Why half of all drowners are black: physical proof (now with less offensive heavy metal)

[Seteleechete]

What ApostateAbe says makes sense but their isn't actual hard proof that what he says is true. What he has is proof of second hand evidence that he uses to create a theory *because black people have a denser body they are more likely to drown. Now we don't know if this theory is true as a study has not been done to prove it (there may be factors we have not accounted for). However we can reasonably deduct/assume that the theory is likely true in light of the given evidence and lack of solid counter evidence/theories.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

no, having one hypothesis is not excluding others. saying one hypothesis shouldn't be tested is excluding that hypothesis.

"i'd simply" no, that's not it. you'd simply throw a fit if someone talks about race. that's the simple.

and oh, you seemed to have missed the most likely factor yourself according to onesteptwostep's source. what gives?

oooh, bronto's maaad. So mad he's trying to bait me into using the race card.

This is getting painful. Inability to swim (which totally makes absolutely perfect sense that blacks are supposedly less able to swim only in swimming pools ) is addressed by lifeguard presence, pool depth, and first responders. Maybe you missed option E, too.

I await your next tired attempt at whatever you're doing.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

as ApostateAbe's above post again demonstrates, THD is just hung up on the label "proof" or some nebulous perception to that effect. ApostateAbe is not denying the need for empirical validation. clearly he is putting forth a hypothesis and supporting its pursuit with relevant arguments.

the lack of Ti around here is alarming lately. now someone might falsely accuse me of pulling the "typology card". yawn. i'm simply lamenting.

You are unable to tell how severely lacking his argument is.
If I were to make a case about lead crop pollution I wouldn't only focus on lead gasoline in cars, but you need to check the soil, precipitation, fertilizers, animals, the whole system.

If anything his approach is far from scientific and systemic, because he focuses on possibly irrelevant variables. He lacks the big picture perception commonly associated with your beloved "Ti".

I'd tie your motivation to support his argument, to your overall drive to go against politically established norms similar to your "Transgender is mental illness". You feel somehow absolved from being rational as soon as you go against the established methodology because it's only right to be alone against the odds. That's your bias.

 

[Brontosaurie]

oooh, bronto's maaad. So mad he's trying to bait me into using the race card.

This is getting painful. Inability to swim (which totally makes absolutely perfect sense that blacks are supposedly less able to swim only in swimming pools ) is addressed by lifeguard presence, pool depth, and first responders. Maybe you missed option E, too.

I await your next tired attempt at whatever you're doing.

nice condescending gibberish. what does the parenthesis even mean?

you didn't bring up point E from the start but you were just as brash then. what gives?

 

[Brontosaurie]

You are unable to tell how severely lacking his argument is.
If I were to make a case about lead crop pollution I wouldn't only focus on lead gasoline in cars, but you need to check the soil, precipitation, fertilizers, animals, the whole system.

If anything his approach is far from scientific and systemic, because he focuses on possibly irrelevant variables. He lacks the big picture perception commonly associated with your beloved "Ti".

I'd tie your motivation to support his argument, to your overall drive to go against politically established norms similar to your "Transgender is mental illness". You feel somehow absolved from being rational as soon as you go against the established methodology because it's only right to be alone against the odds. That's your bias.

i'm not saying ApostateAbes hypothesis is the best explanation. i'm saying some of the reactions are pc-fuelled bullshit. why do i have to spell this out? do you people even believe yourselves?

big picture thinking can make room for considerig a hypothesis. again, why do i have to spell this out? it's quite baffling.

 

[Tannhauser]

There is nothing 'unscientific' about OP's hypothesis. The hypothesis is basically that body density, treating all other factors constant, affects the probability of drowning.

The idea of looking at the distributions in the tails is an especially interesting.

It doesn't help to shout "BUT THERE MIGHT BE OTHER FACTORS!". That is already clear, and it does not undermine the value of the hypothesis.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

i'm not saying ApostateAbes hypothesis is the best explanation. i'm saying some of the reactions are pc-fuelled bullshit. why do i have to spell this out? do you people even believe yourselves?

big picture thinking can make room for considerig a hypothesis. again, why do i have to spell this out? it's quite baffling.

