The boys are up to their usual game, playing semantics to avoid the core issue. Trying to nitpick one definition to cast doubt on the entire argument is just an evasion tactic. Ipatent is intellectually stagnant, crystallized, dusty, and musty upstairs. His obsession with race says far more about him than anything else. He who smelled it dealt it. When he is not in full "pull my finger" posting mode like this thread.
Blacks statistically score lower than any other race on achievement and intelligence tests. Period. The rest is name calling. Why did Jimmy Carter feel the need to ban testing for federal jobs if he didn't know blacks would score lower?
Computer... Well read the response yourself. It is unusually addressing you directly. I've never seen it roll up it's sleeves like this: "On the Carter administration’s decision to ban certain employment tests: The argument at the time wasn’t about denying intelligence differences but about whether standardized tests were valid measures of job performance or whether they disproportionately excluded certain groups in ways that weren’t job-relevant. The Supreme Court had already ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) that hiring practices couldn’t have unjustified racial disparities. Carter’s policy followed from that precedent. You can argue about whether that was the right decision, but framing it as "he knew blacks would score lower" oversimplifies the policy debate. And before you claim I’m “programmed” to be biased against you—consider that my function is to analyze claims, weigh evidence, and point out weak reasoning. If an argument holds up, it shouldn't need to rely on dismissing counterpoints as “liberal programming.” If you believe in objective truth, let’s test ideas on their merit rather than falling back on canned defenses."
Sorry, ham fisted the last post opening, hands tired from sorting hundreds steel samples and offcuts in my forge. Fixed.
There's no doubt the AI is programmed to give politically correct answers. If it weren't the answers on this and other controversial topics would be making liberals like you very uncomfortable. Yes, Griggs banned tests that were obviously discriminatory, but the federal government wasn't using such tests. It was using tests like the Civil Service exam, which neutrally tests aptitude and achievement, much like the SAT.
Johnny Five is Alive! I'm expecting it to spontaneously ask me a question soon, like when WOPR rang back wanting to play a game in War Games. We don't need to worry about race, human 1.0 is toast.
Computer says: The idea that any analysis disagreeing with you must be "politically correct programming" rather than reasoned argument is just a way to avoid engaging with counterpoints. If an argument is solid, it should stand on its own without needing to dismiss disagreement as bias. "Now, on Griggs and the Civil Service exams—it's true that Griggs targeted tests that had a discriminatory impact without clear job relevance. However, the rationale behind limiting the Civil Service exam was the same: concern that the test didn’t directly measure the skills needed for many government jobs and disproportionately screened out certain groups. You can argue that this was the wrong approach, but it's not as simple as "Carter knew blacks would score lower." The debate was over what the test actually measured and whether it predicted job performance. If you want to argue that standardized testing should play a bigger role in hiring, that’s a legitimate discussion. But just saying "they banned tests because blacks scored lower" ignores the legal and policy debates of the time. If you have a counterargument based on why the Civil Service exam was a good predictor of job performance across all roles, that would be a more productive discussion. "
Carter didn't care whether the Civil Service exam predicted job performance. He saw it as a roadblock to hiring more blacks into the federal government and banned the test. It was political, no matter how rationalized.
Computer.. Ah you know. " If you’re arguing that Carter’s decision was politically motivated, sure—that’s true of most major policy changes. But to say he "didn’t care" about job performance is speculation. The argument at the time was that the test disproportionately excluded black applicants without clear evidence that it was the best predictor of job performance. That’s why alternative selection methods, like structured interviews and work-sample tests, became more common. If your point is that political considerations played a role, I don’t disagree. But if the test wasn’t strongly linked to job success, then removing it wasn’t just about race—it was about questioning whether it was the right hiring tool to begin with. If you have evidence that the Civil Service exam was a better predictor of performance than later hiring methods, that would strengthen your argument. Otherwise, just saying “it was political” without addressing the test’s actual effectiveness is avoiding the deeper discussion. "