The modern argument is that SAT and ACT tests discriminate against minorities. The reasoning is that minorities score lower because of socioeconomic factors.
Vietnamese Americans that have much lower educational attainment rates than whites?
Or international students from China that in recent decades comprise primarily of multi-millionaire families? If you're genuinely concerned about effect sizes, China has a billion people. If you had any cultural awareness about international students from Asia, Chinese students who attend undergrad in America did not score well enough to get into an elite university in China.
> If you're genuinely concerned about effect sizes, China has a billion people.
> If you had any cultural awareness about international students from Asia, Chinese students who attend undergrad in America did not score well enough to get into an elite university in China.
Are you trying to ballpark the effect size of wealth, and are you arguing that wealth is the explanation for why Asians do well despite linguistic differences?
I mean, I notice you're not talking about linguistic differences anymore, and just about (1) wealth and (2) the fact that Chinese students coming to the US are rejects from Chinese elite universities.
Also, are we talking about race or nationality? "Asian" is a racial classification, as is "black" or "Hispanic". And then you're comparing Vietnamese to whites? What kind of argument do you think you're building here?
What kind of international clarity do you think you have with regards to Asian Americans?
You're arguing that Asians are not disadvantaged because of English is their second language. You're reiterating the model minority narrative. That is why I am drilling down the demographic because you are being toxic by bucketing all Asians together.
What we see from SAT results may be results. What's not obvious is whether the students had to study more to attain the same results. In Asia, grade school students spend much more time doing academic work than in the states. Sure, the international Asian student can read about Benjamin Franklin and other American cultural elements to be on the same playing field with an American, while the American can go hangout with their friends during this same time. Does that mean that the SAT is fair if these students receive the same score?
> Also, are you trying to ballpark the effect size of wealth, and saying that wealth is the explanation for why Asians do well despite linguistic differences?
The demographic of East Asians who come to America are from wealthier and more affluent background. When you're looking at averages, it does not include the general Chinese population. Additionally, to attain a visa and stay in America, salary data selects for people in professional fields. If you want to point to income as a measure of "succeeding", you have to drill-down into demographics and whether they are filled with high-skilled workers versus other labor.
> I mean, I notice you're not talking about linguistic differences anymore, and just about (1) wealth and (2) the fact that Chinese students coming to the US are rejects from Chinese elite universities.
I am saying the say Chinese international students in America are from a very specific socioeconomic background and educational attainment. This is wildly different from certain Asian American groups. This is not relevant to my original argument, but I pointed this out because you bucketed all Asian people together. It's toxic and ignorant, that is why I am educating you.
> What kind of international clarity do you think you have with regards to Asian Americans?
What does "international clarity" even mean ? I don't know what you're looking for.
> If you had any cultural awareness about international students from Asia, Chinese students who attend undergrad in America did not score well enough to get into an elite university in China.
You're offering your cultural awareness about international students, and implying that I might not have any. I suppose this prose issues from your conversational instincts.
I offer data to anchor discussion for effect sizes, and so far you're building your own pet theory from scratch, as if the discussion just began here! And you're building your own little causal story (with implied effect sizes) about why metrics collected in the US look the way they do.
I'm putting Asians into a bucket because that's how bureaucratic data collection works in the US! If available data sources do not offer reliable drill-downs into the demographics, then you are making up your own fantasy version of data.
Meanwhile you are making awful, awful accusations about whether I am supporting "model minority" arguments, and whether I'm being toxic by grouping Asians together.
> You're offering your cultural awareness about international students, and implying that I might not have any. I suppose this prose issues from your conversational instincts.
Yes. When you start out with "What about Asians?" alluding to the fact that Asians as a whole fare better on the SATs. I am aware of that, what I am questioning is whether given an native-English speaking American vs anyone with English as their second language, where if they work the same amount, would achieve the same results on the SAT.
> I'm putting Asians into a bucket because that's how bureaucratic data collection works in the US! If available data sources do not offer reliable drill-downs into the demographics, then you are making up your own fantasy version of data.
