Then we agree at last - your skin color has no effect on what careers you're likely to choose or likely to apply for or likely to be able to do,
Agreed.
and thus, if certain career areas favor certain races, its due to discriminatory hiring and not an artifact of the applicant pool.
You are wrong. This has been explained to you at least twice already. While it has been explained why random sampling is not the correct analogous situation to this, you have failed to once deal with what has been explained to you. All you do is repeat your mantra.
If you feel that you have made your point, I am fine with the responses I have given to you (and you dodge at every turn). We can let the public decide for themselves.
If hiring people is a random sample of race, which it should be if racism is not a factor in hiring, then each employment area will have a distribution of races more or less equal to the population that they're drawing from.
Perhaps it is time for you to move into more advanced research methods, if this is what you are getting out of "basic stats". You are making a fallacy, and the very one I posted in the other thread I might add, and which you claimed was inaccurate.
Random sampling is used to produce a description of reality, reality itself does not produce equal/random assignment. I have already described this but I will do so again...
If a new field of possible interest for humans opens up, and it contains 4 choices, it is not true that 25% of humans will decide to join each different choice. That is what would be expected by random die rolls, but is unlikely in messy reality. What's more, even assuming a 25% breakdown evenly, it is also not necessarily true that 4 25% groups of blondes will distribute themselves over each category, and brunettes, and etc.
You are providing a stock dilemma to say it is that way or it is racism. Humans have personal interests, as well as cultural interests (both sub and full). That effects what they choose to go into. Within the US, interest in sciences are waning and so those selecting to go into it are to a lesser percentage than other fields. Is that racism? Well no, it can't be as you see that drop pretty much across the board.
So if it turns out that as a percentage more blacks are selecting to go into business or sports, than science, in greater numbers than whites are making that same selection, why is that racism rather than a difference in personal or cultural interest?
This can be applied to other issues as well. You yourself mentioned the hard strain of southern baptist influence in black culture. Is the choice of blacks to be southern baptist, such that there may be a higher percentage of blacks which are than whites, a racist phenomena... if so, how?
You are misusing statistics.
If you know that the mean height in your whole is 180 cm, and your sample of 1000 has a mean height of 150 cm, then you know that there's a high likelyhood that your sampling process was biased.
How did you know the mean height in your whole? And in any case, how do you know what that the mean career choice for everyone turns out to be even steven?
I don't recall saying that they don't. Reading problems?
Here is what you said...
discrimination against asians that pushes them into technical academia instead of, say, business.
I placed that quote right before my response so you could see what I was discussing. Honesty problems?
I have not ever called you a racist.
I said you have harangued me for being a racist if I did not accept your position. And that you most certainly did.
What example? Your own? Yeah, Holmes, you're really hard-up, aren't you? I can tell you've really suffered from discrimination against your race.
Oh that's right, you don't read my posts. Otherwise you would have seen the example where blacks were being discriminated against using AA as a cover. Wasn't me. I did mention that I had been effected adversely by AA, but that was not all I said and was not a prime example, since I knew you couldn't give a shit about what happened to me or anyone like me.
But that said, yes I have personally suffered, quite a bit, from being denied access to things based on my race. I am not crying poor White people, I am telling you at the individual level it is not painless. The phantom menace of white solidarity is just that.
If race has nothing to do with employment then a hire should be a random sample of race. That's what it means to take a random sample.
If you pick your entire workforce at once out of a total pool of available employees which happen to match racial stats, then yes. Otherwise it will not. That really is basic stats and for the last time, no employer COULD come close to hiring employees from an open and accessible pool of everyone available for the job, much less that those people breakdown on racial lines.
Maybe you should go to Chicago some time and walk through the different businesses. Sometimes it is all black, including management. When I walk into those places my first thought is not "racism". If yours is, I invite you to share your thoughts with management. I'm sure the process of application and hiring will be explained to you, and since they will be black, maybe you'll believe them.
it's pretty obvious that you pursue these little tangents because you cannot bear to be wrong on literally any subject, and that you'll chase after me or anyone to any extent to get them to yield on any dispute with you.
YOU made it a topic. You were the one that went off on a tangent. I mentioned reparations to NAs in conjunction with a point on so-called black political interests. Then you picked it up that single word and launched into a tirade about how I had been obsessing about reparations to blacks.
If you had not said that, the topic would have ended. We can end it now, and I'd be grateful.
In regards to race, yes, they should be. If race has nothing to do with employment then a hire should be a random sample of race. That's what it means to take a random sample.
So what you want is to end employment and career choice as it currently is done. Instead a national database will be created of all eligible workers. It will be tailored to match population demographics (nevermind that demographics of racial % do not discuss actual workforce age) and then employers will pull pull from this national database... oh wait no, even that won't work as when the first employer chooses that will create an inequality in the stats for the next one.
So I guess we then take all of them and then take a national pool of jobs and assign people so that they make sure to break evenly to each employer.
You could do this of course, but it has no bearing on what currently happens in a free market system where people apply based on their interests, and availability. Personally I wouldn't like it. I thought you liked freedom.
I'm not even going to respond to this. You're way off-base - you've completely mistated my argument once again
Of course you're not going to respond, except to assert I am way off base. That's a nice tried and true response for you. We can drop it. I'll wait and see how you respond to gene90.
How about a new technique for you - you don't try to address my arguments until you understand them. How does that grab you?
If you stop working your patchwork quilt logic, that would certainly help. I can't always tell what argument you are going to flip to and claim as your actual position all along.
How about you extend me the same courtesy?
Uhhhh, but I do read everything you write. I mean I really, totally, cross my heart and hope to die, read what you write to me.
Post 92. Try to get caught up already.
Well that was not to me, but I read it. Where does it explain how to detect priviledge? To examine the "biography of a minority"?
I mean I saw some assertions about what I get as a white person, with absolutely no evidence to support it, and no credible connection to the life I have led. Then I saw you say it will be invisible. Then ...
to uncover it, you need to examine the biography of a minority who lives roughly the same life as you.
I've lived with and among blacks, the poorest blacks you can get. Right alongside and poor. My one saving grace is that I have not had to go on welfare, because I worked minimum wage jobs. The idea that these places were racist and no blacks could get into them are patently false. I lived where the depths of poverty were apparent and minorities kill each other to get ahead.
In college I have also been around some very wealthy blacks (well really all minorities, I prefered hanging out with them and international students, as most rich white people viewed me as poor white scum). I have been with them as they discussed their guilt over taking racial based scholarships from more needy blacks. They discussed this among themselves.
So there is the "biography" I have seen. Maybe you can tell me where to find this "biography" you have read.
Ironically, and I've mentioned this at EvC before, one of my personal heroes is Malcolm X, and I think
The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a superb book discussing personal transformation as well as racial issues from the inside. It ought to be required reading for US citizens taking civil history courses.
Maybe you have a better suggestion? Oh yeah, and you can tell me your personal history with minorities (the depths and heights), as well as your great insight into how I was only slightly inconvenienced when I was discriminated against.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
