144 réponses à ce sujet

[Voxr]

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.

 

Yeah I started reading it after I posted that. And I kinda just skimmed the OP Jimmy lol. 

 

The Sopranos take precedence before everything else right now tbh.

[Br3admax]

What's the point in finding a way to get rid of racism with volunteer indoctrination? Is this something people ask for often? 

 

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.

 

Black dolls are just white dolls with brown skin. Let's stop pretending. 

[The Hierophant]

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

Soon this will be our future...

 

[Fast Jimmy]

I doubt they would be that way with different media exposure. So again, it's a social problem.

I think "science" and "women" and can instantly think "Jean Grey". Or whatever. You need little things like that in your subconscious for concepts to register. They could be real or media based. Some people grow up closely with examples (say, a family member who represents it) or they're exposed to better media.

"Better" media is a very subjective term, just saying. And just because you think "Jean Grey" doesn't mean anything... the test doesn't "say 'science' and 'women' - what are you thinkng?" It would show the word "women" and ask you to correlate that with science or art, as an example. Would you choose art with women more frequently? Then you're sexist.

Besides, one could dissect further and say the fact that you envision a white woman (Jean Grey) with science instead of a minority woman is racist and proof of the bias in your brain. Associations are intertwined with every thought... everyone has them and, if put under a microscope, all would have things to point out.

[Dermain]

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.

 

You would be surprised how many researchers in the individual difference field of psychology. There are still ones that argue about how certain races have higher IQ scores than others.... 

 

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.

 

Which may have been experimenter bias, but I'm unfamiliar with the study in question. I should also get around to finally reading the OP's one. 

 

Edit:

 

 

"Better" media is a very subjective term, just saying. And just because you think "Jean Grey" doesn't mean anything... the test doesn't "say 'science' and 'women' - what are you thinkng?" It would show the word "women" and ask you to correlate that with science or art, as an example. Would you choose art with women more frequently? Then you're sexist.

Besides, one could dissect further and say the fact that you envision a white woman (Jean Grey) with science instead of a minority woman is racist and proof of the bias in your brain. Associations are intertwined with every thought... everyone has them and, if put under a microscope, all would have things to point out.

 

That whole line of thinking makes me think that these are not objective researchers. There is no way to definitively tell if someone is actually being racist/sexist.

[Fast Jimmy]

What's the point in finding a way to get rid of racism with volunteer indoctrination? Is this something people ask for often?

Just to see if it could be done. The same science team has done lots of studies with learning and how the brain reinforces behavior learned recently during subsequent sleep cycles. The science behind it is actually very interesting. The team wanted to see if they could affect attitudes instead of just increasing learned facts.

Black dolls are just white dolls with brown skin. Let's stop pretending.

And are you saying brown is ugly or bad? Lots of tests have shown people responded with this (regardless of their race or upbringing).

[Inquisitor Recon]

A "solution" looking for a problem.

Or is doll bias a serious problem?

[Br3admax]

You guys should just universally **** on everyone like I do. 

 

Just to see if it could be done. The same science team has done lots of studies with learning and how the brain reinforces behavior learned recently during subsequent sleep cycles. The science behind it is actually very interesting. The team wanted to see if they could affect attitudes instead of just increasing learned facts.

 

So a waste of time, money, and resources that could go towards something else. Just like most of psychology. 

And are you saying brown is ugly or bad? Lots of tests have shown people responded with this (regardless of their race or upbringing).

That most certainly is what I was implying. Most definitely. Except that was nowhere near what I said in anyway. 

 

Lot of studies say a lot of stupid **** for people on the internet to look up and regurgitate on forums all over the web. Who cares? 

 

And if you must know, I've never seen someone and said, "Damn, girl your have the sexiest lack of melanin I've ever seen. Have my children." If you do, you definitely need this treatment then. 

[Fast Jimmy]

It's not supposed to mean anything to you. Jean Grey is barely a scientist anyways. lol. It's just an example of how my mind works --- I can make loose assocations, in order to accept a concept.

All that matters is that someone has these associations... whatever can work for them. We only see bigotry and ignorance when someone doesn't have them. Like they're encountering something completely foreign.

There's no bias in my brain. Just because I said Jean Grey doesn't mean that's my limit. It's just a quick forum post to make a point. And I'm half-white, half-Asian if you want to know. You have no idea how I grew up to make sense of this concept and to come to peace with my own sense of self. I was pretty much forced to juggle multiple ideas/cultural viewpoints.

I'm not trying to call out any individual, I'm just saying - mixing races together in people's upbringing doesn't necessarily reduce or remove negative stereotypes anymore than growing up around women makes someone less likely to, in this instance, choose "science" as often as "art" for women, or vice versa for men.

It's arguable if this is even truly a problem, but the science behind it (which, as I mentioned earlier, has shown practical applications in terms of getting people to learn new information by leveraging tones in the sleep cycle) is, again, pretty interesting.

[Dermain]

 

It's not supposed to mean anything to you. Jean Grey is barely a scientist anyways. lol. It's just an example of how my mind works --- I can make loose assocations, in order to accept a concept. 

 

All that matters is that someone has these associations... whatever can work for them. We only see bigotry and ignorance when someone doesn't have them. Like they're encountering something completely foreign.

 

There's no bias in my brain. I'm half-white, half-Asian if you want to know. You have no idea how I grew up to make sense of this concept and to come to peace with my own sense of self. 

 

Uh...no.

 

There is bias in your brain, but this bias doesn't mean that it's negative. Any sort of preference that you have can be considered a bias, but since the word generally has a negative connotation it's usually used to mean something negative. Unless someone plans to magically restructure the way our brains process information we are never getting rid of any sort of biases or stereotypes a person may have.

[Fast Jimmy]

A "solution" looking for a problem.

Or is doll bias a serious problem?

Brown vs. The Board of Education seemed to think so.

[Fast Jimmy]

So a waste of time, money, and resources that could go towards something else. Just like most of psychology.

Again... if you actually read the study, you'd see this study is part of a series that could actually greatly help the learning process and our understanding of how humans gather and retain information. But sure, let's trash science.

That most certainly is what I was implying. Most definitely. Except that was nowhere near what I said in anyway.

Lot of studies say a lot of stupid **** for people on the internet to look up and regurgitate on forums all over the web. Who cares?

And if you must know, I've never seen someone and said, "Damn, girl your have the sexiest lack of melanin I've ever seen. Have my children." If you do, you definitely need this treatment then.

Again, I bring this up because the study in question. The test subjects equated a black smiley face with "bad" and "ugly" more often than they did the same thing with white smiley faces. In the famous Kenneth and Maime Clark studies, black children were found to say the black dolls were bad or ugly as well, despite also being the doll they identify as the one that looks like them, while choosing the white doll as the doll that looks like them (although it should be worth noting that many black children also chose the white doll as the one that looks like them). These results were part of the Supreme Court arguments during Brown vs. The Board of Education as a testament to the effect segregation would have on concepts of self-worth.


These studies were repeated as early as 2009, with similar results, interestingly enough.

[Voxr]

 
These beeps are fowl fam.

Beeps are birds?

[Br3admax]

Again... if you actually read the study, you'd see this study is part of a series that could actually greatly help the learning process and our understanding of how humans gather and retain information. But sure, let's trash science.

So pointless. It's not about trashing science, it's about trashing psychology, which is by far the most useless "science" of them all. You can dress it up any way you like. You can hid behind trying to improve memory and recall, an improvement that would be useless in a technological world. It's still pointless. 

Again, I bring this up because the study in question. The test subjects equated a black smiley face with "bad" and "ugly" more often than they did the same thing with white smiley faces. In the famous Kenneth and Maime Clark studies, black children were found to say the black dolls were bad or ugly as well, despite also being the doll they identify as the one that looks like them, while choosing the white doll as the doll that looks like them (although it should be worth noting that many black children also chose the white doll as the one that looks like them). These results were part of the Supreme Court arguments during Brown vs. The Board of Education as a testament to the effect segregation would have on concepts of self-worth.

These studies were repeated as early as 2009, with similar results, interestingly enough.

How does this address my point? Studies are for throwing to the masses, even though they have no practical use for said masses. "White people make our kids think we're ugly," while provocative, sexy, and a great tool in court, means absolutely nothing in the long run. It won't eliminate racism in any way that matters any more than ending segregation did. There's also the fact that in this instance, the "racism" hardly matters. Finding someone ugly also means absolutely nothing. 

[Fast Jimmy]

So pointless. It's not about trashing science, it's about trashing psychology, which is by far the most useless "science" of them all. You can dress it up any way you like. You can hid behind trying to improve memory and recall, an improvement that would be useless in a technological world. It's still pointless.

How does this address my point? Studies are for throwing to the masses, even though they have no practical use for said masses. "White people make our kids think we're ugly," while provocative, sexy, and a great tool in court, means absolutely nothing in the long run. It won't eliminate racism in any way that matters any more than ending segregation did. There's also the fact that in this instance, the "racism" hardly matters. Finding someone ugly also means absolutely nothing.

Well, until the point comes when computers will be doing all our thinking for us, forgive me if I find experiments that affect how the human mind processes information worth discussing. Since you have no respect for psychology and no feeling that racism could ever be removed from society, I'm not sure how much further anything in this topic could be of value to you.

[o Ventus]

So pointless. It's not about trashing science, it's about trashing psychology, which is by far the most useless "science" of them all. 

I think I'd give that honor to sociology.

[o Ventus]

Well, until the point comes when computers will be doing all our thinking for us, forgive me if I find experiments that affect how the human mind processes information worth discussing. Since you have no respect for psychology and no feeling that racism could ever be removed from society, I'm not sure how much further anything in this topic could be of value to you.

Racism WILL NEVER be removed from society, because human beings are individuals with their own thought processes and instincts. Unless you go full Orwell and brainwash everybody, you cannot stop people from harboring whatever feelings they have.

[o Ventus]

Would you choose art with women more frequently? Then you're sexist.

Okay? You say that like A. being associated with art as a woman is intrinsically sexist when it isn't, and B. that sexism is intrinsically bad.

[Br3admax]

Well, until the point comes when computers will be doing all our thinking for us, forgive me if I find experiments that affect how the human mind processes information worth discussing. Since you have no respect for psychology and no feeling that racism could ever be removed from society, I'm not sure how much further anything in this topic could be of value to you.

Nope. Unfortunately I can post whenever I like as long as I'm on topic, and I've chosen this thread to be where I waste my time tonight. This won't be the place where I suddenly stop sharing my opinion on how pointless something is. I have a reputation to uphold. As to ending racism, I think having society think for us is much worse than having computers do it. 

 

I think I'd give that honor to sociology.

Sociology can at least try to find solutions to the problems it finds and works on a macrolevel. More often than psychology. Psychology more often than not has to work on an individual basis to benefit anyone.