Sign in to follow this  
Carborendum

CRT - Why this guy is right and wrong

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply...

Yay!  And the award for the first person to go for a (polite and mild) personal attack on the messenger, goes to, of all people, @The Folk Prophet!  I believe it shows how core of an issue this is to us all, and how raw things can get.

Ok.  Since my character is now called into question, I will respond by being transparent.  I certainly wouldn't want people to think I'm "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that I know less about something than I really do".

Me, in a nutshell:

I'm worried.  I'm worried about the winds of culture being blown.  I hear the voices that are saying "if you're white, you're racist", and "blacks can't experience racism".   We all remember MLK's I have a Dream speech, where he talks about people being judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.   I am utterly shocked to my core, to see those inspired words so abandoned by one side of the political spectrum, who seem hell-bent on replacing them with the exact opposite notion.  I never, ever, thought I'd see such a 1984-esque example of people tearing down the "we love Eurasia" posters and putting up the "we love Eurafrica" posters.  But holy crap, it happened during COVID.  I see this as a transparent attempt at a power grab, by forces who wish to dismantle our sacred institutions, and are doing everything they can to stoke the fires of a race war, and convince as many people as possible that my side is not just wrong, but downright evil.  I'm seeing, more than ever before, the growing effectiveness of those who shout, attack, and cancel my opposing viewpoint.

So, I ask myself, what should I do about it?

I've always had the best luck at such things, when I take all the best arguments against my position, and learn them so well, that I can restate them at least as good as my opponents.  If I find a modicum of truth in the opposing arguments (which I always do), I've found it quite effective to seize on that truth, claim it as my own, and state it boldly.

(To wit: Yes, both conscious and subconscious/implicit bias exists in every human.)

It costs me nothing to seize on such truth, and hoist it up on my banner as I wave it.  In fact, bot only does God command me to do such things, it also benefits me greatly in battle, because when compared to other folks on my team, who are shrinking at the whole thing like dracula faced with a crucifix, or strawmanning themselves into a tizzy, it becomes impossible for my opponent to credibly claim that I'm missing their point, or too stupid to get it, or refusing to interact with their argument.  When I stick my fingers in my ears and lalalala myself out of having to admit that not everything my opponent says is unmitigated hogwash, I lose.  And in this battle, it's a pretty dang important battle, and the cultural forces at play are substantial.  As I have fought this battle elsewhere, I've now received two different specific threats to hurt my family by doxxing me and getting me fired.  

So yes, I already know Harvard eggheads are so overwhelmingly and utterly liberal, that they don't know their own biases.  But you know what?  When we rely on that obvious fact, in a discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of their implicit bias test, we're basically losing.  And I don't want to lose.

So, I find one of the strong claims of CRT to be "everyone has bias, and many have subconscious bias".  Pretty much everyone here believes it too.  It's stupid to fight against something so obviously true.  I'd rather spend my time fighting against what folks are doing with that truth: 

- All white people are racist.
- You can dismiss people who don't believe/trust CRT, because they're too dumb/blind/evil to handle the truth.
- The solution to our nations problems are to elevate minorities by tearing down those seen as advantaged.
- Every time law enforcement beats/kills a black man, it's proof of institutional racism, and reason to abolish/neuter/defund the police.

Those are some of the points being made by cultural winds, that I'd rather be fighting against.  

But here I am instead, fighting with my own people, about whether an implicit bias test is evil or not.  

 

 

There.  So, what do you folks say?  Is my suggestion to spend some time interacting with the Harvard IAT useful, or am I being "a bit disingenuous" by not pairing my comments with a bunch of text about how Harvard eggheads are the evil bad guys who are really the ones who should be doxxed/fired/shamed/canceled?

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Since my character is now called into question

Dude, if your character was ever called into question, 100% of us here would back you up. So don’t worry about that. We got your back. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

And the award for the first person to go for a (polite and mild) personal attack on the messenger, goes to,

Maybe it's just my inability to communicate clearly, but this is still rather frustrating.

