Monday, August 17, 2009

Why shouldn't white men be angry?

Neo-neocon: "They're white. They're men. They're angry at Obama. Why, they must be angry white men."

And the rest of us who are not men who are against Obama's policies, we're white men too!



Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

angry at obama?

same as angry at bush i guess.

politics does funny things to people.

10:37 AM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Ern said...

I continue to be amazed at the ability of people to read my mind. People who have never met me are able to tell that I'm opposed to the health care bill because I'm racist. This asounding ability isn't confined to those on the left, of course, but that's where it's found with regard to the empty suit in the White House.

11:05 AM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Unknown said...

Has anyone heard of the Implicit Association Test? "The Implicit Association Test (1998) or IAT is a test to see how quickly you can match or associate words with pictures. It is used to test how people feel and think deep down about things like race, age and sex. It is most famous as a test for racism." I would like to see how Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity take the test. I would bet they would score higer on having negative racial attitudes than Crowely, the author of "Barack Obama must beware the rise of the angry white man." This would get to the heart of who's "really angry." Maybe Dr. Helen and the Neo Neocon could take it would be interesting to see who we are dealing with.

11:24 AM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Jody said...

Not only have I heard of IAT, I'm familiar with the latest literature on it. See

From the abstract:
the inclusion of race Implicit Association Test scores in regression models reduced prediction errors by only tiny amounts, and Implicit Association Test scores did not permit prediction of individual-level behaviors. Furthermore, the results were not robust when the impact of rater reliability, statistical specifications, and/or outliers were taken into account, and reanalysis of A. R. McConnell & J. M. Leibold (2001) revealed a pattern of ehavior consistent with a pro-Black behavioral bias, rather than the anti-Black bias suggested in the original study.

12:00 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: Here's ONE Reason

Take a look at HR 3200. See page 935 which, starting at line 15, reads as follows:

Consultation - In developing or revising the strategy under subsection (a), the Secretary [of this abomination] shall consult with the following:

(1) The heads of the appropriate health agencies and offices in the Department, including the Office of the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, the Office of Minority Health, and the Office on Women's Health

[Note: Emphasis added.]

Where's the Office of Men's Health?

Talk about rampant racism and sexism.


[The Truth will out.....]

12:39 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Peregrine John said...

Indeed, Chuck(le). In a further exercise of irony, those pushing the bill are nearly an identical subset of those who fairly recently used the word "disenfranchised" an awful lot.

12:54 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Alex said...

Over on Althouse, we have to endure some racist calling everyone who disagrees with him an "Althouse Hillbilly". He does this all day, ever day for months now.

1:24 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Peregrine John, et al.
RE: It's Only....

....those pushing the bill are nearly an identical subset of those who fairly recently used the word "disenfranchised" an awful lot. -- Peregrine John

....'disenfranchisement' when THEIR friends and associates have it happen to them.

Typical Progresive-Bolshevik hypocrisy.


[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]

1:26 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Dave Cornutt said...

Welcome to Teh Patriarchy, Dr. Helen! Meetings are on Wednesdays at 7:00 PM.

1:39 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Helen said...


Yes, I know the test, here are my results and what I think of a it:

2:30 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

From the online manual concerning the reliability of the IAT. This is in response to a question about the validity of the test:

"You may be giving the test more credit than it deserves! These tests are not perfectly accurate by any definition of accuracy. Normally, outcomes will change at least slightly from one taking to another. You may discover this if you repeat any of the tests. We encourage repeating any test for which the outcome surprises you. If the outcome repeats, the result is definitely more trustworthy than is the first result alone. If the outcome varies, it is best to average the different results. However, if the outcome varies widely from one taking to another (something that is unusual) we suggest that you just regard the set of results as 'inconclusive'. Besides normal variation in the reliability of assessment, the IAT is also known to be malleable based on differences in the social setting and recent experience. These factors will influence the consistency of measurement across occasions. For more information about reliability see Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, in press. For more information about malleability of implicit attitudes and stereotypes see Blair, 2001."

Lots of caveats. Sounds like an opinion survey as far a psychometrics go.


3:18 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Liberals have lost their way and possess little upon which to soundly base their beliefs and goals, there for they rely on empty accusations of racism. I wonder if this is why they voted for Obama, to be able to scream "Racism" at every opportunity.

Chuck - Looks like your sexist as well as racist. ;-)

Try finding a office of men's anything at any university, local, state or federal government. Look for a men's issues section on you senator's or congressperson's website. I'll be surprised if you find one. Several years ago I check every senator's site and found none.

4:10 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Thor's Dad said...