We are talking about the SAT's language and cultural biases here. That is independent of whether the SAT wants to group people as Asian or Not. Then there is college application process which is a separate conversion. My question is whether a minority has to work harder to attain the same results as an native-English speaking American. Whether certain buckets as defined by bureaucratic data collection processes score better and why that is the case is not my original point
> If available data sources do not offer reliable drill-downs into the demographics, then you are making up your own fantasy version of data.
Yes, official sources do not because there are political agendas and initiatives to bucket people into races. The fact that you think I am making up fantasy data about the "model minority" MYTH is exactly why I took a tangent from my original argument
> This is not relevant to my original argument, but I pointed this out because you bucketed all Asian people together. It's toxic and ignorant, that is why I am educating you.
> Yes, official sources do not because there is a political convenience to group all Asians together.
Really, the arrogance and rudeness is outstanding here, I have to wonder whether you are talking about your own toxicity and ignorance.
Your concept of illumination is to offer pet analysis and pet causal theories, and imaginary drill-downs into the data which don't exist! You are engaging in theory-crafting as if the conversation just began here, today.
American data collection culture, including academia and government, groups Asians together. You are making your own fantasy data, and making awful accusations based on your personal fantasies of what people are doing.
I'm talking about effect sizes, and not from the basis of my own self-proclaimed international awareness.
Observe for yourself how many replies this thread can go before you offer any semblance of something that isn't your own pet analysis.
In some dictatorships, the government can claim 95% of the election votes went to the incumbent.
The US unemployment rate published by the Bureau of Labor does not reflect the true unemployment rate.
The Three-fifths Compromise considered certain people only worth 3/5th of a person. Government defined metrics aren't a scientific / objective measure of the physical or moral world.
> pet analysis and pet causal theories, and imaginary drill-downs into the data which don't exist! ... You are making your own fantasy data
The reading passages include cultural elements from history and social sciences that are Western / US centric. Compared to American students, I expect that Chinese student would have volumes more knowledge on Chinese literature and European students more knowledge on the renaissance. Is it a measure of aptitude that Americans know more about the story of Benjamin Franklin flying a kite ( that was literally my SAT question ) ? Even without direct exposure in school, it is embedded throughout our society and media.
Additionally, you presume all people whose first language is not English is an international student. If that was the case, American public schools would not have ESL courses. Then there are natural born American students whose first language is English but with ethnic or regional variations. Those students may have a much more comprehensive lexicon from Urban Dictionary than the SAT developers, but the SAT developers cannot avoid projecting the set of vocabulary from their own middle-class upbringing thru academia. It would be to entertaining to see the SAT include "deadass" on the vocabulary item when every New Yorker knows the term and, with the help of meme culture, youth on the West Coast knows it too. To the point of academia, the ethnic distribution of academia is not representative of the general population. Finally, this expectation of English and normalized American cultural knowledge involves the forced assimilation and white-washing of indigenous Americans.
Its amazing how you simply assume my background with your post.
I am one of those immigrant children who was born in the US and speaks English as a second language, I was in ESL until the 4th grade until my parents thought that I was at minimum decent enough at English to figure out a way to ask for help if I got lost.
We were not rich, we had very little money
I grew up in my formative years in the inner city with mainly immigrant families.
In high school, i had many acquaintances who were studying for TOEFL. I don't really need someone explaining to me what taking these exams are like.
I studied for the SATs since the moment I could express ideas in English, and had nothing else to do at home because my parents were working, and in the 7th grade got a 1160/1600 on the SATs.
I have multiple friends who got into university through the TOEFL.
It is absolutely infuriating that the woke left wants to remove agency from experiences like mine and assume we are all stupid and unable to figure out how to succeed in a system.
I dont understand how the woke left thinks its appropriate to treat people like they don't have intelligence and agency and merely sit around waiting for the white man to help.
> It is absolutely infuriating that the woke left wants to remove agency from experiences like mine and assume we are all stupid and unable to figure out how to succeed in a system... I don't understand how the woke left thinks its appropriate to treat people like they don't have intelligence and agency and merely sit around waiting for the white man to help.
To be clear, I am the opposite of the left. I also share all those same personal background with you. Ultimately, I do not believe immigrants are waiting for white man to help. In fact, when I'm pointing out privilege and entitlement, I am ironically using the left's weapon of choice against them. The loudest woke people are highly educated, privileged, white and Asian liberals.
