This looks like an important study, and the NYT has done an interesting job of displaying data on animated graphs, but I don't think the title is properly scientific: "Extensive Data Shows Punishing
Reach of Racism for Black Boys."
The data don't tell us the cause of the disparities, only that the disparities exist. In fact, just looking a the data, it seems easier to say that the cause is not racism, because we see black women doing not only as well as white women but a bit better? The article uses the lack of disparity among women as a basis for refuting the hypothesis that black/white disparities can be " explained by differences in cognitive ability":
If such inherent differences existed by race, “you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,” said David Grusky, a Stanford sociologist who has reviewed the research.It is quite possible that there's gender-specific racism that is causing this effect...
“It’s not just being black but being male that has been hyper-stereotyped in this negative way, in which we’ve made black men scary, intimidating, with a propensity toward violence,” said Noelle Hurd, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.And it's also possible that the male reaction to racism is generally very different from the female reaction, but I don't see how these data show that. The article is using the data as basis for speculation.
Posts
163 comments:
amazing what statistics can prove
Reporters labor under the terrible requirement that what they report must be true.
Headline writers, not so much.
"In fact, just looking a the data, it seems easier to say that the cause is not racism, because we see black women doing not only as well as white women but a bit better?"
"Everyone else" seems to say the opposite, e.g.
"Black women were paid 63 percent of what non-Hispanic white men were paid in 2016. That means it takes the typical black woman 19 months to be paid what the average white man takes home in 12 months. That’s even worse than the national earnings ratio for all women, 80 percent, as reported in AAUW’s The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap."
my questions:
do millionaire parents of black kids give less support (like setting them up trust funds) to their kids so they don't have it too easy?
The set of sons-of-millionaire black kids who are incarcerated must be pretty small. Can we study that group, say, and look at why they got incarcerated? The assumption seems to be that if white sons-of millionaires are so much less incarcerated it must be that racist BS is the only explanation. But what did these kids do?
when debating stand-your-ground was debated after Tayvon martin was killed, a Florida paper had a whole site with every SYG claim readable and searchable. Supposedly to show how whites get to use it as a defense and blacks don't. The specific stories of usage were much more interesting, there were a mix of races, and a nice little window into some very very sad and depressing life situations
@Fernandistein the comparison was black and white women. Not black women and white men.
black women are affected by sexism much much more than racism in wealth. If it were a road intersection, it would be a side street meeting a major highway. Intersectionally
It has long been observed that Black boys/teens/men face a perception bias that they are dangerous and must be repressed, while black girls/teens/women can be trusted. That perception needs to change. There are as many good black men as there are good black women.
Black men do have a propensity to violence. Do they ever!
That's the real problem.
Fernandistein said...
"Everyone else" seems to say the opposite, e.g.
Your link is about the population as a whole. The study in this story, which the professor was referencing, was about a specific subset, those raised at the top.
If you look at the NY Times article, you'll see that outcomes for black men are almost exactly the same as those for both white and black women. White men outperform the other 3 groups. They're the unusual group -- not black men.
What is the data on the amount of interaction of the fathers with the sons for white vs black?
How did the sons do in school?
What about middle class blacks vs middle class whites?
What about other ethnic groups?
"If such inherent differences existed by race,"
Well, they do exist and it's obvious and the measurements have been reliably repeatable for decades.
gcochran has a recent article about "scientists" who lie about the above fact.
"Let us name some names. Jared Diamond, Howard Gardner, Philip Kitcher, Ned Block and Gerald Dworkin, Noam Chomsky, Robert Sternberg, Eric Turkheimer, Richard Lewontin. And not forgetting to speak ill of the dead, Steven J. Gould and Leon Kamin.
A number of these guys clearly believe that there are racial differences in average intelligence that need to be hidden. For example, Howard Gardner (2001) writes that he does “not condone investigations of racial differences in intelligence, because [he] think[s] that the results of these studies are likely to be incendiary.”"
Genetics cannot be denied.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
The study in this story, which the professor was referencing, was about a specific subset, those raised at the top.
I knew they must be cherry-picking their data somehow. (I won't read the NYT).
Headlines are often written by someone other than the article writer. I've heard of cases where the writer gets very annoyed with the headline--and all the complaints they get based on the headline they didn't write.
I would guess that if black men have been promoted to the top by affirmative action means alone, then it would stand to reason that their black sons will not inherit anything of worth to get ahead, except the expectation that they'll be affirmative actioned also.
It is quite possible that there's gender-specific racism that is causing this effect...
Or maybe there are "gender-specific" differences in careers/life choices/etc. that have nothing to do with "racism" or "sexism", that result in different relative outcomes for black men/white men vis-à-vis black women/white women?
We know that there are marked sex differences in choice of careers and employment history in any given career. Seems sensible to examine that data, rather than immediately plumping for some impossible to quantify, specifically "anti-black male" racist phlogiston as an explanation for the disparity.
These days all research uses the data as basis for speculation.
AllenS said...
I would guess that if black men have been promoted to the top by affirmative action means alone, then it would stand to reason that their black sons will not inherit anything of worth to get ahead, except the expectation that they'll be affirmative actioned also.
That may be true, but it does not explain why that same effect is not seen in the daughters, only the sons.
Black boys raised at the top, however..."
"... are more likely to become poor than to stay wealthy in their own adult households."
There's nothing mysterious about that, it's just regression to the mean.
Also independent of "racism" would be that your chances of remaining wealthy would be substantially better if the inherited wealth derived from, say, a hundred year old car dealership rather than a winning lottery ticket.
Steve Sailer, as you would expect, as some thoughts on this article.
One possible factor is that black males are influenced by the "Thug Life" cultural models that affect them more than girls. It even affects those in middle class black families.
"It’s not just being black but being male that has been hyper-stereotyped in this negative way, in which we’ve made black men scary, intimidating, with a propensity toward violence."
And perhaps lazy, shiftless, irresponsible, and overly influenced by peer pressure.
Any behavioral component in any of this? I am asking for a friend.
Growing up on the farm, Dad explained that wealth handed down, rarely lasted past the 3rd generation, before it was all gone. That's what he learned listening to his dad and grandad track the examples and watching their predictions come true. I just assume it is human nature, nothing more, nothing less. I assume dad explained this as a cautionary tale.(It seems to be working so far)
Ignorance is Bliss said...
That may be true, but it does not explain why that same effect is not seen in the daughters, only the sons.
See Michael K's comment at 8:25 AM. A comment that I agree with.
""Everyone else" seems to say the opposite, e.g. "
You're not comparing the same things.
This study is about the family and economic background of people: When people begin in the same place, where do they end up?
What you're comparing it to is: When people end up in the same job, how much are they paid?
Fernandistein said...
There's nothing mysterious about that, it's just regression to the mean.
Regression to the mean explains black men, and can also explain why they do worse than white men ( because there are more whites at the top, therefore the ones in the sample are not such outliers, therefore do not regress as much. )
But that does not explain the difference between black girls and black boys. If it was just regression to the mean, then the girls should regress as much as the boys.
