Stats Guru Nate Silver: For Black Americans U.S. Is As Dangerous As Rwanda
No doubt you’ve heard of and seen Nate Silver. He’s the genius of statistical data who correctly predicted the last two Presidential elections and was even exactly right when he projected how 49 of the 50 states would vote in 2008. The guy is simply amazing.
Now Silver is speaking out on how much more likely black Americans are to be killed by violent means than whites.
Silver, the editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight, recently told Katie Halper, on her radio show:
If you’re a white person your chance of being murdered every year is 2.5 out of 10,000…If you’re a black person it’s 19.4, so almost eight times higher….READ MORE at LiberalAmerica.org
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Andrew Bradford
Andrew Bradford is an author, academic, and political activist who lives in Atlanta. He is a Senior Writer for Liberal America and also has his own blog at deepleftfield.info
38 responses to Stats Guru Nate Silver: For Black Americans U.S. Is As Dangerous As Rwanda
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tracey marie July 15th, 2015 at 19:01
Interesting read, but not enough facts on why and how this is happening.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 15th, 2015 at 22:18
Correlation is not causation. Yes, blacks in the US have a higher rate of violent death than whites in the US. They also have a higher chance of carrying just about every STD in existence than whites in the US. That doesn’t tell us WHY this is the case. And that’s at least equally important to the correlation, if not more important.
Glen July 15th, 2015 at 23:17
This has nothing to do with correlation. This is direct statistics. And what you should be asking yourself is “is this an acceptable statistic, or should we be doing something more to address it?”
TuMadre, Ph.D July 15th, 2015 at 23:19
I think you might need
this:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/correlation
It is most certainly correlation. But correlation does not equate causation, and we can’t do anything without knowing the cause.
Glen July 15th, 2015 at 23:28
I have an actual PhD in Mathematics. The phrase “correlation is not causation” means “just because two things appear to follow a similar trend, doesn’t mean that there’s any connection between them”.
And you don’t seem to have basic comprehension, either. Your own dictionary reference says “mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.” – that doesn’t mean “similar value”, but “similar behaviour” (because a “mutual relation” isn’t established by a single value). If statistics showed that the chance of violent murder for blacks in America and Rwanda vary with each other (or against each other – one going up while the other goes down), that would be a correlation. Simply having a similar value of a statistic at one point in time is *not* a correlation.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 15th, 2015 at 23:48
That is correct. Being black does not automatically mean that you will die a violent death. Blackness in and of itself is not necessarily the cause of the violent death., just like blackness in and of itself is not necessarily the cause of a disproportionate amount of STDs. We need to find out what the cause is.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 15th, 2015 at 23:58
You are incorrect. “Correlation does not imply causation” is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.
Being black does not automatically mean that you will die a violent death. Blackness in and of itself is not necessarily the cause of the violent death., just like blackness in and of itself is not necessarily the cause of a disproportionate amount of STDs. We need to find out what the cause is.
For someone with a PhD in math, you seem to have missed a very basic lesson in statistics. Based on what you are asserting, you would blame all of these facts in pic related on the fact that people are black, and not on other factors, as the author of this post has erroneously done.
Glen July 16th, 2015 at 00:26
I’m confused – are you trolling me, or are you honestly not understanding?
Correlation between two variables isn’t the same as similarity between their values at one point in time. It has nothing to do with the VALUES. It has to do with TRENDS. If you have two variables, and they’re both close to 1, there’s no correlation between them. On the other hand, if you have two variables, and one starts at 100 and the other at 0.1, and then the first one goes up to 120 before dropping to 90, and the other goes up to 0.125 before dropping to 0.092 (with the two processes happening at roughly the same time, or under the same circumstances), then there’s a correlation between them.
If you look across the US, and find that the rate of black incarceration typically varies inversely with the rate of white incarceration, then that would be a correlation – specifically, a correlation between the rates of black and white incarceration, not a correlation between states.
