What Mega Millions Can Teach Us About Trayvon Martin Backlash

[Ian David]

What Mega Millions Can Teach Us About Trayvon Martin Backlash

<snip>

Now, what does this have to do with the Trayvon Martin case, you ask? Take a look at Pat Buchanan’s column. Now this column is stupid for a number of reasons that many others can make much stronger arguments about than I. But I’d like to focus on the stupidity of his statistical logic. Essentially, his thesis is that, because African-American and Latino men are responsible for more crimes than other Americans, it is only logical that they be profiled. This is not a new argument, and while it is certainly offensive, it is actually quite compelling to people’s poor understanding of probability. We see Pat Buchanan cite that black males between 16 and 36 are only 3 percent of the population but commit 33 percent of crime and think: Oh my god! That’s 10 times more! No wonder we profile! If I see a black person on the street there’s a good chance they might try to murder me!

But we’re not thinking about what these numbers actually mean. If you bought 10 Mega Millions tickets instead of just 1, you were 10 times more likely to win! And your chance of winning was still ZERO.

So lets look at some crime numbers closer and think about what they ACTUALLY mean. First of all, according to 2010’s crime statistics, 22.2% of homicide victims were killed by people they’d never met. 22.2! That’s a lot higher than I would have thought, seeing as how I’m always hearing how much more likely you are to be killed by someone you know. But then I thought about what that means. There were 12,996 murder victims reported in America in 2010. If 22.2% of these victims were killed by a stranger, that would give us 2,859 random murders The US census reported a 2010 population of 308,745,538. That means that in 2010, as an American citizen you had a 0.0009% chance of being murdered by a stranger. Virtually ZERO.

Now let me ask you this: What sounds scarier? That you are virtually assured of not being murdered by a stranger in America, and you’re even more assured to not be murdered by a black stranger. Or that you are one thousand six hundred and thirty times more likely to be murdered by a stranger than win the lottery! I assume you’ll agree it’s the latter that sounds worse, but it doesn’t matter, because NEITHER ONE is going to happen to you.

More:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/gosak0

[belcffub]

1. Same type of logic can be used to say that guns aren't really a problem

and that the odds of one being used in the commission of a crime by a legal gun owner is virtually zero... and by a CCW holder even closer to zero...

[Ian David]

2. And to prevent a crime even less than zero. n/t

[belcffub]

3. Closer to zero maybe

Last edited Mon Apr 2, 2012, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

less then zero... uummm no...

[oldhippie]

4. I stopped reading right here ...

If you bought 10 Mega Millions tickets instead of just 1, you were 10 times more likely to win! And your chance of winning was still ZERO.

For an article that was supposedly trying to elucidate on statistics, it is a major FAIL.

[TalkingDog]

5. Thank you. The fact that there were 3 announced winners really does undercut the ZERO chance.

If only one person won, it still can't be zero.

And that's what the OP doesn't get.... as reactionary and frightened as conservatives are, if there is one chance, no matter how small, then it is both real and immediate to a conservative that the one chance "could be me".

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. So ...

Maybe the OP should have said " And your chance of winning was still NEAR, BUT SO DAMN CLOSE AS TO BE VIEWED AS, ZERO?

Would that meet you exacting standard?

[oldhippie]

8. Wouldn't you expect exactness in an article ......

.... attempting to make some point about statistics, which is in fact mathematics, and thus the only exact science? (By my 50 year old education anyway.)

NEAR zero would be acceptable. "So damn close as to be viewed as zero" is very subjective and is not acceptable to me. How much is so damn close? It was close enough for it to be a certainty for three people, so it kinda depends on who you are.

One of my (many) pet peeves is the way people take liberties with our language, and seem to be able to make things up and interpret words any way they like when trying to prove a point. We have a language. Words mean things. Yes, the language and words change over time, but so many people seem to want to get away with "words mean anything I want them to mean." That is not acceptable to me. ZERO means ZERO. It has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean "really, really small." (That would be infinitesimal.)

Another example is the people who want to say that the phrase "We don't need you to do that, sir" is a command. There is no way in the structure, grammar or definitions of the English language you can say that. (Not to be construed as any defense of the racist vigilante.) But people are saying that it is to try to make a point.

Sorry to rant on you. Nothing personal. I just have a thing about precise language when debating or trying to make a persuasive point. To me, it really hurts credibility when the language is misused. I do have exacting standards in that situation. It must be the Engineer thing.

Peace.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. I understand your point ...

I, too, get frustrated with inaccurate/inappropriate language usage.

I guess I just understood what the OP was trying to express (it was pretty obvious) AND I must have fell out the wrong side of the bed this morning. Those two factors led to my remark. Peace.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. This is exactly why we need to open up these white islands in these red counties.

They routinely commit fraud and conspiracy around here and continue to get away with it. But there are so many exemptions that they can sustain a culture of corruption without being bothered by the legal authorities.

Is it no wonder that they feel so infallible they can pick on hispanics and blacks? They need to keep that number up high so that no one catches on to the way they really live.