/ Theresa May and Immigrants - so now we know

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Rob Exile Ward on 01 Dec 2016
... that her big idea for curbing immigration - doing the job her department was supposed to do - was to get the Education dept to put their children to the bottom of the queue for schools. Nice. Yes; let's discourage immigration by punishing children.

She is a shallow, none-too-bright vindictive little Englander who only survives being ritually slaughtered each week at PMQ by being opposed by someone even more shallow and predictable.

33
BnB - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Or we might simply observe that one of the proposals considered by her or her department was the aforementioned disincentivisation scheme, which was not adopted.

Politics often involves manufacturing a rift (eg Education vs Migation policy) in order to absolve a department from blame or to secure the passing of a difficult but less controversial proposal. The Home Office has to "talk tough" when placed in primary control of Cameron's stupid immigration targets. If they are then thwarted by other departments, where does the blame fall? Perhaps other, more treasured, plans were introduced by way of a trade?

She's no greater debater, I agree, but I doubt anyone looks smart calling TM "none too bright".
2
RyanOsborne - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> only survives being ritually slaughtered each week at PMQ by being opposed by someone even more shallow and predictable.

Can't say I agree. Go back and watch the one about grammar schools. Corbyn routinely makes her look incompetent, and given the tories' view of Corbyn, doesn't say much about May.
14
GrahamD - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Whatever else you can say about her, not bright isn't one of them. Getting to Oxford from comprehensive school is not the mark of a fool.

So taking a step back, what is the answer to the immigration 'crisis' the country just voted to take us out of Europe for ? As far as I can see, this sort shitty policy is exactly what we appear to want.
7
Mike Highbury - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> Whatever else you can say about her, not bright isn't one of them. Getting to Oxford from comprehensive school is not the mark of a fool.

I fear you are at risk of overstatement.

3
andyfallsoff - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> Whatever else you can say about her, not bright isn't one of them. Getting to Oxford from comprehensive school is not the mark of a fool.

My understanding was that she went to a grammar, not a comp - hence why she feels they are a good thing.

As for bright / not bright - I would guess she is of the "hard work and determination" school of achievement, rather than the "sparky natural intelligence / imagination" one, but as I say above that is a guess.
1
Moley on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

>
> As for bright / not bright - I would guess she is of the "hard work and determination" school of achievement, rather than the "sparky natural intelligence / imagination" one, but as I say above that is a guess.

Which of these characters is preferred for a current PM to negotiate this country through the next few years?
Not sure which is safer or better in the long run, let's face it, half the country will disagree with every decision made.
Bogwalloper - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

>

> As for bright / not bright - I would guess she is of the "hard work and determination" school of achievement, rather than the "sparky natural intelligence / imagination" one, but as I say above that is a guess.

Seems to me like she's from the shit loads of intelligence but not an ounce of common sense school. Loads of them about.

Wally
4
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Playing devils advocate for a second, why should an immigrant child be at the front of the queue for a school place? Would that be the best policy in your mind? Can you see an issue arising from displaced local children if this policy was adopted? Just stating that this means she is a vindictive little Englander seems a extreme.
3
drunken monkey - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

ONS figures just released. Net migration to the UK in the year till June 2016 was 650k

Much frothing at the mouth happening on social media right now. Have a look at AF Neil's twitter feed for example
2
GrahamD - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

She won a place at a grammar school which became comprehensive when she was there, I think, so she won a place at Oxford from a comprehensive school.
john arran - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The response to this should be to address the need for 'displacing' children at all rather than to victimise certain children through no fault of their own in order to appease a braying mob.
5
MG - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
How about just treated like any other child rather than being either at the front or back of the queue? It's hardly the child's fault and it is in everyone's interest they are educated. There are obvious resource problems with illegal immigrants, particularly when they are poorly accounted for, but schooling is possibly the worst point at which to try and solve these problem.
Post edited at 10:20
1
BnB - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

> How about just treated like any other child rather than being either at the front or back of the queue? It's hardly the child's fault and it is in everyone's interest they are educated. There are obvious resource problems with illegal immigrants, particularly when they are poorly accounted for, but schooling is possibly the worst point at which to try and solve these problem.

Which accounts for the policy being sensibly rejected. It's important however to discuss all the options before reaching a conclusion, wouldn't you agree?

MG - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to BnB:

Yes. Although given its obvious problems it is concerning it was apparently taken seriously. It does suggest political pandering
1
Moley on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> She won a place at a grammar school which became comprehensive when she was there, I think, so she won a place at Oxford from a comprehensive school.

Probably why the OP referred to her as an "vindictive little Englander", no longer able to able to use the "Eton toff" form of personal abuse.
5
BnB - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

> Yes. Although given its obvious problems it is concerning it was apparently taken seriously. It does suggest political pandering

It does. And the dislike isn't from me. But that's what politics has become (if it was ever anything else), a reflection of public mood.
krikoman - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> ... that her big idea for curbing immigration - doing the job her department was supposed to do - was to get the Education dept to put their children to the bottom of the queue for schools. Nice. Yes; let's discourage immigration by punishing children.

You were going ever so well and then .................

> She is a shallow, none-too-bright vindictive little Englander who only survives being ritually slaughtered each week at PMQ by being opposed by someone even more shallow and predictable.

1
Indy - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Nice. Yes; let's discourage immigration by punishing children.

Let me just correct that for you....
let's discourage ILLEGAL immigration
3
MG - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Indy:

Does that change matters? Should we discourage other crime in the same way?
2
alastairmac - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

She is the face of a morally bankrupt and incompetent Westminster government that isn't leading the country but simply flinging red meat to the London based right wing media and the mob mentality that they help to generate.
6
toad - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Indy:

> Let me just correct that for you....

> let's discourage ILLEGAL immigration




By punishing children.............yep. That's cleared that up.
4
Indy - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to toad:

Your point is caller?
7
jonnie3430 - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

My understanding was that it was illegal immigrant, not legal immigrants that were put to the bottom of the list. I don't have any issues with that, if you are going to move to a country, you need to acknowledge it's laws.
1
Indy - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

> Does that change matters? Should we discourage other crime in the same way?

So if I walked into a bank with a sawn off shotgun and robbed it of an amount of money equal to next terms school fees you'd be ok with that?

Don't we have a proceeds of crimes Act?
5
ads.ukclimbing.com
GrahamD - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

Nice random cliche generator you have there.

But is this the same media that did its best to undermine the last leader of the same government, and suceeded ? The government is actually leading the country between a rock and a hard place (the electorate, left and right just had a big say on immigration) and the majority of them know Brexit is really a shit idea. So basically they are doing what the Great British public apparently want.
5
MG - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Indy:
> So if I walked into a bank with a sawn off shotgun and robbed it of an amount of money equal to next terms school fees you'd be ok with that?

Yep, absolutely. Oh, hang on, actually, no, WTF are you talking about?
Post edited at 12:30
toad - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Indy:

That you don't discriminate against kids based on the actions of their parents. But you knew that, didn't you?
1
86inch - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

As others have said, neat lack of the word "illegal" in your post... this was proposed as a measure to curb "ILLEGAL" immigrants.

At least get your facts correct, unless you want to be guilty of spouting misleading nonsense....
1
jonnie3430 - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to toad:

But the kids and their parents are discriminating against the rest of us.

And I don't think your comment would hold up to scrunity, kids will always be discriminated because of their parents.
5
Indy - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to toad:

> That you don't discriminate against kids based on the actions of their parents. But you knew that, didn't you?

So all you need do is 'launder' children through the equation and nothing is now illegal?
3
Dave Garnett - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> And I don't think your comment would hold up to scrunity, kids will always be discriminated because of their parents.

Probably, but we can disapprove of it, rather than making it government policy.
The New NickB - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Indy:

> Your point is caller?

If you can't work that out, you shouldn't be commenting.
2
jonnie3430 - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

What I don't get, is that if the school can figure out that someone is an illegal immigrant, then why can't the home office?
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

Surely the home office did know they were illegal immigrants, otherwise how could they know which kids to put at the back of the queue for school places?
davidbeynon on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

I think he is just announcing that his next parking ticket is coming out of his kids pocket money, and don't piss him off because your family is fair game.
1
jonnie3430 - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Why don't they do something about it then? Either register then as asylum seekers, help them become legal immigrants or send them home? My understanding, that may be wildly out, is that illegal immigrants wouldn't be able to get national insurance numbers, driving licences, bank accounts, etc., meaning that they live in a world of cash payments, no contracts for work, so no protection, no gp, no car, cash paid for accommodation, so no protection from landlords? It's not right.
1
MG - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Indy:

> So all you need do is 'launder' children through the equation and nothing is now illegal?

No, what it (obviously) means is you don't punish children for parents' behaviour.
C Witter on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Wow... So, having failed schools and created a situation where many teachers are leaving the profession due to poor working conditions, May proposes to counter these problems, exacerbated by Tory austerity and the privatisation-scheme known as 'academisation', with a white supremacist policy that would make schools (even more) an extension of border control and legally sanction new forms of racial and class-based school segregation.... And, the only thing people can say (after pedantically fawning over May's "intelligence", supposedly proven by her admission to an elitist - and extremely white - university) is: "but these children are illegal!" Wow... wow...
Post edited at 13:16
4
fred99 - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think you will find that she/they were talking about putting ILLEGAL immigrants children to the back of the queue.
Now if these are indeed ILLEGAL immigrants then they would (or at least should) be sent back from whence they came.

So why do you think that both indigenous children, and children of legal immigrants should be prevented from going to school (or at least being sent to one miles away) because of someone who is about to be chucked out of the country.
2
MG - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to C Witter:
Posts like that make May's consideration of this policy sound sane and balanced.

Edit: Incidentally, Oxford has about 20% non-white students, higher than the general population
https://public.tableau.com/views/UoO_UG_Admissions2/EthnicityandDisability?%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_cou...
Post edited at 13:27
3
galpinos on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> What I don't get, is that if the school can figure out that someone is an illegal immigrant, then why can't the home office?

That's what I don't get either. Who is classed as an illegal immigrant? If they are applying for school places, surely they must be in the system and would not necessarily be an illegal immigrant classified and being processed (either to stay or leave).
captain paranoia - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to fred99:

> Now if these are indeed ILLEGAL immigrants then they would (or at least should) be sent back from whence they came.

Wouldn't that be the job of the Home Office, May's former domain...?
neilh - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

Perversely it illustrates the benefit of a cabinet style of govt. You have a bad idea thrown out for discussion by one of the Departments and then it is thrown out by the others.

In any working day there will be halfbaked ideas or policy proposals put out by any number of govt Departments which are then firmly rejected.

Some will hit the headines, I suspect that 99% do not.

That is how it should be.
C Witter on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:
You've not read the stats properly. Summary states that approx. 13% BME admissions, when average is higher at Russell Group (18%) and nationally 22%. So, Oxford recruits almost 9% less BME students than national average. And that's in 2015, after years of criticism. It is also interesting that, if you look at the table, acceptance rates are 25% for white students compared to 16% for BME - meaning, Oxford accepts 9% less of the BME students that apply. Of course, there are complicating factors here, e.g. which courses students are applying for, and inequalities at earlier stages of schooling - but, it's still a striking figure. Particularly if you think about how ethnicity intersects with class.

Meanwhile, London universities with high BME and OS student populations have been viciously attacked by Theresa May as Home Secretary, under the utterly dubious guise of "preventing terrorism", with London Met (a crucial university for BME students) being banned from recruiting OS students. This has had multiple, terrible effects on UK HE... you can read more about it in your own time, as plenty of students and lecturers have written extensively about it. But, in short, HE is being made an extension of border control, student/staff relationships and freedom of education are badly effected, and students numbers are down across the board... Another stupid Tory idea to cut immigration: stop students from "coming over here, paying upwards of £15,000 a year for an education", even though, especially after all the cuts to HE in the last decade, these students - often on cheap-to-teach courses like management - are subsidising the whole, floundering UK HE economy..."

And this is all besides my main point... that anyone who thinks it is a positive thing to institute school segregation on the basis of children's citizenship status is a vicious b@stard.

And if you think how that intersects with class, (e.g. because children get shunted down the list, they go to the special measures school that caters to working-class children, rather than the spanky middle-class academy, catering to the better neighbourhoods), you'll see how it's about more than migration: typical Tories, attacking those at the bottom of the pile.
Post edited at 14:15
6
damhan-allaidh on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

I've seen first hand the result of this 'discrimination'. Just one example: an 11 year old boy locking himself in the disabled toilet every day at break so as not to get the crap beaten out of him. The utterly terrified look on his face - like nothing I have ever seen - when I discovered what was going on, and said I was going to something about it. Me, horrifed to realise there was nothing I could do to protect this little boy, partly because of the many adults in the community who could give f*** because he was a 'dirty, little paki' (he was, in fact from Eastern Europe, but hey, anything less than a lilly-white pallor will do).

"kids will always be discriminated because of their parents."

You are talking about CHILDREN - whoever they are, wherever they are from, they need protecting, valuing and nurturing (and this is from someone who definitely does not want any of her own, l like giving them back at the end of the day), and that is society's responsibility not just the parents.

Have you ever been disciminated against? Felt the pain of rejection by your peers? The fear of physical harm, which could strike at any time? A sense of not belonging to where you live? Helplessness because there is no one to turn to and no one who can make you safe? I hope not. I imagine not, because otherwise, I would wonder that you could so casually brush off discrimination, indeed the abuse, of children.

A lot of the empathy fails I encounter on here could be resolved by a little voluntary work and a bit of empathetic imagination.
7
jkarran - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> Why don't they do something about it then? Either register then as asylum seekers, help them become legal immigrants or send them home? My understanding, that may be wildly out, is that illegal immigrants wouldn't be able to get national insurance numbers, driving licences, bank accounts, etc., meaning that they live in a world of cash payments, no contracts for work, so no protection, no gp, no car, cash paid for accommodation, so no protection from landlords? It's not right.

No, it's not. But they're here, they're productive, they're settled, many for at least a generation living in the shadows with all the attendant issues that brings. Perhaps there's a better solution than hunting them down and kicking them out?
jk
Post edited at 14:37
5
andyfallsoff - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Hear hear. The three phantom dislikers on your post should have a long think about why they see fit to disapprove of a post which does nothing more than call for empathy towards innocent children.
8
MG - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to C Witter:

Ok, I misread that but it still almost tallies with the general population. Oxford recruits many fewer overseas students than other Russel group universities so.you would expect a lower non-white proportion. The idea it is biased by skin colour is odd, to say the least.
Pete Pozman - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

No child should have to queue to get into a school.
That's an example of a "British value".
At least it used to be.
2
ads.ukclimbing.com
damhan-allaidh on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

I think empathy is one of those abilities that is learned through modeling and experience. I suspect those who find it difficult to empathise have probably experienced very little empathy towards themselves. I wish they would feel able to discuss why we should choose not to protect children.

PS I also gather there are some people who are of the opinion that I am a bit of a virtue signaller. Whatever. I am the Titanium Alloy Snowflake.
3
jonnie3430 - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

> You are talking about CHILDREN - whoever they are, wherever they are from, they need protecting, valuing and nurturing (and this is from someone who definitely does not want any of her own, l like giving them back at the end of the day), and that is society's responsibility not just the parents.

So leave them and their parents in the shadows?

> Have you ever been disciminated against? Felt the pain of rejection by your peers? The fear of physical harm, which could strike at any time? A sense of not belonging to where you live? Helplessness because there is no one to turn to and no one who can make you safe? I hope not. I imagine not, because otherwise, I would wonder that you could so casually brush off discrimination, indeed the abuse, of children.

I'd be very surprised if anyone hasn't felt everything you listed above. If they haven't, they've lived a very lucky life. I whole heartedly support bringing everyone in this country into one society, if a step towards that is by identifying illegal immigrants through schools then I'd support that too. It does seem a pathetic response to identify an illegal immigrant and not do anything about it other than prioritise other children other than theirs.

> A lot of the empathy fails I encounter on here could be resolved by a little voluntary work and a bit of empathetic imagination.

A lot of the empathy fails I encounter on here could be resolved by reading carefully with an open mind and not jumping to conclusions.
jonnie3430 - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> No, it's not. But they're here, they're productive, they're settled, many for at least a generation living in the shadows with all the attendant issues that brings. Perhaps there's a better solution than hunting them down and kicking them out?

How can they be settled without a national insurance number? Or a driving licence? I listed a couple of alternatives to kicking them out too. Our society fails if people don't take their responsibilities seriously, which is integrating into our society (and all that comes with it,) those that wish to move here, and those that have moved here integrating into it.
Jim Hamilton - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> No child should have to queue to get into a school.

I thought the idea was that illegal immigrant parents wouldn't have priority over all the other parents who don't get their preferred choice of school, rather than children not getting into a school at all.
damhan-allaidh on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

"Leave them in the shadows"

I never said or implied that. I was using an example (I sadly have several more) of the frightening, pernicious impact of discrimination and anti-immigrant feeling on innocent and vulnerable children. As well as my own sense of helplessness at there being no professionals or community to turn to for help and protection. The problem is precisely that these people are forced into the shadows.

"I'd be very surprised.. "

So would I, to discover that one or two or even more of those things had happened a few times in people's lives. I am talking about fear, intimidation and exclusion as a way of life. As what you live every single day without relief. About being disliked, hated even, for something you can't change - who you are. Jesus, becoming a teenager has enough identity baggage as it is.

"Empathy fails"

A dislike doesn't offer much information. My inference was based on an informal heuristic analysis of general themes in UKC discussions.



2
Pete Pozman - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

> I thought the idea was that illegal immigrant parents wouldn't have priority over all the other parents who don't get their preferred choice of school, rather than children not getting into a school at all.

I repeat, no child should have to queue to get into a school. How poor are we for X's sake?
3
Postmanpat on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Here's May's problem as Home Secretary. She is asked to meet unattainable targets on immigration. To attempt to meet these targets she goes for the "low hanging fruit" of people who have marginally overstayed or made an administrative error etc. This is grossly unfair whilst well over over half a million illegal immigrants are getting off scot free and are by definition very hard to identify. So, she explores all sorts of radical ways of identifying these people and removing them.

Quite rightly this idea got knocked back, and I do fear that May actually thinks we should aim for "tens of thousands" of immigrants a year. But it is surely quite right that the government focuses on illegal immigrants, not least in fairness to legal immigrants.
Big Ger - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
> I repeat, no child should have to queue to get into a school. How poor are we for X's sake?

I agree, any person who can get a kid into our country, by whatever means, should see that as a guarantee of free education from kindergarten to a place at Oxford Uni!

Obviously we'd have to accommodate the parents, so they can look after the kid.

And they'd need healthcare of course.

Somewhere to live....


Post edited at 21:49
8
birdie num num - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It's a thankless job being a PM.
At the sharp end of everything.
Millions of Bar-Room and armchair PMs out there will sagely pronounce you a shit.
3
Rob Exile Ward on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to birdie num num:

She wasn't PM when she was pushing this mean, nasty and unworkable policy.

And she volunteered to be PM, nobody made her apply for the job.
5
jonnie3430 - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
What makes me laugh about the spin on this story is that it seems like our country allows free schooling for illegal immigrants without penalty. Someone proposed a penalty, it was declined by May and she gets a kicking in the press!

It's all very British, how liberal are we!?!
Post edited at 23:03
birdie num num - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I was speaking generally rather than specifically. And without any ideological allegiance.
Your post must be retrospective then.
Gerry_Doncaster - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> Whatever else you can say about her, not bright isn't one of them. Getting to Oxford from comprehensive school is not the mark of a fool.

She didn't go to a comp. She was privately educated at a fee paying grammar school.

2
Roadrunner5 - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

You should still educate the student. Even the US does that.
1
Postmanpat on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Gerry_Doncaster:

> She didn't go to a comp. She was privately educated at a fee paying grammar school.

Can you elaborate on that? My impression was that she got a State scholarship to a State grammar school.
Pete Pozman - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

For Gods sake
> I agree, any person who can get a kid into our country, by whatever means, should see that as a guarantee of free education from kindergarten to a place at Oxford Uni!

> Obviously we'd have to accommodate the parents, so they can look after the kid.

> And they'd need healthcare of course.

> Somewhere to live....

For God's sake we need to get some humanity into this country. Go down the supermarket and watch them stocking up on the Christmas biscuits. We're not so poor we can't afford to look after a few thousand refugees. What the hell has happened to this country I loved?
3
Big Ger - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> For God's sake we need to get some humanity into this country. Go down the supermarket and watch them stocking up on the Christmas biscuits. We're not so poor we can't afford to look after a few thousand refugees. What the hell has happened to this country I loved?

A "few thousand"?

Ok, who and when do we say; "sorry that's it, we've taken a few thousand, no more mate" to?

There are 3 million kids under 14 yrs old in Somalia, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)

There are 8 million kids under 14 yrs old in Syria, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)

There are 40 million kids under 14 yrs old in Nigeria, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)

Or are you saying we should only allow in those with the money and ability to make it to the UK?

5
birdie num num - on 01 Dec 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Drink some water, ...go to bed.
2
Jim C - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Playing devils advocate for a second, why should an immigrant child be at the front of the queue for a school place? Would that be the best policy in your mind? Can you see an issue arising from displaced local children if this policy was adopted? Just stating that this means she is a vindictive little Englander seems a extreme.

It was illegal immigrants as I understand it, people who had no right to be here in the first place. Legal immigrants have every right to expect fair treatment.
Rob Exile Ward on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

'She initially attended Heythrop Primary School, a state school in Heythrop, followed by St. Juliana's Convent School for Girls, a Roman Catholic independent school in Begbroke, which closed in 1984.
At the age of 13, May won a place at the former Holton Park Girls' Grammar School, a state school in Wheatley. During her time as a pupil, the Oxfordshire education system was reorganised and the school became the new Wheatley Park Comprehensive School.'

Not your average comp I wouldn't have thought, particularly in the early years. But that's hardly the point.
1
Rob Exile Ward on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim C:

All children, whether they are the children of sex offenders, axe murderers, legal AND illegal immigrants - even the spawn of Nigel Farage - have a right to be treated fairly.
4
Rob Exile Ward on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

OK let's extrapolate TM's Big Idea. There's all these people who really want to come to the UK for a variety of reasons, none of them valid obviously, because all they want to do is leave their friends, family, homeland and culture and come to a damp cold foggy isle where they will be strangers but be able to live the life of riley on our extraordinarily generous benefits system - £36 per week. OK, got it.

So to discourage that we are going to punish their children by discouraging them/not allowing them to go to school. Got that too. I'm not sure what the children will think, but yes that could be a way of discouraging parents. 'Come here and your children will be excluded from any education whatsoever while the Home Office wheels grind slowly to deport you.' (The fact that the countries that they will eventually be returned to will be further impoverished by returning schoolchildren who have missed vital stages in their education and therefore encourage MORE migration in the future is more of a long term problem, so can safely be ignored.)

But why stop there? Why not do what the Belgians did in the Congo - why not chop the children's hands off to discourage the parents? (OK in the Congo it was to 'encourage' the parents, but it's the same principle.) That will really send a message that illegal immigrants aren't welcome. Sorted.
6
GrahamD - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Gerry_Doncaster:

> She didn't go to a comp. She was privately educated at a fee paying grammar school.

It was comprehensive when she qualified for Oxford. I know someone working their way up through the normal education system doesn't play well with your Tory stereotype but that is what it is - just like the majority of MPs from all parties.
2
Pete Pozman - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to birdie num num:

> Drink some water, ...go to bed.

Good advice, thanks.
And for the first time in 6 months it was nice to wake up to a morsel of good news.
1
thomasadixon - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> But why stop there? Why not do what the Belgians did in the Congo - why not chop the children's hands off to discourage the parents?

