Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's admittedly not perfectly scientific, but this isn't chemistry or physics we're talking about here. We're dealing with people here, not test tubes. The show does meet the standards of rigor in soft science fields like sociology and linguistics, where matching up the same people to use as a control in a social reaction is not expected because it's not a realistic expectation to have.
Pointing out the method is just a way to distract from the real point of this show, in my opinion. It's a bit like saying we don't have scientific proof of the fact that Shakespeare intended this or that for his character Hamlet. A comment like that disregards the whole point of the book, and the fact that literature is a very subjective but nevertheless very valuable field.
Sociology and other related fields that run experiments like this require a combination of analytical skills, but they do also have an intuitive component. Sometimes you can just sense that someone is acting on a racist attitude, just like you sense the feeling behind a piece of music or sense the meaning behind the symbol used in a novel. Yes, there is an element of subjectivity to it, and yes, there is a chance you could be wrong.
However, over-thinking everything all the time and disregarding the intuitive aspect of human relations is just an attempt to distract from the real point of this show, which is that racism exists.
If you can not properly isolate the issue, then all you are doing is making up conclusions. Like I said, there may not be an issue related to race at all in this test, it may be a elements of individuals under a given circumstance.
Your willingness to disregard my very relevant and valid objections to the methodology suggests you are more interested in establishing the conclusion as accepted than you are validating it. That is, you argue a subjective bias, not a relevant fact of occurrence. When such focus is practiced, all that is achieved is the spread of generalizations and stereotypes, the very same thing that this "video" is attempting to claim that exists according to its supposed premise.
Unfortunately, I suspect it is not. This type of rationalization is becoming all too common these days in many fields. It is along the lines of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" as its goal is attempting to portray a particular position as valid rather than accurately establishing it. It is why many in the hard sciences have such disdain for soft science fields. My professors often referred to them as nothing more than hokum.
If you can not properly isolate the issue, then all you are doing is making up conclusions. Like I said, there may not be an issue related to race at all in this test, it may be a elements of individuals under a given circumstance.
Your willingness to disregard my very relevant and valid objections to the methodology suggests you are more interested in establishing the conclusion as accepted than you are validating it. That is, you argue a subjective bias, not a relevant fact of occurrence. When such focus is practiced, all that is achieved is the spread of generalizations and stereotypes, the very same thing that this "video" is attempting to claim that exists according to its supposed premise.
My point is that you can make the same objection to any social experiment because social sciences aren't a hard science. What do you want people to do? You will never be able to meet the standard used in hard sciences in social sciences. Does that mean that all theories and experiments within the fields of psychology, sociology, linguistics, etc. are null and void?
I am admitting there is a subjective component, but that doesn't take away from the validity of the point being made. When you only focus on the methodology, you are disregarding the point being made. I'm acknowledging both the point being made and the methodology.
The hard sciences leave no room for other ways of coming to understand reality. Proof through the scientific method is a great tool and a great way to come to understanding things, but it is one of many tools in the toolbox. There are some things you can only come to understand through reflection and intuition. Social sciences acknowledge both the scientific and intuitive sides.
A lot about race, from a social perspective, is subjective. Hence subjectivity does have a place in experiments like this, because it is subjective experience and thought (people's individual associations, assumptions, and conclusions) that leads to social phenomena like institutionalized racism. Those phenomena become real because they arise from people's minds and affect their actions. Social hierarchy, valuing money and gold, etc. are all a result of subjectively placing value on certain people or things more than others, but those phenomena also become real because people make them real because their thoughts affect their actions, and their actions have a direct effect on the world around them, including the people in it.
I don't understand how anything I said has to do with languages or money.
I am talking about the fact many White people people expect Black people to do all the work to eliminate racism. But it's not just on Black people to change race relations, because White people and other races are just as much a part of society as everyone else.
White people contribute to racism now just as much as Black people and in fact started the whole thing by shipping slaves over from Africa. I know that is not the only time slavery has happened, and I know it's not the only kind that has happened either, but it is the most relevant to the modern U.S., because the history the U.S. has of enslaving of Black people is what affects our culture the most today.
As a result, to eliminate the lingering attitudes we see today from that history, we have to acknowledge first that Whites did start it, and while many Black people have internalized racism and perpetuate it today too, Whites cannot just rid themselves of the responsibility. White people are just as responsible for the race dynamics we see today as any other race, and need to be just as much a part of the movement towards eliminating racism.
To put it more succinctly, we don't get to act like it's on Black people to clean up the mess we made.
Ah geez. The whites involved in the civil rights movement? The whites responsible for legislation such as Affirmative Action? And on the flipside, why not acknowledge the African tribal owners who sold (and profited from) their black counterparts to white slave owners?
Ah geez. The whites involved in the civil rights movement? The whites responsible for legislation such as Affirmative Action? And on the flipside, why not acknowledge the African tribal owners who sold (and profited from) their black counterparts to white slave owners?
I do acknowledge all of those.
Many whites have been involved in improving race relations, just by seeing Black people as people too. The White people who started to see Black people as human beings and not animals, when it was still an extremely stigmatized position to have--the "Atticus Finches"--did wonders for the Civil Rights movement. I am not just talking about doing this or that, but your very attitude towards people in your day-to-day life. The biggest effect you can have on race relations is by treating people of all races equally and by catching yourself before you make subconscious racist assumptions.
Many Black people have been involved in improving race relations, just by being themselves, following their dreams, in spite of what others told them. Many Black people have helped eliminated racism by refusing to let other people's attitudes get in the way of their goals, and by not letting any other human being make them any smaller of a person than they are--the "Rosa Parkses".
