 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> How many times do I have to write "but I understand why it wouldn't work
> in practice" before it sinks in?
Because I'm telling you why it wouldn't work even in theory. Even if you
*found* that statistical correlation, the answer is still "No, it wouldn't
work."
> (And how many times do I have to write that it doesn't change my original
> point?)
And that's why I think you don't understand what I'm saying. It completely
invalidates your original point, as well as all the rewordings of the
original point you've expressed.
Because your original point is *incorrect*, and there is *no way* to make it
correct, even by completely eliminating all prejudice and fear of racism and
profiling from the entire population. It's not that "it wouldn't work in
practice." It's that "the math says it wouldn't even work in theory."
>> I completely understand. And I'm telling you "the math shows that there are
>> no contexts in which crime could be more efficiently stopped by making the
>> distinction," in any case where you don't already know something about the
>> specific criminal you seek. And yet, you still haven't said you understand
>> this. Do you?
>
> No.
>
> Firstly, I don't see how the math says that.
Look up Bayesian statistics. It's a common misunderstanding of how things work.
As I've tried to explain, it's a difference between reducing false negatives
and reducing false positives.
http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-intuitive-and-short-explanation-of-bayes-theorem/
Your "test" is the ethnicity, and your "result" is whether the person
committed the crime. The number of people who are *not* criminals far
outweighs the number of people who *are* criminals.
That's why I've been pounding on this. You seem to not understand "it
mathematically cannot make a difference."
> Secondly, it was not my point. My point *still* is "if it could make a
> difference, it would make sense to use it".
OK. I don't know what else to say besides "It's impossible for it to make a
difference, so there's never any way in which it makes sense to use it."
> You talk like using a profile is mutually exclusive with using other clues.
Having a profile is unnecessary if you have other clues. You match the
person to the clues, even if that clue is a clue about the race or gender or
age of the suspect. That's not profiling. That's using clues to eliminate
suspects.
> If your clues have narrowed down the list of suspects to 100 people, 50
> males and 50 females, and your profile says that the criminal is most likely
> a male (for example, in rape cases it's pretty unlikely for the criminal to
> be female), you reduced your list from 100 to 50.
You understand that is eliminating false positives, right? By the time
you've already narrowed it from 300,000,000 people down to 100 people, you
have probable cause to suspect some of those people. You're not eliminating
the females because "in rape cases it's unlikely to be a female." You're
eliminating the females because you have genetics spilled all over the
victim telling you it's a male. That's no more profiling than "the rape
happened in Boulder, so let's not suspect people who were in Beijing that day."
If the victim got raped with a broomstick, you wouldn't be eliminating the
females, because there would be no *evidence* outside the profile that would
allow you to eliminate them.
> For some reason you seem to think that "using a profile" means "discard
> all other evidence and *only* use the profile" (in some past post you even
> explicitly talked about profiles *increasing* the amount of subjects, which
> at the time I didn't understand at all because it made no sense, but now I
> think you were implying "using a profile *and* discarding all other clues").
I said that using a profile based on the total number of criminals with
attribute X can increase the number of people you look for without catching
someone if there's an even *higher* number of people who have X that are
*not* criminals.
If you say "We should throw away the rotten fruit. 80% of the rotten fruit
is strawberries. Only 20% of the rotten fruit is blueberries. Hence, we
should examine the strawberries more closely." But if you have more than
five times as many total strawberries as total blueberries, you'll be
*increasing* your work by concentrating on strawberries rather than picking
fruit at random to examine because there's a lower percentage *of
strawberries* that are rotten. And it has nothing to do with racism or
prejudice. It's just math.
I know you'll say "but what if it helps?" I'm giving this as an example of
how my statement could make sense, not a reason why your statement was
incorrect.
> I don't understand where you are getting that. It's certainly not something
> I have said nor implied.
But if you already suspect someone of a crime, why do you need the profile?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Having a profile is unnecessary if you have other clues.
I am curious about one thing: Why do you seem to have such a huge aversion
against profiling? You have insisted again and again that profiling, any
kind of profiling, is useless and unnecessary to catch criminals. (Or at
least that's how I understand your posts, as you don't talk exclusively
about racial profiling, but about other types of profiling as well, such
as one based on gender.)
This is rather odd given that criminal profiling is an important tool of
investigation especially in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offender_profiling
If profiling is so unnecessary, why is it used nevertheless?
Maybe you are talking about something else than profiling?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> This is rather odd given that criminal profiling is an important tool of
> investigation especially in the US:
That's a different kind of profiling.
"Offender profiling is a behavioral and investigative tool"
It's for investigating, not arresting. It's based on behavior, not statistics.
