Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Kramodlog]

Not going there

Someone thinks highly of himself. As if I'd lower my standards for you.

 

[Ryujin]

One of the most challenging things I did working on my MBA was doing a high-level team presentation as the only native speaker of English. My teammates were of Japanese, Taiwanese, Spanish and Nigerian origin. Part of the project was, of course, assembling a written report to accompany the live presentation. And everyone had to contribute to the written report.

I realized that, while my teammates all spoke English very well, their written communications were a little harder to deal with- among other things, a classic example of how much communication is non-verbal and contextual. And the report- @1/3 of the course grade- had to be in English.

I immediately volunteered to do the final edit & assembly of the written report. Many long hours were spent unifying voice, verb tense, clarifying idioms and- on occasion- divining what my colleagues actually meant when their command of the English language flagged a bit.

I had a similar experience, though not quite the same, when I first started working in the computer industry back in 1987. (WOW! Was it that long ago?) I was hired by an importer/manufacturer which was owned by a couple from Hong Kong, initially as an assembly tech but later as in house QC. It was a fairly small company with roughly 30 employees. My manager was from Hong Kong and a native Cantonese speaker. Except for the shipper/receiver (born in Saint Lucia; English/French patois speaker) and the sales manager (born in Italy, but primarily an English speaker), the employees were from Hong Kong, Thailand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and mainland China. My manager rather quickly tasked me with doing translations of all of the product manuals (Edited to remove his rather un-PC expression for this). It was a difficult job in that some of the manuals were almost certainly made by non English speakers, using a translation dictionary. Some weren't too bad, but remember that this was still fairly early in the home PC market. In more than a few cases I had to throw the manual out completely as indecipherable, bench test the product, and create the manual myself.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Arguably splitting hairs? Dude, "a cultural belief that people with different names are less likely to fit in or perform," is *TEXTBOOK* racism. If that's a real consideration, the root issue is not that the new person won't fit in, but that you've fostered an environment where fellow human beings are not considered as equals.

No, it's not. The idea is that different names are often associated with the poorer class. Given that the poor often have little of permanence in their lives, they are more likely to choose names that are unique or different from the norm. Not just Shaniqua, but Tiffani (with an I!) and the like. The paper noted that discrimination based on different sounding names was more because of the implied likelihood that they were of lower social classes and therefore wouldn't have the necessary cultural (as in business culture) mindset to succeed.

I never said it wasn't skeezy, I was just offering an interesting tidbit I had seen. Take it however you want, I'm not defending it.

Um, no.

The data has a mean. The data is a sub-population for which you have (near) perfect knowledge of the things you've measured, and you can certainly get a mean from them. I say near perfect, because there's always some measuring and sampling error.

The real world also has a mean. You just don't know what it is, unless you measure the entire population in question.

Your model is the thing that gets you to think the data's mean and the real world's mean are related.

When you go looking in you bin for data, none of them are labelled 'mean'. Mean is something we do to data, it's not an intrinsic part of the data. Add one more piece of data, and your mean shifts. None of the real data does even if you add more. The mean is a simplistic model used to aggregate the data into something digestible. It has no meaning by itself, unlike the data.

Again, I have to say no. Statistics are like a microscope - they give you a way to see the state of a system. There is no way to "look for causation" without a way to see the state of the system you are looking at! Just like with a microscope, there's some distortion when you take image - the image is not the thing itself - but you can minimize and correct for much of that.

You are lying to yourself, then, if you think that the statistical model you've created is the same thing as seeing the state of the system the model represents. Now, you may have a good model, and it may do the job you want it to do, and be close enough to reality to be useful, but that's it -- it's just useful. It is not, in any way, an actual representation of the data.

This is the sin of reification commonly accomplished by statistics -- you fool yourself into thinking that the model is the thing, and the statistical representation of the model is reality. They aren't, although occasionally the model is useful.

To be honest, what's become clear is that you don't seem to understand measurements when it comes to a variable that you can't directly observe. It's interesting. You have this very linear logic process. It's apparent when you speak about baselines and measurements. It's also ver apparent when you attempt to discuss the law.

