Rash

[lawtonfogle]

So if I have a black applicant to my masters program, I shouldn't accept him simply because I know that African Americans are less educated than the norm, correct? Besides, he's more likely to have been in prison, more likely to have an illegitimate child, and more likely to have contracted HIV. I should assume all of this about him, right?

You should not accept him, but for a different reason. If he is unable to give proof of education and you are unable to run a general background check on his legal status, he should not be accepted. The child and HIV thing are not metrics used in grad school application (at least not to my knowledge), so I do not see why his likely hood of either of those would change the situation. If, for some odd reason, race was all that your university supplied you with to pick who you take as a Masters student... I would personally quit the university.

I should also assume that the Korean who has applied will do well, as Asians tend to score far higher on Academic Proficiency tests, yes?

Wouldn't you instead look as his score?

How is this not the "base rate?" I mean other than "racism is bad?"

Because you better be gathering more information to make your selection off of. The base rate only applies when there is no other information, and in fact, all information gather does is create a more complicated base rate (such as, an applicant to an undergraduate institution who has a high GPA, SAT, ACT, and strong recommendations has a base rate of doing great at uni, but they may not always be.

So to put it basically, if you were allowed no other information about your applicants other than race, and you were not given the option of quitting the university, then basing it off of what race is likely to be best is what you will have to do (but remember, you are not looking at each individual race, but instead the subset of members of each individual race which applies to grad school, which may be a vastly different base rate than the race alone).

That said, I find that situation unlikely in even diploma mills, much less respectable universities.

 

[david_x]

But in the lack of any other evidence about them except some quality, you have to look at the base rate. Sticking to looking at the base rate in the face of evidence on the contrary is idiotic though.

Well then we can agree that the afore mentioned quotes were unjustified.

 

[david_x]

Generalizing groups? Usually a pretty bad idea.


Too bad you´ve only heard them. Had you read them I would have asked you to provide us with links or verifiable quotes.

I'll look, I'm not really sure where they were at though.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Well then we can agree that the afore mentioned quotes were unjustified.

Now that I reread them, I see that they say 'all'. Any time you make a statement about everyone in some group, you are going to be, unless you are defining them as part of that group. So, outside of 'All pro-lifers are pro-lifers', you are going to be wrong.

 

[david_x]

Generalizing groups? Usually a pretty bad idea.


Too bad you´ve only heard them. Had you read them I would have asked you to provide us with links or verifiable quotes.

Found it.

You are pro-life. You're acting righteous and passionate about children's lives, but when it comes to actually DOING something, you want nothing of it.

Tell me, would you be willing to take care of a child you didn't want? Say I just showed up at your house with a random baby, and demanded you take care of it. Would you accept it with open arms, completely unprepared? No, you wouldn't.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Maybe not that different, but you know the rest of the world likes Canada more than the U.S.

Canada doesn't get as involved as the US does in international affairs.

 

[david_x]

Canada doesn't get as involved as the US does in international affairs.

It was just a quip, let's not dissect it in this thread.

 

[Verv]

It's OK to make some of these conclusions; as humans we use labels in order to better classify things. As opposed to going at length and at length about all of our views we can easily sum them up with certain phrases.

What is rash is not accepting someone who does not fit your description as being diferent from the description that you pigeonhole them to.

 

[JGG]

Found it.

What does this have to do with all prolifers are pro-death penalty/anti-healthcare?

 

[david_x]

What does this have to do with all prolifers are pro-death penalty/anti-healthcare?

Good point, oops.

This was the all pro-lifers are hypocrites because they wouldn't help a child left on their doorstep.

 

[quatona]

Found it.

Am I right in taking your smiley as an admission or self-sarcasm?

 

[david_x]

Am I right in taking your smiley as an admission or self-sarcasm?

I was just being genial...

 

[JGG]

You should not accept him, but for a different reason. If he is unable to give proof of education and you are unable to run a general background check on his legal status, he should not be accepted. The child and HIV thing are not metrics used in grad school application (at least not to my knowledge), so I do not see why his likely hood of either of those would change the situation. If, for some odd reason, race was all that your university supplied you with to pick who you take as a Masters student... I would personally quit the university.

Wouldn't you instead look as his score?

