White people are kinda assholes

[repoman]

Huh,

This shows some dark stuff in our psyche. I wonder how an Evolutionary Psychology asshole would explain and justify it. Let me give it a shot.

One thing first, this will say that criminality will not assumed to be race based by an EvoPsych guy, so that he won't view himself as racist.

So one group will dominate and subjugate another group and that group will have social dysfunction because of it. The dominant group will then look at the "poor behavior" of the downtrodden group as justification of the poor treatment in the first place.

the hidden biases of white people against blacks are so strong that unless there is a shaming of racism it will not be overridden. If a white person was never shamed about REAL racism (90+% of charges of racism are probably real and a small percent are from nuts that get cited by Rush and Glenn Beck as proof there is no racism) then this bias has no opposition.

 

[laughing dog]

And if they found no significant statistical difference between White people and Black people and Asian people and Hispanic people?

Then it would show that each group has the same reaction, but that would not negate the result that white people have that reaction.

This "study" isn't science. This is shit. And just the present readily example of the credibility problems endemic to psychology "research."

Without reading their description of their work, I would hesitate to draw such drastic conclusions.

 

[laughing dog]

And who would that control group consist? If it were groups of non-whites, the results allow the researcher to assess the degree to which white people's responses differed from non-white responses, but it would not alter the results about whites.

Except that "White people are assholes" is a completely different finding from "People are assholes". If you're going to qualify your remarks to only single out one segment of a group as opposed to referring to the group as a whole, you need a reason to differentiate between the segment you're targetting and all the other segments you're not targetting.

Without reading the actual description of the research, there is simply nothing wrong about investigating whether ____ people (you choose the category) are assholes. There is no statistical nor logical reason to different among different groups. The results of this study (whatever they may be) are not invalidated because the study did not address the questions you wanted answered.

 

[Emily Lake]

Then it would show that each group has the same reaction, but that would not negate the result that white people have that reaction.

It would, however, indicate that the reaction is unlikely to have anything at all to do with their whiteness though. If all people of all colors had the same reaction, to the same degree, then whiteness is not correlated with the reaction - it is not indicative of racism. At that point, calling out "white people" as having that reaction would be as meaningful as calling out "people with size 6 shoes" as having that reaction, or "people who are 5'6"" as having that reaction.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Huh,

This shows some dark stuff in our psyche.

Kingsbrain Royal

 

[laughing dog]

Then it would show that each group has the same reaction, but that would not negate the result that white people have that reaction.

It would, however, indicate that the reaction is unlikely to have anything at all to do with their whiteness though.

Okay.

If all people of all colors had the same reaction, to the same degree, then whiteness is not correlated with the reaction - it is not indicative of racism. At that point, calling out "white people" as having that reaction would be as meaningful as calling out "people with size 6 shoes" as having that reaction, or "people who are 5'6"" as having that reaction.

Well, when you come up with that result, you will have a point. This study did not address all people. Perhaps the study could have been designed better, but that, in and of itself, does not invalidate the results.

 

[Bronzeage]

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5978551/study-racism-criminal-justice-stop-and-frisk-reform-support

But as reforms move from proposals to actual bills, the key question is how to persuade the general public that change is needed. A new study suggests that highlighting racism in the criminal justice system is not the answer, and in fact pushes white voters in the opposite direction. Even when whites believe the current laws are too harsh, they're less likely to support changing the law if they're reminded that the current prison population is disproportionately black.

You'll never get an argument from me, if you propose that white people are assholes. I certainly know enough white people who are assholes. However, if you're ever really in trouble, find either Willie Nelson or Bono, who, let's be honest, are about as white as it gets. They'll put on a show and raise millions of dollars for whatever problem is popular on that day.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not at all, dismal.
It's an offensive characterization of those white people who would let race-based views drive them to keep unjust laws on the books, a possible, if satirical, justification for the finding in the OP, to wit:

they're less likely to support changing the law if they're reminded that the current prison population is disproportionately black.

But then, the whole point of satire is to aim a false statement towards those people who would accept it as a truth claim, thus allowing those who perceive the 'joke' to laugh at the sort of person who would be unable to identify it as satire.
In ancient times, like Monty Python's first season, satire was traditionally aimed at an imaginary audience, the main joke being that no one would REALLY accept this as a truth claim.

Since the development of the internet, satire is now sort of a reverse-POE. There's no statement one can make that someone, somewhere, will not claim, or attempt to claim, was stated in perfect sincerity.

Saying if black people had political power they would use it to imprison white people is not an offensive characterization of black people?

Huh?

Lenny Bruce once had a routine where he portrayed a drunk man at a neighborhood party, telling the one black man in the neighborhood that he wasn't racist. As the inebriated man talked on and on, he got more and more racist. Such as, he referred to Joe Fraser as a 'good' black, because he 'knew his place,' not like Mohammed Ali. Many people tried to rake Bruce over the coals for his statements about blacks. The whole piece, however, is not putting down blacks. He was making fun of the white guy, who insisted that race meant nothing to him. He portrayed the racist in order to make fun of the racist.
It was subtle humor, though, and all the more biting for that. He did not stand up at the mike and say, "These two racists walk into a restricted club" or "Don't you hate how racists are always saying 'I'm not racist, but....'?" So the actual point of the routine blew completely over many people's heads.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, when you come up with that result, you will have a point. This study did not address all people. Perhaps the study could have been designed better, but that, in and of itself, does not invalidate the results.

It makes the results meaningless, as the causal relationship they're claiming is not actually shown to exist. Correlation is not causation.

 

[laughing dog]

It makes the results meaningless, as the causal relationship they're claiming is not actually shown to exist.

