Something doesn't feel right about BLM

[istodolez]

You're saying statistics are showing systemic racial bias.....the very papers you're quoting disagree.

That isn't the only paper on that link I provided. That quote you gave appears to be only dealing with the Edwards and Esposito article.

But let's talk about the Edwards and Esposito paper. It is hard to think that race didn't play a role in their analysis considering that they state clear "Our results show that people of color face a higher likelihood of being killed by police than do white men and women, that risk peaks in young adulthood, and that men of color face a nontrivial lifetime risk of being killed by police." (SOURCE). They key is that the authors make no claim about BIAS. But there is a clear (statistically based) analysis of a black man's likelihood of being killed by police. (Which, of course supports my position of at least race being a significant explanatory variable in terms of outcomes of interaction with our justice system).

But YOU'RE A SCIENTIST, so you probably know the drill. You can't really over-extrapolate your findings in every case (well, most of us can't, perhaps that is why you don't like peer review...got smacked by a reviewer for overplaying your conclusions? Don't worry, everyone makes rookie mistakes.)

But in that same webpage I cited there's a THIRD PAPER, the paper by Nix et al 2017 which states that they find "...evidence of implicit bias as race was again significantly associated with one of our indicators of threat perception failure."

further: " Although we were limited to the 990 police shootings that resulted in death, we were able to analyze the data for evidence of implicit bias. Our findings showed that citizens in the other racial/ethnic group were significantly more likely than Whites to have not been attacking the officer(s) or other civilians and that Blacks were more than twice as likely as Whites to have been unarmed when they were shot and killed by police. These findings suggest evidence of implicit bias in real-world scenarios."

They also note that:
"evidence of implicit bias has been found by some researchers, whereby officers perceive minorities as a
greater threat (Correll et al., 2002; Cox et al.,2014, Fridell and Lim, 2016; Payne, 2001)"

Now, as you no doubt know from having read the paper (which was cited explicitly on the link I provided) they are also fair in indicating others have failed to find this.

But you know the rough and tumble of research...I'm merely showing you the data that shows evidence of bias (in this case implicit).

 

[Ana the Ist]

That isn't the only paper on that link I provided. That quote you gave appears to be only dealing with the Edwards and Esposito article.

But let's talk about the Edwards and Esposito paper. It is hard to think that race didn't play a role in their analysis considering that they state clear "Our results show that people of color face a higher likelihood of being killed by police than do white men and women, that risk peaks in young adulthood, and that men of color face a nontrivial lifetime risk of being killed by police." (SOURCE). They key is that the authors make no claim about BIAS.

With good reason.

But in that same webpage I cited there's a THIRD PAPER, the paper by Nix et al 2017 which states that they find "...evidence of implicit bias as race was again significantly associated with one of our indicators of threat perception failure."

Here's what I'll offer you....link whatever you think is the best research paper that you believe shows systemic bias.

If I can't find any significant flaws in their methodology....I'll admit it's compelling evidence.

What I won't do is shoot down one flawed study just to have you quote another and another and another....ad nauseum.

Sound fair?

 

[istodolez]

Here's what I'll offer you....link whatever you think is the best research paper that you believe shows systemic bias.

No. I provided you with details of a paper and you simply blew right past it. So I'm not going to do extra work for you.

If I can't find any significant flaws in their methodology....I'll admit it's compelling evidence.

I couldn't care less what you think you can find in the methodology of any papers.

What I won't do is shoot down one flawed study just to have you quote another and another and another....ad nauseum.

I only quoted the papers that were on the link I provided. Sorry if you didn't read them or even read to the "references" section.

Sound fair?

Couldn't care less about anything you wish to pursue. Do what you wanna do. You want to address any of the actual data I've presented or do you just want to wave your hands and kvetch about peer review? I'll await you to show me your "chops" as a published research scientist.

But I won't wait long because I know what is going to be the result. I've seen it a million times. So do what you wanna do. Whatever.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No. I provided you with details of a paper and you simply blew right past it. So I'm not going to do extra work for you.

I read the article you linked....and it said the exact opposite of what you claimed it did.

Now you want me to check a bunch of papers you're spamming?

I've no confidence you even know what they say. You've already shown you don't read the articles you link.

I'm not going to do your reading for you, it's your claim....you back it up.

Pick whatever research you believe supports your position best. I'll read one.

I couldn't care less what you think you can find in the methodology of any papers.

Because you know it's flawed.

You want to address any of the actual data I've presented

I already did. I proved you don't read it.

 

[istodolez]

I read the article you linked....and it said the exact opposite of what you claimed it did.

Now you want me to check a bunch of papers you're spamming?

The article I linked in Post #734 to had as its basis the articles listed in the references. It was an article about the articles. The fact that you don't understand how articles are used makes me worry about your skills as a published scientist. I mean if you don't understand the concept of article citations...well, maybe that was your problem with peer review?

Which is, exactly, why I gave you the actual QUOTES from the articles. What, specifically, did I get wrong about the Nix article (WHICH, AGAIN, IS EXPLICITLY FROM THE LINK I PROVIDED)?

I'm not going to do your reading for you, it's your claim....you back it up.

Which I now have.

 

[istodolez]

I read the article you linked....and it said the exact opposite of what you claimed it did.

I'm going to try to explain this complex topic to you knowing full well exactly how much experience you really have with scientific publication:

The bit you quoted from the Nature article is NOT the exact opposite of what I was claiming. I am merely claiming that there is a racial component to the outcome of police interaction. The presence or absence of bias was not explicitly discussed by the cited article (Edwards and Esposito..which again if you look at the Nature citation they are explicitly talking about THAT article, hence the little superscript "1" there) which is reasonable. This is standard issue scientific representation of the data. They drew no conclusion about BIAS per se. Just that there was a racial component.

NOW the PRESENCE of bias was explicitly discussed in the NIX article (that is article #2 in the references of the Nature page). It is a discussion of implicit bias so it is a bit more subtle, but again, they find evidence of implicit bias in the police shootings.

But let's go back to Edwards and Esposito, as the Nature article notes they did not explicitly call out bias and in fact that does not appear to be the goal of the article. The article is attempting to explain "...the risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States varies across social groups". So IF YOU WERE RIGHT and it said the EXACT OPPOSITE of my claims it would say "We found no evidence of bias". But no, they are silent on bias (in fact the word bias is not discussed at all by Edwards and Esposito, so how could they say anything about bias at all???)

The conclusions they draw about how to ameliorate the problem found lists almost all the things I've been suggesting all along in this thread:

"While our research does not evaluate the effects of policy, we believe that several avenues of reform may be fruitful in reducing rates of death. Austerity in social welfare and public health programs has led to police and prisons becoming catch-all responses to social problems . Adequately funding community-based services and restricting the use of armed officers as first responders to mental health and other forms of crisis would likely reduce the volume of people killed by police . Increasing the ability of the public to engage in the regulation of policing through both investigatory commissions with disciplinary teeth and equal participation in police union contract negotiations would also likely reduce rates of death."

 

[SJP51]

BLM is more than "a little off". By virtue of it's actions, that of it's members, and lack of denouncement of those actions by BLM has proven what it is. Murder is added to the list of its crimes. Does BLM have a goal? An agenda? What do they do besides incite riot, destroy, and murder?

Young White Mother Killed By Black Lives Matter Mob for Allegedly Saying 'All Lives Matter,' National Media Fully Ignores

 

[SJP51]

BLM has many issues and negatives. Here's a new one: Burning Bibles.