This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!  (Read 19941 times)

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #240 on: July 27, 2021, 12:44:19 AM »
Like Tubesock, I also have an annecdotal story about once having to do training at work which proves that because O'Keefe takes peoples own words and uses it against them without changing them to fit my narrative therefore he can not be trusted.

Might also have something to do with O'Keefe, y'know, lying about ACORN (as determined by the California State AG and the GAO - I know, I know, they're all "deep state" lol),

Are you trying to claim that the actual video of the HASBRO training its employees about how all white babies are vile racists is somehow a fake?

No, I'm plainly stating that, given his track record, O'Keefe is about a reliable a narrator as Michael Moore. Nothing he says should be taken at face value, so I'm waiting for more information.

Its not O'Keefe narrating.

But why look at primary sources.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #241 on: July 27, 2021, 02:54:11 AM »
Also, I surrender; this thread can't seem to stay on topic, so I'm moving it to the Pundit's forum.
Better late than never. Thank you.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #242 on: July 27, 2021, 08:25:05 AM »
   So if blue eyes and blond hair are preferable traits, preferring those traits in a doll or person you are looking at is racist?   I still do not see how any measure of the test did anything but show blonde hair and blue eyes are visually pleasing.    Social science is complete bullshit and reminds me of "stopping power" studies with firearms.  You can make it come out any way you want it to.

If you have an alternative to social science in order to use evidence to understand social behavior like racism, then I'd be interested to hear about it.

As for what defines a "racist"...  That's a semantic argument that has no obvious answer.

But qualitatively, the children in the study didn't just say that the white dolls were prettier. They also more often said the white dolls were nicer, and more often said that the black dolls were bad. I see similar comments in more recent tests trying to reproduce the results. For example, here was a study that worked without questions but just qualitatively observing play:

Quote
Without asking specific questions as the Clarks did, I still found a great deal of bias in how the girls treated the dolls. The girls rarely chose the Black dolls during play. On the rare occasions that the girls chose the Black dolls, they mistreated them. One time a Black girl put the doll in a pot and pretended to cook the doll. That’s not something the girls did with the dolls that weren’t Black.
Source: https://theconversation.com/what-i-learned-when-i-recreated-the-famous-doll-test-that-looked-at-how-black-kids-see-race-153780

It seems like you're arguing that blonde-haired blue-eyed dolls are objectively more visually pleasing, which explains the children's behavior. Regardless of semantics, the point is that children should learn to treat people equally regardless of race.

  Again, people are not dolls.  The experiment is bullshit.  I am not arguing blonde hair and blue eyes are more pleasing, I am asking if these dipshits making assertions bothered to test that across all races of all toddlers, before using a small group to make leaping assumptions.    I am not one to really care to understand or search for racism behind every door and under every rock either.  I find if you think monsters are everywhere, suddenly all of your searches and investigations find monsters all the time.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #243 on: July 27, 2021, 01:32:42 PM »
I wasn't going to post this because it's not directly related to RPGs, but since the thread has been moved to Pundit's forum, it may help provide some context.

Below is a section on the brain's immediate response to race from Sapolsky's Behave, which is an attempt to synthesize current (2017) understanding of how the human brain functions, from biology through psychology and culture. It draws on all major relevant fields, like neurology, endocrinology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, and so on. This isn't a book about race, it's just comes up a few times as part of how humans think.

Sapolsky is a neurobiologist and primatologist, so he's coming at this from the perspective of biology first and social sciences second. But he does think biology and psychology and culture are inexorably intertwined. He's not deterministic; while the brain has inherent tendencies, he presents a lot of evidence that the specifics can be shaped by environmental factors. He doesn't seem to be particularly woke (I'd guess he's probably a Bill Maher style traditional US liberal).

This section is on the immediate response to stimuli. Seconds or less, not centuries or even minutes. As I mentioned before, the immediate responses to race appear to be real, but the brain operates at multiple levels over multiple time frames. The quote is largely about the amygdala, which is inaccurate but fast. Slower and more socially complex responses can override this, like ones from the pre-frontal cortex, not to mention things like culture.

