6 ms·

And you instantly went to assume the intentions of the author and their lack of knowledge, etc? The author said "posting the data" is enough for backlash, they

And you instantly went to assume the intentions of the author and their lack of knowledge, etc? The author said "posting the data" is enough for backlash, they didn't say anything about judging the data, let alone that they'd judge the data like you say they would. And even if they would draw "misleading" conclusions from the data, it is not helpful to rant at them and punish them, but rather assume their good faith (until proven otherwise) and explain to them why they were mislead by the data. Even if it's a bad white supremacist who'd never change their mind, you might still positively influence other people reading the same exchange instead of making other people root for the "underdog" (in that conversation) who was viciously and personally attacked just for posting data.

chickenfries 9y ago
Yes, because that would be a reasonable explanation for the downvotes. Most of the time people talk about “black on black crime” they’re not trying to make a sound statistical argument, they’re using it in service of some larger racist point. So yeah, when you start talking about “what about Chicago” or the shape of people’s heads, people tend to put you in the same bucket at everyone else who seems to be really interested in certain facts...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
gt_ 9y ago
This is a poor example for making that point, in the sense that it lacks a moment of realization or revelation. All this example carries is a technicality of yet-to-be-inidentified faith, but not even a hint of justification for considering the contrary. An open mind is something to test and critique but not merely punish or condemn, as this example attempts. A human should be expected to act on probability and defend against risk to the best of their ability and awareness, and it is the point’s failure to sympathize with that which makes it moot.
UncleMeat 9y ago
When the last hundred people you've seen post that data do so in order to apply a racist judgement, bayesian reasoning says that this person is likely doing the same and engaging seriously isn't going to go well.

chickenfries 9y ago

Yes, because that would be a reasonable explanation for the downvotes. Most of the time people talk about “black on black crime” they’re not trying to make a sound statistical argument, they’re using it in service of some larger racist point. So yeah, when you start talking about “what about Chicago” or the shape of people’s heads, people tend to put you in the same bucket at everyone else who seems to be really interested in certain facts...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

gt_ 9y ago

This is a poor example for making that point, in the sense that it lacks a moment of realization or revelation. All this example carries is a technicality of yet-to-be-inidentified faith, but not even a hint of justification for considering the contrary. An open mind is something to test and critique but not merely punish or condemn, as this example attempts. A human should be expected to act on probability and defend against risk to the best of their ability and awareness, and it is the point’s failure to sympathize with that which makes it moot.

UncleMeat 9y ago

When the last hundred people you've seen post that data do so in order to apply a racist judgement, bayesian reasoning says that this person is likely doing the same and engaging seriously isn't going to go well.