Telling me I don't understand something and dismissing me isn't actually showing I don't understand it. I've spent a few years involved in measurements of indirect and subjective things with actual consequences on the line (lawsuits for unfair representation and the like). I've spent many the hour in consultation with PhDs on measurement theory. I have a strong background in stats, and use frequentist analysis as part of my daily job these days. I'm pretty comfortable in knowing what I'm talking about.

Unfortunately, that also means that I have an exceedingly dim view of how stats and measurements are used in social sciences and medicine. The issues of reification of rampant there, for instance, the highly publicized papers that attempt to medicalize political positions on the basis of wee p values, low r stats, tortured data, post hoc data selections, and, in general, confusing instruments with actual measurements.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Telling me I don't understand something and dismissing me isn't actually showing I don't understand it.

I could show you that you don't understand it, but with your history of being dismissive, I'd be wasting my time and effort.

I've spent a few years involved in measurements of indirect and subjective things with actual consequences on the line (lawsuits for unfair representation and the like).

Awesome, I also deal with things that have actual consequences, like actually harming people, not some silly "unfair representation" stuff. And when I say "harming people," I mean the kind of stuff that can result in actual physical harm, not hurt feelings and the loss of a few dollars.

I've spent many the hour in consultation with PhDs on measurement theory.

Sorry, but you're not going to impress me with PhDs. I deal with PhDs on a daily basis, and they don't impress me, either. This is especially true when you don't even identify what these "PhDs" have their PhDs in. I mean, it could be a PhD in English Lit, and you're helping them measure the area in their bathroom. That's not very impressive, is it?

I have a strong background in stats, and use frequentist analysis as part of my daily job these days. I'm pretty comfortable in knowing what I'm talking about.

I'm sure you're comfortable in assuming you know what you're talking about.

Unfortunately, that also means that I have an exceedingly dim view of how stats and measurements are used in social sciences and medicine. The issues of reification of rampant there, for instance, the highly publicized papers that attempt to medicalize political positions on the basis of wee p values, low r stats, tortured data, post hoc data selections, and, in general, confusing instruments with actual measurements.

No, what it shows is that you lack understanding of how it's used in the social sciences. Your interpretation of a baseline makes it quite obvious that you not only not understand measurement in the social sciences, you also don't understand what you are actually trying to measure.

Listen, you're more than welcome to throw out all the big stats and math terms you want to show off how much you know of the vocabulary. You still failed to understand what a baseline is. Honestly, that's the kind of stuff you learn in an intro to research methods class as an undergraduate student. If your credentials were as impressive as you advertise, you should have known this. Hell, you should have learned this in any stats class. A high school stats class would have shown you this.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I could show you that you don't understand it, but with your history of being dismissive, I'd be wasting my time and effort.

Snrk. Oh, wait, you are being iro

Awesome, I also deal with things that have actual consequences, like actually harming people, not some silly "unfair representation" stuff. And when I say "harming people," I mean the kind of stuff that can result in actual physical harm, not hurt feelings and the loss of a few dollars.

Cool. So you agree that it's important to understand measurements in those cases. Glad we're on the same page.

Sorry, but you're not going to impress me with PhDs. I deal with PhDs on a daily basis, and they don't impress me, either. This is especially true when you don't even identify what these "PhDs" have their PhDs in. I mean, it could be a PhD in English Lit, and you're helping them measure the area in their bathroom. That's not very impressive, is it?

Nationally respected subject matter experts on the theory and use of measurements. If you'd prefer to assume that I meant English PhDs, be my guest.

I'm sure you're comfortable in assuming you know what you're talking about.

No, what it shows is that you lack understanding of how it's used in the social sciences. Your interpretation of a baseline makes it quite obvious that you not only not understand measurement in the social sciences, you also don't understand what you are actually trying to measure.

