Reverse Discrimination Case

[Byrdie714]

And please don't call me "sweetie". Only my mom and my wife may do that.

Ohh---somebody touched a nerve.

 

[Byrdie714]

I believe that's for Jillio to answer

It is a public forum.

Secondly---you have been known to do that as you been caught several times.

Didn't you know that Jiro?

 

[Jiro]

Oh Jiro--you didn't say that?

Everyone knows that police officers/firefighters are expected to have college degrees. Thus making them.......white collars. Afterall why do you think most police officers have Bachelor's in CJ? (CJ means Criminal Justice just in case you didn't know that. )

I may have been "out of the field" my son, but I'm not as rusty as you think I am.

<patting little Jiro the Nero on the head>

in case you didn't know... you do not need to have a college education to be a police officer. Either college education or couple years in armed force plus high school diploma or GED. Obviously - that's why some officers become detectives or white-shirt officer (chief/captain/etc.) and some don't - college degree makes a big difference (which is no brainer). and yes I'm quite aware of it because we have a good ole' famous John Jay in NYC and my fellow friends have graduated from there. And no I didn't expect many officers/firefighters to have college degrees... otherwise they wouldn't have this job.

guess you're still a little rusty. too bad I can't pat on your head......... I need a ladder!!

 

[Jiro]

It is a public forum.

Secondly---you have been known to do that as you been caught several times.

Didn't you know that Jiro?

and at least I admitted my mistakes. Has Jillio done same? Last time I recall............. oh wait - never!

 

[jillio]

A small population can fit a normal curve, but the likelihood of doing so perfectly is pretty low. I'll demonstrate that if you want me to.

So what you're saying is that in a given test distribution, exactly 68.2689% of scores must fall within 1 SD, 95.4500% must fall within 2 SDs, and 99.7300% must fall within 3 SDs? What if it's off by a thousandth of a percent? Is it suddenly invalid? See how unlikely that is? That's why I'm asking for a range.

Nope, that isn't what I said at all. Those are not the figures I used. And I will provide you with the range as soon as I finish calculations. Right now I can tell you that based on the combined scores using all of the participants, the mean score is 70.98 with a standard deviation of 19.15. That makes the range 61.80-80.10 within 1 SD.

Gaussian and normal are interchangeable terms in statistics. To quote one of my books, "Probability and Stochastic Processes" (Yates, Goodman) on p. 137, "Because they occur so frequently in practice, Gaussian random variables are sometimes referred to as normal random variables." The probability density functions and everything else about them are exactly the same. More information here: Normal Distribution -- from Wolfram MathWorld

Ahh....intro stats. "Sometimes referred to". I already stated that. Perhaps you need to go back and check my post regarding a normal distribution and laws of mathematical probability. You are simply repeating what I have alread stated. And because those laws of probability are consistent, a small population is just as likely of producing a normal curve as is a large population. What a small population doesn't do is create generalizability. But we are not looking for generalizability here. We are using the test scores of this particular population to determine distribution as a way to confirm or refute difficulties with validity of the testing instrument. I can refer you to a couple of graduate level statistics texts if you are interested in learning more.

Skewness is indeed a value that can be calculated from a distribution. Here's a list showing how to calculate them for various distributions. Z table - Normal Distribution
Note that for normal, Laplace, uniform, and student-t distributions, the skewness is 0. Speaking of student-t distributions...

Skewness can be calculated. However, parameters are not known and are estimated.

I opened up my book as you suggest. Right now I am staring at a picture of a student-t distribution (also known as Student's t-distribution) on p. 232 of "Probability and Random Processes with Applications to Signal Processing" (Stark, Woods). Here's a picture of one that looks exactly like what's in my book: Student's t-Distribution -- from Wolfram MathWorld. And right now, I'm staring at a picture of a chi-square distribution on p. 236. Here's what it looks like: Chi-Squared Distribution -- from Wolfram MathWorld

Again, Chi-Square is not a test used to determine reliability and validity of a testing instrument. Chi-Square is for hypothesis testing, and is used in experimental statistical analysis, not validity testing. It has no application here.

Then it's a good thing I said this: "It is not an actual normal distribution, but it's similar".

Now, if you're going to talk down to me and to the others here while touting your own expertise, you should be the one who knows what you're talking about. Instead, you're claiming that normal distributions can have two modes, Gaussian distributions are just approximations of normal distributions, and there's no such thing as a student-t or chi-square distribution. Furthermore, I didn't intend to get in a big debate about the field of statistics. I just wanted to find out from you, the forum expert in industrial and organizational psychology, the specific criteria used to deem a test invalid based on the distribution. What you've given me so far is unclear, but if I understand it right, it means the vast majority of tests will be invalidated based merely on chance. If so, then what good are your methods? If you're the expert around here and you're this far off the mark, are you beginning to see why more people don't trust your Board of Industrial and Organizational Psychology?

I have already stated why Gaussian distributions are approximations of normal distributions. I did not say that there was no such thing as a t-score distribution. I said that a z-score is derived from a raw score, and that a t-score is derived from a z-score and are used to indicate an individual's performance relative to the rest of the scores. And, no, it means nothing of the kind. There are numerous acceptable methods for determining validity, not the least of which are the correlation coefficient, Coefficient of Determination. The way that specific areas of validity are determined are numerous, and dependent upon the type of validity that you are attempting to measure. The only people who seem to have a distrust are those that have had an intro stats course and have not yet learned the difference between hypothesis testing, post hoc testing, and testing for validity of an assessment.
And please don't call me "sweetie". Only my mom and my wife may do that.

No problem. Maybe they can explain statistics to you, as well.

 

[Jiro]

That's why they have expert testimony...in the form of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. And what exactly would the state Supreme Court's motivation be, politically, to dismiss the case?

politically? no, my dear...... that's lower courts... whose decisions are notoriously known to be affected by political climate/bias. As for higher court - well... not as bad as lower courts. That's why we should just sit back and relax! ..... and wait for their verdict which is in summer.

And I have access to the scores that they had access to. I have all the information I need to determine whether disparity was organized by race.

you mean the data from that site compiled by somebody with too much time on ? ever considered that it may be flawed? especially since that the author did not cite the source.

beside..... this whole facade is nothing but a politically-charged farce. after all... an excerpt from the article that DD provided for us -

New Haven paid $100,000 to a high stakes diversity testing firm, IO Solutions, Inc. of Illinois, to design the exams to be completely free of any racial bias. This is a necessary step these days in order to avoid charges of disparate impact upon protected minority groups -- and New Haven does have a large population of protected minority groups.

IO Solutions, Inc. is one of a few dozen firms which specializes in this kind of politically correct test design, and they are very good at it. According to court filings, IO Solutions did everything right in designing the New Haven fire department's promotional exams to be completely race-neutral, i.e., to not have a disparate impact upon selected, preferred skin colors.

and then....

New Haven's city charter requires that they follow a "rule of three" which requires that each open promotional position be filled from among the top three scorers on the exams.

and....

If the "rule of three" were strictly applied to the 2003 promotional exams, it would have resulted in all of the open Captain and Lieutenant positions being filled by the best-qualified, highest scoring candidates.

Unfortunately the best-qualfied, highest scoring candidates turned out to be mostly white.

thus...

New Haven REFUSED to Promote White Firefighters Who Scored Highest! (which broke New Haven's city charter)

hence.... the lawsuit by firefighters

 

[lsfoster]

Actually she is right. And it was not taking out of order as she stated her quote in 280 and yours was on 282. How is that out of order?

Because you quoted mine first when you quoted them. My point was that she said the firefighters made this about race, and that's clearly false. The city made this about race since that was what made them decide to throw out the results.

I disagree with that comment. The city may have however it was the firefighters that brought this on themselves.

By that logic, any black person who stood up for their rights was "bringing it on themselves". All the gay couples who have started lawsuits for their rights are simply "bringing it on themselves". It works both ways. Discrimination is not a one-way issue. Nobody has said anything about what would happen if the situation was reversed. I'm assuming that's because nobody could actually argue that if the city threw out the results when black firefighters did well, they would have a lawsuit on them so quickly their heads would spin. If it's discrimination in one case, it's discrimination in the other.

