Comments for entry "Confirmation Bias Test" at Dilbert.com Blog

Comment from actofactearigo

MonAMCDTE_Rthth

pandorapandora onlinepandora outletpandora salecheap pandoradiscount Pandora Charmsbuy Pandora BanglesPandora DIY Onlinepandora charms salewholesale Pandora Packages

Comment from actofactearigo

MonAMCDTE_Rthth

ugg
ugg sale
ugg outlet
ugg clearance
ugg store
UGG Classic Tall Boots outlet
cheap ugg sundance boots
discount ugg shoes
UGG Roxy Short Boots
cheap UGG Classic Paisley Boots

Comment from edtredosant

TueAMCDTE_Rthth

wholesale jewelry
jewelry online
jewelry outlet
cheap jewelry
buy jewelry
Tiffany Jewelry online
buy Tiffany Accessories
cheap Thomas Sabo Jewelry
Juicy Couture Earrings outlet
Hermes Jewelry online

Comment from edtredosant

TueAMCDTE_Rthth

North Face Jackets
North Face Denali
North Face Fleece
Kids North Face
North Face Website
The North Face Borealis
North Face On Sale
The North Face Parka
North Face Vests
The North Face Outlet

Comment from mildcigar_2001

SunPMCDTE_Rthth

I am in a way surprised how much the Zimmerman/Treyvon case functions as a Rorschach test. America it seems is still very tribal. I wonder if we (the United States) are in reality Yugoslavia. After Marshall Tito dies everything turns into a giant mess and/or deathtrap. Did anyone think that Yugoslavia would come apart at the seems like it did (after 50 or so years of more or less peaceful coexistence)? If you are white you tend to see a tragic case of self defense and untimely another Duke Rape type case (being ginned up by race hustlers like Al Sharpton), and if you are black you see Treyvon being hunted down by a card-carrying member of the KKK. I was debating this matter on liberal leaning forum and was banned for being a â€œracistâ€ for daring to argue that it would be more productive for the black community to address the epidemic of black-on-black violence rather then invent some white-Hispanic boogeyman that is hunting down black youths. I get the feeling that all hell is going to break loose if Zimmerman is acquitted (baring other evidence coming forward), and there looks to be enough reasonable doubt to me for an acquittal.

Comment from erobernroxa

SunAMCDTE_Rthth

watches
new style watches
omega watches
breitling watches
dior watches
CK Watches
rolex store
Casio Watches
buy Replica Watches
replica Nomos Glashutte Watches

Comment from erobernroxa

SunAMCDTE_Rthth

Advent battery
cheap Advent battery
Advent laptop
laptop battery
Advent laptop battery
Fujitsu
"laptop AC adapters
IBM computer batteries
AC adapters
IBM batteries

Comment from dshadseylela

SunAMCDTE_Rthth

Comment from dshadseylela

SunAMCDTE_Rthth

Wedding Dresses
Wedding GownsEvening DressesBridesmaid GownsCheap Dresses
Wedding Dresses sale
discount Lace Wedding DressesBridesmaid Dresses 2012£¬Bridesmaid Dressescheap Bridesmaid Dresses
cheap Mermaid Wedding Dresses

Comment from puppymeat

SunAMCDTE_Rthth

Sorry I'm late to the party. Scott, As for your legal question about self-defense, I'm no lawyer but the relevant statute is here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html In particular, 776.041 outlines use of force by an aggressor. Basically you get to claim self-defense if you reasonably believe you're in imminent danger of loss of life or great bodily harm, and if you try every other possible way to escape. As for my bias, my original reaction was that Florida's "stand your ground" law seemed kind of stupid. Like it could easily allow a situation where a simple misunderstanding can escalate to loss of life with no one being held legally responsible. Although as a non-lawyer it seems to me a lot rests in the interpretation of "reasonably believes." That's why I always wanted it to go to trial. No matter how much or little we know of the facts, the most crucial piece of information--what is "reasonable belief?" is actually a matter of opinion, not fact. The way we settle matters of opinion in law is by having trials. I called for a trial right away and was scolded by some friends who insisted we "didn't know the whole story." But to me that's the best reason to have a trial--to determine the whole story. So no, the facts that have come out have not changed my original bias that a trial is a good thing either way.

Comment from phanodilbert2

FriPMCDTE_Rthth

"Trayvon and Zimmerman were neighbors in their shared, beleaguered neighborhood--not anonymous !$%*!$%* on a public street." Note: Above embedded symbols were unintended but definitely add interest to the sentence.

Comment from phanodilbert2

FriPMCDTE_Rthth

Is it important that Trayvon lived in the neighborhood and was probably privy to info about the burglaries and the neighborhood watch? Trayvon and Zimmerman were neighbors in their shared, beleagured neighborhood--not anonymous !$%*!$%* on a public street. Was there a Home Owners Association that alerted all neighbors to the goings on in the neighborhood? Would there be any reason that Trayvon and his family would not have known about the ongoing threat of burglaries and neighborhood watch? Is the fact that the neighbors KNEW that the burglars were young and black a good defense against Zimmerman simply having racially profiled Trayvon? If the burglars were identified as being young and black, wouldn't anyone have been on the lookout for someone young and black? Isn't that intelligence vs racial profiling?

