Don't blame all millennials, Post reader says!

SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 2017

Some versus all, two ways:
This was going to be the day when we discussed those studies of school voucher programs.

Is it possible? Do low-income kids end up doing worse when they get to attend "better" schools through the use of vouchers? When they don't have to stay in their ratty, inferior public schools with their ratty, unionized teachers?

Do kids end up doing worse when they receive vouchers? According to this recent report in the New York Times, that's what three recent studies have shown.

Why might kids end up doing worse when they get to attend "better schools?" We had planned to offer one possible answer today. For reasons we'll explain below, we've decided to postpone.

The report appeared in the New York Times on February 24. As liberals, you haven't heard a word about it, because 1) no one actually cares about the lives of low-income kids, certainly no one Over Here; and 2) because we liberals are currently on one of our moral stampedes. There's no time for anything else!

More on our current stampede next week. We'll also postpone our report about vouchers until this because of a letter which appears in today's Washington Post.

The letter appears beneath this headline: "Don't blame all millennials." We certainly agree with that plea. But what makes this letter so great?

In yesterday's award-winning report, we discussed the problem we humans have negotiating the baffling distinction between the puzzling concepts "some" and "all." Along came this letter, which frisks some-versus-all two different ways, while adding a classic third point!

The letter isn't long; we agree with its basic sentiment. Here it is, headline included:
LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON POST (3/4/17): Don't blame all millennials

The Feb. 15 news article “Millennials eclipse teens as worst drivers on the road, AAA study finds” was problematic.


First, the headline and article identified the group studied as “millennials,” whose members are normally identified as those born between roughly 1982 and 1994. However, the age range given in the article was 19 to 24, meaning the study and article should have noted that some millennials, but not all, were implicated.

The study was based on answers to a questionnaire regarding driving habits—not driving enforcement numbers. It is possible then that drivers ages 19 through 24 were more willing to admit to driving infractions than those in other age groups, not necessarily that they committed more infractions than others.
Our analysts loved that letter! It starts by making a perfectly accurate point:

The news report in question concerns a study which fingers only one group of millennials, those aged 19-24. To review the original news report, you can just click here.

The news report savaged the crazy reckless behavior of people aged 19-24. But uh-oh! That age group contains some millennials, not all! According to the letter, the Post's problematic news report should have pointed that out.

So far, the letter writer is on solid ground. The problematic news report concerned some millennials, not all.

On the other hand, the writer seems to stumble over these concepts himself! You can't blame all people aged 19-24 for the driving infractions in question. Only some respondents in that age group copped to such conduct, not all!

Quite correctly, the writer didn't want to see all millennials thrown under the bus for the actions of some. But just like that, he seemed to back his own bus over all people aged 19-24!

(Based upon an extensive study, the letter writer seems to hail from an older "generation.")

Some-versus-all may seem like a simple distinction. That said, it gives us humans an amazing amount of trouble. That includes us humans Over Here within our liberal tents.

In recent years, we've frequently noted a tendency which widely obtains when we conduct our liberal moral stampedes. Here's how the stampede goes down:

Someone conducts a study, survey or poll, or possibly speaks to three people. In the study, 60 percent of conservatives cop to some racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic or all-around awful belief.

By way of contrast, only 40 percent of us liberals cop to the belief.

Instead of noting an obvious fact—there's more overlap than difference among the two groups, at least within the parameters of the study—we liberals hop in our sleek sports cars and roar down a different road:

We tend to turn our "somes" into "alls!" We announce that the study shows that We are the good and decent people, while They are deranged and bad Over There. Because our score was better, we announce that We're good. Full stop!

Our weak liberal minds adore that play; we make it all the time. And by the way, note what today's letter writer does in his final paragraph.

Sure enough! The writer casts about in the water looking for tribal escape. In a way which is perfectly valid, he finds a way to suggest that the group the Post assailed may really be best of all:

"The study was based on answers to a questionnaire regarding driving habits—not driving enforcement numbers. It is possible then that drivers ages 19 through 24 were more willing to admit to driving infractions than those in other age groups, not necessarily that they committed more infractions than others."

It's possible that drivers aged 19 through 24 are actually morally best! It may be that they're most likely to tell the truth, not that their driving is worst!

That suggestion is perfectly valid, of course. From all this, we'll draw one conclusion concerning assessment of groups:

Moral stampedes are morally bad. More on this topic next week.

