Something doesn't feel right about BLM

[Ana the Ist]

Data is indeed the problem.

Some of the creative forms of analysis have built on unusual situations where more data than normal was available.

I'm not saying there's no value in simulations.

When we look at things like the thought processes (which is what any kind of bias is) across large groups of people in relatively complex high variability scenarios we're doing nothing more than guessing.

Perhaps once computing power or AI becomes sufficiently advanced it can happen, but not today.

 

[Radagast]

Perhaps once computing power or AI becomes sufficiently advanced it can happen, but not today.

Modern AI and computing power is certainly adequate, although I'm not sure exactly how realistic present day police simulators are.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Modern AI and computing power is certainly adequate, although I'm not sure exactly how realistic present day police simulators are.

Unless you're aware of something I'm not....I'm going to have to disagree.

Sociology can answer questions like "how many left handed people vote Democrat?" or even "how well do adopted children perform in school across income levels?"....because those are questions about specific behavior and not thought processes.

Once we start asking about thought processes like "how many men think of cheating when a woman smiles at them?" We're immediately asking an almost impossible question. We don't know how committed each man is to his relationship, there's no real way to measure such things, we don't know how attractive they find the woman or whether social settings will change outcomes. It immediately has too many variables.

If that seems counterintuitive to what you see in a lot of sociological research....it's because those easy questions are relatively boring and irrelevant and the impossible ones will get you published.

 

[Radagast]

Sociology can answer questions like "how many left handed people vote Democrat?" or even "how well do adopted children perform in school across income levels?"....because those are questions about specific behavior and not thought processes.

True, but simulators can explore actual behaviour in hypothetical scenarios, and the scenarios can be controlled. A simple push of a button can change race.

These are some of the papers I was referring to, btw: https://www.researchgate.net/public...orce_judgment_and_decision-making_simulations

Error - Cookies Turned Off

 

[istodolez]

I do...I've written read and reviewed research papers. On real science, not just postmodern progressive garbage.

Oh, well that changes everything!

So you were also involved in peer review? And yet your snotty comment to me "That you're involved is no surprise." after I came to the defense of peer review means YOU WERE ALSO PART OF THE PROBLEM?

Interesting.

So were you a sloppy, shoddy peer reviewer? Or did you just publish trash that made the cut because you chose low impact, questionable publications? Which is it?

I also, like you, published in the other sciences (in my case chemistry and materials science) and I saw the value of peer review. But if you had such a bad experience or were just bad at it all, then I can understand you making "blanket statements". I didn't see a systemic issue in peer review of the sciences. I also prefer those publications which have a empirical/analytical/statistical bent.

But here's a question for you: what is the alternative?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh, well that changes everything!

So you were also involved in peer review? And yet your snotty comment to me "That you're involved is no surprise." after I came to the defense of peer review means YOU WERE ALSO PART OF THE PROBLEM?

The problem lies in sociology, to a lesser extent psychology, women's studies, racial and ethnic studies, gender studies, the humanities in general....or really any discipline infected with postmodernism.

But here's a question for you: what is the alternative?

Admitting postmodernism is largely elitist nonsense. Admitting that there are some things that we can show through statistical analysis and some things we can't. Dismissing any research that attempts to show what can't be known.

 

[istodolez]

The problem lies in sociology, to a lesser extent psychology, women's studies, racial and ethnic studies, gender studies, the humanities in general....or really any discipline infected with postmodernism.

So it's not all peer review? Just peer review in some specific areas you don't like? Doesn't sound like what you said in Post #741.

Admitting that there are some things that we can show through statistical analysis and some things we can't.

No, I was more looking for alternatives to peer review which you have decreed is "horribly broken".

But when it comes to statistics, obviously those DO apply to this topic. They show the presence or absence of systemic issues. Attribution studies can be used to firm up causation based on correlation, so I'm basically "OK" with statistical data in the social sciences, which is key to understanding systemic racism.

So we're back where we started: you called peer review horribly broken but what it appears you actually mean is that peer review of A SUBSET OF PUBLICATIONS has some issues which is probably true of everything.

To be quite honest I don't think you have much of a point here. But I'm still glad you got your dig in against me for defending peer review yet you have no alternative (other than to heap scorn on some social sciences you don't personally like). I'm not going to defend post-modernism, I don't necessarily care for it myself. But I'm not going to toss out all peer-review simply because I don't like how it might be less robust for some areas than others.

 

[Chesterton]

Ok then, so why be so afraid?

Because they're full of bad ideas.

 

[Chesterton]

"About 1,000 civilians are killed each year by law-enforcement officers in the United States. By one estimate, Black men are 2.5 times more likely than white men to be killed by police during their lifetime. And in another study, Black people who were fatally shot by police seemed to be twice as likely as white people to be unarmed." (What the data say about police brutality and racial bias — and which reforms might work) (Emphasis added)

...and of course be inclusive. But kudos on denigrating even that.

Ahhh, so you are reading minds! Good job! It is best to read minds and find only the most EVIL INTENT in everything...even if no such intent is actually spoken or indicated. But, hey, it's a great way to start.

Well if you can hear it with your own ears and read it with your own eyes, and still deny it, there's not much else I can say. I think there's a term for that in psychology, but I forget what it is. I have my own term for it, but I'll keep it to myself.

 

[istodolez]

Well if you can hear it with your own ears and read it with your own eyes, and still deny it, there's not much else I can say. I think there's a term for that in psychology, but I forget what it is. I have my own term for it, but I'll keep it to myself.

What do you "hear and see" with your own ears and eyes? And how do you know you aren't just imagining it?

Because, as I noted, BLM themselves don't say most of the things you or others who are standing against them attribute to them. You are INFERRING. Not based on anything they said, but rather on your impression of what they said.

But you are free to believe however you like. But you will have a tougher time convincing others if it is mostly your imagination.

 

[Chesterton]

What do you "hear and see" with your own ears and eyes?

Marxism.

And how do you know you aren't just imagining it?

I trust my senses and my mind.

 

[istodolez]

Marxism.

Just not in their actual WORDS themselves.

I trust my senses and my mind.

I would like to do that myself. But I have seen far too many times in my life when my "gut" was wrong. When my "guesses" were wrong. That's why I try to LISTEN to what people tell me about themselves rather than just guessing what they are and drawing the worst possible conclusions I can.

Perhaps you are a perfected being of light who makes no errors. If that is the case, then good for you!

 

[Chesterton]

Just not in their actual WORDS themselves.

Yes, the ones I've provided. Again, AGAIN, DO NOT reply to me further since you don't read my posts. Thank you.

 

[istodolez]

Yes, the ones I've provided. Again, AGAIN, DO NOT reply to me further since you don't read my posts. Thank you.

OK...oh wait darn I replied to you!

 

[Ana the Ist]

So it's not all peer review? Just peer review in some specific areas you don't like? Doesn't sound like what you said in Post #741.

Then you didn't read the post.

But when it comes to statistics, obviously those DO apply to this topic. They show the presence or absence of systemic issues.

They don't.

Attribution studies can be used to firm up causation based on correlation, so I'm basically "OK" with statistical data in the social sciences, which is key to understanding systemic racism.

It isn't.

So we're back where we started: you called peer review horribly broken but what it appears you actually mean is that peer review of A SUBSET OF PUBLICATIONS has some issues which is probably true of everything.

"Some issues" is putting it mildly.

To be quite honest I don't think you have much of a point here. But I'm still glad you got your dig in against me for defending peer review yet you have no alternative (other than to heap scorn on some social sciences you don't personally like).

I gave a method for fixing the problem.

I'm not going to defend post-modernism, I don't necessarily care for it myself. But I'm not going to toss out all peer-review simply because I don't like how it might be less robust for some areas than others.

If it cannot distinguish fictional nonsense from truth then it's worthless.

 

[istodolez]

Then you didn't read the post.

You mean the one where you personally insulted me? Yeah, I read it.

They don't.

For someone who has written science papers you DO realize that statistics are used in social and psychological sciences, right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You mean the one where you personally insulted me? Yeah, I read it.

How were you insulted?

For someone who has written science papers you DO realize that statistics are used in social and psychological sciences, right?

Yes...and I'm also aware they can be used incorrectly.

 

[istodolez]

How were you insulted?

Oh, then you forgot you said this after I supported the idea of peer review:

I have little respect for modern sociology. It's been shown to be entirely corrupt and the peer review process horribly broken.

That you're involved is no surprise.

Spin it as you like, you insulted me. If you wish to "explain" this away, just remember, I'm not going to believe you. You lost that right.

Yes...and I'm also aware they can be used incorrectly.

And if you find something incorrect you can point it out. Well, someone who actually knows how science is done and how statistics are used can do so.

And that would be YOU, right? (wink wink). You have written peer reviewed science papers! So you know the drill. You can't simply accuse the stats of being wrong, you have to show how they are wrong...am I not correct, FELLOW PUBLISHED SCIENTIST?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh, then you forgot you said this after I supported the idea of peer review:

Spin it as you like, you insulted me. If you wish to "explain" this away, just remember, I'm not going to believe you. You lost that right.

You posted about your supposed credentials. If you want to post about yourself that's fine....but it was in reply to me and I'm certainly entitled to tell you what I think of your credentials.

And if you find something incorrect you can point it out.

I did...

Do you remember when I quoted your link? It said they cannot make conclusions about racial bias.

I repeat, they cannot make conclusions about racial bias.

I can link the post if you want.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh, then you forgot you said this after I supported the idea of peer review:



Spin it as you like, you insulted me. If you wish to "explain" this away, just remember, I'm not going to believe you. You lost that right.



And if you find something incorrect you can point it out. Well, someone who actually knows how science is done and how statistics are used can do so.

And that would be YOU, right? (wink wink). You have written peer reviewed science papers! So you know the drill. You can't simply accuse the stats of being wrong, you have to show how they are wrong...am I not correct, FELLOW PUBLISHED SCIENTIST?

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

Here it is again...

Since you asked though....from the article you're quoting....

What the data say about police shootings

But the authors did not make any conclusions regarding racial bias of police officers, in part because not everyone has an equal chance of coming into contact with the police

So you were saying something?