It *is*. I say this as a professional mathematician :)
But: the underlying cause may be different from the obvious one, so you want to do extra research to figure it out. Which, surprise, has already been done. And, surprise, poverty invites corruption, which creates more poverty.
Correlation does not indicate causality and never did. And while the correlation is indisputably there, the underlying causes are not clearly cut, and there are some studies that indicate the poverty is the consequence, not the cause of certain behaviors.
> Correlation does not indicate causality and never did.
I don't think that you've grokked this saying.
Statistically significant correlation is (probably) evidence of *something*. It may or may not be the thing that you, or I, say this something is. But *some* underlying cause is (probably) there.
> there are some studies
There are studies saying the darndest things. My impression that there's a consensus on the subject of poverty being one of the main causes of crime. If we're talking about academics, not a Fox "News" "newsroom", hehe.
> My impression that there's a consensus on the subject of poverty being one of the main causes of crime.
There are plenty of poor countries with lower crime rates. In itself, poverty explains exactly nothing.
To give you an example, cyber-crime is the 3rd economy in the world.
Wonder why all those people with computers, good knowledge and education, and access to the internet are committing all those acts. They're probably just poor.
Same for other types of white collar crime I mentioned earlier. You really mean to tell me they did that because they were poor?
The simple "fits all answer", like "poverty causes crime" is usually wrong. It's not that black and white.
Culture and opportunity. And ny_quant is exactly right, we should not be creating more opportunities.
I think that you read this statement as "poverty causes *all* crime". Which isn't the way that it should be read.
> Culture and opportunity.
And culture is a product of? Starts with 'e' :)
> And ny_quant is exactly right, we should not be creating more opportunities.
...and women can just suck it up. Because the 'just suck it up' mentality has worked out just ~fine~. It's second only to 'pull yourself by the bootstraps'.
> Fuhrer? Looks like I'm not too well-versed in Republican dogma :)
Hail Satan and legalize weed. Can you get over your own stereotypes already and quit trying to fit everyone in a box with a label? Treat people as people without basing your interaction on their supposed group identity.
I'm genuinely curious about the answer. As for not treating you as a stereotype - not behaving more and more like a stereotype on your part would help a ton. Your political journey into 'fuck you, got mine' land has been genuinely scary.
> Well, there goes equal pay...
You're not even wrong there, since it never existed to start with.
In my opinion, all culture begins at home. With family. And you cannot blame "the system" for that. By the time "the system" gets there, it's already too late.
I really dig what Denzel has to say about that in his own words.
> 'fuck you, got mine'
There are a few problems throwing money around can solve. Culture isn't one of them.
> You're not even wrong there, since it never existed to start with.
It "never existed" because "equal work" never existed. And the fact that we're giving additional protected status to people based on their sex is only furthering that divide.
Jetelina не написала ничего в опровержение кохрейновского мета-анализа, кроме замечания в скобках
(Another scientist, separate from this review, removed the flu studies and reran the meta-analysis. He found masks protected against SARS-CoV-2.)
Но ссылка на эту работу из моей почтовой рассылки ведет в никуда. Что это за работа и даже была ли она peer-reviewed пока что непонятно.
Предположим, там нет никаких ляпов с данными и методологией. Что два этих результата означают вместе. Что от маски помогают от ковида, но не от обычного гриппа? Это очень странно.
Что исследования по эффективности масок на людях имеют низкое качество, в силу объективных и не очень причин. И это давняя проблема, авторы никакой Америки не открыли. Подробнее послушайте Якутенко, там недлинное видео.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2023-02-19 02:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-02-19 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-02-19 04:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-02-19 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-02-20 02:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-02-22 04:47 pm (UTC)But: the underlying cause may be different from the obvious one, so you want to do extra research to figure it out. Which, surprise, has already been done. And, surprise, poverty invites corruption, which creates more poverty.
no subject
Date: 2023-02-22 05:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-02-22 05:53 pm (UTC)I don't think that you've grokked this saying.
Statistically significant correlation is (probably) evidence of *something*. It may or may not be the thing that you, or I, say this something is. But *some* underlying cause is (probably) there.
