CRT - Why this guy is right and wrong


Carborendum

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I do not believe we need to fear critical race theory, communism or any other theory. 

I disagree.   The issue is many families aren't teaching their children values or the worth and importance of liberty.  Additionally, those that are teaching CRT, Communism, etc aren't teaching children to think critically.  They may "say" they are, but they aren't.  They are indoctrinating their children.   This is no different than the millions of other families, including us, that are indoctrinating our children.   I give them a foundation of my beliefs.   I hope they develop an affinity for, or a testimony of, those beliefs.  I hope that they examine those beliefs and have an unshakeable understanding of them.  Then I send them out into the world.   Hopefully, as they encounter new ideas and opposing beliefs they sound those ideas off the foundation they were given, accepting what fits with their world view and rejecting what doesn't.   

With many households no longer focused on the family, those children are open to indoctrination by anyone.   

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further discussion:

Correct: 

  • CRT (The legal theory discussed/defined earlier) is not taught in primary or secondary education.  It is a legal theory taught in law schools as a method of analysis.
  • Culture warriors are labeling ANY discussion of racism (etc.) as CRT.  These are the same culture warriors who cry out about discrimination and white people are inherently evil.

Incorrect implication:

She implies that it is the parents of children who are objecting to what the schools are doing as the initiators of this false label.  Nope, the liberal activists started using the label for such broad usage until it caught on.  Now, that is the common language term to use.  The legal language will probably still be used in law school.  But this is the common language usage now.

Consider:

If she's perfectly openly correct in every way, will the requested bans affect anything?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2021 at 1:50 PM, LDSGator said:

And define “indoctrination”. I want my kids to know 2+2=4, and honestly, if my kid says the 2+2=9, then he needs to be “indoctrinated”. 

HYG,

https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/03/15/lawsuit-biracial-high-school-student-receives-failing-grade-in-sociology-class-after-refusing-to-attach-aspects-of-identity-to-oppression-and-dominance/

Where is the "open discussion" here?  All public schools are based on the premise: either you do as the teacher says or you receive a failing grade.

This is fine for things that are settled as fact (math).  But when you're talking about requiring someone to "admit to their oppression and dominance" or fail the class, that is indoctrination.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

All public schools are based on the premise: either you do as the teacher says or you receive a failing grade.

That didn’t happen in college for me. I was the sole conservative in class and while I’d love to play the victim and martyr, it wouldn’t be true. 
 

I also have confidence that the majority of public high school teachers can be professional. Will you find a looney sometimes? You bet. But I can also find those who do homeschooling. 
 

 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Grunt said:

I disagree.   The issue is many families aren't teaching their children values or the worth and importance of liberty.  Additionally, those that are teaching CRT, Communism, etc aren't teaching children to think critically.  They may "say" they are, but they aren't.  They are indoctrinating their children.   This is no different than the millions of other families, including us, that are indoctrinating our children.   I give them a foundation of my beliefs.   I hope they develop an affinity for, or a testimony of, those beliefs.  I hope that they examine those beliefs and have an unshakeable understanding of them.  Then I send them out into the world.   Hopefully, as they encounter new ideas and opposing beliefs they sound those ideas off the foundation they were given, accepting what fits with their world view and rejecting what doesn't.   

With many households no longer focused on the family, those children are open to indoctrination by anyone.   

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.

Granted a 5 year old need guidance and discipline but by time a person is 25 they should be able to make choices for themselves.  As I look around I am amazed at how badly choices are made in our current society.  And this is not just in association with morals and values.  I am shocked how many adults will not make choices to be healthy or economically solvent.  But has anyone noticed how ineffective it is to tell someone that they are fat and eat like a pig or that they are too stupid to have a credit card?  The truth is that it does not take any effort to be to make bad choices.  Good choices require the light of truth (intelligence) and discipline.  No one should be force to be intelligent or stupid.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, 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 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LDSGator said:

That didn’t happen in college for me. I was the sole conservative in class and while I’d love to play the victim and martyr, it wouldn’t be true. 

This is one example.  Is it the typical?  I think not.

14 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I also have confidence that the majority of public high school teachers can be professional. 

I disagree.  I've had many examples otherwise.  And when the NEA, itself, is pushing this agenda, I don't know how much power individual teachers have to do otherwise.

I can give you an example of something completely ideologically neutral: Freshman high school English class.  The teacher was telling us

Quote

We use "Number" when it is something we can count.  We use "Amount" when it is something we can't count.

This is perfectly correct, right.  But then she used an example.

Quote

Since the stars in the sky are infinite, we have to say "amount" of stars because you can't count them.

I disagreed and told her the correct usage, and explained why.  I'll paraphrase her response:

Quote

If you do that on the test, you'll get marked wrong.

No discussion. "My way or the highway."  And you know what the other students' response was?

Quote

-- Carb, she's the teacher.  Just do what she says.