The materials may have been fair however how was it taught to the firefighters prior to taking the exam?

This was the individuals' choice to put themselves up for promotion. There is no information anywhere saying that the firehouse is somehow "responsible" for teaching the firefighters the information required to make themselves qualified for that promotion. The materials were clearly available, and it was up to each man to learn the required information.

Secondly when a city is being sued--the city can not administer a new test until the legalities of this particular issue is resolved.

And if the city had handled the situation correctly to begin with, or responded to any of the complaints and requests from the firefighters, they would not have been in the position to be sued.

Race and culture go hand in hand.

Mentioning of you being a lesbian and a white woman--puts you at an advantage and disadvantage over other minorities regardless of one's sexual orientation.

First of all, no, no they don't. Only if you want to have an extremely narrow and skewed view of both can you say that. You contradict it yourself in your next sentence. First race and culture go hand in hand, then my race puts me at an advantage regardless of my sexuality, which would imply that they are not "hand in hand".

My roommate in college was Korean, adopted by a white family. How do her race and culture go hand in hand? Would the "analysis" that jillio is performing categorize her correctly if the only information available was her race? Or take another one of jillio's examples, where I would be deemed mentally ill on some hypothetical exam because I'm gay. How does that reflect a "cultural bias" if you only consider race?

All I've said is that jillio can't make any relevant "analysis" since the only information she has is about race. All you've done is give an example of how just looking at race would ignore many "cultural" issues, which to me just backs up my point.

 

[jillio]

and why are you here? go back to your work and also do what you promised. it is now 6:30pm. another 1.5 hrs just went by and still no result... does "soon" mean a few days later for you?

I think it's becoming an annoying tendency of yours to tell people that we don't know anything about anything :roll:

Obviously, you know virtually nothing about the work involved in doing the statistical evaluation of the data. Doesn't surprise me, though. You've already demonstrated your lack of knowledge in your posts.

 

[jillio]

This is somewhat correct. It doesn't apply if a relatively large number of people have reached the highest score (100%), so score distribution sort of reached a "saturation", messing up the distribution.

Anyway, that's why I said post #284. You can tell from the scores if the test is too easy or hard.

Depends on what your mean score is, but if a large number achieved a score of 100%, chances are great the distribution would show a negative skew.

 

[jillio]

First of all, she originally stated something that was untrue in the second post you quoted, and I responded with the first post you quoted. You can't just take them, switch the order, and say she already said it. The order of events is still important, which is one of the big problems with this case. The firefighters who started the lawsuit are not the ones who made this an issue of race, the city did that when it decided to void the results based solely on race.



Yes, but it is not the job of the people making the test to make a test that will somehow be "fair" to people who don't know the material. I mentioned the issue of economic status because it is responsible for a huge gap in education. But if the people are not educated before they take the test, that doesn't make the test invalid.



I already covered how that is the same type of argument that was used by the states to justify their inter-racial marriage bans. The fact that "none" of the firefighters were promoted does not change the fact that "some" of them should have been, and weren't. Again, if this were the other way around, and all black firefighters had scored well, and the city had thrown the tests out, what do you think would happen?



I've also stated many times that they should have simply had another test made available, but the city opted not to handle the situation that way. They simply threw the results out without attempting to remedy the situation at all.





First of all, you have yet to reply to all the points in the post I quoted. You claim that you have "refuted" them, but all you've done is say, "Oh no, you're wrong" generally accompanied by some smug and condescending comment directed at me. You have provided no actual argument or evidence to support your points.

Secondly, you keep saying that you can determine the "cultural bias" based on nothing but race. It has been pointed out many times that this simply cannot be true, unless you are only considering "culture" to include "race". If you would like to actually respond to that, instead of just saying, "no, I'm considering culture", that would be greatly appreciated. I'm not sure how that would be possible, though, since all you have to "analyze" is race. You have no other information or data, as I have said many times.

You still don't get it. It is not a case of making a test "more fair" to make people "seem like they know something" they don't know. It is a matter of a testing assessment being fair so that all participants are given the same opportunity to demonstrate what they do know.

