Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just wanted to make sure I understand this right - Since Jeff B made that one statement, anecdotes are a better measure? And the second part of it talks about measurement, not data. People are irrational and we give in to irrational fears. If I heard about one incidence of someone who is homeless attacking a bystander, I would be afraid of all homeless people. I do not have enough data to analyze (nor do I care to an…
In most places, your car will almost never get broken into. In a few cities, this will happen basically all the time. The averages are removing information about how crime is distributed and focusing on violent crime when people are more worried currently about property crime. This uneven distribution and the rise in property crime does a lot explain the difference between these national averages and people's persona…
I am taking a more extreme example just to illustrate - If I could not find a job, does not mean there are no jobs for anyone. If I face hardship, does not mean everyone faces hardship.
I am not saying ignore local variances.. however, it is still not anecdote driven. The original article was about crimes dropping in US measured across different cites and not that there is no crime.
My point is that people hearing about crime will still have an emotional reaction and might not reflect the reality. Anecdotes get tainted and exaggerated by emotions. JeffB's statement mean little in this case.