Quote:

Interestingly, nearly ALL of your arguments were already addressed in another thread.

---

Quote:

I agree that anectdotal evidence isn't proof, by the way, and appreciate that you recognize that.

---

Quote:

But that video doesn't disprove the catcalling.  It happened, and I said I wouldn't call it 'systemic misogynistic gender based oppression'.

---

Quote:

And that's exactly what was used as evidence in the other thread.

---

Quote:

Oh, I'm very familiar with statistical manipulation.  One of my bachelors degrees is in mathematics with an emphasis in statistics.

---

Quote:

Actually your second article demonstrates how easy it is to manipulate results.

---

Quote:

The first study shows that people with black sounding first like Jamal and Rasheed get fewer call backs, while the second study shows that people with commonly black last names like Washington and Jefferson get more call backs.  Do you see the problem with the second study?  As many white people have those last names as black people, so they don't sound as black.

---

Quote:

That's a very good video that explains what researchers need to watch out for to help prevent false positives.  And from 10:12 - 10:53 he explains that scientists generally are aware of this.

---

Quote:

Some people recognize that white privilege exists, and would like things to be fairer.

---

How would you propose to make things "fairer"?

Quote:

your argument has basically devolved into "science can't prove anything because it's possible to manipulate data".

---

Quote:

The study on first names like Jamal and Rasheed shows a p-value based on the study's sample size of 2445 resumes to be 0.0000 (Table 1).  That means there is >99.99% confidence that the results are accurate and that people with black sounding first names get fewer call backs.  Not the meager 95% confidence that the guy in your video talked about.

---

Quote:

And I explained why the second study on last names got different results - it's because most people don't realize that Jefferson and Washington are such popular black last names; most people associate those names with white presidents.  I was surprised to find out those were common black last names, but I know Jamal and Rasheed are common black first names.

---

Quote:

There's a lot of faulty logic in the rest of your post too.

---

Quote:

For example, murder is illegal just like discrimination, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

---

Quote:

I'll ignore the rest of your post to stay focused on the statistical part of these studies.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I wasn't proposing we do anything about white privilege, other than acknowledging its existence.  That first study showed with an incredibly high confidence that people with black sounding first names don't get called as much; that's white privilege.

And I provided a reason why it appears the second study provided different results - people don't associate Jefferson and Washington to black people like they do Jamal and Rasheed.  I certainly didn't before reading that those were predominately black last names.

If you can come up with a better reason for why there is a discrepancy, I'm all ears.

---

qman said:

So it was a highly biased "study".

Black or Latino Surnames Don't Actually Hurt Job Applicants, Mizzou Study Finds

---

vault123 said:

Like I said no single study is definitive. There needs to be a weight of evidence over time, that's reproducible, and independently verifiable.

---

vault123 said:

Even then motivations, and contradicting information (like the kind we discussed) still need to be taken into account.

---

vault123 said:

All things considered I would say this is a long way from proving the existence of white privilege.

---

vault123 said:

That said, this is MUCH more convincing than a google search term or anecdotal video.

---

Agreed.  At least for those people that understand statistics. 

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

So it was a highly biased "study".

Black or Latino Surnames Don't Actually Hurt Job Applicants, Mizzou Study Finds

---

That confirms exactly what I just said.  Surnames don't hurt as much as first names, and I offered an explanation why.  If you have a better explanation, I'm all ears.

---

This is a dumb question that crosses my mind on this issue time to time
but not sure if it's been brought up before

but is it possible the hesitance to call back "black sounding" names
and the willingness to call back sur names
may have to do with fears of mispronunciation?

Remember once having a boss named Abdou
was put in the job by an employment placement agency, and when they told me who to ask for thought they said "Abdul"
so walked up to the brownest looking person on shift and asked him if he was Abdul
turns out Abdou started work an hour later than the rest of the shift and the gentleman I spoke with, Ram, helped me find something to do during the interim wait
and talked me up as timely and eager to work when Abdou did show up

but putting myself in the position of having to call a prospective employee
would be terrified of the weakness implied by not being able to correctly pronounce or identify someone's name

tho, to be fair, Abdou was an African immigrant and his last name was even more complex and difficult for me
did walk in on him on the phone with his sister back home one time and they were speaking a super cool clicking language

rambling, sorry

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

vault123 said:

Like I said no single study is definitive. There needs to be a weight of evidence over time, that's reproducible, and independently verifiable.

---

The first study found that people with black sounding first names don't get called back as much, with a >99.99% confidence.  Not 100% (what is?), but this is much more confidence than the usual 95% threshold.

vault123 said:

Even then motivations, and contradicting information (like the kind we discussed) still need to be taken into account.

---

We discussed that and took that into account.  Washington and Jefferson don't sound as black as Jamal and Rasheed, which very likely explains the discrepancy.  And puts the motivation of the second study into question.

vault123 said:

All things considered I would say this is a long way from proving the existence of white privilege.

---

It's not that long a ways at all.  One more similar study, and you'll have much, much, greater confidence.  Or how about 2 more similar studies?

Indiscriminate discrimination: A correspondence test for ethnic homophily in the Chicago labor market

Criminal Records, and Statistical Discrimination

vault123 said:

That said, this is MUCH more convincing than a google search term or anecdotal video.

---

Agreed.  At least for those people that understand statistics. 

---

Quote:

the study they said that even equal opportunity employers were guilty of it, they don't even know that they're doing it. Are you supposed to punish people for something they're not even aware that they're doing?

---

koods said:

Quote:

the study they said that even equal opportunity employers were guilty of it, they don't even know that they're doing it. Are you supposed to punish people for something they're not even aware that they're doing?

---

Who said anything about punishment. You people have very bizarre ideas.

White privilege is an unconscious behavior. Like crossing the street when black people are coming but not whites. People don’t even make a conscious decision.

---

koods said:

Yes even blacks do it

---

koods said:

It’s realz

---