Also next week: Why might kids end up doing worse if they go to a "better" school? The imagination of the Times seemed limited on that point.

36 comments:

  1. If Trump is right about the wiretapping, we will have a legal Watergate on our hands, and this revelation will separate the Liberals from the Stalinists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, we need more on this wiretapping so we can get to the bottom of The Bowling Green Massacre at last.

      Delete
    2. It will be embarrassing for Trump if there is nothing to this. To say the least. If the Obama administration was up to this? Unthinkable.

      Delete
    3. Your a fucking idiot if you think Trump is doing anything but try to divert attention from the obvious: he is I deep to Russian gangsters.

      Delete
    4. Suddenly the Trumpsters are warming up to "an investigation." None of this looks good.

      Delete
    5. Hello, I am Theresa Williams After being in relationship with Anderson for years, he broke up with me, I did everything possible to bring him back but all was in vain, I wanted him back so much because of the love I have for him, I begged him with everything, I made promises but he refused. I explained my problem to my friend and she suggested that I should rather contact a spell caster that could help me cast a spell to bring him back but I am the type that never believed in spell, I had no choice than to try it, I mailed the spell caster, and he told me there was no problem that everything will be okay before three days, that my ex will return to me before three days, he cast the spell and surprisingly in the second day, it was around 4 pm. My ex called me, I was so surprised, I answered the call and all he said was that he was so sorry for everything that happened that he wanted me to return to him, that he loves me so much. I was so happy and went to him that was how we started living together happily again. Since then, I have made promise that anybody I know that have a relationship problem, I would be of help to such person by referring him or her to the only real and powerful spell caster who helped me with my own problem. email: drogunduspellcaster@gmail.com you can email him if you need his assistance in your relationship or any other Case.

      1) Love Spells
      2) Lost Love Spells
      3) Divorce Spells
      4) Marriage Spells
      5) Binding Spell.
      6) Breakup Spells
      7) Banish a past Lover
      8.) You want to be promoted in your office/ Lottery spell
      9) want to satisfy your lover
      Contact this great man if you are having any problem for a lasting solution
      through drogunduspellcaster@gmail.com

      Delete
  2. I just don't see many liberals doing the stuff Somerby accuses them of today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was an instance last fall after Clinton's deplorables comment where Coates in the Atlantic said that "data is on her side", that she was "not wrong" in her claim Trump supporters were racists. In making his claim he cited the "disturbing facts" in this survey:

      http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg

      You can see the survey says just under 50% of Trump supporters view blacks are more violent that whites - but you can also see and what he didn't say was that over 30% of Clinton supports said the same thing - blacks are more violent than whites. So, using his same logic, thirty percent of Clinton supporters were also deplorable racists which is close to turning the "some" into "all"s as Somerby is speaking about here and burying the "more overlap than difference among the two groups" as he mentions here. That's one example.

      Delete
    2. So, that makes it OK then that Trump openly courted racists during his campaign? Is it OK to be racist, since there are racists represented in both parties? What exactly is your point?

      Delete
    3. Exactly, it is that we liberals do tend to "morally stampede" as Somerby said. That the Atlantic article is an example of selectively painting the other tribe as one thing (in this instance painting half of them as deplorable racists) by ignoring the overlap between the 2 groups (a third of us are also by the same logic and stats). Ie, 'all' over 'some' thinking in the Coates article. Don't you think he should have mentioned that a third of Clinton supporters polled as deplorably racists by his own standard? Isn't that just interesting anyway - that we too are racists - one in three of us - by the same measure we judge them to be?

      Delete
    4. Is it clear whether Clinton was referring to racists as people who give a certain answer on a poll or people who shout racial epithets at others, deface property, threaten and even attack those they consider racially inferior, as has occurred at some Trump rallies and also as actions of people calling themselves Trump supporters (especially the alt-Right)? I don't think she was talking about the racial bias that pervades our culture when she talked about racists among the deplorables. Pretending this survey captures what she meant is a bit disingenuous, in my opinion.

      Are there nearly as many racial extremists in the Democratic party as on the right? That strikes me as a very different question but a lot closer to what Clinton was talking about in her speech.

      Democrats tend to recognize the pollution of racial thinking and try to fight against it. I don't see that happening on the right. It makes a difference, in my opinion, whether our tribe is trying to decrease its percentage of racism or not.

