Taboo, by Wilfred Reilly (1 Viewer)

[Isaac]

I'm about halfway through one of the most revealing and relevant books I've ever read. It's called Taboo, by Wilfred Reilly.

Dr. Reilly is an African American PhD Political Science professor, and a solid social sciences data analyzer.

He breaks apart 10 things that are "Taboo" - Truths that that are indisputably correct, but are no longer allowed to be spoken in mixed company.

It deals with subjects like racial oppression, crime & policing, police brutality/police killings, interracial crime, race- and gender-wage gaps.

I can promise you one thing....If you love NUMBERS and FACTS, you should enjoy this book, even if you disagree with some of its conclusions.

There is very little conjecture, opinion and editorializing in this book - it is numbers, numbers, numbers. He includes a multitude of academic studies from the left, the right, and everyone in between.

Pure facts and numbers.....and specifically the ones that reveal the total falsehoods being propogated by certain layers of activism and media.

I got it for free by signing up for an Audible 30-day trial, which comes with one free audio book.

It's amazing all the things we've been taught by main stream media that just aren't true! Let me know if you check it out, will be curious to know your thoughts!

 

[AccessBlaster]

I think conservatives need to stop referring to the media as "mainstream". We probably have not had a free press in the country since JFK was assassinated. I am pretty sure it's the same lot then as it is now. The media's job is feeding the masses a healthy dose of BS.

 

[NauticalGent]

Ordering it today, thanks for the tip!

I think conservatives need to stop referring to the media as "mainstream". We probably have not had a free press in the country since JFK was assassinated. I am pretty sure it's the same lot then as it is now. The media's job is feeding the masses a healthy dose of BS.

Agreed, but I do not associate the word "mainstream" with valid, true and unbiased.

To me the word means "generally accepted". It's sad really. I used to watch Sci-Fi shows as a kid where they would show the masses being controlled by TV and radio and I would cluck my tongue and wonder HOW they could even suggest such wild concept...I ain't clucking now.

 

[Jon]

@Isaac Do you have any examples you can give of taboos from the book, where the data dispels the taboo?

 

[Isaac]

@Isaac Do you have any examples you can give of taboos from the book, where the data dispels the taboo?

Now bear with me, this is from memory, as I don't have a written copy.

Taboo Fact: "There is no epidemic of white police killing black men and POC".
Reality: There were only 1200 people killed by police in an entire recent year chosen for analysis. Only 258 of them were even black. Only 17 were unarmed, and killed by a white cop.
Reality: There is very little violent interracial crime in the first place. Whites are killed by whites at around 90%. Blacks are killed by blacks at around 90%. Out of the remaining interracial crimes, if anything, black-on-white killings are overrepresented.

He also goes through the Castile and Sterling cases in EXTREME detail, and shows you how those cases were not at all like the media portrayed them--especially Sterling. (Apparently Sterling was, a few years ago, almost as famous as Ferguson was).

He also goes through several cases of extreme police brutality on whites, several of them in recent years, which received virtually no media attention.

There is zero bias in police shootings when all relevant factors are controlled for - in fact, even when ONLY controlling for the crime rate factor, that completely dispels any perceived police-on-black bias. Also, tons of additional studies confirm that police are actually much more hesitant to pull the trigger on a black person. BLM narratives have led to greatly increased crime, shown by a bunch of studies that he goes through - and, at the end of the day, BLM has cost thousands of black lives due to its fictional narratives which resulted in less policing.

There is also no gender wage gap, when you control for other relevant variables--such as willingness to work large number of hours in a week.

When controlling for all relevant variables (like performance on standardized tests and geographic region) there is no wage gap between blacks and whites solely because of their race...It just doesn't exist. Furthermore, think about it rationally for a moment. IF it were true, that blacks were getting 85% of what whites got for the exact same job, with the same qualifications, in the same geographic area: Then every major company would stop what it were doing tomorrow. They would all hire exclusively blacks, immediately gaining huge market share by simply cutting labor costs by 20%. This doesn't happen, because they can't.

 

[Jon]

Most of that is what I have been aware of for some time, banging on about it in these forums, but it is good having it collated together for mass consumption. Probably a very interesting read.

One new thing that did stand out was this:

BLM has cost thousands of black lives due to its fictional narratives which resulted in less policing.

