posted
Clive, I never thought I'd say this, but I suggest you stop responding to katharina. Feeding trolls is never very productive.
As for the actual question, Blayne's point about the genetic diversity is well taken, but it is not conclusive. We do not know enough about the interaction of genetics with the human brain, or indeed with the chimpanzee body, to say what diversity is important and what is just window dressing. For all we know (well, anyway, for all I know, it's not as though I'm a biologist) human diversity is concentrated exactly in the brain/mind interface, while chimp diversity is all in non-coding DNA.
There has been a lot of seriously bad science done in this area. But now that we have the tools to actually do some real research on gene distributions and gene-brain relations, it seems to me that we could do without the hysterical, knee-jerk "Burn the heretic" reactions. (I admit that Clive does kind of invite it.) Suppose that Asians, for example, genuinely are smarter (as a group) than Caucasians (yes, yes, I know these are very diverse groups and don't really exist as races; it's a convenient shorthand, except of course it's not really that convenient since I have to insert these long-winded parenthetical apologies; I shall forthwith cease doing so. Please consider them done from now on.) Doesn't that have some public-policy implications?
Except... no, it doesn't, actually. Group statistics just don't tell you this kind of thing. You would still have to evaluate the individual Caucasian or Asian, and see if they're actually smart, or perhaps they're in the bottom tail of their own group.
We could likely drop affirmative action in college admissions, though, if such a thing were shown to be true.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Thus, the genetically inferior brother beats a system he isn't even supposed to understand, and is therefore not inferior at all, but stronger than the system.
Ah, but only because he had help from the "superior" humans. Nonetheless, I agree with your overall point. Genetics doesn't tell us everything about potential. Which is good, because I'd hate living in a deterministic universe. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the late 80s and into the 90s, there was a great revolution in social/personality psychology brought about by cross-cultural studies. We found that not everyone is like white European men.
Instead, there are a wide variety of responses and viewpoints of the world that differ on fundamental psychological levels. The earliest and generally still most distinct differences were found among different cultures/peoples.
The earlier work focused largely on discovering and describing these differences and then on studying the often vast differences in large scale systems that seem rooted in what can sometimes be few differences in primary outlook. But there was always an push towards explaining how these differences came about.
This is especially important in schools that have a proscriptive or transformative bent, like Haidt's positive psychology. Haidt (who is a well respected scientist who has a good idea of what he is talking about) studies cross cultural morality formation and works from a viewpoint that differences in cultures morality come from differing values that put on fundamental concepts, like Fairness versus Loyalty, etc. Reading this, it sounds like he is interested in finding out what, if any, role genetics plays in how peoples' predispositions towards valuings.
And that is an important question. If genetics does play a role, this is something that should be investigated. But, since the 60s, looking at race's genetic differences as an explanation for the different behavior of those races, especially when those differences are "good" and "bad", has been an offensive area of study for many in psychology and related fields...in my opinion, for good reason.
We should be clear about what Haidt is talking about. He's not saying that there are differences, nor is he relying on the flawed "science" of the past. What he is saying is that these differences are possible, that he thinks that they likely do exist, and that we are starting to looking at them with enough precision to actually make some meaningful statements about them.
I think he's wrong about how likely they are, but none of what he says in incorrect, and while the discovery of some differences will likely be used as justifications by some racists, there is nothing inherently racist about what he said or this effort itself.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think that one interesting aspect of this area of study is that we can learn to value a diversity of traits instead of assuming that certain traits are "good" or "bad" due to our own conditioning.
Mucus, this is one reason for affirmative action.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Haidt (who is a well respected scientist who has a good idea of what he is talking about) studies cross cultural morality formation and works from a viewpoint that differences in cultures morality come from differing values that put on fundamental concepts, like Fairness versus Loyalty, etc. Reading this, it sounds like he is interested in finding out what, if any, role genetics plays in how peoples' predispositions towards valuings.
