The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
statistics question
MengerSponge
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
OK, this is sort of an odd question, but I can't think of how to word my position to my friend. We're discussing profiling, such as profiling muslims in an airport to find terrorists. I remember reading some statistical argument that proved that, even if (for a completely hypothetical example) most terrorists are muslim, that doesn't mean that a particular muslim individual is more likely to be a terrorist than a non-muslim individual. That's my position as to why profiling doesn't work, but he asserts that if most terrorists are muslim, then scrutinizing muslims more makes sense, because there's a better chance that a muslim will be a terrorist than another individual will be. However, I can't remember what this misconception is called, or how to explain it (I don't even know for sure that it's correct, but I really think I remember reading it somewhere). Can anyone offer an explanation, or at least the name of this misconception so that I can research it more? Or if it's wrong, yell at me and tell my why my friend's right.
Edit: I'm not looking for moral reasons against profiling, that's not the issue; I'm just trying to find the statistical reasoning that shows that racial profiling doesn't work, and can't seem to remember the proof that this guy used.
Edit: I'm not looking for moral reasons against profiling, that's not the issue; I'm just trying to find the statistical reasoning that shows that racial profiling doesn't work, and can't seem to remember the proof that this guy used.
MengerSponge on
0
Posts
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1851494
I'm not sure what the proper statistical argument is. I drew a Venn diagram ('looks terrist' vs. 'don't look terrist' as independent areas where 'don't look terrist' was a much larger area, then added 'terrist' as overlapping both but with a higher proportion of overlap in the 'looks terrist' area than the 'don't look terrist' area.) By a very primitive assessment, it looks like racial profiling would work, until the terrorists alter recruiting tactics to shift the boxes (as they have already done even with the threat of profiling emerging).
Thanks for the link though.
I believe this is the article I read. You may want to look into the source and verify how trustworthy it is before you use it. (I say that not because I distrust it, just that it's a site I'm not really familiar with.)
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/random_security.html
If you want counter-arguments, there are plenty. The biggest act of terrorism perpetrated on American soil prior to 9-11 was committed by a blonde white dude. (Other examples of non-Muslim hijackers.) As a security measure, racial profiling is stupid because all it takes is for the "bad guys" to find somebody sympathetic to their cause who doesn't look Middle Eastern. Need I point out that "Muslim" is not an ethnicity? You can be any skin color and Islamic. Behavioral profiling and random profiling are demonstrably more effective at finding potential threats.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So if, say, .1 % of muslims are terrorists, what is the likelihood of selecting a sample that contains that .1% out of a larger sample. The "sample" in this case are people who are detained and questioned. It's not feasible to detain and question each muslim-looking passenger, so a sample is selected. Needless to say, given the number of muslims that travel, the probability of selecting a sample that would contain the .1% is infinitesimally small. So small to the point that profiling based on race is a waste of time.
That, combined with the whole "not all terrorists are muslim" thing. Since it's saint patrick's day, you shouldn't forget about the IRA. No racial profiling happened then, because there's no natural xenophobia. Which is what racial profiling ultimately comes down to.
Yeah, I did ask him if he thought that there would be the same degree of profiling for other groups. My counter-example was bringing up the trench-coat mafia and the supposed correlation between video games and violence. My friend wears a black trench-coat and plays video games, so does he think that he himself should be scrutinized? His reply on this was vague. So aggravating.
I have been thinking of the sampling problems; even if x% of muslims are terrorists, that doesn't mean that x% of the muslims in the airport are; could be more or less. Maybe this is what I was thinking of. I'm also vaguely recalling something about, even if you focus on one group that supposedly has a higher chance of being guilty, you get so many false positives and miss so many real positives from other groups that it's ineffective. (My stats teacher would be so ashamed of how much I've forgotten.)
All good ideas so far, anyone have anything else to add? This entire discussion has made me really want to get a few statistics books.
Therefore you could have something like this:
In our sample we have
10 Muslim terrorists and 1 non-Muslim terrorist
90 Muslim non-terrorists and 4 non-Muslim non-terrorists
Although 90.91% of all terrorists are Muslims, only 10% of Muslims are terrorists. In contrast, only 9.1% of all terrorists are non-Muslims but 20% of all non-Muslims are terrorists. Even though Muslims make up the vast majority of terrorists, they are less likely to be one.
I could have sworn there was a named paradox that was associated with this but I can't seem to find it on wikipedia.
It came up in my statistics courses in a hypothetical cancer screening where positive results were more likely to come about as false positives rather than true positives due to the difference in the number of patients without cancer compared to with cancer.