--- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > > PANDITS HAD BEEN PART OF THE ORIGINAL PROTOCOL. > > > > They were not any part of the protocol that was made > > public, nor any part of the discussion and planning > > by the independent review board that was made public. > > I got on the mailing list for everything that was > > released about the study from its early stages, and > > there was no mention of pandits anywhere in it. > > &&&&&&&& > > "Protocol" might have been a poor choice of words here, given its specific meaning with > respect to scientific research.
Yup. However, the pandits were indeed a central part of the pland > for the course, and their absence was widely noted when they failed to show. > > With all due respect, the fact that you do not recall this at all raises some question about > the accuracy of other points you have raised. No, of course it doesn't. It just means I started keeping track of it after the pundit possibility had gone down the tubes and nobody was talking about it any more. Or that for some reason pundits per se were never mentioned in any of the literature I was sent. <snip> > > Even the *raw data*--the crime rate statistics--showed > > a very significant reduction from the rate the previous > > year for that period, considerably more than would have > > been expected from the overall crime trend. > > > > What's more, that reduction occurred only during the > > demonstration period and for a few weeks afterward. > > Then it went right back up. > > &&&&&&&& > > I think that the movement spin machine frames it that way, The raw data shows it. > but as I > remember, the police in DC, who had been very cooperative with the > study, found the results to be ambiguous at best. The police representative on the independent review board endorsed the results of the study (he was an expert in crime stats), although he wouldn't commit to the conclusion that the crime rate decline was the result of the gathering. But he said the methodology appeared to be in order. It's hardly surprising the police department wouldn't find the notion that a bunch of people bouncing on their rears could do anything to reduce crime very appealing. > At this point, it would take a separate study, beginning from the > raw stats, to see if such a reduction was obvious. The raw stats *themselves* were obvious; there was a sharp decline in violent crime during the gathering compared to the same period the previous year. The issue is whether there was anything else that could account for it. The point of the study and all the statistical analysis was to rule out other factors. > As I said before, quite a lot of massaging was required afterwards > to make the data look good. And as I said before, at least part of it had to do with revamping the methodology and analysis to deal with the form in which they got the statistics, which wasn't what they had been expecting when they designed them. > > &&&&&&&& > > > > One of the problems the researchers encountered was > > obtaining the crime data in the way they had > > originally anticipated. They had apparently been > > told by law enforcement (FBI or DC police, not sure > > which) that they would get it in a certain form, > > broken down into certain categories, and they > > constructed their methodology around that understanding. > > > > Whether they misunderstood or had been misinformed isn't > > clear, but a good deal of the fumfing around they had to > > do afterwards involved redoing the analysis to deal with > > the form in which they *did* get the data. Plus which, > > there was a long delay in obtaining one major part of > > the data. > > > > I don't remember the details, just the general outline. > > Some of this may be described in the study itself. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
