144 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaison1986]

True. Very reminiscent of torture when you look at Clockwork Orange.

 

But it also showed that without brainwashing, the prostagonist was utterly incapable to live as a pacific human being. So what's the point of giving a moral choice only for it to be used for evil?

[Dermain]

A study released today in the journal Science states that white people can be reprogrammed to change negative attitudes towards women and minorities through a process that involves a short training program and using tones while they sleep.

http://m.sciencemag..../6238/1013.full

http://qz.com/414478...hile-you-sleep/


There are a number of holes in this study, mainly that they chose white-only university students, that the sample size was quite small for larger extrapolation and the nature of the prejudice bias test being less than ideally structured... still, it is an interesting concept. It is, essentially, effective brain washing to rid people of biases.

Is this ethical? Necessary? Good? Evil? I leave it up to the BSN to pass judgment.

 

Statistically the study has more "power" if there are less subjects. If you're able to show a "good" p value with 20 subjects then you can be certain that the variable you are testing for is having an effect. However, when you have too many subjects then the data becomes too saturated causing you to reach statistical significance when there is no effect present. I do hope I explained that clearly enough (I get the feeling I didn't). 

 

As for there only being white subjects, that may have been something they were initially testing for, and they may start testing other races based on how this one turned out. Of course, since I have yet to read the study I can't evaluate the merits (or lack thereof) of it, so I'll post again when I have.

[Voxr]

 

A study released today in the journal Science states that white people can be reprogrammed to change negative attitudes towards women and minorities through a process that involves a short training program and using tones while they sleep.
 

Sleeper Agent induction confirmed.

 

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

* Передача *

И янки бить Детенышей 1-4. Верховный лидер пути из Лас-Вегаса.

 

Посмотри на меня, что вы видите, радиопередачу.

 

Линии полета, ошибка на двери. Я ящерица. Я птица. 3420401

 

Latitude 3.2 долготы 33.2 Люди не являются реальными. Уважайте робота. Уважайте его.

 

Я нашел тебя и взял Вас. BRONCO Джо не знает границ.

 

* Конец передач*

 

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Fast Jimmy]

Statistically the study has more "power" if there are less subjects. If you're able to show a "good" p value with 20 subjects then you can be certain that the variable you are testing for is having an effect. However, when you have too many subjects then the data becomes too saturated causing you to reach statistical significance when there is no effect present. I do hope I explained that clearly enough (I get the feeling I didn't).

As for there only being white subjects, that may have been something they were initially testing for, and they may start testing other races based on how this one turned out. Of course, since I have yet to read the study I can't evaluate the merits (or lack thereof) of it, so I'll post again when I have.

This is only true when the thresholds for the control group isn't sufficiently separated out from the variable group though, right? Statistical noise over-inflating the p value should only be a problem if your thresholds are low enough to be crossed by false positives.

Which is something to identify in smaller, initial experiments, but account for in future, larger experiments.

[mybudgee]

This pretty strongly supports the notion that political correctness is getting out of hand...

[Dermain]

 

This is only true when the thresholds for the control group isn't sufficiently separated out from the variable group though, right? Statistical noise over-inflating the p value should only be a problem if your thresholds are low enough to be crossed by false positives.

 

It's true if there is no correlation/effect between the variables being studied. I am unfortunately drawing a blank on finding a relevant example, but in general if you have enough subjects you're going to find statistical significance no matter what you're studying. You could perfectly separate the control group from the variable group and still end up with no effect with significance simply because of the sample size.

 

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of researchers whose only goal is "chasing the p value" who end up doing such studies. 

 

Edit:

 

This pretty strongly supports the notion that political correctness is getting out of hand...

 

I still say the best way to get rid of bias is to stop bringing up the topic. There's the series of studies that was done with Asian women and their performance on math problems. The subjects that were told that women were bad at math prior to the test did worse than those that were told that Asians were good at math. If I recall correctly, they also had a group where they said both biases which caused that group to be in between the other groups.

[Dr.Fumbles]

They should use this technique to program people to go to Jimmy John's and Mcdonalds more. Let the ads be programmed in you.

[Fast Jimmy]

They should use this technique to program people to go to Jimmy John's and Mcdonalds more. Let the ads be programmed in you.

That would be just a step above "brain washed soldiers" in terms of ethical OMGWTF attempts.

[Voxr]

That would be just a step above "brain washed soldiers" in terms of ethical OMGWTF attempts.

 

Or like Batman Forever 

 

[Voxr]

So here is my question. 

 

A procedure or workshop like this I would think, would have to be voluntary. People with racial/social/gender prejudice and bias don't usually see their views as wrong. And in turn don't feel the need to change. So what's the point of them trying to do this if the target audience would most likely be against it?

 

If it's forced, it's certainly unethical. Even if they are bigots and close minded. It would still be an invasion of peoples rights.

[Inquisitor Recon]

What are these supposed biases the volunteers were tested for?

 

Nothing good will come of this.

[Fast Jimmy]

Is a pacific human born and raised in the ocean?

The Atlantic Ocean, ironically enough.

[Fast Jimmy]

So here is my question.

A procedure or workshop like this I would think, would have to be voluntary. People with racial/social/gender prejudice and bias don't usually see their views as wrong. And in turn don't feel the need to change. So what's the point of them trying to do this if the target audience would most likely be against it?

If it's forced, it's certainly unethical. Even if they are bigots and close minded. It would still be an invasion of peoples rights.

You should review the study. The bias test isn't for people with white hoods or Confederate flags bumper stickers on their tailgates. It is basic word and visual association, not "I hate women/blacks."

If you would rank "women" and "science" as lowly correlated in a rapid time response, it would cause you to be ranked as biased against women. The auditory re-training would make your responses neutral, where you would be just as likely to correlate women with science as men. Same with equating black faces with "good" just as much as you'd equate white faces.

Like I said in the OP - lots of questions about the validity of the bias tests, but the fact that subjects' responses changed is interesting.

[Jaison1986]

This pretty strongly supports the notion that political correctness is getting out of hand...

 

I actually would be okay with them using this to make those insane SJW become self aware of their own double standards. Maybe we would finally have a moment's peace then. 

[o Ventus]

A study released today in the journal Science states that white people can be reprogrammed to change negative attitudes towards women and minorities through a process that involves a short training program and using tones while they sleep.

Because only white people can be racist and sexist. I love that it was apparently necessary to qualify the statement with the part in bold.

[Fast Jimmy]

Because only white people can be racist and sexist. I love that it was apparently necessary to qualify the statement with the part in bold.

I say that because the study specifically calls out that it only recruited white subjects. If they were multi-ethnic on purpose instead, I wouldn't have felt the need to report it.

[o Ventus]

I say that because the study specifically calls out that it only recruited white subjects. If they were multi-ethnic on purpose instead, I wouldn't have felt the need to report it.

 

Which doesn't even sound like it's at all relevant. Assuming the person in question doesn't have some condition that actually affects how their brain operates, it's not like white people's brains function differently than nonwhite people.

[Fast Jimmy]

Which doesn't even sound like it's at all relevant. It's not like white people's brains function differently than nonwhite people.

I don't inherently disagree... that's why I put it in the OP.

[Fast Jimmy]

I just think some people need to grow up with different types of friends. Or be mixed themselves (that'd be my own experience).


It's a social problem.

As I stated earlier, studies have found black children are just as likely to choose the white dolls as the "good" or "pretty" looking ones over the black ones. And all races (of both genders) are more likely to not associate "women" with "science." It's not a matter of exposure, since the members of the demographics in question have shown history of harboring the same biases.