War on white people?

[Neutraligon]

Do you know what Occam's Razor is? Are you one of those guys who believes the Middle Ages never happened?

Occam's razor isn't an excuse to take the easy way out. If somebody asked you how babies are made, it's simpler to think that one human can create a child than it is to think that two humans are needed, but that's obviously false. Occam's razor is a methodology to arrive at an avenue to explore, not a definitive end-all-be-all that the truth is always simple. So you need to answer Mavorpen's data or concede.

Occam's razor states one thing, that the hypothesis with te fewest assumptions is the one that should be chosen. However this is not an absolute in science. It is preferred due to science needing to be testable and falsifiable, but it is not an absolute. Considering we are discussing a scientific claim, the use of Occam's razor does not do what Blakk Metal thinks it does.

[Mavorpen]

Occam's razor isn't an excuse to take the easy way out. If somebody asked you how babies are made, it's simpler to think that one human can create a child than it is to think that two humans are needed, but that's obviously false. Occam's razor is a methodology to arrive at an avenue to explore, not a definitive end-all-be-all that the truth is always simple. So you need to answer Mavorpen's data or concede.

Occam's razor states one thing, that the hypothesis with te fewest assumptions is the one that should be chosen. However this is not an absolute in science. It is preferred due to science needing to be testable and falsifiable, but it is not an absolute. Considering we are discussing a scientific claim, the use of Occam's razor does not do what Blakk Metal thinks it does.

You mean, he can't use it in place of an actual argument with evidence, warrants, etc? Say it isn't so!

[Sun Wukong]

Do you know what Occam's Razor is? Are you one of those guys who believes the Middle Ages never happened?

Occam's razor isn't an excuse to take the easy way out. If somebody asked you how babies are made, it's simpler to think that one human can create a child than it is to think that two humans are needed, but that's obviously false. Occam's razor is a methodology to arrive at an avenue to explore, not a definitive end-all-be-all that the truth is always simple. So you need to answer Mavorpen's data or concede.

That's not Occam's Razor. You know that "all things being equal" bit at the beginning? That bit's important.

[Blakk Metal]

Do you know what Occam's Razor is? Are you one of those guys who believes the Middle Ages never happened?

Occam's razor isn't an excuse to take the easy way out. If somebody asked you how babies are made, it's simpler to think that one human can create a child than it is to think that two humans are needed, but that's obviously false.

And it can be proven false easily. Take 2000 women, randomly assign to two groups and isolate them the general population. Put semen into the vaginae of one group, put mayonnaise into the vaginae of the other. You will quickly notice that some of the first group is pregnant and none of the second group is.

Occam's razor is a methodology to arrive at an avenue to explore, not a definitive end-all-be-all that the truth is always simple. So you need to answer Mavorpen's data or concede.

Mavorpen's data is probably bullshit, as I've proven earlier.

[Mavorpen]

Mavorpen's data is probably bullshit, as I've proven earlier.

No you haven't.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455900/pdf/11524_2006_Article_433.pdf

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:

Note that this latter perspective suggests that underreporting is inadvertent,
not intentional.

But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:

No, it does not. Your source studies the concordance rate to show how accurate self reported studies are. And if you read the results, it's actually very high.



It does not, ANYWHERE, say "self reported studies on race and drug use are wrong." It does not, ANYWHERE, report any specific statistics measuring marijuana use by race that shows a difference level such as this:

Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.

Unfortunately, a drug test provides no data regarding the frequency or chronicity of drug use or the extent to which treatment resources are needed or have been previously used. Thus, because drug use and abuse history can only be
obtained from “good” questions, surveys are indispensable tools for informing
public policy.

In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases

The discrimination
scale showed a significant association with cocaine concordance, with discordant respondents reporting higher levels of discrimination than concordant respondents (t440 = 2.11, P< .05). Privacy ratings were associated with marijuana
concordance, with discordant respondents reporting lower levels of perceived privacy
than concordant respondents (t422 = 2.60, P < .01). There were no other theory-based mediators significantly associated with the combined concordance measure.

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this

The data collection method used in NSDUH involves in-person interviews with sample persons, incorporating procedures that would be likely to increase respondents' cooperation and willingness to report honestly about their illicit drug use behavior. Confidentiality is stressed in all written and oral communications with potential respondents. Respondents' names are not collected with the data, and computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) methods are used to provide a private and confidential setting to complete the interview.

Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.

B.3.4 Validity of Self-Reported Substance Use

Most substance use prevalence estimates, including those produced for NSDUH, are based on self-reports of use. Although studies generally have supported the validity of self-report data, it is well documented that these data may be biased (underreported or overreported). The bias varies by several factors, including the mode of administration, the setting, the population under investigation, and the type of drug (Aquilino, 1994; Brener et al., 2006; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner, Lessler, & Gfroerer, 1992). NSDUH utilizes widely accepted methodological practices for increasing the accuracy of self-reports, such as encouraging privacy through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and providing assurances that individual responses will remain confidential. Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).

A study cosponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) examined the validity of NSDUH self-report data on drug use among persons aged 12 to 25. The study found that it is possible to collect urine and hair specimens with a relatively high response rate in a general population survey, and that most youths and young adults reported their recent drug use accurately in self-reports (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007). However, there were some reporting differences in either direction, with some respondents not reporting use but testing positive, and some reporting use but testing negative. Technical and statistical problems related to the hair tests precluded presenting comparisons of self-reports and hair test results, while small sample sizes for self-reports and positive urine test results for opiates and stimulants precluded drawing conclusions about the validity of self-reports of these drugs. Further, inexactness in the window of detection for drugs in biological specimens and biological factors affecting the window of detection could account for some inconsistency between self-reports and urine test results.

So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

Still waiting on you to address my post that demonstrates my source is accurate and reliable.

[Neutraligon]

Occam's razor isn't an excuse to take the easy way out. If somebody asked you how babies are made, it's simpler to think that one human can create a child than it is to think that two humans are needed, but that's obviously false.

And it can be proven false easily. Take 2000 women, randomly assign to two groups and isolate them the general population. Put semen into the vaginae of one group, put mayonnaise into the vaginae of the other. You will quickly notice that some of the first group is pregnant and none of the second group is.

Occam's razor is a methodology to arrive at an avenue to explore, not a definitive end-all-be-all that the truth is always simple. So you need to answer Mavorpen's data or concede.

Mavorpen's data is probably bullshit, as I've proven earlier.

No you didn't as Mav already refuted you in the post you are supposed to be responding to. And again, you can't use Occam's Razor the way you are using it.

[MERIZoC]

Occam's razor isn't an excuse to take the easy way out. If somebody asked you how babies are made, it's simpler to think that one human can create a child than it is to think that two humans are needed, but that's obviously false.

And it can be proven false easily. Take 2000 women, randomly assign to two groups and isolate them the general population. Put semen into the vaginae of one group, put mayonnaise into the vaginae of the other. You will quickly notice that some of the first group is pregnant and none of the second group is.

Occam's razor is a methodology to arrive at an avenue to explore, not a definitive end-all-be-all that the truth is always simple. So you need to answer Mavorpen's data or concede.

Mavorpen's data is probably bullshit, as I've proven earlier.

This contradicts itself.

[Mavorpen]

And it can be proven false easily. Take 2000 women, randomly assign to two groups and isolate them the general population. Put semen into the vaginae of one group, put mayonnaise into the vaginae of the other. You will quickly notice that some of the first group is pregnant and none of the second group is.

Mavorpen's data is probably bullshit, as I've proven earlier.

No you didn't as Mav already refuted you.

I do love how he asked me for evidence proving him wrong and he continues to ignore the very same post doing so.

I mean, usually with racists, they at least TRY to pretend they're reading my posts. Explicitly ignoring posts disproving them altogether while shouting, "I WON!" is fairly new to me.

