BART Refuses to Release CCTV Videos of Crime Incidents Because It Would Be "Racist" (college, place)

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

How can you tell upper class neighborhoods are nearly free of crime. Lots of crime is committed with a computer keyboard. Why do you assume facts not in evidence?

Very little crime is committed with a Keyboard compared to the poor.


I don't know why everyone here seems to think the only affluent people are Day traders getting illegal stock tips. Believe it or not people can make lots of money legally.

[piperdiva]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

Some may find the following paper of interest on class, not race:

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~ke...ffetal2012.pdf

The abstract to the paper reads as follows:

Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study3),take valued goods from others (study4),lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower- class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.

I read the studies one and two, and I found so many confounds, I don't know where to start.....type of car as social class? In California, it's common for people within the vast strata of social class to drive expensive cars, as we are a car driven(ha!) society. And driving aggressively is very much a California cultural thing. That, and what about observational bias? I bet that played a huge part in your study results. Fancy shmancy statistics and using big scientific-like jargon does not save a poorly constructed research article.
I'll read the rest later, maybe. Because after reading the first two studies, I have a major headache.

[MinervaPallasAthena]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

Some may find the following paper of interest on class, not race:

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~ke...ffetal2012.pdf

The abstract to the paper reads as follows:

Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study3),take valued goods from others (study4),lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower- class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.

Social Science research should be taken with a grain of salt. The stuff that passed at "peer reviewed journals" and conferences was really nothing more than fluff with scientific sounding jargon thrown in here and there. I was participating in a study where the PI wanted to study the effects on gesturing in learning. He came in with such a heavy bias that the more an instructor gestures, the more the students will learn. As expected, there was no statistical significance or correlation. The PI was very miffed and insisted on "massaging the data" until he got something that clearly came from left field.
Good thing that silly paper kept getting rejected. Much like that study, social science research is made up of things that are fluff and abstract. These studies contribute nothing to society except serve to give the authors a "pat on the back and put him one step closer to that tenure track job" that's so coveted.
No, thank you. I left academia for industry where none of this baloney would fly. I'd rather deal with politics in industry than this baloney that goes on in academia.

[piperdiva]

Originally Posted by MinervaPallasAthena

Social Science research should be taken with a grain of salt. The stuff that passed at "peer reviewed journals" and conferences was really nothing more than fluff with scientific sounding jargon thrown in here and there. I was participating in a study where the PI wanted to study the effects on gesturing in learning. He came in with such a heavy bias that the more an instructor gestures, the more the students will learn. As expected, there was no statistical significance or correlation. The PI was very miffed and insisted on "massaging the data" until he got something that clearly came from left field.
Good thing that silly paper kept getting rejected. Much like that study, social science research is made up of things that are fluff and abstract. These studies contribute nothing to society except serve to give the authors a "pat on the back and put him one step closer to that tenure track job" that's so coveted.
No, thank you. I left academia for industry where none of this baloney would fly. I'd rather deal with politics in industry than this baloney that goes on in academia.

I left academia (Social Science) too.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

How can you tell upper class neighborhoods are nearly free of crime. Lots of crime is committed with a computer keyboard. Why do you assume facts not in evidence?

There is plenty of drug dealing and prostitution in upper class neighborhoods, it is just in private and not right out on the streets so there are not as many arrests.

[Cabound1]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

Those were my thoughts too.

They are actually only confirming what people have suspected for a long time, which is that there is institutional (state and media, that is) bias towards covering up of crimes in certain communities.

Look, I'm a lifelong Californian and a liberal Democrat (on most issues) myself, but I am calling "BS" on this too.

This covering up and making excuses for some people, while going after others -- no holds barred, is the kind of double-standard that ended up getting Donald Trump elected.

If we want to get Democrats elected again beyond the Bay Area and Los Angeles County, and the confines of all other "blue" archipelagos, then this has to change.

Can't say I want to get more liberals elected, but you are exactly right about this behavior causing the backlash that's gotten Trump elected.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by Cabound1

Can't say I want to get more liberals elected, but you are exactly right about this behavior causing the backlash that's gotten Trump elected.

Exactly. Liberals are having that moment where you accidentally scored on your own goal in a youth soccer game. That OH NO feeling ...except it is gonna last eight years!

[WizardOfRadical]

Originally Posted by Cabound1

Can't say I want to get more liberals elected, but you are exactly right about this behavior causing the backlash that's gotten Trump elected.

There was no backlash. Trump lost the popular vote by one of the largest margins in history. He won by gaming the elecotral college, which gives fly over country way too much value.

Someone in Montana has 3 or 4 times the voting power as a California voter.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical

There was no backlash. Trump lost the popular vote by one of the largest margins in history. He won by gaming the elecotral college, which gives fly over country way too much value.

Someone in Montana has 3 or 4 times the voting power as a California voter.

Gaming the electoral college?

[Pretzelogik]

It's Kalifornia, what may one expect?