Racial Discrimination (previously Mat: Its time for a conservative forum)
Ok, Dr. Foldn.
There is plenty of reason to believe this is exactly the case with much of the science behind your favorite topic, social justice. Again, I'll invite you to read up on the "conceptual penis", a peer reviewed published paper that was merely a jumble of buzz words shuffled together with fictional sources. Let me know what that tells you and I'll let you know what it tells me and the rest of the sane world.
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/...ender-studies/
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/...ender-studies/
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.
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.
It's more what you learn if they DO get callbacks at the normal-white-name rate. Then you're pretty much left with racism as the only explanation. If they get black-level callbacks, then it's possible that evaluators just hate names they think are stupid/signal low-class, but maybe they hate names they think are stupid and are racist too.
Little changes in methods lead to interestingly different outcomes. For example, this other 2014 study, which is similar in many ways, didn't find a racial bias. But, they used only the last names "Jefferson" and "Washington" to try to signal that applicants were black. So their fictional black applicant was "Ryan Washington" or "Ryan Jefferson" (p. 3). The study that did find a bias also used the Washington and Jefferson last names (which really are highly correlated to African-Americans), but paired them with first names "DeShawn" and "DeAndre" (p. 7).
So, how do you interpret the difference? There are at least a few possibilities. One is that employers don't recognize Washington and Jefferson as black names, in which case the other study is kind of a nice control and suggests that the bias found in the first study is meaningful.
Another possibility is that names like DeShawn trigger expectations about socio-economic status that are highly correlated to race but don't entirely reduce to race. The authors of the first study tried to use local addresses to signal socio-economic status (cf. p. 12), but it may be that the connotations of "weird sounding first name" overwhelmed that. In any case, everything is always complicated but I do think studies like this demonstrate some sort of implicit racial bias.
So, how do you interpret the difference? There are at least a few possibilities. One is that employers don't recognize Washington and Jefferson as black names, in which case the other study is kind of a nice control and suggests that the bias found in the first study is meaningful.
Another possibility is that names like DeShawn trigger expectations about socio-economic status that are highly correlated to race but don't entirely reduce to race. The authors of the first study tried to use local addresses to signal socio-economic status (cf. p. 12), but it may be that the connotations of "weird sounding first name" overwhelmed that. In any case, everything is always complicated but I do think studies like this demonstrate some sort of implicit racial bias.
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:
In a 2003 paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, economist Roland Fryer found two things. First, that names like Reginald and Kiara are far more likely among black children than names like Jake and Molly, and second, that this is a recent development. In the 1960s, Anglo-American names were common among African American children. It wasn’t until the 1970s and the rise of the Black Power movement that this shifted in the other direction. ”The underlying philosophy of the Black Power movement,“ writes Fryer, ”was to encourage Blacks to accentuate and affirm black culture and fight the claims of black inferiority.” The adoption of “black” names is consistent with other cultural changes—like “natural hair"—prompted by the movement. African Americans wanted to distinguish themselves from whites, and naming was an easy means to the end.
(From The Daily Beast)
(From The Daily Beast)
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
theres also the idiotic notion that if we just logic better that these ppl will change their views. as if they are somehow willing to accept logic, and research, and facts that undermine their atrocious opinions.
and if they arent able to accept such arguments, then it means that we must be poor at logic and their abhorrent notions must have some legit basis.
and if they arent able to accept such arguments, then it means that we must be poor at logic and their abhorrent notions must have some legit basis.
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.
Regarding your previous posts. I would not get behind banning studies, that just seems silly.
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.
... 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?...
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.
... Regarding your previous posts. I would not get behind banning studies, that just seems silly.
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 ??
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.
Originally Posted by TomCowley
It's more what you learn if they DO get callbacks at the normal-white-name rate. Then you're pretty much left with racism as the only explanation. If they get black-level callbacks, then it's possible that evaluators just hate names they think are stupid/signal low-class, but maybe they hate names they think are stupid and are racist too.
The implication is that black names like DeAndre are idiotic and misspelled.
"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.
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 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.
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.
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 ****.
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 ****.
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.
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.)
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"
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.
if i was moderating this forum, i would delete the "as ususal. lol "conservaties" part of your post.
and then i would make some comment about the rest of your post. i would take some position just to further the conversation.
that's what i would do if i was moderating this forum.
and then i would make some comment about the rest of your post. i would take some position just to further the conversation.
that's what i would do if i was moderating this forum.
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"
Here's a better article outlining the way "blasphemy" laws are beginning to take hold on some campuses. http://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/05/...ks-witch-hunt/
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.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE