:00 AM
|
[Raises hand]
You rang? And even after all that, someone here -- someone who had probably read all the re-statements -- still introduced that explanation as "spin". [link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spin|Spin]: 7. To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion: \ufffda messenger who spins bogus research into a vile theology of hatred\ufffd (William A. Henry III). I would categorize Bennett's later explanation as spin. Why? 1) We were commenting on a Jay's quote from a web site that included the whole quotation from Bennett. We can't be accused of taking the statement out of context. 2) What little context that was provided from the web site was: a) The discussion stated with Social Security. b) A caller introduced Freakonomics and abortion. c) Bennett made a (IMO) false analogy about what Freakonomics said about the reasons for the drop in crime. d) Bennett did not provide any evidence to support a proposition that he knows to be correct. 3) Bennett was criticized elsewhere (I doubt that he reads IWeThey ;-) and issued statement of elaboration to sway public opinion about what he said and what he meant. (Spin has a derogatory connotation, but it does not have to be nefarious.) My criticism of Bennett's statements were based on my belief that 1) you can't know what would happen as the result of a coerced extreme policy by pointing to evidence from voluntary individual actions by people. 2) That it was supporting an attack on the authors of Freakonomics and abortion rights by building a strawman. In the U.S. today, you can't talk about racism without being branded a racist by someone. You can't explain, "This is what some people think," without being accused of thinking it by someone. If you understand it, you must believe it. Yes, you can talk about racism without being branded a racist. William Julius Wilson isn't branded a racist. He's been called naive and wrong and so forth, but not racist AFAICS. No I don't think Bennett is racist. I think he made a stupid comment. Saying it was just a thought experiment using the Socratic method or that he was talking about the problems of race in America (when he was in (IMO) supporting a caller who was attacking abortion) doesn't make his statement any less stupid, IMO. Hope that helps clear things up. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #227,615
10/2/05 4:31:19 PM
|
Oohhh.. spinning the def'n of spin!
Just. Kidding. !!
Agree with your analysis, but reiterate:
1) Had he not left-in the context - those allusions you mention.
2) He might.. have (successfully) made the same statement, with the 'race' SYMBOL used, even - as a Forceful illustration of the consequences of the ignorant use of 'statistics' (a pandemic that; as long as I've been around the planet.) If he didn't Realize That :-0 -- then he's dumber than a neo-post.)
3) BUT NOT WITHOUT some primer! of the sort synthesized here.
Not a lot of words - just a few Clear Ones: a fucking Preamble.
As in,
say what you are going to do;
do it.
say what you (tried to do) did.
prologue
log
postlude
|
Post #227,589
10/2/05 11:22:18 AM
|
Did you hear the entire thread of his show?
the statement stood for stats dont prove a dam thing and heres why
no more, no less.
Yes, he is a pedantic asshole with the compassion of a bored dilletant.
thanx,
bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
