Jurisprudence

Not clear

degsme — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:27:44 GMT

1. How many white males were compared to how many black males?

Not clear. What threshold are you looking for?

2. Were all white males rated above all black males?

According to the report - yes.

3. Was other race groups (Asians) also present and how they were rated?

Yes. Rated lower than white males

4. Were different ethnic groups among the White population compared and if any group outscored other groups? How large was this difference compared to white-black comparison?

In the retail part of the study - irrelevant because it was scripted so ethnic alignment - which is not physiognomically determinable - could not be detected.

In the latter part of the study - the Hospital rating system - yes various ethnic groups were covered. No correlation.

5. Outside of the first set of experiments - was there done any comparison of service provided by a random group of white and black store clerks in the same store?

a) not relevant and not viable since you then lack an objective measure of performance

b) this is what the latter part of the study focusses on by looking at the data in a setting where objective performance CAN be evaluated.

Try again. Just go read the study.

Re: The justices that ruled for Ricci

Tarkol — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:32:23 GMT

degsme:

So explain to me again how the time for Affirmative Action has passed? Particularly in light of the recent Academy of Management Study demonstrating continued existance of unearned preferences given to white males in any subjective evaluation setting.

First as I have demonstrated and as the study says it only applies to informal anonymous evaluations.

Second you have continually argued that the city was correct in discarding the test results in favor of another known testing method, namely "assessment centers" that has been shown to have less disparate impact.

However if it is true that there is a "continued existance of unearned preferences given to white males in any subjective evaluation setting", then how can an assessment center which is a more subjective evaluation have less disparate impact? The assumption based on your continued argument should have been that the advantage to white males would be more pronounced.

Either your asserted "unearned privillages" argument is grossly exagerated to completely false OR assessment centers must show more disparate impact. One of your arguments must fail.

Lets take a look at the first study...

gringo_911 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:04:03 GMT

1. How many white males were compared to how many black males?

2. Were all white males rated above all black males?

3. Was other race groups (Asians) also present and how they were rated?

4. Were different ethnic groups among the White population compared and if any group outscored other groups? How large was this difference compared to white-black comparison?

5. Outside of the first set of experiments - was there done any comparison of service provided by a random group of white and black store clerks in the same store?

Re: The justices that ruled for Ricci

NickBanglo — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:53:35 GMT

You're right, this is a challenging study. I've probably noted elsewhere in this topic, I have first-hand experience of racist comments and attitudes from people who did not know to whom I was married. Racism is still very common - but, not universal. The presumption that it must be is a problem in and of itself.

I haven't read the original paper, and so don't know if it is methodologically sound. However, as an alternative perspective, it is worth thinking about the paper in the context of two (vaguely?) related ideas:

most women prefer a female obs/gynae specialist - are they "sexist" for doing so?
do we know whether "black" customers prefer "black" customer service staff?

Irrespective, the question remains as to whether the specific individuals in New Haven were screwed over when the city dumped the test results because they were "not the right kind." Most reasonable human beings would surely think that they were.

Hmm ad hominem

degsme — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:47:39 GMT

Hmm ad hominem and a rhetorical question.

Hardly an insightful critique of the study put forth by the Academy of Management Journal.

And exactly why would a study demonstrating subjective evaluations consistently give white males unearned preference (privilege) NOT be applicable to white males?

I've already read this pathetic article...

gringo_911 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:18:28 GMT

in the New York slimes. Seriously, kid, you believe this study proves that ALL white males are preferenced over all blacks? Surely you are not stupid enough to make this conclusion.

As for the rest - all the studies that your liberal race pimps tried to push were either debunked, or are very easy to debunk. You have to come up with something new...

You have already had it presented

degsme — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:06:10 GMT

You have already had it presented and you weren't able to "kick it down" back then. But feel free to go dig up the links to the Federal Reserve, Academy of Management, Chicago Housing Authority, and various others who have consistently found white men are treated preferentially to everyone else across the broad spectrum of society and life.

Oh yes....

gringo_911 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:21:45 GMT

Tell me what empirical evidence you believe proves that ALL white males are given unearned advantage - and I will kick it down with the prooff that ALL black males are given unearned advantage.

