3 ms·

I mean, if you have citations for these, trot them out.

throwaway29102 6y ago
For someone with all the answers, he’s awfully quiet...
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
The police kill more white people in absolute terms than black people. But white people are a larger percentage of the population, so it's still disproportionately black people. But the disproportionality goes the other way if you account for the difference in violent crime rates. Then someone could argue that the difference in violent crime rates is itself a result of racism, and someone else could argue that that is a separate question from whether the police, rather than e.g. high school guidance counselors (or just factors like parental income), are the root cause of the disparity. By this point there is enough space between the error bars that each side can declare victory because the other side hasn't been able to prove that their position isn't within them, even though nothing has really been decided and the level of data collection and detailed analysis required to get there is more work than anybody is ever actually willing to do.
- mistermann 6y ago
  It would be nice to see one well done summary analysis of all the data that is available, including inclusion of as many as possible of reasonable "...but on the other hand..." caveats as possible. I have not once encountered a single article that even attempts this, it seems everything is written from a biased perspective.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    I'm not sure that type of analysis is even possible. The more factors you want to take into account, the larger the sample size you need. But there are so many factors here that you could need a sample size which is larger than the entire US population, which is obviously not available. It seems to me the better solution is to just solve the problems. Stop spending all day arguing about whether the criminal justice system is racist and instead do something about the fact that the US has the world's largest prison population. Do something about housing costs. Do something about barriers to starting a small business. These problems may disproportionately affect black people, but they still affect everybody and solving them is a net benefit either way. Conditioning a solution to a problem on the existence of racism when the problem exists regardless is just drawing useless tribalist lines that get people fighting each other instead of solving things.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      > I'm not sure that type of analysis is even possible. The more factors you want to take into account, the larger the sample size you need. But there are so many factors here that you could need a sample size which is larger than the entire US population, which is obviously not available. Mostly agree. It certainly couldn't be done with perfection, as there are essentially an infinite number of discreet variables in existence, many of which we do not even know the existence of, most that we do not have measurements on (or even a way to measure them), and all these variables have inter-relations that we don't understand (or even know of), resulting in randomness of outcome making predictions even harder. But what do we do instead? The majority of the time we look at, say, 1 to 3 variables, and then form highly confident conclusions based on this trivially and obviously (if you actually think abstractly about it) simplified perspective, all under the guise that we are discussing reality. In these discussions, we (and this also includes the bright minds here on HN) are not actually discussing reality, but rather a comically simplistic version of reality. And then on top of it, many here mock others for their "simple-minded" beliefs, when the reality is that typically a big part of the reason behind the difference is that different people have different working sets of variables, and different weighting on those variables due to holding different values. The irony is rich. And most of this occurs in the subconscious (so they say), so even if one makes a valiant effort to think more properly, much of the truth (on how different people think differently) is hidden from not just the observer, but the person who holds the thoughts in the first place. > It seems to me the better solution is to just solve the problems. Stop spending all day arguing about whether the criminal justice system is racist and instead do something about the fact that the US has the world's largest prison population. Do something about housing costs. Do something about barriers to starting a small business. Mostly agree. But again, this entire process suffers from this same phenomenon (roughly, we do not know, or care, what is true), and democracies are particularly vulnerable to the problems that derive from it. I suspect this gives China a major leg up over Western powers in the coming decades - if they can stumble upon an operating model that works better (accommodates the real variables, regardless of whether they see and understand the system better than us or not), they can enforce compliance far more easily than democratic nations. In my opinion, step 1 in improving this state of affairs is gaining an understanding of what the situation actually is (aka: doing an "appropriate" system analysis) - but even the geniuses here on HN not only cannot do that, but often become angry with anyone who even dares suggest it (as it implies that their wild-guess of a theory may not be correct - the horror). Is the absolute root of the problem not the human mind? Outside of natural events/disasters that are not caused by man, do most all other things (beliefs, practices, culture, initiatives, resource allocation, governance decisions, you name it) not derive from the mind (or collection of minds)? And yet, how much attention do we pay to this, in any venue? Here again, I would say the advantage goes to countries that do not adhere to a scientific-materialist religion [1] like most Western peoples. > These problems may disproportionately affect black people, but they still affect everybody and solving them is a net benefit either way. Conditioning a solution to a problem on the existence of racism when the problem exists regardless is just drawing useless tribalist lines that get people fighting each other instead of solving things. 100% agree, based on the above. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion
DarthGhandi 6y ago
I'm assuming it's related to the MSU study and the VP of research at the university who was quoted in a WSJ article and subsequently fired due to his role talking about it to the media. A rough outline by the authors is here, you can search scihub for the actual paper. https://research.msu.edu/the-truth-behind-racial-disparties-in-fatal-police-shootings/ https://research.msu.edu/the-truth-behind-racial-disparties-... As for the Professor Hsu controversy, here's some additional data: > the main thrust to oust Hsu came because the professor touted Michigan State research that found police are not more likely to shoot African-Americans > The graduate union told The Fix that administrators should not share research that runs counter to public statements by the university. > “It is the union’s position that an administrator sharing such views is in opposition to MSU’s statements released supporting the protests and their root cause and aim,” Ackles wrote in an e-mail to The College Fix. https://www.thecollegefix.com/scholar-forced-to-resign-over-study-that-found-police-shootings-not-biased-against-blacks/ https://www.thecollegefix.com/scholar-forced-to-resign-over-...