Just wow. Not to the front of the queue for school places (and Pete Pozman, we *all* have to queue for school places, plenty of people put their kids on lists the day they're born) and cutting off children's hands are similar in your crazy world.

Do always love the classic Britain's crap line as well. What an awful damp land we live in, anyone coming here *must* be seriously put upon, otherwise why would they force themselves to be subjected to the hell that is Britain?! Oh, wait, that's a load of crap isn't it, we live in a really nice country where those who can't look after themselves are looked after by the state.

3
ads.ukclimbing.com
Rob Exile Ward on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

Just a modest proposal.
Pete Pozman - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

I know about the queueing and the crap around school admissions. It won't do for anybody. All children should have access to a good education. People shouldn't be thinking in terms of us and them. The divisiveness which is sweeping away our humane values is spoiling Britain.
4
thomasadixon - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

It's a basic practicality of life. Schools are only so big. Carry on waffling about values though (as if having to take your turn in the queue isn't a British value!).
2
timjones - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


> So to discourage that we are going to punish their children by discouraging them/not allowing them to go to school.

Who said that they wouldn't be allowed to go to school?

The suggestion seems to be that they wouldn't be first in the queue when it comes to choosing schools.
1
Rob Exile Ward on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to timjones:
No, I believe that you are incorrect. According to the Beeb, 'the Home Office wanted the children of illegal immigrants to go to the bottom of the list for school places.'

It's not as though they were discouraging sharp-elbowed middle class parents from wherever muscling to the top of the queue, it was about excluding them, and it would be mealy-mouthed and delusional to think otherwise.

Which fortunately few of May's cabinet colleagues did.
Post edited at 11:36
6
timjones - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> No, I believe that you are incorrect. According to the Beeb, 'the Home Office wanted the children of illegal immigrants to go to the bottom of the list for school places.'

> It's not as though they were discouraging sharp-elbowed middle class parents from wherever muscling to the top of the queue, it was about excluding them, and it would be mealy-mouthed and delusional to think otherwise.

> Which fortunately few of May's cabinet colleagues did.

How many children in the UK don't get a school place?

I think you're letting your vindictiveness cloud your judgement.
1
Rob Exile Ward on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to timjones:

'How many children in the UK don't get a school place?' None at the moment, as far as I am aware; I don't really understand your point. The proposal was to make it more awkward for the children of illegal immigrants to get places than would otherwise be the case, as a specific and explicit measure to curb immigration.

I particularly didn't like the proposal because a) it was simply unworkable (how would a school know that the parents applying for a place were illegal - ask them? Demand papers that could easily be forged? Look them up on a HO database?) and b) It didn't appear to consider that the collateral damage, e.g. children crucially missing the start of term, particularly important in the case of immigrant children who might well have special language or care needs was important or their problem.

I don't think it was me that was being vindictive at all.

1
timjones - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> 'How many children in the UK don't get a school place?' None at the moment, as far as I am aware; I don't really understand your point. The proposal was to make it more awkward for the children of illegal immigrants to get places than would otherwise be the case, as a specific and explicit measure to curb immigration.

> I particularly didn't like the proposal because a) it was simply unworkable (how would a school know that the parents applying for a place were illegal - ask them? Demand papers that could easily be forged? Look them up on a HO database?) and b) It didn't appear to consider that the collateral damage, e.g. children crucially missing the start of term, particularly important in the case of immigrant children who might well have special language or care needs was important or their problem.

> I don't think it was me that was being vindictive at all.

And you accuse Theresa May of not being too bright ;)

My point is that unless you know otherwise every child gets a school place on day one of their first term. Queues are only relevant if you are the sort of parent that wants to pick and choose which school they go to.

If it's not vindictiveness that causes you to leap to conclusions what else is it?
Post edited at 12:23
1
thomasadixon - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395

Presumably this is the article you're going from, which is pretty vague about what the actual policy was. It does use the term deprioritize over and over though, and if you take that at it's normal meaning then what it means is that they're no longer at the top of the list, they're no longer priority above the rest of us. Anyone know any more actual detail?

"The overall effect of a deprioritisation measure would be to concentrate children of illegal migrants in the least popular schools in any area, jeopardising our increasingly important focus on tackling both segregation and extremism, and with consequent impacts on the children of British nationals who attend the schools. Aside from the impact on ordinary parents, there is also a risk to children's safety."

So the kids would still go to school, they just wouldn't get their parents' school of choice. Also, apparently these illegal migrant children are a risk to safety and they have a negative impact on British children too! I'm sure that's not true really, very racist of the speaker to even suggest such things.

Overall, it's pretty obvious that stating that controlling illegal immigration is the job of the border force is never going to actually work. If illegal migrants can go to school, work, get medical care, etc without any checks then the border force will never know they are there, and can never enforce the law. It's only by having our government systems working together that there's a real ability to know who is in the country and to act to remove those illegally here. Many (like you) seem to think that all migration should be legal and so obviously any moves to remove illegal migrants are wrong, although you're not honest enough to admit it. For the rest of us there clearly need to be improvements to the system for it to work. Illegal immigrants should be removed, and before that can happen they need to be identified.
BnB - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> She is a shallow, none-too-bright vindictive little Englander

> I don't think it was me that was being vindictive at all.

Was your profile hacked when you wrote the OP then?

It seems to me that instead of heeding the sensible advice throughout this thread that politics and policy are not necessarily aligned, that citizens need to feel protected by the state or anarchy will ensue, you've chosen to dig an ever deeper hole for yourself. For goodness sake show some common sense and understand that your OP wasn't the bullseye you imagined it to be.
Rob Exile Ward on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

'Many (like you) seem to think that all migration should be legal and so obviously any moves to remove illegal migrants are wrong, although you're not honest enough to admit it. '

Where on earth have I ever said that? And I don't even think Corbyn - or anyone else - would go that far.

I don't believe that any developed country can accommodate unlimited immigration, that would be a stupid position to take. (Free movement within the EU is a rather different kettle of fish, however...) Yes, there have to be limits to how many Mexicans can settle in the US, how many Moroccans can settle in France, etc. And yes, because of those limits there will be those who try to enter illegally and who need to be identified and deported. Fine. Just don't try and use their children's education as a lever or weapon.
2
Rob Exile Ward on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to BnB:

'Was your profile hacked when you wrote the OP then?'

Er no. 45 likes would indicate that it wasn't as outrageous as you are implying either.
BnB - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'Was your profile hacked when you wrote the OP then?'

> Er no. 45 likes would indicate that it wasn't as outrageous as you are implying either.

I'm far more impressed by the support you've flushed out for a currently unpopular PM by failing to think the issue through before posting your hasty invective. It has been an interesting thread however so I'm glad you raised the story.
thomasadixon - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'Many (like you) seem to think that all migration should be legal and so obviously any moves to remove illegal migrants are wrong, although you're not honest enough to admit it. '

> Where on earth have I ever said that? And I don't even think Corbyn - or anyone else - would go that far.

You appear to be against all attempts to do anything to control it. Apologies if I'm wrong, but your comments above about how hard it would be to identify those who are illegal immigrants seem to say that we shouldn't try. IIRC you said similar re attempts to have the NHS identify who is using it, and the same about landlords being required to identify those renting from them. If you block all attempts to control illegal immigration while proposing no alternatives then you might as well be in favour of it.

> I don't believe that any developed country can accommodate unlimited immigration, that would be a stupid position to take. (Free movement within the EU is a rather different kettle of fish, however...) Yes, there have to be limits to how many Mexicans can settle in the US, how many Moroccans can settle in France, etc. And yes, because of those limits there will be those who try to enter illegally and who need to be identified and deported. Fine. Just don't try and use their children's education as a lever or weapon.

As before, what does "deprioritize" mean? If it means they shouldn't jump the queue then it's hardly using their children's education as a weapon, it's just treating them like everyone else - and if they're illegal they should be identified and deported, so their children should get no education from us at all.
3
Postmanpat on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> Not your average comp I wouldn't have thought, particularly in the early years. But that's hardly the point.
>
It looks like a "bog standard" State grammar school to which she won a State scholarship. I cannot find any evidence that it was either independent or fee paying. Can you? Maybe it was.
Some former grammar schools became fee paying independent fee paying schools. Others became comprehensives.
This appears to have become the latter and the transition to have happened whilst she was there.
Post edited at 13:39
2
Rob Exile Ward on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

Well I think we're almost in agreement. Yes illegal immigrants and their families should be deported at the earliest opportunity, I'm just not sure that schools, hospitals and employers are the right people to identify them. I think you'll find that employees at those institutions have full time responsibilities already, without becoming illegal immigrant detectives.

I objected to the original proposal because a) it was a reiteration of Theresa May's consistent attitude to ALL immigration - there's far too much of it, whether from the EU or anywhere else - and b) even if it was morally acceptable it was unworkable for perfectly practical purposes.

I spend quite a lot of time looking at DWP and HMRC 'rules', NHS governance and so on, and the stream of unworkable cr*p descending from on high that really hasn't been thought through beggars the imagination. Seems like a cabinet minister only has to sneeze in the middle of the night for 1000 civil servants try and implement that as policy.

1
Rob Exile Ward on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you are fixating on something that isn't very important. How unlike you!

I'm not underestimating her achievement getting to Oxbridge, but equally I bet that if the local grammar-later-to-become-comp had had a dodgy reputation she would have gone elsewhere.
Postmanpat on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I think you are fixating on something that isn't very important. How unlike you!

> I'm not underestimating her achievement getting to Oxbridge, but equally I bet that if the local grammar-later-to-become-comp had had a dodgy reputation she would have gone elsewhere.

I like things to be correct particularly when they reflect silly leftie prejudices (not you, by the way)

On the main topic: do you accept that a primary role of government is to protect the interests of the existing population and of legal migrants? If so, do you accept that it is therefore important that the government stop illegal immigration, which hurts the interests of the groups above?

If so, do you not understand that, because by definition illegal immigrants are difficult to identify, it has to explore unorthodox and sometimes imperfect ways of doing this?
2
MG - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> If so, do you not understand that, because by definition illegal immigrants are difficult to identify, it has to explore unorthodox and sometimes imperfect ways of doing this?

That might be true but isn't what the OP is about. The proposal was about changing the way children of illegal immigrants are educated. For this to happen, the parents must already have been identified as illegal immigrants. I would say while they remain in the UK, such children should have the same opportunities to be educated by the state as any other child. In the same children of other criminals aren't put at the bottom of heap by policy for the sins of their parents.
Post edited at 13:55
2
MG - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

More broadly the Trumpian idea that you can simply deport many thousands of people who are here illegally is simplistic nonsense and attempting it a ridiculous use of resources. If conditions elsewhere are sufficiently bad, people will leave and arrive legally or illegally elsewhere. Either we let them die in the streets or we adopt sensible policies (like educating their children) to make the best we can of the situation. Reducing such immigration requires conditions in other countries are stable and reasonably prosperous, which isn't easy to achieve, of course.
1
Bob Hughes - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

> As before, what does "deprioritize" mean? If it means they shouldn't jump the queue then it's hardly using their children's education as a weapon, it's just treating them like everyone else - and if they're illegal they should be identified and deported, so their children should get no education from us at all.

Illegal immigrants are not at the top of the queue for school places today and this is not an initiative to "treat them like everyone else". If that was the case it would have no value in controlling immigration. "Deprioritise" is obviously government-speak for kicking to the back of the queue.

1
Rob Exile Ward on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

Thank you. I was beginning to lose the will to live.
1
Postmanpat on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

> That might be true but isn't what the OP is about. The proposal was about changing the way children of illegal immigrants are educated. For this to happen, the parents must already have been identified as illegal immigrants.
>
No, according to the BBC article, and discussion on R4, the idea was that schools would help identify illegal immigrants:
"Her department suggested schools could withdraw places offered to children if their families were found to be living in the country illegally.
The Home Office also wanted schools to carry out immigration checks."

This was one of the many objections to the policy.
1
MG - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No, according to the BBC article, and discussion on R4, the idea was that schools would help identify illegal immigrants:

> "Her department suggested schools could withdraw places offered to children if their families were found to be living in the country illegally.

Right so that bit is nothing to do with finding illegal immigrants. *If* they were found to be illegal *then* a place would be withdrawn.

> The Home Office also wanted schools to carry out immigration checks."

A separate aspect of the proposal, as shown by the word "also.

thomasadixon - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Well I think we're almost in agreement. Yes illegal immigrants and their families should be deported at the earliest opportunity, I'm just not sure that schools, hospitals and employers are the right people to identify them. I think you'll find that employees at those institutions have full time responsibilities already, without becoming illegal immigrant detectives.

Perhaps! Who is going to identify them if not schools, hospitals, employers, etc? Are we to pay a border force to roam the streets searching for illegal immigrants? The most sensible obvious option is for government departments to identify people when interacting with them and to pass on their details to border control when they identify illegal immigrants. As for full time jobs, it hardly takes a few minutes to ask for ID and for a visa where required. You apply for school places well in advance, a bit of extra paperwork wouldn't be onerous.

If you look at Money Laundering regs, as an example, those who come into contact with it (not just government employees) are obliged to do checks, and to report to the state where necessary. Irritating for those of us who have to comply, but realistically it's the only possible way to get a handle on it.

> I objected to the original proposal because a) it was a reiteration of Theresa May's consistent attitude to ALL immigration - there's far too much of it, whether from the EU or anywhere else - and b) even if it was morally acceptable it was unworkable for perfectly practical purposes.

I don't even know what the proposal actually was - Bob Hughes I'd need some evidence to believe that, illegal immigrants are put to the top of the queue in other situations (e.g. housing) as they're classed as vulnerable. Here? I don't know, but it's not obvious. Also, all children are prioritised to some extent, by location, older siblings in the school, etc. Priorities matter.

> I spend quite a lot of time looking at DWP and HMRC 'rules', NHS governance and so on, and the stream of unworkable cr*p descending from on high that really hasn't been thought through beggars the imagination. Seems like a cabinet minister only has to sneeze in the middle of the night for 1000 civil servants try and implement that as policy.

This didn't make it into policy...
4
ads.ukclimbing.com
Postmanpat on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

> Right so that bit is nothing to do with finding illegal immigrants. *If* they were found to be illegal *then* a place would be withdrawn.

> A separate aspect of the proposal, as shown by the word "also.

Oh come on, the article makes it pretty clear (especially Morgan's response) that both the identification and sanctioning of illegals were part of the same package of proposals. The suggestion was not primarily that the illegals might be passively found. it was that schools would actively attempt to find them through passport checks etc. You're being disingenuous.
1
Valaisan on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to BnB:

> Politics often involves manufacturing a rift (eg Education vs Migation policy) in order to absolve a department from blame or to secure the passing of a difficult but less controversial proposal. The Home Office has to "talk tough" when placed in primary control of Cameron's stupid immigration targets.

I agree! with some caveats:

Immigration is just a tool that Governments use/allow to fuel the economic growth model which is out of hand and utterly subservient to greed and power.

Politics also involves copious amounts of bullshit which we only manage to argue with until we grow weary. Ministers often "talk tough" on cracking down on tax evasion when in reality HMRC do f*ck all about the £135 Billion/annum unpaid tax from Big Corporates whilst at the same time smashing the crap out of the little guy who runs a small business that just about make his family a living.

How many people know, or even care that 10% of the Worlds Gross Product, some $8 Trillion of the total $80+ Trillion/annum, flows untaxed and unchecked through Holland every year. And that sleepy little place that is a fully paid up member of the EU who are "cracking down on tax evasion". My butt they are.

Buybooksandanythingyouwant.com, lovely company, employs loads of people in huge warehouses all over the UK. We spend billions on their products every year. All invoices flow in and out of Luxembourg. There are hundreds of examples of how the UK's profits and the taxes that should be applied flow out of here every year.

What has tax got to do with this post you may ask! Well, probably sod all at first glance, but if we look a little deeper we'll recognise that if Big Corporates actually paid what they owe then we could better afford to help the World's destitute, persecuted and needy: from refugees to immigrants and most certainly our own institutionally unemployed and deprived.

My opinion: we should all stop talking about the effects of greed and start focusing on greed itself - at every level.
1
MG - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> You're being disingenuous.

No, there are scraps of information in the article and its not clear. It hardly matters, either you think punishing children for their parents behaviour is OK, or you don't.

2
Postmanpat on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

> No, there are scraps of information in the article and its not clear. It hardly matters, either you think punishing children for their parents behaviour is OK, or you don't.

I don't, and neither did the government. Much ado about nothing.
3
Rob Exile Ward on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
'either you think punishing children for their parents behaviour is OK, or you don't.'

I'm pretty sure that you don't. I'm not so sure about Theresa May though; I suspect she didn't see her proposal in those terms, and didn't understand the possible issues even when they were pointed out to her.

A bit reminiscent of another lady Tory PM I could mention, but I may be extrapolating a bit
2
Postmanpat on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'either you think punishing children for their parents behaviour is OK, or you don't.'

> I'm pretty sure that you don't. I'm not so sure about Theresa May though; I suspect she didn't see her proposal in those terms, and didn't understand the possible issues even when they were pointed out to her.
>

As I suggested earlier. I think her and her department were rushing around desperately looking for any idea they could for identifying and disincentivising illegal immigrants. Hence the vans. Not their finest ideas.

As for May on immigration. I am not clear whether she really believes it should come down to tens of thousands or was just doing her job or she thinks that this is what the public wants so acts on it. I fear the former and that is rather depressing.
1
andyfallsoff - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

> ...illegal immigrants are put to the top of the queue in other situations (e.g. housing) as they're classed as vulnerable.

Are they? I don't think that is true; can you provide any evidence to support this?

As far as I am aware, there is a general duty to assist people who are genuinely homeless, but that doesn't favour people on grounds of immigration status. There are ten categories of "priority need" for housing under the Housing Act 1996 (and subsequent statutory instruments) but none of them relate to immigration status. In fact, the position is against immigrants - in law, if you have a home in any country you aren't classed as "homeless" for these purposes.

I do worry that a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment is down to misconceptions like this. If you think that immigrants get a better deal than UK residents (whereas they actually get a worse one) of course you will be more likely to support measures which discriminate against them in other ways, as it seems like evening the playing field.
1
MG - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

You sound suspiciously like an expert. And you are bringing facts to the table. I'd watch it, they'll be coming for you soon.
1
thomasadixon - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Are they? I don't think that is true; can you provide any evidence to support this?

They're classed as unintentionally homeless, and so are higher up the queue because of that. I didn't mean *because* they're illegal, it is because of associated reasons that are always there for those in their position. That wasn't clear, sorry.

> As far as I am aware, there is a general duty to assist people who are genuinely homeless, but that doesn't favour people on grounds of immigration status. There are ten categories of "priority need" for housing under the Housing Act 1996 (and subsequent statutory instruments) but none of them relate to immigration status. In fact, the position is against immigrants - in law, if you have a home in any country you aren't classed as "homeless" for these purposes.

I worked (well, volunteered) in a homeless charity helping people with the legal aspects of looking for housing, and I'm happy I've got enough knowledge here to comment, although I'm not an expert. If you're an asylum seeker then you've not got a home you can be in elsewhere, by definition. If you're illegal how would the government show that you have a home elsewhere?
Postmanpat on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I do worry that a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment is down to misconceptions like this. If you think that immigrants get a better deal than UK residents (whereas they actually get a worse one) of course you will be more likely to support measures which discriminate against them in other ways, as it seems like evening the playing field.
>
I think I am right in saying that decades ago social housing was allocated largely on the basis of a waiting list. This was changed by legislation basing allocation on need. The result was that many people on the waiting list interpreted this as favouring people who hadn't been "waiting" long, manyof whom were immigrants. Hence the feeling that the system "favoured" immigrants.

Even now, it is likely that new arrivals from poor countries are going to come high on the "needs" basis and therefore get housing allocated ahead of existing "locals".

So the system doesn't favour migrants but one can see why people interpret it as doing so.

Bob Hughes - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

> ... illegal immigrants are put to the top of the queue in other situations (e.g. housing) as they're classed as vulnerable...

There was a brouhaha a few years back about legal migrants getting put to the top of the queue - a highly dubious a claim. But i haven't seen anywhere a suggestion that illegal immigrants are getting put to the top of housing queues.

Quite the opposite. David Cameron announced rules to ensure that priority is given to local people when allocating social housing. For private renters, landlords are supposed to check their tenants passports and visa status to make sure they are not letting flats to illegal immigrants.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tough-new-housing-rules-to-control-immigration
1
Bob Hughes - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

> They're classed as unintentionally homeless, and so are higher up the queue because of that. I didn't mean *because* they're illegal, it is because of associated reasons that are always there for those in their position. That wasn't clear, sorry.

But the fact that they are illegal immigrants makes them uneligible for help. e.g. this from South Croydon:

https://www.croydon.gov.uk/housing/optadv/homeless

Being eligible for assistance means you are entitled to help with housing from a local authority. Although most UK residents are eligible for such help, some people from abroad are not. You may not be eligible if:
you are a visitor to this country
you are a foreign student or sponsored immigrant
you are an illegal immigrant

the Home Office has refused you asylum
you are not habitually resident in the UK or Ireland



andyfallsoff - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

I've also volunteered assisting with the homeless, giving free legal advice. What I realised from doing so was how the system includes various measures that make it harder for an immigrant to obtain help, by comparison to another person in the same situation.

The point I made above (not as clearly as I could have done, apologies) related to "intentional" homelessness - i.e. you are intentionally homeless if you have a home anywhere in the world, and the relevant council can (and will) use that to deny assistance (even if e.g. you have no money and can't get to the other country to use that accommodation).

I just don't really see how the system helps immigrants any more than anyone else. They get the same help, or less, as anyone else - it's harder for them to demonstrate "local connection" (necessary for social housing) as they aren't as likely to have links to the area; and they can be refused help if they are illegally here (as noted above). If what you are saying is, they tend to be in greater need and we have a priority based system, well that may be true. But I don't see how that is unfair.

I personally think it would be fairly shocking to allocate emergency housing assistance without taking into account need - would you rather see more vulnerable people out on the streets just because they weren't born here?
andyfallsoff - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think that's probably a good summary of how some issues arise. Personally, however, I think that is the fairer system, for the reasons I give below.

Something I saw quoted recently from a friend in Turkey - a disabled child begging there was making a point of showing an ID card to demonstrate that they were Turkish, rather than Syrian, because they presumed people would be more generous. It just makes me very sad - is that the kind of world we want to live in?
thomasadixon - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:

You *may* not be eligible, or you may be, depending.

The local aspect was a relevant factor before Cameron's legislation, and is still a relevant factor, but it's only one factor among many. Asylum seeker (so almost certainly illegal immigrant) with kids and you're well above a single local.

Anyway, the thread's about school places, any info on that? If you're given a house near a school do you jump to the top of the list? Probably you'll jump locals that are now further away than you and don't have any siblings in the school since you're closer, and so have a higher priority.
thomasadixon - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I've also volunteered assisting with the homeless, giving free legal advice. What I realised from doing so was how the system includes various measures that make it harder for an immigrant to obtain help, by comparison to another person in the same situation.

Such as?

> The point I made above (not as clearly as I could have done, apologies) related to "intentional" homelessness - i.e. you are intentionally homeless if you have a home anywhere in the world, and the relevant council can (and will) use that to deny assistance (even if e.g. you have no money and can't get to the other country to use that accommodation).

I know. Shocking tbh how easily you can be "intentionally" homeless.

> I just don't really see how the system helps immigrants any more than anyone else. They get the same help, or less, as anyone else - it's harder for them to demonstrate "local connection" (necessary for social housing) as they aren't as likely to have links to the area; and they can be refused help if they are illegally here (as noted above). If what you are saying is, they tend to be in greater need and we have a priority based system, well that may be true. But I don't see how that is unfair.

