Um no. Why do people with genes from West Africa (but who live all over the world in different cultures) make up the top 95% of the top sprint times? It isn't because they grew up sprinting.
It's not? Because they do. I don't think anyone is saying there are no biological differences in people of different ethnicities, but it's pretty clear that culture also plays a big role. African countries have a culture of running. Some countries (e.g. Jamaica) with a stronger culture of sprinting and produce more good sprinters than other nations with exactly the same genetic makeup.
You're starting with the fallacy that there can be only one cause to some phenomenon.
There are lots of tall white people. If you look at the countries with the tallest people it's: Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, US, Australia.
No being non-Asian doesn't help you with most jobs, but that is a causal relationship. What we have is a negative correlation between Asians that applied to a particular company and Asians that got that job.
There are all kinds of things that can cause strange correlations that have nothing to do with racism. For example: Why were 73% of the applicants Asian? Certainly 73% of the population isn't Asian. Maybe Asian people are more likely to apply to more jobs, making it less likely overall that they will get any particular job (i.e. they can't get all the jobs they apply to). In fact Asians did get 4/17 (19%) of the jobs and Asians only make up 5.6% of the population.
You have to actually do the research to see what actually happened. You can't just look at how many Asians were hired and then conclude racism. You actually have to measure how qualified the applicants were. You can't just assume that the qualified applicants to a particular company perfectly match a cross section of the US or the applicant pool.
Philosophers syndrome: Mistaking a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.
It doesn't even need to be the case that there is a difference in mental capabilities between races. It could be that certain groups have a culture that leads them to be better or worse at certain tasks on average, and those groups can be predominantly of one race/ethnicity. It could be that some cultures cause people to be overconfident in their abilities (e.g. causing them to be more likely to apply for jobs they are unqualified for).
Culture affects everything. It even affects how good African Americans are at basketball on average. It affects how good Jamaicans are at sprinting (e.g. there is no discernible difference between Jamaican sprinters and those of other Caribbean islands).
I'm not saying that any of these is en explanation. I am not saying there was no racism in this case. What I am saying is that it is not rational to assume racism simply because some test did not yield a cross section of society. There are a million other potential explanations, racism being one.
If we assume that all races of people are equally good at basketball, how can it be explained that 74.4% of basketball players are African American but African Americans only make up 13.2% of the population? The chances that there is no discrimination is way lower than 1 in a billion.
I think at this point, it's really a guessing game of which of the two is more dangerous.
I agree. I don't think there is any way to really know objectively. I am just going with my gut. I don't pretend my gut is more likely to be right than anyone else's.
. My reading is that with Trump, I'm seeing his stupidity and incompetence fully exposed; I don't think the man is capable of holding anything back.
That's how I read it as well. But I think the potential damage from just what we have seen is already pretty fucking scary to me.
Hillary has learned to play her cards close to the chest, and I think there is a power-hungry psychopath hiding behind her public persona. I suspect she would have no qualms ordering someone killed if it served her political purposes and she felt she could get away with it.
That's pretty much how I feel as well. Although I think Trump would also be willing to have someone killed if he thought he could get away with it, and it benefited him, but maybe he is less capable of getting away with something like that, and maybe he knows that.
Hillary has screwed up badly as SoS, and shown that she is rather resistant to advice.
Sure. I think the email thing is a good example of that. I will say I think the whole Benghazi thing is just republicans trying to fabricate a controversy out of nothing. They did find the private email server, but that's not what they were looking for, and it has nothing to do with Benghazi other than it's where the Benghazi investigation ended up.
I sort of feel like something like Benghazi or even the private emails server wouldn't even make the news if it happened in a Trump presidency, because of all the other even crazier shit that would be going on.
And the Clinton political machine also has enormous power, both domestically and abroad.
On balance, Hillary still scares me more than Trump.
That's fair. I'm glad I don't have to make this choice. I live in California, which is definitely going to Clinton anyway. So I will be doing my ritual protest vote, like always.
Nearly everyone who knows business will argue that Trump has been successful.
I don't think this is an objective claim. How shall we define people who "know business"? Also, it doesn't matter what people who "know business" think. It matters what the facts are.
I do not personally know a whole lot about running a corporation, so I will not sit here an pretend I do.
I don't know anything about running a corporation or making it successful. I do however know about math. If someone starts his career with X dollars and runs a series of corporations for many decades, and at the ends all he has to show for it is Y dollars in assets, which is about the same ROI than the entire market on average, it makes them a mediocre business man at best. Add on top of this that the fact that it seems like he also engages in a pretty decent amount of fraud, and it looks even more pathetic.
But I have been thoroughly convinced by those who do know business very well, including close friends who deal with it daily, who have explained to me that Trump has been successful at business.
So if you know nothing about business, and don't claim to, how do you know your friends are good at business and consequently whether their opinion is accurate?
If you want to discredit him, I don't think that angle is the best approach.
I'm not trying to discredit him. I spend roughly half my time defending trump from false accusations (e.g. misquotations, etc). I think he is doing a perfectly good job of discrediting himself.
All the experts that I personally know, whether they like Trump or not, at least agree that he is a good businessman.
There are plenty of people saying that Trump is a bad business man. Are those people experts? How would you even know if you know nothing about business and don't claim to?
Here is my advice. Don't listen to experts (self-proclaimed or otherwise). Do your own research.
Here are just some random articles I found doing a quick google search.
And here is one critical of this comparison
This isn't some kind of weird angle I came up with. And whether we have the right numbers or not (only Trump and his accountants and lawyers know that), this is in my opinion a legitimate and objective comparison of how well Trump did vs. how well someone could do with no business or financial skills if they had started with the same amount of money.
Who knows maybe Trump will release his tax returns for the last 40 years, and we get a clearer picture of how much money he actually has, how much he inherited, etc. Made he is richer than we all assumed, and he's a great business man. Maybe he is much poorer than he claims (as people like Mark Cuban have speculated), and he is actually a terrible business man.
I am genuinely open to both possibilities. The claim I am making is that the comparison to index funds is a good one, and if it turns out he did much better than index funds, I will admit that Donald Trump is a good business man (if not an ethical one). The other claim I am making is that not everyone "good at business" thinks Trump is a good businessman. A lot of that is undoubtedly political, so I would hesitate to say Trump was a bad business man because lot's of people said he was bad, but the opposite is also a pretty dubious claim.
If he didn't he would not have been so successful in business.
I think this is a myth. Apparently he would have made more money, had he just left the money he inherited from his father in an index fund. If Trump is such a great businessman, why is his level of success not better than a typical retirement account (which requires no effort to manage)?
And even that, bankruptcy can be argued as a legitimate business strategy. He has a track record of success.
Bankruptcy is a legitimate business strategy. What is not legitimate is getting free shit by refusing to pay people for their labor, and using your wealth and lawyers to deter people from seeking justice. Neither is running a fake charity to exploit the generosity of others for your own personal benefit. What Trump has done a good job of illustrating, is how a child can be "successful" (i.e. have an ROI almost equivalent to an index fund) if he has lots of money and no ethical standards.
He has a track record of success.
Only if your standard if success is not super high.
Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.