-- Hey, Carb.  Having fun counting all the stars in the sky lately? (not joking, but ridiculing).

-- I really don't care what's right or wrong.  I'm just trying to get a good grade in the class.

Whether individual teachers allow it or not, this is how the students were conditioned.  Regardless of the teachers, the "system" is designed to make children obedient (non-thinking) individuals.  They're "trained" to be either a factory worker or a STEM person.  Leaders and thinkers, movers and shakers are anomalies or they come through other modes of schooling.

Now, on the flip side:  I have raved many times about my OTHER English teacher.  He openly had discussions about the meaning of various books, short stories, poems, etc.  And if anyone said something he "disagreed with" he's simply ask, "How so?"  And we had an opportunity to make an argument.  And he was very receptive.  But this was a minority example.  Most of the teachers were "my way or the highway" kind of people.  And my school district was considered a very high quality one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

disagree.  I've had many examples otherwise.  And when the NEA, itself, is pushing this agenda, I don't know how much power individual teachers have to do otherwise.

I can give you an example of something completely ideologically neutral: Freshman high school English class.  The teacher was telling us

Quote

We certainly see it differently, and that’s fine. I’m confident  that the majority of high school teachers can put their views aside and be professional. Most people do this every day, it’s how our society functions! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2021 at 5:34 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Ah...but you see....you must have taken 4 milliseconds longer to indicate a positive word after seeing a Black face than you did when seeing an Asian one. Psychology! Clearly you want to kill your father and sleep with your mother.

So yes, this test and the notions behind it, are what fuels all the "every white person is a racist" nonsense we see.   But no, none of the eggheads at Harvard are saying anything about killing fathers and having sex with mothers.  

So fight against all the dumb all you want, but when you address the test itself, I see you admitting it probably returned an accurate result for you.  So, are you saying yes, you agree with the part of critical race theory that claims all humans have some sort of racial bias?

 

On 7/6/2021 at 6:07 PM, Carborendum said:

I didn't hesitate on any of the answers.  So, unless they are counting microseconds, I don't see how there could be any difference.

So, that would indicate that you have little to no implicit bias between whites and Asians, and maybe a slight bias towards blacks vs whites.  Why is that stupid?  

 

If folks want a baseline, try taking one of the tests where you readily admit a bias.  For me, I strongly favor Christianity, and I believe Islam is quite problematic and it's teachings can (and are) easily used to foster a culture of violent jihad.  Guess what results I get when I take the religion test?

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

How far are we prepared to take the “no sheltering” idea? Would it be best if we encouraged @Backroads’ neighbor to become a teacher?

*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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, are you saying yes, you agree with the part of critical race theory that claims all humans have some sort of racial bias?

We all have bias in everything we think and feel. That should be obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Why is that stupid?

Two stupids:

1. That so-called implicit bias is necessarily a bad thing that colors (npi) one's judgments.

2. That the test can successfully identify and quantify implicit bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Two stupids:

1. That so-called implicit bias is necessarily a bad thing that colors (npi) one's judgments.

So, again, I know the tests and notions like these are fueling plenty of spin.  But the Harvard eggheads are certainly not saying the “b” word.  And my corporate diversity training I attended last week didn’t claim it either.  Quite the opposite- they specifically said that biases, either knows or unconscious, are not bad. 

You and I are in agreement that biases are not necessarily a bad thing.  Do you believe that all humans have biases, and many/most have unconscious biases?

Or do you need to keep it qualified with a “so called” in front of the notion, like you are being forced to pick up someone else’s dog poo? 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of homeschooling, I am reminded that probably 5 or 10% of the homeschooling  families we interacted with, had at least one public school teacher parent.

Put clearly: There is not a small number of public school teachers, who homeschool their own children.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, again, I know the tests and notions like these are fueling plenty of spin.  But the Harvard eggheads are certainly not saying the “b” word.  And my corporate diversity training I attended last week didn’t claim it either.  Quite the opposite- they specifically said that biases, either knows or unconscious, are not bad. 

I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply that studies such as this are innocent. Maybe you don't mean to say that. Maybe I'm reading into things. But how could one not read such an idea into things in today's culture? How, exactly, do you think the result that "90 some-odd percent of white people have implicit bias towards black people" will be used?

Edit, I realized right after I wrote this that you literally answered my question in your first sentence. So I apologize for skimming/skipping that. But I would suggest that Harvard is not some innocent bystander that has no culpability in the matter. They know, darned well, how this sort of thing will be spun too. And they (at some level) are spinning it themselves in many ways.

Edit further: Let me be more explicit. During the 2020–2021 academic year, for example, Ibram X Kendi (author of How to Be and Antiracist) is serving as the Frances B. Cashin Fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Do you believe that all humans have biases, and many/most have unconscious biases?

Indeed I do. It's part and parcel of having a thinking brain.

