4 ms·

> you should be aware that this claim isn't actually true That's an extremely bold statement to make. The study the WSJ article was based on was retracted: ht

> you should be aware that this claim isn't actually true That's an extremely bold statement to make. The study the WSJ article was based on was retracted: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014148117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014148117 Directly from the authors themselves: > Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general. To be clear, our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research. And there are articles that go into how exactly they got it wrong: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/15/police-shooting-study-retracted/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/15/police-sho.... On top of this, police shootings are just one aspect of policing. You can find various research that supports, for example, that you're way more likely to be pulled over while driving if you are black than if you are white. And that relative proportion drops at night because it's harder for them to see. They're then more likely to be searched after the stop, and more likely to be handcuffed. And police brutality is much more than just shooting - I don't think we keep track of how often police officers use _any_ kind of force, but that's another thing that would also need to be evaluated. There are just... so, so many things you'd need to consider and refute in order to make that statement.

revelio 4y ago
That retraction was itself political in nature: https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-disavowed-it-11594250254 https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-dis... My June 3 Journal op-ed quoted the PNAS article’s conclusion verbatim. It set off a firestorm at Michigan State. The university’s Graduate Employees Union pressured the MSU press office to apologize for the “harm it caused” by mentioning my article in a newsletter. The union targeted physicist Steve Hsu, who had approved funding for Mr. Cesario’s research. MSU sacked Mr. Hsu from his administrative position. PNAS editorialized that Messrs. Cesario and Johnson had “poorly framed” their article—the one that got through the journal’s three levels of editorial and peer review. Read the correction they issued: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004734117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004734117 "As we estimated Pr(race|shot, X), this sentence should read: ‘As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased, a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.’ This is consistent with our framing of the results in the abstract and main text." In other words, the thing being fought over was the wording of a single sentence that didn't change their actual conclusions, which are consistent with the other evidence. But then later: "Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general." Yes, because their correction in their own words "is consistent with our framing of the results". This whole incident is just proof of what I'm saying - the American left systematically attacks anyone who tries to point out the actual data here, which is why people don't hear about it. This particular paper led to a Twitter mob and someone got fired, but it wasn't due to bad methods, it was because student activists were upset about the "harm" it caused: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-twitter-mob-takes-down-an-administrator-at-michigan-state-11593106102 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-twitter-mob-takes-down-an-adm... >> you're way more likely to be pulled over while driving if you are black than if you are white. Aren't you now doing the things you're claiming these Michigan researchers did? Where's your control for actual crime rates?
- thatswrong0 4y ago
  > the American left systematically attacks anyone who tries to point out the actual data here And you're systematically ignoring literally everything else I've said, including an article pointing out the multitude of errors included in the study, references to other unexplained disparities, and I might also just add: > Cesario and Johnson write that their "decision had nothing to do with political considerations, ‘mob’ pressure, threats to the authors, or distaste for the political views of people citing the work approvingly." Even if police shootings aren't evidence of racial disparities in policing, there are a _lot_ of other disparities.. which are certainly worth considering if you actually care about the data. But if your evidence consists entirely of vacuously parroting Oped pieces by a right wing political commentator who "claimed that 95% of outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles were for undocumented immigrants and that 75% of L.A.'s most wanted list comprised undocumented immigrants", then.. I don't know what to tell you.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    You believe the retraction was done for legitimate scientific reasons instead of for political ones just because the people who did the retraction said so?
- ggdG 4y ago
  >Yes, and that retraction was itself political in nature: >https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-disavowed-it-11594250254 https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-dis... Indeed. The chronology is important: 1. Cesario et al [1] received some criticism [2], but they stood by their findings [3] 2. A student union / twitter mob was not happy with the findings of the study [4] 3. The resulting political pressure led to the ousting of Stephen Hsu from MSU, who had approved the funding for the study [5] 4. Only then retracted Cesario et al their study, while still standing by their findings [6] ______ There is a similar study done by economist Roland Fryer [7], while at Harvard. Summarized, the two studies find the following: Cesario et al: Per interaction with the police, civilians have roughly the same risk of being killed by police gunfire, regardless of their ethnicity. Fryer: - Per interaction with the police, civilians have roughly the same risk of being the target of police gunfire, regardless of their ethnicity. - Per interaction with the police, a black civilian is 1.5x more at risk to receive slight use of force by the police than a white civilian. This disparity gets smaller at higher levels of force. (See [7], Figure 1) - Per interaction with the police, a perfectly compliant black civilian is 1.2x more at risk to receive slight use of force by the police than a perfectly compliant white civilian. This disparity gets smaller at higher levels of force. (See [7], Figure 5) [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1903856116 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1903856116 [2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1919418117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1919418117 [3] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1920184117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1920184117 [4] https://twitter.com/gradempunion/status/1270829004157849600 https://twitter.com/gradempunion/status/1270829004157849600 [5] https://lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2020/06/19/msu-vp-research-resigns-after-controversial-comments-research/3226785001/ https://lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2020/06/19/msu-vp... [6] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004734117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004734117 [7] https://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.harvard.edu/files/...

