Roland Fryer Tells the Truth on Race and Policing

[DKW 86 7,424]

And the dismissal trolls will of course call him an Uncle Tom and dismiss everything he says without a second thought.

If you have anything like an open mind, just do from 28-37 minutes.

He talks about publishing the paper. "A dense 104-page paper with 150-page appendix, it was called s*** 4 minutes after it was published."

He then talks about telling the truth must win out and then talks about how much skin he has in the racial game. How almost his entire family has been affected by crime and violence. To think he doesn't care about getting it right is to have your mind completely dimmed by politics. People, for the Love of God, put your BS politics away and listen to someone trying to tell you the truth and not the talking points. Dont be dub or homer. Be better...

Edited February 25 by DKW 86

[AUDub 11,148]

That paper was flawed as **** and I’m surprised it was never retracted.

wouldn’t be the first instance of an economist writing a paper on a branch of study unrelated to their own with a cavalier attitude. It was the basis for Freakonomics. 

Edited February 23 by AUDub

[DKW 86 7,424]

8 hours ago, AUDub said:

That paper was flawed as **** and I’m surprised it was never retracted.

wouldn’t be the first instance of an economist writing a paper on a branch of study unrelated to their own with a cavalier attitude. It was the basis for Freakoconomics. 

Right on cue.  This is why it is a waste of time to come here and have a rational conversation. Fryer ran the results 2X. His is a scientific work, based on facts. We all know you disregard any fact that doesn’t support your narrative. It is what you do. SSDD. 

[AUDub 11,148]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Right on cue.  This is why it is a waste of time to come here and have a rational conversation. Fryer ran the results 2X. His is a scientific work, based on facts. We all know you disregard any fact that doesn’t support your narrative. It is what you do. SSDD. 

Let’s discuss his paper in detail.

You can run the data 10 times but flawed input will always result in flawed output.

[DKW 86 7,424]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

Let’s discuss his paper in detail.

You can run the data 10 times but flawed input will always result in flawed output.

Yeah, cause Harvard pays for flawed output. Let's talk about the paper you wrote for Harvard and then defended properly. 

Oh yeah, there isn't one. 

World-renowned Economist is dismissed by AUDUB because he isn't a narrative monkey. I cant say I was shocked. SSDD.

Edited February 23 by DKW 86

[AUDub 11,148]

Just now, DKW 86 said:

Yeah, cause Harvard pays for flawed up out. Let's talk about the paper you wrote for Harvard and then defended properly. 

Oh yeah, there isn't one. 

Harvard isn’t a journal and this wasn’t a doctoral dissertation.

This was published in “the Journal of Political Economy,” and I get the feeling you don’t know or care how peer review works.

But I assert the data, the methodology is flawed. Care to discuss that or are you just going to lob insults at me? 

[DKW 86 7,424]

11 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Harvard isn’t a journal and this wasn’t a doctoral dissertation.

This was published in “the Journal of Political Economy,” and I get the feeling you don’t know or care how peer review works.

But I assert the data, the methodology is flawed. Care to discuss that or are you just going to lob insults at me? 

So what you are saying is in the publish-or-perish world of academia is that you can publish s***, even s*** you ran the data on 2X with a completely different set of interns, and still keep your job at Harvard? I think you are all butt-hurt for one reason and one reason only, because he's BLACK. Your true colors are showing. 

This is a BLACK MALE telling the TRUTH he found using facts and it disagrees with your lil narrative, so "the N-Word must be wrong." Of course, the White Guy in Alabama dismisses the Black Academic from Harvard, like we all 100% expected him to do. Just SSDD.

Edited February 23 by DKW 86

[AUDub 11,148]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

So what you are saying is in the publish-or-perish world of academia is that you can publish s***, even s*** you ran the data on 2X with a completely different set of interns, and still keep your job at Harvard? I think you are all butt-hurt for one reason and one reason only, because he's BLACK. Your true colors are showing. 

This is a BLACK MALE telling the TRUTH he found using facts and it disagrees with your lil narrative, so "the N-Word must be wrong." Of course, the White Guy in Alabama dismisses the Black Academic from Harvard, like we all 100% expected him to do. Just SSDD.

Wow.

The data is incomplete. The conclusions are unreliable. 

