z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Parenting 讨论区 】
发信人: Beida101 (北大学子), 信区: Parenting
标 题: Re: 望提高亚裔高校录取率的“法律之友”已递交最高法院
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Jun 7 12:17:08 2012, 美东)
哈佛大学年初时被教育部调查是否在录取上对亚裔有歧视之嫌，今年亚裔的录取率就是
近年来最高的，比往年增加了15%。
Hehe, logical fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation. The reason
could be that 2012 is the Dragon year! And BTW, what was the result of the
investigation?
他们那场的21个学生几乎都是亚裔小朋友，颁奖的时候孩子们几乎也都考上了级。
Hehe. If you look at the other facet of the problem, why no OTHER races pay
such a huge attention to learning piano? I assume Mr. Wewill2009 would
provide some interesting views on this subject.
然而在这个案子上，你的投入应当是有回报的。
Hehe. What about the ROI for the other side of the problem, those colored
applicants who do not play piano, do not have high SAT score, but who still
want to go to a good college? According to the news, Harvard accepted an AA
applicant who used to be HOMELESS and slept on benches at parks. I
seriously doubt his SAT scores could match the average Asian applicants.
But his determination to get a better education stills rocked my heart. His
admission into Ivy League schools might have benefitted A LOT from the
current college admission policies. But wouldn't you want him to be accepted
as well?
Have confidence in oneself. Like the young man I described in one of my
recent posts, improve yourself and make Harvard feel it is their loss not
accepting you in the first place! |
z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 2 俺对北大学子的回帖：
80-20为亚裔（包括你）的争取平等的权利，而你却冷眼看笑话，有这么好笑吗？每段
都以Hehe开头？
我看北大的教育不及格啊！
pay
【在 z****0 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Parenting 讨论区 】
: 发信人: Beida101 (北大学子), 信区: Parenting
: 标 题: Re: 望提高亚裔高校录取率的“法律之友”已递交最高法院
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Jun 7 12:17:08 2012, 美东)
: 哈佛大学年初时被教育部调查是否在录取上对亚裔有歧视之嫌，今年亚裔的录取率就是
: 近年来最高的，比往年增加了15%。
: Hehe, logical fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation. The reason
: could be that 2012 is the Dragon year! And BTW, what was the result of the
: investigation?
: 他们那场的21个学生几乎都是亚裔小朋友，颁奖的时候孩子们几乎也都考上了级。
|
B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 3 还有这样叫板的。你自己好好玩。我隔天再来看看，看你能想出什么好主意和我斗嘴仗
。 |
h*********o
发帖数: 19006 | 4 似乎是大家正常讨论啊，转到这儿是什么意思
【在 z****0 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Parenting 讨论区 】
: 发信人: Beida101 (北大学子), 信区: Parenting
: 标 题: Re: 望提高亚裔高校录取率的“法律之友”已递交最高法院
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Jun 7 12:17:08 2012, 美东)
: 哈佛大学年初时被教育部调查是否在录取上对亚裔有歧视之嫌，今年亚裔的录取率就是
: 近年来最高的，比往年增加了15%。
: Hehe, logical fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation. The reason
: could be that 2012 is the Dragon year! And BTW, what was the result of the
: investigation?
: 他们那场的21个学生几乎都是亚裔小朋友，颁奖的时候孩子们几乎也都考上了级。
|
Z*****l
发帖数: 14069 | 5 80-20的问题是有支持民主党支持奥巴马的旧案，间接造成了Affirmative Action歧视
亚裔学生的现况。现在亡羊补牢虽然不晚，但是抓小放大，总免不了被人怀疑是逢场作
戏的政治圈套。
【在 z****0 的大作中提到】
: 俺对北大学子的回帖：
: 80-20为亚裔（包括你）的争取平等的权利，而你却冷眼看笑话，有这么好笑吗？每段
: 都以Hehe开头？
: 我看北大的教育不及格啊！
:
: pay
|
Z*****l
发帖数: 14069 | 6 都是校友么。
80-20先左后右反复无常的下场就是这样，左派的北大学子不喜欢他们，右派的俺也不
会信任他们。搞政治搞成这样真是失败。
【在 h*********o 的大作中提到】
: 似乎是大家正常讨论啊，转到这儿是什么意思
|
z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 7 俺懒得和你在这儿斗嘴仗，你不是爱现么？只是想让你的校友看完你的半裸后再看看你
的别的。有兴趣的北大同学请去为人父母版看我们的讨论。
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: 还有这样叫板的。你自己好好玩。我隔天再来看看，看你能想出什么好主意和我斗嘴仗
: 。
|
z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 8 你这个teabagger还是去美新版陪你们版主玩吧，他太孤单了！
【在 Z*****l 的大作中提到】
: 80-20的问题是有支持民主党支持奥巴马的旧案，间接造成了Affirmative Action歧视
: 亚裔学生的现况。现在亡羊补牢虽然不晚，但是抓小放大，总免不了被人怀疑是逢场作
: 戏的政治圈套。
|
Z*****l
发帖数: 14069 | 9 显然又是个不会在论坛好好说话的。想不到在母校版隔了这么多年又出现你这样的败类
。可惜。
【在 z****0 的大作中提到】
: 你这个teabagger还是去美新版陪你们版主玩吧，他太孤单了！
|
z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 10 谁和你校友了？你这样的俺见多了，一边凉快去！
【在 Z*****l 的大作中提到】
: 显然又是个不会在论坛好好说话的。想不到在母校版隔了这么多年又出现你这样的败类
: 。可惜。
|
|
|
Z*****l
发帖数: 14069 | 11 太好了。这个是来挑事的，请版主删楼。
【在 z****0 的大作中提到】
: 谁和你校友了？你这样的俺见多了，一边凉快去！
|
z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 12 太好了，删吧！我看北大版主不会就这点气量。
【在 Z*****l 的大作中提到】
: 太好了。这个是来挑事的，请版主删楼。
|
B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 13 Hehe, all bark and no bite. This is the best you can do?
How can you become a successful political activist?
Show me the money! You have not shown any of your cards on the table since I
laid out mine. Have some skin in the game if you want to win.
【在 z****0 的大作中提到】
: 俺懒得和你在这儿斗嘴仗，你不是爱现么？只是想让你的校友看完你的半裸后再看看你
: 的别的。有兴趣的北大同学请去为人父母版看我们的讨论。
|
z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 14 总算用上你的“preferred language"了，我都替您急得慌。
再说一遍，要看讨论请去为人父母版。
I
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Hehe, all bark and no bite. This is the best you can do?
: How can you become a successful political activist?
: Show me the money! You have not shown any of your cards on the table since I
: laid out mine. Have some skin in the game if you want to win.
|
h*********o
发帖数: 19006 | 15 哦，看了看至少字面的纲领还是说的过去的。
不过这个的确是口号是一方面，自身怎么去做和做成什么样是另一方面
【在 Z*****l 的大作中提到】
: 都是校友么。
: 80-20先左后右反复无常的下场就是这样，左派的北大学子不喜欢他们，右派的俺也不
: 会信任他们。搞政治搞成这样真是失败。
|
h*********o
发帖数: 19006 | 16 说实话还真没兴趣去看这样的讨论，
仅说一点吧，beida101同学一直是mit健身圈的大牛啊，他贴那个“裸照”还真不是哗众
取宠。
支持你做有意义的事情，不过别人要是认为其实没意义也不想做，也很正常。要想让大
家都觉得你做的有意义，你还得努力，路还很长。
俺懒得和你在这儿斗嘴仗，你不是爱现么？只是想让你的校友看完你的半裸后再看看你
的别的。有兴趣的北大同学请去为人父母版看我们的讨论。
【在 z****0 的大作中提到】
: 俺懒得和你在这儿斗嘴仗，你不是爱现么？只是想让你的校友看完你的半裸后再看看你
: 的别的。有兴趣的北大同学请去为人父母版看我们的讨论。
|
h*********o
发帖数: 19006 | 17 新版主要过几天上任。
得，晴妹刚上任就接个大活儿，哈哈
【在 Z*****l 的大作中提到】
: 太好了。这个是来挑事的，请版主删楼。
|
z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 18 哈，谢谢你上面的话。
我就看不上动不动就让斑竹删贴那种。一个虚拟论坛，至于吗？
另外我也看不上对亚裔自己的政治组织横挑鼻子竖挑眼的那种，所以才有这个帖子。
【在 h*********o 的大作中提到】
: 新版主要过几天上任。
: 得，晴妹刚上任就接个大活儿，哈哈
|
l*****s
发帖数: 623 | 19 真是莫名其妙，parenting版上有人跟你“讨论”么？
大多数在说你说话方式不当，也不知哪个学校学出来的。
还嫌不够丢人现眼的，又跑这儿来折腾。
【在 z****0 的大作中提到】
: 俺懒得和你在这儿斗嘴仗，你不是爱现么？只是想让你的校友看完你的半裸后再看看你
: 的别的。有兴趣的北大同学请去为人父母版看我们的讨论。
|
z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 20 我在那好好回答你的问题，就换来你这通叽叽歪歪？真是莫名其妙！
在虚拟论坛上还拉帮结派，谁在丢人？
【在 l*****s 的大作中提到】
: 真是莫名其妙，parenting版上有人跟你“讨论”么？
: 大多数在说你说话方式不当，也不知哪个学校学出来的。
: 还嫌不够丢人现眼的，又跑这儿来折腾。
|
|
|
B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 21 What a hypocrite!
I only see you who used 80-20 as the BIG Banner to form a BLOC and prevent
others from saying what they believe in. Now you are accusing those who
disagree with you as forming a bloc.
Again, what a hypocrite!
No wonder 80-20 fell into oblivion so quickly!
Let me ask you: Do you represent 80-20 as an organization?
If your answer is No, you are mis-representing an organization.
If your answer is Yes, go back home and learn the manners how to have a
civil and logical discussion.
【在 z****0 的大作中提到】
: 我在那好好回答你的问题，就换来你这通叽叽歪歪？真是莫名其妙！
: 在虚拟论坛上还拉帮结派，谁在丢人？
|
l*****s
发帖数: 623 | 22 你连我那问题中的反义都看不出来，就“好好回答”了一个别人堆砌的link，你想换来
什么？
我没北大101的耐心，懒得和没逻辑的人理论，你就知足吧。
只要不支持你的就是拉帮结派？你们80-20和工会这类组织反而不是拉帮结派？
只要不支持你的就强调这是虚拟论坛，那你这么卖力的折腾又是为啥？
【在 z****0 的大作中提到】
: 我在那好好回答你的问题，就换来你这通叽叽歪歪？真是莫名其妙！
: 在虚拟论坛上还拉帮结派，谁在丢人？
|
z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 23 我只能说，你丫果然很幼稚！操着你的preferred language也不照啊！
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: What a hypocrite!
: I only see you who used 80-20 as the BIG Banner to form a BLOC and prevent
: others from saying what they believe in. Now you are accusing those who
: disagree with you as forming a bloc.
: Again, what a hypocrite!
: No wonder 80-20 fell into oblivion so quickly!
: Let me ask you: Do you represent 80-20 as an organization?
: If your answer is No, you are mis-representing an organization.
: If your answer is Yes, go back home and learn the manners how to have a
: civil and logical discussion.
|
z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 24 行，我知足。你一边歇着吧！
【在 l*****s 的大作中提到】
: 你连我那问题中的反义都看不出来，就“好好回答”了一个别人堆砌的link，你想换来
: 什么？
: 我没北大101的耐心，懒得和没逻辑的人理论，你就知足吧。
: 只要不支持你的就是拉帮结派？你们80-20和工会这类组织反而不是拉帮结派？
: 只要不支持你的就强调这是虚拟论坛，那你这么卖力的折腾又是为啥？
|
B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 25 Logical fallacy: Ad hominem
Manners.
Manners!
Keep your composure even if you are losing.
【在 z****0 的大作中提到】
: 我只能说，你丫果然很幼稚！操着你的preferred language也不照啊！
|
V*******C
发帖数: 36 | 26 说别人逻辑有漏洞前是𣎴是先想想自己的阅读能力够不够？＂哈佛被调查.....
.哈佛的亚裔录取率上升＂两句事实并列，就一定有因果关系吗？举个例子：
北大出了beida101, 北大的教育有问题。
两个事实而已，碰巧并列。至于心虚的或者脑残的一口认定有因果关系，一句话：＂乐
见其成＂。
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Logical fallacy: Ad hominem
: Manners.
: Manners!
: Keep your composure even if you are losing.
|
B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 27 Kao. Your Chinese sucks!
哈佛大学年初时被教育部调查是否在录取上对亚裔有歧视之嫌，今年亚裔的录取率就是
近年来最高的，比往年增加了15%。
There is a word 就是 in the second half of the above sentence, which
indicates a causal relationship!
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
First, an argument contains two components or statements. One is a premise
while the other is a conclusion. The sentence in question has two
statements. Which one is which, then? Is the investigation the premise? Or
is the admission rate increase the premise? You decide.
Second, if, as you said, these two statements are IRRELEVANT, then why the
80-20 speaker put them in the same sentence? Is he or she illogical (脑残)?
Or is he or she trying to fool people into thinking that one statement
caused the other (心虚)? Again, you decide.
On one hand, it would be laughable if two irrelevant statements were put
together in an important document to win people's support. On the other
hand, it would be neither the first time nor the last time a political
pamphlet tries to glorify what a politician or an organization has
accomplished by maninpulating facts.
Claim the credit when it is due and prove that it is logically deduced.
Now, who was 心虚的或者脑残?
Again, when reading an article or an argument, use your brain not your
emotion!
..
【在 V*******C 的大作中提到】
: 说别人逻辑有漏洞前是𣎴是先想想自己的阅读能力够不够？＂哈佛被调查.....
: .哈佛的亚裔录取率上升＂两句事实并列，就一定有因果关系吗？举个例子：
: 北大出了beida101, 北大的教育有问题。
: 两个事实而已，碰巧并列。至于心虚的或者脑残的一口认定有因果关系，一句话：＂乐
: 见其成＂。
|
V*******C
发帖数: 36 | 28 看来你还不光是'preferred language'用多了，母语阅读出了问题，而且是思维不清，
混淆预设前提。请问我何时说过两个并列事实一定互不相干 (IRRELIVANT)? 难道说没
有因果关系就一定不相干了？
哈佛是否歧视亚裔学生，我不知道。但它有嫌疑，或者可以做得更好。那我们把两个相
关事实并列，借以引发重视和调查，并施加压力，这是美国民主政治的常用手段之一，
如你难以理解，建议切切充实你的'preferred language'的加深和学习。
premise
Or
?
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Kao. Your Chinese sucks!
: 哈佛大学年初时被教育部调查是否在录取上对亚裔有歧视之嫌，今年亚裔的录取率就是
: 近年来最高的，比往年增加了15%。
: There is a word 就是 in the second half of the above sentence, which
: indicates a causal relationship!
: - - - - - - - - - - - - -
: First, an argument contains two components or statements. One is a premise
: while the other is a conclusion. The sentence in question has two
: statements. Which one is which, then? Is the investigation the premise? Or
: is the admission rate increase the premise? You decide.
|
B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 29 How 相干??
I claim that "the year 2012 is a dragon year" is as 相干 as the
investigation to the improvement of the admission rate! This just shows
the absurdity of putting those two statements (events) together!
Logical fallacy: correlation vs. causation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"
, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "
Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this
one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes
referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not
causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc,
in which two things or events occur simultaneously or the chronological
ordering is insignificant or unknown.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears
to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion
based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other
factors that might rule out the connection.
The last part of your explanation proves that by claiming the inter-
connection of two seemingly non-causal events, 80-20 is cheating! How
wonderful!
Quote: 至于心虚的或者脑残的一口认定有因果关系 . . .
【在 V*******C 的大作中提到】
: 看来你还不光是'preferred language'用多了，母语阅读出了问题，而且是思维不清，
: 混淆预设前提。请问我何时说过两个并列事实一定互不相干 (IRRELIVANT)? 难道说没
: 有因果关系就一定不相干了？
: 哈佛是否歧视亚裔学生，我不知道。但它有嫌疑，或者可以做得更好。那我们把两个相
: 关事实并列，借以引发重视和调查，并施加压力，这是美国民主政治的常用手段之一，
: 如你难以理解，建议切切充实你的'preferred language'的加深和学习。
:
: premise
: Or
: ?
|
B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 30 In furtherance of the above analysis regarding the listing of two facts
together: 1) investigation of Harvard; and 2) increased admission rate for
Asian Americans into Harvard, I did a little research.
The referenced investigation was reported on Feb. 2, 2012. However, more
importantly, on Feb. 17, 2012, the U.S. Department of Education has closed
its investigation into alleged discrimination against Asian Americans in
Harvard’s admissions policies following the withdrawal of the initial
complaint.
Considering that the initiation and the closure of this investigation were
separated by ONLY 15 days, it is highly unlikely that the author who picked
ONLY the initiation of the investigation ACCIDENTALLY missed the end of the
investigation. Rather, the author ignored this fact!
Now it becomes clear not only the so-call investigation has most likely no
effect on the admission rate for Asian Americans into Harvard, it also
points out that author is manipulating the facts to buttress the claim that
80-20 should be credited for the increased admission rate!
Further, it is also odd for me to find that the linkage or relationship of
the two seemingly irrelevant events was ONLY mentioned in the Chinese
version of the propaganda materials used by 80-20. Why not present these
two so-called correlated or even causal events in the same sentence in
English? One possible reason lies in the fact, if the author did, he would
be facing a lawsuit from Harvard because he is defaming a prestigious, world
-class university. Consequently, it lead to another question: why the
author used the same linkage in the Chinese version? One possible reason is
that the author thought a Chinese reader is easier to be fooled than an
English reader. Moreover, even if a Chinese reader finds out this pathetic,
ill-devised, defamation attack on Harvard, the same Chinese reader would not
launch a lawsuit against the author!
Finally, it appears that the author thought the Chinese readers are dumb,
with neither logical thinking abilities nor fact-checking skills. He might
get away with such cheating elsewhere, but certainly NOT on the turf of
Peking University! Not on my watch. |