When Condi Rice was Sec State, I could have sworn, from her treatment in the media, that she was an overweight, balding, horned-rimmed glasses wearing, white male. In fact, I actually think that's what the media saw through their not so rose-colored glasses. The same sort of fellow is what they see when they come across black conservatives. Anything else would bring shock waves to their squinty-eyed worldview. They just can't make the paradigm shift.

4:15 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Thor, she was a Black Republican.

Anyone could make the mistake.


6:01 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Unknown said...

Jody, I briefly reviewed the journal article you presented. I noticed that it focused on implicit racial attitudes as a predictor of discriminatory behavior. I don't think my post had anything to do with prediction. I was merely commenting on who holds "angry racial views." I would still contend that conservative talk radio hosts would have stronger negative racial biases than Crowely.

Thanks for giving me the article. It was fascinating.

6:19 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Unknown said...

Helen, you said you received inconsistent results from the IAT and then you asked "which is it?" Well, take similar IAT tests and average your results.

As for your reported results, I am somewhat skeptical because you have a pattern of showing contempt and disdain for any scientific conclusions which go against your political beliefs. Don't get me wrong, I like your critiques, but I think they would be much stronger if you actually used data to back up your claims.

6:40 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Dr.D said...

There are many perfectly good reasons for men, women and children to be angry with Zero, none of them having to do with racism. Anyone who is against the destruction of America should be strongly opposed to what Zero is doing with his blatant disregard for the Constitution, his massive spending, his use of intimidation, etc. He is totally un-American and just about the worst think that could possibly have happened to us, and that has nothing at all to do with race (remember, he is half-white, even if he wants you to forget it?).

The charge of racism is simply the knee-jerk reaction from the Left to anything that they do not like, a totally irrational response that has nothing at all to do with the input.

6:45 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: DADvocate
RE: Racist-Sexist? Moi??!?!

Looks like your sexist as well as racist. ;-) -- DADvocate

Yeah. My brother-in-law is an Iranian and my oldest daughter is seeing a former Marine who is black.

On the other hand, I don't believe women should be anywhere farther forward in the combat theater than the COMMZ area.


P.S. Nor homosexuals.

The combat zone is no place for sex to distract from doing what has to be done. I've seen sexual activity screw things up in a number of instances.....people paying more attention to each other than to their duty should be severely punished under the UCMJ.....

[Pour la motivation des autres.]

7:44 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Unknown said...

Miles --

"Well, take similar IAT tests and average your results."

That opinion is based on the assumption that the tests are valid in the first place.

"... you have a pattern of showing contempt and disdain for any scientific conclusions which go against your political beliefs."

"I would still contend that conservative talk radio hosts would have stronger negative racial biases than Crowely."


10:49 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger Unknown said...


Validity of a measure is not based upon opinion. It is based upon a number of "validity tests." From what I have read, the IAT does have validity with respect to measuring implicit bias.

You say, "Irony." What irony? Dr. Helen hasn't posted any scientific conclusions. She has posted opinions about scientific conclusions and I am critiquing her opinions in a respectful manner.

11:44 PM, August 17, 2009  
Blogger SavvyD said...

Then I'm an angry white man too!!

Not everyone was/is a fan of Obama from the start. I told people he wasn't going to solve everything that upset them.

2:32 AM, August 18, 2009  
Blogger Larry J said...

Miles, it appears you're pushing a psychological test as a means of political correctness. This is similar to the worst abuses of psychology under the Soviet Union where people who dared disagree with the Party were thrown into mental institutions (or worse). It was an effective tactic at silencing critics there. Do you long for the "good old days"?

6:22 AM, August 18, 2009  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

i am a member of two men`s clubs.

senior soccer clubs.

we play the ladies for charity each year to collect food for the local food banks.

we generally run out winners.....except last year when, at half time, the ladies were up 1-0 and a thunder storm hit briefly and they good-naturedly got in thier cars and left before the clouds cleared.

we still haven`t let our goalie off for that one.

regarding the "racism" test, i have seen similar tests where blacks are showing similar biases....

8:05 AM, August 18, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Miles wrote: "From what I have read, the IAT does have validity with respect to measuring implicit bias."

Miles, I would like to read those articles too. Can you please give me a link?

I read on the website about ethical issues, you know, not using the test diagnostically, that sort of thing, but I could find nothing about concurrent validity or even reliability.

I look forward to your help in providing those articles you read.


9:32 AM, August 18, 2009  
Blogger highlander said...

From a comment at American Thinker quoting an unknown author at Forbes:

"A racist is a person who is winning an argument with a liberal"

11:45 AM, August 18, 2009  
Blogger Unknown said...

