Racial Tension in the U.S.

[Kyrie4MVP0202]

Numerous sociological studies have demonstrated a relatively large degree of bias against minority candidates.

Contrary to popular opinions, Asians are the most discriminated against when it comes to hiring practices; then Blacks and Latinos respectively. Latinos have become less discriminated against in hiring over the past 25 years, becoming less discriminated against than these other two groups; however, African-Americans have not seen much positive change over that period of time.

Such sociological study actually goes back to the 1960s, and there are measurements across the Western World (US, Canada, Europe, Australia) that show an average of 25% reduced likelihood of interview for identical candidates based on racially-informed resumes (across perceived races).

So, it's a repeatable phenomena; unfortunately. And it only speaks to one aspect of racial discrimination as it relates to the concept of "opportunity."

Why do you think black people are passed over?

Why do you think white people pass over minorities?

 

[gourimoko]

How far down the oppression rabbit hole do we go?

We tend to think that society should oppose oppression along immutable class lines like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That's what an egalitarian society is all about, right? Equality.

What about ugly people? Attractive people have a leg up. What about dumb people? People without social skills? People who are highly neurotic? Why are these people's struggles any less important? People who are low on trait industruousness and weren't born with the gene that is responsible for hard work?

Their individual struggles aren't less important, but these aren't necessarily immutable social classes either. So these concepts are more or less incomparable to the class of race.

Neuroticism has like a -.2 correlation with salary. That's pretty significant. Agreeable people are fucked via contract negotiations. What about sales jobs for introverts?

Introverts are more common than not in computer science. Being agreeable is actually a quality that's useful in management positions. Neuroticism to the point that it would cause emotional problems isn't really a class of people; it's a symptom of a problem, not an innate trait of humanity. And more to the point, these psychological qualities are not social classes... They never have been and never will be.

Do we keep going down until every individual has a movement? How much control are we going to try to use over society here? Are we going to have to brainwash people to rid them of their implicit bias? Are companies going to be forced to hire who the state wants them to? What's the end game and why is race the only thing we look at when there are other disadvantages that people face that are more difficult?

Well, a couple of things here...

1) I don't think every individual needs a movement; but if, for some reason in the future, we started oppressing introverts and classifying them as such and they developed their own social class, culture, and history; then that might be cause to consider what you're talking about.

2) I don't know why awareness with respect to implicit bias would equate to "brainwashing." In fact, the term suggests a desire not to do away with racially-biased thinking, that one would think we'd all want to avoid, right?

3) The endgame would be moving towards a future where equal opportunity were more actual and less theoretical.

4) There are many disadvantages in life; but we're not addressing every problem on Earth. But as we said before, race, creed, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation; these are the aspects that we use as classifications to examine how groups discriminate against others. Are you asking why these groups are used and not others, or, do you object to this form of classification, or..?

Shit sucks for everyone in different domains. I've got a personality that is not conducive for relationships or for employment. I just have to work harder and put that on my own back.

You may have a hard life because of personality problems, and that's unfortunate. But with that being said, you should not internalize this kind of conversation and make it about yourself or even try to relate it to yourself.

This is about a broad examination of millions of people, divided into arbitrary social groups based on their perceptions about each other, and how those groups interact over generations of time.

This doesn't relate to microscale interactions, or the happenings within your own life; and it's counterproductive to think in such terms when trying to understand larger sociological issues.

 

[gourimoko]

Why do you think black people are passed over?

Why do you think white people pass over minorities?

That's the thing, it's not simply that "Whites" have biases -- everyone has biases, and those biases are not aligned inherently against the out-group, but instead, aligned with social norms.

So, a Black person may be less inclined to hire another Black person if/when they have an abundance of White candidates. There may exist overriding in-group preference in many cases; however, but this isn't a Whites passing over minorities issue. It's actually a natural bias towards what we perceive to be normality coupled with implicitly learned stereotypes that are hard to ignore without being consciously aware of them; particularly when you're engaged in hiring or interviewing candidates or the firing of staff.

 

[MediumBaller]

No.

