White people are kinda assholes

[arkirk]

If their answers are different depending on the race of the sample criminals shown then there clearly is within the group sampled a racial bias. In my eyes, the study was valid. I could have been in that group and been an exception to the general trend. The study was probing the coded message and not some rock solid concept. Ralph Nader and Noam Chomski both point out that many of our public policies stand opposed to more than 70% of public opinion, yet they exist and control what actually happens in our society. We are better than our policy makers would make us seem to be, yet there is no denying that racism is alive and well in our society.

Until we have a more democratic form of government in America, it will continue to be that way.

 

[Metaphor]

Your first set is overcome by a large enough sample in the same way you described not controlling certain factors in the test participants being overcome by a large enough sample.

No. You don't understand the objection (or seemingly, the basics of experimental design).

A large enough sample of (simple random sample selected) participants overcomes any objections about their being significant differences between the groups before there were even in the experiment.

The objections about not controlling for the age or attractiveness of the mug shots (that is, the objections about the purity of the experimenters' conditions) is not addressed by anything to do with the sample design, because it has nothing to do with the sample design and everything to do with the conditions that the experimenters are setting up.

The second set isn't actually an objection, it's just an explanation as to white the participants might hold those racist attitudes.

You don't understand what a racist attitude is. If you are more supportive of a three strikes law when reminded of violent crimes, that doesn't make you racist.

If you're saying it's racist to be reminded of violent crimes because when you see Black mug shots and you know Black people are more likely to be in prison for more violent crimes than White people are in prison for, I guess you could call that 'racist'. But by that reasoning it's sexist to react to the idea that men are taller than women (they are), or that men are more likely to be criminals (they are).

In short, I think anything short of wholesale denial of any difference between races you'd call 'racist' (unless the difference can be attributed somehow to the White devil, like poverty say).

 

[Metaphor]

If their answers are different depending on the race of the sample criminals shown then there clearly is within the group sampled a racial bias.

No. The race of the sample criminals was not the only thing that changed between conditions. No controls were mentioned to do with the age or facial attractiveness of the mug shots. There may have been such controls, but the article does not mention them.

(Psychologists routinely control for facial attractiveness in pictures by having many people 'pre-rate' the pictures and once each picture has been rated, pictures can be divided into high and low attractiveness.)

EDIT: I also explained in a post further up how, even if it were the difference in composition of races in the mug shots that triggered the difference, there are non-racist explanations for this.

 

[doubtingt]

If their answers are different depending on the race of the sample criminals shown then there clearly is within the group sampled a racial bias. In my eyes, the study was valid.

Then your eyes are connected to a brain with extreme lack of knowledge about the most basic principles of experimental methodology. You can read my prior posts detailing the extreme flaws in their methods that invalid any inferences from the data. The short version is that the uncontrolled variables make it impossible to claim that the different answers at all depended upon race of the criminals, and even if it did, it would only support the influence of something race related, which might be "bias" or might be completely unbiased objectively accurate knowledge that black prisoners are more likely than whites to be in prison for violent crimes rather than for property crimes, drug use, and vagrancy.


I could have been in that group and been an exception to the general trend. The study was probing the coded message and not some rock solid concept. Ralph Nader and Noam Chomski both point out that many of our public policies stand opposed to more than 70% of public opinion, yet they exist and control what actually happens in our society.

yet there is no denying that racism is alive and well in our society.

Agreed, but there is also no denying that this study is highly invalid and fails to provide any valid evidence for the influence of racial bias. The fact that a study's results confirm you prior general beliefs doesn't make it valid.

 

[doubtingt]

It showed no such thing. It showed that white people were affected by one of many potential confounded factors is a terribly designed study. The "thing" may have been related to race of the prisoner or it may have been anything from age, emotional expression in the mug shots, general appearance, etc.. None of these things were controlled for. Even if there were not these confounds in the mug shots and it was something triggered by the race of the prisoners, it would not show racist attitudes among whites. It could be the triggering of accurate factual knowledge that blacks in prison are more likely to be there for violent crimes than are whites. Crimes with high levels of over-representation of blacks are murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault and weapons possession. Crimes for which whites are more equally represented are mostly things like vandalism, drug use, public drunkeness, violating liquor laws, and vagrancy (IOW, the kinds of crimes that rational people are more likely to oppose as a third strike basis for life in prison or even be crimes at all). And yes, it is absolutely possible to design a study that could measure some of these factors and test between competing explanations for how and why race might impact the willingness to act to release prisoners, but that would come after designing an unconfounded manipulation that actually showed race had any relation at all to the results.