All I said was that the way priorities work in housing meant that illegal immigrants can jump over people already here and already in need, nothing about whether it was fair/right/whatever. I imagine the same is true for school places.

> I personally think it would be fairly shocking to allocate emergency housing assistance without taking into account need - would you rather see more vulnerable people out on the streets just because they weren't born here?

Of course you have to take into account need. I'd rather that people who chose to come here illegally were removed from the country (or prevented from entering in the first place), and so vulnerable people now on the streets because they are lower priority were able to be housed.
Big Ger - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> OK let's extrapolate TM's Big Idea. There's all these people who really want to come to the UK for a variety of reasons, none of them valid obviously, because all they want to do is leave their friends, family, homeland and culture and come to a damp cold foggy isle where they will be strangers but be able to live the life of riley on our extraordinarily generous benefits system - £36 per week. OK, got it.

> So to discourage that we are going to punish their children by discouraging them/not allowing them to go to school. Got that too. I'm not sure what the children will think, but yes that could be a way of discouraging parents. 'Come here and your children will be excluded from any education whatsoever while the Home Office wheels grind slowly to deport you.' (The fact that the countries that they will eventually be returned to will be further impoverished by returning schoolchildren who have missed vital stages in their education and therefore encourage MORE migration in the future is more of a long term problem, so can safely be ignored.)

> But why stop there? Why not do what the Belgians did in the Congo - why not chop the children's hands off to discourage the parents? (OK in the Congo it was to 'encourage' the parents, but it's the same principle.) That will really send a message that illegal immigrants aren't welcome. Sorted.


Oh god, a whole spiel of made up fantasy, well done.

Let's look at the question again, this is your chance for a second answer, no conferring, no looking at other people's papers, your sixty seconds starts now; the actual question was...

Ok, who and when do we say; "sorry that's it, we've taken a few thousand, no more mate" to?

There are 3 million kids under 14 yrs old in Somalia, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)

There are 8 million kids under 14 yrs old in Syria, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)

There are 40 million kids under 14 yrs old in Nigeria, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)

Or are you saying we should only allow in those with the money and ability to make it to the UK?



.
MG - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

How do you propose stopping those sufficiently desperate from arriving? And if they do get here anyway, what do you propose doing? Leave their children uneducated, without medical care or housing?
Big Ger - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

> How do you propose stopping those sufficiently desperate from arriving? And if they do get here anyway, what do you propose doing? Leave their children uneducated, without medical care or housing?

Hello? Sorry, there seems to be a fault on the line; where have I said I would stop people from arriving?

Pete Pozman posited that we shoudl allow "a few thousand" in, so best ask him.
Jim C - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> 'Many (like you) seem to think that all migration should be legal and so obviously any moves to remove illegal migrants are wrong, although you're not honest enough to admit it. '

. (Free movement within the EU is a rather different kettle of fish, however.

We should be clear the right is not for anyone to move freely as they like, it is for WORKERS.

"Freedom of movement for WORKERS shall be secured within the Community.
Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between WORKERS of the Member States as regards , EMPLOYMENT remuneration and other conditions of WORK and EMPLOYMENT
It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of EMPLOYMENT actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;( WORK)
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of EMPLOYMENT in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been EMPLOYED in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service"
Post edited at 22:28
MG - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Hello? Sorry, there seems to be a fault on the line; where have I said I would stop people from arriving?

Just above e.g. "There are 40 million kids under 14 yrs old in Nigeria, should we let all them in, (and their parents, natch.)"



Jim C - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:


> Pete Pozman posited that we shoudl allow "a few thousand" in, so best ask him.

I understand the few thousand was a record high this year, so Pete can feel good about himself .
Controlled immigration is sensible, fair and good for everyone, uncontrolled is just not living in the real world, it's a unlimited supply, with a very limited resource .





Big Ger - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

That was a question to Pete Pozman.
Big Ger - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> Controlled immigration is sensible, fair and good for everyone, uncontrolled is just not living in the real world, it's a unlimited supply, with a very limited resource .

Racist!!!

;-)

Obviously far too sensible a point. What about asylum seekers?
Post edited at 23:06
1
Big Ger - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Just to complicate matters;

> Europol has warned that militants from so-called Islamic State (IS) will aim to step up attacks on European targets, as they face defeat in the Middle East. The European police force says more foreign fighters will try to come back to Europe, and "several dozen" capable of attacks could already be there.

> It says that IS militants now prefer soft targets, and there is now a greater emphasis on "lone actors" such as the perpetrator of the lorry attack in Nice in July. It warns that some Syrian refugees in Europe may be vulnerable to recruitment by extremists who infiltrate refugee camps.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38179653
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jim C - on 02 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Racist!!!

> ;-)

> Obviously far too sensible a point. What about asylum seekers?

asylum seekers should ask for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.
Under the Dublin Regulation, an asylum seeker has to apply for asylum in the first EU country they entered, and, if they cross borders to another country after being fingerprinted, they can be returned to the former.

What the UK gets is 'Asylum shoppers' , those that continue to travel through many safe countries to claim asylum in their country of choice.
TobyA on 03 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> asylum seekers should ask for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.

> Under the Dublin Regulation, an asylum seeker has to apply for asylum in the first EU country they entered, and, if they cross borders to another country after being fingerprinted, they can be returned to the former.

You correctly point out what the Dublin Regulations say, but that is EU policy, not international law. As far as I understand it there is no obligation under international law for refugees to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach - a refugee needs protection under the treaties and can select the country they want to find protection in on that basis.

You are pro-Brexit aren't you? Do you know if we will no longer follow the Dublin regulations once we leave?
RomTheBear on 03 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Even now, it is likely that new arrivals from poor countries are going to come high on the "needs" basis and therefore get housing allocated ahead of existing "locals".

Utter bullshit, immigrants are less likely to be unemployed, and therefore a lot less likely to use social housing.
Indeed they are vastly underrepresented in social housing.
The only immigrant category that is over represented are non-EEA foreign born who have been in the country for more than 5 years.
Post edited at 15:08
4
Big Ger - on 03 Dec 2016
Jim C - on 03 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:


> Utter bullshit, immigrants are less likely to be unemployed, and therefore a lot less likely to use social housing.

Oh dear, Big Ger, has proved you have not first checked your facts , but have decided instead to rely on your knowledge of immigration.
1
Jim C - on 03 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Racist!!!
;-)

interestingly, on a night out last week I was walking in Glasgow on the way home walking to the station with a Polish chap, I stopped and gave some money to a street beggar, who thanked me , the Polish chap , who had stopped too, then told me off for giving money to a Rumanian. ( there was certainly an accent, he may well have been right)
1
Big Ger - on 03 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/characteristics-and-outcomes-of-migrants-in-the-uk-labour-market/

Since 1993, the employment rate for migrants has been lower than that of UK-born individuals. In recent years, the difference between migrant and UK-born employment rates has narrowed for men, but has stayed constant among women
Post edited at 21:46
Postmanpat on 03 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Utter bullshit, immigrants are less likely to be unemployed, and therefore a lot less likely to use social housing.

>
Oh Rommy sweetheart. It's that reading problem again isn't it? You didn't spot the key words did you: "immigrants from POOR countries".

Incidentally, here's an interesting question: which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?
Post edited at 22:20
1
Pete Pozman - on 03 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Message for Big Ger. I made my feelings clear way back in this thread. I think on topics like this it's best to go for a Trumpian response. So I'll stick with my gut which is telling me that it's wrong to mess children, any children, about where education is concerned.
4
aln - on 03 Dec 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Message for Big Ger.

Don't encourage him.
2
Big Ger - on 03 Dec 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> So I'll stick with my gut which is telling me that it's wrong to mess children, any children, about where education is concerned.

Nice sentiments, but the practicality is left unexplored, aka; "fine words butter no parsnips."

3
RomTheBear on 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> Oh dear, Big Ger, has proved you have not first checked your facts , but have decided instead to rely on your knowledge of immigration.

No, he's talking about all migration, which is nonsense in this context given that non-EU immigrants are not entitled to social housing in the majority of cases. Unemployment rates amongst EU immigrants are lower.
Post edited at 11:17
3
RomTheBear on 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Oh Rommy sweetheart. It's that reading problem again isn't it? You didn't spot the key words did you: "immigrants from POOR countries".

Stop assuming I misread. I know exactly what you meant. And you are wrong. Eligibility to social housing is based on needs in most case, not on whether you're from a poor or a rich country.
EU immigrants from the poorer EU countries have low rates of unemployment.

> Incidentally, here's an interesting question: which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?

I have no clue, it seems to be a nonsensical question. But cricket is a boring game, that is a certainty.
Post edited at 11:24
3
Jim C - on 04 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> No, he's talking about all migration, which is nonsense in this context given that non-EU immigrants are not entitled to social housing in the majority of cases. Unemployment rates amongst EU immigrants are lower.

I'm a thick Brexiteer Rom ,if you want to convince me of that , you will need to explain your assertion , with pictures, perhaps graphs, statistics. Proof.
Post edited at 11:26
BnB - on 04 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> I have no clue, it seems to be a nonsensical question. But cricket is a boring game, that is a certainty.

Until you understand why this is a misapprehension, all that knowledge of yours is going to waste. Cricket is a simulacrum of life and an examination of character. The fact that it can resemble a treadmill more than an entertainment is part of the whole point. The likely absence of a clear result, the importance of the toss, the arcane rules which can see a batsman "not out" when the ball is going on to hit the stumps, the grinding down of an opponent by prolonging an innings at the expense of spectacle, the bullying of the batsman to test his resolve. All these reflect a person's experience of life with its injustices, frustrations and occasional triumphs. A test match isn't a game, it's a narrative.
Post edited at 11:46
Postmanpat on 04 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Stop assuming I misread. I know exactly what you meant. And you are wrong. Eligibility to social housing is based on needs in most case, not on whether you're from a poor or a rich country.
>
You mean exactly as I wrote? 16.23. friday "decades ago social housing was allocated largely on the basis of a waiting list. This was changed by legislation basing allocation on need."

You are absolutely extraordinary!

> EU immigrants from the poorer EU countries have low rates of unemployment.

And from Somalia and Bangladesh?

> I have no clue, it seems to be a nonsensical question. But cricket is a boring game, that is a certainty.

Come on, answer the question.
Post edited at 12:13
1
Big Ger - on 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Have you ever tried to teach a cod to sing Wagner's Ring Cycle?
Postmanpat on 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Have you ever tried to teach a cod to sing Wagner's Ring Cycle?

Might be easier
Big Ger - on 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

And more productive.
johncoxmysteriously - on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

>I am not clear whether she really believes it should come down to tens of thousands or was just doing her job or she thinks that this is what the public wants so acts on it. I fear the former and that is rather depressing.

Oh, really? I'm confident it's the latter. I don't think TM has much political idea in mind just now rather than obtaining the votes of the nationalist far right before they become an even more serious political force than they already are.

jcm
2
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> You mean exactly as I wrote? 16.23. friday "decades ago social housing was allocated largely on the basis of a waiting list. This was changed by legislation basing allocation on need."

Indeed, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

> And from Somalia and Bangladesh?

For the most part someone from Somalia or Bangladesh would not be able to come into the country at all unless they have a seriously good job, or a family partner with significant income, and even if they managed to do so by some miracle, they would not be allowed to have access to social housing (or any recourse to public funds, in fact).


> Come on, answer the question.

I did ! I told you, I have no clue, how the f*ck should I know ? Not sure what that has to do with anything, you seem obssessed.
Post edited at 07:12
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Indeed, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Lol. So either you didn't read the whole post or you didn't understand the point being made. Jaw hits desk....

What the hell did you think I meant when I said that social housing had moved to a needs based system and that gave the unintentional impression to locals that it favoured immigrants?

> For the most part someone from Somalia or Bangladesh would not be able to come into the country at all unless they have a seriously good job, or a family partner with significant income, and even if they managed to do so by some miracle, they would not be allowed to have access to social housing (or any recourse to public funds, in fact).
>
So how do explain that an estimated 41% of the population of Bangalseshi origin and 80% of Somali origin lived in social housing? (sourse:migration watch 2005)

> I did ! I told you, I have no clue, how the f*ck should I know ? Not sure what that has to do with anything, you seem obssessed.
>
It's a probability question. You claim to be be good at that. Come on, switch the great Rom cereberum on!
Post edited at 07:30
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


> Oh, really? I'm confident it's the latter. I don't think TM has much political idea in mind just now rather than obtaining the votes of the nationalist far right before they become an even more serious political force than they already are.

>
Otherwise known as listening to the electorate. Mind you, they're all morons so best to ignore them. That should work.
1
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Lol. So either you didn't read the whole post or you didn't understand the point being made. Jaw hits desk....

> What the hell did you think I meant when I said that social housing had moved to a needs based system and that gave the unintentional impression to locals that it favoured immigrants?

Because the premise of your argument is that immigrants from poor countries somehow take more social housing because its needs based. It's no true, as for the most part, they are not entitled to it, and those from EU countries to a large extent don't need it as much as natives
It's well studied, what gives the unintentional impression that immigrant take up social housing is that they are more likely to live in privately rented accommodation, which are often in the same tennenents as those used for social housing.

> So how do explain that an estimated 41% of the population of Bangalseshi origin and 80% of Somali origin lived in social housing? (sourse:migration watch 2005)

So you're referring to a 2005 stat and people who presumably came a long time ago, probably became citizens, and well before immigration policy has made it near impossible for non-eu nationals to get social housing.
In that case, yes, but that is rather irrelevant to the current allocation of social housing.

> It's a probability question. You claim to be be good at that. Come on, switch the great Rom cereberum on!

I can't estimate probability on something I have no data on and no knowledge of.
Post edited at 09:24
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Because the premise of your argument is that immigrants from poor countries somehow take more social housing because its needs based. It's no true, as for the most part, they are not entitled to it, and those from EU countries to a large extent don't need it as much as natives

> It's well studied, what gives the unintentional impression that immigrant take up social housing is that they are more likely to live in privately rented accommodation, which are often in the same tennenents as those used for social housing.
>
Two points, firstly if it was true in 2005 and it was, then those impressions will have had a lasting impact. Secondly, people born in Zimbabwe,Uganda,Nigeria, Iran ,Jamaica, Ghana, Portugal Bangladesh, Turkey and Somalia were all substantially more likely to love in social housing than those born in the UK.

Thirdly, it still basically true now.

The Centrepiece survey (2014) estimates that 90% of immigrants are in categories that would make them eligible for social housing (if they meets the needs requirement). UK citizens (foreign born), Non EU foreign born, and non 8 East European EU area are all more likely to live in social housing than UK born. What you are confused by is that immigrants from the 8 East European countries are less likely to live in social housing. They use private rental accommodation. But they are an exception. It's not about them so don't try and narrow it down to them.

None of this means there is preferential access for immigrants, simply that a greater proportion of them meet the needs requirement.


> I can't estimate probability on something I have no data on and no knowledge of.

I'll give you a clue. Cricket is a mass participation sport in India. It is barely played in China. Does that help?
Post edited at 11:07
1
ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Two points, firstly if it was true in 2005 and it was, then those impressions will have had a lasting impact. Secondly, people born in Zimbabwe ,Uganda,Nigeria, Iran ,Jamaica, Ghana, Portugal Bangladesh, Turkey and Somalia were all substantially more likely to love in social housing than those born in the UK.

> The Centrepiece survey (2014) estimates that 90% of immigrants are in categories that would make them eligible for social housing (if they meets the needs requirement). UK citizens (foreign born), Non EU foreign born, and non 8 East European EU area are all more likely to live in social housing than UK born. What you are confused by is that immigrants from the 8 East European countries are less likely to live in social housing. They use private rental accommodation. But they are an exception. It's not about them so don't try and narrow it down to them.

> None of this means there is preferential access for immigrants, simply that a greater proportion of them meet the needs requirement.

They obviously don't, given that non-eu, are for the most part, banned from using social housing.
I guess it all depends as to whether you are talking about the current policy, or the policy ten or 20 years ago.
I assumed we were talking about the current situation as this seem most relevant. If not, fine.

> I'll give you a clue. Cricket is a mass participation sport in India. It is barely played in China. Does that help ?

Not really, it just tells me that at if I pick a person in India at random, he or she is more likely than a person picked at random in China to play cricket.
Post edited at 11:40
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> They obviously don't, given that non-eu, are for the most part, banned from using social housing.
>
What are you referring to ? Anyone who has indefinite leave to remain and is habitually resident in the UK is eligible (on a needs basis) for social housing regardless of origin.

> I guess it all depends as to whether you are talking about the current policy, or the policy ten or 20 years ago.

> I assumed we were talking about the current situation as this seem most relevant. If not, fine.

I was talking about why people might have gained a false impression, and that this impression remains.

> Not really, it just tells me that at if I pick an Indian person at random, he or she is more likely than a Chinese person to play cricket.
>
So you don't think that somebody who plays cricket is more likely to score a 100 runs than somebody who doesn't?
Post edited at 11:55
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Anyone who has indefinite leave to remain and is habitually resident in the UK is eligible (on a needs basis) for social housing regardless of origin.

But at the moment, to get ILR, in most cases you'd need to have either a partner with enough income so that you wouldn't qualify, or have a well paid job.

> I was talking about why people might have gained a false impression, and that this impression remains.

That, we agree, although I think the reason for them having this false impression are not, IMO, for the most part, due to the the ones you cited.
I think the main reason is simply that immigrants lives in higher proportion in areas where there is social housing, I doubt that the relatively low proportion of people who qualified ten or 20 years ago has much influence today.

What I heard mostly recently was people complaining about Eastern Europeans "jumping the queue" on social housing, despite the fact that there is no queue per se, and despite the fact that they overall use it a lot less. But maybe it's just me.

> So you don't think that somebody who plays cricket is more likely to score a 100 runs than somebody who doesn't?

Yes, but I'm not sure whether that relates to your original question.

When you said " which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?"

What do you mean ? Any person at random, regardless of whether they play or not ? Or two person who already play cricket ? Or two person who don't play cricket but you give them a cricket bat and wait until one of them scores a century ?
Not sure what your thought experiment is and therefore I can't really answer your question.
Post edited at 12:16
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, but I'm not sure how that relates to your original question.

So I think we are agreed:

1) A random Indian boy is more likely to play cricket than a random Chinese boy.

2) A person who plays cricket is more likely to score a 100 a person who does not play cricket.

So, on the basis of the above: which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a random boy from India or a random boy from China?

1
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> So I think we are agreed:

> 1) A random Indian boy is more likely to play cricket than a random Chinese boy.

> 2) A person who plays cricket is more likely to score a 100 a person who does not play cricket.

> So, on the basis of the above: which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a random boy from India or a random boy from China?

On the basis of the above, all I can say is, that if I pick at random any person from India, I'm more likely to pick someone who has scored a century at cricket than if I pick at random someone from china.

But if you showed me a boy from India, and a boy from china, and asked which one is more likely to become good enough to score a century (i assume this was your question ?) I wouldn't know.
Post edited at 12:24
MG - on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

So, given they have comparable populations, an Indian boy is more likely to score a century. What's your punchline?
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

> So, given they have comparable populations, an Indian boy is more likely to score a century. What's your punchline?

He's not, he's just more likely to come across one.
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> On the basis of the above, all I can say is, that if I pick at random any person from India, I'm more likely to pick someone who has scored a century at cricket than if I pick at random someone from china.

> But if you showed me a boy from India, and a boy from china, and asked which one is more likely to score a century (i assume this was your question ?) I wouldn't know.

Presumably you wouldn't know because you think I may have picked one of the very few Chinese boys who play cricket?
1
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Presumably you wouldn't know because you think I may have picked one of the very few Chinese boys who play cricket?

For example.
The likelihood for a specific individual within a goup to achieve any particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the prevalence of such individuals in the group. Do we agree ?
Post edited at 12:38
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> For example.

> The likelihood for any individual within a goup to achieve any particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the prevalence of such individuals in the group. Do we agree ?

Ah, you've done one of your cheeky little edits at 12.24 radically changing your point.Anyway, so, you agree that a random Indian boy is more likely to to score a century than a random chinese boy?

Why is this, if not the much greater prevalence of cricket playing Indian boys
Post edited at 12:43
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> He's not, he's just more likely to come across one.

Why am I more likely to come across one?
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

> So, given they have comparable populations, an Indian boy is more likely to score a century. What's your punchline?

Bear with me. Apparently Rommy doesn't agree with your statement.
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Ah, you've done one of your cheeky little edits at 12.24 radically changing your point

Not at all

> Anyway, so, you agree that a random Indian boy is more likely to to score a century than a random chinese boy?

You are more likely to pick a random Indian boy who scores a century than you're likely to pick a random Chinese boy who scores one. That we agree I think.

But if you presented me with an Indian boy and a Chinese boy, without telling me anything else appart from their origin, I would not be able to say which one is more likely to score a century (I assume this was the premise of your thought experiment, correct me if I am wrong)
Post edited at 12:57
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Not at all

> You are more likely to pick a random Indian boy who scores a century than you're likely to pick a random Chinese boy who scores one.
>
Why?

> But if you presented me with an Indian boy and a Chinese boy, without telling me anything else, I would not be able to say who is more likely to score a century.

Why does it make a difference if I pick a random Chinese and Indian boy or you pick a random Chinese and Indian boy?

RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Why?

As you said, the prevalence of cricket players in India is higher so you're more likely to pick one.

> Why does it make a difference if I pick a random Chinese and Indian boy or you pick a random Chinese and Indian boy?

if I pick them at random, I know they've been picked at random. If you pick them at random and don't tell me, I'm missing a critical piece of information and can't say anything about their relative likelihood of playing cricket at all , and scoring a century.

Let me put the thought experiment back to you more clearly defined.

You need to hire a player for your cricket team, you are not allowed to watch them play.
I give you a choice between an Indian boy and a Chinese boy. I don't tell you anything about them or how they've been picked, appart from their nationality.

Which one do you think you should hire ?

Post edited at 13:10
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:


> You are more likely to pick a random Indian boy who scores a century than you're likely to pick a random Chinese boy who scores one. That we agree I think.
>
On the basis of the relative prevalence of Indian boys who who play cricket.(your post 12.59)

> But if you presented me with an Indian boy and a Chinese boy, without telling me anything else appart from their origin, I would not be able to say which one is more likely to score a century (I assume this was the premise of your thought experiment, correct me if I am wrong)

Why not: does the prevalence of Indian boys that play cricket as opposed to Chinese boy who play cricket different when I pick them randomly than when you pick them randomly or when I show you my random picks?

Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> As you said, the prevalence of cricket players in India is higher so you're more likely to pick one.

> if I pick them at random, I know they've been picked at random. If you pick them at random and don't tell me, I'm missing a critical piece of information and can't say anything about their relative likelihood of playing cricket at all , and scoring a century.
>
That is a differnet argument. As I suggested (12.26) your point is not about the likelihood of a random Indian or Chinese scoring a century it's about whether I have honestly picked them randomly or told you that? Why didn't you just say "yes" to my suggestion?

> Let me put the thought experiment back to you more clearly defined.

> You need to hire a player for your cricket team, you are not allowed to watch them play.

> I give you a choice between an Indian boy and a Chinese boy. I don't tell you anything about them or how they've been picked, appart from their nationality.

> Which one do you think you should hire ?

The Indian.
Post edited at 13:13
1
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> On the basis of the relative prevalence of Indian boys who who play cricket.(your post 12.59)

> Why not: does the prevalence of Indian boys that play cricket as opposed to Chinese boy who play cricket different when I pick them randomly than when you pick them randomly or when I show you my random picks?

