"The freedom movement pipe dream should be to achieve a global majority based not on skin colour but shared values."
As I said, I don't agree with everything Jordan said. I'm not arguing for using racial solidarity as a basis for a political movement. I'm just arguing that people need to be on their own side.
But I think I would agree with your statement more with a little addition:
"The freedom movement pipe dream should be to achieve a global majority based not on skin colour but shared values AND COMMON INTEREST."
I agree with your addition, on the proviso that those common interests don't deteriorate into ethnic division. I mean define "people need[ing] to be on their own side." If "own side" means ethnicity, then I don't agree with your addition. My gut instinct is that shared values should overlap with common interests, and those are independent of ethnicity or religion.
As usual you get into the weeds as few do and it's all up to your usual high standard but...with all due respect, you seem to have got something very wrong when you state: “Put another way, when it comes to the crime of homicide in the US, Black people have more reason to fear White people than White people have reason to fear Black people.”
259 million people do not encounter and engage with 48 million people. They interact one on one or in small groups. Using your numbers, the average Black is 12.34 times more likely to kill a White, than the average White is to kill a Black. I'm assuming your misleading use of statistics is merely an oversight and not sophistry.
I see where you get the statistic of 12.34 times more likely to kill a White person but that does not translate into the risk for each group. If we assume that murders were only interracial, then that statistic tells us that there are 12 times more black murderers as a percentage of the black population than there are white murderers as a percentage of the white population. That's all that stat does.
The risk factor is quite different. It has to be a comparison of the *victims* in each population to the total of the respective victims' population. The white victim count is 566 and the victim population is 258m. That gives a risk of being a white victim of 0.22 per/100,000. The black victim count is 246 and the black population is 48m. That gives a risk of being a black victim of 0.51/100,000.
The 12.34 times stat does not measure each victims' risk. It measures the frequency of the killing done by the perpetrators. These are different things.
Put differently, more black people as a percentage of their own population are killers, but the risk of being a victim is quite different. The rate of being a killer is quite different to the rate of being a victim.
I don't get what you mean when you say "259 million people do not encounter and engage with 48 million people". These populations clearly do encounter each other or they wouldn't be able to kill each other.
I am genuinely not trying to mislead and given the excellent interactions you and I have had, I am really perplexed that you would think that I was trying to mislead. If I am wrong, you'll need to convince me, and I'll correct.
Indeed, we have had excellent interactions, and there's no reason that should ever change, but this one's nothing to write home about.
Yes, I believe you're wrong, but I don't think I can convince you. I thought what I was pointing out was self-evident and would elicit a simple acknowledgment and correction. Put simply, I'm as baffled that you don't see my point as you appear to be baffled that I don't see yours.
“I am really perplexed that you would think that I was trying to mislead” — I do not think you were trying to mislead. I suggested it MIGHT be the case if you were consciously engaging in sophistry. I also suggested it might simply be a case of oversight, or put differently, muddled thinking. Clearly, it's the latter. When I said “misleading use of statistics” it was a statement of fact, not intent.
Let's try again. In your piece you wrote ““Put another way, when it comes to the crime of homicide in the US, Black people have more reason to fear White people than White people have reason to fear Black people.” Based on the statistics you provided, this is irrefutably wrong and/or misleading. Why? Because, based on your statistics, if a Black person and a White person were to have a deadly encounter, the White person would be not just more likely to be the victim, but a hugely statistically significant 12.34 times more likely. If you can't see how wildly divergent that is from your above quoted claim, then I don't know what to say.
I'm going to send this statistical interpretation for adjudication to a PhD guy whose maths is better than mine. But as of now, I maintain that you're misinterpreting the "12.34 times" stat. You are confusing the rate of black killers in the black population with the rate of being a victim. They're 2 totally different things.
You need to engage with this line by line, because I don't think you are doing that:
The likelihood of a white person being a VICTIM of a black murder is measured by the murder rate in the white population. That has to be white people murdered as a proportion of the total white population. That's 0.22/100,000
The corresponding principle for black victims gives a murder rate of 0.51/100,000.
