# Thread: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

1. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by conon394
Does an MA in Econometrics, BA in Economics with minors in math and stats and programing and BS in Engineering qualify? Because the paper they site had LMAO poor r values. r-.50?? r-.87 That is basically a guess with some statistical g s-tring attached on it. Even in my first basic intro econometrics course it was made clear r-.95 was the only credible bottom figure if you wanted to publish or be taken seriously.
Are you serious?!? r. -95% the bottom? That's for quality control etc man. Not for everything. If in our models we get say polynomial trend at R 25% or so, we usually remove it to get the stochastic component. In mining estimations, if we get crossvalidation results of R at 65% or so, we consider it fine.

Originally Posted by sumskilz
An r value of -.50 is considered a moderate inverse relationship, and r value of -.87 is a strong inverse relationship. Which paper are you talking about though? I'm not seeing those numbers in anything Quillette cited.
That.
See this source? And it's just one source. Even at r -0.2 you have weak correlation, not "no correlation".

Here is another source.

Want more? Here is a third one.

It is practically painful for me to read such advice of "don't make conclusions at r less than 90% and consider r at 50% as negligible". Things like that, are frankly why mathematicians often make fun of economists.

Originally Posted by conon394
Also there is no justification for using r and not a different model.
Again, what?!?
Pearson's correlation is one of the most used statistics and for a good reason. It has its flaws, sure, like a small value of r not a sure sign you don't have correlation, it may simply not be linear. But nobody would fault you if you use it.
If you have good R, it means you have good linear correlation. Not buts or ifs.

would it be better to have more? Perhaps. But you don't have to, unless it's work in the field of statistics, not sociology.

2. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by conon394
edit - also its useful to think visually at r .50 you can provably pivot that line 180 degrees and still be at a negative r .50 so what are you explaining anything?
This doesn't make any sense. The relationship remains the same no matter how you graph it.

3. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by sumskilz
This doesn't make any sense. The relationship remains the same no matter how you graph it.
It does a .50 you are basically drawing a line through a cloud of dots. If your hypothesis is correct maybe you found something but the data still allows for many other lines based on any other slope with different arguments.

4. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by conon394
It does a .50 you are basically drawing a line through a cloud of dots. If your hypothesis is correct maybe you found something but the data still allows for many other lines based on any other slope with different arguments.
Okay, I get what you're saying now.

Usually there is also a p-value which is essentially a measure of how likely the relationship could have occurred by chance.

This is an example from his paper that upset so many people (context is the UK, net opposition to immigrants from X country):

The odds that this relationship occurred by chance is less than 1 in 1000 according to the p-value (EDIT: more precise values below). I've only read the abstract and looked at the figures, so I can't comment on the quality of the paper otherwise.

Based on just that, his conclusion seems modest enough to me:

The present study shows that, in the UK, net opposition to immigrants of different nationalities (n = 23) correlates strongly with the log of immigrant arrests rates (r = .77; p = 0.00002; 95 % CI = [.52, .90]) and with the log of their arrest rates for violent crime (r = .77; p = 0.00001; 95 % CI = [.52, .90]). This is particularly noteworthy given that Britons reportedly think that an immigrant’s criminal history should be one of the most important characteristics when considering whether he or she should be allowed into the country... While circumstantial in nature, the study’s findings suggest that public beliefs about the relative positions of different immigrant groups may be reasonably accurate.

5. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Inferences about the edit history of other members' posts are off topic.

6. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by sumskilz

Usually there is also a p-value which is essentially a measure of how likely the relationship could have occurred by chance.
That's a not really solid. P-value is the chance that the null-hypothesis is true in the things you observe, not necessarily that they have occurred by chance. Generally, you're much better using confidence intervals at 95%, which he does.

What really perplexes me is... Nigeria and Egypt are really hardcore against Immigrants?! And USA is as pro-immigrants as Sweden?

7. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Is it not opposition to immigrants from the USA, Sweden, Nigeria and Egypt?

8. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by alhoon
That's a not really solid. P-value is the chance that the null-hypothesis is true in the things you observe, not necessarily that they have occurred by chance. Generally, you're much better using confidence intervals at 95%, which he does.
I was having trouble thinking about how to explain it. The reason why I described it the way I did is because of population genetics. If you observe a pattern between samples from two populations that doesn't actually exist between the populations at large (the null hypothesis is true), then the p-value is identical to the chance the pattern could have occurred in the sampling due to chance despite it not being true outside the specific sample sets. I can't see why that wouldn't also be true with polling.

Originally Posted by alhoon
What really perplexes me is... Nigeria and Egypt are really hardcore against Immigrants?! And USA is as pro-immigrants as Sweden?
It's actually opposition in the UK to immigration from Nigeria, Egypt, etc.

9. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by sumskilz
I was having trouble thinking about how to explain it. The reason why I described it the way I did is because of population genetics. If you observe a pattern between samples from two populations that doesn't actually exist between the populations at large (the null hypothesis is true), then the p-value is identical to the chance the pattern could have occurred in the sampling due to chance despite it not being true outside the specific sample sets. I can't see why that wouldn't also be true with polling.

It's actually opposition in the UK to immigration from Nigeria, Egypt, etc.
Wait, so the point of that graph was to say that "people dislike immigrants from nations that do crimes" ?
That's ... not really a surprise. Whatever SJWs say, it is undeniable that people from poorer African countries would be more violent and harder to integrate. English don't dislike X people because they are from X, but because they do more crimes.

10. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by Genava
You are doing exactly the same by saying this. Each person implicated in politics thinks he is on the right side, on the side of the truth. Polarizing the debate and diabolizing your opponent (comment like "let them chip your brain") sound like a crusade to me. This is what I hate from SJW and this is what I hate from neoconservatives.

Personally, I taught geography and chemistry in high school and most of the students were progressives. In university, the most "progressives" are often the youngest starting their first degree, but by most progressives I mean the most militant and dogmatic. Hard and unbreakable viewpoints, political dogma and zealots are less often seen in higher degree, probably has a consequence of maturity and intelligence.

I think progressives are more represented among the smarter because "progressive" is a very wide concept with most of its ideas actually applied in the society. While conservatives bear poorly their name since they aren't actually wanting to maintain the current situation but to go back to the one from a few decades earlier. In my view, the problem is mostly the labeling. Most of the students grown up in a progressive world, so a true conservative mind for them is simply the situation they known since their birth. Progressive does not mean SJW.

The new generation of conservatives (what I called neoconservatives) are generally focusing on battles already lost. For example homosexuality and abortion. Generally this a no-no for any smart and young people and a very efficient repulsive filtering the IQ of their new-members.

I would like to point out that you are not objective in this matter, having been a teacher yourself. You are hardly going to admit or even honestly think you have been indoctrinating the students you taught, but that doesn't mean weren't passing on your views to your students and shaping how they think. Most of those who are progressive claim to be objective but are anything but that. I recall seeing it first hand. When I was with a friend watching their son as part of a high school debate contest, I noticed that the school had all kinds of referencez to Nazi concentration camps and the atrocities committed by the Germans but none on those committed by the Japanese, no mention of comfort women, or the Rape of Nanjing, or Manilla. There was plenty of information on the US bombing of Hiroshima, and the death and destruction caused, and quote. ed

Teachers will work harder, give better letters of recommdndations,etc., for students they like than those students they don't particularly like, and they are more likely going g to like students that share their views. I.am not saying they wouldn't be helpful or anything to those students they disagree with, but I don't think they would push as hard, or their letters of recommendations would be quite as good, that is just human nature. They are more likdly to be subconsciously more.supportive for someone who share their views on climate change and abortion than a student who was a vocal opponent of both. That is more important on the higher degrees than on the lower levels, more important for prestigious schools than run of the mill ones. With good SAT/ACT scores, you can probably find a decent State University to get into, but you need a lot more if you want to get into a school like Harvard. Non progressive students would have a harder time getting in, so it results in a bias toward what you call progressive.
The second is that students are younger, and more trusting of what their teachers tell them, and more susceptible to what they were told, and don't have the life experience to be more critical. For example, I am old enough to remember when NBC rigged GM trucks to explode, showing it on the news until GM caught them rigging the truck to catch fire, and NBC's rather lame response. I also remember being.taught in school how people in the middle ages thought the earth was flat, and Columbus proved it was round, although they don't particularly false history anymore. Young people don't have the life experiences to be critical of what they are told, or even a little cynical. I remember my friend's son saying Trayvon Martin was only shot because he was wearing a hoodie (the fact that Martin was on top of Zimmer was top of him pounding his head into the ground wasn't mentioned). The students don't have the experience to recognize that a picture of an 12 year old Trayvon was shown instead of the 16 year old he was, and picture of a laughing Zimmerman instead of the batter Zimmerman in the police photos is really just a form of propoganda, or that the claims that if the roles were reversed, the outcome would have been different in Martin trials (the rolss were reversed years before Martin shooting, black neighborhood watchman Roderick Scott shot and killed an unarmed white student and was aquitted) , so they believe what the media and teachers tell them.

The issue with political correctness is that the left or progressives as you want to call them, don't want to admit that they actually support censorship as long as it supports their views. Political Correctness is a way to practice the censorship and bias that you condemn in your opponents without having to be honest to admit it. It sounds much better that what you isn't the same thing as what you accuse your opponents of doing. Unlike them, you are not practicing censorship, you are just combating hate crime when you restrict what pwople say.

E

11. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by alhoon
Wait, so the point of that graph was to say that "people dislike immigrants from nations that do crimes" ?
That's ... not really a surprise. Whatever SJWs say, it is undeniable that people from poorer African countries would be more violent and harder to integrate. English don't dislike X people because they are from X, but because they do more crimes.
Just like a hallmark is the guarantee of purity of precious metal, so the use of the term 'SJW' guarantees that some racist or sexist gibberish will follow.