[Getrektistan]

Occam's razor isn't an excuse to take the easy way out. If somebody asked you how babies are made, it's simpler to think that one human can create a child than it is to think that two humans are needed, but that's obviously false.

And it can be proven false easily. Take 2000 women, randomly assign to two groups and isolate them the general population. Put semen into the vaginae of one group, put mayonnaise into the vaginae of the other. You will quickly notice that some of the first group is pregnant and none of the second group is.

Occam's razor is a methodology to arrive at an avenue to explore, not a definitive end-all-be-all that the truth is always simple. So you need to answer Mavorpen's data or concede.

Mavorpen's data is probably bullshit, as I've proven earlier.

And this is also easily demonstrable, which is why you're in the stark minority here.

[Blakk Metal]

Mavorpen's data is probably bullshit, as I've proven earlier.

No you haven't.

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:



But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:



Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.



In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases



In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this



Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.



So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

Still waiting on you to address my post that demonstrates my source is accurate and reliable.

And it can be proven false easily. Take 2000 women, randomly assign to two groups and isolate them the general population. Put semen into the vaginae of one group, put mayonnaise into the vaginae of the other. You will quickly notice that some of the first group is pregnant and none of the second group is.

Mavorpen's data is probably bullshit, as I've proven earlier.

No you didn't as Mav already refuted you.

I'm not playing a game of nuh-uh. Do you have anything to say?

And it can be proven false easily. Take 2000 women, randomly assign to two groups and isolate them the general population. Put semen into the vaginae of one group, put mayonnaise into the vaginae of the other. You will quickly notice that some of the first group is pregnant and none of the second group is.

Mavorpen's data is probably bullshit, as I've proven earlier.

This contradicts itself.

That doesn't even make sense.

[MERIZoC]

No you didn't as Mav already refuted you.

I do love how he asked me for evidence proving him wrong and he continues to ignore the very same post doing so.

I mean, usually with racists, they at least TRY to pretend they're reading my posts. Explicitly ignoring posts disproving them altogether while shouting, "I WON!" is fairly new to me.

Y'see, that's part of the reason I put him on ignore. You should try it.

[Sun Wukong]

No you didn't as Mav already refuted you.

I do love how he asked me for evidence proving him wrong and he continues to ignore the very same post doing so.

I mean, usually with racists, they at least TRY to pretend they're reading my posts. Explicitly ignoring posts disproving them altogether while shouting, "I WON!" is fairly new to me.

Maybe he's got a Creationist coaching him?

[Mavorpen]

I'm not playing a game of nuh-uh. Do you have anything to say?

Yes, I do.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455900/pdf/11524_2006_Article_433.pdf

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:

Note that this latter perspective suggests that underreporting is inadvertent,
not intentional.

But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:

No, it does not. Your source studies the concordance rate to show how accurate self reported studies are. And if you read the results, it's actually very high.



It does not, ANYWHERE, say "self reported studies on race and drug use are wrong." It does not, ANYWHERE, report any specific statistics measuring marijuana use by race that shows a difference level such as this:

Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.

Unfortunately, a drug test provides no data regarding the frequency or chronicity of drug use or the extent to which treatment resources are needed or have been previously used. Thus, because drug use and abuse history can only be
obtained from “good” questions, surveys are indispensable tools for informing
public policy.

In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases

The discrimination
scale showed a significant association with cocaine concordance, with discordant respondents reporting higher levels of discrimination than concordant respondents (t440 = 2.11, P< .05). Privacy ratings were associated with marijuana
concordance, with discordant respondents reporting lower levels of perceived privacy
than concordant respondents (t422 = 2.60, P < .01). There were no other theory-based mediators significantly associated with the combined concordance measure.

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this

The data collection method used in NSDUH involves in-person interviews with sample persons, incorporating procedures that would be likely to increase respondents' cooperation and willingness to report honestly about their illicit drug use behavior. Confidentiality is stressed in all written and oral communications with potential respondents. Respondents' names are not collected with the data, and computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) methods are used to provide a private and confidential setting to complete the interview.

Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.

B.3.4 Validity of Self-Reported Substance Use

Most substance use prevalence estimates, including those produced for NSDUH, are based on self-reports of use. Although studies generally have supported the validity of self-report data, it is well documented that these data may be biased (underreported or overreported). The bias varies by several factors, including the mode of administration, the setting, the population under investigation, and the type of drug (Aquilino, 1994; Brener et al., 2006; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner, Lessler, & Gfroerer, 1992). NSDUH utilizes widely accepted methodological practices for increasing the accuracy of self-reports, such as encouraging privacy through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and providing assurances that individual responses will remain confidential. Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).

A study cosponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) examined the validity of NSDUH self-report data on drug use among persons aged 12 to 25. The study found that it is possible to collect urine and hair specimens with a relatively high response rate in a general population survey, and that most youths and young adults reported their recent drug use accurately in self-reports (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007). However, there were some reporting differences in either direction, with some respondents not reporting use but testing positive, and some reporting use but testing negative. Technical and statistical problems related to the hair tests precluded presenting comparisons of self-reports and hair test results, while small sample sizes for self-reports and positive urine test results for opiates and stimulants precluded drawing conclusions about the validity of self-reports of these drugs. Further, inexactness in the window of detection for drugs in biological specimens and biological factors affecting the window of detection could account for some inconsistency between self-reports and urine test results.

So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

And I can keep saying it over and over until you actually address my post.

[Mavorpen]

I do love how he asked me for evidence proving him wrong and he continues to ignore the very same post doing so.

I mean, usually with racists, they at least TRY to pretend they're reading my posts. Explicitly ignoring posts disproving them altogether while shouting, "I WON!" is fairly new to me.

Y'see, that's part of the reason I put him on ignore. You should try it.

No. This is like a new species to me. I want to see how far he can take this childish act of shouting "NUUUUU!" and using that as a placeholder for an argument.

[Blakk Metal]

I'm not playing a game of nuh-uh. Do you have anything to say?

Yes, I do.

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:



But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:



Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.



In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases



In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this



Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.



So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

And I can keep saying it over and over until you actually address my post.

I already addressed your post. Now prove me wrong.

[Mavorpen]

I do love how he asked me for evidence proving him wrong and he continues to ignore the very same post doing so.

I mean, usually with racists, they at least TRY to pretend they're reading my posts. Explicitly ignoring posts disproving them altogether while shouting, "I WON!" is fairly new to me.

Maybe he's got a Creationist coaching him?

I feel like I'm Richard Dawkins interviewing Wendy Wright. They both continuously shout "WHERE IS UR EVIDENCE!" even though I've given it to them several times over.

[Mavorpen]

I already addressed your post. Now prove me wrong.

No you didn't. I'll post it again for you to actually address.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455900/pdf/11524_2006_Article_433.pdf

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:

Note that this latter perspective suggests that underreporting is inadvertent,
not intentional.

But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:

No, it does not. Your source studies the concordance rate to show how accurate self reported studies are. And if you read the results, it's actually very high.



It does not, ANYWHERE, say "self reported studies on race and drug use are wrong." It does not, ANYWHERE, report any specific statistics measuring marijuana use by race that shows a difference level such as this:

Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.

Unfortunately, a drug test provides no data regarding the frequency or chronicity of drug use or the extent to which treatment resources are needed or have been previously used. Thus, because drug use and abuse history can only be
obtained from “good” questions, surveys are indispensable tools for informing
public policy.

In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases

The discrimination
scale showed a significant association with cocaine concordance, with discordant respondents reporting higher levels of discrimination than concordant respondents (t440 = 2.11, P< .05). Privacy ratings were associated with marijuana
concordance, with discordant respondents reporting lower levels of perceived privacy
than concordant respondents (t422 = 2.60, P < .01). There were no other theory-based mediators significantly associated with the combined concordance measure.

