Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Offered Without (Much) Comment

Because there isn't much to add.  The article pretty much says it all.  Hat tip to the Blaze PM newsletter:
Yale study: White liberals use ‘less competent’ language with blacks — but conservatives don’t
Cue the tape of Hillary saying "I don't feel no ways tired", pandering to a black church in 2007.

The study is published psychology research by Cydney H. Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Yale School of Management and summarized in Yale Insights.
According to new research by Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Yale SOM, white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities, compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges. The study is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

While many previous studies have examined how people who hold racial bias behave in multi-racial settings, few have studied how whites who are more well-intentioned interact with people of other races. “There’s less work that explores how well-intentioned whites try to get along with racial minorities,” Dupree says. “We wanted to know their strategies for increasing connections between members of different social groups—and how effective these strategies are.”

The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences. The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, though “it was harder to find speeches from Republicans delivered to minority audiences,” Dupree notes. There was no difference in Democrats’ or Republicans’ usage of words related to warmth. “It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”
Could it be that until very recently Republicans didn't speak to minority audiences because they weren't invited and didn't expect to be able to get more than 1% of those voters to even consider listening to them, anyway?

In another experiment, they tried to test how white participants would speak to a hypothetical or presumed-real interaction partner. They were assigned someone to compose an email to:
For half of these participants, their partner was given a stereotypically white name (such as “Emily”); for the other half, their partner was given a stereotypically black name (such as “Lakisha”). Participants were asked to select from a list of words for an email to their partner. For some studies, this email was for a work-related task; for others, this email was simply to introduce themselves. Each word had been previously scored on how warm or competent it appears.

The researchers found that liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white. No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree says. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
Down here in the south, when we're faced with a patronizing person, we tend to say, "bless her heart" (or his or their).

So the article's takeaway is that liberals tended to talk down to minorities when addressing them, while conservatives didn't.  Which is to say the liberals attribute less intelligence and less accomplishment to minorities, so they crank back their obviously superior intellect to talk to the inferior minorities.  Conservatives tended to talk to minorities as if they're simply other people and should be treated as equals. 


  1. Speaking a species of ebonics seemed to work for Barack and friends. If I was black, I'd find that insulting, but apparently not many do.

    1. I hate to break this to you, but that works because it's the truth.

      There are exceptions, of course, but they merely prove the rule.

  2. "Organizational behavior"? I think that calls for a meeting about meetings.

  3. Usually liberals are wrong, but they get this one right.

  4. When adults speak to children we use smaller and simpler words to keep from confusing them. The EXACT same thing is going on in this instance. The average black person has a lower IQ and is less educated than the average white person (a reality that will get you crucified by the left if you speak on it in public). Thus to communicate simpler terms MUST be used.

    1. Only if you assume every black person (or any other race) is average.
      When you get one with an IQ of 140, or who's simply smarter than you (and you'll find both, if you look), you'll get back what you've got coming.
      The premise that every person in a sub-group is the exact mean of the greater group is the exact identity politics racist bullshit that's the problem.
      You treat every one as if they have average human intelligence, period.
      When you meet an individual who can't come up to that standard, tailoring your message downward is appropriate.
      But tailoring it by their skin color is simply short-sighted, whether you're color-blind, or keenly aware of that pigment.

      Skin color tells you skin color. It tells you nothing about a person.

      If you've got 1000 of any given group, you can generalize, but the law of average means you'll be wrong about most of them, in both directions, except a bare few who hit the middle of the bell curve.

      "Any man who judges by the group is a peawit. You take men one at a time." - Sgt Buster Kilrain, Gettysburg

      That's not altruism; it's simply common sense.

    2. When you get one with a 140IQ, head straight to Vegas while your luck holds. That's about +5 standard deviations for that race. There may well be hundreds of blacks in the US who are in that range.

    3. There are >37M blacks in the US, and those in (or almost so) the genius range number 0.1%, just like for every other race, which would statistically be some 37,000 of them.

      A wee bit more than mere "hundreds". And only off by 3700%.

      Mathematics and statistics: still an actual thing.
      Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

      Dr. Ben Carson, Larry Elder, and Thomas Sowell all say "Hi".

      Oh, geez, sorry to SiG, our bloghost; apparently this is me being an @$$hole on someone else's website, quoting facts and shit.

      WTF. Is there something in the water lately? Was there just a mass spawn and bloom of Stupid on the 'net? Or am I just getting pissy and hypersensitive in my declining years? Gotta go chase those damn kids off the lawn now...

    4. Aesop, you are always welcome to comment here.

      My thing is that I don't particularly believe in stereotypes - even though this article reinforces it. I take one of those Statistics 101 concepts to heart: population statistics don't apply to individuals. They can only guide you what to expect (mean, median, standard deviation) but any individual is going to differ from those numbers and - obviously - some will differ a lot more than others in both directions. All statistics can do is guide you. As one of those great quotes goes, "statistics are like a bikini: what they reveal is interesting but what they conceal is vital".