There's more information on how humans response to race in other sections. Much of the response to race seems to be part of the human tendency to group people into Us and Them; in other words it's a specific manifestation of a much broader classification tool. It's also not necessarily aimed at race in specific; Sapolsky points out that our hunter-gatherer ancestors were unlikely to travel far enough to run into people of other races, so any evolutionary pressure to identify races would be weak or non-existent. But the broader tendency to group people into Us/Them categories is deeply embedded in humans, appearing almost at birth, and is omnipresent in how we think. He is highly skeptical of the broad claimed utility of implicit bias tests. He does reference the Clark doll study, but it's a single paragraph in an 800 page book, mostly focused on the self-hating aspect.

The numbers are footnotes, which I can copy if desired.

Quote from: Behave by Robert Sapolsky
A hugely unsettling sensory cue concerns race.7 Our brains are incredibly attuned to skin color. Flash a face for less than a tenth of a second (one hundred milliseconds), so short a time that people aren’t even sure they’ve seen something. Have them guess the race of the pictured face, and there’s a better-than-even chance of accuracy. We may claim to judge someone by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin. But our brains sure as hell note the color, real fast.

By one hundred milliseconds, brain function already differs in two depressing ways, depending on the race of the face (as shown with neuroimaging). First, in a widely replicated finding, the amygdala activates. Moreover, the more racist someone is in an implicit test of race bias (stay tuned), the more activation there is.8

Similarly, repeatedly show subjects a picture of a face accompanied by a shock; soon, seeing the face alone activates the amygdala.9 As shown by Elizabeth Phelps of NYU, such “fear conditioning” occurs faster for other-race than same-race faces. Amygdalae are prepared to learn to associate something bad with Them. Moreover, people judge neutral other-race faces as angrier than neutral same-race faces.

So if whites see a black face shown at a subliminal speed, the amygdala activates.10 But if the face is shown long enough for conscious processing, the anterior cingulate and the “cognitive” dlPFC then activate and inhibit the amygdala. It’s the frontal cortex exerting executive control over the deeper, darker amygdaloid response.

Second depressing finding: subliminal signaling of race also affects the fusiform face area, the cortical region that specializes in facial recognition.11 Damaging the fusiform, for example, selectively produces “face blindness” (aka prosopagnosia), an inability to recognize faces. Work by John Gabrieli at MIT demonstrates less fusiform activation for other-race faces, with the effect strongest in the most implicitly racist subjects. This isn’t about novelty—show a face with purple skin and the fusiform responds as if it’s same-race. The fusiform isn’t fooled—“That’s not an Other; it’s just a ‘normal’ Photoshopped face.”

In accord with that, white Americans remember white better than black faces; moreover, mixed-race faces are remembered better if described as being of a white rather than a black person. Remarkably, if mixed-race subjects are told they’ve been assigned to one of the two races for the study, they show less fusiform response to faces of the arbitrarily designated “other” race.12

Our attunement to race is shown in another way, too.13 Show a video of someone’s hand being poked with a needle, and subjects have an “isomorphic sensorimotor” response—hands tense in empathy. Among both whites and blacks, the response is blunted for other-race hands; the more the implicit racism, the more blunting. Similarly, among subjects of both races, there’s more activation of the (emotional) medial PFC when considering misfortune befalling a member of their own race than of another race.

