Multi-Billionaire Oprah Whines About Sexism & Income Inequality At DNC

[Loren Pechtel]

It is much more probable that whatever killed off the ammonite mollusks and whatnot was sufficiently un-picky about what it was killing to take out the dinosaurs as well. One cause is more parsimonious than two.

Exactly. Look for the explanation that involves introducing the minimum amount of additional factors. Be especially wary of adding things that must then be countered in some cases.

Universities in general are engaged in a massive drive to recruit and admit students from across a broad range of demographics. This is not because there is a huge need for art history majors to provide art history services in underserved communities. If your hypothesis about med students were correct then there would have to be two unrelated causes that independently result in the same behavior pattern in university admission officers. That multiplies entities unnecessarily. It is much more probable that whatever motivation causes Harvard admission officers to lie about Asian applicants' personal qualities as an excuse to hold them to higher academic standards than students of other races is sufficiently un-picky about its collateral damage to take out medical school applicants as well. "There is a huge need for physicians to work in these communities" appears to be a post hoc rationalization for a policy that was originally adopted for some other reason.

And when looking at the actions of people and organizations figure that a factor related to what their position appears to be is more likely than one that isn't. It's a very minor leap to figure that an organization might be taking a step (discriminating in favor of disadvantaged races) consistent with their claims about the situation (that said races have been discriminated against.)

And if it really is because they were discriminated against you have to explain why Asians are doing better than average rather than worse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those are two people I know off the top of my head who would make lousy doctors despite being highly intelligent. More people would make bad doctors than would make good ones. It is the job of medical schools to sift through candidates to decide who is likely to be successful in their program and as a physician and who is not, from among the large number of applicants each year.

Unless you can determine that they never admit Asian applicants with lower gpas and MCAT scores, all you’ve demonstrated is that on average Asian students score more highly on MCATs and have higher gpas on average than black students or NA students.

So what?

You are still left with having to explain why the soft skills that supposedly differ exactly line up with what you would expect from an attempt to admit based on population prevalence rather than qualifications.

Why are Asians worse doctors, Hispanics better doctors and blacks even better doctors? And how are the medical schools determining this??

Three factors rather than one very simple one. Occam does not like your position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Faith based thinking. It must be money because it's not possible that there might be any other factor.

Yet in the cases where it most certainly isn't money (Poland, China) the effect persists.

I was unaware of large numbers of Chinese and Polish students taking SATs.

Your faith in your personal opinion that Asians and white people are just smarter than other people is evident.

I said "Poland", not "Polish" and "China", not "Chinese".

I was referring to the countries, not the ethnicities. Both cases have been discussed on here before so I didn't spell them out.

Those are two countries that used a very heavy hand to equalize things. Poland had to rebuild it's educational system from scratch after WWII. Despite that there's still a considerable correlation between parental job level and the job level of their offspring. Despite money clearly not being relevant in either case.

 

[Toni]

Faith based thinking. It must be money because it's not possible that there might be any other factor.

Yet in the cases where it most certainly isn't money (Poland, China) the effect persists.

I was unaware of large numbers of Chinese and Polish students taking SATs.

Your faith in your personal opinion that Asians and white people are just smarter than other people is evident.

I said "Poland", not "Polish" and "China", not "Chinese".

I was referring to the countries, not the ethnicities. Both cases have been discussed on here before so I didn't spell them out.

Those are two countries that used a very heavy hand to equalize things. Poland had to rebuild it's educational system from scratch after WWII. Despite that there's still a considerable correlation between parental job level and the job level of their offspring. Despite money clearly not being relevant in either case.

Really? Job levels in Poland and China do not correspond to level of earning? Money? I don’t think that’s correct. Money in China and Poland dues not purchase extra tutors? Enrichment opportunities? Influence?

That dues not seem correct to me.

 

[Toni]

Those are two people I know off the top of my head who would make lousy doctors despite being highly intelligent. More people would make bad doctors than would make good ones. It is the job of medical schools to sift through candidates to decide who is likely to be successful in their program and as a physician and who is not, from among the large number of applicants each year.

Unless you can determine that they never admit Asian applicants with lower gpas and MCAT scores, all you’ve demonstrated is that on average Asian students score more highly on MCATs and have higher gpas on average than black students or NA students.

So what?

You are still left with having to explain why the soft skills that supposedly differ exactly line up with what you would expect from an attempt to admit based on population prevalence rather than qualifications.

Why are Asians worse doctors, Hispanics better doctors and blacks even better doctors? And how are the medical schools determining this??

Three factors rather than one very simple one. Occam does not like your position.

I’m not left with anything.

You are the person talking about ‘soft skills’ I’m talking about people being pushed into career paths they sit want to satisfy mommy and daddy’s egos. I’m talking about the need for newly minted physicians to be willing to work in less lucrative areas of medical care, to underserved areas and populations.

Do Asian prospective medical students demonstrate a commitment towards those needs? Or do they pursue the so called higher status specialities? I honestly do not know.

