Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

_foxmotron_ t1_j2t9fuv wrote

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

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