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this

The data collection method used in NSDUH involves in-person interviews with sample persons, incorporating procedures that would be likely to increase respondents' cooperation and willingness to report honestly about their illicit drug use behavior. Confidentiality is stressed in all written and oral communications with potential respondents. Respondents' names are not collected with the data, and computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) methods are used to provide a private and confidential setting to complete the interview.

Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.

B.3.4 Validity of Self-Reported Substance Use

Most substance use prevalence estimates, including those produced for NSDUH, are based on self-reports of use. Although studies generally have supported the validity of self-report data, it is well documented that these data may be biased (underreported or overreported). The bias varies by several factors, including the mode of administration, the setting, the population under investigation, and the type of drug (Aquilino, 1994; Brener et al., 2006; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner, Lessler, & Gfroerer, 1992). NSDUH utilizes widely accepted methodological practices for increasing the accuracy of self-reports, such as encouraging privacy through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and providing assurances that individual responses will remain confidential. Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).

A study cosponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) examined the validity of NSDUH self-report data on drug use among persons aged 12 to 25. The study found that it is possible to collect urine and hair specimens with a relatively high response rate in a general population survey, and that most youths and young adults reported their recent drug use accurately in self-reports (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007). However, there were some reporting differences in either direction, with some respondents not reporting use but testing positive, and some reporting use but testing negative. Technical and statistical problems related to the hair tests precluded presenting comparisons of self-reports and hair test results, while small sample sizes for self-reports and positive urine test results for opiates and stimulants precluded drawing conclusions about the validity of self-reports of these drugs. Further, inexactness in the window of detection for drugs in biological specimens and biological factors affecting the window of detection could account for some inconsistency between self-reports and urine test results.

So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

[Sun Wukong]

Y'see, that's part of the reason I put him on ignore. You should try it.

No. This is like a new species to me. I want to see how far he can take this childish act of shouting "NUUUUU!" and using that as a placeholder for an argument.

If experience is any guide: he's going to accuse you of what he himself is guilty of, and then storm out saying that you're ignoring his arguments.

[Mavorpen]

No. This is like a new species to me. I want to see how far he can take this childish act of shouting "NUUUUU!" and using that as a placeholder for an argument.

If experience is any guide: he's going to accuse you of what he himself is guilty of, and then storm out saying that you're ignoring his arguments.

Well that would be disappointing. I'm hoping for something more surprising.

[Blakk Metal]

Maybe he's got a Creationist coaching him?

I feel like I'm Richard Dawkins interviewing Wendy Wright. They both continuously shout "WHERE IS UR EVIDENCE!" even though I've given it to them several times over.

Your evidence is bullshit. Evolution can be explained fairly easily, and is completely obvious. The hypothesis that a fuckload of people are willing to compromise justice and public safety to hurt a politically favored class of people is not obvious, and is in fact completely counterintuitive.

[Getrektistan]

Your hypothesis adds a factor to issue, 'racial disparities', therefore, unless you can find convincing evidence I am wrong, Occam's Razor gives me victory.

Again, Occam's razor doesn't let you ignore evidence. There is clear evidence here that you glossed over by saying that it's too complicated, which is very obviously invalid. You know this is how Occam's razor works, so you know that you can't use it here.

'Discrimination' is not a legitimate complaint, it is pure rationalization, something which people do in order to make themselves feel better when they commit something immoral, like lying.

This isn't a rebuttal, you're again glossing over Mavorpen's post and just claiming that his reasoning, which is well supported by evidence, is somehow "not legitimate" without giving any reasoning or evidence as to why that should be the case.

So you didn't rebut him, you just made vague claims.

[Mavorpen]

Your evidence is bullshit.

And yet, you've continuously refused to prove the post, which showed the evidence to be legitimate, wrong:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455900/pdf/11524_2006_Article_433.pdf
(Image)

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:

Note that this latter perspective suggests that underreporting is inadvertent,
not intentional.

But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:

No, it does not. Your source studies the concordance rate to show how accurate self reported studies are. And if you read the results, it's actually very high.