As I said, I'm not against "profiling" someone who is driving erratically
and then checking if they're drunk. I'm not against "profiling" someone who
isn't paying taxes comparable to their lifestyle and finding out if they're
getting paid under the table because they're in the country illegally.
The profiling people object to is the profiling based on things that *don't*
have to do with the crime under investigation, such as genetics, age,
clothing, hair style, or car color.
Or, to sum it up again:
1) When doing offender profiling, you already know there's an offender involved.
2) The profile you develop is specific to the criminal, based on clues left
at a crime scene.
3) When doing offender profiling, you don't use the profile as a means to
determine who to arrest. You use it as a means to determine who to
investigate and what further clues to look for and what kind of traps to set.
In other words, you use the profile as a means of looking for more clues,
not as a means of identifying a person. If the profile says "He probably had
a vehicle", you ask the parking attendant for the video tapes of the cars
that went in and out of the crime scene. You don't stop everyone with a
vehicle and ask them for fingerprints. When the profile says "cunning" it
means you don't set an obvious trap and hope the criminal won't notice; it
doesn't mean you investigate lost of smart people who were around that day.
If the profile says "likes to kill blond teenagers", you don't send cops
dressed like little old black ladies walking around the park at night as
bait in a trap for him.
"Various aspects of the criminal's personality makeup are determined from
his or her choices before, during, and after the crime."
Offender profile is "this is what we think the criminal in *this* case is
like, because of the clues he left." It's also used mainly when someone is
committing *multiple* crimes in the same way. There's 500 murders this
year. But *these* six all had the victim tied up by their left ankle from a
tree and had their nose mashed in with a hammer left at the site. If we
catch someone doing that a seventh time, it's probably a good idea to ask
him about the other six.
Racial profiling is "a majority of the people who commit crime X have trait
Y that they can neither control nor change, but we're going to look
disproportionately at people with trait Y, presupposing that a
disproportionate number of them will commit crime X."
About the closest racial profiling for illegal immigration would come to
offender profiling would be "if you catch an illegal immigrant, check out
his family too." Or "if you catch an illegal immigrant working illegally,
check out his coworkers."
Does this clarify?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You all know that this thread has a time limit. After tomorrow
(Thursday) the election is over, I hope. <g>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2010 14:18:38 -0400, Warp wrote:
> There are many people here who are looking at Sweden and its
> immigration
> problems (which are completely real, as even the Swedish press, which
> has traditionally censored every immigration-related issue in the past,
> is slowly opening a bit to report problems with immigrant suburbs, such
> as riots, arson, ambulances and firetrucks being thrown with stones and
> bottles, and other such acts of violence performed by immigrants), as
> well as Britain (a bit of googling should give good resources) and
> France, and are fearing that Finland is going down the same path, and
> trying to raise consciousness about this.
Interesting; I had heard that Finland was extremely difficult to
immigrate to, but hadn't heard about the potential for violence (I've
heard about the BNP issues in the UK). I hadn't heard about the problems
in Sweeden, though.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2010 23:01:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> You all know that this thread has a time limit. After tomorrow
> (Thursday) the election is over, I hope. <g>
It seems lots of people hope so, but what are the real odds of a hung
parliament?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/5/2010 10:15 AM, Warp wrote:
> Many so-called "multiculturalists" are calling for getting rid of the
> whole concept of "race", but this is purely for political and ideological
> reasons, not scientifical ones. Personally I see this as some kind of
> attempt at orwellian manipulation (like in the novel "1984"): If you
> completely ban offending vocabulary, the "criminals" (in this case racists)
> won't have any way of expressing their views.
>
> Some anthropologists might have genuine and well-argumented scientifical
> reasons why they are advocating getting rid of the concept, but AFAIK they
> are a minority. I'm convinced that most people who do that are doing it for
> ideological reasons only.
>
On the other hand, the ideological reasons many have for keeping it are
as bad, or worse. There was even some clown a while back teaching
"diversity" at colleges, who had the gall to claim that you couldn't
expect Black people to be on time, because there was something inherent
in the "race" that made them always late, so you had to "work around"
this issue, if you wanted to properly deal with and implement
"diversity". He was a) also black, and b) completely serious about it,
and had a whole host of other "traits" he tried to claim other people
have, based on their race, and you had to adjust schedules, rules,
policies, etc., not to be inclusive of different ideas (what most people
call "diversity" in businesses, and which can sometimes be just as
stupid), but different "races".
As far as I know, the bozo is still wandering around the country side
babbling this BS at colleges.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/5/2010 10:58 AM, Warp wrote:
> For some reason you seem to think that "using a profile" means "discard
> all other evidence and *only* use the profile" (in some past post you even
> explicitly talked about profiles *increasing* the amount of subjects, which
> at the time I didn't understand at all because it made no sense, but now I
> think you were implying "using a profile *and* discarding all other clues").