If there is a higher victim rate in the black population than the white population, blacks are at more risk and therefore have more reason to be fearful.
You got the 12.34 times by comparing the rate at which black people commit murder to the rate at which white people commit murder. Here you do have to change the denominator. It gives a different result because it means something different:
566 black murderers in a population of 48m black people gives a rate of 1.17 black killers/100,000 in the black population.
The exact same killer rate in the white population is 0.10/100,000 in the white population.
1.17 / 0.10 = 12.34 times more likely that a black person will kill.
That does mean black people are more likely to be murderers, because the population (the denominator) is so much smaller.
Basically if you were looking for a *killer*, you'd have a better chance of finding one in the black population.
The odd thing is that if you were looking for a *victim*, you'd also have a better chance of finding one in the black population because the victim rate in the black population is higher than in the white population.
Finally, to address your first comment. I obviously don't need for you to like everything I write. What I find disturbing is your suggestion that I was trying to be deliberately deceptive in the portrayal of the stats. That was very strongly conveyed in the suggestion that I might be using "sophistry".
The definition of sophistry is "the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving."
I am perfectly capable of being wrong. If I am wrong, it won't be because I am a sophist.
I will be checking this with others more removed from it than me, and if it turns out that I am wrong then I will correct it.
My sincerest apologies for any offense I may have given by using the word “sophistry”. Even though I said that I assumed it was not a case sophistry, I admit it was a word I should not have used it all. I must have been slightly off balance at the thought that someone as clearly literate, numerate and intelligent as yourself had not seen what I thought was self-evident.
My original comment was and is, simply to point out something that I thought was rather obvious (to me) that went against something you wrote. The purpose was to draw your attention to something you may not have noticed or may have overlooked, so that you might (if so inclined) strengthen your article by, perhaps, removing a sentence I thought was contradicted as a result of my using the same four numbers you'd used, but applying them differently.
To me, it's not so much about anything so sophisticated as statistics as it is about simple arithmetic and common sense. Two divisions followed by a third (dividing the results of the first two) yields 12.34. Try this thought experiment: if you put a random B and a random W together in a room and told them that B was 12.34 times more likely to kill W, than W was likely to kill B, whom do you think would “have more reason to fear”? To suggest that the correct answer is B is obviously preposterous, and therefore your claim that “...Black people have more reason to fear White people than White people have reason to fear Black people” is (from my point of view) equally obviously preposterous. Anyway that's all I was trying to point out.
Incidentally, it's funny how the factor turns out to be comprised of 1, 2 , 3 and 4 in sequence.
The fundamental difference between our positions comes down to how to calculate the likelihood of a black person killing a white person (and vice versa). The central, and in fact sole, piece of the dispute being the population denominator.
Do you use:
1) The deaths of WHITE people as proportion of the WHITE population (566/258m = 0.22 per 100,000);
OR
2) The deaths of WHITE people as proportion of the BLACK population (566/48m = 1.17 per 100,000)
You are using 2), but if you use 2) you are not getting the likelihood of a white person dying at the hands of a black person.
I believe that the real risk to the white person has to be expressed as a proportion of the total white population, not the black population.
The statistic in 2) which you are using to derive your interpretation is actually the proportion of killers within the black population, because it’s:
black killers (or white deaths) /black population.
It’s not the same as the likelihood of a white person dying at the hands of a black person.
Who is more threatening (your number) is not the same as who is more likely to be a victim (my numbers).
It's a heuristic to want the person who is more threatening to translate into the risk of dying but statistics don't work that way.
I stated my position as clearly and succinctly as I could in my second and third comments/replies. Of course, it's all in relation to, and attempting to address, the phrase "have more reason to fear".
I fully agree with this:
"The freedom movement pipe dream should be to achieve a global majority based not on skin colour but shared values."