I think you're reading personal attack into it. It was meant as a generalized rhetorical idea.

This sort of chip-on-the-shoulder responses to things that people seem determined to have (me as well I'm sure) really keeps me from really being very interested in returning to conversation here (or anywhere on the internet, honestly). You can't have a conversation on matters...even with someone you generally agree with and respect, without it becoming a "personal attack"? Why are you taking this to mean that I'm calling you a liar instead of taking it to mean (how I meant it) that I think viewing Harvard's intentions as neutrally innocent is simply not calling a spade a spade?

It's really frustrating.

Either way....I'm really not invested in proving myself right or having some throw-down hurtful debate. I just thought the survey thingy was flawed and wanted to express the matter. So I'll step out of the mix now and go back to my reading only status.

 

Edit:

How I meant it:

I think it would be a bit of a disingenuous approach for us to assume that...

How you took it:

I think you're being disingenuous...

 

I do apologize that I wasn't more clear in my writing. I, honestly, meant no personal attack. I probably shouldn't have used that word...and probably wasn't using it entirely correctly.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I probably shouldn't have used that word...

That would have been disingenuous. For shame!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yep, as acknowledged by the eggheads in their FAQ.  Hence the very specific use of non-blanket statements throughout the whole site:

I'll bet dollars to donuts that it doesn't take literal milliseconds into account.  I'll be that they stacked the deck on the test.  This DOES NOT MEAN they did it on purpose.  I see it as a confirmation bias in their methodology.  They are just as prone to preconceived notions as anyone else.  A lot of people see neutrality as a bias against a disaffected party.  If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem philosophy.  And such thinking would obviously carry over into the measurements on the tests.

Hence, stupid test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2021 at 6:30 PM, NeuroTypical said:

It does more than measure the answers, it measures the time taken to answer. If you literally fly through all of the X/good, Y/bad questions, but you take longer before you can answer the X/bad, Y/good questions, that would seem to indicate a bias, either in favor of X, or against Y, or both.

because, if you didn’t have a bias, then why would your response times be different?

I just re-took the test for Asian vs Whites.  I purposefully took at least three seconds to answer ALL of the association questions.  And now it says I have a slight association of European with American and Foreign with Asian.

Yeah, even though I purposefully took three seconds for both European and Asian as well as foreign and American.  I was a freaking machine with the 3 second counting. 

  • And they didn't take any of the European to American as hesitation.
  • But they did take the Foreign to Asian as hesitation.

I may not know exactly how, but they stacked the deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This sort of chip-on-the-shoulder responses to things that people seem determined to have (me as well I'm sure) really keeps me from really being very interested in returning to conversation here (or anywhere on the internet, honestly). 

I'm sorry TFP.  I know that taking offense where none is intended, hampers understanding and progress.  

I've also noticed that recently, as CRT, race issues, the LGBTQA+ steamroller, assaults on our government and laws, and others gain steam and momentum and start being more in-your-face, we're all quicker to give and take offense.   Sorry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'll be that they stacked the deck on the test.  This DOES NOT MEAN they did it on purpose.  I see it as a confirmation bias in their methodology.  They are just as prone to preconceived notions as anyone else.  A lot of people see neutrality as a bias against a disaffected party.  If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem philosophy.  And such thinking would obviously carry over into the measurements on the tests.

Well, if we accept the notion that subconscious bias is a real thing that happens to real people, it makes it only easier to distrust and suspect folks on the other sides of our fences.  It used to be "they're not playing fair because they're bad", now it's also "they don't mean to not play fair, but it's happening anyway". 

Well, it's what various other sides all think about us and our support for constitutions and rule of law and attempts to love our neighbors.  Why shouldn't we think it about them too?

I'm disheartened.  Gonna bolster myself with some Stendahl's rules of religious understanding.  Works well for folks on the different sides of about any fences:

1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
2. Don't compare your best to their worst.
3. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the black vs white test.  I gamed the test.