On the other hand, if you find that the rate of black incarceration in, say, Mississippi and Louisiana are about the same, that’s not a correlation. To be a correlation, there must be a similar trend, not a similar value.
The statistics in your picture aren’t correlations. They’re statistics. And it’s the same with this statistic regarding the dangerousness of the two countries for blacks.
You are twisting yourself into knots to try to justify an attitude of “it’s not because they’re black”, based on NO evidence. It’s entirely possible that racism is the primary reason for this statistic (NOT correlation), in which case, the fact that they’re black is entirely relevant.
What we can say, based on these statistics, is that there is clearly a connection between race and risk of violent murder, as the rates of violent murder are definitely not the same between the races (still not a correlation – this is something you’d test via ANOVA, not regression, and regression is what demonstrates correlation). The disparity certainly exists. The causes aren’t clear, but what is clear is that there’s something wrong in America. Whether it has something to do with “black culture”, racism, or poverty (or most likely, some combination of many factors), it is something to be concerned about.
Your response to this article with “correlation is not causation” is an attempt to deflect from the statistic, and the attempt falls flat because of your lack of understanding of the phrase. The fact that they’re black is, without a doubt, relevant, whether directly (“black culture” or racism) or indirectly (rates of poverty, quality of education, etc – which are primarily the results of institutional racism).
TuMadre, Ph.D July 16th, 2015 at 00:31
It’s entirely possible that it is because of racism. It’s also possible that it is due to a plethora of other reasons, such as not having a father figure, lower average income, less average education, more likely to be involved with/live around gangs, racist police, racist potential employers, any combination of the above, as well as other potential factors I have not listed.
We need to understand exactly WHY they have a higher rate of violent death, instead of chalking it up to, “Whelp, they’re black!”
Glen July 16th, 2015 at 00:46
“not having a father figure” – yes, I can see how not having a father figure would cause you to be murdered violently… O_o
You’re backpedaling, now, and trying to blame me for doing what YOU were doing. Instead of focusing on the statistic, and how it should be addressed, you tried to deflect it by saying “correlation is not causation” and then provide completely irrelevant information (what does the rate of STD matter?) that is clearly intended to suggest that the fault lies with the blacks.
“Correlation is not causation” says “there’s not always a straightforward causal link between trends – sometimes there’s a common cause, and sometimes it’s coincidence”. The rates of autism diagnosis correlates with the number of Jim Carrey movies – coincidence. If the rates of rape and drug use correlate with each other, they probably have a common cause, but the drug use isn’t causing the rape and the rape isn’t causing the drug use.
If blacks are being murdered violently at far greater rates than whites, then it’s clearly not coincidence. And I don’t think being black has a common cause with being murdered violently. There is *clearly* a causal link between the two. It may not be a short link (being black is causally linked to poverty, which is then causally linked to risk of being murdered, is still a causal chain).
And everyone understands that it’s not directly due to them being black. Being black doesn’t inherently cause people to be murdered. Not a single person, anywhere in the world, would suggest that being black inherently makes one a victim of murder. I stated, in my very first comment in this discussion, that you should be asking if you/we should be doing something more to address this obvious problem. That “something” could be efforts to address poverty, or individual racism, or institutional racism, or access to education, or awareness campaigns, or any of the myriad other possibilities. Asking “WHY” in a tone suggestive of “it’s actually THEIR fault” (which is really the only reason you would bring up STD rates) is not doing anything at all to address the issue.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 16th, 2015 at 00:56
Not having a responsible male in the house that can advise young men how to deal with the testosterone (and other hormones) that enters the bodies of young men can most certainly have an adverse effect on a young man. Despite what feminism claims, men and women are not exactly the same (although I do not dispute that females deserve the same rights as men). There are differences between the two sexes, and having someone that has been through it, and can advise confused men and punish bad behavior is not without value.
I’m not backpedaling. From the beginning, I have been saying that while the statistics are alarming, the cause of these are not due to the fact that the victims happen to be black. There’s something more. Thus my, “correlation does not imply causation,” argument. Just because there is a link does not mean that one causes the other.
