Racism Saves Lives#RacismIsLove #4Racism Racism is Love #RacismIsLove #4Racism
 • Anti-Racism is Anti-Science

#TheTruthIsRacist • #BlackLivesMatter2RacistsSite MapDisclaimer 

Prejudice is correct (mostly)

Anti-Racists are prejudiced against prejudice.

Research on Stereotype accuracy shows that prejudice is frequently correct. It has also been shown that humans evolved to be good intuitive statisticians (see below 1 2)


Political Correctness based on junk science

Stereotypes are (mostly) NOT wrong, do NOT cause the stereotyped behaviors like high crime and low school performance. Labels and names are NOT powerful and do NOT cause hardship.

 

Thus the entire basis of political correctness is moot. Even detractors to political correctness are unaware of Jussim's debunking work.

Jussim, Lee (2012-03-09). Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

See also Psychology research all wrong


Prejudice definitions

Prejudice | Define Prejudice at Dictionary.com

an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. 3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.

 

Prejudice | Definition of Prejudice by Merriam-Webster

an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc.
: a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not reasonable or logical


STEREOTYPE ACCURACY IS ONE OF THE LARGEST AND MOST REPLICABLE EFFECTS IN ALL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

(Society for Personality and Social Psychology)

THE LONGSTANDING AND LOGICALLY INCOHERENT EMPHASIS ON STEREOTYPE INACCURACY

Psychological perspectives once defined stereotypes as inaccurate, casting them as rigid (Lippmann, 1922/1991), rationalizations of prejudice (Jost & Banaji, 1994; La Piere, 1936), out of touch with reality (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999), and exaggerations based on small “kernels of truth” (Allport, 1954/1979; Table 1).  These common definitions are untenable. Almost any belief about almost any group has been considered a “stereotype” in empirical studies.  It is, however, logically impossible for all group beliefs to be inaccurate.  This would make it “inaccurate” to believe that two groups differ or that they do not differ.      […]

 

THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

This blog is not the place to review the overwhelming evidence of stereotype accuracy, though interested readers are directed to SPSR and our updated reviews that have appeared in Current Directions in Psychological Science (Jussim et al, 2015) and Todd Nelson’s Handbook of Stereotypes, Prejudice and Discrimination (Jussim et al, 2016).  Summarizing those reviews:

  1. Over 50 studies have now been performed assessing the accuracy of demographic, national, political, and other stereotypes.
  2. Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology.  Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded r’s of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.[1]
  3. The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally.  When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception.  When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent.  This puts the lie to longstanding claims that “stereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.”
  4. There are only a handful of studies that have examined whether the situations in which people rely on stereotypes when judging individuals increases or reduces person perception accuracy.  Although those studies typically show that doing so increases person perception accuracy, there are too few to reach any general conclusion.  Nonetheless, that body of research provides no support whatsoever for the common presumption that the ways and conditions under which people rely on stereotypes routinely reduces person perception accuracy.[…]

If, as seems to be widely assumed in discussions such as Bian and Cimpian’s, agreeing that “Muslims are terrorists” means “all Muslims are terrorists” then such stereotypes are clearly inaccurate (indeed, SPSR specifically points out that all or nearly all absolute stereotypes of the form ALL of THEM are X are inherently inaccurate, because human variability is typically sufficient to invalidate almost any such absolutist claim).  However, the problem here is the presumption that agreeing that “Muslims are terrorists” is equivalent to the belief that “all Muslims are terrorists.”  Maybe it is, but if so, that cannot be empirically supported just because researchers say so. I suspect many would agree that “Alaska is cold” (indeed, I would myself) – but doing so does not necessarily also entail the assumption that every day in every location in Alaska is always frigidly cold.  Juneau routinely hits the 70 degree mark, which I do not consider particularly cold.  Yet, I would still agree that “Alaska is cold.”  Whether any particular generic beliefs is, in fact, absolutist requires evidence.  In the absence of such evidence, researchers are welcome to present their predictions as speculations about stereotypes’ supposed absolute or inaccurate content, but they should not be presenting their own presumptions as facts.   

Read entire article at STEREOTYPE ACCURACY IS ONE OF THE LARGEST AND MOST REPLICABLE EFFECTS IN ALL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

 



A Blow Against Anti-White Science

Scientist demolishes a half century of bias.

