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.
Wow. What a laughable, underwhelming attempt to make a point. Is it your general proclivity to speak in absolutes? Of course there are examples of rainbows with other than the normal colors. But there's a pretty good general understanding of what a typical rainbow looks like. But that's not the point at all.
The point is that light colors have always generally been attributed to being positive, dark colors being attributed to negative. This not my theory. This is the theory of emotions and relationship to colors.
But while you're being obtuse, how about delving into something productive for your brain? Here, i'll help you out:
In an investigation of children's emotional associations with colors, Boyatzis and Varghese (1994) found that light colors (e.g., yellow, blue) are associated with positive emotions (e.g., happy, strong) and dark colors (e.g., black, gray) with negative emotions (e.g., sad, angry). In a study examining color-emotion associations among college students in Australia, Hemphill (1996) also found that bright colors elicited mainly positive emotional associations, while dark colors elicited negative emotional associations, confirming the results obtained by Boyatzis and Varghese (1994).
Yes, its the same link as above, but the point is still the same. I'm not sure why you felt the need to point out different rainbows as some sort of convoluted rationale for debunking my claim.
That study doesn't seem to show that such a preference is innate, rather that it exists. Has the experimenter controlled for the possibility that the colour preferences are the result of external reinforcement? Even accepting that they are innate, it's quite a leap to extrapolate that to the colour of human beings as:
Not all dark colours have negative connotations. Dark purple symbolises royalty and dark green abundance.
Associations of attractiveness and positive/negative characteristics aren't solely about the colour of skin but also about the structure of the face and body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Ah, back to the ole' rainbow argument again, I see. I'll bite. Human nature is partially a function of "nurture" over centuries. I don't dispute that. But the two do not exist in a vacuum. One does not occur without the other. Accordingly, for you to assert that skin color bias is merely the function of nurture, and has nothing to do with human natural ability to perceive colors through neurological processes (innate) is a bit of a stretch. Under your theory, a human would not view black as negative and yellow as positive unless we were told to exclusively through cultural or societal dictation. This very premise mandates that we as humans have no grasp of color until we are told precisely how to grasp it. I disagree wholeheartedly.
Whether you want to call it nature or nurture, the larger point remains: skin color bias has been around for centuries. The study provided in the OP's link does nothing prove or disprove that said bias has been going on for centuries, within races, amongst most, if not all, races. Which is exactly why I said that the study was a bunch of nothingness, in my opinion.
On that I agree with you. The point of divergence seems to be whether this bias is innate or mostly learned.
One of your posted links even says:
Quote:
Sadly, many non-whites today do not examine the roots of their admiration for the white-skinned, high-nosed and light-eyed, and assume that their desire for whiteness is "natural" or "traditional". Some non-black people of color even speak of their "instinctive" fear of black people. Even without interacting with black people, some brown and yellow individuals have unthinkingly internalized European colonialist attitudes of a racial hierarchy with white at the top and black at the bottom.
You keep saying this, yet there is no argument, evidence, etc. There are simply assertions and sociological data. You have only provided evidence that points towards class and mutable social influence. If anything, you are making my argument for me. Did you not even read your own links? That you are wanting to extrapolate the rainbow of color preference, which is largely reliant on social influence any way, onto how we view humans is out of this world.
It's dangerous territory when social scientists attempt to cross over to the innate. You clearly do not understand the data you are reviewing and you don't seem interested in the physiology. I have presented a couple of paths that can be addressed. Color perception in infants, and we can go from there. Or, looking at ancient cultures, like the Mayans. You are interested in neither. You have an ill-thought pov and you're under the impression that an ability to string words together to make a statement constitutes an argument. That's not good enough imo.
It's not nothingness. It would be nothingness if it was innate. Since it is not change can take place. That is the point of these studies, ya know.
First of all, i've been kind not to refer you back to Post #20, which lays out precisely my argument. Which has absolutely nothing to do with nature vs. nurture, and everything to do with skin color bias. But as some sort of attempt at deflection, you went off on a rail about "nurture" which I was more than happy to discuss, although it does not answer the question posed by me or the OP.
Would you like to go back and answer the question at hand, or do you insist on going down the road of nature vs. nurture since its obvious that you have no relevant argument to the question I posed you back in Post #20.
And for the record, you are being deliberatively obtuse by discounting the neurogological context of color perception. But since you refuse to acknowdge the natural aspect, let me do it for you:
"Color is in the brain. It is constructed, just as the meanings of words are constructed. Without the neural processes of the brain, we wouldn't be able to understand colors of objects any more than we could understand words of a language we hear but don't know," said Steven Shevell, a University of Chicago psychologist who specializes on color and vision.
Color perception is innate, not learned. Skin bias is nurtured. The two coexist, but for some reason you've seized on an non-existent opportunity to prove what? That I used the word nature without also mentioning nurture? Ok, if that's what floats your boat.
Color perception is a natural process supported by nurturing. To me this is stating the obvious, but you seemingly can't put the issue to rest. Now that we've got that out of the way, are you sure you have anything to discuss regarding the debate I wagered with you at Post #20? It doesn't look like it.
