If You Believe in White Privilege

[rturner76]

Now for where you're wrong...there's no group of white men stopping non-whites from being the head of industries. It's certainly not an easy thing to do...or everyone would do it. The competition gets tougher the higher you get in any industry...but the only thing that matters is merit. Think about it this way.

I think it is naive to believe that the large corporations of the United States who actually set and control some government policies because their industries' political lobby is so powerful which are literally 99% CEO'd by white males have absolutely no fraternal order to the way that they promote their executives and more importantly offer chairman, boardroom, and Chief Executive positions. You even said yourself, you're a subconscious racist and it is that subconscious bigotry that makes you think that white men are that much more qualified than everybody else that the achievement gap is justified by pure talent and work ethic.

The NBA is a bad example if you are looking for bias. In the NBA, you are paid according to your talent period, no matter what color you are. If you can score 50 points a game, you get X millions if you are green or purple and how many other whites or blacks that play has no bearing on that. The proof of your value is right on the score board.

It is in the boardroom where people get away with passing off their work to their assistant, taking the credit for it and getting a promotion because they went to the same fraternity as the boss or belong to the same golf club or their dad owns stock in the company. Frauds and phonies get bumped up all the time and become "the youngest VP in company history" etc. when they can't even put together an XL spreadsheet

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sounds like you're afraid to take the test.

Did you even read any of the links I gave you? The people who made that test no longer have any faith in the results.

It's no more useful for measuring implicit bias than your horoscope is.

 

[tall73]

Sounds like you're afraid to take the test.

It sounds like the test is not worth taking. And you didn't mention that even by the admission of the creators of the test I would need to take it multiple times, as there is no reliability in a single test. And even then there is debated value in the aggregate.

If results cannot be reproduced, and individual tests are not indicators, and it is not, by the admission of the test makers themselves, intended to point out implicit racism--what would be the point?

The author of the Vox article pointed out that he took it three times and got no bias, slight bias one way and then slight bias the other way.

It can vary based on unrelated factors such as forgetting what they want buttons to mean at a particular point, since the time it takes to mark something is part of the result.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think it is naive to believe that the large corporations of the United States who actually set and control some government policies because their industries' political lobby is so powerful which are literally 99% CEO'd by white males have absolutely no fraternal order to the way that they promote their executives and more importantly offer chairman, boardroom, and Chief Executive positions.

You think it's naive for me to not believe in the conspiracy theory that you threw together without any evidence whatsoever?

I guess I'm naive then lol.

You even said yourself, you're a subconscious racist and it is that subconscious bigotry that makes you think that white men are that much more qualified than everybody else that the achievement gap is justified by pure talent and work ethic.

When did I say this???

The NBA is a bad example if you are looking for bias. In the NBA, you are paid according to your talent period, no matter what color you are.

Why do you think that is? Why do you think the NBA pays according to talent?

If you can score 50 points a game, you get X millions if you are green or purple and how many other whites or blacks that play has no bearing on that. The proof of your value is right on the score board.

Right.

It is in the boardroom where people get away with passing off their work to their assistant, taking the credit for it and getting a promotion because they went to the same fraternity as the boss or belong to the same golf club or their dad owns stock in the company. Frauds and phonies get bumped up all the time and become "the youngest VP in company history" etc. when they can't even put together an XL spreadsheet

It's definitely harder to gauge someone's value in the business world....that's absolutely true...

But if the wrong people were constantly being promoted, and they continued to climb the corporate ladder without anyone finding out they were incompetent....eventually, the business would fail, and it's competition would eliminate it. So even though it's harder to judge a person's value...any successful business must be doing a relatively good job of determining the value of employees.

 

[tall73]

https://qz.com/1144504/the-world-is-relying-on-a-flawed-psychological-test-to-fight-racism/

Discussing the low repeatability of results, and how the results can change after practice in some psychological tests:

Psychologists typically counter the influence of “practice effects” by giving participants trial sessions before monitoring their scores, but this doesn’t help the IAT. Scores often continue to fluctuate after multiple sessions, and such a persistent practice effect is a serious concern. “For other aspects of psychology if you have a test that’s not replicated at 0.7, 0.8, you just don’t use it,” says Machery.

