U Of Washington Study Links ‘Microaggressions’ To Whites-No Whites included in study

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: fiverx313

It's not my definition. There are vast numbers of stories on how using "guys" is a mico aggression. Seems you are guilty of using the verbiage, sorry.

yes, for example if i deliberately misgendered a trans person, that would be wrong. but you're looking for what you think is the dumbest single example, so you can dismiss all of it. that's intellectually dishonest.

except you're not honestly offended. you're just reaching and stretching so hard to make some kind of point that makes sense to you. it's BS.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

You know what else is interesting?

Less then 50% of studies like this one can be reproduced too. Including the lovely ones our left-leaning friend posted about how stupid people are conservative or something.

www.bbc.com...

www.smithsonianmag.com...

So I think we should file some of this away with a grain of salt.

Isn't that like keeping our heads in the sand?

a reply to: InTheLight

The process for confirming what is good science and what is not is for the study to be reproducible. If someone takes the results and methods and cannot reproduce the results of this one, then these scientists did not uncover anything that should be treated as a universal truth.

It means there are flaws in their methodology or that their hypothesis was flawed or maybe both.

But even so, now that husband is home. His opinion is that the original sampling is not robust enough without white students in it.

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: fiverx313

It's not my definition. There are vast numbers of stories on how using "guys" is a mico aggression. Seems you are guilty of using the verbiage, sorry.

yes, for example if i deliberately misgendered a trans person, that would be wrong. but you're looking for what you think is the dumbest single example, so you can dismiss all of it. that's intellectually dishonest.

except you're not honestly offended. you're just reaching and stretching so hard to make some kind of point that makes sense to you. it's BS.

for example, i was misgendered earlier in this thread. but it doesn't offend me, because it's a normal mistake to make. i don't put my gender out there unless it's relevant to the matter at hand.

if i were overt in expressing my gender and someone misgendered me, then that would be a prejudicial, aggressive action.

do you see the difference? i'm not holding my breath, but do you?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

The process for confirming what is good science and what is not is for the study to be reproducible. If someone takes the results and methods and cannot reproduce the results of this one, then these scientists did not uncover anything that should be treated as a universal truth.

It means there are flaws in their methodology or that their hypothesis was flawed or maybe both.

But even so, now that husband is home. His opinion is that the original sampling is not robust enough without white students in it.

This is the methodology they used.

For this study, the team, with the help of focus groups of students of color from three universities, devised the Cultural Cognitions and Actions Survey (CCAS) and administered it to a small group of students — 33 black, 118 white — at a large public university in the Midwest. The 56-item questionnaire asks the white respondent to imagine him- or herself in five different everyday scenarios involving interactions with black people, such as talking about current events, attending a diversity workshop, or listening to music. The respondent then considers how likely he or she is to think or say specific statements. For black respondents, the wording of the scenarios and questions was revised slightly to assess whether they would experience racism. Each of the statements included in the survey was deemed at least somewhat, if not significantly, offensive by black students.

www.washington.edu...

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Oh man, that's gotta be Macro! Good find, thanks for that.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

The process for confirming what is good science and what is not is for the study to be reproducible. If someone takes the results and methods and cannot reproduce the results of this one, then these scientists did not uncover anything that should be treated as a universal truth.

It means there are flaws in their methodology or that their hypothesis was flawed or maybe both.

But even so, now that husband is home. His opinion is that the original sampling is not robust enough without white students in it.

This is the methodology they used.

For this study, the team, with the help of focus groups of students of color from three universities, devised the Cultural Cognitions and Actions Survey (CCAS) and administered it to a small group of students — 33 black, 118 white — at a large public university in the Midwest. The 56-item questionnaire asks the white respondent to imagine him- or herself in five different everyday scenarios involving interactions with black people, such as talking about current events, attending a diversity workshop, or listening to music. The respondent then considers how likely he or she is to think or say specific statements. For black respondents, the wording of the scenarios and questions was revised slightly to assess whether they would experience racism. Each of the statements included in the survey was deemed at least somewhat, if not significantly, offensive by black students.

www.washington.edu...

For black respondents, the wording of the scenarios and questions was revised slightly to assess whether they would experience racism. Each of the statements included in the survey was deemed at least somewhat, if not significantly, offensive by black students.

So, they manipulated the questions for the black students to intentionally produce the outcome they were seeking?

Of course, because if they didn't get the response they wanted, the study would not be worth publishing or selling on Amazon.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

The process for confirming what is good science and what is not is for the study to be reproducible. If someone takes the results and methods and cannot reproduce the results of this one, then these scientists did not uncover anything that should be treated as a universal truth.

It means there are flaws in their methodology or that their hypothesis was flawed or maybe both.

But even so, now that husband is home. His opinion is that the original sampling is not robust enough without white students in it.

This is the methodology they used.

For this study, the team, with the help of focus groups of students of color from three universities, devised the Cultural Cognitions and Actions Survey (CCAS) and administered it to a small group of students — 33 black, 118 white — at a large public university in the Midwest. The 56-item questionnaire asks the white respondent to imagine him- or herself in five different everyday scenarios involving interactions with black people, such as talking about current events, attending a diversity workshop, or listening to music. The respondent then considers how likely he or she is to think or say specific statements. For black respondents, the wording of the scenarios and questions was revised slightly to assess whether they would experience racism. Each of the statements included in the survey was deemed at least somewhat, if not significantly, offensive by black students.

www.washington.edu...

For black respondents, the wording of the scenarios and questions was revised slightly to assess whether they would experience racism. Each of the statements included in the survey was deemed at least somewhat, if not significantly, offensive by black students.

So, they manipulated the questions fro the black students to intentionally produce the outcome they were seeking?

One cannot assume that without knowing how and why they changed it.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

The process for confirming what is good science and what is not is for the study to be reproducible. If someone takes the results and methods and cannot reproduce the results of this one, then these scientists did not uncover anything that should be treated as a universal truth.

It means there are flaws in their methodology or that their hypothesis was flawed or maybe both.

But even so, now that husband is home. His opinion is that the original sampling is not robust enough without white students in it.

This is the methodology they used.

For this study, the team, with the help of focus groups of students of color from three universities, devised the Cultural Cognitions and Actions Survey (CCAS) and administered it to a small group of students — 33 black, 118 white — at a large public university in the Midwest. The 56-item questionnaire asks the white respondent to imagine him- or herself in five different everyday scenarios involving interactions with black people, such as talking about current events, attending a diversity workshop, or listening to music. The respondent then considers how likely he or she is to think or say specific statements. For black respondents, the wording of the scenarios and questions was revised slightly to assess whether they would experience racism. Each of the statements included in the survey was deemed at least somewhat, if not significantly, offensive by black students.

www.washington.edu...

For black respondents, the wording of the scenarios and questions was revised slightly to assess whether they would experience racism. Each of the statements included in the survey was deemed at least somewhat, if not significantly, offensive by black students.

So, they manipulated the questions fro the black students to intentionally produce the outcome they were seeking?

One cannot assume that without knowing how and why they changed it.

But, they changed the conditions of the tests for only the students of color. That invalidates the results. This is not how scientific studies are conducted. It ism however, how studies looking to fit an agenda are conducted.

a reply to: fiverx313

Oh sorry. She it is?
I think of you as Bob Ross on steroids.

a reply to: InTheLight

OK, my first problem with that is that you are asking the black kids to assess the racism.

That sets them up to pre-suppose they are or should be experiencing racism.

The second is that there is no control group at all. You ask the white kids one set of question and then you ask the other group a completely different set of questions. There are no controls for either group. Shouldn't there be a control group of white kids being asked the same questions the black kids are getting and a control of black kids getting the same questions the white kids are getting?

a reply to: InTheLight

If one was going to attempt to reproduce the results, one would need to know this.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

OK, my first problem with that is that you are asking the black kids to assess the racism.

That sets them up to pre-suppose they are or should be experiencing racism.

The second is that there is no control group at all. You ask the white kids one set of question and then you ask the other group a completely different set of questions. There are no controls for either group. Shouldn't there be a control group of white kids being asked the same questions the black kids are getting and a control of black kids getting the same questions the white kids are getting?

Maybe, I'm not sure. I dropped my statistics course early. But--in my favor!!--I kept hte textbook. Collecting dust.

Here:
link.springer.com - A Preliminary Report on the Relationship Between Microaggressions Against Black People and Racism Among White College Students...

Changes in instructions, scaling, and slight changes to item wording were made for black respondents to explore the degree to which the items would be experienced as microaggressive by black students. They were provided the same scenarios and items and asked to rate how they would experience each item on a four-point scale with anchors 1 (“Not at all racist”), 2 (“Possibly racist”), 3 (“Somewhat racist”), and 4 (“Very racist”).

Example (Scenario #1) question given to white participant:

A friend of yours has wanted you to meet a friend, saying they think you will like the person. You meet this person one-on-one. He turns out to be a tall, fit-looking black man who says he is a law student. He seems very smart and he has a very sophisticated vocabulary. You like his personality.

How likely would you be to think or say the following to him in the course of a conversation (or something similar, maybe not the exact words)?

Example item (to think or say) for Scenario #1:

You are smart for a black guy.

The question is answered on a 5-point scale:
(1) I wouldn't think it at all.
I would think it but definitely wouldn’t say/do it.
I would think it but probably not say/do it.
I would think it, and I might say/do it.
(5) I would think it and probably would say/do it.

I can't find exactly what the black participants were asked.

Maybe the control group could have been black students to answer the questions given to the white students? But really I'm out of my league. Just trying to help by showing the text from the study.

It sounds to me like they basically asked the white kids if they would recommend in a mixed group getting fried chicken for dinner.

And then the black kids were asked if they'd feel it was racist if their white friends recommended they get fried chicken for dinner.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Still doesn't matter.

They would need those control groups in order to really test the validity of their supposition.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: fiverx313

Oh sorry. She it is?
I think of you as Bob Ross on steroids.

and i'm fine with that

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Krakatoa
. For example. If we call it prejudices would that make it easier for you to grasp?

Isn't that a microagression itself? Assuming someone is not as smart, simply because they disagree with you? God forbid Krakatoa is a person of color or some other minority, then you'd be really insulting them.

Bless your heart.

a reply to: pavil

I'm insulting people all the time. On purpose. Handicapped people too.

I am the harbinger of macroaggression.

a reply to: Peeple

I stopped caring what people thought of what I say a long time ago. Makes things easier if I'm just an ass to everyone equally.

a reply to: fiverx313

Given my own background, and the way I was raised, I find it incredibly difficult to reconcile "words" being considered "action".

When did words become an action? I know its happened...its why we have all the wailing and gnashing of teeth nowadays....but when did this actually happen?