If you're in the prejudice business the worst thing that can happen is to have a woman and an African-American fighting it out to be President. A white guy has a tough time out there these days and that's a good thing for society because it means that America continues to be the least racist country in the world.
But if you're in the prejudice business the death of institutional racism and the demise of cultural racism means you'll need to look deeper; namely to find people being prejudiced against themselves. Then you can say it's the legacy of old prejudice and the cycle continues.
Psychologists at Stanford University and the University of Waterloo are here to help. If a white student and a black student get the exact same SAT score, the black student is probably better but he's worried about the perception that he does worse on tests - so he does worse on tests.
Did your head spin just a little reading that? I felt some vertigo writing it too, but Stanford's Greg Walton and Waterloo's Steven Spencer say this is a real issue and minorities and women fight against a 'psychological headwind.' They tested nearly 19,000 students in the United States, Canada, France, Germany and Sweden and say the difference is this 'stereotype threat.' When it was minimized, ethnic minorities and women outperformed non-minorities and men at the same level of past performance - not did better, just not as badly as if they felt stereotype threats. That means the black student who received the same 1020 on the SAT as his white classmate would likely have scored higher in the absence of stereotype threat. His 1020 underestimated his true ability.
What is stereotype threat? There is no legitimate definition so I had to fall back on Wikipedia and it's the sort of circular definition you've come to expect when people start with a conclusion and then match data to their topology. Josh Witten has a cartoon about that very subject today.
In the 1960s, a psychologist named Irwin Katz said that people who were treated like they were poor at something would do poorly. He used an IQ test but called it hand-eye coordination and found they did better than when it was called an IQ test. Sounds fishy? Sure, lots of people are nervous about an IQ test because there is a value judgment in that but no one is going to feel bad if they aren't coordinated in a class room - they will feel bad on a basketball court though.
Walton and Spencer say it's still a real problem today. Their projected cost; underperforming on the SAT by about 40 points for minorities and on the math portion of the test by about 20 points for women. Why women? Who knows? 70% of grade- and high-school teachers are women so if there is perception that women can't do math, it is women doing the stereotyping.
"Women and minorities are running into a headwind," said Walton, an assistant professor of psychology. "Their scores underestimate their true ability."
That's beautiful. I wish I could never do poorly on a test but instead can fall back on the test's inability to accurately measure how awesome I am. Can we ever get away from this stigma? Not the way things are, they say. Students taking standardized test are reminded of their race or gender because the testing companies need to know race and gender to make sure the tests are not biased against races and genders. I did that head hurting thing to you again, didn't I?
The good news; this 'latent ability' effect actually applies less in academic situations. In sports, though, the last bastion of performance-based equality left, you can still get your feelings hurt.
"The stereotype that white men can't jump can undermine white men's athletic performance," Walton said. "A normal feature of how we work as humans is that we are affected by how other people may perceive us. It's disturbing to think that, if you perform badly, other people could think negatively about your group. It's distracting, and it undermines performance."
That's right. The NBA will need to have sensitivity training about the performance of white guys. No wonder I don't play basketball. I'd hate for black people to think all whites are genetically incapable of taking the pill to the post and the burden of representing all caucasians is too much pressure.
Back to test taking; they do have a simple, elegant solution. So simple I am surprised no one has thought of it. If you must put in demographic questions at all, put them at the end.
Here's the real kicker why it should be done that way (though obviously the best solution is to stop caring what race or gender someone is) - they say if you don't account for stereotype bias, you're guilty of sanctioning discrimination. That's right, you're racist if those scores don't go up.
This seems like a big burden to place on teachers who just want to teach subjects and move on.
"Organizations should take into account bias on a test that hides the untapped potential of members of stereotyped groups," said Spencer, a psychology professor. "To fail to do so would be to sanction discrimination. But that is not enough. In addition to correcting for the bias, schools and companies should work hard to create safe environments that minimize stereotype threat. That would allow everybody to perform at their best and ultimately would help organizations as a whole excel."
Unless excelling in organizations means you just want the best people who can perform whether or not people around them care what they are wearing, what color their skin is, or anything else. That's why sports are the one place where there is no real racism and why in some parts of academia there is; if you go out of your way to tell people you need to help them because there is so much racism - they need you to fix their problems - no progress gets made.
Barack Obama didn't get an endorsement from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson until long after he had the Democratic nomination sewed up. By not letting anyone tell him he couldn't get elected because of racism, he went ahead and became President.