This has major implications. In work by Joshua Correll at the University of Colorado, subjects were rapidly shown pictures of people holding either a gun or a cell phone and were told to shoot (only) gun toters. This is painfully reminiscent of the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo. Diallo, a West African immigrant in New York, matched a description of a rapist. Four white officers questioned him, and when the unarmed Diallo started to pull out his wallet, they decided it was a gun and fired forty-one shots. The underlying neurobiology concerns “event-related potentials” (ERPs), which are stimulus-induced changes in electrical activity of the brain (as assessed by EEG—electroencephalography). Threatening faces produce a distinctive change (called the P200 component) in the ERP waveform in under two hundred milliseconds. Among white subjects, viewing someone black evokes a stronger P200 waveform than viewing someone white, regardless of whether the person is armed. Then, a few milliseconds later, a second, inhibitory waveform (the N200 component) appears, originating from the frontal cortex—“Let’s think a sec about what we’re seeing before we shoot.” Viewing a black individual evokes less of an N200 waveform than does seeing someone white. The greater the P200/N200 ratio (i.e., the greater the ratio of I’m-feeling-threatened to Hold-on-a-sec), the greater the likelihood of shooting an unarmed black individual. In another study subjects had to identify fragmented pictures of objects. Priming white subjects with subliminal views of black (but not white) faces made them better at detecting pictures of weapons (but not cameras or books).14

Finally, for the same criminal conviction, the more stereotypically African a black individual’s facial features, the longer the sentence.15 In contrast, juries view black (but not white) male defendants more favorably if they’re wearing big, clunky glasses; some defense attorneys even exploit this “nerd defense” by accessorizing their clients with fake glasses, and prosecuting attorneys ask whether those dorky glasses are real. In other words, when blind, impartial justice is supposedly being administered, jurors are unconsciously biased by racial stereotypes of someone’s face.

This is so depressing—are we hardwired to fear the face of someone of another race, to process their face less as a face, to feel less empathy? No. For starters, there’s tremendous individual variation—not everyone’s amygdala activates in response to an other-race face, and those exceptions are informative. Moreover, subtle manipulations rapidly change the amygdaloid response to the face of an Other. This will be covered in chapter 11.
So yes, babies show racial bias. This isn't hard-coded because different people have different responses, an initial reaction may be very different from a response that takes a longer period of time (the longer period may be less than a second), and it's not the same thing as racism.

The whistleblower is wrong in denying this, and so are the trainers, who are drawing unsupported conclusions.

Melichor

  • Watching the World Burn
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • M
  • Posts: 106
  • What?
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #244 on: July 27, 2021, 02:06:30 PM »
Robert Sapolsky...

A smart guy that understands the way the human mind works.
You would think that a guy like that wouldn't have fell prey to TDS, but he did.

These days our heroes always let us down.

I look at his work these days with a jaundiced eye. How much did social agenda play a part in his science?

FelixGamingX1

  • Master Templar
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • https://knightstabletoprpg.com/
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #245 on: July 27, 2021, 02:24:51 PM »
This whole thing makes me wonder if today the same percentage of SJWs that started this whole mess still agree with what it has turned to, or if maybe some of it became a little too extreme for a majority.
American writer and programmer, since 2016.
https://knightstabletoprpg.com

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #246 on: July 27, 2021, 02:36:50 PM »
I wasn't going to post this because it's not directly related to RPGs, but since the thread has been moved to Pundit's forum, it may help provide some context.

Below is a section on the brain's immediate response to race from Sapolsky's Behave, which is an attempt to synthesize current (2017) understanding of how the human brain functions, from biology through psychology and culture. It draws on all major relevant fields, like neurology, endocrinology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, and so on. This isn't a book about race, it's just comes up a few times as part of how humans think.

Sapolsky is a neurobiologist and primatologist, so he's coming at this from the perspective of biology first and social sciences second. But he does think biology and psychology and culture are inexorably intertwined. He's not deterministic; while the brain has inherent tendencies, he presents a lot of evidence that the specifics can be shaped by environmental factors. He doesn't seem to be particularly woke (I'd guess he's probably a Bill Maher style traditional US liberal).

This section is on the immediate response to stimuli. Seconds or less, not centuries or even minutes. As I mentioned before, the immediate responses to race appear to be real, but the brain operates at multiple levels over multiple time frames. The quote is largely about the amygdala, which is inaccurate but fast. Slower and more socially complex responses can override this, like ones from the pre-frontal cortex, not to mention things like culture.