If we're having oppression olympics, I grew up in Section-8 housing of the inner city. I have friends who are serving life terms in prison and dozens other dead in gang violence. I've had a gun pointed at me twice. If my parent's weren't working all the time, they were gambling the rest. I didn't even know the SATs existed until I was 16, and when I finally took the SATs, my dad told my mom "he's taking the exam, but he's not going to do well".
We can call it even because you also assumed I was a woke white social justice warrior.
> I have multiple friends who got into university through the TOEFL.
And they don't have to take the SATs?
My original assumption is that the TOEFL is complimentary to but not a substitute for the SAT. To return to your original comment, your point is that in the presence of the TOEFL universities put zero weight on the SAT reading/writing section?
>“Well, that didn’t come to pass in 1984, but if we’re not careful that could come to pass in 2024.”
I refuse to participate in social media because the tech is already here, and at this rate it's only a matter of time before our government or big tech itself nefariously taps into the the massive data ocean that is being collected. It only takes a handful of seemingly innocuous data points to uniquely identify a person, and from location data alone one may infer a host of private identity markers - race, religion, political affiliation, sexual preference...especially with a bit of machine learning magic.
Combining this with the political polarization we are increasingly witnessing in the US pushes us onto the precipice of a techno-authoritarian, dystopian nightmare. Imagine how much worse the Soviet Union would have been if the government had access to the breadth and depth of personal information that is merely an access key away from our own government right now. After Snowden we know that even the NSA is vacuuming up enough a massive store of potentially dangerous data.
I don't know that there's any practical solution, as I doubt the average person will care enough until it's too late. Our current economy is built on data collection. Mitigation of this threat would effectively require reengineering of society.
It is critically important in a political climate where one side is using the spectre of white supremacy as a political cudgel. When a complicit media makes a consistent effort to paint a false picture. This censorship is not an isolated incident. News articles regularly leave out the perpetrator's race unless it's white. Reddit regularly deletes and locks threads on inconvenient articles/videos such as this, including on default subs. Right leaning sources are effectively forbidden from wikipedia and stackexchange. A dangerous narrative is being manufactured across the social, news, and entertainment media sphere.
It's obvious but you can't say anything about it. Either don't mention race or always mention it.
Media should educate us on issues. And if white supremacy is a problem, black-on-asian violence is as well. No group should be above scrutiny.
>Yes, in some ways. A new study shows Twitter users post even more misinformation after other users correct them.
I can't help but feel like the academics studying this "problem" are blinded by hubris. Even the byline is exemplary - what's being described is a discussion.
When you gatekeep science in the public square with "fact checking" you inevitably end up with a politicized orthodoxy. The opinions and majority consensus of our academic institutions are not beyond reproach, and there have repeatedly been instances where the messaging was misleading or false - look no further than the discourse surrounding covid starting early last year. Latest example being the lab origin hypothesis - a cooky, right wing, xenophobic conspiracy theory, until it wasn't. Fortunately media outlets are finally backtracking on their politicized "fact checking" in this case: see the editor's note here [0] for example.
There are understated psychological consequences to casual sex, particularly for females. Only in my 30s did I begin to understand the damage that my ostensibly harmless casual relations caused to many past partners, particularly those who grew attached before the end of the casual relationship.
Pair bonding is crucial to social organization and casual encounters erode the psychological capacity for such bonds, without nullifying the innate human desire for long term companionship. The result in a "sex positive" society is a growing proportion of perpetually lonely and frustrated people, or dysfunctional relationships. One of the few instances in my opinion where ignorance truly may be bliss.
So, to your question, it's quite possible that we will rediscover the purpose of monogamous marriage, if we can reason past the barriers of some recent ideologies.
> There are understated psychological consequences to casual sex, particularly for females. Only in my 30s did I begin to understand the damage that my ostensibly harmless casual relations caused to many past partners, particularly those who grew attached before the end of the casual relationship.
Do you have any reading material on this to suggest?
Marriage has often had little to do with monogamy. Adultery was the norm throughout the centuries, particularly when marriage was forced, had to happen very early in life, and when divorce was not an option. Prostitution was often utilized most by the married, not by bachelors.
