🐱 My brain is racist. Does that mean I am?

CatParty


The “racist” label, applied to any person, place or thing, cuts deep. But what if we understood the moniker not as a scarlet letter of disgrace, but a brain default that we all share? And, more important, a default that we can overcome?

How? The only way our brains know how: Recognize and respond. Every action may well be followed by a reaction, but it must be preceded by recognition. Recognition sparks self-awareness. Self-awareness ignites good leadership.

To wit, there are two primary reasons my brain defaults to racist thinking. (For clarity, I’m invoking Ibram Kendi’s description that, “A racist idea is any idea that suggests that one racial group is inferior to — or superior to — another racial group in any way.”)

Reason No. 1: My life choices have been informed by a bounty of opportunities, experiences and privileges. Many I sought or earned, and many I did not. Some simply exist because I am white. For instance, not once has the color of my skin presented a potential barrier to a loan or job. Never has anyone asked what country I’m from or how I wear my hair. My skin color never warrants a second look.

Not having to weigh any one of those factors in the more than 2,000 choices I — and everyone — makes every waking hour impacts my deeds and decisions. As a result, the very neural pathways that make me me have formed largely without my conscious awareness of, let alone questioning, what it means to be white. I think therefore I am. And what I am is continuously shaped and reshaped by both my reflexive and reflectivethoughts and actions. These thoughts and actions create my brain’s default settings. Repetition strengthens them.

How do these same default settings lead to racist thinking? I feel better not having to be the spokesperson for every fair-skinned woman in the office; not having to mollify white colleagues who feel guilty about their own or others’ unintentional slights. In other words, I feel better off in my whiteness. In most dictionaries, “superior” is synonymous with “better.” Do these feelings make me racist? Not necessarily, but they root me in a racist system, and therefore I am capable of racist thoughts and ideas. These thoughts afford me the privilege of having privilege. To paraphrase Peggy McIntosh, noted author and white privilege theorist, I have accepted a career’s worth of promotions without worrying that peers suspect I got them because of my race.

Does this mean I’m a bad leader — or person? No, but it means I’m human. To be human is to be sentient but also capable of change. To change, however, I must first willingly recognize the ways in which my brain has been molded and influenced by my race.

Reason No. 2: Everything we perceive enters the brain as a sensation, keeping our brains constantly guessing using already existing contexts. Its emotion control center, the amygdala, receives these incoming sensations far beneath conscious awareness and dictates — multiple times per second — whether we have the luxury to pause and ponder, or should react and defend. The brain accomplishes this feat, in part, by recognizing (or not) the familiar. Our brains crave patterns and predictability like our bodies crave food.

Myriad studies have substantiated a stronger amygdala (i.e., emotional) response when white people are shown pictures of Black faces. This automatic vigilance response kicks in whenever we perceive the unfamiliar. Since all human beings divide our world into ingroups and outgroups, the same skin color offers the kind of quick and easy shortcut to familiarity that the brain gloms onto for assurance, especially if stress or uncertainty weighs on our coping mechanisms. This study of ingroup and outgroup bias earned Daniel Kahneman a Nobel Prize for the research he conducted with his colleague, Amos Tversky.

Let’s say two resumes cross my desk. One belongs to Sandy, a white woman referred by a trusted colleague, and the other belongs to a Black man, Lee, from a different industry. My brain will likely try to convince me to focus on the more familiar person. The person who “feels” right. The rationale of “fit” might even spring to mind. Is this racist? If I am convincing myself that someone is “better” than someone else without the proper due diligence — then I suggest it is racist. Can I do something about this potentially racist notion? Absolutely. But first, I must recognize my brain’s default settings at work. Only then can I respond most effectively.

The wonderful thing about my racist brain is that I am its boss. I possess the power to recognize when my default settings might be leading me astray, and to respond accordingly. As Kendi says, racist labels are not “permanent tattoos”: “No one becomes a racist or antiracist. We can only strive to be one or the other.”

So, even if my brain tries to convince me that Sandy is a better “fit” for the job, I can counteract these protective measures. I can make sure that she truly meets an objective set of job criteria. I can dig more deeply into Lee’s previous experience to ascertain whether he could be more of an asset to the organization.

