Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5773
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby Angua » Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:53 am UTC

Maybe not for 'treating racism' but work like this could have interesting implications into how racism arises from a neurological standpoint, which could be interesting.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby EMTP » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:08 am UTC

Proginoskes wrote: A study was done of 1000 people. Their heads were removed, and NONE of them wanted to shoot a person of the opposite race afterwards. Conclusion: Decapitation cures racism.


The point of the study is not to invent a drug therapy for racism. The point is to hopefully learn something about how racism works as a psychological process. You press some buttons (such as blocking some beta receptors), and you study what happens. The end product is that we understand human psychology a little better.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9967
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby addams » Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:47 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Maybe not for 'treating racism' but work like this could have interesting implications into how racism arises from a neurological standpoint, which could be interesting.

Yeah. But;...Dang! Haven't we already done that. We know. Right?

What is the question? How does the phyisical brain act and react to symbols? How does the brain react to different and same? It is the brain decoding the world around us. We know that.

Some people are dicks. Is the question: Why are some people such unredeemable dicks? Yeah. That one still needs some answers. We have some answers. We could use some more.

The answer: They need more Beta Blockers is a workable answer. We can DO something about that.

The answer: No soul. That dick has no soul. We can not DO anything about that. It may be true. We are helpless in the face of that kind of truth.

Beta Blockers for everyone!

No! Don't do it! People would be dropping like flies. They would wake up again, usually. Head injuries and auto accidents would be two of the many unintended consequences.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby Telchar » Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:58 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Telchar wrote:For being so fond of statistics, your use of a sample size of 1 to generalize to a profession of ~93k is rather ironic.
I figured that it was the best way to communicate with you; after all, you felt comfortable generalizing from a sample size of 0. I had already provided evidence and more evidence is out there for anyone willing to look, and so responding with any evidence at all to your contentless refutation should suggest the strength of my position, not its weakness.

If you have any statistics on the statistics knowledge of psychologists, I'd love to hear it. If you've got compelling reasons to believe the file drawer effect doesn't actually exist, I'd love to hear it.

The point of the Bem debacle is not Bem. There are many people who try to publish crazy things, and so while he should be ejected from Cornell and his dissertation torn to pieces, he is just one man. The reason it is a full debacle is because the journal editors of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology somehow decided the paper was worth publishing, despite its defects, and then declined to publish replications of the experiment, citing a policy against publishing replications.


What? You presented two cases: One of which was a dutch psychologist faking data which isn't a statistical error, it's an ethical error, and then brought up Bem. You're presented no evidence that psychologists routinely get statistics wrong. The idea that these two cases prove that psychologists are bad at statistics and I have to, somehow, refute that because you presented two anecdotes is beyond belief.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:05 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:The idea that these two cases prove that psychologists are bad at statistics and I have to, somehow, refute that because you presented two anecdotes is beyond belief.
Take a step back and consider the full argument. The argument is that studies which have headline-grabbing titles and small n are more likely to be wrong than right, and that in general studies with small 'n' are useless because of the file drawer effect. (Suppose instead of doing a study on 360 people I did 20 studies on 18 people. If there were no relationship between the two factors I was interested in, on average, one of those 20 studies would have an effect significant at the p=.05 level in the direction I wanted it to be significant in. I then only publish the one positive study.)

ahammel's credulity- that scientists use proper procedures to pursue truth rather than sloppy procedures to pursue publications- is unsupported by any evidence, and the evidence the other way is strong. Statistical malfeasance is just a symptom of the overall problem.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby ahammel » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:24 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:
ahammel wrote:The had the subjects do a test which returns a number value. I assume it was something like the Implicit Association Test, which you can take online. Try taking some beta-blockers first and see if you do better (note: absolutely do not do this).


Except that number value is arbitrary, making it a nominal scale. 0 if you associated a negative, or 1 if you associated a positive. That means you can't get information about central tendency and no t-test.

I just took an IAT (I apparently have a strong subconscious preference for Barack Obama over JFK). It doesn't let me see the guts of the test, the results suggest that it simply divides people into "strong implicit association one way", "neutral", and "strong implicit association the other way" categories. If that's correct, you're right, a t-test wouldn't work. You'd have to use a chi-squared test or similar. Still doesn't suggest that the sample size is small enough that the result can be dismissed without actually looking at the paper.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby Telchar » Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:51 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Telchar wrote:The idea that these two cases prove that psychologists are bad at statistics and I have to, somehow, refute that because you presented two anecdotes is beyond belief.
Take a step back and consider the full argument. The argument is that studies which have headline-grabbing titles and small n are more likely to be wrong than right, and that in general studies with small 'n' are useless because of the file drawer effect. (Suppose instead of doing a study on 360 people I did 20 studies on 18 people. If there were no relationship between the two factors I was interested in, on average, one of those 20 studies would have an effect significant at the p=.05 level in the direction I wanted it to be significant in. I then only publish the one positive study.)


All valid points, but I called you out on your assertion that psychologists are terrible at statistics and then citing 2 anecdotes. I agree that this study probably has reproducability issues and, if it was published in a journal, the editors are at fault for not requiring more extensive data sets. Your broad-brush talk about psychologists is what I'm taking issue with, not your opinion of this study.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby ahammel » Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:18 am UTC

Telchar wrote:
Vaniver wrote:
Telchar wrote:The idea that these two cases prove that psychologists are bad at statistics and I have to, somehow, refute that because you presented two anecdotes is beyond belief.
Take a step back and consider the full argument. The argument is that studies which have headline-grabbing titles and small n are more likely to be wrong than right, and that in general studies with small 'n' are useless because of the file drawer effect. (Suppose instead of doing a study on 360 people I did 20 studies on 18 people. If there were no relationship between the two factors I was interested in, on average, one of those 20 studies would have an effect significant at the p=.05 level in the direction I wanted it to be significant in. I then only publish the one positive study.)


All valid points, but I called you out on your assertion that psychologists are terrible at statistics and then citing 2 anecdotes. I agree that this study probably has reproducability issues and, if it was published in a journal, the editors are at fault for not requiring more extensive data sets. Your broad-brush talk about psychologists is what I'm taking issue with, not your opinion of this study.

My understanding is that this isn't published yet. It was just a pilot study.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Proginoskes
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:07 am UTC
Location: Sitting Down

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby Proginoskes » Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:02 am UTC

Роберт wrote:
Proginoskes wrote:Also: A study was done of 1000 people. Their heads were removed, and NONE of them wanted to shoot a person of the opposite race afterwards. Conclusion: Decapitation cures racism.



Proginoskes wrote: NONE of them wanted to shoot a person of the opposite race afterwards


Proginoskes wrote:the opposite race


...what is this I don't even...
So there's a race binary now or what?


That's a victim of editing ... Originally, I wrote "A study was done of 1000 * and * people", where the *s represented two colors. I didn't know whether the *s would object to the terminology, so I took that out, forgetting that I'd put in "opposite race" afterwards. (I've offended my quota of people this week already.)

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby Роберт » Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:09 pm UTC

Proginoskes wrote: I didn't know whether the *s would object to the terminology, so I took that out, forgetting that I'd put in "opposite race" afterwards.


And even with that explanation, "opposite" is the wrong terminology. "Other" would have suited just fine.

I've bolded the offensive part. That is, in general, it's not that offensive to say "purple people". Purple is an adjective describing a specific aspect of the people. It is, in general, offensive to say "the purples", like "I'm afraid it might offend the purples". Why? Because you have characterized a vast, diverse group of people as monolithic group who's sole identifier is just they are purple.

Similarly, if I said "the gingers don't like <x>" that would offensive and insensitive.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby lutzj » Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:26 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I've bolded the offensive part. That is, in general, it's not that offensive to say "purple people". Purple is an adjective describing a specific aspect of the people. It is, in general, offensive to say "the purples", like "I'm afraid it might offend the purples". Why? Because you have characterized a vast, diverse group of people as monolithic group who's sole identifier is just they are purple.

Similarly, if I said "the gingers don't like <x>" that would offensive and insensitive.


The noun "$race" is still functionally equivalent to "$race person" and saves a good deal of time. It might sounds relatively crude to refer to, say, "the Asians" in everyday speech, but when discussing, for example, social strata in the antebellum American South, it's much simpler and acceptable to refer to "wealthy planters, freeholding whites, poor whites, free blacks, and slaves" as opposed to "wealthy planters, freeholding white people, poor white people, free black people, and slaves."

