Spink in Race Row

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
I don't think there is a huge difference between "stating" and "finding" like you say.

There is a definite difference between the two, especially considering our useage of the terms. "Find" as you used it applies to the research that produces the correlation. "State" as I used it applies to the use of those correlations in a discussion about crime.

My point is that correlation are facts (what are
"Unsupported correlation" like in your second post btw?, doesn't even mean anything). Facts don't have intent.

Pick two random things, give them a randomly determined correlation, and you'll have a good example of an unsupported correlation.

"Correlation" can be the noted relation between factors as you are using the term. Ideally they are based off of actual data, and thus supported. It is not always the case though.

"Correlation" can also apply to the act of being correlated, or the act of making a correlation. When someone states that X is related to Y, they are making a correlation between the two. Doing so does not implicitly mean it is a correlation supported by actual data. Certainly the manner in which the correlation of this type is formulated, and the situation into which it is injected, will carry with it an implication (and potentially an outright statement) of intent.

Somebody stating facts MIGHT have intent, or might not.

Actually, someone stating facts has intent. Regardless of what the intent is, there must be a motivating factor for an action. (The intent to state facts with no bias is still an intent.)

If you are wondering whether race is a factor, you have to "bring it in" like you say.

My use of "bring it in" (and other similar phrases) was not directed at any study. It was directed at the use of those statistics in matters of discussion, as per the subject of the opening post and my own qualification.

Testing whether "there is a racial factor involved" doesn't imply it is a factor.

It implies the acceptance of a potential relation between race and crime. Further, it accepts that there is a racial distinction to be made in the first place.

By the way, if you feel I am misunderstanding your position, I would really like you explain it in a way you think I would understand better, if you can.

My statements are dealing with a person saying that X is related to Y and stating or implying that that statistic is somehow relevent to the discussion about how to address Y. You are dealing with a person determining the statistical relation of X to Y and making absolutely no claims about the applicability of that relationship. They are different things.

I have given qualifications as to what I am refering to. As I originally stated in my response to the OP:

"I think if you do look at race simply as % stuff like this, it's racist."

Read the article linked for the "this" I am refering to.

If the job is to find % stuff... fine. Do it, it doesn't imply anything other than it's a task to be done. (Though there are potential factors that could introduce implications to the actual work, not necessarily those doing it. Like where the funding is coming from, and why the task is determined to be worthwhile.) But this thread's OP is clearly not dealing with the validity of the research behind the correlation, it is dealing with the implications or inferences of the expression of it.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


No problem at all. To describe it as a "problem" would indicate that it was in some way challenging, which it isn't.

1- You have no idea how many crimes are committed.

2- You don't know who's committing most of them.

3- You have no means of satisfactorily eliminating skewing factors in the very long and vulnerable series of stages that lead to conviction.

4- You cannot distinguish "genetic factors" from envionmental ones.

Given the above, your continued straining erection for the supposed "Negro Crime Gene" has to viewed as really rather baffling. Now try coming up with something I haven't punched whopping great holes in many times before.

All you've come up with is laughably naive assertions. Like "criminal stats mean nothing" and "crime rates are practically the same between races". I'd be surprised if you ever lived anywhere that wasn't at least 80% white, so it's no wonder you cling to these comforting illusions.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson
That's actually a rather tough question to answer, as the term race is tied to rather nebulous distinctions, other than appearance. I don't buy that appearance is a depiction of race, even though it is genetically defined, because it is clear that appearance graduates across "races" and in "inter-racial" breeding the lines between the "races" vanish completely. Appearances graduate across humanity, there are no clear lines to draw.

Basically, I would require a set of non-trivial genetic traits found exclusively within a segment of the population corresponding to historical application of "race". "Inter-racial" breeding would have no effect on those traits, either the progeny would be distinctly one "race" or another. Otherwise "inter-racial" breeding will have already blurred the lines between "race" to insignificance.

By "non-trivial", I would say a distinction that makes a clear impact on the suitability of a person towards specific and necessary tasks. (And even then "race" as an argument would only apply in regards to those tasks.)

I don't claim to be an expert on genetic matters, but I would be rather suprised if such a concrete distinction were found. The issue of "inter-racial" breeding seems to me to be the real kicker. But I could be wrong and there are a set of genetically dominant traits out there responsible for exclusive and non-trivial distinctions that wouldn't be affected by "inter-racial" breeding. (In which case, humanity will probably eventually all end up being that "race" anyways, which makes the whole point of making the distinction somewhat futile.)

I think any common-sense view of race must recognise that there is significant blurring between groups, so it seems you are setting a standard that is impossible to meet, and is inconsistent with the concept of race. Just because there are many shades in between orange and red does not mean that primary colours do not exist. Same thing with race. I think of races as groups of people who share common sets of characteristics, not different "species" of people.

[Bill3000]

I think any common-sense view of race must recognise that there is significant blurring between groups, so it seems you are setting a standard that is impossible to meet, and is inconsistent with the concept of race. Just because there are many shades in between orange and red does not mean that primary colours do not exist. Same thing with race. I think of races as groups of people who share common sets of characteristics, not different "species" of people.

"common-sense?" Race is as often as arbitary as ethnicity. The one-blood drop rule, for instance. The fact that someone can literally declare a different race by identifying with a different one. The fact that our cultural definition of race groups incredibly diverse groups of people together in an extremely simplified way. Seriously, how does it make sense to group arabs in "caucasian", given how diverse the middle east is, for example? How does it make sense to group all blacks into "negroid" when the genetic diversity of Africa is far greater than the rest of the world's human population combined?

Most importantly, how can we even consider grouping humans together into different groups when we are less genetically diverse than most species on the planet!?

Even if race exists, it's a taxonomic category below subspecies and has rather arbitary definitions. It's just better to describe human biological differences through the history of the populations and migrations, rather than using an extremely arbitary definition of race.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Bill3000

"common-sense?" Race is as often as arbitary as ethnicity. The one-blood drop rule, for instance. The fact that someone can literally declare a different race by identifying with a different one. The fact that our cultural definition of race groups incredibly diverse groups of people together in an extremely simplified way. Seriously, how does it make sense to group arabs in "caucasian", given how diverse the middle east is, for example? How does it make sense to group all blacks into "negroid" when the genetic diversity of Africa is far greater than the rest of the world's human population combined?

What does it matter how diverse so-called "junk genes" (DNA that doesn't do anything) are?

Most importantly, how can we even consider grouping humans together into different groups when we are less genetically diverse than most species on the planet!?

Even if race exists, it's a taxonomic category below subspecies and has rather arbitary definitions. It's just better to describe human biological differences through the history of the populations and migrations, rather than using an extremely arbitary definition of race.

Many methods of categorisation are arbitrary, but that doesn't make them meaningless. Where do "young" or "old" begin and end? The concept of "age" is still meaningful. The boundaries of extended family are arbitrary, but that doesn't mean extended family does not exist. Race is the same thing - individuals united by common descent.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia

All you've come up with is laughably naive assertions. Like "criminal stats mean nothing" and "crime rates are practically the same between races".

Interesting that you consider it's a naive standpoint, seeing as it's actually rooted in my academic study of crime stats in the Penology modules of my law degree.

Crime stats have massive limitations when it comes to making dubious racist (and it is correct to use "racist" in this context) assertion like suggesying blacks commit more crimes. They have their place, but in queries such as this no serious legal academic would make such an unsupportable claim.

I'd be surprised if you ever lived anywhere that wasn't at least 80% white, so it's no wonder you cling to these comforting illusions.

This status is both pointless and wrong. I lived for a year in the Easton district of Bristol, which had a non-white population of around 30% at the time.


As ever, Cal- if you think you can prove blacks commit more crimes than whites, why don't you?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



Interesting that you consider it's a naive standpoint, seeing as it's actually rooted in my academic study of crime stats in the Penology modules of my law degree.

Crime stats have massive limitations when it comes to making dubious racist (and it is correct to use "racist" in this context) assertion like suggesying blacks commit more crimes. They have their place, but in queries such as this no serious legal academic would make such an unsupportable claim.



This status is both pointless and wrong. I lived for a year in the Easton district of Bristol, which had a non-white population of around 30% at the time.


As ever, Cal- if you think you can prove blacks commit more crimes than whites, why don't you?

Without being omnipotent it could never be proven to your satisfaction, but normal people don't need absolute scientific proof for what they can see with their own eyes. Talk to police officers who deal with crime in black areas. Talk to anyone who has lived in these areas. The idea that all groups are about level is totally laughable.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Without being omnipotent it could never be proven to your satisfaction, but normal people don't need absolute scientific proof for what they can see with their own eyes. Talk to police officers who deal with crime in black areas. Talk to anyone who has lived in these areas. The idea that all groups are about level is totally laughable.

