3 ms·

I'm not saying crime is going up. I'm saying the stats are useless. It could be going down, and they're still useless. Yes, I am talking about NYC. I'm sure ev

I'm not saying crime is going up. I'm saying the stats are useless. It could be going down, and they're still useless. Yes, I am talking about NYC. I'm sure every other city is a relative statistical utopia. But I have no information on those cities, given I don't live there, except for the official stats. They could be shaving off exactly 10% every year, and the trend lines are fine. Or they could shave off enough to make crime go down slightly every year, which is what I'd do if I were a chief who had to answer to a mayor, and didn't really care about statistical fidelity. Just because you're looking at a chart, doesn't mean the chart reflects reality. And it doesn't matter if you don't have a nice other chart to look at. Sometimes you can't answer questions accurately from your chair 500 miles away.

smt88 6y ago
> I'm not saying crime is going up. I'm saying the stats are useless. Then why did you add an anecdote about crimes you heard about? > Or they could shave off enough to make crime go down slightly every year, which is what I'd do if I were a chief who had to answer to a mayor, and didn't really care about statistical fidelity. It seems implausible that thousands of chiefs and mayors are doing exactly this, all across the country. You would also expect to see downward jumps when new mayors came into office, which anyone fudging the numbers would do to make sure they stayed in office. You're talking about, essentially, a conspiracy that runs from the bottom of local police departments all the way to the FBI (who also collect these stats).
- tarboreus 6y ago
  The FBI largely collects the stats they are sent. I've made no claims about the rest of the country. The story of this instance of crime is that they're not collecting data the way they should. The way they opted not to collect it shows that it's part of their standard MO. They could be making up crimes they're not solving, but there's no incentive for them to do that. And it's impossible to see that in action, it would just look like someone entering things into a spreadsheet. You should respond to claims people are making, instead of responding to claims you want people to have made because they're easier to argue against. It makes discussion a waste of time.

smt88 6y ago

> I'm not saying crime is going up. I'm saying the stats are useless. Then why did you add an anecdote about crimes you heard about? > Or they could shave off enough to make crime go down slightly every year, which is what I'd do if I were a chief who had to answer to a mayor, and didn't really care about statistical fidelity. It seems implausible that thousands of chiefs and mayors are doing exactly this, all across the country. You would also expect to see downward jumps when new mayors came into office, which anyone fudging the numbers would do to make sure they stayed in office. You're talking about, essentially, a conspiracy that runs from the bottom of local police departments all the way to the FBI (who also collect these stats).

tarboreus 6y ago
The FBI largely collects the stats they are sent. I've made no claims about the rest of the country. The story of this instance of crime is that they're not collecting data the way they should. The way they opted not to collect it shows that it's part of their standard MO. They could be making up crimes they're not solving, but there's no incentive for them to do that. And it's impossible to see that in action, it would just look like someone entering things into a spreadsheet. You should respond to claims people are making, instead of responding to claims you want people to have made because they're easier to argue against. It makes discussion a waste of time.