All done? Good. Now let's talk about something that doesn't seem to be getting talked about.
Ashton Kutcher's little video is certainly racist, but I don't care about that. What I want you all to think about is the video response that was posted from the actual Indian comedian above the article. He is fairly angry about the whole ordeal (and rightly so, I'd imagine), and how goes on to say something like "White guy in brown face?!" and then proceeds to rant about how this potato chip company (or whatever they are) is furthering the "black/asian face" problem, and therefor racism.
I don't disagree with any particular point the man makes, but what strikes me as interesting is that he seems to think that this only pertains to minorities. This is completely untrue. White people get made fun of all the time by non-whites. Look at Dave Chapelle, who constantly dresses in white face and mimics the stereotype of what a white person acts like. Or look at Carlos Mencia. Or Chris Rock. Three major comedians who all take jabs at white people (and other races, too), but no one says a word about it. Why? Because apparently it is OK for a black man to make fun of a white person, but it's totally racist to make fun of a black person. Or an Indian. Or an Asian. Or anyone else who isn't white. Seriously, do I even need to bring up White Chicks?
This is where America's head is right now. If you're a minority and you want to make fun of white people, that's totally fine, but if you're white, you'd better not even think about doing the same thing to them, because that's racist.
I mean, come on, am I the only one who's noticed this?
[ May 11, 2012, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Jeff C. ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
There's no such thing as reverse racism, Jeff.
Some people who say that mean this: Because society systematically oppresses minorities, and the important part of racism is oppression, white people cannot be oppressed and therefore it's not possible to be racist against white people.
What I mean when I say it is this: The important part of racism is generalized criticisms based on physiological ethnicity instead of criticizing recognized specific traits of an individual. So whether you're doing this to a black person or a white person or any other ethnicity, it's still just plain racism. Nothing reverse about it.
The only conceivable logical definition I can think of for "reverse" racism might be things like affirmative action: generalized benefits for people based on race, instead of generalized punishments. It's still racism, but I suppose you could describe it as "inverted," a.k.a. "reverse."
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Dan, I only used that as the title because I couldn't think of anything else to use. The main points I wanted to discuss are in the first post.
Also edited the title.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Louis C. K. would seem to be a counter example to your points Jeff. He makes fun of other races pretty regularly.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
You also don't see people making fun of whites in commercials. It seems to be OK for edgy standup in either direction, though it's riskier for the white guy, for what I think are obvious reasons.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I know, Jeff. But, as is almost always the case, I was more interested in the tangential derail that popped into my head than in actually discussing the OP. Sorry!
I think Strider has a good point about Louis C.K. He's not the only one, either. But it is certainly, as Matt said, "riskier."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's riskier because we allow -- even encourage -- underdogs to take the piss out of the big dogs, but consider it gauche for people in power to taunt the little guys.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dan, you are repeating a common misconception of Affirmative Action. All it requires is that a company is appropriately recruiting from the area in which it operates, which it proves by documenting it's efforts/
Affirmative Action isn't quotas. Quotas are what happen when you can't show you aren't discriminating.
I learned this at a mandatory two day "Sensitivity training" course back at IBM almost 15 years ago.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's riskier because we allow -- even encourage -- underdogs to take the piss out of the big dogs, but consider it gauche for people in power to taunt the little guys.
Yep, and white people, inherently, are all "big dogs," while minorities are all "the little guys." Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. Yes, they are. Before we get into this, though, I'd like you to think about it a bit and understand why. And even what it means to be a "big dog" in this context, and whether that's a semi-permanent position. Will, for example, it always be the case that it's considered sporting to depict all sitcom husbands as lazy doofuses? Or is that a specific reaction to something?
I'd really like you to go outside your comfort zone in analyzing this, Dan, and not just rely on kneejerk assumptions.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Bok: I'm aware Affirmative Action isn't the same thing as quotas, but I'm under the impression that it does require special considerations be given to minorities. I.E. If there are two identically qualified applicants to a school, pick the minority.
Maybe that's not the case in the letter of the law, but it definitely has held true in different places as far as implementation is concerned.
Which isn't really that surprising. The line between "don't discriminate against X" and "give X special treatment" can be really gray, I think.
What I mean is, any instance of one can be misrepresented to be the other. In close calls, like two equally-qualified-on-paper applicants, it would be hard to defend against accusations of racism if you picked the white applicant.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: ... Three major comedians who all take jabs at white people (and other races, too), but no one says a word about it ...
Seems to me that you said 316 words about it Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yes. Yes, they are. Before we get into this, though, I'd like you to think about it a bit and understand why. And even what it means to be a "big dog" in this context, and whether that's a semi-permanent position. Will, for example, it always be the case that it's considered sporting to depict all sitcom husbands as lazy doofuses? Or is that a specific reaction to something?
I'd really like you to go outside your comfort zone in analyzing this, Dan, and not just rely on kneejerk assumptions.
I don't know, man, that's a tall order. I'm pretty comfortable.
My "knee-jerk assumption" is this:
"Big dog" in this context refers to a group that has historically been privileged, vs. "the little guys," who have historically been oppressed or marginalized. More specifically, white guys have gotten away with portraying women and minorities as awful (and offensive) stereotypes for generations, and it's only been in the last 40 years or so that the shoe has been shifting to the other foot.
If you want me to rely on something other than that knee-jerk assumption, y'gotta give me more to work with. What part of it did I misunderstand?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Clearly what Tom meant is that as a group, us whites are the big dogs with others being substantially smaller.
Some people-almost always white, surprise surprise, like to pretend that's not the reality of the situation in this advanced year of our lord 2012, but a scandal of black--->white racism is, say, Sherrod getting a hack reporting job taking shots at whites. A scandal of white----->black racism is when, say, some black guy gets shot a few dozen times picking up a wallet or gets tasered when the cops know he's got a heart condition and shouldn't be banging on his door anyway.
We're still the damn big dogs. It doesn't speak well to our collective character as a group, insofar as we can possibly be one, that the take from the civil rights movement seems to be it's as important and difficult for whites to not chafe at blacks taking shots at them, as it is for blacks to get over having lots of living relatives, or be themselves, victims of a centuries-long campaign of contempt, disenfranchisement, and oppression.
A comic on comedy central ain't gonna give me demonstrably worse chances in a job interview if my name is Shaquille or Quantavius than if my name were Steve or Carl. We're still on top of the damn world, guys, and not by a little.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Black people make roughly 60% of the money white people do. That disparity has increased in the last 30 years, incidentally. How many white people would be willing to trade that for the ability to make fun of other races with social impunity?
Actually, for the low, low price of 5% of your income, I'll give any white person (making more money than me) written permission to to mock Japanese people. For no additional fee, I'll also compile a master list of those who opt in and post it at the next meeting so everyone's on the same page.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Affirmative Action is an umbrella term that has come to mean a lot of different things, but I don't really object to any of them. Black people have been systematically oppressed in America since they first got here, and that oppression continues today in ways both subtle and overt. Giving some of them preferential treatment in hiring and education is the absolutely least we can do to erase a tiny fraction of the debt that's owed.
On the other hand, I have mixed feelings on racial jokes. Personally I think comedians should go ahead and make fun of whatever they can get away with without being hateful. So if all the races want to make fun of each other, I'm fine with that, because so long as the stereotypes we lampoon aren't made to induce hatred, I think they can actually serve to bind us closer together as multi-racial, multi-cultural society.
But I thought the ad was horribly offensive. Kutcher should have said no.
quote:There's no such thing as reverse racism, Jeff.
thank you. Had I gotten here sooner, that would have been my first comment.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I mean, come on, am I the only one who's noticed this?
I suppose you are. Or you're the only one who gives a crap.
What I've noticed is that very few major studios will back a film that doesn't have a white protagonist. Major roles that were written for a specific minority get cast as white. Asians get consistently cast in roles that fit into a few specific stereotypes and very little else. The martial artist, comedic sidekick, and nerdy, socially awkward IT specialist.
Maybe white people get made fun of from time to time, but so what?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by manji:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I mean, come on, am I the only one who's noticed this?
I suppose you are. Or you're the only one who gives a crap.
What I've noticed is that very few major studios will back a film that doesn't have a white protagonist. Major roles that were written for a specific minority get cast as white. Asians get consistently cast in roles that fit into a few specific stereotypes and very little else. The martial artist, comedic sidekick, and nerdy, socially awkward IT specialist.
Maybe white people get made fun of from time to time, but so what?
The point that the guy was trying to make is that only minorities seem to be getting made fun of and it is only furthering stereotypes. However, if you know your pop-culture, you know that's not true. Everyone gets made fun of all the time. Undercover Brother took a lot of jabs at white people and nobody cared. Had that been a film about a white guy poking fun at blacks, you can see how there would be a problem.
Nobody notices the white jokes because nobody cares that they exist. I don't think they are a big deal, either, and I honestly find them funny. However, my point is that you can't make these kinds of jokes and then not expect someone else to do the same thing about your race. It's like one-sided racism, where that person is wrong, but you're always right.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
What is a minority?
1/7 of all humans are Indian, right?
The county I teach in is predominantly African American. It also has the most wealthy African Americans than anywhere else in the country (maybe the world). (There is a fair amount of poverty in certain areas to, like my specific school.) My students have asked me on several occasions why Obama is the first black president. In their minds, African Americans are the majority.
It is all just a matter of perspective.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My students have asked me on several occasions why Obama is the first black president.
What do you tell them?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:My students have asked me on several occasions why Obama is the first black president.
What do you tell them?
I stopped class, pulled up Google, and began going over census and electoral college data.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So your answer was "there are more 'minorities' now?" *blink*
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: The point that the guy was trying to make is that only minorities seem to be getting made fun of and it is only furthering stereotypes. However, if you know your pop-culture, you know that's not true. Everyone gets made fun of all the time. Undercover Brother took a lot of jabs at white people and nobody cared. Had that been a film about a white guy poking fun at blacks, you can see how there would be a problem.
No, that was not his point. Mr. Minhaj's point is that the stereotype Mr. Kutcher was poking at was both stupid and wrong. That it was perpetuating a stereotype in an environment where it is already accepted that Asians = that stereotype, where they find it very difficult to climb out of that stereotype.
When people make fun of white people, no one is pigeonholing white people, preventing them from getting film roles. They're not saying, "No, you can't be the romantic lead, you can't be the hero, unless you know a little kung fu." White people can be anyone in film. They can even be people who were written as minorities! Minorities? Stereotyped.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:My students have asked me on several occasions why Obama is the first black president.
What do you tell them?
I stopped class, pulled up Google, and began going over census and electoral college data.
Heh, no.
Showing them the data that in the United States as a whole they are a minority. But then I showed them the data on Maryland (when even the whites in public schools have dropped to below 50% state wide), and their own county.
Many of my students have never left this county, and don't quite comprehend how large and diverse our country is. They took for granted that Obama was guaranteed a victory, because that was who all the adults around them were voting for.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: They took for granted that Obama was guaranteed a victory, because that was who all the adults around them were voting for.
Heh. Me, too. Though most of them are white.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Adam, a Native American, and George, an American of European descent, encounter each other on the street. Adam sees that George is carrying a shiny new Ipad 3. So Adam clubs George over the head with a stick and takes it.
George: “Ow! Give that back!”
Adam: “No.”
George: “But that’s mine! You just took it from me.”
Adam: “Look. A lot of stuff has happened in the past. I took your Ipad. Your ancestors took my ancestors’ land. My ancestors took somebody else’s ancestors’ land. It’s all terribly complicated.”
George: “But you took my Ipad. Just now.”
Adam: “Do you really want to go back to the beginning of time and sort out all the injustices of history? That’s impossible.”
George: “I just want my Ipad back. And an icepack.”
Adam: “So you want to correct the injustices that have happened in the last five minutes, but ignore the ones that happened prior to that? That’s arbitrary. The only non-arbitrary approach is to start fresh from where we are. I’m sorry I took your Ipad. I see now that respect for property rights is important. So let’s try to be better about enforcing them. Life, liberty, and property…starting now!”
George, stepping toward Adam: “Look, buddy. Just give me the damn Ipad.”
Anyone who doesn't think it's OK in our culture for white people to make jokes at the expense of black people needs to watch more Family Guy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Many of my students have never left this county, and don't quite comprehend how large and diverse our country is. They took for granted that Obama was guaranteed a victory, because that was who all the adults around them were voting for.
None of them were offended by your implied claim that people voted for Obama because they shared his skin color?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I suppose you are. Or you're the only one who gives a crap.
Or possibly the only one who thinks this is a conversation worth having.
Posted by vegimo (Member # 12618) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: They took for granted that Obama was guaranteed a victory, because that was who all the adults around them were voting for.
Heh. Me, too. Though most of them are white.
Me three. Though most of them are educated.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: They took for granted that Obama was guaranteed a victory, because that was who all the adults around them were voting for.
Heh. Me, too. Though most of them are white.
Me three. Though most of them are educated.
Did I mention that I work at a University?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Many of my students have never left this county, and don't quite comprehend how large and diverse our country is. They took for granted that Obama was guaranteed a victory, because that was who all the adults around them were voting for.
None of them were offended by your implied claim that people voted for Obama because they shared his skin color?
I don't think they implied that from what I said. Though I could definitely see how some could take it that way.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Some people-almost always white, surprise surprise, like to pretend that's not the reality of the situation in this advanced year of our lord 2012, but a scandal of black--->white racism is, say, Sherrod getting a hack reporting job taking shots at whites. A scandal of white----->black racism is when, say, some black guy gets shot a few dozen times picking up a wallet or gets tasered when the cops know he's got a heart condition and shouldn't be banging on his door anyway.
Huh, I would've thought a scandal of black->white racist might've been, like, some black people setting a white person on fire or something. But even so, I agree with you that more of the crimes still occur in the opposite direction.
I wasn't in any way trying to assert that racism doesn't exist, Rakeesh. Sure it does! And it's common enough to cause some trends, too! But I categorically disagree that it's systematic (more on that later), and I think that to simply call white people "Big Dogs" and minorities "the little guy" is... misguided.
Anyway, Juxtapose talks about the trends too:
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Black people make roughly 60% of the money white people do. That disparity has increased in the last 30 years, incidentally. How many white people would be willing to trade that for the ability to make fun of other races with social impunity?
White people make more money. To hear Juxtapose tell it, of course, every white guy makes 40% more than every black guy, but he's simplifying a trend. Lots of black guys make more money than lots of white guys, just not enough to counterbalance the trend.
Of course, seeing the existence of such trends does not actually dictate causality. We have to explain causality ourselves. And there are lots of other things that cause trends.
Going by trends, whether or not your parents are together, and whether or not they have college degrees, are both huge indicators of your likely future. Just like being black can be. Are we prejudiced against people with single parents, and against people with parents who lack college degrees?
Hatrack's a smart place, I'd bet that most of you have college degrees. I don't. Therefore (going by trends), regardless of race, your kids are more likely to also have degrees and therefore more likely to succeed than mine. Are me and my theoretical kids being oppressed by you and your unjust system?
My problem is mainly in the way that people use these trends.
For these trends to have the... let's say "oomph"... that people like Juxtapose think they have, you need to view society through a deeply collectivist lens. Black people, collectively, are doing badly, so the best explanation is that another, more successful collective (white people), are pushing them down.
It is that collectivism that I'm rejecting. Not the existence of racism.
This is also basically the reason I say the problem isn't "systematic." It's not because I don't think it's a serious problem. It's because the system, the only system in society with real, cohesive, collective power... that is, the government... isn't enforcing racist policies. Both sides can quibble over what they see as exceptions (righties might say affirmative action, lefties might say voter ID)... but the deep problems, like income inequity, aren't being forced on the populace by "the system."
So, anyway, there's my knee jerk assumption that stayed within my comfort zone and in no way involved any serious thought, just operating on autopilot mouthing platitudes I heard from Rush Limbaugh. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Many of my students have never left this county, and don't quite comprehend how large and diverse our country is. They took for granted that Obama was guaranteed a victory, because that was who all the adults around them were voting for.
None of them were offended by your implied claim that people voted for Obama because they shared his skin color?
Or by the implication that a racial group is empowered by being in the majority. Didn't work that way in South Africa for quite a while. Seems odd.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Nobody notices the white jokes because nobody cares that they exist.
I think this is the crux of the issue.
Why doesn't anyone care about jokes about white stereotypes, but a lot of people do care about jokes about minority stereotypes? Why do white people care so little about them that they laugh along with the joke and will recommend the comic/movie/etc. to other white people?
I think it's because the jokes are not at all dangerous. We are completely secure in our paramount position of power in this society. These jokes don't threaten that power. We're still going to wake up the next day with the world explicitly set up to cater to our desires.
The same is not true for minorities. Negative stereotypes and attitudes, which are often propagated and maintained through jokes, are dangerous to them. They don't sit in an unassailably secure position and these jokes or rather the underlying ideas behind them can serve chip away at what power they do have in society.
And it's not like that's the result of some masterful analysis on my part. If you just listen, that's pretty much what people complain about with these jokes. Even when this question is sincere, in a way it confirms the very marginalization of these voices that is central to the complaints.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I categorically disagree that it's systematic...
When people dared to assert that a black person in a hoodie might not be particularly threatening, an entire arm of the news media spun up to claim otherwise.
------------
quote:I think it's because the jokes are not at all dangerous. We are completely secure in our paramount position of power in this society. These jokes don't threaten that power.
As you acknowledge in your post, Squicky, that's precisely why you now hear conservatives muttering about "double standards" in jokes and "reverse racism" and "the portrayal of men as doofuses" in comedies: because they believe that power structure is at risk. As they slip farther and farther from their peak, those complaints will get more and more strident.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, if you want to get really deep into the point, white people *should* be offended by stereotyping, because we shouldn't be raised to think of minorities as the only people capable of being truly victimized by society. Our complacency also reinforces the status-quo: brown people are victims, and can't be dealt with on an even basis, and white people are strong and impervious to satire.
But then, we're just not. Whereas I do think anti-male stereotyping is starting to actually erode our youth culture at this point, I think anti-white stereotyping continues to have virtually no effect.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But I categorically disagree that it's systematic...
When people dared to assert that a black person in a hoodie might not be particularly threatening, an entire arm of the news media spun up to claim otherwise.
I think that's a pretty bold characterization of events! But I'll assume it's 100% accurate for now.
Several other arms of the media did the opposite. So what? What about Fox News makes it "the system" in your mind, Tom?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I didn't say "Fox News." I meant television news. Empty heads flapping meat-flanges at each other in defense of the status quo.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, if you want to get really deep into the point, white people *should* be offended by stereotyping, because we shouldn't be raised to think of minorities as the only people capable of being truly victimized by society. Our complacency also reinforces the status-quo: brown people are victims, and can't be dealt with on an even basis, and white people are strong and impervious to satire.
But then, we're just not. Whereas I do think anti-male stereotyping is starting to actually erode our youth culture at this point, I think anti-white stereotyping continues to have virtually no effect.
Yeah I think I pretty much agree with this entire post, Orincoro.
I might go further than you, too. I think that what I'll call for lack of a better word "pity-racism" is really prevalent amongst well-meaning social justice types.
Sort of in the same vein as (though less bad than) radical feminists trying to tell women that they are being oppressed and raped by their husbands and just don't realize it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I didn't say "Fox News." I meant television news. Empty heads flapping meat-flanges at each other in defense of the status quo.
Yeah, that really was a knee jerk assumption on my part.
So, the rest of them picked up that narrative? Seriously? All of them? CNN? MSNBC? I'll admit I'm pretty skeptical of this claim. But I'll admit I don't really watch TV news of any sort, beyond clips I catch online from blogs and forums.
Even assuming you're right, let me amend my earlier question and repeat it: What about TV news makes it "the system" to your mind?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:But then, we're just not. Whereas I do think anti-male stereotyping is starting to actually erode our youth culture at this point, I think anti-white stereotyping continues to have virtually no effect.
I don't know if that's true or not, but it certainly sounds true to me.
Hobbes Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:that's precisely why you now hear conservatives muttering about "double standards" in jokes and "reverse racism" and "the portrayal of men as doofuses" in comedies: because they believe that power structure is at risk.
quote:I do think anti-male stereotyping is starting to actually erode our youth culture at this point, I think anti-white stereotyping continues to have virtually no effect.
The anti-male stereotyping is harmful because the specific type of message being transmitted is that not only are males buffoons, they are entitled to be buffoons.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I could agree with that. I could definitely see it that way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Television news -- television in general, really, but especially news -- is the voice of corporate America, Dan. It is the mechanism by which "the system" reinforces its desired social standards and taboos. It's not necessarily always part of some deliberate conspiracy, but it is never excessively subversive; it exists to profit from the status quo, and as a result is motivated solely to reinforce it.
But let's talk more about what you're calling "the system," and why that definition doesn't fit neatly with the "system" implied by "systematic racism." You say this:
quote:This is also basically the reason I say the problem isn't "systematic." It's not because I don't think it's a serious problem. It's because the system, the only system in society with real, cohesive, collective power... that is, the government... isn't enforcing racist policies.
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "systematic" means in this context. Can you explain why you think a) a "systematic" process requires the application of cohesive, collective power; and b) only the government wields cohesive, collective power in American society?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The anti-male stereotyping is harmful because the specific type of message being transmitted is that not only are males buffoons, they are entitled to be buffoons.
Interestingly, Scott, I think that subtext is inserted into those portrayals precisely to make them more palatable to the men that are otherwise being mocked; it's meant to suggest to the viewing men that real men actually want to sit around the house with their hand down their pants, watching sports and hiding from the kids. It's like what aggressive people do when they make a joke they know -- perhaps too late -- is a little too obnoxious; they dig an elbow into your ribs and wink and say, "Get it? It's funny 'cause it's true, ain't it? I'm just telling it like it is."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I always recommend The Gulag Archipelago to any of my friends, conservative or liberal, who start talking about systematic processes needing or by their fundamental natures *having* a specific will or a specific intent. Those books are, if they are anything, an extremely comprehensive argument in favor of the notion that societies are capable of carrying out enormously complicated processes that they neither understand the need for, or the probable outcomes of. As "Perpetual Motion," repeats a number of times: a process no one could design, no one could carry out, and the purpose of which no one could fully understand.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Television news -- television in general, really, but especially news -- is the voice of corporate America, Dan. It is the mechanism by which "the system" reinforces its desired social standards and taboos. It's not necessarily always part of some deliberate conspiracy, but it is never excessively subversive; it exists to profit from the status quo, and as a result is motivated solely to reinforce it.
This attitude really baffles me, and only seems true insofar as "the status quo" is code for "what polls as appealing to most viewers" and nothing else.
And those qualifiers "not necessarily always" are huge red flags.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But let's talk more about what you're calling "the system," and why that definition doesn't fit neatly with the "system" implied by "systematic racism." You say this:
quote:This is also basically the reason I say the problem isn't "systematic." It's not because I don't think it's a serious problem. It's because the system, the only system in society with real, cohesive, collective power... that is, the government... isn't enforcing racist policies.
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "systematic" means in this context. Can you explain why you think a) a "systematic" process requires the application of cohesive, collective power; and b) only the government wields cohesive, collective power in American society?
Because society is made up of individuals who self-select into groups that they like (that approximately match their views). Such organizations are so numerous and shifting as to almost be infinite, and the only one that actually wields perpetual, irresistible power is the government.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The anti-male stereotyping is harmful because the specific type of message being transmitted is that not only are males buffoons, they are entitled to be buffoons.
Interestingly, Scott, I think that subtext is inserted into those portrayals precisely to make them more palatable to the men that are otherwise being mocked; it's meant to suggest to the viewing men that real men actually want to sit around the house with their hand down their pants, watching sports and hiding from the kids. It's like what aggressive people do when they make a joke they know -- perhaps too late -- is a little too obnoxious; they dig an elbow into your ribs and wink and say, "Get it? It's funny 'cause it's true, ain't it? I'm just telling it like it is."
It doesn't seem to me to be a contradictory notion. These stereotypes are perpetrated by men (male actors) against men for the amusement of women, and yet, subtextually, the writing works to justify the behavior to men to make it palatable.
I see little difference between that level of humor and, say, "Sex and the City". The writing in that series was aimed squarely at using men as a source of comedy while "poking fun" at the foibles of women who in fact stood for the things that any shallow and soulless woman, or person, might aspire to be: rich, single, consumerist, flamboyant, glib, irresponsible, sexually permiscuous and living in a world of zero real consequences. The writing "made fun" of these women while endorsing virtually everything they did along with their outlook on life and relationships. It always horrified me. And don't even get me started on the men involved: it's apparently desirable for us to be clueless, aloof, emotionally shallow, manipulative, and sexually disfunctional.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Because society is made up of individuals who self-select into groups that they like (that approximately match their views). Such organizations are so numerous and shifting as to almost be infinite, and the only one that actually wields perpetual, irresistible power is the government.
This is patently not how power is pledged or divided in our united states. It's naive, to say the least, even to start with the basic assumption that individual group affiliations are initiated by attraction, rather than the manifold values that supersede those of temperament. Just try and parse your model into an actual moving system: wouldnt America be entirely, perfectly and evenly divided by geographical lines amongst different political interests, because people would all move to where their views were shared? No, of course not, because 1001 other things matter in regards to where you place a vote, what channel you watch, what you say and who you say it to. If we all just divided up our power evenly into discrete groups... I don't even know what. We wouldn't be a country.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Orincoro, I think you're mistakenly assuming I think a person can only care about one thing, or belong to only one group. I didn't say that, and I don't think that.
Try recalculating based on this new data.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This attitude really baffles me, and only seems true insofar as "the status quo" is code for "what polls as appealing to most viewers" and nothing else.
Again, I ask that you think about this a bit.
quote:And those qualifiers "not necessarily always" are huge red flags.
Well, of course they are. But what you're worried about here and what you should be worried about are two different things, as I'll discuss below. The issue isn't solely that television media is deliberately manipulated by oligarchs to maintain their status quo or push an agenda, although of course that's part of it; the issue is also that -- as noted above -- media outlets profit by correctly identifying and then pandering to or rewarding what are believed to be "popular" positions and attitudes. Sometimes there are more insidious motives at work; more often, though, the profit motive -- the motive that is always present -- is the only one necessary.
--------
More importantly: Dan, I don't think you know what "systematic" means in the context of "systematic" racism. Above all else, you seem to be reacting to the term as if it required direct action or deliberate inaction from groups consciously manipulating or controlling a given process. That's not what "systematic" means, here. While I don't necessarily hold with Carmichael's take on "institutionalized racism," either, it's important to note that at no point does it require a deliberate decision to act against the interests of a particular group of people.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This attitude really baffles me, and only seems true insofar as "the status quo" is code for "what polls as appealing to most viewers" and nothing else.
Again, I ask that you think about this a bit.
Done!
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And those qualifiers "not necessarily always" are huge red flags.
Well, of course they are. But what you're worried about here and what you should be worried about are two different things, as I'll discuss below. The issue isn't solely that television media is deliberately manipulated by oligarchs to maintain their status quo or push an agenda, although of course that's part of it; the issue is also that -- as noted above -- media outlets profit by correctly identifying and then pandering to or rewarding what are believed to be "popular" positions and attitudes. Sometimes there are more insidious motives at work; more often, though, the profit motive -- the motive that is always present -- is the only one necessary.
Yeah, media outlets of all kinds definitely profit by identifying, and then keeping, their audience. This is true, and in the case of news media it seems to result in different news media outlets trying to appeal to different perspectives.
By the way, I think that most of the people involved in these outlets aren't lying to appeal to their audience. They don't need to! Because the ideology of each outlet attracts like-minded employees, so they tell what they think is the truth, and appeal to viewers who share that idea.
And you haven't explained what any of this has to do with pushing the agenda of oligarchs. But you did manage to smuggle in an appeal to obviousness in this area ("of course" some of this is oligarchs pushing their agenda).
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: More importantly: Dan, I don't think you know what "systematic" means in the context of "systematic" racism. Above all else, you seem to be reacting to the term as if it required direct action or deliberate inaction from groups consciously manipulating or controlling a given process. That's not what "systematic" means, here. While I don't necessarily hold with Carmichael's take on "institutionalized racism," either, it's important to note that at no point does it require a deliberate decision to act against the interests of a particular group of people.
You've roughly approximated my view here, yes. I won't quibble over it for now, at any rate.
So at this point I'm concluding that you and others are grossly misusing the word "systematic."
Do you mean that you think racism is systemic? It may still be stretching the word a bit, but it sounds like it's a little more accurate to what you're trying to describe here. I still wouldn't use it, though.
The problem with saying that people just don't understand what you mean is that words have meaning, and "systematic racism" sounds especially bad precisely because of the clear and accepted meaning of the word "systematic." It sounds much, much more insidious than "subtle racism is still common among many individuals and companies." I think that many people use this phrase precisely because it sounds so much more insidious.
But it's inaccurate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:By the way, I think that most of the people involved in these outlets aren't lying to appeal to their audience. They don't need to! Because the ideology of each outlet attracts like-minded employees, so they tell what they think is the truth...
Having worked as a journalist -- and as someone with many friends working in media -- I have to say: you are wrong. Seriously. David Brock has written a very accessible book on this topic, although one with a definite political slant, called Blinded by the Right; I recommend it. It gives you a pretty good idea of how self-aware and knowingly complicit the media are in their interactions with the machine.
quote:And you haven't explained what any of this has to do with pushing the agenda of oligarchs.