Like I said, I've lived in those areas. What's your basis for arbitrarily deciding that my uncorroborated anecdotes are in some way less reliable than other people's uncorroborated anecdotes?

The bottom line is that you're trying to excuse racially-prejudiced assertions on the grounds that they are "true" and "scientific". Yet you can't back it up- and you certainly can't back up pinning a genetic basis to it. Welcome to failure, your old friend.

Anyway, if we're going to rely on anecdotal evidence, I hear that all New Zealanders are sheep-shaggers. Lots of people say so, so it must be true. Managed to get the fleece out from under your foreskin yet?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Remember, folks. This is the challenge to anyone who thinks there's a scientific basis for suggesting that blacks have some sort of genetic propensity to criminality.

1- You have no idea how many crimes are committed.

2- You don't know who's committing most of them.

3- You have little means of satisfactorily eliminating skewing factors in the very long and vulnerable series of stages that lead to conviction.

4- You struggle to distinguish "genetic factors" from envionmental ones.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Remember, folks. This is the challenge to anyone who thinks there's a scientific basis for suggesting that blacks have some sort of genetic propensity to criminality.

1- You have no idea how many crimes are committed.

2- You don't know who's committing most of them.

3- You have little means of satisfactorily eliminating skewing factors in the very long and vulnerable series of stages that lead to conviction.

4- You struggle to distinguish "genetic factors" from envionmental ones.

#4 especially.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



Like I said, I've lived in those areas. What's your basis for arbitrarily deciding that my uncorroborated anecdotes are in some way less reliable than other people's uncorroborated anecdotes?

The bottom line is that you're trying to excuse racially-prejudiced assertions on the grounds that they are "true" and "scientific". Yet you can't back it up- and you certainly can't back up pinning a genetic basis to it. Welcome to failure, your old friend.

Anyway, if we're going to rely on anecdotal evidence, I hear that all New Zealanders are sheep-shaggers. Lots of people say so, so it must be true. Managed to get the fleece out from under your foreskin yet?

70% white is what you consider a 'black area'? And you wonder why I call you naive.

You blame everything on white prejudice - the non-whites are blameless in your eyes. You are a bigot, plain and simple.

[Caligastia]

Are there any problems of blacks that you don't believe whites cause Laz?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Aeson
Pick two random things, give them a randomly determined correlation, and you'll have a good example of an unsupported correlation.

"Correlation" can be the noted relation between factors as you are using the term. Ideally they are based off of actual data, and thus supported. It is not always the case though.

I knew we were misunderstanding each other and now I know why.
You don't actually know what correlation means.
Correlation is a statistical term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation

(or you can google it for thousands of others sources)
It is a property that data can have of not being independent.
Correlation can not "not be based of data" as the word itself doesn't even mean anything without data.

You can't even speak of correlation or non-correlation without data.

Originally posted by Aeson
"Correlation" can also apply to the act of being correlated, or the act of making a correlation. When someone states that X is related to Y, they are making a correlation between the two. Doing so does not implicitly mean it is a correlation supported by actual data. Certainly the manner in which the correlation of this type is formulated, and the situation into which it is injected, will carry with it an implication (and potentially an outright statement) of intent.

Basically all of this is BS.

You don't "make" correlations. They just are there.
You can calculate them, given data (which I called "find" earlier).

It's like computing an average.
Give me a list of age, I will compute the average, no intent or implication.
Give me a data list with two variables, I will compute the correlation, no intent or implication.

If you want to switch to a term that actually means what you are trying to say, be my guest.


In the meantime, just know that correlation is a statistical term and you have been HEAVILY misusing it throughout this whole thread, which is what caused my arguing with you.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
Correlation is a statistical term.

I find it amusing that someone who had to be reminded of the difference between "find" and "state" is trying to lecture me on word definitions.

I would suggest checking a dictionary rather than wikipedia (or at least in addition to it) when you want to know the acceptable definitions of terms. "Correlation" is not just a statistical term. Have you really never heard the phrase "making a correlation" applied to someone's statements linking two factors together?

cor·re·la·tion /ˌkɔrəˈleɪʃən, ˌkɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kawr-uh-ley-shuhn, kor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.
2. the act of correlating or state of being correlated.
3. Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.
4. Physiology. the interdependence or reciprocal relations of organs or functions.
5. Geology. the demonstrable equivalence, in age or lithology, of two or more stratigraphic units, as formations or members of such.

