How do we fix the wounds in America?

[treis]

@k9bfriender

In one statement, you say that we have no responsibility to fix the unfair and unequitable society that our predecessors left us.

In the other, you say we have the duty to create a fair and equitable society.

How is that not contradictory?

Here’s some free advice. If you have to change what someone says to make an argument, your argument is wrong and you shouldn’t make it.

[k9bfriender]

@treis

Here’s some free advice. If you have to change what someone says to make an argument, your argument is wrong and you shouldn’t make it.

I did not change what you said, not in the slightest.

This is what you said.

My position is that what my personal ancestors did or did not do is completely irrelevant to the situations we are facing today. Children are not culpable for the sins of their fathers nor do they have the duty to fix them. Our collective duty is to set up a country that is fair and where everyone has an equal opportunity to thrive.

I underlined where you contradict yourself.

Our “fathers” set up a country that is not fair. You claim that we have no duty to fix the problems that our “fathers” left us.

You then claim that we have a duty to set up a country that is fair, in direct contradiction to what you just said about not having a duty to fix the problems that our “fathers” left us.

So, if you want to clear up your contradiction, answer the question. Do we have a duty to fix the problems of racism and inequality that our “fathers” left for us?

[treis]

@k9bfriender

I did not change what you said, not in the slightest.

This is what you said.

I underlined where you contradict yourself.

Our “fathers” set up a country that is not fair. You claim that we have no duty to fix the problems that our “fathers” left us.

You then claim that we have a duty to set up a country that is fair, in direct contradiction to what you just said about not having a duty to fix the problems that our “fathers” left us.

So, if you want to clear up your contradiction, answer the question. Do we have a duty to fix the problems of racism and inequality that our “fathers” left for us?

Are you seriously suggesting my argument is that everyone has a “collective duty is to set up a country that is fair and where everyone has an equal opportunity to thrive” except for descendants of those that made it unfair? They don’t have to do shit?

[k9bfriender]

@treis

Are you seriously suggesting my argument is that everyone has a “collective duty is to set up a country that is fair and where everyone has an equal opportunity to thrive” except for descendants of those that made it unfair? They don’t have to do shit?

No. That is not what I am suggesting your argument is. I am curious as to what indeed is your argument, as you have made two contradictory arguments in the same paragraph.

I am suggesting that you contradicted yourself when you said in one sentence that you had no duty to fix the problems that you “fathers” made, and in the next, saying that we have an duty to fix the problems that our “fathers” left us.

Try reading what you wrote.

Or, just answer the question that you have deflected every time it has been asked. Do we or do we not have an obligation to fix the problems of racism and inequality that our “fathers” left for us?

[Sherrerd]

@treis

Setting aside quibbles with the way these name studies are done, the result they get back isn’t significant. Sure, it’s statistically significant, in that the difference is not likely due to random chance. But it is not significant because the gap isn’t large enough to be noticeable in everyday life.

You then go on to say that a 3% gap in the one study is meaningless because

@treis

You have to apply to around 40 jobs before you get to an actual whole number difference (6 v 7).

For the tens of thousands of people looking for jobs, this translates to hundreds of jobs that will go to the white person instead of to the equally qualified black person. You consider that to be “meaningless,” which says quite a lot about you. But most Americans would disagree that it’s meaningless.

The point is not identifying the exact number of equally-qualified black people who get turned down for a job in favor of a white person; the point is that the pattern is predictable and goes in only one direction–to the (unearned) advantage of the white person.

And all the ‘I heard a black guy got hired even though he was less qualified’ anecdotes that I suspect you have at your fingertips don’t change the actual facts. There’s a pattern, and that pattern favors us white folks.

@treis

As for the gender study, it appears at first blush to be more of an impact. However, there’s actually no statistical difference in starting pay for STEM (minus engineering) graduates.

Nice attempt to move the goalposts. But*** starting pay is irrelevant if you don’t get the job in the first place***:

@Sherrerd

… In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John’s resume.

The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. …

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer…

Identical resume. Different name on top. “John” is rated as being significantly more competent than “Jennifer.”

Again: identical resume.

