This seems a little dramatic. I don't think I believe it in the way it's being presented.
How many friends? How many times?
Are you saying every black person that drives to Noble is pulled over every time?
You are the same guy who thinks "getting out of your car" = "attacking a black teen because you are a racist". Your dubious anecdotes, conclusions, and guesses have been filed away in their proper place: the trash bin.
The least you can do is read the study and refute it, but you won't even do that. You just bristles that they took standard names from each ethnicity and didn't test the extremes. Your indignation is merely entertaining at this point and you should be disappointed in yourself for the inability to admit that a study you disagree with may be right.
I backed up my statement with a peer reviewed very well respected and ground breaking study, and you simply moved the line. At the very least you can admit you are wrong and that their is evidence that suggests a racial bias with regards to black names v. white names, but instead you just shift and move further away and throw more gorilla dust. It doesn't make you less of a conservative to accept a study and recongize that it may have a point, despite the fact that is demonstrated a different world than the one you see. Unless you have something to back up what you are hypothesizing(and presenting as fact), I feel like there is no more point in discussing anything more on this issue with you.
It would appear that the final rational conservative has fallen. Good night, thunder dome and good luck.
Last edited by OnlyOneOklahoma; February 7th, 2013 at 10:19 PM.
Think about it this way--if your conclusions are incorrect and instead the problem isn't race, but name type, then the solution to the problem you will present will not solve anything. This is one of the most frustrating things for me in today's world. Even intelligent people don't understand how to truly think critically. People see a study, look at the group that did the study, and then either blindly accept or blindly dismiss the content of the study, b/c people simply do not understand research methods, threats to validity or how to draw unbiased, accurate conclusions from research w/o putting our own spin and making assumptions that fit what we want to see.
Here are the facts--the study showed that certain names (ethnic) are less likely to get call backs than generic names are. W/o a study that specifically looks at other 'fringe' names, our data from the study is incomplete. We look at Rob, Rick, Bob, Joe. We look at Jamal, Lequan, Tre, De'on. We look at Bubba, Bobby Joe, Carl Lee and Buddy. We look at Chen, Huang, Yan, Xiang and Gao. We'd then do another group across all of these using women's names. Ideally, we'd have another group that has androgynous names and the M/F mark checked. This gives us a variance across different ethnic and gender names that we can really compare. Then we further secure the study by submitting applications and resumes with generic names, doing an equal number of applications as we did before with the ethnic names, but checking racial boxes on each form. Now we have a study that can show us something that we can use. As it is, what you've cited shows us nothing beyond a certain group of ethnic names is less likely to receive call backs than a group of generic names. Without further data, it shows us nothing beyond 1 group of 'outside the norm' names gets a poorer response than generic names--it doesn't show us racism. Does it show a possibility of it? Sure. It doesn't take us far enough though to effectively conclude that it is racially motivated. Leaps are being made beyond what the study actually shows. I swear, the most important thing for people to learn is research methodology and how to draw conclusions from it and hardly anyone is learning it.
I'm unconvinced by your wall of words.
BTw, 100% OP is troll. Purpose is to troll the stereotype Okie bigot who thinks black people have it too easy.
Forget white privilege. The way its going brown privilege is going to soon displace someone to third place.
Hell Compton has allready fallen.
The study set out to test a hypothesis that when given a résumé with a white name or a black name with two qualified candidate, who is more likely to get called. It found that white names are more likely to get called, pretty straightforward.
And if you are saying that the researchers did not draw a correct conclusion based on their findings, I don't know what to tell you. I haven't been abstracting any other their findings and applying it to anything else. The literally found that resumes with "white" names get 50% more callbacks than ones with "black" names. No amount of word vomit can change that or confuse what they plain and simple state.
Maybe the "white" names are easier to pronounce . . . .
I don't know when all the crazy name business really started....but all the brothers I grew up with, served with and have worked with all had what I consider normal names...not "******" names. John, Kevin, Larry, Sean, Greg, Steve, Bill, Jerry, Robert, Frank....and the list goes on....whoever it is that considers these new fangled names "African" has never spent any time in Africa...
Sans delving into a healthcare debate... Last Saturday, I had to go to a minor emergency clinic. The waiting room was cram packed (SRO for a while, actually), and I noticed at one point that besides me, there was one other white woman in the room, and everyone else in the waiting room was black - a few of old people, several parents & children, a few adults around my age. I have to admit that I was surprised when the nurse called "Jequita" and the other white woman got up. I don't remember any of the other names called while I waited for an hour & a half, so everyone else in the room could have been name Michael and Michelle and Joe and Megan and Caleb, I don't know. Does that make me a racist? Was I just playing percentages? Was anyone else surprised? I, in a split second, made an unconscious assumption about a person's race based on a name.
Last edited by smot poker; February 8th, 2013 at 09:23 AM.
Last time. The study showed that generic names are more likely to get called back than ethnic names are. That's it. It doesn't prove racism, no matter how badly you want it to. The study is incomplete if that's what you're trying to prove.
Here is a little quiz for you....here are some names of people I work with....tell me what color their skin is: George, Chester, Ralph, Tony, Johnny and Al......GO!
Cool story, bro. The thing about it is, your individual work environment isn't statistically meaningful. People often draw on personal experience in the face of massive empirical data, because the bias of personal experience is a siren song to the ignorant.
Cub, I try not to troll you too hard (and have turned it off 100% in this thread), because I like you. But you are mistaken here. The study specifically demonstrates that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature in the labor market. They even specify in the abstract that they "[found] little evidence that [the] results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class."
I like you and respect you a ton, but this is the worst case of "Republicans, your facts are interpreted as lies by my brain," I have seen in a pretty smart dude. You may very well be right, but without a vetted and published study demonstrating your hypothesis, you just come off as a frustrated white male.
It isn't an indictment on anything you hold dear to admit that there is still a racial prejudice in America.
As I've said, I'm not saying there isn't. I am saying the study you cited does not show that--the research is incomplete. The reason it's important is because of the solutions to the problem--whatever that is. Do you understand that if they had expanded the study to generic names with white and black checked, the results could have been dif? It's imperative that we don't draw conclusions from incomplete research, or our solutions are flawed.
The study specifically demonstrates that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature in the labor market.
This is what you said the research shows. It does not. It shows cultural discrimination. We don't even know if it's unique to black culture, because the data is incomplete. Until we know if it's actually racial (check marks) or black culture, or all perceived 'lower cultures' (country but not Asian) we cannot begin to address and solve what is happening.
I had about 5 people who came to my house on one or more occasions. 4 of the 5 got pulled over at over at some point in their trips to my house.
Again, they ONLY got pulled over after they left the highway and started going toward the neighborhood areas. This never happened to the white people who came to my house.
On one occasion I had a guy come up from Texas who was going to look for a place to stay for his family. He left work at midnight in Texas and called me at about 5:30 in the morning saying he had been pulled over while turning into my neighborhood. I had to walk down there and tell the cop that he was my guest. It was pretty damned embarrassing.
could it be true, sure
But please humor him: Yes, yes! If only everyone would have nice, English, what-he-considers-normal-but-not-"******" names!
If you want to get pulled over be a white guy on or near MLK Blvd in any city after midnight.
Successful African-Americans didn't get successful by badgering ****** into submission; no - they shunned or simply never acknowledged any notion of "White Privilege", a decision which enables their success.
Did they run into hurdles? Had to exert more energy & patience than a similarly-educated white person to "break through"? No doubt. But they proved to fellow African-Americans that it can happen, it's not some miracle. And they also prove to whites that they can compete in the business world. And those two things are what's shrinking White/African-American racism (not guilt-trips or mandatory appeasements). The people most responsible for shrinking racism are the ones who shun these politically-correct ideals and just get after it.
Yes, we still have work to do but "White Privilege" is a perceived symptom, not an issue we can directly attack. Describing "White Privilege" as a call to action for whites OR African-Americans is ridiculous.