---

This means that whites and Asians are underrepresented as welfare recipients while blacks, hispanics, and other races are overrepresented.

---

---

This would mean that the average white and Asian person is less likely to receive welfare than the average black, hispanic, and other race person.

---

Its just cool for the census bureau guys to go "oh ok theres a general social thing going on here" but in real life dealing with real ppl it dont mean much.

---

Why this may be? That's a whole other issue, but I'd be wary of racist based arguments as to why blacks, hispanics, and other races are generally poorer than whites and Asians. Such oversimplifications overlook the whole story and neglect why there are poor whites and poor Asians at all.

---

---

I was about to say... Then Bud did.

---

---

So you agree that we CANT use those stats to say there's a race-based difference between whites and blacks and latinos?

---

---

Race has a big impact as well as culture and life.

---

Unsupported conjecture. It's all culture.

---

Quote: from kidd rune at 5:41 pm on Oct. 2, 2008

---

Race has a big impact as well as culture and life.

---

Unsupported conjecture. It's all culture.

---

---

The two dont necessarily connect man. I mean ok you can say "the avergae" and "less likely" but that means shit really.

---

Not for what I was looking at.  By taking the number of people of a certain ethnic origin on welfare and then dividing that by the total number of that ethnic group in the population, you'll get a percentage.  That percentage indicates how likely a random person of that ethnic group would be on welfare.  If the percentage is higher than their percentage of the total population, then they're overrepresented.  If it's lower, then they're underrepresented.  In a truly equal society, all things would be equal. Nobody would be over or under represented.

Of course, when you apply those statistics to an individual, it won't make much sense, because to that individual, he or she will either be or not be on welfare.  The statistics are reserved only for evaluating the collective whole, not the individual.  The collective can indicate some tendencies among a group and is useful for noting general inequalities.  That's why we use it.

---

Its just cool for the census bureau guys to go "oh ok theres a general social thing going on here" but in real life dealing with real ppl it dont mean much.

---

Obviously.  You seem to have trouble understanding what it is that statistics are used for as you keep applying them in the wrong way.

Post edited at 9:40 pm on Oct. 3, 2008 by Bud2400

---

By taking the number of people of a certain ethnic origin on welfare and then dividing that by the total number of that ethnic group in the population, you'll get a percentage.

---

---

The statistics are reserved only for evaluating the collective whole, not the individual.

---

Or

To pin them down with a label? To make general statements?  

---

You seem to have trouble understanding what it is that statistics are used for as you keep applying them in the wrong way.

---

---

But that mean little about real people. All it speaks of "averages". Real ppl dom't obey to averages.

---

The collective does have its uses.

---

For what exactly? To help ppl? To remove or address the inequalities?  

Or

To pin them down with a label? To make general statements?

---

Both actually.  Thing with the latter is that you're using the collective to define the individual, which is always fallacious at best. The former doesn't exactly apply it to the individual.  It merely tries to help out the collective.

---

No Im curious to know what YOU would use it for since you not into governmnt intervention and messing with things.

---

Why do I have to support government intervention in the social framework of our society in order to see the usefulness of statistics like those?  They do note some inequality.  In my race tipping survey, it noted some isolation among blacks from the rest of society (whether it was forced on them or the result of their will is still a question in the air, but largely irrelevent to that point).  An individual black person may not be "isolated" like that and you could likely find many different examples, but according to thise results, a good portion may be.  Certainly larger than other races.  This is what these statistics will tell you.

When you begin to assign values to that and start getting into the mindset that the collective applies to the individual is when you get stereotypes and negative sentiments against all individuals you've never met of whatever race.  Just because some people do that doesn't make these statistics bad.  It's how they get there is what is bad.

