This post got 50,000 likes and it never even pointed out the actual issue with the calculations, it just took issue with framing and it expressed that Kareem is too inept to find sources.
But what's new?
Kareem debunking thread below
Kareem says this is a "textbook example of how to lie with statistics."
It really isn't, but let's see what he bases this on.
The first thing he says -- his "main criticism" -- is that the data isn't provided. But for Kareem, this is completely meaningless.
We know this is meaningless, because even when all the data is presented, Kareem still doesn't do anything with it, understand it, open it, manipulate it, or anything.
He says "where's the data?" and when he gets it, he just blocks you.
Kareem's next criticism is that the post leaves "out relevant information like how many murders happen between people of the same race."
But this is *irrelevant* information when the topic is interracial homicides.
It's only relevant if you're changing the topic!
He says that the post "makes it seem as if race is the main causal factor in murders", but that's only true if you have a reading comprehension problem.
He then says "if you look at interracial murders in the context of all murders, they are almost always a tiny fraction."
This is just not true!
Something like a fifth of murders cannot be called a "tiny fraction" given the population sizes and segregation at play.
Now, in the real world, homicide is increasingly interracial, and the Black-on-White number is large:
Just because you want to talk about all murders instead of interracial murders doesn't mean that people are dishonest for talking about something different than what you wish they were focusing on.
This is a common ploy he does.
His claim that @GadSaad's post assumes Blacks and Whites are equally likely to murder except for race is asinine.
No one said that!
There can be tons of differentiating factors at play, but the statistics remain, and the risk to Whites from Blacks remains higher than vice-versa
Kareem then makes the baseless claim that calling an interracial homicide an interracial homicide is an "essentially racist framing". This makes no sense, but, who cares?
His claim that focusing on interracial murders is to condone intraracial murders is also not supportable.
Two things should be obvious.
Kareem deals in non-sequiturs
Kareem doesn't have any real criticisms, he just doesn't like what @GadSaad is saying, and he wants to claim that looking at stats he doesn't approve of can't be neutral when what he's replying to shows it can be.
Now Kareem isn't smart, he's a fraud, he's been caught lying, implying untruths, and more.
But what's funniest here is that there is a real statistical error and he missed it.
The image @GadSaad posted says Blacks are 23x as likely to kill Whites as vice-versa, but it's wrong!
You get to the 23x (really 23.1x) number by multiplying the ratios of Whites killed by Blacks to Blacks kill by Whites by the population percentage ratio, when that's not required.
For population pairs, you just use the ratio of killed to killed.
That number is 458/84 = 5.45x.
There's also a data issue that Kareem didn't notice:
These numbers are very unlikely to be true!
Open up EZASHR, which spans 1980 to 2020, and the yearly White-on-Black numbers are usually 400-500, and the Black-on-White numbers are usually 1,300-1,500.
Alarm bells.
This dataset starts in 2024, so we can't use overlapping years with EZASHR to see if it's correct in other years, but if we could, my bet is that they wouldn't line up.
Homicide statistics don't tend to jump around enough to get to the source's numbers.
As a final point of order, the Black-on-White number at the source is 472, not 458, and the White-on-Black number is 86, not 84. This is minor and probably just means Gad's image was a bit out of date. Not a big deal at all.
My advice to Kareem is to focus less on making threads that illustrate he suffers from cognitive difficulties and to instead focus on earning his PhD that he's spent nearly 9 years on so far.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I used to like this chart, but now I think it's too misleading and we should leave it behind in 2024.
🧵
The key issue is how household size is adjusted for.
In the OP image, they divide by the square root of household size. This is problematic because it means Gen Z incomes are being inflated to the extent they live with their parents.
Generally, when I hear that the younger generations are more successful, what I think is that they're more successful in the stereotypical ways:
They've got relatively better jobs, relatively bigger homes, relatively faster cars and all that.
I was reminded of this yesterday when looking into national IQ estimates.
The "pseudo-analysis" style of critique is to just spit out tons of possible problems, to nitpick, and then to assume that means a whole enterprise is rotten without even checking if the critique holds.
The people who engage in this style of critique (example below) don't care for scientific reasoning about these topics.
They want purity by their arbitrary and inconsistent standards, not correctness, not a 'best effort' to get make progress on finding answers.
So they misrepresent what people do and say; they attack strawmen; they claim people are wrong based on reasons that don't affect actually make them wrong, but they never check; they fail to understand the basics of the things they're contesting, but they act confident; etc.
A major problem with the healthcare system is that patients lie to their doctor.
Most patients will even privately admit that they lied when they were informing their doctors about their issues. Their reasons for doing this often aren't very good:
Patients want to avoid getting lectured, they don't want their doctor to call them fat or tell them their snacking habits are unhealthy. They're afraid the doctor will judge them or think they're stupid or immoral, and they don't want the doctor to tell their family.
But because people want to preserve their privacy even in the private setting of a doctor's office, they end up making doctors' jobs harder.
They make it harder to diagnose conditions and to prescribe the right drugs.
Napoleon was the best-performing general in European history, and it's not even close.
His Wins Above Replacement (WAR) simply dwarfed everyone else, including Caesar.
You know who underperformed?
Robert E. Lee!
Gray reputation, poor realized performance. He faced a lot of disadvantages, but it's clear he also made a lot of bad choices, like ordering Picketts' Charge.
The Home Office rape gang report cited several studies that reported the ethnicities of rape gang members and it concluded that there wasn't reliable evidence of Asian overrepresentation.
But every study providing data showed there definitely was🧵
Have you noticed that people seem younger at the same ages? 40 is the new 30, 30 is the new 25, and so on?
There's something to it. People nowadays are aging more gracefully, and what makes this more interesting is that it's a global phenomenon.
Let's talk five "capacities"🧵
Psychological capacity is indexed by self-reports: How do you feel, how are you sleeping, etc.
Locomotor capacity is indexed by measured walking speeds, the classic chair stand test, etc.
Vitality capacity is indexed by grip strength, forced expiratory volumes, and hemoglobin A
In a large British longitudinal study of people born from the 1920s through the 1950s and measured again at various ages, what we see in terms of these measures is that people are clocking in higher, and they're aging more gracefully.