7 ms·

This article is the biggest bunch of rubbish that I have read in months. It takes bias to whole new levels. People are starting to realize that "studies" are al

This article is the biggest bunch of rubbish that I have read in months. It takes bias to whole new levels. People are starting to realize that "studies" are almost always biased in the first place and should not be trusted. Secondly, look at some of the examples used: A comparison is made between: > 25% of black kids had parents who grew up in the bottom two levels* and moved up at least one. and > 59% of white kids moved up Notice any difference here? The whole article is like this. Comparing completely separate things. This is laughable. I feel embarrassed by the bias and sorry for those who read this article with a straight face.

protomyth 10y ago
This is the problem with quoting studies and not understanding what the stats actually mean with their relation to each other. It happens a lot with the studies themselves, also, but is pretty prevalent in pundit style presentations. I'll give an interesting example from my twitter feed: "State records show that [Mr. X](1) claimed that his combined income in 1978 and 1979 was negative $3.8 million, allowing him to pay no taxes. A few years earlier, he had told the NYT he was worth more than $200 million." This is combining two factual statements with the intent to link them when the linkage is actually not there. People pay taxes on income not net worth(2). You spotted a stat that is closer, but actually still not directly comparable without further information and fixing the wording to indicate the same action in the same way. This doesn't even add the cases where studies have different basic facts about the observed and people trying to tie them together in problematic ways. Their starting wall example is also pretty foolish given the actual destruction of vibrant black neighborhoods in urban renewal projects starting with 1949 and the Housing Act. Why build a wall when you can take the land? 1) yeah yeah, we all know who the quote is about, but I have no wish to argue with BOTH sides again. 1800 here we come. 2) well, ok, there are some specific stuff, but its not really relevant to the setup. Also, yes, the graphics are horrible to the point of having a minecraft / 8-bit fetish is getting in the way of actually indicating what the information is.
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  Please with draw your incorrect aspersions. Your example is not the same as the OP article, that faithfully reproduces the source data at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pewsharkeyv12pdf.pdf http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpew...
  - protomyth 10y ago
    PoorBloke123 gave a fine example that I expanded on with an explanation of what typically happens. I then gave a recent example of the same thing one step farther. I don't really have time or any want to read the source other than to comment that I have always enjoyed the fact they know how to use their graphic art department properly. Since, its an urban study, my only real concern is people using it to prove things about rural areas which is the 3rd in line after the first two I expanded upon. [edit - from the I really should be doing something else department] If you based all the data from figure 3 you miss quite a few quotes about "Overall, because of the uncertainty in the estimates, the patterns do not provide a precise answer as to whether neighborhood poverty plays a substantial role in explaining black-white gaps in upward and downward mobility, nor do they attempt to account for other factors that could be driving the results. The next set of analyses address these issues.". If I were writing a summary I would have started with the ending and worked backwards because the earlier stuff is about building their case. Given that the following figures have a lot of comments about not enough study and lack of statistical significance quoting the earlier stuff without coaching it the same language is pretty poor reporting and lessens the conclusions and build-up that Pew was very methodological about. Pew did a really fine job of answering holes with further points on the way to their conclusions. It will be interesting to see who rebuts (there is always one) and with what reasoning. In fact, taking the study and showing someone to compare it to the article would give an actually fine comparison between a well thought out and sober, easy to understand report and a 8-bit wonder with a shallow an uneven understanding of the source material.
