Leftists against woke

[southernhybrid]

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/18/interview-womens-rights-under-trump

Is it now "woke" to give women and minorities equal rights? I guess the tRump cult thinks so.

Donald Trump’s first administration as US president attacked women’s rights across a broad range of issues, including undermining access to birth control, eroding efforts to end the pay gap between men and women, weakening Title IX—the law banning sex discrimination in public education—and appointing judges to the Supreme Court that resulted in ending federal protection of abortion rights. What could his second term mean for women in the United States and beyond? The director of Human Rights Watch’s women’s rights division, Macarena Sáez, weighs in.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There. Is. No. Acceptable. Basis. For. Filtering. On. Family. Names.

The reason behind it is "unacceptable discrimination".

We are expected, regardless of whether there is some ostensible effect associated with those names to ignore the effect because the effect itself is a "tinkerbelle effect": it is made true only by people's playing into the effect.

Our expectation of opportunities in america accords to "anyone can make it" in terms of "a great worker can come from anywhere" (see also: Ratatouille). It is specifically a violation of the expectation that "anyone" can make it to allow the filtration of a certain "anyone" from consideration outside of their actual qualifications.

Period.

There is only the applicant. There is no family. There is no address of record besides "close enough to get to work". Ideally, there is no school name as long as the degree is accredited. If this is a problem for you, consider that you are holding a position demonstrated to prevent earning of social mobility regardless of merit.

If it has anything to do with anything that isn't "is the candidate qualified", it doesn't fucking matter.

The problem is that there is an effect. Not liking something doesn't make it go away. I would like anonymous applications, but we don't have that yet. And since there is a real effect any attempt to apply antidiscrimination measures will end up causing discrimination.

The effect is confirmed to be the product not of personal "unit" problems, problems owing to the fault of the underlying human structure, and entirely are attributable to the continued handling of that structure with regards to opportunity.

The next genius, "the greatest genius", can come from "anywhere".

Allowing that prejudice to actually enter into consideration denies this reality.

If there has been an effect, then it's supposed to be exposed in some deficiency of accomplishment during education that is not itself attributable to disparate handling.

All you're doing is arguing a more granular form of proxy-prejudice than racism that is just as self-fulfilling.

You still don't understand.

You are correctly observing that a name says nothing about the child.

What you are missing is that it says a lot about the parents. And that has a big effect on the child.

Any given child, proves nothing. Overall, says a lot.

 

[Jarhyn]

What you are missing is that it says a lot about the parents. And that has a big effect on the child.

Effects which must be ignored because not ignoring them will preserve their existence.

Accepting the existence of the effect is to CAUSE the effect.

Because it does not say something specifically about THAT child because it is a PROXY for things that should show up independently, assuming they are really present, the proxy (as much as skin color) is forbidden for use.

I am seeing literally nothing between the perceived proxy of skin color vs the perceived proxy of family name to distinguish it as anything other than a bad proxy that "believes" the "Tinkerbell" of the effect into existence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://theconversation.com/biases-...make-decisions-in-a-hurry-new-research-208423

If you don't like the source of the link, do your own DD. There are multiple sources that give evidence that employers discriminate based on name. And, btw, my next door neighbors have a daughter named Neveah. She is healthy, works at Krogers and is currently studying liberal studies in a local college. But then again, my neighborhood is very racially integrated, as is my town, so name discrimination might not be as big a problem as it is in some places.

I didn't say all Neveah's are unhealthy, just that it's a lot more likely.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
We were specifically studying discrimination against Black people, so we did not include names in this experiment that are frequently associated with Hispanics or Asians.

Participants were next presented with pairs of names and were told they could earn money for selecting the worker who was more productive in the transcription task. The chance that they would choose job candidates they perceived to be white because of their names was almost twice as high than if they thought the candidates to be Black. This tendency to discriminate against people with Black-sounding names was greatest among men, people over 55, whites and conservatives.

You call this discrimination but it's based in reality. That blackest sounding name on average is associated with 4 years less education than the whitest sounding name. It's not a good yardstick but when you put people in a position where the only information they have to make a decision is based on something possibly discriminatory you will find "discrimination".

In reality this says people generally don't discriminate--a highly rigged test is a very strong indication that the result would go the other way around if it wasn't rigged.

A study published in 2021 suggested that hiring discriminationbased on Black-souding names had declined, although discriminatory practices remained high in some customer-facing lines of work, such as auto sales or retail.

Other research has suggested that once people learn more about someone, the discriminatory influence that a name might havebegins to fade. Yet, other studies have indicated that racial biases can make the interactions needed for this learning process less likely. For example, racial biases may lead employers to refrain from interviewing – or hiring – a job candidate of color in the first place.

There is ample evidence that people of color face discrimination in many important domains beyond employment, including finding housing or obtaining loans.​

​

I tried to look at the loan one--all that's not paywalled is the abstract. The thing is I remember another big issue about blacks and loans: supposed redlining. Zero disparity on the odds of approval for any given house. Zero disparity on 80/20 loans. Big disparity on low down loans in "black" areas. Except the map looked quite familiar: just like the map of home appreciation. Thus we are left with two possibilities:

1) For some reason lenders only discriminate against blacks on low down loans in black neighborhoods. For this to be true you need to explain the selective nature of the discrimination and why everyone does it.

2) There's some other factor: And there's an obvious one. What are the odds that the loan will be underwater a few years down the road? Alternate hypothesis: lenders are adverse to loans that are likely to end up underwater. Explains all the facts in evidence and is an entirely sensible business decision.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let me add that to some extent, due to the current administration, racism is growing, not diminishing.

Yeah, we elected Nazis.

While I believe we were going too far in hunting discrimination (try too hard to hunt something uncertain, you get a lot of false positives) that doesn't mean I approve of what they're doing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are missing is that it says a lot about the parents. And that has a big effect on the child.

Effects which must be ignored because not ignoring them will preserve their existence.

Accepting the existence of the effect is to CAUSE the effect.

Because it does not say something specifically about THAT child because it is a PROXY for things that should show up independently, assuming they are really present, the proxy (as much as skin color) is forbidden for use.

I am seeing literally nothing between the perceived proxy of skin color vs the perceived proxy of family name to distinguish it as anything other than a bad proxy that "believes" the "Tinkerbell" of the effect into existence.

No, the cause is names are a proxy for what the parents are like.

You give people only a flawed yardstick, they use it anyway.

The answer is things like anonymized resumes.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://theconversation.com/biases-...make-decisions-in-a-hurry-new-research-208423

If you don't like the source of the link, do your own DD. There are multiple sources that give evidence that employers discriminate based on name. And, btw, my next door neighbors have a daughter named Neveah. She is healthy, works at Krogers and is currently studying liberal studies in a local college. But then again, my neighborhood is very racially integrated, as is my town, so name discrimination might not be as big a problem as it is in some places.

I didn't say all Neveah's are unhealthy, just that it's a lot more likely.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
We were specifically studying discrimination against Black people, so we did not include names in this experiment that are frequently associated with Hispanics or Asians.

Participants were next presented with pairs of names and were told they could earn money for selecting the worker who was more productive in the transcription task. The chance that they would choose job candidates they perceived to be white because of their names was almost twice as high than if they thought the candidates to be Black. This tendency to discriminate against people with Black-sounding names was greatest among men, people over 55, whites and conservatives.

You call this discrimination but it's based in reality. That blackest sounding name on average is associated with 4 years less education than the whitest sounding name. It's not a good yardstick but when you put people in a position where the only information they have to make a decision is based on something possibly discriminatory you will find "discrimination".

In reality this says people generally don't discriminate--a highly rigged test is a very strong indication that the result would go the other way around if it wasn't rigged.

A study published in 2021 suggested that hiring discriminationbased on Black-souding names had declined, although discriminatory practices remained high in some customer-facing lines of work, such as auto sales or retail.

Other research has suggested that once people learn more about someone, the discriminatory influence that a name might havebegins to fade. Yet, other studies have indicated that racial biases can make the interactions needed for this learning process less likely. For example, racial biases may lead employers to refrain from interviewing – or hiring – a job candidate of color in the first place.

There is ample evidence that people of color face discrimination in many important domains beyond employment, including finding housing or obtaining loans.​

​

I tried to look at the loan one--all that's not paywalled is the abstract. The thing is I remember another big issue about blacks and loans: supposed redlining. Zero disparity on the odds of approval for any given house. Zero disparity on 80/20 loans. Big disparity on low down loans in "black" areas. Except the map looked quite familiar: just like the map of home appreciation. Thus we are left with two possibilities:

1) For some reason lenders only discriminate against blacks on low down loans in black neighborhoods. For this to be true you need to explain the selective nature of the discrimination and why everyone does it.