It feels redundant to splice in "people" next to every racial adjective when you're discussing multiple racial groups multiple times. It also feels awkward to do that for racial groups for the sake of sensitivity even though it is not expected of just about any other adjective. I'm pretty sure the terms "Canadians," "crab fishers," "lefties," and"infants" are acceptable and much more realistic for normal speech than "Canadian people," "crab-fishing people," "left-handed people," and "persons in infanthood."

Do note, finally, that Proginoskes started out saying "1000 * and * people," and only dropped the "people" later in the paragraph because by then it was implied.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby Роберт » Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:14 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
Роберт wrote:I've bolded the offensive part. That is, in general, it's not that offensive to say "purple people". Purple is an adjective describing a specific aspect of the people. It is, in general, offensive to say "the purples", like "I'm afraid it might offend the purples". Why? Because you have characterized a vast, diverse group of people as monolithic group who's sole identifier is just they are purple.

Similarly, if I said "the gingers don't like <x>" that would offensive and insensitive.


The noun "$race" is still functionally equivalent to "$race person" and saves a good deal of time. It might sounds relatively crude to refer to, say, "the Asians" in everyday speech, but when discussing, for example, social strata in the antebellum American South, it's much simpler and acceptable to refer to "wealthy planters, freeholding whites, poor whites, free blacks, and slaves" as opposed to "wealthy planters, freeholding white people, poor white people, free black people, and slaves."

It feels redundant to splice in "people" next to every racial adjective when you're discussing multiple racial groups multiple times. It also feels awkward to do that for racial groups for the sake of sensitivity even though it is not expected of just about any other adjective. I'm pretty sure the terms "Canadians," "crab fishers," "lefties," and"infants" are acceptable and much more realistic for normal speech than "Canadian people," "crab-fishing people," "left-handed people," and "persons in infanthood."

Do note, finally, that Proginoskes started out saying "1000 * and * people," and only dropped the "people" later in the paragraph because by then it was implied.

Can you explain to me why you need the word "the" to talk about Asian people? If "Asian people" is to awkward to say, it is possible to just say "Asians". For example "In the U.S., Asians of age 7 had a mean IQ (Wechsler) of 110, compared to a mean of 102 for seven year old Europeans". That works ok. Maybe not ideal, but certainly way better than talking about "The Asians". It would actually be a lot clearer for something formal to say "Asian-americans" and "European-americans", but in informal speech I don't think that's necessary. But there is no reason to say "the Asians".

Saying you're afraid of offending "The Asians" is mildly offensive in and of itself.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby lutzj » Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:45 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Can you explain to me why you need the word "the" to talk about Asian people?


You don't need the "the;" in fact, the definite article is rather dehumanizing. I was purposefully trying to present a crude example.

Роберт wrote:Saying you're afraid of offending "The Asians" is mildly offensive in and of itself.


I don't think I said that, and, again, I think we are in agreement that "the $groupmembers" is offensive in most contexts.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby Роберт » Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:00 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:I don't think I said that, and, again, I think we are in agreement that "the $groupmembers" is offensive in most contexts.

Oh, good.

Proginoskes wrote: I didn't know whether the *s would object to the terminology, so I took that out, forgetting that I'd put in "opposite race" afterwards.

I am not the worlds greatest communicator, and I thought what you were saying was defending this post by Proginoskes. I'm glad I misunderstood.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby lutzj » Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:08 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I am not the worlds greatest communicator, and I thought what you were saying was defending this post by Proginoskes. I'm glad I misunderstood.


You'd be reasonable in inferring that. I meant to disagree with the bit about group-nouns specifically and didn't indicate that properly.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9967
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Doctors Cure Racism! (Well...)

Postby addams » Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:16 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:This just in; reducing peoples anxiety and aggressiveness makes them less anxious and aggressive.


Some people like to be aggressive and enjoy making other people anxious.

Fearful people are easy to control. If, what you want is flight and fight.

Do we want to turn this into a conversation about self determination? That is some complex and interesting stuff.

I like it. It is so delicate.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: elasto, speising and 18 guests