I apologize for misunderstanding your position. However, I don't think it's reasonable for you to say that you have been very clear. On the one hand, you say that the studies are fairly strong. On the other hand, you write "don't make me lol social science" and then also this:

Which, to me, directly contradicts saying that the studies are fairly strong. The studies are strong precisely because they provide empirical evidence. So I'll apologize for being confused by the apparent contradiction, but I won't take responsibility for your misuse of well-defined terms. Beyond that, your insistence that we were always talking about people being either stupid or racist is a pretty plain misreading of everything I've written.

Ok, Dr. Foldn.

Pay-to-publish is a scam, and you have my explicit approval to disregard anything published in a pay-to-publish journal, and even to disregard the journal that recommended it. That's not science. It's bull****. However, it's a non-sequitur to argue that somehow the studies I've referenced are suspect on this basis. They aren't in pay-to-publish journals. This has zero relevance to our discussion.

This is the thing. I absolutely love it when people actually want to discuss the studies presented. Why do you think I jumped on the opportunity to post them? Challenging the actual studies is the one thing you aren't doing. Instead, your challenging them indirectly by bringing up a bunch of tangentially related issues and philosophical objections to the standard definition of empirical evidence. "That's not real empirical evidence" isn't a legitimate criticism. What-about references to unrelated issues in psychology or general problems with academic publishing are also not actually challenging the studies presented. The thing is, I fully agree that academic publishing is pretty broken, for a bunch of reasons that I won't bother detailing. That is neither here nor there as far as evaluating the research presented.

Not really hmmm.

Clearly and obviously comments like "lol conservatives" aren't welcoming to conservatives. If we are going to honestly create a forum that caters to and is welcoming to conservatives, banning lol-ing@them is a pretty much a no brainer.

Also, Mat Sklansky is only one data point, we'd need our other conservative friends here ITF to voice their opinions, of course. But, if it turns out that conservatives feel more welcomed in forums where racist and bigoted posts are mostly allowed, then wouldn't making sure that the forum rules and norms don't discourage such posts be a no brainer too? Again, given that we are honestly creating a forum that caters to and is welcoming to conservatives.

I haven't seen one, and a quick search isn't turning anything up. I found this article about a study with similar methodology that looked at interview callbacks in France for people with non-French names.

So, let me start out by quoting myself again, from the older post I linked in my first response to this thread:

But, here's the thing. Lets assume for the sake of argument that a study that looked at the names Candi, Brandi, and Bambi also found that applicants with those names were treated differently than people with the names Emily and Greg. This question is presented and interpreted by people like AppleCrumble as if it somehow explained away the problem for which the studies are intended to present evidence. That is, it seems like he (but perhaps not you?) wants to argue that in that case the studies as presented are not evidence of discrimination. But that's not true. Racial discrimination isn't the only kind of discrimination. I'm also against class-based discrimination. It's also significant that your three examples of "white trash names" are all feminine names.

The point of doing studies like these is to try to understand the causes of disparities in employment, income, and wealth between different social groups, in order to find useful ways of making society work better and more fairly. Note that the point is not actually merely to make some moral judgement about racists, although it seems like any presentation of evidence is taken in that way. But, whether you find evidence of discrimination by race, class, or gender, it's still discrimination and it still flies in the face of the argument that society is a meritocracy. It's a social problem either way. For my part, I think it's highly plausible that studies would find class-based discrimination, and we also know that gender-based discrimination exists. I think you could expect to find discrimination against people with names like "John-boy" applying for jobs on Wall Street. So, sure, as I said above, I expect issues of race are entangled with issues of class, but that doesn't make the issues less important.

