--- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" > <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], > new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://istpp.org/crime_prevention/voodoo_rebuttal.html#note1 > <snip> > > > > And later, he dismisses a doubling of the > murder rate during the > > > > course from 10/mo to 20/, as an "outlier". > Thats convenient. > > Actually that would be 10 and 20 per week, not per > month. > > > > It was an outlier within the course itself. It > was a one-week > > > aberration due to a gang fight that saw 10 > deaths in one > > > incident, IIRC. > > > > Yeah, new...it's perfectly legitimate to "not > count" an > > anomalous event like *that*! What are you > *thinking*? > > If you bitch about something as miniscule as > disregarding > > data because it doesn't fit the all-important > expectations, > > why you could set a precedent. > > Actually, statistically speaking, anomalous events > are just that, anomalous, and may *not* be relevant > when one is considering longer-term trends. > > This is from the article new morning cites: > > Park asserts that levels of violence actually > increased to record > levels. He confuses homicides which accounted for > only 3% of > violent crime in Washington during 1993 with > violent crimes in > general. Park asserts that the murder rate soared > during the > experiment, and claims that "participants in the > project seemed > serenely unaware of the mounting carnage around > them." > > It is true the murder rate did not drop during the > course as we > acknowledged in the initial research report and in > the published > study but the facts were very different. For six > weeks ending the > month before the experiment, from mid-March through > April, homicides > in Washington averaged ten per week. Beginning one > week after the > course and for twelve weeks thereafter, homicides > also averaged ten > per week. During the eight weeks of the experiment, > in June and July, > the average was again ten per week except for one > horrific 36-hour > period in which ten people died. Apart from this > brief episode, which > was a statistical outlier, the level of homicides > during June and > July of 1993 was not significantly higher than the > remainder of the > year. > > According to his article, Park apparently took his > lead on the murder > issue from a Washington Post reporter who had been > impressed that the > one 36-hour period had led to a sudden doubling of > the murder rate > that week. The reporter, and Park, did not notice > that the very next > week the murder rate dropped from its common rate of > ten by more than > twice that is, the totals went up to 20 one week > and down to 4 the > next. This is precisely the type of sporadic > fluctuation one must > account for when total numbers are small. The > average incidence of > murder in Washington was little more than one per > day, and with > numbers as low as this, as Park and all scientists > know, random > fluctuations can appear extremely high when listed > as percentages. > > As I said in an earlier post, I'd sure like > new morning to elucidate what he thinks is > wrong with this explanation of why the fact > that the murder rate jumped during one 36- > hour period should not be considered significant > with regard to the overall study results. The real problem with the study is the design itself. If it had a better design than a simple pre-post (which makes no sense for research of this sort) non of these question would be discussed. > > > > > > 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 > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
