• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

BostonBurns

Insufferable Bastard
Bold Member!
  • Psychologists showed white students pictures of black and white boys
  • They then flashed up images of toys or weapons after the pictures
  • A face of a black five-year-old led to guns being categorised more quickly
  • Participants also misidentified toys as weapons after seeing a black child

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-violent-racial-stereotypes-claims-study.html

Few people see children as a threat but it seems racial stereotypes can change that.

A new study has found stereotypes linking black men with violence and criminality can result in black children as young as five being identified as dangerous.

White people taking part in the research were more likely to misidentify a toy as a weapon after seeing the face of a black five-year-old boy, compared to a white youngster.
'One of the most pernicious stereotypes of Black Americans, particularly black men, is that they are hostile and violent.

'So pervasive are these threat-related associations that they can shape even low-level aspects of social cognition.'

In the study, published in the journa Psychological Science, Dr Todd and his colleagues showed 64 white college students images of children's faces before pictures of toys or weapons.

They were told the first image was merely a signal that the second image was about to appear and they were to concentrate as identifying the second image as a toy, such as a rattle, or a gun as quickly as possible.

The children's faces included six images of black five-year-old boys and six images of white five-year-old boys.

The researchers found the students tended to be quicker at recognising guns after seeing a black child's face than the face of a white child.

They also more often mistakenly categorised toys as weapons after seeing pictures of the black boys.

But they also mistook weapons for toys after seeing a white child's face
 
If you live with gangsters then you would learn it pretty young...that cops are bad, that drugs are cool, that guns are heavy, the visitation scheduled at the local prison is on Wednesday's and Saturdays and that raman noodles suck shit...I can see a child might get violent and mad about knowing all of these things, and might act out. Nature vs nurture...if that's the environment a child lives in that's what a child learns.
 
This is bullshit. I dont trust any 5 year olds with a gun. If a five year old has a gun you better take him serious. What the fuck does the little bastard know about death anyway? And were black people also tested? Lmao of course not. Ridiculous. Were they toy guns? Lol.
 
Why did they only use white students? Would it not be interesting and just as worthwhile to know whether the stereotypes impact black peoples reactions to other blacks?

I hate all children and and know enough of them and their exploits to know none can be trusted no matter the race.

Pretty pointless little stunt though. We already know these stereotypes exist and we know why they exist. Look at the racial makeup of prisoners, look at the high profile news stories of very young black children engaging in serious crimes or trying to scare people using a fake gun. Look at how many black children are living in poverty, are growing up in crime ridden areas, are growing up without a strong positive male role model or father figure. Of course such children are going to be more at risk when it comes to crime, both as victims and perpetrators. Are we supposed to demonize or look down on these students and on society in general for buying into such stereotypes due to some subconscious, unintentional bias based on the sad real world sociological facts of the country we live in?

What's the fucking point, other then to create a news story that'll garner a lot of imagine controversy and internet buzz/discussion? Fucking worthless waste of time and "effort".
 
Last edited:
Why did they only use white students? Would it not be interesting and just as worthwhile to know whether the stereotypes impact black peoples reactions to other blacks?
I hate all children and and know enough of them and their exploits to know none can be trusted no matter the race.
Pretty pointless little stunt though. We already know these stereotypes exist and we know why they exist. Look at the racial makeup of prisoners, look at the high profile news stories of very young black children engaging in serious crimes or trying to scare people using a fake gun. Look at how many black children are living in poverty, are growing up in crime ridden areas, are growing up without a strong positive male role model or father figure. Of course such children are going to be more at risk when it comes to crime, both as victims and perpetrators. Are we supposed to demonize or look down on these students and on society in general for buying into such stereotypes due to some subconscious, unintentional bias based on the sad real world sociological facts of the country we live in?
What's the fucking point, other then to create a news story that'll garner a lot of imagine controversy and internet buzz/discussion? Fucking worthless waste of time and "effort".