No, but you don't get it, in your original question, I don't know that they've been picked purely randomly, you just asked me whether an Indian boy is more likely to score a century than a Chinese boy. Answer: I don't know.
Post edited at 13:20
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, bit you don't get it, in your original question, I don't know that they've been picked purely randomly.

See my 12.26 question.

It's a red herring. Let's assume I have told you they are randomly picked and I have told you so and that I am honest.
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The Indian.

Why ? You don't know they been picked randomly. I could have picked the best Chinese cricket player and picked an Indian boy who has never held a bat.


RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> See my 12.26 question.

> It's a red herring. Let's assume I have told you they are randomly picked and I have told you so and that I am honest.

It's not a red herring, you can't make a rational decision without knowing they've been picked at pure random.
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Why ? You don't know they been picked randomly. I could have picked the best Chinese cricket player and picked an Indian boy who has never held a bat.

Sheesh. As above, that is not the point of the bloody discussion. Stick to the point.

The point of the discussion is whether a random Indian boy is more likely to score a century than a random Chinese boy, not whether you've been told they random or believe they are random!!!!

RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Sheesh. As above, that is not the point of the bloody discussion. Stick to the point.

> The point of the discussion is whether a random Indian boy is more likely to score a century than a random Chinese boy, not whether you've been told they random or believe they are random!!!!

Ok, so your point is different from the original question then ?

If you ask me "I picked at pure random an Indian boy and a Chinese boy, which one is more likely to have scored a century" my answer is : the Indian boy.

But you asked me "which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?" Answer is : I don't know.
Post edited at 13:25
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Ok, so your point is different from the original question then ?

No. Come on, amaze me, what is the difference between "which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?" and "is a random Indian boy is more likely to score a century than a random Chinese boy"

You're seriously going to claim that you didn't infer the word random? I mean , really?

Anyway now take "random" as implied.

What is your answer?
Post edited at 13:28
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Ok, so your point is different from the original question then ?

> If you ask me "I picked at pure random an Indian boy and a Chinese boy, which one is more likely to have scored a century" my answer is : the Indian boy.

> But you asked me "which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?" Answer is : I don't know.

So why didn't you say this when I asked you over an hour ago?
1
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So why didn't you say this when I asked you over an hour ago?

I gave exactly the same answer, that I didn't know.
MG - on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
Rom deliberate misunderstanding aside, why ask the question? You said it was interesting, on the face of it, it has an obvious answer.
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
Mary mother of Jesus, to this question at 12.26 "Presumably you wouldn't know because you think I may have picked one of the very few Chinese boys who play cricket?"
Post edited at 13:48
1
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> No. Come on, amaze me, what is the difference between "which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?" and "is a random Indian boy is more likely to score a century than a random Chinese boy"

> You're seriously going to claim that you didn't infer the word random? I mean , really?

Can you explain why on earth I should assume they've been picked randomly. You just present me two individuals, one Indian, one Chinese, and ask me which one I think is most likely to score a century. Of course the only rational answer is : I don't know.

> What is your answer?

If you tell me they have been picked at random, then I'm more likely to get someone who has scored a century if I chose the Indian (based on your evidence that they are more prevalent in India)
Post edited at 13:36
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Mary mother of Jesus, to this question at 12.16 "Presumably you wouldn't know because you think I may have picked one of the very few Chinese boys who play cricket?"

Indeed, so you agree with me then ? I wouldn't be able to know, unless you tell me, they've been picked at random.

Not sure how to satisfy you, when I take your word to the letter, you complain, when I try to infer what you meant, you complain as well. Make up your mind.
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Can you explain why on earth I should assume they've been picked randomly. You just present me two individuals, one Indian, one Chinese, and ask me which one I think is most likely to score a century. Of course the only rational answer is : I don't know.
>
Actually it's not. Given that if they are picked randomly then an Indian is more likely to score a century than a chinese so if you have only their origin to go on that rational thing is to use that information and choose the Indian.

But forget that.

> If you tell me they have been picked at random, then I'm more likely to get someone who has scored a century if I chose the Indian (based on your evidence that they are more prevalent in India)

Hurrah!!!!

So, moving swiftly on. If you randomly choose a random LGBT man and a random straight person, randomly, which is more likely to be HIV positive?
Post edited at 13:50
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Indeed, so you agree with me then ? I wouldn't be able to know, unless you tell me, they've been picked at random.

>
I agree that if you choose not to recognise that the choice of person was random you could raise that objection. But you didn't agree that this was your objection so I naturally assumed that this was not your point and inquired as to what your point was.
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Indeed, so you agree with me then ? I wouldn't be able to know, unless you tell me, they've been picked at random.

> Not sure how to satisfy you, when I take your word to the letter, you complain, when I try to infer what you meant, you complain as well. Make up your mind.

My point is: make sensible inferences, and if you are asked what you have inferred then answer the question.
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:
> Rom deliberate misunderstanding aside, why ask the question? You said it was interesting, on the face of it, it has an obvious answer.

See 13.43. I refers to a previous discussion I thought (wrongly it seems ) that by making the principle for a non controversial issue he might get it for the original one.
Post edited at 13:51
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Actually it's not. Given that if they are picked randomly then an Indian is more likely to score a century than a chinese so if you have only their origin to go on that rational thing is to use that information and choose the Indian.

You're wrong, if you don't know how they've been picked, there is nothing to go on. No rational decision can be made, you might as well toss a coin.


> But forget that.

> Hurrah!!!!

hurrah for what ? For a rather obvious point of mathematics that is irrelevant to this thread ?

> So, moving swiftly on. If you randomly choose a random LGBT am and a random straight person, randomly, which is more likely to be HIV positive?

I don't know. Is there a reliable source showing worldwide prevalence of HIV amongst gay people is different ?
My first question would be : when and where ?
Post edited at 13:56
1
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> See 13.43. I refers to a previous discussion I thought (wrongly it seems ) that by making the principle for a non controversial issue he might get it for the original one.

Except you've made exactly the same logical fallacy as in the original argument. You mistook the prevalence of a characteristic with a group with the likelihood of an individual within a group to develop a characteristic.
The classic big mistake that has propped racists and discriminatory arguments for centuries.
Post edited at 13:58
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> You're wrong, if you don't know how they've been picked, there is nothing to go on. No rational decision can be made, you might as well toss a coin.
>
Whatever

> hurrah for what ? For a rather obvious point of mathematics that is irrelevant to this thread ?

For you acknowledging an obvious point of mathematics rather than buggering about missing the point.

> I don't know. Is there a reliable source showing worldwide prevalence of HIV amongst gay people is different ?

Well, here we go:

Penetrative Anal sex is defined as a primary high risk activity in transmitting HIV.

Gay and bisexual men partake in penetrative anal sex significantly more than straight people or lesbians.

What might we conclude about the likelihood of one randomly picked from the former group to one randomly picked from the latter contracting HIV?
Post edited at 14:19
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Except you've made exactly the same logical fallacy as in the original argument. You mistook the prevalence of a characteristic with a group with the likelihood of an individual within a group to develop a characteristic.

>
So it's no longer an obvious point of mathematics?

I'm quite happy for you to explain the statistical or grammatical point you may or may not be making but if so why don't you do it,as opposed to wasting time on obscure pedantry?
Post edited at 14:04
1
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Whatever

> For you acknowledging an obvious point of mathematics rather than buggering about missing the point.

> Well, here we go:

> Penetrative Anal sex is defined as a primary high risk activity in transmitting HIV.

> Gay and bisexual men partake in penetrative anal sex significantly more than straight people or lesbians.

> What might we conclude about the likelihood of one randomly picked from the former group to one randomly picked from the latter?

Fron these two pieces of information, I can conclude nothing, as there could be other factor at play in transmission and behaviour we don't know about.
So you would need empirical evidence of the prevalence between those two groups to conclude anything.
Post edited at 14:09
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Fron these two pieces of information, I can conclude nothing, as there could be other factor at play in transmission and behaviour we don't know about.

> So you would need empirical evidence of the prevalence between those two groups to conclude anything.

No, don't avoid the point. Treat those two assertions as fact. The first is medically established and the second is confirmed by surveys. If you really think that either of the assertions are actually false then clearly the we cannot conclude anything.

So, for the sake of argument, accept the assertions as true, what do you conclude?
Post edited at 14:13
1
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So it's no longer an obvious point of mathematics?

you're mixing up the two question you asked.

> I'm quite happy for you to explain the statistical or grammatical point you may or may not be making but if so why don't you do it,as opposed to wasting time on obscure pedantry?

Meh, I think I've given you the point I was making pretty early on, summed up here :

"The likelihood for a specific individual within a goup to achieve any particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the prevalence of such individuals in the group. Do we agree ?
"

instead you decided to alter your original thought experiment until it became no more than a trivial statement of the obvious that nobody ever argued against.


1
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> No, don't avoid the point. Treat those two assertions as fact. The first is medically established and the second is confirmed by surveys. If you really think that either of the assertions are actually false then clearly the we cannot conclude anything.

> So, for the sake of argument, accept the assertions as true, what do you conclude?

No you didn't get it, i'm not questionning whether these two assertions are true.

I'm saying, that, they are not sufficient to come to the conclusion you make. All you've done is highlited a factor favouring a higher prevalence of HIV amongst Gay and bisexual.
There could well be other factors pushing in the other direction, so you can't conclude from those two assertions alone that this is the case.
I'm not saying it is not true, it could well be that the two factors you identified are the overwhelming ones in this particular case, just highliting why your reasoning is flawed.
Post edited at 15:43
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> you're mixing up the two question you asked.

> Meh, I think I've given you the point I was making pretty early on, summed up here :

> "The likelihood for a specific individual within a goup to achieve any particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the prevalence of such individuals in the group. Do we agree ?

> "

> instead you decided to alter your original thought experiment until it became no more than a trivial statement of the obvious that nobody ever argued against.
>
On the contrary, you have changed the basis of the question. I asked you a simple question: based on the premise that by and large Indians play cricket and Chinese don't, is a (random) Indian more likely than a (random) Chinese to score a century. It's a simple arithmetic question. It's got a simple answer: yes.

For reasons that one can only guess you chose to rephrase the question, thus implicitly not accepting the "trivial statement of the obvious" that I asked. Can you elaborate on what you infer from the phrase? If we made it "The likelihood for a random individual within a group to achieve any particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the prevalence of such individuals in the group" what would you say?
Post edited at 17:30
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No you didn't get it, i'm not questionning whether these two assertions are true.

> I'm saying, that, they are not sufficient to come to the conclusion you make. All you've done is highlited a factor favouring a higher prevalence of HIV amongst Gay and bisexual.

> There could well be other factors pushing in the other direction, so you can't conclude from those two assertions alone that this is the case.

> I'm not saying it is not true, it could well be that the two factors you identified are the overwhelming ones in this particular case, just highliting why your reasoning is flawed.
>
So, if we inserted the clause "all other things being equal" would you accept the conclusion?

sebastian dangerfield on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Playing devils advocate for a second, why should an immigrant child be at the front of the queue for a school place?

You mean playing make-up-a-position-nobody's-holding-and-argue-against-that.

1
Hugh J - on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> You mean playing make-up-a-position-nobody's-holding-and-argue-against-that.

Isn't that the point of playing the devil's advocat?
2
sebastian dangerfield on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It's not a red herring, you can't make a rational decision without knowing they've been picked at pure random.

Yes you can. If you know nothing about how they've been picked but you know that a greater proportion of Indians are good at rcicket, it's more likely that the Indian's better at cricket.

Take another example to make this clear. A fully grown man and a ten year old kid, you know nothing about how they've been picked or anything else about them - which do you expect to be heavier?

Not often I say this, Pat's is right, you're wrong.
1
sebastian dangerfield on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

> Isn't that the point of playing the devil's advocat?

Nope. Devil's advocate is where 1. you argue against a position that someone *is* holding; and 2. where you don't necessarilly agree with the argument you're making.

BJ has missed on both points. On 1. the OP suggested children of immigrants should not be put to the back of the queue, BJ pretends he's saying they should get special treatment and be put to the front. On 2. Bj agrees with his own argument.
sebastian dangerfield on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Give up - Rom's into his fullishness to deep to admit he's talking nonsense.
1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> Give up - Rom's into his fullishness to deep to admit he's talking nonsense.

Thankyou. I may be my own worst enemy...
ads.ukclimbing.com
Hugh J - on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> Not often I say this, Pat's is right, you're wrong.

Who gives a flying . . . .

They are both full of themselves, talking semantics and missing the point of the thread, It's just completely boring pseudo-intellectual BS.

Get real and discuss the real issues instead of this self-centred oneupmanship.
1
KevinD - on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

> Who gives a flying . . . .

has the question of the cricket player been answered since if so I would like to know the best volleyball player.
1
Hugh J - on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Or the best Grand Tour cyclist - a Frenchman or a Kenyan?

Or the best President - an American or a Kenyan?
sebastian dangerfield on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

I think you're taking this a bit to seriously, Hugh!
sebastian dangerfield on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
And you're often Rom
Post edited at 19:03
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

Ah, just passing the day. Now you're all back you can go back to the topic .
Rob Exile Ward on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Hang on, didn't I just read that you were trying to get your profile deleted???!! Wouldn't not posting be a good start?
1
FactorXXX - on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

They are both full of themselves, talking semantics and missing the point of the thread, It's just completely boring pseudo-intellectual BS.

It's like two bald men arguing over a comb...

Big Ger - on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Lol. So either you didn't read the whole post or you didn't understand the point being made.

There is another explanation, a far more likely one....

Find yourself a decent sized cod mate.

1
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> There is another explanation, a far more likely one....

> Find yourself a decent sized cod mate.

It has the advantage that I could simply boff the cod on the head
Postmanpat on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

> They are both full of themselves, talking semantics and missing the point of the thread, It's just completely boring pseudo-intellectual BS.

> It's like two bald men arguing over a comb...

Oi, that's a very sensitive subject
sebastian dangerfield on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

That's the idea of getting my profile deleted!
RomTheBear on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
> Yes you can. If you know nothing about how they've been picked but you know that a greater proportion of Indians are good at rcicket, it's more likely that the Indian's better at cricket.

Sorry but completely wrong. If you don't know they've been picked randomly, all you've got is two outcomes possible, I've been given a Chinese cricket god, or a Indian cricket god, and only one choice possible. That's a probability of 0.5 to make the right choice.


> Take another example to make this clear. A fully grown man and a ten year old kid, you know nothing about how they've been picked or anything else about them - which do you expect to be heavier?

> Not often I say this, Pat's is right, you're wrong.

Same as above. you're wrong.

You've got a pot A of 9 blue marbles and 1 yellow marble, and another pot B of 9 yellow marbles and 1 blue marble.
I then take secretly out a blue marble out of one of the two pots.
What is the probability that I took the blue marble from pot A ?
Post edited at 23:30
1
Big Ger - on 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Meanwhile, back in reality land;

> Segregation and social exclusion are at "worrying levels" and are fuelling inequality in some areas of Britain, a report has found. Women in some communities are denied "even their basic rights as British residents", the Casey Review said. Dame Louise Casey accused public bodies of ignoring or condoning divisive or harmful religious practices for fear of being called racist. Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said he would study the findings "closely".
3
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So, if we inserted the clause "all other things being equal" would you accept the conclusion?

Yes, but of course you'd have to prove that all other things are being equal, which is probably impossible.
Hence the need for empirical data, in this case.
1
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, but of course you'd have to prove that all other things are being equal, which is probably impossible.

> Hence the need for empirical data, in this case.

Rommy, generous chap that I am, I'll give you some free careers advice. Stick to the IT and don't try and become a cricket selector or an HIV policy maker
2
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

"You mean playing make-up-a-position-nobody's-holding-and-argue-against-that. "

err, devils advocate - a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument

so yes.
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Rommy, generous chap that I am, I'll give you some free careers advice. Stick to the IT and don't try and become a cricket selector or an HIV policy maker

I think you should be the one taking the advice home.
There is reason why there are anti-discrimnation laws, and a reason why medical science uses carefully collected empirical data : that's because half baked assumptions don't work, especially when they are based on a logical fallacy and incorrect use of probabilities.
Post edited at 10:54
2
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> I think you should be the one taking the advice home.

> There is reason why there are anti-discrimnation laws, and a reason why medical science uses carefully collected empirical data : that's because half baked assumptions don't work, especially when they are based on a logical fallacy and incorrect use of probabilities.

Sometimes a rational deduction saves lives. That's why HIV programmes target MSMs.

Incidentally, have you thought of taking this up with the BBC claim that black people are less likely than white people to become Prime Minister?
Post edited at 11:15
1
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Sometimes a rational deduction saves lives. That's why HIV programmes target MSMs.

What you were making was not a rational deduction, it was an assumption that the factor you identified was the overwhelming one. I'm guessing this assumption is probably backed up by empirical data, but without it, it would just be an assumption.

And yes, as you noted, HIV programmes seem to target MSM - not necessarily gay men - and that's because they rely on scientifically evidence, not half baked assumptions.

> Incidentally, have you thought of taking this up with the BBC claim that black people are less likely than white people to become Prime Minister?

This BBC documentary was so full of misinterpretation of statistics and logical fallacies, I had to stop watching. But, it's the BBC, no surprise there.
They have NO EVIDENCE that a given black person is systematically less likely than another white person to become PM, all they have is evidence that this is less likely to happen.

As far as I can tell all they've shown with their stats is that black peoples are underrepresented in posisitions that would make them likely to become PM.
From that they jumped to the conclusion that there must be systematic racial bias at the various points of selection. It's not necessarily the case (it may be true, but their data does not allow to say that)
Post edited at 11:47
1
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> What you were making was not a rational deduction, it was an assumption that the fzctor you identified was the overwhelming one. I'm guessing this assumption is probably backed up by empirical data, bit without it, it would just be an assumption.

Which was a rational deduction. Obviously it is backed up by empirical data. You missed a job opportunity in the tobacco industry in the 1960s.

> And yes, as you noted, HIV programmes seem to target MSM - not necessarily gay men.

Do you think that gay men are more likely to be MSN that the general population?

> This BBC documentary was so full of misinterpretation of statistics and logical fallacies, I had to stop watching. But, it's the BBC, no surprise there.

Actually, I can agree with you on that

RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Which was a rational deduction. Obviously it is backed up by empirical data. You missed a job opportunity in the tobacco industry in the 1960s.

Not it wasn't a rational deduction, you missed a key variable.

If I tell you : "most cats like milk, I drink milk, therefore it is likely that I am a cat" is that a correct rational deduction according to you ?

> Do you think that gay men are more likely to be MSN that the general population?

Provably, although it doesn't mean it's particularly useful.

> Actually, I can agree with you on that

finally ! So do you agree that the likelihood of an individual within a given group to achieve a particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the overall likelihood of any randomly selected individual in the same group from achieving that outcome ?
Post edited at 11:59
1
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Not it wasn't a rational deduction, you missed a key variable.

> If I tell you : "most cats like milk, I drink milk, therefore it is likely that I am a cat" is that a correct rational deduction according to you ?

>
But the deduction is not that. It is "most cats drink milk, I am a cat, therefore it is likely that I drink milk"

The reason being that the majority of things drinking milk are not cats.

> finally ! So do you agree that the likelihood of an individual within a given group to achieve a particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the overall likelihood of any randomly selected individual in the same group from achieving that outcome ?

We've been over the use of the word "random" a million times. It was implied initially and should be taken as read.

So do you agree that the likelihood of a random individual within a given group to achieve a particular outcome is linked to the overall likelihood of any randomly selected individual in the same group from achieving that outcome ?

MG - on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

If I asked you: which is more likely one day to catch a mouse, a blue tit chick or a barn owl chick, would you really, honestly not take the implication the two would be picked at random? If you wouldn't your use of language is different to practically everyone else's.

c.f. "which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a boy from India or a boy from China?"

RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> But the deduction is not that. It is "most cats drink milk, I am a cat, therefore it is likely that I drink milk"

> The reason being that the majority of things drinking milk are not cats.

> We've been over the use of the word "random" a million times. It was implied initially and should be taken as read.

Yes, but you didn't seem to get it, as you then argued that even if we didn't know how the two potential players were selected, you would chose the Indian, assuming that the prevalence of cricket players in India was linked to the likelihood of this particular individual to be good at cricket.

As I pointed out, it's a bad assumption based on a logical fallacy, weirdly enough you seem to agree with me when I point out the same fallacy in the BBC documentary.

> So do you agree that the likelihood of a random individual within a given group to achieve a particular outcome is linked to the overall likelihood of any randomly selected individual in the same group from achieving that outcome ?

Well yes, of course, if by that you actually mean the probability of picking randomly such an induvidual.
Post edited at 12:24
2
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Yes, but you didn't seem to get it, as you then argued that even if we didn't know how the two potential players were selected, you would chose the Indian, assuming that the prevalence of cricket players in India was linked to the likelihood of this particular individual to be good at cricket.

I said that they were randomly selected randomly on a random basis . Can you please direct me to a textbook on statistics that explains your point because you are not doing it very well. Your while argument seems to depend on the randomly selected individual not actually being randomly selected.

> As I pointed out, it's a bad assumption based on a logical fallacy, weirdly enough you seem to agree with me when I point out the same fallacy in the BBC documentary.

When did I do that? I agreed that the BBC documentary was full of fallacies but I didn't say the basic premise that a black person was less likely to become PM than a white person was a fallacy.

> Well yes, of course, if by that you actually mean the probability of picking randomly such an induvidual.

So are you trying to pretend that there is a difference between the phrase "random individual " and "Picking randomly such an individual"
Post edited at 12:44
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But the deduction is not that. It is "most cats drink milk, I am a cat, therefore it is likely that I drink milk"

> The reason being that the majority of things drinking milk are not cats.

nope, it wasn't. Your deduction was closer to this :

"Milk causes indigestion in most beings, most cats drink more milk than most being, therefore I conclude that the rate of indigestion in cats is higher than in most beings."

It looks like a rational deduction, but it isn't, it is in fact based on an assumption that cats are no different than most being. It may or may not be true but you can deduct this from just that.


1
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> nope, it wasn't. Your deduction was closer to this :

> "Milk causes indigestion in most beings, most cats drink more milk than most being, therefore I conclude that the rate of indigestion in cats is higher than in most beings."

>
No, it's this " Milk causes indigestion in all beings, most cats drink more milk than most being, therefore, all other things being equal, I conclude that the rate of indigestion in cats is higher than in most beings."
Post edited at 13:03
1
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> When did I do that? I agreed that the BBC documentary was full of fallacies but I didn't say the basic premise that a black person was less likely to become PM than a white person was a fallacy.

Let me ask the question again :

do you agree that the likelihood of an individual within a given group to achieve a particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the overall likelihood of any randomly selected individual in the same group from achieving that outcome ?

> So are you trying to pretend that there is a difference between the phrase "random individual " and "Picking randomly such an individual"

Well of course there is, the probability of a given randomly selected individual to achieve something is not necessarily the same as the probability to pick such an individual

Let me ask you this question :

I randomly picked a cricket player. It so happens that I have picked, by pure chance, the best cricket player in the world.
Do you think his likelihood to score a century has anything to do with the likelihood for me to have picked him ? Or are they two distinct and unrelated probabilities ?
Post edited at 13:13
1
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:



> Well of course there is, the probability of a given randomly selected individual to achieve something is not necessarily the same as the probability to pick such an individual
>
If there is one cricketer in a group of ten people, and you randomly pick a random indivudual randomly out of that ten, what is your chance of picking the cricketer?
1
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No, it's this " Milk causes indigestion in all beings, most cats drink more milk than most being, therefore, all other things being equal, I conclude that the rate of indigestion in cats is higher than in most beings."