It cannot possibly make any claim meaningless without the actual confirming results.

Correlation is not causation.

That is true, although I don't see the relevance here. Correlation in statistics cannot possibly prove causation, but it is used to support causal theories.

 

[Emily Lake]

It cannot possibly make any claim meaningless without the actual confirming results.

Correlation is not causation.

That is true, although I don't see the relevance here. Correlation in statistics cannot possibly prove causation, but it is used to support causal theories.

Let's assume that the relationship assumed is true. Let's assume that they further tested the relationship with black people and asian people and hispanic people and found that the exact same relationship held to the exact same degree.

You would then have to conclude that:

1. White people are racist against black AND
2. Hispanic people are racist against black people to the same degree AND
3. Asian people are racist against black people to the same degree AND
4. Black people are racist against black people to the same degree

B) And you're concluding this from a study based on views about our prison system, with acknowledgement that the prison system currently incarcerates more black people than white people.

Do you see that if all 4 of the items in the list above are simultaneously true, the the conclusion of racism is unlikely to be a true conclusion drawn from factor B? In fact, if all of the races tested react to the same degree, then racism is not a likely conclusion at all. More likely, it is some other reaction at root, and the claim of "racism" is being given only because the researcher assumed it to be the case, and thus only tested white people. It is an artifact of poor researching, not a conclusion validated by research. It cannot be isolated from confounding influences.

Because of the construction of this survey, we cannot isolate the researcher's assumption of racism from the conclusion. The researcher assumed the antecedent with the design of the study itself, and did not control for possible confounding influences. This then invalidates the findings as terminally biased.

It's unfortunate. I would have liked to see the results of something more robust.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, that's the main problem with it. It could have been an interesting study. It could have told us something about racial attitudes in our society. Instead it tells us nothing and simply leaps to an conclusion that's unwarranted by the study.

 

[The Paul]

It cannot possibly make any claim meaningless without the actual confirming results.
That is true, although I don't see the relevance here. Correlation in statistics cannot possibly prove causation, but it is used to support causal theories.

Let's assume that the relationship assumed is true. Let's assume that they further tested the relationship with black people and asian people and hispanic people and found that the exact same relationship held to the exact same degree.

You would then have to conclude that:

1. White people are racist against black AND
2. Hispanic people are racist against black people to the same degree AND
3. Asian people are racist against black people to the same degree AND
4. Black people are racist against black people to the same degree

Yes. Hypothetically speaking, if someone performed an experiment proving those things are true then it would be reasonable to believe they are true.

 

[ksen]

It tells us that whites are generally ok with shitty laws as long as it effects "them" more than us.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It tells us that whites are generally ok with shitty laws as long as it effects "them" more than us.

But the issue is that the study singles out "whites" as having that attitude as opposed to "people" having that attitude without doing anything to see if the white subset of people should be singled out due to this or if the white subset is exactly the same as everyone else in regards to this attitude.

 

[ksen]

Widening the study wouldn't change the white attitude they discovered. The only thing that would do is make us feel a little bit better for being just as shitty as everyone else.

 

[The Paul]

It tells us that whites are generally ok with shitty laws as long as it effects "them" more than us.

But the issue is that the study singles out "whites" as having that attitude as opposed to "people" having that attitude without doing anything to see if the white subset of people should be singled out due to this or if the white subset is exactly the same as everyone else in regards to this attitude.

So it doesn't answer the question of whether or not it's justified to say "Oh yeah, well <insert race here> is just as bad!"

Oh well.

 

[Emily Lake]

Widening the study wouldn't change the white attitude they discovered. The only thing that would do is make us feel a little bit better for being just as shitty as everyone else.

It would mean that the attitude has nothing at all to do with whiteness; it is irrespective of skin color. It would then mean that it is not a "white attitude" at all, but a "human" attitude.

 

[Emily Lake]

But the issue is that the study singles out "whites" as having that attitude as opposed to "people" having that attitude without doing anything to see if the white subset of people should be singled out due to this or if the white subset is exactly the same as everyone else in regards to this attitude.

So it doesn't answer the question of whether or not it's justified to say "Oh yeah, well <insert race here> is just as bad!"

Oh well.

Actually, it doesn't answer the question of whether this is a white attitude at all.

Let's assume that you are trying to find out if blonde children like cookies, and you believe that they do. So you go ask a bunch of blonde children if they like cookies, and they all answer yes. Voila! You have a study that amazingly shows that BLONDE children like cookies and you publish it. You've shown a huge correlation between blondness and cookie-liking, haven't you?

Well, no. Just like in clinical trials for drugs, you have to show that there's a differential liking for cookies among blondes, or you've shown nothing at all. You haven't shown any relationship between blondes and cookies unless you can prove that blondes like cookies more than non-blondes do.

That's what this study failed to do: It failed to provide a control group. It failed to show that this relationship is more prevalent in white people than it is in other racial groups. Without showing that, it cannot draw a conclusion about the relationship between whiteness and belief about prison policy - because it can't say that the perspectives espoused by white people are any different from the perspectives espoused by non-white people.

 

[The Paul]

Widening the study wouldn't change the white attitude they discovered. The only thing that would do is make us feel a little bit better for being just as shitty as everyone else.

It would mean that the attitude has nothing at all to do with whiteness; it is irrespective of skin color. It would then mean that it is not a "white attitude" at all, but a "human" attitude.

That's what Ksen said, only with fancier words.

Black people are disproportionately represented in prison populations and white people have traditionally exerted disproportionate control over government and law. So the researchers investigated white people's attitudes about black people being in prison. Perhaps the data produced is upsetting to you without some kind of reassurance that other groups of people are just as bad, but I expect the researchers don't give a shit.