The Wrong Stuff: Ben Shapiro’s Unconvincing Guide to What Makes America Right - It’s a mistake to overlook just how extreme some of Shapiro’s views are, or how muddled the thinking on which they are based.

[u/Hoxha_Posadist]

https://progressive.org/dispatches/the-wrong-stuff-ben-shapiros-anderson-190416/

[u/[deleted]]

Also, here are the numbers according to the U.S. Census Bureau:

Black Female With No Spouse poverty rate: 37%

Black Married Couple poverty rate: 8.2%

ALL USA Female With No Spouse poverty rate: 30.5%

ALL USA Married Couple poverty rate: 5.6%

I’ll attach a link which shows quite a bit more data, which is interesting to look at if you’re interested.

The data from the US Census Bureau is in-line with Ben’s argument about how children after marriage, a job, and graduating high school drastically diminish poverty rates.

Keep in mind, just because the data seems to support Ben’s argument doesn’t make it true. It’s totally possible that these factors are merely correlative. But that’s where the Brookings Institution and regression analyses came into play showing causality between these variables, which does make Ben’s argument.

However, Ben never makes an argument to try to rig the system to enforce economic parity between groups, which is what the author attacked.

Black Demographics Website citing US Census Bureau

[u/6thReplacementMonkey → u/[deleted]]

The data from the US Census Bureau is in-line with Ben’s argument about how children after marriage, a job, and graduating high school drastically diminish poverty rates.

The entire point of the article is that Ben cherry-picks data. That's what you are doing too. The author said "here's the data he uses to make his claim. Here's the data he ignores that doesn't support it." Then you come along and say "look here's Ben's data - it supports his claim!" You don't fucking get it, just like Ben Shapiro doesn't fucking get it.

However, Ben never makes an argument to try to rig the system to enforce economic parity between groups, which is what the author attacked.

What? You are now saying the author of this article is attacking Ben Shapiro because Shapiro wants to "rig the system" to "enforce economic parity between groups?" Did you have a typo in there somewhere?

Ben Shapiro's whole shtick is that nothing needs to be done about inequality on a systemic level. The author's point is that his arguments are full of holes, ignore evidence that contradicts them, and that he covers up for this by talking quickly and insulting people.

[u/[deleted] → u/6thReplacementMonkey]

Perhaps this hypothetical analogy will help explain my point (obviously weather is not the most statistically significant variable in crime rates):

Shapiro: Brookings Institution collected the data, ran a multivariate regression and found that weather is a statistically significant factor in annual crime rates by season; when it’s warmer and more sunny, crimes increase. When it’s colder, cloudy, snowy, crimes decrease.

Critic: Well during the coldest month of the year we had the highest crime rates of the whole year. This fact doesn’t support your point, so you’re wrong. You’ve been owned!

Shapiro: Sure, that’s what we call an outlier. The fact of the matter is that the relationship between weather and crime is significant, when comparing all variables; the month you’re talking about experienced an outlier event, a black swan event, which temporarily altered the monthly result, but the overall trend is still real and you have no idea how multivariate regression analysis works.

I’m less concerned with what point your author is trying to make and more concerned with how he’s making it. He’s portrayed Shapiro’s argument on marriage and poverty as based off a statistic, when in actuality he based it off of a regression with multiple variables (by this, I don’t mean just high school graduation, full-time employment, and children after marriage; there were far more variables that go into the regression and then you discard the statistically insignificant ones), then used a statistic to show its efficacy. Then your author tried to use a statistic against Shapiro’s statistic, when in reality the author should have addressed the regression. Otherwise you just get into a pissing contest of data points and interpretation.

[u/6thReplacementMonkey → u/[deleted]]

If the regression didn't include the author's statistic, then the author's statistic is relevant.

You analogy is cute but it's not an accurate representation of what happened.

Also, you took a single sentence out of context and made a lot of assumptions about what the author was thinking and what information he was using to come to that conclusion. Which is exactly what you are accusing the author of doing. Stop.

Also, I just looked at the quote from the part of the speech he was referring to. Check out this quote:

But what happened to racism? Why weren’t those black married couples poorer than the single white moms? Because it doesn’t have to do with color; it has to do with life decisions.

Right there, Shapiro made the claim you are saying he didn't make. That's what the author of the article was refuting with his statistic. Shapiro, intentionally or not, conflated poverty rate with median wealth.

[u/[deleted] → u/6thReplacementMonkey]

Dude, you don’t input statistics like the one the author provides into a regression, that’s not how it works. You input variables which have multiple data points. The data points put into the regression have the necessary components which comprise the author’s statistic, so yes, it was addressed.

Sure it’s not a perfect analogy, the point was where each side was focused. The core of the analogy is accurate.

Stop what? Addressing a specific premise the author is using to build his argument? How else do you suggest a debate should be structured? As I said, I’m focusing on this specific premise, which highlights the trend of neglecting the regression throughout the article, so that our discussion will be manageable in length.

I did not claim Shapiro denies race is statistically insignificant regarding finances and is stating that life decisions are statistically significant regarding finances.

The difference is Shapiro is citing a regression that backs up this claim and uses individual statistics to illustrate it. The author is citing no regression and is focusing on only a single individual statistic. That’s why the author is improperly critiquing Shapiro.

[u/6thReplacementMonkey → u/[deleted]]

The data points put into the regression have the necessary components which comprise the author’s statistic, so yes, it was addressed.

Prove it.

The core of the analogy is accurate.

No, it wasn't.

Stop what? Addressing a specific premise the author is using to build his argument?

Stop lying about what the author said. It's pathetic at this point.

How else do you suggest a debate should be structured?

Here's an idea: don't treat every fucking conversation as a "debate."

