Race and Childrens Perceptions

[Turtle]

to follow up on suspicious terms:

 

Appendix F: Explanation of Endangered Species Rating System

Series II Gap data utilizes a table of Wildlife Habitat Relationships (WHR) to linking vegetation type to species habitats. Species habitats are graded from 1 (lowest quality) to 5 (highest quality). For each one-hectare site' date=' we developed an index of threatened and endangered species habitat quality by, first, identifying which threatened or endangered species were [b']most likely [/b]to be present (based on vegetation type and the WHR correspondence table); second, by multiplying each threatened and endangered species by its 1-to-5 habitat quality rating; and third, by summing the resulting species-habitat quality product over all present threatened and endangered species. Algebraically, this index takes the following form: ...

 

most likely? what a bamboozle!! :hihi: see my point? same statistical methods, different trust. :evil:

[Cedars]

... the terms you bolden and imply as suspect come from statistical analysis, the mainstay of social science. don't know what else to tell you.

First it wasnt me who formed a conclusion. You formed a conclusion in response to my Question of "What needs to be managed?". You implied the answer existed in the article and I merely pointed out this 'answer' was surrounded by Maybe's. There is a big differene in a 'scientific' statement of Possibly vs Probably. And to add to this vs your attempt to justify your previous post, Most Likely was not a part of this snippet.

 

I already quoted one professional from this study, but I will do so again for your convience:

 

"Bigler: "It's an enormous step backward to increase social segregation," she says. However, she also admitted that "in the end, I was disappointed with the amount of evidence social psychology could muster [to support it]. Going to integrated schools gives you just as many chances to learn stereotypes as to unlearn them."

 

Theres more to this part of the article if you care to re-read it again.

you clearly had something in mind by introducing the article and i get the sense you suspect the science because you disagree with the scientific conclusions.

And what conclusions would that be? Again, you imply you have formed a conclusion [regarding my motive] based on your own assumptions, formed by what facts I am unsure of. Please clarify what facts you have to show I have posted anything about disagreement with what was seen vs the speculation points in the article.

while there may be many reasons for racial and other similar prejudices, there is no excusing them.

 

No where in this article is Racism, Discrimination, or any ill will towards other races implied. It simply doesnt exist in the article, yet poster after poster has attempted to ingrain these issues into this topic. I truely do not understand why so many responders in this thread cannot focus on the articles content and have to introduce their own bias/preconcieved notions to distort the topic.

 

again you missed the point i think. according to the article, the diversity leading to integration idea was found to not hold/work/be-as-effective when introduced later in childhood.

Again, you post an assumption that you cannot back up with data because this data was unavailable in the article. I even posted an example:

 

"What the article does not answer is, do the first graders from the study meld back into the behaviors seen in the first group of 3rd graders (when they age a couple of years) for their recess preferences. Without that data, its an incomplete behavior study."

 

I fully understand the snippet of one example where first graders reacted differently than third graders to the same stimulation, integrated studygroups. Do you have a quote from the article which verifies work in the first grade negates behavior patterns of these individuals when they hit the third grade? If not, again, I propose your conclusion is based on...well... what you imagine the results should be, rather than actual data.

 

Which again 'what should be' doesnt seem to be whats really happening.

[Turtle]

... And to add to this vs your attempt to justify your previous post, Most Likely was not a part of this snippet. ...

 

you have evaded my point on statistical methods and terms. you invited comment on the article; i gave it. :evil:

[lemit]

Looking back at my earlier comment, I see it's really stupid and dismissive. Sorry.

 

--lemit

[Cedars]

you have evaded my point on statistical methods and terms.

I evaded nothing and answered it directly. Maybe you missed it.

 

There is a big difference in a 'scientific' statement of Possibly vs Probably.

 

True or false, Possibly is different than Probably.

 

True or false, Most likely is different than Possibly.

you invited comment on the article; i gave it. :evil:

 

You implied the answer existed in the article and I merely pointed out this 'answer' was surrounded by Maybe's.

 

As far as your comment, it was posted as an answer to a question. I pointed out the maybes and the comments from you quickly turned into a blame game [if I dont see the answer] and [calling up motive] and accusations of [you (I) suspect the science].

 

No, its not me being evasive.