tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post112725986769015935..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: Star Trek: The Molest GenerationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1127593432982815202005-09-24T13:23:00.000-07:002005-09-24T13:23:00.000-07:00Blar -- Okay, I see your point now. You're right....Blar -- Okay, I see your point now. You're right. So I wonder what fraction of the non-pedophile public are Trek fans? That's the number I need. Of course, I totally made up the 1% figure for Trek fans in the general public, so I can just as easily make the same unfounded assumption for the non-pedophile public.<BR/><BR/>As I said from the beginning, none of this was meant to be taken too seriously. But if there's anything serious to be gotten from it, it's that Bayes' Rule supplants the all-or-nothing logic of (A --> B) =/=> (B --> A).Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1127352878160851642005-09-21T18:34:00.000-07:002005-09-21T18:34:00.000-07:00Glen, if Trekkies are almost as rare as pedophiles...Glen, if Trekkies are almost as rare as pedophiles and the overlap between the two groups is large, then you cannot estimate the fraction of non-pedophiles who are Trekkies with the fraction of general public who are Trekkies. IF 1% of non-pedophiles are Trekkies, you get that about 1/3 of Trekkies are pedophiles. But with 1% of the general public Trekkies, that fraction increases by 50%, all the way up to 1/2.<BR/><BR/>You could estimate the fraction of the general public who are Trek fans, calculate the percent of non-pedophiles who are Trek fans (instead of approximating it poorly), and then apply Bayes' rule, but the answer would simplify to the formula I suggested earlier, c(p/q), where c is as you defined it and p & q are as I defined them.Blarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654557196171228300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1127329055645511992005-09-21T11:57:00.000-07:002005-09-21T11:57:00.000-07:00Lee -- It was quasi-debunked. The detectives admi...Lee -- It was quasi-debunked. The detectives admitted that 99% figure was probably an exaggeration, but they stuck by the claim that a surprisingly large number of their perps were Trek fans. Follow the links at the top of the post for more. If you want to see what happens estimates lower than 99%, just plug them in the formula at the bottom.Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1127328927208937352005-09-21T11:55:00.000-07:002005-09-21T11:55:00.000-07:00Z -- Your first point (about non-random sting oper...Z -- Your first point (about non-random sting operations) is very well taken, and is one of many reasons my calculations here shouldn't be taken too seriously. On the other hand, your second point (about socially-maladjusted people) strengthens the case for a Trek-ped connection. Indeed, that's probably the causal explanation behind the correlation.<BR/><BR/>Blar -- Actually, I *did* estimate the percentage of non-pedophiles who are Trekkies by using the percentage of the population as a whole. As I said in the post, "We can approximate it with the fraction of general public who are Trek fans (since pedophiles are so rare)." You are right, of course, that it would be silly to reach strong conclusions without better data -- hence the disclaimer at the top of the post. However, the formula provided at the bottom allows you to pick whatever assumptions you want.Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1127287547419537142005-09-21T00:25:00.000-07:002005-09-21T00:25:00.000-07:00I don't see on what basis you're estimating the pe...I don't see on what basis you're estimating the percentage of non-pedophiles who are Trekkies. Since people's pedophile-identity is relatively private, it seems that you would be in a much better position to estimate the percentage of all people (or all adult males) who are Trekkies. This would also simplify the calculation, since if there are q Trekkies and p pedophiles out of every 100,000 people, and (almost) all pedophiles are Trekkies, then the proportion of Trekkies who are pedophiles is (almost) p/q.<BR/><BR/>That number of Trekkies, q, is still difficult to estimate, largely because the articles are so vague about what level of Star Trek fanhood is necessary to qualify as a Trekkie. They give a few anecdotes of hard-core fans with weird Trekkie paraphrenalia, but there are some suggestions that milder types of fanhood (e.g. owning at least one Star Trek video) qualify. Combined with Z's objection about the non-random sampling procedure, this suggests that your precision is highly misleading and your result is likely an overestimate of the percentage of Trekkies who are pedophiles. So you can have some more faith in your Trek-loving friends, and don't put too much stock in the Trekophile connection until they come out with some more carefully collected data.Blarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654557196171228300noreply@blogger.com