srtjstjsj 10y ago
> Notice any difference here? It's called an ellipsis. Here's the source: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pewsharkeyv12pdf.pdf http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpew... "Figure 3 shows the prevalence of upward and downward economic mobility among blacks and whites, focusing on upward mobility from the bottom of the distribution (that is, among children raised in the lowest two quintiles of the income distribution) . . . Whereas 59 percent of whites raised in the lowest two quintiles are upwardly mobile from one generation to the next, only 25 percent of blacks experience upward mobility." You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. Please remove or edit your blatantly false statement.
dang 10y ago
We've banned this account. Single-purpose accounts are not allowed on HN, especially when their single purpose is to post political rants. If you want to participate on HN in good faith, respecting the rules about civil, substantive discourse, you're welcome to email us at hn@ycombinator.com.
- jamiequint 10y ago
  Did he edit his comment? He's obviously failing at reading comprehension, but I don't see how his comment is a political rant in any way. He's (incorrectly) pointing out Vox's bias in the way they present data. Personally, I also don't trust anything on Vox after they posted this debacle of statistics last year: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-sta... which attempted to make a point on why gun control was so needed while completely failing to control for suicide (the most common cause of gun related death) and trying to make points about how gun control lowered suicide rates (by gun) while failing to note that a link between overall suicide rates and gun control has not yet been established by any study. While this particular poster is simply wrong about the data presented here, I would hate to think that anything that doesn't conform to a left-wing viewpoint on HN would be considered "political" just for that reason.
  - dang 10y ago
    It isn't just a question of that one comment. Even so, the amount of name-calling and froth in there qualifies it for rant status in my book. YMMV of course. I would hate to think that too, and we try our best to apply the rules evenly across political divides. Comments need to be civil and substantive; this one was neither, and our tolerance for someone breaking the guidelines goes down as the pattern of breaking them goes up. Users who feel that we misread their intention and genuinely want to post civil, substantive comments don't typically have a hard time persuading us to unban them.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
praxulus 10y ago
Here's the original study: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pewsharkeyv12pdf.pdf http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpew... Figure 3 shows that 25% of black kids who had parents in the bottom two quintiles moved up at least one quintile, while 59% of white kids who had parents in the bottom two quintiles moved up at least one quintile. The comparison is perfectly valid. Vox is guilty of both incorrect and imprecise wording here, but not deception.
misterbowfinger 10y ago
In that study, does anyone know what the total population was and how they define "poverty"? The numbers reported from the article seem to directly contradict the Census, which reports that less than 30% of Black Americans are in poverty, and that over 50% of Americans in poverty are White. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
- zuminator 10y ago
  No contradiction. It's talking poor neighborhoods, not poor individuals. It's claiming that if you're black, there's about a 66% chance you grew up likely living in a neighborhood which is at least 20% poor. That doesn't contradict the Census data that 26% of blacks and 10% of whites are poor. For example, using the Census figures, imagine the extreme case that blacks and whites lived completely segregated in their respective racial communities, and the poor within each race were totally uniformly distributed within their enclaves. Then in that case, 100% of blacks would live in neighborhoods that were greater than 20% poor - in fact exactly 26% poor. And 100% of whites would live in what would be deemed non-poor areas -- all white neighborhoods would be exactly 10% poor. So what we're seeing in Sharkey is merely the secondary effect of a non-uniform distribution, not a change in the underlying poverty rates.

