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.
Still statistically significant nonetheless - not just "slightly lower." Moreover, I think conservatives underestimate the role of implicit bias; especially when people are asked to evaluate someone on subjective characteristics. Also, if black students are complaining they aren't adequately represented, why shouldn't the university believe them? I think the tacit assumption in this thread that they're lying.
So explain how it is supposed whites have a supposed bias against Asians but not against Hispanics? Why should we assume there shouldn't be even more whites in the honor society? Why is the right outcome is everyone equally represented or whites only being no more than equally represented or even underrepresented?
So explain how it is supposed whites have a supposed bias against Asians but not against Hispanics? Why should we assume there shouldn't be even more whites in the honor society? Why is the right outcome is everyone equally represented or whites only being no more than equally represented or even underrepresented?
I'm opposed to affirmative action - so I'm not advocating for anything. All I'm saying is that subjective evaluations lend themselves to bias. But according to this thread I'm just another "white hating liberal" lol.
Did anyone here actually read the article? The empirical evidence linked shows that black and Asian students with the same test scores, community service, etc. are less likely to be picked for honors than their white counterparts with the same qualifications.
The article said that community service provided for no significant effect. Ie: it didn't affect statistical acceptance into the honors society.
The article said that the USMLE scores and membership in the Gold Humanism Honor Society were the only effective variable in regard to entrance. Nothing else mattered.
Quote:
No statistically significant differences were found in the median time dedicated to leadership activities and community service between AΩA and non-AΩA students.
No association was found between AΩA membership and the self-reported number of hours worked in leadership positions or the self-reported number of hours worked in community service.
One easy critique, off of the bat, is that the Black student sample size was only about ten percent of that of "White" students and 5.9% of the entire sample.
This difference is so wide that it could cause a significant statistical spread that could close once the sample sizes became less divergent.
Statistics take relatively large numbers to even out and become accurate. The larger the sample size, the more reliable the study. The Black students coming in at 10% of the White sample and 5.9% of the total is a questionable study design.
One major related issue is that when the authors needed to control for test scores, the already low number Black sample would have been reduced significantly more: making the study less reliable still.
How to fix this would be to redo the study, and restrict the sample size to even numbers of individuals in each racial pool.
In addition, and this counts as a further article critique, they would only include subjects that scored in the 84th percentile and above on the USMLE (since only 16% of all students get admitted and USMLE performance seems to weigh heaviest).
Introducing subjects with lower scores than 84th percentile would significantly corrupt the data in my opinion, as it likely does in the study since the authors mentioned they only controlled for the top quartile (75th percentile and up, instead of 84th). This is a 9% spread. If there is uneven distribution of Black, Asian, and White students within that 'overflow' percentile range, then that would corrupt the data.
You'd have sample size issues with this method, which may stretch the time and budget of the researchers to fix. But that is what a truly impactful study would demand in my opinion.
My last critique to be made could be that the term "White" is too broad to be sociopolitically accurate in an article whose purpose is to analyze potential political favoritism, as any conscious favoritism might not be due to skin color (alone or at all).
Those counted as "White" often have differing sociopolitical groups in practice. There could be certain groups within the "White" group (Iranians, Turks, Jews, Gentile American Whites, etc) that are favored and skewing the results, and thus possibly less favored groups (who may actually gain admittance at the rate of, or less than the rate of Asians for example) would be further penalized with any policy action from a study with such loose ethnic categorization.
I agree with you here in concept. I have lived in a few different countries and traveled the world. Before I did this, I was a full on nutty liberal who bought hook, line and sinker that all cultures and people are equal in their ability and culture.
Once one realized this is perhaps the biggest lie ever told, one comes to understand that the entire narrative of the left is a lie and begins to unfold.
I would tweak your point a bit, claiming that within any population set, mentally there is an arc of people that is very similar among any population. However, culture is undeveloped and retards the potential growth of peoples.
In America, if people of any background adapt mainstream Western culture, if they have the cognitive ability, they can prosper. If they adhere to closely to their native culture and refuse to assimilate, they will very often struggle.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we can say with confidence that "mentally there is an arc of people that is very similar among any population." I mean, sure, there is certainly a lot of overlap between different groups--something which should never be forgotten and which makes discrimination based on race or ethnicity completely illogical. However, in terms of averages, I am simply not sure that we can reshape all groups to be very similar or the exact same. For instance, it is entirely possible that Blacks will, on average, remain more homophobic than Whites no matter how many interventions we will try in regards to this. Of course, it's also possible that the reverse is true, but my point here is that we don't actually know which of these two scenarios is the correct one.
Still statistically significant nonetheless - not just "slightly lower." Moreover, I think conservatives underestimate the role of implicit bias; especially when people are asked to evaluate someone on subjective characteristics. Also, if black students are complaining they aren't adequately represented, why shouldn't the university believe them? I think the tacit assumption in this thread that they're lying.
True. Black applicants for residency at that hospital were, after adjustment for several factors, found to be 5.5 times less likely to have received honor society membership in med school. I went back and looked at the study more carefully... it dawned on me that the main criteria which makes a student eligible for med school honors - their grades in med school - was not even considered. To be eligible for Alpha Omega Alpha students need a GPA in the top 25% of their school. This is far and away the largest obstacle black med students face in gaining membership yet no effort was made to account for it.
And also better than the liberal non-hereditarian position that blames disparate outcomes on "white racism" or "privilege". It encourages racism against whites, resentment toward whites and resentment from whites.
