10 ms·

What Does Modern Prejudice Look Like?

77 points by rosser 14y ago

crusso 14y ago
I don't typically approve of in-group preferential treatment as discussed in the article. I've come across it most in dealing with various minority/ethnic groups where it seems to be okay to admit to it. A colleague of mine who is Greek was once talking to me about various restaurants and shops he goes to because the owners are Greek and give him a discount. He saw nothing wrong with it. I've heard similar comments from other colleagues who were Indian, Jewish, etc. I couldn't imagine going to a restaurant and getting a discount because the owner and I are both white. Even typing this out and thinking about someone telling me they would give me preferential treatment because I'm white makes me uncomfortable. All that said, how is in-group preferential treatment any different than familial preferential treatment. The article mentioned giving away free tickets as an example. Is it wrong to give your brother some concert tickets you have because you should be equally inclined to give them to a perfect stranger? Okay, how about a third cousin whom you never but you know would like the tickets? Is giving that third cousin the tickets that much different than giving them to a neighbor?
- mikestew 14y ago
  All that said, how is in-group preferential treatment any different than familial preferential treatment. The article mentioned giving away free tickets as an example. Maybe they're not all that different, just different forms of tribalism. I can certainly see it applying early last century in the U. S., when you're fresh off a visit to Ellis Island and the natives aren't particularly fond of you. If you don't watch out for each other, who else will? Further back in history such prejudices may have been more valuable when unfriendly tribes are just a short walk away. Same thing for family: the rest of the world isn't going to give us a leg up, so we best watch out for each other. Or maybe for both it's just familiarity. When you're a long way from home, I can see value in having someone around who understands your cultural background and speaks the language you grew up with. As for family, I'm probably not the one to ask. Mine is spread all over the U. S., and even if my sister lived next door I'd be just as likely to give courtside seats to a coworker as I would to her.
- mseebach 14y ago
  You wouldn't get the discount because you're white, you'd get it because you're a member of a minority subculture in the context you're in. Say, you're back packing through [somewhere far away], and you walk into a restaurant somewhere that's run by a guy who went to your university (or is from your state or whatever). He gives you a free beer. Still feels uncomfortable?
  - ajross 14y ago
    Bingo. This is the classic case of a tech geek looking at things through a lens of "abstract principle" when it's really not appropriate. Yes, sure, I think we can all agree that in a perfect world no one should get preferential treatment because of an objective fact of existence like ethnicity. But in the real world, we have social groups with complicated dynamics. Expressing solidarity with your group is a normal and important part of this. Tech geeks do it too! And yes, sometimes that takes the form or a free beer or a "Greek discount" or whatever.
    - fyi80 14y ago
      It is absolutely prejudicial. Citing a case where I benefit from it doesn't make it right. Why not randomly give a beer to every 1000th patron, or every 10th shirt with lettering, as a conversation-starter?
      - ajross 14y ago
        Again, you're citing "right". I'm saying this is a case of complicated social interactions being benign in one case where the same kind of behavior would be discriminatory in others. You can make it right/wrong if you want to, but you're not going to solve anything by doing so. And, it must be noted: if you really think hard about things (something that tech geeks, in my experience, are really bad at doing in a social context), you'll realize that your "wrong" filter always seems to be applied against some group other than the ones you're part of. Whether you realize it or not you participate in this kind of social game too, even to the exclusion of other groups. And it's not "wrong" when you do it either.
- Anechoic 14y ago
  I couldn't imagine going to a restaurant and getting a discount because the owner and I are both white. Think about all the times you went shopping at a department store and weren't hassled by store security. That's your preferential treatment.
  - PommeDeTerre 14y ago
    That's not really "preferential treatment" in any sense. That's exactly how the store would ideally want to treat all of its customers. Retailers don't want to expend money and other resources on security personnel and equipment. Unfortunately, they have to do so because certain individuals do partake in behavior that harms the store in one way or another. If a given store repeatedly has trouble (or a lack of trouble) with individuals who have certain traits in common, perhaps even including skin color, then it's understandable that people exhibiting such traits may be treated with a certain degree of suspicion. The store is merely trying to manage risk in an efficient manner, rather than intentionally giving people with one trait an advantage over others without that trait.
    - poppysan 14y ago
      "Retailers don't want to expend money and other resources on security personnel and equipment. Unfortunately, they have to do so because certain individuals do partake in behavior that harms the store in one way or another." Ideally you're right (If the metrics backed this up). The problem is when stereotypes become the metric, which is common, especially with minorities.
      - powertower 14y ago