protomyth 10y ago

This is the problem with quoting studies and not understanding what the stats actually mean with their relation to each other. It happens a lot with the studies themselves, also, but is pretty prevalent in pundit style presentations. I'll give an interesting example from my twitter feed: "State records show that [Mr. X](1) claimed that his combined income in 1978 and 1979 was negative $3.8 million, allowing him to pay no taxes. A few years earlier, he had told the NYT he was worth more than $200 million." This is combining two factual statements with the intent to link them when the linkage is actually not there. People pay taxes on income not net worth(2). You spotted a stat that is closer, but actually still not directly comparable without further information and fixing the wording to indicate the same action in the same way. This doesn't even add the cases where studies have different basic facts about the observed and people trying to tie them together in problematic ways. Their starting wall example is also pretty foolish given the actual destruction of vibrant black neighborhoods in urban renewal projects starting with 1949 and the Housing Act. Why build a wall when you can take the land? 1) yeah yeah, we all know who the quote is about, but I have no wish to argue with BOTH sides again. 1800 here we come. 2) well, ok, there are some specific stuff, but its not really relevant to the setup. Also, yes, the graphics are horrible to the point of having a minecraft / 8-bit fetish is getting in the way of actually indicating what the information is.

srtjstjsj 10y ago
Please with draw your incorrect aspersions. Your example is not the same as the OP article, that faithfully reproduces the source data at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pewsharkeyv12pdf.pdf http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpew...
- protomyth 10y ago
  PoorBloke123 gave a fine example that I expanded on with an explanation of what typically happens. I then gave a recent example of the same thing one step farther. I don't really have time or any want to read the source other than to comment that I have always enjoyed the fact they know how to use their graphic art department properly. Since, its an urban study, my only real concern is people using it to prove things about rural areas which is the 3rd in line after the first two I expanded upon. [edit - from the I really should be doing something else department] If you based all the data from figure 3 you miss quite a few quotes about "Overall, because of the uncertainty in the estimates, the patterns do not provide a precise answer as to whether neighborhood poverty plays a substantial role in explaining black-white gaps in upward and downward mobility, nor do they attempt to account for other factors that could be driving the results. The next set of analyses address these issues.". If I were writing a summary I would have started with the ending and worked backwards because the earlier stuff is about building their case. Given that the following figures have a lot of comments about not enough study and lack of statistical significance quoting the earlier stuff without coaching it the same language is pretty poor reporting and lessens the conclusions and build-up that Pew was very methodological about. Pew did a really fine job of answering holes with further points on the way to their conclusions. It will be interesting to see who rebuts (there is always one) and with what reasoning. In fact, taking the study and showing someone to compare it to the article would give an actually fine comparison between a well thought out and sober, easy to understand report and a 8-bit wonder with a shallow an uneven understanding of the source material.

srtjstjsj 10y ago

> Notice any difference here? It's called an ellipsis. Here's the source: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pewsharkeyv12pdf.pdf http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpew... "Figure 3 shows the prevalence of upward and downward economic mobility among blacks and whites, focusing on upward mobility from the bottom of the distribution (that is, among children raised in the lowest two quintiles of the income distribution) . . . Whereas 59 percent of whites raised in the lowest two quintiles are upwardly mobile from one generation to the next, only 25 percent of blacks experience upward mobility." You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. Please remove or edit your blatantly false statement.

dang 10y ago

We've banned this account. Single-purpose accounts are not allowed on HN, especially when their single purpose is to post political rants. If you want to participate on HN in good faith, respecting the rules about civil, substantive discourse, you're welcome to email us at hn@ycombinator.com.

jamiequint 10y ago
Did he edit his comment? He's obviously failing at reading comprehension, but I don't see how his comment is a political rant in any way. He's (incorrectly) pointing out Vox's bias in the way they present data. Personally, I also don't trust anything on Vox after they posted this debacle of statistics last year: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-sta... which attempted to make a point on why gun control was so needed while completely failing to control for suicide (the most common cause of gun related death) and trying to make points about how gun control lowered suicide rates (by gun) while failing to note that a link between overall suicide rates and gun control has not yet been established by any study. While this particular poster is simply wrong about the data presented here, I would hate to think that anything that doesn't conform to a left-wing viewpoint on HN would be considered "political" just for that reason.
- dang 10y ago
  It isn't just a question of that one comment. Even so, the amount of name-calling and froth in there qualifies it for rant status in my book. YMMV of course. I would hate to think that too, and we try our best to apply the rules evenly across political divides. Comments need to be civil and substantive; this one was neither, and our tolerance for someone breaking the guidelines goes down as the pattern of breaking them goes up. Users who feel that we misread their intention and genuinely want to post civil, substantive comments don't typically have a hard time persuading us to unban them.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

praxulus 10y ago

Here's the original study: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pewsharkeyv12pdf.pdf http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpew... Figure 3 shows that 25% of black kids who had parents in the bottom two quintiles moved up at least one quintile, while 59% of white kids who had parents in the bottom two quintiles moved up at least one quintile. The comparison is perfectly valid. Vox is guilty of both incorrect and imprecise wording here, but not deception.

misterbowfinger 10y ago

In that study, does anyone know what the total population was and how they define "poverty"? The numbers reported from the article seem to directly contradict the Census, which reports that less than 30% of Black Americans are in poverty, and that over 50% of Americans in poverty are White. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...

zuminator 10y ago
No contradiction. It's talking poor neighborhoods, not poor individuals. It's claiming that if you're black, there's about a 66% chance you grew up likely living in a neighborhood which is at least 20% poor. That doesn't contradict the Census data that 26% of blacks and 10% of whites are poor. For example, using the Census figures, imagine the extreme case that blacks and whites lived completely segregated in their respective racial communities, and the poor within each race were totally uniformly distributed within their enclaves. Then in that case, 100% of blacks would live in neighborhoods that were greater than 20% poor - in fact exactly 26% poor. And 100% of whites would live in what would be deemed non-poor areas -- all white neighborhoods would be exactly 10% poor. So what we're seeing in Sharkey is merely the secondary effect of a non-uniform distribution, not a change in the underlying poverty rates.