Miles --

"Well, take similar IAT tests and average your results."

It's not scientific, Miles. It's people seeking bias they want to find. You understand biased humans constructed the tests, eh?

If the same test can yield disparate results in the same individual, it's a bogus test. Averaging ten bogus tests does not give you a non-bogus answer.

These tests also rely on the interpreter actually understanding that the ramifications they think they perceive. An example being the Harvard test of doctors. You can mine data for whatever bias you seek if you ignore contradictory evidence.

Irony - you accuse her of dismissing 'scientific' evidence for political bias, then insist through your political bias the 'conservatives' would score more racially biased without any 'scientific' evidence.

This topic is cumbersome to write on as it ain't science in any sense other than 'systematized knowledge in general', hence requiring all those kinda-quotes.

I'll let a doctor say it:

“People receiving feedback about their ‘strong’ racial biases,” Dr. Blanton says, “are encouraged in sensitivity workshops to confront these tendencies as some ugly reality that has meaning in their daily lives. But unbeknownst to respondents who take this test, the labels given to them were chosen by a small group of people who simply looked at a distribution of test scores and decided what terms seemed about right. This is not how science is done.”

12:41 PM, August 18, 2009  
Blogger Doom said...

It would be cool to see 'other than angry white men' carrying signs at the protests which read "The Other Angry White Men". Ha.

1:35 PM, August 18, 2009  
Blogger Quasimodo said...

I saw a scientific American TV special with a segment about testing for racial bias. The guy who designed the test took it and was greatly dismayed by the results. Seems he is a closet racist.

4:33 PM, August 18, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The guy who designed the test took it and was greatly dismayed by the results."


That's certainly a nifty and insightful anecdote, but wouldn't the guy who designed the test have some inkling about the "right" answers (so that he wouldn't be greatly dismayed by the results)?

I mean ... he must know what the purpose of the questions is.

Not to throw the cold water of reality on your otherwise cool-sounding story ...

5:14 PM, August 18, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In general, I like to see arguments between Very Important psychologists with regard to which of their Very Important tests is accurate and which one isn't.

It's like the angels on the head of a pin thing. I honestly think this is the group with the most arrogance for the least contribution to society / furtherance of knowledge. Very self-important and simultaneously useless.

5:17 PM, August 18, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

I think I'd want to watch the show, (a Scientific American special) Quasimodo spoke of before forming such a solid opinion such as yours,, tether. All he spoke of was about the show, with information completely from the show. Did you see the show? No? How can you say what you just said then?

6:24 PM, August 18, 2009  
Blogger DADvocate said...

From what I have read, the IAT does have validity with respect to measuring implicit bias.

I'd love to know how they proved any significant level of validity for the IAT. (I took it years ago but can't remember the outcome.) Coming up with a definition of "implicit bias" lends itself strongly to bias by the investigator. The whole thing looks like circular logic being used to justify itself. Age and vision would are just two variables that could easily effect the outcome.

10:20 PM, August 18, 2009  
Blogger Helen said...


Funny that liberal researchers who give money to liberal politicians always seem to come up with the same results over and over. Their opponents are frequently described as biased, racist, fill in the blank" rather than in neutral or positive terms. With that language, it is highly likely that the researchers have biases of their own. That is what concerns me. They are putting out this information as fact and leaving out or disallowing other points of view to be heard. For example, Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter looked at psychological traits of the left and found them to be less tolerant and less "fabulous" than liberal researchers would have us believe. I have never seen or heard of their work in any program or psychology course, despite their impressive body of work.

7:17 AM, August 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: Are We....

They are putting out this information as fact and leaving out or disallowing other points of view to be heard. -- Dr. Helen

....seeing a pattern of behavior here?

Remember the discussion a few doors down the hall from here about a lack of 'CRITICAL THINKING'?

And remember, the APA is often pointed to as epitome of 'logic' and 'study' of psychology that is frequently implemented.


.....if the APA is populated by a bunch of progressives, i.e., hypocritical, latter-day bolsheviks, and they espouse theories against conservative thought.....

....what's to prevent a reprehensible, sociological administration from using their theories to implement law to declare their opponents 'mentally ill'?

We see it happening throughout history. Especially in the government implemented by the original Bolsheviks.


[Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they AREN'T out to get you.]

8:14 AM, August 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. And, it looks like HR 3200 could be the proper vehicle for such a move. Or, if not THE vehicle, the locomotive to which any subsequent legislation could be added to.

[Bad legislation is more likely to be supplimented than repealed. -- Oakes' Law]

9:31 AM, August 19, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Tether wrote: "I like to see arguments between Very Important psychologists with regard to which of their Very Important tests is accurate and which one isn't."