Because you better be gathering more information to make your selection off of. The base rate only applies when there is no other information, and in fact, all information gather does is create a more complicated base rate (such as, an applicant to an undergraduate institution who has a high GPA, SAT, ACT, and strong recommendations has a base rate of doing great at uni, but they may not always be.

So to put it basically, if you were allowed no other information about your applicants other than race, and you were not given the option of quitting the university, then basing it off of what race is likely to be best is what you will have to do (but remember, you are not looking at each individual race, but instead the subset of members of each individual race which applies to grad school, which may be a vastly different base rate than the race alone).

That said, I find that situation unlikely in even diploma mills, much less respectable universities.

Okay, but seeing as I have some 50 applicants to my lab, and grades are not as important as to whom I will be able to work with (information I don't have), and as you've said that we can make such judgments, why wouldn't I use race as a factor in eliminating candidates? I mean, if we have a "trend" as you put it, and this is a valid way to qualify people, why wouldn't I use it?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I think it depends on the context. If someone's trying to make a considered argument in a debate that 'all X do Y' then it's illogical. However, we have to realise than in day to day life we use illogical, prejudiced ideas. So if it's a case of being in a social situation where you know one person is anti-abortion, you're going to err on the safe side and make a snap judgement that it's probably going to cause conflict to advocate the Democratic party, abolishment of the death penalty, universal healthcare etc. in their presence. To go on to assume that in general you know for a fact what their opinions are, and who they are as a person, is certainly wrong though.

The way I look at it is this. I've been walking around in an area or city I don't know looking for a certain place several times and had to ask for directions. On a few occasions I've had to choose whether to ask the large group of people around my age, the elderly woman on her own or the middle-aged couple with their kids. I've always gone for one of the latter two. On the other hand, I have at times been hanging around with a group of mates and people deliberately avoid us. I've wanted to go up to them and tell them we're not actually harmful.

So sat in the comfort of my own home at my computer now, I can say academically that we shouldn't judge on appearances. But I guarantee that in the relevant situations every one of us will display prejudice, because the survival instinct kicks in. Ultimately, we are nothing more than evolved animals, and evolution doesn't care if we're racist/sexist/whatever...it only cares that we survive, and so will force us to err on the side of prejudice.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Okay, but seeing as I have some 50 applicants to my lab, and grades are not as important as to whom I will be able to work with (information I don't have), and as you've said that we can make such judgments, why wouldn't I use race as a factor in eliminating candidates? I mean, if we have a "trend" as you put it, and this is a valid way to qualify people, why wouldn't I use it?

I didn't say you shouldn't use it, I said you not use only it.

Of course, you use it proportional to the amount it will be relevant, and you must use the correct base rate. Most people will use the base rate of the race at large, which is incorrect. You have to use the base rate of the portion or the race that fills the criteria you know about (applying to grad school, having GPA X.YZ, coming from college with a Bachelors in XYZ), which is vastly different than the base rate per the race in general, and race could very well have no effect by that point.

This is vastly different that using race as a primary selection criteria as you were suggesting.

 

[Penumbra]

Is it wrong to attribute one quality to someone because of something else they believe?

I have heard some very strange things like:

"All pro-lifers want the death penalty."
"All pro-lifers don't want healthcare for everyone."

It's unwise to assume that every member of a given group share the same characteristics, but it's not necessarily unwise to realize that there are statistical trends, and if a person believes X, and belief in X has been shown to be correlated with belief in Y 90% of the time, then the person likely believes Y as well. If it's an important part of the discussion, it's best to ask.

-Lyn

 

[david_x]

It's unwise to assume that every member of a given group share the same characteristics, but it's not necessarily unwise to realize that there are statistical trends, and if a person believes X, and belief in X has been shown to be correlated with belief in Y 90% of the time, then the person likely believes Y as well. If it's an important part of the discussion, it's best to ask.

-Lyn

I agree asking would have been much better.

 

[Benedictiō]

I would say that its unfair to make such statements or assumptions. Lyn makes a point about there being correlations between X and Y, but it would be much wiser to ask first instead of to just assume or accuse.

A lot of times, those are just emotionally charged prejudices because they concern topics that people are very passionate about. Its best to keep them under control if a civil discussion is to be had.