I'm stating the very basics of data analysis. This is the basic reasoning that people go through when analysis data from stock markets, clinical control trials and social science research. I am not wrong and or being political motivated. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
SJW's are corporate neoliberals
-
It's not what I think or not. It's about what can be extracted from the data. The data, and methods used, do not allow the causal effect that you and the article's title claim.
^ Interesting to notice how corporate identity neoliberals always argue in such a subliterate way with no substantive content when the data is right in front of them.
-
I'm stating the very basics of data analysis. This is the basic reasoning that people go through when analysis data from stock markets, clinical control trials and social science research. I am not wrong and or being political motivated. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
What specific fault are you alleging exists in the data in this study??
Are you an undergrad? -
Bias does not mean that someone did something wrong.
I'm stating the very basics of data analysis. This is the basic reasoning that people go through when analysis data from stock markets, clinical control trials and social science research. I am not wrong and or being political motivated. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
What specific fault are you alleging exists in the data in this study??
Are you an undergrad? -
The only thing you do by arguing against this is show your own political motivation and lack of basic data knowledge.
The only thing you're demonstrating is your i/l/l/iteracy and ability to randomly shout mangled and vague misunderstandings of basic concepts that should be elementary to undergrads in your discipline or to basically almost any undergrad in any discipline.
-
The upbringing of white and black people in the bottom quantile is not only different with respected to the color of the families. There are many other unobservable variables that affect them which cannot be accounted for and could cause the observed outcomes.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Even if every word you said was true, it would still amount to a refutation of the corporate neoliberal n/a/r/r/a/t/i/v/e on race hierarchies and privilege.
-
Ok, I'm done here. You are delusion/al at a whole new level. Just make sure you seek some professional help.
Haha, "All leftists are crazy." Reed's analysis is brilliant but your attacks amount to just spitting out random word soup. I guess there's no substantive defense for the corporate neoliberal ideology about race and privilege after all -- thanks for making that clear to everyone.
-
No.
People demanded evidence demonstrating some of Reed�s arguments.
OP provided evidence that clearly shows intersectionality theory can�t explain social mobility.
People responded by claiming that the data can�t be trusted.You are mistaking and conflating a lot of concepts in a pretty revealing manner. You do not appear to know enough about this to have strong opinions on it.
-
OP provided compelling evidence that he doesn't know the first thing about analysing data. OP is ignoran t and I can prove it mathematically.
No.
People demanded evidence demonstrating some of Reed�s arguments.
OP provided evidence that clearly shows intersectionality theory can�t explain social mobility.
People responded by claiming that the data can�t be trusted. -
Your claim relies on the assumption that the front door criteria is met. If that's the case, the front-door criterion relative to
(X, Y) and if P(x, z) > 0, then the causal effect of X on Y is identifiable and is given by the formula:
P(y|x^) = Sum_{z}P(z|x)Sum_{X}P(y|x,z)P(x')Meaning, Z causes observed phenomena Y. However, the such criteria is not met because you do not block alternative pathways. Which means that your estimate of P(y|x^) is not causally identifiable.