Comment from TheOtherGeoff

FriPMCDTE_Rthth

syykf, You seem to be ignoring _my_ key point. None of that data was in known to George Zimmerman at any time until after the coroner's report and police investigation. Any assumption by GZ knew of either of those facts is wrong, and there is no evidence in the record that TM was doing or planning to do ANYTHING ILLEGAL. At best, GZ made a stupid decision to follow, at Worst, he had racially profiled and was determined to stop a black youth from executing a crime he was sure was in process ("They always get away."). If you believe that information after the fact justifies anything, then you are treading close to 'bias' or prejudice. ("I see a black man in a hoodie, I believe all black men wearing hoods up in the rain are prone to drug use, he's in our neighborhood of homes, we've had homes robbed, therefore he must be a burglar trying to feed his drug habit") Facts in evidence are: - more white males than black males as a % of their demographic are drug users (http://psychcentral.com/library/sa_factsm.htm); - whites are 2.5 X more likely to be burglars (2010 FBI Crime Statistics) than people of color; so both those basic assumptions are flawed. So, any 'justification' of GZ's motivation to pursue on foot based on your after the fact argument doesn't follow the facts available to GZ prior to his pursuit (GZ was studying criminal justice, so he should have known these basic statistics). So, Do you really want to go there? Because once you introduce your 'justification', you're only a small step from racism. (prejudice of a skincolor/ethnicity based on ignorance of the facts power/threat to take away rights/liberties based on those prejudices is racism).

Comment from syykf

FriAMCDTE_Rthth

TheOtherGeoff, you're ignoring two points: 1) TM had a history of petty burglary. It is entirely possible that even as an invited guest to the community, he still represented a threat in terms of continuing his burglary. 2) TM had a history of illegal drug use and was found with chemical indications of drug use in his blood. His supporters argue it could have been days ago but he's still an illegal drug user and they are even more likely to commit crimes to pay for their illegal drugs.

Comment from TheOtherGeoff

FriAMCDTE_Rthth

"But suppose that Trayvon had been preparing to burgle a home, but had not yet committed a crime...." No. Because he wasn't. Let's argue the fact in evidence. GZ "THOUGHT" that, but that's really to Scott's point of confirmation bias... Black Man, Hoodie, dark night... must be a burglar. It was exactly that 'supposition' that started this wrongful death. (again, I can't speak to guilt or innocence, but the death was not justified on any level).

Comment from smr

ThuPMCDTE_Rthth

I think it's clear that self defense isn't applicable to the person who instigates the fight. Buy suppose that Trayvon had been preparing to burgle a home, but had not yet committed a crime, and had no other personal contacts in the neighborhood? Would it matter if it was a gated community as opposed to an ungated residential street?

Comment from smr

ThuPMCDTE_Rthth

Comment from syykf

ThuPMCDTE_Rthth

Mark Naught, you're still spreading the myth that GZ confronted TM when it was the other way around. GZ was on the top of a T path going right to left returning to his car. TM was hiding near the intersection and confronted GZ. If you look at the police photos of GZ, you can see he took a lot of damage from TM while the only marks on TM according to the autopsy was on his knuckles. A rather one sided fight.

Comment from Mark Naught

ThuPMCDTE_Rthth

[I expect Zimmerman's version won't sound as if he was provocative. -- Scott] The sanitized version that will be released by his attorney will not sound provocative, but following a stranger is provocative in nearly any situation. I would certainly feel threatened if someone was following me, and Martin did too. I read the 911 transcript and Zimmerman reported that Martin ran away. Martin was scared and went out of his way to avoid a confrontation with a stranger who was following him. [I don't think ignoring the authorities and "confronting" Martin is such an obvious error in judgement [...]. -- Scott] Yes it is. Neighborhood watch guidelines agree. Neighborhood watch members should never carry firearms or confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous. Z- reported in the 911 call that Martin had his hand in his waistband and an unidentified object in his hand, so Z- had to be suspicious that Martin was carrying a weapon. Neighborhood watch guidelines obviously do not carry the force of law, but the failure to follow these guidelines demonstrate the lapse in Z-'s judgment. Zimmerman was the aggressor and created a hostile environment by following, searching for, and then confronting Martin. Martin was scared, failed to elude his pursuer, and was shot when he was winning the fight. Even if Martin threw the first punch, which is certainly possible, Z- provoked the fight by creating a situation that a reasonable person would feel was threatening. Zimmerman, helping to pave the road to hell with his good intentions, is definitely in the wrong and should be held responsible. You shouldn't be allowed to shoot your opponent when you're losing a fight that you started. However, I still predict: Not guilty verdict. Riots. Book/tv/movie deal. Civil suit, which Z- will lose.

Comment from TheOtherGeoff

ThuPMCDTE_Rthth

The Kitty Genovese reference is a derailing non sequitor: What crime was GZ observing and morally required to step in and prevent? Walking in the rain with your hood up? His moral requirement ended when he called 911 and said he saw a 'suspicious' (why?) man walking in his neighborhood. After that, it was all down hill. Stick to the timeline and the facts as known to the the actors at that time. As to Treyvon feeling scared and start a self defense strategy (flight or fight... running be the first option), while I'm not a Black male, it has been told to me that Black parents instill upon their children that there is a 'system' that supports agression and violence against black people (whether that be white on black or black on black), and that to survive, one must avoid when possible any situation where this may the case. Now, the unfortunate side effect of this is, that white people or people part of the system of white supremacy (eg cops) often see 'fleeing' as 'tacit admission of guilt' and therefore justifying the confirmation bias of moving from 'suspect' to 'perp,' and the increase of justifiable force (I've heard it another way.... "If you make me chase you, I will make you pay"). I won't go into why Treyvon switched from running to confrontation, but I can understand that his conditioning was that a white man following you, the worst case scenario would be that violence would be had upon Treyvon, and the police/DA would not care ("Walking While Black" would be the reason for the 'street justice'). At is played out, that is exactly what happened, and that is where my anger is..