Just because you have it in your head that I’m a racist does not mean that I said anything racist. The trends are alarming, and we need to figure out what we can do to help stop these trends. Even if it is partially the fault of the blacks, you can’t blame them, just like you couldn’t blame the first person who got diabetes for getting diabetes, or that the first person that got lung cancer from smoking knew that smoking caused lung cancer. We need to figure out the causes, and then spread the information out like wild fire.
Glen July 16th, 2015 at 01:12
“Not having a responsible male in the house that can advise young men how to deal with the testosterone (and other hormones) that enters the bodies of young men can most certainly have an adverse effect on a young man.” – and with that, I’m not wasting any more time with you (don’t expect another response after this one)
You’re suggesting that young male hormones increase the risk of BEING MURDERED! Think about that. You’re fighting as hard as you can to deflect away from the statistic itself. You never said the statistic was alarming, you said that it’s like how STDs are higher among blacks, and we need to figure out “WHY”. One doesn’t first introduce a completely different topic if you find the statistic alarming. And the fact that you’re saying it’s alarming, but the victim “happens to be black” demonstrates the problem. You’re going out of your way to say “it’s not that they’re black” when looking at statistics that show huge disparity between black and white as VICTIMS. And then you’re asserting that it’s because of higher rates of fatherlessness in black communities (never mind that higher rates of murder probably *cause* fatherlessness, and fatherlessness doesn’t usually increase the risk of being murdered).
If young men without fathers were a cause, and the rates of fatherlessness was much higher in black communities, it would increase the rate of violent murder BY blacks, not OF blacks. That you put fatherlessness before things like racism and poverty demonstrates my point.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 16th, 2015 at 01:15
Testosterone increases aggression. Unchecked aggression can lead to violence pretty easily (I’m have no relevant statistics, but this seems like common sense). You put a bunch of unchecked aggression together, and things can escalate quickly, and get out of hand if the parties involved do not know how to deal with the aggression in an appropriate manner. Add to this that a lot of young mean idolize action films and songs about violence (whether they are rock or rap). And considering that blacks are disproportionately arrested for violent crimes, such as rape, it is safe to presume that at least SOME of the violence is black on black.
I’m not saying it’s a cause. I’m saying its foolish to rule it out as a possibility.
greenfloyd July 16th, 2015 at 01:10
Is the data acceptable? Without all the details I doubt any of us here can do more than assume they are… it certainly fits with my unscientific observations over many years. If there’s any agenda or shenanigans going on with these results and you are able to show this, please do.
Glen July 16th, 2015 at 01:14
“acceptable” as in “something that society should put up with”. Not “acceptable” as in whether we should consider it a valid statistic. If I doubted the claim, I wouldn’t call it a statistic.
In other words, read it as “should society allow this disparity in violent murder rates?” not “should we trust this claim?”
greenfloyd July 16th, 2015 at 01:15
Thanks for the clarification, that’s much better.
Tommie July 16th, 2015 at 00:10
Nice to know whites have no diseases at all!
greenfloyd July 16th, 2015 at 00:36
Dear Doctor, your objection noted does not alter Mr. Silver’s remarkable findings (assuming they are credible)… deserves more than your casual dismissal and off-topic suggestion about STDs!? Are you looking for a fight? :)
It’s not Silver’s job to give us the “WHY” based on this data. Although I think it’s a great first step.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 16th, 2015 at 00:40
Believe it or not, if you read all that I’ve said, you would see that I’m saying the statistics are alarming, and we need to find out WHY it’s happening, so we can end these destructive trends.
