Critical race theory

[Narz]

.
I am not sure what you are referring to, but there is very strong evidence from fMRI studies in this area.

Strong evidence for what?

"For example, Cunningham et al. (2004) found that when Caucasian participants watched Black and White faces that were presented very briefly (i.e., 30 ms, so that they were barely a flash on the screen), they showed increased activation in the amygdala in response to the Black faces (which was interpreted as an increased emotional response for outgroup faces). However, this effect disappeared when the pictures were presented for a longer time so that they were clearly visible (i.e., 525 ms). "

Good thing I generally look at the faces of people I interact w for half a second, sometimes even longer.

A knee jerk reaction is irrelevant if it dissipates in the blink of an eye.

 

[eyrei]

I don’t see a problem with race existing within biological, economic (social, etc..) categories simultaneously.

Its going to be a hard sell to convince people that it isn't biological until we actually encounter aliens...

 

[Samson]

Strong evidence for what?

Strong evidence for the existence of in group bias being a feature of the functioning of the human brain.

First, we discussed how fMRI studies have shown that our brain responds differently to faces, words and actions of ingroup and outgroup members.
Second, we discussed how reduced responses in the dACC and AI when seeing outgroup members in pain were associated with increased ingroup bias and reduced prosocial behavior toward them
Third, we discussed how reduced mentalizing about the mindset of outgroup members was associated with reduced activity in the mPFC and the TPJ
Fourth, we reviewed that there is increased moral sensitivity for outgroup attacks on ingroup members (associated with increased lOFC activation).
Finally, we reviewed fMRI studies showing increased activity in the striatum and mOFC when observing outgroup harm (i.e., schadenfreude) or when rewarding ingroup (vs. outgroup) members.​

 

[El_Machinae]

The 'it isn't biological' isn't a good summary. The better summary is that the biology is an insignificant portion of the signal OR that it's not a portion of the signal sufficiently resistant to social influence to matter..

Obviously, with sufficient n, you can unravel differences based on biology. Whether the construct 'race' is a useful way of predicting those differences is what's suspect.

I would like citation that implicit bias testing has been debunked. Also your anecdotal story is a) stupid because your mom is far more likely to consider your feelings on the matter first and foremost and b) has absolutely zero bearing on the discussion at hand.

Implicit bias will be different from Implicit Bias Testing which will be different from Implicit Bias Training.
Most psychology experiments are 'debunked' over time. Usually what happens is that we isolate variables that can contribute to the signal, when originally we thought it was only one factor (that often disappears at scale because of regression-to-the-mean).

Any popular science website will have loads of articles about IAT and specific methodology and ways to hack it.. There isn't going to be anything that refutes that implicit bias itself exists

 

[Narz]

Strong evidence for the existence of in group bias being a feature of the functioning of the human brain.

First, we discussed how fMRI studies have shown that our brain responds differently to faces, words and actions of ingroup and outgroup members.​

Good thing we're not interacting with other humans without being consciously aware of them while in fMRI machines

 

[eyrei]

Strong evidence for what?

"For example, Cunningham et al. (2004) found that when Caucasian participants watched Black and White faces that were presented very briefly (i.e., 30 ms, so that they were barely a flash on the screen), they showed increased activation in the amygdala in response to the Black faces (which was interpreted as an increased emotional response for outgroup faces). However, this effect disappeared when the pictures were presented for a longer time so that they were clearly visible (i.e., 525 ms). "

Good thing I generally look at the faces of people I interact w for half a second, sometimes even longer.

This is the sort of thing I was pointing out earlier, where the interpretations for these studies are questionable. If white people are correcting their initial bias within half a second then we (some of us at least) are trying to bypass some sort of primordial thought pattern already, with some success.

Also, I bet this pattern holds true for anyone seeing someone that doesn't look like them for the first time...its unlikely a white-people thing.

 

[Narz]

There isn't going to be anything that refutes that implicit bias itself exists

Everyone has knee jerk reactions, whether they are relevant to behavior after the brain has half a second to process is a different matter.

When I see a person I don't know I'm gonna make all sorts of generalizations based on their sex, size, clothing, facial expression, etc. Once I know them tho all that goes out the window.

Breaking people down into subgroups and convincing overconcerned white liberals they're actually secretly very racist is... well a huge waste of fmri machines at the very least.

 

[Samson]

its unlikely a white-people thing

The point is totally that it is not a white people thing, it is a people thing.

