Some social scientists seem to think so. See a report on their work that tends to agree with their conclusion here.
I sent the link to a social scientist I respect and asked, among other things, whether some of the differences between Republicans and Democrats reported might not be explained equally well by concluding that Democrats lie more readily. I also wondered what percentage of the Democrats were themselves minorities. He replied, in part:
While I’m somewhat familiar with this type of research, I’m not a social psychologist or a race specialist so my opinion of these things isn’t the last word, but I think it’s actually a pretty good methodology, especially compared with the alternatives. The simplest way to get at prejudice is simply to ask people “what do you think of group X?” The problem with this is that, as you said, people lie. Another way is to ask about various policies, like affirmative action or busing and say that people who oppose these things are racist. The problem with this technique is that it can conflate a principled opposition to an aggressive state with racial animus. The best way to deal with this problem is a “vignette” methodology where you tell a story and ask what should be done, with a few details changed along a “split ballot” design. For instance you could say “George is a thirty-five year old (white/black) machinist who got laid off from his job when the plant closed. Should the government give George welfare until he can get back on his feet?” You compare the popularity of welfare among respondents who think George is white vs those who think he’s black. Whatever differences you find can be safely ascribed to racism….
…. This study is doing something very similar by seeing whether which races prime us to recognize virtues and vices. It sounds like bias was defined simply by whether people tended to be quicker to recognize virtue in the context of whites and vice in the context of blacks. Since research increasingly shows that racism is precognitive, this is a pretty good way to measure it…..
As for quibbling with the study, I’d really have to read it to make a definitive statement (and I’m too busy to do that right now), but I have a few hunches from the Wapo article. The main issue seems to be that if you read between the lines it seems like the differences between Republicans and Democrats were statistically significant but relatively small, with pretty much nobody really being that fond of blacks — in other words, relatively bipartisan ugliness. Also, that many of the Democrats may have themselves been black could be a problem, but this may not entirely discredit the study as other research has found that blacks tend to have views of and behavior towards other blacks not terribly dissimilar from the ways whites think about and act towards blacks. The best example is when Jesse Jackson candidly said, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage of my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery – and then look around and see someone white, and feel relieved.”
For a slightly more critical take on this research see here, and be sure to read the comments as well.
Sorry I’ve been gone for a while. Business dictates.
I’ve commented on these studies back in late 2003 in detail, on my older blog and in some other writing. They have some serious causality deficiencies, even if they may uncover some correlation. I even took one of the online tests and it found I had no bias but said that even though that was its finding I might “still have a hidden bias” it couldn’t measure (the tests are very difficult to “game” given their speed), although I wouldn’t be surprised by the mere finding that statistically Republicans are more likely to have latent racial prejudice (as defined by correlations with certain social policies) than Democrats based on mere regression from the mean and definitions of political issues. That is, since the there is a bell curve distribution of American political views and Republicans generally attract individuals both on the extremely small part of one side of the curve and those all the way up to the middle of the curve (and currently those slightly to the left side of the middle, as measured by recent elections), and since Democrats attract the other extreme and those up to a point near the middle of the curve, and since extremists on only one side of curve are traditionally defined as racist, you’d expect that there would be a slight statistical probability against Republicans based on the inclusion of the fringe. Indeed, the fact that the magnitude isn’t that large as admitted by the authors, and that there is “ugly racial bias” at a high rate across the political spectrum suggests to me that if you chopped off both extremes from the measurement (the nazi and klan nutcases, which is the correct terminology, as well as black separatists and BAMN/violence advocates on the left), you’d find a pretty consistent level of bias from mainstream Democrats to mainstream Republicans.
Definitions are important too. Patricia Gurin’s testimony to the Supreme Court was that “diversity’s” “educational benefits” were seen by measurable “democracy outcomes.” What were the “democracy outcomes,” you dare ask? Support for environmental policies, support for race preferences themselves (now there’s a feedback loop for you), and support for other programs typically considered “liberal.” That is, the “compelling interest” in “diversity” was that its students are more likely to exit the system with a political leaning to the left.
Finally, the definition of what racism is is important.
The quote of Jesse Jackson is instructive:
The best example is when Jesse Jackson candidly said, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage of my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery – and then look around and see someone white, and feel relieved.”
