Heard a guy talking on a sports medicine radio program. He is a doctor. Obviously highly successful. He's black.

He told a story of an experience he had with cops once. Listening to him speak... his argument was not that this was a pattern of his own experience but that he had 1 bad experience and white people don't have to put up with that. But his 1 bad experience is similar to an experience I had when I was in my 20's with 2 asshole cops.

Regarding the experience I had in my 20's... Those 2 cops had zero reason to put me thru that. They were just assholes looking for on an opportunity to be assholes. But I did not give them attitude in return. I did everything they asked. I did not question them. Then they let me go on my way. But at that age on a different day I might have given them some attitude or some shit and who knows what might have happened.

I know a black woman, who recently told me a story of being pulled over. She said the cop was rude... but by the end of the story she sheepishly admitted that she gave him a lot of shit. They had to bring another officer to the scene, and she told me that officer was great. Said he was very nice to her. She said because of him she signed the traffic ticket. That's right all of that over a stupid traffic ticket which up until that point she had refused to sign. Based on everything she told me meaning all the attitude and shit she gave the officers... she's lucky they didn't haul her ass in. But that's the kind of shit cops have to deal with and my guess is that it's probably getting worse for them.

I do not like cops as a group. Don't trust them. Don't view them as my friend. None of that is because of my own experience. It's because of what I know of human behavior. Even though as a group I don't like them... individually I might and have.

But seeing what is happening in this country... the mindless cop bashing... makes me want to defend them. I said mindless but that's not the driving force behind it. It's idealogue agenda driven and it serves the purpose whether real or imagined.

I'll end with this...

Adults with ideology are like kids with matches. The ideologue mind is a blind one.

This is a great post. It reminds me of something that happened in my youth where a manager of a local teen hangout improperly called the police on me and my friends. The police sorted it out without any report, etc.

Now, maybe it goes down differently if I were black. OTOH, maybe it goes down the same but I attribute the managers actions to racism instead of a combination of being a jerk / being on edge because of an incident that had happened a couple of weeks prior. Point being, that when people are taught race infects everything they may start to believe race infects everything.

Of course, race may darn well enter quite a bit without outright racism entering with it.

Implicit bias is a real thing.

Just as empirical psychology has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that we alter memories at the time we recall them (we just about NEVER remember anything exactly as it happened), it has also gotten close to showing that most judgments are affected by all kinds of bias. It would be great if we could flip a switch and just be inferential automata. But we can't. It would be much better for people to recognize their bias so that they can better spot it when making judgments. And that goes for everyone, including those who see race in everything. I know damn well that I am differently affected when I see a group of black men walking toward me than I do when I see a group of white dudes. That's not racism but it is sure as shit bias.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/12/cover-policing.aspx

The statement I was reacting to was the "5 or 6 liberal media sources for evey 1 conservative media source." If that statement was supposed to mean that if I as a Democrat turn on my tv I should find 5 or 6 MSNBC's for every Fox...no. No way. No such thing. And if that statement was supposed to mean that the mainstream news sources consistently coddle liberals and mistreat conservatives...no I don't buy it. I've seen mainstream news sources wrong Democrats and frankly help Republicans too many times. So there has to be a reason for it. If you don't like my assertion that corporations tend to be conservative and it's reflected in what their news puts out, okay. Maybe it's just that media are businesses and they want to make a profit and so run with whatever they think will get viewers. If that means bashing a Clinton one day and a Trump the next, they're okay with that, and maybe that's why both sides feel abused. I think the mainstream media is conservative, but I could make that compromise. But no way is the mainstream media in the pocket of Democrats. No fuckin way.

Okay, what is really going on? Who's "them"?

Sounds like a black community problem to me.

If you run from the cops with or without a gun, Black or White, there is a good chance you may die.

Yes....Points off for not making that about race.

I was very clear with what I said. I don't think you're an idiot, but your post indicates that maybe you are, at least with respect to politics. You're pretty much the identity politics poster child.

Your posts have been ignorant, and inflammatory. If you want to have an honest debate otherwise, it will not end up with you looking anything other than stupid. Deep down you already know this, but your inclination is to elicit sympathy by blaming that on race.

And I find that offensive. As should everyone.


Back to the original question....Go use google and fucking learn something.

You're very diplomatic.
He's part of the problem. He needs to be shamed for being stupid. Toxically ignorant....When feelings are submitted as fact it's no longer a debate.

Allow me to illustrate the misperception......I told my friend I've been surprised I didn't get pulled over doing 80mph as I went past a cop.....He thought he knew why - I said "tinted windows at night doing 80....you think he could see if I was white or black?". Silence. End of conversation.

1. I think I made it clear that race can affect outcomes. My point was that lived experiences may overstate racism because it can easily ascribe bad behavior to racism when such behavior is caused by other factors. This isn’t to say people are lying; instead, I honestly believe they believe what they are saying. But it doesn’t mean what they are saying reflects reality.

2. The replication crises makes psychological research suspect, especially when it comports with fashionable beliefs. The IAT (or implicit bias) failed to replicate. See http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... oblem.html.

