|
|
||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 8 users and 59 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: Who's new
|
Submitted by Phil Owen on Tue, 01/01/2008 - 11:07pm.
This is from Malcolm Gladwell's book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, and shows the extraordinary affect that racial stereotypes and internalized oppression can have on test scores. I'll first offer the snippet from the book, then offer a brief explaination of the word "priming", then I'll post Gladwell's sources at the end. [Emphasis added by myself.]
A little context is necessary here. At this point in the book, Gladwell is talking about a phenomenon called priming. Priming is a process of affecting behavior by means of a kind of subliminal suggestion. One study on priming (also in Blink) took a group of subjects and split them in two, giving each of them scrambled sentence tests (tests using sets of mixed words, in which the test taker is to make coherent sentences out of the scrambled words). One group was given scrambled sentence tests that included the words, "aggressively", "bold", "rude", "bother", "disturb", etc. The second group was given tests including the words "respect", "considerate", "polite", and so on. After completing their tests the students were instructed to go to the professor's office for further instruction. In the experiment, the professor was set to talking with a coworker. They then measured the length of time it took each student to interrupt the conversation to get their next set of instructions. (After a ten minute wait the experiment would end.) The average wait time before interrupting for the students primed to be rude was five minutes. None of the students primed to be polite interrupted the conversation in the ten minute time frame. So, armed with the concept of priming, Steele and Aronson set to testing the priming effect of the invocation of race on test scores. Asking black students their race in a pretest questionaire caused their test scores to drop by half. Any guesses out there as to why this would make such a difference?
Gladwell's sources: Steele and Aronson, "Stereotype Threat and Intellectual Test Performance on African Americans," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69, No. 5 (1995): 797-811 Bargh, Chen, and Burrows, "Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, no 2 (1996): 230-244
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
|
Great Post Phil
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 12:12am.Uhhh...
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 10:00am.except for you of course,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 10:04am.priming, mirror neurons and our animal abilities to learn
Submitted by enpen on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 10:00am.This is a conversation I'd love to have while sitting around drinking a few beers, but in lieu of my lack of time...
Mirror neurons (or a similar mimetic learning mechanism) probably play a huge role in all modes of priming. Another study I read happened in Britain with a test similar to the GRE. In that study (of men) they were all given a test of "analytical reasoning" and then randomly split into two groups. The two groups were then given two separate questionnaires: one group had to answer questions about college professors while the other group had to answer questions about soccer hooligans. After finishing the respective questionnaires both groups were then directed to take another analytical reasoning test. Across the board every person asked about college professors scored better on the test the second time around while every person quizzed about soccer hooligans saw a drop in score.
On the physical side it is well established that watching a person jump helps you jump higher: our muscles receive signals from the brain that prime them to jump when we see somebody else do it. Isaac Newton once wrote to Robert Hooke "(i)f I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." From a neurological perspective Newton only missed the truth by a hair, we are able to see farther and farther because we keep sharing with each other how far we are able to see. Through empathy we are able to apply other people's experiences to our own lives and broaden/limit our own ideas and abilities as a result.
On one hand I think this has been incredibly beneficial to humanity's success as we've been able to build upon the knowledge and experiences of our ancestors. On the other hand, I think some of the consequences can also be disastrous unless we begin to consciously face their repercussions. A lot of people find the cases of racism and sexism to be overstated (just to take two examples). From some of my family, for instance, I have heard things like "slavery ended a long time ago, people need to get over it." The problem, unfortunately, is that if neuroscience's discoveries about human learning mechanisms are correct then expunging the results of cultural biases (e.g. women aren't as good at math as men) becomes something that we must consciously think about in order to have any hope of breaking our self-limiting patterns. In other words, conscious recognition of our stereotyping behaviors is to some of our current social problems/limitations what vaccines are to viruses. We can sit around and argue about whether or not people with darker skin pigment in America are still affected by the cultural attitudes prevalent in the slavery era, or whether or not women still struggle against pre-suffrage mentalities, but the findings of modern neuroscience make such an argument as worthwhile as one about angels dancing on a needle point. By default every single one of us carries the advantages and disadvantages of our culture's past and refusing to acknowledge that reality only insures that the virus will keep spreading.
Gladwell may overstate the importance of stereotype threat
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 11:19am.I think you may be too micro
Submitted by enpen on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 2:21pm.I haven't read the book. There's my disclaimer.
These studies aren't actually testing the book title's claim of affective subconscious thought, I think they're testing the most immediate reminder.
