Publishes his findings and has to live under police protection.
Harvard Economics Professor Meta Study Finds no Racial Bias in Police Shootings in America
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
this was done in 2016 so we could have never had the 2020 blm riots and nonsense ??? and never had the firing of doyle at iowa football? all if they would have let this be published?
It must have gotten suppressed. Doesn’t fit the Democrat party narrative.
Equally fascinating is this came from a black Harvard professor. Not to worry the white-guilt riddled lefties know just what to do with a traitor like this.
So how was it published AND suppressed? LMAO
Similar studies have been done in the past. This info is old news and it won’t change anyone’s opinion in regard to law enforcement.
And 2 studies were published directly contradicting his own findings, one from Princeston and one from the University of Chicago. And his own study found that minorities were more likely to experience excessive force. So they were more likely to experience excessive force, but not more likely to be shot?
If two separate studies are able to conclude the same contradictory findings based of his data, maybe his study is flawed.
If two separate studies are able to conclude the same contradictory findings based of his data, maybe his study is flawed.
I'm sure the black Harvard professor wanted to commit career suicide so we could have this discussion on HORT
And this is how science works. You don't take a single study, but you use as many different pieces of information as possible and try to find patterns in the data.
That said, it's not so much how often police use deadly force, it's how often deadly force is used when it isn't necessary or is completely inappropriate for the situation.
And my bigger point wasn't so much asking if his study was flawed, it was more the idea that too many people take one thing that reinforces their viewpoint (bias confirmation) without digging any deeper to see if it is valid or if it is flawed.
The sciences (climate change, vaccines, flat earth, universe in general, evolution) are a perfect example. There can be 1000s of proven examples showing X is true, and one thing questioning the validity (without any factual data backing up its questioning) and people will believe the one thing because they don't understand how the consensus conclusions were derived. Why? Because it fits their pre-conceived notions that are in opposition of the facts and they either don't want to, or are unable to, do their own research.
Nah, dude, you don't need to do your own research because it's already been done and you don't believe it, despite the mountains of evidence.
Oh, and I just noticed the thread by Abby on the same thing, which REALLY makes me questiin what's going on. Is this the newest RW talking point? A study published 5 years ago, confirming their biases, which caused the author to live in fear is suddenly news?
Things that make you go, hmm
Things that make you go, hmm
And, oddly, I just saw a video on Tik Tik with the same thing, getting push from an extreme RW account.
They have to get people talking about something other than Trump getting his ass kicked in court. Notice how the Trump White House dispensing hard core drugs like it was Studio 54 on a blowout weekend isn't being talked about anymore? You would think people would still be talking about that, especially since they still talk about a tiny bit of cocaine that was found in the visitor's lobby there.
How are you so sure he's not right and the others were wrong?
It seems like confirmation bias from you as well.
Science doesn't work like that.....you can tell you've have an incomplete understanding of the scientific method
Please tell me how it works. I bet I have spent more time doing scientific research than you. Lol
Lol. I have a B.S. in Natural Science and M.S. in Biogeography. What's your degrees?
We are on the cutting edge of this short lived talking point. They shoehorned this one in with the DEI stuff, maybe to give it a little launch energy. They pop up and vanish so fast nowadays.
I believe you think you know everything, but i have read your posts and you sound like someone who is good at 1 very specific area. But you are clueless as to how your specialty actually fits into the whole picture.
If I had to guess, you are a relatively new graduate and you don't seem to know much beyond what you were taught in school. So I'm not impressed by your degree.
I have been in research for 20 years now.
The paper was published, is still available, and was documented in the New York Times, access was not an issue. All the events you mentioned would still have occurred if this paper was mailed to every home in the US. The idea that an academic paper based on very limited data is the definitive voice of racial biases in law enforcement is absurd.
Before the, but, what about comments, I am not stating Fryer's conclusions are inaccurate. My comment relates to a limited data set used to reach a "conclusion" that, after 8 years, people are propping up as definitive proof of a "fact". The same guy said 4 years ago that defunding the police was a brilliant idea, does everyone agree with this conclusion?
No, dude, I don't know everything...I got my BS in 2001 and MS in 2007, I then worked in a local Engineering department full time and was an adjunct for master level classes (Geographic Research, Geostatistics, Web GIS, Python, and Remote Sensing) part time for Delta State till MRSA came back on me in 2019.
So what's your degrees and what research do you do?
I would love for us to be able to evaluate the quality of results based off the quality of research. But that seemed to fly out the window with climate, trans, racial, and covid research.
These topics became so important to progress the agenda that real research was replaced with paid for results.
Your a professor, that explains a lot. I have found them to be unwilling to step outside their comfort zone when it comes to science.
What papers or studies are you speaking of specifically? The data sets on published papers are typically made available, all you have to do is read the paper/study.
You could go back and read my posts about these topics. I have linked a lot of articles and given my analysis of many articles. I have had some pretty lengthy discussions on covid, climate and trans stuff.
Statisticians can show whatever results they want by using creative math.
Great, but we are not discussing articles; this was an academic paper. Is there a specific academic paper or study you feel needs to be discussed further because of a limited data set?
It's an interesting topic, albeit old news.
I haven't seen Roland's paper well refuted. I haven't seen the idea that police shootings of black is incongruent with what you might expect given the group's level of criminal activity.
