3 ms·

Extraordinary? http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/02/16/study-finds-investor-bias-against-foreign-sounding-names/ http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/02/16/st

by ljf 10y ago

Extraordinary? http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/02/16/study-finds-investor-bias-against-foreign-sounding-names/ http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/02/16/study-finds-invest... http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html http://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/oct/18/racism-discrimination-employment-undercover http://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/oct/18/racism-discrimi... And again that is 5x more discovered cheating, what number of cheating occurred undiscovered for all groups? I'm not saying people don't cheat, because they do, I'm saying look at the environment to understand what other impacts on the number might occur.

argonaut 10y ago
One will note that you didn't respond to my first point, which is that your actual argument (about unequal resources devoted to policing cheating) is wrong. So if you are going to argue the point that there is bias against foreign-sounding names, enough bias to explain a 5x gap, you'll need more than roundabout inference and implication. Extraordinary evidence means direct evidence, not links to employment-related articles.