Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  No, you didn't. You said, and I quote: "This is actually incorrect, *if*
you have ... etc."

  In other words. The example I gave was correct. You then presented a
*different* example where the same formulation doesn't work in the same
way.

>  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.

  I don't see the logical line of reasoning there. It's a non-sequitur.

  "You must use different proportions of subgroups" -> "there's no reason
to favor one particular way of splitting over another" does not logically
follow.

> >   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.

  I never said you can't use anything else than ethnicity to come up with
the formula. My example was simple for the sake of example.

  It intended to demonstrate a *point*. The numbers weren't important,
no matter how much you like to nitpick about them.

> >   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.

  Where? All I said is that your implication "your example doesn't work in
this case" -> "statistics cannot be used at all" does not follow.

> >> 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.

  Really? I would say that outrage and strangeness are quite different
things. Not even comparable. The first describes a feeling while the second
describes the understandability of something.

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

> Now who is picking nits?

  I'm not nitpicking. I'm amused at your curious sudden infatuation with that
word, which seemed strange.

> 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."

  Yeah, using ethnicity as an example is forbidden because you are immediately
a racist if you do.

> >> 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.

  Maybe distrust of authorities is a self-feeding process which never ends.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message