Best response ever. That just made my day. Someone that gets it.

And of course it's you.
 
What's the fucking point, other then to create a news story that'll garner a lot of imagine controversy and internet buzz/discussion? Fucking worthless waste of time and "effort".

A lot of attention means more prestige for the university which leads to more funding for the researchers which leads to a better chance at tenure.
There is no such thing as bad publicity - or academic integrity, apparently.

I wouldn't even expect this kind of shoddy work from a BA student. Shame on you, 'Dr' Todd. This is why nobody takes your field seriously.
 
If we can't even get our crayon colors right on this planet, we'll never get where we need to be with this kind of crap on *any* side of the icosahedral die and this kind of junk science will keep spinning its wheels in the self-induced mud.

I've been screaming this since the day my best friend in first grade broke down in tears over being called that word and I didn't even know what it meant. Until we stop perpetuating the lie, we can't even begin a serious dialogue about human beings on this planet. I'm far from the only one, and this was before Bill Nye was The Science Guy.

There are no people who actually have true black, white, red, or yellow skin. These are commonly used color terms that do not reflect biological reality.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm

More on these divisive, bullshit, antiquated terms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-and-white_dualism
 
Last edited:
If we can't even get our crayon colors right on this planet, we'll never get where we need to be with this kind of crap on *any* side of the icosahedral die and this kind of junk science will keep spinning its wheels in the self-induced mud.

I've been screaming this since the day my best friend in first grade broke down in tears over being called that word and I didn't even know what it meant. Until we stop perpetuating the lie, we can't even begin a serious dialogue about human beings on this planet. I'm far from the only one, and this was before Bill Nye was The Science Guy.



http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm

More on these divisive, bullshit, antiquated terms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-and-white_dualism
So are you saying we should modify our color labels to better approximate the actual color of skin tone? :shrug:
 
Yes, and no. The entire color system was intentionally injected into our languages to divide and conquer even though it was largely based on Euro diary entries from early explorers and travelers (a "Dr. Livingston, I presume," kind of a thing). It's simple word association. All things "good, pure, clean, godly, angelic, virginal (like a wedding gown), etc.," are white. Contrarily, all things "dirty, filthy, dark, scary, evil, ref. ex: the fiery pits of hell, 'bad things happen at night, 'a cold, black heart', etc.," are black.

I've always believed we should include a unit in science class starting in grade school on anthropology/adaptation concomitant with evolution to explain to our kids where these color terms come from and why biologically they don't exist. We continue to confuse the hell out of them by telling them some people are "white", for example, and a kid will respond, "I've never seen anybody the color of a cloud, or a piece of copy paper, or my new gym socks, or the paint on my ceiling." Same with black. Tell them some people are "black" and they'll argue, "Nuh uh, they're brown. They don't look like asphalt, or tar/pitch, or the night sky without stars, or the new tires on our car."

In order to be able to use these terms as human descriptives, we first have to understand them, where they came from, and simply tell the truth. Once we, as a planet, understand that melanin is brown, that it's just natural sunscreen depending on climate/adaptation and that we're all varying shades and hues of it from lightest to darkest, then we can use these descriptives with the knowledge and wisdom they deserve. We can't understand a thing until we know a thing, and vice versa.

The "no" comes in b/c it's just not feasible in our society. We have to have skin, hair, eye color descriptives, etc., to easily be able to identify and differentiate between each other. We know we can't avoid it in nursing, and the cops, for example, can't put out a BOLO saying, "We're looking for a 5'10 male, 200#s who's kind of a light to medium brown, looks like he may have some Native American or Latino mixed in, and his hair isn't really a tight, kinky fro, it's more of a looser, course, curly look, but he wears it short," lol. No way that ridiculousness will ever work for any of us.

So, yes. I believe we need to get real and get it right, and then use these terms as descriptives intelligently when we need them, or let the people with educations and pay grades a lot higher than mine figure out a good or better way to differentiate between us. But, the way it stands now (and always has), it's just another antiquated divide and conquer tactic we perpetuate, IMO. Best selling non-caucasian skin product in the world besides moisturizers? Skin bleach.
 
