51–60 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We also can’t tell what is the death rate of all babies delivered by black doctors from this study
What does that have to do with anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because more blacks are poor, not (directly) because the color of their skin.
And how is it 'more blacks are poor' persistently across the nation for hundreds of years having nothing to do with the color of their skin? Blacks are last hired, first fired. There is a history of laws being written to explicitly and intentionally exclude them and not all those laws have been expunged from the books. Redlining and similar practices are well documented. I don't know how anyone can suggest that pover…
Sounds like you don’t have much exposure to large companies these days. If anything it’s the opposite.
You’re incorrect that there are any racist laws remaining that might influence hiring, unless you are referring to govern contracts, in which minority owned businesses are given preference.
It is silly to introduce historical artifacts as though they are the situation today.
I wonder if anyone has conducted a study on how many internet comments on articles alleging bias are variations of 'now hang on a second, there may be an innocent explanation here'.
Just speculating here but could it be that, in neighborhoods where a black person is more likely to become a doctor, those neighborhoods have a better healthcare system in place? The cities/neighborhoods with higher black poverty probably have less black doctors in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how is it 'more blacks are poor' persistently across the nation for hundreds of years having nothing to do with the color of their skin? Blacks are last hired, first fired. There is a history of laws being written to explicitly and intentionally exclude them and not all those laws have been expunged from the books. Redlining and similar practices are well documented. I don't know how anyone can suggest that pover…
> Blacks are last hired, first fired. Sounds like you don’t have much exposure to large companies these days. If anything it’s the opposite. You’re incorrect that there are any racist laws remaining that might influence hiring, unless you are referring to govern contracts, in which minority owned businesses are given preference. It is silly to introduce historical artifacts as though they are the situation today.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-professionals-hold-only-3...
A close examination of wealth in the U.S. finds evidence of staggering racial disparities. At $171,000, the net worth of a typical white family is nearly ten times greater than that of a Black family ($17,150) in 2016.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining...
There are still laws on the books that were written expressly to exclude Blacks.
https://wset.com/features/special-reports/racists-laws-are-s...
If hiring practices have changed at big companies in recent years, it doesn't mean Blacks have achieved equality yet by any stretch of the imagination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that have to do with anything?
Maybe they picked up outstanding doctors who deliver outstanding results regardless of patients race? I mean the dataset is so small, one off can derail any conclusion
What do you mean? Per the Supplement, their data comes from a pool of ~4k white doctors and ~500 black doctors, with hundreds of thousands of observations/patients. This dataset doesn't seem "so small"?
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2020/08/12/191340511...
I wonder if anyone has conducted a study on how many internet comments on articles alleging bias are variations of 'now hang on a second, there may be an innocent explanation here'.
Eh. It's not like the internet has a shortage of people happy to read a study's editorialized conclusion on Twitter, take it as truth, and go on with their day. A little critical thinking --- and this means going beyond "I don't like this, so I'll say correlation does not imply causation and move on to something else" --- seems fine if you're trying to do it honestly and carefully?
Here's one I found on an antidepressants impact on covid hospitalizations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25701446
Far from scientific, but there seems to be a general acceptance of the study in the comments of that article. I cannot say the same of this one. Now obviously the sample size and statistics of the studies are not identical, but it seems to me we're seeing significantly more 'critical thinking' in this thread than that one. I would love to drill into this further and see if this trend holds in further comment threads, but I'm late for a hike.
I wonder if anyone has conducted a study on how many internet comments on articles alleging bias are variations of 'now hang on a second, there may be an innocent explanation here'.
Eh. It's not like the internet has a shortage of people happy to read a study's editorialized conclusion on Twitter, take it as truth, and go on with their day. A little critical thinking --- and this means going beyond "I don't like this, so I'll say correlation does not imply causation and move on to something else" --- seems fine if you're trying to do it honestly and carefully?