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.
Quote:
Through faulty attribution, colorblind conservatives want to end affirmative action and social safety nets,
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!
Quote:
while liberals want to scapegoat and disadvantage whites or any group who succeed on their own efforts or merits.
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!
Quote:
Both based on the faulty premise or attribution that all groups would have equal outcomes but for some environmental cause. While all along heredity is the primary cause that's being totally ignored.
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 article said that community service provided for no significant effect. Ie: it didn't affect statistical acceptance into the honors society.
The article said that the USMLE scores and membership in the Gold Humanism Honor Society were the only effective variable in regard to entrance. Nothing else mattered.
One easy critique, off of the bat, is that the Black student sample size was only about ten percent of that of "White" students and 5.9% of the entire sample.
This difference is so wide that it could cause a significant statistical spread that could close once the sample sizes became less divergent.
Statistics take relatively large numbers to even out and become accurate. The larger the sample size, the more reliable the study. The Black students coming in at 10% of the White sample and 5.9% of the total is a questionable study design.
One major related issue is that when the authors needed to control for test scores, the already low number Black sample would have been reduced significantly more: making the study less reliable still.
How to fix this would be to redo the study, and restrict the sample size to even numbers of individuals in each racial pool.
In addition, and this counts as a further article critique, they would only include subjects that scored in the 84th percentile and above on the USMLE (since only 16% of all students get admitted and USMLE performance seems to weigh heaviest).
Introducing subjects with lower scores than 84th percentile would significantly corrupt the data in my opinion, as it likely does in the study since the authors mentioned they only controlled for the top quartile (75th percentile and up, instead of 84th). This is a 9% spread. If there is uneven distribution of Black, Asian, and White students within that 'overflow' percentile range, then that would corrupt the data.
You'd have sample size issues with this method, which may stretch the time and budget of the researchers to fix. But that is what a truly impactful study would demand in my opinion.
My last critique to be made could be that the term "White" is too broad to be sociopolitically accurate in an article whose purpose is to analyze potential political favoritism, as any conscious favoritism might not be due to skin color (alone or at all).
Those counted as "White" often have differing sociopolitical groups in practice. There could be certain groups within the "White" group (Iranians, Turks, Jews, Gentile American Whites, etc) that are favored and skewing the results, and thus possibly less favored groups (who may actually gain admittance at the rate of, or less than the rate of Asians for example) would be further penalized with any policy action from a study with such loose ethnic categorization.
The sample size they used for black students is still sufficient, though I can see how it could be problematic when comparing groups. But for Asians and whites, the sample sizes are large enough where statistical spread shouldn't be a problem.
Not sure about the rest, but +1 for actually writing this up.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we can say with confidence that "mentally there is an arc of people that is very similar among any population." I mean, sure, there is certainly a lot of overlap between different groups--something which should never be forgotten and which makes discrimination based on race or ethnicity completely illogical. However, in terms of averages, I am simply not sure that we can reshape all groups to be very similar or the exact same. For instance, it is entirely possible that Blacks will, on average, remain more homophobic than Whites no matter how many interventions we will try in regards to this. Of course, it's also possible that the reverse is true, but my point here is that we don't actually know which of these two scenarios is the correct one.
I do not think there is any difference in mental CAPABILITY among various ethnic groups. I do believe that that potential is retarded often by culture though. If you put any person at the top of any arc among any racial group in America and allow him or her to prosper, that person will do well.
I don't know about that. The trend is entirely in the other directions, with liberals proving very successful at denying rather than acknowledging the inevitable consequences of evolution.
Reality is eventually going to bite one in the ass whether one likes it or not, though. Indeed, I certainly don't see liberals in the U.S. and West being anywhere near as totalitarian as the left-wingers in the Soviet Union previously were. Thus, whatever the facts are, they will almost certainly eventually get out, and people are going to have to deal with these facts.
Quote:
This is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but exceedingly rare. No liberal, outside of tenured professors, can acknowledge group average differences in intelligence and keep their job.
Yes, and this is a very serious problem. Not only are liberals very possibly deluding themselves about reality, but they could also unintentionally be doing harm to underperforming minorities themselves. Indeed, if liberals base opposition to racism on the belief that all races are exactly the same (at least on important traits such as intelligence), and if evidence emerges that all races are not the same in regards to this, then these liberals themselves are going to give racists an excuse to justify bringing back segregation and Jim Crow!
The proper thing for liberals to do is to argue that racism is a moral failing and that all people should be treated decently regardless of their IQ as well as that people of different races shouldn't be judged based on the average IQ--or any other average, such as criminality--of their specific race. It is through moves such as this that we can prevent ugly consequences from emerging. Basically, people need to have an honest discussion about the facts without presuming that embracing these facts results in things such as a return to segregation and Jim Crow. After all, if the low average IQ of certain groups is proven to have a genetic basis to it, then that is no more of a rationale for a return to segregation and Jim Crow than the participation of individual Jews in Communist movements is a rationale for a second Holocaust!
Quote:
Certainly no liberal politician could do this. Not that mainstream conservatives are any better on this subject. Their "stop being so lazy" take on denial of innate difference is no more useful than mainstream liberals' "stop being so racist."
Yes, this is certainly the case right now, but I am hopeful that this will eventually change. Of course, it might take a while for things to change in regards to this even after the science in regards to this will be settled. It's a huge shame, but it is what it is and I am hopeful for the long-term in regards to this.
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.