But I absolutely do know that medical schools and their admissions directors are deeply committed to accepting those students they believe are most likely to be successful as med students and as physicians.

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

 

[Rhea]

2) There's some huge reason Asians won't make good doctors.

There’s some huge reason it doesn’t make a good pool to have all of the doctors be people who are type-A top-of-class academically. Medicine is an enormously nuanced field, and GPA just plain and simply does not measure what is good and useful in the doctor’s office.


You keep being told that and you keep coming back with this narrow, tightly defined complaint that shows your utter disregard for patient care over grades.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Has anybody here ever asked their doctors what their undergraduate GPA was? Or their MCAT score? How do you judge the quality of your care?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Has anybody here ever asked their doctors what their undergraduate GPA was? Or their MCAT score? How do you judge the quality of your care?

I haven't! This is a sensitive subject to me. To me, the issue is how should we judge people's qualifications to get into institutions or schools. Should it be based on objective criteria (in which race dosn't matter); or should it based on subjective criteria? Personally, I want my kids to be judged on objective criteria in which they have a fair and transparent chance.

 

[Toni]

Has anybody here ever asked their doctors what their undergraduate GPA was? Or their MCAT score? How do you judge the quality of your care?

I haven't! This is a sensitive subject to me. To me, the issue is how should we judge people's qualifications to get into institutions or schools. Should it be based on objective criteria (in which race dosn't matter); or should it based on subjective criteria? Personally, I want my kids to be judged on objective criteria in which they have a fair and transparent chance.

I don’t disagree. But seriously, people need to just quit acting like med schools go scrounging around community colleges looking for black, Hispanic and NA students and convince them to apply to medical school in order to screw over black, Hispanic and Native American communities by sending them stupid unqualified doctors so that white people and Asians can keep all the good, smart doctors.

It’s just out and out nonsense. Medical schools prize nothing more than their reputation for providing the very best doctors possible. Medical school admissions is a very arduous, rigorous process.

I do not understand why ( some) people lose their minds at the idea that the nerdiest people do not necessarily make the best physicians. Were these the people you talked to in school? Told about your problems? Listened to for any reason than to get the answers for the quiz you want to take a make up for? It does not matter how brilliant you are if you are not able to form a enough of relationship with the patient before you, very quickly, so that the patient will talk to you candidly and be willing to listen to your assessment and advice.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Has anybody here ever asked their doctors what their undergraduate GPA was? Or their MCAT score? How do you judge the quality of your care?

I haven't! This is a sensitive subject to me. To me, the issue is how should we judge people's qualifications to get into institutions or schools. Should it be based on objective criteria (in which race dosn't matter); or should it based on subjective criteria? Personally, I want my kids to be judged on objective criteria in which they have a fair and transparent chance.

But when you judge the care you get from a doctor is it only on objective criteria? Don't you judge your doctors based on subjective feelings sometimes? There's a phrase called "bedside manner", which is common enough a phrase that everyone knows what this means, which is almost purely subjective* but still quite important for most patients.

I don't claim to have insight into how medical schools are choosing their students, and clearly if they're just saying things like "he's Asian so he won't be a compassionate doctor" is wrong and shouldn't be part of it, but I also think it's flawed to assume that all nuance can be removed and only GPA and MCAT scores should be considered.

When I see doctors I make the assumption that they have passed a threshold of qualification to provide care to me. I have never asked about GPA or MCAT, though I do admit I have looked at their diplomas on the walls when available and may have judged some based on that. But in the end, I use my own personal criteria to judge their performance and it's never solely on objective criteria.


*in that what is 'good' bedside manner depends as much on the patient as on the doctor. The way I, personally, as a professional scientist, want a doctor to talk to me may very likely be a terrible way to talk to other patients.

 

[Rhea]

But when you judge the care you get from a doctor is it only on objective criteria? Don't you judge your doctors based on subjective feelings sometimes?

This.

When my kids were born I went to the local health care provider and interviewed four pediatric providers to determine the best fit because we were embarking on an 18-year relationship and I wanted it to be a good one.

I did NOT pick the one with the best credentials. She was very good, and very nice, but not my style. Not the kind I felt I could get candid information out of, and that’s what I want from a doctor. She knew what she was doing, certainly. She would have had the information, certainly. But I didn’t envision getting to hear it all. And two others were clinical but with low affect - they seemed to think my interview was without merit. The one I chose was the one who was bubbly, loud and conveyed information readily.

Demonstrating that the students with the best academics did not have the doctoring skills I wanted most.

 

[Toni]

My experience when talking with doctors is that there are those doctors who are happy to talk to patients as though they are intelligent t, engaged persons who are capable of asking good questions and hearing and understanding the doctor’s answers and information

And

There are doctors who are taken aback or offended if a patient asks questions or demonstrates any knowledge or understanding of what a test result does and does not mean.

And further, there are doctors who ask questions and listen to patient responses and who ask follow up questions —and there are doctors who barely listen to any response by the patient.

