After a paroxysm of racial viciousness at the Laugh Factory Friday night, November 17, 2006, Michael Richards, the 57-year old comedian who played Kramer on Seinfeld, explained to David Letterman and his Late Night audience the following Monday, after a barrage of negative publicity: “I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this.”
Michael’s shattered demeanor and heartfelt repentance leaves us with what I shall call Kramer’s Conundrum: how can someone who spews racial epithets genuinely believe he is not a racist? The answer is to be found in the difference between our conscious and unconscious attitudes, and our public and private thoughts.
Consciously and publicly, Michael Richards is probably not a racist. Unconsciously and privately, however, he is. So am I. So are you.
Consciously and publicly, most of us are colorblind. And most of us, most of the time, under most conditions, believe and act on that cultural requisite. You’d have to be insane to publicly utter racist remarks in today’s society … or temporarily insane, which both science and the law recognize as being sometimes triggered by anger. And alcohol — recall Mel Gibson’s drunken eruption about Jews, or the college Frat boys slurring alcohol-induced insanities about blacks and slavery in Sacha Baron Cohen’s film Borat.
The insidiousness of racism is due to the fact that it arises out of the deep recesses of our unconscious. We may be utterly unaware of it, yet it lurks there ready to erupt under certain circumstances. How can we know this? Even without anger and alcohol, Harvard scientists have found a method in an instrument called the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which asks subjects to pair words and concepts. The more closely associated the words and concepts are, the quicker the response to them will be in the key-pressing sorting task (try it yourself at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/).
The race test firsts asks you to sort black and white faces into one of two categories: European American and African American. Easy. Next you are asked to sort a list of words (Joy, Terrible, Love, Agony, Peace, Horrible, Wonderful, Nasty, Pleasure, Evil, Glorious, Awful, Laughter, Failure, Happy, Hurt) into one of two categories: Good and Bad. No problem.
The next task is a little more complicated. The words and black and white faces appear on the screen one at a time, and you sort them into one of these categories: African American/Good or European American/Bad. Again you match the words with the concepts of good or bad, and faces with national origin. So the word “joy” would go into the first category and a white face would go into the second category. This sorting goes noticeably slower, but you might expect that since the combined categories are more cognitively complex.
Unfortunately, the final sorting task puts the lie to that rationalization: This time you sort the words and faces into the categories European American/Good or African American/Bad. Tellingly (and distressingly) this sort goes much faster than the previous sort. I was much quicker to associate words like “joy,” “love,” and “pleasure” with European American/Good than I did with African American/Good.
I consider myself about as socially liberal as you can get (I’m a libertarian), and yet on a scale that includes “slight,” “moderate,” and “strong,” the program concluded: “Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for European American compared to African American.” What? “The interpretation is described as ‘automatic preference for European American’ if you responded faster when European American faces and Good words were classified with the same key than when African American faces and Good words were classified with the same key.”
But I’m not a racist. How can this be? It turns out that this subconscious association of good with European Americans is true for everyone, even African Americans, no matter how color blind we all claim to be. Such is the power of culture.
We are by nature sorters. Evolutionists theorize that we evolved in small bands of hunter-gatherers where there was a selection for within-group amity and between-group enmity. With our fellow in-group members, we are cooperative and altruistic. Unfortunately, the down side to this pro-social bonding is that we are also quite tribal and xenophobic to out-group members.
This natural tendency to sort people into Within-Group/Good and Between-Group/Bad is shaped by culture, such that all Americans, including those whose ancestry is African, implicitly inculcate the cultural association, which includes additional prejudices.
The IAT, in fact, also demonstrates that we prefer young to old, thin to fat, straight to gay, and such associations as family-females and career-males, liberal arts-females and science-males. Such associations bubble just below the surface, inhibited by cultural restraints but susceptible to eruption under extreme inebriation or duress.
Michael Richards’ sin was his deed; his thoughts are the sin of all humanity. Only when all people are considered to be members of one global in-group (in principle, if not in practice) can we begin to attenuate these out-group associations. But it won’t be easy. Vigilance is the watchword of both freedom and dignity.
We should accept Mr. Richards’ apology for losing his temper and acting out those hateful thoughts. Perhaps we also ought to thank him for having the courage to confess in public what far too many of us still harbor in private, often in the privacy of our unconscious minds. As the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote:
Every man has reminiscences which he would not tell to everyone but only his friends. He has other matters in his mind which he would not reveal even to his friends, but only to himself, and that in secret. But there are other things which a man is afraid to tell even to himself, and every decent man has a number of such things stored away in his mind.