It does sound like an interesting question, but seems terribly fraught.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think so. The purpose of affirmative action, and indeed of almost every get-people-into-college program, is to ensure that those who would benefit from a college education (and let's remember that this is less than 25% of the population) are not held back by artificial barriers, such as race discrimination or poverty. If, however, you assign a quota by raw numbers of skin colours, and one group doesn't in fact produce college-ready people at the same rate as others, then some quota'ed-in people will not benefit from college, and some quota'ed-out ones would. Even worse, the ones who got in on quota instead of brains will pull down the reputation of their group, and a college degree will come to mean less if you are of a group known to be over-colleged, even if you personally do good work.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Mucus, this is one reason for affirmative action.
I don't agree, either way.
Edit to add: To elaborate, even if for the sake of argument we exist in a world where significant differences exist between races in the areas of knowledge and intelligence, we would still need to determine whether those differences are more significant than those caused by culture or tradition.
I would suggest no. (Keep in mind, I have no real objection to studying them nonetheless)
Furthermore, I believe that the injustices (either intentional or unintentional) and the disadvantages created by institutionalizing in affirmative action, a mechanism for treating people differently based on something like race or ethnic group are inherently difficult to avoid. It is unappealing as currently implemented in either China or the United States for example.
posted
KoM, that is not - at least not here - the only or even primary reason for affirmative action (which, BTW, is not determined by quota but by making a specific, intentional effort to recruit minority and women faculty and students). It is considered a valuable and useful thing for all of our students to be exposed to a diverse environment. It is a vital part of our educational mission.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I don't think so. The purpose of affirmative action, and indeed of almost every get-people-into-college program, is to ensure that those who would benefit from a college education (and let's remember that this is less than 25% of the population) are not held back by artificial barriers, such as race discrimination or poverty.
Thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately many people misunderstand the basic premise of affirmative action, which is not the artificial lowering of academic barriers, but the lowering of artificial economic and social barriers with the purpose of eliminating them. Also unfortunately, this type of program is often defeated in detail, because actually lowering those barriers proves very difficult.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, that is not - at least not here - the only or even primary reason for affirmative action (which, BTW, is not determined by quota but by making a specific, intentional effort to recruit minority and women faculty and students). It is considered a valuable and useful thing for all of our students to be exposed to a diverse environment. It is a vital part of our educational mission.
There may not be a formal quota, but I do rather suspect that at some point, once enough minorities and women have been recruited, people will stand back and say "Right, our work is done". Further, I disagree with the premise; I think you'll find that there is no actual science showing that diversity-exposed students do better, just theories saying it ought to be so.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder how people's reactions to the question posed in this thread would change if the word "psychological" were replaced with "behavioral" or something like that.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, that is not - at least not here - the only or even primary reason for affirmative action (which, BTW, is not determined by quota but by making a specific, intentional effort to recruit minority and women faculty and students). It is considered a valuable and useful thing for all of our students to be exposed to a diverse environment. It is a vital part of our educational mission.
There may not be a formal quota, but I do rather suspect that at some point, once enough minorities and women have been recruited, people will stand back and say "Right, our work is done". Further, I disagree with the premise; I think you'll find that there is no actual science showing that diversity-exposed students do better, just theories saying it ought to be so.
Enought for what? Do better at what?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Enough that every student is exposed to a 'diverse environment', and better at whatever it is the diverse environment is supposed to improve. Dude, you're the one claiming this is useful and valuable, not me! Or is this another case where you 'choose to believe' in something with different standards of evidence, on the apparent grounds that factual mistakes do not matter if something is morally important to you?
[ November 30, 2009, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then, yes, I suppose that once the institution reached a point where the environment was considered sufficiently rich and diverse then the people who are tasked with this would decided that the strategies in place were working well rather than trying to find new ways of attracting minorities.
