Racists?

[LomUmp]

Hey all,

I believe, from what I have seen through my life time of 39 yrs, that ANYONE who takes their time to point out "blatant" racism with such little supporting evidence, are themselves the racist P.O.S. and are trying to cover it up by pointing out the unbelievable inequities of other people's actions. If you take a look, these types of people are in every race.

Example: According to SOME blacks, because I am white, I am a racist just because what happened with slavery many years ago.
A black that looks tough will get labelled as a criminal type or gang banger because of his/her looks. etc, etc....

I would bet that, if asked, the author of this article, if he is white, would say something like, " I can't be racist, some of my best friends are black." Or if not white, would say something like, "I can't be racist because I am a minority." I have found that these, among other things, are some of the bigest giveaways to someone being an open or a closet racist.

LomUmp

edited for spelling....

[SAump]

"Those 4 white guys throw more strikes than their opposing pitchers combined." I came to that conclusion while the Atlanta Braves amassed 13 consecutive NL league championships. My data showed a significant difference between winning and losing pitchers.

There was a time when journalists were suppose to question the results of a study before printing the info. Not surprised the editors of "time/cnn" would allow this crap to be published; simple economics. Economics doesn't make any of it true.

[SAump]

That was the study that spurred Hamermesh to look at the issue in baseball, and he thinks his findings are even more revealing — in basketball, fouls are called by an entire officiating crew, but in baseball most calls are made exclusively by the home-plate umpire. "In the NBA you don't always know who is making the calls, whereas in baseball it's the home-plate umpire," Hamermesh says.

I know girls with a better understanding of basketball officials.
Edited:
I know girls with a better understanding of basketball officiating.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SAump

I know girls with a better understanding of basketball officials.

So now the thread transitions from racists to sexists.

[Dan_ref]

Hamermesh, who has studied discrimination at all levels, says that bias is instilled in infancy — much like enduring personality traits such as shyness or high self-esteem — as an essential part of human behavior. "We all have these subconscious preferences for our own group," he says.

It would have been nice if the article revealed how a professor of economics is qualified to speak as an expert in the fields of (at least) biology, genetics, psychology, early childhood behavioral sciences, development and neurology.

I guess since they didn't we can safely assume he knows as much about these areas as the OP does.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

It would have been nice if the article revealed how a professor of economics is qualified to speak as an expert in the fileds of (at least) biology, genetics, psychology, early childhood behavioral sciences, development and neuorology.

Some time back, economists, in particular, as well as pychologists theorized that the rules, observed behavior and "models" of their fields applied to all other areas of life. Despite being warned against this trend by some of the greats of their fields, off they went yelling, "Stats are stats."

Unfortunately, even though the results of many such studies have been debunked by the real experts in the field and the fact that many leading and Nobel winning economists continue to disown the practice, it is now being taught in some Universities that "econometrics" can be applied to every behavior in every field, and, as we have seen in this thread, graduate students of econonmics are writing their theses on most any subject but economics.

[JRutledge]

I wonder what the study would think of me. I almost never see a player of the same race as me when I work games.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Some time back, economists, in particular, as well as pychologists theorized that the rules, observed behavior and "models" of their fields applied to all other areas of life. Despite being warned against this trend by some of the greats of their fields, off they went yelling, "Stats are stats."

Unfortunately, even though the results of many such studies have been debunked by the real experts in the field and the fact that many leading and Nobel winning economists continue to disown the practice, it is now being taught in some Universities that "econometrics" can be applied to every behavior in every field, and, as we have seen in this thread, graduate students of econonmics are writing their theses on most any subject but economics.

It's interesting to note that statistical analysis was applied by 2 others venturing outside their own fields to come up with a completely opposite (and disgraceful IMO) view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

I'm wondering how many would defend the results of that work as quickly as they would Hamermesh's results?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I wonder what the study would think of me. I almost never see a player of the same race as me when I work games.

Peace

According to the study you are terribly biased and mis-call 1 pitch a ball every game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by waltjp

According to the study you are terribly biased and mis-call 1 pitch a ball every game.

I know I missed more than one pitch a game and it had nothing to do with who was playing the game.

Peace

[SAump]

What are the odds:
An umpire will call more balls than strikes in a MLB game.
Balls/strikes rate, or walks/strike outs rate, will identify facets of color discrimination bias.
This color bias will filter through pitch selection, filter through pitcher's ability or arm strength, filter through umpire's strike zone consistency, and deliver an absolutely clear causal-effect relationship.
Another econometric swing and a miss.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by SAump

Your Answer: Many, many people will defend those results.
About as many, if not more than those people, will hold an opposite POV.
While many others, clearly distance themselves from either POV.

You miss my point.

You cannot argue the validity of both results based on the method. The methods used are essentially the same. Yet they provide (apparently) 2 different results.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

You miss my point.

You cannot argue the validity of both results based on the method. The methods used are essentially the same. Yet they provide (apparently) 2 different results.

Are you saying there's method to this madness?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Are you saying there's method to this madness?

Just because there's a method to it doesn't mean that it's not madness.

Which seems to be the consensus so far.......

Which brings up the point......if someone calls you a racist, is it possible to prove that you aren't?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Which brings up the point......if someone calls you a racist, is it possible to prove that you aren't?

Sure, but not by arguing; by the example you set in what you do and what you say.

Same thing as when a coach says: "You're horrible." You don't prove him wrong by arguing that you're not. You prove it with your performance.