Social class in speech

The article below tells us that we all speak in a way that tends to indicate our background.  In particular, whether we are upper class, lower class or in between is detectible from our speech.

The study is an American one but I doubt that many Britons will be surprised by it.  In Britain, an "Oxford" or "RP" accent is the mark of the upper class person and below that there are various regional accents of varied significance -- with Cockney (a London working class accent) being the lowest of the low. Regional accents are also well known in the USA of course.

And in both the USA and the UK, your accent has a major impact on your life chances.  The best and most lucrative jobs will normally be occupied by people with prestigious accents.  And for anyone with a humble background to break into that is virtually impossible.  It would simply "grate" on upper class people to associate daily with (say) a cockney accent.  There is a loophole, however.  You can change your accent to a more prestigious one.  Many do.

So what is new about the article below? We surely knew all along that our speech gives away a lot about us. The  relative novelty was the finding that class can be detected in your writing style as well.  And that, I think, is very interesting indeed.  Because I think that it is probably complexity that is being detected.  The lower class person can be expected to use fewer words, mostly common words and simpler sentence structure.  That should be easily detected but I cannot see what else would be.

But verbal ability is strongly correlated with IQ.  The more words you know, the smarter you generally are.  I like the word "inchoate" as a test of that.  Do you know what that means?  If you do, take a bow.

So we come back to the now well-supported generalization that social class is largely an IQ gradient. See e.g. here and here. The top people are smarter.  The recruiter who assesses a job applicant by his speech is not being arbitrary.  He is seeking more intelligent employees, which will be generally advantageous.  He is doing a good job of personnel selection.

That is a very different interpretation of the results below.  Intelligence is strongly inherited and Leftists hate that.  They hate a lot of things.  And the traditional Marxist way of coping with that is to use the word "reproduced"' -- which you will see in the heading below.

To account for the fact that some arrangement is persistent from generation to generation, Marxists don't regard that as natural in any way.  They say that the arrangement has to be "reproduced". And they go about earnestly looking for HOW it is reproduced.  They look for things that people do which  cause the same thing to emerge in a second and third generation.  And it is always due to the machinations of evil men, of course.  The idea that a smart person mostly has smart kids willy nilly is rejected by the Marxist.  He thinks that the smart man gets smart kids by sending them to private schools etc.  So if you abolish the private schools, all men will be equal.

So in the article below the authors don't regard the class-detection of the recruiter as being reasonable and natural but rather see it as an unjust strategy of devious complexity that unfairly disadvantages lower class people.  Therefore the recruiter must "unlearn" his wrong procedures and abandon his biases.

So there are two very different lessons that can be learned from the findings below.  I think that nothing needs to be done, whereas the Leftist thinks the whole thing is wrong, wrong, wrong and is in urgent need of reform.


Evidence for the reproduction of social class in brief speech

Michael W. Kraus et al.

Abstract

Economic inequality is at its highest point on record and is linked to poorer health and well-being across countries. The forces that perpetuate inequality continue to be studied, and here we examine how a person’s position within the economic hierarchy, their social class, is accurately perceived and reproduced by mundane patterns embedded in brief speech. Studies 1 through 4 examined the extent that people accurately perceive social class based on brief speech patterns. We find that brief speech spoken out of context is sufficient to allow respondents to discern the social class of speakers at levels above chance accuracy, that adherence to both digital and subjective standards for English is associated with higher perceived and actual social class of speakers, and that pronunciation cues in speech communicate social class over and above speech content. In study 5, we find that people with prior hiring experience use speech patterns in preinterview conversations to judge the fit, competence, starting salary, and signing bonus of prospective job candidates in ways that bias the process in favor of applicants of higher social class. Overall, this research provides evidence for the stratification of common speech and its role in both shaping perceiver judgments and perpetuating inequality during the briefest interactions.

SOURCE 






The long retreat from statins continues

The report below appeared under the headng: "Benefits of statins 'are marginal at best' for otherwise healthy people: Study warns taking the pills as a preventative measure is needless

Giving healthy people statin pills have benefits which are ‘marginal at best’, researchers have warned.

The NHS recommends that millions of people should take statins as a preventative measure - a policy that many people say is needless ‘medicalisation’ of the middle aged.

Statins, which cost pennies each, work by lowering harmful cholesterol in the blood.