Well, let's say it may be possible.

Now what? There isn't actually any way we can say something more about body density or other racial differences, unless we begin to compare it to other possibly relevant factors.

So if we were to establish that body density is more important than swimming ability or any other variable, then at least we may call it plausible.

I don't think people here are denying something may be the case here, THD, Yellow and some others seem to have a problem with how this thread is focused only on this single element of the whole issue, to which you reply (you want to hide it, your perception is selective, blah blah) which is as THD amply put it "fighting phantoms" that you created for yourself.

 

[Brontosaurie]

read Tannhausers post. is he fighting phantoms too?

i take no issue whatsoever with Yellow's post, for reasons evident if you read and comprehend.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

What ApostateAbe says makes sense but their isn't actual hard proof that what he says is true. What he has is proof of second hand evidence that he uses to create a theory *because black people have a denser body they are more likely to drown. Now we don't know if this theory is true as a study has not been done to prove it (there may be factors we have not accounted for). However we can reasonably deduct/assume that the theory is likely true in light of the given evidence and lack of solid counter evidence/theories.

Imagine what it's like to say that turnips die because they don't get enough boron from the soil. Indeed, turnips do require boron in much higher amounts than other plants, and indeed, soil mapping shows that areas without boron don't have any turnips! Amazing!

Now imagine actually cataloging actual turnip deaths, and discovering that the overwhelmingly vast majority are due to the same factors that kill... any other plant. Drought, pests, pollutants, nitrogen/potassium/phosphorous deficiency, herbivory, growing out of season, getting stepped on by careless gardeners... Boron deficiency actually accounts for <0.01% of turnip deaths. It isn't a factor, turnips don't grow in boron-depleted soils to begin with.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

As was already said, his hypothesis isn't scientific, he didn't consider the whole topic and suffers from bias.

To which you may feel free to reply:
"What is science anyway?"
"Science is a joke."
"Science has to be politically correct."

Let's try to create a scientific question here:
Why do people drown?

What OP question is:
Is the difference in body density in black people conducive to drowning as compared to white people?
Are black people more likely to drown?

To which he only provides evidence for body density and other fringe variables, instead of covering the basic "why do people drown in the first place" problem.

 

[Brontosaurie]

As was already said, his hypothesis isn't scientific, he didn't consider the whole topic and suffers from bias.

To which you may feel free to reply:
"What is science anyway?"
"Science is a joke."
"Science has to be politically correct."

Let's try to create a scientific question here:
Why do people drown?

What OP question is:
Is the difference in body density in black people conducive to drowning as compared to white people?

"there might be a correlation between density and drowning" <- hypothesis

he was led to the hypothesis by considering a racial asymmetry in drowning.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

This is so funny. Let's see where you guys get tomorrow.
Anecdotal hypothesis bronto, is not proper hypothesis, can you agree with that?

What's else this hypothesis is not random, it's very likely deliberately aimed at race.

I'd like to see this topic covered in depth, we'll see how this goes.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

 

[Tannhauser]

As was already said, his hypothesis isn't scientific, he didn't consider the whole topic and suffers from bias.

To which you may feel free to reply:
"What is science anyway?"
"Science is a joke."
"Science has to be politically correct."

Let's try to create a scientific question here:
Why do people drown?

What OP question is:
Is the difference in body density in black people conducive to drowning as compared to white people?
Are black people more likely to drown?

To which he only provides evidence for body density and other fringe variables, instead of covering the basic "why do people drown in the first place" problem.

The question "Why do people drown" is probably not a scientific question by any reasonable definition of science.

However, the proposition "Body density can predict probability of drowning" is a fully scientific hypothesis, especially using Karl Popper's criterion "Scientific propositions are those which are testable". OP's hypothesis, from what I can see, is highly testable.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The question "Why do people drown" is probably not a scientific question by any reasonable definition of science.

