NotableAlamode

6 tahun yang laludiscuss

    blind to the history 
    of scientific racism

Slavery is much older than the period that the term "scientific racism" refers to. Older slave holders had no trouble justifying slavery.

Interestingly, the many slave rebellions of antiquity (and after) by and large did not seek to abolish slavery, only to switch who's a slave, and who's a slave holder.

NotableAlamode

6 tahun yang laludiscuss

From the quoted article:

- "modern Europeans and East Asians apparently inherited about 2% of their DNA from Neanderthals"

- "African individuals on average had [...] more Neanderthal DNA than previously thought—about [...] 0.3% of their genome."

So the article seems to confirm a 10x difference in Neanderthals DNA, which might be significant. It's also unclear what they mean by "Africans, did the same include, e.g. Egyptians of Greek descent?

NotableAlamode

6 tahun yang laludiscuss

What credibility do the RAINN numbers have?

The Wikipedia article [1] leads to [2], a RAINN page which links to itself (quote: "Please visit https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system for full citation."), and also (Footnote 1) to the following 'three' alleged data sources [3, 4, 5]. Note that [4, 5] are exactly, letter for letter, the same (!) in [2]! Why? Does that sound like serious science to you? Anyway, the RAINN page [2] then claims: "This statistic combines information from several federal government reports. Because it combines data from studies with different methodologies, it is an approximation, not a scientific estimate.". Let's look at the methodology in [3], starting on Page 17:

> "The NCVS is a self-report survey that is administered from January to December. Respondents are asked about the number and characteristics of crimes they have experienced during the prior 6 months [...] . The survey collects information on threatened, attempted, and completed crimes. Te survey collects data on crimes both reported and not reported to police. Estimates in this report include threatened, attempted, and completed crimes."

Of particular interest is the subsection "NCVS measurement of rape or sexual assault", starting on page 19. I cannot see any meaningful attempt at scientific rigour here. Can you explain to me why such figures should be taken seriously? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! There is no evidence in any meaningful sense here.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape,_Abuse_%26_Incest_Nationa...

[2] https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

[3] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010-2016 (2017).

I think this is https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv17.pdf

[4] Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System, 2012-2016 (2017);

[5] Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System, 2012-2016 (2017);

NotableAlamode

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

I completely agree with you.

That's why publicly saying "you are wrong" is so powerful (and so dangerous). The powerful are not used to be challenged in public. They typically respond by a combination of

- reframing, changing the subject

- attacking, belittling you

You can see this in action in stand-up comedy with hecklers. If you anticipate this reaction, you can turn this around very effectively in a professional context (not in standup-comedy though): "I note you are NOT answering my question, instead ...".

With great power comes great responsibility.

NotableAlamode

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

    Praise in public, criticize in private

In my (considerable) experience of working in large organisation (private and public), whether this works or not depends strongly on the power differential between praiser/criticiser and praisee/criticisee. Basically this is the most likely outcome:

- Powerless praises publicly and criticises privately: criticism will be ignored, praise will be milked.

- Powerless praises privately and criticises publicly: if played right, this is working, since the powerful cannot brush aside the criticism, but this is likely to lead to retaliation!

A way of making public criticism more digestible is to make it very constructive: "You are wrong because XYZ, I recommend ABC instead because <reasons>". Ideally the <reasons> align with the organisation's goals, e.g. "ABC is clearly in the interest of our shareholders / voters / students / environment because <other reasons>.

Make of this what you will.

NotableAlamode

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

What you are saying is that classical should appeal more to popular tastes.

Maybe we should restrict classical rhythms to 4/4, ensure that all songs are around 4 minutes long, 132 BPM, and have Intro-Verse-Chorus-Verse-Chorus-Middle8-Chorus-Chorus-Outro structure. Maybe we should also ensure that all classical music has a young moron rapping over the song, maybe about his "hoes" and "biches"!

NotableAlamode

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

Classical music is fine as it is, no need to change.

Why should being based on improvisation and unique personal expression be the be-all-and-end-all of analysis? Not everybody wants to play / hear improvised music.

NotableAlamode

8 tahun yang laludiscuss

The OP didn't suggest she had better data, the OP said that there is no consensus. in another post the OP said that is no serious, solid research.

comments