[Sherrerd]

I’ve seen a lot of comments here and elsewhere to the effect that this whole topic is about ‘assigning blame’ and that non-white people are demanding that white people apologize for the past and what not.

Leaving aside the probability that there are a few non-white people who think that way, the sensible majority of people of all backgrounds (white, black, Latino, etc.) surely can agree that the situation we are living in NOW is what’s most important. Most people want their children to have opportunities based on their talents and abilities, rather than on their ancestry.

So why not short-circuit unsolvable, hopeless arguments about ‘blame’ by focusing on the current state of affairs and how far it diverges from an actually-level playing field? (Which is why I brought up the “identical resume” science, which could shed light on the topic and help move it away from subjectivity.)

When blame-junkies bring up the past and try to create guilt and shame, change the conversation by pointing out that though some groups (especially white males) have unearned advantages, not all members of those groups are ignorant of the fact that they have unearned advantages. Some are willing to put a spotlight on the phenomenon of unearned advantage. Some realize that an actually-level playing field is better for them, too–because then their achievements will be recognized as being due to their own merits, rather than to the accident of their birth.

[octopus]

@septimus

If you feel that whites suffer in some cases, Suck it up! This is what blacks have been told to do and are still told to do.

Do you sincerely believe that, overall, white men get less of a good shake than minority groups, e.g. blacks, do in this country? If you do, then (post your evidence in a different thread please) you may feel justified in doing what blacks do; for example marching with White Lives Matter placards if your statistics show that whites are the group more likely to be mistreated by the police and justice systems.

Sincere question: Assuming you feel that racism against whites is a bigger problem than racism against blacks, and decide to organize a protest, will you encourage KKK members and anti-Semites to march with you?

I don’t like the idea that there is group responsibility based on skin color. That seems quite racist as racism is commonly understood.

[bobot]

@octopus

I don’t like the idea that there is group responsibility based on skin color. …

History sucks, am I right?

[treis]

@Sherrerd

You then go on to say that a 3% gap in the one study is meaningless because

For the tens of thousands of people looking for jobs, this translates to hundreds of jobs that will go to the white person instead of to the equally qualified black person. You consider that to be “meaningless,” which says quite a lot about you. But most Americans would disagree that it’s meaningless.

No, it means I understand math and how the market operates. The discrepancy does not mean that hundreds of thousands of jobs will go to whites instead of blacks. It means that at a small percentage of companies whites will be over represented and at the rest blacks will be slightly over represented compared with a zero bias market.

@Sherrerd

The point is not identifying the exact number of equally-qualified black people who get turned down for a job in favor of a white person; the point is that the pattern is predictable and goes in only one direction–to the (unearned) advantage of the white person.

And my point is that the pattern is small and would not be noticed by any individual observer.

@Sherrerd

Nice attempt to move the goalposts. But*** starting pay is irrelevant if you don’t get the job in the first place***:

Identical resume. Different name on top. “John” is rated as being significantly more competent than “Jennifer.”

Again: identical resume.

I’m pretty sure my cite takes account all graduates. I suppose it is possible that male STEM graduates have higher employment rates at a lower pay rate, but I suspect it’s unlikely. Do you have a cite showing an actual discrepancy between male and female STEM graduate employment?

[Sherrerd]

@treis

No, it means I understand math and how the market operates. The discrepancy does not mean that **hundreds of thousands of jobs **will go to whites instead of blacks.

You might try replying to what I actually said:

@Sherrerd

For the tens of thousands of people looking for jobs, this translates to hundreds of jobs that will go to the white person instead of to the equally qualified black person.

Hundreds. Not “hundreds of thousands.”

@treis

I’m pretty sure my cite takes account all graduates. I suppose it is possible that male STEM graduates have higher employment rates at a lower pay rate, but I suspect it’s unlikely. Do you have a cite showing an actual discrepancy between male and female STEM graduate employment?

My post cited a well-respected research study that said that there was a statistically significant difference in the level of “competence” that STEM professors from across the country attributed to “John” as compared with “Jennifer”—with “John” assessed as being more competent—despite that “John” and “Jennifer” had the exact same resume.