Here's what it bases it on:

1) If you go fast with the button, that implies an association is made in your mind.  
2) If you go fast with one descriptor (e.g. black) and slow with another descriptor (e.g. bad) then it implies a lack of association (bias).
3) If you go fast with both, or slow with both, it doesn't say much.

It isn't a matter of milliseconds difference.  It is a pattern of establishing your designation for each hand. 

Since it is difficult for the human mind to associate two things to one hand, it is understood that we will make an assignment of one descriptor to each hand.  But if the associations between a pairing of descriptors (e.g. black and bad) are already in your head, then they will go equally fast when they are paired on the screen.

This all makes sense.  But the result is preposterous because there is no way to adjust for outlier behavior (which, BTW, I'm full of -- or at least I'm full of...something).

Once I figured out the theory behind it, I gamed it thusly:  

  • I did fast associations with races.
  • I did slow associations with the other traits.  I purposefully slowed my responses to traits to 3 seconds for the trait on the white side, and 2 seconds for the trait on the black side. 
  • It got me a positive affinity for blacks and a negative affinity for whites. 

Now, that may sound right because of the times.  But the problem is that I gave the same timeframe for the respective races for both positive and negative traits.  So, shouldn't it have been equal?

Something was not right about that test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

"they're not playing fair because they're bad", now it's also "they don't mean to not play fair, but it's happening anyway". 

I have no idea what this means, or to whom it refers in what situation.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Backroads said:

*raises hand* Three of my neighbors are teachers.

It's actually weird. I used to teach at this one school maybe four years ago. The lady who actually owns the house next door was one of my coworkers. She rents it to her daughter, who is also a teacher there.

Then another one of the teachers from that school moved in across the street. 

Allow me to be clearer. I was referring specifically to your racist neighbor that you expressed concern about.

it seems there’s a strong faction here that believe you have nothing to worry about! By all means let him watch your kids for several hours a day. You should know you have nothing to be concerned about if your ideas and culture are truly better than his.

Maybe later I’ll check to confirm, but I believe some of the “no sheltering” proponents here were among those offering condolences for your association with an open racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Allow me to be clearer. I was referring specifically to your racist neighbor that you expressed concern about.

it seems there’s a strong faction here that believe you have nothing to worry about! By all means let him watch your kids for several hours a day. You should know you have nothing to be concerned about if your ideas and culture are truly better than his.

Maybe later I’ll check to confirm, but I believe some of the “no sheltering” proponents here were among those offering condolences for your association with an open racist.

I was just being glib. I had completely forgotten about my racist neighbor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2021 at 8:16 PM, Traveler said:

This may sound over critical but I do not mean it that way.  Your argument looks more like Lucifer's argument against agency than aligning with the knowledge of good and evil that came as part of the Plan of Salvation - in particular the fall of man.  The sad truth is - if there is any opportunity to make a bad choice, someone will do so.  If critical race theory is never really a choice then there is NO agency.

 

I don't understand your argument at all.  Are you saying I'm required to allow my children to be exposed to sin and if I shelter them from that then I'm like Satan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2021 at 6:48 PM, Vort said:

I don't understand your objection. Are you saying that those who would not allow their children to be exposed to so-called critical race theory are acting in a Satanic manner?

If so, do you feel the same about those who refuse to expose their children to prostitution or gang violence? What is the difference?

Also for @Grunt   - I will make an attempt to make my view understood.  I believe in Agency and the statement given by Joseph Smith when he said, "Teach correct principles and allow people to govern themselves".    Obviously there are young children incapable of making life changing decisions that ought to be protected but it would seem that every person has a right to agency and choose to follow whatever course they will according to their agency and choice.

With this in mind - it is my personal opinion that it is contrary to G-d given agency to insist on making decisions for anyone but yourself.   We should make every effort to make "TRUTH" known but with the understanding that we cannot prevent every and all exposure to lies and false claims.  I will go even a little farther in saying that it is somewhat futile to think we can protect others from being influenced by lies and hypocrisy.  