Article: LATENT ABILITY: GRADES AND TEST SCORES SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERESTIMATE THE INTELLECTUAL ABILITY OF NEGATIVELY STEREOTYPED STUDENTS, Gregory M. Walton, Steven J. Spencer, Psychological Science (in press)
Comments
Exactly. Chris Rock made that joke about Tiger Woods sort of being black - they could only take 1/8th of the pride. I assume we let people call themselves what they think they are, lest it cause all kinds of problems.
He lets people call him the first black/A-A President interchangeably so I assume that is who he believes he is. But society is funny about it. Teresa Heinz Kerry was certainly the only African-American in the 2004 campaign but she is white so she got ridiculed when she noted it.
The funniest example of PC backflipping I heard recently occurred last year during Formula One - Lewis Hamilton, a rookie, was doing spectacular (and nearly won the entire thing) and I was watching ESPN and heard one of their talking heads refer to him as "The African-American Formula One driver from England" - Coke(*) shot out of my nose with laughter when I heard that.
(*) Because Pepsi got too expensive.
He lets people call him the first black/A-A President interchangeably so I assume that is who he believes he is. But society is funny about it. Teresa Heinz Kerry was certainly the only African-American in the 2004 campaign but she is white so she got ridiculed when she noted it.
The funniest example of PC backflipping I heard recently occurred last year during Formula One - Lewis Hamilton, a rookie, was doing spectacular (and nearly won the entire thing) and I was watching ESPN and heard one of their talking heads refer to him as "The African-American Formula One driver from England" - Coke(*) shot out of my nose with laughter when I heard that.
(*) Because Pepsi got too expensive.
Hank Campbell | 02/25/09 | 10:07 AM
Here is what terrifies me on this topic. The basic assumption that underlies this reasoning is that a drop of black blood makes a person black. The same basic reasoning racists used to oppose interracial relationships underpins the black community claiming mixed-"race" individuals, although the professed downstream causes of this effect are different in each case. One would hope that these two groups would have fundamentally different theories of inheritance.
Josh Witten | 02/25/09 | 13:46 PM
Nancy D. (not verified) | 02/25/09 | 10:42 AM
Sure. There is no way to make sure that from birth on no one else will ever tell you that you aren't good at something. It's just silly to think that it will be an excuse. At a local university a few years ago there was a scandal because it was discovered the entrance scoring system was biased against Asians but favored black people - that's the very antithesis of equality.
This study is in that same vein - it's telling schools to handicap SAT scores by 4o points, which is not making people equal, it's making them wonder what kid they beat out for a spot who was smarter.
This study is in that same vein - it's telling schools to handicap SAT scores by 4o points, which is not making people equal, it's making them wonder what kid they beat out for a spot who was smarter.
Hank Campbell | 02/25/09 | 11:16 AM
though obviously the best solution is to stop caring what race or gender someone is
All these problems arise because we bothered to put people into categories that aren't very relevant.
Josh Witten | 02/25/09 | 13:42 PM
Right, and what do we have to do to get people to stop? Even academics want to perpetuate racism - nothing will ever be good enough if people want to find it. Having visited more foreign countries than even US states I can say with some certainty America is the least racist - other countries just think we have a bigger problem because people here are allowed to talk about it.
Hank Campbell | 02/25/09 | 13:50 PM
Josh Witten | 02/25/09 | 14:50 PM
I'm not convinced that "we" put anyone into categories any more than they put themselves into such categories.
Whether anyone likes it or not, any "group" will be acknowledged and recognized and will carry with it connotations of "good" or "bad" depending on whose doing the evaluation. There is no way around it, because it is fundamental to human behaviors and organization. That's why in the absence of any other grouping, people form their own (be it sports teams, street gangs, religious affiliations, .... or simply bloggers). Each of these represents a group that we identify with and therefore conveys a value that we assign.
Once this occurs, value judgements invariably follow
Whether anyone likes it or not, any "group" will be acknowledged and recognized and will carry with it connotations of "good" or "bad" depending on whose doing the evaluation. There is no way around it, because it is fundamental to human behaviors and organization. That's why in the absence of any other grouping, people form their own (be it sports teams, street gangs, religious affiliations, .... or simply bloggers). Each of these represents a group that we identify with and therefore conveys a value that we assign.
Once this occurs, value judgements invariably follow
Gerhard Adam | 02/25/09 | 15:25 PM
Someone has to identify the groups. While grouping may be natural to human behavior, it is important to evaluate whether the value assigned to that group is actually representative and predictive of the "value" for that character among group members. Human behavior is not optimally efficient. Therefore, we cannot conclude that our predilection for creating groups is optimal. Some groupings probably are useful. Others, like "race," are not. I'm not against groups, I am against stupid groups.
For example, look at the inaccurate grouping of ScientificBlogging writers by other sites.
I never said convincing humans to do this would be easy.
For example, look at the inaccurate grouping of ScientificBlogging writers by other sites.
I never said convincing humans to do this would be easy.
Josh Witten | 02/25/09 | 15:56 PM
I understand, but what's a stupid group? "Bloods&Crips"? "Red states & Blue states"? Americans versus ?
I don't see how we can do anything except to ensure that whatever our group affiliation or attitudes, that we don't extend those into laws or condoned behaviors. Sort of like the separation of church & state, so that any non-criminal group deserves a right to exist and be protected from exploitation by the law.
I don't see how we can do anything except to ensure that whatever our group affiliation or attitudes, that we don't extend those into laws or condoned behaviors. Sort of like the separation of church & state, so that any non-criminal group deserves a right to exist and be protected from exploitation by the law.
Gerhard Adam | 02/25/09 | 16:01 PM
Non-stupid groups are ones that do not provide actual predictive power for the character we are interested in. Does the grouping provide useful information? For example, Muggles and Wizards useful groupings, because the group identification tells us quality, but not perfect, information about individuals that would require more energy to obtain individually.
The legal question is related, but separate. Rigorously applying the philosophy that all individuals have equal dignity and rights under the law is a good place to start to avoid nasty situations.
The legal question is related, but separate. Rigorously applying the philosophy that all individuals have equal dignity and rights under the law is a good place to start to avoid nasty situations.
Josh Witten | 02/25/09 | 16:11 PM
Agreed, but groups exist for more than simple value judgements. Socially, race may be irrelevant, but it is quite relevant when we are looking at genetic tendencies for disease. Once a group exists, it is virtually impossible to separate out the abuses of that grouping from any other legitimate use.
Even your example of Muggles&Wizards carried significantly more connotations than simple classification.
Even your example of Muggles&Wizards carried significantly more connotations than simple classification.
Gerhard Adam | 02/25/09 | 17:22 PM
But they are useful for the value of magic.
The utility of racial groups for disease is generally overstated. Northern europeans do not constitute a genetically restricted enough group for effective genome wide association studies. We are closing in on a future where there will be little cost difference between the genetics required to place patients into the appropriate genetically constrained "group" and identify disease associated polymorphisms.
The utility of groups cannot be defended on the grounds that humans use information with pathetic inefficiency.
The utility of racial groups for disease is generally overstated. Northern europeans do not constitute a genetically restricted enough group for effective genome wide association studies. We are closing in on a future where there will be little cost difference between the genetics required to place patients into the appropriate genetically constrained "group" and identify disease associated polymorphisms.
The utility of groups cannot be defended on the grounds that humans use information with pathetic inefficiency.
Josh Witten | 02/25/09 | 20:27 PM
My point is not that groups are good or bad, but rather that they are unavoidable. Humans classify things, and they will do it with people regardless of whether it is needed, desirable, or evil.
If I say the word Marine, or martial artist, or musician, or mathematician, you will immediately bring some image to mind. Whether it is appropriate or not is immaterial. The problem comes in when you attempt to take that image and attempt to judge it or act on it without additional information.
You may consider these classifications useful, but my point is that you can't avoid them. So anything that can serve to classify an individual will be used regardless.
If I say the word Marine, or martial artist, or musician, or mathematician, you will immediately bring some image to mind. Whether it is appropriate or not is immaterial. The problem comes in when you attempt to take that image and attempt to judge it or act on it without additional information.
You may consider these classifications useful, but my point is that you can't avoid them. So anything that can serve to classify an individual will be used regardless.
Gerhard Adam | 02/25/09 | 22:32 PM
Really? There are things which cannot be discussed in an open, honest way. We all know that to be true, though many of us think suppression of certain ideas to be commendable.
For example, if someone pointed to a strong correlation between black population % and violent crime rates, the reaction would be all too predictable. Opponents would not limit themselves to explanations of said correlation, but would reflexively question the source's motives and slander their character. The forces of righteousness would be marshaled, those that might agree would run for cover, and a cringing mea culpa would soon be forthcoming.
Mike (not verified) | 09/25/09 | 20:05 PM










According to the genome project, we all started out black anyway.