While the practicality of the collective may not be so readily seen, it is essential you understand it when talking about race, socioeconomic class, gender, or really anything that involves in grouping individuals into an abstract group based on a practical characteristic they share.  That doesn't mean it's not practical, though - individually, the collective won't be so noticeable, but over time after interacting with many of that group, it is more easily recognized.  Remember, in a theoretically racially equal society, all collective races will be equal.   The total numbers don't necessarily have to be, but in terms of socioeconomic class, percentage receiving welfare, how much they generally tip, etc. it should be.  It's certainly the best way to compare the races since you can't look at every single individual, or some stories from a few of them, and make judgments based on that alone.  The individual cannot apply to the collective just as the collective cannot apply to the individual.

---

Thing with the latter is that you're using the collective to define the individual, which is always fallacious at best.

---

---

Why do I have to support government intervention in the social framework of our society in order to see the usefulness of statistics like those?

---

---

Certainly larger than other races. This is what these statistics will tell you.

---

---

When you begin to assign values to that and start getting into the mindset that the collective applies to the individual

---

KR and the WN do though. But you don't reply to answer their stupid trash. Instead you try to pick nits with me. Its weird man.

---

That doesn't mean it's not practical, though - individually, the collective won't be so noticeable, but over time after interacting with many of that group, it is more easily recognized.

---

If you really want to be color blind and you don't want ppl to go into indetifying themselves by race and culture then why give a fuck about the race-based stats?

The race-based stats are used by the gov to track tendencies like you say for 2 reasons:

1. give help ppl by race and fix social injustices.
2. watch out against "trouble" groups and paint latinos and blacks as trouble makers.

Sometimes the same stuff that is used to supposedly help fix racism and injustice is used by racists to show there's something wrong with ppl a certain race.

So if you say you against ppl celebrating their special heritage or race then I don't see why you would even care what the gov finds out and the stats they come up with.

---

The individual cannot apply to the collective just as the collective cannot apply to the individual.

---

I take the statistics to understand the whole situation and what exactly is going on. There's obviously something wrong when the average member of a race is far less better off than the average member of another. I take a look at that and think of why that is. And as for what to do? In most cases, I'll come to the conclusion that society is simply far better off at stratifying itself without the intervention of any government, although I'm open to the encouragement of discussion, awareness, and education of these things.  What the government would use such statistics for is obviously radically different from what I would personally use them for.

You can't simply go from a rather race conscious society to a race-less one that quickly, you know. If the vast majority of people retain a single race (however that may be defined), creating a race-less society is impossible for those people will usually identify with that race. Many individuals don't even think about race when interacting with others, but you still see it on the broader, overall, collective level. In order for what you keep saying should happen to actually happen, you need to give it some time. At least until people integrate and intermix (and freely, in other words, not to purposely seek out a mate of a different race, but out of love and acceptance for all, where it would eventaully be inevitable) to the point where the majority are would be considered to be a mixed race as opposed to a single race.

BTW, Jake, I generally only nitpick with you because you're the one replying to me. I don't usually reply to your posts first. When you reply to my posts and challenge what I have to say, I often feel obligated to respond and counter. And as far as KR goes, I don't challenge him because a lot of others wind up doing the job for me. I usually avoid posting in threads where I have nothing new to contribute.

Post edited at 10:21 pm on Oct. 4, 2008 by Bud2400

---

To tell people not to because "race doesn't matter" is very naive because, although rather arbitrary and socially constructed, they're just as real as anything.

---

---

I take a look at that and think of why that is.

---

---

I'm open to the encouragement of discussion, awareness, and education of these things.

---

---

What the government would use such statistics for is obviously radically different from what I would personally use them for.

---

---

Many individuals don't even think about race when interacting with others, but you still see it on the broader, overall, collective level.

---

So if ppl start using the stats to make an opinion about a person then they wrong right? And if the government gathers up the info then its no always cool to interevene right?

So what does it really matter to talk of the "average white" or "average black"? its pretty academic if you don't use anywhere.

---

And as far as KR goes, I don't challenge him because a lot of others wind up doing the job for me.  I usually avoid posting in threads where I have nothing new to contribute.

