[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: [Re: Aff Bias]

In a message dated 97-08-04 12:01:17 EDT, you write:

<< At no time did I ever "refuse to acknowledge" an affirmative bias.  I
 refused to accept as gospel which the mighty Bear had claimed, and for
 that crime I am attacked.  It's fascinating that Bear accuses me of
 retreating behind anecdotal evidence, when this is exactly what I'm
 protesting.  Bear seems to "know"  from years of "experience" that there
 is an affirmative bias, and my reasoned request for some backing to that
 claim gets ridiculed or derided as a diversionary tactic and a waste of
 time.  After all, a couple of people have claimed they perceive it, so it
 must be true, right?  In another posting, he tries to link my arguments to
 those used by certain racists, which is completely out of line (and which
 I find personally offensive). Let's try to have a rational discussion,
 shall we? >>


Dammit, this is the kind of shit that drives me up a wall. First, I'm not the
only one to note the aff. bias. Jack Rhodes first wrote about in justifying
counterwarrants back inthe seventies. Bile wrote about it as a justification
for whole rez. There have been numerous statistical analyses, though I
mentioned that I am a little tied up right now and about 2000 miles from my
personal files. That doesn't seem to deter the cartesians.Others before me on
this list have noted the same thing. Everyone I mention this thread to just
laughs. Anecdotal? Yep. Do I require "empirical data" every time I come to a
personal conclusion. No, not when I "see" it constantly. Sorry, Mr. Dove, if
you are offended by the diversity analogy, but I think it fits.Some of us are
seeing it every single weekend. Screaming for empirical studies before even
giving others time to share their anecdotal narratives is commonly a delaying
tactic used to shut down discussion of reform. No decision is immediately
imminent, so could we please take the time to stop slamming input, even if it
is in a non-empirical form? I will certainly give full credit to any form of
input you desire.  

Anyone notice how ironic it is that Dove uses his own anecdotes as
counter-proof justifying empirical study?

This is a stupid fight. The attempt to shut down discussion of reform in the
absence of "empirical" data seems even sillier. Frankly, Mr. Dove, I am
offended at your tone. You make it sound as the "royal Bear" wants to cram
another edict down the throats of the innocent. Easy rhetoric to peddle on
the L, but very inaccurate, particularly since I have zero power to even
impersonate "The Man.". If you want to ignore my posts, please do so. I urge
you to. But if every discussion has to boil back down to "shut up, no
empirics" or "Bear's an asshole", I'd just as soon you'd find some other way
to get your daily kicks. I do think you've managed comfortably to divert this
discussion from its original course.

Michael Bryant
Dept of Communication
Weber State University
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page