The way these studies are done, the "applicants" aren't actually real people; it's usually experimental. Thus, the resumes are faked with only slight changes to evoke racial recognition in the person evaluating the resumes.

In other studies, the applicants are real, but are sorted and screen specifically to be like-matches.

Lastly, I forgot to mention that the most discriminated class isn't any of these, but, it's the disabled, followed by the elderly... As fucked up as that sounds.

So it looks like there's some discrimination when it comes to hiring.. Once those people who are making the decisions cycle out of power I envision this happening less and less frequently. I still believe that SES is a bigger factor than race, though.

A rich black kid in a stable two parent home is going to have more opportunities than a poor white kid in a single parent one. He/she may encounter some bias thanks to the shitty racist people in the world, but money will make up for it on average, imo. Parents who are involved and make sure the kid stays on top of things. The fancy private school instead of the poor, underfunded public one. All the technology and extra materials the rich parents can afford to buy. Instead of having to get a job in high school to help the family get by they can load up on athletics/extra curriculars to put on their college apps. All the advantages you get from being from a rich family exceed the disadvantages that come from being a minority, imo.

 

[Kyrie4MVP0202]

That's the thing, it's not simply that "Whites" have biases -- everyone has biases, and those biases are not aligned inherently against the out-group, but instead, aligned with social norms.

So, a Black person may be less inclined to hire another Black person if/when they have an abundance of White candidates. There may exist overriding in-group preference in many cases; however, but this isn't a Whites passing over minorities issue. It's actually a natural bias towards what we perceive to be normality coupled with implicitly learned stereotypes that are hard to ignore without being consciously aware of them; particularly when you're engaged in hiring or interviewing candidates or the firing of staff.

What are the social norms and how did they come about?

 

[Sebastian]

That's the thing, it's not simply that "Whites" have biases -- everyone has biases, and those biases are not aligned inherently against the out-group, but instead, aligned with social norms.

Latvians are the scum of the Earth.

 

[gourimoko]

A rich black kid in a stable two parent home is going to have more opportunities than a poor white kid in a single parent one.

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with this whatsoever.. A rich Black kid is infinitely better off in life than a poor White kid. That goes without saying.

 

[gourimoko]

What are the social norms and how did they come about?

That's a very complex question ... I'm not sure I can give you a brief or concise answer since it's not my area of expertise.

 

[Whittaker]

Akronite,
You and I are so far apart that to pursue a solution to the problem with dialog is borderline useless.
You think it is complex. I think it is fairly simple. Its like we aren't even talking about the same problem.
I offered an explanation for a correlation you identified between wealthy areas and school performance. You rejected that explanation. Fine. We disagree.
See below

How can we know that poor kids tend to go to what we would consider worse schools and only blame the kids/family as failing rather than recognizing how the system is failing them?

Here's a perfect example of our dis-connect.
Now you say I'm blaming kids/families and not recognizing that schools are failing them. My recognition of that fact is what brought me into the conversation in the first place. I absolutely hate it that many kids have no choice but to attend failing public schools such as Baltimore, Cleveland and Detroit.
But when an immediate and valid alternative is suggested for those kids...vouchers and freedom to open enroll in other schools...out come the naysayers. Somehow, getting those kids into better schools is not so important anymore. The problem is too complex, we are told. BS.
Winning some ideological argument quickly becomes more important than actually helping poor kids go to good schools now!
Another, slightly longer term suggestion was forcing failing schools to model themselves after successful schools(there are many) that serve a similar student demographic snapshot. Again, that draws little or no support from people in high positions in failing districts. Out comes the mantra..."Give us more money and we will improve". It has been shown that is not effective. But year after year, decade after decade, poor kids have no other choice but to attend bad schools, because...we needs more money...and its complicated. BS
Nobody cares more about kids more than their parents. Those parents, of all economic classes, want their kids to go to good schools. There are ways to make that happen. It is not so complicated as people want us to believe. There are people who know how to run good schools. There is sufficient money. What's lacking is the will to make the necessary changes because political strongholds have been erected and they must be protected at all costs.

 

[David.]