I've never considered a causal link between the rise of BLM and the rise in deaths of black lives. Yes, defund the police is just stupid and will result in more death, but I never made a crystalised distinction between the rise in BLM and the rise in the death of black lives. What gives a lot of noise to the data if looking at the stats is Covid. Violence went up and some must be attributed to that. How much, I don't know.

 

[Isaac]

Yes, I figured you were mostly aware of those stats. But it's nice to have them all in one place.

What I liked about this book is that he doesn't deal with things that are in dispute, for the most part. He deals with raw facts that nobody seriously disputes. And those raw facts are enough to totally and unequivocally dispel many myths being hammered in our heads today. They're just facts that you aren't 'allowed' to say anymore!

I'm currently in the chapter that goes into siginficant detail about the numbers of crime waves occurring after police hesitancy and lack of proactive policing due to the faked outrage - which, of course, very many blacks suffered from those crime waves. It's truly sad what the Democratic party has done to minorities, deception and manipulation on a grand scale.

 

[Isaac]

What gives a lot of noise to the data if looking at the stats is Covid. Violence went up and some must be attributed to that. How much, I don't know.

what's (maybe) nice about this book is it's a year and a half old already, and many stats are pulled from 2016 - 2019. thus covid doesn't factor into his arguments. although of course, some people will say....well.....maybe things are different now. to that i would say, if the media and BLM have been lying about major trends and refusing to accurately assess variables in police bias for the last 10 years, the likelihood that that suddenly changed in 2021 is extremely low.

 

[Jon]

The causal reasons for why the facts manifest themselves in the first place are disputed between both political parties. e.g. one side says it's due to systemic racism, the other side says it's due to the breakdown in the nuclear family and so on. So they may not dispute the data, but they do dispute the causes.

 

[Isaac]

The causal reasons for why the facts manifest themselves in the first place are disputed between both political parties. e.g. one side says it's due to systemic racism, the other side says it's due to the breakdown in the nuclear family and so on. So they may not dispute the data, but they do dispute the causes.

Right.

But:
If it really were due to systemic racism [disfavoring blacks], the following would probably not be true:

• Black police officers as the shooters
• Studies confirmed police are far less likely to use force on a black person
• Blacks not actually being killed at a higher rate, when non-racial factors other than simple % of population are controlled for

The case for crime being a result of the breakdown of the nuclear family is very, very strong. As a society, too bad we completely forget about this obvious problem when discussing other alternative lifestyles, and whether or not kids should be "equally encouraged" to go in all sort of different directions. Strong, traditional families with a Dad and Mom and they stay together is what we should be figuring out how to encourage and support as best as we can, 95% of the time.

Take a billion dollars from the liberal money printing machine and give people free marriage counseling and free quality rehab centers for drug addiction, for a year. Give it a try, what's the worst that can happen....

Lastly, I would even disagree with the statement: "it's due to systemic racism"--what is the it's ? What It? What are we even wondering what its cause is? The data actually disprove that there is a problem with police bias toward killing blacks in the first place! There is no "it", it's a fictional problem that never actually existed. But I agree with you on crime in general, that is a valid "it", that we can all hope gets better in all racial segments, and particularly minorities.

 

[Jon]

I don't need convincing. What I would say, which hiders large segments of the population is the lack of understand of basic statistics. No, I am not talking about detailed stuff, just the real basics. An example would be the understanding between aggregated numbers and as a proportion. So, you could say more whites are shot by police than black and give the percentage. This gives one impression. Then you could say blacks are 300% more likely to be shot by police, which gives another impression. Since the half the population has below average maths knowledge, you would be surprising at how people can get confused on this stuff. It just goes over their head.

This leads people open to manipulation through clever presentation of the facts. e.g. I remember reading something in the tabloids where they said, "Surveys show most people disagreed with the government." However, the data showed something like 52% to 48%. In other words, approximately half the people disagreed with the other half. But most people just take away the headline and get misled by it.

Edit: Haha, I just realised I said, "most people". So that could mean nearly half! lol

 

[Isaac]

I don't need convincing. What I would say, which hiders large segments of the population is the lack of understand of basic statistics. No, I am not talking about detailed stuff, just the real basics. An example would be the understanding between aggregated numbers and as a proportion. So, you could say more whites are shot by police than black and give the percentage. This gives one impression. Then you could say blacks are 300% more likely to be shot by police, which gives another impression. Since the half the population has below average maths knowledge, you would be surprising at how people can get confused on this stuff. It just goes over their head.

This leads people open to manipulation through clever presentation of the facts. e.g. I remember reading something in the tabloids where they said, "Surveys show most people disagreed with the government." However, the data showed something like 52% to 48%. In other words, approximately half the people disagreed with the other half. But most people just take away the headline and get misled by it.

Edit: Haha, I just realised I said, "most people". So that could mean nearly half! lol

Yeah, I see what you mean. This book had a lot to do with controlling relevant variables.

So someone does a study that looks at ONLY race and population % and comes out with blacks 2-3 times as likely to be hurt by police, but deliberately fails to control the variable of crime rate, that just makes no sense...

I was surprised that even the alleged wage gap doesn't actually exist, once you control even for something as basic and obvious as geographic region and test scores! Crazy.

 

[Jon]

I was surprised that even the alleged wage gap doesn't actually exist

I wasn't. It is a complete myth. Jordan Peterson does a great job of explaining it. When you look at just gender to explain something, you are doing a single dimensional analysis, ignoring everything else. That is like baby science. Factor in the other variables, like number of days of holiday taken, higher paying dangerous jobs take, length of hours worked etc. It paints a rather different picture. The wage gap myth just assumes that men and women behave and choose identically, but that is far from the truth. The wage gaps underlying premise is completely out of whack.

 

[Steve R.]

The book is on You Tube.
Full book, according to the "headline".

A 38 Minute interview of Professor Wilfred Reilly.

A pet "taboo" of mine (outside the bounds of this book) is that the full bore entry of women into the work force (1960s) has been unquestionably "good". Of course, women deserve to have full employment opportunities just like men. However, there is little discussion of the negative unintended consequence. One such negative consequence has been the elimination of the male as the "bread winner" and the inability of the male to earn enough to be the sole "bread winner" resulting in women having to enter the workforce to earn some of the household income. What is the negative psychological effect on men? Then with women entering the workforce, women aren't able to stay at home to take care of the children and the house itself. Again, I have to state that one no one wants to have women locked into traditional roles.

Let me restate the economic consequence of women entering the workforce in a different manner. Assume that men are the only ones working. If women enter the workforce, then you have 2X times the number of people available for work. The consequence of this is lower wages for all. So to achieve the same income, more or less, for the household both men and woman have to work to achieve the same household income.

 

[Isaac]

I'm sure you meant "no one" in the last sentence of first paragraph.

That's interesting, I hadn't thought about that. I guess I'm not sure how I feel about that, have to ponder it a bit.

One thing is sure, my parents were big on this concept: Handing your precious child off at 8 am and picking them up at 5 pm, to be covered from head to toe in the influence of people who are complete and total strangers to you is....quite a thing! I mean we all do some of that to some extent, but it's just something as a parent to think about. It's huge, really. In old days, children generally grew up with the values their parents passed on to them. For better or worse. Now, children grow up with this huge, maybe 80% of their influence comes from outside the family. Is it good? Is it bad? I guess it depends on the values of that stranger you hand them off to each morning....

As for negative impact on men of women in the workplace: I once worked next to a lady with the most loudest, oddest laugh I'd ever heard! It was hard to concentrate. Ok people, I am just being humorous here, take it as a joke. She was actually a great asset to the team

 

[Steve R.]

Thanks for picking up on the error. Fixed now. Women in the workforce, make it much more pleasant experience. There are also professional jobs where women are better at it then men. Examples, real estate agents, lawyers. But the negative unintended consequences of having both men and women working has not been adequately explored.

 

[Cronk]

then you have 2X times the number of people available for work. The consequence of this is lower wages for all. So to achieve the same income, more or less, for the household both men and woman have to work to achieve the same household income.

Seems to me that if you half the number of people working, then the the amount of production (GDP) is reduced significantly and the income for the remaining workers is not doubled.

 

[Isaac]

And to get a true picture of this, it seems like you might need more 'pieces' of a very complex picture that included factors like unemployment rate, undermployment rate, unwilling to work rate, etc. It would be a lot of things to take into account