@Isomorphic_reasoning's banner p

Isomorphic_reasoning


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 08 01:01:18 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 961

Isomorphic_reasoning


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 08 01:01:18 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 961

Verified Email

Where the hell are you getting p=0.5 from? Do you even know what a p value is? A p value is the probability of observing a result at least as far from the mean by random chance if the null hypothesis (in this case the hypothesis that all demographics commit shoplifting equally) was true. We have a ton of data on shoplifting. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of incidents spanning decades all across the country. The data shows a very clear trend that certain age groups (teens and 20's) and certain races (blacks) commit shoplifting at much higher rates than other ages or groups. This isn't some tiny marginal difference that only shows up on large datasets. We're talking double, triple, quadruple the rates. If you were to calculate a p value for this effect it would be astronomically tiny due to the huge sample size and large effect size.

The term "Sanctuary city" doesn't seem to imply "we accept a proportional share of migrants but get upset if we have to deal with more than that" (1) Instead it seems to imply "we welcome all migrants". If what they really mean is (1) then their proclamations of being a sanctuary city are empty virtue signalling and they deserve to be exposed by stunts like this.

This isn't true though. Blacks commit almost every crime at rates higher than whites. There might be a few exceptions but the general trend is certainly not that different races commit equal amounts of crime but just commit different crimes. The general trend is that blacks commit more crime.

What I'm suggesting is things like "evasive body language" and "baggy coat on a summer day" are far more indicative of "shoplifting" than any demographic quality,

That's not what you said. You said "demographically, no" when asked whether it was possible to reason probabilistically about who was more likely to shoplift. There is a huge difference between saying that behavioral data gives more information than demographic data and saying that demographic data gives no probabilistic information at all. It sounds like you're backtracking here.

  • As in the sense of using demographic data, it doesn’t appear so

Are you lying on purpose or are you actually this ignorant? The demographic data is quite clear. Blacks shoplift at drastically higher rates than whites or Asians.

Demographically no

This is false. Some demographics shoplift at drastically higher rates than others. You can never be certain someone is or isn't a shoplifter demographically but you can definitely reason probabilistically.

If the administration of airlines, air traffic control, pilot training and so on was ruthlessly meritocratic, then I'd agree with you that there'd be no difference in skill between black or female pilots and white male pilots, since they would all have passed the same tests and be above a certain benchmark

Actually, even with the same minimum standard for each race you would expect the white to be better on average.

If X is N(100,15) and Y is N(85,15) then E(X|X > 120) > E(Y|Y>120)

On a related note, has anyone else noticed how weird the scoring systems on graduate level admissions tests are? The GRE, for example, has 2 sections verbal and quantitative each section scores out of 170, except the minimum possible score is 130. So the score range is only 40 wide. Why didn't they just make it 0-40? Why 130-170? The MCAT is even weirder, each section scores from 118-132. Why not 0-14 or 1-15?

My hypothesis is that adding a constant to everyone's scores makes the scores appear artificially closer together which reduces the perceived unfairness of affirmative action admissions. I wonder if we'll see a reversal of this trend now that the Supreme Court has come down on AA.

The term as a whole is stupid because almost every single person who operates a charity or is a large scale philanthropist sincerely believes they are engaged in “effective altruism”

I honestly don't think this is true. A lot of people who start charities choose a cause that has impacted them personally with little thought to whether this is a cause where dollars go the furthest. EA means more than just not actively trying to waste your donation. It means giving rigorous thought to the tradeoffs involved.

This is why issues like minimum wage get terrible traction— the only people who care are people who get paid hourly.

This doesn't seem true. Talking about raising the minimum wage and wealth inequality is popular amongst the nytimes reading PMC

Whatever it cost in 1865 would have been worth it

I think one major problem with this style of argumentation is that while it is very good at exposing contradictions and flaws in a specific person's understanding of an issue that does not always translate into exposing contradictions or flaws in the philosophical or political positions themselves. It's perfectly possible to give a false proof of a true statement and when your debate partner rips apart that proof it might make the audience think that this means your conclusion was false, but it doesn't actually imply this. I sometimes watch debate videos and I often find myself frustrated that the person who I agree with is giving such bad arguments, I want to yell at them through the screen.

