7 ms·

> Or care enough to find out what the experts say? And what do expert way about crime? I don't care about crime levels, so I have no idea where to look really.

by ordu 7mo ago

> Or care enough to find out what the experts say? And what do expert way about crime? I don't care about crime levels, so I have no idea where to look really. It seems that no one knows where to look, as in comments on Scott's blog, so on HN. Could you find an expert take on this discrepancy between reported levels of crime and perceived levels of crime? If you can't, and no one can, so maybe it is a good question to try our abilities to work with data and draw conclusions? > this is not a good method of getting closer to the truth I do not care about crime, but I know that I can't ask expert all the question I have. So I just have no other options. > a better methodology than either would surely begin with studying the subject more seriously. You can't be expert in all topics at once, so this is not an option. Probably you can create a think tank, inviting experts in different areas into it, which can answer all your questions. But where do you get the money for that?

pron 7mo ago
> And what do expert way about crime? There have been numerous studies on crime perception and fear of crime in the last 50 years. Here's just a small touch of what an internet search brought up in ten minutes: * https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/SUBJECTIVE-PROBABILITY-OF-VICTIMIZATION-AND-CRIME-Block-Long/bd43972708defc50380a98668fad4fa2c0b35aba https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/SUBJECTIVE-PROBABILITY... * https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/59/2/435/5067283 https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/59/2/435/5067283 * https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/communication-and-mass-media/mean-world-syndrome https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/communication-and-ma... * https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/crimestatisticsfocusonpublicperceptionsofcrimeandthepoliceandthepersonalwellbeingofvictims/2015-03-26/chapter2publicperceptionsofcrime https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand... * https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/law/news/article/1953/crime-has-fallen-so-why-don-t-we-believe-it-two-school-of-law-academics-set-the-record-straight https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/law/news/article/1953/crime-has-fal... * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018-0094-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018-0094-8 For example, one of these sources, in the British Journal of Criminology begins with: For over 40 years, the fear of crime has been a stable of North American, British and European criminological research. Hundreds of publications have sought to illuminate the social and emotional risks associated with worry about crime (Ferraro 1995; Hale 1996; Visser et al. 2013). > If you can't, and no one can, so maybe it is a good question to try our abilities to work with data and draw conclusions? Not like that. You'll find that most questions for which there's good data (and even if there isn't) that more than one person is interested in already have experts thinking about. If there aren't, and you're qualified (i.e. have the requisite context) people will pay you to work on the problem through something called "research grants". > You can't be expert in all topics at once, so this is not an option. Probably you can create a think tank, inviting experts in different areas into it, which can answer all your questions. But where do you get the money for that? Well, in Europe we have these things only we call them universities, not a "think tanks", and while far from perfect, they're the actual best way humanity has come up with for trying to answer hard questions. They work like this: people spend some years getting the needed context in various fields, and then different people spend years studying different areas. These people publish their findings periodically, and so people who aren't experts in a particular field can read what the experts wrote. Because people make mistake, multiple people explore every question, and then they argue with each other, but when they do, they already know what they're talking about. This turns out to work better than people starting with a blank slate trying to ponder their way to an answer in the course of days or weeks. Of course, because many things that interest people are non linear systems, there are many things we can't really get definitive answers for, and it's a fun exercise to think about the (currently) unanswerable questions. But to do it well, you need to start from the current state of knowledge and at least survey what the experts have so far rather than start from scratch with some pieces of data you may not have the right context to analyse. That's why Scott Alexander isn't taken seriously. He's playing a game based on the plot of the film Memento: He makes sure he has just the right pieces to make something interesting for him yet simple enough to think through in days or weeks and maybe reach a conclusion (and a conclusion perhaps could not be reached without erasing enough information to paint a simple-enough picture). Some people find it entertaining, and I can see why; it evokes natural philosophy, which has certainly produced a lot of entertaning prose. But ultimately it's a game of fantasy science.
- ordu 7mo ago
  > There have been numerous studies on crime perception and fear of crime in the last 50 years. Nice, so there are relevant studies. Pity no one tried to troll Scott with these, it would be interesting to watch. > Not like that. You'll find that most questions for which there's good data (and even if there isn't) that more than one person is interested in already have experts thinking about. If there aren't, and you're qualified (i.e. have the requisite context) people will pay you to work on the problem through something called "research grants". The existence of experts is not a guarantee they will answer your questions, or that they will publish their answers in an accessible way. Grants are not the answer: you need to become an expert in a topic, to get a grant, but you can be an expert in all topics and get all the grants. > Well, in Europe we have these things only we call them universities, not a "think tanks" You can call them as you like, but if it is not you who pays money for researchers, they will probably won't answer your questions. > to do it well, you need to start from the current state of knowledge One can't do it in most of the cases. It is possible for a selected small range of topics, but not for all questions I can want answers for. > at least survey what the experts have so far rather than start from scratch with some pieces of data you may not have the right context to analyse. Yeah, I agree with that. > That's why Scott Alexander isn't taken seriously. He's playing a game based on the plot of the film Memento: He makes sure he has just the right pieces to make something interesting for him yet simple enough to think through in days or weeks and maybe reach a conclusion (and a conclusion perhaps could not be reached without erasing enough information to paint a simple-enough picture). Some people find it entertaining, and I can see why; it evokes natural philosophy, which has certainly produced a lot of entertaning prose. Yeah, hard to argue with that. > But ultimately it's a game of fantasy science. I can't resist and not to ask "and what?" Universities are not really good in most cases. It is a rare occasion to read a take of a PhD on something like Iran war (Brett Devereaux just couldn't resist it), mostly all you have are opinions of self-proclaimed experts, and if you are lucky, if will be an opinion of Scott Alexander. Alternatively you can try to churn data yourself. Well, maybe if I had money to bring down paywalls all around the Internet I could read PhDs talking about the world around us all day long, but it needs too much money. And when it comes to using far from perfect sources to understand what is going on, the only strategy I know is to stick to some number of those "experts". You'll learn their strengths and weaknesses with time, you'll learn how to form your own opinion based on their thoughts. You can't just stick to real experts, because you'll need really a lot of them to cover wide enough knowledge, so you'd better find some non-experts, who covers a wide range of topics, for most of them they will not have a qualification. Know your sources and watch them argue with others. You'll know when they are right and when they are mistaken.