The explainations of the term I gave would be #3 for your use, and #2 for my use. You might notice a similarity between the way I "defined" them in my post even, as I checked the dictionary before typing them out. Which is why they are in some places word for word.

Correlation can not "not be based of data" as the word itself doesn't even mean anything without data.

So you are saying that all correlations that have ever been drawn and ever could be drawn are based on 100% factual data?

Or would you allow that there are correlations that have been drawn based off of faulty data? How about (supposed) data that was just conjured? Surely you are not so naive as to believe that all statistical endeavors have been completely honest and without ulterior motive... right?

Well, since you referenced my statement about my view on the OP's quotes, and labelled it a "correlation", let's look at what you have deemed to be a "correlation":

In an email from a constituent, Mr Spink was asked: "Are you saying that a lot more criminals are black than white - or that there are more black people-in jail than white because they are stopped more often?" The MP replied: "The former and that's what people don't seem to like. But I didn't enter a beauty contest when I became an MP!!!!"

1. Mr. Spink said that a lot more criminals are black than white.
2. I said, "if you do look at race simply as % stuff like this, it's racist"
3. You quoted me and said, "Correlation doesn't imply causation. Quoting a statistics is NOT racist."

By addressing my response, and implying what I was talking about was dealing with "correlation", you were saying that "a lot more criminals are black than white" is a correlation. I agree. It is a correlation between race and crime that Mr. Spink was drawing in his statement.

Not only that, but you are implying that the statement "a lot more criminals are black than white" is quoting statistics. I have to disagree with you there. Mr. Spink was certainly not quoting statistics as you imply, but rather paraphrasing them in his own words. (I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that, even though given his lack of qualifications in that statement he might have just been drawing a correlation based on something other than accepted statistics.) Also, I doubt that whatever statistics he was paraphrasing even supported his wording, as he is not dealing with %'s of population, but rather with absolute numbers. I don't know if that is true in the UK, but would honestly be suprised if it is as (in 1991 census) 92% of the population of the UK was white.

In the meantime, just know that correlation is a statistical term and you have been HEAVILY misusing it throughout this whole thread, which is what caused my arguing with you.

First of all, if you want to be taken seriously in a debate on semantic issues, try to avoid typing words in all caps. It's a good laugh I admit, but rather undermines your position. Using italic or even bold typeface would be a much more genteel method to add emphasis to your statements.

Now, let us go back to the initial statement I made. You'll note that I didn't even use the term "correlation". You brought it up in reference to something I had said. Specifically:

"if you do look at race simply as % stuff like this..."

If you insist on saying that I was was not referencing a "correlation" being made by Mr. Spink, then you are admitting that your entire position in this debate, "correlation != causation" (which btw I agree with), is irrellevent to my statements you were addressing. In which case it could not be my misuse of the term "correlation" that caused you to argue with me, because I had not even used the term before you made your first argument.

I know the timeline of a discussion is difficult to keep track of sometimes. But luckily for us, thread posts are listed in order of the times they are posted and there are timestamps on each post as well. Bear this chronological order of posts in mind for when you formulate your arguments in the future.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I think any common-sense view of race must recognise that there is significant blurring between groups, so it seems you are setting a standard that is impossible to meet, and is inconsistent with the concept of race. Just because there are many shades in between orange and red does not mean that primary colours do not exist. Same thing with race. I think of races as groups of people who share common sets of characteristics, not different "species" of people.

Tell us Caligastia, what exactly are these "primary colours" of race...

Should we consider people with a certain hair color a "race"? How about eye color? Height? Genetic tendancies towards [various conditions]? Or are you sticking the the tried and true foundation of racism... skin color?

As for your analogy to color...

We find value in defining the primary colours because it is a useful way of describing how to create other colours (in pigment with RYB, and in light with RGB). We use them because of it is not feasible to natively provide those colors. We can create the illusion of displaying different colors on a (typical) monitor by varying the levels of RGB, even though we are still only producing RGB. The number of colors that a monitor can display is dependant on the number of bits used to describe the level of each primary color.

"Race", or rather heredity, does not operated the same way. A person is not simply an illusion created by looking at both the parents simultaneously. A person is their own entity, with their own genetic composition. They are natively "so". Even though that composition was inhereted from their parents, it does not mean that the child will display all the same traits as their parents do. This is why there often are children who vary from one or both their parents in obvious (and not so obvious) ways.