Indeed, but you had to add "all other things being equal" to make it a valid deduction, otherwise, it is an assumption.
1
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Let me ask the question again :

> do you agree that the likelihood of an individual within a given group to achieve a particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the overall likelihood of any randomly selected individual in the same group from achieving that outcome ?

>
All other things being equal amongst the random individuals in the group, no I don't.

All you seem to doing is arguing is that if you drill down and get more information on individual members of the group then the likelihood changes.
Post edited at 13:20
1
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Indeed, but you had to add "all other things being equal" to make it a valid deduction, otherwise, it is an assumption.

As I did hours and hours and hours ago. You can spend you life trying to pick up on things that, unless you are just trolling, are obviously implied. You could also just add the clause that you think is necessary but not explicit and thus reach agreement, instead of deliberately misunderstanding to argue a non point.
2
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> If there is one cricketer in a group of ten people, and you randomly pick a random indivudual randomly out of that ten, what is your chance of picking the cricketer?

One out of ten. Of course. But it doesn't tell me anything about the likelihood of that person I picked to score a century. These are two distinct probabilities.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat: "Incidentally, have you thought of taking this up with the BBC claim that black people are less likely than white people to become Prime Minister?"

How about a senior member of the Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction party(APRC) or a security guard from Argos in Holloway, North London for President of Gambia



RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> As I did hours and hours and hours ago. You can spend you life trying to pick up on things that, unless you are just trolling, are obviously implied. You could also just add the clause that you think is necessary but not explicit and thus reach agreement, instead of deliberately misunderstanding to argue a non point.

No, I didn't misunderstand your point, on the contrary, I pointed out what was missing.
I'm not trolling, you're obviously making a theoretical point of logic, so I just pointed out what was missing in your deduction.
Post edited at 13:33
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, I didn't misunderstand your point, on the contrary, I pointed out what was missing.

> I'm not trolling, you're obviously making a theoretical point of logic, so I just pointed out what was missing in your deduction.

If you didn't misunderstand my point must be trolling because it's been made clear to you that the words "random" and "all other things being equal" should be taken as read. If you think they need repeating every time, fine, but instead of arguing that the point is wrong just add "as long as the picks and poeple are random and all other things are equal."

Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> One out of ten. Of course. But it doesn't tell me anything about the likelihood of that person I picked to score a century. These are two distinct probabilities.

So if five out ten cricketers score a century, what is the chance, all other things being equal, of randomly picking a person randomly, all other things being equal,out of the random group of ten, who will score a century, all other things being equal?
Post edited at 13:59
2
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> If you didn't misunderstand my point must be trolling because it's been made clear to you that the words "random" and "all other things being equal" should be taken as read. If you think they need repeating every time, fine, but instead of arguing that the point is wrong just add "as long as the picks and poeple are random and all other things are equal."

Which I what I've said repeteadly, but for some reason, every time I asked whether you agree with that unless you know this you reasoning is wrong, you disagree.
1
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Which I what I've said repeteadly, but for some reason, every time I asked whether you agree with that unless you know this you reasoning is wrong, you disagree.

Where did I do that ? I clarified it several times. If that's your sole point then why didn't you say so?
1
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So if five out ten cricketers score a century, what is the chance, all other things being equal, of randomly picking a person randomly, all other things being equal,out of the random group of ten, who will score a century, all other things being equal?

In that case, the answer depends on whether your group of ten is representative of all cricketeers. If that's indeed what you mean by "all others things being equal", then the answer is in your definition : 5 out of 10.
2
RyanOsborne - on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat and RomTheBear:

Can you guys just meet up and have a fight, or have sex or whatever you need to do?
Lusk - on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
In reply to Postmanpat

This is a message from your respective bosses,
"If you two don't get some work done today, you're fired."
Post edited at 15:15
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> In that case, the answer depends on whether your group of ten is representative of all cricketeers. If that's indeed what you mean by "all others things being equal", then the answer is in your definition : 5 out of 10.

You've misunderstood. We are talking about the original random group of 10 of which one is one random member is a cricketer. Other things being equal, in the random group of which one member is a cricketer, what is the chance of a person scoring a century, all other things being equal. We know that five out ten cricketers score a century, all other things being equal.
What is the chance of a member of the random group, all other things being equal, scoring a century?
What is the random chance of you picking a person (in the random group of ten) who scores a century, all other things being equal?
2
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> All other things being equal amongst the random individuals in the group, no I don't.

Then you are categorically, mathematically wrong, and haven't understood one thing I've said.
Post edited at 15:27
2
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> You've misunderstood. We are talking about the original random group of 10 of which one is one random member is a cricketer.

I see, one other crucial detail that was "implied"...

> What is the chance of a member of the random group, all other things being equal, scoring a century?

i don't get it, you just said above that it's a group of ten with only one cricketer, so it's not a random group.
Which is it ?
Post edited at 15:25
2
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Then you are categorically wrong, and haven't understood one thing I've said.

No, because you are failing to explain it. It seems to hang on the difference between a "particular individual" (a random one, randomly chosen-as I keep repeating) and a "randomly selected individual"
You have not explained what that difference is.


If If you link to an article on probability I'll look at that.
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I see, one other crucial detail that was "implied"...

> i don't get it, you just said above that it's a group of ten with only one cricketer, so it's not a random group.

> Which is it ?

Jesus wept. It's the original group of ten I referred to . It has one cricketer.Lets just say a random generation picked ten and the only thing it well tell the chooser is that,a s random luck had it, one is a cricketer.

I repeat the question on that basis. What's your answer?
2
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

"What's your answer?"

Is it "How else do you think we get a tie on Gladstone Small?"


RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> No, because you are failing to explain it. It seems to hang on the difference between a "particular individual" (a random one, randomly chosen-as I keep repeating) and a "randomly selected individual"

No, it doesn't make a difference.

> You have not explained what that difference is.

> If If you link to an article on probability I'll look at that.

I think it's more the high school textbook you need to look at. These can be independents probabilities.

Let me illustrate.

I take a bunch of ten coins, toss them all on the floor.
I get 7 heads and 3 tails, and I let you know that result.

I then ask you to blindly pick one of those coins on the floor.

What is the probability that you picked, at random, one of the coin that was heads ?

Now if you were to throw that same coin again, what would be the probability that you get heads ?
Post edited at 16:05
1
ads.ukclimbing.com
KevinD - on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Jesus wept. It's the original group of ten I referred to . It has one cricketer.Lets just say a random generation picked
> I repeat the question on that basis. What's your answer?

597984164949856
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, it doesn't make a difference.

> I think it's more the high school textbook you need to look at. These can be independents probabilities.

> Let me illustrate.

> I take a bunch of ten coins, toss them all on the floor.

> Now if you were to throw that same coin again, what would be the probability that you get heads ?

50/ 50. But its not the same. The coins always, all things being blah blah, have an equal chance of beung hesfs or tails.
A cricketer obviously doesnt have the same chance as a non cricketer of scoring a century. So once the ricket has bern identified the probabilities change

I suspected you were barking up that s tree but couldnt believe you wouldn't recognise the difference.
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> 50/ 50. But its not the same. The coins always, all things being blah blah, have an equal chance of beung hesfs or tails.

Exactly, so why do you disagree when I say that the probability for a given individual in one group to achieve an outcome is not necessarily linked to the prevalence of individuals achieving that outcome in the group.(as illustrated in the coin example).
Post edited at 16:37
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Exactly, so why do you disagree when I say that the probability for a given individual in one group to achieve an outcome is not necessarily linked to the prevalence of individuals achieving that outcome in the group.(as illustrated in the coin example).

Because I'm not clear what you are actually trying to say. If the prevalence is the result of an inbuilt increased probability as it would be in the case of "fixed" coin or a cricketer as opposed to a non-cricketer then the prevalence is an indication that the probability is different.
To repeat my point above, all other things being equal (ie.they are not "fixed" coins will always have a 50/50 chance of landing heads or tails). That is not true of a cricketer versus a non cricketer of scoring a century.

Show me a link and I'll read it.
Post edited at 18:03
KevinD - on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Show me a link and I'll read it.

http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Thanks

Where's Sharpnose when you need him? He's a probability buff
Post edited at 18:09
MG - on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
What are you using that to illustrate? Picking one coin and tossing it is the same, conceptually, as picking one Indian and seeing if he is a great batsman. In one case it is 50/50, in the other numberofgreatindianbatsman/numberofindians

Edit to avoid Rom pendantic misunderstanding. Coins obviously 1/2chance of heads; 50:50 being percentage chance of each result.

Edit 2: and yes, for indians, read Indian men!

Edit 3: add in lots of other things being equals, randoms, no trickeries to avoid Kevin's pedantry
Post edited at 18:29
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

> What are you using that to illustrate? Picking one coin and tossing it is the same, conceptually, as picking one Indian and seeing if he is a great batsman. In one case it is 50/50, in the other numberofgreatindianbatsman/numberofindians

That's rather what I thought......scratches head
KevinD - on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:
> Edit to avoid Rom pendantic misunderstanding. Coins obviously 1/2chance of heads; 50:50 being percentage chance of each result.

what if its a trick coin?
You cant avoid my pedantic misunderstanding.
Post edited at 18:27
MG - on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Sorted now!
KevinD - on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

> Sorted now!

what about the odds of it landing on edge? Surely we cant count that out entirely and need to decrease the 50%

rinse and repeat for a thousand posts and then start again with:

what about the odds of it landing on edge? Surely we cant count that out entirely and need to decrease the 50%
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> what if its a trick coin?

> You cant avoid my pedantic misunderstanding.

But you're supposed to go around in circles for at least ten posts before revealing your pedantic misunderstanding....
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Because I'm not clear what you are actually trying to say. If the prevalence is the result of an inbuilt increased probability as it would be in the case of "fixed" coin or a cricketer as opposed to a non-cricketer then the prevalence is an indication that the probability is different.

Yes, indeed, if the probability of two outcomes are dependent of each other, then the prevalence can be an indication. But it is not necessarily the case the that the probabilities are dependent.

That is exactly why in your initial example, the only way you could say that a particular Indian boy is more likely to score a century than the Chinese, is if you know that he is more likely to be a cricketeer than the Chinese.
Obviously you can't know that unless you know how they've been picked, do you agree ?

Sorry but it's pretty crystal clear, I can't make it any clearer, I've even illustrated it with a very simple example.
If you still don't get it, I think we can call it a day.
Post edited at 18:52
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, indeed, if the pribability of two outcomes are dependent of each other, then the prevalence is an indication. But it is not necessarily the case the the that the probabilities are dependent.
>
Odd grammar so I don't understand.

> Sorry but it's pretty crystal clear, I can't make it any clearer, I've even illustrated it with a very simple example.

>
But as has been pointed out to you, the simple example is simply irrelevant to the the examples under discussion, but if you can't understand that I can't make it any clearer. It does at least explain why you don't get it which is what I was trying to find out.

RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> But as has been pointed out to you, the simple example is simply irrelevant to the the examples under discussion, but if you can't understand that I can't make it any clearer. It does at least explain why you don't get it which is what I was trying to find out.

I wasn't referring to your stupid cricketeer example, ffs.
Do you see any mention of any cricketeer in this statement :

"do you agree that the likelihood of an individual within a given group to achieve a particular outcome is not necessarily linked to the overall likelihood of any randomly selected individual in the same group from achieving that outcome ?"

It is an important distinction, as mentioned before, the BBC documentary failed to make it and concluded that any black person was less likely to become PM, simply based on stats of the group, without demonstrating that the probabilities were interdependent.

Do you still disagree with that ? if you do, I think you need to revise basic logic and probabilities, any high school textbook would do.
Post edited at 19:06
MG - on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

This all stems from you not taking the word random as implied, as everyone else did, and would.
1
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:
> This all stems from you not taking the word random as implied, as everyone else did, and would.

If I had taken it as implied he probably would have accused me of putting words in his mouth, or misinterpreting what he says.
Of course it was rather futile to attempt to take his thought experiment as it was written, as he immediately accused me of misinterpreting anyway.
Post edited at 19:15
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I wasn't referring to your stupid cricketeer example, ffs.

> Do you see any mention of any cricketeer in this statement :

>
Well you should have been. The examples under discussion were crickets and HIV. We aren't disputing the coin example, but it is only tangentially to the examples under discussion.

Tell me why you have added the "necessarily" to you question. How are you changing the meaning?

1
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> If I had taken it as implied he probably would have accused me of putting words in his mouth, or misinterpreting what he says.

>
Well ask then, instead of going around in circles for hours whilst I try and work out what you are missing!
1
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Well you should have been. The examples under discussion were crickets and HIV. We aren't disputing the coin example, but it is only tangentially to the examples under discussion.

The same applied to your cricketeer example until you added that the likelihood of the Indian being a cricketeer was higher.

> Tell me why you have added the "necessarily" to you question. How are you changing the meaning?

I have not added it, it was there all along, I simply put it in bold in the quote as you didn't seem to get it.
I now realise that you just seem to skip words or just not read carefully, which may explain why you are getting so confused.
Post edited at 19:33
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Well ask then, instead of going around in circles for hours whilst I try and work out what you are missing!

Thats exactly what I did yesterday... but you seem to have missed that as well, or seemed unable to move on from it.
Post edited at 19:32
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The same applied to your cricketeer example until you added that the likelihood of the Indian being a cricketeer was higher.
>
You mean at 10.58 on Monday morning ie.almost at the beginning of the discussion? And it's taken all the time for you to digest it?


> I have not added it, it was there all along, I simply put it in bold in the quote as you didn't seem to get it.

>
So what is the point of it? Are you just trying to say that there might be other factors at play? Is that it? We've been through that a million times with the phrase "all other things being equal"


Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Thats exactly what I did yesterday... but you seem to have missed that as well, or seemed unable to move on from it.

Yes, hours and hours after you'd been barking up the wrong tree! It was obvious but if it wasn't obvious to you at was at elast obviously a possibility so you could ahave asked straight off the bat just as you could have specified "all other things being equal".

To be honest , I don't believe you. I think that all along you been obsessing about the coin statistic and how you think it resembles the examples in question and therefore missing the point.
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> You mean at 10.58 on Monday morning ie.almost at the beginning of the discussion? And it's taken all the time for you to digest it?

no, I acknowledged it straight away and about five times.
It you who seem unable to move on and agree to my initial point regarding the likelihood of an outcome not being necessarily linked to the prevalence of the outcome at group level.

> So what is the point of it? Are you just trying to say that there might be other factors at play? Is that it? We've been through that a million times with the phrase "all other things being equal"

There doesnt need to be other factors (see the coin example).
You're getting confused between the two logical fallacies you are making.

Logical fallacy one : thinking outcome of an event is necessarily linked to the prevalence of that outcome amongst a group of events.

Logical fallacy two : confusing an induction with a deduction.
Post edited at 19:54
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> no, I acknowledged it straight away and about five times.
>
And then kept going back on your acceptance.

> It you who seem unable to move on and agree to my initial point regarding the likelihood of an outcome not being necessarily linked to the prevalence of the outcome at group level.
>
I've just asked you again what you imply by "not necessarily linked". Are you just trying to say that there might be other factors at play?

> There doesnt need to be other factors (see the coin example).
>
It has been pointed out to you why the coin example is not analogous. Could you reply to this?


1
ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> And then kept going back on your acceptance.

> I've just asked you again what you imply by "not necessarily linked". Are you just trying to say that there might be other factors at play?

No, that's not what I am trying to say. It just mean that the two probabilities are not necessarily dependent, there does not need to be other factors at play for the two probabilities being distinct (as in the example of the coin)

Frankly it's pretty simple.

> It has been pointed out to you why the coin example is not analogous. Could you reply to this?

It happens to be analogous to the original thought experiment (the one without the addition of knowing that the likelihood of the Indian being a cricket player is higher). But it was particularly relevant to the BBC do you mentioned,
Post edited at 20:08
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> No, that's not what I am trying to say. It just mean that the two probabilities are not necessarily dependent, there does not need to be other factors at play for the two probabilities being distinct (as in the example of the coin)

>
What do you mean by "dependent"?

> It is analogous to the original thought experiment (the one without the addition of kneeling that the likelihood of the Indian being a cricket player is higher). But it was mostly relevant to the BBC documentary.

There never was a discussion of the example without the addition of knowing that the likelihood of an Indian cricketer being a cricket player is higher. You said you knew nothing about cricket. I immediately explained that likelihood of an Indian cricketer being a cricket player is higher than for a Chinese(10.58 Monday), and then the discussion of the example began. You are now retrospectively pretending that you discussed the example without this knowledge. You didn't.
Post edited at 20:08
RomTheBear on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> What do you mean by "dependent"?

Dependent probability events.
For example a toss of a coin is not a dependent event from the the toss of ten other coins.

> There never was a discussion of the example without the addition of knowing that the likelihood of an Indian cricketer being a cricket player is higher. You said you knew nothing about cricket. I immediately explained that likelihood of an Indian cricketer being a cricket player is higher (10.58 Monday), and then the discussion of the example began. You are now retrospectively pretending that you discussed the example without this knowledge. You didn't.

No you simply said that cricket was a mass participation sport in India, which tells me nothing about the likelihood of the Indian boy in question, until you specified how he was selected.
Post edited at 20:12
Big Ger - on 06 Dec 2016
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Dependent probability events.

> For example a toss of a coin is not a dependent event from the the toss of ten other coins.

Lets replace "dependent on" with "influenced" by. Dependent is the wrong word.

So:which statement(s) do you disagree with:

1) A probability of the outcome toss of a coin is not influenced by the the toss of ten other coins.

2) (all other things being equal) the probability of a random person being found to play is cricket in a given country is influenced by the proportion of people playing cricket in his country?

3) (all other things being equal) the probability of a random person scoring a century is influenced by whether he plays cricket or not.





> No you simply said that cricket was a mass participation sport in India, which tells me nothing about the likelihood of the Indian boy in question, until you specified how he was selected.

So, just to clarify , the sentence "Cricket is a mass participation sport in India. It is barely played in China" doesn't tell you that "the likelihood of the Indian being a cricket player is higher". Really?



MG - on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Lets replace "dependent on" with "influenced" by. Dependent is the wrong word.

Dependent is the standard term in probability. For example choosing a card from pack changes the probabilities of what subsequent cards will be. This, however, is irrelevant to your cricket example.
Post edited at 20:45
Postmanpat on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:
> Dependent is the standard term in probability. For example choosing a card from pack changes the probabilities of what subsequent cards will be. This, however, is irrelevant to your cricket example.

Fair enough. That's why I asked.

By the way, if I'm missing something here, please let me know!!
Post edited at 21:00
MG - on 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Not that I can see, but seeing anything through Roms dust clouds is hard. ( I am far from an expert in probability, however).
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to MG:

> Dependent is the standard term in probability. For example choosing a card from pack changes the probabilities of what subsequent cards will be. This, however, is irrelevant to your cricket example.

I had moved on from this a long time ago as we both agree it wasn't relevant as long as you knew the likelihood of the Indian to be a cricket player was higher.
But somehow PP seem stuck on this.
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Lets replace "dependent on" with "influenced" by. Dependent is the wrong word.

> So:which statement(s) do you disagree with:

> 1) A probability of the outcome toss of a coin is not influenced by the the toss of ten other coins.

Yes

> 2) (all other things being equal) the probability of a random person being found to play is cricket in a given country is influenced by the proportion of people playing cricket in his country?

Yes

> 3) (all other things being equal) the probability of a random person scoring a century is influenced by whether he plays cricket or not.

Yes

> So, just to clarify , the sentence "Cricket is a mass participation sport in India. It is barely played in China" doesn't tell you that "the likelihood of the Indian being a cricket player is higher". Really?

No, it doesn't tell you that, unless you know how both players were picked.
I thought we agreed on this.

It may seem to you an irrelevant semantic point, however it's pretty important, given that this kind of misunderstanding can lead to all sorts of discriminations between individuals, there are plenty of example of people regularly confusing the likelihood of an individual from achieving a particular outcome with the prevalence of that outcome within whatever group they are from.

The BBC documentary you mentioned was a clear example of that.
BTW that mistake has been made even by eminent social scientists in the past.
Post edited at 08:48
1
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I had moved on from this a long time ago as we both agree it wasn't relevant as long as you knew the likelihood of the Indian to be a cricket player was higher.

> But somehow PP seem stuck on this.

So why bring up the coin example late in the day? You knew the likelihood of the Indian to be a cricket player was higher almost from the get go.
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
When you say "yes" I am assuming you mean that you disagree with the statements. Is that so?

>Yes

Why? You said "For example a toss of a coin is not a dependent event from the the toss of ten other coins." Is that not true?


> Yes

Why?

> Yes

Why?

> No, it doesn't tell you that, unless you know how both individuals have been picked.
>
Just answer the question. For the sake of this question just forget about picking anybody. It wasn't mentioned or implied in this question. (Like I said, if you were unclear then ask.)

I'll repeat it for you ,"So, just to clarify , the sentence "Cricket is a mass participation sport in India. It is barely played in China" doesn't tell you that "the likelihood of the Indian being a cricket player is higher"?
Post edited at 08:54
Big Ger - on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

They are nice battered and deep fried too.
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> They are nice battered and deep fried too.

It's truly mind boggling.
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> So why bring up the coin example late in the day? You knew the likelihood of the Indian to be a cricket player was higher almost from the get go.

Because I was simply trying to Illustrate why the likelihood of an individual to achieve a particular outcome is not necessarily dependent on the prevalence of that outcome in the group this individual is part of.

Do you, finally, agree with me on that ? Or not ?
Post edited at 08:52
1
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Why?

Because they are independent events

> Why?

Sheesh, do I really have to explain what a probability is ?
The probability is the number of possible desired outcomes divided by the total number of possible outcomes.
In that case the probability to pick an Indian who plays cricket is therefore equal to the number of Indians who play crickets didived by the total number of Indians.

> Just answer the question. For the sake of this question just forget about picking anybody. It wasn't mentioned or implied in this question. (Like I said, if you were unclear then ask.)

Which I did.

> I'll repeat it for you ,"So, just to clarify , the sentence "Cricket is a mass participation sport in India. It is barely played in China" doesn't tell you that "the likelihood of the Indian being a cricket player is higher"?

No, it doesn't tell you that (unless you imply that he was picked at random, and the question is in fact "what is the probability to have picked one"
Post edited at 09:01
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Because I was simply trying to Illustrate why the likelihood of an individual to achieve a particular outcome is not necessarily dependent on the prevalence of that outcome in the group this individual is part of.

> Do you, finally, agree with me on that ? Or not ?

If you have a set of 10 rigged coins, so that 70% of tosses will result in a "heads", what is the chance of a coin landing on heads?
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Because they are independent events

> Sheesh, do I really have to explain what a probability is ?

As per my edit. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the the three statements?
> Which I did.

Where?

> No, it doesn't tell you that (unless you imply that he was picked at random, and the question is in fact "what is the probability to have picked one"
>
So, having used the terms "likely to" "probability of" interchangeably yourself you now say they are different.

Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Because I was simply trying to Illustrate why the likelihood of an individual to achieve a particular outcome is not necessarily dependent on the prevalence of that outcome in the group this individual is part of.

>

Do you mean "likelihood of" or "probability of"
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> If you have a set of 10 rigged coins, so that 70% of tosses will result in a "heads", what is the chance of a coin landing on heads?

Just so we don't get bogged in questions of semantic, do you mean, exactly one coin, or at least one ?
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Do you mean "likelihood of" or "probability of"

By likelihood of I mean "probability of".
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:


> So, having used the terms "likely to" "probability of" interchangeably yourself you now say they are different.

No I don't say that.

Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> By likelihood of I mean "probability of".