Sadly, I'm very aware of what it means in the social sciences. For instance, in an attempt to measure bias, you provided a nice link, with many papers behind it, that I read, that show that for all you want to measure bias, all that is measured is a time delay in response to stimulus that has, on average, a reliability on retest of a coin flip. If you think that getting a 50/50 accuracy in your central measurement (which still isn't actually a measurement of bias, it's an assumed proxy for it) is somehow useful measurement, please stick to what you do and don't build bridges.

Listen, you're more than welcome to throw out all the big stats and math terms you want to show off how much you know of the vocabulary. You still failed to understand what a baseline is. Honestly, that's the kind of stuff you learn in an intro to research methods class as an undergraduate student. If your credentials were as impressive as you advertise, you should have known this. Hell, you should have learned this in any stats class. A high school stats class would have shown you this.

No, I understand what a baseline is, what happened was a difference in use by professions. My baseline is the goal I'm aiming for, yours is a current state. Both are valid uses of the term, considering it means the base for measurement or construction. Stats generally doesn't use the term, because stats doesn't measure things. People who use stats might use it, but that's conditional to who's doing the using. I don't use the term 'baseline' for any of the statistical analyses I run. Perhaps it's you that's in need of a high school stats refresher course?

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Snrk. Oh, wait, you are being iro

If that's what you want to believe.

Nationally respected subject matter experts on the theory and use of measurements. If you'd prefer to assume that I meant English PhDs, be my guest.

Sure, "nationally respected subject matter experts..." I'm just curious why you an identify the subject matter they are supposedly experts in? It shouldn't be so diffiult to say you work with someone with a PhD in physics, biology, etc. I mean, it shouldn't be difficult unless you're just making stuff up, and you don't want to be caught lying about it.

Sadly, I'm very aware of what it means in the social sciences. For instance, in an attempt to measure bias, you provided a nice link, with many papers behind it, that I read, that show that for all you want to measure bias, all that is measured is a time delay in response to stimulus that has, on average, a reliability on retest of a coin flip. If you think that getting a 50/50 accuracy in your central measurement (which still isn't actually a measurement of bias, it's an assumed proxy for it) is somehow useful measurement, please stick to what you do and don't build bridges.

Again, you're just demonstrating that you don't understand what is being measured, and you're just being dismissive about it.

No, I understand what a baseline is, what happened was a difference in use by professions. My baseline is the goal I'm aiming for, yours is a current state. Both are valid uses of the term, considering it means the base for measurement or construction. Stats generally doesn't use the term, because stats doesn't measure things. People who use stats might use it, but that's conditional to who's doing the using. I don't use the term 'baseline' for any of the statistical analyses I run. Perhaps it's you that's in need of a high school stats refresher course?

Of course you understand what a baseline is now. I explained it to you. And you using or not using the term baseline is no excuse for you not previously knowing what it is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If that's what you want to believe.

Oh, I'm sorry, then. I thought you were being intentionally ironic in being dismissive while calling me dismissive. I expect to much -- it's a personal failing.

Sure, "nationally respected subject matter experts..." I'm just curious why you an identify the subject matter they are supposedly experts in? It shouldn't be so diffiult to say you work with someone with a PhD in physics, biology, etc. I mean, it shouldn't be difficult unless you're just making stuff up, and you don't want to be caught lying about it.

Really? You've claimed to be a social scientist, and I haven't questioned that at all -- haven't asked for your name, who you work for, where you got your degree, nothing. Because I generally don't expect people that are posting anonymously to give details about their lives or their associates lives on the internet. I've told you what field the guy works in, and that exactly as comfortable as I am in exposing him to anything coming from this thread. You, nor this argument, are remotely important enough to me to breach an expectation of privacy for a third party. If you think you're owed, then I'm (not) sorry to disappoint you.

Again, you're just demonstrating that you don't understand what is being measured, and you're just being dismissive about it.

Great. What's being measured, then? Should be a nice, short, easy to answer question, no? Shut me up.

Of course you understand what a baseline is now. I explained it to you. And you using or not using the term baseline is no excuse for you not previously knowing what it is.