Lee Jussim, Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Oxford University Press, 2014, 404 pp., $84.00.
This is a very important book. It is an extensive and painstaking refutation of a set of mistaken assumptions that have dominated social science research since the 1950s, and continue to bias the thinking of most professionals in the field. It is a book for specialists–exhaustive and meticulously documented–but it systematically dismantles the illusions that helped give rise to today’s reflexive suspicion of whites. The author, Lee Jussim, is chairman of the psychology department at Rutgers University, and has spent his entire professional life as a social psychologist. [A Blow Against Anti-White Science]
many of the ideas in the book are so outside the mainstream of “normal” social science
claims, that it is perhaps more obvious than usual that any errors, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and the like are entirely my own. For example, this book spends 6 chapters
arguing that the effects of expectations are typically overstated and, rather than being powerful and pervasive, are weak, fragile, and fleeting. It spends 3 chapters arguing that there is far more evidence of accuracy than most social psychologists acknowledge. It spends 5 chapters arguing that stereotypes are typically quite accurate, typically used in a manner that is reasonable and more or less rational, and that it is social psychological perspectives emphasizing
stereotype inaccuracy that are exaggerated, unjustified, and irrationally resistant to change.
One can find vanishingly few psychologists of any stripes presenting such claims, so that one
can be assured that any errors in making or justifying them are entirely my own.
Jussim, Lee (2012-03-09). Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Page vii). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

 

See also Discrimination justified? (empty)

Generalization, discrimination

Not every drunk driver gets in accident. Alcoholophobia.

 


In Defense of Prejudice
In Defense of Prejudice

Greg Johnson
Kindle Edition
$5.99


See this example of an attack on political correctness who still recognizes PC's basic tenet and values.

PC does NOT have even have the basic value the following author ascribes to it as follows


Democracy's Death

The irony, of course, is that so many people, have adopted a way of interpreting human rights and liberal values in a manner that often undermines them. Political correctness, as it developed through the 1980s and 1990s began with good intentions. Words, political policies, and action that were either intended or inadvertently constructed to offend people on account of their race, disabilities, sexuality and so forth, must be replaced by "correct" terms that would not give offence. Much good was done by that, and today there are expressions that one would never find in respectable publications or hear on public broadcasts. They have rightly been set to one side in all decent discourse.

No, not much good was done. The idea of self fulfilling prophecy has been debunked by Jussim. The words do NOT cause hardship. PC is corrupt, harmful and totally useless right from its inception and its base.

Politically correct speech codes were unnecessary in its beginnings, and very harmful in its further course. And the foundation of PC is the racism taboo, based on the idea that the consistent underachievement of certain ethnicities is CAUSED by words and thoughts of white racism.

Many practitioners of political correctness, however, have taken matters to the point where even perfectly rational, well argued, and intelligent speech or behaviour was condemned. This could be, and evidently is, done to inhibit debate – a new type of censorship made vivid by faculty and students in most Western universities in which speakers offering alternative viewpoints (such as pro-Israel academics) are banned from coming onto campus, while students frightened of being upset by a lecture that presents a different viewpoint create "safe spaces" that will not exist upon their graduation to soothe their feelings. This has become so destructive of the very purpose of the university, that in December 2017 Jo Johnson, the UK Higher Education Minister, told universities to stop the practice of "no-platforming" speakers. Inevitably, student leaders attacked him for saying so.
As anti-establishment groups shifted from support for the working classes and moved to an emphasis on solidarity with those termed by Frantz Fanon "the wretched of the earth", their compassion for suffering people in the Third World was all but eclipsed by a conviction that all today's evils stem from imperialism and colonialism. Up until the 1970s, this same conviction was expressed in support for communist states, regardless of how oppressive they might be. {Source: Democracy's Death]

 



Truth in stereotypes


1. Which group is most likely to commit murder?
  • A. Men

  • B. Women

2. Older people are generally more __________ and less __________ than adolescents. 
  • A. Conscientious; open to new experiences 
  • B. Neurotic; agreeable 
3. In which ethnic/racial group in the US are you likely to find the highest proportion of people who supported Democratic presidential candidates in 2008 and 2012?
  • A. Whites
  • B. African Americans
4. People in the US strongly identifying themselves as ___________ are most likely to attend church on Sunday.
  • A. Conservative
  • B. Liberal
5. On 24 December 2004, a father and his three kids wandered around New York City around 7pm, looking for a restaurant, but found most places closed or closing. At the same time, his wife performed a slew of chores around the house. This family is most likely:
  • A. Catholic
  • B. Baptist
  • C. Jewish
  • D. Pagan/Animist

