General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: White People Think One Black Person's Success Proves Racism Is Over [View all]caraher
(6,278 posts)I think you're suggesting that, because the paper begins with some discussion of their basic prediction, they have illegitimately cooked up some half-baked experiments to lend a flimsy support to a pre-ordained conclusion. It's certainly possible there are significant problems with their study design, or the relationship between their observations and their conclusions. But whatever might be wrong is at least not obviously wrong, not to me but more importantly not to the referees engaged by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The fact that they set the stage by outlining some motivations for the work is not in itself some kind of red flag, as you seem to suggest.
The fact that you "know plenty who don't have this "automatic response"" in no way conflicts with their results. Their claim is not that every individual is afflicted by this particular "automatic response;" rather, what they contend is that the response is sufficiently powerful and common that they can detect it in their study population (and by implication, that it is likely common in the population at large). Just as the fact that we both know "plenty" of minorities who have been remarkably successful does not imply racism is no barrier to success, so to your knowing "plenty" of people who (in your judgment) do not exhibit the posited "automatic response" does not deny that it may be present in a significant number of people.
In any case, your objection has shifted - I posted the link in reply to your challenge regarding numbers, and now that you have them your concern is different.
And I should add that I don't have any strongly-held belief about the correctness of their hypothesis. It strikes me as plausible, and as the kind of plausible idea that could quite easily prove not to pan out. The real test will come from researchers who might be skeptical, as they will be more creative in devising experiments that might expose any real gaps in their reasoning. (In science, and especially social science, the easiest person to fool is yourself!)
And in answer to your question, I read much of it and skimmed the rest. I don't think I'd profit from a reading more detailed than that unless I studied statistics for social science more! Did you read it?