Zone1 Study Shows How Whites Discriminate Based on Skin Tone And Black Features

[ThomasSowellsFro]

A common mainstream narrative In America is that race doesn't matter, and no amount of people care about your race and skin color. This study disproves that, that skin color and race is a marked basis for which white people discriminate against. It's time to rethink the popular notion that race has no basis in society and outcomes, to address the very real divisions underlying society, and create a more equitable America.


"The present study examines whether facial features (lip thickness, nose width) have effects on Whites' affective reactions to Black targets, above and beyond the well-documented skin tone effect by experimentally crossing variation in facial features and skin tone. The results showed that both skin tone and facial features independently affected how negatively, as opposed to posi-tively, Whites felt toward Blacks using both implicit and explicit measures. The findings that Whites reacted more negatively toward Blacks with darker skin tone and more prototypical facial features than toward Blacks with lighter skin tone and less prototypical facial features on the explicit measure may indicate that Whites are unaware of the negative effects that Blacks' phenotypes can have on their racial attitudes. The pre-sent study demonstrated that subtle facial features, in addition to salient skin tone, also play an important role when predicting Whites' feelings about Blacks. One implication is that it is important to raise people's awareness about the effects that Blacks' phenotypes can have on their attitudes."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233408833_The_Independent_Effects_of_Skin_Tone_and_Facial_Features_on_Whites'_Affective_Reactions_to_Blacks

 

[Darkwind]

Are we allowed to say horseshit in zone 1?

Maybe not.

I'll go with absolutely not.

I had a pretty lengthy reply to this but it was moved as I was typing it and it's now lost. I won't bother trying to recreate it.

Suffice it to say that the publication of "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology" pretty much sums it all up.

The study group was 196 undergraduate students. No mention of how indoctrinated into beliveing that they were guilty of discrimination, no control group, and the fact that they were at least a year into being propagandized by a major US university on race relations.

Even then, they tried to cover their asses by saying they eliminated 5% of the group who they thought exhibited bias and one for 'not paying attention'. lol

Suffice it to say, this is just more projection on the OP's part.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Guys lets refocus on the topic of discussion please.

 

[ThomasSowellsFro]

Thats weird because I clicked the moderate box, move line, and badlands, and clicked enter. But I have been wrong before.

And I got a pm from someone other than you.

I had a pretty lengthy reply to this but it was moved as I was typing it and it's now lost. I won't bother trying to recreate it.

Suffice it to say that the publication of "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology" pretty much sums it all up.

The study group was 196 undergraduate students. No mention of how indoctrinated into beliveing that they were guilty of discrimination, no control group, and the fact that they were at least a year into being propagandized by a major US university on race relations.

Even then, they tried to cover their asses by saying they eliminated 5% of the group who they thought exhibited bias and one for 'not paying attention'. lol

Suffice it to say, this is just more projection on the OP's part.

I have the study and couldn't verify any of the claims you just made. If you can take a screenshot of the quotes and instances where applicable, that would suffice.

 

[Darkwind]

And I got a pm from someone other than you.

I have the study and couldn't verify any of the claims you just made. If you can take a screenshot of the quotes and instances where applicable, that would suffice.

Open your link, and then READ the study.

 

[ThomasSowellsFro]

Open your link, and then READ the study.

I didn't see it. Please provide screenshots. I'm asking because I know that the claim you made about a control group is false.

 

[Lisa558]

It’s interesting that the bias against darker skin tone and toward lighter skin tones isn‘t restricted to whites. This tendency - called colorism - is evident WITHIN the black community as well.

Colorism: Understanding Skintone Discrimination

Colorism is the practice of showing preference to those of a lighter skin color within groups of people of the same race or ethnic background.

www.verywellmind.com

 

[Ralph Norton]

It’s interesting that the bias against darker skin tone and toward lighter skin tones isn‘t restricted to whites. This tendency - called colorism - is evident WITHIN the black community as well.

Colorism: Understanding Skintone Discrimination

Colorism is the practice of showing preference to those of a lighter skin color within groups of people of the same race or ethnic background.

www.verywellmind.com

This is true with the hispanic population also.

 

[Seymour Flops]

A common mainstream narrative In America is that race doesn't matter, and no amount of people care about your race and skin color. This study disproves that, that skin color and race is a marked basis for which white people discriminate against. It's time to rethink the popular notion that race has no basis in society and outcomes, to address the very real divisions underlying society, and create a more equitable America.


"The present study examines whether facial features (lip thickness, nose width) have effects on Whites' affective reactions to Black targets, above and beyond the well-documented skin tone effect by experimentally crossing variation in facial features and skin tone. The results showed that both skin tone and facial features independently affected how negatively, as opposed to posi-tively, Whites felt toward Blacks using both implicit and explicit measures. The findings that Whites reacted more negatively toward Blacks with darker skin tone and more prototypical facial features than toward Blacks with lighter skin tone and less prototypical facial features on the explicit measure may indicate that Whites are unaware of the negative effects that Blacks' phenotypes can have on their racial attitudes. The pre-sent study demonstrated that subtle facial features, in addition to salient skin tone, also play an important role when predicting Whites' feelings about Blacks. One implication is that it is important to raise people's awareness about the effects that Blacks' phenotypes can have on their attitudes."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233408833_The_Independent_Effects_of_Skin_Tone_and_Facial_Features_on_Whites'_Affective_Reactions_to_Blacks

I don't know how valid this study is from just the abstract. I would especially be interested in what these "implicit and explicit measures" were.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if the basic premise is correct. The study claims that whites tend to have more negative reactions to blacks who are further from whites in appearance, than to blacks who are nearer to whites in appearance. Or you could say more simply that whites respond more positively to blacks who look "less black." I'm not at all surprised that that might be true, and I see two reasons for it.

First, there the natural, evolution-driven instinct to gravitate to people who look like we do and avoid people who do not. Any primitive person who decided to approach a tribe who did not look much like him in order to bridge the diversity gap or whatever would likely find themselves as guest of honor at dinner, if you know what I mean.

Second, there is the media's portrayal of blacks and whites. Back when they did studies that found that black children preferred white baby dolls to black baby dolls, that seemed to go against the evolution factor mentioned above. The fault was media, since at the time, the media did not feature many positive black characters. Even now, movies tend to show darker skinned blacks as villains, lighter skinned men as heroes and beautiful black leading ladies invariably have Euro-centric looks.

All that being true, do you see some government action as appropriate to solve this issue?

 

[ThomasSowellsFro]

It’s interesting that the bias against darker skin tone and toward lighter skin tones isn‘t restricted to whites. This tendency - called colorism - is evident WITHIN the black community as well.

Colorism: Understanding Skintone Discrimination

Colorism is the practice of showing preference to those of a lighter skin color within groups of people of the same race or ethnic background.

www.verywellmind.com

The subject is whites.

 

[Oldestyle]

A common mainstream narrative In America is that race doesn't matter, and no amount of people care about your race and skin color. This study disproves that, that skin color and race is a marked basis for which white people discriminate against. It's time to rethink the popular notion that race has no basis in society and outcomes, to address the very real divisions underlying society, and create a more equitable America.


"The present study examines whether facial features (lip thickness, nose width) have effects on Whites' affective reactions to Black targets, above and beyond the well-documented skin tone effect by experimentally crossing variation in facial features and skin tone. The results showed that both skin tone and facial features independently affected how negatively, as opposed to posi-tively, Whites felt toward Blacks using both implicit and explicit measures. The findings that Whites reacted more negatively toward Blacks with darker skin tone and more prototypical facial features than toward Blacks with lighter skin tone and less prototypical facial features on the explicit measure may indicate that Whites are unaware of the negative effects that Blacks' phenotypes can have on their racial attitudes. The pre-sent study demonstrated that subtle facial features, in addition to salient skin tone, also play an important role when predicting Whites' feelings about Blacks. One implication is that it is important to raise people's awareness about the effects that Blacks' phenotypes can have on their attitudes."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233408833_The_Independent_Effects_of_Skin_Tone_and_Facial_Features_on_Whites'_Affective_Reactions_to_Blacks

To make my reply to your "study" succinct, Thomas...could it be that a rational person of ANY skin tone would be cautious around blacks when they've watched the veritable PARADE of black criminals across their TV screens each night?
You glamorize "Thug Life" and then wonder why the non thugs don't want anything to do with you! You of course see that as "racism" when in fact it's basic survival instinct kicking in!

 

[Lisa558]

The subject is whites.

But isn’t it interesting that the very racism you accuse whites of exists among blacks as well? It shows it isn’t a white phenomenon.

Or as you saying that when a prejudiced attitude emerges among blacks and whites, we can only criticize the whites? That’s very lop-sided and paints an unfair picture of whites.

I just want to provide a fair balance to the discussion.

 

[ThomasSowellsFro]

I don't know how valid this study is from just the abstract. I would especially be interested in what these "implicit and explicit measures" were.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if the basic premise is correct. The study claims that whites tend to have more negative reactions to blacks who are further from whites in appearance, than to blacks who are nearer to whites in appearance. Or you could say more simply that whites respond more positively to blacks who look "less black." I'm not at all surprised that that might be true, and I see two reasons for it.