I don't consciously walk around thinking "I'm a man, man, man, man, manly man!"; however, if somebody reminds me that I'm a man right now, then according to theories of the subconscious that reminder immediately brings back the ingrained patterns of man and, like a stone dropped into water, the most present will be greatest affected by the wake. Modern neural network theories actually look like they're physiologically confirming the subconscious in that we develop stronger synaptic connections to consistent and reoccuring patterns (such as what it means to be a man in our society).
The tests that Malcolm Gladwell cites would then be evidence of the neural networks working in the background. Given our history of racism, then neural network theory would seem to predict such a disparity because race was moralized and morals (on top of other things) travel from one generation to the next through the rote of childhood.
I totally agree that these studies
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 2:43pm.I don't think that was his intent.
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 5:51pm.I don't think Gladwell was saying that immanent stereotype threat was the sole source of discrepancy in test scores between blacks and whites. However, the fact that its presentation so profoundly affects scores may have broader implications.
Do students in wealthy schools get constant "'smart' priming"? Do students in poor inner city schools get a lot of negative "priming" (priming used a little more loosely than the academics may use it here)? You bet. You tell a person over and over again about how smart they and their peers are, you invest in that person -emphasizing the sense of personal value- etc, it's bound to have a big affect. The inverse would be true as well.
The Canaanite's Call
Interesting...
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 12:24pm.You're right.
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 5:46pm.That was my error, please forgive me.
Gladwell writes, "But of the people primed to be polite, the overwhelming majority -82 percent- never interrupted at all." [Italics Gladwell's]
The Canaanite's Call
Darnit!
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 5:51pm.Facisnating implications
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 3:39pm.hey,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 5:22pm.Oops,
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 5:42pm.See, now, that article
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 6:04pm.See, now, that article points -I think- to what Gladwell was trying to get at. Stereotype threat has a big effect when immanent, but when not immanently present it (stereotype) also likely has an effect. The essay described here was only given once in a quarter, but the overall grades of the quarter improved. Priming need not be immediate.
The Canaanite's Call
Ye, it deffinately implies
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 6:11pm.Good work, Phil.
Submitted by Mike on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 8:23am.Now, once we have these stats and studies that demonstrate how race and gender preference operate in an institutional way to create an unfair playing field, do you think the right-wing folks will accept the stats and studies and let us move on to talking about how we might want to level the playing field a bit?
Do you think the more right wing folks will reflect on the conviction of the black man who shot and killed a white teenager in his yard and decide that race played a significant part in the decision to charge and try him?
Because, once you have the science, the data on display to show that race bias is profound in its impact, I think you have to move to a solution that lowers (or removes? what a dreamer I am) the impact of race or gender bias.
400 prominent scientists have issued a report saying the right wingers will not accept the statistics of 400 prominent scientists if they results do not fit their pre-conceived world view. I think I read that somewhere.
I will note that Phil appears to be preaching to the Choir.
Submitted by Mike on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 8:27am.Not a peep here from the folks who think they have no race and gender bias or who think that race and gender bias doesn't play a significant role in our communities.
This is a post that only left wing eggheads could love. I like it quite a lot.
Maybe we're just tired of
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 10:00am.In what ways are you being knocked down?
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 10:31am.Granted it's only one
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 11:44am.I want to be careful that I'm not knocking Mike unfairly in return. Among other things I told him in a PM once that I get along splendidly with other people even though we are polar opposites on certain issues (Janet B comes to mind) and that I didn't see any reason why he and I couldn't be equally civil. I had appreciated certain contributions he had made in other discussions. With that in mind I promised him that I'd back away if he and I started banging heads on this issue again.
I don't mind the Bias Debate that's been going on here and other threads. It's different from outright claiming people are prejudiced. Maybe it's a case of different people having different syntax and connotations for the words, I've just taken his posts as falling under the "whites are bad, we should apologize for being born white" vein.
If Mike shows that I'm completely mischaracterizing him I'll gladly rub some crow-flavored lotion over my foot and shove it down my throat.
Okay
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 11:51am.To be honest and fair, Mike
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 11:55am.Thanks, Merwyn.
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 8:56pm.People use words and the same words mean different things. I note that you made a distinction between bias and being a racist elsewhere.
Talking about bias, and I think we all have some bias, does not have to be understood or degenerate into a discussion where we decide who is a racist or a male chauvinst pig or anything rhetorical and derogatory like that.
But I think a black person raised in the US is likely to know lots of things about the intitutional bias of race in the US that a white person might not know so much about.
For example, the armed black citizen who shot and killed a white teenager in the black man's yard, knew that he was in very serious trouble in a way that would not occur to a white armed citizen who had shot a black teenager in the white man's yard. This doesn't make either of them a racist, but it has to do with the reality that race (gender, orientation, etc) has institutionalized bias.