revelio 4y ago

That retraction was itself political in nature: https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-disavowed-it-11594250254 https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-dis... My June 3 Journal op-ed quoted the PNAS article’s conclusion verbatim. It set off a firestorm at Michigan State. The university’s Graduate Employees Union pressured the MSU press office to apologize for the “harm it caused” by mentioning my article in a newsletter. The union targeted physicist Steve Hsu, who had approved funding for Mr. Cesario’s research. MSU sacked Mr. Hsu from his administrative position. PNAS editorialized that Messrs. Cesario and Johnson had “poorly framed” their article—the one that got through the journal’s three levels of editorial and peer review. Read the correction they issued: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004734117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004734117 "As we estimated Pr(race|shot, X), this sentence should read: ‘As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased, a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.’ This is consistent with our framing of the results in the abstract and main text." In other words, the thing being fought over was the wording of a single sentence that didn't change their actual conclusions, which are consistent with the other evidence. But then later: "Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general." Yes, because their correction in their own words "is consistent with our framing of the results". This whole incident is just proof of what I'm saying - the American left systematically attacks anyone who tries to point out the actual data here, which is why people don't hear about it. This particular paper led to a Twitter mob and someone got fired, but it wasn't due to bad methods, it was because student activists were upset about the "harm" it caused: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-twitter-mob-takes-down-an-administrator-at-michigan-state-11593106102 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-twitter-mob-takes-down-an-adm... >> you're way more likely to be pulled over while driving if you are black than if you are white. Aren't you now doing the things you're claiming these Michigan researchers did? Where's your control for actual crime rates?

thatswrong0 4y ago
> the American left systematically attacks anyone who tries to point out the actual data here And you're systematically ignoring literally everything else I've said, including an article pointing out the multitude of errors included in the study, references to other unexplained disparities, and I might also just add: > Cesario and Johnson write that their "decision had nothing to do with political considerations, ‘mob’ pressure, threats to the authors, or distaste for the political views of people citing the work approvingly." Even if police shootings aren't evidence of racial disparities in policing, there are a _lot_ of other disparities.. which are certainly worth considering if you actually care about the data. But if your evidence consists entirely of vacuously parroting Oped pieces by a right wing political commentator who "claimed that 95% of outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles were for undocumented immigrants and that 75% of L.A.'s most wanted list comprised undocumented immigrants", then.. I don't know what to tell you.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  You believe the retraction was done for legitimate scientific reasons instead of for political ones just because the people who did the retraction said so?
ggdG 4y ago
>Yes, and that retraction was itself political in nature: >https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-disavowed-it-11594250254 https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-dis... Indeed. The chronology is important: 1. Cesario et al [1] received some criticism [2], but they stood by their findings [3] 2. A student union / twitter mob was not happy with the findings of the study [4] 3. The resulting political pressure led to the ousting of Stephen Hsu from MSU, who had approved the funding for the study [5] 4. Only then retracted Cesario et al their study, while still standing by their findings [6] ______ There is a similar study done by economist Roland Fryer [7], while at Harvard. Summarized, the two studies find the following: Cesario et al: Per interaction with the police, civilians have roughly the same risk of being killed by police gunfire, regardless of their ethnicity. Fryer: - Per interaction with the police, civilians have roughly the same risk of being the target of police gunfire, regardless of their ethnicity. - Per interaction with the police, a black civilian is 1.5x more at risk to receive slight use of force by the police than a white civilian. This disparity gets smaller at higher levels of force. (See [7], Figure 1) - Per interaction with the police, a perfectly compliant black civilian is 1.2x more at risk to receive slight use of force by the police than a perfectly compliant white civilian. This disparity gets smaller at higher levels of force. (See [7], Figure 5) [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1903856116 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1903856116 [2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1919418117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1919418117 [3] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1920184117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1920184117 [4] https://twitter.com/gradempunion/status/1270829004157849600 https://twitter.com/gradempunion/status/1270829004157849600 [5] https://lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2020/06/19/msu-vp-research-resigns-after-controversial-comments-research/3226785001/ https://lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2020/06/19/msu-vp... [6] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004734117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004734117 [7] https://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.harvard.edu/files/...