144 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

Your mom can be overcome with sleep stimulus.

 

I'm sorry that was childish and immature, I also didn't read the OP

[Voxr]

Psychology is pointless, philosophy is dead, and Video Killed The Radio Star.

[Killdren88]

Yeah screw breaking down barriers over time through patience and understanding! We are gonna force you to be tolerant...basically the progressive version of straight camp.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

I'm not saying its sexist, the Implicit Associations Test (IAT) is. It's a widely used test that has been replicated countless times. Again, their use of it and their framing of the questions raised my suspicions (see my OP), but let's just assume it is valid for the sake of conversation.

It's not sexist to associate women with art, but it is sexist to associate women with art more than you'd associate men, just like it is sexist to associate women with science less than you'd associate men. By its very definition, you are preferring one sex for one characteristic over another.

Whether sexism in this manner is truly bad is definitely up for debate (after all, this isn't the same as saying "women can't do the same job as men" or "women don't need to learn how to read because they're brains aren't capable of real thought") but it's worth noting the following:

1) All participants did exhibit biases for race and sex in their responses

2) After going through training, all participants scored less biased prior to their nap

3) During the nap, the experiment group received the trigger noise received during training at the optimal time in their sleep cycle when dreaming is shown to organize learned information during the last wake cycle

4) After the nap, all participants took a third IAT. Control group participants scored closer to their first tests (more biased), while experiment participants scored even less biased than their pre-nap scores

5) A week later, all participants were brought back and given the test again. The Control Group bias was much the same as their original test. The experiment group reflected statistically significant lower bias than their original test scores, showing that the training against the bias had lasting artifact value for the participants, which is very interesting given there was only one session and the sounds were only reinforced during a short nap


Make of all of that what you will.

[Fast Jimmy]

Your mom can be overcome with sleep stimulus.

I'm sorry that was childish and immature, I also didn't read the OP

I'd prefer people be silly if they didn't read the study rather than people be riled up and angry who didn't read the study either.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

What's interesting is that they may have a method for doing that now. That's worth discussing.

If racism (or religious fanaticism or ethnic/tribal conflicts or whatever source of reason people hate each other or consider others to be less than others of their type) could be "cured" using such a method, would it be worth considering? It is terrible and beyond ruthless, but so is military conflict to kill the armies of dictators or genocidal maniacs. We use war as a means of stopping the atrocities that bias-gone-crazy has created... would brain washing be worth considering?

I'm not advocating this (despite people who are going to respond to this acting like I am), I'm just asking.

[o Ventus]

What's interesting is that they may have a method for doing that now. That's worth discussing.

If racism (or religious fanaticism or ethnic/tribal conflicts or whatever source of reason people hate each other or consider others to be less than others of their type) could be "cured" using such a method, would it be worth considering? It is terrible and beyond ruthless, but so is military conflict to kill the armies of dictators or genocidal maniacs. We use war as a means of stopping the atrocities that bias-gone-crazy has created... would brain washing be worth considering?

I'm not advocating (despite people who are going to respond to this acting like I am), I'm just asking.

 

No.

 

And war doesn't strip away someone's right to think for themselves or remove their thought processes.

[Voxr]

How could you even consider that Jimmy? What you're ADVOCATING is wrong!

 

 

 

Seriously though, I don't think it's worth the potentially harmful risk. The ends don't always justify the means IMO.

[Queen Skadi]

Incidentally, going to a hypno-therapist to quit smoking is brain washing as well.

If it is voluntary, I'm not sure where I come down on it. But if it is involuntary, hell-to-the-forking-nah.

 

I am not exactly sure how substance addiction works but I would imagine it is a whole lot different to racial prejudice, not sure it is a case of the brain growing a dependency on a chemical produced by being a bigot to racial minorities, usually these prejudices are born of deeper underlying issues and to simply reprogram somebody to forget these issues only masks the problem.

 

All in all I think this is a terrible idea, too many ethical concerns and with the potential to do more damage than good.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Not sure how I feel about the study. I don't have the time go through it in-depth so I appreciate Jimmy and Dermain's insights on the methodology. Because that's what really concerns me, how they determine and define as bias.

If it's voluntary, I can't really raise any objections but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

[Voxr]

Not sure how I feel about the study. I don't have the time go through it in-depth so I appreciate Jimmy and Dermain's insights on the methodology. Because that's what really concerns me, how they determine and define as bias.

If it's voluntary, I can't really raise any objections but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

I thought AC/DC paved it?

[Br3admax]

I see this way too much from my people browsing World Star videos. I'm kind of tired of people getting violent over racist remarks. I do understand that a good ass kicking can help change someone's mind but the violence I see is just unnecessary.

>name is Catch This Fade

>not advocating violence

 

Why are you such a ****** hypocrite, Reezy? 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I thought AC/DC paved it?

Silly cat, not all roads are highways.

[Voxr]

Silly cat, not all roads are highways.

I'm bleach so idc. %)

[In Exile]

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.

That's not exactly what the study says. It says that they provided training they cued with a sound and then played that sound while people slept. Their finding was that playing the sound improved retention of the training.

It's a memory study. This is the summary:

A good night's sleep is one of the best ways to fix recently learned information into long-lasting memory. Recent evidence suggests that recent memories are reactivated during sleep and woven into existing representations of stored information. Hu et al. now demonstrate that triggering memory consolidation during sleep can help set into place recently learned anti-bias training (see the Perspective by Feld and Born). Changes in people's stereotypical attitudes toward race and gender were maintained for up to 1 week after training.

The whole reducing bias thing was sensitivity training. People just remembered it better.

[In Exile]

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.

That association test is the IAT and it's a stupid test. It's stupid because it doesn't prove belief - it proves how closely associated concepts are in your consciousness. If you encounter a lot of news about e.g. women and a pay gap (say you're a radical feminist scholar researching it) you'll trigger the IAT effect in virtue of a concept map but that has no connection with your belief. The people who created the test want to say that this association is proof of "implicit prejudice" but that doesn't work because they've yet (at least when I was exposed to the theory) to developed any coherent mechanism linking the association to actual prejudice beyond the baseline.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

The tape that is played during your sleep, consisted of:

 

"Stop your bigotry you cisgender patriarchist sexist misogynist racist homophone scum."

 

Repeated For 6 hours.

 

*goes mad instead*

[Inquisitor Recon]

Ron Paul warned us about this.

[Voxr]

It didn't have to end this way....