      That's why Somerby's complaint, while technically accurate, is kind of stupid. It only works if you ignore a whole lot else about race.

      Delete
    5. Pretending this survey captures what she meant is a bit disingenuous, in my opinion." That's a complaint we should direct at Coates as that is exactly what he did as proof and "facts" she was right. That pretty bad journalism right?. in so doing he may have fanned the flames of "all or some" thinking and hid the overlaps Somerby mentioned. That all. I'm just saying his point isn't that crazy and there are examples all the time of liberals being guilty of it. I think one could argue that all groups are guilty of it.

      Delete
  3. If Trump's tweet is true, no matter how tangentially, it is one more example of why he is president and a billionaire.

    He defined the meaning of any wiretapping and going forward every attempt of the media and Democrats to dislodge that angle in the narrative will make it worse for them. The Democrats should have revealed the information and their spin offensively.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If Trump's tweet is true, ..."
      ...it's by accident.

      Delete
    2. Obama did this to journalists too and it was quickly forgotten about because abortion. Democrats have no credibility when they howl about the "free press" and other institutions.

      Delete
    3. No, he didn't. Another example of the way conservatives make up stuff on their extremist websites and radio shows and then repeat it like an echo chamber.

      Delete
    4. "On May 17, 2013, the Washington Post reported the Justice Department had monitored reporter Rosen's activities by tracking his visits to the State Department, through phone traces, timing of calls and his personal emails in a probe regarding possible news leaks of classified information in 2009 about North Korea.[8] In obtaining the warrants, they labeled Rosen a "criminal co-conspirator" with Stephen Kim.[9] Rosen was also described as a "flight-risk" to keep him from being informed of the ongoing surveillance.[10]

      In a written statement, the Justice Department said it had followed “all applicable laws, regulations, and longstanding Department of Justice policies intended to safeguard the First Amendment interests of the press in reporting the news and the public in receiving it.”[8]

      Some analysts have described the Justice Department's actions as "aggressive investigative methods"[11][12] that have a chilling effect on news organizations' ability to play a watchdog role. Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano commented: "This is the first time that the federal government has moved to this level of taking ordinary, reasonable, traditional, lawful reporter skills and claiming they constitute criminal behavior."[13]

      An editorial board of the New York Times wrote: "With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible 'co-conspirator' in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news."[14]

      Dana Milbank of the Washington Post stated: "The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of. To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based."[15]

      Department of Justice[edit]
      Days prior on May 15, 2013, Attorney General Holder had testified under oath in front of the House Judiciary Committee that he had recused himself from the leak investigations to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Holder said his Deputy Attorney General, James M. Cole, was in charge of the AP investigation and would have ordered the subpoenas.[16] When questioning turned to the possibility of journalists being charged under the Espionage Act for reporting classified material, Holder stated: "With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I've ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy."[17]

      On May 23, 2013, NBC confirmed with the Justice Department that Holder had personally signed off on the Rosen case. The Justice Department defended their decision and spoke about a balance between protecting national secrets and the 1st Amendment, stating: "After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act."[18] The revelation brought into question whether Holder was being intentionally misleading during his previous testimony when he denied knowing of, or being part of possible prosecutions of journalists. House Committee members sent an open letter to Holder, saying: "It is imperative that the committee, the Congress, and the American people be provided a full and accurate account of your involvement."[19]"

      Delete
    5. You said Obama did this. Nothing in your quote says Obama did anything.

      The Justice Department operates independent of the President and his staff. It isn't even clear whether Holder was involved, from your quote. He claims to have recused himself.

      It is a matter of opinion and presumably a court decision whether publishing classified information is a crime. Crimes are prosecuted by the Attorney General (not the President). There are limitations on the 1st Ammendment and this seems to concern one of them. Milbank has an opinion -- he is not a judge or jury and cannot decide whether the Attorney General was correct to pursue the leak of classified information as espionage or not.

      But in any case, Obama didn't do this and the statement is a lie, as I claimed.

      Delete
    6. Your claim that it is a lie is an opinion, a strange one given the proof provided. You're OK with the Obama administration violating the First Amendment and using the government apparatus to surveil journalists and label them "criminal co-conspirators."