3. Finally, while I do believe we have biases sometimes I think the psychologist-cum-economists misconstrue what is a bias. Eg, hyperbolic discounting. Let’s say for services rendered I offer you a payment today and a payment in a year. For the payment today, I offer you a dollar today or two dollars tomorrow. For the payment in a year from now I offer you a dollar in a year from now and two dollars in a year + 1 day from now. Many people choose the dollar today and the two dollars a year + 1 day from now. Richard Thaler and co. would tell us this is an example of biased thinking. I’m not so sure — can you spot the problem in the bias?

Maybe we should be talking about Interpretive Bias too, specifically within the Black community?

"Interpretive bias or interpretation bias is an information-processing bias, the tendency to inappropriately analyze ambiguous stimuli, scenarios and events.[1] One type of interpretive bias is hostile attribution bias, wherein individuals perceive benign or ambiguous behaviors as hostile."

While I am not discounting the biases you mentioned above, there is a duty upon those who are perceived as "persecuted" to understand there are some situations where police intervention (stopping/questioning) is justified.

Oh no you didn't....

That can't be it. That's not the narrative that the NFL players are parroting and the media is reporting

/s

1. Meant only to add to the discussion, not critiquing: there was nothing wrong with what your said.

2. Not going to start a philosophy of science war, but we should not expect human psychological phenomena to replicate in the way that other natural phenomena do. That is, you may appeal to standards inappropriate for psychological research.

3. Can you clarify the bolded? Typo there, I think.

[quote="Donnie Brasco"]
Maybe we should be talking about Interpretive Bias too, specifically within the Black community?

Yes, we should. Which is exactly what my post implied.

2. But that thought calls into questions the original studies themselves. You are merely privileging the first publication over the second.

3. Thanks. Clarified.

2. I don’t know that appeal to appropriateness of allowance for exceptions and non-replications calls into question those studies. It’s an appeal to the nature of the matter being studied not the discipline that studies it. Biology lacks the certainty and predictive rigor of math and physics. We’re not going to throw out biology because on occasion cellular structures exhibit behaviors contrary to biological theory.

3. I’m not sure I can spot the bias! But likely I do not immediately grasp the problem as presented. I would three dollars sooner is more pleasant than three dollars later. But then again if I have money NOW then I should take the later payment in case I do not have money in a year. But then yet again, who knows what will happen between now and a year!

Because it isn’t about race. It’s just black people think it is - it ain’t. I am guessing you white - love to see you try what the guy in the video did and prove my point. White woman or man.

Agree

They take the dollar today because they'd accept the lower amount sooner. They'll take the two dollars a year + 1 day from now because they are already waiting 365 so what's another day's wait for double the money? I'd say the bias is towards immediate consumption in the near term.

The general convention is that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow (TVM), but the economic reality is that 1 day hardly makes a difference in this scenario. It's unlikely you'd be able to find a suitable investment to double your money in a single day or that inflation would jump 100% to erode the value of the $2 you'll get tomorrow. So you take the $2 tomorrow and the $2 a year + 1 day.

What did I say about race or identitiy politics???

That’s the bias Thaler says exists. However, the potential error relates to credit worthiness. If my only information is that you can offer me a dollar tomorrow or two dollars the day after, I might choose the dollar because I don’t know if you’re good for the two dollars. However, if in a year from the date of the deal you are able to pay a dollar, then my confidence that you’d be able to pay in aYear plus a day increases vis-a-vis the dollar tomorrow, or two dollars in two days. Thus, the two separate choices may not be a bias.

Moreover, while I haven’t fully worked this out the humans making the decision don’t need to understand that credit rationally explains the different choice. Instead, certain features of our nature may cause us to choose what would appear to be irrational results that upon deeper reflection do not appear to be irrational, even if we can’t explain the rationale.

I think this is because evolution doesn’t require selection of the right reasons and the right choice; instead, ceteris paribus, evolution only requires the right choice. Of course, this can create issues when environment changes, but I do think it’s a fundamental issue with behavioral economics. It seemingly starts with the assumption that behaviors that prima facie appears irrational (indeed, the subject likely would tell a story that is irrational) and then based on that prima facie bias / story of the human declares bias A B or C. However, if there is a disconnect between the purpose of the action and the result of the action, then the enterprise falls apart. Moreover, many of these behavioral economists just don’t think out of the box enough before labeling something a bias; evolution is powerful and Chesterson’s fence applies just as much to labeling human behavior as being the result of bias as it does to public policy.

I think you are saying that because humans are complex, disparate results do not per de prove the first results were not incorrect. After all, (in an admittedly fanciful explanation) maybe during replication enough people ate pizza the night before which caused a biological result that produced a different result than the first test. Fair enough (if that’s what you’re saying).

But my point is the pizza could’ve been eaten after the first test; not the second. Thus, while both studies may be valid, it’s unclear which one better describes the current reality. In the abscence of evidence (assuming the replication study and the original study are of equal rigor), I think the burden should be on the person advancing the original claim; not on the person attempting to replicate the results of the first claim.

I think this sagacious explanation by an erudite young man puts this all to bed.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/08/beto-o ... oes-viral/