Getting back to the actual test first conducted rather than veering off on cognitive responses to colors in the abstract, the Kenneth and Mamie Clark study in the 1940's did not ask children to respond to abstract colors, but to instead used dolls asking children to ascribe very human attributes to the dolls based upon skin color. What made this study even more chilling is that fact that these same children were asked to identify which doll most resembled themselves. The result, even after self-identifying with the dolls, black children would ascribe negative attributes to the doll who they identified resembled themselves the most. To ascribe some innate self-hatred based upon skin color is absurd and flies in the face of the original study and those that have been subsequently repeated.
Wow. What a laughable, underwhelming attempt to make a point. Is it your general proclivity to speak in absolutes? Of course there are examples of rainbows with other than the normal colors. But there's a pretty good general understanding of what a typical rainbow looks like. But that's not the point at all.
The point is that light colors have always generally been attributed to being positive, dark colors being attributed to negative. This not my theory. This is the theory of emotions and relationship to colors.
But while you're being obtuse, how about delving into something productive for your brain? Here, i'll help you out:
In an investigation of children's emotional associations with colors, Boyatzis and Varghese (1994) found that light colors (e.g., yellow, blue) are associated with positive emotions (e.g., happy, strong) and dark colors (e.g., black, gray) with negative emotions (e.g., sad, angry). In a study examining color-emotion associations among college students in Australia, Hemphill (1996) also found that bright colors elicited mainly positive emotional associations, while dark colors elicited negative emotional associations, confirming the results obtained by Boyatzis and Varghese (1994).
Yes, its the same link as above, but the point is still the same. I'm not sure why you felt the need to point out different rainbows as some sort of convoluted rationale for debunking my claim.
Color preference is cultural. You can't paint everyone with the same brush. Native Americans thought black was good because it was the color of soil, which gives life. In the Japanese culture, black is associated with honor, not death with the color white being associated with death.
Although cultural symbolism may make convenient use of natural symbolism, it is a different process entirely, since, as can be seen in the case of red, psychological reactions to natural associations are evaluative and are learned.
In the USA color is attributed to the concept of "race". And because of this people pass along so-called "racial bias" because of how colors and how people named after colors are associated. Nobody looking at a "white" person sees them as a blank white piece of paper representing the color of white, but they are perceived to hold a superior status because of race bias and because of what the color "white" represents as a symbol. People who are "black" are associated with the negativity that the "color black" represents as a symbol in American culture. And that fact has been reinforced over time in this country.
Quote:
The natural negative associations with blackness, for example, have historically been used by "white" racists as a basis for mistrusting or devaluating people with "black" skin. Alone the fact that, where the designation of skin color is concerned, a vast range of gray, pinkish or beige tones suddenly become white and the most diverse browns become condensed into the idea of black, instead of the more obvious adjectives light and dark can be the basis for discussing cultural perception. Why would a species capable of creating and using hundreds of color definitions so stubbornly decide that the world is divided into black, white, yellow and red people? Only in the "light" of natural, everyday experience can we begin to suspect a difference between cultural and natural symbolism.
First of all, i've been kind not to refer you back to Post #20, which lays out precisely my argument. Which has absolutely nothing to do with nature vs. nurture, and everything to do with skin color bias.
At this point, I don't think you know what your argument is. Are you saying color preference is innate or not? Can you please give a yay or nay?
Quote:
But as some sort of attempt at deflection, you went off on a rail about "nurture" which I was more than happy to discuss, although it does not answer the question posed by me or the OP.
The OP, the whole point of this conversation, is about nurture. And you're providing another link that contradicts your position, which I assume is the assertion that it's nature (given your words).
Quote:
And for the record, you are being deliberatively obtuse by discounting the neurogological context of color perception. But since you refuse to acknowdge the natural aspect, let me do it for you:
Color perception is innate, not learned. Skin bias is nurtured. The two coexist, but for some reason you've seized on an non-existent opportunity to prove what? That I used the word nature without also mentioning nurture? Ok, if that's what floats your boat.
Again, did you read your own link? From your link...
"Color is normally thought of as a fundamental attribute of an object: a red Corvette, a blue lake, a pink flamingo. Yet despite this popular notion, new research suggests that our perception of color is malleable, and relies heavily on biological processes of the eye and brain"
Quote:
Color perception is a natural process supported by nurturing. To me this is stating the obvious, but you seemingly can't put the issue to rest. Now that we've got that out of the way, are you sure you have anything to discuss regarding the debate I wagered with you at Post #20? It doesn't look like it.
I have no idea what you're going on about now. First you state "Color perception is innate, not learned." Then you state "Color perception is a natural process supported by nurturing."
You have clearly shown that our perception of color is influenced by the environment. This only adds to my argument.
Color preference is cultural. You can't paint everyone with the same brush. Native Americans thought black was good because it was the color of soil, which gives life. In the Japanese culture, black is associated with honor, not death with the color white being associated with death.
