I don't know...over $13,000 in gift cards paid with a check that has a privacy resriction. If it were me, I'd be suspicious no matter who the guy was or what he looked like.

What the hell's wrong with racial profiling, anyway? If facts show a trend, you ignore that trend at your own peril.

This wasn't an error made by a statistician; the person(s) who called the cops is guilty of stupidity, and Walmart of mismanagement. The trend I am seeing is Walmart acting all aggressive - remember when they killed that guy?

I don't know...over $13,000 in gift cards paid with a check that has a privacy resriction. If it were me, I'd be suspicious no matter who the guy was or what he looked like.

Okay, it's suspicious (but apparently not suspicous previous years when a white employee did the buying)
So you call the cops?
What about calling the bank to see if the account is good?

This wasn't an error made by a statistician

I don't care about the WalMart article so much as the bad rap science is getting -- as exemplified in the link description.

Vas, this link seems to basically say that if you are involved in racial profiling, you're probably ignoring actual behavior.

Also: racial profiling is 'science'?

Maybe not 'science' per se, but it is certainly true that certain segments of the population, whether you bin by race, economic level, age, or what-have-you, are statistically more likely to be trouble; and it's quite reasonable to pay more attention to the 'high-risk' groups. It may not be PC, but it is totally rational.

Of course, 'paying more attention' will always be considered by some to be arbitrary discrimination.

and it's quite reasonable to pay more attention to the 'high-risk' groups.

I think that if you paid too much attention to one group, another group would take advantage because they know they're not being watched. I think that's the problem with it -- when you should be paying attention to actual behavior, instead you're paying attention to something that could be arbitrary.

How long have we been racially profiling black people? Have whites stepped in to 'take advantage,' and become the high-risk group?

That's a mighty slow pendulum.

But if you argue that we've been racially profiling for a long time, you could argue that crimes commited by minorities are the ones that paid attention to and prosecuted for. Maybe if there were no racial profiling, we'd see statistics change.

Nocal: Also: racial profiling is 'science'?

It absolutely should be. Like anything else, it can be misused, or referenced as an excuse to exercise personal biases.

If the math shows us that most of the people who want to blow up our stuff have brown skin and wear turbans, then you bet it's a smart move to eye brown-skinned turbanites a little more closely than you would otherwise when seeking to not have your shit blown up.

If the math shows me that 1 out of 50 white boys disappears walking alone at night through a mostly white-populated suburban area, but that 1 out of 10 white boys disappears walking alone at night through a mostly black-populated suburban area, I'd be one stupid white boy to pick the latter.

Cultures are different. This information is occasionally useful. Ignoring a tool because it's not poltically correct to pretend all people are the exact same is willful idiocy.

Fuked up that last sentence, but I bet you get my point anyway.

It is undeniably true that blacks are overprosecuted.
But you're not seriously claiming that the only difference, nationwide, is based on profiling, are you? That's awfully naive.

Liberal Notice: I am not implying that there is anything inherently deficient in the moral code of African Americans or any other brown-skinned person. Such groups simply have a higher portion of low socio-economic class citizens, which is a better indicator of 'risk.' I would say that, roughly, white trash commits crime at approximately the same rate as black trash, but there's just a higher amount of black trash in many communities.

I would say that, roughly, white trash commits crime at approximately the same rate as black trash, but there's just a higher amount of black trash in many communities.

So racial profiling doesn't work as well as socio-economic profiling (or at least I might say that).

If the math shows us that most of the people who want to blow up our stuff have brown skin and wear turbans

They were all (9/11 hijackers, I'm assuming) also Saudi Arabian. So if anything, we could just pay more attention to Saudi Arabians (in terms of visas). But then you get crazy white militiamen or whites who convert (John Walker Lindh) who will blow shit up. So if you just pay attention to individuals and not groups of people with brown skin, you'd be more likely to catch you a terrorist.

You can't pay attention to all individuals, so I'm going to assume you mean 'pay attention to individuals who display statistically-interesting attributes.'

A huge one of which would be race.

So racial profiling doesn't work as well as socio-economic profiling (or at least I might say that).

Duh. Really. Throw the straw men away.
Can you tell socio-economic status at a glance? I can't. But I can tell race, and statistics tell me that some groups are significantly more likely to belong to that low-status group. So, it's also reasonable to pay more attention to the behaviour of someone who falls into a high-risk group. To do otherwise is, as Vas said, willful idiocy. If it were possible to allocate enough resources to pay equal attention to everyone, it would be ideal, but reality prevents this -- you need to rationally allocate your resources. This works both ways. I would also like to see a higher portion of govt. funds go to clean up the areas that generate these 'high risk' population segments -- and this proactive desire is based every bit as much on profiling as the reactive prosecution of these groups is.

Did you get accepted into college because you were assured of being a high achiever, or because someone looked at your profile and made a judgement about what you might be capable of?
Profiling of some sort is inescapable in any kind of sane society.

Where'd all these smart people come from?

The bad side of town -- where they grow smartypantses.

SEE WHAT I DID THERE?!

THE STING OF YOUR FAG LOGIC DEFEATS THE WORLD OVER AND OVER!!!



Some of us are born with potentials we had no control over.

FROM THE RALLY.

(lol)

Duh. Really. Throw the straw men away.
Can you tell socio-economic status at a glance? I can't. But I can tell race

Really? I can spot po' folk. They dress a certain way, they drive certain cars, they wear certain shoes. And race is kind of nebulous. Can you tell a real live African from an 'African-American'? The Africans who have moved to America are much better off than many 'African-Americans.'

So you can identify extremes and stereotypes of economic classes. Irrelevant.

Race may be somewhat nebulous, but I'm hard-pressed to think of any more solid descriptor of a person. Male/female I suppose. Age...