In short - I believe we must be a "light" to the world to draw attention to truth - that it is misleading to apply all or even our most valued resources to hide darkness.  I believe the only real defense against darkness is the light of truth.

 

The Traveler 

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Obviously there are young children incapable of making life changing decisions that ought to be protected...

Ahem... unless you haven't noticed, we're talking about children here.  That's the entire theme of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Ahem... unless you haven't noticed, we're talking about children here.  That's the entire theme of this thread.

A little story and perhaps you have heard it before.  There was a young girl the grew up on a chicken farm.  At a very young she watched eggs as the new chicks hatched.  She saw their struggles trying to break through the egg shells.  She thought that they ought to be helped so when she saw them struggling to break out she helped crack the shell making it easier for them.  Her father saw his daughter trying to help and came to her.  He separated the chicken she had helped and explained that new chicks must endure hardships and develop strength breaking the shell that would assist them to survive their first few days of life.

Within a week all the assisted chicks had died.  So what is the point?  I believe the point is that we assist children in strength now weakness.  As powerful, smart and compassionate as G-d is - he does not focus on stopping evil - rather he call his children to the light of Christ.  I do not know what Jesus taught the little children when he said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me" but I am quite sure he did not talk about critical race theory.  And yet I am quite sure that children of his day faced greater hazards.

In my youth, I thought that there were some kids that were much smarter than the rest of us.  I was in Jr High when I discovered that the smart kids were not really all that smart except that they had done their homework.  For decades our prophets have counselled that we teach our children in our homes.  Teach them to read scriptures and pray daily.  And this we do in our homes.  I would suggest that teaching is not forcing or doing so against their or your own will.  I believe that the advice came with a blessing - that through obedience to our covenants and making a place for the spirit in our home - that our children will know the truth.  Jesus said that if we follow his "word" we will know the truth and the truth will make us free.

As difficult as turbulent as the Latter-days will be (and we are in the Latter-days) - I do not believe we can protect our children by hiding them from evil but rather that we make the light of truth known.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kept telling myself I was going to steer clear of these CRT threads, but then I saw this clip posted on Twitter in response to a congressman claiming that CRT goes against everything MLK stood for. If you don't grasp what CRT is, Dr. King does a great job of laying out the foundation of it here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Godless said:

I kept telling myself I was going to steer clear of these CRT threads, but then I saw this clip posted on Twitter in response to a congressman claiming that CRT goes against everything MLK stood for. If you don't grasp what CRT is, Dr. King does a great job of laying out the foundation of it here.

Again, you can take a single event in history and make it all about that one point.  See the attachment.

The great black migration.pdf

  • Blacks moving from the South to the North made 3x what they made in the South.
  • White / Black income disparity continued.
  • EVERYone had wages increase (in terms of real dollars - i.e. adjusted for cost of living and inflation) during this period.

What people don't take into account is the generational effect of income -- just as they use generational income as a bludgeon to hammer their point home.

White people came here with nothing as well.  They went through poverty for a couple centuries before the war.  Many went off into indentured servitude due to poverty.  Parents had to secure servitude for family when they didn't have enough to feed the family.  Those who came out of servitude very often ended up begging or dying.

Those who survived built wealth across many generations.  Gradually increasing.

Blacks only started this cycle since the end of the Civil war.  They have even better opportunity to build this generational wealth just as whites did.  But they lack the family structure to carry this onward to future generations and follow the same path to wealth as 99% of whites did.

Asians came to America with nothing.  But they had strong family values.  Parents worked their tails off at multiple minimum wage jobs to make sure their kids could go to college.  They emphasized how important it was to study.  Education was the path to success.  And guess what, Asians achieve wealth in fewer generations than any other immigrant group.

