2018 mid-term forecast

[Amused]

The study I posted shows a productivity-related statistical discrimination motive for employers to base decisions on. This is a similar reason why the studies with comparisons to white convicts, "equal" credentials, sentencing bias, etc. are misleading and disingenuously reported on.

More you not understanding what the study actually says, and you think it supports your racism.

It doesn't.

 

[SlowSpyder]

More you not understanding what the study actually says, and you think it supports your racism.

It doesn't.

And here we go when a liberal is wrong and has nothing, make claims of racism where there is none.

 

[Commodus]

And here we go when a liberal is wrong and has nothing, make claims of racism where there is none.

Still waiting on those Antifa stats.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Still waiting on those Antifa stats.

I posted lots of videos. Take it or leave it.

 

[Amused]

And here we go when a liberal is wrong and has nothing, make claims of racism where there is none.

It's funny how you argue in an eerily identical manner as a flat earther. Seriously.

You get hosed trying to deny what is the highest standard of proof in science, and claim victory.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's funny how you argue in an eerily identical manner as a flat earther. Seriously.

You get hosed trying to deny what is the highest standard of proof in science, and claim victory.

You're trying really hard now.

 

[Maxima1]

More you not understanding what the study actually says, and you think it supports your racism.

It doesn't.

I have to laugh how the race card is pulled out for anything. XD

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bias-hiring-0504-biz-20160503-story.html

Hiring bias study: Resumes with black, white, Hispanic names treated the same

From article:

"One of the criticisms of that study was that Lakisha and Jamal can denote socioeconomic status, and that employers may have made assumptions about education and income rather than race.

Hoping to capture the effect of race alone, Koedel and his co-author, Rajeev Darolia, conducted their experiment using surnames that the U.S. Census shows overwhelmingly belong to whites, blacks and Hispanics, while using first names to signify gender."

Yeah, totally not valid. Must mean I'm racist.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's quite remarkable how White conservatives do this little dance around systemic racism. It obviously existed prior to the civil rights acts or we wouldn't have those acts. It obviously still exists today or we would have achieved greater equality of outcome in the meanwhile.

This is where they usually cue up the utterly repugnant notion that Whites might actually be superior...

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's quite remarkable how White conservatives do this little dance around systemic racism. It obviously existed prior to the civil rights acts or we wouldn't have those acts. It obviously still exists today or we would have achieved greater equality of outcome in the meanwhile.

This is where they usually cue up the utterly repugnant notion that Whites might actually be superior...

No one is arguing that racism doesn't exist. What I am arguing is that a study can't capture what some here think it does and that affirmative action IS today's institutionalized racism. Same as the racism you and I both hate, I just see the left's racism.

 

[Victorian Gray]

How big are these Nazi groups, how much damage are they causing compared to Antifa? Today it seems Antifa is the real Nazis. I can be anti-Nazi and anti-Antifa, it isn't binary. That doesn't change how far gone the left, generally speaking, has become.

Let's see, one group wants to toss folks in ovens while the other group wants to punch the guys who like tossing folks in ovens.

Have a box of cigars bunky.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Let's see, one group wants to toss folks in ovens while the other group wants to punch the guys who like tossing folks in ovens.

Have a box of cigars bunky.

From what I've seen, Antifa is hardly this force of goodness you think it is. Scumbags destroying neighborhoods, attacking peaceful people that have different perspectives, and stopping cars from traveling the road is not doing anything to stop Nazis.

 

[Victorian Gray]

From what I've seen, Antifa is hardly this force of goodness you think it is. Scumbags destroying neighborhoods, attacking peaceful people that have different perspectives, and stopping cars from traveling the road is not doing anything to stop Nazis.

Nice job of repeating alt asshole propaganda. You decided to become a parrot? Good luck with that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nice job of repeating alt asshole propaganda. You decided to become a parrot? Good luck with that.

I'm not parroting anything. I said, "from what I've seen".

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm not parroting anything. I said, "from what I've seen".

happen to see any cars, maybe a chrysler product in Charlottesville?

 

[Jhhnn]

No one is arguing that racism doesn't exist. What I am arguing is that a study can't capture what some here think it does and that affirmative action IS today's institutionalized racism. Same as the racism you and I both hate, I just see the left's racism.

What else would you suggest to correct the ongoing disparity of outcomes? Hopes & prayers?

 

[Commodus]

I posted lots of videos. Take it or leave it.

Reliable data always beats anecdotal videos, so everyone here will leave it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'm not parroting anything. I said, "from what I've seen".

SlowSpyder want a cracker?

 

[zinfamous]

I posted lots of videos. Take it or leave it.

not stats. still considered a non-response.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm not parroting anything. I said, "from what I've seen".

Anecdotal. Still nothing.

Stats were requested. actual data. you refuse all requests.

Until you are willing to join the argument, you will be dismissed as a willing non-participant.

Don't bitch when you aren't invited to the Reindeer games after the rules have been explained to you. (now dozens, and dozens, and dozens of times).

 

[imported_tajmahal]

And here we go when a liberal is wrong and has nothing, make claims of racism where there is none.

