Roberts' apparently (but is he serious?) wants psychologists to compare groups of different races to see how they differ on tests. In cognitive psychology or cognitive neuroscience this would obviously be a disaster. What happens when the groups differ on some fundamental ability, like memory, attention, or cognitive control? We've been down this road. That's called "race science". Roberts' hasn't come to grips with this. Yes, Roberts' is calling for more race science, but he hasn't really thought through his position. Jussim assumes that, unless there is good reason for it, psychological studies should examine samples that represent the demographics of the population. Under this model, you don't go out looking for differences between groups, which is obviously a complete minefield and the road to cancellation. Instead you assume you can generalize to the population from a representative sample. Yes, there are cases where this is not the right model, but wen studying fundamental psychological processes, it absolutely has to be the sensible default. And pursuing some sort of racial hypothesis is flat out off the table for white psychologists, for obvious reasons.
"People/Person/Writer/Artist/Actor/Student of color", "community/communities of color" & all the other terms like it are the updated terms of the old racist term "Colored". They're a sign of devolution. Not to mention using those terms perpetuate racism instead of lessening it.
The contemporary preferred nomenclature on the Left is 'BIPOC,' - Black, Indigenous, and people of color, and I try to use each side's preferred vernacular when addressing them.
You could be right (and I personally suspect you are) about a potential causal link about word usage and perpetuating racism, although like with everything else, there's a partisan element to perception:
And of course there's a deep chasm between the Enlightenment Liberal / Conservative ontology of race and humanity, which is very different than the Critical Race Theory ontology of race and power structures, which I wrote about here:
FYI I'm left-wing but I never ever use those terms when talking about or writing about non-White people. Unlike many of my other fellow liberals I am not fooled by them. Also I already know what BIPOC stands for.
I'm pretty sure I just got myself on a new government watch list for googling 'Nazi eroticism,' but there's an idea in the academic literature that there was a geist behind fascism that is similar to that clip from Cabaret and the current moment. It's sort of a political bloodlust that overtakes and overwhelms the participants - It feels good to hurt your enemies, the future is yours if you're willing to do whatever it takes to claim it, the other side deserves to be punished, and so on. And that primal energy is beyond and deeper than anything rational, and so it's beyond anyone's control.
Life is a cabaret old chum!
Nate
The google scholar results if you're curious but don't want to join me on the watchlist:
Once Roberts googled "mule and racist trope" and came up with a 1998 article on the topic, he knew it was game, set, match. Why bother arguing with these white guys, when he could just get Fiedler fired and win much more spectacularly. That's power.
In Roberts defense, I never got around to seeing Fiddler on the Roof, to which Jussim refers, so I didn't get the reference about 'mules and horses' either until he told me.
In Jussim's defense, Fiddler on the Roof is much more widely known than Ellenberg (1998), which I definitely didn't know about until this whole fiasco.
Thanks. I vaguely remember coming across it, but my brain is tapioca at the moment after getting back from a funeral and having a bunch of meetings today. It's very much appreciated.
For what it's worth, the claim that this is a well-known trope seems dubious. The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture has a page on racist tropes, and "mule" isn't there. Also not on the Wikipedia page of stereotypes of African Americans.
Roberts' apparently (but is he serious?) wants psychologists to compare groups of different races to see how they differ on tests. In cognitive psychology or cognitive neuroscience this would obviously be a disaster. What happens when the groups differ on some fundamental ability, like memory, attention, or cognitive control? We've been down this road. That's called "race science". Roberts' hasn't come to grips with this. Yes, Roberts' is calling for more race science, but he hasn't really thought through his position. Jussim assumes that, unless there is good reason for it, psychological studies should examine samples that represent the demographics of the population. Under this model, you don't go out looking for differences between groups, which is obviously a complete minefield and the road to cancellation. Instead you assume you can generalize to the population from a representative sample. Yes, there are cases where this is not the right model, but wen studying fundamental psychological processes, it absolutely has to be the sensible default. And pursuing some sort of racial hypothesis is flat out off the table for white psychologists, for obvious reasons.
"People/Person/Writer/Artist/Actor/Student of color", "community/communities of color" & all the other terms like it are the updated terms of the old racist term "Colored". They're a sign of devolution. Not to mention using those terms perpetuate racism instead of lessening it.
They're racist terms masqueraded as progressive/non-racist terms
The contemporary preferred nomenclature on the Left is 'BIPOC,' - Black, Indigenous, and people of color, and I try to use each side's preferred vernacular when addressing them.
You could be right (and I personally suspect you are) about a potential causal link about word usage and perpetuating racism, although like with everything else, there's a partisan element to perception:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great-racial-awakening
And of course there's a deep chasm between the Enlightenment Liberal / Conservative ontology of race and humanity, which is very different than the Critical Race Theory ontology of race and power structures, which I wrote about here:
https://nathanialbork2.substack.com/p/critical-race-theory
FYI I'm left-wing but I never ever use those terms when talking about or writing about non-White people. Unlike many of my other fellow liberals I am not fooled by them. Also I already know what BIPOC stands for.
Spot on!
"Do you still think you can control them?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUctFu46_c
I'm pretty sure I just got myself on a new government watch list for googling 'Nazi eroticism,' but there's an idea in the academic literature that there was a geist behind fascism that is similar to that clip from Cabaret and the current moment. It's sort of a political bloodlust that overtakes and overwhelms the participants - It feels good to hurt your enemies, the future is yours if you're willing to do whatever it takes to claim it, the other side deserves to be punished, and so on. And that primal energy is beyond and deeper than anything rational, and so it's beyond anyone's control.
Life is a cabaret old chum!
Nate
The google scholar results if you're curious but don't want to join me on the watchlist:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C6&q=nazism+eroticism&btnG=
Once Roberts googled "mule and racist trope" and came up with a 1998 article on the topic, he knew it was game, set, match. Why bother arguing with these white guys, when he could just get Fiedler fired and win much more spectacularly. That's power.
Do you have the name of that article by any chance?
It was cited in the Roberts psyarxiv piece.
Ellenberg, George B. "African Americans, mules, and the southern mindscape, 1850-1950." Agricultural history 72.2 (1998): 381-398.
I just added a link to the psyarixiv piece.
In Roberts defense, I never got around to seeing Fiddler on the Roof, to which Jussim refers, so I didn't get the reference about 'mules and horses' either until he told me.
In Jussim's defense, Fiddler on the Roof is much more widely known than Ellenberg (1998), which I definitely didn't know about until this whole fiasco.
Thanks. I vaguely remember coming across it, but my brain is tapioca at the moment after getting back from a funeral and having a bunch of meetings today. It's very much appreciated.
For what it's worth, the claim that this is a well-known trope seems dubious. The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture has a page on racist tropes, and "mule" isn't there. Also not on the Wikipedia page of stereotypes of African Americans.
Update on Lee's Substack (Feb. 8. 2023):
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/there-is-no-racist-mule-trope