We don’t think of him as racist for this assumption – traditional race theory is that he can’t be because he’s black and blacks are in positions of power, but Jesse obviously has some power (more than I), and the theory is hogwash for more fundamental reasons. The reality, having discussed this with many blacks who have the same admitted feelings of fear of other blacks, is that they are making a statistical observation about likelihoods and risk that they factor into their own behavior to reduce risk, and that the higher risk assignment to blacks by blacks themselves is not justified by a belief that blacks are somehow predisposed to violence (a racist belief) but by a recognition that blacks are more likely to be in social or economic conditions that predispose them to violence (not a racist belief), caused by a variety of factors including past racism and some would even say “liberal” policies. The latter is not a racist belief – it addresses the issue of disparity and violence at a more fundamental level. It also suggests a radically different approach to the solution. Why can’t moderate whites make the same fundamental observation without being racist?
Because you are de facto racist by being white and not completely agreeing with all leftist social policies.
“as defined by correlations with certain social policies”
Are you sure? This one was about pictures.
“Why can’t moderate whites make the same fundamental observation without being racist?”
On the internet, associating black faces with words like “joy” ? Why can’t they?
“Because you are de facto racist by being white and not completely agreeing with all leftist social policies.”
Don’t forget not reading about research methods of studies. That makes you an idiot.
Another way is to ask about various policies, like affirmative action or busing and say that people who oppose these things are racist.
Opposing Affirmative Discrimination makes you a racist?
Opposing busing makes you a racist?
Personally I just don’t see where judges get the authority to violate anybodies Civil Rights short of those convicted of a felony. Busing certainly does this, among other things.
My methodology has been simple, ask a general question, such as ‘do you believe that it’s wrong to discriminate in the workplace?’, then follow it with a specific question, such as ‘is Affirmative Racism right or wrong?’.
I actually asked several hundred women these questions in the early 1990’s in N. CA. The results shocked me. All of the women said that it was wrong to discriminate in the workplace, and all supported Affirmative Racism and Sexism. I’d expected at least some women to oppose it, but there’s what you expect and what you get.
Wonder what results you’d get if you asked blacks?
“Don’t forget not reading about research methods of studies. That makes you an idiot.”
And calling people names instead of just debating them makes you a good little Democrat.
“And calling people names instead of just debating them makes you a good little Democrat.”
People who talk about research studies without reading their methods are idiots. Sorry. Truth isn’t relative here. The only question is if that describes you. does it?
“People who talk about research studies without reading their methods are idiots. Sorry. Truth isn’t relative here. The only question is if that describes you. does it?”
Actus,
If you want to argue about either the research methods or whether the poster read/accurately described the methods, you can do it without calling people “idiots.” It’s only a short slide from that to calling people Nazis and fascists as happens on other boards.
“If you want to argue about either the research methods or whether the poster read/accurately described the methods, you can do it without calling people “idiots.””
People who don’t read the research methods but make them up are idiots. Its not my problem if that is you.
“It’s only a short slide from that to calling people Nazis and fascists as happens on other boards.”
The slide between truth and falsity. Hard for some to understand.
“People who talk about research studies without reading their methods are idiots.”
I’m surprised to see actus adopt this despite the fact it paints him and Cobra as the most flagrant idiots. Black racists should just stick to making threatening gestures and demanding extortion. Pretending to have high standards of debate while dropping juvenile insults into the discussion is just another symptom of the problem, lack of shame.
“Black racists should just stick to making threatening gestures and demanding extortion.”
Good thing i aint black.
Racist still applies, not that I’ll take your word for it. I’ve seen you adopt and abandon principles in mid discussion too many times to give you the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, racism is racism and you defend racist behavior and principles, when convenient.
“Regardless, racism is racism and you defend racist behavior and principles, when convenient. ”
Like misreading implicit bias studies.
What implicit facts lead you to think I was black?
The same logic that would cause you to assume that a defender of Jim Crow was white. You are a kneejerk defender of black racism, so I assume that you are black.
“The same logic that would cause you to assume that a defender of Jim Crow was white.”
Do I assume that? Or do you?
“You are a kneejerk defender of black racism, so I assume that you are black.”
Thanks for making your implicit biases explicit.
Mikem writes:
>>>”I’m surprised to see actus adopt this despite the fact it paints him and Cobra as the most flagrant idiots.”
Mikem, if ANYTHING I get flagged for
posting and referring to TOO MUCH research, data and methodology. Thanks for the shout out, though. Always nice to be embedded in someone’s subconscious.
Now, from the linked article:
>>>””If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial,” he said. “We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, ‘This takes me aback,’ they are ignoring a huge volume of research.”
–Jon Krosnick, a psychologist and political scientist at Stanford University
Surprise, Surprise!