*sigh* Because you're not an idiot, Dan, and have access to Google. I should not have to point out the ways that, say, Rupert Murdoch cynically uses the news organs he owns to advance his own opinions; I'm sure you've heard those arguments, and have access to ample evidence if you want to look for it.
quote:The problem with saying that people just don't understand what you mean is that words have meaning...
Yes, and systematic racism has a meaning that is in fact meaningful for people who've studied the topic. It's just another bit of technical jargon. And what I'm trying to tell you is that "systematic racism" does not mean "hostile policies imposed by an organized power to deliberately oppress a population." It actually means very nearly the opposite of that. (For what it's worth, I strongly agree that systemic racism is probably what was originally intended, but I've actually seen practical distinctions made between institutional racism, systemic racism, and systematic racism, so honestly I don't want to speak for anyone else on this one without actually having a horse in that race, myself. I have to ask: have you taken any courses on sociological concepts of power or privilege? They're very interesting, and I think you'd find them pretty intriguing.)
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Whether the "at" in "systematic" is needed or not, the harm done is pretty significant.
For example, what's called "systematic racism" is probably a large part of the reason why black women end up as single mothers so often.
How could that be, you may say, when their single motherhood is simply the result of their relationships breaking up? How can racism be the cause of that?
The answer is that, because of racism, black women are not often in a position to be picky about selecting their mates. As OKCupid discovered in their recent study of a massive sample of data on their online dating service, men just don't write back to black women very often. This is simply one manifestation of something we all knew from common sense in the first place: our culture doesn't value black women as romantic partners.
As a result, many black women are faced with an unenviable choice: either settle for a man who would not have been your first choice, or end up alone. Understandably, many women choose the first option. And predictably, many of the resulting relationships don't last.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:*sigh* Because you're not an idiot, Dan, and have access to Google. I should not have to point out the ways that, say, Rupert Murdoch cynically uses the news organs he owns to advance his own opinions; I'm sure you've heard those arguments, and have access to ample evidence if you want to look for it.
Yeah, we've talked about Fox News before, Dan. I recall showing you some of Jon Stewart's takedowns of their insane propaganda efforts.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:*sigh* Because you're not an idiot, Dan, and have access to Google. I should not have to point out the ways that, say, Rupert Murdoch cynically uses the news organs he owns to advance his own opinions; I'm sure you've heard those arguments, and have access to ample evidence if you want to look for it.
Yeah, we've talked about Fox News before, Dan. I recall showing you some of Jon Stewart's takedowns of their insane propaganda efforts.
What you're saying here in no way supports what you've quoted Tom saying.
Do you see why? I can explain in more detail if you like, but I'm writing another post at the moment.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The answer is that, because of racism, black women are not often in a position to be picky about selecting their mates. As OKCupid discovered in their recent study of a massive sample of data on their online dating service, men just don't write back to black women very often. This is simply one manifestation of something we all knew from common sense in the first place: our culture doesn't value black women as romantic partners.
This is an example of something I mentioned before: the data, the trend, does not actually give us the causality that you have ascribed to it. You did that, in your attempt to explain the data.
Can you imagine any other explanations that might provide a different causality?
Edit: Or, more generally, can you see any potential flaws in using this study to reach the overarching conclusion that you reached?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
No plausible ones suggest themselves, no.
Obviously you're right that the data themselves contain no direct information about what causes what. Statistical data is always just correlation. One then looks for the most plausible explanation of the correlations in the data.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:What you're saying here in no way supports what you've quoted Tom saying.
Yeah, I thought about this after I posted. Murdoch doesn't directly tell Hannity what to say.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Bok: I'm aware Affirmative Action isn't the same thing as quotas, but I'm under the impression that it does require special considerations be given to minorities. I.E. If there are two identically qualified applicants to a school, pick the minority.
Maybe that's not the case in the letter of the law, but it definitely has held true in different places as far as implementation is concerned.
Which isn't really that surprising. The line between "don't discriminate against X" and "give X special treatment" can be really gray, I think.
What I mean is, any instance of one can be misrepresented to be the other. In close calls, like two equally-qualified-on-paper applicants, it would be hard to defend against accusations of racism if you picked the white applicant.
Well, it doesn't mean to pick the minority over the equally qualified white. And since by default an equally qualified minority won't even get an interview, based on name alone, even if it were the letter of the law, I'd be okay with it.
Because, in various situations (not just job hunting), it is shown that otherwise equivalent minorities have a SIGNIFICANT bias against them, even in this "post-racist" age.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:What you're saying here in no way supports what you've quoted Tom saying.
Yeah, I thought about this after I posted. Murdoch doesn't directly tell Hannity what to say.
But he could sure as heck get Hannity fired if he didn't like what he said.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Some people-almost always white, surprise surprise, like to pretend that's not the reality of the situation in this advanced year of our lord 2012, but a scandal of black--->white racism is, say, Sherrod getting a hack reporting job taking shots at whites. A scandal of white----->black racism is when, say, some black guy gets shot a few dozen times picking up a wallet or gets tasered when the cops know he's got a heart condition and shouldn't be banging on his door anyway.
Huh, I would've thought a scandal of black->white racist might've been, like, some black people setting a white person on fire or something. But even so, I agree with you that more of the crimes still occur in the opposite direction.
I wasn't in any way trying to assert that racism doesn't exist, Rakeesh. Sure it does! And it's common enough to cause some trends, too! But I categorically disagree that it's systematic (more on that later), and I think that to simply call white people "Big Dogs" and minorities "the little guy" is... misguided.
Anyway, Juxtapose talks about the trends too:
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Black people make roughly 60% of the money white people do. That disparity has increased in the last 30 years, incidentally. How many white people would be willing to trade that for the ability to make fun of other races with social impunity?
White people make more money. To hear Juxtapose tell it, of course, every white guy makes 40% more than every black guy, but he's simplifying a trend. Lots of black guys make more money than lots of white guys, just not enough to counterbalance the trend.
Of course, seeing the existence of such trends does not actually dictate causality. We have to explain causality ourselves. And there are lots of other things that cause trends.
Going by trends, whether or not your parents are together, and whether or not they have college degrees, are both huge indicators of your likely future. Just like being black can be. Are we prejudiced against people with single parents, and against people with parents who lack college degrees?
Hatrack's a smart place, I'd bet that most of you have college degrees. I don't. Therefore (going by trends), regardless of race, your kids are more likely to also have degrees and therefore more likely to succeed than mine. Are me and my theoretical kids being oppressed by you and your unjust system?
My problem is mainly in the way that people use these trends.
For these trends to have the... let's say "oomph"... that people like Juxtapose think they have, you need to view society through a deeply collectivist lens. Black people, collectively, are doing badly, so the best explanation is that another, more successful collective (white people), are pushing them down.
It is that collectivism that I'm rejecting. Not the existence of racism.
This is also basically the reason I say the problem isn't "systematic." It's not because I don't think it's a serious problem. It's because the system, the only system in society with real, cohesive, collective power... that is, the government... isn't enforcing racist policies. Both sides can quibble over what they see as exceptions (righties might say affirmative action, lefties might say voter ID)... but the deep problems, like income inequity, aren't being forced on the populace by "the system."
So, anyway, there's my knee jerk assumption that stayed within my comfort zone and in no way involved any serious thought, just operating on autopilot mouthing platitudes I heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I'm on my phone so I don't really have the patience to type out a long response, but when I get on my computer later I'm going to lay the historical smackdown on you so hard your children will wince when they see a text book!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:What you're saying here in no way supports what you've quoted Tom saying.
Yeah, I thought about this after I posted. Murdoch doesn't directly tell Hannity what to say.
But he could sure as heck get Hannity fired if he didn't like what he said.
Do you think that Hannity censors his op-eds based on what he think Murdoch wants him to say?
Why, or why not?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hey now, I think Dan is showing awesome restraint and civility.
No need for smackdowns here.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Hey now, I think Dan is showing awesome restraint and civility.
No need for smackdowns here.
Nah, no worries. Lyrhawn knows I'm into it.
(I wish there was an even more suggestive emoticon, but I guess Hatrack isn't really the place for it)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:What you're saying here in no way supports what you've quoted Tom saying.
Yeah, I thought about this after I posted. Murdoch doesn't directly tell Hannity what to say.
But he could sure as heck get Hannity fired if he didn't like what he said.
Do you think that Hannity censors his op-eds based on what he think Murdoch wants him to say?
Why, or why not?
For the same reasons that anyone would want to please the boss.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So, is it your opinion that everyone in every news source is uninterested in providing any news they believe to be true, and instead primarily interested in presenting "news" that they think their boss will like?
And also, that every "boss" of every news company prefers their employees to behave this way?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yup. That is exactly what I said.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Right. With the implicit assumption being that no boss of a news company would be interested in hiring journalists who present news as they see it.
A rough analogy would be: all bosses hire programmers who they expect to code the way the boss wants them to code. As opposed to hiring someone whose body of work looks good, with the expectation that the coder will continue to code as they prefer, thus creating more success than the boss could have achieved without them. (Say, by simply hiring faceless drones with no individuality, upon whom the boss can impart their own coding methodology.)
I certainly think bosses like that exist. But, you're saying that all bosses are like that. And moreover, that all employees embrace that.
Seems preposterous. Especially when you're looking at employees who bring substantial value to their employer (like a highly successful programmer, or Sean Hannity).
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The answer is that, because of racism, black women are not often in a position to be picky about selecting their mates. As OKCupid discovered in their recent study of a massive sample of data on their online dating service, men just don't write back to black women very often. This is simply one manifestation of something we all knew from common sense in the first place: our culture doesn't value black women as romantic partners.
This is an example of something I mentioned before: the data, the trend, does not actually give us the causality that you have ascribed to it. You did that, in your attempt to explain the data.
Can you imagine any other explanations that might provide a different causality?
Edit: Or, more generally, can you see any potential flaws in using this study to reach the overarching conclusion that you reached?
No plausible ones suggest themselves, no.
Obviously you're right that the data themselves contain no direct information about what causes what. Statistical data is always just correlation. One then looks for the most plausible explanation of the correlations in the data.
Forgive the quote vortex, but I wanted to keep in the context.
To answer my second question first: This data point is relying on the self-selected group that is people who use an online dating service. Is there any particular, compelling reason to believe this sample is representative to everyone? Aren't people who use online dating services already, in and of itself, engaging in a specific, nonstandard activity?
If a study showed that everyone who played lacrosse had X specific dating preferences, would it be fair to extrapolate that to the general population? I don't think so. And I think that choosing to use an online service is even more likely to indicate a distorted view of romance than playing lacrosse is.
So, even assuming the conclusion of racism within OKcupid users is accurate, how fair is it to extrapolate this out the way you have?
And to the question of whether the conclusion is accurate... that is, to answer my first question second: Ostensibly, the study is controlling for "compatibility," but since compatibility includes nonsense criteria like astrology, I have very little faith in the reliability of this assertion. Do you?
And if we question their overall ability to consistently match compatibility, then an interesting question arrises. Do you think it's possible that there could be any particular body of traits common to black women that, due to differences in culture, might result in fewer interested parties? A body of traits aside from skin color, I mean.
I mean interests, language style, etc.
Of course, this might still be classified as racism by you, or others, I'm not sure. What I mean is: do you consider criticism of the predominant "black" culture to be racist? Even though it's not a function of skin color, and is a culture practiced by people of all races, and many black people aren't involved in it?
I think I've brought this issue up before, but I don't remember if it was with you or not, Destineer. I don't consider myself racist, as I understand it, but I'm not afraid to criticize cultures that I think propagate bad memes. Even if the primary adherents to a given culture are of a specific race.
I think that condemning criticism of culture as "racist" contributes to people staying in said bad cultures, so I not only don't agree with this attitude, but I think it's actively harmful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Whether a code works, I assume, is something that can be measured objectively, yes? The same cannot really be said when it comes to a more subjective work product like news.
Rupert Murdoch has two (at least) reasons for owning media outlets. One would be to make tons of money mostly through advertising. Another would be to propagate his ideas. Plus, like most of us, he probably likes people who agree with him.
And since when am I talking about all bosses and all employees? Where, for heaven's sake do you get all from anything I have written. I don't share your tendency to think in absolutes.
Although, to expand this to TV news more generally. If one is working for a corporation, they have a vested interest in the success of that corporation. NBC News (for example) has to balance audience share (which is influenced by credibility) with how badly they slam GE. What hurts GE, hurts NBC. Actual socialism would not be good for GE (neither would a big decrease in defense spending for that matter) so even "left-leaning" media isn't all that left.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Somebody mentioned that there aren't very many negative white stereotypes, but I disagree. If you consider Gingers to be white, there are certainly plenty of negative ones.
I'm a red head, myself, and not a day goes by that I don't get flak for it at work. People constantly ask if I have a soul, call me Ginger (or Gingy, or Ging, or Red, or Spots, or whatever), and have even said that I'm a freak of nature. I find it horribly offensive, yet when I've brought these things up to people, they've scoffed or laughed them off as not being a case of racism, stating that 'Gingers aren't a race'. Well, if we're not a race, then we're white, and if we're white, then there are certainly white stereotypes that are offensive.
I once asked a black guy, who kept calling me 'spots' and 'Ginger' and 'Soulless One' if he found the N-word offensive. He said I should watch out because that's not something to joke about. So I said, well, some people find Ginger to be an offensive term, so why would you continue to use it, especially when you don't want others to use an offensive racial term against you? He stopped after that, mostly because I brought up the Military Code of Conduct and how I could file charges against him for discriminatory behavior (I was bluffing, of course, but he didn't know that).
For those who don't think Ginger is an offensive term, consider this. With stuff like that happening, why is it still socially acceptable in both school and the workplace?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Whether a code works, I assume, is something that can be measured objectively, yes? The same cannot really be said when it comes to a more subjective work product like news.
Well, yes and no. I'm actually not much of a coder myself, I just work for one. Both code and news have clear success criteria, certainly. But methodologies in both cases can be wildly different and still achieve "success." Code is usually integrated with other code, essentially written by a team working together, and sometimes what someone thinks is totally rad, functional code actually doesn't integrate very well and causes bugs.
Since the success criteria for news is probably "gets good ratings," this is just as quantifiable as any criteria for good code.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Rupert Murdoch has two (at least) reasons for owning media outlets. One would be to make tons of money mostly through advertising. Another would be to propagate his ideas. Plus, like most of us, he probably likes people who agree with him.
Sure. That's probably true.
But none of that presupposes that he likes or needs people to agree with him about everything. If someone like Hannity has the same ideological baseline, why would he mind overmuch if they disagree on this or that particular issue? Do you rake your friends over the coals for disagreeing with you about exactly how much Obama should raise taxes on rich people? Or [insert your own minor issue you probably disagree with a friend about]?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And since when am I talking about all bosses and all employees? Where, for heaven's sake do you get all from anything I have written. I don't share your tendency to think in absolutes.
I'm taking your ideas seriously. That is, to their logical conclusions. Why is it true for media outlets and not other companies? Is there a compelling reason it wouldn't be?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Although, to expand this to TV news more generally. If one is working for a corporation, they have a vested interest in the success of that corporation. NBC News (for example) has to balance audience share (which is influenced by credibility) with how badly they slam GE. What hurts GE, hurts NBC. Actual socialism would not be good for GE (neither would a big decrease in defense spending for that matter) so even "left-leaning" media isn't all that left.
This only makes sense if you take as a given both that everyone involved in the media is, first and foremost, interested in pleasing not just their boss or their boss's boss, but their parent company... and that everyone in said parent company is actively interested in suppressing news and truth to further their corporate interests.
So, basically, every person involved, from the ground floor to the very top, has to be a lying scumbag. That's the world you think you live in.
I just don't get it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, what you consider "logical conclusions" are nonsense. As with your political views, you seem to think that the world lives at the extreme ends of things rather than somewhere in the middle. Not every idea should be pushed to the extreme and very few ideas are.
For the interests of a parent company to colour the reporting of news hardly requires everyone to be a "lying scumbag".
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
If it's nonsense, then you can explain why there's a reason it's true for media outlets and not other companies, right?
To your accusation: It's true that I think that if the logical conclusion of an idea is bad, and in order to retain the idea you have to apply it inconsistently, that's not a good sign for your idea. It creates a conflict between your ideas and your practices. Your idea may still be serviceable for now, if you have no better alternative, but it's a strong indicator that you haven't really hit upon a true idea. You've just got a partial approximation of one.
But I certainly agree that people do this all the time! That's okay. I've got no illusions about where the "world lives." People are imperfect, and problems are inevitable. Doesn't mean we shouldn't point them out, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, there is such a thing as balance and context. If blue is a lovely colour for one room, that doesn't mean that we should "logically" paint everything blue. Same for ideas.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So, basically, every person involved, from the ground floor to the very top, has to be a lying scumbag.
everyone HAS to be? Man, i do NOT follow.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, there is such a thing as balance and context. If blue is a lovely colour for one room, that doesn't mean that we should "logically" paint everything blue. Same for ideas.
Right, I agree with that. Because each room is different and context might demand a different color. In that case, we could explain why you like blue for the guest room but not the living room.
So, again, what specific attribute(s?) make news media so different from other businesses, in your opinion?
Why exactly do you believe that the overlords of a media company would force their employees to distort the truth in the service of helping an affiliate company?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:So, basically, every person involved, from the ground floor to the very top, has to be a lying scumbag.
everyone HAS to be?
In order for an entire news company to manipulate and distort the news in order to benefit another private company?
How else would that be accomplished? Every reporter would have to be complicit, and you'd need to fire everyone who wasn't willing to cooperate. And then, I guess, buy them off or discredit or kill them or something, so they don't blab about your evil ulterior motive.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: So, even assuming the conclusion of racism within OKcupid users is accurate, how fair is it to extrapolate this out the way you have?
It certainly involves a bit of what I would consider informed guesswork. We can certainly ask, is the type of person who uses OKCupid likely to have different racial attitudes from the mean? Well, think about the demographic attracted by the site: relatively young, relatively well-educated, with the archetype being a late-20s/early-30s hipster. Such people are likely to have more enlightened racial attitudes than the general population. So while there is some uncertainty, for sure, I see no reason not to extrapolate in this case.
Another reason to extrapolate, by the way, is through pure introspection. When I think of my own attitudes about dating, I find that I don't consider a typical black woman as attractive--physically--as a typical woman from another race. Is that because black women are "objectively" less attractive? I'm not sure what that would even mean. I think the explanation, in my case and many others, is rather that we were raised by a culture which set our standards for beauty, and black women don't "score highly" by those standards. (Black men, on the other hand, do, which is why they do much better on OKCupid than black women.)
quote: And if we question their overall ability to consistently match compatibility, then an interesting question arrises. Do you think it's possible that there could be any particular body of traits common to black women that, due to differences in culture, might result in fewer interested parties? A body of traits aside from skin color, I mean.
If the explanation were culture, things would be equally bad for black men. But they're not. Black women have a much harder time. (This is further backed up by the fact that white male-black female is the least common interracial marriage in the US, while black male-white female is relatively common by comparison.)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: So, even assuming the conclusion of racism within OKcupid users is accurate, how fair is it to extrapolate this out the way you have?
It certainly involves a bit of what I would consider informed guesswork. We can certainly ask, is the type of person who uses OKCupid likely to have different racial attitudes from the mean? Well, think about the demographic attracted by the site: relatively young, relatively well-educated, with the archetype being a late-20s/early-30s hipster. Such people are likely to have more enlightened racial attitudes than the general population. So while there is some uncertainty, for sure, I see no reason not to extrapolate in this case.
Not to offend any late 20s, well educated hipsters on Hatrack (sorry Sam)... but I don't really agree with this. Certainly, such people are much more likely to think they have more enlightened racial attitudes. But that's not the same thing at all.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Another reason to extrapolate, by the way, is through pure introspection. When I think of my own attitudes about dating, I find that I don't consider a typical black woman as attractive--physically--as a typical woman from another race. Is that because black women are "objectively" less attractive? I'm not sure what that would even mean. I think the explanation, in my case and many others, is rather that we were raised by a culture which set our standards for beauty, and black women don't "score highly" by those standards. (Black men, on the other hand, do, which is why they do much better on OKCupid than black women.)
Okay, let's unravel this a bit more. Is this because black women, in general, don't fit your standard of beauty? That is, the simple fact that they are black? Your standard of beauty, on some level, really does value lighter skin?
If so, I admit I'm a little surprised.
Because if we're talking about physical attractiveness, which I sort of brushed off before without thinking, since it's an online dating site (dumb assumption on my part, I know.)... there are still other causal factors here that are being ignored.
For example, the dramatically higher rate of obesity among black women. Typical cultural beauty standards don't value obese bodies as highly as slim bodies, regardless of race. More black women are obese. Ergo, more black women will be deemed unattractive.
Of course, this can circle back around, and you can say that the reason black people are more often obese is because they are more often poor and they are more often poor because of racism.
That may be true. But that argument utilizes several levels of removal, each of which requires its own examination, and I hope you agree it is a very different claim than "Our culture does not value black women as romantic partners."
Unless you think that the reason our society doesn't value obese women as romantic partners is because black women are more often obese. And that sounds like a position that would be pretty hard to defend.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:So, basically, every person involved, from the ground floor to the very top, has to be a lying scumbag.
everyone HAS to be?
In order for an entire news company to manipulate and distort the news in order to benefit another private company?
How else would that be accomplished?
You can do it easily with a few people at the top being complicit with the idea.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And rather than being "complicit", they could simply believe in what they were doing.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Kate: I think that's a very different characterization, and if I'm understanding it right, one I completely agree with! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In order for an entire news company to manipulate and distort the news in order to benefit another private company?
How else would that be accomplished?
*facepalm* Okay, look, I don't want to get into my own personal anecdotes, here, because I left journalism out of disgust and anger and am very glad that I'm no longer doing it. But every single news organization manipulates and distorts the news, and every organization knows that it's doing it and has regular meetings in which they discuss exactly how they're going to do it. Some attempt to minimize this distortion, from their point of view; some attempt to optimize it to cater to a particular audience. All of them have editorial boards which are directly answerable to the owners -- some of whom are aggressively disinterested, some of whom are micromanagers -- and which have a direct presence in the editorial meetings I mentioned earlier. They also control the purse strings, so they get to decide who gets sent across the country to report on something, and what gets reported on, and how many seconds they'll have to do it.
Underlying all of this is, of course, usually a profit motive. But news organizations don't make a lot of money; people don't operate newsrooms to get a good return on their investment. They do so to advance an agenda, perhaps an agenda that will give them a better return on other investments.
I mentioned Murdoch because he is, like the famous yellow journalists of years past, absolutely infamous for being directly involved in his newsrooms and setting the tone of stories; anyone familiar with his interactions with Roger Ailes -- and Ailes' power over his newsroom -- will understand the ways in which he advances his purposes through Fox, and moreover the way he deliberately makes the Fox newsroom available to other rich people to advance their agendas for the right price (which may or may not be money). (I want to clarify, too, that Fox News is far from being Murdoch's only media outlet.)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Tom, do you think that most instances of this distortion are things that, if you perhaps didn't call them distortion, most people in these companies would admit to?
i.e. Hannity, Beck, etc. don't pretend they aren't conservatives (at least that's my unserstanding. Do they?) Stossel doesn't pretend he isn't a libertarian. Olbermann & Maddow don't pretend they aren't leftists.
So when they talk about the news, they talk about it through those lenses. Is that what you're referring to?
Or when you say "manipulates and distorts" do you mean something different?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hannity and Beck and Olbermann and Maddow will pretend to be outraged when they are not. They are actors, paid by oligarchs to dance entertainingly in front of people who want to have their opinions validated. They may have some sincere beliefs that might leak into their work, but they won't let those get in the way.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Huh.
Okay.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I get the impression that you don't believe me, or perhaps don't get the strength of my feeling on this. So I'll elaborate.
One of Glenn Beck's most useful skills is the ability to cry on cue. He cries a lot. This is not because he feels so strongly that he can't keep it together; his show is taped, so any time you see him crying it's because they wanted to show that to you.
But I don't want to give you the impression that it's just Beck, or just conservatives. The entire television news apparatus is hopelessly insincere -- at a very basic level. I mean, when you see an interviewer lobbing questions at an accident victim, like "And what did you do then?" or "Oh, my gosh! And that's when they broke down the door?", you know they're not actually asking questions about the event because they don't know the answers; they're shaping the narrative being conveyed for the benefit of the viewers who don't already know the story. This is an absolute requirement of television news -- it's not anything inherently corrupt, not part of some evil plan -- but it instantly creates friction between the need to tell a story and the need to know what happened. The interviewer already knows what happened; the interviewer could not possibly care less. The interviewer is there to ensure that the audience is presented with the most compelling possible version of the story.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Jeff C: Would you mind putting a language warning on your OP regarding your link? I'd appreciate it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I get the impression that you don't believe me, or perhaps don't get the strength of my feeling on this. So I'll elaborate.
One of Glenn Beck's most useful skills is the ability to cry on cue. He cries a lot. This is not because he feels so strongly that he can't keep it together; his show is taped, so any time you see him crying it's because they wanted to show that to you.
But I don't want to give you the impression that it's just Beck, or just conservatives. The entire television news apparatus is hopelessly insincere -- at a very basic level. I mean, when you see an interviewer lobbing questions at an accident victim, like "And what did you do then?" or "Oh, my gosh! And that's when they broke down the door?", you know they're not actually asking questions about the event because they don't know the answers; they're shaping the narrative being conveyed for the benefit of the viewers who don't already know the story. This is an absolute requirement of television news -- it's not anything inherently corrupt, not part of some evil plan -- but it instantly creates friction between the need to tell a story and the need to know what happened. The interviewer already knows what happened; the interviewer could not possibly care less. The interviewer is there to ensure that the audience is presented with the most compelling possible version of the story.
I definitely get the strength of your feeling.
I'm not sure I believe you. The thing is, most of what you say in this post jives with my understanding of reality just fine. I don't really see those sorts of things as lying, per se.
At some point the interviewer and the victim probably did speak, but with more stutters and halts and so on. And I'm sure sometimes the interview really is done in one take (If you assert that interviews with lots of stutters and halts were crafted that way intentionally, I'll have to raise an eyebrow.)
I guess it's that I sort of accept the gist of what you're saying, but the depth to which you push it makes me skeptical. Beck crying on cue doesn't mean he's fundamentally lying about the things that ostensibly make him cry, for example. Ditto for Olbermann's frantic rage-gasms.
I don't know... Phrases like "They are actors, paid by oligarchs to dance entertainingly in front of people who want to have their opinions validated. They may have some sincere beliefs that might leak into their work, but they won't let those get in the way." ... just seem a little out there, man. It's the kind of thing I'd expect to see in the comments of a Ron Paul youtube video.
Sorry, I'm not actually trying to be a jerk, it's just how it seems to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't know... Phrases like "They are actors, paid by oligarchs to dance entertainingly in front of people who want to have their opinions validated. They may have some sincere beliefs that might leak into their work, but they won't let those get in the way." ... just seem a little out there, man.
I understand. It does seem cynical, even paranoid. I recognize, too, that you're choosing to draw a distinction between cosmetic frauds -- like hypocritical or feigned outrage or sorrow, or multiple takes to get a "spontaneous" reaction right -- and more material frauds. (I'd suggest, though, that you consider whether deciding which callers and guests to have on a show might be capable of substantially shaping the tenor of a discussion, even before you factor in the power of producers to kill microphones or simply blackball a guest from future appearances on the network.)
Please do read Blinded by the Right, though.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't know... Phrases like "They are actors, paid by oligarchs to dance entertainingly in front of people who want to have their opinions validated. They may have some sincere beliefs that might leak into their work, but they won't let those get in the way." ... just seem a little out there, man.
I understand. It does seem cynical, even paranoid. I recognize, too, that you're choosing to draw a distinction between cosmetic frauds -- like hypocritical or feigned outrage or sorrow, or multiple takes to get a "spontaneous" reaction right -- and more material frauds. (I'd suggest, though, that you consider whether deciding which callers and guests to have on a show might be capable of substantially shaping the tenor of a discussion, even before you factor in the power of producers to kill microphones or simply blackball a guest from future appearances on the network.)
Yeah, that's another example that I think I largely agree with you on. There's no question that shows have narratives. Again, I'm just questioning the depth of fraud in those narratives.
I feel like it's the difference between railing at the Cato institute because they are a right-wing libertarian thinktank, and railing at them because they have a secret agenda to give the Koch brothers super ultimate power and will stoop to any depths to achieve it. If that makes sense.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Please do read Blinded by the Right, though.
I'll put it on the list once I finish Merchants of Despair. I read nonfiction a lot slower (well, more sporadically) than fiction, though, so... may be a while. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Does it matter whether the agenda is secret? I think ALEC may be a better example than Cato, but it's certainly not a secret cabal. It is, however, certainly a cabal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Okay, this conversation has moved all over the place, and I only have internet for a few minutes.
But systemic racism does exist in America. You only have to look at the data concerning hiring practices, to say nothing of racist sentencing guidelines for drug law violations. There are more black men in jail today than there were enslaved in 1863.