When Blacks suffer from fatherless homes, broken homes, etc. what hope is there for generational growth?  If generational growth is not going to happen among Blacks because of broken homes how is it that part of the argument is that whites have generational wealth?  Why don't blacks shoot for the same thing instead of wanting everything NOW!?

EXAMPLE: Larry Elder

His father lived in the Jim Crow South.  He moved to a less racist state, California, where they still had "white entrances" and "black entrances" (so much for less racist).  He worked his tail off for decades, getting only three hours of sleep a night.  He used his skills as a cook to eventually open his own restaurant.  He made the sacrifices to make sure his kids went to college.

Larry and his brother both went to college (Larry has a Law Degree) and were very successful.  They are both very wealthy.  Generational sacrifice.  Generational wealth.

And instead of encouraging these kinds of inspiring stories, they want to extort money on a nationwide scale?  All because they don't understand the importance of families. Not so inspiring.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Again, you can take a single event in history and make it all about that one point.  See the attachment.

The great black migration.pdf

  • Blacks moving from the South to the North made 3x what they made in the South.
  • White / Black income disparity continued.
  • EVERYone had wages increase (in terms of real dollars - i.e. adjusted for cost of living and inflation) during this period.

What people don't take into account is the generational effect of income -- just as they use generational income as a bludgeon to hammer their point home.

White people came here with nothing as well.  They went through poverty for a couple centuries before the war.  Many went off into indentured servitude due to poverty.  Parents had to secure servitude for family when they didn't have enough to feed the family.  Those who came out of servitude very often ended up begging or dying.

Those who survived built wealth across many generations.  Gradually increasing.

Blacks only started this cycle since the end of the Civil war.  They have even better opportunity to build this generational wealth just as whites did.  But they lack the family structure to carry this onward to future generations and follow the same path to wealth as 99% of whites did.

Asians came to America with nothing.  But they had strong family values.  Parents worked their tails off at multiple minimum wage jobs to make sure their kids could go to college.  They emphasized how important it was to study.  Education was the path to success.  And guess what, Asians achieve wealth in fewer generations than any other immigrant group.

When Blacks suffer from fatherless homes, broken homes, etc. what hope is there for generational growth?  If generational growth is not going to happen among Blacks because of broken homes how is it that part of the argument is that whites have generational wealth?  Why don't blacks shoot for the same thing instead of wanting everything NOW!?

EXAMPLE: Larry Elder

His father lived in the Jim Crow South.  He moved to a less racist state, California, where they still had "white entrances" and "black entrances" (so much for less racist).  He worked his tail off for decades, getting only three hours of sleep a night.  He used his skills as a cook to eventually open his own restaurant.  He made the sacrifices to make sure his kids went to college.

Larry and his brother both went to college (Larry has a Law Degree) and were very successful.  They are both very wealthy.  Generational sacrifice.  Generational wealth.

And instead of encouraging these kinds of inspiring stories, they want to extort money on a nationwide scale?  All because they don't understand the importance of families. Not so inspiring.

Was it broken family structure that massacred hundreds of black residents in a (notably prosperous) Tulsa neighborhood in 1921?

Was it broken family structure that killed five children and left over 200 black families homeless after a bomb was dropped in the middle of a Philadelphia neighborhood in 1985?

Was it broken family structure that deliberately left out black families when the New Deal started building up the suburbs?

I'm not saying that it's impossible for black Americans to prosper in this country, but it's important to acknowledge that they faced institutionally-enforced barriers to progress for decades after slavery ended. No other race has had to overcome the kind of hurdles that black Americans have. That's not to say that other races haven't had to overcome hardship and poverty, but they didn't have to fight a system that actively held them back after having them literally enslaved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve stopped being surprised at things. This is actually a very good article, by the NotTheBee Organization:

https://notthebee.com/article/forget-critical-race-theory-lets-talk-specifics

(for those who don’t know the org, it is a reverse-parody site, piggybacking off of the success of  The Babylon Bee.  The Bee is a parody site, and this link is a site that specializes in showing real news that really looks like a parody but isn’t.)

 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this