However, the proposition "Body density can predict probability of drowning" is a fully scientific hypothesis, especially using Karl Popper's criterion "Scientific propositions are those which are testable". OP's hypothesis, from what I can see, is highly testable.

Okay, whatever, is "What are the factors contributing to drowning?" a testable question then?

Wow, you got me man, I was so wrong. Next time I should use "insert valid scientific question".

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

The question "Why do people drown" is probably not a scientific question by any reasonable definition of science.

However, the proposition "Body density can predict probability of drowning" is a fully scientific hypothesis, especially using Karl Popper's criterion "Scientific propositions are those which are testable". OP's hypothesis, from what I can see, is highly testable.

lolwut?

From that scientific question you can generate a ton of hypotheses.

Does pool depth affect drowning rate?
Does pool size affect drowning rate?
Does pool location affect drowning rate?
Does lifeguard presence affect drowning rate?
Does lifeguard experience affect drowning rate?
Does swimmer experience affect drowning rate?

All highly testable and actually relevant.

Realistically we can look at the same articles Abe linked and say things like "Gee, blacks seem to drown at a higher rate in pools, specifically public pools. Since absolutely nothing about the physiology of an African American changes depending on where they swim, maybe the answer has nothing to do with their physiology, and a whole lot to do with.... public pools" which directs our line of questioning towards something actually relevant.

 

[Tannhauser]

lolwut?

From that scientific question you can generate a ton of hypotheses.

Does pool depth affect drowning rate?
Does pool size affect drowning rate?
Does pool location affect drowning rate?
Does lifeguard presence affect drowning rate?
Does lifeguard experience affect drowning rate?
Does swimmer experience affect drowning rate?

All highly testable and actually relevant.

Realistically we can look at the same articles Abe linked and say things like "Gee, blacks seem to drown at a higher rate in pools, specifically public pools. Since absolutely nothing about the physiology of an African American changes depending on where they swim, maybe the answer has nothing to do with their physiology, and a whole lot to do with.... public pools" which directs our line of questioning towards something actually relevant.

Yes, all those seem to be testable and scientific propositions.

The last paragraph is also a reasonable statement and good research question.

What I think is less reasonable is saying "I think factor A has more significance than factor B, hence posing questions about factor B is unscientific".

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

What I think is less reasonable is saying "I think factor A has more significance than factor B, hence posing questions about factor B is unscientific".

No. Factor A is ignored, therefore, considering only factor B is not scientific.

But go on trying to misrepresent what is being said.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

What I think is less reasonable is saying "I think factor A has more significance than factor B, hence posing questions about factor B is unscientific".

The only reason this exact criticism doesn't apply to OP is that he only ever considered A.

If he actually read his own sources he'd have realized B-ZZZ probably all take causative precedence over A.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

"Hey, deer seem to get hit more often on roads than in parking lots or fields. And they seem to get hit more often on major highways than on city streets or country roads.

IT MUST BE THEIR ANTLERS WEIGHING THEM DOWN!!!"

 

[Tannhauser]

No. Factor A is ignored, therefore, considering only factor B is not scientific.

Well, in my opinion that is plainly wrong. In statistics, for example using regression analysis, you are interested in relationships between variables. It does not necessarily matter exactly how the variables interact or how many other variables affect the result. What matters is whether you can find a variable which explains a certain % of the outcome.

So asking "how well can one predict drowning by only looking at body denisty" is a completely reasonable question, regardless of whether it turns out that other factors predict it even better.

And to clarify: the data and math OP has provided is nowhere near enough to draw any conclusion. But the hypothesis itself is viable, I think.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

So asking "how well can one predict drowning by only looking at body denisty" is a completely reasonable question, regardless of whether it turns out that other factors predict it even better.

And to clarify: the data and math OP has provided is nowhere near enough to draw any conclusion. But the hypothesis itself is viable, I think.

Reasonable question =/= reasonable hypothesis. Research should have knocked it out pretty quickly.