Take your best shot, comrade.

Repeating your claim

degsme — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:22:12 GMT

Repeating your claim doesn't make it any more correct:

You cannot present any evidence to prove that all white males receive unearned privilige.

Done. In this thread as well as others. Sorry. You don't like it so you dismiss it, but the preponderance of evidence (which IS the legal standard) is there.

But the theory of quantum mechanics is proven everyday - the CPU's work. You have nothing to prove that your theory works.

Study after study in aspect of life after aspect of life. Again, preponderance of evidence, which is what the law requires

You claim that racial privilige can be assertained from studies of a very few people by some liberal "researchers" in the same fashion as the effects of obesity on health. But you provide no evidence to link those two.

Wrong on that. They both use well docuemented, supported and mathematically sound statistical analysis. And the result is a preponderance of evidence, which is what the legal standard is.

So stop helping it...

gringo_911 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:37:16 GMT

Racism requires the imposition of a myth. It is not a myth that white males receive unearned privledge.

You cannot present any evidence to prove that all white males receive unearned privilige.

there are no studies that looked at all 300 million people and decided all whites are priviliged,

Nor are there studies that looked at 300 million people and decided that all obese people are at elevated health risk or that all smokers are at elevated health risk.

Nor is there any evidence that would prove any similarity between obesity effects on health and whiteness on privilige.

Hell there aren't even studies that looked at all the electrons in the CPU that you are typing your vitriol with.

But the theory of quantum mechanics is proven everyday - the CPU's work. You have nothing to prove that your theory works.

But that doesn't preclude the validity of exteneding the studies by induction to the broader population.

Nothing supports the validity. Let me try to say this once again - NOTHING.

Try again.

You claim that racial privilige can be assertained from studies of a very few people by some liberal "researchers" in the same fashion as the effects of obesity on health. But you provide no evidence to link those two. It does appear that Astrology is a better analogy for your racial studies than medical science.

So stop your mythology.

gringo_911 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:31:45 GMT

Racism requires the imposition of a myth. It is not a myth that white males receive unearned privledge.

there are no studies that looked at all 300 million people and decided all whites are priviliged,

Nor are there studies that looked at 300 million people and decided that all obese people are at elevated health risk or that all smokers are at elevated health risk.

Hell there aren't even studies that looked at all the electrons in the CPU that you are typing your vitriol with.

But that doesn't preclude the validity of exteneding the studies by induction to the broader population.

Try again.

Racism requires a myth

degsme — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:27:35 GMT

Racism requires the imposition of a myth. It is not a myth that white males receive unearned privledge.

there are no studies that looked at all 300 million people and decided all whites are priviliged,

Nor are there studies that looked at 300 million people and decided that all obese people are at elevated health risk or that all smokers are at elevated health risk.

Hell there aren't even studies that looked at all the electrons in the CPU that you are typing your vitriol with.

But that doesn't preclude the validity of exteneding the studies by induction to the broader population.

Try again.

You want to discriminate againt me and my children...

gringo_911 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:20:07 GMT

solely because of the color of my skin - and you call me "racist". Things are getting curioser and curioser.

Anyway, there are no studies that looked at all 300 million people and decided all whites are priviliged, while all blacks are under-priviliged. And lacking any physical law being discovered recently - you are butt naked on this subject. I mean, if I don't count you personal feeling that you don't deserve what you got.

no amount of evidence

degsme — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:22:19 GMT

no amount of evidence will convince a racist like you that white male privilege exists. But it does, and the studies all show it does,

Try again. Without ad hominem and after re-reading Section (k)

I quoted the actual words of the law...

gringo_911 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:06:08 GMT

You seemingly cannot read them.

As for your claims that all white males are given unearned privlige at the expense of all blacks - you failed to prove this in all cases except your own. Now, I agree that all YOUR life achievements are unearned - but I suggest you be a tad more careful when you try to insinuate this about other people, whose lives and work you are not familiar with. After all, you cannot simply project your own personal failures on all people who are unfortunate enough to share same race and sex with you.