That’s the science my post referenced; I made no reference to employment statistics and my point did not rest on employment statistics, but on the reception that identical resumes received when differing names appeared on the top. If you would like to explore research on related topics, I’m sure your findings would be welcome here.

@Sherrerd

Identical resume. Different name on top. “John” is rated as being significantly more competent than “Jennifer.”

Again: identical resume. http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

A few more sources of information on the topic:

Shen, Helen. “The bias detective: with an experiment that exposed sex discrimination, a microbiologist has opened researchers’ eyes to their unconscious biases.” Nature, vol. 492, no. 7429, 2012, p. 340+. Academic OneFile, Accessed 26 Aug. 2017.

The bias detective: with an experiment that exposed sex discrimination, a...

Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 544-557.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.544

This one is a compendium of such studies:

…in audit studies, which involve sending ostensibly real applications for job openings while varying the gender of the applicant, female applicants are less likely to be interviewed or called back, compared with male applicants (e.g., McIntyre et al., 1980; Firth, 1982). In a recent study, male and female biology, chemistry, and physics professors rated an undergraduate science student for a laboratory manager position (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). The male applicant was rated as significantly more competent and hireable, offered a higher starting salary (about $4000), and offered more career mentoring than the female applicant was. In summary, women face a distinct disadvantage when being considered for male-typed jobs.

There is ample evidence that women experience biased performance evaluations on male-typed tasks. A meta-analysis of experimental studies reveals that women in leadership positions receive lower performance evaluations than matched men; this is amplified when women act in a stereotypically masculine, that is, agentic fashion (Eagly et al., 1992). Further, in masculine domains, women are held to a higher standard of performance than men are. For example, in a study of military cadets, men and women gave their peers lower ratings if they were women, despite having objectively equal qualifications to men (Boldry et al., 2001). Finally, women are evaluated more poorly in situations that involve complex problem solving; in these situations, people are skeptical regarding women’s expertise and discredit expert women’s opinions but give expert men the benefit of the doubt (Thomas-Hunt and Phillips, 2004).

Gender inequalities in the workplace: the effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers’ sexism - PMC
…There are just as many studies comparing reaction to identical resumes by race/ethnicity, if not more. For example, this 2014 study:

In this research, I examine employment opportunities for white and black graduates of elite top-ranked universities versus high-ranked but less selective institutions… The results show that although a credential from an elite university results in more employer responses for all candidates, black candidates from elite universities only do as well as white candidates from less selective universities. Moreover, race results in a double penalty: When employers respond to black candidates, it is for jobs with lower starting salaries and lower prestige than those of white peers. These racial differences suggest that a bachelor’s degree, even one from an elite institution, cannot fully counteract the importance of race in the labor market.

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/93/4/1451/2332119

Google Scholar is a useful source.

[octopus]

@bobot

History sucks, am I right?

That’s irrelevant.

You advocate treating people based on skin color now?

[treis]

@Sherrerd

You might try replying to what I actually said:

Hundreds. Not “hundreds of thousands.”

Twas a typo that doesn’t change my argument.

@Sherrerd

My post cited a well-respected research study that said that there was a statistically significant difference in the level of “competence” that STEM professors from across the country attributed to “John” as compared with “Jennifer”—with “John” assessed as being more competent—despite that “John” and “Jennifer” had the exact same resume.

That’s the science my post referenced; I made no reference to employment statistics and my point did not rest on employment statistics, but on the reception that identical resumes received when differing names appeared on the top. If you would like to explore research on related topics, I’m sure your findings would be welcome here.

Your study included a pay gap. Showing that there is none is a blow against the applicability of the study to the real world. You’ve underlined the same phrase several times now, but you still haven’t gotten to a point. Perhaps you can share. From where I stand, laboratory results are mildly interesting, but not important given the contradictory results from the real world.

[Martini_Enfield]

@k9bfriender

And, as long as it is insisted that someone needs to be blamed, rather than we all needing to take responsibility, nothing will be accomplished.

That’s human nature, though. Even if we collectively agree “mistakes were made”, then group B is going to say “We need X to fix this problem” and group A is going to say “We can’t/wont pay for it” and we’re right back to where we are now.

[Sherrerd]

@Martini_Enfield

That’s human nature, though. Even if we collectively agree “mistakes were made”, then group B is going to say “We need X to fix this problem” and group A is going to say “We can’t/wont pay for it” and we’re right back to where we are now.

You’re quite right, but it’s worth remembering that guilt/blame logjams have been worked around–there’s been peace in Northern Ireland for some time now, for instance.

The urge to cling to grievances is strong in our species. But it’s not impenetrable.

[septimus]

Mark Kingwell, Prof. of Philosophy at University of Toronto says: Don’t bother trying to understand those on the `other side’.

The recent deadly Nazi hate-fest in Charlottesville has … prompted a call for more compassion and empathy when dealing with basic ideological differences.
These efforts and sentiments are noble, but doomed to fail… There is a moral baseline that Nazism is indefensible; we ought likewise to recognize that most people can’t actually be reasoned with.
… The utopia of a rational public sphere is an illusion … What we need, instead, is what social scientists call scaffolding.

Why don’t we acknowledge that political belief is also an aspect of human behaviour in need of external control? Let’s call it conviction addiction. Sure, some people can, like social drinkers, moderate their views and stay clear-headed over the course of the day. Others fall into a pattern of abusive behaviour and acting out. They can’t help themselves.

The gateway drug is interrupting, raising your voice and deliberately misunderstanding interlocutors all standard moves of a CNN segment. Conviction-addicts then move on to ranting at hidden forces, demonizing ethnic groups, and sounding dog-whistles all standard moves of Rebel Media or Sean Hannity. Finally, if unchecked, they order the flashy haircut, don the white polo shirt and fire up a tiki torch. The fact that a slogan like “Jews will not replace us” literally makes no sense is, at this point, not a defect but a mark in its favour.

Classical liberals argue that bad speech should be met with more and better speech, that the marketplace of ideas will short bad stocks and return investment on good ones. Alas, not so. The mental market is far more irrational than the one governing wealth, which veers from high to low based on rumour, wisps of policy change and random tweets.

[Limits (‘scaffolds’) are needed in the marketplace.] Consider, then, that individual consciousness is considerably less sane than even the most rapacious corporation. Mere existence is sufficient for each of us to form a limited company in the world of thought. That’s frightening! There is no dialectic possible here. Haters gonna hate.

Let’s recognize the conviction-addictive quality in all of us, and stop imagining that free public discourse will bend toward reason. Curbs on speech and strict rules of engagement no interruptions, no slogans, no talking points may be the right answer here. We already, in [Canada], ban hateful speech. Let’s go farther and insist on discourse rules, limits on public outrage and aggressively regulated social media. We could even ban media panel discussions.

… Limit indulgence in the cup of conviction; let’s have more constraint, less conversation. That’s your path to a stable future, friends by not trying to be friends.

[Crazy_Canuck]

@Acsenray

If you believe in a just society then you as a white person are responsible for taking action to make it just.

And what if we don’t believe in a just society? I sure as fuck don’t.

[doorhinge]

[quote=“k9bfriender, post:245, topic:794006”]

Slavers

Slavers

Slavers

What’s your point?

That black people were involved in black slavery from the very beginning. Who is originally responsible for selling those black captives in to slavery? Europeans? Asians?

[iiandyiiii]

@doorhinge

That black people were involved in black slavery from the very beginning. Who is originally responsible for selling those black captives in to slavery? Europeans? Asians?

Slavers were responsible.

[doorhinge]

@Acsenray

…Whether or not you believe it’s your fault or you are to blame is irrelevant. It is still your responsibility to fix it, because only white people can fix it.

If you don’t do it, it won’t get fixed. That’s what it comes down to. You can be as offended as you want from having this point d out, but that fact is unchangeable.

(post shortened)

Are you seriously suggesting that black people are incapable of finding a solution, or are you suggesting that you are incapable of finding a solution?

[doorhinge]

@iiandyiiii

Slavers were responsible.

The Egyptians? The Romans? Greeks? Aztecs? Muslims? Neanderthals?