Sure, if that helps you get by, go with that -- I'm just a dumb guy on the internet who you have to educate. Now, can you answer the above question and get on with my continued education, or is explaining baselines the extent of your capacity.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Oh, I'm sorry, then. I thought you were being intentionally ironic in being dismissive while calling me dismissive. I expect to much -- it's a personal failing.

Hopefully I've taught you yet another useful thing.

Really?

Yes.

You've claimed to be a social scientist, and I haven't questioned that at all -- haven't asked for your name, who you work for, where you got your degree, nothing. Because I generally don't expect people that are posting anonymously to give details about their lives or their associates lives on the internet. I've told you what field the guy works in, and that exactly as comfortable as I am in exposing him to anything coming from this thread. You, nor this argument, are remotely important enough to me to breach an expectation of privacy for a third party. If you think you're owed, then I'm (not) sorry to disappoint you.

Actually, you're wrong. I've never claimed to be a social scientist. You suggested that I was, and I said that you're making assumptions.

Great. What's being measured, then? Should be a nice, short, easy to answer question, no? Shut me up.


Sure, if that helps you get by, go with that -- I'm just a dumb guy on the internet who you have to educate. Now, can you answer the above question and get on with my continued education, or is explaining baselines the extent of your capacity.

No, no, no. I do not have to educate you. I choose to do so out of the kindness of my own heart. I've provided you with useful information, free of charge. You should be grateful.

 

[Umbran]

You are lying to yourself, then, if you think that the statistical model you've created is the same thing as seeing the state of the system the model represents.

Interestingly, I said quite the opposite. So, I think you're lying to yourself if you think you're actually arguing against my position.

I've spent a few years involved in measurements of indirect and subjective things with actual consequences on the line (lawsuits for unfair representation and the like). I've spent many the hour in consultation with PhDs on measurement theory. I have a strong background in stats, and use frequentist analysis as part of my daily job these days. I'm pretty comfortable in knowing what I'm talking about.

Appeal to authority does not strengthen your position. Your using such an appeal makes others less comfortable that you know what you're talking about.

I'm a physicist. You won't impress me by claiming hours of consultation with people with PhDs when discussing math, statistics, data analysis, and modelling. I've spent years in such consultation, not hours.

*Your* comfort in knowing what you're talking about isn't the issue. Making other people comfortable that you know what you are talking about isn't even the issue - that's still more appeal to authority. You might, instead, work on demonstrating correctness, rather than building up personal credentials.

 

[Maxperson]

Mayhaps there's a deeper analysis done somewhere, but that link only shows that executives often dismiss resumes due to 1-2 typos. It doesn't say anything about their reasoning for such.

The group that sponsored the survey says they 'assume' a link, but show nothing substantiating it.

Businessmen are in the business of making money. If their "assumption" was wrong, someone would have noticed it and published articles and such saying, "Hey guys, the way to make money really is to hire people with sloppy resumes". Then it would have caught on that not hiring people with sloppy resumes doesn't actually make you more money. That hasn't happened and there is a very good reason for it. They aren't wrong. While there are exceptions to the rule, they are not common enough to make it worth the risk.

A direct question for you though: if someone submitted a resume with one of your undisclosed disliked names, and you couldn't find anything reasonably wrong with it (fully qualified for the job, no grammatical or structural errors on resume, etc), what do you do?

Honest answer. I'd call that person in for an interview and if they were the best person for the job, he or she would get it. I wouldn't like the name, but I'm not going to hurt a business over a personal issue. That said, if there were three equally qualified candidates who I interviewed and impressed me equally in person, and one had a name I didn't like, that one would be out.

Slightly more hypothetical (and, to be honest, sounding even to me like a situation from a legal procedural), what do you do if a Shaniqua thinks you discriminated against her due to her name/race/gender (leaving aside if you did or not), and then instead of filing suit immediately, does some investigation - including sending in the exact same resume with a different name which does result in a callback for an interview?

Nothing, because I wouldn't know. She didn't file suit and all you've given me is a callback by me for the second resume.

Did she come in for the interview the second time? I need more to go on.