First, there the natural, evolution-driven instinct to gravitate to people who look like we do and avoid people who do not. Any primitive person who decided to approach a tribe who did not look much like him in order to bridge the diversity gap or whatever would likely find themselves as guest of honor at dinner, if you know what I mean.

Second, there is the media's portrayal of blacks and whites. Back when they did studies that found that black children preferred white baby dolls to black baby dolls, that seemed to go against the evolution factor mentioned above. The fault was media, since at the time, the media did not feature many positive black characters. Even now, movies tend to show darker skinned blacks as villains, lighter skinned men as heroes and beautiful black leading ladies invariably have Euro-centric looks.

All that being true, do you see some government action as appropriate to solve this issue?

The full text is in the link I gave.

I don't know how valid this study is from just the abstract. I would especially be interested in what these "implicit and explicit measures" were.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if the basic premise is correct. The study claims that whites tend to have more negative reactions to blacks who are further from whites in appearance, than to blacks who are nearer to whites in appearance. Or you could say more simply that whites respond more positively to blacks who look "less black." I'm not at all surprised that that might be true, and I see two reasons for it.

First, there the natural, evolution-driven instinct to gravitate to people who look like we do and avoid people who do not. Any primitive person who decided to approach a tribe who did not look much like him in order to bridge the diversity gap or whatever would likely find themselves as guest of honor at dinner, if you know what I mean.

Second, there is the media's portrayal of blacks and whites. Back when they did studies that found that black children preferred white baby dolls to black baby dolls, that seemed to go against the evolution factor mentioned above. The fault was media, since at the time, the media did not feature many positive black characters. Even now, movies tend to show darker skinned blacks as villains, lighter skinned men as heroes and beautiful black leading ladies invariably have Euro-centric looks.

All that being true, do you see some government action as appropriate to solve this issue?

"
A Sequential Priming Task (SPT; see Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, &
Williams, 1995) was used to assess participants' automatic affective re-
actions to the targets. In the current study, there were four target (DM,
DL, LM, LL) and one control (White men; WM) groups. Faster latencies
to negative words following a particular picture (i.e., prime), relative to
a no-prime baseline latency, indicate more negative affective reactions
to that prime, and faster latencies to positive words following a partic-
ular prime indicate more positive affective reactions to that prime.
The task consisted of four phases, including a baseline phase, two
filler phases, and the key experimental phase. In the baseline phase
task, participants were instructed to judge whether a word presented
on the computer screen was good or bad as quickly and accurately as
possible. Words were eight positive words (beauty, joy, love, para-
dise, romance, smile, success, vacation) and eight negative words
(cockroach, despair, disgust, garbage, pest, poison, sewage, vomit).
The purpose of this phase was to obtain baseline latency for the
words that would then be used as target words in the fourth phase.
First, a fixation point “*********”appeared on the screen for 315 ms.
Then, one of the 16 words was randomly presented on the screen
until participants responded. The next trial started with a 2.5 s
inter-trial interval. Response latency for each word was recorded in
milliseconds. Participants completed two blocks of trials. Latencies
from the two trials were averaged within each word and served as
the baseline latencies.
The two filler tasks provided a cover story for why participants
were presented with primes and why they needed to attend to
those faces in the experimental phase of the study (see Fazio et al.,
1995 for more information). Finally, the experimental task involved
the actual priming procedure. The instructions and procedures were
the same as the baseline phase with two exceptions. First, the fixation
point was replaced by a prime picture from one of the four target and
one control groups. Second, participants were told to attend to the
faces because there would be a subsequent face-recognition task"


Yes, government intervention is necessary. These biases affect all other areas of life.

 

[Woodznutz]

It’s interesting that the bias against darker skin tone and toward lighter skin tones isn‘t restricted to whites. This tendency - called colorism - is evident WITHIN the black community as well.

Colorism: Understanding Skintone Discrimination

Colorism is the practice of showing preference to those of a lighter skin color within groups of people of the same race or ethnic background.

www.verywellmind.com

Beat me to it.

Whites discriminate based on comeliness, dress, height, weight, education, social standing, etc. It all boils down to preference. When a 'candidate' appears that fulfills all or most of your preferences that person gets chosen above all others.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The full text is in the link I gave.

Behind a paywall.

