The Unequal Opportunity Race

[Loren Pechtel]

Since it is not possible to control fir every conceivable influence not to mention any excuse you can concoct, no study can ever meet your “standard”. Add in your conflation of “proof” with evidence, and you completely isolate your position from reason and reality.

Of course perfect controls don't exist, especially in the social sciences. However, they did what appears to be a reasonable job of controlling for the actual financial data--and didn't find discrimination in that regard. They made no effort to control for financial knowledge--and found a lot of discrimination. That says to me they blew it. Studies like this are done with only a few people, one mismatch is enough to blow the whole thing.

More nonsense, some of it just factually incorrect, particularly the last line. You haven’t a clue what you are even talking about. You are certainly not talking about the actual investigations presented. How could you be? Yet again, you have not even looked at them properly. And in the absence of any evidence from the investigations, you almost appear to be implying that certain groups are less likely to have what you describe as sufficient financial knowledge (since you have been offering this as a possible explanation for some of the disparities). There is nothing in the investigations to support this assumption.

And most crucially, this is the sort of thing you always do. It never matters to you what evidence is given, or how much. You continually engage in chronic, pathological denial.

Yes, I am expecting those with a lower home ownership rate to have a lower rate of understanding what's needed to get a mortgage. And I do reject most discrimination evidence because it's flawed. They shouldn't be publishing research that's easy to poke holes in. It's their job to make it solid. We saw them do it properly when it came to qualifications--and note they found no discrimination there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since it is not possible to control fir every conceivable influence not to mention any excuse you can concoct, no study can ever meet your “standard”. Add in your conflation of “proof” with evidence, and you completely isolate your position from reason and reality.

Of course perfect controls don't exist, especially in the social sciences. However, they did what appears to be a reasonable job of controlling for the actual financial data--and didn't find discrimination in that regard. They made no effort to control for financial knowledge--and found a lot of discrimination. That says to me they blew it. Studies like this are done with only a few people, one mismatch is enough to blow the whole thing.

FFS, you have not even demonstrated what you mean by financial knowledge or how it could be measured or if it is correlated with financial statistics (thereby making it not useful) or why it would be important.
Your response exemplifies my point which I will repeat - Since it is not possible to control fir every conceivable influence not to mention any excuse you can concoct, no study can ever meet your “standard”..

No. I don't say they should control for everything, that's obviously impossible. However, we know that race is often a proxy for socioeconomic status--a failure to control for it is a major flaw.

And, by implying that there should be reason to expect the level of necessary financial knowledge to differ between races, you are tacitly confirming the results of the study you denigrate.

There's an obvious reason--home ownership rates for whites are higher than for blacks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And if they think the customer is more likely to buy a particular house simply by seeing their race, that is racial prejudice. They have prejudged the customer's interest by race. Acting on that is then racism. Racism doesn't have to be maliscious.

One could call it racism but the intent is to find houses they are likely to buy. I have a hard time calling it racism when the intent is to be beneficial to the "victim".

A lot of racism is like that. Because a guy is asian doesn't mean he is good at math or knows karate. Because a lady is a jew doesn't mean she's good with money. Because a guy is black doesn't mean he is athletic or can dance. Because a lady is white doesn't mean she's rich. Etc. These are prejudices too, and they can and do have negative effects on people, as does that prejudice about equating black with poverty that Ruby keeps saying he's ok with.

But the reality is that people do disproportionately choose to live around others of their race.

 

[ruby sparks]

We saw them do it properly when it came to qualifications--and note they found no discrimination there.

No we did not see that, and no we can't note it.

..we know that race is often a proxy for socioeconomic status--a failure to control for it is a major flaw.

No, it's not a major flaw, because they did control for it.

If, at some point, you want to make a criticism of this investigation, or any of the other numerous similar studies, that is based on something more than your own assumptions and conjectures, and isn't a hypothetically benign alternative scenario that you just made up, but is actually based on what is contained in those investigations and studies, do feel free to do so. I should warn you that this may involve you reading them properly.

 

[ruby sparks]

But the reality is that people do disproportionately choose to live around others of their race.

That generalism becomes a largely irrelevant consideration when someone does express a wish to live in a specific location. In that situation, the standards require equal service, regardless of race. The service was unequal. As you would know more about in detail if you ever actually read the studies properly.

 

[laughing dog]

FFS, you have not even demonstrated what you mean by financial knowledge or how it could be measured or if it is correlated with financial statistics (thereby making it not useful) or why it would be important.
Your response exemplifies my point which I will repeat - Since it is not possible to control fir every conceivable influence not to mention any excuse you can concoct, no study can ever meet your “standard”..

No. I don't say they should control for everything, that's obviously impossible. However, we know that race is often a proxy for socioeconomic status--a failure to control for it is a major flaw.

For someone looking to make any excuse to dismiss a study that he has not bothered to actually read, it would be a"major flaw". To a disinterested critic, one would have to show why it would be a major flaw with actual evidence instead of the usual bs handwaving.

There's an obvious reason--home ownership rates for whites are higher than for blacks.

I repeat
you have not even demonstrated what you mean by financial knowledge or how it could be measured or if it is correlated with financial statistics (thereby making it not useful) or why it would be important.
Your response exemplifies my point which I will repeat - Since it is not possible to control fir every conceivable influence not to mention any excuse you can concoct, no study can ever meet your “standard”..

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A lot of racism is like that. Because a guy is asian doesn't mean he is good at math or knows karate. Because a lady is a jew doesn't mean she's good with money. Because a guy is black doesn't mean he is athletic or can dance. Because a lady is white doesn't mean she's rich. Etc. These are prejudices too, and they can and do have negative effects on people, as does that prejudice about equating black with poverty that Ruby keeps saying he's ok with.

But the reality is that people do disproportionately choose to live around others of their race.

Ok... but that doesn't make it any less racist. Its also true that black people are disproportionately good at basketball. Doesn't mean you should presume somebody to be ready for the NBA just because you are told they have dark skin. Treating people not as individuals but as representatives of some grouping they've been assigned by by something such as race is racial prejudice. Acting on it is racism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Lol! I saw you change that. That was adorable. You saw me and Loren disagreeing and you felt the need to pounce with a post of snide remarks. But then you realized that you were the one being an ass and quickly deleted it. Well done. You are learning to control your judgmental outbursts.