Experts agree that for people who have heart disease - especially those who have suffered a heart attack in the past - statins are a proven life saver.

But the use of the pills is more controversial for those who have no history of heart problems, who are given the drugs ‘just in case’ they have an attack in the future.

Writing last night in the British Medical Journal, Paula Byrne and John Cullinan, from the National University of Ireland Galway, and Susan Smith, from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, said the benefits of statins are unclear for many people.

WHY ARE STATINS CONTROVERSIAL?

Statins are the most commonly prescribed drug in the world and an estimated 30 per cent of all adults over the age of 40 are eligible to take them.

The cholesterol-lowering drugs are given to people believed to have a 10 per cent or higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease or having a heart attack or stroke within the next 10 years.

They are proven to help people who have suffered heart problems in the past, but experts say the thresholds may be too high, meaning benefits are outweighed by side effects for many people. 

Nearly all men exceed the 10 per cent threshold by age 65, and all women do so by age 70 – regardless of their health.

Commonly reported side effects include headache, muscle pain and nausea, and statins can also increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, hepatitis, pancreatitis and vision problems or memory loss.

Research published in the Pharmaceutical Journal last year found taking a daily statin for five years after a heart attack extends your life by just four days, new research reveals.

And Dr Rita Redberg, professor at the University of California, San Francisco told CNN in January that of 100 people taking statins for five years without having had a heart attack or stroke, 'the best estimates are that one or two people will avoid a heart attack, and none will live longer, by taking statins.'

They said statins can come with rare but serious side effects such as muscle problems, diabetes and haemorrhagic stroke.

They pointed to a study which found a 65-year-old man prescribed statins, who smokes, has high cholesterol and blood pressure, but no heart disease, could lower his absolute risk of heart disease or stroke over the next decade from 38 per cent to 29 per cent.

However a low-risk 45-year-old woman who does not smoke, but has high cholesterol and slightly raised blood pressure, would see her risk drop from the already small 1.4 per cent to 0.8 per cent.

They said this risk reduction is so small it may not justify taking a daily pill.

The writers said: ‘Although statins are commonly prescribed, serious questions remain about their benefit and acceptability for primary prevention, particularly in patients at low risk of cardiovascular disease.

'For most patients the benefits may be marginal at best.’ But cardiologists last night dismissed their claims.

Professor Metin Avkiran, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said: ‘The evidence from numerous independent clinical trials going back more than two decades shows that statins are an effective way of people reducing their risk of a heart attack.

‘We already know that the benefits are even greater for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke.

‘An important area of debate here relates to the magnitude of benefit provided by statin treatment in people who are at relatively low risk and whether that benefit outweighs the risk of side effects.

‘People who fall into this category should arrive at a decision together with their GPs.’

SOURCE 





Australian cases that raise serious issues about forensics and fundamentals of justice

Bibi Sangha and Bob Moles

It is now clear David Eastman in the ACT and Henry Keogh in South Australia both spent over 20 years in prison for crimes they did not commit.

Both murder convictions were based upon fundamentally flawed forensic evidence given by witnesses not properly qualified in the relevant fields of expertise. Over the years prosecutors (and others) had known about the concerns but had not disclosed them, as they ought to have done.

In addition, in recent weeks, the president of the Court of Appeal in Victoria acknowledged earlier reports emanating from the US which established that all of the forensic sciences (apart from DNA) used in criminal trials had not been properly validated. He was supported on this by a senior forensic scientist at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. The Victorian Attorney-General is now calling on all of her counterparts around Australia to support a national review of the issues.

Any review might well consider the problems exposed by the royal commissions into the cases of Edward Splatt and Lindy Chamberlain in the 1980s. Each of the two murder prosecutions had used more than 20 experts at the trials. In each case, all the experts made errors in the evidence submitted to the courts. Curiously, all the errors favoured the prosecution's case.

That is a 100 per cent failure rate in two of the most high-profile cases of their day. It is clear the experts had not colluded as many of them had not met. But they did know which side to support — and the future benefits which might flow from their assistance. The Splatt commission recommended the establishment of a National Institute of Forensic Medicine to operate independently of police. When this was subsequently established, every state and federal police commissioner was appointed to its board.