We tend to think that society should oppose oppression along immutable class lines like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That's what an egalitarian society is all about, right? Equality.

you can limit oppression and define the word as you want. I think other people with difficulties for which they aren't responsible suffer more. Attractive people take precedent over ugly people. I don't at all see how that is any different. They aren't responsible for their disadvantage and they get punished regardless.

Their individual struggles aren't less important, but these aren't necessarily immutable social classes either. So these concepts are more or less incomparable to the class of race.

1. They are less important because they aren't getting anywhere near the same attention or help and they are immutable characteristics and traits that have a direct correlation to their livelihood MORE severe than just the color of their skin. 2. You haven't demonstrated why they aren't comparable to race, you've only decided that they aren't the right disadvantages to consider.

Introverts are more common than not in computer science. Being agreeable is actually a quality that's useful in management positions. Neuroticism to the point that it would cause emotional problems isn't really a class of people; it's a symptom of a problem, not an innate trait of humanity. And more to the point, these psychological qualities are not social classes... They never have been and never will be.

1. There are introverts that don't want to get into computer science. That doesn't help the ones that want to do sales. If your point is that there is another domain they would Excell at or have a benefit, women get special small business loans and we can go down the list of benefits other classes receive. But their personality trait being conducive to one industry that they more likely don't care whatsoever about isn't government assistance, it's just a single area they sometimes go to. Women get free drinks, that doesn't stop feminism.

2. Same with agreeableness. All classes have positions wherein their identity gives them a leg up, or a situation. So everyone just has to deal with it and work to figure out their life, because that is their responsibility.

3. Neuroticism is a personality trait, it's not a symptom of a problem, it's a problem grounded in genetics and temperament. It's an innate human characteristic.

4. It really doesn't matter if it's a class. Why are you setting this criteria?

1) I don't think every individual needs a movement; but if, for some reason in the future, we started oppressing introverts and classifying them as such and they developed their own social class, culture, and history; then that might be cause to consider what you're talking about.

I don't think having a shared culture is necessary to realize people are disadvantaged and need help.

2) I don't know why awareness with respect to implicit bias would equate to "brainwashing." In fact, the term suggests a desire not to do away with racially-biased thinking, that one would think we'd all want to avoid, right?

no man, that's brainwashing. Sitting someone down and taping their eyes open and making them unlearn and relearn things by force is brainwashing and iirc the effects of these classes on real world situations haven't been shown to be positive. If you correct for this, it very well could just sway someone to pick someone for their skin color to correct for their bias.

3) The endgame would be moving towards a future where equal opportunity were more actual and less theoretical.

if I have a 47% chance of getting a job because I'm a male and not female, as much as that sucks, I just apply to one more job and I've got twice the shot at having a job than all those women that only applied for one. Problem solved. I don't start a movement. And the only reason I whine about it is because everyone else is whining rather than handling their shit.

4) There are many disadvantages in life; but we're not addressing every problem on Earth. But as we said before, race, creed, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation; these are the aspects that we use as classifications to examine how groups discriminate against others. Are you asking why these groups are used and not others, or, do you object to this form of classification, or..?

yiu have set these as the exclusive classifications on which people are discriminated and I reject that.

You may have a hard life because of personality problems, and that's unfortunate. But with that being said, you should not internalize this kind of conversation and make it about yourself or even try to relate it to yourself.

But I do. Because if I can do it, others can too. We all have shit we deal with and it's no one's responsibility but our own to figure our shit out. You have problems, I do too. No one's is more valid than anyone's else's and seeing things through just race and sex is racist and sexist. Other people are discriminated against for other reasons. Women, in fact, are generally more neurotic than men and that explains some of the gender pay gap. Haven't seen that because we're looking through a different lens. So it's not women that are suffering in contract negotiations, it's neurotic and agreeable people, and because it's looked at incorrectly, we're not seeing that problem holistically and you're not helping the right people. All else equal I'd love to be black but rank differently on my temperament. Not even close man.

 

[Tlyons]

Just speaking to the ugly vs. Attractive thing.

While I agree that being attractive is an advantage at times, it's also a disadvantage in some ways as well. There are stereotypes for attractive people. Not taking them seriously. Thinking they aren't "tough" enough to get a job done because they're "pretty boys/girls". This is especially a problem for women.