"
A Sequential Priming Task (SPT; see Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, &
Williams, 1995) was used to assess participants' automatic affective re-
actions to the targets. In the current study, there were four target (DM,
DL, LM, LL) and one control (White men; WM) groups. Faster latencies
to negative words following a particular picture (i.e., prime), relative to
a no-prime baseline latency, indicate more negative affective reactions
to that prime, and faster latencies to positive words following a partic-
ular prime indicate more positive affective reactions to that prime.
The task consisted of four phases, including a baseline phase, two
filler phases, and the key experimental phase. In the baseline phase
task, participants were instructed to judge whether a word presented
on the computer screen was good or bad as quickly and accurately as
possible. Words were eight positive words (beauty, joy, love, para-
dise, romance, smile, success, vacation) and eight negative words
(cockroach, despair, disgust, garbage, pest, poison, sewage, vomit).
The purpose of this phase was to obtain baseline latency for the
words that would then be used as target words in the fourth phase.
First, a fixation point “*********”appeared on the screen for 315 ms.
Then, one of the 16 words was randomly presented on the screen
until participants responded. The next trial started with a 2.5 s
inter-trial interval. Response latency for each word was recorded in
milliseconds. Participants completed two blocks of trials. Latencies
from the two trials were averaged within each word and served as
the baseline latencies.
The two filler tasks provided a cover story for why participants
were presented with primes and why they needed to attend to
those faces in the experimental phase of the study (see Fazio et al.,
1995 for more information). Finally, the experimental task involved
the actual priming procedure. The instructions and procedures were
the same as the baseline phase with two exceptions. First, the fixation
point was replaced by a prime picture from one of the four target and
one control groups. Second, participants were told to attend to the
faces because there would be a subsequent face-recognition task"

You could have led with that.

Seems sound enough. As I said, the described results don't surprise me.

Yes, government intervention is necessary. These biases affect all other areas of life.

What government intervention do you have in mind for feelings that are ingrained by evolution, and reinforced by the media?

Some kind of government takeover of media, combines with re-education sessions for white people?

Please be specific as to how government can change people.

 

[ThomasSowellsFro]

But isn’t it interesting that the very racism you accuse whites of exists among blacks as well? It shows it isn’t a white phenomenon.

Or as you saying that when a prejudiced attitude emerges among blacks and whites, we can only criticize the whites? That’s very lop-sided and paints an unfair picture of whites.

I just want to provide a fair balance to the discussion.

The opposite is true, which is why you're deflecting from whites to blacks: In your white circles, you cannot emanate that whites are X in any way shape or form, or you are a racist. Whites are not racist, and they can do no bad. That's the mainstream view. So, it makes total sense for whites to be the topic of discussion. Whites are the majority and hold a majority of the power, wealth, and control. Again, justifies why the conversation surrounding racism would focus in on them.


Racism is not a major problem in the minds of most whites, but this study proves that wrong.

 

[toobfreak]

Study Shows How Whites Discriminate Based on Skin Tone​

So, you DON'T discriminate based on skin tone? You're doing it right now.

 

[ThomasSowellsFro]

Behind a paywall.

You could have led with that.

Seems sound enough. As I said, the described results don't surprise me.

What government intervention do you have in mind for feelings that are ingrained by evolution, and reinforced by the media?

Some kind of government takeover of media, combines with re-education sessions for white people?

Please be specific as to how government can change people.

Not for me and I didn't pay for anything. Click on some stuff.
I'm more concerned with controlling actions over thoughts. As I said before, you have to get tough on racism; implement the death penalty for hate speech; Invest trillions into racial discrimination audits, and come down hard on perps; get the kids woke at a young age with compulsory racial training(this is more for plausible deniability than anything. In other words, you can't feign ignorance later if you do something racist, which is an excuse a lot of white liberals give when racism happens); hate speech laws, etc. It applies to everyone, not just blacks or Asians.

 

[Lisa558]

The opposite is true, which is why you're deflecting from whites to blacks: In your white circles, you cannot emanate that whites are X in any way shape or form, or you are a racist. Whites are not racist, and they can do no bad. That's the mainstream view. So, it makes total sense for whites to be the topic of discussion. Whites are the majority and hold a majority of the power, wealth, and control. Again, justifies why the conversation surrounding racism would focus in on them.


Racism is not a major problem in the minds of most whites, but this study proves that wrong.

Nope, you are criticizing something that both whites AND blacks do, but want to restrict the discussion to just whites. Why are you using skin tone to determine whom to criticize, and whom not, when both are guilty of the same thing?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm more concerned with controlling actions over thoughts. As I said before, you have to get tough on racism; implement the death penalty for hate speech; Invest trillions into racial discrimination audits, and come down hard on perps; get the kids woke at a young age with compulsory racial training(this is more for plausible deniability than anything. In other words, you can't feign ignorance later if you do something racist, which is an excuse a lot of white liberals give when racism happens); hate speech laws, etc. It applies to everyone, not just blacks or Asians.

Ok.

I hope this is parody.

If so, you had me going.