We're living out the legacy today of hundreds of years of state-enforced and society-created racism against black Americans. Even if today we could honestly say that all racism or discrimination were gone, we'd still have a huge debt that we owe to black America from keeping them down for so long.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Even if today we could honestly say that all racism or discrimination were gone, we'd still have a huge debt that we owe to black America from keeping them down for so long.
Whose the 'we' in that sentence?
Hobbes Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Re: white people being set on fire by black people...it took how long for that event to be picked up and investigated seriously by police? How disinterested was local media?
So, yeah. Just for that case, you gotta drill deeper.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And rather than being "complicit", they could simply believe in what they were doing.
Right. But that's a different thing. I'm saying that you could have an entire media empire running a known and calculated system designed to lie to people, and not have intermediaries really in on the truth of what you are doing. It is fairly easy to do.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Re: white people being set on fire by black people...it took how long for that event to be picked up and investigated seriously by police? How disinterested was local media?
So, yeah. Just for that case, you gotta drill deeper.
Not really. I think you've unconsciously shifted the context of why I brought that up, which is understandable 'cause it was like fifty posts ago.
I wasn't saying "look look it's totally equivalent."
I brought up the white kid getting set on fire as a comment on your claim that the Shirley Sherrod debacle was the biggest "scandal of black -> white racism" lately. Because that claim, specifically, rang false to me.
I wasn't implying that the fire incident was 100% comparable to the incidents you mentioned... and I don't think it is! In fact, I explicitly acknowledged in that same post that there are probably a lot more white -> black racially motivated crimes than vice versa, though in hindsight I don't know if that's true. Certainly, whether there are more total crimes of that nature or not, there are definitely more of them that are scandalous in their details.
Rakeesh, I know the last time you saw that incident brought up on Hatrack, the context was an attempt to draw equivalency between that and the Trayvon Martin incident, but I wasn't the one to draw that equivalency. I think your recollection of that context influenced your assumptions in this case.
Anyway, I don't have any particular desire to defend terrible police practices.
But I do sort of question the idea that such things only happen to minorities. Bad cops treat people like crap, and they're very, very rarely punished for their behavior. I occasionally read Reason (shocker, I know) and they have a regular feature every issue devoted entirely to ridiculous injustices perpetrated against people of all races by government officials, mainly cops.
I wouldn't be surprised if the data shows that more of these injustices are perpetrated against minorities, either. It seems totally unsurprising to me that there would be huge overlap between the cops that are racist assholes and the cops that are power-tripping unjust assholes.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Okay, this conversation has moved all over the place, and I only have internet for a few minutes.
But systemic racism does exist in America. You only have to look at the data concerning hiring practices, to say nothing of racist sentencing guidelines for drug law violations.
I've seen some interesting takedowns of the "racist sentencing guidelines for drug law violations" idea. But I want you (or someone else who cares to, since your internet is spotty) to clarify what you mean first, so I can locate and dust off the appropriate response.
...Or concede, I suppose, if I'm assuming incorrectly and there is no viable response. I hope you know I'm not even remotely opposed to conceding when I can't find anything to criticize in someone's argument.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There are more black men in jail today than there were enslaved in 1863.
Yeah... more black men out of jail, too. More black men in general, really. And more people. By a factor of about 100, I think.
Honestly, Lyr, this looks like a really absurd, disingenuous, nonsensical soundbite statistic designed to shamelessly grab attention. I'm surprised you'd use it.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We're living out the legacy today of hundreds of years of state-enforced and society-created racism against black Americans. Even if today we could honestly say that all racism or discrimination were gone, we'd still have a huge debt that we owe to black America from keeping them down for so long.
Assuming this is true, I wonder: How do you pay down that debt? Usually, when I see people talking like that, what they seem to be saying is that the solution is to incur an inverted form of debt... which they don't call debt, because it's "justice" for a previous generations transgressions.
The problem is, if we really enact stuff like that, then generations from now the people getting their "justice" won't care what it was in retaliation for. They'll just care that they're being artificially pushed down, and they'll hate it as much as anyone would. Seems like a pretty crummy solution to me.
And that's not even touching how much I rankle at the collectivist notion that one member of a socially constructed group should pay a penalty for the actions of another member of that group. But I assure you, there is a great deal of rankling. Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
On drug sentencing, there is a discrepancy in sentencing guidelines between crack and powder cocaine. The two drugs have the same effect but one is used more heavily by black Americans the other by white Americans. And the sentencing is hugely different- like if if you have crack cocaine you would have to have 100X as much powder to get the same punishment. This would be a lot like saying you get a different punishment if you drink beer versus liquor. Sure, the blood alcohol content is the same, but if you got there through a vodka it is somehow worse than having same BAC but drank beer to get it.
I believe when Lyrhawn talks about paying penalty for the centuries of discrimination, it is mostly about providing more opportunities and assistance, not punishing the other side. Instead of looking at say black people living in higher amounts of poverty and saying well, they must just be inferior (culturally or biologically or whatever other reason), you look and say white flight, defunding of public schools, etc lead to this condition. What can we now do to fix it? Maybe we can increase funding of public schools, provide extracurricular activites, pass laws against predatory lending practices (payday loans anyone) and enforce them, etc. For someone starting out with nothing, success is much more difficult. A lot of people dismiss the need for providing assistance by claiming if people "choose" to succeed they will. For a hundred years, society did its best to make sure blacks could not succeed. Now that they are an impoverished people, dismissing their poverty as a choice is pretty disingenuous.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And rather than being "complicit", they could simply believe in what they were doing.
Right. But that's a different thing. I'm saying that you could have an entire media empire running a known and calculated system designed to lie to people, and not have intermediaries really in on the truth of what you are doing. It is fairly easy to do.
Both are plenty reason why Dan's extreme statement about everyone having to be lying scumbags isn't true. I just picked one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I brought up the white kid getting set on fire as a comment on your claim that the Shirley Sherrod debacle was the biggest "scandal of black -> white racism" lately. Because that claim, specifically, rang false to me.
It's without a doubt the scandal that is actually known to more people-one of the requirements for a scandal, actually. I didn't mean it was worse than a kid getting set on fire (though to be clear, when I last looked at that story, weeks ago, many of the facts weren't in, and much of the source was the child's mother, not an unimpeachable reference), just that if you wanted to go big racial nastiness news, then you're always always always (if you're honest, that is-general 'you' here) going to find more white---->black than the other way around.
I've never been able to understand why anyone can't accept that, if they've got even a passing knowledge of how long it actually takes societies and cultures to really change. To hear so many people tell it, nearly half a millenium of racial oppression and hatred has just about been successfully overcome in a tenth of the time.
quote:But I do sort of question the idea that such things only happen to minorities. Bad cops treat people like crap, and they're very, very rarely punished for their behavior. I occasionally read Reason (shocker, I know) and they have a regular feature every issue devoted entirely to ridiculous injustices perpetrated against people of all races by government officials, mainly cops.
Well, Dan, it's good to question ideas that nobody has put forward, I suppose. That paragraph I quoted, by the way, is the sort of thing I and others were getting at: in many conversations, you can't seem to bring up, "Hey, we've got some really nasty racial unpleasantness cropping up here in this business or this police precinct or this school, we need to talk about it," without someone chiming in, "Hey, bad things happen to white people too!"
It's an implicit insistence that the 'race question' in this country is as harsh on whites as it is on minorities. I don't insist that was your carefully considered intention by raising those points, but that is the effect.
quote:Assuming this is true, I wonder: How do you pay down that debt? Usually, when I see people talking like that, what they seem to be saying is that the solution is to incur an inverted form of debt... which they don't call debt, because it's "justice" for a previous generations transgressions.
Assuming which part is true? That there is a debt, or that the legacy Lyrhawn mentioned exists?
quote:The problem is, if we really enact stuff like that, then generations from now the people getting their "justice" won't care what it was in retaliation for. They'll just care that they're being artificially pushed down, and they'll hate it as much as anyone would. Seems like a pretty crummy solution to me.
Here is the actual problem, it seems to me: when we're talking about white people, even a whiff of articial down-pushing is utterly reprehensible and ought to be fought against to the limits of our civil powers. When, on the other hand, it's a minority being artificially pushed down, (or for that matter a woman)...strangely the talk quickly changes to discussing how much progress has been made, it's not fair but patience is needed, and oh by the way bad things happen to white people, too.
As for sentencing disparities...well, I'd love to hear some of your takedowns. They'd have to be magnificient rhetorical judo I think, to rise to the level required by things such as this: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-death-penalty-north-carolina . That took about five seconds on Google, and I'm definitely just scratching the surface.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lifting someone up does not have to mean pushing someone else down. We tend to see it that way too often.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: On drug sentencing, there is a discrepancy in sentencing guidelines between crack and powder cocaine. The two drugs have the same effect but one is used more heavily by black Americans the other by white Americans. And the sentencing is hugely different- like if if you have crack cocaine you would have to have 100X as much powder to get the same punishment. This would be a lot like saying you get a different punishment if you drink beer versus liquor. Sure, the blood alcohol content is the same, but if you got there through a vodka it is somehow worse than having same BAC but drank beer to get it.
Yeah, that's a big one that gets touted. Thanks!
Do you know when, and why, and by whom, harsher punishments for crack cocaine were implemented? Or is it just a given that it was done as a racist maneuver to put more black people in jail?
If it wasn't a bill passed to keep down black people, then isn't it unfair to characterize it as an example of system(at)ic racism?
To be clear: I don't deny that the effect of it is unfair, but as an advocate of small government I'm also all too aware of how often well intentioned laws have unintended negative consequences. I think minimum wage laws are deeply unfair to poor, young minorities, for example. But I don't think they are a viable example of racism, because their intent was very different than their result.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I believe when Lyrhawn talks about paying penalty for the centuries of discrimination, it is mostly about providing more opportunities and assistance, not punishing the other side. Instead of looking at say black people living in higher amounts of poverty and saying well, they must just be inferior (culturally or biologically or whatever other reason), you look and say white flight, defunding of public schools, etc lead to this condition. What can we now do to fix it? Maybe we can increase funding of public schools, provide extracurricular activites, pass laws against predatory lending practices (payday loans anyone) and enforce them, etc. For someone starting out with nothing, success is much more difficult. A lot of people dismiss the need for providing assistance by claiming if people "choose" to succeed they will. For a hundred years, society did its best to make sure blacks could not succeed. Now that they are an impoverished people, dismissing their poverty as a choice is pretty disingenuous.
Spending general tax money to benefit only a specific subset of society is, in effect, a punitive measure against anyone not of that group. Do you see why I would say that?
That being said, of course, we do it all the time anyway. And I certainly think that if we're going to create preferential laws they should probably benefit the most impoverished or disadvantaged people, rather than the way it is now, where they mainly benefit middle class.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yeah, that's a big one that gets touted. Thanks!
Do you know when, and why, and by whom, harsher punishments for crack cocaine were implemented? Or is it just a given that it was done as a racist maneuver to put more black people in jail?
If it wasn't a bill passed to keep down black people, then isn't it unfair to characterize it as an example of system(at)ic racism?
To be clear: I don't deny that the effect of it is unfair, but as an advocate of small government I'm also all too aware of how often well intentioned laws have unintended negative consequences. I think minimum wage laws are deeply unfair to poor, young minorities, for example. But I don't think they are a viable example of racism, because their intent was very different than their result.
I...wait, what? No, in order to be racist one of the requirements is not, "Mwahahahaha! I shall use my fat cat friends to enact laws to keep the darkies down! Bwahahaha!"
Under the reasoning you're using, the cop who, say, shoots a black guy a dozen times going for his wallet but who waits an extra second for the white guy, just as an example, well of course he's not going to think of himself, to himself, as a racist. He's not going to think, "This black guy is more dangerous and more likely to be carrying because he's black." He's just going to be more on edge, most likely, except for the really distinct racists who used to wear sheets.
Likewise with this law. Obviously no legislator anywhere would say something like, "Crack is used more often by blacks, and it's important that we punish blacks for using the same drug in a different form." No. They're just going to view crack cocaine and the crimes associated with it as more dangerous, more of a problem. They're not going to think of that guy in the office who has the sniffles a lot and is pretty twitchy as being as much of a threat, though of course by spending more money for the same drug they're actually providing more support for the drug trade.
If your requirement for something to be racist is explict, acknowledged racism right up front, then it's no wonder you don't see it as often as others.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I brought up the white kid getting set on fire as a comment on your claim that the Shirley Sherrod debacle was the biggest "scandal of black -> white racism" lately. Because that claim, specifically, rang false to me.
It's without a doubt the scandal that is actually known to more people-one of the requirements for a scandal, actually. I didn't mean it was worse than a kid getting set on fire (though to be clear, when I last looked at that story, weeks ago, many of the facts weren't in, and much of the source was the child's mother, not an unimpeachable reference), just that if you wanted to go big racial nastiness news, then you're always always always (if you're honest, that is-general 'you' here) going to find more white---->black than the other way around.
I've never been able to understand why anyone can't accept that, if they've got even a passing knowledge of how long it actually takes societies and cultures to really change. To hear so many people tell it, nearly half a millenium of racial oppression and hatred has just about been successfully overcome in a tenth of the time.
... Was this directed at me? I'm really baffled. I mean, you quoted me, so I assume it was directed at me. Except...
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But even so, I agree with you that more of the crimes still occur in the opposite direction.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I wasn't implying that the fire incident was 100% comparable to the incidents you mentioned... and I don't think it is! In fact, I explicitly acknowledged in that same post that there are probably a lot more white -> black racially motivated crimes than vice versa, though in hindsight I don't know if that's true. Certainly, whether there are more total crimes of that nature or not, there are definitely more of them that are scandalous in their details.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... just that if you wanted to go big racial nastiness news, then you're always always always (if you're honest, that is-general 'you' here) going to find more white---->black than the other way around.
I've never been able to understand why anyone can't accept that...
One of these things is not like the others. I'm just going to assume that everything after the bit about Shirley Sherrod wasn't directed at me after all, and was you going on a soapbox that the issue made you think of. Which is totally fair, I'm not stranger to that.
(Good point on the Shirley Sherrod issue, by the way. You're right, that was a bigger scandal in the media, though in fairness political stuff often is.)
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:But I do sort of question the idea that such things only happen to minorities. Bad cops treat people like crap, and they're very, very rarely punished for their behavior. I occasionally read Reason (shocker, I know) and they have a regular feature every issue devoted entirely to ridiculous injustices perpetrated against people of all races by government officials, mainly cops.
Well, Dan, it's good to question ideas that nobody has put forward, I suppose. That paragraph I quoted, by the way, is the sort of thing I and others were getting at: in many conversations, you can't seem to bring up, "Hey, we've got some really nasty racial unpleasantness cropping up here in this business or this police precinct or this school, we need to talk about it," without someone chiming in, "Hey, bad things happen to white people too!"
It's an implicit insistence that the 'race question' in this country is as harsh on whites as it is on minorities. I don't insist that was your carefully considered intention by raising those points, but that is the effect.
I think you're reading that implicit insistence because you have the idea already in your head that the only reason someone could say something like that would be to make this point.
But it's not.
The reason I think things like that are worth observing, is because it provides additional context. Let me give an example. (Made up percentages in the example used for rhetorical purposes only)
If we hear that 35% of all black Americans are in prison, that sounds like there could be racism at work. We don't actually know, though, based on the data. We need to explain the data. And if someone were to point out that 30% of all white Americans are in prison, that gives us more context. That will help us reach a more accurate explanation.
To assume that this person is just trying to create more equivalency is to assume ill intent for no good reason. They could very well acknowledge that the 5% discrepancy is still very important, and an indicator of racism at work.
quote:Assuming this is true, I wonder: How do you pay down that debt? Usually, when I see people talking like that, what they seem to be saying is that the solution is to incur an inverted form of debt... which they don't call debt, because it's "justice" for a previous generations transgressions.
Assuming which part is true? That there is a debt, or that the legacy Lyrhawn mentioned exists?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The problem is, if we really enact stuff like that, then generations from now the people getting their "justice" won't care what it was in retaliation for. They'll just care that they're being artificially pushed down, and they'll hate it as much as anyone would. Seems like a pretty crummy solution to me.
Here is the actual problem, it seems to me: when we're talking about white people, even a whiff of articial down-pushing is utterly reprehensible and ought to be fought against to the limits of our civil powers. When, on the other hand, it's a minority being artificially pushed down, (or for that matter a woman)...strangely the talk quickly changes to discussing how much progress has been made, it's not fair but patience is needed, and oh by the way bad things happen to white people, too.
Is this just more soapboxing, or should I respond?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for sentencing disparities...well, I'd love to hear some of your takedowns. They'd have to be magnificient rhetorical judo I think, to rise to the level required by things such as this: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-death-penalty-north-carolina . That took about five seconds on Google, and I'm definitely just scratching the surface.
Man, I really want to believe that you're arguing in good faith, but you make it hard sometimes.
Lyr specifically mentioned racist sentencing guidelines for drug law violations. And I responded that I think that issue isn't as clear-cut as he implied.
If you want to bring up a different example of proposed systemic racism, that's fine, you can do that, and I can respond to it or not or whatever. But to imply that what you've posted here is in any way actually a response to what I said is really disingenuous. I don't think it was intentional on your part, for the record. But it's still a bit frustrating.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Yeah, that's a big one that gets touted. Thanks!
Do you know when, and why, and by whom, harsher punishments for crack cocaine were implemented? Or is it just a given that it was done as a racist maneuver to put more black people in jail?
If it wasn't a bill passed to keep down black people, then isn't it unfair to characterize it as an example of system(at)ic racism?
To be clear: I don't deny that the effect of it is unfair, but as an advocate of small government I'm also all too aware of how often well intentioned laws have unintended negative consequences. I think minimum wage laws are deeply unfair to poor, young minorities, for example. But I don't think they are a viable example of racism, because their intent was very different than their result.
I...wait, what? No, in order to be racist one of the requirements is not, "Mwahahahaha! I shall use my fat cat friends to enact laws to keep the darkies down! Bwahahaha!"
Under the reasoning you're using, the cop who, say, shoots a black guy a dozen times going for his wallet but who waits an extra second for the white guy, just as an example, well of course he's not going to think of himself, to himself, as a racist. He's not going to think, "This black guy is more dangerous and more likely to be carrying because he's black." He's just going to be more on edge, most likely, except for the really distinct racists who used to wear sheets.
Likewise with this law. Obviously no legislator anywhere would say something like, "Crack is used more often by blacks, and it's important that we punish blacks for using the same drug in a different form." No. They're just going to view crack cocaine and the crimes associated with it as more dangerous, more of a problem. They're not going to think of that guy in the office who has the sniffles a lot and is pretty twitchy as being as much of a threat, though of course by spending more money for the same drug they're actually providing more support for the drug trade.
If your requirement for something to be racist is explict, acknowledged racism right up front, then it's no wonder you don't see it as often as others.
I see what you're saying, to an extent. So minimum wage laws are racist? I'm not sure, more on that below.
The context I was referring to, by the way: Stronger sentencing for crack cocaine came about as a result of studies showing worse addiction problems and more violent crime associated with it, particularly violent crime in black communities. I have no idea how accurate those studies were. Not very? But regardless, HR 5484 passed with overwhelming support from the black members of Congress.
If something is passed with the intent of helping black people, and it hurts black people, you're saying it's still racist. Okay.
But it seems like such a case is significantly different than something that is passed because of, say, a subtle, unconscious, irrational dislike/fear for black people. Much less an overt one.
A cop who tends to assume black people are more guilty, and arrests them more often, but doesn't do so explicitly, is still racist. I agree with that. But what about a cop who wants to help black people, and spends a disproportionate amount of his time in black neighborhoods, and so his arrest record is largely made up of black people?
It seems really weird to say those are both racist.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Spending general tax money to benefit only a specific subset of society is, in effect, a punitive measure against anyone not of that group. Do you see why I would say that?
That's a knife that cuts both ways. Laws and practices that have disadvantaged blacks, benefitted other members of society. If blacks are continuing to suffer because of past racist practices, the the rest of society is continuing to benefit because of past racist practices.
Certainly you understand market economics well enough to know that if one group of people is excluded from the labor market, the result is going to be higher wages for everyone else. If one group is excluded from buying houses, the price of houses will be lower for everyone else. If some group of people is excluded from going to the better schools, there are more resources available in those schools for everyone else.
Racist practices that hurt black people didn't just arise out some sort of irrational pointless xenophobia. Black people were penalized by the system to provide a benefit to white people. And just as black people continue to suffer financially and culturally because of those historic practices, white people continue to benefit financially and socially because of those practices.
It's not a question of penalizing people for something that was done by a previous generation. Because of explicit racist practices of the past, we white people continue to have a head start in life. If you are a white American, regardless of whether you are rich or poor, chances are nearly certain that you would have been worse off if black Americans a generation ago had had all the same opportunities as while Americans did.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you are a white American, regardless of whether you are rich or poor, chances are nearly certain that you would have been worse off if black Americans a generation ago had had all the same opportunities as while Americans did.
So prosperity is finite, and in order for one person to succeed, someone else will necessarily fail?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Only one person can have a given job at a time, yes.
As for drug policy...yeah. Black congressional support is very meaningful, because of course it's not like a kiss of death to be 'soft on crime', especially back then, right
Shall we talk more about good faith, Dan? I do think you're arguing in good faith, but some of your claims are just exasperating. Like when you suggested people were claiming bad things happen only to minorities. As for studies...how many studies were done of white collar drug use, and of the crimes then committed with those drugs? Just as a for example.
To illustrate my point, really take a moment and think, and then ask yourself the question: would you rather be caught with an ounce of cocaine as a white man, or an ounce of crack as a black man? Seriously. Imagine you're trying to advise someone who gets to pick how to arrange their own details to give them the best possible chance of being sent to a rehab center vs state prison.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Only one person can have a given job at a time, yes.
And there is a finite number of possible jobs?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for drug policy...yeah. Black congressional support is very meaningful, because of course it's not like a kiss of death to be 'soft on crime', especially back then, right
This ties back to my cop example.
If a cop is "tough on crime" and arrests lots of criminals, and a higher percentage of criminals in his area are black, he's going to arrest a lot of black people.
Does that make him racist?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Shall we talk more about good faith, Dan? I do think you're arguing in good faith, but some of your claims are just exasperating. Like when you suggested people were claiming bad things happen only to minorities.
I didn't intend to suggest people in this thread were really claiming that. I absolutely see why you took it the way you did, though. I should've chosen my words more carefully. I think that the next paragraph I wrote in the same post clarified my position somewhat, but I understand why the first part bothered you so much you didn't notice the second. Sorry about that!
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for studies...how many studies were done of white collar drug use, and of the crimes then committed with those drugs? Just as a for example.
That's an interesting question. Was there a rash of drug-related violent crime amongst the upper class in the 80s? I don't remember one, but I may be mistaken.
I think, both then and now, that most people see nonviolent white collar drug crimes as less bad than violent drug crimes perpetrated by/against the poor.
Do you think that's wrong?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: To illustrate my point, really take a moment and think, and then ask yourself the question: would you rather be caught with an ounce of cocaine as a white man, or an ounce of crack as a black man? Seriously. Imagine you're trying to advise someone who gets to pick how to arrange their own details to give them the best possible chance of being sent to a rehab center vs state prison.
Well, I think I read that they are repealing the harsher sentencing guidelines for crack. I skimmed it, because the articles were google failing to find me data on HR 5484, so maybe I misunderstood.
Even assuming that's true, it'd probably be better to be the white guy with coke. I just... I don't understand why you keep saying things like this to me. Well, scratch that. I think I do understand, it's just annoying.
I think you have a side in this issue, man. So when someone disagrees with you on anything in this sphere of discussion, it's hard for you not to automatically lump them into the other side and then roll out all of your arguments against the other side.
Except... I'm not really on the other side in that way. I'm voicing specific criticisms, but it's a mistake to extrapolate my entire position from those. So questions/arguments like this just seem like non sequiturs to me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you are a white American, regardless of whether you are rich or poor, chances are nearly certain that you would have been worse off if black Americans a generation ago had had all the same opportunities as while Americans did.
So prosperity is finite, and in order for one person to succeed, someone else will necessarily fail?
Dan, This is simple supply and demand economics. It's exactly the same principal you just used to claim that minimum wage laws make it harder for black people to get jobs. You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously argue that artificially raising prices is going to reduce demand and at the same time claim that artificially reducing demand won't have any affect on prices. Either there is a relationship between prices and demand or there isn't. Pick one.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm not sure I understand, Rabbit. Your fixation on describing both issues as "simple supply and demand" seems oversimplified and confusing to me. Let me try to parse it.
So, you're saying my argument is that minimum wage laws reduce the "demand" for low-skilled workers by artificially raising the "price" of those workers, right? That's roughly accurate, I think. If someone can only bring $3/hour of value to your company and you have to pay him $7, you're not likely to hire him.
And the second part of your argument is... government keeping black people from getting jobs is artificially reducing the "demand"... and "demand" here is standing in for the pool of available workers, right? So that will increase "price," which is a stand-in not for the price of goods, but the price of labor. That is, with less competition for labor, wages will be higher. Right?
So therefore, by keeping black people out of the workforce, you increase the wages of white workers. Therefore, if black people had been allowed into the work force a generation ago, then on average they'd have been getting higher wages, and white people would have gotten lower wages. So black people would be wealthier now, and white people would be poorer, or as you put it: "worse off."
Did I understand you correctly? If so, I will respond further.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Holy crap, this topic has blown up since yesterday. Figures, you sleep and go to work and then you miss all kinds of things. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Heh, sorry, I think that's partly my fault. I've had to be in the office all day today and yesterday to help facilitate an event, but I have very little to actually do. Going slightly stir crazy, and posting like mad. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I think, both then and now, that most people see nonviolent white collar drug crimesasless bad than violent drug crimes perpetrated by/against the poor.
The vast majority, more than 75%, I believe, of drug related crimes for which people are currently incarcerated are for non-violent crimes.
In other words, millions of black people are being arrested under the guise of fighting violent crime but are not actually violent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dan_Frank, Your summary of the supply and demand economic issues are superficially accurate but are so grossly over simplified that I don't think they are a reasonable spring board for further discussion.
This is a question that has been studied very thoroughly. We don't have to speculate based on simplistic economic models. Racial discrimination in American has been and continues to be economically beneficial to white Americans.
We've had this debate before and I think its counter productive to continue it. The idea that "black culture" is responsible for all the disparities that exist between blacks and whites in America is inherently racist. It's a way to say you think blacks are poor because they are inferior without feeling like your a racist bigot.
And I know that will sound like I'm attacking you. I really don't mean to but I can't find another way to say it. I think nearly everyone is racist to some degree. I've spent the past 5 years living in a majority black country and I have been repeatedly forced to confront some of my own deeply buried racial prejudices. In a society like ours where racism is considered to be a horrid evil, it's very hard to admit to your self that you have racist attitudes. It's much easy to rationalize it away than to confront it.
It's sort of ironic in a way that one of the biggest barriers to really overcoming racism in the US today is that "Racism" is so vilified that no one is willing to entertain the idea that they might be racist.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: I think, both then and now, that most people see nonviolent white collar drug crimesasless bad than violent drug crimes perpetrated by/against the poor.
The vast majority, more than 75%, I believe, of drug related crimes for which people are currently incarcerated are for non-violent crimes.
In other words, millions of black people are being arrested under the guise of fighting violent crime but are not actually violent.
Yep!
That's true, and horrible. Do you think that's the (conscious or unconscious) goal of the war on drugs? Or the reason it's persisted?
Because I certainly think the war on drugs is indisputably "racist" in the same way that minimum wage laws are. That is, both of these things disproportionately hurt poor black people. And I'd be very happy if we ended them.
But I don't think the primary impediment to ending the war on drugs is lingering implicit racism, any more than that's the main reason nobody wants to repeal minimum wage.
I think the biggest impediment is a very explicit and widespread disdain for drug use and support of drug prohibition. (And widespread, explicit support of making sure "everyone who works is not in poverty", respectively.)
What do you think?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Dan_Frank, Your summary of the supply and demand economic issues are superficially accurate but are so grossly over simplified...
I'll take it!
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ...that I don't think they are a reasonable spring board for further discussion.
Well, shucks. Will you mind if I continue anyway? (edit: I hope not! Since, uh, I kind of did.)
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This is a question that has been studied very thoroughly. We don't have to speculate based on simplistic economic models. Racial discrimination in American has been and continues to be economically beneficial to white Americans.
I don't think "speculation" is the right word. It's certainly discussion, though.
I'm a little confused. You say it's been studied very thoroughly. Sure, but that doesn't mean there are definitive, undisputed conclusions of these studies. Do you understand the studies in question? Do you just pretend that there aren't multiple schools of economic thought debating these issues?
Why would you put your trust in one side of a debate if you don't actually understand the debate itself? And if you do understand, then why blow off the discussion by simply reasserting your conclusion as if it were evidence?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: We've had this debate before and I think its counter productive to continue it. The idea that "black culture" is responsible for all the disparities that exist between blacks and whites in America is inherently racist. It's a way to say you think blacks are poor because they are inferior without feeling like your a racist bigot.