Couple this research with the open admission by the head of the RNC last year:
>>>””By the ’70s and into the ’80s and ’90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out,” Mehlman says in his prepared text. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”
Ken Melhman, on the “Southern Strategy”
RNC Chair fesses up on race baiting Republicans
This subject isn’t truly debatable if the Republicans turn state’s witness on themselves.
Rich writes:
>>>”My methodology has been simple, ask a general question, such as ‘do you believe that it’s wrong to discriminate in the workplace?’, then follow it with a specific question, such as ‘is Affirmative Racism right or wrong?’.”
What’s your definition of “discrimination” in that context?
Sharon writes:
>>>”Because you are de facto racist by being white and not completely agreeing with all leftist social policies.”
Which “reactionary, right winged social policies” throughout American history should have been EMBRACED by African-Americans in your opinion?
–Cobra
” ‘The same logic that would cause you to assume that a defender of Jim Crow was white.’
Do I assume that? Or do you?”
(and the rest)
This is where I chuckle at your willingness to be a fool for the sake of scoring the smallest point. You will actually claim that you would not make that assumption. Even better, that someone who did would be showing bias. Something as intuitive as that, you would deny.
So, you are dishonest (slam dunk), an idiot (your own words) and not very intuitive. Shocking!
“Thanks for the shout out, though. Always nice to be embedded in someone’s subconscious.”
You must be right. Here at Discriminations I often think of you and actus when either of you posts. Isn’t that bizarre? Thanks for your stunning insight into the psychological implications of such an association. I’ll get right on it.
“Even better, that someone who did would be showing bias”
Did I say that? No. All that’s happened here is you leapt to thinking that I was black. Because I was supporting ‘black racism.’ How? I don’t know. That’s something else in your head.
Mikem writes:
>>>”Thanks for your stunning insight into the psychological implications of such an association.”
You’re welcome! :-)
Mikem writes:
>>>”You are a kneejerk defender of black racism, so I assume that you are black.”
First of all, how is “black racism” manifested in America? “Affirmative Action”, as much as right winged conservative media outlets would tell you otherwise, encompasses more than just “black people.”
Second, the last part of your statement is interesting. Do you intend to portray programs designed to provide an entry level access to an American societal structure that has been, and in many documented aspects continues to be BIASED against certain minority groups and white women “black racism”, well, then your assumptions are flawed on its base.
–Cobra
Whoa! Frick and Frack, on the attack.
No, Cobra. I consider black racism to be racism committed by blacks. Not “white women”. Is that too complicated for you?
“Just how…” Yeah I know, Cobra. Black racism just does not exist. Not in Detroit, not during the LA riots, not in NY blacks boycotting and killing Jewish business owners. Not in racist statements by black leaders. You have defended discriminatory measures by black leaders in Detroit too many times to get away with reacting shocked to the very idea.
actus: You asked a question. I gave you an answer. Your response is that my natural assumption is biased (your word) and that, laughably, you would not assume a Jim Crow supporter to be white. That is dishonest. Simple enough. Like Cobra you favor skin color discrimination too often to now claim that you are colorblind in even the most obvious assumptions. I would rather be truthful and give up a small “gotcha” than lie and be undignified, as you so easily do. It’s the difference between us and one I am happy to be burdened with.
Mikem writes:
>>>”Yeah I know, Cobra. Black racism just does not exist. Not in Detroit, not during the LA riots, not in NY blacks boycotting and killing Jewish business owners.”
Let’s breakdown your statement. First, the riots in Detroit and Los Angeles. Which incidents? The ones following police brutality in 1967 in Detroit, or in 1943 when white citizens poured into
negro neighborhoods killing people? The riots after the all-white Simi Valley jury sprung the Rodney King assailant cops in the early 90’s? That certainly wasn’t an exclusively black riot.
As far as “New York Blacks” boycotting Jewish business owners being an example of “black racism”…I think you’re stretching the definition a tad, don’t you think? Exactly which businesses are you personally forced to deal with? You have no choice in America?
It gets more curious every day, doesn’t it?
–Cobra
“actus: You asked a question. I gave you an answer. Your response is that my natural assumption is biased (your word) and that, laughably, you would not assume a Jim Crow supporter to be white.”
That’s not what I said. What I said is how do you know me? and What ‘black racism’ am I so supportive of to make me black?
“As far as “New York Blacks” boycotting Jewish business owners being an example of “black racism”…I think you’re stretching the definition a tad, don’t you think?”
