Neverending **** the Police thread.

nsacpi said:
I put up a link to various studies a while back. Feel free to peruse.

My favorite one is about how cops speak less respectfully to blacks than to whites. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 2017.

Here is a link describing how the study was done.

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-police-officers-respectfully-black-residents.html
Click to expand...

Oh my God. The officers called black peolle bro or dude?

Thats an example of the more disrespecrful language? So basically the greetings I use with my closest friends.
 
"To be clear: There was no swearing," said Dan Jurafsky, a study co-author and Stanford professor of linguistics and of computer science. "These were well-behaved officers. But the many small differences in how they spoke with community members added up to pervasive racial disparities."



This isnan actual quote from the study. You take this seriously?

Did you actually read this thing?
 
Dalyn said:
That's a good one. You are something else.
Click to expand...

listen Dalyn I've always respected you in the past and our interactions have been pleasant. If you don't want to discuss the actual results of what's happening in the field then why even speak to me?
 
thethe said:
"To be clear: There was no swearing," said Dan Jurafsky, a study co-author and Stanford professor of linguistics and of computer science. "These were well-behaved officers. But the many small differences in how they spoke with community members added up to pervasive racial disparities."



This isnan actual quote from the study. You take this seriously?

Did you actually read this thing?
Click to expand...

I sure did.
 
Yet "researchers can't just sit and watch every single stop," Eberhardt explained. "It would take too long. Besides, their own biases could affect their judgments of the interactions."

-------

So they are basically eliminating all contsxt because the cant watch a substantial portion of the footage.

Nsacpi, this is beneath you.
 
nsacpi said:
I sure did.
Click to expand...

"Our findings are not proof of bias or wrongdoing on the part of individual officers," Eberhardt cautioned. "Many factors could drive racial disparities in respectful speech."

---

I'm beginning to doubt that.
 
thethe said:
Yet "researchers can't just sit and watch every single stop," Eberhardt explained. "It would take too long. Besides, their own biases could affect their judgments of the interactions."

-------

So they are basically eliminating all contsxt because the cant watch a substantial portion of the footage.

Nsacpi, this is beneath you.
Click to expand...

Actually I do this kind of work...but not for police.

It involves coding what is being said into data.

You can then analyze how often words like Ma'am and Sir are used. How often a how are you doing is said. Or a good morning.

And since the process can be done from a transcript and no one knows the races of the parties involved, there is no bias on the part of the observer.

It is actually how good research is done.

The part about bro is silly and can be made fun of.

But really does anyone doubt the basic conclusion. And these cops are cops who are being recorded from their own recording devices. So they are on their best behavior.

It leaves out certain things that are inherently more difficult to code. Like body language and tone. But words alone show a difference.
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
Why is the left so against data and facts?

It's weird for the party of science
Click to expand...

And something like that was proof of significant racial disparities. Because you never want to be called a dude or bro.

Comical.

Why dont we get to real facts like deaths or physical excessive force. Lets normalize that per interactions with officers and grade those interactions by level of danger/risk.

What are the trendlines since the Saint Obama left office?

Nobody wants to look at those numbers because it tells a much different story.
 
nsacpi said:
Actually I do this kind of work...but not for police.

It involves coding what is being said into data.

You can then analyze how often words like Ma'am and Sir are used. How often a how are you doing is said.

And since the process can be done in a way where no one can tell the races of the parties involved, there is no bias on the part of the observer.

It is actually how good research is done.
Click to expand...

They did know the races in the stidy but I dont belive that was relevant to their rock solid methodology of aggressive language like 'dude'.

Im sure at some point an officer referred to one black assailant as "Bro Montana".

True story.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top