SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
katastrofa
Posts: 9442
Joined: August 16th, 2007, 5:36 am
Location: Alpha Centauri

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 3rd, 2020, 8:06 pm

One good (and generic) thing about racists is that they are unbelievably stupid:
(from the Mac Donald piece linked above)
The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is "no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police," they concluded.
I skimmed the PNAS study - after all, it's a recognised peer-reviewed journal ;-D The authors take data only on fatal shootings including info about the race of cops and their victims. Based on this data they somehow can tell that black civilians don't have higher risk of being shot and that white cops aren't more trigger happy than black cops in situations with black civilians.
Last edited by katastrofa on June 4th, 2020, 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
bearish
Posts: 5691
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 1:27 am

Trump is just salivating at the idea of having US soldiers killing him some looters. And the GOP senators are right behind him.
 
User avatar
Alan
Topic Author
Posts: 10267
Joined: December 19th, 2001, 4:01 am
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 4:18 am

One good (and generic) thing about racists is that they are unbelievably stupid:
(from the Mac Donald piece linked above)
The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is "no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police," they concluded.
I skimmed the PNAS study - after all, it's a recognised peer-reviewed journal ;-D The authors take data only on fatal shootings including info about the race of cops and their victims. Based on this data they somehow can tell that black civilians don't have higher risk of being shot and that white cops aren't more trigger happy than black cops in situations with black civilians.


Kudos for following up on the sources. I see from here that their were some criticisms and response. In the end, it seems an obvious point that assessing racial bias in police shootings has to account for relative crime rates. That paper took kind of a back door approach to that issue.

As to why you would call the authors of the paper racists is beyond me.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 62602
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 6:26 am

One good (and generic) thing about racists is that they are unbelievably stupid:
(from the Mac Donald piece linked above)
The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is "no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police," they concluded.
I skimmed the PNAS study - after all, it's a recognised peer-reviewed journal ;-D The authors take data only on fatal shootings including info about the race of cops and their victims. Based on this data they somehow can tell that black civilians don't have higher risk of being shot and that white cops aren't more trigger happy than black cops in situations with black civilians.
Are we cherry picking? Maybe the WSJ article's title should modified to fit the 'desired outcome'?
Step over the gap, not into it. Watch the space between platform and train.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 62602
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 6:44 am

OK, guys -- here's a link to the Mac Donald piece that will be valid for a few days -- fair use, IMO. I am genuinely interested in intelligent objections to it.
It needs a rewrite. It's all over the place and misleading.

It seems to be saying in the santy clause (last paragraph) that it's all Obama's fault. 
Alan, what's your take?
Step over the gap, not into it. Watch the space between platform and train.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl
 
User avatar
katastrofa
Posts: 9442
Joined: August 16th, 2007, 5:36 am
Location: Alpha Centauri

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 11:00 am

One good (and generic) thing about racists is that they are unbelievably stupid:
(from the Mac Donald piece linked above)
The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is "no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police," they concluded.
I skimmed the PNAS study - after all, it's a recognised peer-reviewed journal ;-D The authors take data only on fatal shootings including info about the race of cops and their victims. Based on this data they somehow can tell that black civilians don't have higher risk of being shot and that white cops aren't more trigger happy than black cops in situations with black civilians.


Kudos for following up on the sources. I see from here that their were some criticisms and response. In the end, it seems an obvious point that assessing racial bias in police shootings has to account for relative crime rates. That paper took kind of a back door approach to that issue.

As to why you would call the authors of the paper racists is beyond me.
It's not any back door approach. It's simply unbelievably stupid to claim that there is no racism based on the numbers of whites and blacks killed by cops. Since I don't believe the UC Berkeley, PNAS and other names that you found worth quoting here are so stupid, I must assume that they are sneaky racists - the paper's false conclusion will be cited as a proof, legitimised, and eventually used by decision makers. Such stories do happen.
You open the back door to our lives for ignorance, discrimination and other abominations when naming them with flattering euphemisms. Next time it may be your or my cancer therapy which is safe and effective, because they analysed only data on survivors. Oh wait, there's no cancer, because everyone survived.
 
User avatar
Alan
Topic Author
Posts: 10267
Joined: December 19th, 2001, 4:01 am
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 1:34 pm

OK, guys -- here's a link to the Mac Donald piece that will be valid for a few days -- fair use, IMO. I am genuinely interested in intelligent objections to it.
It needs a rewrite. It's all over the place and misleading.

It seems to be saying in the santy clause (last paragraph) that it's all Obama's fault. 
Alan, what's your take?

My take is that, in the end, what Obama said and what Trump said are a sideshow. The main point of the opinion piece is "(The) share of black (fatal shooting) victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects". My gut feel is that's probably true. I also think you can reach that conclusion without being a 'sneaky racist'. Finally, I agree with Mac Donald's concluding remark: "The Minneapolis officers who arrested George Floyd must be held accountable for their excessive use of force and callous indifference to his distress. Police training needs to double down on de-escalation tactics. But Floyd's death should not undermine the legitimacy of American law enforcement, without which we will continue on a path toward chaos." 
 
User avatar
bearish
Posts: 5691
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 2:03 pm

Having Trump hell bent on keeping the country on a path toward chaos is not helpful to the rest of us.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 62602
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 4:10 pm

OK, guys -- here's a link to the Mac Donald piece that will be valid for a few days -- fair use, IMO. I am genuinely interested in intelligent objections to it.
It needs a rewrite. It's all over the place and misleading.

It seems to be saying in the santy clause (last paragraph) that it's all Obama's fault. 
Alan, what's your take?

My take is that, in the end, what Obama said and what Trump said are a sideshow. The main point of the opinion piece is "(The) share of black (fatal shooting) victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects". My gut feel is that's probably true. I also think you can reach that conclusion without being a 'sneaky racist'. Finally, I agree with Mac Donald's concluding remark: "The Minneapolis officers who arrested George Floyd must be held accountable for their excessive use of force and callous indifference to his distress. Police training needs to double down on de-escalation tactics. But Floyd's death should not undermine the legitimacy of American law enforcement, without which we will continue on a path toward chaos." 
More needs to be done. The problem is systemic.

Actually my "last paragraph" should be "2nd, last paragraph", in particular the first sentence. This is the real punch line/santy clause. If you now  jump back to the 2nd paragraph that starts "Joe Biden .... ambush murder of five Dallas officers...". When I read it first time I thought it strange and out-of context. It's sneaky.

And the remark that white police do less killing than black or Hispanic police is nauseating. It's like a no true Scotsman Fallacy example.

99% of police killings  brought no one to justice.

I don't know for whose benefit this article was written. Again, how it got into the WSJ is a mystery.
Step over the gap, not into it. Watch the space between platform and train.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl
 
User avatar
bearish
Posts: 5691
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 4:57 pm

Just to address the last point - she is a reasonably famous and credentialed author and “intellectual” with a political philosophy that aligns with the WSJ, so no mystery there.
 
User avatar
Alan
Topic Author
Posts: 10267
Joined: December 19th, 2001, 4:01 am
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 5:35 pm

Just to address the last point - she is a reasonably famous and credentialed author and “intellectual” with a political philosophy that aligns with the WSJ, so no mystery there.
agreed, although one might say "aligns with typical WSJ editorial opinion", as distinguished from "the news".
 
User avatar
bearish
Posts: 5691
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 6:08 pm

I guess that is fair, although they're not exactly free from spin in the news coverage either. Stated with the already disclosed caveat that I haven't really read the paper for a decade...
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 62602
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 7:22 pm

Just to address the last point - she is a reasonably famous and credentialed author and “intellectual” with a political philosophy that aligns with the WSJ, so no mystery there.
I see.
Step over the gap, not into it. Watch the space between platform and train.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl
 
User avatar
bearish
Posts: 5691
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 9:20 pm

An actual, and closely related, mystery is how the NYT decided to publish a highly inflammatory note this week by Tom Cotton (ultra right-wing asshole and junior senator from Armpit). He called for sending in the army and blasting away the protesters and looters. In the physical paper it's obvious that it is in fact an op-ed piece, but since most people read their news in virtualized form, many just took it to be another NYT article and were confused. NYT journalists and staffers were not amused. It might have felt like a good idea at the time, but giving the enemy a platform in the name of free speech and informed debate is a dicey venture.
 
User avatar
Paul
Posts: 10789
Joined: July 20th, 2001, 3:28 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

June 4th, 2020, 10:24 pm

Is "Armpit" an actual place (you often can't tell with US placenames!!)? Or are you spoiling your argument by being a snob?!!!

(And I tend to think that giving the enemy a platform can be very powerful. In your favour.)
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On