---

---

So if race DOES matter then why you were sayingt that we should all go into melting pot mode and forget about our heritage and forget about multiculture?

---

Because it's not race itself that matters, but what we associate race with. The things, or stereotypes both good and bad, we attribute to other races, which are more subtle than you might realize. This is what I'd want to see gone first. These are the things that makes the impact of race real and what are socially constructed.  

---

"why" is pretty complicated like you said once.

---

Which is perhaps why I like thinking about it and challenging myself to not resort to oversimplifying the problem.  

---

um so its just for discussion that its useful?

---

Really, it's best used for noticing correlations (which was what I was trying to get at).

Is there more of a correlation between the working class and black people than the working class and white people? Is there a correlation between those who say they have many friends of other races than their own and whites, or blacks, or Asians, or mixed people, or whoever?

Through that, you can kinda see the general situation. Yes, it's useful for discussion, education, and whatnot, but it's also useful for simply measuring race in society and whether or not it (meaning the things associated with race) do have a meaningful impact or not.

---

Well say you were the president or part of the congress. What would YOU use those stats for in the real world? Would you DO anything about it or just use it to discuss with ppl? Im not trying to put on the spot but Im a bit curious and confused about it.

---

I'd probably highlight it, as many who push for things like multiculturalism, affirmative action, etc. already do, but unlike them, I'd probably challenge a lot of their notions that racism is the sole reason for those inequalities and that things like white privilege are gross oversimplifications of the whole problem, that multiculturalism is far too race conscious (through encouraging one to identify themself with a certain race and thereby that those of the same race are more similar to them than others) to do what it promotes, that individuals no matter which race do have the ability to better themselves at least marginally and quite significantly for their children at the very least (no matter what the obstaces of racism or whatever, as is evidenced by the many minorities of each race who already have through their own ingenuity), and that the government cannot fix the problems of society by only treating the surface of the problem (such as how affirmative action does that and has been in place for 30 - 40 years now and hasn't really done shit) and that treating the root of the problem takes much more time than most people would want to admit (and even so, you can't force it to go away - it'll only truly go away if society wills it).

Overall, though I'd highlight these things, it would mostly be in response to those who think that we can do something about it by treating the surface of the problem. I'd honestly propose that we do nothing and let society take its natural course.

---

But what does it mean really? on every day basis it may or may not matter. It depends on ppl right?

---

I meant that over enough interactions, you start seeing collective characteristics. Take my race tipping survey for example. I noticed that blacks tended to tip far worse than all other races before I even conducted my survey (hence why it was my hypothesis). I wouldn't be able to reach that conclusion based on a few individuals, but only after many, many deliveries. That's what I mean. There is some practicality in this, for more of my money is coming from white people than black people than what the proportions would require.

---

So if ppl start using the stats to make an opinion about a person then they wrong right? And if the government gathers up the info then its no always cool to interevene right?

---

They're usually wrong if they stereotype a person based on a stat. They could very well be correct on a particular point for all I know, but not usually as a general tendency means just that - the tendency is in the middle, or average, of whatever, and most people will vary from that in one way or another.

And as far as the government goes, it would be wise to not intervene. Intervention is almost always on the surface because the surface is what's visible, that's what makes people think you're doing something, and that's what wins you votes as a politician. It rarely hits the roots of the problem, and when / if it does, it's usually resented for it's a forced change, not a natural one. Natural changes are always preferable and work better than forced ones, and natural changes are what we should embrace. But we should also keep in mind that we have the ability to bring about natural change through influencing others.

---

So what does it really matter to talk of the "average white" or "average black"? its pretty academic if you don't use anywhere.

---

To say the average person is saying that, disregarding everything else, this is the probability. If you chose a random member of a certain race, this is the probability of you seeing this result.

Let's take the race tipping survey for an example again. The average white person has about an 8% chance of stiffing me. I am not considering their socioeconomic conditions or anything (which would obviously influence the stiff rate here), but only the fact that they're white.