Best of all, we have a new "Greasespot Gem". Don't tell me there's no profit!
It's not worth getting torn up over, indeed. I've actually learned some new things on this thread I didn't know before, and that's the kind of information my brain has space to store.
Yes, allanW-blacks only get to use that word, nobody else. Being an Aussie, you probably didn't know that. They use it all the time - it's kind of a term of endearment, despite the impression you may get from this thread, sort of like saying "honeybee". Go ahead, try it sometime. Let us know how it goes.
See? Questions answered, too. Enlightenment is the order of the day.
Hey! Thanks GreasyPerson! I like tests. Theyre always fun!
My score on the Race thing -
You have completed the African American - European American IAT.
Your Result
Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between European American and African American.
Go figure. I actually prefer that Irish freckley look, (HOT!) but there weren't any of those, at least that I could conjure up. There were definitely some unusual looking people - that one guy with the sort of bushy eyebrows looks suspect but deep in his eyes I sensed a softness that was endearing, although I bet he hides it from all but his closest friends.
I even saved screen prints of the results page and the ending survey, I like certificates too! It's set up interesting, I don't see how a person could score one way or the other too heavily, but then I haven't taken any of the others yet.
I'm sorry, jonny, for being condescending and saying "whatever." It was rude and I shouldn't have said it. My "know it all smart butt" was showing....
Peace? Love? You gotta admit it is fun talking! I haven't had this much fun disagreeing with someone since my brothers and I last talked. (Over the week-end!)
Actually, the study, and the test that is based upon that study, is flawed.
Why?
Because it makes no differentiation between racism/bigotry and prejudice. We ALL have prejudice. ALL of us. ... We do NOT all have racism/bigotry.
Now what is the difference between racism/bigotry and prejudice? Prejudice is simply cultural differences and preferences between us as individuals and as groups. Racial. National. Regional. Cultural. Musical. Art. Etc. We all have our preferences in all those areas and other areas. And as to whom we care to associate with, and even marry.
For example, I do not want marry a black woman. It's simply not my preference to do so. Is that prejudice? Yep. Is it racism/bigotry? Nope. I like rock n roll a lot better than rap. Prejudice? Yup. Racism/bigotry? Nope. ... See?
Where racism/bigotry comes into play is when malevolence and disregard for the human being enters the picture. In one of my above examples, IF I choose not to marry a black woman BECAUSE I view her as inferior, THEN it becomes racism/bigotry.
One thing I notice about some of the people who do not make that distinction, is that they will use racism/bigotry as a kind of guilt-tripping control over other people, especially for the purpose of self-serving goals. I think that the lady lawyer in this case is a clear example of this.
It's okay EX, I am too thin skinned at times. I guess I am very passsionate in all that I do and say, and pay a price for it. I have never been one to "hold back" on anything, good or bad. Many people are afraid to say what they really mean, and I have always tried to be true to what I believe, sometimes to a fault. Peace and love and hugs to you too........................................................................ :)
Actually, the study, and the test that is based upon that study, is flawed.
No. The test wasn't designed to (nor does it claim to) detect bigotry. It was designed to detect bias, or preference (race, gender, age, etc.).
You're right that it doesn't exactly address the issue at hand, but that has nothing to do with its validity. It has more to do with the above writer's using it to make his point.
I thought I read somewhere that IAT's were flawed because if you would switch the order the test was given (black=good, white=bad; then black=bad, white =good) the results would be the exact opposite.
I have to admit that before I saw the video I thought it would be another case of over reaction...(a white guy said the N word! Lynch him! Lynch him!)...but after seeing the video that Dmiller posted the link to, I've changed my mind. Clearly, Michael Richards thinks black people deserve to be treated like 2nd class citizens. I'm basing that on his remark that "50 years ago you would've been..." whatever it was.
I think Garth is right; everyone has prejudices, but when you make a value judgement on people just because they're black, white, male, female, whatever for no other reason, then it becomes bigotry.
HERE is a video of a man on CSPAN who calmly, methodically and seriously calls for the extermination of ALL white people---on national TV--- as far as I know this happened within a few days of the Richards incident.
As long as such a belief that "white men are out to kill black men" exists and is promulgated none of us will ever be free. It's not just black vs white...but every race is involved because we are not "just" black and white. It is beyond my comprehention that an attitude like this can and does exist today.