It does not, ANYWHERE, say "self reported studies on race and drug use are wrong." It does not, ANYWHERE, report any specific statistics measuring marijuana use by race that shows a difference level such as this:

(Image)

Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.

Unfortunately, a drug test provides no data regarding the frequency or chronicity of drug use or the extent to which treatment resources are needed or have been previously used. Thus, because drug use and abuse history can only be
obtained from “good” questions, surveys are indispensable tools for informing
public policy.

In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases

The discrimination
scale showed a significant association with cocaine concordance, with discordant respondents reporting higher levels of discrimination than concordant respondents (t440 = 2.11, P< .05). Privacy ratings were associated with marijuana
concordance, with discordant respondents reporting lower levels of perceived privacy
than concordant respondents (t422 = 2.60, P < .01). There were no other theory-based mediators significantly associated with the combined concordance measure.

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this

The data collection method used in NSDUH involves in-person interviews with sample persons, incorporating procedures that would be likely to increase respondents' cooperation and willingness to report honestly about their illicit drug use behavior. Confidentiality is stressed in all written and oral communications with potential respondents. Respondents' names are not collected with the data, and computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) methods are used to provide a private and confidential setting to complete the interview.

Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.

B.3.4 Validity of Self-Reported Substance Use

Most substance use prevalence estimates, including those produced for NSDUH, are based on self-reports of use. Although studies generally have supported the validity of self-report data, it is well documented that these data may be biased (underreported or overreported). The bias varies by several factors, including the mode of administration, the setting, the population under investigation, and the type of drug (Aquilino, 1994; Brener et al., 2006; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner, Lessler, & Gfroerer, 1992). NSDUH utilizes widely accepted methodological practices for increasing the accuracy of self-reports, such as encouraging privacy through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and providing assurances that individual responses will remain confidential. Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).

A study cosponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) examined the validity of NSDUH self-report data on drug use among persons aged 12 to 25. The study found that it is possible to collect urine and hair specimens with a relatively high response rate in a general population survey, and that most youths and young adults reported their recent drug use accurately in self-reports (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007). However, there were some reporting differences in either direction, with some respondents not reporting use but testing positive, and some reporting use but testing negative. Technical and statistical problems related to the hair tests precluded presenting comparisons of self-reports and hair test results, while small sample sizes for self-reports and positive urine test results for opiates and stimulants precluded drawing conclusions about the validity of self-reports of these drugs. Further, inexactness in the window of detection for drugs in biological specimens and biological factors affecting the window of detection could account for some inconsistency between self-reports and urine test results.

So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

[Getrektistan]

I feel like I'm Richard Dawkins interviewing Wendy Wright. They both continuously shout "WHERE IS UR EVIDENCE!" even though I've given it to them several times over.

Your evidence is bullshit. Evolution can be explained fairly easily, and is completely obvious. The hypothesis that a fuckload of people

it doesn't take a "fuckload of people", it takes a few that are in power combined with a legacy of discrimination that has existed since this nation's inception.

are willing to compromise justice and public safety

So you don't accept that people are willing to hurt the people that they hate if they have the power to? It's not particularly unintuitive, and it's not as if police officers and politicians are naturally saints.

to hurt a politically favored class of people

Black people are not at all politically favored. If they were, we wouldn't just now have our first non-white president, and crack and cocaine would have the same minimum sentence.

[MERIZoC]

Your evidence is bullshit.

And yet, you've continuously refused to prove the post, which showed the evidence to be legitimate, wrong:

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:



But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:



Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.



In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases



In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this



Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.



So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

Mav, I've seen you post that so much, I'm gonna have the words "It's YOUR fucking move" stuck in my head the entire night.

[Mavorpen]

And yet, you've continuously refused to prove the post, which showed the evidence to be legitimate, wrong:

Mav, I've seen you post that so much, I'm gonna have the words "It's YOUR fucking move" stuck in my head the entire night.

Good. My goal is to get you to fall asleep and have a nightmare where I stalk you, and appear next to you from the shadows screaming "It's YOUR fucking move!"