Thread 16774617

How do we solve per capita theory?

with forensic.

(data irrelevant if census practice dead)

>>16774617 (OP)
What's per capita theory?
I guess it means that black criminals should get special treatment because there's fewer of them?

I saw a black meme floating around.
I think it was a 4 by 4 grid one of the entries was "sir capita"
anyone know it?

>>16774620
It's a crazy theory that suggests 88,000 white criminals is actually less than 60,000 black criminals because there are 191,000,000 white people but only 39,000,000 black people. Like how can 88,000 be less than 60,000?

>>16774622
I saw it some time ago. I think on of the panels was the riddler

>>16774628
>one of the panels was the riddler
was it the niggler? I think he used the 13:50.

>>16774626
>88,000 white criminals is actually less than 60,000 black criminals
What's the logic that negates this

Is there an intuitive way to teach minds that struggled with basic high school maths how to understand per capita and percentage figures?

>>16774637
Yes, it involves using money and not shying away from questions of availability and social will.

>>16774630
I believe, so yes

>>16774640
>it involves using money
money has never solved any of the social issues associated with blacks

>>16774646
Nor has it ever solved any of the social issues associated with Indians like you.

>>16774651
From what I remember he's not jeet he's some white argentine or something who got rich off /biz/ but heaviliy into vedic philosphy or something.

>>16774617 (OP)
SURELY this is a pol thread?

>>16774656
No one cares about your cock sucking headcanon. Money hasn't solved any black problems or indian problems.

>>16774657
The /sci/ angle is how do we help them understand basic statistics?

>>16774667
Statistics are stupider than damn lies. Stats go in /his/, not in /sci/

>>16774670
If you held a monthly contest to nuke the most violent 1 mile radius in the US off the face of the US, you'd get compliance pretty quick.

>>16774617 (OP)
Never listen to anyone who quotes a statistic, or uses any kind of statistical language, such as 'probably', or 'per capita'. You can do your own research into the chances that the person retard-speaking at you even took intro to stats in highschool or college, let alone is qualified to do anything with a % (per cent sign) beyond calculating sales tax. If someone says anything of the sort, I ask the following questions: "What do you do for a living?", "What's your degree in?", and, "Can you explain Bayes rule?" Extrapolating from my anecdotal experience, there's not a single person outside of my workplace capable of answering those questions to a satisfactory level.

>>16774622
Gotcha covered senpai.

>>16774677
Probability isn't a science or a math. If you think anyone can "answer those questions to a satisfactory level," you're delusional and should be enrolled in a retard hospital.

>>16774677
Oh, and what method are you using to extrapolate your anecdotal experience? Has it been peer reviewed? Anti-science, the whole fucking lot.

>>16774679
Oh, so it was the schrodinger's breakfast not the riddler...

better than I remembered

>>16774682
Given that, who's paying you to not explain how "per capita theory" works?

>>16774680
>Probability isn't a science or a math.
>Never heard of a sigma algebra
>Doesn't know the difference between probability and statistics
You're proving my point.
>>16774681
That was a joke. I hope you're just continuing the bit and not actually feeling personally attacked.

>>16774682
Precisely where the moral calculus breaks

Finance is one of:
>feeding you
>killing you

>>16774680
>He can't explain Bayes rule to a satisfactory level
Wow anon that's really pathetic.

>>16774677
Dubs of truth

>>16774686
Assigning an outcome to anything in real life based on probability is utter bullshit.
>>16774689
You're a pathetic worm writhing around in your own shit.

>>16774695
Lmao. Bag those groceries boy

>>16774701
>my metaphor says more about someone else than it says about me

>>16774617 (OP)
that was debunked a while ago.

see >>16774626

>>16774706
Still waiting for the theory to be stated.

>>16774702
>Triggered because educated men don't take him seriously
Double bag that shit boy.

>>16774713
I'm sorry your girl made you do that.

>>16774718
Nah I just don't want to catch anything from your mom.

>>16774729
>Nah
>Naw
Catch that, homo.

>>16774731
You seem to be very upset about >>16774677. Is it because you're retarded?

>>16774737
I'm joyful at the moment. Explain >>16774677 to me in your own words.

>>16774738
It's pretty self explanatory. Ignore statistics quoters because they are likely incompetent.

>>16774742
Why would I disagree with that? I'm a Twain fanboy about stats.

>>16774743
>Stats are all lies!
That's just as retarded as statistics quoters.

>>16774745
Also the fact that
>Bayes rule
Wasn't mentioned at all in this thread until>>16774677
Just shows the absolute state of this board.

>>16774745
It's an intensifier, not a truth serum. I feel like you have mental health issues. Do you take meds?

>>16774746
Relate "Bayes rule" to "Per capita theory"

>>16774747
>I like Mark Twain
>It's an intensifier
>>16774748
"Per capita theory"

How do either of you clowns expect any serious person to know what you're talking about?

>>16774749
I'm me. How do either of your schizophrenic halves expect any serious person to know what they're talking about?

>>16774752
Idk but I have a real life and a real job, unlike you

>>16774755
Great, go do that and stop pretending to understand something you don't.

>>16774759
>Pretending to understand something I don't
It's funny, because that's actually this whole thread except me.

>>16774762
How often do you feel that way about your own interlocution?

>>16774767
Not often. I don't usually talk to I fucking love science libtards or stats quoting conservatards. But considering the absolute state of this board (you included) it's valid.

>>16774776
Who do you usually talk to?

>>16774778
Family, friends, and coworkers.

>>16774781
What do they think "Per capita theory" means? Just say what you mean like it was coming from someone else.

>>16774782
>Google per capita theory
>https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/percapita.asp
>Google "per capita theory"
>a Twitter post
Some retard shit, I'm sure of it.

>>16774786
Sounds about right lol.

>>16774788
>Sounds about right
What have you done to mock the other posters here who are taking it seriously, without seriously engaging in logical debate? It's not enough to simply find their idiocy contemptible. One must engage in ridicule and condescension.

>>16774794
Eh, it's easier to just ask what it means.

>>16774799
>He finally got dubs
I infer what it means and infer that it's retard shit that deserves to be mocked

>>16774805
I got dubs twice in a row, no?
>>16774788
>>16774799