"how well can one predict drowning by only looking at body density"

Research's answer: "You'd probably have better luck divining coffee grounds"

Sure, if a bunch of other more relevant variables have already been excluded, body density might be worth looking at. But they haven't.

 

[Grayman]

lolwut?

From that scientific question you can generate a ton of hypotheses.

Does pool depth affect drowning rate?
Does pool size affect drowning rate?
Does pool location affect drowning rate?
Does lifeguard presence affect drowning rate?
Does lifeguard experience affect drowning rate?
Does swimmer experience affect drowning rate?

All highly testable and actually relevant.

Realistically we can look at the same articles Abe linked and say things like "Gee, blacks seem to drown at a higher rate in pools, specifically public pools. Since absolutely nothing about the physiology of an African American changes depending on where they swim, maybe the answer has nothing to do with their physiology, and a whole lot to do with.... public pools" which directs our line of questioning towards something actually relevant.

Yep, except blacks drowning is consistent in all areas including bath tubs.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6319a2.htm#tab

Wait, maybe you are right. What does bone density have to do with bath tubs?....

I don't see why you are so set on making any variable more important than another. An equations needs all variables to be defined in order to get accurate results. This line of argument is rather tedious and unproductive.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Well, in my opinion that is plainly wrong. In statistics, for example using regression analysis, you are interested in relationships between variables. It does not necessarily matter exactly how the variables interact or how many other variables affect the result. What matters is whether you can find a variable which explains a certain % of the outcome.

It matters. Simply put, it hasn't even been shown that density is an independent variable that can be separated from others impacting the result. I am referring to what evidence and data was provided in the thread and you again misrepresent what I say to mean that you can't analyse separate elements.

I wonder how regression analysis is applicable here, it's already been said that density may be a factor, but it doesn't imply it's a causal relation or independent variable. I'd like to know what kinds of statistical methodology is being applied and why, rather than reading your argument that certain fields and applications use that, because it isn't even shown to be of use.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I overlooked the data for natural water, boating, and bathtubs containing people >1 year of age. What's statistical significance?

But deer get hit more often than raccoons or opossums!!! Or birds!!! The statistics say so!!! And deer have antlers. ANTLERS!!! It's clearly the antlers!!!

"The disparity increased when only drowning deaths in swimming pools were considered. Blacks aged 5–19 years were 5.5 times more likely to drown in a swimming pool than their white peers, and at ages 11–12 years, blacks drowned in swimming pools at 10 times the rate of whites."

 

[Tannhauser]

It matters. Simply put, it hasn't even been shown that density is an independent variable that can be separated from others impacting the result. I am referring to what evidence and data was provided in the thread and you again misrepresent what I say to mean that you can't analyse separate elements.

I wonder how regression analysis is applicable here, it's already been said that density may be a factor, but it doesn't imply it's a causal relation or independent variable. I'd like to know what kinds of statistical methodology is being applied and why, rather than reading your argument that certain fields and applications use that, because it isn't even shown to be of use.

Well, of course, as with any statistical analysis, the task of isolating variables and finding causal connections is not a straight-forward task. So I hope I can be excused from outlining a whole methodology for this experiment

But as a start, one could for example try to gather data on body densities on all drowning victims, regardless of their race, and look at whether they have on average a higher density than the mean density of the rest of the population. If that is not the case, then probably the hypothesis that the high number of drowned black people is due to body density is wrong.

But we don't know that in advance, so why try to subdue the idea.

 

[Grayman]

But deer get hit more often than raccoons or opossums!!! Or birds!!! The statistics say so!!! And deer have antlers. ANTLERS!!! It's clearly the antlers!!!

"The disparity increased when only drowning deaths in swimming pools were considered. Blacks aged 5–19 years were 5.5 times more likely to drown in a swimming pool than their white peers, and at ages 11–12 years, blacks drowned in swimming pools at 10 times the rate of whites."

Ah, I see it on the chart at the specified age now. Although blacks drown more often then whites in all areas including bath tubs, they drown in pools in that age group at an enourmous rate. Seems that you are right that something to do with pools is causing a problem for that age group and it seems that the OP is right in looking for a more general cause since there is evidence that a greater number of blacks are drowning on a more general basis.

