Any data purists on here? I'm certainly not FTAOD. At cursory glance it does all seem rather based on feels, and the questions are on the leading side.
Re the first one: "Being overlooked in a job application process or for promotion at work in a manner that felt unfair"
31% of BAME responders agreed this applied to them within the last year. That appears super high. But what percentage of them were actively seeking a job/promotion within that period? Wouldn't it be more relevant to ask what percentage of them would agree with the statement? And the "felt unfair" part of the q. doesn't add "on the grounds of my race".
I read the headline which made it clear it was about perception rather than actual evidence and i cba to read the rest. The gruniad is at times just a left wing daily mail.
While we’re at it the guardian also has some sort of interactive books of the year thing that is impossible to read on an iPhone and which I’ve spent far more time that I should trying. It has fvcked me right off.
Research undertaken by a University and then written about in a newspaper
Research undertaken by a newspaper and then written about in a newspaper
In both cases the article will look similar but in 1. the purpose of the research is VERY different than in 2. where the purpose is political and financial.
I ignore number 2s (as it were) If the poll had been undertaken and didn't make money or help the political angle of the paper it wouldn't get published.
Research undertaken by a University and then written about in a newspaper will invariably have been funded by a multinational and if it is favourable then sent to a newspaper by the PR department of that multinational. Journalists don't spend their time reading academic papers. They read the summary the PR person has sent them.
If it is the Grauniad it may be a charity rather than a multinational.
indeed BUT I still trust that the scientific method used will have been much more trustworthy , especially if it has been published in an academic journal
Likewise, this is also not evidence of bias. It may be bias but it is irritating the article doesn't even entertain the proposition that some groups may perform worse in driving tests than others.
0
0
Also, the methodology looks balls
0
0
Ur so racist and transphobic. I think u need diversity training tbh luv.
P.s. stunning pic!
0
0
What would the Guardian and the Labour Party do without these ethnic minorities they imported to virtue signal over?
0
0
This is not a thread for racists faod
It is a thread for data purists
0
0
Any data purists on here? I'm certainly not FTAOD. At cursory glance it does all seem rather based on feels, and the questions are on the leading side.
Re the first one: "Being overlooked in a job application process or for promotion at work in a manner that felt unfair"
31% of BAME responders agreed this applied to them within the last year. That appears super high. But what percentage of them were actively seeking a job/promotion within that period? Wouldn't it be more relevant to ask what percentage of them would agree with the statement? And the "felt unfair" part of the q. doesn't add "on the grounds of my race".
0
0
I read the headline which made it clear it was about perception rather than actual evidence and i cba to read the rest. The gruniad is at times just a left wing daily mail.
0
1
The subheader says "revealed:the stark evidence of racial bias in Britain".
0
0
While we’re at it the guardian also has some sort of interactive books of the year thing that is impossible to read on an iPhone and which I’ve spent far more time that I should trying. It has fvcked me right off.
0
0
Ugh they're the worst
Unrelated, did you know king James VI/I had a pet armadillo?
0
0
In both cases the article will look similar but in 1. the purpose of the research is VERY different than in 2. where the purpose is political and financial.
I ignore number 2s (as it were) If the poll had been undertaken and didn't make money or help the political angle of the paper it wouldn't get published.
0
1
Research undertaken by a University and then written about in a newspaper will invariably have been funded by a multinational and if it is favourable then sent to a newspaper by the PR department of that multinational. Journalists don't spend their time reading academic papers. They read the summary the PR person has sent them.
If it is the Grauniad it may be a charity rather than a multinational.
0
0
indeed BUT I still trust that the scientific method used will have been much more trustworthy , especially if it has been published in an academic journal
Obviously there will be exceptions
0
1
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/03/black-women-far-less-likely-than-white-men-to-pass-driving-tests
Likewise, this is also not evidence of bias. It may be bias but it is irritating the article doesn't even entertain the proposition that some groups may perform worse in driving tests than others.
0
0
Quite, they need some sort of variables excluder otherwise it's not science it's Owen Jones down the pub
0
0
Surely it's SOME evidence of racial bias, but by no means conclusive evidence? It's no NO evidence, is it?
0
0
No, by itself it is not evidence of racial bias
0
0
Yes it is evidence. It's subjective evidence. Its strength might be questionable, and could be countered by other evidence, but it is evidence.
0
1
Is this a fooking lawyer's board or what?
0
0
It is evidence that among a very small group of people curated by the guardian there is a sense that unfairness exists
0
0
Indeed. Questionable evidence, weak evidence, evidence curated in a skewed and biased way. But still evidence.
0
0
It's not evidence of anything beyond their self reported discontentment, for which no explanation is given
Maybe they are all a bit shit (maybe economic inequality caused this to be so).
It's junk.
0
0
Why are there no questions about likelihood to succeed in the rap industry?
0
0
I used to have a massive obsession with white Rastas, Wellers.
0
0
?!?! in an appalled way, right?
0
0
sorry thought Jamal's comment was aimed towards the driving tests stats.
Join the discussion