- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: “Relevant Statistics” Thread
Posted on 6/2/20 at 9:42 pm to WinnPtiger
Posted on 6/2/20 at 9:42 pm to WinnPtiger
quote:I did. You didn't respond to it.
well I have a BS in statistics but go ahead and tell everyone what exactly is wrong with the data. both raw, and interpreted
If you think it makes any sense to "normalize" the data in the OP to produce "45X more likely", then you need to go back to school. And what school did you go to? TCU? Why don't you call up your old stats professors and ask for their comment on this?
4
Posted on 6/2/20 at 9:49 pm to Korkstand
Dude, you are ate up with the dumbass.
Posted on 6/2/20 at 9:51 pm to Korkstand
quote:
did. You didn't respond to it.
If you think it makes any sense to "normalize" the data in the OP to produce "45X more likely", then you need to go back to school. And what school did you go to? TCU? Why don't you call up your old stats professors and ask for their comment on this?
I went to Louisiana State University.
and I still don’t think you understand magnitudes of data sets. but keep trying to flesh it out. it’s adorable. also, I’d love to know what point you’re trying to make exactly.
math says 550,000>60,000. especially when 13% commit the 550,000.
but keep using the word random. if I was a lawyer arguing against hate crimes I’d quote you
Posted on 6/2/20 at 9:54 pm to Korkstand
attackedattack
16% of the population are committing 90% of the attacks. You can't just say whites get attacked more because they're the majority, because obviously the opposite, that whites attack more because they're the majority, is not true. You don't think that needs to be normalized to put into perspective? The example you gave where everyone was a criminal and attacks were random was useless. You added the WoW and BoB element.
quote:
If you think it makes any sense to "normalize" the data in the OP to produce "45X more likely", then you need to go back to school.
16% of the population are committing 90% of the attacks. You can't just say whites get attacked more because they're the majority, because obviously the opposite, that whites attack more because they're the majority, is not true. You don't think that needs to be normalized to put into perspective? The example you gave where everyone was a criminal and attacks were random was useless. You added the WoW and BoB element.
Posted on 6/3/20 at 5:32 pm to Korkstand
quote:
If you think it makes any sense to "normalize" the data in the OP to produce "45X more likely",
The graphic didn't say "more likely," it said "more violent toward." It simply creates a "violence factor" with a static rate of violence towards a particular group and changing the hypothetical total population. It's simplistic and almost certainly would prove incorrect if it beared out in reality, but it's no more manipulative than all of your examples.
Haven't read the rest yet, but did I just solve your 18 page confusion?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News