I saw the argument against it -- in NYT coverage -- that police might be prone to unnecessarily encounter black people (because of bias or whatnot) and so the numbers are skewed that way. Roland's response was that something like 85% of the incidents stemmed from police responding to an actual crime.
A few more things:
1) Given the fact that the demographic in question commits way more violent crime -- this isn't in question, even if you want to quibble about lesser crime -- it might not be too much of a surprise that they receive more police attention. More encounters could certainly lead to more police shootings. Add to that, if more violent law breaking behavior is noticed, it isn't so much of a surprise more of it might be noticed in police encounters, too.
It's reasonable to have the baseline expectation that you would see higher levels of police shootings amongst black americans given that groups crime data.'
This is a rather striking piece of information taken from a city journal article:
One answer may be found in the arrest statistics for crimes of violence by group. The last full FBI crime report, for 2019, shows that the racial/ethnic proportions of people arrested for violent crimes, such as murder, rape, and aggravated assault, is nearly identical to the Lancet data on those who died in confrontations with police.
RACE / ETHNICITY | KILLED BY POLICE | ARRESTED FOR VIOLENT CRIME
% White 49% | 50%
% Black 31% | 31%
% Hispanic 17% | 19%
When Cops Kill
Every year, American police kill about 1,000 civilians. George Floyd and other white cop/black civilian killings have made us apt to view these homicides through a racial prism, but a fuller picture of the facts makes the race narrative harder to sustain. The New York Times recently reported on...
www.city-journal.org
2) The assumption that black people are killed disproportionately more often by police was in part fueled by a select handful of viral social media videos through out the 2010s/2020s. This created a public mood that could be rather incongruent with the reality of the data. We've seen this pattern repeated a million times over on social media. (pick a topic)
3) Given 2, and Roland's remarks about the study not being "well received" amongst the academic community, you could surmise that there is quite a bit of bias towards one understanding of the data. Unfortunately, this seems to be quite a bit political. And this isn't surprising at a University. (see the unreasonable, obviously politically biased, response to the Israel/Palestine issue on campus of recent)
Last edited:
Lol ..I had a real job also (so I know all about the real world), I just did that because I love educating others. It's a GREAT, GREAT thing. If I didn't get a MRSA infected pressure sore (I'm a wheelchair bound paraplegic) right in the middle of grad school I would have went on and got a PhD..but such is life.
And @Hawk_82, still haven't seen you post your degrees and what research you do
This is the correct way to look at it. It's an intellectually honest approach.It's an interesting topic, albeit old news.
I haven't seen Roland's paper well refuted. I haven't seen the idea that police shootings of black is incongruent with what you might expect given the group's level of criminal activity.
I saw the argument against it -- in NYT coverage -- that police might be prone to unnecessarily encounter black people (because of bias or whatnot) and so the numbers are skewed that way. Roland's response was that something like 85% of the incidents stemmed from police responding to an actual crime.
A few more things:
1) Given the fact that the demographic in question commits way more violent crime -- this isn't in question, even if you want to quibble about lesser crime -- it might not be too much of a surprise that they receive more police attention. More encounters could certainly lead to more police shootings. Add to that, if more violent law breaking behavior is noticed, it isn't so much of a surprise more of it might be noticed in police encounters, too.
It's reasonable to have the baseline expectation that you would see higher levels of police shootings amongst black americans given that groups crime data.'
This is a rather striking piece of information taken from a city journal article:
One answer may be found in the arrest statistics for crimes of violence by group. The last full FBI crime report, for 2019, shows that the racial/ethnic proportions of people arrested for violent crimes, such as murder, rape, and aggravated assault, is nearly identical to the Lancet data on those who died in confrontations with police.
RACE / ETHNICITY | KILLED BY POLICE | ARRESTED FOR VIOLENT CRIME
% White 49% | 50%
% Black 31% | 31%
% Hispanic 17% | 19%
When Cops Kill
Every year, American police kill about 1,000 civilians. George Floyd and other white cop/black civilian killings have made us apt to view these homicides through a racial prism, but a fuller picture of the facts makes the race narrative harder to sustain. The New York Times recently reported on...
2) The assumption that black people are killed disproportionately more often by police was in part fueled by a select handful of viral social media videos through out the 2010s/2020s. This created a public mood that could be rather incongruent with the reality of the data. We've seen this pattern repeated a million times over on social media. (pick a topic)
3) Given 2, and Roland's remarks about the study not being "well received" amongst the academic community, you could surmise that there is quite a bit of bias towards one understanding of the data. Unfortunately, this seems to be quite a bit political. And this isn't surprising at a University. (see the unreasonable, obviously politically biased, response to the Israel/Palestine issue on campus of recent)
However, the raw numbers without analytics can be used to create a narrative that's been very successful with those without analytical inclinations and has been a gold mine for the media, both left and right really. While MSNBC and CNN have been very successful pushing a dishonest narrative, Fox News is equally successful stoking outrage amongst its viewers over this dishonesty, to the point where they go too far and end up promoting intellectually dishonest narratives of their own stemming from this (e.g. teachers in school teaching kids that crimes against white people are ok...).
Studies can be flawed. Even at Harvard there can be biases, just like there are here. If you want to find this forum's bias, wait for Joes Place to weigh in.
The Harvard elite should spend a little more time with people of color if they want to find out about racial bias in policing.
The Harvard elite should spend a little more time with people of color if they want to find out about racial bias in policing.
Democrats are racist against people of color. They openly argue people of color are too stupid to obtain identification.
Similar threads
