• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Elizabeth Warren refuses to take DNA test

Proving that it did or did not advance her career seems like a fools errand. It might have, maybe if the school that hired here valued such things. There's not going to be an email somewhere that says, "Hire this Warren women, we need a minority!"

Seems like it was only something she mentioned after she was hired though. If anything, it helped the school tiny little bit by making there staff seem more diverse which may have attracted more students. But there's a whole lot of ifs and mays in there to make it worth talking about.

If you want to be a judge in Chicago, it helps to have an Irish last name, are we going to condemn all those judges on account of that?
 
johnny karate said:
Fair enough. As long as you realize you’re arguing for the existence of a benefit that would be indistinguishable from no benefit at all.
Click to expand...

If the post I replied to cared about that distinction, I would have adjusted my argument, or not made one, as appropriate.
 
johnny karate said:
Okay... and how would you go about quantifying that as a tangible benefit?
Click to expand...

It’s done to make her into more of something she’s not. Living a lie so she can continue to live in this fantasy. If she was able to have this without pushback, she would be constantly crowing about it to her audience of useful idiots. Many prominent libs do this for the morons in their base.
 
If anyone benefitted from Warren checking the minority box it would be the university. They get to show stats that demonstrate their diversity.
 
People no longer have patience and interest in career politicians. She is not polling well. We need someone that can survive the Twitter era. Presidents also need the outsider label now. Governors will work.

The native thing bores me. But she is stuck with it now.
 
Weird, the article pops up for me.

It's the article that says:
Up to 40 percent of DNA results from consumer genetic tests might be bogus

A new study has found that direct-to-consumer genetic tests, like those marketed by 23andMe, Ancestry.com, Family Tree DNA, and MyHeritage, can be used to obtain innacurate results.
Click to expand...
 
phunk said:
Weird, the article pops up for me.

It's the article that says:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the snippet :)

Weirdly, it popped up for me this time, although the last two times it was he heart-cell butterfly. Makes me wonder what kind of rotating algorithm they're using.

Regarding the consumer DNA testing... The cynical part of me wonders how long it will be before they start selling those data sets for analytic purposes. There could be a lot of power in having a massive set of DNA data to mine. There could also be a lot of big-brother kind of risk...

ETA: I've been kind of skeptical about the DNA testing for ancestry anyway. A friend used one for her mutt of a dog, and it came back with a breed list that couldn't possibly produce a dog that looked like her... I mean, it's horribly unlikely that chihuahua, poodle, pit-bull, and terrier is going to produce a mix that looks a lot like a whippet. Also, my Chinese friend, of Chinese descent is only 97% Chinese - the other 3% is apparently Irish somehow. And my friend with Mexican parentage is apparently 25% Japanese!

Entertaining, yes. Accurate... the analyst in me says not even a little bit. I'd guess they've got an R-squared of something like 40% :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom