Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Racial Bias

Gulo Blue

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2013
Messages
13,502
Identical resumes with white sounding names are 50% more likely to get call back than resumes with black sounding names.

When doctors were shown patient histories and asked to make judgments about heart disease, they were much less likely to recommend cardiac catheterization (a helpful procedure) to black patients ? even when their medical files were statistically identical to those of white patients.

When whites and blacks were sent to bargain for a used car, blacks were offered initial prices roughly $700 higher, and they received far smaller concessions.

Several studies found that sending emails with stereotypically black names in response to apartment-rental ads on Craigslist elicited fewer responses than sending ones with white names. A regularly repeated study by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development sent African-Americans and whites to look at apartments and found that African-Americans were shown fewer apartments to rent and houses for sale.

White state legislators were found to be less likely to respond to constituents with African-American names. This was true of legislators in both political parties.Emails sent to faculty members at universities, asking to talk about research opportunities, were more likely to get a reply if a stereotypically white name was used.

Even eBay auctions were not immune. When iPods were auctioned on eBay, researchers randomly varied the skin color on the hand holding the iPod. A white hand holding the iPod received 21 percent more offers than a black hand.


Elementary school teachers were asked to watch a video of children to look for misbehaving kids while having their eyeballs tracked. They spent 42% of the time watching black boys (compared to 34% of the time watching white boys.)
 
You forget to mention 1 college scholarship remaining and quotas still to be met - black man or women or Asian have the better shot.

I'm just funny here but it's not quite black and white as it seems.. no pun intended.
 
Institutionalized racism also existed well into baby-boomers lifetimes in the forms of segregation and redlining. And there may even be others, since I haven't conducted a formal survey and racial intent is often obscured by the actors who create the policies because they are unconstitutional and would be struck down immediately by courts if not.

and if you're not feeling charitable to the 21st century GOP, Voter ID laws are a current example of institutionalized racism, and several courts have agreed.
 
You forget to mention 1 college scholarship remaining and quotas still to be met - black man or women or Asian have the better shot.

I'm just funny here but it's not quite black and white as it seems.. no pun intended.

what are you talking about? quotas were all struck down, and even when AA was in full swing the idea that large numbers of qualified white applicants were getting turned away for unqualified black ones was simply not true.
 
I was looking up controlled tests. People point to other factor to explain away inequality in the world, but these are controlled tests, and they paint a picture of a life where the deck is stacked against black America, not lumped in one place, like the justice system, but it's a little bit present in everything you do. It's systemic. And anybody that pretends to know anything about investing should appreciate the significance of a persistent cost that sticks with you, even if you think it's small.

And tests that flip through pictures of black and white people and then positive and negative words requiring the viewer to sort them report 75-90% of us have some amount of bias (or at least have some hang up with associating certain words and races)
 
Last edited:
I was looking up controlled tests. People point to other factor to explain away inequality in the world, but these are controlled tests, and they paint a picture of a life where the deck is stacked against black America, not lumped in one place, like the justice system, but it's a little bit present in everything you do. It's systemic. And anybody that pretends to know anything about investing should appreciate the significance of a persistent cost that sticks with you, even if you think it's small.

And tests that flip through pictures of black and white people and then positive and negative words requiring the viewer to sort them report 75-90% of us have some amount of bias (or at least have some hang up with associating certain words and races)

. . . and your solution to this might include electing a black president?

You bring up many very good and convincing examples of a stacked deck. Even if you got better than 50% of those racially biased people to agree with you, where do you go from there?

Maybe intense government scrutiny and regulation over everything we do? Let us force you to act unbiased. I'm sure that works real well (cough Trump is elected president cough). That electoral mistake will set us back 20 years.

For fear of being labeled a racist by all the libtards here, let me also say I agree with you, but certainly don't always agree with the solutions currently being provided and legislated.

The arguments usually come from determining the root causes, and then shouting from the highest mountain, that we have the answer for solving that root cause, and you must accept that we are right, or you are racist scum.

A real dialog won't happen until after everyone agrees to let go of long held perceptions and starts listening to what everyone is saying. I know, idealist gibberish, but it is my opinion for how to get things moving toward a real unbiased solution.
 
Last edited:
. . . and your solution to this might include electing a black president?

You bring up many very good and convincing examples of a stacked deck. Even if you got better than 50% of those racially biased people to agree with you, where do you go from there?

Maybe intense government scrutiny and regulation over everything we do? Let us force you to act unbiased. I'm sure that works real well (cough Trump is elected president cough). That electoral mistake will set us back 20 years.

For fear of being labeled a racist by all the libtards here, let me also say I agree with you, but certainly don't always agree with the solutions currently being provided and legislated.