The same study that found increased amygdala response among white people when shown pictures of Black faces showed no amygdala increase (i.e., more objectivity) when subjects were asked whether those same Black faces liked vegetables.

A simple, practical question about vegetables released the subjects’ perceptions from the clutches of the emotion-centered amygdala and steered them to the prefrontal cortex, its more reason-centric neighbor. Now, apply this finding to the two job candidates, Sandy and Lee, by substituting a sense about their “fit” for whether each candidate likes vegetables. It may sound simplistic, but this small shift pumps the brain’s braking system just enough to disengage any default settings. For example, asking myself to list specific ways Sandy really is more qualified than Lee may be all it takes to check potentially racist thinking. Job criteria become the vegetables that nurture anti-racist thinking.

Do I want to be racist? Of course not. Will my brain continue to push me in certain directions by favoring its default settings? Yes, our fundamentally lazy brains are bent on preserving energy by seeking the path of least resistance. Good leaders recognize this tendency. They respond accordingly. They choose to overcome.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
If 13% of a group has 52-56% of anything, that's suspicious. So, if according to official FBI stats, 13% of one group commits 52-56% of violent crimes, that group is, statistically speaking, dangerous. Even with all the bullshit spewed by the media, people pick up on patterns. The human brain is made to detect patterns, and is so good at it, sometimes it sees patterns where there are none. But this is a pattern with a genuine, statistical, factual existence.

Pattern recognition isn't evil. People recognize "self" from "other" fairly quickly, and suspicion of otherness is justified.
 
If 13% of a group has 52-56% of anything, that's suspicious. So, if according to official FBI stats, 13% of one group commits 52-56% of violent crimes, that group is, statistically speaking, dangerous.
That's fallacious on several levels.

There's a crime issue in the black community, to be sure, and it should be expected when you disintegrate their family structure between a botched war on poverty, sexual revolution, and pumping drugs into urban centers where many of them dwell. But to say that "13% does 50%", or 52% or 56% is to assert that every single person in that 13% is a criminal, and that's a fundamental misreading of statistics.

The reality, first of all, is that the number is at absolute worst in the thereabouts of 1-2%, because it's the minority of any community that are criminals, particularly when said community comprises of millions. Secondly, though, even accounting for that, the statistic doesn't count for crime distribution. If you sample several separate black communities, you're not going to find the same crime-by-race breakdown, because the FBI stat you're referring to is a national aggregate that doesn't and isn't meant to take into account the peculiarities of each individual municipality, county, and state.
 
That's fallacious on several levels.

There's a crime issue in the black community, to be sure, and it should be expected when you disintegrate their family structure between a botched war on poverty, sexual revolution, and pumping drugs into urban centers where many of them dwell. But to say that "13% does 50%", or 52% or 56% is to assert that every single person in that 13% is a criminal, and that's a fundamental misreading of statistics.

The reality, first of all, is that the number is at absolute worst in the thereabouts of 1-2%, because it's the minority of any community that are criminals, particularly when said community comprises of millions. Secondly, though, even accounting for that, the statistic doesn't count for crime distribution. If you sample several separate black communities, you're not going to find the same crime-by-race breakdown, because the FBI stat you're referring to is a national aggregate that doesn't and isn't meant to take into account the peculiarities of each individual municipality, county, and state.
There's a gigantic crime issue, people from this group are more likely to be criminals by a high margin. One in three black men has a felony conviction, it isn't just some super small group orchestrating all the crimes disproportionately. Obviously, not all black men are criminals, but also obviously, not all of them are saints. Using a national aggregate works in aggregate, but when broken down, things still hold up when controlling for poverty, etc.
Raceandcrimetextwall.jpg

RaceandSAT.jpg
Obviously, this doesn't mean anything about individual character, but the fact of the matter is, here are the facts, and people can subconsciously recognize them, and the human brain is wired to be wary of "other" regardless. People won't magically not see color, especially now with more and more focus heaped upon race with every day.
 