I don't think amused knows that PNAS still uses some of the worst forms of PAL review, not anonymous peer review.


"From the PNAS submissions instructions:

An Academy member may submit up to four of his or her own manuscripts for publication per year. To contribute an article, the member must affirm that he or she had a direct role in the design and execution of all or a significant fraction of the work and the subject matter must be within the member’s own area of expertise. Contributed articles must report the results of original research. [SKIPPING A FEW LINES HERE ABOUT FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, AND THEN…] When submitting using the contributed process, members must secure the comments of at least two qualified reviewers. Reviewers should be asked to evaluate revised manuscripts to ensure that their concerns have been adequately addressed. Members’ submissions must be accompanied by the names and contact information, including e-mails, of knowledgeable experts who reviewed the paper, along with all of the reviews received and the authors’ response for each round of review, and a brief statement endorsing publication in PNAS.

Did everyone catch that? The authors are responsible for obtaining their own reviews. They decide who the reviewers should be, contact them directly and obtain the critiques. Are you, as a PI, going to reject a National Academy of Science member’s manuscript from PNAS if you are asked to review it? It’s a great way to make friends! So is this really peer review? When your peer is aware that you, as a National Academy of Science (NAS) member, will be quite cross with her/him if you dare to make serious critiques (not to mention reject the manuscript)?

Okay–I know that it’s certainly not trivial to become a NAS member. Most of these researchers have certainly been chosen due to their long careers of excellent science. Many of them choose NOT to publish in PNAS because they know it is not viewed highly in some circles. But in can be used as a “dumping ground” for papers that have been unable to get into real peer reviewed journals.

Consider this, though. There is another track–a relatively new track–that PNAS allows, that in my view is even worse than the NAS contributor mode: It’s called “Direct Submission.” What does this mean? It means that the authors have secured in advance a”pre-arranged editor”? Oh–that smacks of a Soviet era style “ole boys network.” Find an editor in advance–a friend, colleague, mentor, brother, sister–someone who will agree in advance to get the paper published. Have a look at this, again from the PNAS submission site:

Prior to submission to PNAS, an author may ask an NAS member to oversee the review process of a Direct Submission. Prearranged editors should only be used when an article falls into an area without broad representation in the Academy, or for research that may be considered counter to a prevailing view or too far ahead of its time to receive a fair hearing, and in which the member is expert. If the NAS member agrees, the author should coordinate submission to ensure that the member is available, and should alert the member that he or she will be contacted by the PNAS Office within 48 hours of submission to confirm his or her willingness to serve as a prearranged editor and to comment on the importance of the work.

Now this actually manages to get around not one, but two levels of review". ................................

http://occamstypewriter.org/stevecaplan/2011/10/23/peer-review-and-the-ole-boys-network/
"

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think amused knows that PNAS still uses some of the worst forms of PAL review, not anonymous peer review.


"From the PNAS submissions instructions:

An Academy member may submit up to four of his or her own manuscripts for publication per year. To contribute an article, the member must affirm that he or she had a direct role in the design and execution of all or a significant fraction of the work and the subject matter must be within the member’s own area of expertise. Contributed articles must report the results of original research. [SKIPPING A FEW LINES HERE ABOUT FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, AND THEN…] When submitting using the contributed process, members must secure the comments of at least two qualified reviewers. Reviewers should be asked to evaluate revised manuscripts to ensure that their concerns have been adequately addressed. Members’ submissions must be accompanied by the names and contact information, including e-mails, of knowledgeable experts who reviewed the paper, along with all of the reviews received and the authors’ response for each round of review, and a brief statement endorsing publication in PNAS.

Did everyone catch that? The authors are responsible for obtaining their own reviews. They decide who the reviewers should be, contact them directly and obtain the critiques. Are you, as a PI, going to reject a National Academy of Science member’s manuscript from PNAS if you are asked to review it? It’s a great way to make friends! So is this really peer review? When your peer is aware that you, as a National Academy of Science (NAS) member, will be quite cross with her/him if you dare to make serious critiques (not to mention reject the manuscript)?

Okay–I know that it’s certainly not trivial to become a NAS member. Most of these researchers have certainly been chosen due to their long careers of excellent science. Many of them choose NOT to publish in PNAS because they know it is not viewed highly in some circles. But in can be used as a “dumping ground” for papers that have been unable to get into real peer reviewed journals.

Consider this, though. There is another track–a relatively new track–that PNAS allows, that in my view is even worse than the NAS contributor mode: It’s called “Direct Submission.” What does this mean? It means that the authors have secured in advance a”pre-arranged editor”? Oh–that smacks of a Soviet era style “ole boys network.” Find an editor in advance–a friend, colleague, mentor, brother, sister–someone who will agree in advance to get the paper published. Have a look at this, again from the PNAS submission site:

Prior to submission to PNAS, an author may ask an NAS member to oversee the review process of a Direct Submission. Prearranged editors should only be used when an article falls into an area without broad representation in the Academy, or for research that may be considered counter to a prevailing view or too far ahead of its time to receive a fair hearing, and in which the member is expert. If the NAS member agrees, the author should coordinate submission to ensure that the member is available, and should alert the member that he or she will be contacted by the PNAS Office within 48 hours of submission to confirm his or her willingness to serve as a prearranged editor and to comment on the importance of the work.

