If you're being serious, I don't mind explaining it. Per-capita is a way of assessing dependent risk, as distinct from independent risk.
Consider these two statements:
(1) what is the probability that you'll be harmed by X?
(2) what is the probability that an X will harm you?
As a concrete example: what is the probability that you'll be eaten by a lion? It's pretty low, right? You're not worried about lions, are you? You never even cross paths with a lion. If we count up all the people on planet earth (population earth: Pe), and find all the people killed by lions in any given year (death by lion: Dl) we can find the independent risk that a randomly chosen person, like you, will be eaten by a lion.
Dl / Pe = % chance you'll get eaten by a lion.
We could do that math but trust me, it's pretty low.
But wait! What if tomorrow, for some reason you took a job at the zoo, working with the lions. Do you understand that your risk has now gone up?
If you fall into a cage with a lion, now suddenly your risk is dependent on the lion! What is the probability that the lion will harm you? It's not Dl / Pe that's for sure! It's much, much higher.
One more example: consider the difference between a baseball and a hand grenade. They're about the same size and weight. The grenade is made to harm you, but you can be harmed by a baseball too, if you're accidentally hit in the head with it. That's why people wear baseball helmets.
What is the independent risk of injury (at least for Americans, where baseballs are common but grenades are not) of harm from each of those? Will you agree with me that while the independent risk is low for both, it's higher for baseballs?
Just living your life as a normal American, you're more likely to be injured by a baseball - maybe you're walking by a park where some kids are playing ball, and you get hit. But as a normal American there's a lower risk of injury by grenade. Would you agree with that?
...so now imagine you find a box with a baseball and a grenade. Which one should you give to your kid to play with? If you're thinking "I've never known anyone who was harmed by a grenade" then you're about to make a bad choice.
More people are harmed by baseballs, but the chance that a given baseball will harm someone is lower than the chance that a grenade will harm someone. That's the per capita probability.
For baseballs, maybe 1/1000 ever hit someone. 0.1% chance the baseball in that box will go on to harm someone. For grenades, maybe 1/2 hurt someone. They're designed to hurt people! 50% chance the grenade in that box hurts someone.
The independent chance that you'll be injured by a grenade is vanishingly small. Much smaller than injury from a baseball. But if you select the grenade from the box, there's a 50% chance it will hurt you.
The independent chance that you'll be injured by a white person is higher than the chance you'll be injured by a black person. That's because most people you encounter in your life are white.
But if you can choose to ride in a subway car full of whites, or a car full of blacks, your chance of being harmed is dependent on the probability of the people in that car harming you.
A person who reached adulthood without understanding what a percentage is won't be able to read that much without help. Introducing new usages of familiar words like "independent" and "dependent" will further confuse them.
And I believe the person you were replying to was making a joke.
I'm dumb and flunked college, but I understand it is factoring in the percentage of population groups, instead of just the statistic in question. Like how many murders are by men, vs how many my black men compared to white men
I notice that redditors complaining about racism never understand per-capita. Makes grug think.
If you're being serious, I don't mind explaining it. Per-capita is a way of assessing dependent risk, as distinct from independent risk.
Consider these two statements:
(1) what is the probability that you'll be harmed by X?
(2) what is the probability that an X will harm you?
As a concrete example: what is the probability that you'll be eaten by a lion? It's pretty low, right? You're not worried about lions, are you? You never even cross paths with a lion. If we count up all the people on planet earth (population earth: Pe), and find all the people killed by lions in any given year (death by lion: Dl) we can find the independent risk that a randomly chosen person, like you, will be eaten by a lion.
Dl / Pe = % chance you'll get eaten by a lion.
We could do that math but trust me, it's pretty low.
But wait! What if tomorrow, for some reason you took a job at the zoo, working with the lions. Do you understand that your risk has now gone up?
If you fall into a cage with a lion, now suddenly your risk is dependent on the lion! What is the probability that the lion will harm you? It's not Dl / Pe that's for sure! It's much, much higher.
One more example: consider the difference between a baseball and a hand grenade. They're about the same size and weight. The grenade is made to harm you, but you can be harmed by a baseball too, if you're accidentally hit in the head with it. That's why people wear baseball helmets.
What is the independent risk of injury (at least for Americans, where baseballs are common but grenades are not) of harm from each of those? Will you agree with me that while the independent risk is low for both, it's higher for baseballs?
Just living your life as a normal American, you're more likely to be injured by a baseball - maybe you're walking by a park where some kids are playing ball, and you get hit. But as a normal American there's a lower risk of injury by grenade. Would you agree with that?
...so now imagine you find a box with a baseball and a grenade. Which one should you give to your kid to play with? If you're thinking "I've never known anyone who was harmed by a grenade" then you're about to make a bad choice.
More people are harmed by baseballs, but the chance that a given baseball will harm someone is lower than the chance that a grenade will harm someone. That's the per capita probability.
For baseballs, maybe 1/1000 ever hit someone. 0.1% chance the baseball in that box will go on to harm someone. For grenades, maybe 1/2 hurt someone. They're designed to hurt people! 50% chance the grenade in that box hurts someone.
The independent chance that you'll be injured by a grenade is vanishingly small. Much smaller than injury from a baseball. But if you select the grenade from the box, there's a 50% chance it will hurt you.
The independent chance that you'll be injured by a white person is higher than the chance you'll be injured by a black person. That's because most people you encounter in your life are white.
But if you can choose to ride in a subway car full of whites, or a car full of blacks, your chance of being harmed is dependent on the probability of the people in that car harming you.
A person who reached adulthood without understanding what a percentage is won't be able to read that much without help. Introducing new usages of familiar words like "independent" and "dependent" will further confuse them.
And I believe the person you were replying to was making a joke.
Yeah. Probably right
That breaks it down so concisely I'm ashamed I never thought of it.
I'm dumb and flunked college, but I understand it is factoring in the percentage of population groups, instead of just the statistic in question. Like how many murders are by men, vs how many my black men compared to white men
Man, I can't even imaginez if I didnt hadz breakfast dis mornin, go easy on me!
Piers Morgan also doesn't understand