By "black culture" we actually mean the urban lower-class subculture that is predominantly but by no means exclusively comprised of black people, right? Assuming agreement on this...
Are you saying it's racist because it ignores other factors? (In which case I would agree, by the way: I don't think I've ever said that "black culture" is the only reason why there are any disparities. And if I implied it, it was just sloppy posting on my part.)
Or are you saying it's racist to propose that "black culture" itself is in any way negative or a contributing factor to widespread problems among black Americans? (In which case yeah, I disagree, and I don't see how you've proven it's racist. I think there are huge flaws in "black culture." There are also huge flaws in, say, "hippie culture," or "upper-middle-class hipster culture." Those subcultures are both dominated by white people, but I don't think that makes me racist against white people, either.)
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: And I know that will sound like I'm attacking you. I really don't mean to but I can't find another way to say it. I think nearly everyone is racist to some degree. I've spent the past 5 years living in a majority black country and I have been repeatedly forced to confront some of my own deeply buried racial prejudices. In a society like ours where racism is considered to be a horrid evil, it's very hard to admit to your self that you have racist attitudes. It's much easy to rationalize it away than to confront it.
It's sort of ironic in a way that one of the biggest barriers to really overcoming racist in the US today is that "Racism" is so vilified.
Don't worry, I'm not offended. You'd have to try a lot harder than that.
What I was going to say, by the way, is something like this:
Racial discrimination has been beneficial to white people in relation to black people, certainly. But there's a difference between shoving someone over so that you have the highest vantage point in the room, and, say, climbing a stepladder. (Or perhaps climbing onto that person's back, to put, say, slavery into this analogy. Though even then I'd question it, the seen economic benefits were large enough that it'd be a harder sell)
The problem with saying "white people's wages are higher, so they are more prosperous," is that this ignores the fact that competition fosters greater success. By artificially keeping generations of black people out of viable workforces, white people got better wages (and black people substantially worse wages), but the damage down to the overall wealth of society is basically incalculable.
It's a similar argument to the one that talks about how impoverished Americans today are inconceivably wealthier than the rich of 100 or 200 or 500 years ago.
I probably would have also thrown in some stuff about cost of living settling around the wage median of white people, resulting in an insubstantial increase of their quality of life despite increased pay, and mainly just resulting in a drastically worse quality of life for the black people making so much less than the white median.
Again, no question that policies like that did huge damage to black people, but I think the "benefits" to white people and society as a whole are far more tenuous. They require a very narrow interpretation of prosperity.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Okay, let's unravel this a bit more. Is this because black women, in general, don't fit your standard of beauty? That is, the simple fact that they are black? Your standard of beauty, on some level, really does value lighter skin?
This is kind of a weird thing to be discussing, and in retrospect I'm kind of wishing I hadn't brought it up. But anyway, it doesn't really hinge on skin color (from what I can tell). I think it has more to do with facial structure. I don't think I'm alone in this; you'll notice that quite a few of the black women who are held up as "sex symbols" in the mainstream media (Beyonce, Viveca Fox) tend to have narrower noses and straighter hair than the typical African American woman.
(This was pointed out to me by one of the grad students in our program, who works on the ethics of race as applied to sex. I probably wouldn't have picked up on some of these things about my own preferences if I hadn't talked with him about it.)
Anyway, for that reason I would be very surprised if these racial preferences didn't hold up even controlling for body weight. But I don't have empirical proof of that ready to hand.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:... Was this directed at me? I'm really baffled. I mean, you quoted me, so I assume it was directed at me. Except...
I realize that Dan, but you're sending some distinctly mixed signals here. On the one hand, you acknowledge racism is still more common and damaging (well, sort of) from blacks to whites. On the other hand, you suggest with a question that unless something is clearly intended as a racist policy, it's incorrect to label it racist. You talk about the damaging effects of some economic policies, such as minimum wage, but then also assert through questions the frankly baffling notion that prosperity isn't limited.
I do apologize for my heated tone, and I acknowledge that I have been, but man, it just really seems like your own personal thoughts on what is and isn't racist or prejudiced or biased are just...squishy. Really squishy.
quote:If you want to bring up a different example of proposed systemic racism, that's fine, you can do that, and I can respond to it or not or whatever. But to imply that what you've posted here is in any way actually a response to what I said is really disingenuous. I don't think it was intentional on your part, for the record. But it's still a bit frustrating.
One way you posed your challenge could be read as strictly about drug sentencing guidelines, and that is the literal meaning of what you said. So my mistake-I thought you were taking a broader stance. I can't help but wonder, though, what's the point of discussing racism in the criminal justice system if we're not going to be talking about the entire system?
quote:A cop who tends to assume black people are more guilty, and arrests them more often, but doesn't do so explicitly, is still racist. I agree with that. But what about a cop who wants to help black people, and spends a disproportionate amount of his time in black neighborhoods, and so his arrest record is largely made up of black people?
It seems really weird to say those are both racist.
Please bear my response in mind, with respect to your feelings about my disingenuousness, Dan. The only way this can be a valid comparison is if you were to examine only that police officer's arrest record-if you were to cherry pick things quite blatantly, avoiding all of the good work he did, all of the black victims of crimes he helped and protected, and examined only his arrest record on racial grounds. If you're going to examine his arrest record on racial grounds, you need to examine his record on racial grounds, and see what can be discovered.
quote:And there is a finite number of possible jobs?
This has been addressed, but...yes. I mean, obviously. (I do wonder if we're going to wade into some semi-libertarian anarcho-capitalist utopian ideals here, though, with respect to finite vs infinite prosperity...)
quote:That's an interesting question. Was there a rash of drug-related violent crime amongst the upper class in the 80s? I don't remember one, but I may be mistaken.
I think, both then and now, that most people see nonviolent white collar drug crimes as less bad than violent drug crimes perpetrated by/against the poor.
Do you think that's wrong?
I think that people do see 'nonviolent' white collar drug crime as less bad than violent urban drug crime, yes. I think that's a bad assumption most people make, though. Yes, that given white collar worker will often (though not always) get his stuff from, say, a buddy in the office with a connection. It's friendly business between those two.
Where does that buddy get his stuff, though? He doesn't just flip to the narcotics section in Sharper Image, he goes to one of his connections, and the further down the line you go-sometimes not far at all-the less friendly and the more violent things get. They're all connected, even if the white (guy) collar addict in the high rise didn't have to brave hoppers and searches and hustlers and junkies and needle-littered alleyways to get his fix. That money he spent (a higher price for a smaller amount of drugs, by the way) will eventually find its way into the same hands who, as likely as not (actually more likely than not) are utilizing some pretty horrific violence in their day-to-day.
On another note, yeah, I think that the revulsion for inner-city drug crime isn't just because of the more publicized violence involved in it. I think it's not just because people are worried about violence that the office worker will be more likely to be sentenced to rehab probation and the homeless needlehead will be more likely to do time at a state prison.
------------
quote: The vast majority, more than 75%, I believe, of drug related crimes for which people are currently incarcerated are for non-violent crimes.
In other words, millions of black people are being arrested under the guise of fighting violent crime but are not actually violent.
This bears discussion, too. I mean, a whole lot of discussion if we're going to be talking about drug policy. (To be clear, I don't suggest you were unaware of this, Dan.)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Okay, let's unravel this a bit more. Is this because black women, in general, don't fit your standard of beauty? That is, the simple fact that they are black? Your standard of beauty, on some level, really does value lighter skin?
This is kind of a weird thing to be discussing, and in retrospect I'm kind of wishing I hadn't brought it up. But anyway, it doesn't really hinge on skin color (from what I can tell). I think it has more to do with facial structure. I don't think I'm alone in this; you'll notice that quite a few of the black women who are held up as "sex symbols" in the mainstream media (Beyonce, Viveca Fox) tend to have narrower noses and straighter hair than the typical African American woman.
(This was pointed out to me by one of the grad students in our program, who works on the ethics of race as applied to sex. I probably wouldn't have picked up on some of these things about my own preferences if I hadn't talked with him about it.)
Anyway, for that reason I would be very surprised if these racial preferences didn't hold up even controlling for body weight. But I don't have empirical proof of that ready to hand.
Interesting. Sorry to press you on something that made you uncomfortable! Hope you don't mind if I reply.
I think that this topic strays into some really complex issues that aren't nearly as easy to control for as you seem to think.
Beauty image in this country is so deeply and fundamentally screwed up and subjective, even completely setting aside the issue of race, that this is fraught with complications.
I mean, yeah, I see what you're talking about, certainly. The most prevalent image of beauty does involve a thinner nose and straighter hair. Of course, broad noses and naturally frizzy hair also aren't the exclusive purview of black women.
Typical standards of beauty also tend to involve many other traits, like puffy lips and even specifically shaped bodies that could be said to be associated with a specific ethnicity. Is that ethnicity always "white?" I mean, in terms of facial structure and subtleties like that there are significant common differences even between "white" ethnicities, like Scandinavians, Italians, Greeks, etc.
Certainly, some beauty standards have racist elements. No question. I'm reminded of a host of video game mods that are supposed to make specific characters more "attractive" and frequently just make them more "generic Caucasian," which is heinously bad. But to say that this is a deep underlying principle throughout all American (or Western in general?) standards of beauty seems like a stretch to me.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:... Was this directed at me? I'm really baffled. I mean, you quoted me, so I assume it was directed at me. Except...
I realize that Dan, but you're sending some distinctly mixed signals here. On the one hand, you acknowledge racism is still more common and damaging (well, sort of) from blacks to whites.
"Sort of?" Let me be unequivocal about it then. Of course it is!
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: On the other hand, you suggest with a question that unless something is clearly intended as a racist policy, it's incorrect to label it racist. You talk about the damaging effects of some economic policies, such as minimum wage, but then also assert through questions the frankly baffling notion that prosperity isn't limited.
Couple of things.
Not all questions I ask are assertions. Okay? What's more, if you treat every one of them as questions, then I promise I will get to my assertions when needed. Skipping the step of actually answering a question, and instead assuming it's a veiled assertion, will lead to more misunderstandings. Just so's you know.
Also, I thought I clarified this already, but I must've failed. Let me try to be even clearer. This: "unless something is clearly intended as a racist policy, it's incorrect to label it racist" does not accurately represent my opinion at all. Discard that notion.
I could broadly categorize laws that cause social distortions across racial lines into three categories:
1: Explicitly racist laws. That is, laws expressly passed to help or hinder one race over another, and don't pretend otherwise. Like segregation. I would also add lots of the twisted punitive "benefits" we inflict upon Native American tribes. Overall I'd say these laws are mostly gone from society. The only ones that remain, I think, are the ones that are supposed to "help" specific minority groups. Like the aforementioned benefits for Native Americans.
2: Inexplicitly racist laws. This would be laws passed for some supposed general purpose, but which can easily be argued to have unconscious motivations based in fear or hatred of one or more minority groups. We could put the AZ anti-illegal immigration law here. You would probably put voter ID laws here, and though I'm less convinced of that, it's fine for the sake of this discussion.
Some of these laws still exist. What laws qualify as this is, however, much harder to determine decisively. Debates rage over laws like these, with one side decrying hidden racist agendas and the other side insisting that the overt, explicit agenda of the law is the only agenda.
3: Laws with good intentions and unintended racist consequences. These can sometimes be hard to clearly separate from 2, I think. But in order to believably assert that they are really 2, I think you sort of need to strip away context and cherry-pick how you present the actual decisions that went into passing the laws. The obvious example of a 3 law that isn't asserted as a 2 law by any significant group is the one I've mentioned several times: The minimum wage.
I think you were under the impression that I was denying the existence of category 2. Is that fair to say? I was probably unclear.
My argument earlier was really just that harsher sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine is an example of 3, rather than 1 or 2. I imagine you think it's clearly 2, but my opinion is that the history surrounding the passage of HR 5484 throws that claim into serious question.
As for the prosperity stuff... I'll save that for further down.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do apologize for my heated tone, and I acknowledge that I have been, but man, it just really seems like your own personal thoughts on what is and isn't racist or prejudiced or biased are just...squishy. Really squishy.
No apology needed.
I think "squishy" probably ain't a bad descriptor anyway. At least as I'm interpreting the word. That is, hard to pin down precisely, sort of amorphous, etc.
I think racism in the modern age is often (not always!) a very squishy subject.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If you want to bring up a different example of proposed systemic racism, that's fine, you can do that, and I can respond to it or not or whatever. But to imply that what you've posted here is in any way actually a response to what I said is really disingenuous. I don't think it was intentional on your part, for the record. But it's still a bit frustrating.
One way you posed your challenge could be read as strictly about drug sentencing guidelines, and that is the literal meaning of what you said. So my mistake-I thought you were taking a broader stance. I can't help but wonder, though, what's the point of discussing racism in the criminal justice system if we're not going to be talking about the entire system?
No, that's totally fair! It's relevant, you're right.
My issue was that you were bringing up another element of the justice system as a "gotcha," or at least it seemed that way to me. I'm trying to maintain several different arguments with numerous people, and I have limited bandwidth, so it seemed unfair to assert that I claimed I could take on potential racism in the entire justice system, which is what it seemed you were challenging me to do.
It's a worthy discussion to have, I'm just not sure I can do it till more progress is made on the issues already raised. Does that make sense?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:A cop who tends to assume black people are more guilty, and arrests them more often, but doesn't do so explicitly, is still racist. I agree with that. But what about a cop who wants to help black people, and spends a disproportionate amount of his time in black neighborhoods, and so his arrest record is largely made up of black people?
It seems really weird to say those are both racist.
Please bear my response in mind, with respect to your feelings about my disingenuousness, Dan. The only way this can be a valid comparison is if you were to examine only that police officer's arrest record-if you were to cherry pick things quite blatantly, avoiding all of the good work he did, all of the black victims of crimes he helped and protected, and examined only his arrest record on racial grounds. If you're going to examine his arrest record on racial grounds, you need to examine his record on racial grounds, and see what can be discovered.
Right. So, I think this issue has been clarified with some of my statements above, about the categories of laws and such.
Yes/No?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:And there is a finite number of possible jobs?
This has been addressed, but...yes. I mean, obviously. (I do wonder if we're going to wade into some semi-libertarian anarcho-capitalist utopian ideals here, though, with respect to finite vs infinite prosperity...)
Well, you might say so. I wouldn't call 'em utopian at all, though, nor specifically anarcho-capitalist. Libertarian/Republican perhaps, in the sense that the "ideal" in question is just... capitalism.
At any given time there's a finite number of jobs that can be done by people... because there's a finite number of people.
But, at any time, any given person can create a job where none existed before. And, yes, literally create prosperity out of nothing. That's... I mean, that's how capitalism works, man. The reason we're more prosperous today than we were 200 years ago isn't because we have more currency. It's because new value has been created.
And yeah, this is quite relevant if we're talking about how prosperous white people are because of keeping down black people. Again, they are more prosperous than black people because of keeping down black people.
But to assert that they are more prosperous than they would have been had they not kept down black people is not only fundamentally impossible to prove or disprove (which makes it a bad theory already), it also denies the fact that all those oppressed black people could have been generating so much more new value (which benefits everyone in society) had they been more free to engage in business and entrepeneurship.
I dunno, you tell me: Was that too anarcho-capitalist and utopian for you?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:That's an interesting question. Was there a rash of drug-related violent crime amongst the upper class in the 80s? I don't remember one, but I may be mistaken.
I think, both then and now, that most people see nonviolent white collar drug crimes as less bad than violent drug crimes perpetrated by/against the poor.
Do you think that's wrong?
I think that people do see 'nonviolent' white collar drug crime as less bad than violent urban drug crime, yes. I think that's a bad assumption most people make, though. Yes, that given white collar worker will often (though not always) get his stuff from, say, a buddy in the office with a connection. It's friendly business between those two.
Where does that buddy get his stuff, though? He doesn't just flip to the narcotics section in Sharper Image, he goes to one of his connections, and the further down the line you go-sometimes not far at all-the less friendly and the more violent things get. They're all connected, even if the white (guy) collar addict in the high rise didn't have to brave hoppers and searches and hustlers and junkies and needle-littered alleyways to get his fix. That money he spent (a higher price for a smaller amount of drugs, by the way) will eventually find its way into the same hands who, as likely as not (actually more likely than not) are utilizing some pretty horrific violence in their day-to-day.
I agree with you. People have a strong tendency to bias towards what's readily seen. In general, Seen vs Unseen is a commonly lamented problem in libertarian circles, and it applies here, too. The causality of violence in the inner city drug trade is much easier to see than that of white-collar drug trafficking.
Which is why I don't think I agree as much with this:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: On another note, yeah, I think that the revulsion for inner-city drug crime isn't just because of the more publicized violence involved in it. I think it's not just because people are worried about violence that the office worker will be more likely to be sentenced to rehab probation and the homeless needlehead will be more likely to do time at a state prison.
Above, we just determined that there is already a clear and understood explanation for the disparity that doesn't rely on assuming unconscious racism. So, while unconscious racism certainly exists and could be a factor for some people, why assume it's a major one?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: The vast majority, more than 75%, I believe, of drug related crimes for which people are currently incarcerated are for non-violent crimes.
In other words, millions of black people are being arrested under the guise of fighting violent crime but are not actually violent.
This bears discussion, too. I mean, a whole lot of discussion if we're going to be talking about drug policy. (To be clear, I don't suggest you were unaware of this, Dan.)
Does it? I mean, that's the War on Drugs. It's terrible. It shouldn't exist. What's more, prohibition of drugs shouldn't exist. It results in atrocities like no-knock raids. Heck, some 10-15% (I wanna say 13%) of drug crimes are for pot alone.
The thing is... I guess I just don't see the racist motivations you seem to see. It seems like the War on Drugs is pretty solidly in category 3, to me. Our society is really concerned about drugs. Our society has lots of stupid priorities. This is just one of them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Being about to go to bed, and on my mobile, I'll just address two small parts of your post: yes, society is 'concerned' with drugs (though so far, not in any way likely to be seriously effective at undermining their use). But that concern is expressed in different ways. The sleazy guy at the office slinging powder or pills, we're concerned that he stop, though we're likely to stop him with prison for less time. His buyers, we're concerned with them stopping, and man it's awfully important they get help sometimes, because addiction is a disease.
The crew that owns a corner for a given month, THEM, we're almost universally angry about. Those guys, man, lock 'em up and throw away the key. Their buyers, it's of the utmost urgency we get 'em off the street and keep 'em off, and if they didn't want to go to prison they should've thought of that before becoming addicts. Anyway, there's programs in prison, right?
Clearly you don't see these two different, very real trends as a significant sign of racism. Alright, fair enough. As for me, though, well it becomes difficult for me to regard my own anecdotal experience as the open and shut it the nature of my experience itself may be the symptom. Put another way? Who do you go to if you're trying to discover racism? Do you simply ask the majority, "Hey, do you negatively prejudge the minority based on their race as a matter of course?" No. You need to ask the minorities[/], more often than not.
As for prosperity...*sigh*. Yeah, sure, any individual does theoretically have the [I]capability to create a job where none existed before. I have the damn capability to go out and win the lottery tomorrow, or to beat a black belt in a fist fight. Both require some of the same things, though: extreme luck. And before you start talking about how I could study hard with Cobra Kai or something if I want to beat that black belt more reliably, bear in mind: very few opportunities come with their very own time machines and save points with which to be reliable.
For most everyone else, the bank is only gonna give out so many loans. The good neighborhood only has so many apartments left to rent. The good school only has so many places available. The jobs that don't involve hot vegetable oil only hire so often and so many.
Deep down, you recognize all of this-I can say that with authority based on another of the answers you gave. You know which color you'd rather your skin be when you go to an interview, and you know you'd rather be Dan than Darnell, even if it's only by just a small margin.
If that answer is only by a small margin to you, the member of the majority, which is likelier? That you're (or anyone) is an effective observer of things like pervasive entitlement and rewarding? Or that perhaps you don't always recognize it when it happens, because we all remember affronts or perceived affronts more than gifts or help? It's older than Shakespeare.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Deep down, you recognize all of this-I can say that with authority based on another of the answers you gave. You know which color you'd rather your skin be when you go to an interview, and you know you'd rather be Dan than Darnell, even if it's only by just a small margin.
I may respond to some of the other stuff you said another day, but for now...
This is true. Of course, I'd also much rather be Dan than Rakeesh, despite the fact that you probably have a better formal education than I do, better long-term career prospects, and probably make more money. I'm kind of fond of being me, after all.
Seriously, though, I'd also rather be Dan than, say, Cletus (a.k.a. a poorly educated, lower-class rural white guy). That doesn't mean that the Cletuses of the world are the victims of systematic and pervasive oppression.
On average, there's more racism towards black people than there is towards white people. Or even more generally: On average, black people have it worse than white people. That's an example of an inequity.
Here's another inequity: On average, people born poor have it worse than people born middle class. If Darnell is growing up in the suburbs, I'd almost certainly rather be Darnell than Cletus. Hell, for that matter if Darnell's growing up in a decent suburb and his parents have some college money saved up, I'd rather be Darnell than Dan! Except, you know, the whole fondness for being me thing.
Anyway, I'm getting a bit off track. I guess it just boils down to this: the existence of inequity doesn't indicate the existence of systematic oppression to me. Nor does it make me want to attempt to fiat away that inequity with special rules and laws that are, themselves, not really very equitable or egalitarian.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What would indicate "systematic oppression" to you, or make you think it's worth acting to address?
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Here's another inequity: On average, people born poor have it worse than people born middle class. If Darnell is growing up in the suburbs, I'd almost certainly rather be Darnell than Cletus. Hell, for that matter if Darnell's growing up in a decent suburb and his parents have some college money saved up, I'd rather be Darnell than Dan! Except, you know, the whole fondness for being me thing.
Anyway, I'm getting a bit off track. I guess it just boils down to this: the existence of inequity doesn't indicate the existence of systematic oppression to me. Nor does it make me want to attempt to fiat away that inequity with special rules and laws that are, themselves, not really very equitable or egalitarian.
I'd like to recommend a powerful documentary that made me look at systematic racism in a new light. RACE - THE POWER OF AN ILLUSION, especially episode three: "The House We Live In." I haven't been able to find all of it online, but here is a clip, and here is the transcript. The clip touches on the main points, but it is worth checking your library to see if you can find the full documentary.
Basically, following WWII, we had the GI bill and FHA loans to make buying a house a possibility for the average American. But the FHA determined housing values based on, among other things, race. If you were buying a house in a black or a mixed area, you couldn't get a loan. So black people were relegated to renting. In 1968, with the Fair Housing Act, the racial language was struck from the official laws. At that point, unscrupulous real estate agents would go door to door in white neighbourhoods warning residents that their neighbourhood was becoming integrated, and would they like to take cash for their house. So we have white flight. And because all of the white people moved out at once, this depressed home values. To this day, we still have unofficially segregated neighbourhoods, and housing values are higher in white neighbourhoods than they are in black neighbourhoods. And since most of our wealth is in our homes, white people still have a higher net worth, on average, than black people.
The documentary says it better than I do; I'm posting a block quote from the transcript. Dalton Conley is a sociologist.
quote:NARRATOR: To glimpse one of the far-reaching consequences of racial inequality, you need only consider one statistic: comparative net worth or wealth. If you add up everything you own and subtract all your debts, what's left is your net worth.
CONLEY: Today, the average Black family has only one-eighth the net worth or assets of the average white family. That difference has seemingly grown since the 1960's, since the Civil Rights triumphs. And is not explained by other factors, like education, earnings rates, savings rates. It is really the legacy of racial inequality from generations past. No other measure captures the legacy, the sort of cumulative disadvantage of race, or cumulative advantage of race for whites, than net worth or wealth.
NARRATOR: Even with the same income, white families have on average twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that difference lies in the value of their homes. But what happens when we compare families along the colorline who have similar wealth?
CONLEY: When you make the right comparison when you compare a Black kid from a family with the same income and wealth level as the white kid, um, from the similar economic situation, rates of college graduation are the same; rates of employment and work hours are the same; rates of welfare usage are the same. So when we're talking about race in terms of a cultural accounting of these differences or a genetic accounting of these differences, we're really missing the picture, because we're making the wrong comparison.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This is true. Of course, I'd also much rather be Dan than Rakeesh, despite the fact that you probably have a better formal education than I do, better long-term career prospects, and probably make more money. I'm kind of fond of being me, after all.
This is, again, not a valid comparison. I wasn't asking about who you would rather be individually. I think being Denzel Washington might be pretty spiffy vs. being, say, Bubba McTrailerpark appearing on an episode of Cops. That doesn't get at the kind of thing I'm talking about, though.
quote:Seriously, though, I'd also rather be Dan than, say, Cletus (a.k.a. a poorly educated, lower-class rural white guy). That doesn't mean that the Cletuses of the world are the victims of systematic and pervasive oppression.
You're absolutely right. That in and of itself doesn't mean Cletus is a victim of systemic and pervasive oppression. But seriously, Dan, guess what you'll find if you look back into the medical care and education background of the Cletus Clan. And I don't just mean how hard they tried in school, but the actual quality of their school.
If you were a betting man, and you were compelled to wager, would you wager that the sort of fellow you have in your mind's eye when you mentioned Cletus came from a solid, well-staffed and funded school with good family involvement in his education? Or would you wager on his coming from a failure factory sort of school? I know which I'd wager on and, again, given your answer above I'm pretty sure I know what your answer would be too. This isn't itself a sure sign of pervasive and systemic oppression, but it's certainly a good reason to look for it!
quote:Anyway, I'm getting a bit off track. I guess it just boils down to this: the existence of inequity doesn't indicate the existence of systematic oppression to me. Nor does it make me want to attempt to fiat away that inequity with special rules and laws that are, themselves, not really very equitable or egalitarian.
At this point, like others, I just have to ask what would serve as an indicator for you. This will sound snarky and it is, but I don't mean it to be insulting aside from being a zinger, but what would it take? A city council that held meetings in white sheets? A governor who openly decries miscegenation? A police chief known for dropping racial slurs? I mean you said, or suggested (and yes, yes, it was just a question, but c'mon, why did you ask it?) that we shouldn't think of something as racist without its having distinctly racist intentions, so I have to ask again, what would it take?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan_Frank Give me a bit of a break here, I just got my internet back and I'm catching up on a few days worth of arguments.
quote: This is also basically the reason I say the problem isn't "systematic." It's not because I don't think it's a serious problem. It's because the system, the only system in society with real, cohesive, collective power... that is, the government... isn't enforcing racist policies. Both sides can quibble over what they see as exceptions (righties might say affirmative action, lefties might say voter ID)... but the deep problems, like income inequity, aren't being forced on the populace by "the system."
Income inequality is very much a product of the system. Let's leave out slavery for a minute, we can even leave out the entire 19th century if you want, and just cover stuff that happened in the last hundred or so years. The government was the primary participant in a systematic widespread act of economic warfare against America's black population. Things are better today than they were even 20 years ago as far as hiring practices go, but we're still living with the fallout. You can't correct a system that fundamentally broken without corrective measures. Imagine if all your life you were filling two cups of water, but you filled one 10 times faster than the other. Then one day you decided to fill them both at the same speed. One cup would still have ten times as much water as the other one, and filling them as the same rate only keeps the unfair unequal status quo. You have to do something to bring the less-full cup up to snuff.
quote: Yeah... more black men out of jail, too. More black men in general, really. And more people. By a factor of about 100, I think.
Honestly, Lyr, this looks like a really absurd, disingenuous, nonsensical soundbite statistic designed to shamelessly grab attention. I'm surprised you'd use it.
Yes, it's an attention grabbing statistic, but your rebuttal misses the point. It's still a HUGE disproportionate number of black men!
quote: Assuming this is true, I wonder: How do you pay down that debt? Usually, when I see people talking like that, what they seem to be saying is that the solution is to incur an inverted form of debt... which they don't call debt, because it's "justice" for a previous generations transgressions.
The problem is, if we really enact stuff like that, then generations from now the people getting their "justice" won't care what it was in retaliation for. They'll just care that they're being artificially pushed down, and they'll hate it as much as anyone would. Seems like a pretty crummy solution to me.
And that's not even touching how much I rankle at the collectivist notion that one member of a socially constructed group should pay a penalty for the actions of another member of that group. But I assure you, there is a great deal of rankling.
Well let's back up for a second, are you saying it's NOT true? Are you denying that there was a governmentally-enforced reign of racial terror and discrimination perpetrated against African-Americans? Because if you don't even believe that, then we have a whole separate argument to have before we can get to how we fix it.
How isn't it justice? We have a system of justice that provides for redress against wrongs and subsequent remuneration to make up for those wrongs. Black people have been discriminated against and intentionally kept in an unequal state for hundreds of years, and our government did that. Now it's our duty to fix it. It's our job as a society to teach our HISTORY to ourselves and our kids so we understand what we did and why it was wrong, and why there's a need to fix it. You at this very moment are benefitting from the system that produced this inequality. So am I. So are a lot of people. I don't have a perfect solution myself, but if it means special hiring and other privileges for black people, I'm fine with it. I'm also fine with massive social spending in inner cities to help fix them as well. We broke it. There's no statute of limitations on systematically keeping a race of people down.
quote: Spending general tax money to benefit only a specific subset of society is, in effect, a punitive measure against anyone not of that group. Do you see why I would say that?
I'm not sure if that matters. Society committed a grave injustice, and it should have to pay for it. If you want to call that punitive damages, then let's pay them and try to move on.
quote: But I don't think the primary impediment to ending the war on drugs is lingering implicit racism, any more than that's the main reason nobody wants to repeal minimum wage.
I don't either. But when people (like you have done) use the "violent crime" language to make it sound like black people brought it on themselves, you're totally missing the point. You also have to get into sentencing practices to see the meat of where people find racism in the system. An generic 18 year old white guy and a generic 18 year old black guy are statistically unlikely to get the same treatment in court for the same offense. And of course, the generic white guy is less likely to get arrested in the first place.
And I'm not sure what your minimum wage law thing is all about. First of all, $3 an hour in America would net a black worker $6,200 a year. You can't live on that. I don't even think that's halfway to the poverty line. How does that do anything but trap them in an even worse cycle of poverty? The reason black Americans aren't in a better position today, by and large, than they were 100 years ago is that hiring practices trapped them in unskilled labor while the good jobs fled to the suburbs. You think if we eliminated minimum wage laws, unskilled labor would come back to the inner city and pay enough to allow them to survive, let alone thrive and improve their situation? I don't see how the economics works on that.
quote: Here's another inequity: On average, people born poor have it worse than people born middle class. If Darnell is growing up in the suburbs, I'd almost certainly rather be Darnell than Cletus. Hell, for that matter if Darnell's growing up in a decent suburb and his parents have some college money saved up, I'd rather be Darnell than Dan! Except, you know, the whole fondness for being me thing.
Anyway, I'm getting a bit off track. I guess it just boils down to this: the existence of inequity doesn't indicate the existence of systematic oppression to me. Nor does it make me want to attempt to fiat away that inequity with special rules and laws that are, themselves, not really very equitable or egalitarian.
So you're saying we do have to have the bigger discussion about historical acts of racist oppression in this country? Because you seem to be entirely uninformed about what was going on in the post-WWII era (to say nothing of what came before). What Amilia is hinting at is just the tip of the iceberg. The two practices she's talking about are called redlining and blockbusting. Redlining was the FHA practice of creating racially segregated neighborhoods in which blacks could not get a loan if they wanted into a white neighborhood. If they could get a loan at all, it was only in a neighborhood designated for black occupancy, which were often the oldest parts of a city with the worst housing code violations. Blockbusting was a practice largely committed by real estate agents themselves. Like Amilia says, they would go door to door in white neighborhoods trying to scare white families into selling low before the blacks moved in and killed the market value of their houses. Once a few families sold, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy that led to a mass selloff, after which real estate agents would sell all the homes to black families for more than the whites sold them for. Turnover could happen in as little as weeks in whole neighborhoods. Real estate agents would also practice "steering" where they refused to show homes in white neighborhoods to black families, even middle and upper class black families. And that's just one issue. I haven't even touched on hiring, police brutality, welfare policies, education, health care, or a host of other issues. Do I need to?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not sure if that matters. Society committed a grave injustice, and it should have to pay for it. If you want to call that punitive damages, then let's pay them and try to move on.
The funny thing is, it would be apparently unjust to have the side which benefits from the system of inequality put forth resources to fix that problem. Well, alright, nobody here had slaves, of course. So we really shouldn't do that, because it'd be wrong.
On the other hand, it's also (maybe, I really can't quite parse some of Dan's mixed signals here) unjust to have the side which suffers from this same system, well, suffer from it. And...well, they just need to deal with it, I guess. Government ought not to address the very real problems they face in a proactive way, because being proactive means a moderate inconvenience to the other side. At no point do the people who have been historically victimized ever actually get government on 'their' side. The closest they get is to have government on 'the people's' side, and they're permitted to be considered a part of that group, finally.
And so while the group which was discriminated against must suffer many generations of injustice to overcome this problem, the group which discriminated must not be held to account, because of course they're the current generation, not the ones who actually did it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I felt that way for a long time myself. I always said that I wasn't even born when these things were going on, and for that matter, half my family wasn't even here, they were in Canada when it was going on. But that was naive and ignorant.
I've spent the last year studying this specific issue in depth, and I realize just how wrong I was.
It doesn't matter anymore which specific people did it. They did it on behalf of the government, and the government is still around, so the government needs to make up for its past mistakes. This wasn't an historical accident. It wasn't bad luck that put black Americans were they are. It was designed. It was deliberate. And it was the government.
One of the most interesting things that legal scholars point out when discussing the Brown decision is that most of the time, when the courts find that a wrong of that type had been perpetrated, they would order some sort of corrective measure. Sometimes that means awarding damages, or simply ordering someone to bring something up to code. But SCOTUS didn't do that in Brown or in the less well known Brown II. They basically just said, "Oh yeah, it's unequal, sorry about that. At some point in the not so distant future, you guys really need to fix that, but we won't say when." It was by all accounts a half measure that solved absolutely nothing.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I once sat in on a hiring committee. Equal numbers of male and women were brought in for the interview. All the female candidates were found lacking (they didn't seem serious enough, they were too positive to truly understand the ramifications of the problem, they didn't act experienced enough, all very fuzzy reasons). In the end, of the five openings, four were filled with men. This was in a science field were gender inequality is common. When I commented that this seemed a little sexist, I was told the head of the hiring committee was a woman so clearly sexism could not be real. Not one of the reasons given for eliminating the female candidates was that she was a woman or even that she might someday have kids. Clearly, no sexism existed. It just happened to be that 4/5 of people hired in an already gender skewed department were men. No ones fault, no sign of a trend, nothing like that. Just the better candidates were men.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
scholarette, I'm not sure if you are sarcastic or sincere.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I was too lazy to do the math so I wrote a little sim program to see how likely that is, given random distribution of "qualification", and 10 candidates of each gender.
Turns out to be about 16.5% after a ten million runs of the sim. So assuming I didn't screw up somewhere, its not out of the realm of possibility, but is a little bit unlikely.
The above isn't intended to prove or disprove any assertions in your post, I was just curious what the chances really are, and thought I'd share what I found.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: scholarette, I'm not sure if you are sarcastic or sincere.
Sarcastic.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I once sat in on a hiring committee. Equal numbers of male and women were brought in for the interview. All the female candidates were found lacking (they didn't seem serious enough, they were too positive to truly understand the ramifications of the problem, they didn't act experienced enough, all very fuzzy reasons). In the end, of the five openings, four were filled with men. This was in a science field were gender inequality is common. When I commented that this seemed a little sexist, I was told the head of the hiring committee was a woman so clearly sexism could not be real. Not one of the reasons given for eliminating the female candidates was that she was a woman or even that she might someday have kids. Clearly, no sexism existed. It just happened to be that 4/5 of people hired in an already gender skewed department were men. No ones fault, no sign of a trend, nothing like that. Just the better candidates were men.
That said, in situations like this it is always hilarious to discover what happens over a thousand such modeled incidents when you test this versus a situation wherein the applicants are tested blind by the employers (i.e., there's some way to test them for their qualifications without knowing their gender, etc)
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'm not saying there wasn't any sexism going on in that meeting, scholarette, but just because you thought something was happening doesn't make it so. You can't police another person's thoughts. Unless someone told you they weren't hiring them because of their gender, they aren't doing anything wrong. I agree that women deserve just as much of a chance as men, but unless you're a mind-reader, everything you are suggesting is pure conjecture on your part.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't understand how what you're saying fits, Jeff. Hasn't it been about, what, a generation or more since anyone would say directly, "I didn't choose her and I did choose him because he was a man and she was a woman." Along racial lines, we're careful to train people not to say that, very careful. Is all that's necessary to be un-racist or un-sexist to not openly state a racist or sexist idea?
Scholarette didn't say that the only sign was that 80% (in equal applicants) of the positions were filled by men. She also said women were rejected for trivial, vaguely stated reasons. So I guess I'll just ask you the same question I asked Dan: if you were attempting to get work in a science-related field as she described, which do you think you'd really prefer if you were a woman: an in person interview, or to be based exclusively on your experience, references, and accomplishments where they only knew your name to the first initial? Bear in mind for the purposes of this question, the only factor is what would influence your chances to get this job, knowing nothing else about the people hiring.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan_Frank I'm very disappointed. I have to wait two whole days to get into this kerfuffle because my internet is down, and then you make me wait all day to read your response!
I demand a thoughtful, lengthy response by tonight!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That's what you get for including the underscore.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
But no, seriously, had a busy day, settling in to watch the latest episode of Korra before hitting the hay. I'll reply when I've got time.
As to your request... lengthy is no problem, but thoughtful? Barking up the wrong tree, I think.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, if you're putting me off to watch Korra, I can let it go. Korra is worth it.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't understand how what you're saying fits, Jeff. Hasn't it been about, what, a generation or more since anyone would say directly, "I didn't choose her and I did choose him because he was a man and she was a woman." Along racial lines, we're careful to train people not to say that, very careful. Is all that's necessary to be un-racist or un-sexist to not openly state a racist or sexist idea?
You misunderstand. I wasn't saying that they weren't being sexist. I was saying that there wasn't enough evidence to say that they were. Furthermore, there was certainly not enough evidence to make a legal case out of it, if anyone wanted to take it that far.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It depends entirely on how accurate scholarette's analysis was of the reasons the women were rejected. If, as she says, the reasons women were rejected were vague and frivolous (and I haven't met her, but from posting here I haven't known her to be given to flights of whimsy or hyperbole), then actually that would serve as a pretty good indicator. That is the question you should be asking-'could you be more specific about why the female applicants were rejected, and did any of those reasons exist in the male applicants?'-rather than rushing to the 'we can't know for sure/this isn't proof' style of thinking.
I think if you asked an actual woman who works in the sort of area scholarette is talking about, not ask a man, "Hey, seen any examples of sexism?'-then you would likely encounter a perspective of 'yes, that is absolutely possible, and has happened to me, in fact'.
Anyway, if scholarette's encounter was not just isolated but an example of how things go there, it absolutely is enough to start talking about sexism. There's this very odd attitude in this country, for one with so much racial and gender turmoil in its very recent past, that unless there's a cross burning or some starched white sheets involved, the burden of credibility in public opinion is still almost always on the side of the establishment. It's not one that's really earned, so far as I can tell, but it's supported by these implied or outright stated notions that unless someone is an openly virulent racist or sexist, we shouldn't even talk about them with them.
On another note, 'the leader of hiring is a woman, therefore sexism isn't a problem' is also a warning sign.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Those can be warning signs, but if you took that to a judge in any state, they would turn you away. There's just not enough evidence. The defendants could argue that there were women on the committee, that one of the people they hired was a woman, and they could show that they already employ women at their establishment.
Maybe those committee members really were being sexist, maybe they weren't. Either way, you'd have a very hard time proving it without any other evidence other than "Well it just seems like they were being sexist".
Now, like you said, if you went around and asked all the women in that area if they had experienced any sexual discrimination while working there, and they said that they had and each instance was clear, then you could probably file some kind of class action lawsuit. But with only this one example to go with, there's just not enough evidence. That is what I am basing my opinion on. I don't work in this field and I don't work in that company, so I have only this one example to form an opinion on, and as it stands here, there's not enough evidence to say that they were being sexist.
You just can't make a case of it simply because they hired more men than women, or vise versa. You also can't force an employer to hire an equal amount of women, because then it would still be sexist, only of a different sort. Employers turn people away all the time because of the vibe they got from them. What argument could you make that said this wasn't the case here? Maybe it just happened to be that in this case, these five individuals really were the people the committee liked the most. Without them saying otherwise, you can't prove it.
Now, if one of the female employees had a resume that shined brighter than any other person's there, and they were enthusiastic and clearly wanted the job, and they were still turned away, then yes, I could see there being sexism. But from what has been stated here, we don't know if that happened.
Regardless, I doubt this will be as much of a concern in ten years' time. According to a recent survey I read the other day, women currently outnumber men in Master's and Doctorate degrees, and that number is supposed to get even higher. That means you'll likely start seeing more female applicants. It is therefore inevitable that more women will be hired in that industry. If it comes to the point that you have twenty applicants for five positions, and fifteen are women, but only one gets hired, still, then I think you can safely say there's some sexism going on.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think you're missing my point: I don't mean (and didn't say, nor did anyone, I think) that based on what scholarette said, there was enough to actually take it to civil court. I said that what she said was enough to start asking the question in a serious way. And it is. Again, much depends on how invalid or valid the reasons for dismissing the women were, and if those reasons didn't bar the men.
I've got to admit, though, that the sort of thing it would take to get you to start looking for sexism, really overwhelming number gender disparity, is a bit depressing. Apparently it really does take massive undeniable sexism before it will stop being default denied-unless you meant that it would take those sorts of numbers to make the numbers of themselves be enough? I'm not clear.
I'm still not sure where on Earth we started talking about a court case here, though. In any event, when a woman talks about sexism in a science related field, my first inclination is to think, "Yeah, totally possible, I remember girls 'being bad' at math, and I remember how many more girls were in liberal arts courses vs hard sciences courses." It's not to say, "Hey, we shouldn't talk about that without some very serious proof. Part of it comes back to this thinking, implied or spoken at some places in this thread, that unless one has a directly, unarguably racist or sexist thought or motive, we can't claim a given action of theirs was racist or sexist. I dispute that assumption that's believed, or seems to be believed, by many.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Regardless, I doubt this will be as much of a concern in ten years' time. According to a recent survey I read the other day, women currently outnumber men in Master's and Doctorate degrees, and that number is supposed to get even higher.
Do you have a source for this data? Similar numbers that I've been able to find refer only to US Citizens. If you include non-US citizens at US Universities, males still out number females by a significant margin and, in my experience, nearly all non-US citizens who receive Ph.D's stay in the US after graduation.
But regardless of the citizenship question, the numbers look very different for math, the physical sciences and engineering. In 2009, women earned 27% of math and computer science degrees, 33% of the the Ph.Ds in physical and earth sciences and 22% of the PhDs in engineering. The further you move up the latter, from B.S., to PhD, to full Professor and the trend can not be explained entirely by time lag.
[ May 13, 2012, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jeff, I strongly recommend you Google "blind orchestra auditions."
Because the phenomenon that's being discussed here is extremely well-known and well-studied, and there is absolutely evidence that supports scholarette's implication.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah. It's one of those things that's actually quite simple to study, and has been. And as for the audition study, man, that's with musicians and music, not fields which are commonly thought of as not being 'appropriate' for women such as engineering. Playing in an orchestra is about as liberal arts as something gets, and yet still if not addressed sexism is pretty strong.
It's things like this that are what make it likely for me to get so exasperated with white male perspectives on racism or sexism in this country. One of the most common problems now is, as with the orchestra study, unconscious often unspoken mental stereotypes that are so basic and unquestioned for so many of us that they're simply never examined at all. But when you point that out, many times the response will be something along the lines of 'well you can't prove that' or 'hey, he's not a racist' as though it were something someone could just reflect on for a moment or two and be sure of. That kind of self analysis is hard, and anyone who claims to have done so in such a matter-of-fact way ought not to be credited as much as they credit themselves, which isn't the same as thinking they're lying.
And, just to offer up something from the other side, it also is irksome when it is simply assumed that a man will make a mediocre father or partner on an emotional level, that he is by default insensitive of boorish or absurd.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, if scholarette's encounter was not just isolated but an example of how things go there, it absolutely is enough to start talking about sexism. There's this very odd attitude in this country, for one with so much racial and gender turmoil in its very recent past, that unless there's a cross burning or some starched white sheets involved, the burden of credibility in public opinion is still almost always on the side of the establishment. It's not one that's really earned, so far as I can tell, but it's supported by these implied or outright stated notions that unless someone is an openly virulent racist or sexist, we shouldn't even talk about them with them.
So, one quick thought on this front, Rakeesh. I agree with you that somebody saying we shouldn't talk about sexism in this type of situation is wrong. I didn't quite feel Jeff was saying that (and your exchanges after this quote sort of bear that impression out)...
But when it comes to, say, acting on situations like this (not specifically in civil courts per se, but any sort of action, whether in a court or within a company or whatever) I think that there is a bit of an assumption of innocence on the part of any individual accused of racism or sexism.
I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that an assumption of innocence is an important part of any liberal society. I suspect you'd agree, except maybe when it comes to certain hot button issues where you subconsciously assume guilt instead.
Or maybe you only agree insofar as the actual justice system, but are okay assuming guilt when discussing social justice? I don't agree with that, but it makes a certain amount of sense I suppose. You don't run the risk of falsely imprisoning an individual, at any rate.
The problem I have with it is that discussions like this inform actions people take, so I think it's hard to assume guilt in theory but assume innocence in practice.
---
As an aside, I don't really have much difficulty believing Scholarette's interpretation of events. They were scientists, right? Overall, I think that the intellectual/nerd subculture is one of the more insidiously sexist subcultures in America today. Much worse for it due to just how oblivious they are, and how shocked they'd be to hear someone say that.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Things like a presumption of innocence just don't generalize from the courtroom to the rational weighing of evidence that applies to ordinary belief. In ordinary life, "preponderance of evidence" ought to be the standard, although this standard is also somewhat distorted the way it gets used in the courtroom.
Here's an example a friend of mine has been thinking about:
quote:The court case is the classic example of what is known as “the problem of naked statistical evidence” in legal scholarship. Here is the court case in broad outline (I will present the hypothetical version that is usually presented in legal scholarship, the “Blue Bus Case,” which abstracts from the non-critical details of the actual case).12 As Schauer presents it:
“Suppose it is late at night…and an individual’s car is hit by a bus. This individual cannot identify the bus, but she can establish that it is a blue bus, and she can prove as well that 80 percent of the blue buses in the city are operated by the Blue Bus Company, that 20 percent are operated by the Red Bus Company, and that there are no buses in the vicinity except those operated by one of these two companies. Moreover, each of the other elements of the case – negligence, causation, and, especially, the fact and the extent of the injury – is either stipulated or established to a virtual certainty.”(81-82)
In civil cases, the standard of proof is that the plaintiff must prove her case “by a preponderance of the evidence.” This is usually taken to mean “by a balance of the probabilities” (Schauer notes that that is the phrase used in English law), which we might think means probability(p) > 0.5, where p describes the proposition the plaintiff is trying to establish. However, in the actual case, and “as the overwhelming majority of courts would conclude,” according to Schauer, the plaintiff cannot win the lawsuit, because the evidence that the plaintiff was hit by a Blue Bus is ‘merely statistical’.
But of course in such a case an individual should conclude that it was a Blue Bus.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This generalizes to the racism and sexism examples, by the way, if we have independent reason to think these kinds of bias are common.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
quote:So, one quick thought on this front, Rakeesh. I agree with you that somebody saying we shouldn't talk about sexism in this type of situation is wrong. I didn't quite feel Jeff was saying that (and your exchanges after this quote sort of bear that impression out)...
Heh, would this be anything like how we were suddenly talking about taking the matter to the courts and how there wasn't enough evidence for that? I'm not clear if Jeff actually was saying we shouldn't talk about it, but his response was strange. We were discussing it and suddenly were informed that (obviously) this wasn't preponderence-of-evidence level of evidence here.
quote:But when it comes to, say, acting on situations like this (not specifically in civil courts per se, but any sort of action, whether in a court or within a company or whatever) I think that there is a bit of an assumption of innocence on the part of any individual accused of racism or sexism.
How far does this assumption of innocence (which I'm fine with, by the way) extend? You and Jeff have (somewhat) clarified that it doesn't extend to an assumption of innocence below outright overt sexism or racism, but again: assume scholarette's observations were accurate. She watched men obtain 80% of the positions available, and also watched many of the women applicants be rejected for reasons she considered pretty puffy and vague. Assume for just a second that she wasn't simply leaping to find sexism where maybe it doesn't exist, and that the female applicants in this case actually were rejected for reasons that were simply odd and poorly worded.
That in and of itself isn't, I agree, enough to claim sexism. But what it is enough for is to say, "Hmmm, alright. Let's look at the interview process for the men, and see how that went-especially let's see if they said or did anything similarly to the rejected women, and if the responses were the same."
quote:I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that an assumption of innocence is an important part of any liberal society. I suspect you'd agree, except maybe when it comes to certain hot button issues where you subconsciously assume guilt instead.
*snort* I think you're missaplying the term 'assume innocent until proven guilty'. In practice, that's not unless I'm very much mistaken supposed to mean, "I just know the accused is innocent." No, rather we mean it the sense of 'just because someone makes an accusation doesn't make it true; look to see if there's evidence for it'. I mean this in terms of how you're using the term here.
quote:Or maybe you only agree insofar as the actual justice system, but are okay assuming guilt when discussing social justice? I don't agree with that, but it makes a certain amount of sense I suppose. You don't run the risk of falsely imprisoning an individual, at any rate.
The problem I have with it is that discussions like this inform actions people take, so I think it's hard to assume guilt in theory but assume innocence in practice.
You're welcome to point to a paragraph or sentence where I assumed the would-be employers in scholarette's story were guilty here, Dan. Seriously. No. What I'm doing is suggesting that for something like this, it's probably not the best course to simply believe someone isn't a racist or a sexist because they wouldn't claim any racist or sexist beliefs. That really does seem to be the standard being used by some people in this thread.
But the thing is, no decent person in our society is going to do anything but get defensive if it's suggested they behaved in a racist or sexist way. It's considered an insult in polite society (took long enough). Now which is more likely, Dan? That there are in fact no decent people who hold or behave in racist/sexist ideas or practices? Or that the fact that it's considered a major social flaw to be held a racist or sexist, that people are careful not to hold on to the classict racist/sexist beliefs?
Here is the action scholarette's anecdote would inform me to do, were I in a position of authority to do so: what I said above. Take a glance at the hiring procedure that went on that session, and see what I see. Remember this one for later, should further troubling trends arise-if so, take a closer look still.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh, you're still doing it.
I'm not saying what you assume I'm saying. I understand why you keep making the mistake: When you ask questions, you pretty much always seem to already be certain of what someone's answer is going to be. I'm not doing that. I may have a guess that someone will answer one way or the other, but if I was certain, I wouldn't ask.
When I ask a question like "Or maybe you only agree insofar as the actual justice system, but are okay assuming guilt when discussing social justice?" I am not asserting that this is what you think. I'm communicating to you that what you've said so far seems ambiguous to me, and I'm guessing that this might be a possible explanation.
If it's not, the correct answer is "No," not "Point to where I said I think this." You didn't explicitly say it, or I wouldn't have needed to ask the question.
As far as your statements about what might be appropriate actions to take, I agree pretty much completely. Those make sense to me.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think you're missing my point: I don't mean (and didn't say, nor did anyone, I think) that based on what scholarette said, there was enough to actually take it to civil court.
Yeah, I know. I brought that up because if anyone really wanted to get something done, legally speaking, it would ultimately become a court case. Change only happens in business when it is forced or if it will ultimately make more money. In this case, nothing is going to get done unless that particular business is threatened, and the main way to do that is through the courts. That's why I brought it up.
Again, don't mistake my analysis of this particular situation as me not believing there was sexism involved. I certainly believe that every human being on the planet is in some way favorable towards and against other races and sexes, however slight, because that's how the human mind works. It's part of our nature to segregate and separate the Other, no matter how similar they actually are. If it looks different, it must be different, at least until something that is even more different comes along, and then we can be friends (but only until the other different thing is dead).
However, as I said before, unless there is adequate proof, such as a written or oral admission or some other hard evidence, there's not really anything anyone can do about it. And that's what I think everyone here can agree on...that sexism definitely exists, just as racism does, but if you ever want that to change, there needs to be proof. That's all I was saying.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I certainly believe that every human being on the planet is in some way favorable towards and against other races and sexes, however slight, because that's how the human mind works. It's part of our nature to segregate and separate the Other, no matter how similar they actually are. If it looks different, it must be different, at least until something that is even more different comes along, and then we can be friends (but only until the other different thing is dead).
However, as I said before, unless there is adequate proof, such as a written or oral admission or some other hard evidence, there's not really anything anyone can do about it. And that's what I think everyone here can agree on...that sexism definitely exists, just as racism does, but if you ever want that to change, there needs to be proof. That's all I was saying.
No, I don't really agree. Sorry.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I certainly believe that every human being on the planet is in some way favorable towards and against other races and sexes, however slight, because that's how the human mind works. It's part of our nature to segregate and separate the Other, no matter how similar they actually are. If it looks different, it must be different, at least until something that is even more different comes along, and then we can be friends (but only until the other different thing is dead).
However, as I said before, unless there is adequate proof, such as a written or oral admission or some other hard evidence, there's not really anything anyone can do about it. And that's what I think everyone here can agree on...that sexism definitely exists, just as racism does, but if you ever want that to change, there needs to be proof. That's all I was saying.
No, I don't really agree. Sorry.
Why not, Dan? You don't agree that you need proof to change it, or you don't agree that it exists?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't agree that every person is innately wired towards irrational prejudice.
I also don't agree that the only way to change racist attitudes is with proof.
If you just mean, the only way to reliably nail a particular somebody under the law, then sure.
But the way to engender real sea-changes in the attitudes of most people isn't just to keep nailing people who are racist to the wall. You need to put better ideas out there. And you don't actually have to "prove" to someone that they are currently racist in order for them to adopt a new framework for their worldview that is not racist.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Dan, regarding the proof thing, I was saying businesses, not people. Sorry if that wasn't clearer.
The part about every person being naturally wired to fear the unknown, that's my opinion. However, it has some grounding in science as well. Human beings are naturally built to be afraid of outsiders, just like any mammal. We are born that way. It is, then, necessary for us to change ourselves, over time, to be less afraid and bigoted towards the Other. Apes do the same thing.
In fact, Mark Twain wrote an essay called "What Is Man?" (click for the full text) that delved into this from a philosophical perspective, wherein he discussed how people are born a certain way and, like an ore, need their impurities refined out of them (which he equated to learning and being better educated). These impurities, he explained, represented racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry.
We can't help how we are born, but we can help who we become. We all have racism hard-wired into our brains, and some of that will never go away, but you can get rid of most of it.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. Nobody has to agree if they don't want to.
[ May 13, 2012, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Jeff C. ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: I certainly believe that every human being on the planet is in some way favorable towards and against other races and sexes, however slight, because that's how the human mind works.
Actually, studies of implicit bias indicate that women (like men) tend to be biased against other women.
I doubt it's hard-wired, though. But any opinion about that--mine, Dan's or yours--is mainly guesswork given the present lack of evidence.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think we have racism hardwired into our brains. I think we might have a certain amount of paranoia hardwired from a time when you didn't know if a rustling in the brush was a saber-toothed lion or a skunk.
But racism and sexism are taught and learned, not innate.
I've read dozens of racism conversion experiences where people who used to be violently racist broke down and changed almost instantly when confronted with the humanity of their crimes. None of it was inborn.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I say we must crush institutionalized any-ism* with an iron boot, but should not worry about individual belief structures. That is to say, yay for promoting positive attitudes, teaching tolerance and equality, but we should accept that there will always be some people who are A-holes and are going to try and bully, abuse or otherwise crap on someone else. In saying the above, I'm not saying "just accept it" I'm saying, deal with the situation like any other A-hole and not lump it into "racism" or "sexism" or "whicheverisum".
I get really tired of people being all uptight about a joke or how "we whites are so privileged" etc. People are people. Good, bad and everything in between, and either a joke is insightful or not, funny or not, and while Kutcher's take on Indians was certainly insensitive, getting all up in arms about it just makes the world a more brittle and sharp edged place.
*My definition of "institutionalized any-ism" is as follows: A group or organization who makes it their purpose to oppress or deny equality to any group based on race, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc. For instance, when state governments had segregation laws.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My personal opinion is that white guys don't get to have an opinion on this topic that anyone takes seriously for another hundred years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My personal opinion is that white guys don't get to have an opinion on this topic that anyone takes seriously for another hundred years.
What topic? Racism?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My personal opinion is that white guys don't get to have an opinion on this topic that anyone takes seriously for another hundred years.
Excluding people by race...great plan.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't agree that every person is innately wired towards irrational prejudice.
well, we are. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I don't agree that every person is innately wired towards irrational prejudice.
well, we are.
Oh! Well, since you asserted it.
My bad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Humans have been around for, what, >100000 years last time I checked. We've been 'civilized' in an industrial age for, hmmm, at most six or seven generations, and that's being pretty generous I think.
Do y'all imagine that most, much less all, of those instincts learned and bred into us BY us over hundreds, thousands of generations have been successfully extinguished? No? I admit it is an absurd notion that they have, so for the sake of argument let's assume they haven't.
Given that, how many instincts that we teach ourselves (because really, those are the worrying ones) that were rational and useful 60K years ago are still rational and useful in a 21st century post-industrial society? Lots, or even just a few?
Then yeah, we're at least partially hardwired to have some irrational instincts. The notion that we're inherently rational with good instincts...man. Just weird.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I don't agree that every person is innately wired towards irrational prejudice.
We are also predictably racist! I am racist, so are you!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The not-so-flippant side of that is this: you can sit down and go through a test which will measure inherent biases in judgment that are just an inexorable and clingy infliction of our culture.
Do the Weapons IAT. It is the most hilariously telling. At least it tells me I'm not THAT much of a racist.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Then yeah, we're at least partially hardwired to have some irrational instincts. The notion that we're inherently rational with good instincts...man. Just weird.