Believe it or not, human beings are not machines that require an occasional tune up or repair by a competent mechanic. Medical care works best when doctors and patients form a relationship with mutual respect and trust. The doctor has to be willing to listen, to elicit more detailed responses that guide diagnosis and treatment and to effectively communicate the treatment plan, areas of concern and anticipated outcome with patients who are most often not feeling their best and who are likely experiencing some level of stress and anxiety and perhaps outright fear. A good doctor can help ease those fears and will work with the patient to find the best course of care.

Effective communication between doctor and patient helps build a trusting relationship that allows the patient to feel comfortable about seeking out care as other needs arise and to make and keep check up appointments that can catch emerging issues while they are still small and more treatable.

I’ve always had a positive view of medical providers and care and have had mostly good experiences with doctors. That said, one appointment with a local doctor to address a concern left me so shaken that not only did my medical concern go unaddressed, but I did not see a doctor again for years. Years. Eventually I was fed up /
enough/scared enough with the issue that I found a doctor in another town who listened to me, performed an exam and appropriate testing and provided me with the appropriate medication that resolved the same issue I had been having for years.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If all it takes is a high GPA and MCAT score to be a good physician then I suspect they will all soon be replaced with AI doctors.

 

[Bomb#20]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

 

[laughing dog]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

An observation is not an argument. Since you have not demonstrated that observation exhibits antagonism or prejudice against white men, it is not clear how anyone could know that it is racist.

 

[Toni]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

No.

Pointing out the paradigm shift from assuming that white males rightly belong in all positions of power is not racist. Nor does including ( some) Asians make the assumption that whites and Asians are superior to everyone else make it less racist or less incorrect.

But thank you for demonstrating that (some) white men feel oppressed when they are no longer at the front of the line for all good things but are forced to sometimes make room for other people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

No.

Pointing out the paradigm shift from assuming that white males rightly belong in all positions of power is not racist. Nor does including ( some) Asians make the assumption that whites and Asians are superior to everyone else make it less racist or less incorrect.

But thank you for demonstrating that (some) white men feel oppressed when they are no longer at the front of the line for all good things but are forced to sometimes make room for other people.

Hey, I'm all for competition... just as long as I get to win all the time.

 

[Bomb#20]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

An observation is not an argument. Since you have not demonstrated that observation exhibits antagonism or prejudice against white men, it is not clear how anyone could know that it is racist.

You appear to be relying on the premise that nobody knows anything until I personally demonstrate it. Any reasonable person who is fluent in English, has basic reading comprehension skills, and is aware that the context was a discussion of Affirmative Action, can tell her statement exhibits prejudice against white men simply by reading it. It isn't rocket science.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

 

[Bomb#20]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

No.

Pointing out the paradigm shift from assuming that white males rightly belong in all positions of power is not racist.

But that's not what you said that I called racist. I was perfectly clear about what you said that I called racist. I quoted what I was calling racist. You do not have an intellectually honest reason to imagine that what I was calling racist was "Pointing out the paradigm shift from assuming that white males rightly belong in all positions of power".

Nor does including ( some) Asians make the assumption that whites and Asians are superior to everyone else make it less racist or less incorrect.

And that would be a substantive contribution to the discussion if you could quote another member assuming whites and Asians are superior to everyone else.

But thank you for demonstrating that (some) white men feel oppressed when they are no longer at the front of the line for all good things but are forced to sometimes make room for other people.

You do not have an intellectually honest reason to imagine I have demonstrated anything of the sort -- you are making a false, damaging claim about me with malice and reckless disregard for the truth, Ms. "goodwill towards all".

 

[Toni]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

An observation is not an argument. Since you have not demonstrated that observation exhibits antagonism or prejudice against white men, it is not clear how anyone could know that it is racist.

You appear to be relying on the premise that nobody knows anything until I personally demonstrate it. Any reasonable person who is fluent in English, has basic reading comprehension skills, and is aware that the context was a discussion of Affirmative Action, can tell her statement exhibits prejudice against white men simply by reading it. It isn't rocket science.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

Apparently not as what I wrote did not demonstrate a prejudice against white men but an out and out embrace of a paradigm shift that no longer centers white male as the apex of all achievement and status.

But thank you for once again demonstrating so clearly how some white men (I am presuming you are) lose their shit at any suggestion that they are not the bestest smartest most deserving people out there, superior in every single way that counts.

It is indeed telling that you seem to believe that treating white men like everyone else is treating them like second class citizens. Actually, what I believe is that everyone should be treated with the expectations and deference that white men have enjoyed for many centuries now. In other words: you don't need to step to the back of the line but welcome individuals of all colors and complexions and genders as equals. It does not actually diminish white men to recognize that being white and male is not a mark of superiority but rather that all are created equal and all deserve a chance to succeed. Indeed, it seems like it would be empowering o recognize that white men can achieve even on an even playing field instead of having everything rigged in their favor. It seems like it would be a relief to realize that the weight of the entire world does not rest upon the shoulders of white men.