Similar incomes but less wealth in the black families.
Sailer's take, valuable as always:
Chetty: Affluent Black Males Much More Crime-Prone, Whites at Fault (read the caption on the graph)
"It’s almost as if America has had a giant system of affirmative action over the last half century to benefit blacks, but it doesn’t work for blacks who are criminals.
So it benefits black women far more than it benefits black men because of, as Chetty’s data demonstrates, the black males’ extremely high rate of serious criminality. (Here’s an Obama Administration report on how much higher the black homicide offender rate is.)"
"If such inherent differences existed by race, “you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,”" So, Prof Grusky, what proportion of the variance do you think is explained by differences in "cognitive ability"? 0? If not, do you generally take it into account in your models? If so, how do you measure it?
AllenS said...
See Michael K's comment at 8:25 AM. A comment that I agree with
That is a plausible hypothesis.
I also wonder what role marriage plays in this. Are the women maintaining their financial status by succeeding in the business world, or by succeeding in the marriage market? A woman who grows up wealthy could learn the social skills needed to marry wealthy. A man who grew up wealthy probably won't be able to marry wealthy unless they are already succeeding financially.
"When people begin in the same place, where do they end up?"
This seems to ignore thecontext of how they arrived in that place, and what the expectations are for their effort to stay in that place
I worked in a factory. One of the black men that I worked with had chronic absenteeism, and if it wasn't for the fact that he was black, would have been fired years earlier. One time he came to work on the afternoon shift about an hour late. When the department manager (white woman) asked why he was late, he said: "I was with my dad in his office." Pretty sure he thought that was a reasonable excuse. Obviously, daddy was a managerial type. They eventually fired him after I left, he either failed a drug test, or refused to take one, but one thing is certain, he didn't rise to his daddies' stature. He became another statistic.
The punishing reach of dysfunctional Black culture, more like. Eagerly enabled by White Progs intent on keeping Black folks down and dependent. To varying degrees, Black men rebel, usually in unproductive ways, against the racist patronage of affirmative action. Black women grab it with both hands and keep a death grip on it, treasuring it and abusing it in equal measures.
The Blank Slate hypothesis permits only one explanation for any disparities in economic (or criminal) results between racial or gender groups. No statistics, over any period of time, can invalidate the Blank Slate Hypothesis itself. Such is "science" as practiced in the pages of the NYT.
The saying is "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" but it seems as if in the case of the blacks it is "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in two generations." Is that because of missing fathers? The study suggests that even wealth and good schools cannot make up for the absence of fathers. The women are almost all raised with their mothers, with a female role model and live similar lives. Most of the men are missing their father (and possibly they end up leading lives similar to the missing father.) In any case they have no chance to find out how to do what their father did. Consequently, an inevitable social change happens faster with blacks. In other words, it may be that after three generations the white profile of social change would look the same as the black profile after two generations.
I would be curious to see a comparison between the success rates of Black and White entrepreneurship. I’m guessing that initiative and independence result in a much narrower racial divide.
Ann Althouse said...
This study is about the family and economic background of people: When people begin in the same place, where do they end up?
They cherry-picked data - and ignored the word "crime" - until they found some that allowed them to say "If such inherent differences existed by race", when we already know there is no "if". They're trying to create an "if".
The paper the NYT referenced (yes, I looked to find a link to it) says:
"Finding #2: The black-white income gap is entirely driven by differences in men’s, not women’s, outcomes."
And - everyone else says otherwise.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
But that does not explain the difference between black girls and black boys. If it was just regression to the mean, then the girls should regress as much as the boys.
The paper doesn't seem to distinguish between boys and girls:
Study" "American Indian and black children [not just boys] have much higher rates of downward mobility than other groups. Black children born to parents in the top income quintile are almost as likely to fall to the bottom quintile as they are to remain in the top quintile. By contrast, white children born in the top quintile are nearly five times as likely to stay there as they are to fall to the bottom."
Ignorance, I don't trust the NYT (or any MSM outlet, especially one with an obvious agenda - like the NYT) to make a reliable reports on any controversial science. If the NYT says it, I don't care, but if your statement is supported by the original paper that might be worth addressing - a quick search, though, shows that it doesn't mention IQ or cognition, which is the most important issue; pretending otherwise by not mentioning it doesn't change reality.
wildswan said...
...Most of the men are missing their father (and possibly they end up leading lives similar to the missing father.) In any case they have no chance to find out how to do what their father did. Consequently, an inevitable social change happens faster with blacks. In other words, it may be that after three generations the white profile of social change would look the same as the black profile after two generations.
3/20/18, 8:50 AM
Interesting point. I wonder if the study did any correlations analysis on this.
Are you allowed to say "black boys?"
It is quite possible that there's gender-specific racism
Michael K beat me to it with his "Thug Life"
I was going to say that you see upper middle class black males getting called out in HS for "Acting White"
that racism is inflected by blacks on blacks.
It's all about the boys and their missing fathers, but the NYT doesn't want to say that because it would be contrary to their view that single parenting is just fine.
"One possible factor is that black males are influenced by the "Thug Life" cultural models that affect them more than girls. It even affects those in middle class black families."
I started watching Atlanta recently. It's a great show. Quirky, funny, a bit dark.
The creator, Donald Glover, seems from his Wikipedia profile to be from a solidly middle class family, and had a very good education. Yet his show and his character are immersed in a thug life style, no doubt influenced by his career in the rap game as Childish Gambino. But you can tell from the way he speaks, he doesn't belong there. But the glamorization of casual violence is everywhere in the show.
“It’s not just being black but being male that has been hyper-stereotyped in this negative way, in which we’ve made black men scary, intimidating, with a propensity toward violence,” said Noelle Hurd, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.
It's not just being human, but being male that is being hyper-stereotyped in a negative way.
John Ogbu did something very similar 20 years ago, "Black American Studenrs in an Affluent Suburb", which I still have in a box somewhere. He did fieldwork, that is, interviews, etc.
Ogbu, an African, credited American black culture for the phenomenon.
Even the black girls better outcomes is known.
Fernandistein said...
The paper the NYT referenced (yes, I looked to find a link to it) says...
The link you provide is not the actual paper, it is only a summary. The actual paper is here:
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race_paper.pdf
I’m not sure exactly how you completely skip over the punishing effects of race, to “the punishing effects of racism”
Sex differences.
How do yellow and brown boys and girls perform?
It seems that yellow boys and girls do or did better than white, black, brown, and red boys and girls.
The NYT's quasi-religious obsession with [color] diversity limits their appreciation of diversity (i.e. individual).
Or, the punishing effects of a failed culture.
“It’s not just being black but being male that has been hyper-stereotyped in this negative way, in which we’ve made black men scary, intimidating, with a propensity toward violence,” said Noelle Hurd, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.
The "Victims" stereotype are the ones who are the greatest proponents fostering it.
