Printable View
You mean the study we were talking about before? In the Politifact article? I did read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The study that we are now talking about is an imaginary study that you came up with, where "hillbilly" white names are substituted for normal white names. I'm asking you to quantify how researchers would select "hillbilly"-sounding names.
Jesus, you can't even follow your own line of questioning.
Yes, the study is linked in the Politifacts article. You should read the study instead of being spoonfeed by Politifacts, their agenda dribble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
The study says how they selected the names. They can select hillbilly names the same way.
Yes, based on demographic information from the Office of Vital Records in the California Department of Health Services. How long do you suppose they've been collecting data on whether someone was born to hillbilly parents or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Then they tested the response of the names, before implementing them in the resume study. They can do the same testing to pick hillbilly names.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
This was a study that was designed to test a premise without eliminating all known variables. The conclusions cannot be considered valid without weeding out the other possibilities.
You do understand the scientific method, right?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rocess.svg.png
Before the conclusions of such a study can be considered valid, the other possibilities must be tested for and included or excluded. The other hypothesis of social culture was mentioned, but not tested. Therefore, the hypothesis it is race may be invalid.
I contend it is invalid, though it is my belief, and have no proof of it.
How about these for the four boys and girls names?
Bobby Joe
Homer
Roscoe
Wilbur
Bambi
LeAnne
Mary Lou
Norma
Think these might have adverse effects or not?
Took you long enough... but glad we have that settled. Now, moving on to your hypothetical...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
How about these for the four boys and girls names?
Bobby Joe
Homer
Roscoe
Wilbur
Bambi
LeAnne
Mary Lou
Norma
Think these might have adverse effects or not?
Probably some, but it depends on the job and the employer.
Would your study also filter "black" names to use names that specifically sound like those of poor blacks? Because right now you're comparing names pulled from specific socioeconomic status to names pulled only by race. Not really apples to apples.
I started doing some name research, and don't think the names were so randomly selected. Unconscience bias can take place.
The names used:
Jamal Jones...
There was a Jamal Jones arrested for murder in 1999, in Chicago, just before the study. Chicago was one of the two cities used.
Greg Baker...
There was a 2000 article in Chicago about a a teacher/coach named Greg Baker that did positive things in the community.
I didn't find anything on the other two names before July 2001, but google searches drop a lot of things over the years. Just the same, i think it's safe top say exact name matches trigger unconscious bias as well, as to good and bad impressions.
See my prior post on news and names.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
I think they should have excluded a well publicized black name arrested for murder, and the white name honored for community deeds.
Please don't tell me that didn't bias the results at all...
I can say with a pretty high level of confidence that hiring managers rarely if ever exclude applicants from getting a callback based on a Google search revealing a different person with the same name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
That is the way he works. Confirmation bias and sophism personified.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Lots of appropriation of Western European culture going on in this thread.
That isn't what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
It's pretty annoying trying to debate someone who hasn't a clue. The names were in the news. The memory could easily be unconscious, and affect the results with all else equal. Unless you can rule such things out...
:lol and you were talking about grasping at strawsQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
salon.com? :lolsmh RG
Honestly, I thought that's what you might have meant, but it's even dumber than the Google search scenario. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
My mistake. I'll try again. I can say with a pretty high level of confidence that hiring managers rarely if ever exclude applicants from getting a callback based on a subconscious recollection of a news story about someone with the same name.
God you are an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
I am pointing out other possibilities. It is not I that is stuck on only one viewpoint. Even the study says the numbers could be other than race, but no... you only acceopt the numbers are due to race.
How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Are you a mind reader?
How do you know how a person chooses if all other factors are equal?
Who knows. Maybe they actually remember the year old story as well, and his to make a decision somehow. Maybe it is conscience...
I really can't hope to have a serious conversation with someone who thinks it's highly plausible that someone named Jamal Jones didn't get a callback because of a subconscious recollection of a news story, and that this example disproves racial discrimination in hiring practices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
You can't get over the fact that I see other possible alternatives. I am not stating any as fact like you are.
You are in denial that there could possibly be something other than racism.
You are closed minded.
Is your head as hard as a diamond?
I've already said there could be other reasons on a case-by-case basis. But, see, that's why these studies look at over a thousand cases. That's where patterns are found. You're questioning the findings of the entire study based on the POSSIBILITY that one or two examples COULD have been something else. And you still don't see why that's ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
No. I added possibilities. The study itself said the causes may have been perceived environment rather than perceived race. When you failed to acknowledge that fact, I added a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
You simply do not have an open mind. You have a bigoted viewpoint that racism is the only conclusion.
I pity your lack of open mindedness.
For Snakeboy
Goddamn this thread.
This is why you don't argue with WC on merit and go straight for the 'youre a gibbering moron' tactic. Insert aphorism about arguing with fools.
For RandomGuy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
The problem is sometimes with you is that you think when someone shows alternate possibilities, they are presenting them as facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
You are a total dumbshit!