      A corollary of not believing in stereotypes is that there are no men, no women, no blacks, no whites, no boomers, no millennials, no Jews, no Christians (and we can go an hour on this list), there are only individuals.

      When I read the test about sending someone a work-related email and finding Lakisha is treated differently than Emily, my attitude is that if I'm working with someone I don't know, my automatic assumption is that Lakisha and Emily are both equally qualified at their jobs. Same goes for Fatima, Juanita, Ahuva, or any other name you can drag up.

      Ever have the experience of talking with someone in a "low level job" and find they know vastly more about the details of what they do than you, with your highfalutin degree/certification/wizard-like ability at science, know about what they do? I'm old enough to have learned that just because I'm an engineer doesn't mean I know everything about every job in the company and could sit down and do everything everyone else does. Not to say I couldn't learn, just that I don't know it now.

      And those are just a few reasons why my default is to treat everyone with respect and not talk down to them.

  5. I hate to break it to you, but blacks really are dumber than whites.

    Using a smart phone or other technology is an IQ test. Where is the "black mode switch" on technology that dumbs it down? It doesn't exist, because it's not needed, because IQs between races are not hugely different. What is different is 'production and saving for future consumption' behaviors which you must do in a climate with snow to stay warm and eat during Winter. Note that non-Africans in snow country who follow herds of animals, like Northern American Indians, Eskimos, and Mongols, have a simple civilizational structure which looks African. Cathedral builders evolved in snow country and farmed rather than herded.


    Suppose you have two puppies, a white Labrador retriever and a black Labrador retriever. These puppies are very similar because coat color in Labrador retrievers does not indicate temperament, instinct, intelligence, etc. You, the white owner, are racist against black dogs. [...]

    Parents talking in dialect and giving the name "Lakisha" instead of "Emily" demonstrates a failure to assimilate. Oh, sorry, I should have written "parent", singular.

    If every human of every background was held to the same standards of civilized behavior, then everyone on the street would be similarly civilized and the failures would be in prison or shot red-handed during crime. Lowered standards for some backgrounds is a wildlife conservation program to produce more uncivilized humans. This creates more work for government. Positive feedback. Has the logistic curve started to level off yet, or are we still in the growth phase?

    Doublethink is method acting, it helps a person lie more believably. When you analyze welfare game theory to a liberal and they pretend to not understand, they've revealed themselves to be evil. The faster they evade the point by presenting other faces of the doublethink, the more evil they are. What's the least damaging remediation of this evil?

    1. It's a shame the blogger platform doesn't allow me to give you "Like" badge like lots of other platforms do.

      This is about as good a summary as someone could write.

      I've known a couple black engineers who were as far from the affirmative action hires apparently expected by other commenters as you can imagine. One has his own company now, the other is high in the engineering side of one of the big semiconductor companies.

      People tend to live up to - or down to - expectations. If we always treat one group like your white dog/black dog analogy, most of the time we'll get those results.

    2. You're absolutely right, SiG. There are a few black people that perform to standard, acceptable levels. But that does not change the fact that the majority of them do not.

      Racial differences are real. Negative cultural choices don't help, either. Nature and nurture both have their say. Check out who's in prison. Who fails or drops out of school. Who has STDs. Who fathers and bears bastard children.

      When we hold blacks to the same standards as whites, that's called "discrimination", and has largely been made illegal.

    3. the majority of them do not

      The majority of them in the US get up and go to jobs each day and can speak Standard English when they want to. This is simply an observation. Mere counting. Fact.

      When we hold blacks to the same standards as whites, that's called "discrimination", and has largely been made illegal.

      [Imagine the Samuel L. Jackson character's voice in the Pulp Fiction movie] Well allow me to retort: When we hold blacks to the same standards as whites, that's called "discrimination", and has largely been made illegal BY THE WHITE MAJORITY WHO HAS THE CONTROLLING NUMBER OF VOTES IN WINNER TAKE ALL POLITICS. Why did you do that, McWhite?

    4. You are impressed because adult blacks can use the same cell phone toddlers play games on?

  6. I always adjust my vocabulary based on who I'm talking to. If you use big words and then have to explain them, it sounds condescending (that means, talking down to people).

  7. Throw in the fact that the words selected were "scored", which is a quiet bit of legerdemain and hand-waving hiding the essential massive bias in the surveyors.
    IOW, they found what they wanted to find, and the whole thing has about as much value, even if it confirms biases, as the Russian judge's score of Western athletes at any Olympics during the Cold War.

    This is why real science is to social science as astronomy is to astrology, or chemistry is to alchemy.