Seems weird to me that you imagine the options are either A) We're innately hardwired (a.k.a. genetically predisposed) towards irrational prejudice/racism... or B) We're innately (genetically) rational with "good instincts."
That's a ludicrously false dichotomy. The fact that I reject A doesn't mean I believe B.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sam, I did two of them. The basic light/dark skin and (at your suggestion) the weapons test. According to the weapons test, I moderately associate white faces with weapons. I'm not really clear if that means I'm racist against white people or against black people. I mean, I like weapons. I also like wallets, phones, and water bottles though, so...
Anyway, according to the skin tone good/bad test, I have a moderate preference for Dark Skinned faces over Light Skinned faces.
Although I took what I think was this test once... I don't know, 6 months ago? And it came back the opposite, with a preference for light skinned faces.
In any event, I'm extremely skeptical that a test like that is actually reliably measuring anything meaningful, but I suspect you could have guessed that I'd say that. What explanations for behavior does a simple test like that provide?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan, I didn't say we're genetically predisposed towards irrational judgments. I said some of the things we're predisposed towards are irrational. Which means that yes, there is a false dichotomy, in this case of your making.
quote:In any event, I'm extremely skeptical that a test like that is actually reliably measuring anything meaningful, but I suspect you could have guessed that I'd say that. What explanations for behavior does a simple test like that provide?
For the purposes of this discussion, what does your last question matter? Or is this another idea to be rejected because it means bad things for the human condition if it's true?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:In any event, I'm extremely skeptical that a test like that is actually reliably measuring anything meaningful, but I suspect you could have guessed that I'd say that. What explanations for behavior does a simple test like that provide?
For the purposes of this discussion, what does your last question matter? Or is this another idea to be rejected because it means bad things for the human condition if it's true?
Huh? No.
So, the test seems to work this way:
Step 1: Gather data (i.e. someone takes the test) Step 2: Explain the data (How?) Step 3: Reach conclusions about someone's preferences/motive/etc.. (i.e. I think whitey's packing heat and prefer dark faces, or something)
When I say "What explanations for behavior does a simple test like that provide?" what I'm essentially asking is: how does Step 2 work? "Behavior" in this case refers to Step 1, someone taking the test.
But the creators of the test seem to think they have solid explanatory power, right? They can, looking at a small slice of someone's behavior, explain that behavior into consistently true conclusions about their preferences.
That claim seems almost as bold (and unlikely) as someone reading my personality in my horoscope, or using an online quiz to accurately figure out if I'm a Slytherin or a Hufflepuff.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You are SO a Gryffindor.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Don't be ridiculous. He's a total Ravenclaw.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Or is this another idea to be rejected because it means bad things for the human condition if it's true?
Appeal to consequences of a belief has pretty consistently been a dan thing huh :/
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sigh.
Really, Sam?
I just explained that that wasn't what I was saying at all. Literally, just a couple posts above yours. Rakeesh (and apparently you) failed to comprehend what I was saying. He has an excuse, though: his statement was based on misreading me. That happens. Effective communication is hard.
But I've clarified it now. So... what's your excuse?
------
In a more general sense, I can't decide if I should bother trying to defend myself against a blanket allegation like this.
I had some more stuff written up trying to do just that, but I don't think it's worth it. You go ahead and think what you want.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You maybe right rivka, a Gryffindor would have stepped in swinging.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Excluding people by race...great plan.
It might be. But you don't get to have an opinion on it.
------------
quote:Although I took what I think was this test once... I don't know, 6 months ago? And it came back the opposite, with a preference for light skinned faces.
As a side note: awareness of what is being tested will skew the test results if you are uncomfortable with previous results (or results you consider likely). Seriously.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sigh.
Really, Sam?
Yes. Not about that comment, about a trend in your position about any of these things, be it psych or sociological inquiry or people's economic habits and baser natures. The common thread, I think I have come to see now after reading that, is a number of appeals to consequences of a belief. Something which I would have to figure into deciding how to approach any such discussion in the future.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So, the test seems to work this way:
Step 1: Gather data (i.e. someone takes the test) Step 2: Explain the data (How?) Step 3: Reach conclusions about someone's preferences/motive/etc.. (i.e. I think whitey's packing heat and prefer dark faces, or something)
When I say "What explanations for behavior does a simple test like that provide?" what I'm essentially asking is: how does Step 2 work? "Behavior" in this case refers to Step 1, someone taking the test.
But the creators of the test seem to think they have solid explanatory power, right? They can, looking at a small slice of someone's behavior, explain that behavior into consistently true conclusions about their preferences.
Apparently, you did not even look at the website before drawing this conclusion about the test and it's creators. They are very up front about what the tests measures and how they should be used. I strongly suggest you look at this background they give on understand the purpose of the tests and [url = https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/background/ethics.html]this[/url] commentary they offer on ethical considerations.
Among other things, the tests creators warn
quote:Can (or should) people use this test to make decisions about others? Can one, for example, use this test to measure somebody else’s automatic racial preference, and use it to decide that they should or should not serve on a jury? We assert that the IAT should not be used in any such way. Especially at this early stage of the IAT’s development, it is much preferable to use it mainly to develop awareness of one’s own and others’ automatic preferences and stereotypes. Using the IAT as the basis for making significant decisions about self or others could lead to undesired and unjustified consequences.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Although I took what I think was this test once... I don't know, 6 months ago? And it came back the opposite, with a preference for light skinned faces.
As a side note: awareness of what is being tested will skew the test results if you are uncomfortable with previous results (or results you consider likely). Seriously.
Heh. Oh, well, that's good then, otherwise my results may not fit your assumptions!
Seriously, though: The first time I saw the test, I went through it slowly once to try and understand what the point of it was. It said it couldn't draw any conclusions from my answers because I'd taken the test too slowly. Then I went through faster.
So, by what you're saying, every time I took it after that first inconclusive attempt, my results were tainted? Rabbit's right, I didn't spend much time reading their site. Do they assert this, or is this your assertion, Tom?
---
Rabbit: Right. So the disclaimer confirms that the test is about as reliable (and should be given about as much credence) as an online Hogwarts sorting hat. Gotcha. Well, at least they're upfront about it!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sigh.
Really, Sam?
Yes. Not about that comment, about a trend in your position about any of these things, be it psych or sociological inquiry or people's economic habits and baser natures. The common thread, I think I have come to see now after reading that, is a number of appeals to consequences of a belief. Something which I would have to figure into deciding how to approach any such discussion in the future.
'Kay. Well, you're still wrong.
It's true that people have thought that's what I was saying in the past. I remember several examples of that. But they were mistaken.
Now, I have argued that the consequences of, say, a policy, would be or are horrible, and therefore the policy was bad. And it's true this argument happens to involve "consequences."
But "appeal to consequences" indicates that I'm determining whether or not something is true based on it's consequences, as opposed to whether or not it might be good. This seems like a pretty basic misunderstanding, either of the fallacy or of me. I'm guessing the latter.
Anyway, the point is, you're wrong.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rabbit: Right. So the disclaimer confirms that the test is about as reliable (and should be given about as much credence) as an online Hogwarts sorting hat. Gotcha. Well, at least they're upfront about it!
The disclaimer states that the test should not be a model for making significant decisions, rather than to demonstrate things about one's own hidden irrational biases. I suppose it's very much so in your tendencies to want to conclude the test as useless as an online hogwarts sorting hat test, so.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But "appeal to consequences" indicates that I'm determining whether or not something is true based on it's consequences, as opposed to whether or not it might be good. This seems like a pretty basic misunderstanding, either of the fallacy or of me. I'm guessing the latter.
Define what you think the fallacy is, then.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I just did. You quoted me.
Here's an example of someone using an appeal to consequences: "Racism isn't prevalent today because if it was that would mean we haven't really improved much. I believe we have improved a lot, so it must not be prevalent."
There's a real-life example where Destineer thought I was doing this, I think in the Trayvon thread, but I can't find it right now. Basically, I said something sounded horrible, and his response was along the lines of "yeah, sometimes things are horrible!"
Which, if you stripped my comment of context and assumed I was calling it horrible as an argument, would sound like an appeal to consequences. So, as I said, people have certainly assumed I was doing that.
For contrast, here's an argument that uses consequences without using the fallacy: "I don't think racism is very prevalent today. If we implement policies that assume it is prevalent I think those policies will have horrible consequences for society. So we shouldn't implement them."
In this case the person may be wrong that racism isn't prevalent, and they may be wrong that said policies will have horrible consequences. But those are both logically defensible arguments, and not an appeal to consequences.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rabbit: Right. So the disclaimer confirms that the test is about as reliable (and should be given about as much credence) as an online Hogwarts sorting hat. Gotcha. Well, at least they're upfront about it!
The disclaimer states that the test should not be a model for making significant decisions, rather than to demonstrate things about one's own hidden irrational biases. I suppose it's very much so in your tendencies to want to conclude the test as useless as an online hogwarts sorting hat test, so.
Heh, so, I was certainly being a smartass, and I should probably apologize for that.
If I'd taken her comment more seriously I would have said: Rabbit's statements about what the site's suggests we should do with their "results" in no way answers the question I was asking.
I wasn't asking "How do we explain what the significance of these results might be?"
I was asking "How do the test creators go from receiving their data to reaching their conclusion? (a.k.a. results)"
We're conditioned to assign a lot of authority to "tests" or more specifically "test results."
They sound so objective! And, in fairness, real tests are. Math tests, STD tests, and the like. We put in data, the test tells us our results! If our result is wrong, it's because we put in the wrong data.
But that's because, in the cases of math tests and STD tests, we tend to trust the method of interpretation used on the data we put in.
Some methods of interpretation would be bad, right? If my math test was graded by throwing darts at it, that would be a bad way of determining the results of my inputs.
In the case of this test, I don't understand what their method of interpretation is. Moreover, unlike an STD or math test, I also can't even imagine any method that would seem very concrete.
That makes me skeptical.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's a far more encouraging and thoughtful response. Anyway, the test is useful in that if you actually do it, it offers a way to provide insight into one's own implicit associations. Nearly nobody can create an equivalent timed response with the same degree of accuracy, and IAT is a way of testing for something which a person is usually unable to self-report because they are part of unrecognized mental bias. If you have any more questions about what the IAT does do (versus what it is not claiming) you can check the FAQ.
Related particularly to the issue of sticky mental/racial attachments:
quote:It is obvious that children are not born with preferences for one group or another. But early in development, infants appear to develop preferences for what is familiar such as their mother's voice, female faces (if their primary caregiver is female), and members of their race/ethnic group. It would appear that children are born with a mechanism to develop preferences rapidly, even though the specific things they come to prefer are a function of their environment. Frances Aboud showed that children explicitly express negative attitudes toward outgroups. We showed that 6 yr old, 10 yr old and adult Whites show the same level of automatic preference for their ingroup. What changes over time is the lowering of explicitly expressed preferences, with 6 yr olds reporting the strongest ingroup preference, 10 yr olds more moderate preference, and adults reporting the least of all. See Baron & Banaji, 2006; Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, in press.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So, by what you're saying, every time I took it after that first inconclusive attempt, my results were tainted?
Yes. Because you're taking it knowing what you have to do to obtain results.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:So, by what you're saying, every time I took it after that first inconclusive attempt, my results were tainted?
Yes. Because you're taking it knowing what you have to do to obtain results.
So you can only take their tests once and expect to get anything valuable? Is that once for each test, or once overall?
This is interesting to me, because I think what you're saying here makes sense from a common-sense approach. If you wanted to test my math skills right now, and gave me a test, each time I took the test I might be able to do a little better, just from knowing what I did before and what my results were. So I get why you say that.
On the other hand, how do you reconcile that understanding of their test with what they say here (from the FAQ)...
quote: What does it mean if I get a test result that I don't believe describes me or, if I take the same test twice, I get different results each time. Answer: You may be giving the test more credit than it deserves! These tests are not perfectly accurate by any definition of accuracy. Normally, outcomes will change at least slightly from one taking to another. You may discover this if you repeat any of the tests. We encourage repeating any test for which the outcome surprises you. If the outcome repeats, the result is definitely more trustworthy than is the first result alone. If the outcome varies, it is best to average the different results. However, if the outcome varies widely from one taking to another (something that is unusual) we suggest that you just regard the set of results as 'inconclusive'. Besides normal variation in the reliability of assessment, the IAT is also known to be malleable based on differences in the social setting and recent experience. These factors will influence the consistency of measurement across occasions.
Looks like they not only expect the test to be reliable across multiple uses, but if anything they expect it to be more reliable.
In my case it seems they would say that I should take it a few more times to see if I trend toward one result or the other.
Also, they seem to be suggesting that maybe a recent experience of mine could have changed my implicit attitudes. Of course the only logical conclusion is that I was racist before this discussion, but then you guys cured me. Thanks, Hatrack!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*facepalm* Dan, do you want me to explain to you how this sort of test works, or are you just being bloody-minded? I really can't tell.
Are you familiar, for example, with the Keirsey Temperament test? I can start with that and go from there, if you'd like.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Knowing intellectually that all human beings have a tenancy to prefer the subgroup they belong to is useful to help put aide any feelings of discomfort one might feel when dealing with someone not in said group.
Beyond that, I can't say as this test or knowlege of this human tendency is useful, and it certainly isn't proof of some inherent racism.
I would say that people preferring the "known" to the "unknown" is kinda in the "duh" category.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What does "bloody-minded" mean anyway?
I think Danf has made his point clearly and well...this particular test I'd designed to be taken more then once, not like you claimed previously at all
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *facepalm* Dan, do you want me to explain to you how this sort of test works, or are you just being bloody-minded? I really can't tell.
Are you familiar, for example, with the Keirsey Temperament test? I can start with that and go from there, if you'd like.
I'm not being bloody-minded, no.
I'm "familiar with" the Keirsey test in that I've heard of it. It's like Meyers-Briggs except more behavior-driven, at least that was the impression I got. But, I haven't taken it or read that much about it.
I'd be happy to hear more about it!
However, before we go off on a tangent there... are you responding to my comment to Sam that I don't understand how the Implicit Test is getting it's explanatory power? If so, then knowing how this sort of test works would probably help me.
Or, are you responding to what I said to you about whether or not taking the Implicit Tests multiple times is viable?
Because, if that's the case, then I want to set aside how "this sort of test" might work for a moment. The creators of the Implicit Tests very explicitly stated that you can, and even should, take their tests multiple times. Right? Did I misread the FAQ?
If I read it right, and if we take them at their word, isn't that, prima facie, incompatible with your assertion that all of my tests were invalid after the first? Do you need to explain other tests to answer this question?
I can think of one possible argument: Are you saying that, since my first test was a dry-run to try and understand how it worked, and more broadly since I'm skeptical of this sort of test in the first place, it won't "work" for me, period? In effect, all of my results are really inconclusive because I'm approaching the test skeptically?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What does "bloody-minded" mean anyway?
Possibly "perversely cantankerous" ...man, what a description! If that's what he means, I hope next time he just calls me that. I've been called perverse many times, but rarely cantankerous, and that's such a fun word.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *facepalm* Dan, do you want me to explain to you how this sort of test works, or are you just being bloody-minded? I really can't tell.
Are you familiar, for example, with the Keirsey Temperament test? I can start with that and go from there, if you'd like.
I'm not being bloody-minded, no.
I'm "familiar with" the Keirsey test in that I've heard of it. It's like Meyers-Briggs except more behavior-driven, at least that was the impression I got. But, I haven't taken it or read that much about it.
I'd be happy to hear more about it!
However, before we go off on a tangent there... are you responding to my comment to Sam that I don't understand how the Implicit Test is getting it's explanatory power? If so, then knowing how this sort of test works would probably help me.
Or, are you responding to what I said to you about whether or not taking the Implicit Tests multiple times is viable?
Because, if that's the case, then I want to set aside how "this sort of test" might work for a moment. The creators of the Implicit Tests very explicitly stated that you can, and even should, take their tests multiple times. Right? Did I misread the FAQ?
If I read it right, and if we take them at their word, isn't that, prima facie, incompatible with your assertion that all of my tests were invalid after the first? Do you need to explain other tests to answer this question?
I can think of one possible argument: Are you saying that, since my first test was a dry-run to try and understand how it worked, and more broadly since I'm skeptical of this sort of test in the first place, it won't "work" for me, period? In effect, all of my results are really inconclusive because I'm approaching the test skeptically?
wow.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh Sam, don't be such a flirt. I know I "wow" you on a regular basis, but this is a public forum. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp: I find your cryptic assertion of awe to be utterly unhelpful in any meaningful way to discussion and wonder why you bothered commenting at all.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You get used to it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Samp: I find your cryptic assertion of awe to be utterly unhelpful in any meaningful way to discussion and wonder why you bothered commenting at all.
Continue wondering, then, as I'm essentially in holding pattern intent to wait and watch tom to field this. But for what it is worth it is an expression of bewilderment which is me really solidly getting why tom has expressed exasperation by now.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
At least that is clear communication.
I don't understand where you are coming from, as Danf makes prefect sense to me, but that really is the point of discussion isn't it...sharing unfamiliar thoughts and experiences to grow as thinking beings through mutual benefit.
Oh wait...internet discussion board...that's more about nit picking and arguing, I forgot for a second.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I don't understand where you are coming from, as Danf makes prefect sense to me...
Just call me Percy Weasley.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: At least that is clear communication.
I don't understand where you are coming from, as Danf makes prefect sense to me, but that really is the point of discussion isn't it...sharing unfamiliar thoughts and experiences to grow as thinking beings through mutual benefit.
Oh wait...internet discussion board...that's more about nit picking and arguing, I forgot for a second.
I um.
Are you trying to be Paternalistic Internet Dad? Okay thank you dude, I got it. Got it, thanks!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit: Right. So the disclaimer confirms that the test is about as reliable (and should be given about as much credence) as an online Hogwarts sorting hat. Gotcha. Well, at least they're upfront about it!
No, you made patently false claims about the creators intent and now you are making provably false claims about the tests reliability and yelling "gotcha". You should be embarrassed.
Read the website. Check the research papers these people have published. The test has been validated in a wide variety of ways. The tool was designed as a means of researching implicit bias and it has proven to be a highly reliable when it is used as intended.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay. First off: this is a survey in the social sciences meant to measure general tendencies. As they have noted, and as with Keirsey and Myers-Briggs and any similar test, taking it multiple times will produce multiple (different) results. You may find that your multiple results reinforce a general tendency, but this is going to be highly variable. Especially problematic, once you know the "trick" of the test, is going to be someone who -- like Dan -- cares a great deal about the "implications" of a given status. Dan very much does not want to be a bigot. Dan is aware of the mechanism by which the test attempts to expose any latent prejudices.
It is possible, then, for Dan to subvert this mechanism, in the same way that it is possible for someone who is told that a company is only looking to hire energetic, personable people to completely skew their personality test results -- even without deliberately doing so.
Let's look at what the test's creators actually said:
quote: If the outcome repeats, the result is definitely more trustworthy than is the first result alone. If the outcome varies, it is best to average the different results. However, if the outcome varies widely from one taking to another (something that is unusual) we suggest that you just regard the set of results as 'inconclusive'.
They do not say, "Taking this multiple times produces more accurate results." Rather, they say, "If you take this multiple times and get similar results each time, those results are more likely to be accurate." There is actually a huge difference between the two claims.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp: I wasn't aiming sarcastic barbs your way (I can see why you would think so). I was sincere...I forgot that often times discussion boards do not have the same motivation behind them as discussion.
Tom: Did Dan specifically state he "very much does not want to be a bigot"? Or that he "cares a great deal about the "implications" of a given status"? If so, then great, I must have missed it.
If not, this one humbly suggests that assuming people's motivations in that way can be highly detrimental to polite conversation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure, it can be. But in this case, it isn't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Tom: Did Dan specifically state he "very much does not want to be a bigot"? Or that he "cares a great deal about the "implications" of a given status"? If so, then great, I must have missed it.
This could be a question for both you and dan: as far as you can guess, given anything and everything you know about studies on human behavior, why do you think experiments are so often designed around the use of things like confederates that the experiment subject is specifically kept from knowing are actually part of the experiment? Can you imagine what would change if a subject were to have an experiment such as Milgram, Zimbardo, Asch repeated again with the subject now aware of the "trick?"
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Tom: Isn't your surety in this particular case a bit premature as Dan might well take offense?
Samp: While I understand the concept you are referring to (some tests are invalid if the subject of the test understands what is being tested for) although not the specifics, I am failing to understand the connection between what I said to Tom and what you are saying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Isn't your surety in this particular case a bit premature as Dan might well take offense?
Nah. Dan's a sensible guy, not a jerky idiot.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Am I correct in understanding that you are saying that if someone were to take offense at someone else assuming their motivations that that would make them a jerky idiot?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not in all cases. In this case, though, sure.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Don't have much time right now, but Tom:
quote:Dan very much does not want to be a bigot.
I can think of two main ways to interpret this. The first is literally. In which case, you're right! Are you seriously suggesting someone else, say, you or Sam, does want to be a bigot? I suspect not. No decent person wants to be a bigot.
The second (more likely) way to interpret this is: "Dan very much does not want to find out that he has any latent or unconscious racist tendencies."
Is that what you mean? If so, you're much less right. I'm very open to discovering that I have such tendencies, and identifying why, and changing my mind. In fact, I have done so on more than one occasion. I'm not somehow ideologically or emotionally opposed to the prospect that there's more work to be done. Nor do I think I'm somehow completely impervious to cultural memes like racism.
I'm not sure what you mean by "implications" but I think it's also wrong, if it relates to what I just said. I'm not afraid of the "implication" that I might have an unconscious racist bias.
However, I am skeptical that a test like this could reveal such information to me in any meaningful way. I want to ask this again: Do you think that matters?
That is, if I go into the test skeptically, trying to identify "the trick," then it will skew my results and be worthless? I think you implied the answer to this question is "yes" but I want to make sure.
Sam: That analogy makes no sense. The site does recommend people take the test multiple times if they question their results. That's fundamentally different than Milgram, where running someone through again, after they knew what it was about, would totally invalidate the results. It doesn't matter how open to the experiment people are, it matters whether or not they know they're being fooled.
PS: Yeah, Stone Wolf, don't worry about it. If I didn't take offense at Sam's awesome "wow" comment how likely do you think I am to take offense at Tom making a few reasonable assumptions?
Heck, I understand the impulse; if you assume right, it skips the conversation ahead a bit. As long as you're open to finding out you assumed wrong, and backtracking if necessary, it's cool.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Anyway, I am skeptical that a test like this could reveal such information to me in any meaningful way. I want to ask this again: Do you think that matters?
That is, if I go into the test skeptically, trying to identify "the trick," then it will skew my results and be worthless? I think you implied the answer to this question is "yes" but I want to make sure.
Yes, broadly. I think keeping "the trick" at the forefront of one's mind as one takes the test will significantly skew the responses of many (or most) people who are at all emotionally invested in the result.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Hm.
Would you categorically disbelieve me if I said I wasn't terrible emotionally invested in the result either time I took it? I mean, I have so little respect for the test that I don't think it would bother me if it said I was a closet member of the KKK.
The only time I may have been truly invested was the first time, when it said I took too long to answer and it was inconclusive, but I was invested in figuring out what the point of the test was supposed to be, not in getting a result.
The other two times it was more morbid curiosity than anything.
The other reason I was asking this, by the way, is because "if you go into it skeptically that will tarnish your results!" is a common refrain heard in all sorts of blatant quackery (astrology, palmistry, seances, etc.), so that seems like a red flag. Maybe I'm missing a key difference though.
Okay seriously back to work now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sam: That analogy makes no sense. The site does recommend people take the test multiple times if they question their results.
1. what analogy?
2. Yes, and it qualified the reasons why, and the known associative implications of the effect of future attempts at the test by the same individual. In addition, whether a test is useless without confederate concealment or only merely potentially likely to be unconsciously biased by the performer in subsequent tests (a hallmark of IAT) under patternable circumstances is not the defining point of understanding why research into human behavior and attitudes often use systems like confederates and other methods to isolate true behavior versus reported/idealized performance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Would you categorically disbelieve me if I said I wasn't terrible emotionally invested in the result either time I took it? I mean, I have so little respect for the test that I don't think it would bother me if it said I was a closet member of the KKK.
Dan, you are a knee-jerk anti-authoritarian who dislikes social science in general. You are emotionally invested in disproving the validity of any study you take. Tell me if I'm wrong, here, but you have always struck me as the kind of guy who goes into any sort of "mushy" test -- be it a personality test, a psych eval, or a horoscope -- thinking, "There's no way this'll apply to me!"
-------
quote:The other reason I was asking this, by the way, is because "if you go into it skeptically that will tarnish your results!" is a common refrain heard in all sorts of blatant quackery (astrology, palmistry, seances, etc.), so that seems like a red flag.
Oh, absolutely. That's why, for studies where this sort of problem applies, multiple people are given these tests and the results of the tests are then checked against the results of other tests for consistency. You don't compare one user's multiple tests against themselves; you compare a mass of test results against a mass of other test results.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Would you categorically disbelieve me if I said I wasn't terrible emotionally invested in the result either time I took it? I mean, I have so little respect for the test that I don't think it would bother me if it said I was a closet member of the KKK.
Dan, you are a knee-jerk anti-authoritarian who dislikes social science in general. You are emotionally invested in disproving the validity of any study you take. Tell me if I'm wrong, here, but you have always struck me as the kind of guy who goes into any sort of "mushy" test -- be it a personality test, a psych eval, or a horoscope -- thinking, "There's no way this'll apply to me!"
Yeah, okay, you got my number. Emotionally invested in the study being hogwash is pretty accurate.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm pretty skeptical of these association-based tests myself. The ones that seem like a bigger deal are the resume' tests, where they show people the same qualifications but change the name at the top, and notice a significant discrepancy in how highly they're rated as potential hires.
quote:There's a real-life example where Destineer thought I was doing this, I think in the Trayvon thread, but I can't find it right now. Basically, I said something sounded horrible, and his response was along the lines of "yeah, sometimes things are horrible!"
Which, if you stripped my comment of context and assumed I was calling it horrible as an argument, would sound like an appeal to consequences. So, as I said, people have certainly assumed I was doing that.
That was in the epistemology/psych thread. Glad to hear I was misunderstanding you.
There's another issue in the ballpark which is tough to prise apart from this one. There's nothing wrong with objecting to something on the basis of its logical consequences. It's a truism of logic that "one person's modus ponens is another person's modus tollens," and if some claim entails something you know is false on independent grounds, you have good reason to reject it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I'm pretty skeptical of these association-based tests myself. The ones that seem like a bigger deal are the resume' tests, where they show people the same qualifications but change the name at the top, and notice a significant discrepancy in how highly they're rated as potential hires.
Right, this has been mentioned before. I've been really curious to see the details of these kinds of tests. Preferably in plain-English, as wading through a psych major's attempts to sound erudite makes my eyes cross.
(...Not specifically criticizing psych majors here, by the way. It's a common problem. Whether a research paper, a study, an article, a novel, or, heck, code documentation, I have a very, very strong preference for plain-English, and keeping technical jargon down to only what is absolutely necessary.)
Anyway, like I was saying. I'd love to see more details of the resume tests, what they controlled for, etc.
Some questions I would look for answers to: How do non "black," non "white" names square up? Like, Yuko, or Parvati, or Pedro?
How about quintessentially "white" names that are also not very traditionally American? Like, Adolf, or Jurgen, or Vladimir?
Or names that are just not popular anymore, like Benedict, Seymour, or Gertrude?
Where do nonracial, nonstandard names rank? Or are they too rare to even be a blip? Stuff like River, Moon Unit, Crimson, Moxie Crimefighter, etc.
Do any of these change based on industry?
So many questions!
I wonder if the people doing the studies shared my questions. Did they control for these possibilities?
Sometimes it seems that many people just dismiss these kinds of questions as pointless nitpicking... like, "If Susan gets picked substantially more often than Shaniqua, then that's racist, and those other questions just obfuscate the matter."
But if Gertrude and Moxie both got passed over as often as Shaniqua, then the best plausible explanations for the data has changed! The takeaway then wouldn't be "people are prejudiced against ethnic names" but rather "people are prejudiced against uncommon or unique names."
That would be a huge difference.
And if the tests just focused on typical "white" names and typical "black" names, without allowing for all these variables (and probably dozens more variables I didn't think of, right? I'm not that smart) then doesn't it cast the explanations into question?
Maybe they controlled for every conceivable question like this that someone could ask. But I'm curious to see if that's the case.
Edit: To nip off anyone assuming that I am implying that I don't think any "resume" racism could exist... that's not what I'm saying. My questions aren't assertions, they're questions.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:There's a real-life example where Destineer thought I was doing this, I think in the Trayvon thread, but I can't find it right now. Basically, I said something sounded horrible, and his response was along the lines of "yeah, sometimes things are horrible!"
Which, if you stripped my comment of context and assumed I was calling it horrible as an argument, would sound like an appeal to consequences. So, as I said, people have certainly assumed I was doing that.
That was in the epistemology/psych thread. Glad to hear I was misunderstanding you.
Heh, I knew it was in the epistemology/psych discussion, but we posted for a long time in the Trayvon thread before moving to our own.