In this case, that is the cultural division used. There is no gender division. They did not request that participants reveal their particular religious affiliation. Age is not reported. Race is reported, and race is where the disparity showed up.

And we do have other data. The scores provide the other data based on Black males taking the exam, Hispanic males taking the exam, and Caucasion males taking the exam. :roll:

 

[Jiro]

Obviously, you know virtually nothing about the work involved in doing the statistical evaluation of the data. Doesn't surprise me, though.

and how is that a concern to me? under corporation setting - you would be fired right on the spot or reprimanded for failing to deliver result in a timely matter after the fact that you have repeatedly said that you will provide the finding "soon."

You think the employee would dare to say to his/her employer - "you know nothing about the work involved in doing this and that! yak yak yak!" Next time if you are unable to provide the finding in a timely matter - then stop repeating "soon! soon! soon!". and thus concludes your introductory management course for the night

You've already demonstrated your lack of knowledge in your posts.

sorry but in case you didn't know - a few intelligent posters in here are trying their damnest to make you aware of your shortcoming in here. and you have already demonstrated NUMBER of mistakes in your posts - which I have corrected for you.

 

[jillio]

No...... the employer pays for classes and trainings (usually off-site such as colleges) but that's for corporations or any other white collar jobs. As for firemen/military/police/etc.. they provide mandatory refreshment/drill trainings. I understand that you've worked at hotel for a quite a long time. It's understandable that you're rusty on this area.

btw - the employer does not automatically trains or pays for training upon request. it is up to employer to go extra miles for you if they deemed you as a valuable employee.

Rusty or not, his expertise on the law far exceeds that of someone who has never been to law school, and works in IT. That was beneath even you, Jiro. Methinks I see some jealousy rearing its ugly head. But that's okay. You can get a professional degree, too. Just go back to school.

 

[jillio]

politically? no, my dear...... that's lower courts... whose decisions are notoriously known to be affected by political climate/bias. As for higher court - well... not as bad as lower courts. That's why we should just sit back and relax! ..... and wait for their verdict which is in summer.


you mean the data from that site compiled by somebody with too much time on ? ever considered that it may be flawed? especially since that the author did not cite the source.

beside..... this whole facade is nothing but a politically-charged farce. after all... an excerpt from the article that DD provided for us -


and then....


and....


thus...


hence.... the lawsuit by firefighters

I've already responded to each of the quotes you posted. I'm certain you can find my responses if you simply scroll back.

The white firefighters filed the lawsuit because their scores were thrown out and promotions not given.

 

[jillio]

and how is that a concern to me? under corporation setting - you would be fired right on the spot or reprimanded for failing to deliver result in a timely matter after the fact that you have repeatedly said that you will provide the finding "soon."
Oh, puleeze! I have already posted some of the statistics, but I guess you don't recognize them when you see them. Likewise, this is not a corporation, it is a forum. Thirdly, what would you know about statistical analysis for a corporation?
You think the employee would dare to say to his/her employer - "you know nothing about the work involved in doing this and that! yak yak yak!" Next time if you are unable to provide the finding in a timely matter - then stop repeating "soon! soon! soon!". and thus concludes your introductory management course for the night

I don't work for AD. But it is certainly beginning to look as if you might. You don't appear to be doing much work anywhere else.


sorry but in case you didn't know - a few intelligent posters in here are trying their damnest to make you aware of your shortcoming in here. and you have already demonstrated NUMBER of mistakes in your posts - which I have corrected for you.

A few intelligent posters are mistaken on their assumptions. Please point me to the mistakes that you have corrected. I have virtually no recall of anything you have stated on this topic that is accurrate, from a misunderstanding of the statistical concepts, to a misunderstanding of the issue before the courts, to a failure to know that the U.S. Supreme court will not hear a case until the State Supreme Court has already heard it and handed down a decision, to confusing this issue with Affirmative Action, to attempting to bring an unrelated discussion on heirarchy into the case.

 

[lsfoster]

You still don't get it. It is not a case of making a test "more fair" to make people "seem like they know something" they don't know. It is a matter of a testing assessment being fair so that all participants are given the same opportunity to demonstrate what they do know.