        > The problem is when stereotypes become the metric, which is common, especially with minorities. If 90% of your store's theft was caused by 5% of your customers - that can be identified of having the same race/color, are you really going to blame the owner or employee that gives more attention to those 5% than the other 95%? If so, what is your solution to this issue? Should it be ignored?
- wslh 14y ago
  In a similar line I recommend the paper "Cultural Biases in Economic Exchange?" http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/sapienza/htm/cultural_biases.pdf http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/sapienza/htm/cul...
- colmvp 14y ago
  > I couldn't imagine going to a restaurant and getting a discount because the owner and I are both white. What about a job? Or a political position? Or a promotion?
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    You won't get a job simply because you are white, at least in a place where whites the majority, though it would be interesting to see how this works in places where whites are a minority. It's more likely that you simply won't be discriminated against. It also means that you are statistically more likely to belong to a minority group that does have privilege, for example the minority group of people with high wealth. Of course you might well not belong to such a minority group. So for a poor white , the fact that bill gates is rich does not really help you. I think this is where a lot of where the confusion regards these issues comes from.
- airfoil 14y ago
  I think this is the crux of the article: "Greenwald and Banaji are not suggesting that people stop helping their friends, relatives and neighbors. Rather, they suggest that we direct some effort to people we may not naturally think to help."
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- powertower 14y ago
  > Even typing this out and thinking about someone telling me they would give me preferential treatment because I'm white makes me uncomfortable. You need to shake that PC bullshit off. There is nothing wrong with freedom of association, nor with feeling good about being "white". Neither of those things is discrimination (or evil). Not only are you just 8% of the world's population (and on a decline), but you're also part of a race (if you accept white as meaning of somewhat Eastern European decent) that has built some of the most impressive civilizations, empires, and cultures on this planet,... filled libraries with countless works on all subjects and matters,... ended slavery (a long world-wide practice that was mosty done by non-whites; and still is),... built and financed just about every part and institution in America (USA was 90% white even up to 1960; now about 62-72%),... invented, refined, and progressed just about every modern technology and field,... actively discriminated against your own race to help & better minorities,... and did a countless other exceptional things in abundance. It's amazing how people will associate the bad things that some people did (the things that are all easy to do like kill and destroy - that all other races have done in abundance) to the white race, yet at the same time ignore all the positive things they did to advance the whole of humanity (things that are difficult to do - things that require quite a bit of work, self-sacrifice, intellect, and character/morality).
  - anon808 14y ago
    How about just feeling good for being a human? Tribalism is not a virtue.
    - powertower 14y ago
      Ideally? Sure, but... The human condition is complicated, and the human brain is a pattern matching and association machine. Humans have been identifying and separating themselves by color/race since the beginning of time, even before we could talk. It is the first category... before rich/poor, beautiful/ugly, young/old, etc. It's almost primial. The context to what I wrote was in relation to the current "white privilege" PC bullshit that has been indoctrinated into our collective. Nothing more.
      - 14y ago
- zampano 14y ago
  When I was living in Tokyo, I used to go eat at a mexican restaurant in Yotsuya where a fellow Houston-ite was the chef. She'd always give me a couple of free cervezas and maybe a discount. I'm white and she is mexican, but since she knew we were both from Houston she gave me a discount. I accepted it and never thought anything of it, and before I read your post, I would have been surprised if anyone would have.
liber8 14y ago
>>* we strengthen existing patterns of advantage and disadvantage because our friends, neighbors and children's classmates are overwhelmingly likely to share our own racial, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds.*<< It's interesting that the article (and presumably the researchers) presume this is a bad thing. This is, in essence, natural selection playing out. Adopting the behaviors of those closest to us is also how will advance (or retreat) as a species.
- eightpersimmons 14y ago
  What you are talking about is social darwinism, not simply natural selection, and I think there has been enough said on why it is problematic that I don't need to reiterate it here.
  - fyi80 14y ago
    It's kin selection, which is regular Darwinism. "Natural" != "morally right"
    - eightpersimmons 14y ago
      Were this an article about how, for example, people's mothers /sisters/familiar relations favors them, that might be the case. But it isn't. And, in case this was a point of confusion, race != family.
- aiiane 14y ago
  Please, tell me how you adopt the socioeconomic background of someone more well-off than you. I'm sure we're all dying to hear your advice in that matter.
  - liber8 14y ago
    Snark aside, adopting the culture or behavior of those you aren't intimately exposed to is a legitimate concern. However, if we look at just about any period of history we see that just about every group has been able to do it [not including periods were systematized violence or oppression of minority groups was sanctioned by those in charge]. Traditionally, it was done via military service. In exchange for risking your life, those in power will educate you, give you a set of skills and some discipline, and surround you with people also looking to get ahead. If you wanted your child to have a better life, military enrollment was a good, if risky, way to go. More recently, schools have been the answer. If you wanted your child to succeed, you put an emphasis on education so he could get into the best schools, learn a valuable skill, and be surrounded by those with similar aspirations. I’m sure that going forward, even more and cheaper opportunities will arise based on technology. If you look just at the United States, nearly every immigrant group has done this. The Irish, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean immigrants, all of which were at the bottom of the social totem pole at one time, have all adopted the prevalent socioeconomic background of the dominant groups of the time. And they’ve all succeeded to the point where nobody in the United States considers “the Irish” or “the Chinese” to inhabit a separate or distinct socioeconomic subgroup of Americans.
incision 14y ago
I remember being a young man and searching for a word to generally describe this. I settled on predilection. Anecdotally, I'd say it's extremely common. I've confronted a few people about it and heard the same arguments in each case. It seems to boil down to a notion that anything which can be phrased in positive terms can't possibly be bad - quite a handy rationalization.
ultimoo 14y ago
I have a friend of Indian nationality who settled in the valley after finishing his education in India and has actually done pretty good for himself. I have heard him mention more than once how prejudice stemming from alma maters comes into picture at larger technology corporations based in the valley. From what I understand, for engineers with less than 10 years of experience and who do not have a degree from a preeminent american university -- it is definitely an uphill journey into junior or middle management.
fyi80 14y ago
That's not "modern" prejudice. That's traditional kin selection / tribalism / in-group prejudice.
speeder 14y ago
I have both good and negative feelings on the subject. The good feelings, come from the fact that I believe that people for the most part should be free to help their peers as they want, it is part of nature to strengthen your group... Yet, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, when circles that are supposed to be fair, and claim to be fair, aren't. It is specially bad when we are outside those circles... On my case there are two ones that are particularly striking: One, I am not related to the US startup scene at all, I did not went to Ivy League universities, or anything close, I don't know anyone at MIT, Stanford or have a friend in the whole city of San Francisco... This mean that getting investment is not easy... Some people might say: "Oh, but anyone can apply to Y Combinator or to a VC!" well, yes... You can apply, but if you read around, many times "social proof" is required, and what is social proof? Or the other case, is since I make games, I might want to compete for a award, yet brazillians mostly gave up on IGF, because most of IGF winners (and judges, and organizers) are somehow related to CMP itself (the organizer company) or Tig Source (a blog and forum ran by Derek Yu, winner and judge). But IGF one is not exactly new, every year people bash it because of that, and every year a flamewar ensues in several forums... And some ex-IGF judges and founders sent me e-mails claiming that this is the reason they are ex-IGF in first place.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  >it is part of nature to strengthen your group... If you find yourself appealing to nature, you're starting down a slippery slope.
  - obviouslygreen 14y ago
    Because nature is... not part of... nature? This makes no sense. If you find yourself discounting large swaths of reality, you are generalizing.
    - pessimizer 14y ago
      No, because everything is part of nature, including not being racist. When you start to draw a line through human behavior and label one expression of it natural and the other not, you're creating a norm rather than observing one. In other words, in labeling some human behavior natural (for example heterosexuality), or unnatural (for example flying in a plane), you are immediately discounting large swaths of reality in favor of dressed up idiosyncratic personal prejudices.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
happyrock 14y ago
I'm always reminded of this quote: "We have never met before, but I instantly know him. One look, one phrase, and I know where he grew up, how he grew up, where he got his drive and his sense of humor. He is New York. He is Jewish. He looks like my uncle Louis, his voice is my uncle Sam. I feel we’ve been together at countless weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. I know his genetic structure. I'm certain that within the last five hundred years—perhaps even more recently—we shared the same ancestor." --- Robert Reich, Clinton administration Secretary of Labor, on his first face-to-face meeting with Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan That's what kinship feels like. The same psychological effects described in the OP are every bit as real when it come to racial and ethnic identity. It's not "fair"—we don't choose our heritage—but then "fairness" in matters of interpersonal human affairs always was a chimera and a false god. Should people just not be allowed to meet each other face to face? It's silly.
- derleth 14y ago
  > Should people just not be allowed to meet each other face to face? In some cases, when making some kinds of selections, this is entirely reasonable. For example, in auditions for certain orchestras: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audition#Instrumentalists_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audition#Instrumentalists_2 > In many major orchestras, a cloth screen may be used at some stages of the audition process, to protect the audition panel from allegations of favouritism or sexism. So they don't see the musician. They hear the music. Which is what the orchestra is about, right?
  - happyrock 14y ago
    I suppose that is the crux of the issue. If the orchestra is just about the music, why not listen to a recording instead? The people performing the music are just as much a part of the performance as the music itself.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > If the orchestra is just about the music, why not listen to a recording instead? The social experience. The experience of going someplace special, outside the normal orbit of your life, and being That Person for a while. That Person being your mental image of the kind of person who goes to a concert played by a live orchestra in a concert hall. Maybe, on the other hand, it's a warm and homey return to a younger time, when your grandfather took you to that one performance of Mahler which you will never, ever forget. Lots of reasons, really. > The people performing the music are just as much a part of the performance as the music itself. But is it vital that they be white? Or Jewish? Or perceptibly taller than average even when sitting down?
mtowle 14y ago
I'm not saying, I'm just saying: Brown man reviews work of brown woman and white (Jewish?) man in favor of trying to help those outside your group-identity to foster openness and whatnot. Brown man proceeds to mention brown woman 27 times by name to her co-author's 6. I'm not calling him a hypocrite - I don't think it was conscious either. If there is a point to be made here, though, perhaps that's it: the Morally Outraged About Extremely Subtle, Subconscious Effects of Involuntary Decisions have not fully investigated and do not fully comprehend the obligations they're laying at everyone's feet.
tuxidomasx 14y ago
Another issue this creates is the "fight fire with fire" paradigm. Or, in this case, using favoritism to combat favoritism. For example, I know I'm much more likely to get favoritism from people who share my ethnic background partly because there is the common belief within that group that nobody else is "looking out for us"-- so we have to "look out for each other."
losethos 14y ago
God is perfectly just. If I help someone after getting an expensive degree, I am more entitled to being helped by someone with a degree. God says... to anger. 33:7 And he set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen before all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever: 33:8 Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses. 33:9 So Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen, whom the LORD had destroyed before the children of Israel.
zeteo 14y ago
I'm surprised to see two such distinct incidents brought together under a common heading. The first one (interview granting) is about feeling more altruistic towards people that we share some experience with. Interesting phenomenon, but it has nothing in common with a doctor (who probably had no experience in common with his patient) deciding that the hospital's interests are best served by providing for a (potentially very influential) Yale professor extra super special forms of treatment.
twoodfin 14y ago
Apologies for not having read the book, but is there evidence that unconscious favoritism is actually at the root of various economic and social disparities in the U.S.? How does it account for disparities amongst similarly "different" groups? Asian median income in the U.S. is higher than non-Hispanic-whites (god I hate these categories...), while Hispanic is lower. It seems to me that the vast majority of the difference is rooted elsewhere, because you'd have to tell a pretty good "just so" story to suggest that "modern prejudice" simultaneously helped Asians and punished Hispanics.
- bcoates 14y ago
  If the theory is in-group favoritism, then the disparity is self-perpetuating: if one group has more income it presumably has more favor to give disproportionately within the group, and vice versa. I'm guessing it's mostly a black-white thing though, for most other US minorities I would be surprised if the effects weren't dominated by the differences on quantity and wealth of immigrants.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    I'm inclined to believe that culture matters. A lot. I bet it swamps any effects of in-group favoritism. Of course, "culture" is hard to define and even harder to design good controlled experiments to test. On the other hand, I'd be interested to see the results of something like the authors' IAT testing, but looking for "hidden" responses to cultural traits (value of work vs. leisure, family vs. friends) rather than racial images.
- chromaform 14y ago
  Yes, there is. An established area of research -- ethnology, and related fields like ethnomathematics and ethnography -- exists in social science disciplines to generate qualitative data in response to exactly these kinds of questions.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    And that evidence is? The IAT researchers' bibliography goes back to the mid-'80s. Have they found any correlation between changing unconscious associations and changing socioeconomic disparities over the past 20+ years?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

77 points by rosser 14y ago

I don't typically approve of in-group preferential treatment as discussed in the article. I've come across it most in dealing with various minority/ethnic groups where it seems to be okay to admit to it. A colleague of mine who is Greek was once talking to me about various restaurants and shops he goes to because the owners are Greek and give him a discount. He saw nothing wrong with it. I've heard similar comments from other colleagues who were Indian, Jewish, etc. I couldn't imagine going to a restaurant and getting a discount because the owner and I are both white. Even typing this out and thinking about someone telling me they would give me preferential treatment because I'm white makes me uncomfortable. All that said, how is in-group preferential treatment any different than familial preferential treatment. The article mentioned giving away free tickets as an example. Is it wrong to give your brother some concert tickets you have because you should be equally inclined to give them to a perfect stranger? Okay, how about a third cousin whom you never but you know would like the tickets? Is giving that third cousin the tickets that much different than giving them to a neighbor?

mikestew 14y ago
All that said, how is in-group preferential treatment any different than familial preferential treatment. The article mentioned giving away free tickets as an example. Maybe they're not all that different, just different forms of tribalism. I can certainly see it applying early last century in the U. S., when you're fresh off a visit to Ellis Island and the natives aren't particularly fond of you. If you don't watch out for each other, who else will? Further back in history such prejudices may have been more valuable when unfriendly tribes are just a short walk away. Same thing for family: the rest of the world isn't going to give us a leg up, so we best watch out for each other. Or maybe for both it's just familiarity. When you're a long way from home, I can see value in having someone around who understands your cultural background and speaks the language you grew up with. As for family, I'm probably not the one to ask. Mine is spread all over the U. S., and even if my sister lived next door I'd be just as likely to give courtside seats to a coworker as I would to her.
mseebach 14y ago
You wouldn't get the discount because you're white, you'd get it because you're a member of a minority subculture in the context you're in. Say, you're back packing through [somewhere far away], and you walk into a restaurant somewhere that's run by a guy who went to your university (or is from your state or whatever). He gives you a free beer. Still feels uncomfortable?
- ajross 14y ago
  Bingo. This is the classic case of a tech geek looking at things through a lens of "abstract principle" when it's really not appropriate. Yes, sure, I think we can all agree that in a perfect world no one should get preferential treatment because of an objective fact of existence like ethnicity. But in the real world, we have social groups with complicated dynamics. Expressing solidarity with your group is a normal and important part of this. Tech geeks do it too! And yes, sometimes that takes the form or a free beer or a "Greek discount" or whatever.
  - fyi80 14y ago
    It is absolutely prejudicial. Citing a case where I benefit from it doesn't make it right. Why not randomly give a beer to every 1000th patron, or every 10th shirt with lettering, as a conversation-starter?
    - ajross 14y ago
      Again, you're citing "right". I'm saying this is a case of complicated social interactions being benign in one case where the same kind of behavior would be discriminatory in others. You can make it right/wrong if you want to, but you're not going to solve anything by doing so. And, it must be noted: if you really think hard about things (something that tech geeks, in my experience, are really bad at doing in a social context), you'll realize that your "wrong" filter always seems to be applied against some group other than the ones you're part of. Whether you realize it or not you participate in this kind of social game too, even to the exclusion of other groups. And it's not "wrong" when you do it either.
Anechoic 14y ago
I couldn't imagine going to a restaurant and getting a discount because the owner and I are both white. Think about all the times you went shopping at a department store and weren't hassled by store security. That's your preferential treatment.
- PommeDeTerre 14y ago
  That's not really "preferential treatment" in any sense. That's exactly how the store would ideally want to treat all of its customers. Retailers don't want to expend money and other resources on security personnel and equipment. Unfortunately, they have to do so because certain individuals do partake in behavior that harms the store in one way or another. If a given store repeatedly has trouble (or a lack of trouble) with individuals who have certain traits in common, perhaps even including skin color, then it's understandable that people exhibiting such traits may be treated with a certain degree of suspicion. The store is merely trying to manage risk in an efficient manner, rather than intentionally giving people with one trait an advantage over others without that trait.
  - poppysan 14y ago
    "Retailers don't want to expend money and other resources on security personnel and equipment. Unfortunately, they have to do so because certain individuals do partake in behavior that harms the store in one way or another." Ideally you're right (If the metrics backed this up). The problem is when stereotypes become the metric, which is common, especially with minorities.
    - powertower 14y ago
      > The problem is when stereotypes become the metric, which is common, especially with minorities. If 90% of your store's theft was caused by 5% of your customers - that can be identified of having the same race/color, are you really going to blame the owner or employee that gives more attention to those 5% than the other 95%? If so, what is your solution to this issue? Should it be ignored?
wslh 14y ago
In a similar line I recommend the paper "Cultural Biases in Economic Exchange?" http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/sapienza/htm/cultural_biases.pdf http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/sapienza/htm/cul...
colmvp 14y ago
> I couldn't imagine going to a restaurant and getting a discount because the owner and I are both white. What about a job? Or a political position? Or a promotion?
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  You won't get a job simply because you are white, at least in a place where whites the majority, though it would be interesting to see how this works in places where whites are a minority. It's more likely that you simply won't be discriminated against. It also means that you are statistically more likely to belong to a minority group that does have privilege, for example the minority group of people with high wealth. Of course you might well not belong to such a minority group. So for a poor white , the fact that bill gates is rich does not really help you. I think this is where a lot of where the confusion regards these issues comes from.
airfoil 14y ago
I think this is the crux of the article: "Greenwald and Banaji are not suggesting that people stop helping their friends, relatives and neighbors. Rather, they suggest that we direct some effort to people we may not naturally think to help."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
powertower 14y ago
> Even typing this out and thinking about someone telling me they would give me preferential treatment because I'm white makes me uncomfortable. You need to shake that PC bullshit off. There is nothing wrong with freedom of association, nor with feeling good about being "white". Neither of those things is discrimination (or evil). Not only are you just 8% of the world's population (and on a decline), but you're also part of a race (if you accept white as meaning of somewhat Eastern European decent) that has built some of the most impressive civilizations, empires, and cultures on this planet,... filled libraries with countless works on all subjects and matters,... ended slavery (a long world-wide practice that was mosty done by non-whites; and still is),... built and financed just about every part and institution in America (USA was 90% white even up to 1960; now about 62-72%),... invented, refined, and progressed just about every modern technology and field,... actively discriminated against your own race to help & better minorities,... and did a countless other exceptional things in abundance. It's amazing how people will associate the bad things that some people did (the things that are all easy to do like kill and destroy - that all other races have done in abundance) to the white race, yet at the same time ignore all the positive things they did to advance the whole of humanity (things that are difficult to do - things that require quite a bit of work, self-sacrifice, intellect, and character/morality).
- anon808 14y ago
  How about just feeling good for being a human? Tribalism is not a virtue.
  - powertower 14y ago
    Ideally? Sure, but... The human condition is complicated, and the human brain is a pattern matching and association machine. Humans have been identifying and separating themselves by color/race since the beginning of time, even before we could talk. It is the first category... before rich/poor, beautiful/ugly, young/old, etc. It's almost primial. The context to what I wrote was in relation to the current "white privilege" PC bullshit that has been indoctrinated into our collective. Nothing more.
    - 14y ago
zampano 14y ago
When I was living in Tokyo, I used to go eat at a mexican restaurant in Yotsuya where a fellow Houston-ite was the chef. She'd always give me a couple of free cervezas and maybe a discount. I'm white and she is mexican, but since she knew we were both from Houston she gave me a discount. I accepted it and never thought anything of it, and before I read your post, I would have been surprised if anyone would have.

liber8 14y ago

>>* we strengthen existing patterns of advantage and disadvantage because our friends, neighbors and children's classmates are overwhelmingly likely to share our own racial, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds.*<< It's interesting that the article (and presumably the researchers) presume this is a bad thing. This is, in essence, natural selection playing out. Adopting the behaviors of those closest to us is also how will advance (or retreat) as a species.

eightpersimmons 14y ago
What you are talking about is social darwinism, not simply natural selection, and I think there has been enough said on why it is problematic that I don't need to reiterate it here.
- fyi80 14y ago
  It's kin selection, which is regular Darwinism. "Natural" != "morally right"
  - eightpersimmons 14y ago
    Were this an article about how, for example, people's mothers /sisters/familiar relations favors them, that might be the case. But it isn't. And, in case this was a point of confusion, race != family.
aiiane 14y ago
Please, tell me how you adopt the socioeconomic background of someone more well-off than you. I'm sure we're all dying to hear your advice in that matter.
- liber8 14y ago
  Snark aside, adopting the culture or behavior of those you aren't intimately exposed to is a legitimate concern. However, if we look at just about any period of history we see that just about every group has been able to do it [not including periods were systematized violence or oppression of minority groups was sanctioned by those in charge]. Traditionally, it was done via military service. In exchange for risking your life, those in power will educate you, give you a set of skills and some discipline, and surround you with people also looking to get ahead. If you wanted your child to have a better life, military enrollment was a good, if risky, way to go. More recently, schools have been the answer. If you wanted your child to succeed, you put an emphasis on education so he could get into the best schools, learn a valuable skill, and be surrounded by those with similar aspirations. I’m sure that going forward, even more and cheaper opportunities will arise based on technology. If you look just at the United States, nearly every immigrant group has done this. The Irish, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean immigrants, all of which were at the bottom of the social totem pole at one time, have all adopted the prevalent socioeconomic background of the dominant groups of the time. And they’ve all succeeded to the point where nobody in the United States considers “the Irish” or “the Chinese” to inhabit a separate or distinct socioeconomic subgroup of Americans.

incision 14y ago

I remember being a young man and searching for a word to generally describe this. I settled on predilection. Anecdotally, I'd say it's extremely common. I've confronted a few people about it and heard the same arguments in each case. It seems to boil down to a notion that anything which can be phrased in positive terms can't possibly be bad - quite a handy rationalization.

ultimoo 14y ago

I have a friend of Indian nationality who settled in the valley after finishing his education in India and has actually done pretty good for himself. I have heard him mention more than once how prejudice stemming from alma maters comes into picture at larger technology corporations based in the valley. From what I understand, for engineers with less than 10 years of experience and who do not have a degree from a preeminent american university -- it is definitely an uphill journey into junior or middle management.

fyi80 14y ago

That's not "modern" prejudice. That's traditional kin selection / tribalism / in-group prejudice.

speeder 14y ago

I have both good and negative feelings on the subject. The good feelings, come from the fact that I believe that people for the most part should be free to help their peers as they want, it is part of nature to strengthen your group... Yet, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, when circles that are supposed to be fair, and claim to be fair, aren't. It is specially bad when we are outside those circles... On my case there are two ones that are particularly striking: One, I am not related to the US startup scene at all, I did not went to Ivy League universities, or anything close, I don't know anyone at MIT, Stanford or have a friend in the whole city of San Francisco... This mean that getting investment is not easy... Some people might say: "Oh, but anyone can apply to Y Combinator or to a VC!" well, yes... You can apply, but if you read around, many times "social proof" is required, and what is social proof? Or the other case, is since I make games, I might want to compete for a award, yet brazillians mostly gave up on IGF, because most of IGF winners (and judges, and organizers) are somehow related to CMP itself (the organizer company) or Tig Source (a blog and forum ran by Derek Yu, winner and judge). But IGF one is not exactly new, every year people bash it because of that, and every year a flamewar ensues in several forums... And some ex-IGF judges and founders sent me e-mails claiming that this is the reason they are ex-IGF in first place.

pessimizer 14y ago
>it is part of nature to strengthen your group... If you find yourself appealing to nature, you're starting down a slippery slope.
- obviouslygreen 14y ago
  Because nature is... not part of... nature? This makes no sense. If you find yourself discounting large swaths of reality, you are generalizing.
  - pessimizer 14y ago
    No, because everything is part of nature, including not being racist. When you start to draw a line through human behavior and label one expression of it natural and the other not, you're creating a norm rather than observing one. In other words, in labeling some human behavior natural (for example heterosexuality), or unnatural (for example flying in a plane), you are immediately discounting large swaths of reality in favor of dressed up idiosyncratic personal prejudices.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

happyrock 14y ago

I'm always reminded of this quote: "We have never met before, but I instantly know him. One look, one phrase, and I know where he grew up, how he grew up, where he got his drive and his sense of humor. He is New York. He is Jewish. He looks like my uncle Louis, his voice is my uncle Sam. I feel we’ve been together at countless weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. I know his genetic structure. I'm certain that within the last five hundred years—perhaps even more recently—we shared the same ancestor." --- Robert Reich, Clinton administration Secretary of Labor, on his first face-to-face meeting with Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan That's what kinship feels like. The same psychological effects described in the OP are every bit as real when it come to racial and ethnic identity. It's not "fair"—we don't choose our heritage—but then "fairness" in matters of interpersonal human affairs always was a chimera and a false god. Should people just not be allowed to meet each other face to face? It's silly.

derleth 14y ago
> Should people just not be allowed to meet each other face to face? In some cases, when making some kinds of selections, this is entirely reasonable. For example, in auditions for certain orchestras: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audition#Instrumentalists_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audition#Instrumentalists_2 > In many major orchestras, a cloth screen may be used at some stages of the audition process, to protect the audition panel from allegations of favouritism or sexism. So they don't see the musician. They hear the music. Which is what the orchestra is about, right?
- happyrock 14y ago
  I suppose that is the crux of the issue. If the orchestra is just about the music, why not listen to a recording instead? The people performing the music are just as much a part of the performance as the music itself.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > If the orchestra is just about the music, why not listen to a recording instead? The social experience. The experience of going someplace special, outside the normal orbit of your life, and being That Person for a while. That Person being your mental image of the kind of person who goes to a concert played by a live orchestra in a concert hall. Maybe, on the other hand, it's a warm and homey return to a younger time, when your grandfather took you to that one performance of Mahler which you will never, ever forget. Lots of reasons, really. > The people performing the music are just as much a part of the performance as the music itself. But is it vital that they be white? Or Jewish? Or perceptibly taller than average even when sitting down?

mtowle 14y ago

I'm not saying, I'm just saying: Brown man reviews work of brown woman and white (Jewish?) man in favor of trying to help those outside your group-identity to foster openness and whatnot. Brown man proceeds to mention brown woman 27 times by name to her co-author's 6. I'm not calling him a hypocrite - I don't think it was conscious either. If there is a point to be made here, though, perhaps that's it: the Morally Outraged About Extremely Subtle, Subconscious Effects of Involuntary Decisions have not fully investigated and do not fully comprehend the obligations they're laying at everyone's feet.

tuxidomasx 14y ago

Another issue this creates is the "fight fire with fire" paradigm. Or, in this case, using favoritism to combat favoritism. For example, I know I'm much more likely to get favoritism from people who share my ethnic background partly because there is the common belief within that group that nobody else is "looking out for us"-- so we have to "look out for each other."

losethos 14y ago

God is perfectly just. If I help someone after getting an expensive degree, I am more entitled to being helped by someone with a degree. God says... to anger. 33:7 And he set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen before all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever: 33:8 Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses. 33:9 So Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen, whom the LORD had destroyed before the children of Israel.

zeteo 14y ago

I'm surprised to see two such distinct incidents brought together under a common heading. The first one (interview granting) is about feeling more altruistic towards people that we share some experience with. Interesting phenomenon, but it has nothing in common with a doctor (who probably had no experience in common with his patient) deciding that the hospital's interests are best served by providing for a (potentially very influential) Yale professor extra super special forms of treatment.

twoodfin 14y ago

Apologies for not having read the book, but is there evidence that unconscious favoritism is actually at the root of various economic and social disparities in the U.S.? How does it account for disparities amongst similarly "different" groups? Asian median income in the U.S. is higher than non-Hispanic-whites (god I hate these categories...), while Hispanic is lower. It seems to me that the vast majority of the difference is rooted elsewhere, because you'd have to tell a pretty good "just so" story to suggest that "modern prejudice" simultaneously helped Asians and punished Hispanics.

bcoates 14y ago
If the theory is in-group favoritism, then the disparity is self-perpetuating: if one group has more income it presumably has more favor to give disproportionately within the group, and vice versa. I'm guessing it's mostly a black-white thing though, for most other US minorities I would be surprised if the effects weren't dominated by the differences on quantity and wealth of immigrants.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  I'm inclined to believe that culture matters. A lot. I bet it swamps any effects of in-group favoritism. Of course, "culture" is hard to define and even harder to design good controlled experiments to test. On the other hand, I'd be interested to see the results of something like the authors' IAT testing, but looking for "hidden" responses to cultural traits (value of work vs. leisure, family vs. friends) rather than racial images.
chromaform 14y ago
Yes, there is. An established area of research -- ethnology, and related fields like ethnomathematics and ethnography -- exists in social science disciplines to generate qualitative data in response to exactly these kinds of questions.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  And that evidence is? The IAT researchers' bibliography goes back to the mid-'80s. Have they found any correlation between changing unconscious associations and changing socioeconomic disparities over the past 20+ years?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]