Black people in Japan speak about how they feel freer in Japan than in the USA - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Japan to Turkmenistan to New Zealand.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15269345
Patrickov wrote:Godstud is exactly saying it doesn't exist. Either you are suggesting he is lying, or you are lying yourself.


No, I do not think @Godstud is lying.

Instead, I believe he is simply incorrect. People can make errors, which means they do not know they are spreading misinformation.

This is almost always the case, and it is rare for people to intentionally deceive others.
#15269346
Show me a racist policy, @Pants-of-dog and I will be glad to admit that I am incorrect. Systemic racism should be rife with these if there's actually any evidence of it. People exist within the system and were it to be systemic then ALL people within said system would have to be racist, since they'd be supporting it. Such is obviously not the case.

All police are not racists. If systemic racism were a fact, then all the police WOULD be because they'd be supporting or enforcing racist policies/laws. Are they?

I think that there is more classism than racism(policing vs the impoverished). Poverty is one of the biggest factors regarding crime. Racism in law enforcement is one of the biggest arguments for systemic racism.

I am doing a bit of Devil's Advocate here, but making broad-brush and generalized statements is always going to be problematic.
#15269370
@Godstud @wat0n

My take is that @Pants-of-dog has a different definition of "systematic racism" which, regrettably, I seem to understand.

The said "system" is not written in the law or what.
It just means that said racism is so ingrained in certain society's mind that it's very structural and hard to remove.

Feel free to correct me if I perceive his definition wrongly.
#15269372
Patrickov wrote:@Godstud @wat0n

My take is that @Pants-of-dog has a different definition of "systematic racism" which, regrettably, I seem to understand.

The said "system" is not written in the law or what.
It just means that said racism is so ingrained in certain society's mind that it's very structural and hard to remove.

Feel free to correct me if I perceive his definition wrongly.


I think it's a different thing. Systemic racism is usually meant to be racism by institutions, be it by design or negligence. And by "racism", too, it is usually meant that these institutions disproportionately harm ethnic or racial minorities (although I will note they don't need to be a minority - Blacks weren't in South Africa during Apartheid and it's hard to find a more obvious example of systemic racism than that).

What you mention is often an explanation of why both systemic and individual racism exist, or at least perpetuate. I will say that explanation is also fairly controversial, at least its measurement though implicit bias testing is even among specialists.
#15269373
wat0n wrote:I think it's a different thing. Systemic racism is usually meant to be racism by institutions, be it by design or negligence. And by "racism", too, it is usually meant that these institutions disproportionately harm ethnic or racial minorities (although I will note they don't need to be a minority - Blacks weren't in South Africa during Apartheid and it's hard to find a more obvious example of systemic racism than that).

What you mention is often an explanation of why both systemic and individual racism exist, or at least perpetuate. I will say that explanation is also fairly controversial, at least its measurement though implicit bias testing is even among specialists.



Noted. I just want to get the definition clear here, as I guess you / Godstud and Pants-of-dog are in fact talking about different things.
#15269389
Godstud wrote:Show me a racist policy, @Pants-of-dog and I will be glad to admit that I am incorrect. Systemic racism should be rife with these if there's actually any evidence of it.


Yes, there are many examples.

People exist within the system and were it to be systemic then ALL people within said system pwould have to be racist, since they'd be supporting it. Such is obviously not the case.

All police are not racists. If systemic racism were a fact, then all the police WOULD be because they'd be supporting or enforcing racist policies/laws. Are they?


No, that is not how systemic racism works.

I think that there is more classism than racism(policing vs the impoverished). Poverty is one of the biggest factors regarding crime. Racism in law enforcement is one of the biggest arguments for systemic racism.

I am doing a bit of Devil's Advocate here, but making broad-brush and generalized statements is always going to be problematic.


At this point, I would normally google “study systemic racism in policing relationship with poverty” and read the first three or four studies that seem to discuss the situation.

And I did.

Here is the first result:

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Commi ... rp06-e.pdf

A relevant quote:

    Defining and Understanding Systemic Racism

    Systemic racism is both a social and legal concept connoting a particular type of racism which occurs within social systems and is reproduced by them. Witness Alain Babineau, a law enforcement consultant, social justice advocate and former member of the RCMP, provided the Committee with a helpful explanation of systemic racism, quoting Senator Murray Sinclair:

      Systemic racism is when the system itself is based upon and founded upon racist beliefs and philosophies and thinking and has put in place policies and practices that literally force even the non-racists to act in a racist way.


    Indeed, the Committee heard testimony confirming that while many police officers honourably, diligently, and professionally serve their communities, systemic racism nevertheless pervades policing in Canada. Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Toronto, suggested that structural racism and institutional racism are aspects of systemic racism. He explained that structural racism “describes a system in which policies, institutional practices, cultural representations and other norms work in varied and often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial inequality.”6 This form of racism, in other words, is culturally embedded and reproduced in social, economic and political systems.7 In contrast, Professor Owusu-Bempah described institutional racism as “institutional policies and practices that, intentionally or not, produce outcomes that constantly favour or disadvantage certain groups over others.”8
#15269392
Godstud wrote:
I am doing a bit of Devil's Advocate here, but making broad-brush and generalized statements is always going to be problematic.



Yeah, and it *shows*, GS -- it's sounding *academic*, since the *real* right-wingers fell off a cliff, now sparing us those harsh dickwad rejoinders.


---


wat0n wrote:
What you mention is often an explanation of why both systemic and individual racism exist, or at least perpetuate. I will say that explanation is also fairly controversial, at least its measurement though implicit bias testing is even among specialists.



Ever the clinical psychology *behaviorist*, eh, wat0n -- ?

*You* conceive of systemic racism to be like a cold fog that permeates into one's soul and bones, turning the person into one who now has *prejudices* -- perhaps not-unlike the *COVID* virus.

ChatGPT exists now -- wanna maybe give *that* a whirl with this -- ?


x D
#15269393
ckaihatsu wrote:Ever the clinical psychology *behaviorist*, eh, wat0n -- ?


No, I'm just aware of what the discussion between psychologists on this matter is.

ckaihatsu wrote:*You* conceive of systemic racism to be like a cold fog that permeates into one's soul and bones, turning the person into one who now has *prejudices* -- perhaps not-unlike the *COVID* virus.

ChatGPT exists now -- wanna maybe give *that* a whirl with this -- ?


x D


Are you done with the stupidity?
#15269400
ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, *okay* -- *yeah*, let's *hear* some of that, what *psychologists* have to say about systemic / institutional racism. Any journal articles, maybe -- ?


I'm referring to implicit bias testing and the belief racism is clearly unconscious (which is one of the explanations as to why does systemic racism exist).

Often, advocates for that hypothesis will set up some experiment with 100 or so people, then use the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and then claim they detected unconscious racism among the participants of the study. Leaving aside the issue those experiments often do not replicate (another big issue in psychology), there are also psychologists claiming there are problems with the validity of IAT itself.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 1621991860
#15269402
wat0n wrote:
I'm referring to implicit bias testing and the belief racism is clearly unconscious (which is one of the explanations as to why does systemic racism exist).

Often, advocates for that hypothesis will set up some experiment with 100 or so people, then use the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and then claim they detected unconscious racism among the participants of the study. Leaving aside the issue those experiments often do not replicate (another big issue in psychology), there are also psychologists claiming there are problems with the validity of IAT itself.



I'm new to 'implicit bias testing', but it sounds like it has something to do with cognitive / neurological pathway associations, or something.

As with *anything* clinical, it's all in how these concepts / variables *get modeled* -- not unlike my *own* diagrammatic approaches, for example.
#15269405
wat0n wrote:
@ckaihatsu more than modelling, it seems to be a measurement issue. I think measuring the unconscious, which by definition is hard to observe, is particularly hard to begin with.



Theoretically / hypothetically it *shouldn't* be a measurement issue, because science could just take the same 'brute force' approach that it does for *proactive* modeling-associations, as in ChatGPT, etc.

In other words if fMRIs can 'measure' a provided electroneurological stimulus *combined* with its resulting neurological response, then the rest is just brute-force, mainly *recording* all of those bulk association 'events', and letting AI neural networks work it all out, for higher-level reports back.

*Are* individuals unconsciously / inadvertently 'prejudiced', due to all-encompassing social *acculturation* for the-same, from birth -- ?

AI complexity allows us to *sidestep* the linear 'definition-defining' formal logical step that *you're* indicating, wat0n.
#15269415
If the argument is that systemic racism does not exist because implicit bias is hard to test, please note that the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Even if we assume that IATs do not always work well, which is not exactly correct, the case for systemic racism does not rest on implicit bias testing.
#15269427
No one is under an obligation to prove a negative here. It's up to the believers in the existence of something to prove so.

As for the IAT, as I said its reliability and validity have already been called into question by the literature. It furthermore seems to have a rather low correlation with actual behavior:

Meissner et al (2019) wrote:Predicting Behavior With Implicit Measures: Disillusioning Findings, Reasonable Explanations, and Sophisticated Solutions

Franziska Meissner1*, Laura Anne Grigutsch1, Nicolas Koranyi1, Florian Müller2 and Klaus Rothermund1
1General Psychology II, Institute of Psychology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany
2Department for the Psychology of Human Movement and Sport, Institute for Sports Science, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany

Two decades ago, the introduction of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) sparked enthusiastic reactions. With implicit measures like the IAT, researchers hoped to finally be able to bridge the gap between self-reported attitudes on one hand and behavior on the other. Twenty years of research and several meta-analyses later, however, we have to conclude that neither the IAT nor its derivatives have fulfilled these expectations. Their predictive value for behavioral criteria is weak and their incremental validity over and above self-report measures is negligible. In our review, we present an overview of explanations for these unsatisfactory findings and delineate promising ways forward. Over the years, several reasons for the IAT’s weak predictive validity have been proposed. They point to four potentially problematic features: First, the IAT is by no means a pure measure of individual differences in associations but suffers from extraneous influences like recoding. Hence, the predictive validity of IAT-scores should not be confused with the predictive validity of associations. Second, with the IAT, we usually aim to measure evaluation (“liking”) instead of motivation (“wanting”). Yet, behavior might be determined much more often by the latter than the former. Third, the IAT focuses on measuring associations instead of propositional beliefs and thus taps into a construct that might be too unspecific to account for behavior. Finally, studies on predictive validity are often characterized by a mismatch between predictor and criterion (e.g., while behavior is highly context-specific, the IAT usually takes into account neither the situation nor the domain). Recent research, however, also revealed advances addressing each of these problems, namely (1) procedural and analytical advances to control for recoding in the IAT, (2) measurement procedures to assess implicit wanting, (3) measurement procedures to assess implicit beliefs, and (4) approaches to increase the fit between implicit measures and behavioral criteria (e.g., by incorporating contextual information). Implicit measures like the IAT hold an enormous potential. In order to allow them to fulfill this potential, however, we have to refine our understanding of these measures, and we should incorporate recent conceptual and methodological advancements. This review provides specific recommendations on how to do so.

...


Or even more interestingly, and to the point:

Kurdi et al (2018) wrote:Relationship Between the Implicit Association Test and Intergroup Behavior: A Meta-Analysis

Using data from 217 research reports (N 36,071, compared to 3,471 and 5,433 in previous meta-analyses), this meta-analysis investigated the conceptual and methodological conditions under which Implicit Association Tests (IATs) measuring attitudes, stereotypes, and identity correlate with criterion measures of intergroup behavior. We found significant implicitcriterion correlations (ICCs) and explicit–criterion correlations (ECCs), with unique contributions of implicit ( .14) and explicit measures ( .11) revealed by structural equation modeling. ICCs were found to be highly heterogeneous, making moderator analyses necessary. Basic study features or conceptual variables did not account for any heterogeneity: Unlike explicit measures, implicit measures predicted for all target groups and types of behavior, and implicit, but not explicit, measures were equally associated with behaviors varying in controllability and conscious awareness. However, ICCs differed greatly by methodological features: Studies with a declared focus on ICCs, standard IATs rather than variants, high-polarity attributes, behaviors measured in a relative (two categories present) rather than absolute manner (single category present), and high implicit–criterion correspondence (k 13) produced a mean ICC of r .37. Studies scoring low on these variables (k 6) produced an ICC of r .02. Examination of methodological properties—a novelty of this meta-analysis—revealed that most studies were vastly underpowered and analytic strategies regularly ignored measurement error. Recommendations, along with online applications for calculating statistical power and internal consistency are provided to improve future studies on the implicit–criterion relationship.

