Forums | MacLife

Steyr AUG wrote:

matt wrote:

Hey, this topic reminded me of something- does anyone know what happened to Mac Mistress?

She got upset when NASA wouldn't hire her as an astronaut so now she is an award winning laywer.

Maybe we should introduce her to Podesta. Where else could we find two law experts who were so dedicated to stopping racism?

bratboy wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

bratboy wrote:

...where are you looking?

Perhaps he posted several links, I'm talking about the ones specifically quoted in MrJ's post above.

http://www.stophitting.com/disatschool/ … anning.php

Look at the bat chart.

The space between them is consistent with the actual gap in years...

Look at the size of the bats, the end ones are tiny, the beginning is huge.

Steyr AUG wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

http://www.stophitting.com/disatschool/ … anning.php

Look at the bat chart.

The space between them is consistent with the actual gap in years...

Look at the size of the bats, the end ones are tiny, the beginning is huge.

What, in width?

There's a negligible difference, but how is that misleading?

Mo'ron, you are confusing Oz not saying he was referring to black people with him not knowing he was referring to black people.  I believe most of the people on the thread saw the video of the child being handcuffed on television news as I did.  They knew she was black.  For some people on the thread that did not matter, they saw the child as just a child.  But for the bigots, it matters a great deal.   People like the BBs are incapable of not reading bigotry into the situation because that is the lens through which they see black and most other non-white people.   Furthermore, if the white person practicing bigotry was required to say, "I'm doing this because I consider blacks, Hispanics or Asians inferior,' publicly, it would be very difficult to establish discriminatory intent.  So, instead, we examine the circumstances and reach conclusions about possible motivations based on them.   Considering the correlation between race and punitive treatment of schoolchildren, it is only reasonable to consider racism a possible motivation in this episode, and, in some people's response to it.

My disagreement with you in regard as to whether race is likely an issue is mainly based on the data from the Department of Education.  Black children make up about 17 percent of the elementary and secondary school population.  They are the object of 40 percent of physical punishment. (See previously posted links for confirmation.)   So, there is plenty of reason to inquire into whether race is an aspect of this gross overreaction to a five-year-old child throwing a tantrum. 

And, a note on parents.  I recall reading an account of the parents of a black child being called to the principal's office in the nonfiction book Gift Children.  The child had been falsely accused of being disruptive.  The teacher and principal were waiting prepared to put  some black folks 'in their place' Oz-style when the parents arrived.  But, they had a sudden change of mind.  The little girl was adopted.  Her parents were white.

Steyr AUG wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Look at the size of the bats, the end ones are tiny, the beginning is huge.

What, in width?

There's a negligible difference, but how is that misleading?

Contracting or expanding vertical or horizontal scales can alter the impression of a graph dramatically. Honesty depends on what you present and how you present it. The effect of scale changes can distort data immensely.

for more info check:

"How To Lie With Statistics" by Darryl Huff and Irving Geis

Great.  Explain to me why YOU think this specific graph is misleading.

mo' ron wrote:

MrJ in OZ wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

and I wouldn't blame him too much for getting mad about it

I would. He can read between these lines for a change.

http://www.firstclassvoid.net/files/hand.jpg

Ha! That's quite an emotional response, considering he hasn't even responded to your response yet.

I'll chock that up to it being fairly late...

I take slander as a serious offence. And I'm not too thrilled when someone presumes to know who I am, where Ive been, who I know, What I know and what I'm thinking.

And I said posting such statistics are alright for a general knowlege of a situation, but not for a point basis. That is unless they describe in whole about how they got and arranged these stats. I'll admitt, I have posted poor stats before, but not a a main point. only to show the general predicament. Some cases are different than others though and that is up to us to decide for ourselves.

Last edited by MrJ in OZ (2005-04-25 1:21 am)

MrJ in OZ wrote:

I take slander as a serious offence. And I'm not too thrilled when someone presumes to know who I am, where Ive been, who I know, What I know and what I'm thinking.

I'm with you on that. Still waiting for him to cite specific examples of racism.

MrJ in OZ wrote:

I take slander as a serious offence. And I'm not too thrilled when someone presumes to know who I am, where Ive been, who I know, What I know and what I'm thinking.

...that would be libel () and based on the fact that we don't have a 'real' person to associate any of these online handles with anyway...

Last edited by bratboy (2005-04-25 1:32 am)

bratboy wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

It just makes the 1980 number look several factors larger than it should compared to 2000

...but it's the height that's important, not the width.

As has been mentioned...do you think this was done more likely for aesthetic concerns (or just a somewhat sloppy implementation of a "creative" bar graph), or to be intentionally misleading?

I mean...it's clearly NOT misleading.  The bars are accompanied by numbers.

Its the subliminal aspect, clearly thats why its included in the book "How to lie with statistics" Its a very good read.

bratboy wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

It just makes the 1980 number look several factors larger than it should compared to 2000

...but it's the height that's important, not the width.

As has been mentioned...do you think this was done more likely for aesthetic concerns (or just a somewhat sloppy implementation of a "creative" bar graph), or to be intentionally misleading?

I mean...it's clearly NOT misleading.  The bars are accompanied by numbers.

I must do statisical calculations and graphs all the time. The bat graph preys upon psychology to utilyse it's information. This would not be accepted by scientists and pshycologists would be wholly against it too.

But I think it's funny how thay use bats.

Last edited by MrJ in OZ (2005-04-25 1:37 am)

bratboy wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

bratboy wrote:

...but it's the height that's important, not the width.

As has been mentioned...do you think this was done more likely for aesthetic concerns (or just a somewhat sloppy implementation of a "creative" bar graph), or to be intentionally misleading?

I mean...it's clearly NOT misleading.  The bars are accompanied by numbers.

Its the subliminal aspect, clearly thats why its included in the book "How to lie with statistics" Its a very good read.

...so what are you saying, that the graph attempts to exaggerate the DROP in the use of such punishments over the years?

Isn't that counterintuitive to its (purported) goal (as a no-good, misleading source)?

I'm sure your book is excellent.  I don't think it applies here, though.

Im not sure what effect they were going for, but the graph is still misleading.

I'll tell all of you what. take a stats course and then you see how dangerous these graphs can be. such mileading graphs sometimes find there way into politicians reports effecting policies. I don't think most people realize how dangerous and scary a bias chart can be.

MrJ in OZ wrote:

I'll tell all of you what. take a stats course and then you see how dangerous these graphs can be. such mileading graphs sometimes find there way into politicians reports effecting policies. I don't think most people realize how dangerous and scary a bias chart can be.

I've taken one, thanks.

You're still speaking in generalities.  You haven't said what makes this SPECIFIC graph so "dangerous"...