      Delete
  4. As a math person, I love this column. Mathematicians make a big fuss over "some" vs. "all". They even have special symbols: ∀ = "for all" and ∃ = "there exists" or "some". Whenever needed, a math statement is preceeded by one of these symbols. They're called "quantifiers", because they indicate a quantity.

    But, media love to make statements without quantifiers, especially in headlines. That allows them to spin, by presenting an ambiguous statement that could be interpreted as applying to an entire class, but which allows the defense that it applies to some of them.

    P.S. Another possible meaning of a statement without quantifiers is "on average". E.g., a commenter on another thread said that liberals were richer than conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a math person, perhaps you are not aware that language does not follow the rules of formal logic, as has been known by linguists and psycholinguists just about forever.

      Delete
    2. You are right, 10:08. But, the result is that ordinary language can produce ambiguity.

      E.g., consider the statement:

      Man's emissions of CO2 cause global warming

      Does this mean ALL global warming or SOME global warming?

      The latter is established scientific fact, but the former isn't.

      Delete
    3. Ambiguity is disambiguated by context according to pragmatics and praxis.

      It would be very silly to think that such a statement meant ALL global warming. It wastes everyone's time and annoys people when someone ignores context in order to deliberately focus on legalistic or hair-splitting interpretations of what is obvious to others. That is a violation of linguistic pragmatics and it interferes with communication.

      Delete
  5. Uh, oh! This from Politicus USA.

    By Jason Easley on Fri, Mar 3rd, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is on a roll as her show is growing three times faster than Fox News.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Politicus USA says, "In the time of Trump, Rachel Maddow is offering something that America needs. She is bringing truth and facts in a credible way."
      Enough to make Bob Somerby sick.

      BTW note how Trump and Obama have been good for their opponents. Obama produced a surge of gun purchases and Trump benefited Rachel Maddow.

      Delete
    2. "Trump benefited Rachel Maddow."

      Ha ha ha. Wait 'til you see the non-bigot backlash Trump causes.

      Delete
  6. The studies in that report show that the better private schools did not participate in the voucher program and also show that students in the badly performing schools did better when they switched. The only group not showing improvement are students from an already high performing public school who switch to a non high performing private school.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If I make a statement that cats have fur, someone is likely to object that he once saw a furless cat (they do exist). Does that my generalization about cats wrong? No, not in any sane world.

    Are there any people who can think about any topic without using these sorts of generalizations? No. It is necessary to create them as mental heuristics that support both reasoning and memory. Do they produce perfect, always accurate results? Of course not, especially when there are exceptions, odd cases, unusual circumstances. But most of the time, they get the job done.

    People evolved in a world where there were fewer exceptions to generalities, fewer oddities and unexpected circumstances. It was safer to conclude that all foxes had fur, winter followed summer, people who smiled were friends and those who yelled were angry, and so on. Our world is more complex now and perhaps produces more mistakes using our normal cognitive processes. But we aren't going to undo tens of thousands of years of evolution in a couple hundred years. So our minds are going to keep functioning the way that worked best for them when we came up as mammals.

    I am tired of hearing an ignorant Somerby object to the way language and thinking works in normal human beings. If he wants to be Gandhi on the mountain, more power to him, but it is wrong to keep calling "us, the liberals" ugly names just because he wanted Sanders to win the last election. And yes, many of us do care about black children and their education. We wouldn't be here is that weren't true. Heaven knows we aren't here for any other reason. And we populate the blogs elsewhere that are 100% devoted to education topics. So stop this crap and talk about something substantive for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course, it is entirely possible that 19-24 year olds are the worst subset of drivers, no matter when the survey is taken. I'm sure a quick call to a few insurance companies would produce better results.