As I said, I don't agree with everything Jordan said. I'm not arguing for using racial solidarity as a basis for a political movement. I'm just arguing that people need to be on their own side.
But I think I would agree with your statement more with a little addition:
"The freedom movement pipe dream should be to achieve a global majority based not on skin colour but shared values AND COMMON INTEREST."
I agree with your addition, on the proviso that those common interests don't deteriorate into ethnic division. I mean define "people need[ing] to be on their own side." If "own side" means ethnicity, then I don't agree with your addition. My gut instinct is that shared values should overlap with common interests, and those are independent of ethnicity or religion.
That was much better than Part 1. Looking forward to parts 3 and 4!
No, it was just as good as part 1
It's difficult to be objective about your own work.
Indeed.
I loved part 1, personally.
Thanks Helen!
As usual you get into the weeds as few do and it's all up to your usual high standard but...with all due respect, you seem to have got something very wrong when you state: “Put another way, when it comes to the crime of homicide in the US, Black people have more reason to fear White people than White people have reason to fear Black people.”
259 million people do not encounter and engage with 48 million people. They interact one on one or in small groups. Using your numbers, the average Black is 12.34 times more likely to kill a White, than the average White is to kill a Black. I'm assuming your misleading use of statistics is merely an oversight and not sophistry.
I see where you get the statistic of 12.34 times more likely to kill a White person but that does not translate into the risk for each group. If we assume that murders were only interracial, then that statistic tells us that there are 12 times more black murderers as a percentage of the black population than there are white murderers as a percentage of the white population. That's all that stat does.
The risk factor is quite different. It has to be a comparison of the *victims* in each population to the total of the respective victims' population. The white victim count is 566 and the victim population is 258m. That gives a risk of being a white victim of 0.22 per/100,000. The black victim count is 246 and the black population is 48m. That gives a risk of being a black victim of 0.51/100,000.
The 12.34 times stat does not measure each victims' risk. It measures the frequency of the killing done by the perpetrators. These are different things.
Put differently, more black people as a percentage of their own population are killers, but the risk of being a victim is quite different. The rate of being a killer is quite different to the rate of being a victim.
I don't get what you mean when you say "259 million people do not encounter and engage with 48 million people". These populations clearly do encounter each other or they wouldn't be able to kill each other.
I am genuinely not trying to mislead and given the excellent interactions you and I have had, I am really perplexed that you would think that I was trying to mislead. If I am wrong, you'll need to convince me, and I'll correct.
Indeed, we have had excellent interactions, and there's no reason that should ever change, but this one's nothing to write home about.
Yes, I believe you're wrong, but I don't think I can convince you. I thought what I was pointing out was self-evident and would elicit a simple acknowledgment and correction. Put simply, I'm as baffled that you don't see my point as you appear to be baffled that I don't see yours.
“I am really perplexed that you would think that I was trying to mislead” — I do not think you were trying to mislead. I suggested it MIGHT be the case if you were consciously engaging in sophistry. I also suggested it might simply be a case of oversight, or put differently, muddled thinking. Clearly, it's the latter. When I said “misleading use of statistics” it was a statement of fact, not intent.
Let's try again. In your piece you wrote ““Put another way, when it comes to the crime of homicide in the US, Black people have more reason to fear White people than White people have reason to fear Black people.” Based on the statistics you provided, this is irrefutably wrong and/or misleading. Why? Because, based on your statistics, if a Black person and a White person were to have a deadly encounter, the White person would be not just more likely to be the victim, but a hugely statistically significant 12.34 times more likely. If you can't see how wildly divergent that is from your above quoted claim, then I don't know what to say.
I'm going to send this statistical interpretation for adjudication to a PhD guy whose maths is better than mine. But as of now, I maintain that you're misinterpreting the "12.34 times" stat. You are confusing the rate of black killers in the black population with the rate of being a victim. They're 2 totally different things.
