2 ms·

...research has conclusively shown a direct link from slavery and Jim Crow... A link. They haven't shown that every disparity is caused by it. And the rapid so

...research has conclusively shown a direct link from slavery and Jim Crow... A link. They haven't shown that every disparity is caused by it. And the rapid social movement of various other groups (e.g., vietnamese, filipinos, mexicans) suggests that historical explanations don't have great explanatory power anyway. I retract what I said. According to your definition of "political", ad serving, dating, renting a house, playing video games, etc, are all political acts. Very few actions by humans are not political.

pron 12y ago
> They haven't shown that every disparity is caused by it. True. But all they needed to show -- and they have -- is that this is the largest contributing factor, which explains most of the observed effect (in fact, they didn't even need to show that, only that it's a large contributing factor; if you were born with one weak leg and I take a hammer to the other one, doesn't mean that I'm not responsible for you being confined to a wheelchair). What, AFAIK, hasn't been found is other contributing factors (that you seem to allude to), but I won't deny their theoretical existence. > According to your definition of "political", ad serving, dating, renting a house, playing video games, etc, are all political acts. No. First, this is not "my definition" but the real definition, which you are free to look up on Wikipedia at your leisure. Here's the link -- again -- for your convenience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#Politics_as_an_academic_discipline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#Politics_as_an_academi... Second, many actions by humans can be political, if they influence the distribution of power in society. Note that this is not a binary definition: one action can be more or less political than another. Finally, why are you trolling? Are you trying to understand this science or make fun of it?
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  What, AFAIK, hasn't been found is other contributing factors... Clearly you aren't that familiar with the research then. There are many disparities in work and academic effort, labor force participation, criminal propensity, IQ and career choice. I've not seen any analysis that controls for all of these or any remotely accurate predictive model. I guess given your voluminous command of the literature, you'll provide one? Finally, why are you trolling? Are you trying to understand this science or make fun of it? I was merely linking to some interesting and relevant articles on causal calculus that relate to the issues in the article. You are the one who went on a random tangent about how everything is political and I should use the most expansive possible definition for certain words, and somehow I'm denying science if I don't.
  - pron 12y ago
    > There are many disparities in work and academic effort, labor force participation, criminal propensity, IQ and career choice. Let me get this straight: do you think that scientists have shown an innate, i.e. biological, disparity between Europeans and Africans that explains any significant portion of the effect we see in American society? Because if you do, you have either dramatically and tragically misunderstood some real research (showing non-innate disparities) -- because that never, and I repeat, never happened -- or accidentally stumbled on an article in KKK weekly (BTW, I sometimes read "scientific" research in Christian publications for fun; for example, did you know that the second law of thermodynamics forbids the spontaneous creation of life? I kid you not). The only thing out of the list you provided that was not misinterpreted is IQ. It is well known that there is a group of real researchers (actually, just one or two people) who claim an innate intelligence disparity between races. They are very proud of their research that "uncovers" an inconvenient "truth", but the real truth is that the effect size they have reported is too small to justify further study -- let alone explain any observed disparity in the real world (when reading a statistical study, you should really look at the effect size; blacks and women are often underrepresented in jobs that provide power with an effect size of 5x or even 10x). As to others -- showing differences, say, between boys and girls -- those papers assume you know something about power, and are far from saying what you think they're saying. In other words, other than IQ studies who show insignificant effects, those results you mentioned simply don't exist. And, as always -- when reading statistics look for the effect size. > I guess given your voluminous command of the literature, you'll provide one? One? How about a thousand, starting with those you yourself alluded to. Start Googling, you'll find them in seconds (I am sorry, but I will not link papers proving that blacks aren't naturally inferior to whites; and I know what you're going to say now: "inferior? I didn't say inferior -- I said different", to which I'll say go read on power in society).
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      and I know what you're going to say now: "...I didn't say... If you know you misinterpreted me, why do it?
      - 12y ago

pron 12y ago

> They haven't shown that every disparity is caused by it. True. But all they needed to show -- and they have -- is that this is the largest contributing factor, which explains most of the observed effect (in fact, they didn't even need to show that, only that it's a large contributing factor; if you were born with one weak leg and I take a hammer to the other one, doesn't mean that I'm not responsible for you being confined to a wheelchair). What, AFAIK, hasn't been found is other contributing factors (that you seem to allude to), but I won't deny their theoretical existence. > According to your definition of "political", ad serving, dating, renting a house, playing video games, etc, are all political acts. No. First, this is not "my definition" but the real definition, which you are free to look up on Wikipedia at your leisure. Here's the link -- again -- for your convenience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#Politics_as_an_academic_discipline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#Politics_as_an_academi... Second, many actions by humans can be political, if they influence the distribution of power in society. Note that this is not a binary definition: one action can be more or less political than another. Finally, why are you trolling? Are you trying to understand this science or make fun of it?

yummyfajitas 12y ago
What, AFAIK, hasn't been found is other contributing factors... Clearly you aren't that familiar with the research then. There are many disparities in work and academic effort, labor force participation, criminal propensity, IQ and career choice. I've not seen any analysis that controls for all of these or any remotely accurate predictive model. I guess given your voluminous command of the literature, you'll provide one? Finally, why are you trolling? Are you trying to understand this science or make fun of it? I was merely linking to some interesting and relevant articles on causal calculus that relate to the issues in the article. You are the one who went on a random tangent about how everything is political and I should use the most expansive possible definition for certain words, and somehow I'm denying science if I don't.
- pron 12y ago
  > There are many disparities in work and academic effort, labor force participation, criminal propensity, IQ and career choice. Let me get this straight: do you think that scientists have shown an innate, i.e. biological, disparity between Europeans and Africans that explains any significant portion of the effect we see in American society? Because if you do, you have either dramatically and tragically misunderstood some real research (showing non-innate disparities) -- because that never, and I repeat, never happened -- or accidentally stumbled on an article in KKK weekly (BTW, I sometimes read "scientific" research in Christian publications for fun; for example, did you know that the second law of thermodynamics forbids the spontaneous creation of life? I kid you not). The only thing out of the list you provided that was not misinterpreted is IQ. It is well known that there is a group of real researchers (actually, just one or two people) who claim an innate intelligence disparity between races. They are very proud of their research that "uncovers" an inconvenient "truth", but the real truth is that the effect size they have reported is too small to justify further study -- let alone explain any observed disparity in the real world (when reading a statistical study, you should really look at the effect size; blacks and women are often underrepresented in jobs that provide power with an effect size of 5x or even 10x). As to others -- showing differences, say, between boys and girls -- those papers assume you know something about power, and are far from saying what you think they're saying. In other words, other than IQ studies who show insignificant effects, those results you mentioned simply don't exist. And, as always -- when reading statistics look for the effect size. > I guess given your voluminous command of the literature, you'll provide one? One? How about a thousand, starting with those you yourself alluded to. Start Googling, you'll find them in seconds (I am sorry, but I will not link papers proving that blacks aren't naturally inferior to whites; and I know what you're going to say now: "inferior? I didn't say inferior -- I said different", to which I'll say go read on power in society).
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    and I know what you're going to say now: "...I didn't say... If you know you misinterpreted me, why do it?
    - 12y ago