Explain how Simpson's Paradox works here. Explain how it can be mathematically possible for each state/city/etc to have a lower murder per capita than the national murder per capita. Use concrete numbers as examples.
> That's a logical fallacy (Simpson's Paradox). It could be the case that when you condition on each neighborhood, the per capita murder rate is lower than Britain's, but the overall per capita murder rate is higher.
One, phrase your statement properly. You intended to compare neighborhood to corresponding neighborhood between the two countries. Not "Britain's".
Two, as others have mentioned. You have no basis for invoking Simpson's Paradox.
> Explain how Simpson's Paradox works here. Explain how it can be mathematically possible for each state/city/etc to have a lower murder per capita than the national murder per capita. Use concrete numbers as examples.
Three, how does your example satisfy my comment?
Four, I know Simpson's Paradox. I also know the difference between knowing something and knowing the name of something.
Your math is wrong, rayiner didn't mention neighborhood variation at all, and Simpson paradox is relevant to changes over time or resampling, not simple rate comparisons
What's your evidence that this is Simpson's Paradox? In order for that to be the case, you'd have to have a significantly higher proportion of the US population living in the most dangerous neighborhoods as compared to the UK. That may be the case, but I'd be reluctant to assume that.
Yeah, I don't think the muder rate in the US vs. the UK actually exhibits that.
I was just pointing out that it's not okay to say "the unconditional rate of murder in A is greater than the unconditional rate of murder in B, therefore A is more dangerous than B". While it may be true that A is more dangerous than B, the implication is wrong.
