Half? You're being far too generous. More like a thousandth, if that. It's one study in one city over one summer. Raqcism occurs in every city, every season, every year.
You made an argument, and as backup for your argument you gave me one link. You are correct in that it is a much smaller part of the picture and a reasonable person would understand that. Also your point makes my point stronger, and your claim that racism occurs in every city, every season, every year is just a claim. Links? As far as you have shown, a few instances of racism happened in New York one year.
Team 2 had the criminal record thrown in. Team 1 did not. Their data was complied separately.
I understand this, and as far as I'm concerned does not change anything in what I stated, and adds nothing to the point.
They never use data from all 6 teams, except for those specific numbers of 13 and 1407. Every graph present the results of an individual team. the other teams results were expected to be coveThat might have been clearer to you had you read the first footnote.
They do use data from the other teams. Specifically when they talk about when candidates are pushed down or up for different jobs than what they applied for it uses data from the other teams which muddies the water. Either use all of the data all the time, or some of the data some of the time, not back and forth.
Actually, I said anecdotes do not combine to make data. Your friends struggling to find jobs is not data. The anecdotes in this study are not data, but this study also has data.
So you will discount my life studies as worthless, but will give credence to a pretend job searcher because it's part of a study, or because it fits your needs better?
Story on starting on page 3: race of another applicant mentioned, but not hiring manager (but implied)
Story on starting on page 4: race of hiring manager not mentioned (but race of person to train was)
Story on starting on page 7: race of hiring manager not mentioned
Story on starting on page 8: race of hiring manager mentioned indirectly, by reference to the the homogenity of the the enitre mangement staff, but not directly
Again, it's clear why you think other peole read what they want to see into things. It's projection. Nice try, race of those hiring is mentioned in the report. Why mention it at all if it's not important? Either way I think the report is lacking some important elements to get a better overall picture of what's going on. To be clear, I do think discrimination does happen. Also to be clear, I don't think it is as huge as you make it out to be. Could it be you are the one projecting? Again, nice try Freud copycat.
Why? Be precise.
Because my friend, then you could see how much of a two way street these racial tendencies are. You just might see that black hiring managers will tend to be more comfortable with the black applicants and hire them more often than an applicant of another race all things being equal. I could go into more detail, but that should be enough to give a normal person an understanding of what I mean. Let me know if you need more filler words or something.
For that too happen, about one third of all the hiring managers would have had to be black, to account for blacks being hired at half the rate on a preferential basis. Based on demographic data in management, do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?
*to
Yes, when you say something stupid, it sounds stupid, and I've "talked" with you a lot lately. I completely understand how your logical jumps sound stupid.
Let me explain it to you as I would to any rational circle thinking adult.
" Okay Biff, now if every single black hiring manager gave the black applicants a call back that would only require from the two teams for there to be 23 out of over 500 hiring managers to be black" I don't know where you did your math, but the black applicants only got 23 positive responses which would be nowhere near half or whatever the crap you were saying. I'm pretty sure all of the positive responses were not from black hiring managers, so that number could be even lower.
So you completely did not get what my point was, and I have no idea what you were trying to say there... so we are on the same page right?
The study accounted for that, remember?
In a controlled environment. What happens when they get out there in live situations? Did these applicants train with the Marines for years so they would act exactly the same way in every type of situation they would encounter? Does even every single Marine act exactly the same in every scenario they encounter? Seriously, do you live in a box? Are you a character from a book that you cannot understand things like this?
You're obviously grasping at straws, looking for any reason you can thibnk of to discredit this study.
I don't need to grasp at straws to see the limitations of the study. It is a nice little study and is good in plenty of ways, just is very limited in what it can tell you. I don't need to discredit it at all, just pointing out how limited it is when you are trying to use it as your main backup as to why you think the way you think.
Considering you can't even present the content of the paper with any degree of accuracy, your accusation rings hollow.
That's rich. Give me moar.
I think testers have been on more than one team.
Interesting, I could see that as possible. Makes sense.
I wasn't aware that decades of research could be fairly characterized as a "bandwagon", and I have never treated this study as more than one among many, and the product of human flaws. I don't need a Scripture in my life, and it I didn't, it wouldn't be a study.
I'm pretty sure it only took them about a year, if that.
However, you do need one, don't you?
Yes, I desire the word of God in my life.
I've been in the whole picture for long time now. Do you really think this study is an anomoly of some sort?
Why don't you link me the rest of the studies and I'll get back to you. Obviously the big picture I see is a little more positive than the one you paint for me.
No, only the realization that humans are not telepathic. They can't read good intentions in your mind, nor mine. So, only your actions determine how you get perceived. It's obvious to anyone who doesn't bury their head in ther sand.
So anyone who sees those same actions and yet does not perceive them the same way you do, must have their head buried in the sand? Genius!
Self control leads to a change in action, and so can self-awareness. You can be too comfortable in your own skin, if it mean you act like a jerk to others.
And the super sensitive think everyone is a jerk and out to get them. That perception doesn't make them right, because they perceive it that way does not mean people actually are out to get them, or that everyone are jerks.
AKA The Golden Rule.
Not quite. That would be do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Not really do whatever others want you to do so you don't offend them.
I was unaware that being considerate was just a show for you. I have heretofore thought that being considerate was a goal of yours.
Oh, I was translating what you were saying. It seems to me you are all about perceptions, and that everyone around you should determine who and what you are instead of you being who and what you are and dealing with those around you in the best way possible.
Exactly. If you say my words are hurtful to you, than I need to accept that they are, even if I don't mean any hurt by them. It's my responsibility to weigh that injury caused and make sure I do as little as possible. I'm honestly surprised if you don't agree.
Meh. Sometimes I feel like you are trying to take my Vizzini gig and show people your dizzying intellect and reason circles around them.
It offends me, I am the fake Vizzini, not you.
Until you name the hypocrisy, the action I recommend for you but do not attempt myself, the stand I set out for you but ignore myself, your accusation of hypocrisy is itself a word game.
