Topic: Racism on the forums

[Louie]

[modbreak]I can already see that this thread is going to yield many, many, many reports to us, which is why it seems worthwhile to point out that we will not take action unless rules are being broken (I refer you to the forum rules). That being said, I'd also like to remind everyone of a very viable option: if someone is posting things that make you see red, you can ignore them - either the posts or the person. Thank you for your attention and have a lovely day.[/modbreak]

[Jeremy's Sea]

Ill have to re-read the forum rules, maybe blatant race baiting is allowed after all. 

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Am I given to understand that some people here are claiming that racism and the "Matthews Effect" are mutually exclusive?

[Jeremy's Sea]

By the usual suspects no less.

[Paddyjack]

Am I given to understand that some people here are claiming that racism and the "Matthews Effect" are mutually exclusive?

Of course the Matthews effect may in part be caused by racism, but what it was said in the OP is the following:

NIH director Francis Collins said it would take action to address the potential for "insidious bias" in the grant process.


Mr Collins said it was possible that reviewers could guess the race or ethnicity of an applicant by looking at names or where they trained.

He said they would look at reviewing grants on the basis of scientific merits alone, without requiring information about an applicant's qualifications or background.

While what I am saying  is that QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND are more likely the problem here, and it's a deeper problem that "bias from reviewers".

Clear enough?

[mkultra]

Am I given to understand that some people here are claiming that racism and the "Matthews Effect" are mutually exclusive?

Of course the Matthews effect may in part be caused by racism, but what it was said in the OP is the following:

NIH director Francis Collins said it would take action to address the potential for "insidious bias" in the grant process.


Mr Collins said it was possible that reviewers could guess the race or ethnicity of an applicant by looking at names or where they trained.

He said they would look at reviewing grants on the basis of scientific merits alone, without requiring information about an applicant's qualifications or background.

While what I am saying  is that QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND are more likely the problem here, and it's a deeper problem that "bias from reviewers".

Clear enough?

More importantly, institutionalized racism may be in part caused by the Matthews effect.

Why do you assume that qualifications and background are more likely to be the problem?  After all, bias does not have to be conscious to have an effect on the literature.

Do you have a cite for your statement?

[Louie]

Ill have to re-read the forum rules, maybe blatant race baiting is allowed after all. 

Yes, re-read the rules. But please remember that it is not up to you to enforce them. Furthermore, I can do without the sarcasm, thank you. If you have a complaint about the way we moderate, feel free to air it through the appropriate channels.

[Paddyjack]

Am I given to understand that some people here are claiming that racism and the "Matthews Effect" are mutually exclusive?

Of course the Matthews effect may in part be caused by racism, but what it was said in the OP is the following:

NIH director Francis Collins said it would take action to address the potential for "insidious bias" in the grant process.


Mr Collins said it was possible that reviewers could guess the race or ethnicity of an applicant by looking at names or where they trained.

He said they would look at reviewing grants on the basis of scientific merits alone, without requiring information about an applicant's qualifications or background.

While what I am saying  is that QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND are more likely the problem here, and it's a deeper problem that "bias from reviewers".

Clear enough?

More importantly, institutionalized racism may be in part caused by the Matthews effect.

Why do you assume that qualifications and background are more likely to be the problem?  After all, bias does not have to be conscious to have an effect on the literature.

Do you have a cite for your statement?

Well I could cite the comments from reviewers I received from my own grant applications

Typically, there are several aspects that reviewers look at, obviously the quality of the application but also the feasibility of the objectives. And one important part of that feasibility is, "do you have the expertise to carry this research through, and if not, do you have the collaborators to help you through". And since the competition in grant applications is very high, the Matthew effect will certainly factor in in favor of researchers with better background and experience, and against those that had it less easy right at the start.

[pandamonium]

Ill have to re-read the forum rules, maybe blatant race baiting is allowed after all. 

While disgusting, yes, being a master-race-baiter is allowed. The best way to combat all this master-race-baiting is to do what has been happening in this thread: counter the false claims and moving on. Some people, remember, have sacred cows, and sometimes those sacred cows make you want to beat something with a blunt object. Just try not to get in trouble for it.

In reference to chelovek, the poster is making claims and trying to back them up. If chelovek were posting anti-minority demotivational posts, and generally flaming, then that would be crossing a clear line. As long as chelovek is trying to have a discussion (of sorts) and not being a douchebag in the process, I'm fine with them expressing what I consider to be bigoted ideas.

That being said, I've never heard of the Matthew Effect. Interesting.

eta: I agree with the Haderach: it doesn't seem that the Matthew Effect is necessarily mutually exclusive to racism, but I would argue that institutional racism rather than individual racism is a primary concern in this matter. As a sufferer of the Matthew Effect, I can assure you that there are systems in place that make it difficult for a disadvantaged person to gain any advances. To make money, you need money. If I weren't white, I'd probably be even worse off.

[Bunsen]

Pictured bottom right:  Race baiting.

[pandamonium]

Pictured bottom right:  Race baiting.

Thank you for the clear illustration, Bunsen.

[mkultra]

(click to show/hide)

Am I given to understand that some people here are claiming that racism and the "Matthews Effect" are mutually exclusive?

Of course the Matthews effect may in part be caused by racism, but what it was said in the OP is the following:

NIH director Francis Collins said it would take action to address the potential for "insidious bias" in the grant process.


Mr Collins said it was possible that reviewers could guess the race or ethnicity of an applicant by looking at names or where they trained.

He said they would look at reviewing grants on the basis of scientific merits alone, without requiring information about an applicant's qualifications or background.

While what I am saying  is that QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND are more likely the problem here, and it's a deeper problem that "bias from reviewers".

Clear enough?

More importantly, institutionalized racism may be in part caused by the Matthews effect.

Why do you assume that qualifications and background are more likely to be the problem?  After all, bias does not have to be conscious to have an effect on the literature.

Do you have a cite for your statement?

Well I could cite the comments from reviewers I received from my own grant applications

Typically, there are several aspects that reviewers look at, obviously the quality of the application but also the feasibility of the objectives. And one important part of that feasibility is, "do you have the expertise to carry this research through, and if not, do you have the collaborators to help you through". And since the competition in grant applications is very high, the Matthew effect will certainly factor in in favor of researchers with better background and experience, and against those that had it less easy right at the start.

Fair enough, but that doesn't really support your claim that other biases are less important.  Do you have a a line of reasoning that shows the data presented in this paper are mainly due to lack of expertise or good collaborators?  Because I don't see it.

[Bunsen]

Pictured bottom right:  Race baiting.

Thank you for the clear illustration, Bunsen.

I live to serve.

[Unlimited]

So it seems like our societies focus on racism, has almost let us lead a blind eye to everyone's natural fear of anything, or anyone, that is different. People do not realize that even if you are not a "racist", you may still have bouts of irrationality, because you do not recognize this natural bias, clouding your judgment.

Yes, call a spade a spade, but don't make assumptions about an individual, because of what category they fall in, in your mind. It's irrational, wasteful, and stupid, to treat a group of people the same. Say some racist point of view was proven to be legitimate, within the bounds of correlation. What then? The only answer that really means anything, is you stop treating people as individuals. You just start roundin them up, damning them without due trial. We all know this is wrong, it's a damn fallacy. No matter how good the statistical data you will always be punishing the innocent. Some doctors are men, some men are tall, therefore some doctors are tall.

[thelatinist]

If you have a complaint about the way we moderate, feel free to air it through the appropriate channels.

This is an honest question: what are the appropriate channels for us to air our complaints that you continue to allow this sort of blatant racism to be posted on this board?