[aubiefifty 16,791]

dang i am not in the convo and feel like i have been insulted. i hope the good lord loves yall cus i do not...........grins

 

 

 

 

kidding.

Edited February 23 by aubiefifty

[DKW 86 7,424]

15 hours ago, AUDub said:

Wow.

The data is incomplete. The conclusions are unreliable. 

"The facts dont agree with my narrative."

Roland Fryer has written 50+ Papers. None of which ever got criticized except this one. So everything he wrote at Harvard was complete crap as well but no one at Harvard or anywhere else ever criticized it except for this one, which has been run multiple times with multiple groups of people working on it?

Or dub, is it just because he's black? I think we already know the answer.

Edited February 24 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

"The facts dont agree with my narrative."

Roland Fryer has written 50+ Papers. None of which ever got criticized except this one. So everything he wrote at Harvard was complete crap as well but no one at Harvard or anywhere else ever criticized it except for this one, which has been run multiple times with multiple groups of people working on it?

Or dub, is it just because he's black? I think we already know the answer.

This is the problem I have with DKW. 

Dub presents a rational, logical argument - which is at least debatable - and David responds with your "racist".

The funny part he goes on to project the very same mindset that he accuses Dub of - emotional projection and pursuing his own personal "narrative". 

Have you actually read the paper David?

What's the title?  Is it referenced in the video?

 

 

Edited February 24 by homersapien

[aubiefifty 16,791]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This is the problem I have with DKW. 

Dub presents a rational, logical argument - which is at least debatable - and David responds with your "racist".

The funny part he goes on to project the very same mindset that he accuses Dub of - emotional projection and pursuing his own personal "narrative". 

Have you actually read the paper David?

What's the title?  Is it referenced in the video?

 

 

dkw has thrown me under the bus because i said indies had a real clown running for pres i guess.

[homersapien 11,373]

17 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

dkw has thrown me under the bus because i said indies had a real clown running for pres i guess.

He's easily triggered.

[AUDub 11,148]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

"The facts dont agree with my narrative."

Roland Fryer has written 50+ Papers. None of which ever got criticized except this one. So everything he wrote at Harvard was complete crap as well but no one at Harvard or anywhere else ever criticized it except for this one, which has been run multiple times with multiple groups of people working on it?

Or dub, is it just because he's black? I think we already know the answer.

This is the first I’ve seen that delved into sociology, which is a completely different field than his usual one, that being economics.

Shocker, he was cavalier with a field that is not his own. Not unique among economists.

But rather than discuss it like an adult, you immediately go for the balls. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

15 hours ago, AUDub said:

This is the first I’ve seen that delved into sociology, which is a completely different field than his usual one, that being economics.

Shocker, he was cavalier with a field that is not his own. Not unique among economists.

But rather than discuss it like an adult, you immediately go for the balls. 

Dub, please. You never discuss a ******* thing. You do a dimestore dismissal and that's it.

You have presented ABSOLUTE ZERO evidence, LIKE EVERY OTHER THREAD ON THE FORUM. SSDD.

You make a blanket dismissal when, as usual, have no evidence. I have backed up Fryer as a renowned economist. You, again without any evidence, want to change his skill set and state that this is a topic for sociology. Again, as usual, you are wrong. You don't know anything about his career and his work because he's black. He is a world-recognized researcher at America's best university and all that means nothing to you, because he is black. You don't care if he is right or wrong, you arent going to listen, because of his skin color. SSDD.

Who is the black economics professor at Harvard?

 

 

 

Roland G. Fryer, Jr. is a Professor of Economics at Harvard University. Fryer's research combines economic theory, empirical evidence, and randomized experiments to help design more effective government policies.