There is one other thing in your post, which Fly alluded to but which I want to make explicit, which is problematic and which speaks to racial prejudice specifically. You wrote:

The implication is that black names like DeAndre are idiotic and misspelled. That's different from saying they are associated with lower socio-economic status. It's also quite directly prejudicial, based on the presumption that the way middle-class white people name their kids is correct, and any other choice is an idiotic misspelling. It's as ethnocentric as referring to Juan as an idiotic misspelling of John. It's also probably ignorant of the history of black names:

In other words, stereotypically black names are not the result of some merely unfortunate lack of education or spelling ability among black people. That belief is the application of a prejudicial stereotype. "Black" names are an attempt to establish an ethnic identity that breaks with the history of slaves being given anglicized names. It's hard for me to feel like this is something that should be punished just because Greg the middle manager doesn't relate to it.

The point is, by framing the question in a way that presumes that black names are idiotic misspellings, you are already falling into the exact kind of prejudice which leads to discrimination. When I said earlier in this thread that it was outcomes that mattered and not motives, this is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to.

Let me take this opportunity to reiterate that I believe social sciences are among the most difficult, mostly due to there being so many variables that are hard or impossible to control for and hard to directly measure. So the "lol" is mostly for people who don't understand this and think quoting a few studies (empirical or not) is the same as proving whatever point they think they are beyond a shadow of doubt, ie, that only stupid racists would "deny the empirical evidence that the job market is racist".

The theories presented in any field are typically not settled by a few studies, but after extensive research from all angles and when the scientific community agree that the theory has been thoroughly tested and survived.


I'm sorry, but I assumed you'd understand that I believed the studies were performed well, are reproducible, and the conclusions were fairly accurate within the realm of the hypotheses given. This does not mean I agree that these studies necessarily present "empirical evidence that the job market is racist", only that the empirical evidence does not disprove that theory. We've gone over the deductive nature of accepted theories, which is essentially those not proven wrong. I shouldn't have assumed you understood my initial objections, and I'll cop to not clarifying well.

I invite you to run this conversation by any scientist you approve of and get back to me.

Calling those journals outright scams seems harsh. They do play a role in the realm of accepted research. Granted, it would be much, much worse if that paper had been published in an academically funded journal devoted to say gender studies, but have you actually read it? It think it says quite a lot when several social scientist peer reviewers cannot distinguish between a real gender studies paper and...that.


As mentioned, I think the resumé studies could be improved by better controlling for the class and political implications of each of the names, and not just race.

I'm sure you understand confirmation bias. And you probably recognize it is perhaps the scientist's worst enemy. Both of us believe there must be racism within the job market, and hiring system. So the results of the resumé studies are only surprising to me in the degree of apparent descrimination. I would not have guessed nearly 50% difference. Do you think (and do you think researchers in this field) are concerned at all with isolating out classism from racism, and other modes of discrimination?

The last part is wrong. There is no assumption that their abhorrent notions have a legit basis. But it is likely that a few could have their minds changed by someone adept at asking questions that lead to them contradicting themselves. At least a few of them would realize that they were wrong if cornered that way. But this asking questions technique, similar to how you would teach algebra to a mathematically untalented person, is rarely done well, if at all.

These aren't separate things, they are symptoms of the same disease. They can never be isolated out from each other, not by empirical means, not by any means. It makes just about as much sense to try to isolate out wet from water.

I can tell from reading other boards, comment sections and youtoobs, that many conservatives, libertarians, skeptics, etc etc all make the exact same claims that the other side does not respond to logic and reason, so it would seem there is at least some degree of respect for the idea.

That seems like a great discussion to have. Could classism not extend beyond race though? Aren't there plenty of poor white folk who clearly are not being oppressed by their white conterparts due to racism, and isn't that relevant? Aren't there different solutions to those sorts of differences?

Regarding your previous posts. I would not get behind banning studies, that just seems silly.

You know, just putting a -ism behind a word doesn't make it a thing. WTF do you mean by 'classism', and for that matter, which meaning are you referring to when you used the r-word here?