It is hard to say much on this limited data but since it is illegal to pick up deer carcasses in many places and there is not much left of the birds when they hit a car, I can only assume that the raccoons have been eaten by the possums and the possums being so ugly people couldn't look at them while counting the dead animals. This obviously only leaves the deer, which are easier to spot, because of their amazing antlers, when counting these woderful statistical values that should only be taken at face value without concern for how they may have been aquired....

 

[Brontosaurie]

it's already been said that density may be a factor, but it doesn't imply it's a causal relation or independent variable.

i'm under the impression that a factor is something that affects an outcome. causality is thereby implied. am i mistaken?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Sure, assuming that what you're talking about is actually a factor and not spurious.

*waves magic wand of subjectivitah*

"may be" =/= "is" yadda yadda yadda

 

[Grayman]

i'm under the impression that a factor is something that affects an outcome. causality is thereby implied. am i mistaken?

People often refer to the 'cause' as the greatest factor.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Sure, assuming that what you're talking about is actually a factor and not spurious.

*waves magic wand of subjectivitah*

"may be" =/= "is" yadda yadda yadda

so he was simply saying that "may be" isn"t "is"?

what's the need for stating that?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

so he was simply saying that "may be" isn"t "is"?

what's the need for stating that?

I dunno. I didn't say it.

Math.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I dunno. I didn't say it.

Math.

i think it's pretty clear at this point he doesn't omit other variables. he is enthusiastic about this one.

i'm done with you. for your own good i hope everyone else is too.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

i think it's pretty clear at this point he doesn't omit other variables.

If this is true, where are they in his research, and why are you saying it instead of him?

 

[redbaron]

There's nothing wrong with the idea itself, it's just very difficult to test until you have relatively equal swimming ability and confidence throughout different races. I'd say it probably has an effect, but not that it contributes to blacks being 5 to 10 times more likely to drown and probably not the major cause of why blacks drown so much more frequently.

Considering that most drownings occur as a result of people being outside of their comfort zone. They get into a situation they're unprepared for, panic and then drown. So I think it would make a huge difference to swimming pool drownings if more black kids were confident in swimming pools since the ages where the biggest disparity in swimming pool drowning rates are from 8-12.

In contrast to Australia where swimming is basically second nature to all kids, and unsurprisingly public swimming pool deaths are virtually unheard of (they're not even included in the National Drowning Report). Swimming pool deaths here are usually backyard pools that are unfenced.

Sourced most information from here.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Honestly, it's probably purely geographic, part urban, part southern.

Rural & Suburbia = white people with privately owned pools, able to swim at their leisure, producing more experienced swimmers

Cities = greater concentration of minorities using often poorly funded public pools without lifeguards (this is 'merica), limited swimming opportunity, limited swimming experience

And the south. It's hot there. They probably swim more.

Spoiler

[bimgx=500]https://fiatmap.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/proper-african-american-map.jpg[/bimgx]

 

[Yellow]

I've noticed many Southern Blacks enthusiatically embracing these kinds of stereotypes as canon. Many will refuse to swim, refuse heights, refuse "outdoor experiences" in an offhand, "girl, you know we Black folk don't mess with none of that", kind of way. I should throw in the disclaimer that most of the people I interact with day-to-day are Black and White "country folk" (apparently, one cannot use the word "redneck" collectively).

 

[onesteptwostep]

The 1988 date of the body density study should not be taken as a reason to dismiss it. It is seemingly the only study of body densities by race available, and the existence of significant differences are corroborated by known significant differences in lung size, muscle mass, and bone density. Blacks don't know how to swim, yes, and physical differences predict that, too: you don't learn something that is physically difficult to learn.

"I don't think body density has to do much with drowning. People move, after all, they aren't immutable objects."

They aren't immune to the laws of physics, either! You don't think that 15 times as many blacks as whites wearing five pounds of platinum chains in the pools, lakes, rivers and oceans would make a difference in drowning rates? Because we all move?