...

Methodological Shortcomings of the Reviewed Studies

...

Statistical power. The power of inferential tests has far-reaching consequences for the validity of statistical inferences (Cohen, 1962; Fraley & Vazire, 2014). Therefore, establishing the power of the studies on ICCs is paramount to diagnosing the overall methodological soundness of this literature. The vast majority of the studies included in the present meta-analysis were underpowered: At 40, the median sample size was surprisingly, perhaps shockingly, low. This sample size is miniscule for probing individual differences and too small to reliably (i.e., with a probability of at least .80) detect any effect below the effect size of r .43 (Cohen, 1992). Moreover, a sample size of 40 provides only .40 power to detect the mean effect size reported by Greenwald et al. (2009) and .14 power for the mean effect size reported by Oswald et al. (2013).11 Even though post hoc power tends to overestimate the power of studies for small effect sizes and small sample sizes (Yuan & Maxwell, 2005), median post hoc power of the included studies was found to be only .15 and mean post hoc power was .27.12

These low levels of statistical power are worrisome when it comes to the interpretability and inferential value of the vast majority of individual studies conducted on implicitcriterion relationships. We can go so far as to say that many of the studies included in this meta-analysis should never have been undertaken given the potential for incorrect inferences about the population effect size. Low statistical power of individual studies also provides additional justification for this meta-analysis: Due to their ability to pool data from participants across multiple investigations, metaanalyses have the potential to derive valid conclusions about the population effect size and its moderators even when individual studies are underpowered (e.g., Card, 2016).

...

Basic Study Characteristics: Target Group, Type of Behavior, and Study Setting Target group.

Regarding the target group variable, two results seem noteworthy (see Figure 1). First, implicit attitudes were significantly associated with behavior across all target categories, with the exception of one category labeled “other intergroup,” which was highly diverse and contained a relatively small number of effect sizes (kind 19). Importantly, this result indicates that ICCs were fairly homogeneous across target group categories.On the other hand, ECCs were found to be more variable by target group than ICCs. For the former, effect sizes ranged from r=.10 (ethnicity) to r=.32 (sexuality), where as for the latter they ranged from r=.08 (other clinical) to r=.11 (sexuality).


A correlation of 0.1 between the association found by the IATs and the actual intergroup behavior (e.g. racial discrimination) is pretty low. And it also seems those papers are often underpowered.

So, even if the IAT does measure what it is claimed to measure (unconscious racial bias), it would not be strongly correlated with actual discriminatory behavior. As such, it is not a good explanation for why systemic or individual racism exist, or more precisely it's not a good way to say they harm the discriminated population (even though I think we can agree bigotry hurts those who are being discriminated against).

I will also note that the fact we're talking about implicit associations means we're already claiming individual conscious or unconscious beliefs or preferences and individual behavior are the cause of institutionalized discrimination - although it seems it's not that simple after all. Maybe those beliefs do cause racial discrimination, but the IAT is not a reliable, valid or predictive measure here.
Last edited by wat0n on 25 Mar 2023 07:12, edited 2 times in total.
#15269429
Show me the racist policies/laws/rules, please. I am interested in seeing these. @Pants-of-dog refuses to answer that question. What about you, @ckaihatsu? Can you give some examples of the "systemic" part of racism?
#15269433
Godstud wrote:
What about you, @ckaihatsu? Can you give some examples of the "systemic" part of racism?



Yeah, *did* already:


ckaihatsu wrote:
Godstud wrote:

racist policy


---


ckaihatsu wrote:

inheritance as leading causes for the growth of the [wealth] gap,



viewtopic.php?p=15269296#p15269296



---


Also, Heather McGhee mentions it in the video:

viewtopic.php?p=15269304#p15269304
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

The "USSR". The name makes no mention of[…]

The Russians have captured Horob'ivka east of Dvor[…]

Yes. The groups that tend to support banning To K[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/TradersAbacus/status/166542991[…]