There's more information on how humans response to race in other sections. Much of the response to race seems to be part of the human tendency to group people into Us and Them; in other words it's a specific manifestation of a much broader classification tool. It's also not necessarily aimed at race in specific; Sapolsky points out that our hunter-gatherer ancestors were unlikely to travel far enough to run into people of other races, so any evolutionary pressure to identify races would be weak or non-existent. But the broader tendency to group people into Us/Them categories is deeply embedded in humans, appearing almost at birth, and is omnipresent in how we think. He is highly skeptical of the broad claimed utility of implicit bias tests. He does reference the Clark doll study, but it's a single paragraph in an 800 page book, mostly focused on the self-hating aspect.

The numbers are footnotes, which I can copy if desired.

Quote from: Behave by Robert Sapolsky
A hugely unsettling sensory cue concerns race.7 Our brains are incredibly attuned to skin color. Flash a face for less than a tenth of a second (one hundred milliseconds), so short a time that people aren’t even sure they’ve seen something. Have them guess the race of the pictured face, and there’s a better-than-even chance of accuracy. We may claim to judge someone by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin. But our brains sure as hell note the color, real fast.

By one hundred milliseconds, brain function already differs in two depressing ways, depending on the race of the face (as shown with neuroimaging). First, in a widely replicated finding, the amygdala activates. Moreover, the more racist someone is in an implicit test of race bias (stay tuned), the more activation there is.8

Similarly, repeatedly show subjects a picture of a face accompanied by a shock; soon, seeing the face alone activates the amygdala.9 As shown by Elizabeth Phelps of NYU, such “fear conditioning” occurs faster for other-race than same-race faces. Amygdalae are prepared to learn to associate something bad with Them. Moreover, people judge neutral other-race faces as angrier than neutral same-race faces.

So if whites see a black face shown at a subliminal speed, the amygdala activates.10 But if the face is shown long enough for conscious processing, the anterior cingulate and the “cognitive” dlPFC then activate and inhibit the amygdala. It’s the frontal cortex exerting executive control over the deeper, darker amygdaloid response.

Second depressing finding: subliminal signaling of race also affects the fusiform face area, the cortical region that specializes in facial recognition.11 Damaging the fusiform, for example, selectively produces “face blindness” (aka prosopagnosia), an inability to recognize faces. Work by John Gabrieli at MIT demonstrates less fusiform activation for other-race faces, with the effect strongest in the most implicitly racist subjects. This isn’t about novelty—show a face with purple skin and the fusiform responds as if it’s same-race. The fusiform isn’t fooled—“That’s not an Other; it’s just a ‘normal’ Photoshopped face.”

In accord with that, white Americans remember white better than black faces; moreover, mixed-race faces are remembered better if described as being of a white rather than a black person. Remarkably, if mixed-race subjects are told they’ve been assigned to one of the two races for the study, they show less fusiform response to faces of the arbitrarily designated “other” race.12

Our attunement to race is shown in another way, too.13 Show a video of someone’s hand being poked with a needle, and subjects have an “isomorphic sensorimotor” response—hands tense in empathy. Among both whites and blacks, the response is blunted for other-race hands; the more the implicit racism, the more blunting. Similarly, among subjects of both races, there’s more activation of the (emotional) medial PFC when considering misfortune befalling a member of their own race than of another race.

This has major implications. In work by Joshua Correll at the University of Colorado, subjects were rapidly shown pictures of people holding either a gun or a cell phone and were told to shoot (only) gun toters. This is painfully reminiscent of the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo. Diallo, a West African immigrant in New York, matched a description of a rapist. Four white officers questioned him, and when the unarmed Diallo started to pull out his wallet, they decided it was a gun and fired forty-one shots. The underlying neurobiology concerns “event-related potentials” (ERPs), which are stimulus-induced changes in electrical activity of the brain (as assessed by EEG—electroencephalography). Threatening faces produce a distinctive change (called the P200 component) in the ERP waveform in under two hundred milliseconds. Among white subjects, viewing someone black evokes a stronger P200 waveform than viewing someone white, regardless of whether the person is armed. Then, a few milliseconds later, a second, inhibitory waveform (the N200 component) appears, originating from the frontal cortex—“Let’s think a sec about what we’re seeing before we shoot.” Viewing a black individual evokes less of an N200 waveform than does seeing someone white. The greater the P200/N200 ratio (i.e., the greater the ratio of I’m-feeling-threatened to Hold-on-a-sec), the greater the likelihood of shooting an unarmed black individual. In another study subjects had to identify fragmented pictures of objects. Priming white subjects with subliminal views of black (but not white) faces made them better at detecting pictures of weapons (but not cameras or books).14