The White people who continue to see Black people as thugs, and the Black people who think going to college, reading, etc. are all "acting white" hurt race relations the most. Expectations reach much further than any sort of Affirmative Action, because people's attitudes and expectations are much, much more pervasive. Affirmative action might change one outcome in your life (getting into college), but people's attitudes towards you and your attitude towards them can change every outcome in your life. Attitudes can affect whether you will try to apply to college in the first place.
I know many Black people who only aspire for low-level jobs and welfare because they feel like the White Man will never let them achieve more. I know White people who, without realizing it, don't expect much of Black people and think it's "amazing" when they're "so well-spoken". Those people hurt race relations the most.
What needs to change is the way people think. It's from the inside out. No amount of legislation will change how people see things. People need to change the way they think and feel inside, and the only way to do that is to be willing to examine yourself, admit you are racist, and seek to change it.
My point is that you can make the same objection to any social experiment because social sciences aren't a hard science. What do you want people to do? You will never be able to meet the standard used in hard sciences in social sciences. Does that mean that all theories and experiments within the fields of psychology, sociology, linguistics, etc. are null and void?
I am admitting there is a subjective component, but that doesn't take away from the validity of the point being made. When you only focus on the methodology, you are disregarding the point being made. I'm acknowledging both the point being made and the methodology.
The hard sciences leave no room for other ways of coming to understand reality. Proof through the scientific method is a great tool and a great way to come to understanding things, but it is one of many tools in the toolbox. There are some things you can only come to understand through reflection and intuition. Social sciences acknowledge both the scientific and intuitive sides.
A lot about race, from a social perspective, is subjective. Hence subjectivity does have a place in experiments like this, because it is subjective experience and thought (people's individual associations, assumptions, and conclusions) that leads to social phenomena like institutionalized racism. Those phenomena become real because they arise from people's minds and affect their actions. Social hierarchy, valuing money and gold, etc. are all a result of subjectively placing value on certain people or things more than others, but those phenomena also become real because people make them real because their thoughts affect their actions, and their actions have a direct effect on the world around them, including the people in it.
And I am saying you can establish a better test bed and apply more controlled testing mechanisms to gain a better understanding of what may be occurring. By my exact objection, you know exactly what must be done to remedy it (and there are many more you could attend to in order to get a more accurate assessment). This isn't an issue of testing a theoretical concept to which we have no possible means of verifying. This can be tested, it simply was not properly done so and it is a common problem in many of the soft sciences.
This video however is not even a true experiment. It is anecdotal, random and uncontrolled, which may have been the point anyway. This is not uncommon from these forms of politically motivated stunts. Their interest is not in truly understanding an issue, rather it is simply to build more support for a given bias.
Look, I know you can not achieve the same level of requirements that a hard science can, but you can constrain many aspects in order to get as close as possible. That is the point. This experiment was worthless, nothing can be concluded from it.
And I am saying you can establish a better test bed and apply more controlled testing mechanisms to gain a better understanding of what may be occurring. By my exact objection, you know exactly what must be done to remedy it. This isn't an issue of testing a theoretical concept to which we have no possible means of verifying. This can be tested, it simply was not properly done so and it is a common problem in many of the soft sciences.
This video however is not even a true experiment. It is anecdotal, random and uncontrolled, which may have been the point anyway. This is not uncommon from these forms of politically motivated stunts. Their interest is not in truly understanding an issue, rather it is simply to build more support for a given bias.
Okay, so can you give an rough description of how you would test race relations? How would you personally go about it?
Okay, so can you give an rough description of how you would test race relations? How would you personally go about it?
I am not going to go through an entire control group design. I pointed out one specific problem with the video. They did not control the variability of individual reaction due to the fact that the same person was not tested between both races. Since they were different people, you can not even remotely conclude that they would have reacted differently between the races.
You also have many other issues you need to try and control such as elements that would cause someone to stop vs move on (they were short on time, they are conflict avoiding personalities, safety concerns, they don't care either way, etc...). There are numerous issues and while you can not account for all of them, many can be constrained to give a better indication.
The point is, nothing to that level was established here so any number of the variables I mentioned could be the reason for the interaction and completely void of racial motive.
If you can not properly isolate the issue, then all you are doing is making up conclusions. Like I said, there may not be an issue related to race at all in this test, it may be a elements of individuals under a given circumstance.
Your willingness to disregard my very relevant and valid objections to the methodology suggests you are more interested in establishing the conclusion as accepted than you are validating it. That is, you argue a subjective bias, not a relevant fact of occurrence. When such focus is practiced, all that is achieved is the spread of generalizations and stereotypes, the very same thing that this "video" is attempting to claim that exists according to its supposed premise.
Your objection is neither valid nor relevant. A sample of 100 'random' people from the same area is statistically normalized. You can ask any statistician. Your objection basically boils down distrusting sample sizes for any statistical sample. Take up your very valid and relevant objection with such people as Gallup. Afterall, how can they predict how Americans are going to vote when they only ask 1000 people!?!?!?! There are 300 million Americans
The only objection I read in the pages of pages of posts here is the black kid was smaller and looked younger than the white boy. I'm sure the old man who confronted him and removed his tools would be less cavalier if he was a lot bigger. For example, some white couple walked by the white boy and did nothing even though they admitted to believing he was stealing the bike. Maybe they just didn't want trouble.
Anyways, there seems to be people who are going to argue with every little facet of the experiment because they don't like the results.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