[DKW 86 7,424]

So that we can agree on what we are talking about:

Roland Fryer has so far published 62 Papers, the only pushback is on one. Many cover DEI Topics, Race, etc. Only one will be talked about by his critics. None of his other successes are covered.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications?page=3

THE STUDY: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf

More on the study:

https://www.hoover.org/research/do-not-defund-roland-fryer-and-rafael-mangual-crime-and-policing-21st-century

https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwjm8Ne3rMaEAxWMNtQBHYAmAvUYABAAGgJvYQ&ase=2&gclid=Cj0KCQiA5-uuBhDzARIsAAa21T-gs4lx0vaFlC3lHjSL0VjLsgqNTjcfdq8BTNwJYrxNPotmHGJfYo4aAke1EALw_wcB&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAESVuD23-iU2-XZk1gpqq2jNWV3b-WrpaXRGG4lFtzd-t8ejbwp2lgaZWsreeUx16NAB_-KodnXY9kWBX4DFSNKhOH6K8g_quvSb44KCX9YlUfp74X7QL_Z&sig=AOD64_1owekkHipwxo2dzy4suA3OXAJJvQ&q&nis=4&adurl&ved=2ahUKEwjh4tC3rMaEAxW0GtAFHXr4COoQ0Qx6BAgKEAE

https://www.forcescience.com/2019/08/researchers-find-no-racial-disparity-in-police-deadly-forceand-thats-just-the-beginning/

https://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/police-shootings-race-and-the-fear-defense

Harvard Professor needed armed protection after publishing research that challenged woke orthodoxies

Fryer's paper was published in 2017. He has been threatened for years. 

https://freespeechunion.org/harvard-professor-needed-armed-protection-after-publishing-research-that-challenged-woke-orthodoxies/

Yes, I read this mess from a colleague. 

https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police

The critique is only arguing that Fryer normalized Police Violence against all forms of crimes and race. If you want to look at ONLY raw data and not normalize it, you will indeed get completely different results. If you look at JUST TWO VARIABLES AND IGNORE ALL OTHERS, you can get another relationship. Whether that means anything is a whole other discussion. IE: "Sales of Ice Cream go up in December, therefore cold weather does not affect Ice Cream Sales." Or you might consider that sales ONLY go up in December, at Christmas, and that it might be a more detailed answer than looking at just two variables would provide. Fryer normalized all violent-related crimes against police use of force and found his answer. His research assistants thought it was a far more balanced and organized way of handling the data. Others objected because the answer did not fit their perceptions. Remember this man has 61 other widely accepted and honored papers to his name.

Does that mean that outliers like we have seen in the media don't exist? Absolutely not. Here in Decatur, we have a dead black man, Steve Perkins, killed by some trigger-happy cops. It was a bad shooting in every way. The cops are now all fired, and at least one is likely headed to prison. Are there bad actors with the police? Yes. But overall, do we have systemic issues with violence against blacks, OR if we look at more than two variables, do we see the numbers shift toward something else?

I know some on here are never going to listen to anyone with a counter view to their narrative or party talking points. That is just not allowed. Throw into that mix that Fryer is black and of course, he is getting 100s of death threats. But some on here will say that Fryer doesn't understand the black experience as much as a bunch of redneck Alabama crackers do. The rest of us will just laugh.

[DKW 86 7,424]

.02 Claudine Gay went after a man that has published 62 papers with not one accusation of plagiarism. She went after him virulently. She has to this day has worked on 2 papers other than her Thesis. All were found to have plagiarism used in them. But she, the woman who defended open harassment of Jews at Harvard, went after a man trying to do nothing but defend  the truth he found in his work.

 

Edited February 25 by DKW 86

[AUDub 11,148]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

So that we can agree on what we are talking about:

Roland Fryer has so far published 62 Papers, the only pushback is on one. Many cover DEI Topics, Race, etc. Only one will be talked about by his critics. None of his other successes are covered.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications?page=3

THE STUDY: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf

More on the study:

https://www.hoover.org/research/do-not-defund-roland-fryer-and-rafael-mangual-crime-and-policing-21st-century

https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwjm8Ne3rMaEAxWMNtQBHYAmAvUYABAAGgJvYQ&ase=2&gclid=Cj0KCQiA5-uuBhDzARIsAAa21T-gs4lx0vaFlC3lHjSL0VjLsgqNTjcfdq8BTNwJYrxNPotmHGJfYo4aAke1EALw_wcB&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAESVuD23-iU2-XZk1gpqq2jNWV3b-WrpaXRGG4lFtzd-t8ejbwp2lgaZWsreeUx16NAB_-KodnXY9kWBX4DFSNKhOH6K8g_quvSb44KCX9YlUfp74X7QL_Z&sig=AOD64_1owekkHipwxo2dzy4suA3OXAJJvQ&q&nis=4&adurl&ved=2ahUKEwjh4tC3rMaEAxW0GtAFHXr4COoQ0Qx6BAgKEAE

https://www.forcescience.com/2019/08/researchers-find-no-racial-disparity-in-police-deadly-forceand-thats-just-the-beginning/

https://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/police-shootings-race-and-the-fear-defense