So now they are the interchangeable whereas at 9.01 they weren't?
Post edited at 09:15
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Just so we don't get bogged in questions of semantic, do you mean, exactly one coin, or at least one ?

Give an answer for both.

Also, can you clarify whether your "yes" was agreeing or disagreeing with the three statements?
Post edited at 09:17
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> So now they are the interchangeable whereas at 9.01 they weren't?

You seem to have misunderstood why I rephrased your initial question. It has noting to do with the term likelihood.

If you give me an Indian and a Chinese, if You ask me:

"What is the probability of the Indian scoring a century"

It is not the same as asking me :

"What is the probability that I picked an Indian scoring a century"

However if you add the the Indian was picked randomly, then the answer to those two different questions become identical.

(See again the example of the coin for the difference between the two)
Post edited at 09:23
ads.ukclimbing.com
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> You seem to have misunderstood why I rephrased your initial question. It has noting to do with the term likelihood

God alone knows what its relevance is. I asked the question that I wanted to ask.

Are you trying to say, in you inimitable way, that there is a difference between "the probability of an Indian playing cricket" and the "probability of picking an Indian who plays cricket?"
Post edited at 09:24
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> God alone knows what its relevance is. I asked the question that I wanted to ask.

And I have given you the correct answer, based on the question you asked me.
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> However if you add the the Indian was picked randomly, then the answer to those two different questions become identical.

>
Yes ,and we established (i thought we had) that this was taken as read. I said so about twenty times last night as I did that "all other things being equal" should be taken as read.
Anyway, my sentnce didn't mention picking so how a person was picked was not relevant. Why don't you understan that?
Post edited at 09:28
Big Ger - on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'd settle for Verdi, if Wagner is too hard.
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> And I have given you the correct answer, based on the question you asked me.

No, here is the probability. On the theoretical basis that 40% of Indians play cricket and on the theoretical basis that there the population of India is 1000. There is a 4 out 10 probability of an Indian playing cricket, or picked randomly, of you picking an Indian who plays cricket.

In China only 1% of people play cricket. So if the total population of China is 1,000 then the probability of a Chinese playing cricket , or picked randomly, of you picking a chinese who plays cricket, is 0.1 in 10.

So, is there more probability of an Indian, or more probability of a Chinese playing cricket ? (randomly, all other things being equal etc)

Has the coin dropped yet?
Post edited at 09:37
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat: "Has the coin dropped yet?"

it should do because he wrote "In that case the probability to pick an Indian who plays cricket is therefore equal to the number of Indians who play crickets didived by the total number of Indians."

Which is the same as saying the probability to pick a Chinese who plays cricket is therefore equal to the number of chinese who play cricket divided by the total number of Chinese.

I think RtB is just being obtuse to wind you up (and you have bitten , so here we are days later on the same point)

RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Give an answer for both

I come up with p 0.9999941 for the probability to throw at least one head.
And 0.000137781 to throw exactly one.

> Also, can you clarify whether your "yes" was agreeing or disagreeing with the three statements?

Agreeing, of course.
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> I think RtB is just being obtuse to wind you up (and you have bitten , so here we are days later on the same point)

I'd like to think that were the case but I fear that he really doesn't get it. I can't tell.

RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I'd like to think that were the case but I fear that he really doesn't get it. I can't tell.

How is that being obtuse, I clearly identified what was missing in your original question, and you corrected it.
Somehow you keep coming back to it.
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yes ,and we established (i thought we had) that this was taken as read. I said so about twenty times last night as I did that "all other things being equal" should be taken as read.

> Anyway, my sentnce didn't mention picking so how a person was picked was not relevant. Why don't you understan that?

Of course it's relevant. If it's not mentioned you don't know the probability of the Indian being a cricket player.
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> "Has the coin dropped yet?"

> it should do because he wrote "In that case the probability to pick an Indian who plays cricket is therefore equal to the number of Indians who play crickets didived by the total number of Indians."

> Which is the same as saying the probability to pick a Chinese who plays cricket is therefore equal to the number of chinese who play cricket divided by the total number of Chinese.

thanks, you have understood in one post what PP didn't seem to get in two days.
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I come up with p 0.9999941 for the probability to throw at least one head.

> And 0.000137781 to throw exactly one.

>
Can you show your working please?

> Agreeing, of course.

So, on the basis that you agree with 2 and 3 below:

(2) (all other things being equal) the probability of a random person being found to play is cricket in a given country is influenced by the proportion of people playing cricket in his country?

> 3) (all other things being equal) the probability of a random person scoring a century is influenced by whether he plays cricket or not.)

Would you agree that (all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?





Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> thanks, you have understood in one post what PP didn't seem to get in two days.

That soiund you heard was my jaw hitting the floor. I got it from the get go. You have been pissing around trying to obscure this by pretending not to recognise the implied "random" or "all other things being equal" or mistakenly suing the coin example.
Post edited at 10:33
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> That soiund you heard was my jaw hitting the floor. I got it from the get go. You have been pissing around trying to obscure this by pretending not to recognise the implied "random" or "all other things being equal" or mistakenly suing the coin example.

You did, as far as I am concerned, we agreed on your cricketeer example since yersterday. Not sure why you keep coming back to it again and again.
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You did, as far as I am concerned, we agreed on your cricketeer example since yersterday. Not sure why you keep coming back to it again and again.

Good, so we're agreed that the only issue was inserting the phrases "random" and "all other things being equal"?
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Can you show your working please?

The probability mass function is (n k) * p^k * (1-p)^(n-k)

(n k) being the binomial coefficient (unusual notation being used here due to forum limitation)

So the probability of getting exactly one is

(n k) * p^k * (1-p)^(n-k)

With p=0.7 and k=1 and n=10

And the probability of getting at least one is equal to

1-( (n k) * p^k * (1-p)^(n-k))

With p=0.7 and k=0 and n=10


> So, on the basis that you agree with 2 and 3 below:

> (2) (all other things being equal) the probability of a random person being found to play is cricket in a given country is influenced by the proportion of people playing cricket in his country?

Yes (again)

> Would you agree that (all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?

Yes (again)
Post edited at 10:52
1
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Good, so we're agreed that the only issue was inserting the phrases "random"

Yes, I keep telling you that

> and "all other things being equal"?

No need for that in your cricketeer example.
Needed in your HIV example.
Post edited at 10:53
1
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:



> With p=0.7 and k=0 and n=10

Excellent work.


> Yes (again)

> Yes (again)

So bjartur was right. It was just a wund up. That's a relief. Excellent work!

1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Can somebody dig a big pit so that we can bulldoze what's left of this thread into it?

KevinD - on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Can somebody dig a big pit so that we can bulldoze what's left of this thread into it?

We have an Indian and a Chinese person available to dig the hole. Which one should we pick?
Lusk - on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> We have an Indian and a Chinese person available to dig the hole. Which one should we pick?

Toss a coin.
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
> Can somebody dig a big pit so that we can bulldoze what's left of this thread into it?

I thought the thread touched on some interesting points of probabilities and how they can be frequently misused.
Post edited at 11:30
MonkeyPuzzle - on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

I thought the thread touched on some of the worse points of the computer keyboard and how they can be frequently misused.
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I thought the thread touched on some of the worse points of the computer keyboard and how they can be frequently misused.

I'm writing from a phone ;-p
MonkeyPuzzle - on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Wow. How many screens do you go through a month?

ads.ukclimbing.com
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I thought the thread touched on some interesting points of probabilities and how they can be frequently misused.

If your final position was the same as your original pisition all along What it mainly covered was (mis)communication and (mis)comprehension. As usual
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> If your final position was the same as your original pisition all along What it mainly covered was (mis)communication and (mis)comprehension. As usual

As usual with you.
Not sure why you kept arguing about something that was settled and kept disagreeing with something relatively trivial to understand.


Out of curiosity, just to see if you get it:

Indian people, on average, are much better at cricket than Chinese people.

If I pick randomly an Indian person, is he more likely to be better at cricket than a randomly selected Chinese person ?




Post edited at 21:01
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Randomly , all other things being equal?
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Randomly , all other things being equal?

Yes, all you know, is that both persons have been picked purely randomly, and that Indian people are way better on average at cricket than chinese people. No other factors at play.
Post edited at 21:17
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
On the basis, which I believe, that "the probability to pick an Indian who plays cricket is equal to the number of Indians who play crickets didived by the total number of Indians."

Which is the same as saying the probability to pick a Chinese who plays cricket is therefore equal to the number of chinese who play cricket divided by the total number of Chinese.

Then my answer is yes, as ive been trying to communicate to you for two plus daus. What is yours?
Post edited at 21:21
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:


> Then my answer is yes, as ive been trying to communicate to you for two plus daus. What is yours?

Wrong. The only answer possible is that you can't know.
You really didn't get it after all.
1
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Wrong. The only answer possible is that you can't know.

> You really didn't get it after all.

Yawn. So how does it differ to this?

>(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Yawn. So how does it differ to this?

> >(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?

It doesn't differ if taken in isolation (I answered yes to it earlier, but that was because of extra information in the statements before it)

Do you finally understand why the answer is that we don't know ?
Post edited at 21:50
1
Big Ger - on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I'd like to think that were the case but I fear that he really doesn't get it. I can't tell.

Or....
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It doesn't. (I answered yes to it earlier, wrongly it seems, sorry about that, this may what has been confusing you ?)

And you're wondering why i am not sure of your argument. (Mis)communication and (mis)understanding as i said.

RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> And you're wondering why i am not sure of your argument. (Mis)communication and (mis)understanding as i said.

See edit. I apologise if that statement was supposed to be taken in isolation, without the knowledge that a cricket player was more likely than a non cricket player to score a century.
(As usual when in I infer something you complain, when I don't, you complain)

I ask again, do you understand why your answer is wrong ?
Post edited at 21:55
1
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> See edit.

> I ask again, do you understand why we can't know ?

Go on.Tell me.

also tell me what u mean by 'kno
1
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Go on.Tell me.

The likelihood of the randomly picked individual to be better than average at cricket is not necessarily linked to the average level at cricket of the group he is randomly picked from.

Therefore the answer is that we can't tell (more specifically, we are missing a key variable to give an answer)

Does that make sense and do you agree ? Or do you still believe the randomly picked Indian is more likely to be better at cricket than the Chinese ?

(Addendum: I think we have found a new way for cricket to be boring)
Post edited at 22:14
1
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

>
On the theoretical basis that 40% of Indians play cricket and on the theoretical basis that there the population of India is 1000. There is a 4 out 10 probability of an Indian playing cricket, or picked randomly, of you picking an Indian who plays cricket.

In China only 1% of people play cricket. So if the total population of China is 1,000 then the probability of a Chinese playing cricket , or picked randomly, of you picking a chinese who plays cricket, is 0.1 in 10.

So, is there more probability of an Indian, or more probability of a Chinese playing cricket ? (randomly, all other things being equal etc)

Can you explain what is wrong with these statements?
1
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
without the knowledge that a cricket player was more likely than a non cricket player to score a century.

>
Really? I mean, really? And you really expect anyone reading this not to think you are not taking the piss?
Big Ger - on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Really? I mean, really? And you really expect anyone reading this not to think you are not taking the piss?

I don't think Rom is "taking the piss" at all.

Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> I don't think Rom is "taking the piss" at all.

What is your personal theory?Does it involve cod?
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Why don't you answer my question instead of replying with yet, another, unrelated question ?

Just so that we know whether you understood my point or not.

Post edited at 23:26
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> without the knowledge that a cricket player was more likely than a non cricket player to score a century.

> Really? I mean, really? And you really expect anyone reading this not to think you are not taking the piss?

What ? So it was meant to be taken with the knowledge that a cricket player was more likely than a non cricket player to score a century ? so I was right to infer that and my answer was correct and there was no misunderstanding then ?


Post edited at 23:29
1
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Why don't you answer my question instead of replying with yet, another, unrelated question ?

>
Answer it and we can find out
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> On the theoretical basis that 40% of Indians play cricket and on the theoretical basis that there the population of India is 1000. There is a 4 out 10 probability of an Indian playing cricket, or picked randomly, of you picking an Indian who plays cricket.

> In China only 1% of people play cricket. So if the total population of China is 1,000 then the probability of a Chinese playing cricket , or picked randomly, of you picking a chinese who plays cricket, is 0.1 in 10.

> So, is there more probability of an Indian, or more probability of a Chinese playing cricket ? (randomly, all other things being equal etc)

The probability to randomly pick an Indian who plays cricket is higher. It's in the definition.

Do you accept this does not mean that the likelihood of the randomly picked Indian scoring a century is not necessarily higher than the randomly picked Chinese ?

As an example, out of the 400 cricket players in India, there could be only two capable to score a century, and out of the 10 players in china, 4 players capable to score a century.

In which case, you'd have a higher likelihood to pick a Chinese player who will score a century than picking an Indian player scoring a century.

Does that make sense ? Do you understand why my answer to your very first question was that we can't tell ?
Post edited at 23:46
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> What ? So it was meant to be taken with the knowledge that a cricket player was more likely than a non cricket player to score a century ? so I was right to infer that and my answer was correct and there was no misunderstanding then ?

Of course it was "meant to be taken with the knowledge that a cricket player was more likely than a non cricket player to score a century ?"

What answer to what question?
2
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Of course it was "meant to be taken with the knowledge that a cricket player was more likely than a non cricket player to score a century ?"

Ok good, that how I took it initially and therefore the initial answer was correct.

> What answer to what question?

The one at 21.35.
Post edited at 23:43
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?
>
Your answer to this question, with the knowledge that a cricket player has more probability scoring a century than a non cricketer is "no, we cannot know".

Is that correct?

If so, can you produce a link to give the explanation for that answer?

RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?

> Your answer to this question, with the knowledge that a cricket player has more probability scoring a century than a non cricketer is "no, we cannot know".

> Is that correct?

Ffs, you do it on purpose, is the exact opposite. Try to pay attention a bit.

Any plan to answer my question, or will you keep dodging ?
Post edited at 23:56
ads.ukclimbing.com
Postmanpat on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Ffs, you do it on purpose, is the exact opposite. Try to pay attention a bit.

I simply repeated the question and the answer you said you gave. was it the wrong question or the wrong answer?

Have you changed your answer or are you taking the piss again?

Can I conclude that your answer to this question: "all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?"

is "yes"?
RomTheBear on 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Can I conclude that your answer to this question: "all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?"

> is "yes"?

Ok let's start from scratch.
The answer to this question (and only this question with no other information) is : we cannot know.

Do you understand why ?
Post edited at 00:02
Postmanpat on 08 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> You're wrong !

Is that a convoluted and evasive way of saying. "No, you can cannot conclude that.My answer to the question is "No"?

To make things clear. Is your reply to the question "all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?"

a)Yes

b)no
Post edited at 00:04
RomTheBear on 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> To make things clear. Is your reply to the question

> a)Yes

> b)no

No (in the sense that it is not necessarily higher, it does not exclude that it can be higher).
Or more simply put, we cannot know.

Do you understand why ? Do you need me to explain again ?
Post edited at 00:10
Postmanpat on 08 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> No (in the sense that it is not necessarily higher)

The "necessarily" being a word used to cover what possibility?

Why don't you provide a link to explain something that you cannot?
Post edited at 00:14
RomTheBear on 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> The "necessarily" being a word used to cover what possibility?

The possibility that although there is more chance to pick an Indian playing cricket than a Chinese playing cricket (we've established that and we agree), there is the possibility that there is a higher % of Chinese people capable of scoring a century than the percentage of Indian people capable scoring a century (despite the Indians having a higher % of cricket players.)

Does that make sense ?
Post edited at 00:16
Big Ger - on 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Cod debating yes.
2
RomTheBear on 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:


> Why don't you provide a link to explain something that you cannot?

I think I explained very simply in about ten different ways. I'm starting to think the problem is on your end.

Here is a link with several examples : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy
Big Ger - on 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The "necessarily" being a word used to cover what possibility?

> Why don't you provide a link to explain something that you cannot?

That would involve Rom being......
2
Postmanpat on 08 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The possibility that although there is more chance to pick an Indian playing cricket than a Chinese playing cricket (we've established that and we agree), there is the possibility that there is a higher % of Chinese people capable of scoring a century than the percentage of Indian people capable scoring a century (despite the Indians having a higher % of cricket players.)

> Does that make sense ?

On a random basis , all other things being equal, randomly, why would there be a likelihood (as opposed to a random possibility) that there is a higher % of Chinese people capable of scoring a century than the percentage of Indian people capable scoring a century. If it is just a random possibility then why it is different to the random possibility of a higher % of Chinese people capable of scoring a century than the percentage of Indian people capable scoring a century".
Hugh J - on 08 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Hold on, hold on . . . .

I thought we had already determined the Chinese are better at marbles!
RomTheBear on 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> On a random basis , all other things being equal, randomly, why would there be a likelihood (as opposed to a random possibility) that there is a higher % of Chinese people capable of scoring a century than the percentage of Indian people capable scoring a century.

Nobody said there would be a likelihood of that happening. In that example, we just don't know.
That's why I was telling you we can't tell because we miss two key variables (the respective likelihood of scoring a century for Chinese and Indian players)

But I think you're just confusing yourself even more here. Maybe read that link.
Post edited at 00:36
1
deepsoup - on 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Coming back to the OP...
This on the BBC news today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38249570

Seriously Treeza, when you've got actual fascists nicking your ideas it's time to take a look at yourself.
RomTheBear on 08 Dec 2016
In reply to deepsoup:
> Coming back to the OP...


> Seriously Treeza, when you've got actual fascists nicking your ideas it's time to take a look at yourself.

Rather depressing that what is the far right in France is now mainstream Tories in the U.K. Well done Mr Farage.
Post edited at 12:51
Postmanpat on 09 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Nobody said there would be a likelihood of that happening. In that example, we just don't know.

> That's why I was telling you we can't tell because we miss two key variables (the respective likelihood of scoring a century for Chinese and Indian players)

> But I think you're just confusing yourself even more here. Maybe read that link.

Which ecological fallacies do you think are being displayed in the cricket example?
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Which ecological fallacies do you think are being displayed in the cricket example?

Make an effort and you'll find out. There is no point for me explaining the same thing again, and again, and again.
If you still don't get it, it can't be helped.
Post edited at 08:27
3
Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Make an effort and you'll find out.

Stop playing games. It just causes confusion. It's not possible to discuss whether it applies unless you can say which one you think applies. Which ecological fallacy do you think applies?
2
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Stop playing games. It just causes confusion. It's not possible to discuss whether it applies unless you can say which one you think applies. Which ecological fallacy do you think applies?

I've told you and explained about ten times already which ecological fallacies you were making, with examples and detailed explanations.
You're making an inference about an randomly selected individual based on a group statistic.

Do you understand your mistake ?
Post edited at 08:44
2
Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> I've told you and explained about ten times already which ecological fallacy you were making.

No, as far as I'm concerned you've gone around in circles ducking and diving and throwing up smoke.

So, of the main types of ecological fallacy: mean and median, individual and aggregate correlations, Robinson's paradox, group and total averages, Simpson's paradox which are you referring to ?

I'm assuming you think number 2 but want to be sure.

Just in case, I'll point out that this is a not about average/mean cricket scores.


Ah, I see you've now edited as usual .
Post edited at 08:53
1
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> No, as far as I'm concerned you've gone around in circles ducking and diving and throwing up smoke.

That's amazing, coming from the perso who'd rather go round in circle and pretend to be dumb instead of admitting a rather common simple mistake of logic.

> So, of the main types of ecological fallacy: mean and median, individual and aggregate correlations, Robinson's paradox, group and total averages, Simpson's paradox which are you referring to ?

> I'm assuming you think number 2 but want to be sure.

At least number one and and two, but I wouldn't discount that you've made more along the way. This is all the same fallacy anyway if you think about it, just different ways in which it can be used.

> Just in case, I'll point out that this is a not about average/mean cricket scores.

This was the second example:

"Indian people, on average, are much better at cricket than Chinese people.

If I pick randomly an Indian person, is he more likely to be better at cricket than a randomly selected Chinese person ?

all you know, is that both persons have been picked purely randomly, and that Indian people are way better on average at cricket than chinese people. No other factors at play."

You answered yes. Do you understand now why it is wrong ?


Back then to your first example

This is what we know :
- cricket is a mass participation sport in India, not in China.
- A cricket player is more likely to score a century than a non cricket player

And the question is :
Which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a randomly picked boy from India or a randomly picked boy from China?

What is your answer ?
A) the Indian
B) the Chinese
C) not enough information to conclude / we can't know
Post edited at 09:36
Dr.S at work - on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to two men who should get a room

I think you can make mean/mode for the second question, (10 bradmans vs 100 Agnes's) but for the one below I think the characteristic of 'cricket player' have been described, so I'm not sure an ecological fallacy is present.

> This is what we know :

> - cricket is a mass participation sport in India, not in China.

> - A cricket player is more likely to score a century than a non cricket player

> And the question is :

> Which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a randomly picked boy from India or a randomly picked boy from China?

> What is your answer ?

RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> In reply to two men who should get a room

> I think you can make mean/mode for the second question, (10 bradmans vs 100 Agnes's) but for the one below I think the characteristic of 'cricket player' have been described, so I'm not sure an ecological fallacy is present.

It is, because even though you know that the likelihood of any cricket player (Chinese or Indian) to score a century is higher than non cricket players, it doesn't tell you that this likelihood is the same between Chinese and Indian players.

For example, Chinese cricket players could be 99% likely to score a century, and Indian players 0.1% likely to score a century, and non-cricket players 0% likely.

Does that make sense ?
1
Dr.S at work - on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Yes I see that, but I think PP has defined 'cricket player' as a set thing which does not admit for national variation - now that's obviously in the gift of the question setter, and while not explicit it's what I understand by the question.

Mind you I always budgeted for losing 10% of marks in exams due to misreading questions ;-)
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Dr.S at work:
> Yes I see that, but I think PP has defined 'cricket player' as a set thing which does not admit for national variation - now that's obviously in the gift of the question setter, and while not explicit it's what I understand by the question.

Exactly, based on his question, I have no particular reason to assume that the likelihood of any cricket player to score a century is the same between China and India.

One could reasonably assume, that for example, the very few Chinese cricket players are all very good, and India has a lot more cricket players, but overall doesn't have more that are capable to score a century.

Hence why my answer is that we don't know.

> Mind you I always budgeted for losing 10% of marks in exams due to misreading questions ;-)

Usually a good call ;-)
Post edited at 09:56
Big Ger - on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No, as far as I'm concerned you've gone around in circles ducking and diving and throwing up smoke.

There's a much shorter expression for what Rom does, four letters, L * * S
2
ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> There's a much shorter expression for what Rom does, four letters, L * * S

Laws ? Legs ? Lips ? Lugs ?
1
Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Exactly, based on his question, I have no particular reason to assume that the likelihood of any cricket player to score a century is the same between China and India.

>
Hence the repeated use of the clause "all other things being equal", to cover, amongst other things, the possibility that the likelihood of any cricket player to score a century is not the same between China and India"

In addition, above I covered the possibility that drilling down might provide further information which would offset the basic assertion of probability. So your esoteric objections have been covered already.

You're just going around in the same circle again.Next up?
Post edited at 10:15
1
Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> That's amazing, coming from the perso who'd rather go round in circle and pretend to be dumb instead of admitting a rather common simple mistake of logic.

> At least number one and and two, but I wouldn't discount that you've made more along the way. This is all the same fallacy anyway if you think about it, just different ways in which it can be used.

> This was the second example:

> "Indian people, on average, are much better at cricket than Chinese people.

>
I can't find where that phrase was used, if it ever was used t was since clarified along the lines of "a greater proportion of Indians are better at cricket. So it is median not a mean statement.