You really have no shame, Cobra.
“Which “reactionary, right winged social policies” throughout American history should have been EMBRACED by African-Americans in your opinion?”
Rather a loaded question, don’t you think? Of course, what I was talking about is that if you think Affirmative Action is wrong or unnecessary, if you think it is insulting to minorities for them to be scored differently on university admissions tests, if you think poverty is caused by things other than racism, etc. In other words, if you believe everybody honestly should be treated the same way, then you are a racist.
Mikem writes:
>>>”You really have no shame, Cobra.”
I feel no shame in voicing my opinion. If you consider boycots “racist acts” then we have a far longer list of perpetrators to address than “New York Blacks”.
Sharon writes:
>>>Of course, what I was talking about is that if you think Affirmative Action is wrong or unnecessary, if you think it is insulting to minorities for them to be scored differently on university admissions tests, if you think poverty is caused by things other than racism, etc. In other words, if you believe everybody honestly should be treated the same way, then you are a racist.”
You respond with an even more loaded answer. America has NEVER treated everybody the same way. You just seem selectively outraged when the treatment benefits African Americans.
–Cobra
blacks are as racist as anyone else. we just don’t have the power to do anything about it.
i don’t see the utility in this study. everybody has an ugly unconscious, assuming that this study accurately pinpoints those who are racist. if they don’t think they are racist, is it a good idea to tell them that they really are. what if they continue to say no I’m not.
if the aim of this article is to convince black people not to go republican, it’s a waste of resources because we never will. if the aim is to scare white conservatives, it’s a waste. it will just make people disgusted.
Anita writes:
>>>”blacks are as racist as anyone else. we just don’t have the power to do anything about it.”
Now, a more cynnical blog poster might argue that the discrimination that keeps blacks “out of power” is actually beneficial, because then blacks could theoretically claim the racial moral high ground.
That’s not me saying that of course. Just playing devil’s advocate.
–Cobra
Cobra,
[. . .] continues to be BIASED against certain minority groups and white women [. . .]
Which are the minority groups not discriminated against?
As far as “New York Blacks” boycotting Jewish business owners being an example of “black racism”…I think you’re stretching the definition a tad, don’t you think? Exactly which businesses are you personally forced to deal with? You have no choice in America?
Exactly which prospective employees is an employer personally forced to hire?
There is a difference between not shopping someplace and organizing a boycott; there is also a difference between boycotting a store on account of a legitimate grievance and boycotting it because the owners are the wrong race. The last I would certainly call “racist.”
Actus,
To respond to your first substantive point way above, regarding this being about “pictures” and not about definitions of political party, the “research method” was to show pictures through the classic picture-bias methodology, to hundreds of thousands of NON-RANDOMLY selected internet viewers, and then to plot the information about their geographic location against Congressional District, and it found that “Republican” districts (which are at best even only 60% Republican, a major and gaping problem that further draws into question the assumption that such districts represent “Republicans”) were more likely to have higher percentages of individuals with bias. Ergo, I referred to the additional problem (other than the two gigantic ones above, non-random participants and mixed and unseparated samples). Since the methodology links the classic face/image technique with traditional political definitions of Republican the problems with definitions also come into play, even though the statistical issues above are enough to destroy it’s validity in my mind.
Responding to your ad hominem against sharon, you can’t even get it facts from opinion straight.
You write:
People who talk about research studies without reading their methods are idiots. Sorry. Truth isn’t relative here. The only question is if that describes you. does it?
You then refer to “truth and falsity,” as if it were a factual distinction.
Since the conclusion that a person is an “idiot” is merely an opinion, and not a fact (unless you meant the scientific/IQ test definition of idiot, but that’s clearly an impossible definition for this context), it would be impossible for you to assert the “truth or falsity” of this.
This is the same error BAMN makes when it asserts MCRI circulators committed fraud by not saying “affirmative action,” because there is no truth or falsity in the claim that MCRI impacts “affirmative action” in any way. It’s an opinion – some people believe it does, others don’t. “Affirmative action” is a rhetorical term equal in its “truth or falsity” to the term “idiot”. Double entendre intended.
“You respond with an even more loaded answer. America has NEVER treated everybody the same way.”
The idea that people haven’t been treated this way doesn’t mean the Constitution doesn’t say what it means. To assume that because “everybody hasn’t been treated the same way” (a loaded statement, at best) then treating everyone unequally is ok is just plain twisted.
“You just seem selectively outraged when the treatment benefits African Americans.”
