# Damuri Ajashi, you are a moronic troglodyte of a crackpot **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 17, 2012, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099 "2012-02-17T03:28:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 143
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2012, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099/143 "2012-02-25T11:55:13Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Okay. > > Point is, no, it doesn’t increase significantly. Well do you agree that according to [this study](http://escholarship.org/uc/item/35n755gf), Asian enrollment went from 1277 to 1632 at the University of California at Berekley around the years that (public) affirmative action was banned in California (an increase of 27%) while at the same time, the total number of slots increased by only 9%? If so, are you claiming that the study is flat out wrong? Or are you claiming that a 27% increase in Asian students during a period when enrollment increased by 9% is not significant? > [@](#): > > No. There is plenty of proof that smoking causes life expectancy to drop. We have access to more data, more of the variables involved, well-randomized test groups, and plenty of highly-successful prediction models that can explain a vast majority of the variance and reveal significant relations between smoking and damage to health. > > Just because you can always point to a nonzero gap in variance doesn’t mean what you _can_ explain suddenly goes out the window. There can always be missing variables. The point is whether or not the variables you _do_ have are sufficient in capturing enough to yield predictive results. So if all we had were (1) epidemilogical studies which showed that smokers had significantly shorter life expectancies; (2) studies which showed that those who quit smoking enjoyed increased life expectancies; and (3) knowledge that cigarette smoke contains harmful chemicals, you would not accept that the most likely explanation is that smoking in fact causes harm to one’s body, resulting in a reduction in life expectancy? > [@](#): > > Except the common-sense conclusion is not necessarily well-grounded because “common sense” would tell most people that higher test scores always = higher chance of admission, when this is not the case. If you have a choice between (1) explanation A which is supported by Occam’s Razor and common sense; and (2) explanation B which is not supported by Occam’s Razor or common sense, which (if any) would you choose? > [@](#): > > Diminishing marginal utility = the gains with each increase matter less and less. The “gain” in admissions chances is greater between a 2000 and a 2100 versus a 2300 and a 2400. This also makes sense because of the way the test is curved. At the upper end, the slightest mistakes can tank your score. As you get lower and lower on the chain, mistakes are easier to absorb without the same loss in score. It’s curved. > > The point being made here is that for top schools, the fact that Asians have higher scores doesn’t necessarily mean much. The marginal gains are tiny, so it doesn’t make much sense to just naively hold SAT levels constant and compare admission rates between races. Well do you agree that Asians have higher SAT scores than other (major) groups at all levels and not just at the very top? > [@](#): > > For instance, if I am a white person in a largely Asian population, I could be of similar socioeconomic status but have an easier time with admissions because I’m on the under-represented side from a less-diverse region. That would be a homogenous trend selected against for the sake of diversity. And that would be intentional racial discrimination by any reasonable definition of “intentional” “racial” and “discrimination.” You are getting more favorable treatment specifically because of your race. > [@](#): > > Already answered this like 2-3 times. Please quote yourself where you believe you answered it. TIA. > [@](#): > > This is the BBQ Pit. You’re supposed to call each other names here, twat. And yet you have many posts responding to me which are insult-free. > [@](#): > > You’re quibbling over a simple yes/no while claiming to want to understand the position more. It would have been misleading to say “no, that’s pretty much not it” because it implies that your answer was wrong. You could have easily communicated that in a non-misleading, non-evasive manner. In post #135, I asked the following: > [@brazil84](#): > > Well let me ask you this: Does the “all sorts of problems” you referred to mean any problems besides the ones I listed in Post #113? If so, what problems? You could have easily said “Yes it does, it also includes X” But you chose not to. Your response did not contain a yes or no. Your response was evasive. And you still continue to be evasive. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damuri-ajashi-you-are-a-moronic-troglodyte-of-a-crackpot/613099)._