Something that you can say absolutely nothing definitive about, since we don't have any information about the test, or what would be required to show that one is qualified for promotion.

In this case, that is the cultural division used. There is no gender division. They did not request that participants reveal their particular religious affiliation. Age is not reported. Race is reported, and race is where the disparity showed up.

And we do have other data. The scores provide the other data based on Black males taking the exam, Hispanic males taking the exam, and Caucasion males taking the exam. :roll:

First of all, this completely contradicts posts where you said that you were not only considering race. I'm glad you finally want to admit that you were wrong in those posts, and that race is the only issue you are looking at. Secondly, saying that in addition to race you have other data: race, makes no sense at all.

Lastly, it would make you look better if you stopped posting condescending little smileys or comments about the people you respond to. It makes you look rude, childish, and even more stubbornly ignorant when you laugh at them for pointing out obvious flaws in your statements.

 

[jillio]

Something that you can say absolutely nothing definitive about, since we don't have any information about the test, or what would be required to show that one is qualified for promotion.



First of all, this completely contradicts posts where you said that you were not only considering race. I'm glad you finally want to admit that you were wrong in those posts, and that race is the only issue you are looking at. Secondly, saying that in addition to race you have other data: race, makes no sense at all.

Lastly, it would make you look better if you stopped posting condescending little smileys or comments about the people you respond to. It makes you look rude, childish, and even more stubbornly ignorant when you laugh at them for pointing out obvious flaws in your statements.

Are you working on your own statistical analysis to refute what I am saying? I look forward to that.

And I use smilies for clarity. I laugh because what is being said is so absurd.

 

[lsfoster]

Are you working on your own statistical analysis to refute what I am saying? I look forward to that.

And I use smilies for clarity. I laugh because what is being said is so absurd.

Here's my statistical analysis, you already said it before. The mean was right around a 70. Looks right to me. As I said many times, I am in favor of not focusing on race since it is so easily misinterpreted, you are the one that is hung up on it. As far as I'm concerned, 77 men took a test, and some did better than others. That's how tests are.

And I don't think that using smilies to "clarify" your disdain at others' posts or the fact that you consider them laughable is necessary in a civil, adult discussion. If you think their posts are so funny, it shouldn't be so hard for you to discuss the points they bring up, instead of taking cheap shots at the posters and avoiding saying anything meaningful.

 

[Jiro]

Rusty or not, his expertise on the law far exceeds that of someone who has never been to law school, and works in IT. That was beneath even you, Jiro. Methinks I see some jealousy rearing its ugly head. But that's okay. You can get a professional degree, too. Just go back to school.

byrdie and I were talking about employers and the trainings... not laws. Where in heaven did I challenge him in law subject in this thread? Are you having trouble following this thread? You've made NUMBER of mistakes which I have repeatedly corrected you. Perhaps you should stick with one task at a time.... such as finishing the statistical analysis that you have promised us.

oye oye.... how unbecoming of you, dear, to sucker-punch me with cheap-shots and irrelevant redirections...

btw - it doesn't take a professional degree nor law degree nor statistical course to understand this simple case

 

[Daredevel7]

Wow, reading the last few pages....

I'm REALLY curious about two things:

1) Jillio's statistical results (which is so overhyped by now...)
2) How the new test would be different from the old one. This is where I think people are most confused about (especially me). I would think most people here would agree to a new test that somehow removes cultural bias without "dumbing it down" and produces a nice little nifty distribution among race. But is this even reality?

 

[Jiro]

Wow, reading the last few pages....

I'm REALLY curious about two things:

1) Jillio's statistical results (which is so overhyped by now...)
2) How the new test would be different from the old one. This is where I think people are most confused about (especially me). I would think most people here would agree to a new test that somehow removes cultural bias without "dumbing it down" and produces a nice little nifty distribution among race. But is this even reality?

I think it's a logical assumption that tests are updated every certain years to a more modern language style and also to update the information to include the questions based on latest information (legal/fire/administrative process, procedure, tool, etc).