It's more funny than odd. It's as if the researchers never realized that perhaps the public simply doesn't jump to the conclusions that they do.
It's still jumping to conclusions, though; a higher rate of incarceration does not prove that blacks are more prone to criminal behavior, especially if there are many different reasons behind why that is.
Which is why getting caught up in finding causes, and assigning blame, is counterproductive, as I've been saying.
Trends in reactions to a rather narrow selection of names.
Sure, that. And the trend doesn't suggest a pattern to you?
Well to me at least, telling people to avoid what's familiar is like telling them to avoid sex, sugary foods, or whatever else evolution has spent tens of thousands of years imprinting into our DNA. It can be done consciously for awhile, but we'll always go back to DNA.
When did I ever say "avoid what's familiar"? I only suggested we make a concerted effort not to assume that familiar equals better every time. That'd be like assuming vanilla is the best ice cream flavor simply because it's the most familiar....you might like pistachio better if you tried it, who knows? Not trying only guarantees you'll never know.
But you do realize that as long as there are far more Johns than Maliks, that familiarity will always be present...don't you?
Yup, but that shouldn't lead to the assumption that John is always a better accountant (or what have you) than Malik, because that's fallacious.
Discussing solutions and some vision of what "should be" aren't remotely the same.
One's a way to get to the other, or at least to move toward it.
I don't doubt it...but face it, you can never speak to enough black people to have a statistical significance in the whole of 19 million. You would have to spend the rest of your life asking black people about their experiences to even generate an opinion as significant as that study of Oakland I linked to you.
True....but black people are trying to speak up all over the place. Black Lives Matter, and such. This is why I respect Bernie Sanders so much....when black activists say they don't have a voice in politics, he gives them the mic. Trump shouts them down.
I'm saying that when an employer is seeking to hire someone, they look at more than the person's name, because that's never enough information all by itself.
Ok...and?
And....what? Isn't that a good thing all by itself?
No...but we can chalk them both up to public perception. Right or wrong, it exists...and as a business owner, I need to account for it. Heck...it's practically the entire business of advertising.
True, but there's still a difference. The same difference, basically, as naming your new beverage Lalalala or Vomit. Or naming your jelly Smuckers as opposed to Mangled Baby Ducks.
Unfamiliar is different than familiar and negative.
Here's a study of police cams in California...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rialto
Try not to focus too much on the decrease in police violence, because they just came out with a study showing cams may make assaults on police more common. Instead, pay attention to the number of complaints that were dropped entirely once they showed the complainant the camera footage. 88%!!!
Let that sink in a minute...
What's happening there? Do you think the 88% of people probably included lots of cries of racism and improper conduct? Do you think the likely hundreds and hundreds of those complaints were just out and out lying?
Or do you think that assumptions about the police played into it?
A-He pulled me over for driving while black!
B-Sir, you were 5 miles over the limit...it's on video.
A-That's not that fast.
B-It's still breaking the law.
A-He didn't pull over anyone else, why did he pull over a black man...he's racist!
B-He can only pull over one car at a time sir...
I've never been pulled over for going 5 miles over the limit. Ever.
What does this prove? About the same as any single event can.
I'll fully grant you, a large part of the problem cops have toward the black community is that there is a perception of racism, often inadvertent even if occasionally (hopefully rarely) overt. What can be done about that? The cops need to be more transparent, and take responsibility for those times when cops are being blatantly, overtly racist. This seems to happen far less frequently than warranted, and that perception needs to change.
I'd also say that the black community needs to be better about viewing police in a negative light all the time...but if the cops aren't willing to make an effort, it's understandable that the black community would be similarly unwilling.
It needs to be a two-way street.
I disagree. Boaty isn't just unusual...it's silly.
So's Candy Kane, but she's been the top salesperson in her department many times.
Point being, unusual doesn't mean bad, and neither does silly.
I've already answered this...you can review the answer I gave if you like.
If your answer doesn't change, then my response to it won't either. It still seems as though you value a person's name more than you do their qualifications for the job at hand, and that's a mistake.
Picking more common names.
Ah. I don't recall shooting that idea down so much as disagreeing with it, for the reasons given. It remains an option, of course, for those who choose to go that route, even if it perpetuates white privilege.
Until you have a business where appearances matter. Suppose you own a restaurant...and you're hiring waiting staff. You've got two applicants, equal in every way except for one...appearance. One appears to be well dressed, professional, clean cut....the other is covered in gang tattoos, piercings, dressed in sweat pants and a t-shirt, and smells unshowered.
Who do you pick?
I guess that depends on the restaurant. An upscale fancy restaurant may prefer the former, but a greasy spoon next door to a punk rock club that stays open late may go a different way.
But, either way, now you're looking at job qualifications beyond the name! That's progress!
-- A2SG, appearance at least goes beyond just a name.....