> there are some studies
There are studies saying the darndest things. My impression that there's a consensus on the subject of poverty being one of the main causes of crime. If we're talking about academics, not a Fox "News" "newsroom", hehe.
no subject
Date: 2023-02-22 06:12 pm (UTC)There are plenty of poor countries with lower crime rates. In itself, poverty explains exactly nothing.
To give you an example, cyber-crime is the 3rd economy in the world.
Wonder why all those people with computers, good knowledge and education, and access to the internet are committing all those acts. They're probably just poor.
Same for other types of white collar crime I mentioned earlier. You really mean to tell me they did that because they were poor?
The simple "fits all answer", like "poverty causes crime" is usually wrong. It's not that black and white.
Culture and opportunity. And ny_quant is exactly right, we should not be creating more opportunities.
no subject
Date: 2023-02-22 06:26 pm (UTC)I think that you read this statement as "poverty causes *all* crime". Which isn't the way that it should be read.
> Culture and opportunity.
And culture is a product of? Starts with 'e' :)
> And ny_quant is exactly right, we should not be creating more opportunities.
...and women can just suck it up. Because the 'just suck it up' mentality has worked out just ~fine~. It's second only to 'pull yourself by the bootstraps'.
no subject
Date: 2023-02-22 06:36 pm (UTC)Wrong. It starts with "f".
> ...and women can just suck it up.
So maybe women and men are not equal after all huh.
no subject
Date: 2023-02-22 06:38 pm (UTC)Fuhrer? Looks like I'm not too well-versed in Republican dogma :)
> So maybe women and men are not equal after all huh
As long as painful menstrual cramps are treated differently from other ailments, they sure as fuck aren't.
no subject
Date: 2023-02-22 06:43 pm (UTC)Hail Satan and legalize weed. Can you get over your own stereotypes already and quit trying to fit everyone in a box with a label? Treat people as people without basing your interaction on their supposed group identity.
> they sure as fuck aren't
Well, there goes equal pay...
no subject
Date: 2023-02-22 06:52 pm (UTC)> Well, there goes equal pay...
You're not even wrong there, since it never existed to start with.
no subject
Date: 2023-02-22 06:59 pm (UTC)I really dig what Denzel has to say about that in his own words.
> 'fuck you, got mine'
There are a few problems throwing money around can solve. Culture isn't one of them.
> You're not even wrong there, since it never existed to start with.
It "never existed" because "equal work" never existed. And the fact that we're giving additional protected status to people based on their sex is only furthering that divide.
no subject
Date: 2023-02-22 07:09 pm (UTC)> Culture
And how, pray tell me, do you intend to change culture?
> It "never existed" because "equal work" never existed
Dude. Wow. Talk about not acting like a stereotype. No, the system isn't unfair, it's that women/negroes/mexicans are lazy.
> we're giving
You sure as fuck aren't.
> protected status to people based on their sex
It's not based on fucking sex. It's based on suffering from menstrual cramps. Although there exists, hehe, a strong correlation :)
no subject
Date: 2023-02-22 07:32 pm (UTC)Elizabeth Holmes' apparently did. Along with every other white collar criminals'.
> And how, pray tell me, do you intend to change culture?
Obviously, not by throwing money at it.
> No, the system isn't unfair, it's that women/negroes/mexicans are lazy.
Straw man.
> It's not based on fucking sex.
Find a man producing eggs.
no subject
Date: 2023-02-24 09:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-02-24 04:28 pm (UTC)(Another scientist, separate from this review, removed the flu studies and reran the meta-analysis. He found masks protected against SARS-CoV-2.)
Но ссылка на эту работу из моей почтовой рассылки ведет в никуда. Что это за работа и даже была ли она peer-reviewed пока что непонятно.
Предположим, там нет никаких ляпов с данными и методологией. Что два этих результата означают вместе. Что от маски помогают от ковида, но не от обычного гриппа? Это очень странно.
no subject
Date: 2023-02-24 04:32 pm (UTC)