How do you know what makes me outraged or not? The question was which leftist social policies Republicans do not agree with and would therefore be called racist about. I gave you several examples, all of which are debatable issues. You, sir, are the one who is selectively outraged.
Michelle writes:
>>>”Which are the minority groups not discriminated against?”
To a large degree, the white, male multimillionaires who control America. They are certainly in the “minority” statistically.
>>>”There is a difference between not shopping someplace and organizing a boycott; there is also a difference between boycotting a store on account of a legitimate grievance and boycotting it because the owners are the wrong race. The last I would certainly call “racist.”
There certainly is. You just have to prove the boycott is racially motivated.
Sharon writes:
>>>”The idea that people haven’t been treated this way doesn’t mean the Constitution doesn’t say what it means. ”
The ORIGINALIST view of the Constitution allowed slavery and the disenfranchisement of Native Americans. The ORIGINALIST view of the Constitution did not grant women the same rights as men.
The Constitution can still be amended back to those days given enough people in Congress and the courts willing to do so.
Sharon writes:
>>>”How do you know what makes me outraged or not? The question was which leftist social policies Republicans do not agree with and would therefore be called racist about.”
SOME Republicans do not agree with Affirmative Action. Colin Powell, Condi Rice and others SUPPORT it. Are you claiming that they aren’t “valid” Republicans?
I say you seem to be selectively outraged because of what you cite here as your main greivances. A person NOT selectively outraged would take into account the reality of a racist and sexist society America has demonstrated itself to be.
–Cobra
Cobra, racism is always wrong. the fact that we suffer from it does not justify someone doing something to us. no one should do it to anyone. that is what we have to insist on. here whites have more power so they do it to us more than we can possibly do it to them. we don’t have to be perfect for that to be wrong. we’re just humans like they are.
“Since the methodology links the classic face/image technique with traditional political definitions of Republican the problems with definitions also come into play, even though the statistical issues above are enough to destroy it’s validity in my mind.”
But the link isn’t with ‘traditional definitions’ of republicans. Just with being from a republican district. No correlation with social policies. What made you think that there was that going on?
“Since the conclusion that a person is an “idiot” is merely an opinion, and not a fact (unless you meant the scientific/IQ test definition of idiot, but that’s clearly an impossible definition for this context), it would be impossible for you to assert the “truth or falsity” of this.”
I think we can say its true that people who talk abour research studies without knowing their methodologies are idiots.
I don’t know much about this MCRI, But I find it interesting that the MCRI won’t affect affirmative action. Do you really think that’s true?
” It’s an opinion – some people believe it does, others don’t.”
Some people can be wrong and others right. Whats the argument that it doesn’t affect affirmative action?
Cobra,
[me:] Which are the minority groups not discriminated against?
[you:] To a large degree, the white, male multimillionaires who control America. They are certainly in the “minority” statistically.
Very neat, but not, I think, what you were originally talking about. You said “certain minority groups and white women.” White women are also a minority, “statistically,” though of course women are a majority. Besides, I’ve read you long enough to know that when you write about “minorities,” you’re no more talking about white multimillionaires than you are about soccer players who are also violin virtuosi.
I’d be curious to know who you really meant.
As to boycotts, there have been enough that have been explicitly launched in a “let’s take back our community for our people” manner, and enough torching and looting of Korean-owned stores, Arab-owned stores, Jewish-owned stores, that it’s obvious there is a racial element in there. Yes, of course, you’d need to prove racially biased intent, but in the case of the Freddy’s Fashion Mart incident, that isn’t really very difficult, is it?
Cobra:
“The ORIGINALIST view of the Constitution allowed slavery and the disenfranchisement of Native Americans. The ORIGINALIST view of the Constitution did not grant women the same rights as men.”
There is an amendment process to take care of these things. And they did. But that doesn’t mean that the Constitution still doesn’t mean what it says. Your argument doesn’t deflect this basic fact.
“I say you seem to be selectively outraged because of what you cite here as your main greivances.”
You say I’m selectively outraged because then you can make arguments about racism. You have no idea what my racial views are or, for that matter, the color of my skin. I pointed out “grievances” for which Republicans are frequently castigated (opposition to affirmative action, etc.). That has nothing to do with my personal views and you should keep your mouth shut about what you think my views are.
“A person NOT selectively outraged would take into account the reality of a racist and sexist society America has demonstrated itself to be.”
None of this addresses the question asked. Stick to the question and leave the prognostications to David Copperfield and his ilk.