No, it’s not low. No need to put conspiracies before evidence, and certainly not by making claims you’ve not done no diligence on.
And the article provides statements by professionals who routinely investigate homicides and suicides that they have no reason to believe anything other than suicide.
Why don’t you tell me the probability instead of demanding one from me? You’re the one making a claim that professional judgment makes the probability so solid that it’s basically a suicide. So tell me about your computation.
What gets me is the level of stupid you have to be to not even consider the other side. Like if a person literally tells you he’s not going to suicide and if he does it’s an assassination then he suicides and your first instinct is to only trust what the professionals say well… I can’t help you.
Anyone who puts thought into the problem instead of jumping to conspiracies.
Men in that age group commit suicide at rate X. Company Y has Z employees. Over time period T there is a K % chance of a suicide. Among all R companies from which a person like you finds conspiracies at every turn the odds a finding a death is S% . Not a single value in this chain is “made with a gut.” All are extremely defensible and determined scientifically, and if really care, you can obtain them all with errorbounds and 95% confidence intervals and the works.
And you do basic math, and voila, your initial claim is nonsense.
Or simply read about the birthday paradox, wonder if it applies, realize it does, stop jumping off the wagon.
> why don’t you…..
You’re the one pulling conspiracies out of thin air despite no evidence, and you made the claim. The onus is to defend your claim when asked, especially now that you’ve been given evidence for a solid argument against it. One not pulled out of thin air.
> what gets me…
No I see the other side. And for every time someone ignores the presented evidence, ignores basic statistics, ignores a good methodology when presented one, for each such case, I have seen zero cases out of thousands of such conspiracies where it came true.
And I’ll 100% trust professionals over someone so innumerate as to be unable to do simple math, and get angry when it’s suggested super sneaky death wizards didn’t kill a minor player while ignoring dozens of more important players makes less sense than simple statistical likelihood.
The latter is rarely correct. I’ll even amend to never correct.
Complete bs. Use your common sense.
> You’re the one pulling conspiracies out of thin air despite no evidence, and you made the claim.
What claim? All I said is consider both possibilities because given the situation both are likely. You’re the one making the claim that a guy who told everyone if he died it wasn’t a suicide is totally and completely and utterly a suicide. And you make this claim based off of way to general experimental evidence collected for only a general situation. You’re the type of genius who if your friend died you’d just assume it was a car accident because that’s the most likely we to die. No need to investigate anything. Even if your friend was like if I die in the next couple days I was murdered you’d insist that it’s a car accident. Look at you and your data driven genius.