I agree with you that, with a few exceptions, the current crop of Republicans are a bunch of clowns. But unfortunately my only alternative is voting for people who actively hate me for who I am and my beliefs. I say this as a white male who believes that racial disparities are primarily genetic and that many of the differences between men and women have a biological basis. These are scientific beliefs that in a sane world wouldn't be controversial. Sadly, in our world they mark me as scum to anyone on the left half of the country so I'm forced to throw my support to the other side. And if that other side is a bunch of clowns then I'm giving my support to a bunch of clowns because i sure as hell am not going to give it to the people who hate me.

You said both sides were wrong. I don't see how the pregnant lady is anything other than entirely blameless

That statistic is net gain in employment. If 100 whites are hired, 20 blacks are hired. 99 whites retire and 10 blacks retire. Then 10/11 or 91% of net jobs created went to blacks but the hiring situation isn't nearly so dire.

You should also try actually reading the book. He goes into detail about how it is not the plain reading of the laws that matters but a series of precedent setting cases and executive decisions that have shaped their enforcement.

Sooner or later, every reader will cotton on to the fact that whenever the MSM report on a violent crime commited by a white native man, his skin colour will be mentioned prominently (either in the headline or the lede); ergo, if you see an article about a violent crime which doesn't mention the assailant's skin colour or nationality, the only reasonable assumption is that he is black or Arab or Eastern European (optionally Muslim)

Sadly i don't think this will ever happen. Remember, the bottom fraction in terms of intelligence has trouble figuring out that theyv would probably be hungry right now if they hadn't eaten breakfast this morning. They certainly aren't going to intuit chains of reasoning like this.

No. I was just speaking in shorthand. You don't have to say you would be hungry. "I probably still wouldn't be hungry even if i skipped breakfast because i often don't eat breakfast" is a perfectly fine answer as well. "Bad" answers are those that reveal that the person is incapable of embracing hypotheticals. Ie people who say things like "what are you talking about, i did eat breakfast"

I agree with this. I think this relates to another interesting problem in probability. "What's the probability that the 10^10^10 th prime is 3 mod 4?" Its tempting to say 1/2 since we know that the asymptotic density is 1/2 and we have no way of knowing. But this is iconsistent with the axioms of probability theory. Since it's a statement with a definite answer the probability has to be either 1 or 0 to be consistent.

I actually think this is economically distinct from nepotism. With standard nepotism you have a principal agent problem. The hiring manager is supposed to be acting on behalf of the institution when he awards the position but he instead acts to benefit himself by hiring an underqualified family member. This is in essence the hiring manager stealing value from the institution that employs him and if that's a publicly funded instead he is in essence stealing from the tax payers.

But spousal hiring is different. The spousal hire is awarded as part of a negotiation in order to attract the superior researcher and thus it serves the interest of the institution by allowing them to attract better talent.

But more likely it's just some obscure thing about how the scoring works. It's definitely not just a number of points for each question, some computerized versions have adaptive questions based on how well you're doing, etc.

This doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter what the score curve is like. You can always transform a scoring system with a 130 min score and 170 max score to one with a 0 min score and 40 max score and the same curve by just subtracting 130 from each score.

If that's true (and im inclined to agree with you) the correct move was deporting all the freed slaves back to Africa after the Civil War. Why didn't we do that?

If there's genuine medical uncertainty the only responsible choice for an expectant mother is total abstinence and an expectant father is completely justified in requesting that from his partner

Don't read too much into it. It was 50/50 that the better person would have been more attractive and if it had gone the other direction he just wouldnt have brought it up

I would prefer it because it's more honest

This is Black History Month

No it's not. Black history month in America is February. Look it up