In the USA color is attributed to the concept of "race". And because of this people pass along so-called "racial bias" because of how colors and how people named after colors are associated. Nobody looking at a "white" person sees them as a blank white piece of paper representing the color of white, but they are perceived to hold a superior status because of race bias and because of what the color "white" represents as a symbol. People who are "black" are associated with the negativity that the "color black" represents as a symbol in American culture. And that fact has been reinforced over time in this country.
Excellent post and thank you for providing that link, which squashes this silly color preference argument.
At this point, I don't think you know what your argument is. Are you saying color preference is innate or not? Can you please give a yay or nay?
The OP, the whole point of this conversation, is about nurture. And your providing another link that contradicts your position, which I assume is the assertion that it's nature (given your words).
Again, did you read your own link? From your link...
"Color is normally thought of as a fundamental attribute of an object: a red Corvette, a blue lake, a pink flamingo. Yet despite this popular notion, new research suggests that our perception of color is malleable, and relies heavily on biological processes of the eye and brain"
I have no idea what you're going on about now. First you state "Color perception is innate, not learned." Then you state "Color perception is a natural process supported by nurturing."
You have clearly shown that our perception of color is influenced by the environment. This only adds to my argument.
You'd do well at Fox News. Parsing words to fit your agenda is certainly your forte.
I've clearly stated that nature and nurture coexist. Further, "malleable" does not detract from the innateness of color perception. If you had read the article fully, you'd understand the context in which malleable was used. Why are you deliberately ignoring the neurological aspect of color perception? Why do you believe that color perception is uniquely a product of nurturing? It makes no sense whatsoever, and I think you know this.
I have not contradicted myself at all. You simply have no argument, so you hinge your entire debate on the fact that I used the word "nature" without also using the word "nurture." I believe you know how silly you look by debating this single-faceted point, even though I have given you ample opportunity to change the course of this discussion and move back to the original discussion of skin color bias and colorism.
First you wanted pre-colonial proof, and then when you were proved wrong, you went to you inane "nurture" discussion. Like I said, I can easily trump you, and you know it so you went for the weeds in favor of something that only marginally applies to the original point of debating you.
Do you want to debate skin color bias and colorism, the whole intent of this discussion to begin with, or not? I'm pretty sure I know the answer. Deflection has a name, and now we know what it is.
You'd do well at Fox News. Parsing words to fit your agenda is certainly your forte.
I've clearly stated that nature and nurture coexist. Further, "malleable" does not detract from the innateness of color perception.
I don't even know why you linked it. Clearly, we ascribe meaning that connects shapes and color. It's a learned phenomenon. I'm just not getting the point.
Quote:
Why are you deliberately ignoring the neurological aspect of color perception? Why do you believe that color perception is uniquely a product of nurturing? It makes no sense whatsoever, and I think you know this.
I have never stated the physiological processes of color perception is uniquely a product of nurture. I have stated the meaning we ascribe color is a product nurture. Do you not understand the difference?
Quote:
I have not contradicted myself at all. You simply have no argument, so you hinge your entire debate on the fact that I used the word "nature" without also using the word "nurture." I believe you know how silly you look by debating this single-faceted point, even though I have given you ample opportunity to change the course of this discussion and move back to the original discussion.
What in the world are you talking about? My position is clear, color bias when it comes to how we view humans is based on sociological and environmental influence. How is that not an argument? That's my hypothesis and every link you have provided is all that's needed to support the hypothesis. You flipping off into la la land with color perception and the meanings we ascribe has been completely squashed by other posters.
First you wanted pre-colonial proof, and then when you were proved wrong, you went to you inane "nurture" discussion.
Where was I proved wrong? You did not provide any kind of argument that supports nature. The whole point of wanting to review culture pre-colonial was to remove sociological influences. You then provided a link that clearly shows sociological influences via class. I don't understand why that's so hard for you to grasp.
Quote:
Like I said, I can easily trump you, and you know it so you went for the weeds in favor of something that only marginally applies to the original point of debating you.
You are not trumping anybody. You're blathering nonsense. It's all common sense that seems to be beyond you.
Quote:
Do you want to debate skin color bias and colorism, the whole intent of this discussion to begin with, or not? I'm pretty sure I know the answer. Deflection has a name, and now we know what it is.
You translate your lack of argument as deflection on my part. The onus is upon you to prove that color bias is innate. You have have failed miserably in that task. Instead, you provide links that support the opposing view because you don't know any better. This is one of the goofiest displays I've seen in some time.
eta: why not address LuckyGem's post? Specifically...
Quote:
Color preference is cultural. You can't paint everyone with the same brush. Native Americans thought black was good because it was the color of soil, which gives life. In the Japanese culture, black is associated with honor, not death with the color white being associated with death.
I thought this might be interesting to consider. Sure, everyone has their preferences IRT what we find beautiful in animals, but is there a natural bias when it comes to our pets? I have a black cat and a whitish cat. Those aren't my kitties, tho.
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.
Does color bias manifest here?
