[jaakko]

from my experience in biology, not many systems actually function this way.

That's one reason why the option 'a' is the most sensible.

instead, all races, in this hypothesis, which is valid, have exactly the same brain area; a prejudice against any race that is not your own. Thus if you were to transplant the amygdala of a white man to that of a black man, you would not end up with a black man that is racist towards black people (which you would, under your proposed disproved hypothesis). You would just end up with a black man who has the same degree of subconcious racial reflex as the white man the amygdala is from.

How could the amygdala recognise races, or the race of the person himself? Racial recognition requires social conditioning. It's not an unconditioned reflex.

From the perspective of biological evolution, I can't see what natural conditions would lead to some genetically encoded racism. The appearance of different races (mainly accommodation to different climates) took place in the very last stages of human biological evolution, when it was already being superceded by accelerating social evolution.

i think you should make more of an effort to distinguish between concious racism and subconcious racist reflexes.

I don't think that's the problem, but the distinction between unconditioned and conditioned reflexes - in this case, distinction between conditioned and assumed(!) unconditioned subconscious racism.

This article asserts that while you have been conditioned by social factors to not behave racialistically, you still have a subconcious racist reflex in the first few milliseconds.

It doesn't assert that. Racism is socially conditioned, yet I can behave non-racistically. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if I appeared to have some subconscious racism. It's a bit the same thing as with commodity fetishism (the distortion of consciousness which makes people see relations between men as relations between items -fixed a typo: incomplete sentence-). I'm aware of it atleast when take the effort of thinking it, but as long as I live in such material conditions which promote (automatically because of the mode of production of this social system) commodity fetishism, it will remain in the subconsciousness.

[Ocker]

[To those who can hold intelligible discourse - thankyou. To the retard- I often miss one-liners long enough so that deleting them would create confusion in reading, so I often let them slide. Act like a moron, however, and your posts will disappear. Being "drunk" is no excuse for acting like a 10 year old.]

Ocker.

[bradley]

That's one reason why the option 'a' is the most sensible.

no, that is a reason why option a) is more sensible than the other clearly highly improbably hypothesis YOU presented. To conclude that it is therefore the "most" sensible is a logical fallacy.

as for:

How could the amygdala recognise races, or the race of the person himself?

certainly, i did not know what race i was until i saw my parents, my face in the mirror, whatever. So a reference point must be conditioned. However, racial recognition is most certainly not conditioned. The brain is fully capable of recognising races; else it wouldn't be able to recognise its own in order to decide what race it is, so it can have a reference point from then. These are not the same things.

I can't see what natural conditions would lead to some genetically encoded racism.

not sure I can, either; but you're still not disproving the article by saying that.

I don't think that's the problem, but the distinction between unconditioned and conditioned reflexes - in this case, distinction between conditioned and assumed(!) unconditioned subconscious racism.

i think i have demonstrated why something you see as clearcut conditioning is not actually necessarily so. So unless you are saying that this problem is one you suffer from, i'll disregard it and move on.

It doesn't assert that. Racism is socially conditioned, yet I can behave non-racistically.

of course it asserts that! do you seriously think you're contradicting the article by saying that you're not a racist?

"Even for non-prejudiced individuals, early perceptual processing may result in an automatic emotional response that may direct attention toward people of stigmatized social groups. Yet, with the opportunity to change or modify this initial impulse, they have the ability to do so."

I fail to see how

This article asserts that while you have been conditioned by social factors to not behave racialistically, you still have a subconcious racist reflex in the first few milliseconds.

is a false summary of the above paragraph; let alone a poor one

[jaakko]

no, that is a reason why option a) is more sensible than the other clearly highly improbably hypothesis YOU presented. To conclude that it is therefore the "most" sensible is a logical fallacy.

What's wrong with my presentation of the option 'b'?

certainly, i did not know what race i was until i saw my parents, my face in the mirror, whatever.

That's not enough for racial recognition.

