This bar chart has attracted the attention of the richest man in the world. Let me walk you through how I would interpret it as a statistician (and a human).
I am sure this data is in many ways dubious and the claim that the media exclusively focuses on white-on-black crime is untrue but letβs set that aside for now.
I want to talk about the biases in how people present data.
I like to say Statistics is critical thinking with numbers.
As a statistician, I want these numbers to help me understand *why* things are happening and what I can do about it.
We want to learn about *causation* not just correlation.
For this reason, how we frame the data is extremely important.
Now, I would suspect if the media did disproportionally focus on white-on-black crime, it would be because they have a good faith belief that the causal element in those particular incidents is anti-black racism.
Since they are interested in highlighting that particular cause of crime, it would be reasonable to focus on that data.
To understand if their lack of focus on black-on-white crime is unreasonable, we would need to ask ourselves the following question:
Do we think that the primary cause of black-on-white crime in America is anti-white racism or is it vastly more likely that itβs because Black Americans are disproportionately poor and White Americans are disproportionately rich?
If we *do* think the causation is different then it makes sense that the mediaβs focus differs as well.
This is why prior knowledge and expertise are so important in statistics.
The naive number cruncher treats everything the same and fumbles the data analysis as a result.
The way the original bar chart tallies up crime by the race of the victim and of the perpetrator imposes a conclusion on the viewer that crime is primarily monocausal and that the single most important cause is race.
The chart does even more than that. It sets up the *harm* of crime as a harm done not just to the individual but to their entire race.
In cases where the crime is racially motivated, this makes sense but not all crime is racially motivated.
Framing all crime as a form of racial harm comes off as a white nationalist framing to me and this presentation of the data leads the viewer down a merry path to white nationalist solutions.
Notice that the chart excludes cases where the race of the victim and the perpetrator are the same.
This reinforces the framing of crime as a form of harm that one race perpetrates against another since incidents where its the same race arenβt even counted here as harms.
The numbers for incidents where the race of the perpetrator and the victim are the same are probably huge and that would make these numbers look minuscule which would undermine the implicit argument for racial grievance being made here.
The bar chart implicitly asks βwhich races merely through their existence are the biggest problem for other races?β
It is a racially loaded question that leads us to a racially biased answer.
Itβs a doorway to genocidal thinking.
Here are some good questions to ask when interpreting plots on social media:
- What is the causal question?
- Does this data provide an answer?
- Is any relevant data missing?
- What are they implying we could do about it?
- Is that consistent with your moral principles?
If you like the thread then follow me for more content like this, and don't forget to click the little notification bell so you don't miss out on future threads.
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hey everyone. Just wanted to say that Iβve seen all your amazing messages of support. Thanks for believing in me.
Iβm going to be real though. There have been at least a half dozen more anonymous cowards calling me the n-word in my DMs.
Donβt worry. I just block and move on.
There are so many more of you awesome people than there are of them.
I got a few DMs just now so I went into my DMs and looks like I got another one earlier today. You canβt make this stuff up lol. These people are the worst.
Whenever I tweet about IQ, no matter how technical my critique, Iβm attacked for my race.
People assert without evidence that my IQ is low, that Iβm an affirmation action candidate, that my credentials are fake, that Iβm bad at math. I am called slurs.
In my darker moments, I fear that many will find these attacks plausible because it plays into pervasive stereotypes about black people.
Like anyone else, Iβm proud of my heritage and deeply value my connection to the African diaspora.
But I donβt like being reduced to just my race.
I canβt help but feel robbed of my personhood and diminished by these grotesque and simplistic depictions of black people.
If youβve ever wondered how mathematicians come up with such clever arguments, I strongly recommend βHow to Prove Itβ
Itβs an extremely gentle introduction that starts with the absolute basics and eventually teaches you how to construct a mathematical argument or βproofβ.
It even covers what βandβ, βorβ and βifβ mean in a mathematical context. (Not as straightforward as you might think.)
It teaches you how to:
- translate sentences from English into symbolic logic
- analyze the logical structure of a mathematical statement
- design a strategy for proving a mathematical statement based on its logical structure
The perception of IQ as a seemingly objective measure of intelligence is frequently used to promote racist pseudoscience on social media.
For this reason, I think it's extremely important for people to know some relevant facts about IQ:
1. The distribution of raw IQ test results are *manipulated* to resemble a bell curve
The shape of the IQ distribution is one of the most well-known facts about IQ. There's even an extremely controversial race and IQ book that's literally called "The Bell Curve"!
The shape of the IQ distribution makes IQ seem deeply biological like human height which also follows a bell curve. This gives IQ an aura of biological plausibility.
So, it might surprise you to know that it's all kind of a sham. Raw IQ scores do not resemble a bell curve.
As a statistician, it is extremely frustrating to me to see an account called βWorld of Statisticsβ with over 1.5M followers spreading this pseudoscientific garbage.
Statistics requires us to think critically about our data. This is *not* statistics.
If you dig into these data even a little bit, itβs immediately obvious how nonsensical it all is.
If you dig even deeper, what you find is bigotry and fraud.
This kind of pseudoscience exploits a deep cognitive bias that we humans have.
We are willing to believe nonsensical βfactsβ about the human nature of out-groups that we would immediately see as nonsensical if it was said about our in-group.