From the 2011 census, 0f the total non-UK born population, over a third (37%, 2.7 million ) were born in Europe, a third in the Middle East and Asia (34%, 2.6 million), a fifth (17%, 1.3 million) in Africa. A good many of those Africans are of Asian origin, or white.

12. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by Common Soldier
The issue with political correctness is that the left or progressives as you want to call them, don't want to admit that they actually support censorship as long as it supports their views. Political Correctness is a way to practice the censorship and bias that you condemn in your opponents without having to be honest to admit it. It sounds much better that what you isn't the same thing as what you accuse your opponents of doing. Unlike them, you are not practicing censorship, you are just combating hate crime when you restrict what pwople say.
All very true, whoever has the authority in their hands will tend to censor: however, it's equally disingenuous for the reactionary right to complain about how terrible a thing censorship is when they have wholeheartedly supported it for the previous 600 years.

13. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
All very true, whoever has the authority in their hands will tend to censor: however, it's equally disingenuous for the reactionary right to complain about how terrible a thing censorship is when they have wholeheartedly supported it for the previous 600 years.
The "reactionary right" hasn't existed for 600 years.

14. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by alhoon
Wait, so the point of that graph was to say that "people dislike immigrants from nations that do crimes" ?
That's ... not really a surprise. Whatever SJWs say, it is undeniable that people from poorer African countries would be more violent and harder to integrate. English don't dislike X people because they are from X, but because they do more crimes.
Migrants from poor and disrupted countries are definitely more likely to "do crime" in their first generation in a new place, its part of the price of charity.

It might be true that Joe Blow in the street does statistical analysis of crime reports before he comes to his conclusions. I think its more because they dislike people from various places for the same old reasons people always do and find justifications for their actions afterwards [if: (notsame) then: (hostility+1)]. Of course my experience is personal not statistical so its not really helpful, but i see it in my country and I have seen it in the UK too.

I think pressure on material resources creates fear, and the most different outgroup stats to get it in the neck. I think in most traditionally pink-skinned countries that brown-skinned people are the most out of the out-groups (taking over from the Jews or Catholics or Protestants in past centuries) but a lot of work has been put into demonising Islam (by the Saudis mostly, but some help from some Western Media and governments).

Questions like "does a larger number of Muslims lead to a larger number of Muslims terrorists?" seem to pick out a politically hot point to study while ignoring some other interesting areas like "does having a stratified society with an aristocracy and monarchy lead to injustice?" and "to what extent does scapegoating keep corrupt politicians in power?".

15. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by Cyclops
Migrants from poor and disrupted countries are definitely more likely to "do crime" in their first generation in a new place, its part of the price of charity.

It might be true that Joe Blow in the street does statistical analysis of crime reports before he comes to his conclusions. I think its more because they dislike people from various places for the same old reasons people always do and find justifications for their actions afterwards [if: (notsame) then: (hostility+1)]. Of course my experience is personal not statistical so its not really helpful, but i see it in my country and I have seen it in the UK too.

I think pressure on material resources creates fear, and the most different outgroup stats to get it in the neck. I think in most traditionally pink-skinned countries that brown-skinned people are the most out of the out-groups (taking over from the Jews or Catholics or Protestants in past centuries) but a lot of work has been put into demonising Islam (by the Saudis mostly, but some help from some Western Media and governments).

Questions like "does a larger number of Muslims lead to a larger number of Muslims terrorists?" seem to pick out a politically hot point to study while ignoring some other interesting areas like "does having a stratified society with an aristocracy and monarchy lead to injustice?" and "to what extent does scapegoating keep corrupt politicians in power?".

16. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
All very true, whoever has the authority in their hands will tend to censor: however, it's equally disingenuous for the reactionary right to complain about how terrible a thing censorship is when they have wholeheartedly supported it for the previous 600 years.
Very true, but at least they did not try to hide the fact they were engaged in censorship. The right compalaint against the left in regards to Political Correctness is that the left is trying to hide the fact. And it is really hypocritically to.complain for 600 years about censorship, and then engage in the very thing you have decried when you have a chance, and don't even have the decency to admit.

17. ## Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Originally Posted by Common Soldier
Very true, but at least they did not try to hide the fact they were engaged in censorship. The right compalaint against the left in regards to Political Correctness is that the left is trying to hide the fact. And it is really hypocritically to.complain for 600 years about censorship, and then engage in the very thing you have decried when you have a chance, and don't even have the decency to admit.
This would be true if it were John Stuart Mill, Gerald Gardiner* and John Calder calling for censorship, but this new-ish identitarian "left" are nothing to do with that tradition of free speech.

*the Lady Chatterley lawyer, not the founder of Wicca

Page 3 of 3 First 123

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•