ETA: Lovely dig, BTW, but did you think that the University sets its policies by what I personally choose to believe?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The abstract of Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on Educational Outcomes, published in the Harvard Education Review (fulltext)
quote:In the current context of legal challenges to affirmative action and race-based considerations in college admissions, educators have been challenged to articulate clearly the educational purposes and benefits of diversity. In this article, Patricia Gurin, Eric Dey, Sylvia Hurtado, and Gerald Gurin explore the relationship between students' experiences with diverse peers in the college or university setting and their educational outcomes. Rooted in theories of cognitive development and social psychology, the authors present a framework for understanding how diversity introduces the relational discontinuities critical to identity construction and its subsequent role in fostering cognitive growth. Using both single- and multi-institutional data from the University of Michigan and the Cooperative Institutional Research Program, the authors go on to examine the effects of classroom diversity and informal interaction among African American, Asian American, Latino/a, and White students on learning and democracy outcomes. The results of their analyses underscore the educational and civic importance of informal interaction among different racial and ethnic groups during the college years. The authors offer their findings as evidence of the continuing importance of affirmative action and diversity efforts by colleges and universities, not only as a means of increasing access to higher education for greater numbers of students, but also as a means of fostering students' academic and social growth.
posted
Quite so; I notice there is a rather remarkable lack of actual numbers. Some interesting quotes from the main text:
quote:All of these measures required students to assess themselves. Self-assessments are credible and widely accepted methods of measuring educational outcomes.
Uh-huh. Especially when there exists one answer that's the socially acceptable one, and one that doesn't.
quote:GRE scores were not used as a measure of learning outcomes
Naturally. That might provide actual evidence against your hypothesis. Can't have that, can we?
quote:College grades were not selected as a measure of learning primarily because grades inadequately capture the active thinking and intellectual engagement we were attempting to test.
Ah yes. We wouldn't want to test anything too verifiable.
quote:ETA: Lovely dig, BTW, but did you think that the University sets its policies by what I personally choose to believe?
No, but I certainly hope that your defense of its policies are based on what you believe. I trust you would not have spoken up in defense of a policy you disagreed with? Or perhaps I shouldn't; I have to keep reminding myself of the depths of your Escher-ness.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, reading further into the study is even more interesting. Have a look at the table 3. The column of interest is the one where they show the size of effect attributable to diversity measures. They don't go above the single digits! And what's worse, have a look at this sentence: "[O]ne kind of diversity experience or another was significantly related to each of the learning outcomes". One kind or another! In other words, they had say ten different random numbers, and in each case they picked the one that was significant, or rather would have been significant if there were only one number! This is textbook abuse of statistics.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, don't look at me. You were the jackass who said without any justification that there was no science backing this. I just pulled the first reputable looking google result.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, so you're not interested in an argument on the actual merits of the case, then? Can't say I'm surprised. The rot sets in surprisingly quickly once you allow wishful thinking to count as evidence.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Hey, don't look at me. You were the jackass who said without any justification that there was no science backing this. I just pulled the first reputable looking google result.
And inadvertently provided evidence for my statement. Thank you. Did you read anything but the abstract before posting?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just pulled the first reputable looking google result.
You didn't look hard enough.
Yeah, I did. All I was looking for was something to contradict "There is no science backing this." I did that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gee, katharina, such constructivity you display in your criticism! Maybe you'd like to show comrade Squicky how it's done? I mean, I'm not married to my assertion that there's no good evidence for the positive effects of diversity on college outcomes. Squicky is right to say that I merely asserted it; indeed, my original post had "I think you'll find", which is not how I state certainty. So, if you have any better evidence, by all means bring it!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Effects greater than 1% are quite large for social science studies.
And the part you quote does not mean what you say it does. They looked at the presence of general categories of diversity experience, and took presence/not presence as a model. They didn't check each one and pick the significant ones.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, I did. All I was looking for was something to contradict "There is no science backing this." I did that.
Well no. You found some science, using the term loosely, that looked at the problem. It does not, however, back up kmb's position.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignoring the IQ and benefit of diversity question- let's take a real world example.
