5 ms·

I agree that correlation doesn't equal causation, I pointed it out because it's the exact same argument used to decry racial disparities in the criminal justice

by yucky 4y ago

I agree that correlation doesn't equal causation, I pointed it out because it's the exact same argument used to decry racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Either the argument is valid, or it isn't. We can't pick and choose when it fits our beliefs.

godelski 4y ago
You're still oversimplifying things. A large reason people get confused between correlation and causation[0] but rather things that are correlated and connected with a confounder. The problem here is oversimplifying the model. You have to ask a lot more whys. It is fact that men are arrested more than women and fact that black men are arrested more often, as a percentage, than white men. But it is naive to assume that the "man" variable or the "black" variable are causal variables. In fact they are confounders. The argument isn't either "valid or not" in a general sense. The argument needs more nuance and if that's your concern, ask for it and point out where it is lacking. Demand better comments instead of trying a quick mic drop. [0] Most people aren't confused with spurious correlations like: US technology funding vs number of hangings. (99.8% correlated) http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
- yucky 4y ago
  For what it's worth, I agree with you. But if you've ever discussed racial disparities in anything you know that asking for more information that might not fit neatly with the established narrative, is likely to just get you called a Nazi or something.
  - godelski 4y ago
    I think you're exaggerating this. No one is going to call you a Nazi for saying that Black men have a lower ability to climb the socioeconomic ladder through traditional legal means and thus have a propensity to seek out other non-legal means. Many seeking social justice will stand by that actually. But you will get called a Nazi if you suggest that the reason for them doing this is because they are black (note: capitalization is subtle but important). That is eugenics and has been disproved. See how the causal factors in these arguments are different? The former is a demonstration of an unfair set of opportunities that disproportionately affects a certain subset of humans while the latter says that the arrests are destined because of genetic makeup. We know one is true and the other is false. If you're making arguments akin to the former and getting called a Nazi, get off Twitter and touch some grass. Talk to some real people. Specifically people of color. But maybe listen first before you open your mouth.
    - yucky 4y ago
      If you use that argument to explain away property crime differences, maybe. But that doesn't hold for violent crime rate disparities, which is typically where these conversations go off the rails.
      - godelski 4y ago
        Maybe if that is happening then the problem is you're talking about apples when others are talking about oranges. They're both round fruits and share a lot of similarities so it is easy to get the two confused. Especially with human language where we have a lot of priors that fill in the tremendous gaps in our compressed language. It is even more problematic with hot topics, which is why I suggested listening first. If there is a failure to communicate then maybe change the means in which you are communicating. This should also prod you to listen better. Remember that in communicating you're trying to express this complex idea with a limited vocabulary and time. The listener then has to decompress and interpret this information based on what you said (not what you are thinking) combined with their prior experiences (including the similarity of your argument to arguments made by others. Possibly others you don't wish to associate who are instead dog whistling or using malinformation). So do your best to communicate well and specifically with your target audience but also ensure that you are doing your best to interpret the intended message of those you are communicating with. Not only will the latter help make a more productive conversation, but demonstrating this helps encourage others to do the same in return. Not to say that we aren't human and won't make quick quips. But if we can re-navigate these situations, they do tend to turn out better. I think this conversation between us is a good demonstration of that.
        yucky 4y ago
        You assume good intentions with these people, that is not what has been on display for the last few years. A general rule of thumb is that anybody engaged in identity politics is a horrible human being, and discussion with them is generally an exercise in futility. These are people who literally start every discussion with the idea that people of different races should be treated differently based on the color of their skin. So I suspect they're projecting a bit, since that is precisely Nazi ideology cloaked in a different skin (literally).

by yucky 4y ago

godelski 4y ago

You're still oversimplifying things. A large reason people get confused between correlation and causation[0] but rather things that are correlated and connected with a confounder. The problem here is oversimplifying the model. You have to ask a lot more whys. It is fact that men are arrested more than women and fact that black men are arrested more often, as a percentage, than white men. But it is naive to assume that the "man" variable or the "black" variable are causal variables. In fact they are confounders. The argument isn't either "valid or not" in a general sense. The argument needs more nuance and if that's your concern, ask for it and point out where it is lacking. Demand better comments instead of trying a quick mic drop. [0] Most people aren't confused with spurious correlations like: US technology funding vs number of hangings. (99.8% correlated) http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

yucky 4y ago
For what it's worth, I agree with you. But if you've ever discussed racial disparities in anything you know that asking for more information that might not fit neatly with the established narrative, is likely to just get you called a Nazi or something.
- godelski 4y ago
  I think you're exaggerating this. No one is going to call you a Nazi for saying that Black men have a lower ability to climb the socioeconomic ladder through traditional legal means and thus have a propensity to seek out other non-legal means. Many seeking social justice will stand by that actually. But you will get called a Nazi if you suggest that the reason for them doing this is because they are black (note: capitalization is subtle but important). That is eugenics and has been disproved. See how the causal factors in these arguments are different? The former is a demonstration of an unfair set of opportunities that disproportionately affects a certain subset of humans while the latter says that the arrests are destined because of genetic makeup. We know one is true and the other is false. If you're making arguments akin to the former and getting called a Nazi, get off Twitter and touch some grass. Talk to some real people. Specifically people of color. But maybe listen first before you open your mouth.
  - yucky 4y ago
    If you use that argument to explain away property crime differences, maybe. But that doesn't hold for violent crime rate disparities, which is typically where these conversations go off the rails.
    - godelski 4y ago
      Maybe if that is happening then the problem is you're talking about apples when others are talking about oranges. They're both round fruits and share a lot of similarities so it is easy to get the two confused. Especially with human language where we have a lot of priors that fill in the tremendous gaps in our compressed language. It is even more problematic with hot topics, which is why I suggested listening first. If there is a failure to communicate then maybe change the means in which you are communicating. This should also prod you to listen better. Remember that in communicating you're trying to express this complex idea with a limited vocabulary and time. The listener then has to decompress and interpret this information based on what you said (not what you are thinking) combined with their prior experiences (including the similarity of your argument to arguments made by others. Possibly others you don't wish to associate who are instead dog whistling or using malinformation). So do your best to communicate well and specifically with your target audience but also ensure that you are doing your best to interpret the intended message of those you are communicating with. Not only will the latter help make a more productive conversation, but demonstrating this helps encourage others to do the same in return. Not to say that we aren't human and won't make quick quips. But if we can re-navigate these situations, they do tend to turn out better. I think this conversation between us is a good demonstration of that.
      - yucky 4y ago
        You assume good intentions with these people, that is not what has been on display for the last few years. A general rule of thumb is that anybody engaged in identity politics is a horrible human being, and discussion with them is generally an exercise in futility. These are people who literally start every discussion with the idea that people of different races should be treated differently based on the color of their skin. So I suspect they're projecting a bit, since that is precisely Nazi ideology cloaked in a different skin (literally).