3 ms·

Ghastly. How can this possibly be published by Nature? Flawed from the start since reliably detecting "race" is more complicated than just physical appearance,

Ghastly. How can this possibly be published by Nature? Flawed from the start since reliably detecting "race" is more complicated than just physical appearance, yet the data is based on surveillance cameras. Also, culture may be just as if not more significant. Maybe New York just has a lot of assholes and low individualism. Also, how can a mere correlated difference of reaction be considered "racist"?

zorked 3y ago
What does a pedestrian use to judge the racial group of another person if not appearence?
- sublinear 3y ago
  Appearance is not race and this is supposed to be a scientific paper.
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    What if you're measuring reactions to appearance?
    - sublinear 3y ago
      The paper's title says "racial avoidance" and the paper itself claims to be about race. EDIT: unable to reply to your reply since it seems we have reached the maximum depth of this thread, but have you considered that judging race by appearance is... racist (and unreliable)?
      - yamtaddle 3y ago
        If your concern is that the researchers failed at picking confederates whose race, judged by appearance, would be interpreted the way the researchers expected it to be, close enough to 100% of the time to not have affected the outcome... I very much doubt they failed in that way. If that's not your concern, then I've lost track of what your complaint is. [EDIT] Reply to your edit: Yes, that's... the point? [EDIT AGAIN] Wait, are you saying that it's racist for the researchers to categorize pedestrians' races based on appearance? If so, I'd regard that objection as specious. That's not racist. Having-to-do-with-race isn't what racism is. It could be inaccurate (or not!) but it's not racist. In any event, it seems they didn't actually measure a difference in reaction of pedestrians based on their own race (!) so it may not be relevant anyway.
        sublinear 3y ago
        > are you saying that it's racist for the researchers to categorize pedestrians' races based on appearance? Yes. I thought that was obvious from the first comment I made. Sorry if I wasn't more clear. > it may not be relevant anyway My main complaint was the lack of scientific rigor. It's relevant in other ways because of this.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > If your concern is that the researchers failed at picking confederates whose race, judged by appearance, would be interpreted the way the researchers expected it to be, close enough to 100% of the time to not have affected the outcome… I very much doubt they failed in that way. That’s a legitimate concern since the methodology on how “racial phenotypes” of “Black” and “non-Hispanic White” were identified for the confederate pairs is not identified. We know their assessment of the race of the subjects whose behavior is studied is measurably lower than 100%, because they actually have reliability data on that by comparison with a second rater.
- version_five 3y ago
  Ever consider that most pedestrians are not "judging the racial group" of everyone they see?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - zorked 3y ago
    Where may I have seen a paper that contains evidence against your theory? Impossible to remember.
    - version_five 3y ago
      Despite the cleverness of your response, I don't belive the paper has anything to say about the kind of judgements people are making. They observed stuff, they didn't read minds.
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    If they do so judge, however, what are they basing it on? Apparent race seems like a totally valid variable if behavior around people of apparently-different races is what you're trying to measure.
yamtaddle 3y ago
They placed the people the avoidance of whom was being measured (the authors' "confederates", as the paper calls them) so they knew for a fact what those guys looked like. It seems like they also didn't include data points if they didn't think the footage was clear enough. > Maybe New York just has a lot of assholes and low individualism. But they measured a difference between behavior around white and black "confederates". > Also, how can a mere correlated difference of reaction be considered "racist"? It's not exactly concrete proof per se, but I think a well-constructed study of this sort (I am not prepared to vouch for this one) could at least reach a finding that points strongly in that direction.

zorked 3y ago

What does a pedestrian use to judge the racial group of another person if not appearence?

sublinear 3y ago
Appearance is not race and this is supposed to be a scientific paper.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  What if you're measuring reactions to appearance?
  - sublinear 3y ago
    The paper's title says "racial avoidance" and the paper itself claims to be about race. EDIT: unable to reply to your reply since it seems we have reached the maximum depth of this thread, but have you considered that judging race by appearance is... racist (and unreliable)?
    - yamtaddle 3y ago
      If your concern is that the researchers failed at picking confederates whose race, judged by appearance, would be interpreted the way the researchers expected it to be, close enough to 100% of the time to not have affected the outcome... I very much doubt they failed in that way. If that's not your concern, then I've lost track of what your complaint is. [EDIT] Reply to your edit: Yes, that's... the point? [EDIT AGAIN] Wait, are you saying that it's racist for the researchers to categorize pedestrians' races based on appearance? If so, I'd regard that objection as specious. That's not racist. Having-to-do-with-race isn't what racism is. It could be inaccurate (or not!) but it's not racist. In any event, it seems they didn't actually measure a difference in reaction of pedestrians based on their own race (!) so it may not be relevant anyway.
      - sublinear 3y ago
        > are you saying that it's racist for the researchers to categorize pedestrians' races based on appearance? Yes. I thought that was obvious from the first comment I made. Sorry if I wasn't more clear. > it may not be relevant anyway My main complaint was the lack of scientific rigor. It's relevant in other ways because of this.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > If your concern is that the researchers failed at picking confederates whose race, judged by appearance, would be interpreted the way the researchers expected it to be, close enough to 100% of the time to not have affected the outcome… I very much doubt they failed in that way. That’s a legitimate concern since the methodology on how “racial phenotypes” of “Black” and “non-Hispanic White” were identified for the confederate pairs is not identified. We know their assessment of the race of the subjects whose behavior is studied is measurably lower than 100%, because they actually have reliability data on that by comparison with a second rater.
version_five 3y ago
Ever consider that most pedestrians are not "judging the racial group" of everyone they see?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- zorked 3y ago
  Where may I have seen a paper that contains evidence against your theory? Impossible to remember.
  - version_five 3y ago
    Despite the cleverness of your response, I don't belive the paper has anything to say about the kind of judgements people are making. They observed stuff, they didn't read minds.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  If they do so judge, however, what are they basing it on? Apparent race seems like a totally valid variable if behavior around people of apparently-different races is what you're trying to measure.

yamtaddle 3y ago

They placed the people the avoidance of whom was being measured (the authors' "confederates", as the paper calls them) so they knew for a fact what those guys looked like. It seems like they also didn't include data points if they didn't think the footage was clear enough. > Maybe New York just has a lot of assholes and low individualism. But they measured a difference between behavior around white and black "confederates". > Also, how can a mere correlated difference of reaction be considered "racist"? It's not exactly concrete proof per se, but I think a well-constructed study of this sort (I am not prepared to vouch for this one) could at least reach a finding that points strongly in that direction.