ACTN3- if it is mutated, you might be a good endurance athlete. If it isn't, then sprinting is for you. Africans tend to have the non mutated version in significantly higher proportions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180686/ However, no one race has a monopoly on this lack of mutation or anything near that. However, if you are an olympic sprinter and someone offers you a bet on your genes, you should bet it all on having the nonmutated version.
So, for hypotheticals: We know this particular allele is the ideal for sprinting. We are setting up a sprinting team. Should we have everyone who wants to try out first submit their DNA and only allow those with the right genes to try out? Should we look at the proportion of people of different races with the allele and allow that percentage to try out (so, if Africans are twice as likely to have the allele, we let 2 Africans try out for every one non-African)? Or do we just line everybody up who wants to run and see who goes fastest? Let's say we are doing this a the high school level, where the genetic difference is not yet as noticeable. Knowing who has the potential to be the best someday would be nice, before we waste our time and money training them.
Knowing that studies of this gene may lead to discrimination in athletics (such as only accepting those with the proper speed and genes into the training program instead of everyone with the right starting speed), should we still perform those studies. But, knowing that the sprinter athletes have this mutation does tell us useful things about what the gene does and how our muscles work. Is that knowledge worth the potential for abuse?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The impact of classroom diversity was also statistically significant and positive for White students and for Latinos/as. The effects of classroom diversity disappeared for Asian American students when we examined the net effect, controlling for the simultaneous effect of informal interaction. One statistically significant negative result emerged for African American students in the analyses that tested the net effect of classroom diversity on self-assessed academic skills.
Additionally, if you look at the breakdown, the number of white students simply dominates, especially in Michigan where "At the time the MSS was conducted, 92 percent of White students and 52 percent of African American students came to the University of Michigan from segregated communities. As groups, only Asian American and Latino/a students came to the University having lived and gone to school in environments where they were not in the majority."
Plus, "because of the racial separation that persists in this country, most students have lived in segregated communities before coming to college."
It seems to me the problem is more that the US practices segregation and racial separation rather than a problem with college admissions.
The whole exercise is pointless for the Asian students who already have the benefit of diversity.
Edit to add: Setting aside how lame the measures for "democracy outcomes" are, the same effect occurs there "Among Asian Americans these activities were related to two of the democracy outcomes (Model 1), although the net effect of this kind of diversity was no longer statistically significant when the other kinds of diversity were taken into account (Model 2)."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Effects greater than 1% are quite large for social science studies.
Sorry, but this is not an argument for the study, it is an argument against social science. Single-digit percentage correlations you can find between any two phenomena you like.
quote:And the part you quote does not mean what you say it does. They looked at the presence of general categories of diversity experience, and took presence/not presence as a model. They didn't check each one and pick the significant ones.
I don't think that makes a difference. If you have five random correlations, you expect one of them to be 'significant' on average.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it isn't. An effect of 1% in improving student outcomes is potentially thousands upon thousands of students going from dropping out to getting good grades. Learning about things that can have an impact like that is huge. That effects are "small" in statistical terms does not at all make them small in practical terms. They are still very important to study. And it isn't like when studying large groups of people there are many effects that are large that are interesting.
If your treatment is "presence of anything on this list of ten things", you're only checking one correlation, not ten, when you check treatment vs effect.
Though looking over the table, they are talking about two different diversity measures; however, the levels of statistical significance are .01 or .001. One is statistically significant for all populations, and the other for almost all populations. There's no cherry picking required; they could have picked either treatment and had a strong argument for an effect. Your criticism is void.
What disappoints me is the (very common) lack of plotting original data points (in aggregates, even) to show where the effect occurs, especially for a more complex model.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real kicker in this entire discussion is that, even ignoring the racial issues, the connection between genetics and psychological characteristics is very poorly understood. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to separate the genetic contribution from the environmental contribution which is known to be extremely significant. Even when we are talking about clear extreme cases, like schizophrenia and autism, the genetic component is very poorly understood and highly controversial.
To make things even more complicated, the environmental component is becoming increasingly complex as we gain a better understanding of how things like intestinal bacteria and other parasites can influence our behavior.