Finally, for the same criminal conviction, the more stereotypically African a black individual’s facial features, the longer the sentence.15 In contrast, juries view black (but not white) male defendants more favorably if they’re wearing big, clunky glasses; some defense attorneys even exploit this “nerd defense” by accessorizing their clients with fake glasses, and prosecuting attorneys ask whether those dorky glasses are real. In other words, when blind, impartial justice is supposedly being administered, jurors are unconsciously biased by racial stereotypes of someone’s face.

This is so depressing—are we hardwired to fear the face of someone of another race, to process their face less as a face, to feel less empathy? No. For starters, there’s tremendous individual variation—not everyone’s amygdala activates in response to an other-race face, and those exceptions are informative. Moreover, subtle manipulations rapidly change the amygdaloid response to the face of an Other. This will be covered in chapter 11.
So yes, babies show racial bias. This isn't hard-coded because different people have different responses, an initial reaction may be very different from a response that takes a longer period of time (the longer period may be less than a second), and it's not the same thing as racism.

The whistleblower is wrong in denying this, and so are the trainers, who are drawing unsupported conclusions.

Yes, I can feel the impartiality oozing through the internet.

How many times does he single out whites? Is there not a similar response from people of other races?

Just by my knowledge of history and interacting with people I would say yes, this is universal.

Only people in my memory I ever heard utter the words "Pinche indio de mierda" (Fucking shit Indian) at a person that looked like a descendant of the Mexican indians was a black cuban woman. And the bitch was really nasty to the poor person attending the check out in the OXXO (kind of a 7-Eleven).

Are you aware thyat in Africa theres racial hatred among different etnicities of black people? Shocking I know.

Are you aware that Chinese people are extremelly racist towards non-chinese even if they are from Asia?

I don't recall the whistle blower saying there's no bias in toddlers, but I do remember the affirmation that toddlers ARE racist.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #247 on: July 27, 2021, 02:52:20 PM »
Yes, I can feel the impartiality oozing through the internet.

How many times does he single out whites? Is there not a similar response from people of other races?
He's reporting on the studies that are available. Sociology tends to have a W.E.I.R.D. bias -- most studies have traditionally been done on college students, because they're the most readily available group. But those college students are Western, educated, and from industrialized, rich, and democratic countries. And white, for that matter. Which leaves much of the rest of the world much more poorly represented.

Only people in my memory I ever heard utter the words "Pinche indio de mierda" (Fucking shit Indian) at a person that looked like a descendant of the Mexican indians was a black cuban woman. And the bitch was really nasty to the poor person attending the check out in the OXXO (kind of a 7-Eleven).

Are you aware thyat in Africa theres racial hatred among different etnicities of black people? Shocking I know.

Are you aware that Chinese people are extremelly racist towards non-chinese even if they are from Asia?
That's racism, a different and much more complex topic than the one addressed, which is the immediate response to race in the brain.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #248 on: July 27, 2021, 02:57:17 PM »
The Clark doll test was a real thing, and of course demonstrated that the dominant culture at the time had created an unconscious bias in black children to have negative feelings about their own in-group.

Thanks, RPGPundit. It's interesting to hear that from you. I agree that the Clark doll test was a real thing, and I think people at the time were right to be shocked by it. I think some skepticism is reasonable as about any social science, and I'm hesitant to come to any hard conclusions about the source of the behavior, but it's clear that young black children had negative reactions to dolls that looked like them - which is clearly a bad state of affairs.