Harvard Professor needed armed protection after publishing research that challenged woke orthodoxies

Fryer's paper was published in 2017. He has been threatened for years. 

https://freespeechunion.org/harvard-professor-needed-armed-protection-after-publishing-research-that-challenged-woke-orthodoxies/

Yes, I read this mess from a colleague. 

https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police

The critique is only arguing that Fryer normalized Police Violence against all forms of crimes and race. If you want to look at ONLY raw data and not normalize it, you will indeed get completely different results. If you look at JUST TWO VARIABLES AND IGNORE ALL OTHERS, you can get another relationship. Whether that means anything is a whole other discussion. IE: "Sales of Ice Cream go up in December, therefore cold weather does not affect Ice Cream Sales." Or you might consider that sales ONLY go up in December, at Christmas, and that it might be a more detailed answer than looking at just two variables would provide. Fryer normalized all violent-related crimes against police use of force and found his answer. His research assistants thought it was a far more balanced and organized way of handling the data. Others objected because the answer did not fit their perceptions. Remember this man has 61 other widely accepted and honored papers to his name.

Does that mean that outliers like we have seen in the media don't exist? Absolutely not. Here in Decatur, we have a dead black man, Steve Perkins, killed by some trigger-happy cops. It was a bad shooting in every way. The cops are now all fired, and at least one is likely headed to prison. Are there bad actors with the police? Yes. But overall, do we have systemic issues with violence against blacks, OR if we look at more than two variables, do we see the numbers shift toward something else?

I know some on here are never going to listen to anyone with a counter view to their narrative or party talking points. That is just not allowed. Throw into that mix that Fryer is black and of course, he is getting 100s of death threats. But some on here will say that Fryer doesn't understand the black experience as much as a bunch of redneck Alabama crackers do. The rest of us will just laugh.

Where did he get that data. I know. I’m willing to bet you do not. 

[homersapien 11,373]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I know some on here are never going to listen to anyone with a counter view to their narrative or party talking points. That is just not allowed. Throw into that mix that Fryer is black and of course, he is getting 100s of death threats. But some on here will say that Fryer doesn't understand the black experience as much as a bunch of redneck Alabama crackers do. The rest of us will just laugh.

You really don't see the irony of denigrating others due to there adhering to a "narrative" while clearly pushing your own ("narrative)?

[AUDub 11,148]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

You really don't see the irony of denigrating others due to there adhering to a "narrative" while clearly pushing your own ("narrative)?

This is what he was fishing for. He was waiting for someone to take issue with the research so he could call them racist and act smugly superior. 

[AUDub 11,148]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

.02 Claudine Gay went after a man that has published 62 papers with not one accusation of plagiarism. She went after him virulently. She has to this day has worked on 2 papers other than her Thesis. All were found to have plagiarism used in them. But she, the woman who defended open harassment of Jews at Harvard, went after a man trying to do nothing but defend  the truth he found in his work.

 

I don’t care about that. Let’s discuss his research. 

[homersapien 11,373]

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

This is what he was fishing for. He was waiting for someone to take issue with the research so he could call them racist and act smugly superior. 

Probably so.  He's apparently addicted to "counter narratives".

It's also possible he simply dismisses mistreatment of blacks by law enforcement as a false or fake issue, making the discussion doubly ironic.

[AUDub 11,148]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's also possible he simply dismisses mistreatment of blacks by law enforcement as a false or fake issue, making the discussion doubly ironic.

That’s the funny thing about this paper; it actually does find that minorities are more likely to suffer police brutality.

It’s lethal force that it comes to the harebrained conclusion, and in error. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

You really don't see the irony of denigrating others due to there adhering to a "narrative" while clearly pushing your own ("narrative)?

I don’t have any narrative I am pushing. My god you are dense. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

20 hours ago, AUDub said:

Where did he get that data. I know. I’m willing to bet you do not. 

The raw data came from several years of Houston PD work.