by ordu 7mo ago

pron 7mo ago

> And what do expert way about crime? There have been numerous studies on crime perception and fear of crime in the last 50 years. Here's just a small touch of what an internet search brought up in ten minutes: * https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/SUBJECTIVE-PROBABILITY-OF-VICTIMIZATION-AND-CRIME-Block-Long/bd43972708defc50380a98668fad4fa2c0b35aba https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/SUBJECTIVE-PROBABILITY... * https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/59/2/435/5067283 https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/59/2/435/5067283 * https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/communication-and-mass-media/mean-world-syndrome https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/communication-and-ma... * https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/crimestatisticsfocusonpublicperceptionsofcrimeandthepoliceandthepersonalwellbeingofvictims/2015-03-26/chapter2publicperceptionsofcrime https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand... * https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/law/news/article/1953/crime-has-fallen-so-why-don-t-we-believe-it-two-school-of-law-academics-set-the-record-straight https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/law/news/article/1953/crime-has-fal... * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018-0094-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018-0094-8 For example, one of these sources, in the British Journal of Criminology begins with: For over 40 years, the fear of crime has been a stable of North American, British and European criminological research. Hundreds of publications have sought to illuminate the social and emotional risks associated with worry about crime (Ferraro 1995; Hale 1996; Visser et al. 2013). > If you can't, and no one can, so maybe it is a good question to try our abilities to work with data and draw conclusions? Not like that. You'll find that most questions for which there's good data (and even if there isn't) that more than one person is interested in already have experts thinking about. If there aren't, and you're qualified (i.e. have the requisite context) people will pay you to work on the problem through something called "research grants". > You can't be expert in all topics at once, so this is not an option. Probably you can create a think tank, inviting experts in different areas into it, which can answer all your questions. But where do you get the money for that? Well, in Europe we have these things only we call them universities, not a "think tanks", and while far from perfect, they're the actual best way humanity has come up with for trying to answer hard questions. They work like this: people spend some years getting the needed context in various fields, and then different people spend years studying different areas. These people publish their findings periodically, and so people who aren't experts in a particular field can read what the experts wrote. Because people make mistake, multiple people explore every question, and then they argue with each other, but when they do, they already know what they're talking about. This turns out to work better than people starting with a blank slate trying to ponder their way to an answer in the course of days or weeks. Of course, because many things that interest people are non linear systems, there are many things we can't really get definitive answers for, and it's a fun exercise to think about the (currently) unanswerable questions. But to do it well, you need to start from the current state of knowledge and at least survey what the experts have so far rather than start from scratch with some pieces of data you may not have the right context to analyse. That's why Scott Alexander isn't taken seriously. He's playing a game based on the plot of the film Memento: He makes sure he has just the right pieces to make something interesting for him yet simple enough to think through in days or weeks and maybe reach a conclusion (and a conclusion perhaps could not be reached without erasing enough information to paint a simple-enough picture). Some people find it entertaining, and I can see why; it evokes natural philosophy, which has certainly produced a lot of entertaning prose. But ultimately it's a game of fantasy science.