Middle class black kids talking ghetto trash, and flashing prison tats and gang signs
We are conceived with a bias for "color", but it requires institutions (e.g. "diversity") to progress and normalize prejudice.
A fool and his money...
When people end up in the same job, how much are they paid?
This fallacy is the origin of much bad analysis. No two people do the job exactly the same, have exactly the same qualifications and background experience, nor bring the same resources to bear on tasks. That is, the phrase "the same job" is doing the impossible in that scenario. We know when variables are factored out that women actually earn slightly more than men do right now "for the same job." That is, for people with closely correlated experience and resources, men are starting to lag behind women in earnings. The gap is even more pronounced for millenial/post-millenial workers.
Now what? This "gap" will never be addressed because it falls outside the reality that SJW want to focus on. Just like Title IX was written to increase female participation in higher ed. Well, it's so successful that men are now the minority in student and professor populations. Will this "over-correction be addressed?
No. We will go on battling the myth of the white male wage gap right up until the day the last white male retires. The SJW will blame conservatives for ruining America.
The half-breed characterization (e.g. African-American) combined with redistributive change (e.g. perpetual smoothing functions), was sufficient to normalize alienation and [spiritual] corruption of broad and progressive (e.g. generational) subsets of our population.
Which is more racist, treating someone differently because of the color of their skin, or only being able to talk about it in the context of them being either a victim, or beneficiary of their skin color.
Sex differences. It could also be gender differences. More or less masculine. More or less feminine.
"Extensive Data Shows[sic] Punishing Reach of Racism for Black Boys."
Just another misleading headline that some morons will take seriously.
Here's my suggestion on how to change our "perception" of black men and crime.
Black men should stop committing so much violent crime.
White liberals could help out here. Stop inventing excuses for black men and their propensity for committing so much violent crime.
Its past time to resurrect John Ogbu's studies.
He was acknowleged but studiously ignored by the educational PTB at the time, but being black he was at least tolerated and not driven out of UC Berkeley.
Its hard to imagine anyone, even anyone black, that would be permitted Ogbu's freedom of speech or freedom of research these days.
Sadly he died rather young, and did not get the chance to expand on his later work. I corresponded with several of his collaborators shortly after his death.
"But that does not explain the difference between black girls and black boys. If it was just regression to the mean, then the girls should regress as much as the boys."
The girls don't regress as much as the boys because of biological sex differences. Girls have two X chromosomes and boys have only one. If a boy gets an unusually good or bad X chromosome it has a larger impact on his overall phenotype than a girl, who has two to average things out. The Y is very small and only has a few genes, while the X is a full-sized chromosome. Males and females have the same average intelligence, but males are more prone to genius and to feeble-mindedness.
There is also criminality, which is mostly a male issue and which tends to derail upward mobility.
I suspect the results reflect black culture. Black american male success is a big no no.
The answer is always : Racism.
It does not matter what the question is, what the data show or what a reasonable analysis of the data and alternative explanations show.
As to Howard Gardner. He has never (to my knowledge) found reasonable empirical evidence of his multiple intelligences theory.
Intelligence is socially constructed. That is not the issue. The question is what does a measure of intelligence predict? See the work of Frank Schmidt and John Hunter if you want voluminous (now politically incorrect) evidence that our most common types of intelligence testing predict many measures of success. These measures are also highly correlated.
Unfortunately, these tests also show persistent racial and cultural differences. We have known this for over 50 years, but that research is no longer allowed in US Universities. You cannot even discuss IQ differences at an American university.
As a general rule, rich/educated women insist on marrying/reproducing with rich/educated men. Baby mommas gonna cash in one way or another if they can.
Affirmative action, fatherlessness and thug life.
Blacks whose ancestors have been here longer term vs recent arrivals - how do they compare? Presumably they would face the same racism issues.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
The link you provide is not the actual paper, it is only a summary. The actual paper is here:
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race_paper.pdf
Good work. Does it contradict what I quoted from the summary?
Without reading all 106 pages, I did notice that it approvingly references the largely debunked "stereotype" "threat".
Quoting myself from yesterday's Peterson thread:
Peterson is part of the emerging group of academics and scientists that are willing to discuss unpleasant truths that the left is determined to silence. A perfect example is IQ. Honest experts will tell you that IQ is an accurate reflection of a person's intelligence and ability to succeed in our complex modern world. Peterson brings up the fact that 10% of the population is basically unemployable. The U.S. military refuses to accept anyone with an IQ of 83 or less (10% of population) because they can't be trained to do even the simplest tasks correctly and consistently. They are a net negative contribution.
No an implication that not even Peterson discusses is to view this fact in the light of another unpleasant truth, that IQ varies by race. Black IQ (worldwide, controlling for culture) is significantly lower than White or Asian. This means that Peterson's lowest 10% will be significantly skewed racially. It will be much more Black than White or Asian.
Throw in the destruction of the Black family and faith, and the rise of thug culture; and things really look dire.
The unpleasant demographic truth is that not only do we have a large Black unemployable underclass, it appears that there is very little that can be done to "fix' the problem. Certainly the last sixty years have proven that throwing money at the problem won't work.
Those wondering about fathers in the home may be right. Here.
Most of the social pathology seen in male black Americans is just not seen in those from other countries, even countries with a history of slavery like those in the West Indies, although most of the black students I see from there are female.
I have.met a few African young men who seem free of the American black male social dysfunction.
Fernandistein said...
Good work. Does it contradict what I quoted from the summary?
Don't know. I'm practicing my How to Talk about Papers you haven't Read skills.
Whether or not young black males have a propensity for violence is a verboten subject. Whether or not white people have a propensity for racism is a subject worthy of endless study. Studies show that white people have a propensity for funding studies on white racism.....You can get into an endless chicken or egg discussion. I grew up in a housing project. I had a fair number of positive experiences with black people, but you can't live in a black neighborhood without some day having a scary or damaging experience courtesy of some young black men. Many women who clutch their purses at bus stops have had the experience of having their purses snatched.
Thanks Crack for letting me know that Progs are responsible for the social injustice and the New Jim Crow Michelle Alexander so clearly illustrates, never the less this Prog will continue to work with Black and other minority students to help them get a leg up on their way to careers in STEM fields.
This Conservative will continue to work with all students to help them get a leg up on their way to careers in all fields.
I agree with Michael K's comment about thug life.
I remember reading study a few years ago that tracked people who were rehoused elsewhere after Katrina hit New Orleans. Both men and women were given assistance by church groups and different levels of government.
It was something like 80% of females did not return to their hometown because they new they had better life wherever they were now settled than previous life in ghetto. Only 20% of males enjoyed their new circumstances and stayed while most returned to their life of poverty in New Orleans.
Males and females have different ideas of how to live a good life.
I'm out of free NYT articles so I didn't read it. However I find it difficult to believe that black upper middle class and wealthy sons are that disproportionately criminal compared to white sons. The very characteristics that enable anyone of any racial or ethnic background to achieve and maintain upper middle class or wealthy status require a certain level of intelligence along with the work and social ethics that preclude living the criminal life or the welfare style life. Assortative mating isn't just for upper class whites. I doubt that successful black professional men or successful black business owner don't marry comparable black woman.
Gahrie said...
Quoting myself from yesterday's Peterson thread:
...The U.S. military refuses to accept anyone with an IQ of 83 or less (10% of population)
Now I quote my response: "It's more like 14% to 17%, depending how you count, not 10%." (13% of whites, 44% of blacks.)
Birches said...
Those wondering about fathers in the home may be right. Here.
"Poor black boys are more likely to do well in life when they came from 'places where many lower-income black children had fathers at home.'"
Not necessarily their own fathers, just some fathers, in a place - a neighborhood.
Where are those places? Are they common or rare? Could they be statistical anomalies?
However, the statement is in accord with "Why Parenting May Not Matter and Why Most Social Science Research is Probably Wrong", i.e. to a kid the neighborhood and its residents are generally important than the kid's parents.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Fernandistein: Does it contradict what I quoted from the summary?
Don't know. I'm practicing my How to Talk about Papers you haven't Read skills.
That goes along with my "Assume Everything Written in the NYT is a Damned Lie" skills.
Where are those places? Are they common or rare? Could they be statistical anomalies?
Oh! Oh! And what other characteristics do those places have?
"Thanks Crack for letting me know that Progs are responsible for the social injustice and the New Jim Crow Michelle Alexander so clearly illustrates, never the less this Prog will continue to work with Black and other minority students to help them get a leg up on their way to careers in STEM fields."
They're unquestionably responsible for promulgating it. Occam's razor. Who benefits from Black dysfunction and dependency? Without it, the Democrat Party ceases to exist.
They're unquestionably responsible for promulgating it. Occam's razor. Who benefits from Black dysfunction and dependency? Without it, the Democrat Party ceases to exist.
The vote plantations.
"when debating stand-your-ground was debated after Tayvon martin was killed, a Florida paper had a whole site with every SYG claim readable and searchable. Supposedly to show how whites get to use it as a defense and blacks don't. The specific stories of usage were much more interesting, there were a mix of races, and a nice little window into some very very sad and depressing life situations"
The absurdity there is that they were really addressing abolishing the Retreat Doctrine, which a large majority of states have done, and not the statutory immunity issue, which was what the left really hated, but was enacted in the same legislation. Retreat Doctrine was never an issue with George Zimmerman, because he never had a chance to retreat, having been slugged, knocked to the ground, and pummeled by Marin, sitting on his chest, at the time that he shot Martin in self defense. With Martin on top, Zimmerman couldn't retreat, and, thus stand-your-ground was irrelevant. But Inmunity was very relevant. It offered Zimmerman the opportunity for a pre trial immunity, that he could have won, where the defendant proves self-defense by a preponderance, and is thereafter immune to both criminal and civil suit. Very likely would have won, but his defense team took the more conservative route (since they had plenty of money), went to trial, where the prosecution had to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In the end, it wasn't close. Still, with Immunity, Martin's family couldn't sue Zimmerman, despite his acquittal (as was done to OJ Simpson). The real reason that they hate the FL Immunity law is that they have a much harder time using the process of prosecution to harm people who legitimately use lethal force in self-defense. As a note, there had been little litigation on or use of the Immunity provisions, so any attempt to look at its effects would have been statistically fraudulent. Not so much the irrelevant Stand-You-Ground/Retreat Doctrine.
"One possible factor is that black males are influenced by the "Thug Life" cultural models that affect them more than girls. It even affects those in middle class black families".
We saw that at the fairly expensive prep school that my kid attended. Some of the black male high schoolers took to wearing gang like atire. Weird, that when they were younger they tended to dress no differently than their white and Asian classmates. School had a dress code for middle school, and it seemed like once that wasn't in affect for them, the moved to dress much more like blacks from the inner city, than their neighbor's in expensive suburban homes.
Bruce Hayden,
How much of a factor is fear of being accused of "acting white"?
"The article is using the data as basis for speculation."
More likely, as support for the predetermined narrative. As the main blogpost and this thread show, there is a lot of distrust about how the data is being spun, especially on a topic like this where shout-downs of anyone dissenting from that narrative are now common. And it goes without saying that neither the NYT nor the academics (sociologists mostly, it seems) writing the study command the trust of anyone inclined to doubt that narrative. That's what happens when both the universities (especially social science departments like sociology) and the leading journals become the heavily politicized monocultures they are now.
There are lots of reasons why some people are more successful in life than others. Intelligence, skills, personality, character, sociability, attitude, determination -- all are factors, and hardly the only ones. How to parse that out when measuring outcomes between large groups defined in racial and gender terms is undoubtedly a challenge. Perhaps the authors of this study have come up with a persuasive way of figuring it all out.
For me, I think it's best just to wait and see how others in the field, notably those who have long dissented from the preferred narrative, react to both the reliability of the data and the persuasiveness of the study's interpretation of it.
More White married women might forego income-earning jobs in order to stay home and raise their children.
All boys understand they are growing up to be men, and all boys soak up the attention of honorable men like thirsty sponges.
Several generations of single-mom households (enabled by well-intentioned but counterproductive social programs) left the African American community hollowed-out -- with an insufficient number of honorable men to mentor African American boys and show them how good men conduct themselves.
It's no coincidence that a non-trivial number of the most successful black men grew up attending black churches, had military careers and were raised outside the US.
What the researchers found may not be the result of white racism, but it definitely has roots in white condescension.
Ann, your post has an accidental line-break in the words
"Extensive Data Shows Punishing
Reach of Racism for Black Boys."
I suspect the defining difference between black men and white men in this study is going to be "marriage".
One thing I noted a long time ago about men- those who were married, and especially those married with children, worked harder, were more conscientious, and were thus paid more for those characteristics. Everything I have seen in demographic data tells me that black men are far less likely to be married than white men.
Rich black fathers are more likely than rich white fathers to have gotten rich through a career in sports or entertainment. The mindset that you adopt by going from poverty to ultra high net worth in a short period of time is the one that usually leads back to poverty. This is proven by the fact that 80% of NFL players eventually find themselves bankrupt or in financial stress. Getting rich rapidly fosters a different set of values from, say, building a business and grinding out 5% profits year after year.
Fathers pass their values to their sons. So ultimately it's not about race. It's about how a boy's rich father got rich. That doesn't follow the popular and disgusting narratives that attribute everything to race.
There may be multiple things going on including bad or unrepresentative data as well as multiple causes for whatever is underlying this.. BUT, I venture that black men are under more peer and cultural pressure than are black women to not "act white." I have seen the sons of quite well-to-do black families consciously adopt thug attitudes, dress, and deportment under social pressure and as a way of giving a metaphorical finger to their "sell-out" parents--and if that is sustained post-adolescence, it cannot end well. I have not seen the daughters do this to anything like the same extent.
Scott at 11:13: That occurred to me, as well.
More White married women might forego income-earning jobs in order to stay home and raise their children.
They may forgo jobs that offer taxable earned income and choose income-sharing jobs (e.g. wife and mother) in order to stay home and raise the couple's children. The progress of friendship with "benefits", elective divorce, and single-parent households, has made this an inconvenient choice. As has the reduced capacity for time management and self-moderation.
It's an important issue. Arguably, the original sin of America was the slavery issue. I say this as someone with great affection and respect for our founding fathers and the structure of our Republic.
To the Left, they have a very simple algorithm on race.
1. You are not allowed to point out differences between races.
2. If positive differences towards blacks, then YAY!
3. If negative differences towards blacks, then Racism!
So, this NYT article is simply a high-falutin', scholarly 3.
For the Right, we do have some challenges and work cut out for us on the race issue. Here's my thoughts:
1. Generally, it sucks to be a minority. Our country is 13% black. That is tough, because birds of a feather do in fact flock together. This is what the Left means when they shout "white privilege." Wrong inflammatory label, but they are close to the concept.
2. Generally, it's hard to grow up without a father. Who's gonna teach you? Who's gonna protect you? Who's gonna guide you? Who's gonna provide for you? I think 75% is the new normal for black kids born out of wedlock. This is a terrible development, a knife at the throat of the black community.
3. Generally, "thug culture" won't breed happiness and success. It breeds violence, jail and early death. Bad idea to celebrate it. White kids in the suburbs who like Tupac, don't help.
4. Generally, the false charge of racism doesn't help. There are many fine men and women in the black community. There are many more whites who abhor racism, then practice it. These two groups have a lot in common. The problem is that activist blacks and leftist whites kinda steamroll over all this natural goodwill, with their incessant politicking.
It'd be great for blacks to start voting at 20% levels for the GOP. This would help black communities, give them some real political leverage in both parties. Of course, this would hurt the Dems, but fuck 'em. They are part of the problem.
I'm inclined to ask about the success of the parents. How did the parents become wealthy? Was their wealth an anomaly? If so, what is the probability the anomaly will repeat?
Perhaps the results for the young men are perfectly normal, while the parents represent a departure from the norm?
@mockturtle: Yeah, the NYT article is an object lesson in how to reach conclusions that fit your favorite narrative by framing the hypothesis dishonestly.
Blacks, Latinos and Whites need to marry Asians and procreate with them. We need way more Asians in this country. Get the best from India and China here as fast as we can.
Jews can keep with intra-marriage of the Jewish ethnicity/race whatever the term this week is.
In 100 years, there will be no whites, blacks, or Latinos in the US.
We’ll all look more like Tiger Woods and Shannon Lee.
There will be Americans and Jewish/Americans.
The blacks will be in Africa, the whites (what’s left of them) will be in Europe and Australia.
The Latinos will be in Europe or South America.
The Arabs, Persians and Turks will be killing each other over Allah.
All assertions are valid in the mass, and not individually as DNA would determine them. But to hazard a guess, the male blacks in the New World are still demanding life under discipline by a Father/Bishop/Taskmaster, and if they don't get it, then they will take over and become master in their community.
And today's culture notices that White people do not have that problem. Whites more easily submit to authority pecking orders, which has several middle areas , not just a Grand Master and the lowest servants.
My guess is supported by seeing 2 things. First, the blacks do well in the military. And second, we see the black women do not need this. The women come from a tradition of House servants that are treated as humans rather than dangerous beasts doing the Field work. ( See, Jefferson Thomas and his blacks).
the original sin of America was the slavery issue
The original compromise.
birds of a feather do in fact flock together
We are conceived with a color bias. However, for that bias to extend beyond sexual selection, requires institutional and persistent discrimination (e.g. "diversity").
So ultimately it's not about race. It's about how a boy's rich father got rich.
I would suggest that it is both Nature and nurture, that establishes a bias (e.g. color) and prejudice (e.g. physical and mental limits). Still, whereas the latter can be persistent and determinative, it is often not without cause (e.g. secular). So, yes, principles do, in fact, matter.
MarkW said...
"If you look at the NY Times article, you'll see that outcomes for black men are almost exactly the same as those for both white and black women. White men outperform the other 3 groups. They're the unusual group -- not black men."
I was thinking the same thing
Trad guy,
In the US:
East Asians submit to authority.
Whites manipulate East Asians.
Of the whites, the Irish are the best at manipulation. The Jews are a close second. The Italians are too hot headed, but they’ve wisely miscegenation more with the Irish and Germans.
The Germans are solid citizens. They are the largest ethnicity in the US (ahead of African Americans at 2 and Irish Americans at 3). The US would be a paradise if the only people here were the progeny of Germans who immigrated here from 1840 to 1910.
Trump is German but those genes are dormant in him. They didn’t take.
Trump is a manipulator. Got it from his Mom’s side of the family. Scottish.
There weren’t enough Scots in the US so that they could compete with the Irish. I’d say the Scots are the Irish’s equals in manipulation. Just not enough of them here.
The Scots-Irish are just the scum traitors. The English manipulated them. Did us a favor. The weakest of the Scots and the weakest of the Irish moved to Ulster and bent the knee to the Kings and Queens.
Their progeny who came to the US are the hill-billies.
The White Trash like McCain. These folks are too stupid to manipulate. We just ignore them or make fun of them when we aren’t ignoring them.
The article uses the lack of disparity among women as a basis for refuting the hypothesis that black/white disparities can be " explained by differences in cognitive ability":
If such inherent differences existed by race, “you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,” said David Grusky, a Stanford sociologist who has reviewed the research.
The article was written by someone dishonest, or else who know very little about rich people.
What % of the white an black women from rich families went out and started their own businesses? What % earn their current income, rather than have rich husbands who earn their current income?
The rich people I know, the boys were expected to go out and produce. The girls were expected to marry well.
Mommy and Daddy being able to afford the best schools, the right vacations, etc. makes it easy for you to marry well. And hey, if they can hire your hubby, you can find a smart aggressive one who'll marry you to get the job.
So no, the male - female difference does not prove the "cognitive differences" hypothesis wrong.
@MarkW:
"If you look at the NY Times article, you'll see that outcomes for black men are almost exactly the same as those for both white and black women. White men outperform the other 3 groups. They're the unusual group -- not black men."
And, what's the reason for this?
In my opinion, it's understanding the concept of capital. My father was from DC, and his parents owned a high-end clothing store in DuPont Circle. He learned business at an early age.
For 2 decades, he pinched pennies, drove a modest car, always made lunches, and was a generally uptight, pain in the ass. However, what he was doing was saving, buying rental property (capital), and making money off his money.
By age 45 or so, he didn't have to work. He owned enough shit that generated enough income to do whatever he wanted.
I don't know whether white males in general are doing this, and whether black men in general are not doing this. But I have a hunch.
The key to wealth and freedom isn't working for a salary. It's owning stuff and earning $$ off it.
Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
"Generally, the false charge of racism doesn't help. There are many fine men and women in the black community. There are many more whites who abhor racism, then practice it. These two groups have a lot in common. The problem is that activist blacks and leftist whites kinda steamroll over all this natural goodwill, with their incessant politicking."
BAG, you know perfectly well that in your day-to-day affairs, you are a racist. Where you live, where you go, who you associate with, and how you interact with strangers are all determined in large part by race. We know that because you are alive, and you wouldn't be if you hadn't learned those lessons. So when you babble about "many more whites who abhor racism then (sic) practice it", you are either utterly clueless about your own behavior, or else you are trying to deflect the anger you believe you have earned onto others.
At the time I was growing up in Eugene, Oregon, there were maybe 30 black people in Lane County, and I had no contact with any of them. I was taught, by my parents and my teachers, that "Negroes" were unfortunate victims of racism, and were no different from anyone else. Treat them with respect and they will treat you the same.
Fortunately, I survived learning what an absolute crock of shit that was, although it was a near-run thing.
Let me distill it down to the brass tacks.
It is all about your attitude and the choices you make. If you have a shitty, entitled attitude and make bad life decisions....you lose.
If you have a pleasant demeanor and get along with others, have ambitions, avoid the easy road....you win.
“Rich black fathers are more likely than rich white fathers to have gotten rich through a career in sports or entertainment.”
Reminds me of when my kid transferred to that private school at the start of 3rd grade. They had met two kids the first day of school, one black, the other Vietnamese (who, ultimately, of course, went to Stanford), and the other Black. Met the parents. Vietnamese kid’s parents were a dentist and a programmer. No surprise. Black kid’s father was big, maybe 6’6”, and solid. Figured he had to be an athlete to afford the school. Big enough for either basketball or football. Started talking to him. Turns out he was an attorney for an international corporation. He did some trademark work, so we talked shop. Came close to embarrassing myself though with, my assumption that he made his money from athletics. Turns out that his entire family is big - father his size, and one brother 6’11”, and none of them were into sports.
BAG, you know perfectly well that in your day-to-day affairs, you are a racist. Where you live, where you go, who you associate with, and how you interact with strangers are all determined in large part by race. We know that because you are alive, and you wouldn't be if you hadn't learned those lessons. So when you babble about "many more whites who abhor racism then (sic) practice it", you are either utterly clueless about your own behavior, or else you are trying to deflect the anger you believe you have earned onto others.
Umm, No. You are incorrect.
I got on top of the race issue early in life, by growing up in a wonderful, blue collar multi-race, neighborhood. So, I learned to navigate around racial tensions, and treat and judge people as individuals. Sports were key, because you were judged on you could do on the field, not what you looked like.
On the intellectual macro level, I focus more on culture, than race. Race is becoming less and less important, as a learned commentator above notes, due to so much inter-racial marrying.
Unlike race, culture resonates. Some cultures breed hardwork and success, some value other things.
It's the culture, Stupid, not the race. And there are several thriving minority cultures spread throughout the country. You gotta find them.
Brings to mind the old, "If America coughs, black men get the flu". If we're in an era of unprecedented hostility towards men, then black men are going to suffer the worst of it.
MarkW said...
If you look at the NY Times article, you'll see that outcomes for black men are almost exactly the same as those for both white and black women. White men outperform the other 3 groups. They're the unusual group -- not black men.
MarkW FTW
Combine that with someone else's point about the source of the wealth (if you made your money by being a sports star, all you can really pass on to your son is some genetics, and "revision to the mean" is a bitch. If you made your money by building a successful business, it can take several generations to destroy that), and the paper's claims pretty much fall apart
Methinks Jupiter projects.
What seems to elude everyone about this situation is that while blacks as a group have lower IQs, lower future time orientation, and a higher propensity to violence, almost certainly as a result of 60 millennia of separate evolution in a very different environment, all of these traits seem to be uniquely toxic in the modern American environment. We seem to be the Petri dish in which this toxic culture thrives. So, yeah, they could be right. Black dysfunction is the product of a larger culture that fosters and encourages bad behavior.
mockturtle said...
"Methinks Jupiter projects."
What is that supposed to mean? That I am actually the one who goes around pistol-whipping black guys, and yet I have somehow convinced myself that they were doing it to me? Whoever is compiling the FBI crime statistics seems to have the same psychological defect.
The other point that seems to get lost in all this pontification is that gang-bangers do not think they are losing. They think they are winning. They get the rewards they enjoy without the boredom and toil which the rest of us put up with. It's true that they end up dead or in prison, but that really is not a major concern to someone who is not future-oriented. Thrills and spills, money for nuthin', and The Welfare pays your baby-momma to raise your bastards to be just like you. What's not to like?
mockturtle said...
"Methinks Jupiter projects."
Oh, wait. I get it. I'm the one who bases his behavior on race, but I'm projecting that onto BAG. Got it. Except, where I live, race isn't much of an issue, 'cause there just aren't that many black people. But BAG is really BAWG, and you better believe he does not live and work and party down in the places where the Bay Area Black Guys do. He knows better than to leave his car on certain streets, and when he sees three or four young black guys walking toward him he knows how to make himself scarce. He is all non-racist, which means in practice that he has learned how to ensure that the plague of blackness falls on others less nimble than himself. BAWG isn't likely to find himself pinned down under Trayvon Martin, getting his head bashed on the concrete. That's your real privilege, and it's class privilege. The privilege to call other people "racist" because they face realities you don't have to.
The Scots-Irish are just the scum traitors. The English manipulated them. Did us a favor. The weakest of the Scots and the weakest of the Irish moved to Ulster and bent the knee to the Kings and Queens.
Instead of to the Pope? And which has the higher standard of living? Ireland or Ulster?
Jupiter, I do understand what you are talking about. It's just that it seems you are conflating race and culture. I could be wrong.
I know a fair number of black doctors. All the ones I can think of have professional parents, usually doctors.
The medical students I had that were black had similar backgrounds. I did have one black student whose parents were both Black Panthers and he was kind of odd. I finally figured out that he did not know how t talk to white people but he eventually made it.
Intact families are critical but some middle class black parents run into the thug life culture with their teenaged boys.
My sister's nice black neighbors wound with their son arrested for murder.
Mock turtle
We’re in the US. Who gives a shit about Ulster and Ireland and England. Those places were shitholes so our ancestors left.
The Queen of England and the Pope are both useless figureheads. So is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Will and Harry are the Elsa and Anna Disney princes.
The Irish in America threw off that Roman Catholic bullshit a long time ago.
@Jupiter,
Calm down, jeez. Obviously, you've been traumatized by all those smelly White hippies in Eugene Oregon! (I used to spend summers in Eugene in the 70s. Sex, drugs & rocknroll, baby!).
Claim 1: There are significant problems in black culture. Check.