I don't think attractiveness can really be compared to race, sex, gender, etc. It's a really big stretch to do so imo.

 

[gourimoko]

you can limit oppression and define the word as you want. I think other people with difficulties they aren't responsible suffer more. Attractive people take precedent over ugly people. I don't at all see how that is any different. They aren't responsible for their disadvantage and they get punished regardless.

You don't think there's a difference between racial and gender classifications compared to "attractive vs ugly?"

The argument here is about an immutable social class; and I don't think "attractive vs ugly" qualifies as either immutable or a social class, right?

1. They are less important because they aren't getting anywhere near the same attention or help and they are immutable characteristics and traits that have a direct correlation to their livelihood.

Being attractive or unattractive is hardly immutable. You can be unattractive in high school, attractive in your 20s and 30s, and then be consider unattractive again in your 40s-60s. Moreover, attractiveness falls off for almost all women (as it relates to men) over the age of 50.

So I'm not sure how these groups compare to race, or gender..?

You had mentioned earlier people who were introverted, but, that's a broad oversimplification. Being introverted is in no way a handicap or a "difficulty" in and of itself. And I don't think introverts are keenly discriminated against let alone are they discretely grouped into their own social class; and I think you'd agree with that right?

2. You haven't demonstrated why they aren't comparable to race, you've only decided that they aren't the right disadvantages to consider.

Well, I thought I had, and we are talking about legally defined protected classes; but if you don't think I addressed this from an ethical or moral standpoint then let me try again...

When we talk about the concept of discrimination, either via implicit or explicit bias, we're generally talking about social group-based discrimination. Such group-based discrimination relates to discrete classes or types that form overlapping characteristics of a person. Or in other words, these classes are innate traits that are used to define the person in question and thus assign their group based on their perceived or stated attributes.

Given that these traits are innate, immutable, and are inherent characteristics of the person within society; they are not within that person's control, and these traits are often assigned at birth.

Being "attractive" is individually subjective; mutable; and reasonable people within society could certain disagree on who is "attractive" and who isn't. Attractiveness is not comparable to race or gender.

Being introverted is a psychological aspect to handling society and people; it's not a visible or known trait to the outside world, or often to the person in question. Being more introverted than not is neither an immutable quality of the mind, or an inherited, innate aspect of the person within society.

So, the normative quality here is the immutable and innate nature of the traits in question as well as their use in forming social groups. It's not one or the other, but specifically both in tandem given this tribal grouping is the basis of discrimination and thus, social inequity.

1. There are introverts that don't want to get into computer science. That doesn't help the ones that want to do sales. If your point is that there is another domain they would Excell at or have a benefit, women get special small business loans and we can go down the list of benefits other classes receive. But their personality trait being conducive to one industry that they more likely don't care whatsoever about isn't government assistance, it's just a single area they sometimes go to. Women get free drinks, that doesn't stop feminism.

That's kind of my point, but I think you took this beyond the point I was making.

I'm stating that I agree that someone who is wholly defined by their introverted personality might not excel at a sales job as well as someone who was defined by being an extrovert. But these are just as much psychological traits as they are social skills that can be learned and honed. I'm speaking from experience as someone who had to learn how to interact with people.

However, being an introvert is not a social construct; it's not a social class; and it's not a social group -- and that's the difference.

Now, to your point, if we started grouping introverts into social classes and discriminating against them then I think you're point would be much easier to understand.

2. Same with agreeableness. All classes have positions where their identity gives them a leg up, or a situation. So everyone just has to deal with it and work to figure out their life, because that is their responsibility.

Well, that's one way of looking at the world. And of course, you're right in saying that we all have to deal with it.

But that does not mean that our society is ideally configured. It doesn't mean this kind of group/tribal thinking is beneficial or optimal or unchangeable. We've had periods of greater equality and reduced equality, and I think one can quite easily argue (as most philosophers tend to do) that there is virtue in striving towards an egalitarian civilization.

Equality and freedom are the two cornerstones of Western Civilization. Equal treatment, fairness, and equal opportunity under the law; and freedom to do as you please so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.

