Indian superstar Shah Rukh Khan tweets about being stopped at US airport

[Clamhua]

I have undergone extra scrutiny when travelling to Lax, once in Dubai and once in Hong Kong...middle aged white man travelling by myself the first time in economy, the second time in business class with friends, a mother and son who are both Asian...I got to assume random, or was I racially profiled?

[stevenl]

41 minutes ago, Clamhua said:

I have undergone extra scrutiny when travelling to Lax, once in Dubai and once in Hong Kong...middle aged white man travelling by myself the first time in economy, the second time in business class with friends, a mother and son who are both Asian...I got to assume random, or was I racially profiled?

You were very likely profiled.

[Sayonarax]

He sou ds like whinging MP in Australia that got detained at customs. Badges and titles dont grant extra rights. Next time put him the do not fly list. He should be the one apologizing for acting like a jack ass.

[hdkane]

rather than me doing the work for you, please supply the data that the TSA engages in comprehensive racial profiling...

 

you won't find it...because if it did exist, there would lawsuits being filed daily and huge settlements being offered...

 

but the data do exist...you need to pour over the data provided by the various govt agencies...not only the TSA but FBI and FAA as well...just be prepared to spend a lot of time...also, you need to obtain the codebook for some of the data, espeically if you want item level analysis....

[stevenl]

15 minutes ago, hdkane said:

rather than me doing the work for you, please supply the data that the TSA engages in comprehensive racial profiling...

 

you won't find it...because if it did exist, there would lawsuits being filed daily and huge settlements being offered...

 

but the data do exist...you need to pour over the data provided by the various govt agencies...not only the TSA but FBI and FAA as well...just be prepared to spend a lot of time...also, you need to obtain the codebook for some of the data, espeically if you want item level analysis....

You claim 'the data show ...', and you tell others to show the data? Sorry, it does not work that way. Either substantiate your claim or don't make it.

[hdkane]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You claim 'the data show ...', and you tell others to show the data? Sorry, it does not work that way. Either substantiate your claim or don't make it.

No...it does work that way...too often, people want someone to do all the work and then simply dismiss the argument as racist...it's frustrating for researchers to spend time and energy preparing documents and then have uninformed people simply be dismissive because they don't like the findings..if you are stating that systemic racial profiling exists...you prove it as well...ready when you are...

 

let me point you in the right direction...but this  is just a start...

 

Davis, P. K., Perry, W. L., Brown, R.A., Yeung, D, Roshan, P., and Voorhies, P. (2013). “Using Behavioral Indicators to Help Detect Potential Violent Acts: A Review of the Science Base”. RAND Corporation, National Defense Research Institute.

[mikebike]

12 minutes ago, hdkane said:

please supply the data that the TSA engages in comprehensive racial profiling...

 

you won't find it...because if it did exist, there would lawsuits being filed daily and huge settlements being offered...

You won't find it because independent observation and analysis of TSA procedures on-site is not allowed. The only data available is from the TSA and their parent, DHS. Not exactly unbiased sources.

 

Public lawsuits may well follow the ACLU's lawsuit to gain access to the TSA's procedures, data, and the scientific basis for said procedures.

 

This is why I was interested in learning from you and the data you have reviewed - I was hoping for a glimpse into some independent data I was previously unaware of.

[hdkane]

5 hours ago, mikebike said:

Would love to see a reference link to this data.

Most of the data I have viewed comes from government surveys and data bases...when I worked at universities, I also reviewed salaries and qualifications of faculty about 50 state universities, as well as student complaints of racism/discrimination...these were public universities, not private...i can speak to those more readily because i actually collected the data, and so spent a lot more time with the data set...in those analyses, white women were more discriminated against...a white woman on the job for 15years, with impeccable research credentials, would be paid at a rate similar to a recently hired black male with comparatively poor credentials...so there was a lot more evidence of a gender pay gap than for racial discrimination...in the case of student cases of discrimination, about 80% were found to be bogus, with complaintants simply insinuating race as a means to get better grades or some other end...it was less than 1% of cases where someone who was a minority actually had experienced racial discrimination... 

 

the largest employer in many cities is the government...local, state, or federal...if you simply start with affirmative action policies, in which preferential hiring, promotion, and admission is a policy regarding blacks and hispanics (not Whites or Asians), then the argument is over...if you consider also data in the realm of crime, the picture becomes pretty bleak pretty fast...also, health related outcomes care takes on a different light when you consider that much of the variance can be explained by factors related to personality and intelligence, rather than simple access...my particular area of interest was in cognitive ability and its social implications...one very good data set can be found with the ncvs....take care

[stevenl]

Ok, so you have no data whatsoever regarding immigration profiling.

[hdkane]

24 minutes ago, mikebike said:

You won't find it because independent observation and analysis of TSA procedures on-site is not allowed. The only data available is from the TSA and their parent, DHS. Not exactly unbiased sources.

 

Public lawsuits may well follow the ACLU's lawsuit to gain access to the TSA's procedures, data, and the scientific basis for said procedures.

 

This is why I was interested in learning from you and the data you have reviewed - I was hoping for a glimpse into some independent data I was previously unaware of.

Yes, I would agree with you that many of these data sets are incomplete...as an excuse for "sensitivity", some variables are left out, perhaps intentionally...there are some cases that are being brought by individuals, and I actually hope that the individual can prove a case, because it would mean a true examination of data...but I don't think that will happen...the govt allows scrutiny according to behavior and points of origin...there probably is a correlation with race there (most people from Somalia are black, not Asian, etc.), but policies are not exclusively related to race, although race should be a factor in my opinion, as it is a valid biological construct and captures a lot material of interest...i am a bit familiar with the cases you may be referencing, and I think the allegations will be difficult to prove...it's far more easy to catch an individual being racist rather than a system...I think because it's a lot easier to attack a lone individual than many...it's far easier to fire one guy than to revamp a system...then again, the issue always comes up whether if something is racist (results in different outcomes that fall along racial lines or definitions) is necessarily a bad thing...if race is a real construct, then there should be differences in most human endeavors/outcomes that fall along racial lines...eg., the California university system is filled disproportionately with Asians...so if people value race and diversity, they may also have to face the fact that there are different outcomes based on race...i know this is off topic, because people do not "achieve" a screening at TSA...but if a system relies on behaviors, then there probably will be race differences in any outcomes that can be reliably measured, since races display different behaviors...stemming from individual and group differences in intelligence and personality, as well as cultural/social norms...

 

i don't know why there are a few people on here who seem to be so virulently offended...it's not only common sense, but upheld by data and most observable outcomes in the world...the world is not flat...people are different...groups of people are different...based on the tone of your text, I think you get that...some people don't and seem to be offended by diversity

[hdkane]

3 hours ago, hdkane said:

Most of the data I have viewed comes from government surveys and data bases...when I worked at universities, I also reviewed salaries and qualifications of faculty about 50 state universities, as well as student complaints of racism/discrimination...these were public universities, not private...i can speak to those more readily because i actually collected the data, and so spent a lot more time with the data set...in those analyses, white women were more discriminated against...a white woman on the job for 15years, with impeccable research credentials, would be paid at a rate similar to a recently hired black male with comparatively poor credentials...so there was a lot more evidence of a gender pay gap than for racial discrimination...in the case of student cases of discrimination, about 80% were found to be bogus, with complaintants simply insinuating race as a means to get better grades or some other end...it was less than 1% of cases where someone who was a minority actually had experienced racial discrimination... 

 

the largest employer in many cities is the government...local, state, or federal...if you simply start with affirmative action policies, in which preferential hiring, promotion, and admission is a policy regarding blacks and hispanics (not Whites or Asians), then the argument is over...if you consider also data in the realm of crime, the picture becomes pretty bleak pretty fast...also, health related outcomes care takes on a different light when you consider that much of the variance can be explained by factors related to personality and intelligence, rather than simple access...my particular area of interest was in cognitive ability and its social implications...one very good data set can be found with the ncvs....take care

hey there...i decided to go through some old flash drives and found a portion of a course I taught...it was statistics, for psychologists...a lot of what I taught was about race and gender and some statistical methods that may be used to counter conventional wisdom...

 

these are data that were collected in O'hare airport...Chicago...as I recall, they were collected one day a week, for a three week period...I cannot recall much beyond that...the data were used to talk about probabilities and chi squares and odds and such...for what it is worth, O'hare is one of the busiest airports in the world...white is obvious...nonwhite includes blacks, hispanics, asians, and "other"...the reference to table 2 is a more detailed table that was used to calculate odds...but the basic data are right here...

 

Table 1.  Crosstabulation Between Further Screening * Race.

 

 

Race

Total

White

NonWhite

FS

No

Count

205

194

399

Expected Count

212.3

186.7

399.0

Yes

Count

35

17

52

Expected Count

27.7

24.3

52.0

Total

Count

240

211

451

Expected Count

240.0

211.0

451.0

 

Detailed frequencies of the Race and Screening variables are reported in Table 2.  A percentage, when applied to a Contingency Table of frequencies, represents the portion of the individuals in the sample falling into a certain group. For example, in the entire sample, the percentage of individuals who require no further screening is 88.5 (399/451 x 100).  The percentage of nonscreened individuals who are also NonWhite is 48.6 (194/399 x100). This idea can be expanded to a probability, which gives the chance that an individual person falls into a certain category. Because they are based upon percentages, probabilities have a range of 0 to 1.00.  The closer a probability is to a value of 1.00, the greater the likelihood of a particular outcome.  So, if the chance of an outcome is an absolute certainty, the probability is 1.00 (100%).  Conversely, if there is absolutely no chance of an outcome, the probability is 0.  Based on our sample, the probability of requiring Further Screening is 11.5%.  So if we randomly selected an individual from our sample, we could expect to select a Further Screening participant about 11.5% of the time.  Refining our example, among individuals who are nonWhite, the probability of being not requiring additional screening is 91.9% (194/211 x100).  Thus, if we were to select a single individual from the nonWhite group, he/she would almost certainly be deemed a low security risk as well, requiring no further screening.

 

Table 1.docx

[hdkane]

i also found data about some screening procedures, but these are raw data...i used them to teach about factor analysis and multiple regression...

[hdkane]

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

You were very likely profiled.

nonsense

[hdkane]

8 minutes ago, hdkane said:

i also found data about some screening procedures, but these are raw data...i used them to teach about factor analysis and multiple regression...

these are data about the conceptual instrument...a little old, but the regression lines are pretty identical for whites and nonwhites...in this case, blacks, asians, and others...the sample is more than 1000, but it's difficult to ascertain the validity of the instrument, since there are no other procedures when these data were collected..convergent and divergent evidence is needed...but the analyses indicate no difference in the prediction of whether someone will require further screening...whatever the construct is, it is being applied without particular regard to race...i might send them to the dipshit that is so vehemently certain that racism exists...btw...he is misapplying the term racism...but usually, if a racebaiter has to do anything other than use slurs, they fade back into their mom's cleavage...

[hdkane]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

You claim 'the data show ...', and you tell others to show the data? Sorry, it does not work that way. Either substantiate your claim or don't make it.

your turn