Now this actually manages to get around not one, but two levels of review". ................................

http://occamstypewriter.org/stevecaplan/2011/10/23/peer-review-and-the-ole-boys-network/
"

In no way does that address the paper in question. You simply cast doubt on its veracity using no facts whatsoever.

 

[Paratus]

I don't think amused knows that PNAS still uses some of the worst forms of PAL review, not anonymous peer review.


"From the PNAS submissions instructions:

An Academy member may submit up to four of his or her own manuscripts for publication per year. To contribute an article, the member must affirm that he or she had a direct role in the design and execution of all or a significant fraction of the work and the subject matter must be within the member’s own area of expertise. Contributed articles must report the results of original research. [SKIPPING A FEW LINES HERE ABOUT FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, AND THEN…] When submitting using the contributed process, members must secure the comments of at least two qualified reviewers. Reviewers should be asked to evaluate revised manuscripts to ensure that their concerns have been adequately addressed. Members’ submissions must be accompanied by the names and contact information, including e-mails, of knowledgeable experts who reviewed the paper, along with all of the reviews received and the authors’ response for each round of review, and a brief statement endorsing publication in PNAS.

Did everyone catch that? The authors are responsible for obtaining their own reviews. They decide who the reviewers should be, contact them directly and obtain the critiques. Are you, as a PI, going to reject a National Academy of Science member’s manuscript from PNAS if you are asked to review it? It’s a great way to make friends! So is this really peer review? When your peer is aware that you, as a National Academy of Science (NAS) member, will be quite cross with her/him if you dare to make serious critiques (not to mention reject the manuscript)?

Okay–I know that it’s certainly not trivial to become a NAS member. Most of these researchers have certainly been chosen due to their long careers of excellent science. Many of them choose NOT to publish in PNAS because they know it is not viewed highly in some circles. But in can be used as a “dumping ground” for papers that have been unable to get into real peer reviewed journals.

Consider this, though. There is another track–a relatively new track–that PNAS allows, that in my view is even worse than the NAS contributor mode: It’s called “Direct Submission.” What does this mean? It means that the authors have secured in advance a”pre-arranged editor”? Oh–that smacks of a Soviet era style “ole boys network.” Find an editor in advance–a friend, colleague, mentor, brother, sister–someone who will agree in advance to get the paper published. Have a look at this, again from the PNAS submission site:

Prior to submission to PNAS, an author may ask an NAS member to oversee the review process of a Direct Submission. Prearranged editors should only be used when an article falls into an area without broad representation in the Academy, or for research that may be considered counter to a prevailing view or too far ahead of its time to receive a fair hearing, and in which the member is expert. If the NAS member agrees, the author should coordinate submission to ensure that the member is available, and should alert the member that he or she will be contacted by the PNAS Office within 48 hours of submission to confirm his or her willingness to serve as a prearranged editor and to comment on the importance of the work.

Now this actually manages to get around not one, but two levels of review". ................................

http://occamstypewriter.org/stevecaplan/2011/10/23/peer-review-and-the-ole-boys-network/
"

Are you really trying to say the entire PNAS peer review process is fake?

Why do you hate science?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

In no way does that address the paper in question. You simply cast doubt on its veracity using no facts whatsoever.

It's the way they run things at PNAS, send them a letter.

 

[brycejones]

It's the way they run things at PNAS, send them a letter.

duh-flection

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Agreed. I think DSF is trying to suggest that there is a lack of motivation toward achievement in African American culture, which starts in the home, i.e. the parent-child relationship. But he makes no attempt to explain why such a problem would exist.

There are many elements involved...one of them being the home situation and parenting skills which are huge predictors of outcome. Tough to make a dent in the problem when more than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock and only 17% of black teenagers reach age 17 in a family with both their biological parents married (compared to 54 % for white teenagers). These are children in their formative years where constructive/destructive habits are formed and decisions are made that will effect them for their entire life.

I have no idea why you think the following is in anyway significant...except perhaps when used as a basis for rationalizing a derogatory stereotype.

It certainly doesn't arise from a vacuum. A story sometimes told by conservatives - which is likely apocryphal - is that of the black mother criticizing her black child for doing well in school, saying that educational achievement is "acting white." But where did this idea come from in the first place? It sounds an awful lot like what the slave owners said to their slaves. You won't be taught to read and write, because education and learning are for white people. These ideas of the slave owner are internalized by the slave in a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, and passed down through generations, reinforced by systemic racism which continues even after slavery ends. You can't tell people over and over again that they're shit, then expect them to see themselves otherwise.

If only it were so simple as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" or "teach your kids the importance of education and achievement." It's difficult to disentangle the psychological effects of generations of racism. Even as racism begins to diminish, those effects may not go away over night.