Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Hulk_Runs t1_j2t879u wrote

Reply to comment by _foxmotron_ in Burlington had 5 murders in 2022, the most since 1960 by BoringAccountName78

I haven’t assumed anything. Brushing it off as a statistic anomaly is lazy, as well as avoiding my questions. Your analogy is poor as it uses value rather than occurrences. A better, albeit still shitty one, is finding a dollar in the ground and then finding 5 separate dollars on the ground the next day. It’s still a bad comparison as a lot less goes into someone dropping money than murder. If there were 100 murders last year, saying “let’s see if there are 100 murders next year to know if something is different here” I think we can agree would be quite moronic.

−11

_foxmotron_ t1_j2t9fuv wrote

You understand that making up huge numbers doesn’t prove your point right?

I did answer the question. Based on the actual data available 5 murders is a statistical anomaly. When more data is available then trends can be identified.

3

Hulk_Runs t1_j2to4c6 wrote

Why doesn’t it prove my point? Are there numbers that don’t qualify as statistic anomalies? What data are you referring to? More years? This isn’t a hard question you’re avoiding.

−1

_foxmotron_ t1_j2tsl2w wrote

It doesn’t prove your point, because we know the actual number, and I based my statement on that. Making me defend that statement based on different numbers is the definition of a straw man argument.

I haven’t avoided the question once. I didn’t think this needed to be clarified. The data we’re dealing with is “number of murders per year.” Unless that number stays the same, or goes up over several years then a trend can be identified. Until then it’s a statistical anomaly.

8

Hulk_Runs t1_j2txm3n wrote

Forcing you to apply your own logic to other scenarios is strawman? You’ve got to be kidding me. There’s no magic to the number 5. You either apply statistical anomalies consistently or it’s a catchphrase you like throwing around for any number of reasons.

Does your statistical anomaly definition (which seems to get more amorphous as this conversation continues) apply to hate crimes? So if hate crimes went up 500% in a year woild your response be “more data needed to determine if statistical anomaly or not”?

0

VTHockey11 t1_j2uc8z8 wrote

No offense, but it seems like the argument has gone over your head.

Yes, if crime went up 500% in one year it would be a statistical anomaly. The argument is that you can't draw conclusions from a single years worth of data. If next year there are again 5 murders or even more then we can gain confidence that this is a trend, but again, we'd need more data.

A statistical anomaly is simply a number that is much greater than normal. If it becomes the norm (I. E. Over the years this rate of murder becomes typical) then it would no longer be an anomaly.

Another example that may help is football. Let's say the Pats score 17 points per game, on average, over the first ten games of the season and then score 45 in week 11. Do you assume that they will continue scoring 45 or similarly high scores moving forward? Or do you assume it's a blip?

My assumption here is that you would assume it's a blip BUT if the Pats continues to score that much week-after-week you could determine that something has changed. You simply can't assume that because murders were high in one year that it will continue, especially when historically murders are low or non-existent. It's an outlier.

I'm not sure what exactly your argument is but it doesn't make sense from a scientific standpoint. You may be confident this is the new norm in Burlington but until the data backs that up with multiple years of a similar trend all you are doing is jumping to conclusions.

I don't understand why you don't get that, but hopefully this helped a bit.

6

Hulk_Runs t1_j2uqgm0 wrote

I appreciate what you’re saying and I even more appreciate your honest attempt at talking through it, so thank you for that. I promise I understand that viewpoint 100%.

There’s a number of issues I took with the initial statement:

  • you could just as easily argue it’s not a statistical anomaly until you have future years of data. The same way we cannot state it’s a trend is the exact same reason you cannot treat it as an anomaly.

  • I say “you could just as easily argue…” as it’s a very general term with a lot of meanings depending on how broadly one applies it. “Anomalies are patterns in data that do not conform to a well defined notion of normal behavior” is one definition I found. Just because there is a trend upward over the next few years doesn’t actually mean it’s not an anomaly either over a much broader period. If the trend continues for 3 years then recedes, one could still say define that period as a statistical anomaly over a broader time frame.

  • the framing of statistical anomaly was also used selectively as it applies to the city. How does the trend match up against the state, the country, with crime in those places, with drug use? A trend could easily already well be there. Even the time frame is selective. Again, the application was so general it renders it nearly meaningless.

  • this culminates to my ultimate point that it was an incredibly crass and dismissive statement about murder in the state. If that exact same statement were made about an increase in hate crimes every one of you would loose your collective shit and I strongly suspect it would have never been said. The comment was not helpful and only seemingly accurate in the blandest definition.