Whites are still cowards for letting all this happen.
No doubt about that, but it was hope and optimism that blinded us. It would be nice if people really could overcome the limitations of human nature and come together in a single society of shared human fraternity. The world doesn't work like the humanists wish it did though and now we're stuck with them continually trying to force their project through despite the fact that you have millions of degenerates hanging on to it trying to make their personal perversions human rights issues.
 
There's a gigantic crime issue, people from this group are more likely to be criminals by a high margin. One in three black men has a felony conviction, it isn't just some super small group orchestrating all the crimes disproportionately. Obviously, not all black men are criminals, but also obviously, not all of them are saints. Using a national aggregate works in aggregate, but when broken down, things still hold up when controlling for poverty, etc.
You're missing the point, and you're arguing against points I never brought up.

You can't make any useful analysis working with national aggregates, because you've lost so much detail in the process of the flattening effect of such aggregates. Even disregarding the inevitable interaction between different factors which makes factor isolation only useful as part of a discussion rather than the be-all and end-all, you can't talk about controlling for particular factors while you've conflated various distinct communities with variously different circumstances and cultures in a country where each state could very well be its own nation. It's like rounding incorrectly in a multipart math problem and then continuing with the mis-rounded number-- the skew will cascade.

Black communities in a given region may have drastically lower crime rates than average-- what are they doing right?

Black communities in another region may have drastically high crime rates compared to average-- what's the scene in that region?

I mentioned the dissolution of the family structure, which before the war on poverty wasn't remotely as bad as it is now. Your citations talk about... poverty, and how that couldn't be the cause of their higher crime rates because... only 21% of black-on-white crime was robbery (as though it's impossible for poverty to exact a generalized moral toll on an individual, not that that's certainly what's happening).

And... sure. Just because a community is poor, doesn't mean that they'll be more prone to violence or broken homes. But you can't build an entire argument on factor isolation, and you can't do what your flier did and literally only treat two factors (socioeconomic status and race).

Even as I state that the prime reason for the suffering in the black American community has to do with broken homes, it's not "oh, they have bad family structure so they magically have high crime and lower education in comparison". No, it's, in extremely linear terms:

[primarily single mother households] --> [insecure, poorly raised children b/c mother is either too immature or too encumbered by doubletasking work and parenting to parent optimally, minus extra points if the child is a son] --> [easy pickings for criminal elements in a community as they seek security they couldn't find in their own home] --> [oiling of the crime machine] --> [driving out of businesses] --> [driving out of resources/jobs/money] --> [more severe relative poverty] --> [covetiousness and demoralization] --> [more crime] --> [more demoralization] --> [goto 1]

That is extremely linear and doesn't fully capture the "bad scene" of many of these communities that suffer high crime (I mean, I didn't talk about the engineering of their communities towards consumerism, especially of music with poor morals), but it's a hell of a lot more comprehensive and fleshed out than "well, they're not more violent because they're poorer, so they must be inherently more violent because there's no other factors for violence aside from race and socioeconomic status".

And, can I say:

1617492091100.png


This is bullshit on its face, and I don't know why you didn't question it. Most victims of any violent crime will be of the same race. Blacks are no exception, or did you not recall the conservative talking point about how BLM ought to focus on black-on-black crime since it's far more likely that a black person will be victimized by another black person than they will be by one of any other race?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Koby_Fish
and it should be expected when you disintegrate their family structure between a botched war on poverty, sexual revolution, and pumping drugs into urban centers where many of them dwell
What "you" ... I didn't do shit and I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been any systemic approach afflicted on black communities that weren't also afflicted on poor whites. I don't see poor whites getting special carve out gibs from the stimulus bill like black farmers did.

But to say that "13% does 50%", or 52% or 56% is to assert that every single person in that 13% is a criminal, and that's a fundamental misreading of statistics.
You're right, it's mostly 1/2 of that 13% (or black males) and if you don't like that, then why is it ALL whites who are racist? Why not only the card carrying KKK members and leave everyone else alone?