The national review might also consider that in South Australia the state provided sworn evidence in civil proceedings in the mid-1970s involving the chief forensic pathologist there. It was to the effect he was not qualified to certify cause of death nor to give expert evidence in court. Yet the state continued to use him for the next 20 years to conduct more than 10,000 autopsies and to help secure more than 400 criminal convictions.

The current position of the South Australian Attorney-General is we do not need an inquiry. She says the problem cases can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis "as they arise". There is, of course, no proper process by which the "arising" can take place.

Perhaps the national review might consider how to get cases like those of Eastman and Keogh back to the courts after the deficiencies have been discovered. Eastman was fortunate that his case occurred in the ACT, which is one of only two jurisdictions-(including NSW) that have a special procedure allowing for an inquiry to review his claim to be wrongfully convicted.

He only obtained his review after struggling for years through 11 previously unsuccessful attempts. Keogh was fortunate that, after 13 years of procedural wrangling, we were able to persuade the Human Rights Commission and the parliament of South Australia that the existing appeal procedures in all states and territories were in breach of international human rights obligations.

This failed to protect the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective appeal. That led to a new right of appeal (subsequently adopted in Tasmania) which led to Keogh's case ultimately finding its way back to the courts.

There is no doubt that if either the Eastman or Keogh cases had occurred in jurisdictions other than those mentioned there would have been very little chance of getting them reviewed. That would have likely meant the rest of their lives spent in prison. The head sentence for murder is life imprisonment.

A non-parole period is merely a recommendation by the trial judge which may be considered upon its expiry. If, at that stage, the convicted person refuses to acknowledge guilt, they maybe deemed to be recalcitrant, and unwilling to accept responsibility. In those circumstances parole will most likely be denied.

In South Australia, Derek Bromley is now 13 years past the expiry of his non-parole period because he maintains he is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.

The UK has had a review com-mission which has overturned more than 400 criminal convictions during the time Eastman and Keogh spent in jail. In Australia, the states spent many millions of dollars trying to prevent those cases from being reviewed. Surely that money would have been better spent trying to prevent such wrongful convictions in the first place — and to ensuring we have proper review mechanisms to deal with those that do occur?

From "The Australian" 18/10/2019







Australia: Conservative politician had to take order out against stalker during election campaign


Liberal MP Nicolle Flint was forced to take a police order out against a stalker who followed her campaign events with a “zoom lens camera” and pursued her online launching personal attacks on his social media pages.

The 41-year-old, targeted by GetUp, the unions and Labor at the May 18 election, has also outlined the “sexist” harassment and intimidation tactics used against her during the campaign including the defacement of her campaign vehicle and office.

In a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the federal election, the South Australian MP detailed personal safety fears and efforts to seek protection.

Attorney-General Christian Porter and leading conservative Kevin Andrews — also targeted by GetUp — also provided JSCEM submissions attacking GetUp’s “misleading” and “defamatory” tactics.

Outlining the personal attacks against her, Ms Flint revealed the windows of her campaign office were targeted with posters plastered with abuse including “skank”, “$60/hour” and “Blow & Go”. Her office was also egged.

Ms Flint’s submission described the campaigns targeting her as “well-coordinated, well-resourced and unrelenting”.

But the most serious incident involved an alleged stalker who would “appear frequently when I was at events and when I was campaigning, always with his zoom lens camera”.

“Posts about me on his social media pages appeared almost daily, as did his engagement on other sites aimed at unseating me,” Ms Flint said.

“As I often campaign alone and would not know when he would appear, this became a serious personal safety issue. Because I was driving a branded campaign vehicle I was highly visible and I was very concerned he would find out where I lived.

Ms Flint said she did “everything I could to stop his behaviour”.

“I confronted him and asked him to stop following me, photographing me and harassing me, which seemed to embolden him,” she wrote.

“I reported his behaviour to the Australian Federal Police, who confronted him, but this also failed to stop him.”

As the incidents escalated and the stalker’s “social media posts became more concerning”, the Boothby MP was encouraged by colleagues to report the matter to the South Australian Police.

“The South Australian Police took the matter seriously and issued a stalking order for my protection.”

In August, Scott Morrison attacked GetUp, Labor and the unions over the tactics used to unseat Ms Flint, saying they should be “ashamed of what they did to Nicolle Flint in Boothby” and accused them of “misogyny and bullying”.