Actually, accuracy in terms of reliability and validity are numerical measurements. The arguments are a little esoteric and frankly boring to people wo do not spend their time nose deep in statistical analysis.

That is why I am still waiting anxiously for MILES to show me where I can read the validity studies on the IAT that he read. Once I get a look at the numbers, I might agree with him.

So get me those links Miles!


11:25 AM, August 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Once I get a look at the numbers, ..."


And then you'll make your pronouncement of thumbs up or thumbs down, because your "nose is deep in statistical analysis"?

My experience (n = not very many, LOL) is that psychologists can mouth some of the jargon of statistics, not unlike a parrot, but if you get down into the fundamental ideas of statistics, they are clueless. Just as in most other areas, psychologists talk a good talk, and are not lacking in the high self-esteem department (to say the least), but they don't have the knowledge they think they do.

11:45 AM, August 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I particularly remember a Little Miss Big-Wheel Ph.D. psychologist always traipsing over to a statistics professor to get him to figure everything out for her. She didn't want to LEARN the boring stuff herself (math is HARD, Barbie!), she just got people she thought of as peons to work it all out for her.

11:48 AM, August 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a simple one: You get data points that describe a curve on an x, y axis and want to get a probability (by finding the area under the curve). The problem is that a real-live curve is probably some wavy thing and not a rectangle or something.

I've found that psychologists (Ph.Ds) can't even handle a problem like that. I doubt TMink can (although he's going to "look at the numbers" here, LOL).

Engineers usually take integral calculus (which is what the problem above involves) in the second semester of their freshman year. Psychologists usually NEVER take it.

3:18 PM, August 19, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Oh my goodness I never took calculus! I took three years of graduate statistics. I tutored for two years. The money paid for my beer.

But I understand concurrent validity. Not like you MB, cause everyone here knows you are a fracking genius. And I will not be as even keeled and emotionally healthy as Tether, because everyone here knows Tether has a perfectly balanced personality.

But I will totter along as best I can.


6:53 PM, August 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Don't take it out on me or others because you are stupid.

Hint: If you don't open yourself up to criticism by pretending to be smart, you probably won't get criticism. And your bullying of Miles is a pretense of being smart.

So why don't you take a fully new tack for you: Just shut your mouth on matters that you don't know anything about.

7:04 PM, August 19, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: TMink
RE: After a Fashion....

Oh my goodness I never took calculus! I took three years of graduate statistics. I tutored for two years. The money paid for my beer. -- TMink are one 'SICK' puppy. ;-)

Something to do with an academic form of sado-masochist complex.

At the Army's Logistics Executive Development Course (LEDC), we didn't call it 'sadistics' for no reason.


[Laugh at yourself. Join the rest of us. ;-)]

7:23 PM, August 19, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Wow, MB, such a witty comeback. MB, you have never offered me criticism, you just insult me. Badly, with little verve or creativity. What I do not get is how you can get so jealous of a guy on the internet.

Now that question, I cannot figure out at all. So I will be silent regarding that enigma.


9:54 PM, August 19, 2009  
Blogger Unknown said...

Thanks for all the comments and exchanges. Sorry, I can't respond to them. No time. I am heading to Colorado for a week of hiking, biking and sightseeing!

10:45 AM, August 20, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Miles, have fun in Colorado. Could you get me the reliability and validity links on the IAT when you get back?



2:13 PM, August 20, 2009  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

i`m niether a psychologist or an engineer, but what i see here is substantial missing of the nuance of some of the posts in response to this article.

text-only communication is notorious for this kind of mis-understanding.

hopefully we can all take another look at how the text exchange found us all in the shit together and lay off the esspresso before responding in the future.

(i realise that i`ve pissed people off without trying on many occasions typing into textboxes...and i wish we could all post video responses..but we aren`t quite there technologocally...)

5:52 PM, August 20, 2009  
Blogger Mike H. said...

"..but we aren`t quite there technologically..."

Whadda ya mean 'we' white man?

12:19 AM, August 21, 2009  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

i mean that the technology isn`t quite fast enough to support video blogging...otherwise we`d see more of it now.

i`d love to set up the camera and post a comment that way. then i could see and be seen, and all the nuances of what we were trying to say would all fall back in.

i`m sure that there are some who could put a video clip together quickly, but for most the mechanics are too cumbersome for on-going use...and besides, speaking takes some preparation, whereas an angry or facile response takes but a moment.

oh shit...not that all comments here are angry or facile....


11:40 AM, August 21, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home