You need to engage with this line by line, because I don't think you are doing that:
The likelihood of a white person being a VICTIM of a black murder is measured by the murder rate in the white population. That has to be white people murdered as a proportion of the total white population. That's 0.22/100,000
The corresponding principle for black victims gives a murder rate of 0.51/100,000.
If there is a higher victim rate in the black population than the white population, blacks are at more risk and therefore have more reason to be fearful.
You got the 12.34 times by comparing the rate at which black people commit murder to the rate at which white people commit murder. Here you do have to change the denominator. It gives a different result because it means something different:
566 black murderers in a population of 48m black people gives a rate of 1.17 black killers/100,000 in the black population.
The exact same killer rate in the white population is 0.10/100,000 in the white population.
1.17 / 0.10 = 12.34 times more likely that a black person will kill.
That does mean black people are more likely to be murderers, because the population (the denominator) is so much smaller.
Basically if you were looking for a *killer*, you'd have a better chance of finding one in the black population.
The odd thing is that if you were looking for a *victim*, you'd also have a better chance of finding one in the black population because the victim rate in the black population is higher than in the white population.
Finally, to address your first comment. I obviously don't need for you to like everything I write. What I find disturbing is your suggestion that I was trying to be deliberately deceptive in the portrayal of the stats. That was very strongly conveyed in the suggestion that I might be using "sophistry".
The definition of sophistry is "the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving."
I am perfectly capable of being wrong. If I am wrong, it won't be because I am a sophist.
I will be checking this with others more removed from it than me, and if it turns out that I am wrong then I will correct it.
What you have to say is always appreciated.
My sincerest apologies for any offense I may have given by using the word “sophistry”. Even though I said that I assumed it was not a case sophistry, I admit it was a word I should not have used it all. I must have been slightly off balance at the thought that someone as clearly literate, numerate and intelligent as yourself had not seen what I thought was self-evident.
My original comment was and is, simply to point out something that I thought was rather obvious (to me) that went against something you wrote. The purpose was to draw your attention to something you may not have noticed or may have overlooked, so that you might (if so inclined) strengthen your article by, perhaps, removing a sentence I thought was contradicted as a result of my using the same four numbers you'd used, but applying them differently.
To me, it's not so much about anything so sophisticated as statistics as it is about simple arithmetic and common sense. Two divisions followed by a third (dividing the results of the first two) yields 12.34. Try this thought experiment: if you put a random B and a random W together in a room and told them that B was 12.34 times more likely to kill W, than W was likely to kill B, whom do you think would “have more reason to fear”? To suggest that the correct answer is B is obviously preposterous, and therefore your claim that “...Black people have more reason to fear White people than White people have reason to fear Black people” is (from my point of view) equally obviously preposterous. Anyway that's all I was trying to point out.
Incidentally, it's funny how the factor turns out to be comprised of 1, 2 , 3 and 4 in sequence.
Apology accepted.
The fundamental difference between our positions comes down to how to calculate the likelihood of a black person killing a white person (and vice versa). The central, and in fact sole, piece of the dispute being the population denominator.
Do you use:
1) The deaths of WHITE people as proportion of the WHITE population (566/258m = 0.22 per 100,000);
OR
2) The deaths of WHITE people as proportion of the BLACK population (566/48m = 1.17 per 100,000)
You are using 2), but if you use 2) you are not getting the likelihood of a white person dying at the hands of a black person.
I believe that the real risk to the white person has to be expressed as a proportion of the total white population, not the black population.
The statistic in 2) which you are using to derive your interpretation is actually the proportion of killers within the black population, because it’s:
black killers (or white deaths) /black population.
It’s not the same as the likelihood of a white person dying at the hands of a black person.
Who is more threatening (your number) is not the same as who is more likely to be a victim (my numbers).
It's a heuristic to want the person who is more threatening to translate into the risk of dying but statistics don't work that way.
That's a pretty good summary of where we differ.
I stated my position as clearly and succinctly as I could in my second and third comments/replies. Of course, it's all in relation to, and attempting to address, the phrase "have more reason to fear".
That's all I got.