    ReplyDelete
  9. WOW!!!
    This is the most wonderful thing i have ever experience and i need to share this great testimony.
    About how i get my ex back after a breakup.
    I never believed it, because i never heard nor learn anything about it before.
    My name is Cora L. Sanchez from UK
    My boyfriend of a 2year just broke up with me and am 28 weeks pregnant. I have cried my self to sleep most of the nights and don’t seem to concentrate during lectures sometimes I stay awake almost all night thinking about him and start to cry all over again. Because of this I end up not having energy for my next day’s classes, my attendance has dropped and am always in uni and on time. Generally he is a very nice guy, he ended it because he said we were arguing a lot and not getting along. He is right we’ve been arguing during the pregnancy a lot. After the break up I kept ringing him and telling him I will change. I am in love with this guy and he is the best guy I have ever been with. I’m still hurt and in disbelief when he said he didn’t have any romantic feelings towards me anymore that hurt me faster than a lethal syringe. He texts me once and then mainly to check up on how am doing with the pregnancy, he is supportive with it but it’s not fair on me, him texting me as I just want to grieve the pain and not have any stress due to the pregnancy. i was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Ahmed can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a spell for me. 28 hours later, my boyfriend came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I and my boyfriend are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Ahmed. as it is a place to resolve marriage/relationship issues, do you want to be sure if your spouse is being faithful to you or Do you want your Ex to come back to you Contact.: E-mail: Ahmedutimate@gmail.com or call/Whats-app: +2348160153829 save your crumbling home and change of grades its 100% safe. I suggest you contact him. He will not disappoint you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have a testimony to share,,My Name is Sarah Denison am from United State am now 38years old Am a Medical doctor in California,I married for about 10years ago without any child then me and my husband go for an adoption of 2kids male/female.Last years something wonderful and gracious happened to me i came across this witch doctor in the internet that promise to help me get pregnant which i totally disagree,,,How can i be pregnant looking my age he ask me not to worry that he only specialize on pregnancy all kind of spell. That after the job has been completed there is no any side effect,that was how he told me what to do which i did, could you believe i miss my periodical time that same Month and i was pregnant.Today am now the happiest woman on Earth,,While am i testify to this site i know there are a lot of people that are in this kind of trouble some will decide to commit suicide. please just do and contact him for help make him to understand that Oprah Winfrey from United States directed you, his email, (Ajaguna7demons@gmail.com) http://ajaguna7demons-com.webs.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello, I am Theresa Williams After being in relationship with Anderson for years, he broke up with me, I did everything possible to bring him back but all was in vain, I wanted him back so much because of the love I have for him, I begged him with everything, I made promises but he refused. I explained my problem to my friend and she suggested that I should rather contact a spell caster that could help me cast a spell to bring him back but I am the type that never believed in spell, I had no choice than to try it, I mailed the spell caster, and he told me there was no problem that everything will be okay before three days, that my ex will return to me before three days, he cast the spell and surprisingly in the second day, it was around 4 pm. My ex called me, I was so surprised, I answered the call and all he said was that he was so sorry for everything that happened that he wanted me to return to him, that he loves me so much. I was so happy and went to him that was how we started living together happily again. Since then, I have made promise that anybody I know that have a relationship problem, I would be of help to such person by referring him or her to the only real and powerful spell caster who helped me with my own problem. email: drogunduspellcaster@gmail.com you can email him if you need his assistance in your relationship or any other Case.

    1) Love Spells
    2) Lost Love Spells
    3) Divorce Spells
    4) Marriage Spells
    5) Binding Spell.
    6) Breakup Spells
    7) Banish a past Lover
    8.) You want to be promoted in your office/ Lottery spell
    9) want to satisfy your lover
    Contact this great man if you are having any problem for a lasting solution
    through drogunduspellcaster@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  12. My wife is back!!!
    My name is Albert Brown. I had a problem with my wife six months ago,which lead to us going apart. When she broke up with me,i was no longer myself,I felt so empty inside. Until a friend of mine told me about a spell caster that helped in same problem too, that she found on Web page. i emailed the spell caster and I told him my problem and I did what he asked me to briefly To cut the long story short,before i knew what was happening,not up to 48 hours,my wife text me and said she wanted to come back and so she came back to me and told me she was sorry about what has happened, she now tell me every time and every day that she loves and miss me. I'm so grateful to this great spell caster Dr Noble and i will not stop publishing his name on the Internet just for the good work he has done. If you need any help you can contact this great man he will help you any any way you want, you can email him at templeofjoyandprosperity@gmail.com i guarantee you that he will also help you okay

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana List ✅Check name in PM Awas Yojana List 2018 - 2019 ✅PMAY-G list online ✅Who are eligible for CLSS Scheme.
    Pradhan Mantri Yojana 2019Pradhan Mantri Yojana 2019

    ReplyDelete
  14. यहाँ से आप अपने विषय के आधार पर सरकारी योजना को Select करे | Saksham Yojna Applicant Detail

    ReplyDelete