Paul Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I think that's a bit of an unscientific stretch. I don't think the everyday person isn't basing how they behave with other groups on any studies. I think they're basing it on their personal interactions or how others in their own community interact with particular groups. Science said you were less human than a white man once. Research backed it up. Scholars discussed it and taught it as truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 my Sociology professor once told us that as soon as our finals were over, throw away the book and forget half of what was in it he lied to you honey, he shoulda said sell all that shit to someone that aint had this class yet like me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonofBaldwin Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Science said you were less human than a white man once. Research backed it up. Scholars discussed it and taught it as truth. And then guess what happened? Further science and research proved the old science and research to be untrue. What's your point, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonofBaldwin Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 yes "peer-reviewed" articles that summarize the methods, data, conclusions and hypothesis tested are considered valid when they can be replicated, but even in the high echelons of education there have been cases where published studies were out right falsified, the famous case I can think of was the cloning Asia, the scientist that did that study made his shit up RECEIPT:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4554422.stm Yes. But the point of replication, which, by the way, has to constantly be repeated, is to find the flaws and or lies. When old science is proven to be wrong, it's not people on the street who prove it. It's other scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 and that video is fuckin embarrassing...and why were they in the damn restaurant wearing bikinis??? lol...this shit is not good for my spirit chile.... BUT this gets back to my point before about classicism they do not represent you nor myself, I don't feel a sense of embarrassment for anyone other then them they look foolish not me, first off I cook, Im not big on fast food unless I don't feel like cooking so I might get something quick. But from the way you speak and how you conduct yourself that sub population does not represent you nor is it of any relation to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 And then guess what happened? Further science and research proved the old science and research to be untrue. What's your point, exactly? And the latest science has proved that black people have lower IQs than white people. See my point. There was an entire documentary on it last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 It seems to me it's getting worst, without a middle class we have two groups those you have and those that don't and I even notice in school the bar for performing seems to be low to me, it's easy to get all A's in most of my courses, the ones that don't do not because they don't even try, like my Psychology class, all you had to do was show up to every class not to take the final you would get 100%, in ten weeks we have 20 sessions right, well we also had two snow days, and our professor was absent himself from class twice thus canceling class, so why they fuck did so many people HAVE to take the final? That's if you're able to make it to college. Some ppl don't have the luxury, but there are alternatives. Based on what I've seen from these videos, it is usually the have nots that are on youtube videos acting like they don't have any home training. But I can't blame them because their parents don't really expect much from them. I think they're called laissez-faire parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrietta. Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 he lied to you honey, he shoulda said sell all that shit to someone that aint had this class yet like me :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungeon Dragon Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I didn't post any data. And the point we are making is ALL DATA IS BIASED AND FLAWED. EVEN IN THE BOOKS YOU READ. Unless every single person is either interviewed or measured or questioned etc depending on the type of research you are doing, and every single variable is considered then the data is flawed! Therefore the facts are skewed. Most of the time when someone publishes something they already know what they are trying to prove. As and example If I wanted to prove that Black people in America are more upwardly mobile than Mexicans I could choose to take my samples from e.g Atlanta LA and NY to prove my point. If however I wanted to skew it the other way I could use Texas, Vegas and SF as an example. Peoples experiences in dealing with people in their daily lives if valid, and in my opinion just as valid as what some guy with a doctorate in Antropolgy says. I have to agree with you. The thing is, in most types of academic fields and specially in social sciences, you can't take anything to be factually correct. Lecturers will tell you there is always an opinion and critique on even any valid data or theory and you are supposed to analyse and critique it and put things into a better perspective. I'm not saying that what sonofbaldwin says is invalid, but in the data that he's presented i'm sure you will find many critiques regarding that data with their own analysis whether its the opposite or completely different results. Qualitative research isn't necessarily fact, it just helps to persuade an argument so I would not say its 'FACT' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonofBaldwin Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Exactly. Some things are true, and some things are not true, but truth and fact do not necessarily go hand in hand. Research, books, journals etc are super important but I don't base my opinions on what other people tell me to think, probably because I have a good brain and I don't have an inferiority complex like some academics who are unable to remove their heads from a book and actually look at what is happening around them. I read a veriaty of sources, see what connects with me and then I live my life. Wasn't is just a few decades ago that science said that black people were less evolved than white people? This was all published in books and journals. It was all backed up by research. It was all intellectually argued. But any white person that lived, loved and saw black people as equal would tell you that wasn't true based on their experiences. Yet according to SOB personal experience counts for very little. No. What I said was that it was a flawed method to take your personal experiences and then project them over the entire country or an entire people. "Oh, I met four stinky white people. So did my cousin who lives in another state. And so did