--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Bill (William)Simmons" <unclewas@> wrote: > > > > Fairfield itself offers an amazing case study. Because of the length > > of time factor of the study group. > > > > 1. There would have been a crime rate prior to TM's introduction into > > the community and should be verifable through past > > public/police/court records. > > > > 2. Then the introduction of TM and its organization to the community. > > > > 3. And a 30 year study period in which the crime rate could be > > tracted along with the steady growth of practising meditators. > > > > To my way of thinking. Thirty years of meditations by a steadily > > increasing population of meditators (far exceeding the 1% cl;aimed > > necessary to reverse rising crime rates) must result in a reduction > > in Fairfield's crime rates or the whole ME therory is disproved. > > > > Has Fairfield itself ever been the subject of such a study. If > > not,,,why not!!! How many crimminal offenses were reported in > > Fairfield in the year TM meditators began in Fairfield and how many > > reported offenses occured say last year? The trends should point to > > a declining crime rate given the significant number of meditators in > > the community. > > > > > For whatever it is worth: > > http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/SocietalEffects/FairfieldCrime/index.cfm >
I read DOJ's analysis. Its distrurbing that it is so shallow and has so many unaddressed (or only partially addressed) questionable metheodological issues. Following is a quick list of five major obvious flaws -- there are probably more: 1) Base Year. DOJ notes 74 as the year of the great migration (my term) to FF. And uses 1973, and prior, as the base year(s) to compare the efffect of TM etc on crime. The move occurred in middish Sept 1974. I was there. There was a lot of chaos the first several weeks as things were unpacked, people moved in, the place was cleaned, etc.,what I term "chaos effects" At a minimum, starting in October -- probably later to give chaos effects a chance to settle down, gives 1/4 of a year for TM effects. The other 3/4s of the year were Pre-TM, same old unmitigated crime rate. So in 1975, we would expect to see 4x the effect of 1974 due to any ME effect. The effect in 1975(and 76-77): no noticable change in violent crimes, and only a small decrease in property crimes. But property crimes was in a strong downward trend since 1970 through 1976. In 77-79, in the period when YF began, and the number of meditators and sidhas increased dramatically (as i recall -- anyone have data?), DOJ's property crime index actually increases, about 30% (visually). Is it reasonable to attribute this to 1/4 year of 600 or so 20 min 2x TMers (no YF, no long rounding in that period)? And during a period that was quite more relaxed than today with regards to many, what I will term "satva factors" -- factors which the TMO apparently links to purity/satva/being on the program: staying up late, unmarried cohabitation on campus, lots of guys leaving womens dorms very late at night or early in the morning, inorganic food, non SV buildings, old Parsons vibes yet to be purified, some meat eating, etc. Parsons Effects Could other factors explain the very sharp decrease (around 80%+ decrease) in violent crime in 1974? Lets look at Parsons College which used the facilities until it formally closed in June 1973. See end of post for details on Parsons. Given that there were probably 3-5000+ Parsons students at its peak, plus faculty, administration and staff, probabably didn't all leave town immediately. Its reasonable to assume that some lingered on through the end of 1973, figuring out what to do next, since no other colleges would apparently take them. However that essentially most were gone by early 1974 is also a resonable assumption. And lets assume the "flocking" -- "students from other communities would flock to Fairfield to sample the atmosphere" stopped completely in 1973. These two factors could well explain the huge drop off in Violent crime from 1973 to 1974. Its far more compelling IMO, than a 1/4 year of a ME effect from 600 TMers 20 min 2x. Particularly given that the hypothesized ME did not change for violent crimes in the next several years when there was 4x+ the "cohenrence" effect of ME. Violent crimes are: murder, robbery, aggravated assault(usually involving a weapon), unagravated assault (usually no weapon) and rape. Given that up to 5000, 80% male, heavily partying, prone to drunkeness students, plus some factor above that from like minded flockers, its not hard to imagine that unagravated assaults (including fist fights, I presume) and rapes declined dramatically. 