Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Yeah, that's exactly why that's not enough data to put together policy. Except it is, and I just proved it above. >You might as well measure bumps on people's heads to predict whether they want anti-violence funding Bumps on people's heads have nothing to do with violence. This is a non sequitur. >you'll have about as much luck as you will chasing it after skin color That makes no sense. The fact that the group is m…
> Bumps on people's heads have nothing to do with violence. This is a non sequitur. I submit to you it's exactly as irrelevant as skin color. I submit to you if you take the population that you have described, change only the category from "African American" to another category and nothing else, and kept the same population of people with no other parameters changed, you would not see a change in the violence rate. B…
It quite possibly is. No one mentioned anything about skin color except you.
>I submit to you if you take the population that you have described, change only the category from "African American" to another category and nothing else, and kept the same population of people with no other parameters changed, you would not see a change in the violence rate.
This is a non sequitur tautological fallacy. Of course if you kept the population the same nothing would change. This is a poor attempt at strawmaning that still makes no sense.
>Believing that measurable correlation implies causation is one of the major failings that I see often encouraged in the computer science space.
There is no correlation here, it's an indisputable fact. Your major failing is your inability to understand these basic concepts, including correlation/causation because it's not even being used here.
>You made claims about population and then claims about interventions that suggest that the population membership is causal.
It's not a claim, it's a fact. Regardless of the suggestion of causality, YOU ASKED:
Give an example theory, I did. Give an example policy, I did. Now you're moving the goalposts on "suggestions of population membership" which is immaterial to the points I made and proved above.
>What if the causal issue is poverty?
It could be, but it's totally immaterial to the facts I stated above.
Again, it is a FACT that African Americans commit more crimes than Asian Americans.
You can draw theories and propose policy from these basic FACTS, but the facts are not open to interpretation, which is what I claimed and proved above.
>Poverty in the United States is so deeply correlated with being a member of a racial category that it is extremely hard to disambiguate effects that show up in race from effects that show up in income and asset levels. This is what I mean when I say lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Immaterial to the discussion at hand, and may not even be correct, not that it matters.
>Because if the cause is poverty and not "African American culture," then violence interventions for African Americans are like "get your energy level up" interventions for people who are starving.
Makes no sense, and is immaterial to the discussion about the facts.
They are the official ethnic group that is the most violent; if we are to target a specific group for ethnic-centric anti-violence training, the that is the best policy to go with from the basic hard facts laid above.
QED.
>You'll waste good money treating the wrong problem. You'll also miss people that also have the same problem but don't get any intervention because they don't fit the poorly-defined template.
Except by definition it is treating the correct problem, and targeting the correct group. It's not poorly defined, it's fact based.