> all you know, is that both persons have been picked purely randomly, and that Indian people are way better on average at cricket than chinese people. No other factors at play."

> You answered yes. Do you understand now why it is wrong ?

But it wasn't the question i asked. Maybe you misunderstood my question so relayed it back to me wrongly and I failed to spot it. I can't find it. But of course I understand the problem with it. I just don't think it was what the original question was nor what we boiled d the question down to after going around in circles.

> Back then to your first example

> This is what we know :

> - cricket is a mass participation sport in India, not in China.

> - A cricket player is more likely to score a century than a non cricket player

> And the question is :

> Which is more likely one day to score a century at cricket, a randomly picked boy from India or a randomly picked boy from China?

> What is your answer ?

> A) the Indian

The Indian, all other things being equal.

Do you agree that this is the same question?

"(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?"
Post edited at 10:39
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> But it wasn't the question i asked. Maybe you misunderstood my question so relayed it back to me wrongly and I failed to spot it. I can't find it. But of course I understand the problem with it. I just don't think it was what the original question was nor what we boiled d the question down to after going around in circles.


I did not misunderstand your question, I reformulated your problem with a simpler version of the ecological fallacy (mean vs median) hoping it would be easier for you to get the point. I made it very clear at to what the premise was.

As for the use of "all others things being equal" (which you added later) maybe it's your use of it that's different, as far as I know, I just means "all other variables being held constant", but in this case the two variables we need to answer the question are unknown, so it doesn't have much relevance here.
Regardless, this wasn't in your original questioning. Do you understand why my answer (to your original question) was that we can't know ?
Post edited at 11:35
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I can't find where that phrase was used,


20:31 on wednesday.


1
wintertree - on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomManPat:

You chose a person at random from an Indian or a Chinese population.

The probability that you randomly chose a person who plays cricket is higher when you pick from an Indian population than from a Chinese population.

The probability that the randomly chosen individual, from either population, plays cricket is either 1 or 0, because they either play it or they don't.

Over many randomly picked people, ones ability to guess that binary probability is more accurate if you know which population they are from than if you don't. This is because that binary probability is influenced by the population they grew up in. So it's not as separable as some would claim.

Take things to the limit - if 100% of Indian people played cricket and 0% of Chinese people did, your ability to infer about an individual from the population statistics is precisely accurate. As you move away from this limit the precision of inference becomes worse.

None of this is difficult or complicated. Someone arguing on these does seem to specialise in making simple things complicated in an apparent attempt at point scoring.
Post edited at 11:55
2
Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I did not misunderstand your question, I reformulated your problem with a simpler version of the ecological fallacy (mean vs median) hoping it would be easier for you to get the point. I made it very clear at to what the premise was.
>
You changed the question from a median to a mean statement and i failed to notice.
It diesnt have any bearing on whether the original assertion or the final boiled down assertion was correct.

> As for the use of "all others things being equal" (which you added later) maybe it's your use of it that's different, as far as I know, I just means "all other variables being held constant", but in this case the two variables we need to answer the question are unknown, so it doesn't have much relevance here.
>
You have identified a variable : whether chinese and indian cricketers have an equal likelihood to score centuries. Obviously that wpuld be covered by "all other things being equal". If you unsure you could have asked

> Regardless, this wasn't in your original questioning. Do you understand why my answer (to your original question) was that we can't know.

No, lets go with the boiled down question (which has the same meaning as intended in the original wuestion) so that you dont try and restart the circle;



"(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?"
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> You changed the question from a median to a mean statement and i failed to notice.

> It diesnt have any bearing on whether the original assertion or the final boiled down assertion was correct.

You're original answer to your original question was incorrect, as it was for my question.

> You have identified a variable : whether chinese and indian cricketers have an equal likelihood to score centuries. Obviously that wpuld be covered by "all other things being equal". If you unsure you could have asked

This is kind of meaningless, it could as well mean the likelihood to pick an Indian capable to score a century is equal to the likelihood to pick a Chinese scoring a century.
That's why I said well earlier that it seemed irrelevant here, but whatever.

> No, lets go with the boiled down question (which has the same meaning as intended in the original wuestion) so that you dont try and restart the circle;

> "(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?"

If by all "other things being equal" what you really mean is : "the % of cricket players capable of scoring a century in China is the same as in India"

Then the answer is the Indian.

If, as in your original questionning, we do not know that, then the answer is : we don't know.

1
Bob Hughes - on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> "(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket than in an another given country, of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket), all other things being equal?"

I think you can say this:

All else being equal, if you pick a person at random from India you are more likely to pick someone capable of scoring a century than if you pick a person at random from China.

But i don't think you can say this:

The probability of a random person in India being able to score a century is higher than a random person in China.

The difference being the first statement is about the distribution of people capable of scoring a century in India versus China. The second statement is, once you have picked someone (at random) what is the probability that, that person will be able to score a century. This second probability depends solely on conditions specific to that individual person. For example, if I pick at random someon from India, i have a higher probability of picking Sachin Tandulkar (1 in x billion) than if I pick at random someone from China (0 because Sachin Tandulkar isn't Chinese). But once i have picked Sachin Tandulkar, the probability that he will then go on to score a century has nothing to do with him being Indian. It will have to do with the weather, the opposition bowling, how he is feeling on the day etc.
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> You chose a person at random from an Indian or a Chinese population.

> The probability that you randomly chose a person who plays cricket is higher when you pick from an Indian population than from a Chinese population.

> The probability that the randomly chosen individual, from either population, plays cricket is either 1 or 0, because they either play it or they don't.


That's wrong at least in the way you put it.
I give you a jar with ten marbles, 9 red and 1 blue.
The probability that a randomly chosen ball is blue is 1/10, because there is one favourable outcome and ten possible outcomes.
What you seem to suggest is that the probability is 0.5 because the ball can be blue or red. Of course that is wrong as you're using the wrong set of outcomes.

Correct me if I misinterpreted your statement.

RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Exactly that. Thank you.
Post edited at 13:13
wintertree - on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Correct me if I misinterpreted your statement.

Yes you have misunderstood entirely. No I am not going to get drawn further in to this as I have no interest in arguing round in circles with someone who will somehow misunderstand each attempt at clarifying in different ways for 200 posts over the next 3 days whilst ignoring all clarifications in my previous posts when replying to my most recent post.

Edit: I'all go as far as rephrasing. Once you have an individual, you don't have probabilities but certainties. Ones ability to predict that certainty, on average, across many individuals, is related to ones knowledge of population statistics.

They population statistics don't influence - in the instant of measurement - a persons cricket playing ability.

Knowledge of the population statistics improve ones ability to guess the cricket playing ability of an individual.

The population, from which the population statistics derive, influences the fate of that individual prior to the moment of measurement.
Post edited at 13:23
Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> I think you can say this:

> All else being equal, if you pick a person at random from India you are more likely to pick someone capable of scoring a century than if you pick a person at random from China.

> But i don't think you can say this:

> The probability of a random person in India being able to score a century is higher than a random person in China.

> The difference being the first statement is about the distribution of people capable of scoring a century in India versus China. The second statement is, once you have picked someone (at random) what is the probability that, that person will be able to score a century. This second probability depends solely on conditions specific to that individual person. For example, if I pick at random someon from India, i have a higher probability of picking Sachin Tandulkar (1 in x billion) than if I pick at random someone from China (0 because Sachin Tandulkar isn't Chinese). But once i have picked Sachin Tandulkar, the probability that he will then go on to score a century has nothing to do with him being Indian. It will have to do with the weather, the opposition bowling, how he is feeling on the day etc.

There is no suggestion that being indian
Is the cause of of him scoring a century. It is because he is a cricketer. Presumably on could agree that a cricketer is more likely than a non cricketer to score a century whatever the weatther.
Weather and other variables are covered by "all other thing being equal"
Hugh J - on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> In reply to two men who should get a room

Superb !!!
TheFasting on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It's an internet crime that no one linked this yet (slightly NSFW, Mitchell and Web) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKEUujz12S4
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to wintertree:
> Yes you have misunderstood entirely. No I am not going to get drawn further in to this as I have no interest in arguing round in circles with someone who will somehow misunderstand each attempt at clarifying in different ways for 200 posts over the next 3 days whilst ignoring all clarifications in my previous posts when replying to my most recent post.

By "clarifications" you mean answering by questions, muddling the point, and moving the goalpost.

> Edit: I'all go as far as rephrasing. Once you have an individual, you don't have probabilities but certainties. Ones ability to predict that certainty, on average, across many individuals, is related to ones knowledge of population statistics.

> They population statistics don't influence - in the instant of measurement - a persons cricket playing ability.

> Knowledge of the population statistics improve ones ability to guess the cricket playing ability of an individual.

> The population, from which the population statistics derive, influences the fate of that individual prior to the moment of measurement.

Sorry but I think you're using a very strange way to explain your idea - to be fair it seems to be

Not too sure, but I am sort of guessing you are making a similar point as the first one I made in relation to PP first question (likelihood of an individual achieving an outcome, versus the likelihood of picking such and individual at random - not the same thing)

Since then we had moved on to a different point (the ecological fallacy) as this first one has been clarified by PP (he said this was inferred).
Post edited at 15:57
wintertree - on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> By "clarifications" you mean answering by questions, muddling the point, and moving the goalpost.

Yes, that's been my past experience of trying to discuss anything with you. You did eventually conceded my point last time, having managed to misunderstand everything I said in the mean time at every possible opportunity. You also seemed to claim you'd never said otherwise despite that blatantly not being the case. Other than talking to some people confused over kettles I've never known anything like it.
Post edited at 16:26
Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You're original answer to your original question was incorrect, as it was for my question.
>
My original question was the same as my final question. You just chose, fir whatever eeason, not to understand so i had repeatedly to clarify it.

> This is kind of meaningless, it could as well mean the likelihood to pick an Indian capable to score a century is equal to the likelihood to pick a Chinese scoring a century.
>
Not unless one were being mind bogglingly obtuse.

> That's why I said well earlier that it seemed irrelevant here, but whatever.

> If by all "other things being equal" what you really mean is : "the % of cricket players capable of scoring a century in China is the same as in India"

> Then the answer is the Indian.

Hurrah. Penny drops. Of course it implies that!!! Hence the answer tomy question is "yes"
Trumpet chorus and ringing of bells.



2
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> My original question was the same as my final question. You just chose, fir whatever eeason, not to understand so i had repeatedly to clarify it.

No, pp, they are completely different questions, if you still haven't understood why, then you're hopeless.

> Not unless one were being mind bogglingly obtuse.

No, PP, you're just being vague and innacurate and you expect others to be vague an innacurate in exactly the same way as you are. It just doesn't work.

> Hurrah. Penny drops. Of course it implies that!!! Hence the answer tomy question is "yes"

> Trumpet chorus and ringing of bells.

Let me sum this up for you:

You asked me a question, I gave you the correct answer, and you gave me the wrong answer.

I spent several posts trying to explain to you why, no success.

You then changed the question, to which, remarkably, you still gave a wrong answer.

I spent another day trying to explain to you why, no success.

You then changed it again until your first answer was finally correct.

In the meantime you've given the wrong answer to every question I asked, and we still don't know if you understood why your answers were wrong.

All the others posters seem to have got it straight away, so it can't be me just explaining badly.

Either you're dumb or deliberately pretending to be, I vote for the latter.
Post edited at 18:08
Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
Er , most of the posters have pointed out that you are being utterly obtuse and perverse. But you havent even spotted that.eg. Wintertree et al
I asked you a blindingly simple question.you spent three days obfuscating until we put in as many clarifications to try and stop you obfuscating (big hope!!) you now dont even admit that they are basically the same question
I am relucant to rely on authority to support my position but Having bounced the question off a qualified actuary with a first in maths at UCl and a another mate with a maths s level and an oxford degree in philosphy with Logic I an satisfied that it is not me who is missing anything. I'll report back when my professional statistician friend comes back

In the meantime i'm fir a drink
Post edited at 18:19
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Er , most of the posters have pointed out that you are being utterly obtuse and perverse. But you havent even spotted that.eg. Wintertree et al


> I asked you a blindingly simple question.you spent three days obfuscating until we put in as many clarifications to try and stop you obfuscating (big hope!!) you now dont even admit that they are basically the same question

Yes it was a simple, hence why it seems amazing you still don't agree as to what the answer is.
They are the same question, but with critically missing information in the first.

> I am relucant to rely on authority to support my position but Having bounced the question off a qualified actuary with a first in maths at UCl and a another mate with a maths s level and an oxford degree in philosphy with Logic I an satisfied that it is not me who is missing anything. I'll report back when my professional statistician friend comes back

The answer will depend on the question you ask.
Ask them in the same way you asked me the first time, and their response will probably be to ask for more information.

Btw, you don't really need a first in math to answer, it's just common sense really.
Post edited at 18:21
2
Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2016

In reply to RomTheBear

The question was:

“(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

Is this statement true, false, or "we dont know"
Post edited at 18:22
Hugh J - on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Is this statement true, false, or "we dont know"

F*ck my old boots, I think I've just found the answer!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5rJ4g9EMUk
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> In reply to RomTheBear

> The question was:

> “(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

> Is this statement true, false, or "we dont know"

Just this statement ? We don't know.
1
Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear

Lol.No rommy. I know your reply.

This was the question I asked the two people i referred to.

Are tou a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan by any chance?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes it was a simple, hence why it seems amazing you still don't agree as to what the answer is.

> They are the same question, but with critically missing information in the first.

> The answer will depend on the question you ask.

> Ask them in the same way you asked me the first time, and their response will probably be to ask for more information.

> Btw, you don't really need a first in math to answer, it's just common sense really.

Yes, the answer is common sense. You have tried to make it more complicated and the answer is still the same and its not yours
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> In reply to RomTheBear

> Lol.No rommy. I know your reply.

> This was the question I asked the two people i referred to.

Why did you ask them this question and not the original one ? Ha yes, I know, because you can't admit you got it wrong in the first one...

With just that, they shouldn't be able to reply anyway.
Unless they assume that cricket players are more likely than non cricket players to score a century, and assume that Indians cricket players have an equal or higher likelihood to score a century as Chinese cricket players.
Post edited at 20:02
1
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Yes, the answer is common sense. You have tried to make it more complicated and the answer is still the same and its not yours

Yes, it's common sense that we can't answer.

I'll ask you exactly the same question, with a different metaphor.

"(all other things being equal) the probability of a random marble, in jar with a higher proportion of blue marbles than in another jar, of being made of glass, is higher than that of a random marble in the latter jar (where a lower proportion of marbles are blue) ?”

True, false, or don't know ?
Post edited at 19:46
1
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Yes, the answer is common sense. You have tried to make it more complicated and the answer is still the same and its not yours

Given that this is a completely different question from the original one, it's pointless, really.

At least you seem to have realised that your original question was badly set up for the answer you expected, even though you still manage to phrase it incorrectly now (but there is progress !)
Post edited at 19:59
2
Big Ger - on 10 Dec 2016
Hugh J - on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Brilliant!

Where can I get one?
Lusk - on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> "(all other things being equal) the probability of a random marble, in jar with a higher proportion of blue marbles than in another jar, of being made of glass, is higher than that of a random marble in the latter jar (where a lower proportion of marbles are blue) ?”

I bet you're a barrel of laughs at the 'Guess the number of sweets in the jar' stand at your local fair.

Big Ger - on 10 Dec 2016
Hugh J - on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Customer Who Bought This Item Also Bought: "Images You Should Not Masturbate To"
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> I bet you're a barrel of laughs at the 'Guess the number of sweets in the jar' stand at your local fair.

Actually there is an easy way to win those, using only one eye and your thumb ;-) I'll let you figure it out.
Postmanpat on 11 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
How can a non cricketer player score a century? Anyway, we have established "all other things are equal"

I posted the final question because you still said "we cant know" to it.

As several people have pointed out, common sense would suggest that the clauses about randomness and everything being equal we implied in the first one.
Therefore the first question was the sames as the last one to anyone relying common sense. For those who wanted to be clearer they could add the caveat. "Yes it's true, as long as we assume that there is no extraneous reason why a chinese cricketer should be more likely to score a century than an Indian one"
I happily agree with that hence the clarifications to the original question, but you still won't agree that the answer is "True".
Post edited at 09:02
Postmanpat on 11 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Incidentally, do you agree with this statement "any single individual getting a century isn’t independent to the size of the group"

Do you think contradicts the statement that “(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

??
Postmanpat on 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
Whoops. Typo correction: Incidentally, do you agree with this statement "any single individual getting a century isn’t dependent on the size of the group"

Do you think contradicts the statement that “(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

??
Post edited at 10:08
Big Ger - on 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I wish I had your optimism, everyday would be all fluffy bunnies and unicorns.
Postmanpat on 11 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Yes, it's common sense that we can't answer.

> I'll ask you exactly the same question, with a different metaphor.

> "(all other things being equal) the probability of a random marble, in jar with a higher proportion of blue marbles than in another jar, of being made of glass, is higher than that of a random marble in the latter jar (where a lower proportion of marbles are blue) ?”

> True, false, or don't know ?

Don't know.

But nor do I know why you could possibly think it's"the same question". It's not. Being blue makes no difference to the likelihood of being made of glass. Being a cricketer obviously (and we have confirmed in discussion, since you seemed unwilling to accept the point as obvious) makes one more likely to score a century (than not being a cricketer).

In my statement there are simply more Indian people playing cricket and the chance of someone in the group with the higher number of players getting a century is correspondingly higher.
Post edited at 20:56
1
Postmanpat on 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> I wish I had your optimism, everyday would be all fluffy bunnies and unicorns.

Oh, I don't. It's the sheer amazement that drives me on!
1
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Don't know.

> But nor do I know why you could possibly think it's"the same question". It's not. Being blue makes no difference to the likelihood of being made of glass. Being a cricketer obviously (and we have confirmed in discussion, since you seemed unwilling to accept the point as obvious) makes one more likely to score a century (than not being a cricketer).

That's why I said "with just this statement".
Maybe you could make an effort to read properly.

> In my statement there are simply more Indian people playing cricket and the chance of someone in the group with the higher number of players getting a century is correspondingly higher.

That is not necessarily true, unless we know that the likelihood of scoring a century for a cricket player in India is the same as in China.
Do we agree ?

Hugh J - on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

What are the odds if the Indian is called Virat?
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> How can a non cricketer player score a century? Anyway, we have established "all other things are equal"

> I posted the final question because you still said "we cant know" to it.

Because you didn't say anything about the likelihood of cricketeer to score a century vs non cricketeer, so just from this statement, we don't know.

> As several people have pointed out, common sense would suggest that the clauses about randomness and everything being equal we implied in the first one.

Absolutely not PP.
In fact common sense would suggest there would be no particular reason that the likelihood for a Chinese cricketeer to score a century is the same a the likelihood for an Indian to score a century.
One could well reasonably assume that Chinese cricketeers, although small in number, all play at a very high level, and in India, many play cricket but only a similar number can score a century as well.


> Therefore the first question was the sames as the last one to anyone relying common sense. For those who wanted to be clearer they could add the caveat. "Yes it's true, as long as we assume that there is no extraneous reason why a chinese cricketer should be more likely to score a century than an Indian one

I guess you didn't score very well in math at school if you just added assumptions to the question in order to make the question easier.

> I happily agree with that hence the clarifications to the original question, but you still won't agree that the answer is "True"

Then you're just wrong.
Post edited at 06:50
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Because you didn't say anything about the likelihood of cricketeer to score a century vs non cricketeer, so just from this statement, we don't know.
>
I rest my case. It is not necessary to say anything about this because to any reasonable person it is clear and obvious. You are now resorting to squirming about trying to find utterly unfounded,ridiculous and trivial objections.

> Absolutely not PP.

You appear to be the only one who thinks "not". Any reasonable person, would have replied to the earlier question would have replied, "Yes, true, but stricttly speaking one should add the following caveats". Job done, move on. But that would take a reasonable person.

> In fact common sense would suggest there would be no particular reason that the likelihood for a Chinese cricketeer to score a century is the same a the likelihood for an Indian to score a century.
>
Rubbish.

> One could well reasonably assume that Chinese cricketeers, although small in number, all play at a very high level, and in India, many play cricket but only a similar number can score a century as well.
>
That is possible, just very unlikely, hence the clarifications


> Then you're just wrong.

To the final question? Rolls eyes....
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> That's why I said "with just this statement".

> Maybe you could make an effort to read properly.

Bullshit: You wrote "I'll ask you exactly the same question, with a different metaphor.

"(all other things being equal) the probability of a random marble, in jar with a higher proportion of blue marbles than in another jar, of being made of glass, is higher than that of a random marble in the latter jar (where a lower proportion of marbles are blue) ?”

True, false, or don't know ?"

Noting about "with just this statement". At least read your own posts!!!

So, what is your reply to this point?

> That is not necessarily true, unless we know that the likelihood of scoring a century for a cricket player in India is the same as in China.

> Do we agree ?

Of course I agree that the likelihood of scoring a century for a cricket player in India has to be the same or bigger as in China. But we agreed that days ago hence the phraseology of my statement:

(because "all other things are equal")... the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

We have discussed before that "all other things being equal" includes "the likelihood of scoring a century for a cricket player in India is the same as in China."

What is your reply to this question?

When you raise the same points that have already been dealt with for the third time, and refuse to believe it reasonable that a cricketer is by definition more likely score a century than non century you are just confirming that
you are have no reasonable objections to the statement


2
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Bullshit: You wrote "I'll ask you exactly the same question, with a different metaphor.

> "(all other things being equal) the probability of a random marble, in jar with a higher proportion of blue marbles than in another jar, of being made of glass, is higher than that of a random marble in the latter jar (where a lower proportion of marbles are blue) ?”

> True, false, or don't know ?"

> Noting about "with just this statement". At least read your own posts!!!

18.57 on Saturday "just this statement ? We don't know"

> So, what is your reply to this point?

> Of course I agree that the likelihood of scoring a century for a cricket player in India has to be the same or bigger as in China. But we agreed that days ago hence the phraseology of my statement:

Hurrah, at last, you seem to have got it.

> (because "all other things are equal")... the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

> We have discussed before that "all other things being equal" includes "the likelihood of scoring a century for a cricket player in India is the same as in China."

> What is your reply to this question?

I already told you ten times tat if we know that tge likelihood of a cricketer to score a century is the same for all cricketeers, the answer is true. Not sure why you don't get it.

Which is besides the point as it wasn't the original question we argued about.
3
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> I rest my case. It is not necessary to say anything about this because to any reasonable person it is clear and obvious. You are now resorting to squirming about trying to find utterly unfounded,ridiculous and trivial objections.

Rather, you seem to always take shortcuts and wrong assumption that lead you to make mistakes.

> You appear to be the only one who thinks "not". Any reasonable person, would have replied to the earlier question would have replied, "Yes, true, but stricttly speaking one should add the following caveats". Job done, move on. But that would take a reasonable person.

> Rubbish.

Why is that rubbish ? I'm sure you could find lots of different sports / abilities where that's the case, abilities are not always distributed the same way amongst different population.

> That is possible, just very unlikely, hence the clarifications

Not sure why you think it's unlikely. Maybe that's your problem. Without data, there is just no way to know.

> To the final question? Rolls eyes....
Post edited at 08:56
1
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
No, I got it straight away and the rephrasing made that clear. The terms "random" and "all other things being equal" were added to cover the obvious caveats six days ago!!!

As I've said, you could have agreed with the first question , added you caveats and the whole thing would have been agreed in ten minutes. But instead you keep ignoring the clarifications, goin around in circles repeating caveats that had been allowed to, introducing your own red herrings about "averages" and whether you would beleive a third party if he said the people were pciked randomly,finally the utterly ludicrous point, in the context of an internet debate, that somebody who doesn't play cricket could score a century.

