Racism: Psychology's Place in an Unequal World - Comments

Yes, you're right, but it depends on the write up of the research piece to know intentions of the research

So is finding a scientifically valid reason for pedophilia justifying it? No, it's offering an explanation.

Okay...

@Lyndon Lockwood
Alright so if you were to but maybe look the MAIN POINT AT SOME POINT but no if it's not right? agreed but at the same time I can't say no to an offer like that SOLD FOR 10 DOLLARS THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER I WIN.

@ ednerdy
Huh?
An elboration on that would be nice.

okay so like I like how you know but then when yeah but still it's always never the very best but you know who am I to in conclusion, no

@ Double Infinity.
She did in her *puts on sarcastic voice* most huge study find that there WAS brain activity in racism and so yes, there is evidence that the brain is stimulated in racist behaviours and thoughts and so.... bah yes. no she didn't state that, so yes, I could be over thinking (again with the critical psychology, they over think :P)

MY point, in basics is, I want to work in the MH sector of Psychology, and I just think too many things are being classed as 'oh it happens in the brain they need it treating' No, they don't -.-.

@ Lyndon Lockwood
Omg no no no. I'm not saying you're a poor psychologist at all! I was just disagreeing with certain messages in this article and I love debating about them too, I think it stimulates more in-depth thinking for both of us.

I have a question. Did the experimenter say that she designed the study to prove that racism was justifiable? And if so, did she state she was aiming to conclude that racism was an innate, acceptable thing, or did she want to simply find the underlying processes that were associated with the mindset?

I really wish that the sample size wasn't so dumb, because everything can be attributed to chance. The main point I just find myself worried about is that there may well be some tangible brain activity associated with racism, which could be found in a professional setting. I don't think this experiment should be insulted because of its goal; it should be criticized because of its failed setup. Tbh I do hope that we can replicate this in a useful way because I'd love us to know as a society if there is a cognitive trait (hopefully we can access an MRI) accompanying racism. That'd help us understand racism as a, sorry , "natural" phenomenon that we can now look at humanely and try to treat. Unfortunately, unless there are any correlations like this, I think that racism is a largely a social development. But I'd love to know for sure.

@ Double Infinity.
I LOVE your points, and this is amazing criticism. So I thank you, despite that lttle fact that you are calling me a poor psychologist indirectly :P

I see your point, but I raise you in saying well, surely, a subjective view point IS acceptable in sociologlocal or critical psychological perspectives, though - I look at it with leniency, I should have been better to use a qualitative research study and not a quantitative one. But, thats done now

Yet, alas I must confess that I am not a sociologist (well not really) or a critical psychologist but a neocritical one with forensic/clinical interests and so objectivity IS a huge point. Yes in this I am being exceptionally subjective, mainly because of the poor quality of the study. The fifteen participants? That really bugs me.

In academia also, the objective of the study is EXTREMELY mportant, you need to find reseults and know what that means. For a study to be seen as successful one needs to be able to explain what their results mean. She was utterly unable to, the way she explained such suggested a justification for racism, however social that may be; 'It happens in the brain and so its natural'

uh really? No dont think so
Thus is where I would bring in your in/out group theory. One of the ore accurate social psychology theories methinks. In fact, its almost perfect. (Except it allows little for trasference between groups as such and so one should by all levels be stuck to their in group with super glue.)

Yes in this article I have been subjective, and yes as a Clinical Forensic Psychology trainee, I really should be more objective, as one is in their academic lab reports and official write ups, and a more formal tone should be taken. Though I might add, these articles I write are designed to cause debate :P

I really like this topic, but I wish that it was tested empirically; this seems to only be theoretical at the moment, and your article very subjective. I think you are missing the point of the experiment completely. Understanding the underlying cognitive process behind a viewpoint is not the same as condoning a belief you personally believe to be wrong.

Dr. Richeson's intentions should not be applied to the study. Scientific findings are objective and have no sense of morality, and I think trying to understand motive undermines the results, unless the study has not been replicated and could be a result of biased conclusions. In this case, it appears that Richeson's inadequate study found a correlation between racism and certain neural activity, which is not strong enough evidence to suggest much at all.

Either way, I think this article was misleading and that you misuse the word "justification," (likely because racial prejudices are a tender topic.)