How can we even begin to discuss whether the relatively minor differences observed between races have an evolutionary/genetic component when we don't have any clear idea how much genetics influence much more dramatic differences in psychological characteristics.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive has sent some controversial threads before.
This one, while controversial, was not Trollish. He didn't demand his point of view, but wanted to discuss it.
Kath, and to a lesser extent Blayne were too quick to jump on the Troll wagon.
We can keep doing that. We can Flame everyone who has a different idea or thought. Its what you do on the internet.
Or we can do what some others here have done, and take the question serious. By answering that question we can bring Clive into a discussion, and into our fold, instead of kick him out angrily and wonder where all the polite discussion that made Hatrack special has gone.
Clive, the reason this subject is so quick to cause outbursts is not that science has never considered this idea. Its because that psuedo-scientists have used it for over a century to explain why the Holocaust was OK, why racism and slavery are fine, why killing Indians (red or brown) is no sin for a White-man.
I think we need to take a step back and consider this not in the area of racial genetics, but as it was looked at 50 years ago--horse breeding.
Some horses breed into fast race horses, and some breed into strong work horses. So the (Put Preferred cultural definition here) are the smart breed, while the (put cheap labor culture here) is the strong breed. Don't waste education on the strong breed since they can't be smart and don't force labor on the smart breed because they just aren't built for it. Why the poor Central European will get all tired and sore from working 80 hours a week, but those Southern Europeans, they enjoy working that hard.
Of course, what they don't understand is that there are no two humans as genetically different as a Clydesdale is to a Appaloosa. Further, there are some pretty fast Clydesdales and some pretty strong Appaloosas.
But those who pull out these ideas aren't looking for those details. They want a blanket scientific theory to rationalize their biases.
For example, since some study shows that anti-social and violent behavior is more prevalent in Arabic genetics, we need to incarcerate all Arab peoples, or at the least, not believe them in court but if suspected, assume they are guilty. If all things are equal, or even somewhere near equal, or at least could be considered in the same continent of equal, then the Arab will be the guilty one, and the European will be innocent.
There are a lot of guilty Europeans who love this theory.
There are even more innocent Arabs who hate it.
So yes, the base theory has been examined, pulled apart, and is mostly useless.
Especially as the "races" and "cultures" continue on their fast spiral into that great "Melting Pot" that the US held made it so special.
PS: I personally know, and am related too, several Liberal Jewish folks. They can be and are Racist, though its a condescending racism. They wouldn't hang a black man for dating their daughter, they wouldn't even disown the daughter. They would, however, avoid inviting the couple to any family gatherings--(because it makes everyone so nervous.)
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: ... Especially as the "races" and "cultures" continue on their fast spiral into that great "Melting Pot" that the US held made it so special.
Yeah, this immediately contrasts with something from that aforementioned study.
quote:Because of the racial separation that persists in this country, most students have lived in segregated communities before coming to college. The work of Gary Orfield and associates documents a deepening segregation in U.S. public schools (Orfield, 2001; Orfield, Bachmeier, James, & Eitle, 1997; Orfield & Kurlaender, 1999; Orfield & Miller, 1998).
It is not strictly contradictory because it is theoretically possible that only public schools are becoming more segregated while other things in society are getting better (or things could have picked up after 2001), but the contrast does seem jarring to me.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, it isn't. An effect of 1% in improving student outcomes is potentially thousands upon thousands of students going from dropping out to getting good grades. Learning about things that can have an impact like that is huge.
Well, if the study were measuring grades, then ok, this would be a good point. But self-assessments of civic engagement? Come now.
quote: That effects are "small" in statistical terms does not at all make them small in practical terms. They are still very important to study.
My argument is that a correlation of a few percent, in a sample size of a few hundred or a few thousand, is just random chance; I do not deny that effects of this size would be interesting if you could study them, but you cannot meaningfully do so at these sample sizes.
quote:If your treatment is "presence of anything on this list of ten things", you're only checking one correlation, not ten, when you check treatment vs effect.
