4 ms·

Bleh, so what. This guy claims to have measured something, but who knows if it's even interesting. At the end of the article, do you even understand what the

by npk 19y ago

Bleh, so what. This guy claims to have measured something, but who knows if it's even interesting. At the end of the article, do you even understand what the point in reading it was? I think what is interesting is tagging the article as "politically incorrect." I really hate this term. It forces people to think, "If I don't agree, or find this offensive, I'm small minded." What makes this particular article reek of crackpotdom is that it offers no references to any other pertinent articles, yet it acts as if it is "scientific" you know, with all that math. Don't bother reading this thing.

_h4xr 19y ago
I hate the term 'politically correct', but you've got to admit that it drew more viewers (and votes) than some other adjectives I could use. And if you don't tag something like that, people whine.
pius 19y ago
Agreed on all points. The whole "warning . . . politically incorrect" thing is not only lame, but smacks of a good ol' boy telling a ribald or xenophobic story to his buddies with a wink and a nod. Might as well have just said "We all get it, but you know how those chicks and minorities whine about every little thing . . . they just don't have any sense of humor." Don't know what OP's intended tone was, but it certainly didn't come off well to me.
- _h4xr 19y ago
  I apologize if it didn't come off well. What I wanted to avoid was a response like "That's racist!" I should probably ask doctors how they do that -- do they say something like "The racist disease, sickle-cell anemia, tends to strike people of African descent," or what? I mean, the point of the article was that, given some data about tests, the correlation between tests and academic appointments, and some basic math, you can at least say "If a group is under-represented in the sciences, it is mostly because their test scores are low." Which means that either the test is inaccurate, and they're really underrepresented, or the test is accurate and they aren't. It's not about the research -- it's about showing where the prejudice has to be hiding if there's any prejudice to be found.

by npk 19y ago

_h4xr 19y ago

I hate the term 'politically correct', but you've got to admit that it drew more viewers (and votes) than some other adjectives I could use. And if you don't tag something like that, people whine.

pius 19y ago

Agreed on all points. The whole "warning . . . politically incorrect" thing is not only lame, but smacks of a good ol' boy telling a ribald or xenophobic story to his buddies with a wink and a nod. Might as well have just said "We all get it, but you know how those chicks and minorities whine about every little thing . . . they just don't have any sense of humor." Don't know what OP's intended tone was, but it certainly didn't come off well to me.

_h4xr 19y ago
I apologize if it didn't come off well. What I wanted to avoid was a response like "That's racist!" I should probably ask doctors how they do that -- do they say something like "The racist disease, sickle-cell anemia, tends to strike people of African descent," or what? I mean, the point of the article was that, given some data about tests, the correlation between tests and academic appointments, and some basic math, you can at least say "If a group is under-represented in the sciences, it is mostly because their test scores are low." Which means that either the test is inaccurate, and they're really underrepresented, or the test is accurate and they aren't. It's not about the research -- it's about showing where the prejudice has to be hiding if there's any prejudice to be found.