You've got a couple of objections there.

Your first set is overcome by a large enough sample in the same way you described not controlling certain factors in the test participants being overcome by a large enough sample.

Wrong. Sample size has zero impact upon confounded variables. Sample size only averages out variances that are completely at random and have no correlation (however spurious or indirect) with the main manipulated variable. (not to mention, there is no basis to think that they included large enough samples of mug shots to even deal with random factors let alone systematic ones). They are not sampling from the black and white populations, but using highly non-representative special sub-populations (prisoners) to sample from. Thus, there will be many factors that are not varying randomly but that covary with their variable of interest, race.

The second set isn't actually an objection, it's just an explanation as to white the participants might hold those racist attitudes.

No, it is an objection to the irrational and wholly unscientific notion that any and all ideas about racial groups differing on any an all variables are "racist attitudes".
Note this would mean that every person who thinks black people tend to have more skin pigment, have "racist attitudes"
Accurate race-related knowledge is not by definition "racist attitudes", at least not any remotely useful, scientific, or intellectually defensible definition of the term.
BTW, attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge are all distinct constructs within psychological science.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you think the experiment showed that white participants are "kinda assholes"?

It depends.

It depends on the mechanism that caused the differences that the experimenters found, and what actions (or reactions) you think make an asshole.

But if you're asking are there non-asshole possibilities that are compatible with the outcome, yes, I think there are. There are also asshole possibilities and racist asshole possibilities compatible with the outcome.

I've only read the news story and not the original paper, so I can't tell if the authors discussed these possibilities in their discussion section (even if it's to dismiss them). It would be extremely unusual if they did not address the alternatives at least briefly in their Discussion.

I think people who think that the sentencing laws are too harsh who then change their mind when they see pictures of criminals are kinda assholes regardless of the implicit or missing correlates in the study.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It depends.

It depends on the mechanism that caused the differences that the experimenters found, and what actions (or reactions) you think make an asshole.

But if you're asking are there non-asshole possibilities that are compatible with the outcome, yes, I think there are. There are also asshole possibilities and racist asshole possibilities compatible with the outcome.

I've only read the news story and not the original paper, so I can't tell if the authors discussed these possibilities in their discussion section (even if it's to dismiss them). It would be extremely unusual if they did not address the alternatives at least briefly in their Discussion.

I think people who think that the sentencing laws are too harsh who then change their mind when they see pictures of criminals are kinda assholes regardless of the implicit or missing correlates in the study.

THAT goes without saying.

 

[The Paul]

Name one

Check directly under the sentence you quoted.

 

[Metaphor]

Name one

Check directly under the sentence you quoted.

I quote a lot of sentences in my posts. Which sentence are you talking about?

Quote the sentence, verbatim, that you think shows I've said something wrong. This is an open challenge. The challenge should be a cakewalk, though, since apparently I said 'many' wrong things. You ought to have an embarrassment of riches to select from.

 

[The Paul]

Check directly under the sentence you quoted.

I quote a lot of sentences in my posts. Which sentence are you talking about?

Quote the sentence, verbatim, that you think shows I've said something wrong. This is an open challenge. The challenge should be a cakewalk, though, since apparently I said 'many' wrong things. You ought to have an embarrassment of riches to select from.

You know what, I'll give you two examples of problems we've got here:

1) You can't be bothered to say what you mean
2) You're incapable of remembering what you've said and what it was in response to.

Though to be entirely accurate, I can't be sure about the second one. Since you think it's terribly fucking clever to say something then ridicule me for thinking you actually meant it, it could be that you're merely pretending to be incapable of communicating via a typical internet forum because you think convincing me of that is some kind of victory.

 

[dismal]

I can't believe this thread is still here.

Surely such a crass and offensive generalization of an entire race in a thread title would violate the forum's policies.

 

[repoman]

If and when American society falls apart (peak oil, lack of water, food shortages, whatever) in a very big way, will people who are a bit racist have a better survival chance than ones who are not?

I think that realizing that in a societal collapse that ethnic mobbing can and will happen is useful for people. It is a latent force waiting to be tapped. Japan should be a safe place for Japanese people in the case of a world collapse as an example. No ethnic conflicts at least.