So again, the ethical argument here is that we should not permit or tolerate discrimination against people based on aspects of their person, their race, gender, etc; rather than their deeds or actions.

3. Neuroticism is a personality trait, it's not a symptom of a problem, it's a problem grounded in genetics and temperament. It's an innate human characteristic.

But with your use of the term, and how you describe such people almost as though they are being compelled, it seems you're really talking about neuroticism on the higher end of a spectrum; to which, this trait would be (again, in your usage) highly influential of both personality and decision-making... And yes, at which point, I would start discussing this as a problem, and potentially a functional mental disorder.

I wouldn't classify such people as a social class since you'd need a medical/psychological diagnosis to even know something like this (hence, it being outside the realm of social classification); however, people who are disabled are discriminated against.... So, if it's really damaging to their personality, and this is known on first glance, then sure; that would make sense to group these people into a protected class (the disabled).

4. It really doesn't matter if it's a class. Why are you setting this criteria?

Initially the topic was race; and the broader topic from that would be protected classes under the law; beyond that we could discuss or question the rationale of those groupings (which I've tried to do above)... but I don't understand how one thinks about societal discrimination outside of the concept of social constructs and thus, social groups/social classes.

So, what other criteria do you think would be helpful to understand societal discrimination if not class/group-based discrimination?

I don't think having a culture is necessary to realize people are disadvantaged and need help.

At first I was going to write that I agree with this sentiment; it makes sense. But, historically, I don't think it's accurate. Rationally, looking back, there have been times in our human history where culture could and would keep people from recognizing those in need -- even dehumanizing and killing them.

no man, that's brainwashing. Sitting someone down and taping their eyes open and making them unlearn and relearn things by force is brainwashing and iirc the effects of these classes on real world situations haven't been shown to be positive. If you correct for this, it very well could just sway someone to pick someone for their skin color to correct for their bias.

Okay, I'm not sure I understand this part. Can you explain how my use of the term "awareness" relates to sitting someone down and taping their eyes open and forcing them through a reeducation process?

I mean, I get the metaphor here with respect to the concept of "brainwashing," but, I don't get it's usage here... How is anything that I've talked about "brainwashing" let alone forcible brainwashing?

if I have a 47% chance of getting a job because I'm a male and not female, as much as that sucks, I just apply to one more job and I have a job. I don't start a movement.

Is the existence of a social movement for a more equal future a bad thing in and of itself? I would think that's a good thing to be civically active and to strive towards social justice, right?

But, getting back to your point here; there's an interesting study out of Berkeley and the University of Oslo that actually agrees with your overall premise about women being more likely to be hired than men (having a hiring advantage) in Scandinavia over a 3 year sample period between 1997-1999; but it disagrees with your conclusion. They concluded that this was largely due to (1) gender discrimination awareness; and (2) gender outreach programs (their equivalent to Affirmative Action for women).

To quote the study:

"The hiring agents in the organization are fully conscious and concerned about the nonconscious biases and gender schemas they carry when making hiring decisions.

Their effects on hiring are considered to be beyond dispute: Women are at a clear disadvantage. For actual hiring practices we found that the opposite is true: Women are at an advanatage in getting offers.

Two organizational practices may lead to female advantage, with relevance for other countries as well. The hiring agents had been educated about the role of nonconscious biases, which perhaps mitigated their effects. But they had also been instructed to search actively for qualified females in the applicant pool. With no qualified females in the first pass, they go through the pool a second and third time hoping to find one."

Now, one might argue that their form of discrimination mitigation left men disadvantaged; however, that would be incorrect. The actual end result was the overall disparity of advantage between groups (in this case, men and women) having been lessened overall as a result of awareness and outreach programs as well as the decrease in the (still existing at the time) employment gender gap.

yiu have set these as the exclusive classifications on which people are discriminated and I reject that.

Okay, you reject it. Why?

Also, can you explain why these classifications are not reasonable and can you offer an alternative that fits with what we observe in our own society?

But I do.

And that's irrational, David. You shouldn't internalize discussions about groups because we're not dealing in absolutes but behavioral patterns that manifest themselves out of millions upon millions of interactions.