For someone with all the answers, he’s awfully quiet...

The police kill more white people in absolute terms than black people. But white people are a larger percentage of the population, so it's still disproportionately black people. But the disproportionality goes the other way if you account for the difference in violent crime rates. Then someone could argue that the difference in violent crime rates is itself a result of racism, and someone else could argue that that is a separate question from whether the police, rather than e.g. high school guidance counselors (or just factors like parental income), are the root cause of the disparity. By this point there is enough space between the error bars that each side can declare victory because the other side hasn't been able to prove that their position isn't within them, even though nothing has really been decided and the level of data collection and detailed analysis required to get there is more work than anybody is ever actually willing to do.

mistermann 6y ago
It would be nice to see one well done summary analysis of all the data that is available, including inclusion of as many as possible of reasonable "...but on the other hand..." caveats as possible. I have not once encountered a single article that even attempts this, it seems everything is written from a biased perspective.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  I'm not sure that type of analysis is even possible. The more factors you want to take into account, the larger the sample size you need. But there are so many factors here that you could need a sample size which is larger than the entire US population, which is obviously not available. It seems to me the better solution is to just solve the problems. Stop spending all day arguing about whether the criminal justice system is racist and instead do something about the fact that the US has the world's largest prison population. Do something about housing costs. Do something about barriers to starting a small business. These problems may disproportionately affect black people, but they still affect everybody and solving them is a net benefit either way. Conditioning a solution to a problem on the existence of racism when the problem exists regardless is just drawing useless tribalist lines that get people fighting each other instead of solving things.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > I'm not sure that type of analysis is even possible. The more factors you want to take into account, the larger the sample size you need. But there are so many factors here that you could need a sample size which is larger than the entire US population, which is obviously not available. Mostly agree. It certainly couldn't be done with perfection, as there are essentially an infinite number of discreet variables in existence, many of which we do not even know the existence of, most that we do not have measurements on (or even a way to measure them), and all these variables have inter-relations that we don't understand (or even know of), resulting in randomness of outcome making predictions even harder. But what do we do instead? The majority of the time we look at, say, 1 to 3 variables, and then form highly confident conclusions based on this trivially and obviously (if you actually think abstractly about it) simplified perspective, all under the guise that we are discussing reality. In these discussions, we (and this also includes the bright minds here on HN) are not actually discussing reality, but rather a comically simplistic version of reality. And then on top of it, many here mock others for their "simple-minded" beliefs, when the reality is that typically a big part of the reason behind the difference is that different people have different working sets of variables, and different weighting on those variables due to holding different values. The irony is rich. And most of this occurs in the subconscious (so they say), so even if one makes a valiant effort to think more properly, much of the truth (on how different people think differently) is hidden from not just the observer, but the person who holds the thoughts in the first place. > It seems to me the better solution is to just solve the problems. Stop spending all day arguing about whether the criminal justice system is racist and instead do something about the fact that the US has the world's largest prison population. Do something about housing costs. Do something about barriers to starting a small business. Mostly agree. But again, this entire process suffers from this same phenomenon (roughly, we do not know, or care, what is true), and democracies are particularly vulnerable to the problems that derive from it. I suspect this gives China a major leg up over Western powers in the coming decades - if they can stumble upon an operating model that works better (accommodates the real variables, regardless of whether they see and understand the system better than us or not), they can enforce compliance far more easily than democratic nations. In my opinion, step 1 in improving this state of affairs is gaining an understanding of what the situation actually is (aka: doing an "appropriate" system analysis) - but even the geniuses here on HN not only cannot do that, but often become angry with anyone who even dares suggest it (as it implies that their wild-guess of a theory may not be correct - the horror). Is the absolute root of the problem not the human mind? Outside of natural events/disasters that are not caused by man, do most all other things (beliefs, practices, culture, initiatives, resource allocation, governance decisions, you name it) not derive from the mind (or collection of minds)? And yet, how much attention do we pay to this, in any venue? Here again, I would say the advantage goes to countries that do not adhere to a scientific-materialist religion [1] like most Western peoples. > These problems may disproportionately affect black people, but they still affect everybody and solving them is a net benefit either way. Conditioning a solution to a problem on the existence of racism when the problem exists regardless is just drawing useless tribalist lines that get people fighting each other instead of solving things. 100% agree, based on the above. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion

DarthGhandi 6y ago

I'm assuming it's related to the MSU study and the VP of research at the university who was quoted in a WSJ article and subsequently fired due to his role talking about it to the media. A rough outline by the authors is here, you can search scihub for the actual paper. https://research.msu.edu/the-truth-behind-racial-disparties-in-fatal-police-shootings/ https://research.msu.edu/the-truth-behind-racial-disparties-... As for the Professor Hsu controversy, here's some additional data: > the main thrust to oust Hsu came because the professor touted Michigan State research that found police are not more likely to shoot African-Americans > The graduate union told The Fix that administrators should not share research that runs counter to public statements by the university. > “It is the union’s position that an administrator sharing such views is in opposition to MSU’s statements released supporting the protests and their root cause and aim,” Ackles wrote in an e-mail to The College Fix. https://www.thecollegefix.com/scholar-forced-to-resign-over-study-that-found-police-shootings-not-biased-against-blacks/ https://www.thecollegefix.com/scholar-forced-to-resign-over-...