Last edited:
What the fuck. Any child is dangerous with a gun people. Duh! I guess black children are way more dangerous lol give me a break
I'm so sick of this black and white shit

I know SHITTY black people. I know SHITTY white people. I know great white people and great black people

I hear about horrible Muslims and never actually met a horrible Muslim. My neighbors across the street are Muslim. One of nicest families I've ever met.

I'm sick of this judgemental bullshit. Go by someone's character not someone's color!

God Damn for real
 
I've just read an article regarding violence and statistics involving blacks and whites released by the Dept of Justice in 2015.

It states, during 2012-2013:

Blacks committed 84.9% of crimes of violence against Black's and White's.

Whites committed violent crimes against blacks in this period, 3.6% of the time and whites, 82.4%.

Blacks committed violent crimes against whites in this period, 38.6% and against other black's, 40.9%. Not far from equal really.
---

Now take into consideration, of the American population of approximately 322+ million people.

Of that number, according to Census data in 2015, whites make up around 77% of the total population whilst blacks make up around 13.6%.

So. When just over 13% of the population (a minority - smaller than Hispanics, who make up 17%) is responsible for the pool of violent offenders who are committing over 80 PERCENT of all violent crimes - against black OR white, there's a big fucking problem.

And the instinctive idea of assuming that someone who is black, even as a child, is thusly potentially more violent simply due to skin colour, well its certainly insulting to the law abiding Black's who mean no harm - but its pretty bloody laughable to call it racism when cold hard data shows thing that a black person, simply statistically speaking is more likely to in fact, be violent.

Hand wringing aside. The results of this study aren't wrong.
 
@cubby come on now, I thought you were smarter than that.

@gatekeeper bestow my heart!

To everyone else, it's totally fucking true that black people are seen more as a threat than white people. Except maybe when it comes to pedophiles. Pedos always seem to be type casted as white dudes. I live in an extremely diverse neighborhood and I am a white chick with a half black child and I still on occasion feel nervous about certain people walking by my porch at night and guess what? More of them are black than white.

I wish I didn't feel that way, but it's true - it was somehow engrained into my subconscious mind in my lifetime. You guys ever see that video where all the little kids (black kids too) pick the white dolls as the good guys?

Anyway, this doesn't surprise me one bit. It's sad, but I hope that my daughter's generation is evolving to a point where this may not be the case much longer.
 
but its pretty bloody laughable to call it racism when cold hard data shows thing that a black person, simply statistically speaking is more likely to in fact, be violent.

No, it's not necessarily racism. But if a person concludes that they're committing crimes because they're black, it's such basement level ignorance that racism probably isn't too far off on the horizon.

And, I also wish you had posted the link, because you came to an inaccurate conclusion. Blacks aren't responsible for 80% of violent crime. According to the FBI, blacks are responsible for 38% of violent crime.

But, if a person knows anything about what drives violent crime, they know it's got nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with socio-economics and education level. A higher percentage of blacks are poor and under-educated, so of course they're committing crime at a higher rate.
 
I don't fear children, I fear the adult that comes with the child. I have a hard time believing that a child on it's own is scary unless they do have a weapon in their hand and then I'm not so much fearing them but the accident that is sure to happen.

I have worked with all kinds of children, black, white, asian of several different extractions, and I hope that we connected with each others as child and a caring adult. Cub Scouts was some of my happiest experiences with kids.

Part of the problem with the way I think is that I live in a small town and have never been confronted with a child that means me harm. The awful things that happen in big cities have not happened here. Most of the time, as far as I, a white person, can tell, around here, we all work together, mainly because most everyone here is in the same economic boat and most everyone has nothing to brag about.

As much as I am able I don't look at color first, or at all if it's not applicable to the situation. But I am a product of my parents, and my mother was one of the racist person I've ever known. My growing up years included desegregation of schools and all the disgusting hoopla that went with that in the deep South.