Ms Flint said many voters “recognised and criticised the tactics used by GetUp, the unions and Labor”, citing comments in The Advertiser which described their behaviour as “dirty” and “grubby”.

She warned the JSCEM committee that similar campaign behaviour at future elections could “risk the safety of candidates and sitting MPs”.

“This will harm our democracy. If candidates and Members of parliament no longer feel safe in their electorates, whether on their own or in the company of staff, colleagues and volunteers, the free and easy access Australians currently enjoy in relation to their elected representatives will end.”

Ms Flint recommended to the committee that GetUp, unions and Labor should undertake independent reviews of their campaign tactics in Boothby and publish their findings.

“They all claim to support women’s equality and safety and so should act accordingly.”

Backing calls from other Coalition MPs, Ms Flint also called on GetUp to be deemed an associated entity under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

In his submission, Mr Andrews, a prominent conservative and former Howard and Abbott cabinet minister, said GetUp’s defamatory tactics were withdrawn only after he threatened to issue defamation proceedings. He said the “damage had been done”.

“Countless voters had been phoned by GetUp. GetUp had not checked the veracity of their claim,” Mr Andrews said.

The Victorian Liberal MP also cited a defamatory message sent to “many constituents of an Asian background in Menzies” who received a personal letter in Chinese and lashed GetUp’s telephone script for Menzies which suggested the organisation was not a political party and that the left-wing group’s volunteers were simply giving “independent” voting advice”.

Mr Andrews, the Father of the House, also detailed harassment of voters, singling out both GetUp and Colour Code who had volunteers handing out material at polling booths.

“The GetUp/Colour Code people often harassed voters, seemingly in the belief that by thrusting materials in their face and continuing to advocate their cause as they waited in line to enter the polling booth, people would vote as GetUp/Colour Code wished. “Many voters reported feeling harassed and intimidated.”

Mr Andrews told committee members in “light of this behaviour” they should consider amending laws to restrict the “handing out of electoral materials to only authorised representatives of candidates”. He said “such authorisation should be in writing, similar to requirements for scrutineers”.

In his submission, Mr Porter — whose West Australian seat of Pearce was targeted — said assertions by GetUp that it made 180,000 calls to local constituents appeared to be a “wild exaggeration”.

The Attorney-General said if GetUp’s claims it had 5400 members in his electorate were accurate it would “be the biggest political organisation by membership in the state which seems unlikely”.

“The veracity of GetUp’s claims about the extent of its campaign activity and the extent and nature of its ‘memberships’ remain largely unverifiable,” Mr Porter said.

“GetUp claim that they are a democratic and grassroots movement of one million members from across Australia who directly control the decision making of the organisation. Yet it has been shown that there are just a handful of true members who direct the campaigns that GetUp run.

“An inspection of their register of members shows that GetUp is ultimately controlled by just nine board directors and three ‘founding members’.”

Mr Porter also singled out a number of ‘misleading’ claims made by GetUp including that he had been criticised for “gifting numerous six-figure government jobs to Liberal Party colleagues and donors, including after one of them gave him a free campaign bus”.

The Leader of the House said the GetUp claim, which they suggested was based on an ABC article published in March, was false as his campaign had “not ever been given a ‘free bus’”.

“These examples are not dissimilar to GetUp’s conduct in other electorates across Australia and parallels can be drawn to other important examples,” he said.

“A further example of deceptive conduct occurred in a targeted GetUp letter that was sent to a number of residents in the Pearce electorate during the final week of the campaign. The letter was addressed as “Dear Neighbour” and signed by “Dr Geoff Bower, WA”.

“A constituent receiving this letter would conclude that the letter was sent from someone within their immediate community or at least in the same electorate. In reality, the letter was authorised by GetUp, printed in NSW, and its signatory, Dr Geoff Bower, appears to reside far outside the Pearce electorate, in close proximity to the Perth CBD.”

Mr Porter said his campaign team had made the decision to avoid taking legal action or other avenues against the misleading claims as it was “not practical or affordable in a marginal seat campaign, notwithstanding the potential damage these false statements were likely to cause”.

“GetUp is willing to promote and publish material of a type and in a way that a mainstream party would not ever promote as a responsible political organisation.”

Mr Porter called on GetUp to be “rightly classified as an associated entity.

SOURCE  

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

************************************