It would be nice if people really could overcome the limitations of human nature and come together in a single society of shared human fraternity.
That would be great and it was happening from the 60s through the early 2000s... then critical race theory decided that we all need to be racists and have set about training anyone who isn't white that they're morons unable to live a decent life without getting handouts from the white man because for some reason they're too stupid to make it on their own. And now the whites are getting sick of hearing it.
 
You're missing the point, and you're arguing against points I never brought up.

You can't make any useful analysis working with national aggregates, because you've lost so much detail in the process of the flattening effect of such aggregates. Even disregarding the inevitable interaction between different factors which makes factor isolation only useful as part of a discussion rather than the be-all and end-all, you can't talk about controlling for particular factors while you've conflated various distinct communities with variously different circumstances and cultures in a country where each state could very well be its own nation. It's like rounding incorrectly in a multipart math problem and then continuing with the mis-rounded number-- the skew will cascade.

Black communities in a given region may have drastically lower crime rates than average-- what are they doing right?

Black communities in another region may have drastically high crime rates compared to average-- what's the scene in that region?

I mentioned the dissolution of the family structure, which before the war on poverty wasn't remotely as bad as it is now. Your citations talk about... poverty, and how that couldn't be the cause of their higher crime rates because... only 21% of black-on-white crime was robbery (as though it's impossible for poverty to exact a generalized moral toll on an individual, not that that's certainly what's happening).

And... sure. Just because a community is poor, doesn't mean that they'll be more prone to violence or broken homes. But you can't build an entire argument on factor isolation, and you can't do what your flier did and literally only treat two factors (socioeconomic status and race).

Even as I state that the prime reason for the suffering in the black American community has to do with broken homes, it's not "oh, they have bad family structure so they magically have high crime and lower education in comparison". No, it's, in extremely linear terms:

[primarily single mother households] --> [insecure, poorly raised children b/c mother is either too immature or too encumbered by doubletasking work and parenting to parent optimally, minus extra points if the child is a son] --> [easy pickings for criminal elements in a community as they seek security they couldn't find in their own home] --> [oiling of the crime machine] --> [driving out of businesses] --> [driving out of resources/jobs/money] --> [more severe relative poverty] --> [covetiousness and demoralization] --> [more crime] --> [more demoralization] --> [goto 1]

That is extremely linear and doesn't fully capture the "bad scene" of many of these communities that suffer high crime (I mean, I didn't talk about the engineering of their communities towards consumerism, especially of music with poor morals), but it's a hell of a lot more comprehensive and fleshed out than "well, they're not more violent because they're poorer, so they must be inherently more violent because there's no other factors for violence aside from race and socioeconomic status".

And, can I say:

View attachment 2055699

This is bullshit on its face, and I don't know why you didn't question it. Most victims of any violent crime will be of the same race. Blacks are no exception, or did you not recall the conservative talking point about how BLM ought to focus on black-on-black crime since it's far more likely that a black person will be victimized by another black person than they will be by one of any other race?
It's partially cultural, partially economic, partially genetic, and all of this misses the point entirely that people recognize the pattern of higher crime rates and also are inherently distrustful of other races. As an aggregate, blacks commit more crimes, this is completely undeniable. The fact that these aggregates are also consistent internationally (although the exact veracity of the data I will present is something I've been unable to verify) seems to indicate some innate genetic factor.

Raceandcrimeacrosstheworld.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Koby_Fish
What "you"
Those responsible for advancing the sexual revolution, the war on drugs, and the war on poverty, mainly.

and I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been any systemic approach afflicted on black communities that weren't also afflicted on poor whites.
The War on Poverty was especially for the black community.

You're right, it's mostly 1/2 of that 13% (or black males)
That would imply all black men are criminal, which is also false.

It's partially cultural, partially economic, partially genetic
That's just a truism.

As an aggregate, blacks commit more crimes, this is completely undeniable. The fact that these aggregates are also consistent internationally (although the exact veracity of the data I will present is something I've been unable to verify) seems to indicate some innate genetic factor.
It doesn't really matter what your stats are when you can't contextualize them properly. Were those Africans born in the country? If not, does the country do anything to assimilate them? Do they even try? Which Africans are represented-- what are their particular cultures? How much crime was there at all, seeing as low-to-begin-with crime counts can exaggerate proportions when the raw counts indicate almost trivial differences? Et cetera, et cetera.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
Those responsible for advancing the sexual revolution, the war on drugs, and the war on poverty, mainly. [...] The War on Poverty was especially for the black community.
And, show me where those were specific to the black communities? Just because they benefited more, they were also for and against poor whites.

