Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Foolmewunz]

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...e/2005/04/a_roshanda_by_any_other_name.2.html

"What kind of parent is most likely to give a child such a distinctively black name? The data offer a clear answer: an unmarried, low-income, undereducated, teenage mother from a black neighborhood who has a distinctively black name herself."

In other words it is a lower class name, and the study did not control for class by using distinctively lower class white names as well.

You're quoting a segment of a study. And it did not say that certain names were lower class but that "all" black names are the product of working class families self-identifying as black and/or part of the black community. How, from that, do you conclude that those particular names are "lower class black names"? That's the distinction... you guys specifically said that those names were identifiable not just as black names but as lower class black names. I asked why those particular names are "lower class"?

The answer, it seems is that ALL black names are perceived as lower class. Yet this trend has been going on for almost fifty years - naming your child distinctively black-sounding names. And the ranks of colleges are full of Lateshas and Jamals and Alias and Kiras, as are segments of the business community.

So the overall study does not distinguish between poor black trash and acceptable up-and-rising black middle class names. It simply shows inherent racism in that all noticeably black names got fewer call-backs. I dare say those same employers (or persons working for those employers) are going to not be calling back Baracks in 2026.

 

[shuttlt]

I haven't read the study, but this from the abstract:

The Causes and Consequences of Distinctively Black Names

We find, however, no negative relationship between having a distinctively Black name and later life outcomes after controlling for a child's circumstances at birth.

http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/qjecon/v119y2004i3p767-805.html

 

[shuttlt]

In case anybody is feeling keen...

The Causes and Consequences of Distinctively Black Names
http://wyniz.com/In_The_News/The%20Causes%20and%20Consequences%20of%20Distinctively%20Black%20Names.pdf

 

[shuttlt]

Essentially what the study seems to be saying is that they didn't find names to be a causal factor in life outcomes. If you were from the kind of neighborhood where most people had names like "Latesha", but you were called "Alice", your name wouldn't give you a significant advantage over a "Latesha".

 

[Fellow Traveler]

Whereas I will generally believe that they are reporting things accurately as they perceived them to be, however I'm always mindful of the fact that everybody's perception of the world is inherently flawed and that, as a species, we confabulate. And, as such, I tend to trust reports of how things made people feel, but am less trustful about reports accurately representing events as they occurred.
QUOTE]

So Plato was right about our perception and the cave analogy?

 

[Humes fork]

Some reader's digest:

Un-Skepchick: Being a role model for female skeptics

It doesn't seem Skepchick actually makes women feel more welcome in skepticism, but in fact do the opposite.

The Credibility of Skepchicks: Tablegate

Interesting. But I don't know if I'm surprised anymore.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Some reader's digest:

Un-Skepchick: Being a role model for female skeptics

It doesn't seem Skepchick actually makes women feel more welcome in skepticism, but in fact do the opposite.

The Credibility of Skepchicks: Tablegate

Interesting. But I don't know if I'm surprised anymore.

From un-skepchick:

It disappoints me to hear from people who attend skeptic or atheist conferences and have a negative experience with Skepchicks, but it no longer surprises me. I receive private messages and emails from women who were enthused to meet Skepchicks like Rebecca Watson, Amy Roth, Elyse Anders, only to find that they were ignored, brushed off, made to feel unwelcome or actually being spoke to in a rude or malicious manner. They write to me to express support in my critiques of Skepchick, and how they have a negative impact on women in skepticism.

...then Watson and company complain that it's the men who make women feel unwelcome at conferences??? Are they are deluded or liars or both?

 

[qwints]

For what it's worth, Watson's response. . From reading both, it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that one woman was disappointed that Watson and company didn't approach her daughters at a conference.

 

[squealpiggy]

You're quoting a segment of a study. And it did not say that certain names were lower class but that "all" black names are the product of working class families self-identifying as black and/or part of the black community. How, from that, do you conclude that those particular names are "lower class black names"? That's the distinction... you guys specifically said that those names were identifiable not just as black names but as lower class black names. I asked why those particular names are "lower class"?

I'll just repost the quote:

"What kind of parent is most likely to give a child such a distinctively black name? The data offer a clear answer: an unmarried, low-income, undereducated, teenage mother from a black neighborhood who has a distinctively black name herself."

In other words a distinctly black sounding name is a consequence of race, income, education and family background, but the authors of the Emily/Greg study have decided to ignore most of the factors associated with those names and declared that the only significant one was race.

The answer, it seems is that ALL black names are perceived as lower class.

Not so. A name like Ebony for example would not necessarily be considered to be lower class.

Yet this trend has been going on for almost fifty years - naming your child distinctively black-sounding names. And the ranks of colleges are full of Lateshas and Jamals and Alias and Kiras, as are segments of the business community.

That is irrelevant. The study you are defending sought to examine prejudice towards certain names among prospective employers.

So the overall study does not distinguish between poor black trash and acceptable up-and-rising black middle class names.

Other studies indicate that up and coming and middle class naming conventions tend to be more homogeneous among black and white parents anyway, with less distinctive names and less stereotypically lower class names being used. Precisely because parents from middle class and aspirational backgrounds are cognizant that a distinctively lower class name can be a hindrance to a child.

It simply shows inherent racism in that all noticeably black names got fewer call-backs. I dare say those same employers (or persons working for those employers) are going to not be calling back Baracks in 2026.

As I said, the study demonstrates classism and not racism.

 

[Amadanb]

Back to the topic, I was wondering what the A+ adherents here felt about the fact that A+, once hoped to be a growing and influential "movement," is now just one Internet forum of ever-shrinking numbers, activity, and relevance? What are their hypotheses for its apparent failure?

I'd appreciate it if the neutral and anti-A+ contingents would wait for the pro-A+ contingent to respond, first. Thanks in advance.

PS: Are there people who are truly neutral about the A+ endeavor? Any of them post here? Or, is it by design necessarily polarizing, and do Aplussers feel that's a good thing?

I guess you could say I'm "neutral" about them. I think the A+ movement (or at least the stated goals of the movement) is a worthy thing. I think the people who ended up carrying its flag are mostly inept at best. I think the fundamental failure of A+ was its decision that providing a "safe space" was more important than actual activism and engagement. But I also think that many of the haters have an undercurrent of resentment against the social justice issues that A+ advocates, while they pretend that it's about their "censorship" and lack of skepticism.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

For what it's worth, Watson's response. . From reading both, it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that one woman was disappointed that Watson and company didn't approach her daughters at a conference.

Well, if anything, it seems like a nice illustration of how unreliable memory is. Assuming, that is, that the mother who wrote both emails believed both to be true when she wrote them.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As I said, the study demonstrates classism and not racism.

Or, perhaps it displays classism on the surface, but a classism that highlights an underlying, unconscious institutionalised racism where "black" names are associated with being low-class, even by black people themselves.

 

[qwints]

As I said, the study demonstrates classism and not racism.

Let's assume you've shown that the set of names used in the study are as equally associated with low socioeconomic status as with race. How can you possibly conclude that class was the deciding factor and not race? Your desire to do so makes me think very ill of you.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'll just repost the quote:

"What kind of parent is most likely to give a child such a distinctively black name? The data offer a clear answer: an unmarried, low-income, undereducated, teenage mother from a black neighborhood who has a distinctively black name herself."

In other words a distinctly black sounding name is a consequence of race, income, education and family background, but the authors of the Emily/Greg study have decided to ignore most of the factors associated with those names and declared that the only significant one was race.



Not so. A name like Ebony for example would not necessarily be considered to be lower class.



That is irrelevant. The study you are defending sought to examine prejudice towards certain names among prospective employers.



Other studies indicate that up and coming and middle class naming conventions tend to be more homogeneous among black and white parents anyway, with less distinctive names and less stereotypically lower class names being used. Precisely because parents from middle class and aspirational backgrounds are cognizant that a distinctively lower class name can be a hindrance to a child.



As I said, the study demonstrates classism and not racism.

No. You are wrong. There is nothing in the study to differentiate between upper and lower class black names. Period.

 

[Quinn]

Other studies indicate that up and coming and middle class naming conventions tend to be more homogeneous among black and white parents anyway, with less distinctive names and less stereotypically lower class names being used. Precisely because parents from middle class and aspirational backgrounds are cognizant that a distinctively lower class name can be a hindrance to a child.

