--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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. > > I DO think the gang shooting should be considered significant. That > was my point. My initial take that the gang shooting was excluded was > based on the fact that it was termed an outlier -- often excluded in > my experience from datasets as part of the data validation process. > And the comment, "this is precisely the type of sporadic fluctuation > one must account for when total numbers are small." Exlusion is a > major way of "accounted for" such outliers.
It was NOT excluded from the data. The weekly AVERAGE was the weekly average with no data excluded. The SIGNIFICANCE of the outlier was dismissed because it was only one data point amongst many and wasn't repeated and in fact was reversed the next week (20 one week and 4 the next). > > At least three things trouble me about the explanation. First, my take > was that the outlier was excluded from the analysis. Nope. Thats what is > often is done with outliers -- such as some huge spike in data from > equipment glitch -- having nothing to do with the study variables. But not in this case. nowhere does the report say the 20-murder week was excluded. > Thats the first analysis step in any study -- validation of the data. > In re-reading the paragraphs, its ambiguous as to whether the outlier > was actually excluded from the analysis. If it was excluded, (which > was my take upon writing the original post, I do not feel that there > was sufficient explanation as to why the gang-shooting was so > extraoridnary out of the ordinary that it should not be included. > > Second, a key premise of the rebuttal was that temperature "nailed" > variations in crime. It was said to be a very tight fit to the sesonal > crime data. This is key in distinguishing ME from some other factors > in crime reduction. Yet, with a deeper look, there is still huge > variations in crime, even after crime has been controlled by > temperature (and other factors). Thus, it points towards other > possible major factors which have not been controlled for in the core > crime model (without ME). This raises serious questions to whether it > was ME or other uncontrolled for factors that were driving the > changes. And/or there simply is a lot of "static", unexplained or > random variations in the crime rate. In either case, its a difficult > "base case" from which to clearly isolate an ME during the period of > its intervention. The guys who did the study are available for talking to via their email and telephone numbers. I've spoken to various TM resarchers directly over the years. Why haven't you bothered, rather than posturing on FFL? > > Third, the rebuttal reinforces the fact that murder, rape and > assualts, were summed. These are qualitatively different acts. At a > minimum, separate analysis of each type of crime should have been > analyzed. If only one or two types of violent crime went dowm and the > other(s), did not, it raises quesions as to why, and IMO, would place > doubt on ME. By averaging, with assaults being by far the highest > category, the study becomes essentially a study on assaults. Effects > on murders and to a lesser degree, rapes, are submerged. True, but the study points out that these are the most violent, and possibly the least affected, by the ME, at least in the short term.
