In article ,
Society{at}feminism.is.invalid says...
>
> "Mark Borgerson"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cb311a759050ad3989733{at}news.comcast.giganews.com...
> >
> > Society patiently explained...
> >>
> >> Mark Borgerson wrote...
> >> >
> >> > A large sample---yes.  Representative of
> >> > the whole US?   I doubt it, or they would
> >> > have said so. [...]
> >>
> >> Well, Borgerson, look at the demographics
> >> of the US and erase your doubts by figuring
> >> what the margin of error is due to leaving
> >> out the small part of the US population that
> >> lives outside regions represented by the
> >> sample that was taken. (Duh.)
> >
> > Perhaps you missed the post where I showed
> > that according to US Census data,  64% of the
> > US population lives outside of the 75 largest
> > counties represented in the DOJ study.
>
> Nope, I didn't miss your earlier post.  You missed
> the point.
>
> > 187 million people is not a "small part of the
> > US population". (Duh.)
>
> Yup, you missed the point again, Borgerson.
> You're confusing the sample with the entire
> population.  (Duh.)  Take a basic statistics class.
> The professor will explain these concepts to you
> the first week the class meets.  Sheesh!
>

I did take basic statistics, advanced statistics and
analysis of variance classes.  I passed them all---
and actually use what I learned on a regular basis.

> When you've managed to pass that class,
> Borgerson, go calculate the portion of the
> entire US population whose demographics
> (hint: urban and suburban dwellers) match
> the sample.  You'll find that a large portion
> of that "187 million people" you're quarrelling
> about are represented by the sample.

One thing my statistics professors did emphasize is
that it is really poor statistics to infer  that
a sample population matches the whole population for
one particular characteristic when it is known that
other related characteristics of the sample population are
different from the characteristics of the whole population.

In this case we know that the murder rates are significantly
lower for the suburban and rural populations than they
are for the urban populations represented in the 75 largest
counties.   Thus, to assume that the spousal murder characteristics
are the same for the urban and suburban/rural populations is
not supported by the statistics.


>
> Until you know what you're gabbling on
> about, Borgerson, I offer you a chance to
> get in touch with your feminine self: You
> can have the last word here!  (But the
> last laugh will remain on you.)
>

I don't find anything here to laugh at.  I find your willingness to
extend the characteristics of a sample data set to a population known
to be different in significantly related characteristics to be a
bit pitiable.

This report from the DOJ says :
" Intimate homicides (spouses, ex-spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends)
made up a larger percentage of murders in rural areas than in suburban
or urban areas"


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/city.htm

Since murders in rural and suburban areas are more likely to involve
intimates and family members,  I think that my hypothesis that
the spousal murder statistics for the 75 largest counties may not
be representative of the statistics for rural and suburban areas
is supported.




To get back to my original point:   While I think Michael's analysis
of the urban spousal murder statistics is interesting and well
supported,  I would be reluctant to extend all the conclusions to
the suburban and rural populations where the lower murder rates and
relatively higher intimate homicide rates  suggest different
patterns in homicides.

You might also find it interesting that murder by poison (more common
among women offenders) represents a disproportionately large percentage
of murders in suburban and rural areas.  (See the DOJ report cited
above).   That would indicate to me that murder of men by women
might actually be more common in suburban and rural areas  than is
the case in the large cities.


Mark Borgerson







--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/30/05 12:47:53 PM ---