his friend from yet another state. So that must mean most or all white people stink." That's anecdotal. Not science. And no, the white person who actually proved black inferiority wasn't true didn't prove it by saying, "Oh, I live with black people and I know that's not true." He found the flaws and the untruths in the racist scientists' research and pointed it out with his own, corrected, more stringent, controlled science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 oh and SOB, my point is that SCIENCE AND STATISTICS CAN ARE FLAWED AND DO NOT EQUAL TRUTH. THEY CAN BOTH BE MANIPULATED (AS IS HISTORY) TO PROVE WHATEVER POINT NECESSARY. THERE IS A DIFERENCE BETWEEN FACT AND TRUTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Im not entirely sure you can learn everything there is about society in a book, books can be inaccurate and biased, real life in some instances is the only way we can gather real time data and this method is used in psychology often. I get where Paul is coming from, and I have had friends tell me for all the book smarts you have in the world Johnie, you have a lot to learn about people, and when I started seeing that I knew the book part was only half the formula for success !!!! You can't. That's why you can't act like these books are the bible. These books have skewed data as well. The Race To Incarcerate book I read even pointed out that data does not explain everything. They can and are skewed to prove a point. And it's all the more reason why, "It's not what you know, it's who you know" that rings so true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Yes. But the point of replication, which, by the way, has to constantly be repeated, is to find the flaws and or lies. When old science is proven to be wrong, it's not people on the street who prove it. It's other scientists. absolutely but im not for distilling all "knowledge" into a scientists hands, for one they tend to be White and for two there are a lot of studies conducted specifically for some economic benefit that serves a particular group, as a student I find a lot of studies about Blacks and other races have not been done so the data is out there just not collected, hell on the real my Human Development course in the book said flat out, we do not suggest nor imply that this text is all inclusive of the entire population, and that much is needed to be done in research areas concerning sub populations, therefore our data will represent that which was collected from the majority group. However there are plenty of opportunities for those with a sub population to fill in the blanks. I was like Cee-Lo green "now aint that some shit" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I think that's a bit of an unscientific stretch. I don't think the everyday person isn't basing how they behave with other groups on any studies. I think they're basing it on their personal interactions or how others in their own community interact with particular groups. Not quite. In Race To Incarcerate the author points out data that is pulled from a number of places. And then the author points out the flaws with the data. I still have the book if you'd like me to mail it to you and read it. You have to base your opinions on personal accounts, which is more of an accurate depiction of the story. I think Between Good And Ghetto is a good example of this. The author did a case study of different girls from a "less than" neighborhood to formulate her opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Oh fuck I done missed Judge Judy fooling around with this thread. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonofBaldwin Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Not quite. In Race To Incarcerate the author points out data that is pulled from a number of places. And then the author points out the flaws with the data. I still have the book if you'd like me to mail it to you and read it. You have to base your opinions on personal accounts, which is more of an accurate depiction of the story. I think Between Good And Ghetto is a good example of this. The author did a case study of different girls from a "less than" neighborhood to formulate her opinion. But how can I believe the data you're going to present to me if you say all data is flawed and biased? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Science said you were less human than a white man once. Research backed it up. Scholars discussed it and taught it as truth. Another big one that gets me the guys the won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering DNA Watson and Crick, one of them readily stated that Blacks were intellectually inferior by biology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzebabe Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 BUT this gets back to my point before about classicism they do not represent you nor myself, I don't feel a sense of embarrassment for anyone other then them they look foolish not me, first off I cook, Im not big on fast food unless I don't feel like cooking so I might get something quick. But from the way you speak and how you conduct yourself that sub population does not represent you nor is it of any relation to you. I do not feel represented by them, I do however feel embarrassed for them and the people who behave in a similar manner. My pride in my "blackness" will never let me turn a blind eye to reckless behavior of some of my people. So while they are not a reflection of who I am, I am not naive enough to think that the kind of behavior displayed in this video doesn't have any bearing on the race as a whole; it does, whether we like to admit or not. I have always been the "token black" that is "not like the rest of them", "them" being the people in that video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonofBaldwin Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 absolutely but im not for distilling all "knowledge" into a scientists hands, for one they tend to be White and for two there are a lot of studies conducted specifically for some economic benefit that serves a particular group, as a student I find a lot of studies about Blacks and other races have not been done so the data is out there just not collected, hell on the real my Human Development course in the book said flat out, we do not suggest nor imply that this text is all inclusive of the entire population, and that much is needed to be done in research areas concerning sub populations, therefore our data will represent that which was collected from the majority group. However there are plenty of opportunities for those with a sub population to fill in the blanks. I was like Cee-Lo green "now aint that some shit" That's why you can't have just one source. That's why you have to look at multiple sources, from multiple disciplines, from multiple individuals. Any good scientist will tell you the limitations of their work. And I want to address, again, this idea that I'm simply reading books and don't have any experience in