ordu 7mo ago
> There have been numerous studies on crime perception and fear of crime in the last 50 years. Nice, so there are relevant studies. Pity no one tried to troll Scott with these, it would be interesting to watch. > Not like that. You'll find that most questions for which there's good data (and even if there isn't) that more than one person is interested in already have experts thinking about. If there aren't, and you're qualified (i.e. have the requisite context) people will pay you to work on the problem through something called "research grants". The existence of experts is not a guarantee they will answer your questions, or that they will publish their answers in an accessible way. Grants are not the answer: you need to become an expert in a topic, to get a grant, but you can be an expert in all topics and get all the grants. > Well, in Europe we have these things only we call them universities, not a "think tanks" You can call them as you like, but if it is not you who pays money for researchers, they will probably won't answer your questions. > to do it well, you need to start from the current state of knowledge One can't do it in most of the cases. It is possible for a selected small range of topics, but not for all questions I can want answers for. > at least survey what the experts have so far rather than start from scratch with some pieces of data you may not have the right context to analyse. Yeah, I agree with that. > That's why Scott Alexander isn't taken seriously. He's playing a game based on the plot of the film Memento: He makes sure he has just the right pieces to make something interesting for him yet simple enough to think through in days or weeks and maybe reach a conclusion (and a conclusion perhaps could not be reached without erasing enough information to paint a simple-enough picture). Some people find it entertaining, and I can see why; it evokes natural philosophy, which has certainly produced a lot of entertaning prose. Yeah, hard to argue with that. > But ultimately it's a game of fantasy science. I can't resist and not to ask "and what?" Universities are not really good in most cases. It is a rare occasion to read a take of a PhD on something like Iran war (Brett Devereaux just couldn't resist it), mostly all you have are opinions of self-proclaimed experts, and if you are lucky, if will be an opinion of Scott Alexander. Alternatively you can try to churn data yourself. Well, maybe if I had money to bring down paywalls all around the Internet I could read PhDs talking about the world around us all day long, but it needs too much money. And when it comes to using far from perfect sources to understand what is going on, the only strategy I know is to stick to some number of those "experts". You'll learn their strengths and weaknesses with time, you'll learn how to form your own opinion based on their thoughts. You can't just stick to real experts, because you'll need really a lot of them to cover wide enough knowledge, so you'd better find some non-experts, who covers a wide range of topics, for most of them they will not have a qualification. Know your sources and watch them argue with others. You'll know when they are right and when they are mistaken.