That would imply all black men are criminal, which is also false.
It's also just as FALSE that all whites are racists or complicit in the poor choices made by black people. If you want to use a broad brush, then it has to be used everywhere. If there has to be context to the level of the individual for blacks, that that also has to be use for whites. Any other claim is just race baiting and race baiting is the biggest part of the problem. How many children have been told that they're "less than" because they have a certain color skin... they've been told this by the critical race theory crowd who are convinced that people of color are too stupid to make a good life for themselves. Plenty of people of color do quite well because they ignore that bullshit. It's time for people of color to quit accepting these theories that they're some sort of retard based on their skin tone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Koby_Fish
And, show me where those were specific to the black communities? Just because they benefited more, they were also for and against poor whites.
I hesitate to say that the expansion of the welfare state has been "helpful" for the black community, or any American community for that matter.

It's also just as FALSE that all whites are racists or complicit in the poor choices made by black people.
...but I wasn't making that argument.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Koby_Fish
It doesn't really matter what your stats are when you can't contextualize them properly. Were those Africans born in the country? If not, does the country do anything to assimilate them? Do they even try? Which Africans are represented-- what are their particular cultures? How much crime was there at all, seeing as low-to-begin-with crime counts can exaggerate proportions when the raw counts indicate almost trivial differences? Et cetera, et cetera.
Were the Africans born in this country? It seems that both natural born and immigrants have elevated crime levels. Does the country do anything to assimilate them? What does that mean exactly? What policies should be pursued on the national level? Do they even try? Probably not considering how ghettoes work. Which Africans are represented - what are their cultures? It seems to be breaking down by ethnicities, so "all of them" and "all of them" respectively. How much crime overall? Depends on which data set we're talking about, but it's still statistically significant differences.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Punished Benis
Were the Africans born in this country? It seems that both natural born and immigrants have elevated crime levels.
How do those elevated crime levels compare, natural born vs immigrant? The question is important because you're going to get elevated levels of immigrant crime depending on what culture said immigrants are coming from and how capable they are of assimilation. Additionally, w.hat's the crime distribution relative to geography? Are there any communities that have sizable immigrant populations that don't have those elevated crime rates? What are they doing? What's the heritage breakdown for those populations?

What does the term "elevated crime levels" even mean? That they're higher than others? There has to be some group at the top of any statistic.

Does the country do anything to assimilate them? What does that mean exactly? What policies should be pursued on the national level?
Do they stick them into ghettos and forget about them? Alternatively, do they congregate into ghettos where they're left alone? Is there any actual pressure for them to assimilate, or does the government bend over backwards to accommodate them? How easy is it for these communities to rely on the welfare state?

Which Africans are represented - what are their cultures? It seems to be breaking down by ethnicities, so "all of them" and "all of them" respectively.
What does this mean?

How much crime overall?
No, what are the raw counts?
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
You two are talking past each other. @Zero Day Defense all he was initially getting at was that it's not an absurd notion that people would be avoidant of those that they subconsciously recognize as a potential threat.

You see a black dude who looks like he's got his shit together on the opposite side of the street, parallel to a black dude who looks like he just got out on bail on your side of the street - both are walking in the opposite direction down the street from your trajectory. Do you continue to keep walking, or do you cross the street? Crossing the street to avoid a possible confrontation isn't illogical nor is it something to be shamed, is the thrust of the point he was making. All of the racial bullshit aside.
 
This is the stupidest variation of the mind-body problem I’ve ever heard.
Philosophy will forever be stillborn.
Socrates’s ignorance and mistakes are forgivable. Plato was an arrogant cunt.
People only bring Plato up to seem learned despite nobody important taking him seriously for aeons. Aristotle is way more relevant and fun.
 
Back