Beta-blockers cure racism

[ronburgundy]

Predictably the headline and cited research is invalid pseudoscience.

The beta-blockers had zero impact on real racism (the "explicit" measure), only only something that some researchers invalidly label "implicit racism", which isn't racism at all, but rather just a measure of learning. The method involves training people to associate positive words with white faces by having them always press the left key when either appear, and train an association between negative words with black faces by having them always press the right key when either appear.
Later, they researchers switch the rules of the game so now subjects have to press the left key for white faces and negative words, but the right key for black faces and positive words. They use the longer time it takes on the second round with the new rules to claim that people are racist because it took them longer to associate black faces with positive words than the white faces with positive words in the first round. Its complete nonsense. The reason that the second round takes people longer is because the second round required not only learning the new association but unlearning the association learned in the first round. IOW, it is merely a measure of whether you were able to learn the rules of the task the first round, and the better you learned, the more you will have to unlearn (and the longer it will take you) on the second round. That is why this measure of so-called "implicit racism" has no correlation with any valid measure of racism or the things known to strongly predict racism. It makes nearly everyone look racist because everyone learns the associations to some degree when performing the task and learning conflicting later association will always take the brain more time.
In sum, all the research shows is that beta-blockers either impede learning initially (which reduces need to unlearn) or they facilitate unlearning/relearning different forced association. Whether the social/psychological meaning of the categories being learned is race or anything else in the universe is irrelevant to the results and their implications.

BTW, don't blame psychology in general for this ideological pseudoscience. It is another sub-field of Psychology (cognitive psychology) that has generated the mountain of evidence and related theories that provide the alternative and valid explanation for what this "implicit racism" test actually measures.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Predictably the headline and cited research is invalid pseudoscience.

The beta-blockers had zero impact on real racism (the "explicit" measure), only only something that some researchers invalidly label "implicit racism", which isn't racism at all, but rather just a measure of learning. The method involves training people to associate positive words with white faces by having them always press the left key when either appear, and train an association between negative words with black faces by having them always press the right key when either appear.
Later, they researchers switch the rules of the game so now subjects have to press the left key for white faces and negative words, but the right key for black faces and positive words. They use the longer time it takes on the second round with the new rules to claim that people are racist because it took them longer to associate black faces with positive words than the white faces with positive words in the first round. Its complete nonsense. The reason that the second round takes people longer is because the second round required not only learning the new association but unlearning the association learned in the first round. IOW, it is merely a measure of whether you were able to learn the rules of the task the first round, and the better you learned, the more you will have to unlearn (and the longer it will take you) on the second round. That is why this measure of so-called "implicit racism" has no correlation with any valid measure of racism or the things known to strongly predict racism. It makes nearly everyone look racist because everyone learns the associations to some degree when performing the task and learning conflicting later association will always take the brain more time.
In sum, all the research shows is that beta-blockers either impede learning initially (which reduces need to unlearn) or they facilitate unlearning/relearning different forced association. Whether the social/psychological meaning of the categories being learned is race or anything else in the universe is irrelevant to the results and their implications.

BTW, don't blame psychology in general for this ideological pseudoscience. It is another sub-field of Psychology (cognitive psychology) that has generated the mountain of evidence and related theories that provide the alternative and valid explanation for what this "implicit racism" test actually measures.

Yeah. It's easy to devise tests that supposedly show racism.

I remember another one I ran into online--it was shoot/don't-shoot decisions based on a series of images. There was this one little black gun that was very hard to identify in the hands of a black person, especially if it was in poor light. There was no corresponding little white gun. Of course this "test" showed most people taking it were "racist". I e-mailed the webmaster about it--it turns out he wasn't connected to the "research", he just took the images and turned them into an interactive website. He even had the same problem with the little black gun that I did--but the people who did the "research" assured him the images were fair.

If there's rampant real racism why do the researchers have to resort to rigged "studies" in order to find it??

 

[ronburgundy]

Predictably the headline and cited research is invalid pseudoscience.

The beta-blockers had zero impact on real racism (the "explicit" measure), only only something that some researchers invalidly label "implicit racism", which isn't racism at all, but rather just a measure of learning. The method involves training people to associate positive words with white faces by having them always press the left key when either appear, and train an association between negative words with black faces by having them always press the right key when either appear.
Later, they researchers switch the rules of the game so now subjects have to press the left key for white faces and negative words, but the right key for black faces and positive words. They use the longer time it takes on the second round with the new rules to claim that people are racist because it took them longer to associate black faces with positive words than the white faces with positive words in the first round. Its complete nonsense. The reason that the second round takes people longer is because the second round required not only learning the new association but unlearning the association learned in the first round. IOW, it is merely a measure of whether you were able to learn the rules of the task the first round, and the better you learned, the more you will have to unlearn (and the longer it will take you) on the second round. That is why this measure of so-called "implicit racism" has no correlation with any valid measure of racism or the things known to strongly predict racism. It makes nearly everyone look racist because everyone learns the associations to some degree when performing the task and learning conflicting later association will always take the brain more time.
In sum, all the research shows is that beta-blockers either impede learning initially (which reduces need to unlearn) or they facilitate unlearning/relearning different forced association. Whether the social/psychological meaning of the categories being learned is race or anything else in the universe is irrelevant to the results and their implications.