Discussing whether the test was able to predict behavior:

So it came as a major blow when four separate meta–analyses, undertaken between 2009 and 2015—each examining between 46 and 167 individual studies—all showed the IAT to be a weak predictor of behavior. Two of the meta-analyses focus on the race IAT while two examine the IAT’s links with behavior more broadly, but all four show weak predictive abilities.

 

[tall73]

https://qz.com/1144504/the-world-is-relying-on-a-flawed-psychological-test-to-fight-racism/

And here Greenwald admits that methods aimed at eliminating all discrimination, implicit or not, are more effective, as we discussed earlier in this thread:

“When we portray police violence as a product of implicit bias without any real evidence to support that, we’re distracting ourselves from other possible causal factors.” In public talks, Greenwald said he emphasizes ways of avoiding the effects of implicit bias. These methods, such as blind evaluations that obscure the race and gender of applicants, simply address prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious. Greenwald acknowledged that they do not focus on implicit bias: “The remedies I advocate are equally suitable for ALL forms of unintended discrimination,” he wrote in an email. “They are not limited to unintended discrimination due to implicit bias.”

 

[PeachyKeane]

It sounds like the test is not worth taking. And you didn't mention that even by the admission of the creators of the test I would need to take it multiple times, as there is no reliability in a single test. And even then there is debated value in the aggregate.

If results cannot be reproduced, and individual tests are not indicators, and it is not, by the admission of the test makers themselves, intended to point out implicit racism--what would be the point?

The author of the Vox article pointed out that he took it three times and got no bias, slight bias one way and then slight bias the other way.

It can vary based on unrelated factors such as forgetting what they want buttons to mean at a particular point, since the time it takes to mark something is part of the result.

Suit yourself.

 

[Non sequitur]

Again, you are illustrating my point. The "social order" is whites on top, whites incharge, whites, are the "king of the hill." For members of any other "race" to be included in the management positions or important positions of the backbone industries like transportation, agriculture, banking, etc. it is at the behest of the white males that control those industries. There is no way for any person of color to succeed in to any advanced level of any major industry without the permission of the white male. The fact that the white male has this position is white privilige no matter if it was Jim Crow or breeding that awarded it to them. It is still their privilege.

How can being aware of a issuenot help to sole it? I don't understand how that works that it doesn't How can not being aware of anissue make the issue easier to solve? If you are not aware of it, how can you take steps to correct it?

What do things look like when that is no longer the case?

Time? Percentage of people in position? Can it ever not be the case, if it started out that way?

 

[rturner76]

You think it's naive for me to not believe in the conspiracy theory that you threw together without any evidence whatsoever?

I guess I'm naive then lol.

I'm not saying you are a naive person, just that with all the information we have about the achievement gap (including the pay and promotion gap between equally qualified employees), corporate cronyism, nepotism, and racism, I believe a plethora of evidence has been presented. You seem to dismiss statistics that work against your opinion or you provide an alternate explanation for the statistic that fits your world view

When did I say this???

I was paraphrasing or admittedly exaggerating your bit about subconscious bias and our supposed inability to escape it (in a nut shell)

It's definitely harder to gauge someone's value in the business world....that's absolutely true...

But if the wrong people were constantly being promoted, and they continued to climb the corporate ladder without anyone finding out they were incompetent....eventually, the business would fail, and it's competition would eliminate it. So even though it's harder to judge a person's value...any successful business must be doing a relatively good job of determining the value of employees

It was never my position that these companies were methodically passing up on people of color for executive positions in order to ensure that white males get them. It's like you said :it's hard to gauge someone's value."

Ny the time people are looking at executive level positions, they have an impressive track record of hard work, ethics (supposedly), experience, likely education, etc. In a large company there may be 50-100 people with the skills to fill that position. So with this many people being more or less equal, how do you choose? Probably by the interview process. How good can you get along with the interviewer, are your goals the goals they want a person in that position to have? Are you bringing in any new ideas? Even with all of these answers being good, at that level it comesdown to 2 things:

1) How well will you represent the company? Meaning, when people talk toyouwill the company look smart, energetic, etc.
2) (This one's important) How does this person make me feel? Comfortable? Does he/she make me feel like I want to get to know them better? Would I trust this person with my company (my money)

At #2 is where WP swoops down and snatches the job away from the Nigerian with the PhD in economics. The other (mostly white) executive "feel" more comfortable around another white person. It's about "La Familia" Do you feel more comfortable around a family member or a stranger? It's that simple. The Tribe Has Spoken. White Privilege rules the ruling class! Which means they rule period.

 

[rturner76]

What do things look like when that is no longer the case?

Time? Percentage of people in position? Can it ever not be the case, if it started out that way?

Basically, my gut tells me that whomever can breed the most will be in charge of what issues, products, or culture becomes dominant though I believe that There will always be a 1% of billionaire white males controlling the major industries of the nation. But some day more colors will have more rich people (yuk).

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not saying you are a naive person, just that with all the information we have about the achievement gap (including the pay and promotion gap between equally qualified employees), corporate cronyism, nepotism, and racism, I believe a plethora of evidence has been presented. You seem to dismiss statistics that work against your opinion or you provide an alternate explanation for the statistic that fits your world view

I think it's easy to think such things dominate more rational reasons when you hear about them so often. After all, who wants to hear a narrative about how those more successful than you are actually deserve that success? That's a hard story to sell....easier to sell you a story about how they don't really deserve it.

I was paraphrasing or admittedly exaggerating your bit about subconscious bias and our supposed inability to escape it (in a nut shell)

Ok....so I didn't say those things.

It was never my position that these companies were methodically passing up on people of color for executive positions in order to ensure that white males get them. It's like you said :it's hard to gauge someone's value."

Ny the time people are looking at executive level positions, they have an impressive track record of hard work, ethics (supposedly), experience, likely education, etc. In a large company there may be 50-100 people with the skills to fill that position. So with this many people being more or less equal, how do you choose? Probably by the interview process. How good can you get along with the interviewer, are your goals the goals they want a person in that position to have? Are you bringing in any new ideas? Even with all of these answers being good, at that level it comesdown to 2 things:

1) How well will you represent the company? Meaning, when people talk toyouwill the company look smart, energetic, etc.
2) (This one's important) How does this person make me feel? Comfortable? Does he/she make me feel like I want to get to know them better? Would I trust this person with my company (my money)

At #2 is where WP swoops down and snatches the job away from the Nigerian with the PhD in economics. The other (mostly white) executive "feel" more comfortable around another white person. It's about "La Familia" Do you feel more comfortable around a family member or a stranger? It's that simple. The Tribe Has Spoken. White Privilege rules the ruling class! Which means they rule period.

I hate to break it to you...but that isn't white privilege...its just a simple in-group bias. You'll find it everywhere...amongst all races.

 

[Non sequitur]

Basically, my gut tells me that whomever can breed the most will be in charge of what issues, products, or culture becomes dominant though I believe that There will always be a 1% of billionaire white males controlling the major industries of the nation. But some day more colors will have more rich people (yuk).

So, basically, never.

Everyone, but the White Male, will always be perpetually at a disadvantage?

 

[rturner76]

I think it's easy to think such things dominate more rational reasons when you hear about them so often. After all, who wants to hear a narrative about how those more successful than you are actually deserve that success? That's a hard story to sell....easier to sell you a story about how they don't really deserve it.

Most people in successful positions do deserve to be there. I wasn't saying that undeserving white men are taking all the jobs away from black people. I was saying it is naive to believe that none of them did. I'm sure they deserve the job more than me. Why do they deserve the job over every person of color with the same qualifications? Are you saying only white males are capable of qualifying foe executive positions in important industries? I don't don't think you would go there so why is it that they are the only ones getting them? There are also blacks and Latinos and women with genius level IQs with IVY league degrees and perfect attendance records who have displayed good leadership skills. Of course not a high number but nearly none? I don't think the statistics reflect that this gap is based solely on merit.

I hate to break it to you...but that isn't white privilege...its just a simple in-group bias. You'll find it everywhere...amongst all races.

It's like you keep agreeing with me but you just refuse to use the same language that I use to describe the thing that we agree on.

YES you are 100% correct. It is "in group bias." While I agree you will find bias everywhere. The bias that exists in the upper echelon of American society is the bias held by White Men. Why does that equate to White Privilege you ask? Because the people in the upper echelon of American Society, the Presidents of the Banks. The CEO of the Airlines, Chairmans of Mass media, Kabal of Agriculture, The ministers of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, The Generals of Military, anything else you can think of is controlled by people who you admitted said have a "simple in group bias" and this bias makes it easier for people in their same "In group" to get hired for jobs and get promoted for better jobs. The products they make and the demand they supply is in the majority meant for people "in group" schools, the way business is done, social norms, are all "in group." If you are "outside group" you are different and therefore not one of "us" We'll tolerate you and let you live here but you will never be "one of us." From the courthouse to the schoolhouse to the boardroom, you are an "outsider" or an "insider" The "insiders" have White Privilege.

I've even heard it said by some dirt poor southern good old boys "I may be broke. I may be a convict, I may have nothin' but at least I ain't a nword" That notion is white privilege.

 

[rturner76]

So, basically, never.

Everyone, but the White Male, will always be perpetually at a disadvantage?

I think generation by generation there will be less and less disadvantage. As the Civil Right struggle gets further and further behind us, people's attitude toward race overall will change. It's just that there are certain people who will alway have an advantage.......Wealthy white males. Because no matter how wealthy black people get they still aren't white. (I think I herd that in a movie or a comedian said it or something)_

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most people in successful positions do deserve to be there. I wasn't saying that undeserving white men are taking all the jobs away from black people. I was saying it is naive to believe that none of them did. I'm sure they deserve the job more than me. Why do they deserve the job over every person of color with the same qualifications? Are you saying only white males are capable of qualifying foe executive positions in important industries? I don't don't think you would go there so why is it that they are the only ones getting them? There are also blacks and Latinos and women with genius level IQs with IVY league degrees and perfect attendance records who have displayed good leadership skills. Of course not a high number but nearly none? I don't think the statistics reflect that this gap is based solely on merit.

Of course, it's not entirely merit...there has to be an understanding of what the bottom, middle, and top means before we can even really discuss "the statistics".

It's like you keep agreeing with me but you just refuse to use the same language that I use to describe the thing that we agree on.

It's like we're talking about two different phenomena...

I mean, you realize until very recently, this nation was 80-90% white...right? We're talking about only 50 years ago. If that's the case...wouldn't you expect at least 80-90 of wealth to be in the hands of whites?

YES you are 100% correct. It is "in group bias." While I agree you will find bias everywhere. The bias that exists in the upper echelon of American society is the bias held by White Men. Why does that equate to White Privilege you ask?

It isn't white privilege though...its not unique to whites, there's nothing illicit about it. Chinese people prefer to be around Chinese people. Danish people prefer to be around other Danes. It's not a coincidence....but it isn't deliberate either.

Because the people in the upper echelon of American Society, the Presidents of the Banks. The CEO of the Airlines, Chairmans of Mass media, Kabal of Agriculture, The ministers of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, The Generals of Military, anything else you can think of is controlled by people who you admitted said have a "simple in group bias" and this bias makes it easier for people in their same "In group" to get hired for jobs and get promoted for better jobs. The products they make and the demand they supply is in the majority meant for people "in group" schools, the way business is done, social norms, are all "in group." If you are "outside group" you are different and therefore not one of "us" We'll tolerate you and let you live here but you will never be "one of us."

Whoa...pump the brakes there. Are you actually complaining about those from different cultures being seen as outsiders?? That's literally what an "outsider" is...and it happens in every culture.

Furthermore, you're no longer discussing the difference between whites and blacks anymore. We're both from a western culture...both of us. You can say there's different subcultures we belong to...but that's about it, and not everyone cares about those things very much.

From the courthouse to the schoolhouse to the boardroom, you are an "outsider" or an "insider" The "insiders" have White Privilege.

Well...

There's also the point of what the "field" looks like...

If 95% of the applicants in the tech industry are white or asian males....guess what? The tech industry is going to be overwhelmingly white/asian and male.

There's a lot of reasons for why that is...but the main one worth focusing on is the idea of what young people see themselves doing. If we asked a sample of 7, 10, 13, 16yo black kids what they want to be when they grow up...how diverse does that list start out and how narrow do you think it gets by 16-19yo?

As far as I understand it, it's a slim percentage of blacks entering the tech industry...so those who do are snapped up greedily by companies that simply want to look more diverse.

It's not like opportunities don't exist...it's that they often go unrealized.

I've even heard it said by some dirt poor southern good old boys "I may be broke. I may be a convict, I may have nothin' but at least I ain't a nword" That notion is white privilege.

I think that may be more an example of flat out racism.

 

[rturner76]

I mean, you realize until very recently, this nation was 80-90% white...right? We're talking about only 50 years ago. If that's the case...wouldn't you expect at least 80-90 of wealth to be in the hands of whites?

Exactly the point I'm trying to make.......How are we disagreeing?

It isn't white privilege though...its not unique to whites, there's nothing illicit about it. Chinese people prefer to be around Chinese people. Danish people prefer to be around other Danes. It's not a coincidence....but it isn't deliberate either.

I think I see where I need to clarify how I feel and the implication of the phrase "White Privilege" actually is. I don't "blame" white people so to speak for this phenomenon (though literally it is their ancestors fault through active colonization 500 years ago and populating the new continent in the manor in which they did). White people don't have a "Stay In Power Program." I don't believe white males for the most part, even the people at the top, actively seek to prop members of their own race up and try to discourage the growth of minority communities or people in order to maintain an advantage over them. It's what L've said, you've said, and we've already agreed on. Again I'll quote you "this nation was 80-90% white...right? We're talking about only 50 years ago. If that's the case...wouldn't you expect at least 80-90 of wealth to be in the hands of whites?" The answer is a resounding YES! I would and do expect that. I expect them to have the wealth,pass on the wealth, have wealthy friends, and feel more comfortable around the other 80-90% of the people who are like them why? Not because of malice or breaking civil rights laws. Now here is the connection and I'll quote you "I hate to break it to you...but that isn't white privilege...its just a simple in-group bias. You'll find it everywhere...amongst all races"

Therefore, The people in high up positions who are likely to be wealthy are more likely to want to hire and promote who? And the people who get hired and promoted.......who are they more likely to hire and promote? Will they feel more comfortable working next to someone who is foreign to them or someone from their "in-group""

This quandary is White Privilege. It;s not because white are bad people and they don't all get a job automatically because they are white. They just are more likely to a) get a call back for an interview with a white name. b) more likely to get along with or have something n common with their boss c) more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt and I could go on with d through about h but do you now see what is meant by the phrase? It's not meant to be derogatory. It is simply the word used for like I said "king of the hill"

Whoa...pump the brakes there. Are you actually complaining about those from different cultures being seen as outsiders?? That's literally what an "outsider" is...and it happens in every culture.

Furthermore, you're no longer discussing the difference between whites and blacks anymore. We're both from a western culture...both of us. You can say there's different subcultures we belong to...but that's about it, and not everyone cares about those things very much.

I wasn't complaining about the bias. I think that's the other misunderstanding. WP isnota complaint. Some people complain about it but the phenomenon is not a complaint about society, it is an observation.

Well...

There's also the point of what the "field" looks like...

If 95% of the applicants in the tech industry are white or asian males....guess what? The tech industry is going to be overwhelmingly white/asian and male.

There's a lot of reasons for why that is...but the main one worth focusing on is the idea of what young people see themselves doing. If we asked a sample of 7, 10, 13, 16yo black kids what they want to be when they grow up...how diverse does that list start out and how narrow do you think it gets by 16-19yo?

As far as I understand it, it's a slim percentage of blacks entering the tech industry...so those who do are snapped up greedily by companies that simply want to look more diverse.

It's not like opportunities don't exist...it's that they often go unrealized.

Yes, it is true that far less minorities, gointo the hard sciences and there are far less minorities. Even with that said there are still hard facts that show minorities of equal qualifications, meaning same education, experience and performance evaluation scores and they are paid less and passed over for their white male counterparts, women are included as a minority. The reason we can be sure there are ample black science candidates is because there are scores if not hundreds of black colleges that specialize in science and engineering actually more than social sciences if I'mnotmistaken

 

[Ana the Ist]

Exactly the point I'm trying to make.......How are we disagreeing?

See below...

I think I see where I need to clarify how I feel and the implication of the phrase "White Privilege" actually is. I don't "blame" white people so to speak for this phenomenon (though literally it is their ancestors fault through active colonization 500 years ago and populating the new continent in the manor in which they did). White people don't have a "Stay In Power Program."

You say this...

"I don't blame whites, they aren't actively trying to stay in power."

I don't believe white males for the most part, even the people at the top, actively seek to prop members of their own race up and try to discourage the growth of minority communities or people in order to maintain an advantage over them. It's what L've said, you've said, and we've already agreed on. Again I'll quote you "this nation was 80-90% white...right? We're talking about only 50 years ago. If that's the case...wouldn't you expect at least 80-90 of wealth to be in the hands of whites?" The answer is a resounding YES! I would and do expect that. I expect them to have the wealth,pass on the wealth, have wealthy friends, and feel more comfortable around the other 80-90% of the people who are like them why? Not because of malice or breaking civil rights laws. Now here is the connection and I'll quote you "I hate to break it to you...but that isn't white privilege...its just a simple in-group bias. You'll find it everywhere...amongst all races"

Right...there's no "white privilege " in japan for example.

Therefore, The people in high up positions who are likely to be wealthy are more likely to want to hire and promote who? And the people who get hired and promoted.......who are they more likely to hire and promote? Will they feel more comfortable working next to someone who is foreign to them or someone from their "in-group""

In the US? White people...

This quandary is White Privilege. It;s not because white are bad people and they don't all get a job automatically because they are white. They just are more likely to a) get a call back for an interview with a white name. b) more likely to get along with or have something n common with their boss c) more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt and I could go on with d through about h but do you now see what is meant by the phrase? It's not meant to be derogatory. It is simply the word used for like I said "king of the hill"

You've taken an entire set of biases and reduced it to simply "white skin-black skin"...

Let me ask you this...

Would you be more inclined to hire a person who was...

Beautiful or ugly?
Smart or dumb?
Outgoing or introverted?
Experienced or inexperienced?
Fit or fat?

I wasn't complaining about the bias. I think that's the other misunderstanding. WP isnota complaint. Some people complain about it but the phenomenon is not a complaint about society, it is an observation.

What's the point of this observation then? You can't really believe so many people are recently making the same casual observation?

Yes, it is true that far less minorities, gointo the hard sciences and there are far less minorities. Even with that said there are still hard facts that show minorities of equal qualifications, meaning same education, experience and performance evaluation scores and they are paid less and passed over for their white male counterparts, women are included as a minority. The reason we can be sure there are ample black science candidates is because there are scores if not hundreds of black colleges that specialize in science and engineering actually more than social sciences if I'mnotmistaken

Asians are overrepresented, whites about proportional, blacks and latinos are underrepresented...

There's a good NYT article on it...showing that many black and latinos with tech degrees never apply for jobs in their field...opting instead for things like accounting. That, and they don't make the effort to compete in interviews the way whites and asians do.

 

[rturner76]

You say this...

"I don't blame whites, they aren't actively trying to stay in power."

The reason I said it like that is because it's not a conspiracy. The titans of industry don't have an annual meeting with a fovuson how they can stayin power while holding down minorities. It's like we have agreed so many times. It's nature and in-group thinking. The people who are important naturally want to be surrounded by people in their same group so it works out that way. I think we have agrees on thi as well, we just don't agree on what to call it.

Right...there's no "white privilege " in japan for example.

I 100% agree though there is a similar cultural bias in that it is considered more attractive to be fair skinned and it is more difficult for darker complected Japanese people to be accepted as equals in the upper social class though in 2018 enough money will take you wherever you want to go.

But I digress......There would be no WP in Japanat alut therewould be "Japanese Privilege" meaning the native born Japanese people have a similar advantage over ethnic Koreans who are kind of like the "Mexicans of Japan" Ethnic Japanese people are considered for executive positions in a large number over ethnic Koreans to the point where many Koreans have changed their names over the decades to help counter the effect. I'm sure you already know but if not, I invite you to research the relationship between Korea and Japan and their peoples. Back in the day,non Japanese were considered subhuman.

You've taken an entire set of biases and reduced it to simply "white skin-black skin"...

Let me ask you this...

Would you be more inclined to hire a person who was...

Beautiful or ugly?
Smart or dumb?
Outgoing or introverted?
Experienced or inexperienced?
Fit or fat?

Actually if you take another read of mostof my arguments, Ihave been saying equally qualified white and black. There was even one paragraph where I spelled out that the study (this was of income equality) looked a white males,blacks, and women who had the same education, experience, and performance evaluation scores. Again though it goes back to the person that it doing the hiring. What are they? If they are fat, a fat person has a better chance than if the interviewer is skinny. If the interviewer is an extrovert, more likely to hire an extrovert. I should sayif the office culture is more extroverted, more likely to hire an extrovert. The same with an office full of blacks. An office full of black is more likely to hire a black person.

So what do we know......many offices, especially executive offices are full of white males so who are they more likely to hire? Who will they feel comfortable with? Who will they be more likely to trust?

It may be against some personal policy for you to admit that this this is real but I mean how can we really get around the fact that being a white male means ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL you have a better chance at a high ranking position with a company?

Asians are overrepresented, whites about proportional, blacks and latinos are underrepresented...

There's a good NYT article on it...showing that many black and latinos with tech degrees never apply for jobs in their field...opting instead for things like accounting. That, and they don't make the effort to compete in interviews the way whites and asians do.

I would like to see how they came to that conclusion because the black people that I personally know, one with an engineering degree for an example, couldn't get work as an engineer so he took a job as a teaching assistant so he could pay bills. So it wasn't that he didn't apply, he didn't get work, unless he was willing to do a nationwide search and take a jobe wherever he could find one. There are plenty of engineering jobs in my home state. We got 3M Honeywell Uof Minnesota Cargill and many other major construction and other companies. So I think many of the people they are talking about applied to other industries because they had to. I can't say I know that though

 

[Ana the Ist]

The reason I said it like that is because it's not a conspiracy. The titans of industry don't have an annual meeting with a fovuson how they can stayin power while holding down minorities. It's like we have agreed so many times. It's nature and in-group thinking. The people who are important naturally want to be surrounded by people in their same group so it works out that way. I think we have agrees on thi as well, we just don't agree on what to call it.

Ok...

I 100% agree though there is a similar cultural bias in that it is considered more attractive to be fair skinned and it is more difficult for darker complected Japanese people to be accepted as equals in the upper social class though in 2018 enough money will take you wherever you want to go.

But I digress......There would be no WP in Japanat alut therewould be "Japanese Privilege" meaning the native born Japanese people have a similar advantage over ethnic Koreans who are kind of like the "Mexicans of Japan" Ethnic Japanese people are considered for executive positions in a large number over ethnic Koreans to the point where many Koreans have changed their names over the decades to help counter the effect. I'm sure you already know but if not, I invite you to research the relationship between Korea and Japan and their peoples. Back in the day,non Japanese were considered subhuman.

And just about everywhere you go.

Actually if you take another read of mostof my arguments, Ihave been saying equally qualified white and black. There was even one paragraph where I spelled out that the study (this was of income equality) looked a white males,blacks, and women who had the same education, experience, and performance evaluation scores. Again though it goes back to the person that it doing the hiring. What are they? If they are fat, a fat person has a better chance than if the interviewer is skinny. If the interviewer is an extrovert, more likely to hire an extrovert. I should sayif the office culture is more extroverted, more likely to hire an extrovert. The same with an office full of blacks. An office full of black is more likely to hire a black person.

So what do we know......many offices, especially executive offices are full of white males so who are they more likely to hire? Who will they feel comfortable with? Who will they be more likely to trust?

It may be against some personal policy for you to admit that this this is real but I mean how can we really get around the fact that being a white male means ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL you have a better chance at a high ranking position with a company?

All things being equal is a fallacy...it doesn't exist in real life or in studies. No two people are complete equals.

I would like to see how they came to that conclusion because the black people that I personally know, one with an engineering degree for an example, couldn't get work as an engineer so he took a job as a teaching assistant so he could pay bills. So it wasn't that he didn't apply, he didn't get work, unless he was willing to do a nationwide search and take a jobe wherever he could find one. There are plenty of engineering jobs in my home state. We got 3M Honeywell Uof Minnesota Cargill and many other major construction and other companies. So I think many of the people they are talking about applied to other industries because they had to. I can't say I know that though

From what I understand, they surveyed blacks and latinos with tech degrees.

 

[rturner76]

All things being equal is a fallacy...it doesn't exist in real life or in studies. No two people are complete equals.

That's right so they night as well be honest with themselves and the candidates and say "You know you guys match up pretty well against each other. Your sales records are just about even and you both have perfect attendance. Your both came in right out of college. It's a really tough choice but I think we're gonna go with the white guy/" "THERE'S JUST SOMETHING ABOUT HIM I LIKE." Yeah I relate to him better because we are both white males. We always have to listen to these Liberal flower pickers talk about "white privilege" like that even exists! We're both victims of this new reverse racism so you have to look out for each other because affirmative action is taking all our jobs away>>>>>>Exaggeration for dramatic effect not written to infer actual conversation<<<<<