[ May 14, 2012, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But if Gertrude and Moxie both got passed over as often as Shaniqua, then the best plausible explanations for the data has changed! The takeaway then wouldn't be "people are prejudiced against ethnic names" but rather "people are prejudiced against uncommon or unique names."
I'm just going to leave this out here for you to think about for a second, Dan.
(Edit: and, on reflection, I'll throw you a bone. The study in question did rank names in order of frequency, and found no strong correlation between the frequency of the name among the population and the callback percentage. The authors also specifically point out in response to this anticipated criticism that many of the more "exotic-sounding" names are in fact quite common in the African-American population, and not actually "exotic" at all. http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf )
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm not actually very familiar with the race-themed studies, but I wouldn't be surprised if the bias-indicating results held up under those kinds of controls, given how much better "Brian" did than "Karen" in this study:
I think you'll agree those two names are equally normal-sounding.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The point is, without an explicit statement of sexism, let's all just calm down before discussing whether it's taking place-even if Brian does better than Karen for no other known reason;)
--------
quote:Is that what you mean? If so, you're much less right. I'm very open to discovering that I have such tendencies, and identifying why, and changing my mind. In fact, I have done so on more than one occasion. I'm not somehow ideologically or emotionally opposed to the prospect that there's more work to be done. Nor do I think I'm somehow completely impervious to cultural memes like racism.
I believe I've asked a similar question about a similar statement before, Dan, so bear with me if I'm repeating myself, but: how on Earth can you be as sure as you're sounding that you have that kind of self-knowledge? I mean, do you keep track? A log or something wherein you list some of the things you feel a strong certainty about that you keep regularly, and can check against past logs later? What method do you use to determine how strong your actual certainty was in the first place, or whether that wasn't so much certainty that the idea was right but that there was something else about it that really rang true?
Basically I would look askance at anyone, even myself (especially myself) who claimed that kind of awareness. It's just not very common at all. Personal example: I am strongly opposed to second class rights for homosexuals, and to prejudice or racism towards minorities. I vote that way and I make a point to speak up when I encounter it, many times at least, though not as much as I should. But even still, I will still occasionally glance twice at, say, an interracial couple, not with disapproval but surprise as though that were odd or noteworthy, instead of just two humans dating. In books or films, I've noted a tendancy in myself for not disapproving of homosexuality, but...it is easier to have beef with other parts of the story if it is. (Though at least for really great storytelling, so far as I can tell it simply doesn't matter to me.)
I've still got this stuff cluttering around in my head, with a pretty good idea of where most of it comes from-societal pressures, the rarity of such things in my childhood, and an almost never spoken but noticeable faint disapproval on the part of my elders. I still have that stuff clanging around in there sometimes, like a draft you feel from the crack in the wall on an extremely windy day.
And yet, I can look at my life and be glad that, after careful examination, it doesn't seem to show itself very much in my behavior or relationships. I've for instance dated other races, and helped babysat for a friend of mine whose kid is 'mixed', to go with the old unpleasant term. Despite occasional guilty twinges, I'm amiable friends and coworkers (in fact, they are a couple of the most not-morons in the building, which is refreshing!) with two homosexual men, and I shoot the shit with them talking about would-be romantic entanglements just like the straight dudes and ladies.
But even with all of that, it's still there, just a smidge of my family, less than a year ago, less than five, less than fifteen when it would still be something I would support, but internally there would be more of a portion of reasoning-my-way-to-it rather than just thinking that way entirely naturally.
I get all navel-gazer here not to bore you, or to somehow praise myself (in fact some of it is quite embarrassing), but to explain why when you claim that you don't have any mental investment towards not changing your mind, or when you toss off that we don't have any irrational hardwiring, why I have such a strong reaction. There are people I would credit with that much self-awareness. I don't intend to insult you when I say that you're certainly not one of them, because I ain't either. I think you claim much more control over your own thoughts, conscious and otherwise, than actually exists for just about anybody.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But if Gertrude and Moxie both got passed over as often as Shaniqua, then the best plausible explanations for the data has changed! The takeaway then wouldn't be "people are prejudiced against ethnic names" but rather "people are prejudiced against uncommon or unique names."
I'm just going to leave this out here for you to think about for a second, Dan.
(Edit: and, on reflection, I'll throw you a bone. The study in question did rank names in order of frequency, and found no strong correlation between the frequency of the name among the population and the callback percentage. The authors also specifically point out in response to this anticipated criticism that many of the more "exotic-sounding" names are in fact quite common in the African-American population, and not actually "exotic" at all. http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf )
Thanks for the link!
So, I get what you're saying (and thanks for throwing that bone, because I didn't really get what you were hinting at till I continued reading.)
The implication is that a name that is "exotic sounding" to me is only exotic sounding because of racial bias; it is after all a common name in the black community. Right?
But I still have a problem. I can foresee a potential response, too, so I'll include that as I go.
The data from the study indicates that the white female names used were 3.8% of total white female births in the US. Black females were 7.1% of total black female births in the US.
White male names were just 1.7% of total white male births, black male names used were 3.1%
So it's fair to say that, in layman's shorthand, the black names were twice as common as the white names, yeah?
Well... sort of. Twice as common among black people as the white names were among white people.
Of course, roughly 70% of the US population is white, while something like 15% of the country is black.
So, in strict terms, a "common" name among the black community doesn't quite pass muster as a "common" name in the country as a whole. Right? Setting aside whatever you assume I'm trying to say here, the above sentence is at it's most basic level factual.
Now, moving on...
The obvious rebuttal to this is that, well, black people are called a minority for a reason, and what an insensitive ass I am to hold that up as proof that it's okay to discriminate against them.
That's not what I'm saying, of course. Hell, I think that employers discriminating against uncommon names is wrong, so regardless of the racial angle it's still an interesting study.
I'm just observing that the "black" names used are far less common overall than the "white" names used. It's a fact. The study didn't include non-racial (or "white") names that occur in the overall population with the same frequency as the "black" names chosen, to compare against. That's a weakness.
I'm not saying it blows the whole thing out of the water or whatever. Again, I don't doubt that there is racial bias at work here. I'm just saying that, despite your feelings to the contrary, Tom, the issue that I raised before looks to me to be a legitimate one, now that I've seen the actual study. The study was relatively narrow in scope, and does not appear to have controlled for all of the factors I wondered about.
Destineer: Thanks for that one too! You may be right. I'm not actually asserting that it wouldn't. I'm just saying that it hasn't.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The point is, without an explicit statement of sexism, let's all just calm down before discussing whether it's taking place-even if Brian does better than Karen for no other known reason;)
How many times do I have to reject that this is what I'm saying before you'll stop using it when you feel like being sarcastic?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Is that what you mean? If so, you're much less right. I'm very open to discovering that I have such tendencies, and identifying why, and changing my mind. In fact, I have done so on more than one occasion. I'm not somehow ideologically or emotionally opposed to the prospect that there's more work to be done. Nor do I think I'm somehow completely impervious to cultural memes like racism.
I believe I've asked a similar question about a similar statement before, Dan, so bear with me if I'm repeating myself, but: how on Earth can you be as sure as you're sounding that you have that kind of self-knowledge? I mean, do you keep track? A log or something wherein you list some of the things you feel a strong certainty about that you keep regularly, and can check against past logs later? What method do you use to determine how strong your actual certainty was in the first place, or whether that wasn't so much certainty that the idea was right but that there was something else about it that really rang true?
Wow!
I am so baffled by this, man.
When I read what I wrote up there, what I see is...
1: An admission that I have identified biases in my thinking in the past.
2: An assertion that I have tried to remove those biases when possible.
3: An acknowledgement that I fully expect there could be others.
4: And recognition that resisting cultural influence is difficult, so I could even adopt whole new unfair biases if I'm not careful.
It seems like you read it, and think that I'm saying I have perfect control over my mind and have purged any trace of bias or racism forever and always.
Baffled, man. Just... baffled.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Basically I would look askance at anyone, even myself (especially myself) who claimed that kind of awareness. It's just not very common at all. Personal example: I am strongly opposed to second class rights for homosexuals, and to prejudice or racism towards minorities. I vote that way and I make a point to speak up when I encounter it, many times at least, though not as much as I should. But even still, I will still occasionally glance twice at, say, an interracial couple, not with disapproval but surprise as though that were odd or noteworthy, instead of just two humans dating. In books or films, I've noted a tendancy in myself for not disapproving of homosexuality, but...it is easier to have beef with other parts of the story if it is. (Though at least for really great storytelling, so far as I can tell it simply doesn't matter to me.)
I've still got this stuff cluttering around in my head, with a pretty good idea of where most of it comes from-societal pressures, the rarity of such things in my childhood, and an almost never spoken but noticeable faint disapproval on the part of my elders. I still have that stuff clanging around in there sometimes, like a draft you feel from the crack in the wall on an extremely windy day.
And yet, I can look at my life and be glad that, after careful examination, it doesn't seem to show itself very much in my behavior or relationships. I've for instance dated other races, and helped babysat for a friend of mine whose kid is 'mixed', to go with the old unpleasant term. Despite occasional guilty twinges, I'm amiable friends and coworkers (in fact, they are a couple of the most not-morons in the building, which is refreshing!) with two homosexual men, and I shoot the shit with them talking about would-be romantic entanglements just like the straight dudes and ladies.
But even with all of that, it's still there, just a smidge of my family, less than a year ago, less than five, less than fifteen when it would still be something I would support, but internally there would be more of a portion of reasoning-my-way-to-it rather than just thinking that way entirely naturally.
I get all navel-gazer here not to bore you, or to somehow praise myself (in fact some of it is quite embarrassing), but to explain why when you claim that you don't have any mental investment towards not changing your mind, or when you toss off that we don't have any irrational hardwiring, why I have such a strong reaction. There are people I would credit with that much self-awareness. I don't intend to insult you when I say that you're certainly not one of them, because I ain't either. I think you claim much more control over your own thoughts, conscious and otherwise, than actually exists for just about anybody.
Thanks for sharing all that.
First of all, as always, don't apologize, you can't insult me. Well, I mean, you can, if you call me a stupid fatface I suppose you will have insulted me, but I won't actually care. It's fine.
When I talk about "hardwiring" you should probably ignore it. I'm talking about innate vs. learned, nature vs. nurture sort of stuff that belongs in my epistemology thread. What I'd call cultural memes picked up at a young age are probably, for the purposes of this discussion, identical to what you call "hardwiring." So let's let that one go for now, okay?
On the matter of personal growth/perspective/etc. I guess I can offer some of my thoughts/experiences so you have a more specific idea what I'm talking about.
While, as I said, I've found occasional areas of existent bias, I'll admit that I don't think I have found that much. That probably adds to your image of me as woefully un-self-aware, but I'm trying to be as honest as you were. And as Destineer was earlier in this thread.
Man, apparently you can't have a racism thread without a bunch of white guys opening up about how racist they think they are or aren't.
Anyway, here's some of my background when it comes to race:
(Okay having just written a bunch of crap I'm coming back up here to say I sort of go into a bunch of very rambling personal crap that is probably both uninteresting and unrelated to the topic. Sorry! I'll leave it anyway, since I went to the trouble of writing it.)
I was raised in the SF Bay Area by very hardcore hippy Buddhists, and I do think I should probably credit them with instilling a very tolerant attitude in me since childhood.
My family was poor, but many of our friends were poorer, so we almost always had friends of my parents living with our family for various stints of time. Most of them weren't white. My dad says he's never gotten along with white people, which strikes me as being racist in his own special way, but whatever.
One of the people I looked up to most as a young boy was a Tibetan monk who lived with us for several years.
I remember when I was probably 9 or so, I joined in with a group of kids who were bullying a kid who had recently moved to our area from Indonesia and didn't speak a lot of English. I don't really know if I personally bore him any racially motivated ill will or if I was just trying to fit in, but I'm certain some of the other kids had racist motivations. And I participated, so my motivations seem largely irrelevant. I've been ashamed of that behavior my entire life.
It's interesting to me that you brought up homosexuality. My parents were largely tolerant of homosexuality same as everything, though my dad tended to be... hm... like you, maybe? He was adamantly for gay rights, but sometimes you'd pick up on an undercurrent that he wasn't personally comfortable with gay guys.
When I was an adolescent I had some experiences I don't care to share just now, followed by a crisis of sexuality as I started having homosexual thoughts and worried about being gay. Worried, despite knowing my parents would largely accept it. I don't recall ever harassing any gay kids, but I was so confused and ashamed I might have had the right situation arisen.
In my late teens I still wondered, and I'd had some weird and dissatisfying experiences with women, so I went ahead and had sex with a couple of guy friends to see if I was missing something. It was fun, but it wasn't any less weird or slightly-dissatisfying than sex with women had been.
Sex as a teenager, it turned out, was often weird and a little less awesome than advertised.
As I grew up, I had less crises and such, but I certainly still had different hurdles to overcome.
I lived on the edge of the Navajo reservation in Arizona for a few years, and racism between whites and Navajos there is very weird and can slip into your thoughts if you let it. I think it helped that I worked a low-end food service job, so 50% or more of my workforce at any given time was Navajo, so I made a lot of friends and saw a lot of the crap they sometimes go through.
Similarly, back here in CA, I worked various parts of the financial industry, including phone customer service, and that's a field that is not just predominantly women, but disproportionately black women to boot. 5 out of 6 managers and the regional manager were black women.
Working phones like that you often encounter the worst in people, including a lot of racism. Even I did, of the casual kind that is thankful they got a man with a white voice instead of a black lady (or guy, as one of my few male cube-mates had an incredibly awesome, smooth baritone that was pretty unmistakably a "black guy" voice.)
When I started at that job, I know I had a low opinion of urban accents. Ebonics. Whatever you want to call them. "Axing" questions and whatnot. I didn't think of this as racist; they're speaking poorly, dammit, it's a matter of proper enunciation!
But a fair number of my coworkers spoke that way, including my direct manager, and of course they weren't actually less competent or dumber or whatever than people who spoke "correctly," it was just how they grew up speaking. I've mentioned before here on Hatrack that there aren't many (if any) accents I don't like. I think that was the last one to win me over, but of course it did.
Eh, I dunno man, I've rambled for a long time. I guess I'm just saying what I said initially: I think you're reading an assertion of control over my thoughts that I didn't intend to put there. I'm not in any way trying to assert that I am superhumanly self-aware.
Okay?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But even still, I will still occasionally glance twice at, say, an interracial couple, not with disapproval but surprise as though that were odd or noteworthy, instead of just two humans dating.
I wanted to comment on this gem separately, so I've reposted it.
It's not that odd or racist that you notice this, if where you live such couples are noteworthy (i.e. uncommon.) Why wouldn't you? The idea that eliminating racism means being literally colorblind is kind of silly. They still have a race, whether it bothers you or not.
When I see a couple of any sort that I don't often see in public... that's interracial, gay, substantial apparent age differences, or mixed subculture (like a very "punk" woman snuggling a man in a suit)... I often notice. I delight in the fact that less "standard" couples like that feel comfortable showing their affection in public. I think it's freakin' awesome.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*sigh* You claimed to be 'very open' to discovering hidden biases in yourself (though, even though I suspect it would not be persuasive, if your posts are reflective of your thinking, that I'm not the only one who would raise an eyebrow at 'very').
My question was and remains, "How do you know you're actually very open to such discoveries? How would anyone go about knowing how willing they are to discover hidden parts of their thinking? How could they possibly predict how they'll react to what they literally don't know to the extent of being 'very sure' about it?"
I'm not sure if your thoughts on how the mind works includes such a thing as subconscious thoughts (I mean that very broadly, including a whole lot of things), or if that's another area of psychology that you dismiss, but it would be as though someone told you they were very open to the idea of discovering what they weren't aware was on their mind-even if it was bad.
So having read your post, before you worked with people who spoke 'ebonics', do you think you would have classed yourself 'very open' to discovering you were wrong about that? How do you know just how strongly you felt that way, and just how unconscious it was? I hear you when you say you aren't claiming as much self awareness as I think you are, but I'm not even insisting you're wrong about yourself, not really (though I am as skeptical of you in this as I'd expect anyone to be of me), I'm asking how do you *know* enough to say 'very sure'?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Aww, don't sigh, Rakeesh!
We're making progress!
First, to answer one of your questions to establish background: Yeah, I agree that unconscious/subconscious thoughts exist.
When I say I am "very open" to the idea that I have hidden biases, there are two major implicit ideas here.
The first and biggest is that, as an advocate of Popperian fallibilism/critical rationalism, as far as I'm concerned one of the most important things to do in any discussion is to be open to criticism.
I can't "know" that I'm right, so it's important to always keep an open mind when facing new criticisms, and it's equally important to be willing to change my mind if I can't refute a valid criticism.
So if someone thinks I have an unconscious bias or other irrationality, I should be open to listening to their reasons, and do my best to figure out if they're right.
Unconscious biases are some of the hardest to identify, of course, so I may fail at this, but the possibility of failure doesn't mean I should resist the attempt. I'm "very open" to the attempt, if that makes sense.
The second part, an addendum really, is simply that our culture has plenty of unconscious biases about race. It's a problem area (one of many). Given that, its a front where rigorous self-scrutiny in the face of new criticism is especially important. Again, that makes me "very open" to the possibility that I have flawed thinking in this area.
At no point does being "very open" to finding biases in my thinking automatically translate into being very effective at doing so. Especially without criticism!
You're free to think I suck at it, though I think I do alright.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You're free to think I suck at it, though I think I do alright.
That fact that you think you do alright at recognizing your biases is evidence that you almost certainly do not.
The first step toward being rational and objective is to recognize that you aren't and accepting that you will never be fully objective about somethings. Our biological programming does not favor rational objectivity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, to be fair, someone who is very good at understanding his own mental processes would also think he was very good at it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think I do okay at recognizing MANY of my biases. It is fun to find new ones, and recognize where they've been at work without my understanding of them as bias. There will always be plenty to find. It is the nature of being confronted by the biological structure of our own minds.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, to be fair, someone who is very good at understanding his own mental processes would also think he was very good at it.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. In my experience, the more expertise you gain in any complex field the more you realize how much there is that you do not understand. I see no reason to expect that self knowledge would be an exception to this rule.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that if you have genuine self-knowledge, that would include the self-knowledge to know that you've got more than most people. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This is true. Whether or not most people trend towards claiming self-knowledge which is ultimately false for many reasons, it's absolutely true.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe that the human brain is incapable of comprehending itself. Genuine complete self-knowledge is impossible and therefore it is irrelevant to speculate about how a person who had it might behave.
If you have enough more self-knowledge than most people have, you will also know that you know yourself worse than most other people believe they know themselves.
Unfortunately, a certain threshold of critical thinking ability is necessary before people can recognize when their critical thought process are poor. Most people never make it over that threshold.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, I'm with Tom here.
The knowledge that you don't know everything is very different from false humility.
There are many topics about which I think, broadly, that I know more than "most" people.
But there is not a single topic about which I don't also recognize that there's a lot I still don't know, and I often even know specific people who know more than I do about it. That's okay! There's an infinite amount of knowledge to be gained. It isn't like Pokemon. I can't catch it all. Well, maybe that is like Pokemon. Don't they keep adding creatures or something? Anyway you get my point.
"The more expertise you gain in any complex field the more you realize how much there is that you do not understand" is not the same as "The more expertise you gain in any complex field the less good you are at that field, or even the less good you ought to think you are at that field."
Both of those are silly. The latter may sound a little better, but it's still fundamentally irrational.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe that the human brain is incapable of comprehending itself. Genuine complete self-knowledge is impossible and therefore it is irrelevant to speculate about how a person who had it might behave.
I'm guessing you don't want to get into a philosophical debate about this belief of yours, though, right? Especially not with me?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you have enough more self-knowledge than most people have, you will also know that you know yourself worse than most other people believe they know themselves.
Who cares how well people believe they know themselves? You just established that someone in that situation would A) know themselves better than most people, and B) that they would be aware of this fact.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Unfortunately, a certain threshold of critical thinking ability is necessary before people can recognize when their critical thought process are poor. Most people never make it over that threshold.
Yeah, this is largely true, though the problem goes a lot deeper than critical thinking ability.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Nothing in what you've said necessarily contradicts what I've said.
Joe believes he understands his biases better than most people.
Joe'e estimate of how well he understand's his own biases is lower than most people's estimate of how well they understand their own biases.
There is nothing contradictory about those two statements. The first describes how Joe compares himself to other people. The second compares Joe's self assessment of his ability to other peoples self assessment of their ability.
In any sufficiently complex field there will be a strong correlation between these two but in this case I expect the correlation to be almost perfect because of the reflexive nature of the problem.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm guessing you don't want to get into a philosophical debate about this belief of yours, though, right? Especially not with me?
I'd be willing to get into a philosophical debate about it assuming my opponent had good enough critical thinking ability to make it something more than an exercise in futility. I don't know whether you'd qualify or not.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I agree with Rabbit.
For example, the great majority of people who claim to know how their mind works, are at the same time completely ignorant about cognitive sciences.
You can't really know how your mind works, and why it works the way it does, unless you have researched cognitive sciences. And the more you research them, the more aware you become of how little you actually know. The field of cognitive sciences is so extremely vast, that one lifetime isn't enough to master all of it.
BTW, there are studies supporting the idea that incompetent people tend to overestimate their ability, where as competent people tend to underestimate their ability. In other words, stupid people are so stupid, that they don't even realize they are stupid. Therefore they have a sense of false superiority.
Smart people on the other hand are so knowledgeable and aware of the limitations of their intellect, that they are more critical of themselves.
The Dunning-Kruger effect.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I'm guessing you don't want to get into a philosophical debate about this belief of yours, though, right? Especially not with me?
I'd be willing to get into a philosophical debate about it assuming my opponent had good enough critical thinking ability to make it something more than an exercise in futility. I don't know whether you'd qualify or not.
That's a promising beginning!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Nothing in what you've said necessarily contradicts what I've said.
Joe believes he understands his biases better than most people.
Joe'e estimate of how well he understand's his own biases is lower than most people's estimate of how well they understand their own biases.
There is nothing contradictory about those two statements. The first describes how Joe compares himself to other people. The second compares Joe's self assessment of his ability to other peoples self assessment of their ability.
I agree with this.
There's no reason whatsoever that the fact that I think I do okay would be convincing to anyone. I'm pretty sure all Tom pointed out is that it should not somehow be especially unconvincing either, which was what you initially asserted. Have you changed your mind?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In any sufficiently complex field there will be a strong correlation between these two but in this case I expect the correlation to be almost perfect because of the reflexive nature of the problem.
Let me see if I understand what you're saying here:
If a field is complex or difficult, the likelihood of someone being good in that field is lower.
If a field is easy or simple, then the likelihood of someone being good is higher.
But if a field is deceptively complex, so people often think it's easy, then there will be a large number of people who think they are good at it. So there will be a higher number of people who erroneously think they're good?
Is that about right? If so, I think that's an interesting assessment.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: Smart people on the other hand are so knowledgeable and aware of the limitations of their intellect, that they are more critical of themselves.
The Dunning-Kruger effect.
Thanks Tuukka, I've been trying to remember the name for that for several days.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Have you changed your mind?
Not in the least, you evidently didn't read the last paragraph.
quote:In any sufficiently complex field there will be a strong correlation between these two but in this case I expect the correlation to be almost perfect because of the reflexive nature of the problem.
Let me explain what I meant by the "reflexive nature of the problem". To know yourself well takes effort. You need to have a drive to understand. The stronger that drive is, the more biased you are going to be. The better you understand yourself and the effects of bias on assessment, the more you recognize that you are unable to make any objective judgement about your own self-knowledge. Hence, when a person claims they are good at recognizing their own biases, it's evidence that they are not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The better you understand yourself and the effects of bias on assessment, the more you recognize that you are unable to make any objective judgement about your own self-knowledge.
I think this particular claim is not based on evidence; the idea that the human mind is unknowable is a faith-based assertion.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Have you changed your mind?
Not in the least, you evidently didn't read the last paragraph.
I avoided reading it so hard that I gave it it's own section in my reply, and devoted more time to it than I had the first two paragraphs.
Man, I'm not very good at avoiding things, am I? Maybe I really don't know myself as well as I thought!
As to the rest of what you said, you didn't confirm if I'd understood or not, but that's okay, because Tom already cut to the chase above me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Let me see if I understand what you're saying here:
If a field is complex or difficult, the likelihood of someone being good in that field is lower.
If a field is easy or simple, then the likelihood of someone being good is higher.
But if a field is deceptively complex, so people often think it's easy, then there will be a large number of people who think they are good at it. So there will be a higher number of people who erroneously think they're good?
Is that about right? If so, I think that's an interesting assessment.
That's part of it, but there is more. Being truly excellent at anything is hard so from one perspective its deceptive if anything of worth appears to be simple. Talent only goes so far. No one ever achieves excellence unless they have a drive to improve. That implies both a strong desire to excel and a recognizing a need to improve. That combination is certain to bias excellent people to under-estimate their own ability.
[ May 15, 2012, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Thanks for replying to that, Rabbit! I thought you'd ignored it, so I mean that sincerely I really appreciate it.
My problem with what you're saying is that this statement "a recognition that you haven't arrived yet" is too vague and broad for our purposes here.
Certainly, achieving excellence in a field requires that you be self-critical, and not just ignore or hide your shortcomings. And one way of doing this is broadly, as you described. Keeping generally humble and recognizing that you "haven't arrived yet" will usually lead to being self-critical.
But it's not the best way to be self-critical. You can also be self-critical in areas you are weak while fully recognizing your overwhelming skills in other areas. Lots of wildly skilled people are also massively arrogant douchebags, after all.
And, of course, you could be self-critical, and recognize your strengths, without being a douchebag, though that is perhaps less common.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Perhaps putting things another way will be helpful. Knowing one's own mind, or knowledge and expertise in a complex field, isn't an effort such as running the 100m dash. Even in that, for just about every person ever born, there will forever be lots of things they could do to improve their time whether it was changing diet, changing running technique, working out, making innumerable small tweaks to all of those things the better one gets. But eventually, no matter how skilled one is at running the 100m dash, while there will still be those innumerable small improvements they can make to squeeze out a few extra tenths of a second, there comes a point when that person can really know that there simply isn't much better that they can get. Their time is so fast that they are simply approaching the limits of their own human possibility at this time.
They can know this because it's possible to put pretty effective ranges on a human's running speed, reflexes, coordination, etc., and while a given human (even the best) can always make some changes to attempt improvement in some of those areas, they also know there's not some hidden skill they haven't learned or hidden food they haven't eaten that will let a human being run at, for example, 50mph.
When it comes to the human mind, though, it's different. The tool we use to estimate how much there might be left to learn, how many hidden plateuas there may be, is the human mind. You can't ever really know you're thinking the quickest and most rationally that you possibly can, because the tool you would measure that by is the tool you are also attempting to measure. You can estimate, but by necessity your estimates are going to be much less reliable than, say, an estimate of how fast a human being could possibly run a 100m dash-because in the latter, you can study and measure all sorts of things individually and improve them separately, such as diet, muscle strength, reflexes, so on and so forth. And the tools with which you measure those things are tools such as stopwatches, nutrition tables, etc. You're not simply running as fast as you possibly can and afterwards trying to gauge whether that was really as fast as you could've run.
Does that make sense? This is why I, and now others, take issue with your claims to sureness here-even though you don't claim to be overall really sure or anything. The tool you're using the feel sure is the tool you're saying you feel sure about.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: When it comes to the human mind, though, it's different. The tool we use to estimate how much there might be left to learn, how many hidden plateuas there may be, is the human mind. You can't ever really know you're thinking the quickest and most rationally that you possibly can, because the tool you would measure that by is the tool you are also attempting to measure. You can estimate, but by necessity your estimates are going to be much less reliable than, say, an estimate of how fast a human being could possibly run a 100m dash-because in the latter, you can study and measure all sorts of things individually and improve them separately, such as diet, muscle strength, reflexes, so on and so forth. And the tools with which you measure those things are tools such as stopwatches, nutrition tables, etc. You're not simply running as fast as you possibly can and afterwards trying to gauge whether that was really as fast as you could've run.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, not only does it make sense, I think it's one of the truest things I've ever seen you write. It also doubles as a serviceable explanation for why I got interested in epistemology in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is why I, and now others, take issue with your claims to sureness here-even though you don't claim to be overall really sure or anything. The tool you're using the feel sure is the tool you're saying you feel sure about.
Here you sort of offhandedly gloss over the fact that I am, in fact, not at all sure of what you think I'm sure of, but you seem to think that's immaterial. Or you think that I think it's immaterial. Not sure. Either way, that's an important miscommunication!
In part I think it may be due to a language barrier. In casual conversation, I frequently use words like "know" and similar as shorthand for "has not yet been refuted by criticism," perhaps because I'm lazy and often use imprecise language and colloquial phrases. It's something other Popperians sometimes give me crap for... with good reason, since they are epistemologically very different statements.
To "know" something, in the philosophical sense of "justified, true belief" is, in Popper's opinion (and mine) impossible. But I'm not going to let a perfectly good word like "know" go totally to waste. Especially when, in layman's conversations, if I'm talking about a theory that has not yet been successfully refuted by criticism, I'm going to act as though that theory were true until I have reason to do otherwise.
