The Reverse Racism Effect

[Kidlicious]

The small UNREPRESENTATIVE sample is the problem with their methodology. It invalidates EVERYTHING.
How many times do I have to say this?

To me it's like finding two vegetarians on the street and after talking to them making the claim that people hate meat and then go home hoping it will interest people and lead to a bigger meat hating research grant.

Got it now?

I'm gonna go with what the criminologist says on this, but thanks.

[Kidlicious]

The Government or Companies will generally put out an RFP (request for proposal) that has the requirements for the study.
Research Companies will write a proposal and say how they will meet those requirements and what it will cost.
Sometimes companies will list in their proposal different levels of service for the price but in general have to meet the requirements in the original rfp
The entities seeking the research will then select which company/price wins.

How they determine that is up to them. They sometime will try to bargain and say "we really liked your proposal but thought it was too much money" or "you know you were the most expensive" (sometimes legal requirements dictate no back and forth and either reject or accept) And sometimes it's just a question of who knows who and it's kind of rigged, regardless of the perceived quality involved.
Then we have the choice of dropping the price or changing the proposal. But they get the final choice. Sometimes they're idiots or get blinded by the lowest cost.

Do you know what cost/benefit analysis is? Because your answer doesn't seem to address my point that your clients may not want the highest quality research for a good reason.

I was trying to build on that, but just nvm

[Kidlicious]

Rah, you are defeated.

You might want to dust off that Parcheesi board or start a game of Minesweeper because Kidicious just PWNed your ass. Nobody will think less of you if you leave Apolyton for a few weeks because of this.

Kidicious simply is unbeatable.

You are right again my friend.

[Kidlicious]

Here's a study that found no racial bias in police shootings. Done by a Harvard economist. I predict that Ming and rah think they know more than he does.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=1&referer=http://www.dailywire.com/news/7343/new-study-no-racial-bias-police-involved-shootings-james-barrett

[Kidlicious]

Here's a study that found no racial bias in police shootings. Done by a Harvard economist. I predict that Ming and rah think they know more than he does.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/12...-james-barrett

Mr. Fryer is the youngest African-American to receive tenure at Harvard and the first one to receive a John Bates Clark medal, a prize given to the most promising American economist under 40.

[rah]

Do you know what cost/benefit analysis is? Because your answer doesn't seem to address my point that your clients may not want the highest quality research for a good reason.

I was trying to build on that, but just nvm

Of course I know what a cost/benefit analysis is. I've been in management longer than you've been alive.
I addressed it

How they determine that is up to them.

It all depends on their goals. You do know what those are. We don't really care as long as they pay us.
I'm know some companies do, but it's usually 'is the research worth it', and doesn't consider the quality of it. Sometimes they may cost it based on confidence level, but a minimal level of quality is assumed.
It's a general principle that research pays off, and these companies have marketing departments that have to justify their existence.
Can't do that without data and we're experts at delivering it.

[Ming]

Here's a study that found no racial bias in police shootings. Done by a Harvard economist. I predict that Ming and rah think they know more than he does.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/12...-james-barrett

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... As usual, you just make **** up. What I have said is that I probably know more about research than you, and I'll leave it up to the other posters to make their own minds up on that subject.

As far as the research... it does say

A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

And that may indeed indicate a bias against blacks and women.

And while it does say...

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.

But, as the author of the story says...

The study did not say whether the most egregious examples — the kind of killings at the heart of the nation’s debate on police shootings — are free of racial bias. Instead, it examined a much larger pool of shootings, including nonfatal ones. It focused on what happens when police encounters occur, not how often they happen. (There’s a disproportionate number of tense interactions among blacks and the police when shootings could occur, and thus a disproportionate outcome for blacks.)

It does indeed show a bias against blacks and women, but also shows that in ALL types of shootings, non fatal and fatal that his research doesn't find any bias.
And I think the author of the story raises some valid concerns.

So feel free to take away what you want from this story and research.

[rah]

Here's a study that found no racial bias in police shootings. Done by a Harvard economist. I predict that Ming and rah think they know more than he does.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/12...-james-barrett

Where did I say that I know more that that? (a study you just entered as evidence and I couldn't have read yet)
All I've done was question the sampling on a study that you did present as fact.
My opinion on the sampling doesn't change because you produce a new study.

Find one place in this thread where I said anything else. I just said the results were invalid and offered no editorial opinion.
I even said that while I didn't like the rest of methodology that it wasn't a showstopper.

Please keep to the facts. I know it's tough.

[Kidlicious]

Of course I know what a cost/benefit analysis is. I've been in management longer than you've been alive.
I addressed it
It all depends on their goals. You do know what those are. We don't really care as long as they pay us.
I'm know some companies do, but it's usually 'is the research worth it', and doesn't consider the quality of it. Sometimes they may cost it based on confidence level, but a minimal level of quality is assumed.
It's a general principle that research pays off, and these companies have marketing departments that have to justify their existence.
Can't do that without data and we're experts at delivering it.

You don't know what it is and "How they determine it is up to them" is not addressing it. Generally the higher the risk the more they will spend on market research, you know because risk is a cost. Wait, you probably don't know.

[Kidlicious]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... As usual, you just make **** up. What I have said is that I probably know more about research than you, and I'll leave it up to the other posters to make their own minds up on that subject.

As far as the research... it does say


And that may indeed indicate a bias against blacks and women.

And while it does say...


But, as the author of the story says...


It does indeed show a bias against blacks and women, but also shows that in ALL types of shootings, non fatal and fatal that his research doesn't find any bias.
And I think the author of the story raises some valid concerns.

So feel free to take away what you want from this story and research.

BK!

[Ming]

Gee... you don't like the fact that I posted actual text from the link you provided?

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you provide links to.

Because the study clearly states that there is a bias against blacks and women by police... but you seemed to have ignored that part of the results.
Have a nice day.

[Kidlicious]

Where did I say that I know more that that? (a study you just entered as evidence and I couldn't have read yet)
All I've done was question the sampling on a study that you did present as fact.
My opinion on the sampling doesn't change because you produce a new study.

Find one place in this thread where I said anything else. I just said the results were invalid and offered no editorial opinion.
I even said that while I didn't like the rest of methodology that it wasn't a showstopper.

Please keep to the facts. I know it's tough.

You question the work of a criminologist. That means that you think you know more about how to research criminology.

Please keep playing your little games.

[Kidlicious]

Gee... you don't like the fact that I posted actual text from the link you provided?

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you provide links to.

That's exactly how BK responds when people finally get tired of his little games.

[Ming]

That's exactly how BK responds when people finally get tired of his little games.

Yawn... Again, I'll leave it to the posters here to make up their own minds. And frankly, almost everybody knows you for what you are.

[Kidlicious]

Yawn... Again, I'll leave it to the posters here to make up their own minds. And frankly, almost everybody knows you for what you are.

I hope they will look at the evidence, and not pay attention to your nonsense.