... Stop. Right. There. Obviously, there is a reality disconnect.
Anyone should recognize that it's impossible for a higher percentage of a a group (79%) to express "explicit (anti-black) racism" and for only 64% of that same group to hold "anti-black feelings." That the survey obtained this result proves beyond doubt without going further that its determination of what does and doesn't constitute explicit and implicit racism is inconsistent and flawed to the point of rendering its results useless.
Continuing:
The explicit racism measures asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people. In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as "friendly," "hardworking," "violent" and "lazy," described blacks, whites and Hispanics.
This is so intellectually vacant it's hard to believe it was published.
Simply put, if someone is willing to endure a survey as painful as this (I'll discuss that point eventually), one may believe that certain group has more or less of a particular characteristic for reasons which have nothing to do with prejudice or racism. For example, if you're familiar with crime statistics broken down by race which consistently show blacks involved with violent crime at a rate that far exceeds whites and you indicate at Survey question RAC 11 that "violent" is an adjective which describes most blacks "slightly well," you probably tripped the survey's "Racistometer," when all you've actually done is recite reality. Similarly, if you are aware that the welfare and education systems have inarguably done serious damage to the life prospects of millions of black kids for at least two generations, a "slightly well" or "moderately well" answer as to whether "most blacks" are "irresponsible" will probably cause the "Racistometer" to go into the red.
If you believe, as I do, that the survey is already irretrievably absurd, wait until you see the following, as we dive headlong into Cuckooland:
The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character.The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.
I would call this methodology horse manure, but it stinks far worse than any equine excrement I've encountered. It wouldn't pass muster in the third grade at a decent school.
Oh, there's more:
... All the surveys were conducted online. Other research has shown that poll takers are more likely to share unpopular attitudes when they are filling out a survey using a computer rather than speaking with an interviewer. Respondents were randomly selected from a nationally representative panel maintained by GfK Custom Research.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...y-harbor-prejudice-against-blac#ixzz2AeHqwDX5
Anyone should recognize that it's impossible for a higher percentage of a a group (79%) to express "explicit (anti-black) racism" and for only 64% of that same group to hold "anti-black feelings." That the survey obtained this result proves beyond doubt without going further that its determination of what does and doesn't constitute explicit and implicit racism is inconsistent and flawed to the point of rendering its results useless.
Continuing:
The explicit racism measures asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people. In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as "friendly," "hardworking," "violent" and "lazy," described blacks, whites and Hispanics.
This is so intellectually vacant it's hard to believe it was published.
Simply put, if someone is willing to endure a survey as painful as this (I'll discuss that point eventually), one may believe that certain group has more or less of a particular characteristic for reasons which have nothing to do with prejudice or racism. For example, if you're familiar with crime statistics broken down by race which consistently show blacks involved with violent crime at a rate that far exceeds whites and you indicate at Survey question RAC 11 that "violent" is an adjective which describes most blacks "slightly well," you probably tripped the survey's "Racistometer," when all you've actually done is recite reality. Similarly, if you are aware that the welfare and education systems have inarguably done serious damage to the life prospects of millions of black kids for at least two generations, a "slightly well" or "moderately well" answer as to whether "most blacks" are "irresponsible" will probably cause the "Racistometer" to go into the red.
If you believe, as I do, that the survey is already irretrievably absurd, wait until you see the following, as we dive headlong into Cuckooland:
The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character.The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.
I would call this methodology horse manure, but it stinks far worse than any equine excrement I've encountered. It wouldn't pass muster in the third grade at a decent school.
Oh, there's more:
... All the surveys were conducted online. Other research has shown that poll takers are more likely to share unpopular attitudes when they are filling out a survey using a computer rather than speaking with an interviewer. Respondents were randomly selected from a nationally representative panel maintained by GfK Custom Research.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...y-harbor-prejudice-against-blac#ixzz2AeHqwDX5