the world. I think Austin started that and Paul repeated it. I just want to point people right back to my earlier post: I don't mind you rejecting reading the book (it's not a novel, by the way). But I'm going to have to correct you on a few things in regard to my character. I am a card-carrying member of the Southern Poverty Law Center. My partner (who is an attorney) and I, along with the NYC charter, just met with Mayor Bloomberg's administration as well as the brass of the NYPD in regard to the incarceration of young men of color. Along with the Macaulay Honors College and the Mellon Minority Fellowship, I put together a well-attended conference entitled "Standing and Understanding Together for Change: A Black History Month Celebration" at Brooklyn College, where a group of experts and intellectuals took a hard look at the ills of the black community and brainstormed about solutions. I'm a mentor/big brother/part-time teacher/advocate to young black men in Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone. And lastly, I was an invited speaker, last year, at Columbia University's conference on race relations in NYC. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not at all xenophobic, but smart enough to know that I can't rely on my experiences alone to guide me in regard to sociopolitical matters. I also learn a great deal from scholars and others who are experts in their fields, as well as the people I hope to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 No. What I said was that it was a flawed method to take your personal experience and then project them over the entire country. "Oh, I met four stinky white people. So did my cousin who lives in another state. And so did his friend from yet another state. So that must mean most or all white people stink." That's anecdotal. Not science. And no, the white person who actually proved it wasn't true didn't prove it by saying, "Oh, I live with black people and I know that's not true." He found the flaws and the untruths in the racist scientists' research and pointed it out with his own, corrected, science. And who the hell has done that in this thread? I certainly didn't. I am perfectly aware that there is never a one size fits all rule and that it is dangerous to stereotype. I am saying that some stereotypes are based in truth. That example you gave with the white people stinking is exactly how many academics get thier reserch. They go to different places and measure a relatively insignificant sample of the population and say "3 out of every 5 french people smell badly in 5 out of the 7 areas we studied" therefore French people smell worse than every other group. They neglected to say that they were standing beside by running tracks frequented by French people in each town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Exactly. Some things are true, and some things are not true, but truth and fact do not necessarily go hand in hand. Research, books, journals etc are super important but I don't base my opinions on what other people tell me to think, probably because I have a good brain and I don't have an inferiority complex like some academics who are unable to remove their heads from a book and actually look at what is happening around them. I read a veriaty of sources, see what connects with me and then I live my life. Wasn't is just a few decades ago that science said that black people were less evolved than white people? This was all published in books and journals. It was all backed up by research. It was all intellectually argued. But any white person that lived, loved and saw black people as equal would tell you that wasn't true based on their experiences. Yet according to SOB personal experience counts for very little. And you clocked so much tea when you said when scientists want to prove something, they already know what they're trying to prove. So naturally they're gonna use variables that work in their favor. That's why you can't take data and findings as the holy grail. They are inconsistent and don't tell the whole story. Surely reading is fundamental, but you can't learn everything from what's in a book. That's why we have "book smarts" and "street smarts". Both have their strengths and weaknesses. And like my aunt has always told me, "experience is the best teacher". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 But how can I believe the data you're going to present to me if you say all data is flawed and biased? The data I used was to invalidate your argument of all races exhibiting the drugs. Yes cops stopped more Blacks and Hispanics. I posted MY facts to illustrate that Blacks have the highest drug arrests and uses, so it would be natural for cops to stop the race that has the highest percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I have to agree with you. The thing is, in most types of academic fields and specially in social sciences, you can't take anything to be factually correct. Lecturers will tell you there is always an opinion and critique on even any valid data or theory and you are supposed to analyse and critique it and put things into a better perspective. I'm not saying that what sonofbaldwin says is invalid, but in the data that he's presented i'm sure you will find many critiques regarding that data with their own analysis whether its the opposite or completely different results. Qualitative research isn't necessarily fact, it just helps to persuade an argument so I would not say its 'FACT' Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 That's if you're able to make it to college. Some ppl don't have the luxury, but there are alternatives. Based on what I've seen from these videos, it is usually the have nots that are on youtube videos acting like they don't have any home training. But I can't blame them because their parents don't really expect much from them. I think they're called laissez-faire parents. no they are called children who had children, parents by definition PARENT, that video showcased the absence of parenting Helluro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 And who the hell has done that in this thread? I certainly didn't. I am perfectly aware that there is never a one size fits all rule and that it is dangerous to stereotype. I am saying that some stereotypes are based in truth. That example you gave with the white people stinking is exactly how many academics get thier reserch. They go to different places and measure a relatively insignificant sample of the population and say "3 out of every 5 french people smell badly in 5 out of the 7 areas we studied" therefore French people smell worse than every other group. They neglected to say that they were standing beside by running tracks frequented by French people in each town. Hell yea, I said niggas love chicken, when I saw they were building a brand new Church's Chicken right around the block I was like they should just put a crack house there instead less paperwork Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.