Quote from: Pseudo Nym on August 29, 2007, 09:51:12 AMQuote from: seventhson on August 29, 2007, 01:50:37 AMQuote from: Lindbergh on August 29, 2007, 01:46:32 AM??How are you defining competent? If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it. But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat. How are you defining qualified?The HR department for that company will have a better idea what constitutes "qualified" than any outside observer. Since the HR staff will be fired by upper management if they hire people who don't contribute at the level expected of them, the HR staff has a stronger incentive than an outside party to accurately gauge the qualifications of a candidate for the role being filled.Furthermore, there may be attributes that are uniquely detrimental to the particular role being hired for. You probably wouldn't want to hire a narcoleptic to operate heavy machinery, or someone suffering from Tourettes to do sales calls. This negative human capital is more likely to be spotted by an HR staffer than by an outside party.Basically, we shouldn't substitute what we think constitutes being "qualified" for what the HR staff thinks constitutes being "qualified," because if the hire is underqualified, it's the HR staffer that will get canned, not us.Quote from: seventhson on August 29, 2007, 01:36:28 AMQuote from: Lindbergh on August 29, 2007, 01:46:32 AMQuote from: seventhson on August 29, 2007, 01:36:28 AMQuote from: Pseudo Nym on August 29, 2007, 12:13:01 AMEconomics isn't the same thing as engineering.And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven? Because it still supports his position? His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.Your original argument was that the pay disparity was caused by discrimination, and you supported that conclusion with a study showing that female professors earn less than male professors. I counter-argued by saying that a study which held constant three non-discriminatory variables that would affect professorship pay (marital status, level of education, and field of education) showed that this disparity is non-existent when these 3 factors were held constant for single female PhD-holding economics professors.Since your argument requires the existence of a pay disparity, and that evidence suggests that there is no disparity when you are comparing "apples to apples," this evidence undermines a premise crucial to supporting your argument.Furthermore, this evidence directly supports my conclusion that there is no disparity when other influencing factors are controlled for. In fact, I'm basing my conclusion directly on what is shown by the study, which is why it makes no sense for you to assert that my conclusion is not supported by the study.Did you quote a study? I don't remember you ever providing a link. And does this study compare single wonmen to married men. If so, it is an "apples to oranges" comparison.
Quote from: seventhson on August 29, 2007, 01:50:37 AMQuote from: Lindbergh on August 29, 2007, 01:46:32 AM??How are you defining competent? If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it. But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat. How are you defining qualified?The HR department for that company will have a better idea what constitutes "qualified" than any outside observer. Since the HR staff will be fired by upper management if they hire people who don't contribute at the level expected of them, the HR staff has a stronger incentive than an outside party to accurately gauge the qualifications of a candidate for the role being filled.Furthermore, there may be attributes that are uniquely detrimental to the particular role being hired for. You probably wouldn't want to hire a narcoleptic to operate heavy machinery, or someone suffering from Tourettes to do sales calls. This negative human capital is more likely to be spotted by an HR staffer than by an outside party.Basically, we shouldn't substitute what we think constitutes being "qualified" for what the HR staff thinks constitutes being "qualified," because if the hire is underqualified, it's the HR staffer that will get canned, not us.Quote from: seventhson on August 29, 2007, 01:36:28 AMQuote from: Lindbergh on August 29, 2007, 01:46:32 AMQuote from: seventhson on August 29, 2007, 01:36:28 AMQuote from: Pseudo Nym on August 29, 2007, 12:13:01 AMEconomics isn't the same thing as engineering.And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven? Because it still supports his position? His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.Your original argument was that the pay disparity was caused by discrimination, and you supported that conclusion with a study showing that female professors earn less than male professors. I counter-argued by saying that a study which held constant three non-discriminatory variables that would affect professorship pay (marital status, level of education, and field of education) showed that this disparity is non-existent when these 3 factors were held constant for single female PhD-holding economics professors.Since your argument requires the existence of a pay disparity, and that evidence suggests that there is no disparity when you are comparing "apples to apples," this evidence undermines a premise crucial to supporting your argument.Furthermore, this evidence directly supports my conclusion that there is no disparity when other influencing factors are controlled for. In fact, I'm basing my conclusion directly on what is shown by the study, which is why it makes no sense for you to assert that my conclusion is not supported by the study.
Quote from: Lindbergh on August 29, 2007, 01:46:32 AM??How are you defining competent? If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it. But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat. How are you defining qualified?
??How are you defining competent? If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it. But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat.
Quote from: Lindbergh on August 29, 2007, 01:46:32 AMQuote from: seventhson on August 29, 2007, 01:36:28 AMQuote from: Pseudo Nym on August 29, 2007, 12:13:01 AMEconomics isn't the same thing as engineering.And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven? Because it still supports his position? His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.
Quote from: seventhson on August 29, 2007, 01:36:28 AMQuote from: Pseudo Nym on August 29, 2007, 12:13:01 AMEconomics isn't the same thing as engineering.And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven? Because it still supports his position?
Quote from: Pseudo Nym on August 29, 2007, 12:13:01 AMEconomics isn't the same thing as engineering.And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?
Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.
you can't google it? Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?
Quote from: seventhson on August 29, 2007, 11:24:46 AMAgain, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional? Well, I just explained how. If I decide to go to work today, then I can't go to the beach during work hours (I don't work anywhere close to the beach).In this example, I've taken the option of going to work. Therefore, I no longer have the option of going to the beach, confining my choices.Going to work today allows me to draw a day's salary and maintains my relationships with my coworkers, which I think is more important than spending a weekday at the beach. But because I've chosen to go to work, I've confined my options, as I can no longer opt to go to the beach.
Again, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional?
Quote from: seventhson on August 30, 2007, 02:32:22 AMyou can't google it? Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?Yeah, that's him. He's a generic hack. He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell. When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain. Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo. He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003
Quote from: seventhson on August 30, 2007, 02:32:22 AMyou can't google it? Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?I don't remember the author or title of the study, so how can I google the correct one?I've never read anything written by Sowell that characterized AIDS as a "gay disease."
Quote from: H4CS on August 30, 2007, 02:46:39 AMQuote from: seventhson on August 30, 2007, 02:32:22 AMyou can't google it? Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?Yeah, that's him. He's a generic hack. He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell. When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain. Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo. He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?
Quote from: Pseudo Nym on August 30, 2007, 02:46:22 AMQuote from: seventhson on August 30, 2007, 02:32:22 AMyou can't google it? Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?I don't remember the author or title of the study, so how can I google the correct one?I've never read anything written by Sowell that characterized AIDS as a "gay disease."I know this is a messageboard and all, but come one. If you're gonna make an argument can you please quote some sources?
Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?
Discussion
Resources