A lot of other posters here dismiss it, though, and even pushback against the original civil rights movement, like oggsmash in this post -

   Regarding original civil rights movement, shitloads of commies all over that movement, who were in it for anything but civil rights, but it made a great cloak to wear to see your will done.

To oggsmash - I think the Clarks who created the doll test and people who promoted its conclusions like Thurgood Marshall were indeed in it for civil rights, as were most supporters of the movement.

---

The big question is how much things have changed over the past 70-odd years.

Well, there was a large study of different ethnic groups a couple of years ago, I believe it was in the UK though I might be remembering wrong, which found that all races have a majority positive bias toward their own ethnicity, with one single exception: non-latino white people. White people are the only group that have a slight majority NEGATIVE view of their own in-group, that is to say, the only group that says "white people are bad".

I've tried a couple of searches and can't find that study. Do you (or anyone else) have a link? From my search, I see several other attempts to reproduce the Clark doll test recently, but they came to different conclusions. It's quite possible that especially with varying methods and populations that tests will have different results. Pat cites a bunch of more advanced studies that trace neurological function.

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8331
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #249 on: July 27, 2021, 03:32:07 PM »
This whole thing makes me wonder if today the same percentage of SJWs that started this whole mess still agree with what it has turned to, or if maybe some of it became a little too extreme for a majority.

I think starting is too big a thing to pin on any person. I do know that people have been walking away from the SJW cause because somewhere along the line, they hit some cognitive dissonance with what the movement claims to represent, and what it actually does. People like Keri Smith of Unsafe Space, and the whole #walkaway movement, or Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #250 on: July 27, 2021, 03:34:34 PM »
The Clark doll test was a real thing, and of course demonstrated that the dominant culture at the time had created an unconscious bias in black children to have negative feelings about their own in-group.

Thanks, RPGPundit. It's interesting to hear that from you. I agree that the Clark doll test was a real thing, and I think people at the time were right to be shocked by it. I think some skepticism is reasonable as about any social science, and I'm hesitant to come to any hard conclusions about the source of the behavior, but it's clear that young black children had negative reactions to dolls that looked like them - which is clearly a bad state of affairs.
There are some methodological criticisms of the Clark study. One is that there were no commercially available black dolls at the time, so the black dolls used in the study were painted white dolls. The lack of appropriate features, apparent fakeness of the paint, and so on could have influenced the results.

Though the the study has been replicated quite a few times, and it seems to be generally considered valid.

Zelen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 861
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #251 on: July 27, 2021, 03:46:33 PM »
As a general rule Humans generally have demonstrated a preference for lighter skin (particularly in women), and this effect is true regardless of whether it's an African in European/American society or an African in African society or a European in European society, etc. It's misleading at best, outright lying and propaganda to suggest that preference for a lighter skinned doll represents some kind of programming toward self-hatred.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #252 on: July 27, 2021, 04:08:22 PM »
Yes, I can feel the impartiality oozing through the internet.

How many times does he single out whites? Is there not a similar response from people of other races?

He's reporting on the studies that are available. Sociology tends to have a W.E.I.R.D. bias -- most studies have traditionally been done on college students, because they're the most readily available group. But those college students are Western, educated, and from industrialized, rich, and democratic countries. And white, for that matter. Which leaves much of the rest of the world much more poorly represented.

IF I were doing a study about that topic, in the west, I would take care of getting a representative sample of ALL the races present in the country, AND if only one was big enough for that then I would find said representative sample elsewhere, maybe even do a longitudinal study accross several different countries?

But then again I would want the study to hold to scrutiny and not to confirm MY biases.

Only people in my memory I ever heard utter the words "Pinche indio de mierda" (Fucking shit Indian) at a person that looked like a descendant of the Mexican indians was a black cuban woman. And the bitch was really nasty to the poor person attending the check out in the OXXO (kind of a 7-Eleven).

Are you aware thyat in Africa theres racial hatred among different etnicities of black people? Shocking I know.

Are you aware that Chinese people are extremelly racist towards non-chinese even if they are from Asia?
That's racism, a different and much more complex topic than the one addressed, which is the immediate response to race in the brain.

Yep, that's racism, and the scum hired by Hasbro were pushing and conflating bias with racism and adjudicating it to only one race.

As a reminder, I'm a mongrel, descendant of Spaniards and Maya in my immediate family. Too white for the progresives and not white enough for the white supremacists.

Your "impartial" scientist seems to me as very partial, so much so that he made no effort to get samples from other races, heavily biased against whites. And he makes several times judgments of morality in his findings.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #253 on: July 27, 2021, 04:21:18 PM »
The Clark doll test was a real thing, and of course demonstrated that the dominant culture at the time had created an unconscious bias in black children to have negative feelings about their own in-group.

Thanks, RPGPundit. It's interesting to hear that from you. I agree that the Clark doll test was a real thing, and I think people at the time were right to be shocked by it. I think some skepticism is reasonable as about any social science, and I'm hesitant to come to any hard conclusions about the source of the behavior, but it's clear that young black children had negative reactions to dolls that looked like them - which is clearly a bad state of affairs.

Something being a real thing and the conclusions someone got from that thing being accurate are two very different things.

As it has been pointed to you several times be me and others it had a ridiculously small sample size, was NOT conducted on toddlers and there could be other alternative causes for the behaviour of the children towards the black dolls, for instance parental abuse off the child. I know you think black people and especially black women are saints that would never misstreat their children but the evidence goes against your religious dogma.

A lot of other posters here dismiss it, though, and even pushback against the original civil rights movement, like oggsmash in this post -

   Regarding original civil rights movement, shitloads of commies all over that movement, who were in it for anything but civil rights, but it made a great cloak to wear to see your will done.

To oggsmash - I think the Clarks who created the doll test and people who promoted its conclusions like Thurgood Marshall were indeed in it for civil rights, as were most supporters of the movement.

LOL, pointing out there were lots of commie scum in the civil righst movement now is the same as dismissing it? From people that would like to preserve MLK's way of doing things?

You'll need a better strawman than that one.

---
The big question is how much things have changed over the past 70-odd years.

Let me guess, you think things are worst now than then and that those demanding segregation (racial and sexual segregation), are the good guys and have the right answer?

Well, there was a large study of different ethnic groups a couple of years ago, I believe it was in the UK though I might be remembering wrong, which found that all races have a majority positive bias toward their own ethnicity, with one single exception: non-latino white people. White people are the only group that have a slight majority NEGATIVE view of their own in-group, that is to say, the only group that says "white people are bad".

I've tried a couple of searches and can't find that study. Do you (or anyone else) have a link? From my search, I see several other attempts to reproduce the Clark doll test recently, but they came to different conclusions. It's quite possible that especially with varying methods and populations that tests will have different results. Pat cites a bunch of more advanced studies that trace neurological function.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Hasbro CRT Whistleblower and WoTC Wokism Exposed!
« Reply #254 on: July 27, 2021, 05:49:02 PM »
Your "impartial" scientist seems to me as very partial, so much so that he made no effort to get samples from other races, heavily biased against whites. And he makes several times judgments of morality in his findings.
His book is a summary of the current state of the science on the human mind. He's not the author of those studies, and it would be silly to expect him to conduct his own study, especially since it's a minor tangent in his book.

If you're referring to the comments like "depressing", that's the only place in the entire 800 page book where anything like that shows up. I'm assuming it's token racism-bad-m'kay virtue signalling so he doesn't get attacked from wrongthink, because I see similar statements in other books by academics that happen to brush up against hot button social issues like racism or sexism. But you'll notice the entire section is about tangible, reproducible results, and the conclusions he comes to are not in line with what the critical race theorists are saying -- he's pointing out it's not inherent, and it's not universal. He also rejects the idea that implicit bias tests are a good measure of someone's overall racism, which again is counter to the narrative, which holds them up as one of the key pieces of evidence in favor of systemic racism. If he were woke, everything in the book would be loaded with value judgments, and the parts on race would fit the narrative. Instead, as I mentioned, he seems like an old school American liberal. He's got a hippy bias.