Which means, for functional purposes, it's something I "know."
Getting back on the rails of what you were saying: Again, I'm not "sure" at all. But until I find new internal or external criticism that contradicts it, I'm going to act on the idea that my current understanding is a functional approximation of truth.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Here you sort of offhandedly gloss over the fact that I am, in fact, not at all sure of what you think I'm sure of, but you seem to think that's immaterial. Or you think that I think it's immaterial. Not sure. Either way, that's an important miscommunication!
This latest round of discussion started when you described yourself as 'very open' to discovering these sorts of tendancies about yourself. If by that you meant, "I feel like I'm very open, and until I have encountered a reason to think I might not be, I will behave as if I am," then I suppose that's a very different thing...
Though I would say that there are more than one really good reasons to look askance at one's own feelings of just how open one really is. After all, this isn't like being 'very open' to trying new things or something, sexual things or food things or sports things or acting things. With such a feeling, one can more easily remind one's self about, "Wait a second, I need to try this!" if there's a moment of doubt.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Here you sort of offhandedly gloss over the fact that I am, in fact, not at all sure of what you think I'm sure of, but you seem to think that's immaterial. Or you think that I think it's immaterial. Not sure. Either way, that's an important miscommunication!
This latest round of discussion started when you described yourself as 'very open' to discovering these sorts of tendancies about yourself. If by that you meant, "I feel like I'm very open, and until I have encountered a reason to think I might not be, I will behave as if I am," then I suppose that's a very different thing...
Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. Except if we're trying to be precise, "feel" is probably too vague. I don't think I'm open to self-identifying errors because I just feel so open to the idea. I think I'm open because, whenever possible, I consider my thoughts and actions critically, and often find errors.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Though I would say that there are more than one really good reasons to look askance at one's own feelings of just how open one really is. After all, this isn't like being 'very open' to trying new things or something, sexual things or food things or sports things or acting things. With such a feeling, one can more easily remind one's self about, "Wait a second, I need to try this!" if there's a moment of doubt.
Right.
I think we may be starting to talk in circles.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. Except if we're trying to be precise, "feel" is probably too vague. I don't think I'm open to self-identifying errors because I just feel so open to the idea. I think I'm open because, whenever possible, I consider my thoughts and actions critically, and often find errors.
But we haven't been talking about conscious thoughts and actions, we've been talking about implicit subconscious bias. Implicit biases can often be quite different from our conscious thoughts which makes them challenging to recognize.
How would you go about determining whether or not you had an implicit bias against, for example, short men. This kind of bias is well demonstrated (by numerous different measures) and quite common but I doubt anyone ever consciously thinks -- he's short -- he must be stupid and incompetent. It's certainly not something I've ever heard anyone say. From a purely statistical basis, it's highly likely that you have a bias against short men. What kind of thing would you look for to decide whether or not you had this very common subconscious prejudice against short guys?
In this thread, you were shown a tool that is claimed to be a reasonably reliable way of detecting subconscious bias and you rejected it pretty much out of hand. That makes it hard for me to believe you are truly open to considering whether you have subconscious biases. I can believe that you are open to the idea that you could have implicit biases but closed to the idea that simple psychological tests are likely to having any meaning, but if you reject any kind of test for subconscious bias -- what's left? What would you consider a valid means of detecting a subconscious bias? Examining your conscious thoughts critically just doesn't seem that likely to tell you anything about your subconscious biases. It's like using a topomap of the surface to study what's inside caves.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:When it comes to the human mind, though, it's different. The tool we use to estimate how much there might be left to learn, how many hidden plateuas there may be, is the human mind.
Thanks Rakeesh, you explained that very well.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. Except if we're trying to be precise, "feel" is probably too vague. I don't think I'm open to self-identifying errors because I just feel so open to the idea. I think I'm open because, whenever possible, I consider my thoughts and actions critically, and often find errors.
But we haven't been talking about conscious thoughts and actions, we've been talking about implicit subconscious bias. Implicit biases can often be quite different from our conscious thoughts which makes them challenging to recognize.
How would you go about determining whether or not you had an implicit bias against, for example, short men. This kind of bias is well demonstrated (by numerous different measures) and quite common but I doubt anyone ever consciously thinks -- he's short -- he must be stupid and incompetent. It's certainly not something I've ever heard anyone say. From a purely statistical basis, it's highly likely that you have a bias against short men. What kind of thing would you look for to decide whether or not you had this very common subconscious prejudice against short guys?
In this thread, you were shown a tool that is claimed to be a reasonably reliable way of detecting subconscious bias and you rejected it pretty much out of hand. That makes it hard for me to believe you are truly open to considering whether you have subconscious biases. I can believe that you are open to the idea that you could have implicit biases but closed to the idea that simple psychological tests are likely to having any meaning, but if you reject any kind of test for subconscious bias -- what's left? What would you consider a valid means of detecting a subconscious bias? Examining your conscious thoughts critically just doesn't seem that likely to tell you anything about your subconscious biases. It's like using a topomap of the surface to study what's inside caves.
I didn't reject it out of hand! I've taken Implicit tests 5 times to date, 3 on the same test and 2 different tests once each. I certainly was skeptical of the test's efficacy from the get-go, but that's not the same thing at all.
Anyway, to your greater issue:
Earlier I agreed with Rakeesh that unconscious attitudes exist, but maybe I need to clarify that here for you (and maybe him).
The existence of unconscious thoughts does not in any way imply (to me, anyway) that it is impossible to consciously access or understand those thoughts.
So, yes, I think that applying critical scrutiny to your actions and thoughts is definitely a way to understand, and change, your unconscious ones.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The existence of unconscious thoughts does not in any way imply (to me, anyway) that it is impossible to consciously access or understand those thoughts.
So, yes, I think that applying critical scrutiny to your actions and thoughts is definitely a way to understand, and change, your unconscious ones.
This is simply not a logically sound conclusion. One of the most basic principles of measurement science is that no instrument can be used by itself to determine whether there is a bias in the measurements it makes. There has to be an independent means of verification. Nothing is capable of objectively observing itself. That is a logical contradiction.
It's not that it is impossible to consciously access or understand what is happening in your subconscious. The problem is that you can never be certain that any conscious thought is not being influenced by the your implicit biases. That’s what it means to have an implicit bias. To be certain whether or not you have a bias, you need an independent means of verifying your observations that can not be influenced by that bias. Your own brain can not meet that criteria.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While I see what you are trying to say, I have to disagree that Dan's thought "is simply not a logical sound conclusion".
Here is an (made up) example of of what I'm (and possibly Dan) is talking about.
Every time I walk down the street and see a black person, I immediately feel a gut drop of fear, and I have to override it in my brain. Clearly my subconscious is afraid of black people. Now that I know that about myself, I make it a point to try and engage more black people in conversation, and smile and wave to black strangers, and the more contact I have with them, the less I have this unconscious reaction and I find it is easier to get over.
Or in other words, train the brain.
Saying that you can't use your conscious brain to analyze or change your subconscious is painful to me, because how the hell else are you going to modify your knee jerk reactions? Are you suggesting that we are all trapped, powerless to whatever our subconscious spouts into our conscious mind?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Saying that you can't use your conscious brain to analyze or change your subconscious is painful to me, because how the hell else are you going to modify your knee jerk reactions? Are you suggesting that we are all trapped, powerless to whatever our subconscious spouts into our conscious mind?
I did not say you can't use your conscious brain to analyze or change your subconscious. What I said, and it a logical certainty, it is impossible using only your own brain to determine whether or not your brain is biased. You have to have input from some external source that can not be affected by your biases.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How can you say that when I even included an example of exactly what you are saying is impossible?
Or to put it another way, I disagree, a lot.
Or to put it yet another way, considering you are saying you can analyze and change your subconscious with your brain...I have no idea what your point is, your first sentence seems to conflict hugely with your second one.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Are you saying that sitting in a blank room, just thinking about things, you -can't- determine if your subconscious's feelings about things?
If so, I guess it's possible, but still, kinda silly.
I mean, you could still -remember- past reactions which would give you clues to your subconscious's reactions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A few things about that example. First, even by the description given, you haven't actually removed your subconscious bias yet, nor can you really guarantee that you will eventually be 100% successful-nobody could, though I don't doubt you are making good progress, so to speak.
Two, even in this example, this change isn't something you're doing entirely on your own-or did you reach the conclusion that it was wrong to have that visceral fear of black people totally on your own, independent of any outside influence? It's the 21st century, after all, and I suspect you were taught about the Civil Rights Movement in school, and that society has reinforced this early lesson that racism is bad at many points in your life since then.
Given these things, while you certainly get the credit for recognizing and working on the problem, how do you claim to have made that decision using only the work of your own brain?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So if I use a crescent wrench and my own two hands to fix a leaky faucet, it's wrong to claim "I fixed it" because surely someone somewhere taught me how to use a wrench and "righty tighty, lefty loosey" and heck, someone invented and produced the wrench.
Edit: I just don't see why this level of specificity is needed. Of course when people use their brain they use their knowledge and experience as well. Why is it important to note that that means we didn't use -just- our brain?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:How can you say that when I even included an example of exactly what you are saying is impossible?
Your hypothetical example is critically flawed. Its an over simplified unrealistic scenario that does not reflect the real complexity of implicit biases. The problem is not that a person can't figure out that they have a particular bias and then try to change it, the problem is that people can't ever accurately determine when they are truly unbiased.
Having an implicit bias means that your brain automatically edits out information that is inconsistent with your bias. The human brain is really actually terribly flawed in this respect. We see only what we are looking for. Have you ever seen the video where you are asked to count the number of times a team in white passes a ball?
Here is the way your scenario is more likely to work. A person who consciously believes that racism is a bad thing will usually have a strong implicit bias that they are not racist. The same person could also have a strong implicit bias that black people are dangerous so when they see a black stranger on a street they are more likely to be afraid than if the stranger is white. Because the person has an implicit bias that they aren't racist, they are unlikely to be consciously aware that they are afraid because the stranger is black. If they examine the situation critically, their own implicit bias will skew their own conscious critical analysis of the situation and they are probably going to conclude, "I was scared because of his mannerisms and the way he dressed, not because he was black." They may not even be consciously aware that person was black. Or they might rationalize that its fair to be more fearful in a neighborhood that has a high black population because the crime rates in that neighborhood are actually higher. And sometimes those reasons will be valid. The problem is that the person's implicit biases make it impossible for him to determine when those reasons are valid and when they aren't. That's what it means to be biased. And the stronger the bias is, the harder it will be for a person to see that thoughts and actions are not rationally consistent.
This is not to say that it isn't possible to figure out that you have a bias and to work to change that bias. It just isn't possible to determine that you don't have a bias without some sort of external input that is free from that bias. And, as a rule, people don't figure out that they do have a bias unless there is some external input that reveals the bias.
[ May 16, 2012, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Are you saying that sitting in a blank room, just thinking about things, you -can't- determine if your subconscious's feelings about things?
If so, I guess it's possible, but still, kinda silly.
I mean, you could still -remember- past reactions which would give you clues to your subconscious's reactions.
No, I'm saying that if you had a strong implicit bias that you weren't racist and you walked down the street and passed 10 black people and 10 white people and you felt that 5 scariest people were all black -- you would be unfit to judge whether that showed a racial bias or not.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay, that makes more sense to me, all except for the "just isn't possible to determine that you don't have a bias without some sort of external input that is free from that bias."
How can you be so certain it is -impossible-? Very difficult, sure, but a bias isn't necessarily all encompassing, utterly editing out all info that might allow someone to understand their are biased, right?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The better you understand yourself and the effects of bias on assessment, the more you recognize that you are unable to make any objective judgement about your own self-knowledge.
I think this particular claim is not based on evidence; the idea that the human mind is unknowable is a faith-based assertion.
I think its a straight forward matter question of definition. An "objective observation" is one in which the observation being made is dependent only on the state of the object being observed and independent of the state of the observer. By definition, objective self-knowledge is a logical impossibility because the observed and the the observer are one and the same.
[ May 16, 2012, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:How can you be so certain it is -impossible-? Very difficult, sure, but a bias isn't necessarily all encompassing, utterly editing out all info that might allow someone to understand their are biased, right?
Like I said at the out set, this is a fundamental principle of measurement science. If there is a systematic error (i.e. bias) in measurment instrument that error can not be detected using only that biased instrument. Imagine for example that you have a measuring tape is incorrectly marked so that each inch on the tape is really only 0.9 inches. This could be said to be a biased measurement device. Every time you use this device you are going to get an answer that is bigger than the true answer. If this is the only device you have for measuring things, there is no way to figure out that the measuring tape is wrong. To do that, you have to have an independent means of measuring that isn't subject to the same error.
It's possible that a person could have a bias that only affects certain kinds of thoughts but not others. In those case, it would be possible for the person to identify the bias through exclusive self examination. But if a person has a bias that influences all their thoughts about their thoughts, it will be impossible to discover that bias by self examination because the bias will affect the outcome of the self examination.
It's not impossible for a person to discover they have a bias via self assessment but it is impossible for a person to determine they don't have a bias via self assessment.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not trying to rub your nose in it or anything, but can you see how far you have changed what you are saying from:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:...I think that applying critical scrutiny to your actions and thoughts is definitely a way to understand, and change, your unconscious ones.
This is simply not a logically sound conclusion.
To this:
quote:...it would be possible for the person to identify the bias through exclusive self examination.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rabbit, since this topic came up because of me, I can't help but assume that, in your mind, you're still talking about me.
If so, your claims here are... odd, to say the least.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ...it is impossible using only your own brain to determine whether or not your brain is biased.
To this quote, I just want to double check that you know I referred several times to "external and internal" information, right? Not "using only my brain." I'm checking because maybe your bias caused you to selectively edit out instances where I mentioned the word "external."
You seem to be defining "Self-assessment" as "self-assessment with no external information," which is arbitrary and not at all congruent with what I've said.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It's not impossible for a person to discover they have a bias via self assessment but it is impossible for a person to determine they don't have a bias via self assessment.
Yeah, that's true.
It's also impossible to determine that there isn't a fossil somewhere that would disprove evolution. It's also impossible to determine whether or not anyone in history has ever been born with psychic abilities (or ever will be).
You're confusing tentative conjectural knowledge with justified true belief.
It is possible to reach fallible, mutable, functionally true realizations about your biases after self-assessment (utilizing internal and external information and metrics).
What I said here doesn't actually contradict the line I've quoted from you, but I'm not sure you'll see that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not trying to rub your nose in it or anything, but can you see how far you have changed what you are saying from:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:...I think that applying critical scrutiny to your actions and thoughts is definitely a way to understand, and change, your unconscious ones.
This is simply not a logically sound conclusion.
To this:
quote:...it would be possible for the person to identify the bias through exclusive self examination.
You've taken my quotes out of context. When I look at the full context, I don't see any inconsistency. It isn't logically sound to presume you can accurately understand your own biases by critically scrutinizing your own conscious thoughts and actions. Any critical scrutiny you perform is going to be influenced by the biases you are trying to detect. That doesn't mean you can't ever detect any bias in you might hold -- it means you can't do it reliably enough to ever exclude the possibility that your self-assessment was skewed by an implicit bias.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:To this quote, I just want to double check that you know I referred several times to "external and internal" information, right? Not "using only my brain." I'm checking because maybe your bias caused you to selectively edit out instances where I mentioned the word "external".
No I did not miss you reference to using external information but perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by that. Using external information in a self assessment is not the same thing as considering the results of external independent assessment. Your comments seemed to imply that you were willing to consider external information but not an external assessment of your bias. If I am incorrect, can you please explain what kinds of external assessments you have used or would be willing to use to determine whether you have subconscious biases?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm struggling to see where Rabbit has said nobody anywhere can ever root out an implicit bias by self-assessment alone. Rather she seems to be questioning how one can claim to know they have done so, at all.
Imagine you're playing horshoes, but you're blindfolded. You manage to get yourself pointed in the right general direction (somehow, though probably because someone pointed you that way). You start tossing, and after a lot of thumps in sand you hear that sweet musical clang!
You then claim that you've wrapped that horshoe around the post. But...well, obviously that may not have happened. Perhaps it simply hit it hard and landed beside the post. Perhaps it spun such that it's not touching the post, but is partially encircling it. Or perhaps it is indeed still touching it inside the 'u' when you lift the blindfold.
Unless you're Daredevil, your ears will only ever be able to tell you so much about how accurate you were. In some cases, they will even give you an answer that has a very high likelihood of being right, and for the purposes of everyday living that will almost always be sufficient.
But even then, you won't know. You can't be sure. You can't be 'very open' about it, because while your ears may in fact give you the right answer, well, a stopped clock is right twice a day too. That ruler which shows 11.95'' to the foot will, in most cases you'd use a ruler, be thoroughly effective. But it still won't be right.
The idea that something as partially understood (even by medical professionals, much of which you reject if I'm not mistaken, Dan) can be as close to true as you suggest was and remains odd. Now if you're going to say, "I try to keep an eye out for implicit biases and think I do a good job rooting them out, but realistically I can't be sure," that's an entirely different conversation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: [quote] quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
It's not impossible for a person to discover they have a bias via self assessment but it is impossible for a person to determine they don't have a bias via self assessment.[quote]
Yeah, that's true.
It's also impossible to determine that there isn't a fossil somewhere that would disprove evolution. It's also impossible to determine whether or not anyone in history has ever been born with psychic abilities (or ever will be).
Those things are not analogous. It is not logically impossible to find every fossil on the planet and determine whether or not it is consistent with evolutionary theory. It is technologically impossible at this time but it is not a logical impossibility. There is no inherent reason that we could not sort through every particle of the earth and find and study every fossil. We don't have a reliable test for psychic ability that can be used on living of deceased persons, but such a test is not logically impossible. If such a test were invented, every person who lived or ever lived could be tested and it could be proven whether anyone live or dead psychic ability.
In contrast, objective self-assessment is a logical impossibility. A biased instrument can not be used to study its own bias.
quote:You're confusing tentative conjectural knowledge with justified true belief.
No. If something is a logical impossibility, neither of those concepts is relevant.
quote:It is possible to reach fallible, mutable, functionally true realizations about your biases after self-assessment (utilizing internal and external information and metrics).
What I said here doesn't actually contradict the line I've quoted from you, but I'm not sure you'll see that.
I have no clue what you mean by "functionally true". Perhaps you can define.
As for the rest of the sentence, yes it is entirely possible for someone to arrive at fallible, subjective, biased conclusions about their own biases via self-assessment that they might feel are useful to them in some way. I've never questioned that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You've taken my quotes out of context. When I look at the full context, I don't see any inconsistency. It isn't logically sound to presume you can accurately understand your own biases by critically scrutinizing your own conscious thoughts and actions. Any critical scrutiny you perform is going to be influenced by the biases you are trying to detect. That doesn't mean you can't ever detect any bias in you might hold -- it means you can't do it reliably enough to ever exclude the possibility that your self-assessment was skewed by an implicit bias.
Perhaps you were simply overstating your case initially, as what you seem to be conveying is not that Dan's is a simple illogical conclusion.
I think I understand your point, and to the extent that "external perspective is invaluable when attempting to understand/root out bias" I agree.
The reason I object was you so thoroughly dismissed Dan's claims of self analysis.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: "I try to keep an eye out for implicit biases and think I do a good job rooting them out, but realistically I can't be sure,"
Rakeesh, you have, throughout this conversation, attempted to paraphrase what I said or rephrase my position. That's not a criticism; everybody does that during an argument, even if they do it implicitly, because you interpret the other side's argument in order to form your response.
I think it's even better to do it explicitly (which you've done a few times as well) because that way if you misunderstood something it's usually easier for the other side to spot it. It's exceedingly helpful in argument to be able to restate your opposition's opinion in your own words, in a way they will agree still represents their opinion.
Anyway, I say all of that to get to this point:
The above quote is, by a wide margin, the closest you've come to accurately restating my position in your own words.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:To this quote, I just want to double check that you know I referred several times to "external and internal" information, right? Not "using only my brain." I'm checking because maybe your bias caused you to selectively edit out instances where I mentioned the word "external".
No I did not miss you reference to using external information but perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by that. Using external information in a self assessment is not the same thing as considering the results of external independent assessment. Your comments seemed to imply that you were willing to consider external information but not an external assessment of your bias. If I am incorrect, can you please explain what kinds of external assessments you have used or would be willing to use to determine whether you have subconscious biases?
Seems like keep shifting the goal posts around, Rabbit, but I probably misunderstood you before. Earlier you said:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: And, as a rule, people don't figure out that they do have a bias unless there is some external input that reveals the bias.
In your mind, is the only form of "external input" actually an "external assessment?"
I think they're different. You could be implicitly racist by having a gut reaction fear response towards black people, and then an external input could occur, like a scary looking black guy helping you change a flat tire in a desolate road in the middle of the night, that caused you to realize your fear response was irrational. This wouldn't necessarily remove that response, but it could certainly make you aware of it.
I think earlier Rakeesh discussed having similar external "inputs" when befriending gay people and realizing he was biased against them.
There were external forces here, but no "assessments," at least not by my understanding of the word.
Since you asked, no, I've got no inherent problem with external assessments. If someone says I'm saying or doing something that betrays a bias, I listen to that criticism and either refute it or accept that they're right. What I'm particularly skeptical of is tests with some sort of "trick" intended to show such bias. Like the one you mention here:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Having an implicit bias means that your brain automatically edits out information that is inconsistent with your bias. The human brain is really actually terribly flawed in this respect. We see only what we are looking for. Have you ever seen the video where you are asked to count the number of times a team in white passes a ball?
Yeah, I've seen the video. I saw the bear. I don't think "tricks" like that actually reveal the deep truths about our brains that you think they do. I'm skeptical that they reveal much at all, except that many people don't think very critically or pay very much attention to how they live their lives. I certainly don't manage to do so all the time! But the assertion that we somehow can't do so seems totally false to me.
I may have figured out a source of disconnect, below.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Here is the way your scenario is more likely to work. A person who consciously believes that racism is a bad thing will usually have a strong implicit bias that they are not racist. The same person could also have a strong implicit bias that black people are dangerous so when they see a black stranger on a street they are more likely to be afraid than if the stranger is white. Because the person has an implicit bias that they aren't racist, they are unlikely to be consciously aware that they are afraid because the stranger is black. If they examine the situation critically, their own implicit bias will skew their own conscious critical analysis of the situation and they are probably going to conclude, "I was scared because of his mannerisms and the way he dressed, not because he was black." They may not even be consciously aware that person was black. Or they might rationalize that its fair to be more fearful in a neighborhood that has a high black population because the crime rates in that neighborhood are actually higher. And sometimes those reasons will be valid. The problem is that the person's implicit biases make it impossible for him to determine when those reasons are valid and when they aren't. That's what it means to be biased. And the stronger the bias is, the harder it will be for a person to see that thoughts and actions are not rationally consistent.
See, your example here actually gets to a crux of the issue. Forget biases, it seems like you don't think that any sort of rational self-criticism is possible.
If you don't criticize your own ideas constantly, then the idea of criticizing your own ideas when it comes to racist bias or any other small subsection will sound absurd.
If someone tries to critically analyze their reaction every time they feel fear, however, to identify why they are afraid and if being afraid is a rational response to what's happening (it usually isn't)... then they will not simply accept the rationales you're giving as examples.
"I was scared because of his mannerisms and the way he dressed, not because he was black" won't cut it. Someone's mode of dress shouldn't elicit a fear response. Someone glaring at you shouldn't either. Especially since mannerisms and expressions are easy to misconstrue, so before you assume someone is glaring you should consider other possibilities. Maybe they're squinting because the sun is in their eyes, which can often cause the nose to draw up too, causing a frown and narrowed eyes. Those are the two essential components of a glare, so it's easy to mistake one for the other.
"Or they might rationalize that its fair to be more fearful in a neighborhood that has a high black population because the crime rates in that neighborhood are actually higher." This one is insufficient as well. First of all, because assessing threats based on crime rate in an area is inefficient. Secondly, unless you have an iPhone app that tells you the crime rate in every street you walk down, you would be applying this fear inconsistently. That's a readily apparent fact that you can notice if you analyze your behavior critically.
Your assertion that sometimes these reactions are valid, so we can't know when they are or aren't, is wrong and obfuscatory. If you analyze your behavior regularly and try to avoid irrational actions, then you won't fall prey to pseudo reasons like the ones you gave. And a rational reason for fear (like, the guy is approaching you with a gun drawn) is, inherently, not going to be based in irrational bias.
I think a reason you're having such a hard time seeing what I'm saying is that you just accept that you will have lots of irrational inexplicable reasons for your behavior, most of which you won't understand very well. In that context, I can see that self-criticism, applied inconsistently, wouldn't be very effective at revealing bias in any particular area.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:"I was scared because of his mannerisms and the way he dressed, not because he was black" won't cut it. Someone's mode of dress shouldn't elicit a fear response. Someone glaring at you shouldn't either. Especially since mannerisms and expressions are easy to misconstrue, so before you assume someone is glaring you should consider other possibilities. Maybe they're squinting because the sun is in their eyes, which can often cause the nose to draw up too, causing a frown and narrowed eyes. Those are the two essential components of a glare, so it's easy to mistake one for the other.
"Or they might rationalize that its fair to be more fearful in a neighborhood that has a high black population because the crime rates in that neighborhood are actually higher." This one is insufficient as well. First of all, because assessing threats based on crime rate in an area is inefficient. Secondly, unless you have an iPhone app that tells you the crime rate in every street you walk down, you would be applying this fear inconsistently. That's a readily apparent fact that you can notice if you analyze your behavior critically.
This is totally delusional nonsense. Fear is not always irrational. Fear is something that's hard wired into our brains because it's helped us survive as a species. I get the impression you have never actually had a reason to be afraid of strangers.
I live in a very dangerous place. Trinidad has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I live in a gated apartment complex. I have 4 locks on all the doors and bars on all the window (this is standard around here). My apartment was broken into once while we were home asleep and we had a second attempt not long ago. I know of several instances where people have been robbed at gun point at the gate to my apartment complex.
If there is someone suspicious looking hanging around the gate to my apartment complex, I circle the block until they are gone. Circling the block is also dangerous so I have to make an instant decision about whether the person in front of the gate is more likely to be a friend waiting for one of my neighbors to let them in or a thug waiting to rob me. I don't have time to reason through whether my biases are rational, I have to act on instinct. The way the person is dressed, their mannerisms, their age and their race are all I have to go on. If the person is wearing a suit and tie, I'm going to open the gate and go home. If he's dressed like a gang banger, I'm going to turn at the street before my gate and circle the block until he's gone.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I get the impression you have never actually had a reason to be afraid of strangers.
How likely do you actually think this is?
And if you don't really think it's likely, why would you say it? You pepper these statements in every time you talk to me, and it doesn't really bother me, but I'm curious what the motivation is.
As to the rest of what you've said, all I'll say is this: You can make rational decisions based on potential risks without letting yourself be ruled by fear. And of course someone's appearance within the context of circumstances should factor into a decision like that. But it doesn't have to make you afraid.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dan, I'm sorry but its going to be several days before I have time to respond. I'm not ignoring you or giving up, I'm just busy.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
No apologies needed, Rabbit! The conversation isn't going anywhere, and life takes precedence.
Heck, even if it's not life but just a lack of interest in continuing right at this moment, that's 100% okay and also doesn't need any apology or justification. I've got a half-finished response to Lyrhawn's post like 4 pages back that I still plan to dust off and finish up, for example.
Hope it's a good kind of busy, though! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: No apologies needed, Rabbit! The conversation isn't going anywhere, and life takes precedence.
wow
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: wow
wow
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: wow
wow
Wow?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Wow.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: No apologies needed, Rabbit! The conversation isn't going anywhere, and life takes precedence.
Heck, even if it's not life but just a lack of interest in continuing right at this moment, that's 100% okay and also doesn't need any apology or justification. I've got a half-finished response to Lyrhawn's post like 4 pages back that I still plan to dust off and finish up, for example.
If you'd quoted me first we could've gotten a decent wow vortex going.
But seriously. What's with the wows? I'm not sure what I said that's so shocking.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: No apologies needed, Rabbit! The conversation isn't going anywhere, and life takes precedence.
Heck, even if it's not life but just a lack of interest in continuing right at this moment, that's 100% okay and also doesn't need any apology or justification. I've got a half-finished response to Lyrhawn's post like 4 pages back that I still plan to dust off and finish up, for example.
Yeah, I made the mistake of starting and saving it on my home computer, so that made me reluctant to re-write it from work, but I do like 90% of my posting from work.
So, I'll get to it soon. As best I can, anyway. I'll admit in advance that I sort of found some parts of it to be... uh, what's a polite way of saying not relevant? Not relevant? I'll go with not relevant. At least, not relevant to any of the points I was trying to make (mostly thinking of the stuff about redlining and other defunct racist practices.)
Anyway, I'll explain more in the post.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dan, there are two possible reads of "not going anywhere".
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Man, what I wouldn't give for a facepalm emoticon right about now. Thanks for spelling that out for me, Rivka. Went right over my head.
If that was indeed Sam's point... Shrug. If Rabbit agrees with that assessment, she's under no obligation to respond at all. It's fine with me either way.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)