Also, my understanding of racism in a social aspect is that since human survival skills basically revolve around forming communities of protection, it makes sense that the "ingroup" would want to share prejudices with their peers as to tighten the evolutionary bond and further ensure safety, thus increasing the survival rate. I think it's primarily a socially constructed idea to be racist, but also human nature to group different stimuli into easy-to-organize heuristics, and evolutionary to promote your ingroup rather than outgroup.

Nice points. If you come across anything let me know. I know though that these types of studies aren't seen as very scholarly. Race atudies are kind of the past and nowadays those are refuted or seen as ignorant. Well that's how it's framed anyways.
Take care.

@ Lulu888
I think theyre making an attempt, I do think the area is interesting, and it's brought up some questions for ym final year research. I was thinking of using this areea, try using BioPac and such things as I dont have access to MRI (Not surprising really) But I would agree, it does seem very psychoanalysis 'why?;' well it happens, it clearluy happens why do you need to know why? :/ I have mied opiniopsn as one may be able to tell

@ deandra the new girl
I would agree, fifteen is NOT a sample. Its not even a result its a.... suggestion. It's sickening to me that some 'scientists' as they call themselves would even regard this as an actual piece of research. Starting point yes, an interesting one? Yes but NOT research. Not real research i could pass a valid.

@ KingOfTheMusicScene
I've done bopth Psychology and Sociology at various different levels, they're closely interlinked (dependent on what area of psychology you look at, some areas - biological, completely disregard socuiety and claim it to be unimportant. This of course is wrong) but they are both good to study. i prefer Psych, but hey, I'm bias! Locke was a wonderful tgheroist, I loved his work and I believe in it, of course beforethat people thought children to be evil or no different to their parents. I do believe in an innate bad as such, but i dont think you're born to be anything. I just think humansa re much like a windows operating system, works finefor a while but something is bound to go wrong and change things. As far as whom racism is tasught by? 'd say a com,bination of all your suggestions plus some - I would argue a small evolutionary basis for it. And no, as stated above. The sample size was truly appalling.

@ discoveringclouds

discoveringclouds:

I've studied sociology and I think there is more behind this than science. Also, since the students were white maybe their brains reacted a similar way because they were reading black. Something that's not them. I feel their is a bias here and that humans are not innately racist. We were made different to get to know each other's nations. We are to embrace this diversity not justify hate.

- This is true, especially wherre you mention about the bias of words (Self association, it was not mentioned as to whether she listed other colours and gained knowledge of reactions to say 'purple' and 'happy', so self association may have come into it. As far as are we innately racist? Hmmm, I'd say humans are innately discrimitive, not specifically racist but discriminative against all different to ourselves. I think thats fair, what we need to know about embracing cultures is yes we do it more and more, this is amazing and it makes me happy. But it is that there is a trigger and some of us have shall we say parts of our brains which work to stop us acting on our discriminative thoughts? I dont know, I'd just like to know more. i can make nothing scientifically conclusive on this. But yes, a psycho-social study would be amazing to do on this.

My issue here is that the sample size, like you said, was really not even close to scientific. Why it was included in a magazine even is strange to me. She seems to me to be a part of the Psychoanalysis group in Psychology; who feel any societal problem has more to do with the brain than with background. Honestly, I think racism is more of a family phenomenon, with people being raised to be racist. Also, without being hooked up to an MRI while taking her "test", the results are worthless. Honestly, more testing needs to be done, and because of that, I don't feel like psychology or psychologists are trying to justify racism. Just my own thoughts on the matter.

It's just really off putting to me at the lack of the number and diversity of test subjects. I don't put much into this research or "findings" at all. Great article though!

I'm not even in college, although both sociology and psychology interest me greatly and either of the two might be a future major, and I have an idea that racism isn't automatically there. It's like John Locke saying that the mind starts off as a blank slate and it becomes filled with knowledge and experience. Racism is taught by either parents, the media, society, a child's environment or all of the above. But, like you said, Richeson didn't have enough people of a decent variety of races to fully complete her observation.

I've studied sociology and I think there is more behind this than science. Also, since the students were white maybe their brains reacted a similar way because they were reading black. Something that's not them. I feel their is a bias here and that humans are not innately racist. We were made different to get to know each other's nations. We are to embrace this diversity not justify hate.