This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore kovalev6. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
OK, I'll try to explain the difference between CORRELATION and CAUSALITY. However I shall use an example totally unrelated to the "study" you cite concerning stop and frisk to remove any emotion from it.
Back in the early 1960s I had a large part in a study concerning media use and assigned media credibility of the population of an entire state. We drew a random sample of 1,200 households and conducted in-home interviews (with professionally trained interviews).
On analyzing the date we found that Catholics reported significantly more time spent with the daily newspaper than Protestants. (A correlation.)
However, had we reported that "finding" as cause and effect (causality) we would have been public laughing stocks.
When we controlled on place of residence we found that the correlation "washed-out".
City dwellers reported more time spent with the daily newspaper than rural dwellers.
Protestants and Catholics who were city dwellers reported equal time spent with the daily newspaper.
Protestants and Catholics who were rural dwellers reported much less time spent with the daily newspaper. (If they subscribed at all, they got the paper a day or two late.)
Why? Because in the process of settlement of that state the majority of early settlers were farmers and Protestants, while the latter settlers went into industries in the major cities and were mostly Catholics.
The deciding factor was where people lived, not what their religion was.
As I said earlier, correlation does not mean causality. One can get a correlation, but that does not prove one variable causes the other.
And, the findings of that study were published in 1964, and it continues to be cited since then in subsequent studies and as a textbook example.
Kovalev, thank you for proving what I wrote in my previous message. One month's statistics are meaningless. There are so many variables which can impact stats for any one month such as weather. You do know what a variable is, don't you?
I've dealt with crime statistics for many years and anyone who works with them understands one can only draw conclusions after a TREND is ESTABLISHED OVER A LONG PERIOD of TIME. I'm sure you don't get that logic and think one month is somehow a trend.
Posted by CriticalThinking
I am well aware there are different variable's, my question to you was about the logic of the stop and frisk policy and it's effect on gun violence.
Seems the left is selective in it's logic when it comes to MMGW when using less of a time frame with many more "variables".
Posted by kovalev6
Posted by WernerS2