As for other posters, of course they got it, as did I. They also got that you are just messing about pretending not to agree or understand, for the sake of it.To wit:

"Rom deliberate misunderstanding aside, why ask the question?"

"Not often I say this, Pat's is right, you're wrong."

"Give up - Rom's into his fullishness to deep to admit he's talking nonsense."

Edit to avoid Rom pendantic misunderstanding. Coins obviously 1/2chance of heads; 50:50 being percentage chance of each result.

"what if its a trick coin?
You cant avoid my pedantic misunderstanding."

"This all stems from you not taking the word random as implied, as everyone else did, and would."

i"t should do because he wrote "In that case the probability to pick an Indian who plays cricket is therefore equal to the number of Indians who play crickets didived by the total number of Indians."

"Which is the same as saying the probability to pick a Chinese who plays cricket is therefore equal to the number of chinese who play cricket divided by the total number of Chinese."

"I think RtB is just being obtuse to wind you up (and you have bitten , so here we are days later on the same point)"

"Yes I see that, but I think PP has defined 'cricket player' as a set thing which does not admit for national variation - now that's obviously in the gift of the question setter, and while not explicit it's what I understand by the question. "

"I have no interest in arguing round in circles with someone who will somehow misunderstand each attempt at clarifying in different ways for 200 posts over the next 3 days whilst ignoring all clarifications in my previous posts when replying to my most recent post"

There seems to be a pattern here......
Post edited at 09:08
1
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
Thank you for demonstrating your excellent ability to cherry pick only what you want to see.

Besides, you seem to have sort of admitted finally that without knowing the distribution cricket players able to score a century in each country, the answer is don't know.
So you disagree with most of the posters you quoted then ?

It's not very uncommon to make the ecological fallacy, in fact it's everywhere in social sciences papers, as well as, as you have noticed yourself, a recent BBC documentary.

It's funny that, that although you seem to have been able to sense that something was wrong with the way the stats were presented in the BBC documentary, you didn't sense it in your original question.
Possibly because you inferred assumptions from you knowledge of cricket, but without sharing those assumptions.
Post edited at 09:14
ads.ukclimbing.com
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Thank you for demonstrating your excellent ability to cherry pick only what you want to see.
>
Let's see your version then.

> Besides, you seem to have sort of of admitted finally that without knowing that distribution of the likelihood of cricket players in each country, the answer is don't know.
>
We agreed that on December the 6th. You simply won't recognise the simple meaning of the phrase "all other things being equal" .I can't help you with that sort of silliness.

> So you disagree with most of the posters you quoted then ?

No, I agree with them

> It's not very uncommon to make the ecological fallacy, in fact it's everywhere in social sciences papers, as well as, as you have noticed yourself, a recent BBC documentary.
>
You have failed to answe my last question:

Do you agree with this statement "any single individual getting a century isn’t dependent on the size of the group"

Do you think contradicts the statement that “(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

??



RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Let's see your version then.

See posts from bob Hugues, wintertree and Dr. S

> We agreed that on December the 6th. You simply won't recognise the simple meaning of the phrase "all other things being equal" .I can't help you with that sort of silliness.

We discussed it way before and agreed what it meant, maybe it's just your memory being a bit short.

> No, I agree with them

So you agree even with the posters who made the same mistake that you finally recognised yourself. Seems odd.


> You have failed to answe my last question:

> Do you agree with this statement "any single individual getting a century isn’t dependent on the size of the group"

The size of which group are you taking about ? I have no idea.


Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> 18.57 on Saturday "just this statement ? We don't know"
>
Which was not what I was replying to. I was replying to your question about marbles, which you don't seem to understand is not an appropriate metaphor.

> Hurrah, at last, you seem to have got it.

Rom, I got it six days ago. I knew it before that.

> I already told you ten times tat if we know that tge likelihood of a cricketer to score a century is the same for all cricketeers, the answer is true. Not sure why you don't get it.

Which is why i said the whole thread is less about probability and more about (mis)communication and (mis)understaning.


Which doesn't really explain why you kept crapping on about averages, whther you beleive a pick was random and any number of other red herrings. Which is why i said the whole thread is less about probaility and noire about miscommunication and misunderstaning.

> Which is besides the point as it wasn't the original question we argued about.
>
Answer the question. As I've explained several times: it is the point because it is the original question with the caveats that you could have asked for in one sentence at the get go and were added anyway on Dec 6th. It is the question you have been failing to answer honestly for six days. Why, with the caveats added, are you refusing to answer?

RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Which was not what I was replying to. I was replying to your question about marbles, which you don't seem to understand is not an appropriate metaphor.

Actually it's completely appropriate.

> Rom, I got it six days ago. I knew it before that.

> Which is why i said the whole thread is less about probability and more about (mis)communication and (mis)understanding.

Unfortunately, you seem to have made it so, by miscommunicating and misunderstanding from the start.

> Which doesn't really explain why you kept crapping on about averages, whther you beleive a pick was random and any number of other red herrings.

It was a simpler version of the ecological fallacy to see if you understood the concept I was trying to explain. I was very clear as to what the conditions were, and clarified when requested. You still gave the wrong answer hence why I reasonably assumed you didn't get it.

> Answer the question. As I've explained several times: it is the point because it is the original question with the caveats that you could have asked for in one sentence at the get go and were added anyway on Dec 6th. It is the question you have been failing to answer honestly for six days. Why, with the caveats added, are you refusing to answer?

I've answered your questions many many times, I think your problem is the failure to read properly and lack of attention to detail.
Post edited at 09:38
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> See posts from bob Hugues, wintertree and Dr. S
>
Yes, i quoted them. Quote your version. Only Bob Hughes disagreed with me and I answered him.

> We discussed it way before and agreed what it meant, maybe it's just your memory being a bit short.
>
We didn't agree. It means what is says, "all other things being equal". You know what iit means in this context. You are just squirming again.

> So you agree even with the posters who made the same mistake that you finally recognised yourself. Seems odd.

They haven't made the same mistake. They have applied common sense. To confirm that they and I were missing something I therefore checked with the two people I referred to . They both confirmed we weren't.

> The size of which group are you taking about ? I have no idea.

So, what is it that makes you unable to know?
Post edited at 09:38
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> We didn't agree. It means what is says, "all other things being equal". You know what iit means in this context. You are just squirming again.

We did, I even clarified a while ago that I would take the same interpretation as you for convenience.


> They haven't made the same mistake. They have applied common sense. To confirm that they and I were missing something I therefore checked with the two people I referred to . They both confirmed we weren't.

Adding extra assumptions that are not proven or given is not common sense. It's a mistake, one that you seem to make a lot.

> So, what is it that makes you unable to know?

You don't say which group you are referring to. How am I supposed to know what is it you are talking about ?
Post edited at 09:44
1
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:


> You don't say which group you are referring to. How am I supposed to know what is it you are talking about ?

The group of cricketers, Indian or Chinese.

Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> We did, I even clarified a while ago that I would take the same interpretation as you for convenience.

> Adding extra assumptions that are not proven or given is not common sense. It's a mistake, one that you seem to make a lot.

>
But as quoted, everyone else grasped them. They had all been adequately covered by December 6th. Why is it that you six days later you are still refusing to accept this?
1
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> The group of cricketers, Indian or Chinese.

In that case,

"any single individual getting a century isn’t dependent on the size of the group of cricketers, Indian or Chinese."

Does not contradict

"all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

As far as I can tell, as the second statement can be true, regardless of whether the first is false or true.
(I assume that by "contradict", you mean "always makes false")
Post edited at 10:08
1
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> But as quoted, everyone else grasped them. They had all been adequately covered by December 6th. Why is it that you six days later you are still refusing to accept this?

You keep saying that going round a round in circles, refusing to acknowledge that we basically agree that my answer to your question was correct, as well as the answer to your rephrased question was, and that the only reason we differed on the initial answer is because you made assumptions that were not provided, which after great effort from my part, you finally understood and acknowledged
Post edited at 10:11
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> In that case,

> "any single individual getting a century isn’t dependent on the size of the group of cricketers, Indian or Chinese."

> Does not contradict

> "all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

> As far as I can tell, as the second statement can be true, regardless of whether the first is false or true.

Are you saying "can be true" or "can be true but "we don't know"?

> (I assume that by "contradict", you mean "always makes false")

So we can agree that the statement a)" the probability for a given individual in one group to achieve an outcome is not necessarily linked to the prevalence of individuals achieving that outcome in the group.”

is totally reconcilable with the statement b) "all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You keep saying that going round a round in circles, refusing to acknowledge that we basically agree that my answer to your question was correct, as well as the answer to your rephrased question was, and that the only reason we differed on the initial answer is because you made assumptions that were not provided, which after great effort from my part, you finally understood and acknowledged

The effort on your part seemed to be to confuse and refute the simple and obvious caveats that were presented to you almost immediately.
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Are you saying "can be true" or "can be true but "we don't know"?

It is absolutely true that the two statements do not contradict (i.e, the second statement can be true whether the first one is true or false)

> So we can agree that the statement a)" the probability for a given individual in one group to achieve an outcome is not necessarily linked to the prevalence of individuals achieving that outcome in the group.”

> is totally reconcilable with the statement b) "all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

Yes, we agree that the two statements are reconcilable
Post edited at 10:25
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The effort on your part seemed to be to confuse and refute the simple and obvious caveats that were presented to you almost immediately.

They were not, I had to fish a Wikipedia article for you to get it, ffs...
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> They were not, I had to fish a Wikipedia article for you to get it, ffs...

But you haven't identified the ecological fallacy in statement because there wasn't one.

Statement "all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

The term "random' and "all other things being equal" had been used almost immediately on December 6th, at which point you spent several days trying to confuse and pretend to misunderstand the issue.

I suspect, given your repeated use of the specious marble analogy, which you still don't seem to understand is not an appropriate analogy, that you still don't get the point.


I have no idea why that is in bold!
Post edited at 10:43
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> But you haven't identified the ecological fallacy in statement because there wasn't one.

> Statement "all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

> The term "random' and "all other things being equal" had been used almost immediately on December 6th, at which point you spent several days trying to confuse and pretend to misunderstand the issue.

But only on Saturday you did you finally define what you meant by "all others things being equal" Before that the assumption was that it referred to the influence of external factors, as per defined in the HIV example. (as the usual use of this term in statistics implies). Hence why it seemed irrelevant until you clarified, and I had clearly been telling you it seemed irrelevant to that example.

It seems to me you've basically been dishonest from the start, changing the meaning of the question every time you didn't like the answer instead of just admitting a simple error. That's your usual style, so I'm not really surprised.


> I suspect, given your repeated use of the specious marble analogy, which you still don't seem to understand is not an appropriate analogy, that you still don't get the point.

It is a perfectly correct analogy if you refer only to that statement, and not the rest of the thread, which is what you seem to be wanting to do with asking whether "this" statement was true or false.
I even clarified by saying "just this statement".
Post edited at 11:25
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> But only on Saturday you did you finally define what you meant by "all others things being equal" Before that the assumption was that it referred to the influence of external factors, as per defined in the HIV example. (as the usual use of this term in statistics implies). Hence why it seemed irrelevant until you clarified, and I had clearly been telling you it seemed irrelevant to that example.
>
It meant "all other things being equal". It always did. It still does. It's a simple phrase which you chose not to understand. If you don't understand things then so be it.

> It is a perfectly correct analogy if you refer only to that statement, and not the rest of the thread, which is what you seem to be wanting to do with asking whether "this" statement was true or false.

> I even clarified by saying "just this statement".

So, the statement in itself, as I said, is true, but irrelevant to the thread

It has to be an analogy with something, and that something must be something on the thread. Therefore it cannot be taken in isolation from the rest of thread. If it is an analogy with the statement <b) quoted by me above on cricketers, then it is irrelevant. I've explained why. So you can obscuring your point by playing pedantic word games or you can explain what your pedantic point is.

RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It meant "all other things being equal". It always did. It still does. It's a simple phrase which you chose not to understand. If you don't understand things then so be it.

I understood your definition of it once you stated what it was, on Saturday. But it is not the widely accepted one, nor the same meaning as the one used initially in the HIV example. I made that clear early on.

> So, the statement in itself, as I said, is true, but irrelevant to the thread

The statement, alone, is not necessarily true.


> It has to be an analogy with something, and that something must be something on the thread.

It was an analogy with the self contained statement you asked me to evaluate, apparently, purposedly, in isolation of the rest of the thread.

What is, to you, a pedantic point, is exactly what led the BBC to take wrong conclusions from badly interpreted data. Given that this type of logical fallacies has been used for centuries to make racists arguments, I would say it's a pretty important point.
Post edited at 11:42
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I understood your definition of it once you stated what it was, on Saturday. But it is not the widely accepted one, nor the same meaning as the one used initially in the HIV example. I made that clear early on.

>
It is plain English. I've no idea whether it has a different meaning to a statistician, only that two people with statistical backgrounds understood it immediately, as did several laypeople, but you claim that didn't. So I can only conclude that you are being deliberately difficult.

if you now understand it, then move on. Stop using it as an excuse for being difficult.


> It was an analogy with the self contained statement you asked me to evaluate, apparently, purposedly, in isolation of the rest of the thread.

>
I've have now told you three times why it is a false analogy and explained why. You have not explained why you think it is a correct analogy. Are you going to?
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It is plain English. I've no idea whether it has a different meaning to a statistician, only that two people with statistical backgrounds understood it immediately, as did several laypeople, but you claim that didn't. So I can only conclude that you are being deliberately difficult.

Even in plain English it doesn't usually mean what you think it means, but never mind, I've already said well before that I was accepting your meaning for convenience.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus

Did they ? I think not.

> if you now understand it, then move on. Stop using it as an excuse for being difficult.

You're the one unable to move, asking the same badly worded question that was clarified and settled way back, again and again.

> I've have now told you three times why it is a false analogy and explained why. You have not explained why you think it is a correct analogy. Are you going to?

Yes it a perfectly correct analogy. All I've done is replacing cricket players by marbles, and replacing the likelihood of scoring a century with what the marble is made of. Taken in isolation (without the previous knowledge that the colour of the marble is linked to what it is made of), this is exactly the same question.
Post edited at 12:08
Jim C - on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
Someone here has lost their marbles for sure;)

There may be more people in a group in India who are Cricketers, but if the indian picked is not a cricketer then there is the same chance of him reaching a century as someone from the China group who is also also not a crickter.

If the chosen person in each group IS a cricketer then the chance of them scoring a century are the same.

The only difference is there is more chance of a cricketer being chosen from the Indian group.
I'm sure that is not helped, but it helped me
Post edited at 12:21
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> Someone here has lost their marbles for sure;)

> There may be more people in a group in India who are Cricketers, but if the indian picked is not a cricketer then there is the same chance of him reaching a century as someone from the China group who is also also not a crickter.

Not necessarily, unless you know the probability of non-cricketeers and cricketeers to score a century are respectively the same, or higher, in India than in china.
That was, apparently, what PP meant by "all things being equal", although it wasn't clear from the onset.

> If the chosen person in each group IS a cricketer then the chance of them scoring a century are the same.

Not necessarily, again, as it would be very reasonable to assume that there could be a situation where the few Chinese cricketeers only play at a high level. You see, for example, a lot of sports in the olympics where countries where a given sport is quite unpopular, doing quite well anyway at the highest level of competition.

> The only difference is there is more chance of a cricketer being chosen from the Indian group.

Yes.

> I'm sure that is not helped, but it helped me
Post edited at 12:38
Jim C - on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

I was of course going on the position of all other variables being equal.

If of course the Indian cricketer picked was was playing at a low level, and the Chinese cricketer picked was playing at a high level, and then IF the said match that the century was to be attempted, was a low level match then the odds are then skewed in favour of both cricketers scoring a century, one being more likely than the other due to his experience (all things NOT being equal) .

If the match was a High Level match, then the cricketer that was used to playing at that level would be much more likely to reach a century.

I'm getting sucked in to this, I need to leave it at that.
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> I was of course going on the position of all other variables being equal.

And one should not always assume this to be the case !

Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Even in plain English it doesn't usually mean what you think it means, but never mind, I've already said well before that I was accepting your meaning for convenience.

>
Which link confirms that I have used it correctly "A ceteris paribus assumption is often key to scientific inquiry, as scientists seek to screen out factors that perturb a relation of interest.
"statement about a causal, empirical, or logical relation between two states of affairs is ceteris paribus if it is acknowledged that the prediction, although usually accurate in expected conditions, can fail or the relation can be abolished by intervening factors".
I was "seeking to screen out factors that might perturb a relation of interest"

Cue Rom saying that it means the opposite or that i was doing the opposite!!!



> Did they ? I think not.

Your problem.

> You're the one unable to move, asking the same badly worded question that was clarified and settled way back, again and again.
>
So, to be clear the badly worded question is ? This presumably on the basis that you don't understand the words "random" or "all other things being equal'"


> Yes it a perfectly correct analogy. All I've done is replacing cricket players by marbles, and replacing the likelihood of scoring a century with what the marble is made of. Taken in isolation (without the previous knowledge that the colour of the marble is linked to what it is made of), this is exactly the same question.
>
In the marble case we don't know if the colour of a marble is linked to what it is made of so the answer is "we can't know". In the cricket case we know that "all other things being equal" being a cricketer changes the likelihood of scoring a century (are you changing your mind and pretending that being a cricketer makes no difference to a person's chance of scoring a century)

Post edited at 13:43
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> Someone here has lost their marbles for sure;)

> There may be more people in a group in India who are Cricketers, but if the indian picked is not a cricketer then there is the same chance of him reaching a century as someone from the China group who is also also not a crickter.

> If the chosen person in each group IS a cricketer then the chance of them scoring a century are the same.

> The only difference is there is more chance of a cricketer being chosen from the Indian group.

> I'm sure that is not helped, but it helped me

It is the point I have been making for six days. Rom will then make the same objection that has been acknowledged and covered for six days: that we don't know that the chances of an Indian cricketer scoring a century are equal to those of a Chinese cricketer scoring a century.
Post edited at 13:47
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> And one should not always assume this to be the case !

But like any reasonable person, he does.

Anyway, how does "all other variables being equal" differ in meaning to "all other things being equal" in Romland?
KevinD - on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Someone here has lost their marbles for sure;)

I hate to say it but I think you are an obvious candidate for joining in

RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It is the point I have been making for six days. Rom will then make the same objection that has been acknowledged and covered for six days: that we don't know that the chances of an Indian cricketer scoring a century are equal to those of a Chinese cricketer scoring a century.

Which begs the question, why do you keep asking the same question that was settled, again,and again.
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> But like any reasonable person, he does.

Nope, he would be simply make the common mistake that most people tend to make (even the BBC, so, he's not alone)
In fact pretty much every time you ask a trick question with the ecological fallacy, most people get it wrong the first time.

> Anyway, how does "all other variables being equal" differ in meaning to "all other things being equal" in Romland?

All other things being equal is usually used to exclude external factors from a regression or other analysis.

In your example, by default, it would mean we assume that for example, the indian randomly player selected does not break a leg, or something of the sort.
I had taken this as implied anyway in the first question.

This is not the same as "all others variables being equal", which in this example, could have well meant, for example, that the % of people in china capable of scoring a century (variable 1) is equal to the same for Indians (variable 2).

Everything on the thread seem to indicate you actually used it initially with the acceoted leaning, until I showed you a Wikipedia article and then you conveniently changed the meaning of it to something non standard.

Either way, this is really vague.
Post edited at 15:28
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Nope, he would be simply make the common mistake that most people tend to make.

> All other things being equal is usually used to exclude external factors from a régression analysis.

>

It means this, which was how I used it. If you want to pretend something else, so be it.

"A ceteris paribus assumption is often key to scientific inquiry, as scientists seek to screen out factors that perturb a relation of interest.
"statement about a causal, empirical, or logical relation between two states of affairs is ceteris paribus if it is acknowledged that the prediction, although usually accurate in expected conditions, can fail or the relation can be abolished by intervening factors".
I was "seeking to screen out factors that might perturb a relation of interest"

I don't know what you issue is, whether you're taking the piss, confuse raising reasonable caveats with piddling about raising increasingly mad objections and confusing yourself, or just prefer not to think you might seen to be losing rather than to be seen to be reaching a reasonable agreement. Or something else.just weird.

" I am not going to get drawn further in to this as I have lost interest in arguing round in circles with someone who will somehow misunderstand each attempt at clarifying in different ways for 200 posts over the next 3 days whilst ignoring all clarifications in my previous posts when replying to my most recent post." quote, unquote.
Post edited at 15:35
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Which begs the question, why do you keep asking the same question that was settled, again,and again.

Because you keep refusing to accept. If you accept the answer to statement "all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

is "yes" then we can both open the champagne. If not, then I'll leave you to go around in circles with yourself.
ajsteele - on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The question was:

> &#147;(all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?&#148;

If only the proportion of players in the population is different then RomTheBear is right, I think. It's because "all other things being equal" would include the chance of a non cricketer or a cricketer scoring a century when given a go. To get your answer the question would have to have been about the chances of having scored a century already as then the non cricketers would obviously not have ever scored a century.

Maybe I'm wrong but that is how I would interpret that question.
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Because you keep refusing to accept. If you accept the answer to statement "all other things being equal) the probability of a random person in a given country in which a higher proportion of people play cricket (eg.India) than in another given country (e.g.China), of scoring a century is higher than that of a random person in the latter country (where a lower proportion of people play cricket) ?”

> is "yes" then we can both open the champagne. If not, then I'll leave you to go around in circles with yourself.

I've already said yes ten times

as long as

- we accept your weird interpretation of "all other things being equal" as equal to "the proportion of cricketeers able to score a century is the same in China and India, and not zero" (I've said I was ok to accept that, for convenience, and I'm tired of arguing over simple semantic)
- we take for granted that non cricketeers have zero chance of scoring a century
- And we take for granted that the likelihood of scoring a century is higher amongst cricketeers than non cricketeers (and obviously, non-null)

Why you keep disagreeing is beyond me.
Post edited at 16:28
RomTheBear on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It means this, which was how I used it. If you want to pretend something else, so be it.

> "A ceteris paribus assumption is often key to scientific inquiry, as scientists seek to screen out factors that perturb a relation of interest.

> "statement about a causal, empirical, or logical relation between two states of affairs is ceteris paribus if it is acknowledged that the prediction, although usually accurate in expected conditions, can fail or the relation can be abolished by intervening factors".

If that what you mean by that, then you are wrong, or don't understand the above.

> I was "seeking to screen out factors that might perturb a relation of interest"

Exactly. In this case, screening out the relative likelihood of scoring a century amongst Indian and Chinese makes the answer "we can't know", because the relation of interest is impossible to predict without this factor. It's a necessary precondition.

Your (incorrect) interpretation of "all others things being equal" as "the likelihood of a a cricketeer scoring a century is the same in both groups" doesn't screen out this factor, it actually defines it.
Post edited at 16:38
Postmanpat on 12 Dec 2016
In reply to ajsteele:

> If only the proportion of players in the population is different then RomTheBear is right, I think. It's because "all other things being equal" would include the chance of a non cricketer or a cricketer scoring a century when given a go. To get your answer the question would have to have been about the chances of having scored a century already as then the non cricketers would obviously not have ever scored a century.

> Maybe I'm wrong but that is how I would interpret that question.

This is not Rom's point. (so far, I'm sure he'll come up with it)

Anyway, if somebody plays cricket he/she is no longer classified as a "non cricketer" so it doesn't change the point. I guess one could elaborate on the term "non cricketer" to define it as "somebody, has not nor ever will play cricket" but I'm not sure it's necessary.

3

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.