> I don't understand where you are getting that. It's certainly not something
> I have said nor implied.
>
Somewhere I read something, I don't remember where, which stated that,
when profiles work, its because enough was known of the suspect to
already narrow the focus to someone that "fit" the profile, but that, in
cases where almost nothing is known, its a 50:50 hit or miss. The whole
FBI profile BS you see in TV, is just that, BS. It doesn't work, unless
you already know you are looking for someone that "fits" the profile. At
which point it acts as confirmation (sort of), but gives no other useful
information, most of the time.
In which case, the result you end up with is **not** profiling. By
definition, profiling means that you know where, when, but not who, did
something, so you make a "projection", as to who did it. If you know
nothing about the who, you can't make a useful bloody prediction, and
you might be 100% dead wrong, about **everything** related to that
profile, or avenues that result from it.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/5/2010 12:49 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> This is rather odd given that criminal profiling is an important tool of
>> investigation especially in the US:
>
> That's a different kind of profiling.
>
> "Offender profiling is a behavioral and investigative tool"
>
> It's for investigating, not arresting. It's based on behavior, not
> statistics.
>
> As I said, I'm not against "profiling" someone who is driving
> erratically and then checking if they're drunk. I'm not against
> "profiling" someone who isn't paying taxes comparable to their lifestyle
> and finding out if they're getting paid under the table because they're
> in the country illegally.
>
> The profiling people object to is the profiling based on things that
> *don't* have to do with the crime under investigation, such as genetics,
> age, clothing, hair style, or car color.
>
> Or, to sum it up again:
>
> 1) When doing offender profiling, you already know there's an offender
> involved.
>
> 2) The profile you develop is specific to the criminal, based on clues
> left at a crime scene.
>
> 3) When doing offender profiling, you don't use the profile as a means
> to determine who to arrest. You use it as a means to determine who to
> investigate and what further clues to look for and what kind of traps to
> set.
>
> In other words, you use the profile as a means of looking for more
> clues, not as a means of identifying a person. If the profile says "He
> probably had a vehicle", you ask the parking attendant for the video
> tapes of the cars that went in and out of the crime scene. You don't
> stop everyone with a vehicle and ask them for fingerprints. When the
> profile says "cunning" it means you don't set an obvious trap and hope
> the criminal won't notice; it doesn't mean you investigate lost of smart
> people who were around that day. If the profile says "likes to kill
> blond teenagers", you don't send cops dressed like little old black
> ladies walking around the park at night as bait in a trap for him.
>
> "Various aspects of the criminal's personality makeup are determined
> from his or her choices before, during, and after the crime."
>
> Offender profile is "this is what we think the criminal in *this* case
> is like, because of the clues he left." It's also used mainly when
> someone is committing *multiple* crimes in the same way. There's 500
> murders this year. But *these* six all had the victim tied up by their
> left ankle from a tree and had their nose mashed in with a hammer left
> at the site. If we catch someone doing that a seventh time, it's
> probably a good idea to ask him about the other six.
>
Exactly. This is the real thing, which too much of the simplistic TV
gibberish you see "isn't".
> Racial profiling is "a majority of the people who commit crime X have
> trait Y that they can neither control nor change, but we're going to
> look disproportionately at people with trait Y, presupposing that a
> disproportionate number of them will commit crime X."
>
Precisely, and why, when it has been used, it fails as often as it works.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2010 18:33:46 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On the other hand, the ideological reasons many have for keeping it are
> as bad, or worse. There was even some clown a while back teaching
> "diversity" at colleges, who had the gall to claim that you couldn't
> expect Black people to be on time, because there was something inherent
> in the "race" that made them always late, so you had to "work around"
> this issue, if you wanted to properly deal with and implement
> "diversity". He was a) also black, and b) completely serious about it,
> and had a whole host of other "traits" he tried to claim other people
> have, based on their race, and you had to adjust schedules, rules,
> policies, etc., not to be inclusive of different ideas (what most people
> call "diversity" in businesses, and which can sometimes be just as
> stupid), but different "races".
>
> As far as I know, the bozo is still wandering around the country side
> babbling this BS at colleges.
It sounds like this bozo may be projecting cultural norms on an ethnic
group. For example, I note that often when I schedule an appointment
with people in some countries in Africa (I have no idea what the person's
race is because I don't speak on the phone with them, see them, or
communicate in any way other than e-mail and chat typically), they may
arrive at the online session as much as an hour late. But I think that
is largely a cultural thing, due to poor transportation infrastructure or
other similar reasons that are environmental.
I guess what I may be trying to say is that this bozo has reasons for
thinking what he does, but he's applying poor logic and attributing
racial reasons rather than cultural or other environmental factors.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