29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Or do you need to keep it qualified with a “so called” in front of the notion, like you are being forced to pick up someone else’s dog poo?

No, the "so-called" is to emphasize that I do not necessarily agree with the phraseology or the implications/inferences that go with it. The very idea of "implicit bias" seems to carry the connotation that that the bias is inextricably linked with ("implicit" to) the viewpoint. I reject that assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, that would indicate that you have little to no implicit bias between whites and Asians, and maybe a slight bias towards blacks vs whites.  Why is that stupid?  

Milliseconds is an indication of bias?  A time frame so small that it is imperceptible to the human mind?  That implies bias?

So, there's no way that it could be explained by any other mental gymanstics like trying to figure out the new format when they switch things around?  Or how about the fact that I did the Blacks vs Whites test AFTER the Asians vs Whites?  So, my fingers were that much more tired than the first test which cost me milliseconds of time in response?  

No, I'm sticking with: it was a stupid test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, that would indicate that you have little to no implicit bias between whites and Asians, and maybe a slight bias towards blacks vs whites.  Why is that stupid?  

Milliseconds is an indication of bias?  A time frame so small that it is imperceptible to the human mind?  That implies bias?

So, you happily blaze away at an online test.  When black/good white/bad comes up, you are able to quickly indicate such.   When black/bad white/good comes up, you are also able to indicate such, but slightly more slowly.

If that doesn't imply bias, what does it imply?

Harvard proposes some things here in their FAQ: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/faqs.html

 

On 7/6/2021 at 11:26 PM, SilentOne said:

If this is the test I'm remembering, one big reason for a difference in response times is the need to unlearn the associations you had for the first set.

Addressed here: 

Quote

Could the result be a function of the order in which I did the two parts?

Yes, the order in which you take the test does have some influence on your overall results. However, the difference is small. So if you first pair Gay People + Bad / Straight People + Good and then pair Gay People + Good / Straight People + Bad, your results might be a tiny bit more negative than they would be if you had done the reverse pairing first. One way that we try to minimize this order effect is by giving more practice trials before the second pairing than we did before the first pairing. It is also important to know that each participant is randomly assigned to an order, so half of test-takers complete Gay People + Bad / Straight People + Good and then Gay People + Good / Straight People + Bad, and the other half of test-takers get the opposite order.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, the "so-called" is to emphasize that I do not necessarily agree with the phraseology or the implications/inferences that go with it. The very idea of "implicit bias" seems to carry the connotation that that the bias is inextricably linked with ("implicit" to) the viewpoint. I reject that assumption.

That's not how the Harvard eggheads use the term.  Explained in their FAQ (underlining mine):

Quote

What is an attitude?
An attitude is your evaluation of some concept (e.g., person, place, thing, or idea). An explicit attitude is the kind of attitude that you deliberately think about and report. For example, you could tell someone whether or not you like math. Implicit attitudes are positive and negative evaluations that are much less accessible to our conscious awareness and/or control. Even if you say that you like math (your explicit attitude), it is possible that you associate math with negativity without being actively aware of it. In this case, we would say that your implicit attitude toward math is negative.

What are implicit and explicit stereotypes?
Stereotypes are the belief that most members of a group have some characteristic. Some examples of stereotypes are the belief that women are nurturing or the belief that police officers like donuts. An explicit stereotype is the kind that you deliberately think about and report. An implicit stereotype is one that is relatively inaccessible to conscious awareness and/or control. Even if you say that men and women are equally good at math, it is possible that you associate math more strongly with men without being actively aware of it. In this case we would say that you have an implicit math + men stereotype.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carborendum said:

It implies I was a millisecond more tired with my fingers.

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

Quote

Your IAT results may be influenced by factors related to the test (e.g., the category labels or images/words used to represent the categories on the IAT) or factors related to the person taking the test (e.g., how tired you are, what you are thinking about).

I mean yes, it's absolutely possible that your left hand was tired at one point in the test, and your right hand was tired at another point during the same test.  Do you think that's a more likely explanation than "maybe you've got a slight bias of which you may be unaware"?  I ain't you, I don't know.

Perhaps a better question would be "Do you believe that most results from people taking these tests, come because their left hand gets tired at one point, and their right hand gets tired at another point?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

That's not how the Harvard eggheads

It also should be mentioned that there is no “grand conspiracy”. The “Harvard Eggheads” don’t sit in corners, smoke their pipes and talk about how they are going to get conservatives. They really are mostly interested in research. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

It also should be mentioned that there is no “grand conspiracy”. The “Harvard Eggheads” don’t sit in corners, smoke their pipes and talk about how they are going to get conservatives. They really are mostly interested in research. 

Dang it all!

Boys, put your guns away.  We're cancelling our trip to Harvard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested to know how the Harvard eggheads establish a correlation between the test score and actual implicit bias.

"Well, our tests SHOW the implicit bias! How do we know? Because THE TESTS SHOW IT. Duh."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...