But a larger nucleus would be unlikely to produce the same spectral signature even with the same charge. The energy transitions would be different, especially with different orbital shells and subtle quantum effects.
The high cycle counts of the PCR tests in the US make all official numbers suspect. Particularly in combination with implicit political pressure against the previous administration, and an overzealous press. The entire system - academic, medical, news and entertainment - is rotten with bias and society collectively is worse off for it, especially with respect to handling this pandemic.
It's hard to find a source now but these PCR tests were being run with cycle counts anywhere from 30-40; in this regime you are extremely likely to amplify noise and generate a huge percentage of false positives. The inventor of the PCR tests made similar comments regarding abuse of the PCR process during the HIV/aids pandemic - and wouldn't you know it, Dr. Fauci was involved in [mis]managing that pandemic as well. His self serving publication and premature press release created an ultimately unfounded stigma around HIV positivity. There is simply no reason to trust the guy now, regardless of his overtly warm, anti-trump persona. And now he has repeatedly denied before congress that he was affiliated with funding/conducting gain of function research on bat coronaviruses. But the publications, with authors publicly and directly linked to Fauci and funds he managed, are freely available online. This should be a far bigger story.
>How did this article get through peer review? Like the author, the journal’s reviewers and editors seemed to have been glamoured by the shine, tech fetishism, and naive empiricism of even the most poorly executed digital methods — without the methodological humility to work together with colleagues from information science, or at least check in with someone familiar with the basic workings of tools like Google
Well, that's what happens when your institution is brimming with ideologues who practice one sided research and immediately praise any results that confirms their political, dogmatic biases. Doubly so when criticizing certain results or topics will get you implicitly or ex-communicated, particularly if you are not part of an approved protected class.
The retraction doesn't matter very much, the damage has already been done, and far more eyes will have been exposed to the results than to the retraction.
>Surgical masks with particle collection efficiencies around ~50% cannot prevent the release of millions of particles per person and their inhalation by others (green dots in Fig. 1, B and D). In other words, the human-emitted respiratory particle number is so high that we cannot avoid inhaling particles generated by another person even when wearing a surgical mask
So the entire premise of the modeling in the paper rests on the assumption that surgical masks can filter some percentage of viral particles. It's my understanding that viral particles are around 3 orders of magnitude smaller than the pores in surgical masks. So is there any evidence that surgical masks can filter aerosolized viral particles?
You may want to check how much of your body weight is bacterial and how easy it is to exchange samples with others. Just own the things that make us human.
You're of course free to do whatever you think makes sense, but please don't expect other people to follow. The world is full of risks, but everything is a tradeoff - it's really bad if we start thinking random people are a danger to us.
And for what it's worth, I'm not anti-mask in the context of the pandemic - I've been wearing masks indoors since the whole thing started and I'll continue to do this until most people around me are vaccinated, for their sake.
Except that field data shows they don’t because they are not used precisely as required - which means the filter doesn’t work effectively if at all and then it becomes infectious waste that isn’t treated and disposed of correctly.
Human system effects dominate - as the field data shows. It’s like HCQ - works in a lab, not in the real world.
Might be useful in tightly controlled medical settings with adequate filtered ventilation. But there’s no hard evidence beyond that at this stage.
Science is based a lot on assumptions and beliefs.
A scientist who does not consciously say: „We have observed that… which makes us believe that…“ still ultimately becomes a victim of his unconsciously formed belief system, a pseudo-religion.
I’m a software engineer, I work scientifically, but I don’t own the truth. I own the thought process which works on top of assumptions. But I don’t want my own work to feel like magic, and to avoid that, I observe and try to understand it. But at the end of the day I have to say: „I assume that my program is bug free because I have observed many test runs in which the program behaved correctly. I belief it will work well at the customer.
Same has to be said for above study. Otherwise we wouldn’t find studies which even claim the opposite. These other studies are just based on different assumptions and belief systems.
That's a very cool visualization and I wish I'd seen it before. I am curious though as to what makes some viruses have higher R values than others. These masks more effectively stopped influenza and I still don't understand why.