Given this, what was the point of the statement? I have guesses but they’re beside the point. Ultimately it only serves to shut down conversation about what is driving the murders and treat them as statistics rather than understanding causes.

1

_foxmotron_ t1_j2tzcl2 wrote

Really setting up the straw men now aren’t we?

3

Hulk_Runs t1_j2u6ekx wrote

No it’s not. So we’re clear, your definition of statistic anomalies does not apply to murders over 5 or hate crimes?

0

_foxmotron_ t1_j2u8lla wrote

They don’t pertain to what we’re talking about.

3

TheTowerBard t1_j2taoyi wrote

Honestly you are both fools. According to FBI data there are somewhere between 25-50 active serial killers in the United States at any given time. Based on the stereotypical profile of serial killers and the fact that Vermont is the second whitest state in the country, it is highly likely there is at least one active serial killer in Vermont. Considering we are unaware of this hypothetical person and their hypothetical crimes, it stands to reason that the murder rate could be much much higher than we know. EVERYONE PANIC!!!!

Sarcasm aside, Foxmotron absolutely answered your question/issue properly and I'm sorry you are too immature to see that. Keep calm and panic on, my friend.

2

Hulk_Runs t1_j2tot55 wrote

You say they answered my question. Please quote me where they answered what type of data is required and if 20 murders can also be considered a statistical anomaly - because I’m not seeing it. I’m pressing on this because seeing a bump in stats and just calling it a statistical anomaly is not how statistics work - it’s laziness and ignorance dressed as pseudo intellectualism.

−2

VTHockey11 t1_j2ud3h6 wrote

Statistical anomalies and understanding the difference between an anomaly, a trend, etc. Is how statistics work. It's exactly how they work. I've already said this once, but I don't get your argument. It sounds like you are saying we should assume this is the new normal even though we just have one year's worth of data. That isn't how statistics work, and any scientist or data analyst or anyone else with a background in data would tell you that you are incorrectly jumping to conclusions.

5

_foxmotron_ t1_j2ttxhb wrote

Seeing a one time bump in stats after the stats have remained consistent for X years is the definition of a statistical anomaly. My initial comment literally said “Statistical anomaly until WE HAVE MORE DATA IN THE FUTURE.”

3

somedudevt t1_j2urzy0 wrote

But who cares if it’s an anomaly today? You are pretending that we shouldn’t act till we have more data. You must work in some corporate job where they just look at data and take no action.

January 6th 2021 had multiple people die in the transfer of power in the US. This was the first time in US history this happened. Statistically that’s an anomaly. But I bet you would agree that there is a problem with our democracy when that happens? Similarly these murders are a symptom of an issue and calling them an anomaly and writing them off is shortsighted and ignoring reality. Everyone sees the issue and anyone who pretends we don’t have data to say there is an issue is trying to avoid the truth.

The issue in a nutshell is drugs, poverty, and police who are afraid of being labeled biased or racist for doing the proactive policing and community outreach needed to reduce the crime.

1

_foxmotron_ t1_j2us9ie wrote

Care to show where I said we should take no action?

1

somedudevt t1_j2ut38d wrote

You said it’s an anomaly till we have more data. That is saying that we should wait for data before we think it’s worth addressing. It’s implied in the statement. Gathering more data is inaction. I can’t be alone in recognizing that the entire world is broken… nobody trusts instinct and observation any longer. Everything is crippled by waiting for data, which is then argued over. Look at the world warming and species dying while people argue over data. This is another case of that. It’s an anomaly we don’t need to act. Nobody wants to make a decision and take an action.

0

_foxmotron_ t1_j2utw2q wrote

That’s you making assumptions about my intent. I’m not responsible for your assumptions.

0

somedudevt t1_j2uu5ga wrote

So let’s be clear:

Do you believe that there is an issue in need of addressing?

0

_foxmotron_ t1_j2uuvpw wrote

Do I think that there’s an issue that will lead to a trend in rising murder rates? Probably not. Do I think issues that exist that by solving would probably lower the crime rate in general? One hundred percent.

2

Hulk_Runs t1_j2txs6v wrote

How many years?

−1

_foxmotron_ t1_j2u38km wrote

However many it takes to see a trend.

“Burlington had more murders in 2022”, and, “There’s no indication that murder rates are on the rise in Burlington” can both be true statements.

2