Comments on: The Situation of ‘Common Sense’

By: JThom

JThom — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 01:21:53 +0000

The problem with “Tamara” is that she dismisses black bias against whites as understandable (even if it is irrational)but racial bias is racial bias. Plus, most claims of racial discrimination by blacks I think are fabricated and bogus, and the playing of the race card has become an everyday occurrence, a more high-profile one being Professor Gates in Cambridge. People like Professor Kang only enable and encourage that. Plus, why is Kang’s focus (and the research he cites) only concerning itself with alleged bias by whites against blacks?? Isn’t Kang interest in racial bias period? Another plus is the statistics none of you care to acknowledge – the statistics showing a much higher rate of criminality among the black population than the white population. And the reference to Bristol Palin as an example of white unwed birthing is just plain nuts. It doesn’t matter who YOU know, what matters is the the statistics – and they show a ghastly rate of teenage unwed births in the black community – a match for the high rate of criminality and incarceration among young black men. So, is it rational to make certain preliminary presumptions based on demographics – meaning, is it rational to consider probabilities. Of course it is. And it is entirely rational for someone to take defensive precautions (in the parking lot hypothetical) if a young black male is approaching you. You want to call that “bias”? Okay, but I see nothing wrong with that – you’d be stupid not to take precautions.

By: karp

karp — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:05:35 +0000

“It is neither “racist” nor “biased” to make rational and reasonable presumptions based on the social realities in this country and the statistical facts.”

It’s not necessarily biased, but you can make a case that it’s certainly racist, since in the example you describe, you’re judging an individual based on his racial category, which is literally the definition of racism.

You can expand your logic only slightly and make your argument appear as ridiculous as it is. Statistically, men commit more violent crimes than women… should be I afraid all men I meet under any circumstances are going to stab me? Cat owners are more likely to commit suicide than dog owners… should I carefully monitor the mood of all my friends who have cats?
Furthermore, it’s disingenuous of you to characterize a “parking lot moment” as a reasoned, careful analysis of statistical probability anyway. It’s a snap judgment based on emotions and heuristics, which can be true, can be biased, and can be both simultaneously. I’ll never understand what’s so threatening to certain people’s self-esteem about that.

And as far as that bias you mentioned… when you so dramatically and histrionically overstate the danger of being approached in a parking lot by a black man… acting as if the end of your life is a likely or plausible result of that situation!… it’s quite surprising and striking. It makes me wonder if racial bias is behind that mental leap.

By: Tamara Piety

Tamara Piety — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:51:16 +0000

Uh….Kipstan. I think you don’t understand the significance of the studies Kang reports on. He didn’t say any such thing as only white people had bias. I think you must not have read this post. He is reporting on empirical research. What he reports is WHAT THE EXPERIMENTS SHOWED. And he is clear that he believes everyone has bias. Another poster commented on the “common sense” about reacting differently on the basis of race and dress to a man approaching you in a dark parking lot. The problem with the example is that there were several factors (age, dress, etc), which mean you can’t control for just the impression caused by race. If someone reacts to a middle-aged Black man in a suit carrying a brief case as if he were a potential mugger then you have a basis for suspecting that it is race not any other factor that is contributing to the reaction. That is the sort of experiment Kang is reporting on. One of the problems we have with “bias” is that we think that it interferes with on the merits evaluations, that it is an emotional reaction. And that is partly true. But it is also true that not all of our emotional reactions are wrong. But if we are making decisions that are unreasoned and that cause harm to others that are without foundation, I’d say that is a problem. It sounds like you were upset about some of the reaction in the Black community to the Simpson case. But I think that reaction was complicated. Many didn’t want to believe he was guilty. Surely you’ve experienced that when someone you admired let you down. And some Blacks in LA were victims of (some) police brutality. (Remember the Ramparts investigation? And I don’t think all cops or even most cops are bad. My sister is a cop.) Black people have historically experienced much discrimination, violence and repression in America (not to mention the history of slavery).Some have horrible experiences, memories and stories that are passed down along generations. One of the consequence of that is that there is a “common sense” fear on the part of many that they will be discriminated against. Sometimes it turns out to be an unfounded suspicion. But the research Kang reports on suggests that it is often not. The jury acquitted Simpson because the prosecutors tried a terrible case (and to be fair to them they were terribly outmatched on resources) and they used an witness (Furman) who had to assert the 5th on the stand. usually not good for your case. Just ask Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor of Charles Manson. He wrote a book about it. He thought the verdict was right not because he thought Simpson didn’t do it but because he thought the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t think you’d call Bugliosi “naive.” How do you “know” all those things that you think you do? All the unwed mothers I know are white girls like Bristol Palin. You might want to read a really good book by Robert Burton called “On Being Certain.” You might be surprised. But otherwise I’d say about your comment what we say in lawspeak – res ipsa loquitor.