BTW, don't blame psychology in general for this ideological pseudoscience. It is another sub-field of Psychology (cognitive psychology) that has generated the mountain of evidence and related theories that provide the alternative and valid explanation for what this "implicit racism" test actually measures.

Yeah. It's easy to devise tests that supposedly show racism.

I remember another one I ran into online--it was shoot/don't-shoot decisions based on a series of images. There was this one little black gun that was very hard to identify in the hands of a black person, especially if it was in poor light. There was no corresponding little white gun. Of course this "test" showed most people taking it were "racist". I e-mailed the webmaster about it--it turns out he wasn't connected to the "research", he just took the images and turned them into an interactive website. He even had the same problem with the little black gun that I did--but the people who did the "research" assured him the images were fair.

If there's rampant real racism why do the researchers have to resort to rigged "studies" in order to find it??

To be fair, that study was at least using realistic stimuli. Most guns are black and virtually none are white. So, using a "white" (or Caucasian colored) gun would not give results that correspond to probability of being shot in the real world. That said, you raise a valid point that the relationship between the skin and gun color and the perceptual issues it creates is a confound that can impact the result in the study (and in the real world) independent from any actual effects as racism. IF the authors want to claim racism as the cause of any results, they have to control that confound. But I think that's a more subtle and less deliberately ignored confound than in the OP study and in all studies that use this measure of "Implicit racism".

 

[untermensche]

The study had an interesting effect.

But it is misleading to think it applies to the entire class of beta-blockers.

Most do not cross the blood-brain barrier, while the one in the study does.

Propranolol is also used to prevent migraines.

And the people who say we have to be very careful and question if this study actually looks at racism are right.

But the drug did produce an effect in some people.

What exactly that effect is needs further study.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To be fair, that study was at least using realistic stimuli. Most guns are black and virtually none are white. So, using a "white" (or Caucasian colored) gun would not give results that correspond to probability of being shot in the real world. That said, you raise a valid point that the relationship between the skin and gun color and the perceptual issues it creates is a confound that can impact the result in the study (and in the real world) independent from any actual effects as racism. IF the authors want to claim racism as the cause of any results, they have to control that confound. But I think that's a more subtle and less deliberately ignored confound than in the OP study and in all studies that use this measure of "Implicit racism".

Yeah, it is reality but the problem with distinguishing the little black gun was obvious--any competent researcher should have caught the problem.

Also, they had a black wallet--but no white wallet. Again, reality but it made it easier to be confused anyway. It wasn't showing people were racist, it was showing reality was not good to blacks in that case.

 

[Trausti]

Predictably the headline and cited research is invalid pseudoscience.

That is a good observation. Why haven't the mods moved this to the Pseudoscience subforum?

- - - Updated - - -

Think the "study" in the OP is an example of this: http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

 

[ronburgundy]

Predictably the headline and cited research is invalid pseudoscience.

That is a good observation. Why haven't the mods moved this to the Pseudoscience subforum?

- - - Updated - - -

Think the "study" in the OP is an example of this: http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

Actually, it is quite likely that they could reproduce the effect. The problem isn't that the result is a fluke or faked. The problem is that it isn't caused by racism or any reduction in racism. Replication means using the same method to get the same result. The problem is that the method in invalid for testing racism, so replicating it would do nothing to validate their conclusions related to racism.

BTW, that article you link is itself problematic in how it interprets the implication of that Replication Project paper in Psych. I actually know some of the authors and have read that paper. It does point to problems including sample size issues, measurement error, file drawer problems, and too much stock put into null hypothesis significance testing approaches. It also shows bigger problems in "Social Psychology", which is the domain of this and most racism studies, and where replications where half as likely as in Cognitive Psych. But the reality is that when the replication and original studies were directly compared rather than testing each separately against a null hypothesis, then only 1 in 3 of the replication studies yielded a result that was significantly different from the original study. Also, most of the failed replications involved trying to replicate complex interactions among multiple variables which requires lots of statistical power. In many cases, the replication did show the overall effect of the primary variable but failed to duplicate the nuanced interaction pattern. In sum, the situation in Psych is not as dire as that hype piece suggests.

Also, I strongly object to this being moved to pseudo-science. I am skeptical that such a sub-forum should even exist. I have objected to the thread on race and intelligence being moved there. This is the proper forum for critically evaluating research. Just because headlines and authors may have ideological conclusions that aren't supported by the cited research doesn't warrant slapping an a priori label on it that marks it as unworthy of even examining. My critique was harsh but it was based on analysis not invalid notions that an entire area of study is in principle outside of scope of science.