Nu, quite apart from statistical issues, I think I would say that this is really bad experimental design. Further, that's not how I interpret the sentence I quoted; it looks to me like they said "Is improvement from X significant? Is improvement from Y significant?" and so on, rather than "Is the improvement significant?" But now we're getting into mind-reading.
Let me rephrase: It appears to me that their method was to take A, B and C measures of diversity, and X, Y, and Z measures of (self-reported) outcomes, and then say "Does A correlate with X? Does A correlate with Y?", and so on; and when they got one out of ABC to correlate with each of XYZ, they were happy and reported it as significant. But when you've got three chances at something correlating, you've improved the probability of it happening by quite a bit! (Three in my example, that is, not in the study.) I must say I am very skeptical of this procedure.
quote:Though looking over the table, they are talking about two different diversity measures; however, the levels of statistical significance are .01 or .001. One is statistically significant for all populations, and the other for almost all populations. There's no cherry picking required; they could have picked either treatment and had a strong argument for an effect. Your criticism is void.
I see that they mention these significances in the text, yes, but I don't see them in the tables. I find it hard to understand how they're applying this; how does a 3.5% correlation become statistically significant at the 0.001 level in a sample of about ten thousand?
I also get very skeptical when I see sentences like this:
quote:In the Michigan study, all three kinds of diversity experiences were influential for at least one of the groups, and for at least one measure of learning outcomes.
quote:In the CIRP data, citizenship engagement is a measure of students’ motivation to participate in activities that affect society and the political structure. These activities include “influencing the political structure,” “influencing social values,” “helping others in difficulty,” “being involved in programs to clean up the environment,” and “participating in a community action program.” Racial and cultural understanding is assessed by students’ self-ratings of how much they had changed in “cultural awareness and appreciation” and “acceptance of persons from different races/cultures” since entering college.
quote:The second MSS measure, racial/cultural engagement, is a one-item question asking students how much they have learned during college “about the contributions to American society of other racial/ethnic groups.”
To be answered on a five-point scale, no doubt!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It is not strictly contradictory because it is theoretically possible that only public schools are becoming more segregated while other things in society are getting better (or things could have picked up after 2001), but the contrast does seem jarring to me.
In my experience the increased "diversity" of my University led to greater visible segregation. Ethnic groups were largely enough represented to form exclusive groups, clubs, or even sustain businesses or products intended for only their use. I have never really understood if that was a positive thing or a negative one, or what problem, if any, it actually represented. I can see why it would be seen negatively, but on the other hand if you have a bunch of people from different backgrounds all lumped together, and there are enough of each to form subgroups, who can be shocked that it happens? The alternative is seperating racial groups and not allowing them to go to school together, which makes no sense.
ETA: I do believe I recall an episode of Pen and Teller that had different university admissions experts admitting that diversity programs increase racial segregation within schools, but I don't remember their theories as to why, or why they thought it was a bad thing or not.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've gotta say, I don't see anything inherently racist about the article. It poses an interesting hypothesis, nothing more. It's not a hypothesis which needs to be immediately dismissed because of what it could suggest. It could suggest a lot of things, after all. It certainly doesn't mean that ethnic group A is superior to ethnic group B. Why is it so terrible to entertain the idea that relatively short term selection pressures may have had some vague effects on different human populations? There's no need for knee-jerk reactions.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Level of statistical significance is given using the standard stars annotations. In particular, two stars is .01, and three stars is .001.
As for the how they can be so significant, they're using a blocked hierarchical regression, so it shouldn't be very hard with that many data points.
quote:Let me rephrase: It appears to me that their method was to take A, B and C measures of diversity, and X, Y, and Z measures of (self-reported) outcomes, and then say "Does A correlate with X? Does A correlate with Y?", and so on; and when they got one out of ABC to correlate with each of XYZ, they were happy and reported it as significant. But when you've got three chances at something correlating, you've improved the probability of it happening by quite a bit! (Three in my example, that is, not in the study.) I must say I am very skeptical of this procedure.