I just tried to find this and failed, but wasn't that the topic of a Chris Rock bit some time back? IIRC, I think he specifically mentioned giving his daughter a neutral-sounding name rather than a black-sounding name, so that "that way you don't realize she's black until she gets to the job interview."

 

[Kochanski]

For what it's worth, Watson's response. . From reading both, it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that one woman was disappointed that Watson and company didn't approach her daughters at a conference.

The impression that Skepchicks give off at events as a group is that of a party sorority and that you need to pass a cool test for them to be interested in you.

As individuals there are lots of them who are nice, approachable and fun to talk to.

 

[theprestige]

Let's assume you've shown that the set of names used in the study are as equally associated with low socioeconomic status as with race. How can you possibly conclude that class was the deciding factor and not race? Your desire to do so makes me think very ill of you.

Isn't it axiomatic that whenever the deciding factor could be class or race, the deciding factor is always race?

Because the class system privileges some races whites more than others, any discrimination against blacks because of their class is really discrimination against blacks because of their race. This much, at least, should be obvious and uncontroversial.

And therefore, any discrimination against a name that sounds both black and low-class is racial discrimination ahead of and in addition to being class discrimination.

In summary: Only a racist would discriminate against Latisha or Teeshane because of their class.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Let's assume you've shown that the set of names used in the study are as equally associated with low socioeconomic status as with race. How can you possibly conclude that class was the deciding factor and not race? Your desire to do so makes me think very ill of you.

Careful of personal attacks there.

I don't agree with Squealpiggy that there is not good reason to think that racist judgments based on racial associations with names is a real thing that happens. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't a real thing. Subconscious bias in hiring and paying people is well-established.

On the other hand Squealpiggy has a point in that a more rigorous study would have made the effort to try to separate out the effects of class and race by similarly testing names associated with lower-class non-black people. It seems reasonable to suspect that both class and race factors are in play.

 

[squealpiggy]

Or we can try dealing with the latest Watson vs Thunderfoot fracus.

Watson Writes ( note how I referred to her by her last name, I'm learning from the commentators on Ophelia Benson's blog)

Link Bolding mine.

Clearly this is a rape joke, ha ha

Oversensitive ?

That video is one of the worst ones I've seen from Thunderf00t! It's barely coherent. He's almost right about avoiding being a victim by not behaving like a victim as a strategy for reducing your chances of being victimised by street crime but the video was a mess.

Or, perhaps it displays classism on the surface, but a classism that highlights an underlying, unconscious institutionalised racism where "black" names are associated with being low-class, even by black people themselves.

That's possible.

Let's assume you've shown that the set of names used in the study are as equally associated with low socioeconomic status as with race. How can you possibly conclude that class was the deciding factor and not race?

I'm concluding nothing. My criticism of the study is that the authors are concluding that racism is the only factor at play when it comes to bias against certain names. I don't think the study is rigorous enough to make such a conclusion because there isn't even an attempt to control for social class in terms of the names they used. It would have taken little effort to expand their list of names to include some typically lower class white names in the study, or even better to also include some other minority names associated with ethnic groups other than African Americans such as South Asian or East Asian. It's as though the authors set out to conclude that prospective employers are racist and conclude it they did.

Your desire to do so makes me think very ill of you.

Mostof your posts seem to show you to be pretty firmly Left Wing and yet you are seeking to deny the existence of social class. Is it because you have decided that race trumps class in this particular dynamic? Or are you genuinely blind to the class system?

I just tried to find this and failed, but wasn't that the topic of a Chris Rock bit some time back? IIRC, I think he specifically mentioned giving his daughter a neutral-sounding name rather than a black-sounding name, so that "that way you don't realize she's black until she gets to the job interview."

I wouldn't really class Chris Rock as an empirical source on the subject! He has made some worthwhile satirical commentary on the subject of race though. The seminal piece was this one:



Not safe for work.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's possible.

Well, upon being given the conclusion that "black" names are considered of a lower class by people of all ethnicities the first word that goes through my head is "why?". And, if it's the case that these names are thought of as of a lower class because it's only families in lower classes that give their children these names, then again the first thing that occurs to me is the word "why?".