[ThA0x2]

>Many variables that a priori have nothing to do with race (e.g. where you live, how much money you make, etc.) are highly correlated with race. Allowing those variables is basically the same thing as allowing race into the models. I don't want to pretend like controlling for something like this isn't possible, but I rarely see it considered (and quite rarely do I even see the problem acknowledged).

They may be correlated with race, but correlation != causation. Poor people shoplift more than the well off, but that has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the culture.

>What are examples these facts you refer to?

Blacks commit sexual assaults and rapes at a way higher level than Whites and other minorities, even when accounting for income.

[CogitoCogito]

> They may be correlated with race, but correlation != causation. Poor people shoplift more than the well off, but that has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the culture.

What I said had nothing to do with correlation vs causation. What I said was that "variables that a priori have nothing to do with race (e.g. where you live, how much money you make, etc.) are highly correlated with race." I'm speaking of signals and information theory. The point is allowing variables that combine to be equivalent to allowing the variable of race ends up being the same thing.

Do you understand my point?

> Blacks commit sexual assaults and rapes at a way higher level than Whites and other minorities, even when accounting for income.

Presumably you mean that blacks are _convicted_ (or maybe arrested) for sexual assaults and rapes at a higher level (since obviously what they do are what they are convicted of doing are not the same thing).

Anyway alright fine I do believe that. Do you believe such a general fact has anything to do with individuals and their likely future actions? How? Why?

[ThA0x2]

>What I said had nothing to do with correlation vs causation. What I said was that "variables that a priori have nothing to do with race (e.g. where you live, how much money you make, etc.) are highly correlated with race."

They're highly correlated to race, but they are no caused by race, and are therefore defacto not racist and are free game, QED.

If the variable was "dark skin", it's not necessarily specific to a single race, but it is inherently a property of race, and therefore racist. How much money you make is not a property of race, or a property specific to minorities. It's fair game.

>I'm speaking of signals and information theory.

Not very well.

>The point is allowing variables that combine to be equivalent to allowing the variable of race ends up being the same thing.

Not really, no, this is factually incorrect. Where minorities live ebs and flows through time (Great migration), race does not. What minorities earn ebs and flows through time (Asians), the fact that they are Asian does not. QED.

>Presumably you mean that blacks are _convicted_ (or maybe arrested) for sexual assaults and rapes at a higher level (since obviously what they do are what they are convicted of doing are not the same thing).

Both. Arrested and convicted.

>Do you believe such a general fact has anything to do with individuals and their likely future actions? How? Why?

Now your moving goalposts. I provided a simple to digest fact. This is basic population statistics, and you can indeed inference what individuals can/will do from population statistics.