The arguments usually come from determining the root causes, and then shouting from the highest mountain, that we have the answer for solving that root cause, and you must accept that we are right, or you are racist scum.

A real dialog won't happen until after everyone agrees to let go of long held perceptions and starts listening to what everyone is saying. I know, idealist gibberish, but it is my opinion for how to get things moving toward a real unbiased solution.

Very good post KAWDUP. You can't govern bias out of society. It comes from open dialogue, open minds, and a willingness to understand others from their perspective rather than assuming others have had similar life experiences and opportunities. As much as legislation may try to even the playing field it usually disenfranchises one group because they feel it's unfair and tends to help perpetuate the problem rather than resolve it. It has to come from the heart, but that won't happen as too many of us choose to walk in ego, rather than spirit.
 
you can't govern bias out, but propaganda is effective at accomplishing lots of things... let's use it for something positive for once.
 
. . . and your solution to this might include electing a black president?

Nope, but great post.

I believe the only "solution" is to fix the economy so that the poor and middle classes can feel like they are making progress again. I suspect people lose their capacity for empathy as their lives get tougher. Progress is made, when people feel like they are in a secure enough position to look beyond their own immediate needs.

I only see this getting worse as automation progresses and eats up jobs. Eventually, something has to give.
 
Last edited:
That's not the whole solution of course, but it's a necessary condition for us to make progress. If we had real upward mobility in society, then in time, the economic disparity would go away. That's how racism is "cured". People lose their racism real fast when there's profit to be made by not being racist.

In the meantime, I'm all for these types of studies and programs aimed at educating or counteracting them. School integration, affirmative action, special training wherever we find places that people need to be aware this is happening. These are all band aids. But the cure takes generations, so we need those band aids and few people who are worried about their own position cares about those band aids if they don't apply to them personally.
 
Nope, but great post.

I believe the only "solution" is to fix the economy so that the poor and middle classes can feel like they are making progress again. I suspect people lose their capacity for empathy as their lives get tougher. Progress is made, when people feel like they are in a secure enough position to look beyond their own immediate needs.

I only see this getting worse as automation progresses and eats up jobs. Eventually, something has to give.

That is a real thought provoking statement. I also think real progress can be made when those people have hope their lives will get less tough, but still show great empathy for the less fortunate. Why is it that the people who give the most are the ones who have the least? . . . or is that just some right-wing fallacy that I missed?

Small example, and indicative of nothing other than something that popped into my head. I had the great honor of participating in serving at a soup kitchen for Thanksgiving a couple years ago. The thing I noticed about the people who were there with my family were that they were not the people with the fewest problems, nor the best backgrounds. It was people giving back because they knew how much it meant.

I agree that your statement is true for the most part, but also that that may be part of some of the change needed.

Is that the ultimate trickle down theory? Just joking (for those that couldn't tell).
 
That is a real thought provoking statement. I also think real progress can be made when those people have hope their lives will get less tough, but still show great empathy for the less fortunate. Why is it that the people who give the most are the ones who have the least? . . . or is that just some right-wing fallacy that I missed?

I think it's true. But the theory I've read, and I think it holds up internationally, is that people address their empathy differently. People that vote for the government to take care of people more, at the expense of higher taxes, feel like they've done their part. People that vote against the government doing more, are more generous personally. So places where taxes are up at 50% with gobs of social programs are nations of stingy cheapskates.
 
Last edited:
I should have posted this here:

There's another study buried in the paper on customer surveys where a medical practice tried followup calls in an effort to get customer satisfaction numbers up. So a week after seeing a doctor, people would get a phone call from the doctor checking in to see how things were going.

White male doctors' scores went up. Everyone else's went down. When they dug in to figure out why, it was because people assumed the white males were going the extra mile, but they were suspicious that women and minorities were covering something up.

1,000 little cuts man.
 
I should have posted this here:

There's another study buried in the paper on customer surveys where a medical practice tried followup calls in an effort to get customer satisfaction numbers up. So a week after seeing a doctor, people would get a phone call from the doctor checking in to see how things were going.

White male doctors' scores went up. Everyone else's went down. When they dug in to figure out why, it was because people assumed the white males were going the extra mile, but they were suspicious that women and minorities were covering something up.

1,000 little cuts man.

Maybe chicks and blacks and Hispanics should think twice about going to Med school.

Fucking unappreciative customers.

Asians are fine though.

They're smart enough to not give a fuck about whatever anyone else thinks.
 
Is this at night or during the day?

That is terrible and horrible and besides that if they're smiling it doesn't make any difference at all.

Fo' rills.

How could you not see this
06a17aa487c06ac6b9aa4693e83c2a24.jpg
niggah in a crosswalk in the dark?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top