I’m honestly not sure why there are people who are taking what I said as something offensive.
greenfloyd July 16th, 2015 at 00:46
That’s better.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 16th, 2015 at 01:11
It’s not better. It was never anything different. I’m of the opinion that we should be building each other up, not tearing each other down. I think most people are like that, as well. The problem is that we have too many theories, and not enough information.
greenfloyd July 16th, 2015 at 01:13
Note to self: the doctor appears overly sensitive to constructive, well meaning criticism.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 16th, 2015 at 01:17
But it’s not criticism when you are agreeing with me (which appears to be the case; I don’t mean to put words in your mouth)….
greenfloyd July 16th, 2015 at 01:20
I’m able to agree with your clarification… blacks and STDs? Not so much!
Btw: we are only allowed to place words in other peoples’ minds.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 16th, 2015 at 01:24
I think it is also concerning that blacks have a disproportionate amount of STDs. I would also like to research why, and see what, if anything, we can do to reduce the numbers. Chlamydia, for example, is easily curable, and them discovering that they have it could slow the spread of the disease (if not outright eliminate it).
greenfloyd July 16th, 2015 at 01:31
Are you suggesting we should focus on STDs instead of murder?
TuMadre, Ph.D July 16th, 2015 at 01:34
I’m suggesting that we should focus on both. The statistics that I’ve listed in an image above (in response to Glen) are all alarming statistics, given how much of the population blacks make up (also provided in the image). It’s all well and good that these statistics are available, but it’s meaningless if we don’t try to get to the root cause as to why the statistics are the way they are, and fix the problem.
It’s a sad day when people don’t even want to try and figure out the problem, and instead shrug it all away.
greenfloyd July 16th, 2015 at 01:45
No thanks, I’d rather stay on topic.
In my opinion black people being killed at this rate is not only a national disgrace, it’s a national emergency. Or at least I think it should be.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 16th, 2015 at 01:48
I think that they all are alarming at minimum, and each one warrants research into the cause. For example, the SAT and ACT scores not being taken into account can lead to a possible prejudice inside the school, causing lower lifetime earnings, leading to joining gangs, or at minimum, living in low-cost property which is low-cost due to being in gang territory, which might contribute to some of those violent deaths.
greenfloyd July 16th, 2015 at 04:09
I suspect Gangsta-culture is a major factor (>50%) in those violent deaths. If true, it leads me to ask, what if any common factors can be identified, such as a drug-gun transaction, for example? Certainly there are other factors that should be measured for impact to assign it a rational priority, i.e. police violence. Although most of those factors are probably well beyond and control, i.e. turf wars, murder-for-hire, narco-terrorism, etc.
If we do find a significant correlation with illegal transactions and fatalities then what?
Up to now the US govt has vigorously defended and promoted its failed “war” against a self-made monster, Gangsta-culture. As far back as the President Bill Clinton it became clear it was also a war against millions of innocent citizens who consume their products. Guilt by association, and simply because they use to be the only source of pot and other substances under their control, some of them very (snort) familiar to the 90s President.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 16th, 2015 at 04:37
Well, there’s the rub. I would never infringe on the freedom of others, but when you look at statistics, such as the statistics for children growing up in fatherless homes (which is NOT race specific), you can see that simply losing your father can have a devastating toll on your childhood.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t good reasons for a mother to take the child and flee from the father. Abuse of either mother or child is a wonderful reason. But just because it is a good reason doesn’t mean that there won’t be secondary repercussions of that choice.
I am of the belief that when you combine the message of some feminists (“I don’t need no man!”) with the generosity of the welfare system, it removes a lot of the responsibility from one or both of the parents. It’s a balancing act. We don’t want to see people starve, or grow desperate enough to turn to crime/prostitution (or even worse – child prostitution where adult consent can’t even be achieved), but on the same hand, you want to let parents know that the State is not a replacement for parenting.
It’s a REALLY tough balancing act, and I would never say that I have all the answers, but it’s easy to tell that what’s happening now isn’t working out well for blacks. I’m not upset at them – it’s hard to be a good parent when you never experienced good parenting. But if I had to guess, I would say the answer isn’t throwing more cash at the community, but rather focus on helping these people understand what its like to be good parents (perhaps weekly courses being required in order to be eligible for the benefits).
