Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Charles Carter's avatar

I sometimes worry that the spin of (selective) correlation=causation promoted by progressives causes African Americans to expect and to perceive racism excessively, essentially creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hard to know with certainty.

As you so often point, out applying the most logical base rate is vital to attempts to use statistics to evaluate claims of racism. To that end, has the 'veil of darkness' effect been validated in some other way? Merely because it makes sense doesn't make it true.

Expand full comment
Kevin McCarron's avatar

After reading a few of your posts, I've gathered that you are a data scientist by trade, that you are educated/have significant professional experience as a data scientist.

Separate from your professional background, you appear to be in the process of shining a light on the harm that can arise from DEI initiatives, in particular situations where hostile work environments result *because* of DEI initiatives, rather than DEI leading to positive workplace outcomes. You've shared your belief that you were terminated as an employee at Thompson Reuters improperly, even illegally, when you attempted to challenge narratives surrounding the BLM movement in your workplace hub focused on DEI.

I am instinctively suspicious of any social context in which there is only one "correct" perspective, as it seemed was the case at Thompson Reuters. have a very negative perception of groupthink. Which led to my being initially sympathetic to your contention that what took place at your former employer was wrong. That was my initial reaction when I read about your lawsuit in an online Massachusetts legal publication which had a brief article about your lawsuit.

After I noticed that blurb, I found your blog and read a few of your posts, which fleshed out the details of your experience. The first impression that formed was of you being a well-intentioned, professional man of integrity, someone who applied his data science background & skill to interpreting the BLM movement, and in doing so, arrived at a conclusion which fell outside of the popular opinion at your place of business (after all, the organization created a forum were such topics were addressed, you only commented after the organization's HR took that step), leading to unfair/inappropriate workplace hostility and possibly illegal loss of employment.

Although I haven't come across any post in which you outline your political or moral point of view explicitly/holistically, your posts suggest you're sympathetic to causes of social justice and on a more personal level you identify as a member of an ethnic minority that has experienced historic oppression and injustice. You seem to be saying - I am not a hateful person. That you made an honest contribution to the dialogue in "The Hub," informed by your tendency to interpret event through a metrics-driven, data-centric lens.

Whereas what you encountered at Thompson Reuters, and in other circumstances you've commented on outside of any workplace context, are hard-left viewpoints which refuse to accept the world as it is, who insist on everyone being force-fed preconceived narratives and worldviews regardless of what impartial interpretation of events/studies may suggest, even to the point of illogically denying the veracity of unbiased data, and/or (most absurdly) dishonestly drawing conclusions supporting their views from data which in fact opposes their conclusions.

That latter, more extreme truth-subverting dynamic was the situation you described in the post I'm commenting on in a February 2022 Boston Globe article headlined, "For some, report on Mass. traffic stops shows stubborn racial biases persist in policing."

I subscribe to the Globe and immediately recognized the article you referenced. That article frustrated me too when I read it, to the point it sprang to mind right away 2+ years later when I read your mention of it. I agree with your suggestion that the Globe's reporting was not intellectually honest in that instance. A dissonance exists between what the writers were suggesting should be concluded from the 2020 MASSACHUSETTS UNIFORM CITATION DATA ANALYSIS REPORT they cited, versus the more nuanced, complicated, and at times contradictory inferences the study actually suggested. Like you, I came away believing the writers undermined their suggested conclusions when through simplistic, at-times misleading analysis.

However, the need for intellectual honesty to support one's credibility, that cuts both ways, it exists for anyone's credibility to be maintained.

A concern that arises often these days, reading media online, interacting with people at work, in personal life, etc is my sense of declining societal maturity being at the root of what we are talking about when we refer to polarized opinions, across the political spectrum, characterized by a lack of humility, lacking generosity of spirit, a tendency towards victimhood, and a deficit of self-awareness, particularly in the form of higher expectations applied to others compared to oneself. It is so worrying, I think of my kids in this context a lot.

I couldn't help thinking of that dynamic as I read your comment about the study findings mentioned in the Globe article, stating:

"In contrast to the theory underlying the term “driving while black,” what they discovered was that police have a statistically significant bias towards pulling over white drivers. The report says this means that "no support was shown for a pattern of racial disparity". That’s a bizarre, but revealing, conclusion. They literally just proved racial bias. (Or, is there another possible explanation of their findings? I can't think of one.) But because they believe the racial bias they found hurts whites, they conclude by stating the exact opposite of what their data showed: there is no racial bias. Apparently, the study’s authors believe racial bias exists only where it hurts minorities."

The identity/credibility presented in your blog is based on a foundation you being a data-driven, reasonable, well-intentioned individual who unfairly lost his job after trying to positively contribute to the dialogue about BLM, and later other observations rooted in that same perspective, on other topics., only to experience ideologically-inflexible hard-left attitudes demanding their perspective be deferred to, and racially-tinged hostility resulting when you presented your honest perspective.

And yet, despite your extensive/prestigious education and professional background as a data scientist, you suggest that police racial bias against *white* drivers exists, based on the rate of traffic stops for white drivers being greater than white driver's overall percentage of the population, to a statistically significant degree, in a single 10-month study from 2020 which does not itself suggest any conclusion of the sort, You state - "They literally just proved racial bias. (Or, is there another possible explanation of their findings? I can't think of one.) " You additionally accuse the Globe of obscuring statistical evidence of bias against white drivers, despite you undoubtedly being aware any single point of correlation between two data points never provides a basis of definitive causation, much less a hypothesis you've suggested after the fact from a single study, which was not mentioned by the study's authors. Never mind your inclusion of the statement - "I can't think of one," referring to your not being able to think of an alternate explanation for the white driver's over-representation in traffic stops, besides police anti-white discrimination. By saying things like this, you make clear you are unconcerned with the appearance of credibility and legitimacy, much less the substance of being so.

You appear to have fully discarded the credible, reasonable, well-intentioned persona you presented in at first, and no doubt continue to present within the proceeding of your DEI lawsuit, though this lack of ostensible credibility has not prevented you from continuing to solicit others from donating to your legal cause. It seems, unfortunately, you've come full circle, making the sort of spurious, unfounded, illogical, dishonest assertions you started out by saying you were endeavoring to stand up in opposition towards, only to lose your job in the process of fighting that good fight. You are cavalierly, opening intellectually honest yourself at the same time you criticize the Boston Globe for being intellectually dishonest.

You had my support as I read about what you experienced. I tended believe you were credible, that you were advancing the idea that reasonable debate requires a willingness to engage with differing points of view, in an intellectually honesty and mature manner. Then you lost my support, by being intellectually dishonest yourself.

You started out by suggesting you are a data scientist who is led by the truth of your statistical analysis. You don't seem to be even trying to maintain that persona any longer.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts