Statistics...what are the deeper issues?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If you know only 1 thing about 4 different people:
1 is a man
1 a woman
1 a rich person
1 a poor person

Betting that the man is the criminal is the safest bet.

Stereotypes have nothing to do with motivation - why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

(thank god our laws aren't based on your "betting man" mentality...)

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I don't know why it's so hard to say, "my ideas cannot explain the data."

Or better yet - "the data has nothing to do with the ideas I'm expressing because the whole point of this thread is to discover the MOTIVES behind the data"... I don't know why you're trying to use these numbers to predict human behavior (that's the inherent folly of stereotypes!)

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

A spaghetti monsterist might say that men were created with a fork in one hand and a can of Parmesan in the other. Neither would explain why all the people on the list posted above (fare dodgers and traffic violators) are there, let alone why the demographics of such lists are as they are.

And penises do?

I'm glad it's so simple - I'll keep my guard up around men from now on (my boss might try to shiv me at work tomorrow because he's a man... Numbers don't lie!)

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

That's funny cause just a few posts ago you were saying that people were wrong for trying to turn it into a discussion about race. (and race is largely biological; and sex (gender, anyway) is partly social).

I didn't mean that I'm interested in supporting the racial angle of this discussion - I meant that I'm interested in hearing more from the people who were discussing race before you hijacked this thread with your gender angle... At least the gray area of "culture" makes the topic of race more open to discussion and debate (and the issue of wealth is even more fertile...)

Frankly, I think this thread got a lot weaker as soon as you & I decided to dance circles - hell, I'm embarrassed to admit that even 92bDad managed to stay on topic better than we did...

[Usually Lurkin]

How can you say it's all about rich v. poor, then go and say it has nothing to do with stereotypes?

Originally Posted by Underdog

I'm glad it's so simple - I'll keep my guard up around men from now on (my boss might try to shiv me at work tomorrow because he's a man... Numbers don't lie!)

your boss probably has more stuff than you. Maybe he should watch his back!

I didn't mean that I'm interested in supporting the racial angle of this discussion - I meant that I'm interested in hearing more from the people who were discussing race before you hijacked this thread with your gender angle... At least the gray area of "culture" makes the topic of race more open to discussion and debate (and the issue of wealth is even more fertile...).

"Hijacked?" the gender breakdown is listed before the race breakdown in the original post. I'm sorry if you can't apply your haves v. have-nots voodoo incantation to that part of the discussion, really I am. But like it or not, the thread is about deeper issues behind the gender and racial breakdowns of the most wanted list. I think it's pretty funny that no one is seriously discussing the gender thing - as if all our pat answers really do explain the race ratios ('cause those are economic) And if you don't think the differences between men and women go deeper than the presence or absence of a penis, all I can say is, "good luck with your haves v. have-nots voodoo incantations."

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

How can you say it's all about rich v. poor, then go and say it has nothing to do with stereotypes?

Using words like man/woman, rich/poor, black/white isn't stereotyping, but believing those words somehow predict human behavior is...

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

your boss probably has more stuff than you. Maybe he should watch his back!

That's probably why he's always giving me shifty looks and carries a gun in the glove box of his Jaguar...

(but I like how you're still using that small pool of numbers to predict human behavior!)

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

"Hijacked?" the gender breakdown is listed before the race breakdown in the original post. I'm sorry if you can't apply your haves v. have-nots voodoo incantation to that part of the discussion, really I am. But like it or not, the thread is about deeper issues behind the gender and racial breakdowns of the most wanted list. I think it's pretty funny that no one is seriously discussing the gender thing - as if all our pat answers really do explain the race ratios ('cause those are economic) And if you don't think the differences between men and women go deeper than the presence or absence of a penis, all I can say is, "good luck with your haves v. have-nots voodoo incantations."

You do realize my stance on this issue is that both gender & race have less to do with crime than social issues (like wealth or education, as Flaco brought up), don't you? My debate is that the numbers and intent of the original post are bunk, but you can't seem to process what I'm saying because you're still busy looking at the finger instead of what it's pointing at...

Circles... Circles... Circles... (and other "voodoo incantations")

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Underdog

You do realize my stance on this issue is that both gender & race have less to do with crime than social issues (like wealth or education, as Flaco brought up), don't you? My debate is that the numbers and intent of the original post are bunk, but you can't seem to process what I'm saying because you're still busy looking at the finger instead of what it's pointing at...

Circles... Circles... Circles... (and other "voodoo incantations")

But they don't (have less to do with crime. . . ). Sex of a person is more related to criminality than anything else. If your understanding of motivation does not explain that, then you are missing the biggest part of the picture.

And stop it with these "small numbers" comments, unless you think the sample above is not representative of a population of interest. And if you don't think it is, explain why and cite some better stats. As is, these are the data we are talking about.

And what do you mean with your finger and pointing metaphor???? Are you saying that you are using the disparate male/female ratio to point to SES as a factor? 'cause that makes no sense, especially when you can't say anything about the male/female ratio. It sounds more like you are trying to get us to ignore the broken finger and look elsewhere.