Aggregate performance was either unaffected or improved in the presence of affirmative action. This fits with history: until 1972 almost no women were admitted to MIT, but it didn't make the men perform less well for all the affirmative action they received nor cheapen their accomplishments.
The issue is not that men perform less well because women are admitted into MIT. The issue is that women admitted due to AA might be lower quality than other candidates (men and women who would be admitted without AA), and therefore drag their group average down.
I'm arguing that men who were admitted might be lower quality than women who weren't admitted because their gender exclude them, but that didn't mean those men were unqualified or even necessarily dragged their group averages down.
None of our measurements are accurate enough to correctly distinguish 5,000 very good students from the next 5,000 nearly-identically-but-slightly-better students.
I'm arguing that men who were admitted might be lower quality than women who weren't admitted because their gender exclude them...
This is exactly what I'm saying - whichever group gets bonus points/preferences/etc will have lower quality. In the past, that group was women. Now it's usually men, though not always (some nursing schools give preference to men [1], some liberal arts colleges do also).
[1] Defining quality here is slightly trickier since nurses of both genders are needed for specific tasks (mostly related to bathing).
TL;DR: The Espenshade study found that African chromosomes (by the "one-drop rule") equaled 450 SAT points over Asian chromosomes as a college admissions factor.
(Not that actual genetic testing was used. It probably should be, though. Why encourage race fraud?)
Your link is to a study in which "affirmative action" is used in the sense it was originally implied, not the sense in which it is actually used:
Note that none of these constitute "reverse discrimination," an accusation affirmative action plans often face. In no case was a top-performing man denied a reward if he outperformed everyone else. The main effect the researchers found was an increase in the number of able women willing to participate.
Granted before some, perhaps most, would be below their level but it seems rather impossible to assume that nobody has now been moved artificially higher than they should have.
The claim isn't that nobody is above their "level"; it's that black people are "likely" to be - and I read that as "most" are - above their "level".
At what "level" are people with good connections, powerful parents etc.? Is affirmative action more effective in advancing people than pulling strings and calling in favours? Isn't this mechanism - the social status quo - what affirmative action is designed to change?
Why would one expect more incompetence from one than the other?
It's well known, of course, that two wrongs make a right.
It's also well known that all white people have rich, powerful parents. (Wasn't that a Dave Chappelle skit?)
Why doesn't it "look good?" Oh, noes - am I a witch?
Could you, as an engineer, design a better system to make sure that all Eskimos are "likely" incompetent at their jobs, than promoting Eskimos over Tamils just because they are Eskimos and not Tamils?
Another cross-cultural comparison might be useful:
Or a fascist, possibly? Which is worse - a racist, or a fascist? Discuss.
I'll give you my standard deal - I'll admit to being a fascist, if you'll admit to being a communist. I haven't gotten any takers yet but I'm looking forward to the first.
You know what - if someone, anyone, can tell me why it's absolutely necessary to persecute racists and fascists, yet utterly and completely wrong to persecute communists, I'll go whole hog and buy the R-word. Operators are standing by...
Because on one side you are discriminating against people, and on the other you aren't? They're not just opposite ends of the same spectrum, they're completely different. The opposite of communism isn't facism, it's capitalism - and the opporsite of facism isn't communism, it's just non-racism.
> this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule
I don't need to do that.. I just need to point out that by picking an example of what one or more communists did or said doesn't make their actions a part of communism.
The only logical fallacy here is yours - I could equally point at some American murderers and say "capitalism is terrible, look at those capitalists murdering people for money".
So good job anticipating my response... the response of pointing out that your argument is basically bullshit, because sadly for you it isn't easy to back up racism.
I don't need to do that.. I just need to point out that by picking an example of what one or more communists did or said doesn't make their actions a part of communism.
Priceless! Where's my MasterCard?
For the record, Paul Graham kills hundreds of thousands of persons of color every year. All these capitalists are the same. Fred Wilson is walking down the street, sees some poor black homeless person he doesn't like... blam! He needs an extended magazine just to walk to work. And sells the organs, too - where do you think all this money comes from? But you never hear about it - our capitalist society is just so callous, you know, to the plight of the underprivileged.
I know there are communists out there who can spell "fascist." I just wish one of them would take my bait...
Alas, he is all too right. Attempts to rationalize racism, whether or not with the rather silly faux erudition we see here, may be soon classified as a mental illness:
I wasn't referring to the opinions, I was referring to the logic.
As for implying that he is right in general because you have read an article that says that some people would like to be able, in the future, to look at classifying some racist behaviour among a very narrow class of people who already are displaying symptoms of schizophrenia, as being a part of their symptoms. Well, you seem as bonkers as he is.
From your referenced article:
"At present, the state of research is inadequate to suggest one course or another"
And let's not forget Liam Stacey! We're skating on the edge here, neighbors - the very very edge. Big Twitter is in ur thoughts, making sure they "look good."
It could be that everyone is crazy. You and I together, comrades! If the 20th century doesn't prove the possibility of universal political insanity, what does it prove? Why is the English-speaking world somehow magically exempt from this general condition - appearing in all other places east of the Channel and west of the Pacific?
That seems to be what you're writing. And it doesn't look good.