Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> You said
>>>   Take 100 illegal immigrants. If 90 of them are of mexican origin and
>>> the rest are of European origin, you certainly *can* distinguish the majority
>>> of them by how they look.
> 
>> This is factually incorrect, *if* you have 10,000 mexicans and 30 europeans 
>> in the community you're policing. You will spend 10,000 investigations to 
>> catch 90 illegal immigrants if you investigate the ones who look mexican, 
>> while you'll spend 30 investigations to catch 10 illegal immigrants if you 
>> investigate all the europeans.
> 
>   I find it amusing how you manage to both claim that the math says it's
> not possible to use statistics to catch illegals more efficiently *and*
> then you present how you can, in fact, use statistics to catch them more
> efficiently.

No, I'm saying that the math you presented is flawed.  One more time:

You can't use the math of proportions of different subgroups of illegals to 
target which unknowns you question. You must use different proportions of 
subgroups of illegals relative to subgroups of legals.  Once you do that, 
there's no reason to favor one particular way of splitting the total 
population into subgroups over another way of splitting the total population 
into subgroups.

>   But at least you admitted that my math was not flawed, although a bit
> indirectly. "This is factually incorrect if ..." means "that example is
> correct, but if you have this another situation, you need a different
> formula".

Except that the different formula applies to things other than ethnicity. 
There are huge numbers of correlations you can make, and not knowing which 
is accurate will cause you to fail to apply the math right.

>   Bottom line is, it's just like I said earlier: You are taking my simple
> example, showing that the same formula does not work on a more complex
> situation (and even giving a more working replacement), and then somehow
> arguing that the math is showing that statistics can *not* be used for
> this purpose. Still a non-sequitur.

Except I also gave you the *best* formula, which is to *not* check randomly, 
but rather check based on the statistical relationships with the *best* 
power to make policing more efficient. And you equated that with giving up 
completely.

>> Yet acting on that is "outrageous"?
>   Where did you invent this "outrageous" word from?

Outrageous and outlandish have very similar meanings here. I simply 
misremembered which word you used.

>   Seems like you have a new obsession with a fancy word you conjured up from
> somewhere.

Now who is picking nits?

>> Racism: Assuming people of a particular genetic background share a common 
>> (usually negative) trait unrelated to their genetic background.
> 
>   And who is making such assumptions here?

Every example of policing people for illegal immigration has spoken about 
ethnicity.

Had you simply said "police should use statistical models to figure out 
which possible suspect is most likely breaking the law and concentrate on 
those," I would have said "They already do. It's called Probably Cause. And 
the current law in Arizona is targeted at preventing police from doing that."

>>>   One could argue that keeping statistics based on ethnicity is wrong, but
>>> curiously that happens only if the statistics make *certain* ethnicities
>>> look bad, while with other ethnicities it's ok. 
> 
>> We're not talking about that here.
> 
>   Making ancillary comments on things is not allowed?

I'm just trying to prevent confusion.

>>> I didn't ever claim that checking all people of a certain group would be
>>> *the most efficient* way. I said that it would be *more efficient* than
>>> purely random checks. There's a difference between "more" and "most".
> 
>> Sure. But it's still far below "checking people who have done something that 
>> leads you to believe based on their *behavior* that they might be illegal 
>> aliens."
> 
>   At least you somehow admit understanding what I'm writing. 

But that wasn't what you were writing before. If this was what you were 
writing in the first place, we wouldn't be arguing, if you agreed that 
"people of a certain group" are "people for whom you have probable cause."

Otherwise, it's prejudice, and if based on genetics/ethnicity, racism.

>> It does when the citizens consistently complain and vote against 
>> citizenship-proving ID. (To be clear: Of course we have citizenship-proving 
>> ID. We're just not required to produce it on random demand by police.)
> 
>   Well, I suppose citizens get what they want, even if it wouldn't always be
> on their best interest.

Given the history of *this* country, I'm pretty sure it's in *our* best 
interests.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message