If, perchance, you are referring to what is sometimes called "Secret Heart R-word-ism", and by analogue, a secret heart kinda classism, I don't think this makes a buncha sense. Peeps harboring personal racial animus towards a folk doesn't magically cause discrimination. I don't think there is a significant group of peeps who go around discriminating against poor folk, or champion discriminating against poor folk, because they have a personal animus towards the poor. I really can't remember anyone ever using the term 'classism' in such a secret heart like manner.

OTOH, an outcome of discrimination is often a particular human rights violation: Unequal Pay for Equal Work. Well, since we're currently in a state of discussion regarding lol social science... I guess I'll just baldly assert that women folk are disproportionately victims of this human rights abuse. Likewise in the US, POC are victims, and WOC are doubly victims.

So, sure, in the US white women who are victims of Unequal Pay for Equal Work aren't also victims of secret heart r-word-ism. So if that's the kind of "great discussion" you were looking for... have we just had it?

If, on the other hand, you were hinting at a discussion around how all these things are symptoms of the same disease, about how none can be confronted unless they all are confronted, about intersectionality and Teamsters+Turtles... sure that's a great conversation. Cliffs: No, there most certainly are not different solutions. Different==divided==defeated.

Remember, we are discussing what would make this forum more welcoming to conservatives, and not what you or I would prefer in our personal debating society.

If, as I surmised, you feel the status quo is quite, perhaps even extremely, unwelcoming to conservatives. And... if you feel that banning all social science research wouldn't cater to, or be found welcoming to conservatives. In fact you feel this total banning would be a "silly" way to welcome conservatives. You are, are you not, by process of elimination...

Endorsing a selective ban of social science research... in particular only banning such research that conservatives have found to be unwelcoming ??

Obviously there's discrimination against black names in the resume studies. The question is *why*. It's easy to just say racism and call it a day, and it's also quite possible it's actually that simple. It's also possible that evaluators pick people like them- as your French study indicates- people with normal white names, and the discrimination isn't intentionally racial. I don't think it's significant (to the topics ITT) that I picked stripper names as white trash names. I don't even know what a stereotypical white-trash guy name is. The ones I know have overlapping names while I literally talked to a (non-stripper) Bambi this weekend. Cody maybe? Jim Bob and the like if you go southern redneck.

Plenty of stereotypical black names ARE idiotic and/or misspelled. Dwyane, Barkevious, D'Brickashaw, Rhaheim, etc. (as are plenty of white names) DeAndre's fairly low on the stupid scale to me. They used Jamal in the study and still got hosed hard though, and that name is as dull as it gets.

You can say the same thing about face tattoos and the like that also have no direct impact on the ability to do most jobs. You're also "establishing your identity". It's like you want the upside of signaling (it's not establishing an ethnic identity unless it's widespread enough to be taken as one) but no potential downsides. In a world where nobody gave a ****, there wouldn't be any discrimination towards such things, but there also wouldn't be any reason for groups to do them to create an identity in the first place. Wanting signaling to work halfway is an odd position.

I agree. I've said as much. I have tended to point out the connection between race and class in explanations of group differences.

Your second second sentence is exactly the point. It's significant that you can't think of a white trash male name. I don't just mean that it's significant to the question of racial discrimination, although it clearly is (think: why can't you think of a male name associated with lower-status whites?), I mean that it's interesting how gender intersects with perceptions of status and capability in general. I also couldn't come up with an example except by reference to perceptions about the south, i.e in the name John-Boy.

I think this misses the point I'm trying to make. How is it determined that a name is misspelled? Is Juan a misspelling of John? Is Matthieu a misspelling of Matthew? Beyond that, from what perspective is it "idiotic"? Clearly lots of black people disagree. Why is the perspective of those who thinks it's idiotic more legitimate than the perspective of those who think it's not? When we're talking about the significance of race in American culture, it's not just a question of overt discrimination or negative stereotypes. The fact that the dominant culture is white and views non-white cultural expressions (like names) as idiotic or incorrect is important. Again, your assertion that those names are idiotic is prejudicial.