I don't express my self well, but what I meant was anyone that sees a child as anything other than a child has more problems than can be solved with a survey.
 
@sarahdownunder, Please post link to article.

I'll post it - and the census data link. Give me some time, I'm doing this on my phone.
[doublepost=1457039508,1457039085][/doublepost]
@sarahdownunder, Please post link to article.

Here is the article I mentioned:
http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/

Here is the census data:
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00

I also read a couple more articles after cross check searching from the first article above, and found this article (linked below). Because honestly? I was bloody surprised to see just how over represented the black community is in America, on violent crime. However, I don't believe I quoted any stats from this one.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/21/the-racial-divide-on-gun-deaths-in-america/
[doublepost=1457039851][/doublepost]
No, it's not necessarily racism. But if a person concludes that they're committing crimes because they're black, it's such basement level ignorance that racism probably isn't too far off on the horizon.

And, I also wish you had posted the link, because you came to an inaccurate conclusion. Blacks aren't responsible for 80% of violent crime. According to the FBI, blacks are responsible for 38% of violent crime.

But, if a person knows anything about what drives violent crime, they know it's got nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with socio-economics and education level. A higher percentage of blacks are poor and under-educated, so of course they're committing crime at a higher rate.

Hey. I just posted the links I quoted from.
I absolutely agree that there are a bucketload of extenuating circumstances that have to be factored in, with this scenario.

Institutionalized racism and discrimination, low incomes, low education, lower life expectancy - I'm sure there's articles with stats rattling off all the why's of it.

Because the colour of someones skin has absolutely sweet fuck all to do with whether they're 'good' or 'bad'. Skin colour is utterly irrelevant - except that it provides a way to stereotype and in some cases, identify a racial group.

Basically, if whites and black's reversed, it'd be whites with these stats and America, being a predominantly black nation, would fear and stereotype the white community too.
 
Yeah, um... amren.com is a conservative publication. Pretty sure they DIDNT get facts from FBI statistics.
 
Yeah, um... amren.com is a conservative publication. Pretty sure they DIDNT get facts from FBI statistics.

Amren - whether they're conservative or liberal is irrelevant in this matter. Its quoted from the DOJ data for 2012-2013, released in 2015.

Unless you're saying that Amren are full of shit and have made up the DOJ data, simply because they're conservative?

Regardless of where they sit politically, there's only so much massaging they can do of hard data. I'm not quoting any op-ed thoughts and judgements, just statistics.
 
I only have access to the abstract, but its wording does not state that black 5-year olds are more violent than white 5-year olds. The results show that skin color triggers a perception bias, and that the subject's age is not influential enough to overcome the participants' automatic association between skin color and violence. Now, the abstract gets a little 'dodgy' at the end by suggesting "threat" is the fundamental cause of this association bias. I think the researchers overextended themselves on that assumption because I don't see anywhere (in the abstract) that the study was designed to analyze the nature of the bias. It only reveals there IS a bias.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/02/01/0956797615624492.abstract
Pervasive stereotypes linking Black men with violence and criminality can lead to implicit cognitive biases, including the misidentification of harmless objects as weapons. In four experiments, we investigated whether these biases extend even to young Black boys (5-year-olds). White participants completed sequential priming tasks in which they categorized threatening and nonthreatening objects and words after brief presentations of faces of various races (Black and White) and ages (children and adults). Results consistently revealed that participants had less difficulty (i.e., faster response times, fewer errors) identifying threatening stimuli and more difficulty identifying nonthreatening stimuli after seeing Black faces than after seeing White faces, and this racial bias was equally strong following adult and child faces. Process-dissociation-procedure analyses further revealed that these effects were driven entirely by automatic (i.e., unintentional) racial biases. The collective findings suggest that the perceived threat commonly associated with Black men may generalize even to young Black boys.
 
Back
Top