Who, that dude is from Mars man. I find it hard to believe that there are many American blacks who believe that stuff. At least, I surely hope that that is correct. And, for that guy to say that and there be nary a peep about it is a true barometer for the double standard when it comes to how our left wing drive by media reports things. I mean, that was so scary and damaging to me, that I think I should be able to sue him, his organization, and maybe even You Tube for allowing such poison to infect our lives like that! Ya think?
I gotta wonder if Shermer isn't BSing us. I mean, I took the test and got a "you're a really cool, unprejudiced, new-age sorta guy" response. To which I can only add "Oh Yeah?"
To me it seems like it measures hand-eye coordination much better than anything else. But, whaddu I know?
To me it seems like it measures hand-eye coordination much better than anything else. But, whaddu I know?
I felt like the mouse should have operated a gun or trigger kind of interface George. That way if I got mixed up,
I'd shoot someone and a bullet hole would show on the screen, dripping "blood".
One x = you're slightly inclined to be a klutz. but a lovable klutz
Two X = you would moderately agree that you shouldn't use cutlery unsupervised.
Three x = we all agree you shouldn't drive a car
Four x = you have a high propensity for humor and should consider doing stand-up.
Strangest of all, after a few minutes of going left right right left left left left, I got curious to see what would happen if I suddenly had a seizure and chose one or other of the good/bad E/Non-E sides as the "wrong" one and saw you got the "X". So I guess you can get a little dyslexic or there's an allowance for being mildly uncoordinated, which would seem to skew the results for a highly coordinated and well-traind Klu Klux Klan Knight who can pick off a gnats nads at 200 yards with a rifle. But I have no masters or PHD's or such so I'm sure it's factored in, as smart people figure that kind of stuff out for the rest of us.
<edited to delete words and phrases that appeared as if they might cast aspersions on certain species of lab rat>
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
8
16
9
Popular Days
Nov 25
32
Nov 24
19
Nov 28
15
Nov 23
12
Top Posters In This Topic
GT 9 posts
socks 8 posts
J0nny Ling0 16 posts
doojable 9 posts
Popular Days
Nov 25 2006
32 posts
Nov 24 2006
19 posts
Nov 28 2006
15 posts
Nov 23 2006
12 posts
GT
Michael Shermer's take on the episode. Try taking the test he refers to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kramer’s Conundrum
What the Michael Richards Event Really Means
an opinion editorial by Michael Shermer
After a paroxysm of racial viciousness at the Laugh Factory Friday night, November 17, 2006, Michael Richards, the 57-year old comedian who played Kramer on Seinfeld, explained to David Letterman and his Late Night audience the following Monday, after a barrage of negative publicity: “I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this.”
Michael’s shattered demeanor and heartfelt repentance leaves us with what I shall call Kramer’s Conundrum: how can someone who spews racial epithets genuinely believe he is not a racist? The answer is to be found in the difference between our conscious and unconscious attitudes, and our public and private thoughts.
Consciously and publicly, Michael Richards is probably not a racist. Unconsciously and privately, however, he is. So am I. So are you.
Consciously and publicly, most of us are colorblind. And most of us, most of the time, under most conditions, believe and act on that cultural requisite. You’d have to be insane to publicly utter racist remarks in today’s society … or temporarily insane, which both science and the law recognize as being sometimes triggered by anger. And alcohol — recall Mel Gibson’s drunken eruption about Jews, or the college Frat boys slurring alcohol-induced insanities about blacks and slavery in Sacha Baron Cohen’s film Borat.
The insidiousness of racism is due to the fact that it arises out of the deep recesses of our unconscious. We may be utterly unaware of it, yet it lurks there ready to erupt under certain circumstances. How can we know this? Even without anger and alcohol, Harvard scientists have found a method in an instrument called the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which asks subjects to pair words and concepts. The more closely associated the words and concepts are, the quicker the response to them will be in the key-pressing sorting task (try it yourself at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/).
The race test firsts asks you to sort black and white faces into one of two categories: European American and African American. Easy. Next you are asked to sort a list of words (Joy, Terrible, Love, Agony, Peace, Horrible, Wonderful, Nasty, Pleasure, Evil, Glorious, Awful, Laughter, Failure, Happy, Hurt) into one of two categories: Good and Bad. No problem.
The next task is a little more complicated. The words and black and white faces appear on the screen one at a time, and you sort them into one of these categories: African American/Good or European American/Bad. Again you match the words with the concepts of good or bad, and faces with national origin. So the word “joy” would go into the first category and a white face would go into the second category. This sorting goes noticeably slower, but you might expect that since the combined categories are more cognitively complex.
Unfortunately, the final sorting task puts the lie to that rationalization: This time you sort the words and faces into the categories European American/Good or African American/Bad. Tellingly (and distressingly) this sort goes much faster than the previous sort. I was much quicker to associate words like “joy,” “love,” and “pleasure” with European American/Good than I did with African American/Good.
I consider myself about as socially liberal as you can get (I’m a libertarian), and yet on a scale that includes “slight,” “moderate,” and “strong,” the program concluded: “Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for European American compared to African American.” What? “The interpretation is described as ‘automatic preference for European American’ if you responded faster when European American faces and Good words were classified with the same key than when African American faces and Good words were classified with the same key.”
But I’m not a racist. How can this be? It turns out that this subconscious association of good with European Americans is true for everyone, even African Americans, no matter how color blind we all claim to be. Such is the power of culture.
We are by nature sorters. Evolutionists theorize that we evolved in small bands of hunter-gatherers where there was a selection for within-group amity and between-group enmity. With our fellow in-group members, we are cooperative and altruistic. Unfortunately, the down side to this pro-social bonding is that we are also quite tribal and xenophobic to out-group members.
This natural tendency to sort people into Within-Group/Good and Between-Group/Bad is shaped by culture, such that all Americans, including those whose ancestry is African, implicitly inculcate the cultural association, which includes additional prejudices.
The IAT, in fact, also demonstrates that we prefer young to old, thin to fat, straight to gay, and such associations as family-females and career-males, liberal arts-females and science-males. Such associations bubble just below the surface, inhibited by cultural restraints but susceptible to eruption under extreme inebriation or duress.
Michael Richards’ sin was his deed; his thoughts are the sin of all humanity. Only when all people are considered to be members of one global in-group (in principle, if not in practice) can we begin to attenuate these out-group associations. But it won’t be easy. Vigilance is the watchword of both freedom and dignity.
We should accept Mr. Richards’ apology for losing his temper and acting out those hateful thoughts. Perhaps we also ought to thank him for having the courage to confess in public what far too many of us still harbor in private, often in the privacy of our unconscious minds. As the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Best of all, we have a new "Greasespot Gem". Don't tell me there's no profit!
It's not worth getting torn up over, indeed. I've actually learned some new things on this thread I didn't know before, and that's the kind of information my brain has space to store.
Yes, allanW-blacks only get to use that word, nobody else. Being an Aussie, you probably didn't know that. They use it all the time - it's kind of a term of endearment, despite the impression you may get from this thread, sort of like saying "honeybee". Go ahead, try it sometime. Let us know how it goes.
See? Questions answered, too. Enlightenment is the order of the day.
Hey! Thanks GreasyPerson! I like tests. Theyre always fun!
My score on the Race thing -
You have completed the African American - European American IAT.
Your Result
Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between European American and African American.
Go figure. I actually prefer that Irish freckley look, (HOT!) but there weren't any of those, at least that I could conjure up. There were definitely some unusual looking people - that one guy with the sort of bushy eyebrows looks suspect but deep in his eyes I sensed a softness that was endearing, although I bet he hides it from all but his closest friends.
I even saved screen prints of the results page and the ending survey, I like certificates too! It's set up interesting, I don't see how a person could score one way or the other too heavily, but then I haven't taken any of the others yet.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
I'm sorry, jonny, for being condescending and saying "whatever." It was rude and I shouldn't have said it. My "know it all smart butt" was showing....
Peace? Love? You gotta admit it is fun talking! I haven't had this much fun disagreeing with someone since my brothers and I last talked. (Over the week-end!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Actually, the study, and the test that is based upon that study, is flawed.
Why?
Because it makes no differentiation between racism/bigotry and prejudice. We ALL have prejudice. ALL of us. ... We do NOT all have racism/bigotry.
Now what is the difference between racism/bigotry and prejudice? Prejudice is simply cultural differences and preferences between us as individuals and as groups. Racial. National. Regional. Cultural. Musical. Art. Etc. We all have our preferences in all those areas and other areas. And as to whom we care to associate with, and even marry.
For example, I do not want marry a black woman. It's simply not my preference to do so. Is that prejudice? Yep. Is it racism/bigotry? Nope. I like rock n roll a lot better than rap. Prejudice? Yup. Racism/bigotry? Nope. ... See?
Where racism/bigotry comes into play is when malevolence and disregard for the human being enters the picture. In one of my above examples, IF I choose not to marry a black woman BECAUSE I view her as inferior, THEN it becomes racism/bigotry.
One thing I notice about some of the people who do not make that distinction, is that they will use racism/bigotry as a kind of guilt-tripping control over other people, especially for the purpose of self-serving goals. I think that the lady lawyer in this case is a clear example of this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
It's okay EX, I am too thin skinned at times. I guess I am very passsionate in all that I do and say, and pay a price for it. I have never been one to "hold back" on anything, good or bad. Many people are afraid to say what they really mean, and I have always tried to be true to what I believe, sometimes to a fault. Peace and love and hugs to you too........................................................................ :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Jonny! Welcome to the 'Big Mouth & Damn Proud of It Club'!
Speaking as it's founding member.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Garth says:
No. The test wasn't designed to (nor does it claim to) detect bigotry. It was designed to detect bias, or preference (race, gender, age, etc.).
You're right that it doesn't exactly address the issue at hand, but that has nothing to do with its validity. It has more to do with the above writer's using it to make his point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
I thought I read somewhere that IAT's were flawed because if you would switch the order the test was given (black=good, white=bad; then black=bad, white =good) the results would be the exact opposite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Ok, I read it here:
http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Gwal...SP_1998.OCR.pdf
http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/IATmater...GB2005.PSPB.pdf
Basically, they say it measures how well a person switches tasks, rather than bias.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I have to admit that before I saw the video I thought it would be another case of over reaction...(a white guy said the N word! Lynch him! Lynch him!)...but after seeing the video that Dmiller posted the link to, I've changed my mind. Clearly, Michael Richards thinks black people deserve to be treated like 2nd class citizens. I'm basing that on his remark that "50 years ago you would've been..." whatever it was.
I think Garth is right; everyone has prejudices, but when you make a value judgement on people just because they're black, white, male, female, whatever for no other reason, then it becomes bigotry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Then there is also the other side of the coin:
Richards was enraged and out of control--
HERE is a video of a man on CSPAN who calmly, methodically and seriously calls for the extermination of ALL white people---on national TV--- as far as I know this happened within a few days of the Richards incident.
Why wasnt this a story?
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Mstar's CSPAN clip put a knife in my gut!
As long as such a belief that "white men are out to kill black men" exists and is promulgated none of us will ever be free. It's not just black vs white...but every race is involved because we are not "just" black and white. It is beyond my comprehention that an attitude like this can and does exist today.
===================================================
Maybe that's why it went un-noticed. Maybe nobody really believes he's serious. They don't believe his basic premise is accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Who, that dude is from Mars man. I find it hard to believe that there are many American blacks who believe that stuff. At least, I surely hope that that is correct. And, for that guy to say that and there be nary a peep about it is a true barometer for the double standard when it comes to how our left wing drive by media reports things. I mean, that was so scary and damaging to me, that I think I should be able to sue him, his organization, and maybe even You Tube for allowing such poison to infect our lives like that! Ya think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
that is one crazy nigger yes i said nigger! and so are his buddies!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Will somebody please publically insult me in a really damaging way so that I can sue you and put my kids through college on your dollar?
PS - I'll even give you some back!
Ok Ok maybe I'm being too crass here......
Is this horse dead yet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
"Oohh Wiilll-burrrr, you insulted me! Now I'm-a gonna sue!!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I gotta wonder if Shermer isn't BSing us. I mean, I took the test and got a "you're a really cool, unprejudiced, new-age sorta guy" response. To which I can only add "Oh Yeah?"
To me it seems like it measures hand-eye coordination much better than anything else. But, whaddu I know?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I felt like the mouse should have operated a gun or trigger kind of interface George. That way if I got mixed up,
I'd shoot someone and a bullet hole would show on the screen, dripping "blood".
One x = you're slightly inclined to be a klutz. but a lovable klutz
Two X = you would moderately agree that you shouldn't use cutlery unsupervised.
Three x = we all agree you shouldn't drive a car
Four x = you have a high propensity for humor and should consider doing stand-up.
Strangest of all, after a few minutes of going left right right left left left left, I got curious to see what would happen if I suddenly had a seizure and chose one or other of the good/bad E/Non-E sides as the "wrong" one and saw you got the "X". So I guess you can get a little dyslexic or there's an allowance for being mildly uncoordinated, which would seem to skew the results for a highly coordinated and well-traind Klu Klux Klan Knight who can pick off a gnats nads at 200 yards with a rifle. But I have no masters or PHD's or such so I'm sure it's factored in, as smart people figure that kind of stuff out for the rest of us.
<edited to delete words and phrases that appeared as if they might cast aspersions on certain species of lab rat>
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Have you checked out "Pikes Peak seminary"?...that might solve your problem...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.