Answers appear at the bottom of this paragraph. If you got at least one right, you now have your own personal evidence that not all stereotypes are necessarily wrong. (The answers are: A, A, B, A, C.)
If you got three or more right, congratulations – your stereotypes assessed here were quite accurate. On the other hand, don’t be too impressed with yourself. Lots of people hold stereotypes about as accurate as yours. And yet, most of us have had it beaten into our heads that ‘stereotypes are inaccurate’. Why is that?
For one thing, many social scientists have been deeply concerned with combating oppression – anti-Semitism in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, racism and sexism following the civil rights and women’s movements in the ’60s, among others. Combating oppression is a good thing, and oppressors exploit stereotypes, so stereotypes are seen as bad. 
If you make almost any claim about almost any group, the quickest way to have your claim dismissed is for someone to declare: ‘That’s just a stereotype!’ This ‘works’ because of the widespread assumption that stereotypes are inaccurate, and the unstated insinuation that you are probably a bigot. Thus, any evaluation of the validity of your claim is short-circuited by the peremptory dismissal.
Still, high moral purpose (or lack of it) does not translate to scientific truth (or its absence). We do not usually presume people making other generalisations – say, about the weather in Madrid or the taste of oranges – are doing something bad and inaccurate. Despite this point, the notion of generalisations about people as inherently bad and inaccurate has long been baked into the science without any proof. It is almost impossible to conduct social scientific research on stereotypes without running into the scholarly emphasis on their inaccuracy. 
When I first began my research, I had assumed all those social scientists declaring stereotypes to be inaccurate were right. I wanted to know the basis for those claims – not to refute them, but to promote them and proclaim to the world the hard scientific data showing that stereotypes were wrong. So, when some published article cited some source as evidence that stereotypes were inaccurate, I would track down the source hoping to get the evidence. 
And, slowly, over many years, I made a discovery: there wasn’t any evidence there. Claims of stereotype inaccuracy were based on… nothing. For example, a classic paper from 1977 describing research by social psychologists Mark Snyder, Elizabeth Tanke, and Ellen Berscheid stated: ‘Stereotypes are often inaccurate.’ Ok, but scientific articles are usually required to support such claims, typically via a citation to a source providing the evidence. This is important so that anyone can find the evidence for such a claim. There is no source here.

Lee Jussim usually skirts racial questions, we can say it bluntly:

 



 

 

Humans, even apes, are intutive statisticians

This is why the distorted press reporting is such a powerful manipulation. If almost all reporting is white police killing innocent Blacks, it appears that Black on White crime and Black on Black crime is not very relevant.

The Psychology of Human Thought

Robert J. Sternberg, ‎Edward E. Smith - 1988 - ‎Medical How well do people perform as intuitive statisticians attempting to discern - and then use - the statistical relationships that they observe in the world around them? The empirical answers to this question suggested that people's statistical intuitions are imperfect. Those answers provoked, in turn, interest in decision aiding with ...

[PDF]Apes are intuitive statisticians - Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary ...

Keywords: Comparative psychology. Primate cognition. Intuitive statistics. Numerical cognition. a b s t r a c t. Inductive learning and reasoning, as we use it both in everyday life and in science, is char- acterized by flexible inferences based on statistical information: inferences from popula- tions to samples and vice versa.

Teaching intuitive statistics I: Estimating means and variances ...

Previous studies have shown that man is only fairly efficient as an intuitive statistician. It is proposed that users of statistics, for example, should be trained to become better intuitive statisticians to enable them to appreciate and make inferences in numerically determined environments. To this end, an experiment was ...


a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stereotype Inaccuracy: A Belief Impervious to Data. When are liberals anti-scientific?

[..]

Disclaimer: Political Bias Is About Science

[...]

1. Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology
2. The fact that this is true has had almost no effect on the frequency with which social scientists claim, assume, or imply that stereotypes are inaccurate.
You probably find this hard to believe.  After all, you have been told, over and over and over and over, that stereotypes are inaccurate.  This has been part and parcel of the liberal project of fighting oppression and prejudice. [...]

Stereotype: a belief about the characteristics of a social group.  Note what goes unsaid here.  Stereotypes are beliefs – they are not attitudes, behaviors, media images, or anything else.  They are also not defined as inaccurate.  Such definitions are logically incoherent, see my prior blog entry:
Defining Stereotypes as Inaccurate Is Common and Irrational
Social perceptual accuracy: Correspondence between a person’s belief and social reality, with one exception.  If that person has caused a self-fulfilling prophecy, then the belief was not initially accurate.  (Self-fulfilling prophecies are initially erroneous beliefs that create their own reality). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Site Map

4Racism.org

4Racism.org Logo