What we're talking about does not relate or correspond to the individual experience; so at that fine-grain level, you're really just dealing with noise.

Does that not make sense?

Because if I can do it, others can too. We all have shit we deal with and it's no one's responsibility but our own to figure our shit out. You have problems, I do too.

I agree with this.... But that does not mean I do not have a moral obligation to strive for a better society and a better future for my children as well as yours. That entails a freer, more egalitarian society; and that entails striving towards a society that is as free as possible from bigotry, prejudice and discrimination of any sort.

No one's is more valid than anyone's else's and seeing things through just race and sex is racist and sexist.

I'm not sure I understand the use of the term racist and sexist here. Talking about race and gender doesn't make one a racist or a sexist, surely?

Other people are discriminated against for other reasons. Women, in fact, are generally more neurotic than men and that explains some of the gender pay gap.

Well, that's a complex idea Dave; and with that being said, there's more to personal psychological identity than inherited aspects of one's personality.

Furthermore, neuroticism is not wholly genetic, and it can be and is developed / changed over time. Women can be more or less neurotic compared to men based on cultural factors; and this somewhat relates to my larger point about using these kinds of personality traits as social classifications when in fact, they can be largely functions of social interactions.

Haven't seen that because we're looking through a different lens. So it's not women that are suffering in contract negotiations, it's neurotic and agreeable people, and because it's looked at incorrectly, we're not seeing that problem holistically and you're not helping the right people.

I'm not suggesting we not help people in need; I'm simply arguing against discrimination upon the basis of social groupings and social class structures.

It seems your suggesting a much larger idea; but I don't know that your idea works overall. For example, the psychological traits you're describing between men and women do not carry across cultures and further, neuroticism is not a function of gender AFAIK, in any respect. So while women may be more neurotic than men today, in America; that may not be true a century ago, or in Japan, etc.

For example, Alice Eagly and Wendy Wood argued that there is next to no scientific evidence to suggest female psychological traits within (Western) patriarchal cultures is suggestive of a uniquely female psychological disposition.

So for example, women in the West may be more neurotic because of gender norms and expectations of them rather than genetic factors or otherwise inherited or innate factors relating to their sex.

With that being said; the reason we're discussing the idea of racial discrimination, concisely, is because it exists. If it didn't exist, then it wouldn't be worth discussing as it'd be nothing more than a thought experiment.

Simply put, discrimination upon the basis of one's social identity, as defined by the classes of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc, are historically real events, behaviors, and ideas that are quite relevant in today's society. I think that is a fundamental difference between the more fine-grained kinds of societal advantage you're talking about with relation to psychological traits.

 

[Kyrie4MVP0202]

That's a very complex question ... I'm not sure I can give you a brief or concise answer since it's not my area of expertise.

I’m just trying to get to the bottom of you’re saying.

You say that there is a tangible social construct in which minorities are affected in the job interviewing process.

I’m just not sure what you’re referring to here.

 

[Kyrie4MVP0202]

And that's irrational, David. You shouldn't internalize discussions about groups because we're not dealing in absolutes but behavioral patterns that manifest themselves out of millions upon millions of interactions.

It’s astonishing to me that you use this line of logic in reference to something like this but then completely throw it out the window when speaking about police brutality.

When using this logic in reference to police and black communities it actually shows just how well our police force, as a whole, under very stressful circumstances.

 

[gourimoko]

It’s astonishing to me that you use this line of logic in reference to something like this but then completely throw it out the window when speaking about police brutality.

When using this logic in reference to police and black communities it actually shows just how well our police force, as a whole, under very stressful circumstances.

On the whole, I've never suggested otherwise. You shouldn't take my argument for criminal justice reform as an indictment of every police officer on the force. I've said this before, a White cop legit saved my life .. so I'm not out against cops in some generalized sense.

So with that being said, I don't see the point in ignoring systemic issues in not just policing, and those issues are numerous and problematic and not wholly related to race (video of the White kid getting murdered while on his knees comes to mind), but also in the criminal justice system overall.

I mean, we can all surely agree we want fairness, equity, and due process for all Americans, right? That's really what this boils down to.