2) TM vs YF >From 1976 to 1984, the trend of property crimes increased. Yet, the number of meditators, the time spent in meditation, and advanced ME techologies, such as YF, increased substantially during that period. An FF ME would have to explain this -- beyond empirically unsupported analogies and hypotheses such as washing machine effects. Given the base year issue, and the large rising trend in ME coherennce "units", DOJ's assertion that "property crime in Fairfield compared to other small U.S. cities was 64% lower in the years after MIU came to Fairfield than in the years before MIU arrived." is a laughably biased, slective, and most probably, incccurate interpretation of the data. 3) Small Population Effects As spraig notes (my interpretation of his point), that since crime occurs in relatively small numbers in small towns, abrupt peaks and troughs may occur from year to year. Fluctuations which would be less apparent in larger cities. And the anomolous "pickpockets" which may occur in one year would spike the figures. However, it would not spike the trend -- which is afterall what the sustained ME in FF is concerned with -- the long-term effects on crime. This can work for troughs also. DOJ notes that in three years there was zero violent crime! he neglected to note that the three cited zero crime years were preceeded by almost double the level of crime in the preceeding year (relative to its prior year). A two (or more) year moving average, or regresson line, would filter out the spikes due to small population effects. 4) Population Denominator (PD) DOJ and Spraig allude to what I term the "Population Denominator" problem. DOJ states "This effect can not be explained by the increased population of the meditators in the town at that time." Well there a number of problems with DOJ's analysis -- and the population denominator issue is one of them -- but, yes, it may not SOLEY be able to discount his conclusions. The PD issues are several-fold. First, when if you are introducing a lower crime rate population segment into another one, average crime rates (per capita) will decrease. Like pouring white paint into purple paint will lighten it. So to measure the a trueer effect of crime on the existing pre ME crime rate in FF, the denominator should be adjusted downwards by the number of MEers in FF. As well, crimes by MEers should be subtracted out, but i will let the TMO provide those figures. For now, lets assume TMO dogma and assume no -- or far fewer -- crimes are committed by MEers. Or at least assume that the crime rate for TMers/ MEers is supbstantially less than the native FF crime rate and adjust the crime numerator with this "noiminal" adjustment. 1974, correctly does not apparently reflect the MEers in FF for the last three months of 74. The 600 or so jump in 1975 presumably are the MIU MEers and should be subtracted out of the denominator. As should the rising numbers over time. 3000-4000 TMOers at FFs peak? If those figures were subracted out, the per capita crime rate would be substantially higher. And the population figures that DOJ cites strting in 1970 do not decrease by 3-5000+ refelcting the out-migration of Parsons stududnts. 1970-1974 they decrease by 200. So it appears the FF population figures do not include Parsons students. They should be included, particularly since its reasonably assumed they committed a large number of the crimes 1970-1973. Doing this would dramatically shrink the pre-MIU crime per capita figures. Or if the crimes committed by Parsons students were isolated, then this could be subtracted from the numerator crime figures -- requiring no adjustment of the population. This would be a better method to isolate the native FF, non parsons, crime rate which the ME is hypothesized to effect. 5) Matching Towns DOJ "matched" small towns like FF for comparision. Later it appears he matched them for violent crimes, but FF had 4:1 higher property crimes as the matched cities. Given that he apparently could not find small towns that matched FF in violent and property crimes (otherwise he would have used them), it raises a red flag as to unique factors causal to FF crime and not to other "matched small towns". At a minimum two sets of matching towns, for violent and property crimes would seem appropriate. Better would be multiple sets of each, each set randomly compiled, to test for special, unknown and uncontrolled for causal crime factors in the matched towns. (One anomolous, growing crime town in the matched could skew the results and make FF look better crime wise. No mention of other matching criteria was made -- which would have most probably done if such were used. Matching of demographic cohorts, temperature, seasonal effects, education levels, % with active religious affiliations, income levels and regional economic trends would be useful if not necessary control / matching factors for a credible analysis. ----- If the original data were available, or one could infer most of the salient parts from DOJ's tables, a redo of the analysis, accounting for the above factors would show much less dramatic results for the ME. Perhaps none. Perhaps an