How do YOU judge a person? 'Behaviour' is infintely more nebulous than race. Gut feeling? Even more so. And I'm pretty sure that Mr. Alpizar didn't enjoy being judged by his behaviour or the air marshals' intuition. GPA? Income? IQ? You must have some kind of basis of judgement. What really matters in most situations, I suppose, is a person's ability and/or intent. But it is usually impossible to measure those things; especially at a glance. So you need to sample several indirect indicators and make a judgement of the unmeasurable aspects.

And the african immigrants? I don't know the stats, but I would be willing to bet that, though they are on average at a higher status than african-americans, the number of african americans who are as well off or better is much greater owing to their larger representation. I'm confident that the well-to-do african immigrant population fits nicely into the upper tail of brown-skinned prosperity probability distribution.

You, sir, are engaging in willful idiocy right now. I hope you don't make it a habit.

most africans that immigrate here are of a higher economic standing... it's easier for those with money to move around than those without. the comparison is specious at best

Nocal: Can you tell a real live African from an 'African-American'?

On sight? Often, yes. Different phenotype. Different dress. Different behavior and hangouts.



The Africans who have moved to America are much better off than many 'African-Americans.'

That's one way you could tell a real live African from an African-American. You answered your own question in your next sentence. Are you drunk?

That's one way you could tell a real live African from an African-American. You answered your own question in your next sentence. Are you drunk?

I was arguing personally that I can spot socio-economic status. Pchimp claims that it's somehow irrelevant. I don't think it's irrelevant, obviously.

most africans that immigrate here are of a higher economic standing... it's easier for those with money to move around than those without. the comparison is specious at best

Huh? That was my whole point. Africans are often better off than African-Americans, and I'm saying that often times I don't think that one can tell the difference in skin color between African and African American.

Race may be somewhat nebulous, but I'm hard-pressed to think of any more solid descriptor of a person.

I can't see that race is any more solid than behavior or socio-economic status. Obviously we don't agree, but I think we've all made our points, neither of which I think are ignorant. I mean...obviously I think I'm right, but it's not as though I think that you guys are stupid or racist.

Nocal: it's not as though I think that you guys are stupid or racist.

Then, clearly, I have failed somewhere. Let's take it from the top.

Shut up before I kick you in the doo-rag, niger

Racist garbage.

Funny, entertaining. but rong!

Any marker for a group makes oberservations baised. Ever hear of a DOUBLE_BLIND study? Why they do that?

They do that because outcomes can become 'predicatable' in a certain fashion if the one's doing the measuring have bias.

That's right folks, scientists have recognized the tribal kinship, behaviours of individuals who identify certain 'things' with a given group. So to be impartial 'science' they try their darndest to exclude themselves from the proceedings.

Take it another way, all the asshole drivers I know have stupid little fish symbols on their cars. does that extrapolate to all christians being assholes? probably, yup. should do it more often, ya betcha!

pcchimp oughtta understand that a marker that feeds a postive feedback loop is not a good one. And honestly, they already have motion/behaviour video tracking systems in the works that determine how 'normal' people ought to act versus suspected terroris, or bad guys�. So the science is there and it depends on vectors and geometry more than skin color.

Double blind studies are the gold standard, but often not possible. This doesn't mean that non-doubleblind studies are unreliable -- it just means that more care must be taken in the analysis. Systematic error or bias can be (and basically always is in a peer-reviewed study) corrected for. Results are only invalidated if there is a clear bias that is not accounted for in the data analysis. You're correct in the implication that you can't simply look up crime rates among different pop segments and compare directly; but you're not correct in the implication that objective analysis cannot be achieved.

they already have motion/behaviour video tracking systems in the works
i.e. not available now in any useful sense. I have my doubts about widespread (official) use of this technology in the future, anyway, as I think that explicitly singling people out by this method will run into 4th amendment hurdles.
Really, though, there are any number of more accurate methods of screening people if you have the time, access, and resources. Racial profiling is really only an issue for first impressions/snap judgements and for strategic allocation of resources.

And the issue is not whether we should consider other things like behaviour, mental stability, etc. etc. ad nauseum. The issue is simply whether one characteristic, which probably does have a non-zero correlative value to criminal behaviour, should be singled out as out of bounds.

A clarification for nocal: In my last message I wasn't trying to say that race is a more solid predictor of criminal behavior than behaviour or S-E status. I simply meant it's a more solid/accurate/reproducible binning or classification method.


Blargh. I'm running out of steam. Good night, and good luck.

I lied. I guess we aren't going to be getting anything but hamburger from this horse.

I must have skimmed over this line before:

a marker that feeds a postive feedback loop is not a good one.

I assume you mean that the more cops (or citizense at large) discriminate against certain groups, the more likely it becomes for those groups to become 'high-risk' in the future. Yes; I think this is a reasonable argument against racial profiling. You can't have perfection, and have to make some judgements about what is most likely to result in the greatest good and the least diminishing of rights.

My take: He was absolutely right for not taking the check, but calling the cops was a WTF for sure. I mean, if he had a DVD-player sized lump under his shirt, then you call the fuzz, but over a check that may not be bad...

Knowing how banking works though, I wouldn't accept ANY checks except government ones. Government checks don't bounce.

I also don't blame him for thinking something sketchy was going on. That is a LOT of money to spend on WALMART giftcards -- and they've probably been scammed before on weird transactions before.

To say that most africans are better off than african americans is rediculous. nocal got my point wrong. mostly only the better off africans can afford to come here. the poor usually have to stay home. just because those you see here have money doesn't mean that the rest do. If your comments were correct than most of central to southern africa wouldn't be made up of third world nations. so no... your point was not my point.

i reread your post nocal. i misunderstood your point...
nevermind.