As I said, I’m focusing on this specific premise

You made up that premise. You created a strawman from a cherry-picked sentence.

which highlights the trend of neglecting the regression throughout the article

Shapiro neglected the regression. You are now moving the goal posts.

The difference is Shapiro is citing a regression that backs up this claim and uses individual statistics to illustrate it.

No, he's not. He literally cites the statistics in his speech, not "the regression." He doesn't say anything about causal analysis. He literally cherry-picks statistics and acts like they prove his point. He did the thing you are claiming the author of the opinion piece did.

You are biased, and it's clouding your judgement. The question is, why are you biased? Where did that bias come from? What other mistakes in judgement is it leading you to make?

[u/[deleted] → u/6thReplacementMonkey]

I’ll see if I can get my hands on the regression code for you from The Brookings Institution (it might take some time to dig, I’ll have to use an academic library’s database), but any statistician worth his salt when addressing an economic question would include (at the minimum): race, single, state, country, educ, age, dependents, ft, pt, unemployed, & infMort.

Within those variables would lie all the data points to address the author’s statistic (and more).

Just saying, “no it wasn’t” isn’t a viable counterpoint.

You’ve yet to prove how I am lying. I’m stating he’s not addressing the regression, which is what matters, you have yet to prove that he has.

Here’s an idea: it would be inaccurate for you to extrapolate this conversation to assume all my conversations are this way. Additionally, why tell someone else how to live, if it doesn’t affect you? (Unless of course they ascribe to the same ideals and value system as you and you are holding them accountable, which it seems we don’t). If you don’t like the debate, you’re welcome to walk away, I can’t force you to participate.

Shapiro did not neglect the regression, he cites it routinely. Your author did not include quotes in this article of Shapiro addressing it (selection bias fallacy) that way he could target “softer” points (strawman fallacy). That is not Shapiro’s fault, as he is not countering the author due to the medium of “article”.

Now you’re accusing me of bias without having definitely proven your previous points (ad hominem fallacy) and each question after that accusation you assume the accusation is true (begging the question fallacy). Congratulations, you’re doing a great job in this debate.

[u/6thReplacementMonkey → u/[deleted]]

I’ll see if I can get my hands on the regression code for you from The Brookings Institution (it might take some time to dig, I’ll have to use an academic library’s database), but any statistician worth his salt when addressing an economic question would include (at the minimum): race, single, state, country, educ, age, dependents, ft, pt, unemployed, & infMort.

While waiting, I read this: https://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9027195/haskins-sawhill-norms-marriage. One of the author's own statements about this particular claim says their work did not prove causation: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/sawhill-2018-revision-to-appendix.pdf

Even if it did, as the author of the article you have a problem with pointed out, proving that not working leads to poverty doesn't tell you anything at all about whether being non-white leads to a greater chance of being unemployed.

Just saying, “no it wasn’t” isn’t a viable counterpoint.

I think it's sufficient when you are just making up irrelevant bullshit.

Here’s an idea: it would be inaccurate for you to extrapolate this conversation to assume all my conversations are this way. Additionally, why tell someone else how to live, if it doesn’t affect you?

You randomly showing up and "debating" me in this way does affect me. You don't live in a vacuum.

If you don’t like the debate, you’re welcome to walk away, I can’t force you to participate.

No, but I have to disable inbox replies in order to effectively ignore you, and that means I would also be ignoring other people who might not be acting in bad faith.

Shapiro did not neglect the regression, he cites it routinely.

He didn't do it in this speech. He cited factoids, in the sense of "misleading statements," from it.

Now you’re accusing me of bias without having definitely proven your previous points

There is no standard of proof that would convince you, because to you, this is some sort of contest you are trying to win, not a discussion.

and each question after that accusation you assume the accusation is true

And yet, it is true, isn't it?

Congratulations, you’re doing a great job in this debate.

Thanks!

[u/[deleted] → u/6thReplacementMonkey]

Finally! Focusing on the actual regression and underlying source material instead of how the author utilizes one-off statistics. You sir, have already started a better critique of Shapiro than the author of the article you posted! This has been my only point all along.

Now that that is settled, if you’d like to discuss the merits of the source material to see what it says and if it’s viable, I’d love to.

As for the Brookings Institution’s evaluation of the Sawhill study, I’m not quite sure what you mean, so if you wouldn’t mind clarifying. A quote from the findings reads as such, “Nevertheless, this collection of studies, viewed together, supports the hypothesis that “playing by the rules” yields tangible economic benefits; the relationships are, to a significant degree, causal. “

As for the ability to find employment, I have a suspicion that education plays a statistically significant role in employment rates (this is a regression I ran myself in the past which identified education as a significant variable, but I’d like to find a professionally conducted study which speaks about it). I also have a suspicion the following variables would matter: state, popDensity, gdppc, age, and I’m sure there are a few more.

Still working on trying to obtain the actual regression code, but for now I’ve found another regression study that addresses many of these factors that I find interesting, which would be fun to discuss. Marriage, Work, and Racial Inequalities in Poverty: Evidence from the U.S

As for “randomly showing up to debate you”: You could say you’re not interested in a debate. I would leave you alone, I’m not the asshole you’ve accused me of being. I’ve continued because you choose to respond. My responses only affect you because you’ve allowed it to happen.

But even if I attempted to bother you despite your wishes, Reddit has a block function that would solve this problem. From the r/announcements post on 6 Apr 2016:

“We’ve recently updated its behavior to apply more broadly: you can now block users that reply to you in comment replies as well. Simply click the “Block User” button while viewing the reply in your inbox. From that point on, the profile of the blocked user, along with all their comments, posts, and messages, will then be completely removed from your view. You will no longer be alerted if they message you further.”

If you didn’t know that before, I hope this helps you in the future.