Being a Tumblr Social Justice Warrior with blinders on about your personal safety seems very dangerous.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think people who think that the sentencing laws are too harsh who then change their mind when they see pictures of criminals are kinda assholes regardless of the implicit or missing correlates in the study.

The problem is that we can't determine that this is what happened. Given the structure of the research, it is equally likely that the other group changed their minds and softened their view. The researchers don't have a baseline from which to compare.

 

[Emily Lake]

If and when American society falls apart (peak oil, lack of water, food shortages, whatever) in a very big way, will people who are a bit racist have a better survival chance than ones who are not?

I think that realizing that in a societal collapse that ethnic mobbing can and will happen is useful for people. It is a latent force waiting to be tapped. Japan should be a safe place for Japanese people in the case of a world collapse as an example. No ethnic conflicts at least.

Being a Tumblr Social Justice Warrior with blinders on about your personal safety seems very dangerous.

Am I correct in reading this as being an actual pro-racism post?

 

[laughing dog]

I think people who think that the sentencing laws are too harsh who then change their mind when they see pictures of criminals are kinda assholes regardless of the implicit or missing correlates in the study.

The problem is that we can't determine that this is what happened. Given the structure of the research, it is equally likely that the other group changed their minds and softened their view. The researchers don't have a baseline from which to compare.

We have the results - they hardened their view based on the study compared to the starting point.

 

[Emily Lake]

The problem is that we can't determine that this is what happened. Given the structure of the research, it is equally likely that the other group changed their minds and softened their view. The researchers don't have a baseline from which to compare.

We have the results - they hardened their view based on the study compared to the starting point.

I did not see that they measured a starting point. Perhaps I missed it. Can you please provide me with a link and reference for that, or at least a quote describing how they measured that starting point?

 

[repoman]

If and when American society falls apart (peak oil, lack of water, food shortages, whatever) in a very big way, will people who are a bit racist have a better survival chance than ones who are not?

I think that realizing that in a societal collapse that ethnic mobbing can and will happen is useful for people. It is a latent force waiting to be tapped. Japan should be a safe place for Japanese people in the case of a world collapse as an example. No ethnic conflicts at least.

Being a Tumblr Social Justice Warrior with blinders on about your personal safety seems very dangerous.

Am I correct in reading this as being an actual pro-racism post?

I am saying that tribalism and racism are going to come back when the resources get scarce. We are in resource use and population overshoot right now, nestled comfortably in a fossil fuel energy bubble.

Too bad we won't be able to breed ourselves brown before all the energy runs out. Then we would all be mixed and racial alliances wouldn't form as easily.

 

[Bomb#20]

I am saying that tribalism and racism are going to come back when the resources get scarce. We are in resource use and population overshoot right now, nestled comfortably in a fossil fuel energy bubble.

Too bad we won't be able to breed ourselves brown before all the energy runs out. Then we would all be mixed and racial alliances wouldn't form as easily.

Don't be such a pessimist. At current consumption rates, we have thirty thousand years of proven energy reserves. Now get out there and boink somebody from a different race!

 

[Metaphor]

You know what, I'll give you two examples of problems we've got here:

I take it you can't meet my challenge, since you refuse to quote any of my 'many' things I've said that are wrong.

1) You can't be bothered to say what you mean

Yeah, you said this already, and it was as nonsensical as the first time you said it. Actually, it's worse than the first time you said it. The first time you said it, you might really have believed it, as nonsensical as it was. But you can't possibly believe it now, given that I'm not known for mincing words.

2) You're incapable of remembering what you've said and what it was in response to.

Though to be entirely accurate, I can't be sure about the second one. Since you think it's terribly fucking clever to say something then ridicule me for thinking you actually meant it, it could be that you're merely pretending to be incapable of communicating via a typical internet forum because you think convincing me of that is some kind of victory.

I no longer have any notion of what it is you're accusing me of. I never say something I don't mean, unless it's dripping with irony.

Crack open an experimental design in the behavioural sciences textbook. I've been there and done that.

You have indicated through your misuse of concepts that you don't understand experimental design yet you're also convinced there is no other explanation for the results of the OP.
...

 

[laughing dog]

We have the results - they hardened their view based on the study compared to the starting point.

I did not see that they measured a starting point. Perhaps I missed it. Can you please provide me with a link and reference for that, or at least a quote describing how they measured that starting point?

I erred. But we do have the results. No conclusion based on sample data is 100% conclusive. But this data is suggestive that white people are kinda assholes.