I'm not dismissing the data here. I'm dismissing your application of the data to account for the racial remark of "therefore, American blacks are much more likely to drown than American whites."

If you want to get technical however: why I should I apply data from 1988 to drowning-rates data between 1999 to 2010? I would apply it to drowning-rate data from pre-1988 maybe, but not to rates after 1988.

In any case the methodology in coming to the conclusion is misleading. Common sense revolts at the idea. There are a plethora of other factors that are needed to be taken into account for drowning rates- focusing on body density is merely a trivia. If you intent to take this issue to the level of 'blacks cannot swim' then you need be serious with the issue. THB pretty much lays out much of the other possible factors, and the study from 2014 itself has some credible factors.

If I were to go by your logic, Asian women would have the lowest drowning rates because a ton of them have osteoporosis. If we were to go further with your logic, then Native Americans and Alaskan Natives should have a much higher body density than blacks because they drown a lot more than them.

In any case the point is that your methodology is just simply stupid. This isn't about body density either, this is about you using body density to reinforce a stereotype. Which is utterly racial, and dips into racism.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I've noticed many Southern Blacks enthusiatically embracing these kinds of stereotypes as canon. Many will refuse to swim, refuse heights, refuse "outdoor experiences" in an offhand, "girl, you know we Black folk don't mess with none of that", kind of way. I should throw in the disclaimer that most of the people I interact with day-to-day are Black and White "country folk" (apparently, one cannot use the word "redneck" collectively).

This is actually a thing...

In PA, blacks avoid "the mountains" because of racism. I could see that extending to swimming and the outdoors. "Hey, let's go hunting with the white folks whose ancestors owned my ancestors! The guns are for animals, right?"

Spoiler

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...wimming-pools-have-a-long-sad-racist-history/

No clue what's up with heights though, unless they're just mislabeling a common human fear as a "black" fear. Maybe they're afraid to be thrown off.

 

[Yellow]

No clue what's up with heights though, unless they're just mislabeling a common human fear as a "black" fear. Maybe they're afraid to be thrown off.

I think I remember it being some reference to lynching. It was habit for a few small towns across the south and midwest to leave a Black person hanging on a nearby hill or other landmark as a statement that they are not welcome in the vicinity.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

But we don't know that in advance, so why try to subdue the idea.

Stop this constant strawman misrepresentation. I haven't seen anyone here trying to subdue this idea.

i'm under the impression that a factor is something that affects an outcome. causality is thereby implied. am i mistaken?

i think it's pretty clear at this point he doesn't omit other variables. he is enthusiastic about this one.

You are wrong, I called it a factor, but I question it being an independent variable which would imply causality, why are you so intent on taking things literally out of context?

He didn't provide other variables, you didn't provide them, I asked for them and nothing additional is provided, whatever was presented up to this point is not conclusive in any way.

Until we get more data I will refrain from feeding this thread any longer to prevent unproductive back and forth.
The provided elements may contribute, but I doubt it's highly significant, compared to major causes.

 

[Brontosaurie]

you haven't seen anyone trying to subdue this idea? that's a huge wow just wow

a factor actually implies causality. but a maybe doesn't imply an is, naturally.

THD and onesteptwostep brought up other (super obvious, as opposed to OP) variables, which was kind of useful in giving some perspective. THD (and Rook) also went on a hate rampage and made some extremely stupid analogies (which i'm willing to deconstruct if somehow that's necessary) and a virtual shitload of other desperate fallacies and general malice. now you're defending that. if you don't identify with the latter statement, you've likely not kept up with the discussion.

 

[Brontosaurie]

There's nothing wrong with the idea itself, it's just very difficult to test until you have relatively equal swimming ability and confidence throughout different races. I'd say it probably has an effect, but not that it contributes to blacks being 5 to 10 times more likely to drown and probably not the major cause of why blacks drown so much more frequently.

Considering that most drownings occur as a result of people being outside of their comfort zone. They get into a situation they're unprepared for, panic and then drown. So I think it would make a huge difference to swimming pool drownings if more black kids were confident in swimming pools since the ages where the biggest disparity in swimming pool drowning rates are from 8-12.

In contrast to Australia where swimming is basically second nature to all kids, and unsurprisingly public swimming pool deaths are virtually unheard of (they're not even included in the National Drowning Report). Swimming pool deaths here are usually backyard pools that are unfenced.

Sourced most information from here.

race does not need be involved in the study. we are interested in density.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I'm not dismissing the data here. I'm dismissing your application of the data to account for the racial remark of "therefore, American blacks are much more likely to drown than American whites."

If you want to get technical however: why I should I apply data from 1988 to drowning-rates data between 1999 to 2010? I would apply it to drowning-rate data from pre-1988 maybe, but not to rates after 1988.

In any case the methodology in coming to the conclusion is misleading. Common sense revolts at the idea. There are a plethora of other factors that are needed to be taken into account for drowning rates- focusing on body density is merely a trivia. If you intent to take this issue to the level of 'blacks cannot swim' then you need be serious with the issue. THB pretty much lays out much of the other possible factors, and the study from 2014 itself has some credible factors.

If I were to go by your logic, Asian women would have the lowest drowning rates because a ton of them have osteoporosis. If we were to go further with your logic, then Native Americans and Alaskan Natives should have a much higher body density than blacks because they drown a lot more than them.

In any case the point is that your methodology is just simply stupid. This isn't about body density either, this is about you using body density to reinforce a stereotype. Which is utterly racial, and dips into racism.

• Racial drowning differences in America were the same in the 1980s as today (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000804.htm).
• There are many other factors that explain drowning rates, and I do not dismiss those other factors, but, if the factor on the table has predictive power, then the other more-speculative factors do not and cannot possibly push this one off the table.
• Data for drowning rates exist for other races (the Native American drowning exceeds that of black Americans), but I do not have body density data for other races.
• This data can and is used to reinforce a racial stereotype, and common sense revolts against it. I am of the belief, however, that physics is more important. Physics saves lives, delusions generally don't.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

[*]This data can and is used to reinforce a racial stereotype, and common sense revolts against it. I am of the belief, however, that physics is more important. Physics saves lives, delusions generally don't.
[/LIST]

This. You like the shock value of using studies to reinforce stereotypes. I get it. That can be lots of fun (as this thread attests to). So thanks for the entertaining read. But really now, you can twist data and findings to suit your premise. I'll just leave it that I have doubts about your motivation to save lives...

 

[Grayman]

This. You like the shock value of using studies to reinforce stereotypes. I get it. That can be lots of fun (as this thread attests to). So thanks for the entertaining read. But really now, you can twist data and findings to suit your premise. I'll just leave it that I have doubts about your motivation to save lives...

I don't know about saving lives but it is important for a scientific society that certain questions/theories are not ignored just because they are uncomfortable or socially/politically incorrect to ask/propose.

 

[ApostateAbe]

This. You like the shock value of using studies to reinforce stereotypes. I get it. That can be lots of fun (as this thread attests to). So thanks for the entertaining read. But really now, you can twist data and findings to suit your premise. I'll just leave it that I have doubts about your motivation to save lives...

My motivation isn't saving lives. My motivation is to promote scientific truths in spite of ideologies. Whenever an ideology says, "Don't think this, don't say this, don't be a heretic, don't claim this is probable unless you are absolutely certain about it and maybe not even then," that is where I would prefer to shine a spotlight for the whole world to see. I may do so even if it costs lives! But, if it saves lives, then it is not only a reason for me to believe it but also a reason for anyone who pretends black lives matter. Otherwise, maybe black lives don't matter but ideological dogma does.

 

[StevenM]

A short video about being fooled from aggregated data, and coming to wrong conclusions from statistical information.

https://youtu.be/bupRD1Cd1Mk

 

[Alias]

"Offensive heavy metal" in the title is hilarious. I think it would be a lot like this (explicit)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad6Kx6oCnjc