Once again, I stress my solution is nothing more than a guess. I’m sure there are far more qualified individuals than myself who could recommend an appropriate plan of action.
greenfloyd July 16th, 2015 at 06:16
No one is fatherless! The absence of the father has an impact, although it’s not necessarily “devastating.”
It’s unavoidable, sometimes the state becomes the sole guardian of a defenseless child, or a not much older angry young man, perhaps already in custody for a serious crime though still not old enough to buy a pack of smokes. What, if anything, are we going to do with these and the many other angry young men and women?
I think parenting classes are fine. I’m not so sure about mandatory though, that may get too deep into the woman’s rights. I’d offer a cash bonus to 1st time mothers whether or not they were on on public assistance, to attend. And offer more for demonstrating good parenting over time. I think it’s one of the most important long term investments we could make as a nation.
It seems to me, from where we are today as a nation and where recent and current trends in voting and popular culture appear headed… whatever the financial cost, the benefit to the whole society outweigh it. It requires a radical old approach of monitoring children much more closely for any early signs of physical and or mental abnormalities. This is probably best accomplished in the public schools with federal guidance and funding.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 16th, 2015 at 06:34
To be fair, I never said not having a father was devastating by necessity, but it most certainly CAN be, which is what I claimed.
Source:
http://fatherhood.about.com/od/fathersrights/a/fatherless_children.htm
As for the proposed solution to the problem, we can toss around ideas, but I would think that somebody “above our pay grades,” could do a better job deciding than either of (I mean no disrespect to you or your ideas, I just feel discussing it between just us is like sitting in a rocking chair; it’ll give us something to do, but we won’t get anywhere in the end)
greenfloyd July 16th, 2015 at 06:45
No disrespect taken. :)
Nothing like sitting in my rocker, listening to a little Neil…
https://youtu.be/PdiCJUysIT0
We should never take ourselves too seriously. However, what were doing is fundamental to real democracy, where these and all the other ideas are given value, or not.
TuMadre, Ph.D July 16th, 2015 at 07:04
At the risk of being labeled “culturally appropriative,” I’m sitting in my work’s computer chair, listening to some baby metal, myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYVIozTWEn4
You have yourself a good one, bud. Whenever we butt heads, it seems to turn out for the best.
BB July 15th, 2015 at 22:54
Correlations with social class would be interesting. What are comparative rates for middle-class, college-educated blacks and unskilled, urban working class whites? And same for Latinos.
greenfloyd July 16th, 2015 at 00:14
Wow! Of course those of us paying attention already suspected this. But now we have the hard numbers, thanks Mr. Silver.
Now it becomes imperative to drill deeper in our search for “causation.” How many black people died as a direct result of things like the Drug War and Gangsta-culture? And, who is killing all these black people? How many white people kill black people and how many black people kill other black people?
Note: Mr. Silver appears to enter the recorded conversation at about 30 mins in.
tracey marie July 16th, 2015 at 10:30
Heres a bit of explaination….
Lloyd Micheal Welch, 58 year old white man.2 young girls (1- and 12 yo)disappered in 1975, he was questioned and admitted to being with the girls and said he saw them get into a car with someone, he walked them to “someones” car. He matched the composite sketch.He failed a polygraph test. The police did not investigate further. he was later convicted of 2 burglaries and served prison time. In 1994 he plead guilty to molesting a 10 year old girland received 18 months, that is it. He is now sentenced for sexually abusing another 10 yo girl and in jail, again…strike 4.His wife has been prosecuted for lying under oath yet welch is still not charged.Welch asked a relative to wash bloody cloths for him, she did. Authorities are giving credit for keeping the case open and now a conspiracy is being followed, welch now says he gave the girls to an uncle who raped them….charges are still pending.
Imagine if he was black Like the 2 men accused of rape and spending over 30 years in jail, neither had an prior arrests and were exonorated