It is somewhat academic, but it has its uses. It allows you to evaluate the general tendency among a group disregarding all other differences among the individuals of that group. This has many practical applications, and as you've read my race tipping survey, you should see how.

Post edited at 11:56 pm on Oct. 4, 2008 by Bud2400

---

Really, it's best used for noticing correlations (which was what I was trying to get at).

---

Its one thing to say they "criminaL" and another to just say they get in trouble with the law. I see a LOT of whites breaking the law. But their chance of getting caught is less than blacks. You know why?

Because white "tend" to be "more likely" to live in middle class area where their crimes can be hidden and less likely to live in shitholes where there's a lot of crimes and a lot of cops nosing around. Also because all the stats say that blacks are criminals then any black is automatically suspected as doing something wrong. So of course they more likely to get caught. I bet a fucking LOT of ppl in general don't have totally clean history. Some ppl cheat on taxes, some ppl fake their names. some ppl smoke pot (yeah even the rich whites) some ppl have lots of tickets or tons of debt which they don't pay.some ppl have stuff to hide from the law. Most are white (thats a stat fact since most americans are white)

But they DONT always get caught/in trouble because in a society where whites ae considered "clean" by default few ppl go nosing in their records and trying to dig out dirt (unless they go into politics).

So its a self-fullfilling prophcy. The more ppl suspect you because of your race the more you get caught and the more ppl of your race you get caught the more you are a target.

So if ppl stop making stupid correlation and just take ppl from scratch without assuming shit then ALSO that helps remove the stigma and treat all ppl the same.

---

it's also useful for simply measuring race in society and whether or not it (meaning the things associated with race) do have a meaningful impact or not.

---

---

I'd probably highlight it, as many who push for things like multiculturalism, affirmative action, etc. already do, but unlike them, I'd probably challenge a lot of their notions that racism is the sole reason for those inequalities and that things like white privilege are gross oversimplifications of the whole problem,

---

---

that multiculturalism is far too race conscious (through encouraging one to identify themself with a certain race and thereby that those of the same race are more similar to them than others) to do what it promotes

---

---

that individuals no matter which race do have the ability to better themselves at least marginally and quite significantly for their children at the very least (no matter what the obstaces of racism or whatever, as is evidenced by the many minorities of each race who already have through their own ingenuity)

---

---

that the government cannot fix the problems of society by only treating the surface of the problem (such as how affirmative action does that and has been in place for 30 - 40 years now and hasn't really done shit) and that treating the root of the problem takes much more time than most people would want to admit (and even so, you can't force it to go away - it'll only truly go away if society wills it).

---

---

Overall, though I'd highlight these things, it would mostly be in response to those who think that we can do something about it by treating the surface of the problem.  I'd honestly propose that we do nothing and let society take its natural course.

---

---

But what does it mean really? on every day basis it may or may not matter. It depends on ppl right?

---

---

There is some practicality in this, for more of my money is coming from white people than black people than what the proportions would require.

---

For example when ppl say that asians do better than whites in academics or in technology they DON'T usually say that in a nice way. They say it to make fun of asinas and treat them as nerds and social morons and sexual retards.

When ppl say that blacks are better athletes than whites they DONT usually say that in a nice way either. They say to mean that thats the ONLY thing blacks are ever good at and that they fail at everything else.

So no matter what ppl talk about when they bring up race, white is always the MODEL that everybody else has to follow like that is the ONLY perfect thing.

---

It is somewhat academic, but it has its uses.  It allows you to evaluate the general tendency among a group disregarding all other differences among the individuals of that group.  This has many practical applications, and as you've read my race tipping survey, you should see how.

---

But NOT EVERYONE does that man. Lots of ppl would use your stats to make some MORAL judgement on blacks. call them stingy or something like that.

Im not saying it means that the stat should NOT be made just because idiots can misuse it. But if everybody REALLY used the stats the way you did (to give a friendly mesg instead of making some accusation) there'd really be LESS problems and misunderstanding going on.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP