(07-11-2018, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Good term. What was the controlled variable in such experiments? You could have just answered: Science. 

(07-11-2018, 03:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What makes these studies scientific? 

(07-11-2018, 03:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Controlled variables.

(07-11-2018, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Good term. What was the controlled variable in such experiments? You could have just answered: Science. 

(07-11-2018, 03:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Identical resumes, loan applications, and housing applications with the controlled variable being the name.

Are you trying to make some sort of point?  If so why not just come out and say it instead of playing these little games.

(07-11-2018, 03:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's try an exercise. Post one of your scientific studies. 

(07-11-2018, 04:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_09172003/

Devah Pager, a sociologist at Northwestern University, studied employers’ treatment of job applicants in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, by dividing job applicants into four groups. White applicants and black applicants were further grouped into those who presented themselves as having a prior criminal conviction and those who did not present themselves as having a criminal record. (None of the applicants actually had a criminal record of any sort). Except for the differences in race and in criminal record, applicants were given comparable resumes, sent to the same set of employers, and trained to behave similarly in the application process.

The study focused on the likelihood that an applicant would be called back for a job interview. Not surprisingly, whites without a criminal record were most likely to be invited back (34%) and blacks with a criminal record were the least likely (5%). Perhaps most striking, the study found that only 14% of blacks without a criminal record were called back for an interview—less than the 17% of whites that did have a criminal record.

(07-11-2018, 04:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_09172003/

Devah Pager, a sociologist at Northwestern University, studied employers’ treatment of job applicants in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, by dividing job applicants into four groups. White applicants and black applicants were further grouped into those who presented themselves as having a prior criminal conviction and those who did not present themselves as having a criminal record. (None of the applicants actually had a criminal record of any sort). Except for the differences in race and in criminal record, applicants were given comparable resumes, sent to the same set of employers, and trained to behave similarly in the application process.

The study focused on the likelihood that an applicant would be called back for a job interview. Not surprisingly, whites without a criminal record were most likely to be invited back (34%) and blacks with a criminal record were the least likely (5%). Perhaps most striking, the study found that only 14% of blacks without a criminal record were called back for an interview—less than the 17% of whites that did have a criminal record.

(07-11-2018, 04:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I've posted that one here multiple times. 

(07-11-2018, 04:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I actually thought it was illegal to ask for race on an application.  Guess not.

(07-11-2018, 04:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I actually thought it was illegal to ask for race on an application.  Guess not.

(07-11-2018, 05:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually they applied in person and that dynamic is one of the data elements missing. The article states they were trained to behave similarly; but we are unsure of actual behavior and/or appearance other than skin color. 

It also states comparable resumes where given. How does the author know what is comparable to the employer and how were they comparable?

This is why I question the "science" of many of these studies.  

(07-11-2018, 06:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We know this was a legitimate study because it was published for peer review.  This one appeared in The American Journal of Sociology in 2003.  In fact it was the basis for a PhD dissertation by Devah Pager than won the American Sociological Association Dissertation of the Year.


The tactic you are using here is very popular on Fox News.  If they want to attack a position but they know they have no actual facts or research to back up their position they just start saying things like "This raises questions" or "What if.  .  .  ".  It doesn't require them to present any facts or do any research, but it works on the rubes who just want to hear something that supports their own opinion.

(07-11-2018, 02:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If white people didn't control so much of the power to hire, promote, fire, give contracts, approve loans, and so on then racism would not be as big of an issue.

(07-11-2018, 03:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: All racial groups would probably act the same if they controlled a disproportionate amount of the wealth and power.  But racism would not be as big of an issue if the wealth and power was more evenly divided.

So put away your victim cards.  No one is picking on the poor little white people.

(07-11-2018, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: She received Sociological acclaim that was reviewed by sociologists for her scientific study. You spouted off controlled value earlier, put we don't use words like similar or comparable when establishing a controlled variable. ANY change in the CV negates the Dependent Values. 

Perhaps you meant to say there have been social studies on the matter.

(07-11-2018, 04:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_09172003/

Devah Pager, a sociologist at Northwestern University, studied employers’ treatment of job applicants in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, by dividing job applicants into four groups. White applicants and black applicants were further grouped into those who presented themselves as having a prior criminal conviction and those who did not present themselves as having a criminal record. (None of the applicants actually had a criminal record of any sort). Except for the differences in race and in criminal record, applicants were given comparable resumes, sent to the same set of employers, and trained to behave similarly in the application process.

The study focused on the likelihood that an applicant would be called back for a job interview. Not surprisingly, whites without a criminal record were most likely to be invited back (34%) and blacks with a criminal record were the least likely (5%). Perhaps most striking, the study found that only 14% of blacks without a criminal record were called back for an interview—less than the 17% of whites that did have a criminal record.

(07-11-2018, 07:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I meant scientific.  Sociology is a science and their studies employ exact methodology.  This study was peer reviewed and the results accepted.  It is absurd to claim that sociologist can not use the scientific method.

But again, this is a childish way to attack a study.  You don't do any research.  You don't give any example of why the study was flawed.  You don't give any example of what changes in the variables had what effect.  In fact you know nothing about the study at all yet you claim to know more than the scholars who reviewed it.  

All you do is claim there are problems with the study because it does not support your opinion.

(07-11-2018, 07:07 PM)Beaker Wrote: What you are claiming as a scientific study can not actually be considered one via the scientific method. There are too many independent variables to reach any valid conclusion. There would need to be only one independent variable....such as the race of the applicant. All other variables would have to be the same for this to be considered a controlled experiment and therefore valid scientifically.

The applicants would all have to be the same age, the same sex, have identical, not similar resumes, be trained to give the same answers to questions and have identical criminal records. This investigation can provide a glimpse into the proposed hypothesis, but it is still invalid scientifically.

(07-11-2018, 07:07 PM)Beaker Wrote: What you are claiming as a scientific study can not actually be considered one via the scientific method. There are too many independent variables to reach any valid conclusion. There would need to be only one independent variable....such as the race of the applicant. All other variables would have to be the same for this to be considered a controlled experiment and therefore valid scientifically.

The applicants would all have to be the same age, the same sex, have identical, not similar resumes, be trained to give the same answers to questions and have identical criminal records. This investigation can provide a glimpse into the proposed hypothesis, but it is still invalid scientifically.

(07-11-2018, 07:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't need to do research to know that "standards" such as similar or compatible negates a controlled variable. Perhaps you should research scientific study before you trot out words that you do not understand. 

It is why my initial question was What makes them scientific.

(07-11-2018, 07:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can have more than one independent variable in a scientific study.

Quote:Again without even looking at the study you are claiming to know more than the scholars who reviewed it.  This is silly.

Why don't you actually do some research and post some studies that support your position instead of criticizing a study that you have never read but has been peer reviewed by experts in the field?