Government Should Not Legitimate Systemic-Racism Confessions

[u/HooverInstitution]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/12/15/government_should_not_legitimate_systemic-racism_confessions_152087.html

[u/ryes13]

The effect has been replicated. The link you listed even shows that it was replicated three times. It was most recently replicated in 2024: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32313/w32313.pdf

[u/neverunacceptabletoo → u/ryes13]

That study uses the same exact names as the 2004 study.

[u/ryes13 → u/neverunacceptabletoo]

No it doesn’t.

From page 6 of the study: “To signal race and gender, we followed previous correspondence experiments and used distinctive names. Our set of names started with that of Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004), who used 9 unique names for each race and gender group. This list was supplemented with 10 additional names per group from a database of speeding tickets issued in North Carolina between 2006 and 2018.”

[u/neverunacceptabletoo → u/ryes13]

The Bertrand and Mullainathan study is the 2004 study in question. What precisely do you think

Our set of names started with that of Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004)

Means?

[u/ryes13 → u/neverunacceptabletoo]

They started with. The second half of the quote is the important part. They added 10 additional names per group along with the original 9. It’s not the exact same list of names.

[u/neverunacceptabletoo → u/ryes13]

So to be clear… they used the same names as the 2004 study. Which is what I originally said.

What are we arguing about here?

[u/ryes13 → u/neverunacceptabletoo]

It’s not the same list. They added names. I am also confused about what we’re arguing about because I don’t understand how using the original list as a base somehow invalidates the entire replication?

[u/neverunacceptabletoo → u/ryes13]

Did I say it was the same list? I said they used the same names, which they did.

This sounds as if we are arguing about a failure of your basic English comprehension.

[u/ryes13 → u/neverunacceptabletoo]

Very civil comment.

“They used the exact same names” makes it sound like they used only those names and no others. We can be pedantic about it, but that isn’t a far reach and doesn’t constitute a “failure of.. basic English comprehension.”

And to my original point, it doesn’t invalidate the fact that it replicated the results with an expanded list of names.

[u/neverunacceptabletoo → u/ryes13]

Any lack of civility you detect is a direct result of the manner you’ve approached this discussion. We are four comments deep and you’ve continued to insist I said something which I did not. Your repeated failure despite multiple corrections is the fundamental failure not necessarily just the initial misreading.

Keeping along the vein of you failing to engage with a central premise though, the instigating comment said the study fails to replicate under closer scrutiny. To whit, the inclusion of SES controls.

Under normal circumstances I’d be happy to discuss with you whether driving infractions are correlated to SES that wasn’t my original point and I don’t think you’re prepared for that conversation.

[u/ryes13 → u/neverunacceptabletoo]

I have not broached this subject with any lack of civility. Nor have I said anything directly to insulting to you or about you. So I am not the one who brought incivility to the discussion.

Like I said, the way I read your comment is not unreasonable. Having more names than the original study if anything adds more weight to irs findings.

And I put in my original comment the response to not including SES controls. So clearly I was prepared to engage with it.

[u/neverunacceptabletoo → u/ryes13]

Insisting someone said something they did not despite repeated corrections is uncivil.

Having more names than the original study if anything adds more weight to irs findings.

It appears you’ve failed to appreciate the meaning of my reference to drivers infractions. This conclusion does not follow if the new names suffer the same intrinsic bias as the original set. Otherwise you’re just throwing shit onto a pile of… well… shit. Judging from your comments I don’t come away with the impression that you’ve spent much time reading or thinking carefully about the implications of study design.

[u/ryes13 → u/neverunacceptabletoo]

I was responding to what I thought you were inferring. That is not as uncivil as basically calling someone stupid. Which you’re continuing to infer by saying I haven’t seriously or carefully thought about this. And making comments about the person and not the subject is by the rules of this subreddit uncivil.

And sure, I’m not a sociologist. I don’t pretend to be an expert on study design. But this study has been replicated multiple times. The effect is real. Does SES have its own effects? Sure, and I’d love to see a study that shows how they intertwine. But that wouldn’t invalidate this work or debunk it. It would add to it