By: Kipstan

Kipstan — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:51:50 +0000

What a bunch of BS. Why isn’t Kang studying bias and hate on the part of blacks toward whites? Why is it so one-sided? He acts like the only bigots and racists are white people. What does Kang thing about the New Black Panthers menacing people at voting locations? What does Kang think about minority bias and resentment toward whites, such as that which was on full display in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, when thousands of blacks were dancing in the streets when OJ was acquitted? Anyone with half a brain knew (or at least had reason to strongly suspect) that Simpson was not only a violent savage wife-beater, but a cold-blooded double murderer. Silly, naive academics like Kang are one of the things wrong with this country and taking it right down the drain. Between white liberal professors and the race pimps in the black community (like Al Sharpton), they are making the country more race-conscious, not post-racial. Until the black community ends its overall, self-destructive behavior (unwed teenaged births by multiple sires, fatherless homes, school drop out habits, crime,welfare dependency, playing the race card, etc), they are going to continue to face negative attitudes on the part of other groups. That’s not “bias” – that’s just plain truth. Kang needs to wake up and smell the truth.

By: JThom

JThom — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:09:06 +0000

Unfortunately for Kang’s theory, it is a statistical fact that there is a much higher rate of criminality among the black population than the caucasion population. Those statistics are not only undeniable but used by black leaders all the time in the call for more social spending, programs, yadda yadda. Let’s put Kang in the same parking lot that the columnist Torre was in. Say it’s late and dark and there are no security guards or attendants. If a 50-year-old white guy is walking toward Kang, and he is wearing a business suit and carrying a briefcase, what would Kang presume? If, however, a young black male (say 19 or 20 years old)is walking toward Kang, and he has on no-tie sneakers, baggy jeans, and a doo rag on his head, would Kang presume the same thing as he presumed about the business-suited white guy? If Kang made equal presumptions about the two men, then he’d be an unmitigated fool. And, given the statistics, Kang might not only be deprived of his wallet, but of his very life. It is neither “racist” nor “biased” to make rational and reasonable presumptions based on the social realities in this country and the statistical facts. I’ll take Torre’s common sense over Kang’s idealistic foolishness any day. I might live longer.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:06:40 +0000

Your critic was right on all counts.

By: Importance Of Quality Air Filled Dog Bed And Transport Dog Crates — Asian Engraved Furniture

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:43:16 +0000

[...] The Situation of 'Common Sense' « The Situationist [...]

By: Defending People » Implicit Bias and Common Sense

Defending People » Implicit Bias and Common Sense — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:02:09 +0000

[...] bias is one of the things that makes us all alike. There's plenty of research on the topic of "implicit bias." It's normal, natural—part of our genetic [...]

By: Tamara Piety

Tamara Piety — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:39:24 +0000

Terrific rejoinder to what sounds like an unfounded attack. Folks like Torre I have to guess are motivated in part by concerns about the legitimacy of their current practices, not to mention the possibility of neutrality and of “color blindness.” I think a couple of the reasons people get so defensive (and offensive) around this work is that it (a) challenges fundamental belief systems which in turn undermines the person’s sense of certainty or comfort in the world in general, even as to other, apparently completely unrelated issues; and (b) it undermines people’s sense of control. The phenomenon you described as uncovered in the research is, as you say, impossible to completely purge oneself of. Imperfection, or a lack of perfect coherence between goals and execution would similarly seem to be a fundamental aspect of human life and any human institution. Yet with respect to the criminal justice system you face enormous hostility and push back when you point out what may be systemic problems with decision-making. I think that is because the ritualized punishment of some gives the rest of us the comforting illusion that bad behavior (ultimately) will generate punishment, that we are or can be made “safe” and other ideas. Few people want to believe they are biased. It offends their sense of self – both on the level of esteem and of self-regulation. the irony is that the resistance to the evidence ultimately makes us more vulnerable to systemic mistakes, to prosecuting the wrong people, etc. thereby undermining the very legitimacy of the current practices some of these people are trying desperately to maintain. And that distinction about science – that you can’t just make it come out any way you like – I think has maybe never been so vulnerable in the public mind as it is now. (But maybe that is a present-ism bias and it has always been this way! :-))