The Emerald Legion wrote:Kowani wrote:as it turns out, the person endorsing the beliefs that black people are less trustworthy, less intelligent, less hard-working, or more violent...yeah that's called racism
especially since the effects of holding those beliefs were confirmed as having an empirical effect on your chance of discriminating in an interpersonal interaction within this very study, this is an extremely dumb point
this is the same stupid shit conservatives continue to use against RR as a valid measurement of prejudice
this argument has been made for years now, despite the fact that all the evidence points to the idea that it's bullshit
for the clearest explanation, examine this with an issue that isn't racialized (at least not in a negative way), and where traditional conservative ideology gives no reason to oppose it: the paying of college athletes.Two features of the “pay for play” issue make it an attractive case for disentangling the complicated relationship between the racial prejudice and the ideological conservatism components of racial resentment. First, due to the fact that financial compensation for college athletes is dictated by a private, nongovernmental entity—the NCAA—attitudes toward the federal government should not be activated in the minds of survey respondents. Second, because increased financial compensation from the NCAA benefits college athletes—a group that is seen to be hard working, dedicated, and highly skilled (Branch 2011; Nocera and Strauss 2016)-attitudes toward government redistributive policies should also not be activated. In short, although NCAA compensation policies are similar to welfare, health care, and criminal justice in
their implicitly racialized character, they are unlikely to activate the same confounds associated with the conservative component of racial resentment
The conservative objections that it's just a measure of ideology don't stand up to scrutiny.The results from our March 2016 MTurk experiment are presented in Table 3 and in Figure 2. As Figure 2
shows, the interaction between racial resentment and exposure to racial cues had a substantively large impact on white’s NCAA policy opinions. The least racially resentful whites in our “mixed faces” condition, for example, were generally supportive of paying college athletes—with a predicted score on the NCAA salary question of .38. By contrast, the most racially resentful opposed to changing the NCAA’s current compensation policies—with a predicted score greater than .85. Increases in racial resentment mattered much less, however, for white respondents in our “all white faces” condition. Specifically, the most racially resentful whites exposed to pictures of only white athletes were predicted to be, on average, only .20 more opposed to paying college athletes than the least racially resentful whites exposed to these images. As Figure 2 also demonstrates, the differences between similarly resentful whites in our two experimental conditions were statistically significant at high levels of racial resentment (i.e., those scoring higher than .6 on our 0 to 1 index of racial resentment)
but not at low levels of racial resentment (i.e., racial resentment index scores less than .6). In other words, our March 2016 MTurk experiment shows strong support for the expectations articulated in H3. (H3: Increases in racial resentment will lead whites to express greater opposition to paying college athletes only when they are primed to think about African Americans.)
The pattern even held with names:The findings from our April 2016 MTurk experiment closely mirrored the findings from our March 2016 MTurk experiment. Once again, there were substantively large differences between the white respondents primed to think about race based on their level of racial resentment. As Table 4 and Figure 3 show, the most racially resentful whites in our “black names” condition were predicted to be, on average, .47 less supportive of paying college athletes than the least racially resentful whites in the “black names” condition. As Figure 3 also shows, there were significant differences between similarly racially resentful whites based on the treatment condition they were assigned to. Specifically, racially resentful whites (i.e., those scoring higher than .6 on our 0 to 1 index) in the “black names” condition of our April 2016 experiment were .22 less supportive of paying college athletes than similarly resentful whites in the “all white names” condition. At low levels of racial resentment, no such treatment effect emerged. To put all of this differently, we found further support for H3 in the April 2016 MTurk experiment, and there appears to be little difference between priming race by using pictures and priming race by using names.
You mean the 'evidence' that is leftists continual destruction of our academia in their quest to hamfist their beliefs into scientific canon? Yeah, I wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
“Nobody takes [Kowani] seriously” LMFAOOOOOO