2) There's some other factor: And there's an obvious one. What are the odds that the loan will be underwater a few years down the road? Alternate hypothesis: lenders are adverse to loans that are likely to end up underwater. Explains all the facts in evidence and is an entirely sensible business decision.

Most of the loans that went into foreclosure in my city were owned by white people. I base that on the mostly white areas where there were the most foreclosures. None of my black neighbors have had their loans foreclosed, so that comment sounds a bit biased to me. My next door neighbors are a mixed race couple. She is a hair dresser who also teaches cosmetology. He is on VA disability for PTSD, but he still works. He also won a Purple Heart when he was in combat. One of my other black neighbors is a retired military officer and one was a cop, who now makes more money working as a security guard. The one who lives two doors down is a QA nurse who works from home. She bought her home in 2003, My closest Black female friend lives in a mostly black area and she and her husband paid off their mortgage about 10 years ago. They both worked in an industrial plant for decades. Most of my black neighbors are veterans, so I assume they got VA loans which are usually easy for a veteran to get, assuming they have decent credit ratings. I almost forgot about the young black guy who bought a huge house a few doors from me. He's been there for about 5 years, so I assume he's paying his mortgage. MY town is very racially integrated, which is the way it should be.

I've also read that some doctors hesitate to prescribe narcotic pain relievers to black folks. I don't have time to verify that right now, but I'll see if I can find a link. Hopefully, that has changed in recent years.

 

[Jarhyn]

What you are missing is that it says a lot about the parents. And that has a big effect on the child.

Effects which must be ignored because not ignoring them will preserve their existence.

Accepting the existence of the effect is to CAUSE the effect.

Because it does not say something specifically about THAT child because it is a PROXY for things that should show up independently, assuming they are really present, the proxy (as much as skin color) is forbidden for use.

I am seeing literally nothing between the perceived proxy of skin color vs the perceived proxy of family name to distinguish it as anything other than a bad proxy that "believes" the "Tinkerbell" of the effect into existence.

No, the cause is names are a proxy for what the parents are like.

You give people only a flawed yardstick, they use it anyway.

The answer is things like anonymized resumes.

PROXY.

And as we have discussed SO MANY FUCKING TIMES, proxies are not to be allowed in lieu of actual indicators or a lack thereof of some real phenomena of difference.

The problem is that the use of the yardstick creates the effect being measured.

You are aware of times in the history of physics that the effect being measured ends up being a result of the presence of the measurement apparatus moreso than the phenomena ostensibly being observed 'in the wild'?

This is that.

Its a chicken/egg problem and it's unacceptable.

Presenting a way to prevent it from happening does not change its unacceptability, and it's unacceptability, especially in presence of its availability, is a motivator for consequwnxes and change.

The people doing it are and have been unacceptably prejudiced. Its there. It exists. Its real.

It does not change the fact that without penalizing those where the effect of being "gnostic" with respect to name is statistically visible distinct from any real momentary effect, we will not even see true adoption.

Its a kind of discrimination that needs to be measured, and a kind I particularly resent and would "put a finger in the eye of".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most of the loans that went into foreclosure in my city were owned by white people. I base that on the mostly white areas where there were the most foreclosures. None of my black neighbors have had their loans foreclosed, so that comment sounds a bit biased to me. My next door neighbors are a mixed race couple. She is a hair dresser who also teaches cosmetology. He is on VA disability for PTSD, but he still works. He also won a Purple Heart when he was in combat. One of my other black neighbors is a retired military officer and one was a cop, who now makes more money working as a security guard. The one who lives two doors down is a QA nurse who works from home. She bought her home in 2003, My closest Black female friend lives in a mostly black area and she and her husband paid off their mortgage about 10 years ago. They both worked in an industrial plant for decades. Most of my black neighbors are veterans, so I assume they got VA loans which are usually easy for a veteran to get, assuming they have decent credit ratings. I almost forgot about the young black guy who bought a huge house a few doors from me. He's been there for about 5 years, so I assume he's paying his mortgage. MY town is very racially integrated, which is the way it should be.

You completely missed my point. I'm saying the behavior makes perfect sense if you figure banks don't like underwater loans. Race doesn't enter into it. Note that in "proving" discrimination the government did not look at this.

Low down/rapid appreciation--unlikely to be underwater after a few years.
Low down/low appreciation--likely to be underwater after a few years.

The issue is not foreclosures, the issue is underwater foreclosures. Two factors combine to make a bad situation.

I've also read that some doctors hesitate to prescribe narcotic pain relievers to black folks. I don't have time to verify that right now, but I'll see if I can find a link. Hopefully, that has changed in recent years.

Yes, but once again the data is suspect. As always, look for socioeconomic causes. The reality is blacks are more likely to live in lower income areas and lower income comes with a whole host of issues. Hospitals with more public pay (or unpaid) care are generally inferior to those with more insurance paid care. They simply don't have the money to do better. The Freakonomics guys already showed that the supposed racial disparity in healthcare is actually due to this, I am not aware of any data on narcotics but I would be surprised if there wasn't a relationship.

I find it incredible that so many researchers are so blind to such an obvious confounder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are missing is that it says a lot about the parents. And that has a big effect on the child.

Effects which must be ignored because not ignoring them will preserve their existence.

Accepting the existence of the effect is to CAUSE the effect.

Because it does not say something specifically about THAT child because it is a PROXY for things that should show up independently, assuming they are really present, the proxy (as much as skin color) is forbidden for use.

I am seeing literally nothing between the perceived proxy of skin color vs the perceived proxy of family name to distinguish it as anything other than a bad proxy that "believes" the "Tinkerbell" of the effect into existence.

No, the cause is names are a proxy for what the parents are like.

You give people only a flawed yardstick, they use it anyway.

The answer is things like anonymized resumes.

PROXY.

And as we have discussed SO MANY FUCKING TIMES, proxies are not to be allowed in lieu of actual indicators or a lack thereof of some real phenomena of difference.

The problem is that the use of the yardstick creates the effect being measured.

You are aware of times in the history of physics that the effect being measured ends up being a result of the presence of the measurement apparatus moreso than the phenomena ostensibly being observed 'in the wild'?

This is that.

Its a chicken/egg problem and it's unacceptable.

Presenting a way to prevent it from happening does not change its unacceptability, and it's unacceptability, especially in presence of its availability, is a motivator for consequwnxes and change.

The people doing it are and have been unacceptably prejudiced. Its there. It exists. Its real.

It does not change the fact that without penalizing those where the effect of being "gnostic" with respect to name is statistically visible distinct from any real momentary effect, we will not even see true adoption.

Its a kind of discrimination that needs to be measured, and a kind I particularly resent and would "put a finger in the eye of".

You assume the yardstick creates it but we have no evidence of that.

And the "research" that shows this keeps relying on denying the test subjects any other knowledge of the subjects, people will use imperfect data in the absence of better data.

Why do you categorically reject the notion that names say something about the parents? And that how someone turns out is related to the home environment.

The educational gap is real. No screaming about discrimination will change that. You are trying to pretend it's not there.

 

[Jarhyn]

You assume the yardstick creates it but we have no evidence of that.

We have the actual mechanism laid bare for all to see and acknowledge, and have observed it's reality with respect to all manners of other such proxies:

Lower opportunity offered under a family's name equates to "meaner" existence, and even those who exceed the normal regardless of family name will be subjected to this meaner existence in a decision that renders a slight effect into a binary decision that will cut every outlier off at the knees, preventing the outliers from actually dragging the group off the effect.

There is a very extreme threshold for tightness of the proxy to the effect and danger of allowing the effect, but this is so far from those thresholds I find it a bit silly to bring it up even myself, here, for how little it should matter.

 

[laughing dog]

Are they reacting to the race implied by the name, or by the education suggested by the name

Any situation where meaningless hereditary aspects such as name imply both race and education in parallel, and this suffices to keep people from the positions which would allow education to be retained generationally within a family, is the basis for actual "institutional racism".

Failing to understand this is your issue here.

This is yet again an issue wherein the black family, by virtue of whatever badge they have been given or confined to by history, finds they must work twice as hard to still get half as far.

The only point discriminating on a name serves when there's the whole fucking rest of the resume there to inform them of actual educational achievement is to keep out those who have historically been kept out, and that's almost universally been based on bullshit reasons regardless of the name.

What you are missing is that while normally the name says nothing directly about the child (exception being the Nevaeh's) it does say something about the parents. And once you control for parental status race ceases to be predictive of outcome.

And you serioulsly think employers who used the name controlled for parental status? I ask, because if you don’t, your position is groundless.