The murder of Charlie Kirk

‘Hear is what he exactly said’

I mean, this funny. I lol'd.

you know statistics enough to understand this, so please read this about Jackson /

Her dissent from the ruling on affirmative action makes an obviously implausible claim.
Even Supreme Court justices are known to be gullible. In a dissent from last week’s ruling against racial preferences in college admissions, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson enumerated purported benefits of “diversity” in education. “It saves lives,” she asserts. “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.”

A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible. Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week. But even so, that’s a 60% survival rate, which is mathematically impossible to double. And the actual survival rate is over 99%.

How could Justice Jackson make such an innumerate mistake? A footnote cites a friend-of-the-court brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which makes the same claim in almost identical language. It, in turn, refers to a 2020 study whose lead author is Brad Greenwood, a professor at the George Mason University School of Business.

The study makes no such claims. It examines mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015 and shows a 0.13% to 0.2% improvement in survival rates for black newborns with black pediatricians (though no statistically significant improvement for black obstetricians).

The AAMC brief either misunderstood the paper or invented the statistic. (It isn’t saved by the adjective “high-risk,” which doesn’t appear and isn’t measured in Greenwood’s paper.)

Even the much more modest Greenwood result—which amounts to a difference of fewer than 10 Florida newborns a year—is flawed. It uses linear regression, appropriate for modeling continuous normally distributed variables like height or LSAT scores but not for categorical low-probability events like “newborn death.” The proper methodology would be a logistic model. The authors did one, hidden deep in an appendix rather than the body of the paper.

There, the most highly specified model still shows an improvement in black newborn survival. But if you know how to read the numbers—the authors don’t say it—it also shows black doctors with a statistically significant higher mortality rate for white newborns, and a higher mortality rate overall, all else being equal.

So we have a Supreme Court justice parroting a mathematically absurd claim coming from an interested party’s mischaracterization of a flawed study. Her opinion then urges “all of us” to “do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field and march forward together.” Instead we should watch where we’re going.

https://hlli.org/wsj-op-ed-justice-jacks...

either evil and in complete bad faith , or normie IQ level with no brainpower to understand statistics

When I jumped into this forum you and I had it out........you are the best poster here by a mile. Just an FYI.

Lol.....

Words hurt victor 😭

and ecriture, if you think the WSJ op-ed made up the quote, here it's the Jackson dissent Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023); she dissented on UNC (she recused from the Harvard decision as she was on the board of overseers for Harvard when the case started)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22...

you would mock someone making the same claim on this forum forever haunting him down for years remindin him of that. You would be deeply ashamed to have to work with anyone making a claim like that in an obscure tier 3 journal, and you would fire an employee in a lab or other research entity that you controlled if he said anything like that.

You know that, but feel free to lol to cover for the objective fact that Jackson is at lozen level of statistical understanding (or she is utterly in bad faith and evil and wants to lie to justify affirmative action)

I was making fun of your logic.

Mostly because a good person, father and husband was just murdered in public because he was falsely labelled a racist, hatemonger, fascist.

sure man sure. Now try to address the claim, and defend the utterly indefensible Jackson quote in the dissent

It's perfectly possible for hypothetical P(A)= 2P(B) whether Jackson was correct or not. You guys get so worked up by the dumb conservative stereotype you never bother to just try to make decent arguments.

This is a singularly bad moment in history for reasonable people like you to self-censor themselves.

It’s pretty ****ing insane that this is an entirely reasonable position to have

No it's not possible for survival rates to double with any intervention if the baseline is over 50%. And it's kinda insane you try to claim otherwise just to cover for an undefensible take of a DEI hire

Why can’t she just be at John Robert’s level?

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/58...

Kinda goes back to the basic racism problem with LPCs.

I mentioned a similar sentiment some time ago. It’s only a matter of time before my livelihood is attacked for my beliefs the way things are going. It would only be responsible to get ahead of that

I never said that. Try reading what I wrote.

fortunately that comment didn't come as part of his job, which is deciding cases, not "governing" other judges, over which he has literally 0 power.

Now back to the job they were hired to do...

Well she said that and you answered p(a) can be 2 p (b) which is a complete non sequitur.

To try explain how 2* P (a) can make sense when talking probabilities that are already very close to 1 to begin with, which was the topic and the claim.

You know it doesn't, and you are defending a low iq DEI hire *which also had the benefit of months of time to write that bullshit and several purportedly high iq assistants around her*.

And who STILL wrote that garbage, indefensible claim she took from an amicus brief of another either evil or very low IQ leftist. Not as a hobby, but to lay the ground for *a judicial decision of huge impact to society*.

A claim that wouldn't pass the smell test of any decent person with any understanding of statistics and survival rates

I dont know the probabilities sre close to 1. There is no general rule that a probability cannot be 2x another. That’s a really dumb argument

For better or worse, I can't imagine that I will ever just keep my opinions on politics to myself. I probably would just look for ways to do so that were less permanent or more anonymous.

The anonymity concern is partly an AI/LLM concern. I've revealed a decent bit of personal information in various posts over the years -- not enough for a human to confidently dox me (especially given the amount of time it would take), but perhaps enough for an LLM to make a educated guess.

lol so Robert’s is low IQ Luciom type in general but it’s ok as long as he never does math in a judgement?

Been thinking the same thing tbh

I appreciate that. I remember the discussion you are referring to.

I also remember you making a comment to a moderator (not me) that was out of line, getting a ban for it, and then 100% owning it and apologizing. That sort of thing goes a long, long way with me because it happens so rarely. I really appreciated it. I don't have to agree with everyone here.