|
Thank you for the follow-up raveneye. I was particularly interested on his thoughts regarding Levitt's work on the subject, I am quite a fan of his new book. My concern wasn't that Lott would draw conclusions without proper data, but rather how journalists (?) toss around blanket statements from studies like this without understanding it themselves. For example, does the rate of violent crime really increase when a black officer is in a black neighborhood, or does the actual reporting of crimes increase? Maybe the people in the neighborhood never trusted that the white cop would care, or maybe they never saw the white cop because he wasn't keen on hanging out in a hostile neighborhood all day.
I am sure that Lott found ways to adjust for this, but he doesn't mention it, and Jan Golab was too intent on hammering home her negative ideas to want you to consider it. I don't care so much if you disagree with me about affirmative action as long as we are looking at the true facts. But for TAE to put out a report with such racial bias does worry me because of the level of credibility they carry.
Somebody has a signature that I love - "Statistics are like bikinis in that what they show is important, what they hide is imperative." I do appreciate you putting the study in front of me...
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
|