Crime, not necessarly going down, but is it going up?
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
You're right - I trust those I know (or at least have met) over those I've never even met.
Not exactly, because so long as you can back up your general view with detailed examples or quotes from those you talked to, etc. you still get a far better view of what's going on and you get a better idea of the views of those questioned, then you do from a statistical number. Gather a few more people doing the exact same thing in other areas of the country or in your community (for smaller/local findings) determine they're just as accurate and honest as you are, review their gathered information and let them review your's, and that bigger picture begins to come together.
How many cases does a statistic need?
3 cases? 10, 50, 100, 1000?
So 87% of those 100 people polled for whatever viewed a particular topic one way, 10% viewed it the opposite way and 3% were undecided.
Ok.... why did they view that particular topic the way they did?
Statistics don't usually say and if they do, their explanation is based on a sub-statistic, like 15% of those 10% who favored something a certain way felt that way because of whatever..... etc.
But if you have a detailed review, asking each person their personal opinions and experiences & where they are from or where they were in regards to that experience, document them in just as much detail for anybody to read themselves and allow those interested to come to their own conclusions on the bigger picture, you'll generally get a better and more educated understanding of what's really going on..... rather then one or two selected people interpreting these findings in their own personal ways and dictating to the rest of us what they believe is really going on...... while usually restricting much of the information they used to come to their conclusion to avoid debate.
Or worse..... you'll have something like these political polls where they "Interview" or "Question" say 1000 people across Canada (which is basically a handfull of people per province) on who they'd vote for, round up their statistics based on that small amount of people and tell the rest of us that these 1000 people represent the views of the rest of the country..... they represent my views and your views.
They'll give you margin of errors of something like 3% or 1.2%....... they'll even go so far as to tell you margins of error for each province which varries between 9-12%...... but they never really tell you if they polled just the capitals of each province, or did they poll a particular political riding..... or did they poll people across the province randomly.
If they just polled the capitals, then those statistics really don't show you an accurate picture of the rest of the province.
If they just polled one particular political riding, then that's going to be obviously biased to a degree and still not show you an accurate picture.
If they spread it out across the province, then that means that small handful of people they polled that was divided between all the provinces across the country, is now even smaller when it comes to covering the overall province in question..... thus to me, that margin of error should be a lot higher then just 3%.
If the details and information were available for everybody to review and interpret themselves to come up with their own conclusions, they could determine themselves what's really going on and who really stands a chance.
And as noted before, the stats that made Harper think it was a great idea to call an election in order to win a majority were clearly wrong and he didn't win that majority those stats claimed he would.... thus either that margin of error is a hell of a lot more then what they claim......
..... or it was just a very unlucky day for Harper to fall into that 3% margin of error.
The real hypocricy here is how do you or those making up the statistics know those they're polling aren't lying in an equal fashion?
You and I don't know when it comes to statistics, because we don't have any other information to go by other then numbers given to us in %'s.
If I go and talk to someone on the street and ask them their view on something, I can at least hear how they explain themselves, hear them express themselves, determine their level of interest in the topic and stand a far better chance in knowing if they're BS'ing me or not.
With the nameless people in statistics and the nameless people making the statistics up, we don't have a single thing to go by except the assumption what we're being told is the truth and is accurate.
That might be good enough for you, but it's not good enough for me.
Now write down and document what I have said, and note that I stated it's not good enough for me, and then go and ask a few more people to explain their views in a similar fashion and formulate your own conclusion on whether or not more people think like I do, or think like you do.... or think differently.
So far I see two people viewing statistics like myself..... over a period of time, the feedback get's larger and more accurate.... and the details to review are there for not just you to look at, but everybody else.
That's how it works.
This is called a survey, the numbers you are compiling from your sample are called statistics. And your method of collecting statistics is severely biased.
That's because you apparently have never gone to the source of the poll. They explain how they collect data. It should be randomized.
Why? Margin of error is a measure of the error attributed to your random sampling. The margin of error is determined by the sample size, not the geographic distribution of respondents
Not all statistics are derived from polls. It's funny to me, especially, because the statistics that say crime rate is going up are based on surveys...
Why would I do that? Internet information is the least reliable, and most vulnerable to deception...
Is the crime rate going up, and if so, by how much? If you can't answer the second half of the question, then you can't answer the first.
Police: Florida Mom, Boyfriend Ate Pizza After Fatally Beating Boy, 3
Did things like this happen 20 or 30 years ago? If it did it would be a top story, but it seems so much of this stuff goes on now that it hardly gets a second glance. Is crime up? Is society getting worse? Well, this couple CASUALLY ate pizza after killing an innocent 3 year old boy. YES! Society is getting worse.
Did things like this happen 20 or 30 years ago? If it did it would be a top story, but it seems so much of this stuff goes on now that it hardly gets a second glance. Is crime up? Is society getting worse? Well, this couple CASUALLY ate pizza after killing an innocent 3 year old boy. YES! Society is getting worse.
They were supposed to give up eating because they killed a baby? What is appropriate fare after killing someone? Caesar salad? Fries and gravy?
What was the population 30 years ago?
Was news a money maker for TV 30 years ago or was it still a public service?
US population as of July 1, 1980, 227224681
The higher the population the more weirdness you'll find. It's a no brainer.
Last edited:
I meant conventional wisdom, that is the example, what everyone accepts as true. We do this all the time about neighbourhoods or products for example. It's not the whole story, but what we know. And for crime the majority say crime is up. Another cliche, you hear this all the time.
Pranks can be a crime, but what often matters is cost. You just have to clean up the garbage here and it costs nothing but time. Tagging does cost money as the graffiti has to be removed. Bad, but its not theft.
I have to lock my bike everywhere now, I didn't used to 35 years ago. Non-violent crime is up.
Do women feel safe at night? No I'd say. Violent crime is up.
In Vancouver there are dozens, possibly hundreds of people who have been charged with numerous petty crimes such as shoplifting and do no jail time. Just charge and release. And those are just the times they are caught, they steal many many more times and don't get away with it.
The govt paid for stats are exactly what we don't believe. You do not and will not hear Iggy or the other guy trumpeting how safe Canada's streets are for women. They need to do some splaining why there are so many security guards around. Check a phone book and see how many more security firms there are around compared to ten years ago.
And that's the very reason statistics are orders of magnitude less reliable than anecdotes- with anecdotes what you don't trust you disqualify.
I am not a fan of mandatory minimums, but offering the possibility of parole to some who is sentenced to life after six years is utterly ridiculous. Murder, child molestation, rape are all crimes that deserve the fullest penalty of the law, yet we have people being released after serving less then ten years.
There's an old saying "there is an exception to every rule"- I'd have a hard time buying it for child molestation, but for the other crimes you just never know.