Considering almost every one they found is significant, as I said above, no cherry picking would be necessary even if this were their approach. Additionally, reading their methods section a bit more, they did a blocked hierarchical regression, so when they say they're looking at "one effect or another" they're just looking at the proportion explained with that as the "first block". The model still takes into account the multiple comparisons issue (indeed, that's one of the strengths of hierarchical regressions). There is no multiple comparisons issue in the analysis presented.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason the ideas should not be casually entertained is that people have a tendency to glom onto them in order to justify their pre-established biases. The reason people come down very hard on such "isn't that interesting" talk, is that for centuries, people have been abusing science in such a way. The reaction is not extreme, it is the result of a very long history of people continually and unstoppably reverting to the same very poor and very destructive assumptions.
It's kind of like someone logging into Hatrack for the first time and posting a "Do? It doesn't do anything... that's the beauty of it..." thread. No matter how many times people cite that the line was originated as part of a psychology test to see if you could convince people they recognized it, people still theorize as to where it is from. Race is one of those areas of human thought in which our logical brains, so good at getting us through the day and solving all our other minor problems, often fail miserably.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, fair enough, I sit corrected on the significance issue. Different jargon. I stand by my criticism of the effect they actually studied. Self-assessed cultural appreciation ratings, forsooth!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my experience the increased "diversity" of my University led to greater visible segregation. Ethnic groups were largely enough represented to form exclusive groups, clubs, or even sustain businesses or products intended for only their use
You are only addressing the social aspects of college life, which are not the most important aspects of a University education (at least in my estimation).
Even if ethnic groups segregate 100% social, they are still in the same classes, they are forced to learn and work together in the key aspect of their education.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It is bad science. It has been discredited for decades. You are wistfully wanting science to justify your racism.
Exactly my response to this thread from the opening post.
They can't even agree on what a race IS, let alone if they have different evolutionary paths at this point .
But don't let actual facts stop you THIS time around. LOL
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The reason the ideas should not be casually entertained is that people have a tendency to glom onto them in order to justify their pre-established biases. The reason people come down very hard on such "isn't that interesting" talk, is that for centuries, people have been abusing science in such a way. The reaction is not extreme, it is the result of a very long history of people continually and unstoppably reverting to the same very poor and very destructive assumptions.
It's kind of like someone logging into Hatrack for the first time and posting a "Do? It doesn't do anything... that's the beauty of it..." thread. No matter how many times people cite that the line was originated as part of a psychology test to see if you could convince people they recognized it, people still theorize as to where it is from. Race is one of those areas of human thought in which our logical brains, so good at getting us through the day and solving all our other minor problems, often fail miserably.
True I suppose, but utterly sad.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, this is one of the curses of social science research. For many subjects, you can get either a lot of messy survey data, or a little data measured with much greater refinement. The usual approach to reaching an understanding is to do a number of studies of both types.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, hang on a minute. I'm looking at the column labeled "Percent variance explained by diversity factors", and those are all rather smaller than the betas and have no significance indicators. Perhaps I'm again mis-interpreting data presented in a way that's standard in a different field, but doesn't this indicate that the correlation effectively disappears after the regression is run?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You are only addressing the social aspects of college life, which are not the most important aspects of a University education (at least in my estimation).
Even if ethnic groups segregate 100% social, they are still in the same classes, they are forced to learn and work together in the key aspect of their education.
True, and in that regard my experience was that people mixed very readily. But I was in a small department that demanded group work and made it easy for people to know each other socially. Not much I could say about the departments outside music and English, since I only ever took a handful of classes outside my major, and they were all huge classes.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orinoco, for some it is the first time they have seen, for example, a black woman in a position of authority or a latino that isn't poor. Even this, I think, is a good thing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The percent variance explained columns are either for the whole model (left column, with several variables for demographic information in addition to the treatments) or for all of the treatments combined (right column, none of the demographic variables), accumulating just those blocks. They're just giving an idea of how noisy the data is versus how noisy the effect is, basically.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
