re: #17 Political Atheist

I never claimed the study was not like on like.

Thanks (not) for dismissing my own experiences, despite the validity of other peoples experience as shown above. Stop and frisk has been written about as controversial, as used in Times square.

Boy just posting something that just appears to be a little contrary to the TP point of view and you and WW grab the microscope fast. WTH? I made a specific criticism of the study that did not question its validity among those rough neighborhoods at all.
I suggested where it should be repeated for more data, and questioned the TP headline and motive for the headline. None of this is RWNJ territory. Just a healthy skepticism about a broad conclusion headline from a narrow data set.

Is that not a common thing to do with crime/social studies around here?

Now I’m asking myself-Is it possible my moderate skepticism bout that headline is that unwelcome?

If resources were limitless, and there was no prior knowledge, then every imaginable study should be done.

In this case, somebody has already devised some criteria to select kids who are ‘at-risk’. Given that, I suppose they wanted to know the difference between the at-riskers who got into the gang life and the at-riskers who did not get into gang life. One idea was to look at the difference between those who got stopped a lot, and those who did not.

Now if you go and add a bunch more kids, but this time, those who are not at-risk to begin with, I don’t see how that additional data helps those at-risk kids at all.

Do all attempts to help at-risk kids need to be matched by studies of kids not at risk so we know if there’s any overlap in the data?