Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
@The Dark Enlightenment: I have already posted this link here, but you probably didn't see it and thus I am going to post it again right now so that you could take a look at it:
I really do think that this is quite an excellent article about this topic by Anatoly Karlin. The one thing that I would add to this article is that I would put some anti-Semites into the "Race Deniers" category!
Completely agreed with all of this. Indeed, this doesn't seem to be much different from anti-Semites blaming Ashkenazi Jews for White Gentile underperformance--whether now or in the past. After all, the argument would go like this: "If Ashkenazi Jews didn't take up so many places at elite universities, if Gentile Whites who were doctors and lawyers didn't face such intense competition from their Ashkenazi Jewish competitors, then Gentile Whites would have an easier time being successful--thus making it easier for them to improve their socioeconomic status and raise their average IQ. Thus, let's put quotas on Ashkenazi Jews when it comes to admissions to elite universities and/or when it comes to practicing medicine and/or law!"
Seriously--a belief in the equality of all groups can generate not only hatred against Whites, but also hatred against groups which are even more successful than Gentile Whites are--specifically U.S. Asians and Ashkenazi Jews. Indeed, things such as Jewish quotas and Asian quotas are actually a natural extension of the egalitarian political philosophy--even if many liberals conveniently don't see this nowadays.
Affirmative action of any kind should be abolished, in my honest opinion. However, very strong social safety nets should remain. Basically, I'm of the position that the most qualified people should do cognitively demanding tasks and that the profits from these tasks should be redistributed later on.
In contrast, colorblind conservatives have a completely wrong and misguided attitude in regards to this. Specifically, they want to throw underperformers to the mercies of uncontrolled capitalism in the hopes that these underperformers will try harder. However, what if these underperformers are already performing at their full potential? Then they're simply going to end up broke, hungry, and homeless!
Yes--a position which, interestingly enough, justifies both anti-Jewish discrimination and anti-Asian discrimination given that both of these groups are, on average, even more successful than Whites are in the United States of America!
Completely agreed with this.
Indeed, here is a very rational article by Anatoly Karlin (for the record, I'm not fond of Mr. Karlin's closeness to the alt-right, but I do think that this specific article of his is completely and entirely sensible) about this topic:
The one thing that I would want to add to this article is to put some anti-Semites into the "Race Deniers" category!
I agree with pretty much all of that. Well stated. If egalitarians were playing honest or correctly, they'd just focus on the enormous gap between the top and the bottom of all races and not the smaller gap between races. If this country is supposedly so "pro-white" as the left implies why are there so many whites who are poor? Or why do Asians and Jews do better on average than white Americans. In other words they should just focus on class, or the poor and why the middle class is shrinking and a small elite is getting richer.
@The Dark Enlightenment: I have already posted this link here, but you probably didn't see it and thus I am going to post it again right now so that you could take a look at it:
I really do think that this is quite an excellent article about this topic by Anatoly Karlin. The one thing that I would add to this article is that I would put some anti-Semites into the "Race Deniers" category!
Do you not think culture influences this? I don't think the races have been separated long enough in the course of evolution to develop this. I have lived all over the world and have experienced how different peoples are not as 'in tuned' but I do not think that is racial.
Conventional knowledge tells us Asians are smart. I can tell you firsthand that the world considers Asian peoples to be 'smart', but having lived and experienced people in those cultures, I can tell you that I think most Asian people are not nearly as developed as most Western people. Their understanding, according to our thinking for certain is not developed at all.
The knowledge is that East Asians (and not other Asians) have a higher average intelligence quotient. That doesn't necessarily mean they are more developed or capable socially or creatively. But in a task requiring pure intelligence they would perform better on average. The important thing is that there are average personality and behavioral differences also between the races due to hereditary, and not just physical differences.
This isn't even the Democrats though, it's National Public Radio, which is supposed to be totally moderate and non-partisan. People here claim that SJWism is just the loony fringe and has no real clout, even within the Democratic Party. But here we have a leading voice of the governmental/corporate establishment selling it. And this is typical. I've seen dozens of PBS News Hour features along these same lines.
#1 NPR is every bit as biased as Fox News or MSNBC. They just do a little better job of concealing it.
#2 It is only liberals that claim we need to have race based grading, get rid of scholar societies, dumb down teacher tests for social justice - while simultaneously claiming that we need to increase teacher pay to get better teachers, etc...
The sample size they used for black students is still sufficient, though I can see how it could be problematic when comparing groups.
Thanks for the rep and I appreciate the feedback.
I would point out that the question being addressed is rooted in group comparison, and as you say that's problematic as the study is designed.
I will admit to not pouring through the data that was listed outside of the body of the paper, as I only found where it was listed in an ancillary html table after I had written most of that and it was late. I'm used to data being included in the body of the article.
That being said, I would want to see how much of the already small Black sample was filtered out as variables were necessarily controlled for, before I would be able to agree that the sample size was sufficient. As that final number is the actual sample size for the comparison that matters for the study.
In addition, I would want to see the individual group distribution in the percentile range between 75 and 83%, to account for statistical distortion in the final results. As we cannot expect those students with USMLE scores in that range to be admitted to the honors society with consistency. If there were a greater percentage of any one group in that range, it would distort the results. Asians included.
Quote:
But for Asians and whites, the sample sizes are large enough where statistical spread shouldn't be a problem.
Agreed, excepting for the aforementioned critique. Also, controlling for any such possible distortion, the problem still exists for the overly broad "white" category" that often includes sociopolitically active minorities (who could be favored by admissions, especially in light of possible high test scores).
In theory, the same problem could exist among Asian subcategories as well (Koreans being admitted more than Chinese, as a hypothetical example). Except, it would be reasonable to let that slide (and not control for possible bias in favor of one Asian group and thus keep them all in the victim category) as long as there is verified statistical bias (not proven yet, imo) in favor of at least one White subgroup.
In short, this is messy business. But in my opinion it is necessary to dive into that mess, with full commitment, if the possible policy outcome will be to actively discriminate against one group in favor of another in an environment where there was before no active affirmative action measures (and thus theoretical meritocracy).
For those truly worried about discrimination, and not mere racial rent seeking, I can only assume that the last thing that they would want is to unfairly hobble any group.
I’m an independent voter and npr has become complete trash.
Maybe it always was, not sure
Not always. Just for the last fitty year or so.
As Chris Plante likes to point out, his show is three hours/day and there are three staff.
NPR puts on a one-hour show per week and there are about 23 staff.
Don't recall the exact figures, but those are close. That is why government is so efficient. Budget? No worries!
Black and Hispanic medical students don't make the honor society as often as other medical students. That's racist, dontcha know. So a leading med school in NYC will stop nominating students for honors entirely. This a national problem, we are told by NPR, which cites an expert who claims it isn't fair to judge med students of color by the same standard:
Not to worry though, it isn't like training good doctors is a matter of life and death, right?
NPR
What I'm hearing is that we should avoid Black and Hispanic doctors like the plague.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Budget? No worries!