Claim 2: There are also significant numbers of friendly, funny, driven, black individuals who don't make headlines, and go about their productive lives. Check.
Claim 3: White Leftists are a huge problem, because they agitate for social welfare/big government solutions to EVERY problem in the black community. Check.
Claim 4: Racial hucksters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson unite with 3 to exacerbate the problems. Check.
The key is to support and migrate towards the great parts of black culture (such as CYO or PAL basketball, jazz, churches, etc,) and migrate away from the crappy parts (gangsta rap music, welfare, drug dealing, etc).
It's not that complicated.
So rich blacks spoil their sons more than their daughters and more than rich whites/Asians.
Last year, a gambling den (sweepstakes are legal) took over the old Salvation Army store in site of my house. It's full 7 days a week with blacks in nice but not really expensive cars. The overflow parks in the closed BoA building across the street.
mockturtle said...
"It's just that it seems you are conflating race and culture. I could be wrong."
I could be wrong also, although the evidence I am aware of says otherwise. But perhaps the question is fundamentally irrelevant. Whether the problem is cultural or genetic, it is clearly inherited, and it is clearly not responding to the various tender-hearted remedies that have been tried. Something like a third of black men end up in prison or on probation. And while some of that may be for drugs, most of it is for acts of violence. And the acts of violence they go to prison for are likely a small fraction of the acts of violence they actually committed. Every one of those incarcerated assholes represents a long train of innocent victims, robbed, beaten, raped and murdered. When I hear liberals, black, white or yellow, talking about their high-minded plans to "help" the "black community", what I hear them saying is, "Don't worry, the next victim will be one of your kids, not one of mine".
Bay Area Guy said...
"The key is to support and migrate towards the great parts of black culture (such as CYO or PAL basketball, jazz, churches, etc,) and migrate away from the crappy parts (gangsta rap music, welfare, drug dealing, etc).
It's not that complicated."
Oh, great, glad to hear you've got that all figured out. I just need to "support and migrate". Kind of like "duck and cover", right? Anyone you know been raped or killed or robbed at gunpoint lately? No? Well, heck, it's mighty white of you to even give a damn about this trivial little difficulty. Mighty white.
Are you kidding me? "Support and migrate towards"? Are you out of your fucking mind? White people have been supporting black people for three or four generations, and we have been doing more than our share of migrating, too. Ask the people who used to own valuable property in Detroit, or Baltimore, or Gary, or Buffalo, or Birmingham, or ....
If this was your problem, you wouldn't be babbling about supporting and migrating toward jazz night at the local black church, which you don't live within ten miles of. You obviously feel pretty good about the whole thing. The right people are getting taxed, the right prosperous cities are being turned into wastelands, the right people are getting turned away from college so some clown who can't spell his own name can "get an education" before he goes to prison, the right people are getting beaten, robbed, raped and murdered, the right people are going to prison for it -- Oh it's a smoothly functioning machine, which discomfits BAWG not in the least. And best of all, and arguably most important, BAWG can tell himself that he is not a racist.
I had a post on this: http://bit.ly/2GN8x4e
Earnings gaps were small in neighborhoods “where many lower-income black children had fathers at home. Poor black boys did well in such places, whether their own fathers were present or not.”
Sadly, very few low-income black kids grow up in father-rich neighborhoods.
The black marriage rate is much lower than the white marriage rate at all income levels.
I do think black males face much more negative stereotypes than black females.
"..Reach of Racism for Black Boys."
Who you calling 'boy'?
came close to embarrassing myself though with, my assumption that he made his money from athletics.
I'd assume that of anyone who was 6'6" and built like a tank.
@Bay Area
"...In my opinion, it's understanding the concept of capital. My father was from DC, and his parents owned a high-end clothing store in DuPont Circle. He learned business at an early age.
For 2 decades, he pinched pennies, drove a modest car, always made lunches, and was a generally uptight, pain in the ass. However, what he was doing was saving, buying rental property (capital), and making money off his money...."
It's no the concept of capital, they don't understand. It's the concept of delayed gratification which your story amply illustrates
As to Michael K's "thug life"... at an auto assembly plant in that I know of, welfare offices were used as hiring pools. After completing their 90 day probationary period, most black males developed the "player" lifestyle. Where the women coming off welfare were concientious workers, taking all the o.t. available, the men generally didn't give two shits about their output and soon worked often enough to support their "party lifestyle". Small sample, lower middle class folks granted. The contrast in their behavior was stunning.
"Extensive Data Shows Punishing Reach of Racism for Black Boys."
The data that showed a slight advantage for Black females over White females relative to parental income put the authors and editors in a tough spot. They came up with that unsupported headline to provide some "balance" and comfort for their usual audience.
Run the study to compare native born African Americans with Africans who have immigrated recently to try to sort out what role culture is playing. Also control for how the wealth was obtained. Was it a sudden windfall or was it earned over many years? Lots of lottery winners end up broke too.
Jupiter, you may recall my writing that I was once married to a black man and have a biracial daughter. He was from TX, loved horses and fishing and was neither in a gang nor in prison. Didn't even own a firearm. He was not from a rich family by any means. His father was career military and his grandparents were hog farmers. He was very hard working. He worked for many years as a longshoreman and had a landscaping business, as well. You would have liked him. Everyone did who knew him.
Some comments on the comments: Slavery is America's original sin. If that is true, then black people and recent immigrants from Latin America were born without sin, and they are more deserving to live in Eden than us. The only--and its only partial--way to redeem our fallen state is to suspend judgement on blacks and to welcome as many Hispanics into this country as choose to come here....... If your experience with black people leads you to despise most and distrust all of them, you might want to consider the possibility that the fault might lie in you. On the other hand, if you think Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were victims of white oppression, then the fault truly does lie in you.....I grew up in a housing project and lived and worked among lower income blacks for a good chunk of my life. I had many positive experiences because many blacks are genuinely kind and decent, but you only have to have a couple of encounters with guys like Michael Brown to sour the kumbaya. And guys like Michael Brown are you nevitable.......My hope is that if everyone pretends to be tolerant, then, over time, the resentments will dissipate and the presence will no longer be necessary. Stranger things have happened.
Forgive the misspellings. Presence = pretence ........Although there are no real differences between the sexes and races, the differences in IQ and character between a typical Trump and a typical Hillary voter are stunning. Most Trump voters are stupid. There are some with a certain amount of low animal cunning but that's not true intelligence. They like to chase after underaged girls when they're not rich enough to pursue porn stars and fashion models.
Lots of lottery winners end up broke too.
Old habits die hard. Or don't die at all, as with a friend from years ago whose house was a cluttered mess. She asked for help organizing it so several of us pitched in and created, if not Martha Stewart, at least Ladies' Home Journal. She was so pleased! It lasted maybe a month before her house became a mess again. We loved her, anyway. ;-)
Money management is yuuuge, yes. I get a kick out of the commercial showing a black man riding a bus. "I have a car but I can't afford insurance. Something always comes up. Like [indicating a shopping bag on the seat next to him] my little girls birthday." OK, what's wrong [according to my values] with this picture?
1. If he's spending as much on a little girl's birthday presents as he would on insurance premiums his priorities are a little off. [IMO!]
2. Planning ahead. He doesn't. Has he ever heard of a budget?
I'm not suggesting that all blacks are poor money managers but many are and there are definite cultural differences in spending habits.
mockturtle said...
"You would have liked him. Everyone did who knew him."
Then I probably would have as well, and I'm glad you had the pleasure of being married to him, and sorry he is gone. And if all black men were like him, we would be talking about the problem of white men, and our unfortunate criminality and fecklessness compared to blacks and Asians. Further, I suppose that, if inter-racial marriages occurred at the rate determined by chance in a race-blind society, the "black community" would cease to exist in a generation or two anyway.
But so what? I'm afraid I don't see how those happy counter-factuals have much relevance to the ongoing disaster that is black people in America. The Left apparently expects to keep white people docile with guilt about our supposed racism long enough to replace us with people more to their liking. I don't know how the replacement thing is going to work out, but I am sick and tired of the docility. I'm proud of my race and the civilization we have built, and I want to pass it on to my children. I'm sick of being told that the fecklessness and criminality of blacks are my fault. I want the institutions of my society to stop telling me the obvious lie that I am the problem.
Joanne Jacobs said...
"‘Unity Day’ fails"
"I was insulted or emotionally upset or intellectually upset or it sounded funny" wrote poster Fernandiwhatver in an post to post readers.
"Already safe at school"
Thanks! I liked it because it reinforced what I already thought, therefore I think it's correct and correctness is why I liked it.
The only element of this study worth noting is the single-mindedness of the authors in refusing to accept any possible answer except racism. The tests they claim rule out alternative possibilities don't and they rather obviously refuse to consider related factors. For example they offer class as the alternative to racism but not culture.
They note circumstances clearly not driven by racism (marriage) show similar patterns to what they've attributed to racism but it doesn't even occur to them this proves their simplistic model (if we rule out class as the driving mechanism we can consider it proven to be racism) is false.
The only evidence this study provides is that social science is politicized junk and effectively useless.
exhelodrvr1 said...
How did the sons do in school?
This is getting at the likely discrepancy. They're talking about the top 1% of incomes in which blacks are underrepresented. This is an outlier group, so who is likely to be in it? It's going to be disproportionately athletes and entertainers. Is it surprising children of these groups disproportionately follow their parents into lottery professions and thus a lower percentage maintain their wealthy childhood lifestyles?
The authors don't appear to have even tried to understand but I don't believe such an obvious explanation was beyond them. They looked for answers they wanted and ignored investigations whihc might undermine their desired conclusions.
I have some questions and thoughts on this study:
1) How do the various quintiles compare, over the years, with quality of life? An Upper-middle class life may be about as comfortable today as rich was 20 years ago.
2) How do unmeasured factors apply? You may not desire to own a boat or a large vacation home if your parents, or other members of your family, have one you can use.
3) Maybe there are other intergenerational factors. As an example, your dad may have worked long hours as a businessman or lawyer so that you could have an easier life where you work less and spend more time with your family. Additionally, you may have learned from your father's experience and adjusted your employment choices to maximize quality of life -- perhaps even at the advice of your father.
4) WHY do people drop from "Rich" to one of the lower three tiers? Involvement with drugs or alcohol seems one likely cause. Divorce may be another -- Divorce really screws up your finances. What other factors could there be? Do these factors vary by ethnic group?
Funny how the instapussy cuckservatives are always whining about how poor white boys are treated and they are oh so repressed by swj feminazi... then there is a study showing the problem is worse than we thought for black male youths and suddenly it's 1) lazy 2) thug 3) genetically inferior 4)fatherlessness 5)father was a sports star, etc.
Howard said ... "Funny how the instapussy cuckservatives are always whining about how poor white boys are treated and they are oh so repressed by swj feminazi... "
Check out the suicide rate for young white males and compare it to other groups before you insult others with far more intelligence and knowledge than you.
Howard,
"Funny how the instapussy cuckservatives are always whining about how poor white boys are treated and they are oh so repressed by swj feminazi"
This study looks back quite a ways.
"The study, based on anonymous earnings and demographic data for virtually all Americans now in their late 30s"
That is, these people were kids 15-20 years ago. SJW Feminazi were quite new then.
Francisco: OK, I accept your stipulation, why don't you blame the white kids and their fathers? You think life is easier for Black kids?
No, Jupiter, you are right about that. You are not the problem and neither am I.
buwaya: I'm not attributing the problem with young black males to sjw feminazi's because it's not part of their culture. I do see a parallel as Francisco pointed out that with young white males who are getting quite a lot of sympathy from conservatives while at the same time these same conservatives are casting aspersions and victim blaming the black kids.
Bullshit Mock. We are all the problem.
Blogger Howard said...
"Bullshit Mock. We are all the problem."
Which problem is that, Howard? I am prepared to allow that you are a low-intelligence, lazy, unproductive, violent criminal, if you insist, but I'm not and I doubt that Mock is. So what faux profundity are you peddling?
faux profundity:
No man is an island,
entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent,
a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
as well as if a promontory were.
as well as if a manor of thy friend’s
or of thine own were.
Any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind;
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee.
Bullshit Mock. We are all the problem.
Bullshit right back...the problem is fatherless boys, and I have no responsibility for that.
Howard said...
Funny how the instapussy cuckservatives
Another proggie lets the mask slip. Someday maybe one will learn what blaming the victim means before they say it. Probably not though since most became proggies specifically so they could outsource their thinking.
Howard, I don't really see how Donne's famous poem supports your contention that "we are all the problem". Even assuming that "Any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind" -- which I do not, I can think of lots of people whose deaths would warm the cockles of my cold, cold heart, -- but even starting with that dubious proposition, how do you get to "we are all the problem"? What is that even supposed to mean?
You people sound like government bureaucrats and union employees making excuses: it's not my responsibility, that's above my pay grade, not my department, that's not in my job description, yada yada yada
But, you'll gladly take credit for all the good that our "society" does.
Howard, with all due respect, you are a nincompoop.
But, you'll gladly take credit for all the good that our "society" does.
"You didn't build that."
(1) You're a card. William.
(II) Joanne Jacobs, Keep hope alive!
(Trey) I'm mighty glad I use killfile after looking over comments been spared experiencing by the usual low-intelligence filtering supplied by blogger Platinum (with Ampersands) level AI.
Shhh. It's a secret.
The fact that you don't see this in black families from Africa pretty much kills the "racism" explanation. It's the toxic culture blacks have been nurturing since the 1960s.
Always check with your pharmacist before introducing new pharmaceuticals into your body.
Words to comment by.
She only said "don't drive" not "Don't expect your brain to produce correct syntax.
Or punctuation, lol.
Is Howard tripping?
Get a whiff of Gif
Post a Comment