Also :

The reviewed studies show that there is not a single brain area or system responsible for ingroup biases. Depending on the bias (e.g., perceptual vs. empathic bias) and the modalities (e.g., faces vs. words) implicated, different neural networks might be involved.
​

There are all these different types of in group bias. Some are present in the split second that your subconscious does its stuff, and are not in the conscious. Others, such as the reduced ability for empathy, are over a longer timescale.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What a lively thread!!

 

[Gorbles]

Everyone has knee jerk reactions, whether they are relevant to behavior after the brain has half a second to process is a different matter.

When I see a person I don't know I'm gonna make all sorts of generalizations based on their sex, size, clothing, facial expression, etc. Once I know them tho all that goes out the window.

Breaking people down into subgroups and convincing overconcerned white liberals they're actually secretly very racist is... well a huge waste of fmri machines at the very least.

The prerequisite for having to know someone to stop making generalisations about them isn't a solid argument. It admits that you do make the generalisations, and that you have to know someone to some level of familiarity (presumably this varies) in order for that to stop.

So, based on the amount of people in the world, that's a whole lot of generalisations. Some of these generalisations will be prejudiced. Does this make you actively racist to their face? Of course not, that's a ridiculous assertion to make. But the entire point (that a lot of folk seem to have trouble understanding because it hurts their feelings or something) is that these things can be implicit, or unsaid, or power these generalisations that you reflexively make. That we all make.

The problem is, as usual, people don't like "racist" or "sexist" or whatever labels. Folks don't see it as an opportunity to unlearn something and improve themselves. It's "I don't agree with that label ergo implicit bias is bad / nonsense". I'm not saying that it's specifically a you problem - it's a common one.

 

[El_Machinae]

Everyone has knee jerk reactions, whether they are relevant to behavior after the brain has half a second to process is a different matter.

Overcoming an implicit bias requires effort, so if there is a direction in the flow of required effort to affect an outcome, you will see implicit bias effects when looking at scale.

If knee jerk reactions didn't matter, Pharmaceutical Reps wouldn't be hot.

 

[Joij21]

It was disproven by the aliens of the Quam System long ago.

 

[Narz]

So, based on the amount of people in the world, that's a whole lot of generalisations. Some of these generalisations will be prejudiced. Does this make you actively racist to their face? Of course not, that's a ridiculous assertion to make. But the entire point (that a lot of folk seem to have trouble understanding because it hurts their feelings or something) is that these things can be implicit, or unsaid, or power these generalisations that you reflexively make. That we all make.

The problem is, as usual, people don't like "racist" or "sexist" or whatever labels

The labels are fine but when labels get watered down they lose power.

If someone actively discriminates the labels are fine. If someone makes an assumption that a person their friend is discussing who's a computer engineer is male (or a babysitter is female) to label them some kind of implicit sexist is dumb (unless they respond w "chicks can't be into computers" or "who would trust a teenage boy to watch a kid"

You're not racist for having a knee jerk inappropriate thought anymore than you're violent for having an angry one now & then.

 

[El_Machinae]

The word 'implicit' should be used, definitely. In your example, the person is definitely implicitly sexist. Whether that person is expressly sexist would be a different story. To expect a society that is implicitly sexist to behave the same as one that isn't would be proper science (null hypothesis), but 'waves at world' chances are that we can predict behaviour based on what race is perceived.

I don't know anything about CRT, but implicit bias affecting outcomes is a real thing. If you wanted to guess someone's IQ, you wouldn't care so much about their height. If you wanted to guess their income, you would.

 

[Samson]

The labels are fine but when labels get watered down they lose power.

If someone actively discriminates the labels are fine. If someone makes an assumption that a person their friend is discussing who's a computer engineer is male (or a babysitter is female) to label them some kind of implicit sexist is dumb (unless they respond w "chicks can't be into computers" or "who would trust a teenage boy to watch a kid"

You're not racist for having a knee jerk inappropriate thought anymore than you're violent for having an angry one now & then.

I think I agree here. There is a spectrum, with in group bias at one end, and the nazis at the other. We could try and define a point on this spectrum and say more than this = racism, less than this = not racism. I think the point is that this is not the most productive way of looking at it, you need to look at the whole world and work out how to make it better. For that we need models, we need to be objective about their use and we all need to work towards the future we want.

Having words that we agree on the meaning of is important. Having labels that we attach to some people and not others may not be so helpful, and in some cases may be harmful.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yeah, I agree. You know, 20 years ago they were saying dinosaurs had no feathers. Now they're saying they all had feathers. Give it another 20 years they'll be making up some new ****. That's why I put paleontology in the pay no mind pile with the rest of the "sciences".

I don't buy that you're genuinely comparing paleontology to flavor of the month cultural theories. Biological theories may be proven wrong & certainly will be corrected as our knowledge grows but they have to be based on something.

Wow. So paleontology is some kind of fad?

@schlaufuchs: I live in a region of the world that is rich in fossils, whether dinosaur, other ancient animals, or ancient plants. The Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology, in Drumheller, Alberta in the region of this province known as the "Badlands", is a world-class paleontology museum and research facility. I've been there twice, and the head of that place, Dr. Phil Currie (who was a curator there in the '80s), did a whole weekend's worth of paleontology-related science programming at one of the SF conventions I attended in Calgary (the science fiction conventions in this region emphasized writing, editing, art, and science - no actors).

Paleontology is a real science, thankyouverymuch, and is not some "fad." As with any science, there have been hypotheses and theories that have been shown to be incorrect. Science goes with the best evidence currently available, and paleontologists expect to learn quite a bit of new things due to the fact that the permafrost is melting and fossils and bones are being revealed that haven't seen the light of day in tens of thousands of years.

The framework also sets up a catch-22 kafkatrap no-win situation. If two customers, one black and one white, come into your store. If you pick the white customer first, CRT dictates that you're racist against the black customer and that he's a second class citizen. If you pick the black customer first, CRT dictates that you're racist because you don't trust the black customer in your store and want him out as quickly as possible.

I was taught in the customer service seminar I did back when I worked at the local wildlife interpretation centre that you pick the first person in line. The rest is irrelevant.

I agree with you Valka and side with you that it's not my fault that my great great-grandparents back in the 1880s-1890s decided to hop on a boat, bound for America. All I know was that my modern ancestors came to the US decades after the US Civil War ended and largely stuck within the northeast region of the United States. Why should I pay for the sins that America have committed, when my modern ancestors haven't even boarded a damn boat for America (my maternal side) or crossed the Canadian-US border (my paternal side) back in the 1880s-1890s? /rant

Late 1800s? You're closer to the timeframe than I am that was defined by our former Prime Minister Stephen Harper (the one we heaved back in 2015, if anyone remembers my "Heave Steve" avatar) as necessary to be considered an "Old-stock Canadian" (yes, I know you're not Canadian, just a reference to the time when your ancestors came over).

Harper's attitude is that anyone who came here after the mid-1800s is not an "Old-stock Canadian" and therefore deemed less Canadian than those whose ancestors were here prior to that. So even though I'm not native, black, from anywhere in Asia, etc. I am still "less Canadian" because my family has been here for only 100-110 or so years. It doesn't mean I'm barred from receiving the same services or legal protections than "Old-stock Canadians" but it's a "stick your nose in the air and consider their views to be unimportant or less worthy of consideration" attitude.

If you want to keep your sanity, I'd strongly advise not venturing to Twitter. Comments like those are magnified x100. This is why I roll my eyes whenever someone makes a remark about Orcs being equated to black people.

I don't have a Twitter account. YT is bad enough sometimes, but I've learned over the past few years that it's actually the male reviewers who have the more balanced perspectives on this show. Most of the female reviewers tend toward hysterical screechiness (literally), and seem very upset that this isn't some kind of documentary on race relations. This isn't limited to black female reviewers, btw.

A couple of non-white characters were apparently killed off in the third episode (something I only know because someone on TrekBBS blurted everything out several hours before I'd even seen the premiere and Canadians are not allowed to keep up with the American viewers; we don't have Hulu here). We got 2 episodes as opposed to 3, so we'll be a week behind for the rest of the season... which makes it really frustrating to engage in discussions with American viewers unless I want spoilers.

I'm a bit leery of venturing anywhere near the episode 3 videos because there will be a LOT of screeching because they tend to forget that white characters are also killed off on that show.

Yeah, I'm right there with you. That's why I'm disdainful of pseudoscientific tea-leaf reading like parsing arbitrary "species" from random pieces of rock. Much prefer things rooted in actual empirical data of the here and now like sociology.

Please see my reply above. I'm beginning to think you have no idea at all what paleontology is about. I know you've taken a lot of social science-related courses, but it appears that you neglected other sciences like paleontology, geology, and geography.

The only thing we learn from history is that we dont learn from history

Well-put. And it's unfortunately true.

I wouldn't advise that, no.

As long as we don't all do it, I don't see why a person can't shout occasionally. Some things are aggravating enough to merit it.

Well... the one thing I've learned from this thread is that tagging my photos of old television sets with #CRT on Instagram probably wasn't a good idea.

Would it be better or worse if the TVs were black and white or color? (facetious question)

(honestly, the association with old TVs is what I first thought of when seeing this acronym - but then I'm old enough to remember them)

What about scenarios where white people are not the oppressors? Or where white people suppress other white people (many examples in history like feudalism...not sure if there are any currently)?

Right-wing governments and low-income and disabled people (regardless of ethnicity or skin color). I would venture to guess that Aimee, Synsensa, and I all have had experiences of being turned away, looked down on, dismissed, treated less courteously, etc. simply because of disability and/or economic status. This is why I advocate for voting rights for the disabled. We're allowed, but Elections Canada has been putting barriers in the way that make it difficult to impossible for some people to exercise that right.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm having a hard time getting my head around this. How does introducing subjectivity (based on race) make this a more 'critical' or accurate way of thinking about/discussing race issues? Seems to me that makes it based on feelings and opinions, which we already have plenty of on the topic of race.

Keep in mind, I'm a Liberal. I have always believed that a level playing field (equality) is necessary for our society to flourish and, more importantly, is simply the morally correct way for a government/society to behave. People will rise or fall based on their own hard work and perseverance (capitalism), once the systems involved in organizing the society are designed to enforce equality, and those systems are enforced by the government.

I also believe that we have not accomplished that equality in the USA, and that there is much work to be done to do so. However, we get closer every year...not fast enough for some people, but it is still progress.

What I do not believe is that I am responsible for suppression of non-white people through my privilege, or that I have anything to apologize for based on my race. That idea is so...racist...it makes me sick.

So, someone please explain to me what makes this theory so critical and accurate. Or is this just being adopted by people who like the conclusions, without understanding the ideas behind them? How is it not racist?

Since I think you're mostly asking in good faith, I'll take my own stab at trying to make the premises of CRT comprehensible. But I have to catechize you.

You identify as liberal. Do you know about how, years ago, the makers of the SAT questions realized that some of those questions presupposed life experience more common for white people than for African Americans? Something like "Marathon is to runner as Regatta is to ___________." And it's not that black kids don't know how to the logic of such a question; it's just that they don't know what a regatta is. So the devisers of SAT questions had to be more careful about the terms and concepts in their questions not inadvertently advantaging white students.

You understand the inequity there and why they worked to fix it?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yeah, I agree. You know, 20 years ago they were saying dinosaurs had no feathers. Now they're saying they all had feathers. Give it another 20 years they'll be making up some new ****. That's why I put paleontology in the pay no mind pile with the rest of the "sciences".

Paleontology has far more credibility than any "political science or theory". The warm-blooded dinosaur theory took off in the mid 1970s and has evolved steadily ever since. It gets worked and re-worked over time as new information is added. Perhaps if you "paid it some mind," you would learn something.

EDIT:

Unless I've also misunderstood Schlau's post, he is parodying Narz's post, not claiming that palaeontology is bunk.

If this is the case then

 

[eyrei]

Since I think you're mostly asking in good faith, I'll take my own stab at trying to make the premises of CRT comprehensible. But I have to catechize you.

You identify as liberal. Do you know about how, years ago, the makers of the SAT questions realized that some of those questions presupposed life experience more common for white people than for African Americans? Something like "Marathon is to runner as Regatta is to ___________." And it's not that black kids don't know how to the logic of such a question; it's just that they don't know what a regatta is. So the devisers of SAT questions had to be more careful about the terms and concepts in their questions not inadvertently advantaging white students.

You understand the inequity there and why they worked to fix it?

I am aware of the issues with standardized testing, though, I find it interesting that I have absolutely no idea what a Regatta is either, as a white male...with a degree in English. IIRC, those type of questions are on the 'verbal' part of the test, which is testing vocabulary as well as reading comprehension and logic. Not knowing what a Regatta is, I simply don't deserve to answer that question correctly regardless of my race or sex.

That said, I do agree the SAT has had issues such as you describe that advantaged affluent students, which tend to be white...that was just maybe not a good example.

Regardless, CRT was not necessary to understand this problem, or to fix it. The same conclusions can be reached with an open mind and some basic understanding of sociology and testing.

 

[Arakhor]

Unless I've also misunderstood Schlau's post, he is parodying Narz's post, not claiming that palaeontology is bunk.