However, racial recognition is most certainly not conditioned. The brain is fully capable of recognising races; else it wouldn't be able to recognise its own in order to decide what race it is, so it can have a reference point from then.

That's circular reasoning. Brain doesn't have to have an unconditioned ability to recognise races. Consciousness can develope to make such arbitrary recognition guides, however. Races could be best compared to the colour spectrum. Of course brains react differently to anything that differs from what's "common" for the consciousness of a person. There are children whose parents are both of some of the "extreme ends" of the racial spectrum, the children being somewhere in the "middle". I don't think their brains would react radically to either of the "extreme races", especially if the environment was racially diverse and lacked conscious and subconscious (culture also has the subconscious side, as I exemplified by using 'commodity fetishism' which is almost totally subconscious to 90%) racial stereotypes.

not sure I can, either; but you're still not disproving the article by saying that.

I'm no longer disproving the article, merely your interpretation of it.

of course it asserts that!

I meant the "while you have been conditioned by social factors to not behave racialistically" part. I think that the existing material conditions (or social factors) have a contradictory effects in what comes to racism. On the superficial level, racism is usually considered as something 'bad' and condemnable, while racism is being promoted on the level of ideology ('socio-biology' often serves this, intended or not). I know tons of people who honestly condemn racism but take racist stances (which isn't the same as racial hatred or even disparage of "other races") on several occasions without even realising it.

do you seriously think you're contradicting the article by saying that you're not a racist?

No, and I'm not trying to. I'm saying that while I'm not a racist, I probably have some degree of socially conditioned racism on the level of sub-consciousness.

This article asserts that while you have been conditioned by social factors to not behave racialistically, you still have a subconcious racist reflex in the first few milliseconds.

It's a false summary because the article doesn't say that human beings had the subconscious racist reflex without or irrespective of social conditioning.

[bradley]

It's a false summary because the article doesn't say that human beings had the subconscious racist reflex without or irrespective of social conditioning.

the article doesn't claim that... the summary doesn't claim that... where's the sticking point?

What's wrong with my presentation of the option 'b'?

it's bollocks biology designed to make option 'a' look better beside it. Not only that, but you use option 'b' to conclude that option 'a' is the most probable hypothesis. A fallacy of logic.

That's not enough for racial recognition.

maybe not. Hence the 'whatever'; substitute for 'et cetera' if it so pleases you. We're not disagreeing that your racial identity is socially, not biologically, determined.

Brain doesn't have to have an unconditioned ability to recognise races.

agreed, but beforehand you were asserting that my hypothesis is false because they do not have this ability; i contest that not only might they, they most probably do, for the reference-point setting purposes outlined previously.

Of course brains react

race recognition, and race response, are not the same thing; that much is demonstrated by this article, even if it was not evident to you beforehand. so your logic has broken down here. I agree with you that the reaction is socially conditioned. But please don't muddy the waters when you start talking about recognition and then use reaction to support your premise. It's just erroneous.

merely your interpretation of it.

my interpretation has already been proven wrong. we are now debating your assertion that the initial reflex is certainly socially conditioned.

I think that the existing material conditions (or social factors) have a contradictory effects in what comes to racism. On the superficial level, racism is usually considered as something 'bad' and condemnable, while racism is being promoted on the level of ideology ('socio-biology' often serves this, intended or not). I know tons of people who honestly condemn racism but take racist stances (which isn't the same as racial hatred or even disparage of "other races") on several occasions without even realising it.

could you go into that in more depth please? it confuses me.

No, and I'm not trying to. I'm saying that while I'm not a racist, I probably have some degree of socially conditioned racism on the level of sub-consciousness.

at least you are now saying 'probably', not your earlier

Goes to show that racism, including subconscious, is conditioned

i think we're approaching the point in a debate where we must agree to disagree, since two hypotheses have been proven to be valid, with either side thinking one to be truer; until one party presents some thunderbolt source that proves one hypothesis/disproves the other, that is!

[jaakko]

the summary doesn't claim that....

It does:

This article asserts that while you have been conditioned by social factors to not behave racialistically, you still have a subconcious racist reflex in the first few milliseconds.

The article does not assert that subconscious racist reflex would occur without social conditioning.

it's bollocks biology designed to make option 'a' look better beside it.

Here it is again:
"b) People with more active amygdala are with greater possibility racist"
What exactly is your problem with the above statement? By 'activity' I obviously mean that kind what is observed in the article.

Not only that, but you use option 'b' to conclude that option 'a' is the most probable hypothesis. A fallacy of logic.

I don't see any third option present in this discussion.

but beforehand you were asserting that my hypothesis is false because they do not have this ability

I said that amygdala doesn't have the ability to recognise races. It merely reacts differently to differently created conscious and subconscious stereotypes.

race recognition, and race response, are not the same thing; that much is demonstrated by this article, even if it was not evident to you beforehand. so your logic has broken down here.

How? If you mean how amygdala responses, it doesn't respond to 'races' but to (sub)consciousness.

But please don't muddy the waters when you start talking about recognition and then use reaction to support your premise.

What do you mean?

my interpretation has already been proven wrong.

I think you're still misinterpreting it.

we are now debating your assertion that the initial reflex is certainly socially conditioned.

It seems more like that we're debating your assertion that the article somehow denies that observed reflex being conditioned. You know the difference between conditioned and unconditioned reflexes? You're basically saying that the 'racist reflex' could be an unconditioned one. But the only unconditioned reflex here is that amygdala indeed reacts when a person is shown images. But between that reaction and the eye is subconsciousness, which you agree is conditioned (atleast when it comes to what's under discussion here). There's a contradiction.

could you go into that in more depth please? it confuses me.

Yes, I can. Hopefully it doesn't get more confusing.

It's not necessarily that social conditions either promote racism or not. I think that in most cases the effects conflict with each other. That's important, and I think it's something that everyone can agree with.

Whether my evaluation of the relation between racism and conditions in contemporary Western capitalist society is correct or not is not of crucial importance, but nevertheless goes as an example. I think the 'surface level' is quite obvious: it's a generally accepted norm that racism is 'condemned' and racial equality 'promoted'. It's sometimes honest, sometimes dishonest, but that doesn't really matter. What matters more is the underlying ideological level, and even more so the even deeper lying level of material conditions.

For 'ideology' I used the example of the 'socio-biological' current in sociology (I could aswell use other examples, such as social psychology, but that isn't related to racism). It's a current that tries to reduce social relationships, conditions, etc. to biology, disparaging the society's own laws (bit of same as trying to reduce biology to physics, throwing away darwinism). It's an attempt to 'genetise' cultural phenomena; a 'gene' for almost every phenomenon. It doesn't require much imagination from one influenced by this ideology to reach conclusions such as 'wealth differences between nations are caused by differences in nations' IQs, which in turn are due to racial differences' (this was actually concluded by our PM's professor father). This is not the best example, but the different brands of socio-biology are indeed one factor which shape people's consciousness, if not directly, atleast through giving them the ideological 'tools' which they use to make up their minds (consciously or subconsciously) on 'race' etc. Perhaps a better example would be the stereotypes associated with 'foreigners' (who bring "crimes", "unemployment" etc.), which usually stick easier on those who look the most different.

And material conditions? I could go on explaining how the capitalist mode of production makes it beneficial to have some degree of atleast subtle racism to divide the working class. But material conditions, including the mode of production, have also a direct effect on people's (including the capitalists) (sub)consciousness. One example of that would be the phenomenon of commodity fetishism, which means seeing the relations between men as relations between items, a view that subconsciously developes in commodity economy.

at least you are now saying 'probably', not your earlier

I don't see a conflict between the two.

[bradley]

The article does not assert that subconscious racist reflex would occur without social conditioning.

and do I? I think it could; you keep claiming it probably couldn't. The article doesn't say anything about the learned/innate nature of these reflexes.

Here it is again:
"b) People with more active amygdala are with greater possibility racist"
What exactly is your problem with the above statement? By 'activity' I obviously mean that kind what is observed in the article.

you forget that you then go on to further define b):

So 'b' would require that each 'race' had its own type of amygdala, the amygdala of whites discriminating against blacks etc. This is highly improbable, and from an evolutionary perspective just doesn't make sense.

I provided a third hypothesis, where every race has the same physiognomy of this region, which is just a promoter. So it is still a fallacy of logic to claim a) is most likely because b) is highly unlikely... when c does in fact exist

I said that amygdala doesn't have the ability to recognise races. It merely reacts differently to differently created conscious and subconscious stereotypes.

and i could say the opposite. Without one of proving our assertions, this debate is stuck in a loop.

How? If you mean how amygdala responses, it doesn't respond to 'races' but to (sub)consciousness.

no, not the amygdala. the response i speak of is the racism-annulling response. hopefully this should make more sense.

your assertion that the article somehow denies that observed reflex being conditioned.

I beg of you to demonstrate where, as of late, I have said this article makes any kind of comment as to the innate/learned nature of the observed reflex?

which you agree is conditioned

no, i have stated my belief that a hypothesis exists where the reflex is unconditioned; society has only provided a reference point upon which this reflex mechanism can act.

I don't see a conflict between the two.

there's no contradiction; but what you claim was fact, you now accept is 'mere' hypothesis.

[jaakko]

and do I? I think it could; you keep claiming it probably couldn't.

I'm convinced it's the latter, which doesn't prevent me from presenting both hypotheses for discussional purposes. As I said earlier:

"You know the difference between conditioned and unconditioned reflexes? You're basically saying that the 'racist reflex' could be an unconditioned one. But the only unconditioned reflex here is that amygdala indeed reacts when a person is shown images. But between that reaction and the eye is subconsciousness, which you agree is conditioned (atleast when it comes to what's under discussion here). There's a contradiction."

you forget that you then go on to further define b):

What follows is my opinion which isn't included in the definition. I thought that was clear enough. Your "c" is actually included in the option 'b'.

and i could say the opposite.

Then say it and see how it holds.

no, not the amygdala. the response i speak of is the racism-annulling response. hopefully this should make more sense.

Let's see... I don't see where I've failed to make the distinction between the subconscious-programmed, conditioned reflex and the conscious response.

I beg of you to demonstrate where, as of late, I have said this article makes any kind of comment as to the innate/learned nature of the observed reflex?

"However, racial recognition is most certainly not conditioned."

But I don't know what you consider enough "as of late".

no, i have stated my belief that a hypothesis exists where the reflex is unconditioned

Full sentence which this was a reply to:
"But between that reaction and the eye is subconsciousness, which you agree is conditioned (atleast when it comes to what's under discussion here)."

To avoid avoidable repetition, I suggest you read the whole discussion again. I will do the same, just to be sure.

there's no contradiction; but what you claim was fact, you now accept is 'mere' hypothesis.

I talked of 'hypotheses' for discussional purposes. I do still think that one is false and the other is correct, it's just not very fruitfull to stress that in all stages of argument. It's sometimes necessary to "accept" different alternatives to explain something which is necessary to understand why some theoretical alternative must eventually be excluded from consideration.

[bradley]

sorry to have confused the debate by changing my position. I realised i was wrong along the way, so understandibly this shifting target makes you harder to hit it.

the thing I want to understand, however, is why you are so certain that the reflex action is socially conditioned, not hardwired

I made the earlier mistake of reading the article with the assumption that the reflex is hardwired; when in fact it doesn't say whether it is or it is not. Please explain why you think it is not.

we agree, i think, that the dampening response from the higher conciousness areas of the brain is socially conditioned; so let's leave that out of the argument, and focus just on the instantaneous subconcious reflex from the amygdala.