4 ms·

>According to statistics cited by the NCMEC, most missing children are abducted by relatives or parents It's safer to be around strangers than relatives, when

by kgeist 4y ago

>According to statistics cited by the NCMEC, most missing children are abducted by relatives or parents It's safer to be around strangers than relatives, when it comes to kidnapping.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
csours 4y ago
10 yard penalty, review logical fallacies, other team gets the ball. https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy Children spend waaaay more time around parents and relatives. Same reason why you are more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than a stranger. (This is not monocausal, and I do not mean to imply that simply spending time with someone will cause a crime)
- Stevvo 4y ago
  Do they really though? In a lot of families kids are at school, then driven off to soccer/dance/whatever in a lot of other time.
  - csours 4y ago
    It really depends on the exact framing of the question. Are children safer ALONE with a random stranger or with a family member? Why is the child alone with a random stranger? There are some broad daylight kidnappings, but they are relatively rare. They are relatively rare because it's much easier for a kidnapper to abscond with someone who trusts them.
warinukraine 4y ago
You're being tricked by sampling bias. It's safer to be around strangers than relatives in every study's sampling, because most people don't leave their kids with strangers. They spend most of their time with relatives, friends and acquaintances. If they did spend as much time with strangers as with relatives, you'd conclude it's safer to be around relatives. It's like saying cyanide is safe because most people don't die from cyanide. Yeah, because most people don't take cyanide.

4 ms·

>According to statistics cited by the NCMEC, most missing children are abducted by relatives or parents It's safer to be around strangers than relatives, when

by kgeist 4y ago

>According to statistics cited by the NCMEC, most missing children are abducted by relatives or parents It's safer to be around strangers than relatives, when it comes to kidnapping.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
csours 4y ago
10 yard penalty, review logical fallacies, other team gets the ball. https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy Children spend waaaay more time around parents and relatives. Same reason why you are more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than a stranger. (This is not monocausal, and I do not mean to imply that simply spending time with someone will cause a crime)
- Stevvo 4y ago
  Do they really though? In a lot of families kids are at school, then driven off to soccer/dance/whatever in a lot of other time.
  - csours 4y ago
    It really depends on the exact framing of the question. Are children safer ALONE with a random stranger or with a family member? Why is the child alone with a random stranger? There are some broad daylight kidnappings, but they are relatively rare. They are relatively rare because it's much easier for a kidnapper to abscond with someone who trusts them.
warinukraine 4y ago
You're being tricked by sampling bias. It's safer to be around strangers than relatives in every study's sampling, because most people don't leave their kids with strangers. They spend most of their time with relatives, friends and acquaintances. If they did spend as much time with strangers as with relatives, you'd conclude it's safer to be around relatives. It's like saying cyanide is safe because most people don't die from cyanide. Yeah, because most people don't take cyanide.