4 ms·

[flagged]

by tech_ken 3y ago

[flagged]

positus 3y ago
Why do you consider the opinion voiced in the article to be a "stupid opinion"?
- tech_ken 3y ago
  I edited my original comment to expound. The "evidence" he cites is incredibly thin, in my professional opinion.
- basfo 3y ago
  Because correlation does not imply causation.
  - misja111 3y ago
    But if one factor correlates more with crime than all the others, it sure looks like that one is the cause.
    - tech_ken 3y ago
      Can I use this comment (anonymized of course) as example in the next course I teach on regression stats? Because it's the exact opposite of how you're supposed to do regression inference. Selecting feature sets by beta alone is a recipe for disaster. Consider the following example: A + B => Y (one A and one B causes one Y) A => 2Z (two A causes one Z) If you have a data set featuring B, Z, and Y then a regression analysis will yield that Y = 2Z + B, and you would conclude that Z is "a root cause" of Y over B. However, by construction Z has no causal effect on Y, only B does. This is literally the point of "correlation does not imply causation". Moreover, the white-paper the op-ed author is citing [0] doesn't even have "fatherlessness" as the most correlated variable: it's poverty across the board (and by a lot). Even if your argument was sound it wouldn't be correct. [0] https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/reports/ifs-strongerfamilies-final-1.pdf https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/reports/ifs-strong... Tables 2 and 3
      - misja111 3y ago
        Thank you, I should have read the white paper better, you are right, the correlation with single parent households is actually one of the weakest. By the way, do I read correctly from the regression analysis stats, that "single young men age 15-29" is -negatively- correlated with all categories of crime?
        tech_ken 3y ago
        Yes, that’s correct. Mixed significance pattern and wide-ish SEs so a little challenging to make claims across crime types IMO. This demo tends to commit the most recorded crimes, which means that they’re getting arrested or murdered. Presumably in an area where lots of crimes are occurring the corresponding increase in arrests and murders leads to lower population counts on the US Census (which I believe was their source of truth on demo stuff).
PortiaBerries 3y ago
Well, whether or not fatherlessness is the actual cause (and I believe there is abundant evidence that it is), it seems very likely that partially rewinding the societal changes that have led to widespread fatherlessness are going to have a positive effect on crime. And yes, I'm talking about the sexual revolution.
- PortiaBerries 3y ago
  I see your extended response now. Well, I'm happy to do some ironclad moralization.
  - tech_ken 3y ago
    More fool you
- tech_ken 3y ago
  "Whether or not we correctly understand the root causes of X, it seems likely that doing Y will clearly reduce it". I can't change your beliefs, but you have to understand how foolish this sounds to me. If you think the sexual revolution causes crime then just say that. I personally think it's ludicrous, but at least do me the decency of stating your conflicting opinion instead of trying to sidestep the point that this op-ed is fluff.

[flagged]

positus 3y ago

Why do you consider the opinion voiced in the article to be a "stupid opinion"?

tech_ken 3y ago
I edited my original comment to expound. The "evidence" he cites is incredibly thin, in my professional opinion.
basfo 3y ago
Because correlation does not imply causation.
- misja111 3y ago
  But if one factor correlates more with crime than all the others, it sure looks like that one is the cause.
  - tech_ken 3y ago
    Can I use this comment (anonymized of course) as example in the next course I teach on regression stats? Because it's the exact opposite of how you're supposed to do regression inference. Selecting feature sets by beta alone is a recipe for disaster. Consider the following example: A + B => Y (one A and one B causes one Y) A => 2Z (two A causes one Z) If you have a data set featuring B, Z, and Y then a regression analysis will yield that Y = 2Z + B, and you would conclude that Z is "a root cause" of Y over B. However, by construction Z has no causal effect on Y, only B does. This is literally the point of "correlation does not imply causation". Moreover, the white-paper the op-ed author is citing [0] doesn't even have "fatherlessness" as the most correlated variable: it's poverty across the board (and by a lot). Even if your argument was sound it wouldn't be correct. [0] https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/reports/ifs-strongerfamilies-final-1.pdf https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/reports/ifs-strong... Tables 2 and 3
    - misja111 3y ago
      Thank you, I should have read the white paper better, you are right, the correlation with single parent households is actually one of the weakest. By the way, do I read correctly from the regression analysis stats, that "single young men age 15-29" is -negatively- correlated with all categories of crime?
      - tech_ken 3y ago
        Yes, that’s correct. Mixed significance pattern and wide-ish SEs so a little challenging to make claims across crime types IMO. This demo tends to commit the most recorded crimes, which means that they’re getting arrested or murdered. Presumably in an area where lots of crimes are occurring the corresponding increase in arrests and murders leads to lower population counts on the US Census (which I believe was their source of truth on demo stuff).

PortiaBerries 3y ago

Well, whether or not fatherlessness is the actual cause (and I believe there is abundant evidence that it is), it seems very likely that partially rewinding the societal changes that have led to widespread fatherlessness are going to have a positive effect on crime. And yes, I'm talking about the sexual revolution.

PortiaBerries 3y ago
I see your extended response now. Well, I'm happy to do some ironclad moralization.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  More fool you
tech_ken 3y ago
"Whether or not we correctly understand the root causes of X, it seems likely that doing Y will clearly reduce it". I can't change your beliefs, but you have to understand how foolish this sounds to me. If you think the sexual revolution causes crime then just say that. I personally think it's ludicrous, but at least do me the decency of stating your conflicting opinion instead of trying to sidestep the point that this op-ed is fluff.