Sure. Ceteris paribus I don't think you should discriminate against people for having face tattoos, although there are obviously ways in which the analogy between black names and body art fails. It's also too much to try to give a complete theory of how society should balance the usefulness of social norms that enforce conformity against the goals of egalitarianism and equality. It's inevitable that people that violate norms will face various kinds of social sanctions. I'm not trying to eliminate that, I'm trying to rein in the worst effects of that process as illustrated throughout history. Given the history of racism in the US and the existence of large racial disparities in so many areas of American life, I think it's more important to be concerned about prejudice directed against black names than against face tattoos.

See above. In my opinion you're getting too theoretical, and thus too far away from the actual problems.

I disagree. The creation and maintenance of collective identity is central to human culture, and clearly has a value apart from concerns with discrimination in a pluralistic society. It is true that the role collective identity plays in civil rights movements is different than it would be in a world with a very different history, and it's also clearly true that the processes that are involved create problems as well (i.e. in-group out-group bias). It's a complex topic, but if the implication is supposed to be that the establishment of collective identity should be discouraged because it's useless in a perfect world then I think that's misguided, but also impractical anyway.

TomCowley, dude, dig UP

Why can't black people have normal, non-misspelled names like Reince, Barron, and Newt?

Ha ha ha... wish I had thought of that!

You'd think so! Yet every single example of racism is met with an unending barrage of knee-jerk objections. Like, well named is in here literally posting peer-reviewed studies and the peanut gallery doesn't think that evidence is rigorous enough.

Are you guys always this skeptical about ordinary propositions? If I tell you MickeyD's gets crowded at lunchtime, do you demand to see the NSF report? Man, the biggest objection I can raise to this paper is that it's pointing out trivially obvious ****.

One of my wife's graduate advisors wrote something like "sociology involves spending years of time and thousands of dollars to find out things your cab driver will tell you for free."

How about this: let's all agree that racial discrimination is a significant problem for black job applicants and call it a day. Good talk everyone, see ya'll tomorrow.

tbf, that's because your cab driver is probably a sociology major.

#rekt

Rand, hell Ayn for that matter. All perfectly spelled special snowflake names.

Those are all certainly very rekt, but we can obv find plenty of examples of weird "black" named people who have had great success, Condoleezza, Barack, Oprah.

Reminder to all. This is a not a thread for attacking posters etc

I'm sure at least some of the discrimination measured is unintentional and a result of unconscious bias.

But we have direct measures of what people think about black people:



It would be bizarre to think that some of this racial bias doesn't make it into hiring decisions.

(Yes, there are plenty of racist Democrats. They suck.)

Like we know exactly who you were reminding there, and exactly what content so offended you, chez.

I am still shaking my head at that cowley post. I mean ffs I really dont understand how well named has the stamina for that. he straight up admitted that it was racism and then still argued it.

well named expressed that calling black names "stupid" was by nature racist and then tc straight up doubled down on it.

as usual fly was right

but ya, the real problem is the ppl explaining that racism exists and that black ppl are discriminated against.

see matt, thats the thing. these ppl express disgusting and deplorable viewpoints. they wont change. they get shown reams of data and still argue against it. their arguments are lies and fallacies and insults.

they dont deserve the time and effort that well named gives them. bless him for sure tho.

but really, they only deserve a dumbass drunkard like myself loling at their idiocy. thats the only reply they should get.

lol "conservatives"

Now that we have a good wide-ranging group, would any of you please give your take on the latest incident at Evergreen college. This professor, Weinstein, is actually making some very serious charges that have yet to come up anywhere on the MSM, maybe Fox. He's claiming to have been stalked around campus and threatened to be kidnapped by a mob. The guy seems pretty nice though.

Well Named, I'll discuss any studies you want if you'll discuss the content in the quoted post and this most current in a string of campus racial incidents, and why it shouldn't add to my worries about the state social justice in academia today.