increase. While such an analysis, still crude -- but much less so than DOJ's, would not be conclusive. But it would provide an alternative interpretation of the data. Frankly, such a re-do of the analysis is probably not worth the time given the huge steepness of problems and issues DOJ's "analysis' raises. A larger question is raised by sparaig, is FF too small to measure the ME? I repeat his imperitive "Think a out it." If not in FF, where the effect should be most intense, where then? He does raise, two, and IMO, these are the only two potentially valid problems he raises in measuring a sustained ME effect on FF crime trends from long-term TMers, sidhads, domes, rounders, etc (not isolated short courses). These are the Small Population Effects and Population Denominator (PD) issues. These points have been addressed above and shown not to be obstacles to an obstacle to measuring a sustained ME effect on FF crime trends. ------ About Parons ---- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_College "In 1955, the trustees adapted a "fifteen-year plan" to develop the college. They appointed Millard G. Roberts, a Presbyterian minister from New York City, as president of the college... Roberts promoted a nationwide campaign for students. Enrollment grew from 350 to 5000 students, its income rocketed, and the professors entered a circle of the highest paid teachers in the nation all due to a program Roberts called "The Parsons College Plan." The "Parsons Plan" included academic help in all areas of instruction. A ranked professor taught a 3 credit course with 3 hours per week of formal lecture. An academic specialist (usually a masters degree holder or instructor) would have a small classroom seminar 2 days per week to review the lecture notes and add weekly quizzes. A tutorial center in the Wright Library was available to all students where they could review all course work. The "Publish or Perish" rule for faculty was not as widely enforced at Parsons as it was at other schools. A "Scholar in Residence" program was established exposing students to top academic instructors. This resulted in published authors teaching freshman level humanities and history courses. .. Students were permitted to learn at a rate that was unique to them, often manifesting in the student repeating the course a following trimester with no loss of standing as an enrolled student. This was called "double starring" by students. ... At one time, the Board of Trustees had placed a limit of 3,000 students on campus at any given time. By 1968, the enrollment topped 5,000 students with a dramatic building plan creating low cost housing units, "quads", co-ed housing and standard dormitories ... Parsons offered many opportunities for the financially stressed students with work-study grants employing students as kitchen staff, serving staff and dishwashers. To attract women to the overwhelmingly male populated campus "milk maids" (attractive co-eds serving milk in pitchers roaming the dining halls) received full board grants. ... At one time, transfers made up 43% of the student body and never dropped lower than 22%. This was the main reason that Parsons was often referred to as "Flunk-Out U" or as a college "for rich dumb kids." An unfortunate article in Life Magazine (June 3, 1966) highlighted many wisecracking students and prominently featured the highspirited recreational adventures of many of the students. Life Magazine also hinted in the article (perhaps unfairly) that many students enrolled at Parsons to avoid being drafted into the military during the Vietnam War. Parsons became known mainly as a college for students who couldn't get into any other colleges or had been refused readmission from another college due to poor grades. However, not all students went there because of that. ... ... Female students at Parsons were outnumbered 4 to 1. Despite the shortage, most students gave Parsons a four-star rating as a party college. Townspeople complained bitterly about the drinking parties and the wild driving that followed these parties. One example is of a classic party held in a cemetery crypt. The proliferation of Greek letter Fraternities and Sororites as well as "independent" social groups provided party houses and socialization opportunities off campus. The campus was "dry" and the women had "hours", curfews and monitoring. Town wide celebrations such as homecoming parades, Greek Week (with chariot races) and "Town and Gown" events (with Parsons College fine Drama Department) enhanced cultural life in Fairfield. The townspeople of Fairfield wondered if the hard drinking hot-rodding invasion of Parsons boys was a mixed blessing. Students from other communities would flock to Fairfield to sample the atmosphere. ... Parsons' accreditation was restored, but it was too late. The school closed in June 1973. " ======================== 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/
