Confirmation bias is where you notice facts that support a belief of yours while tending to overlook those that go against it. It is a logical fallacy: you should consider both kinds of facts. Despite that, it is a extremely common mistake people make. It is why stereotypes seem true to those who hold them.
Before I knew what it was called, I called it the Texas Cowboy Hat Effect. Texans are stereotyped as wearing cowboy hats even though few of them do. Yet if you drove across Texas you would remember the few who did wear cowboy hats and forget the many who did not. That is confirmation bias.
In science more progress is made by looking at the facts that do not quite fit the ruling ideas than by looking at those that do. Yet this is almost always done by newcomers to the field – partly because the old-timers do not take those facts seriously due to confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias has been shown by a ton of studies.
In one American study nine-year-old schoolchildren were given a one-on-one placement test. Those who did not watch the test being given thought whites would do 3% better. But those who watched reported that whites did 12% better. True, 80% of those onlookers were white or Asian, but surely no one who sees something with his own eyes is going to be fooled by whatever stereotypes he might hold. Right?
Wrong: as it turns out whites did better not by 3% or by 12% but by 0%! The thing was staged: the nine-year-olds were secretly being fed right and wrong answers so that they all got the same score.
The onlookers were fooled by their stereotypes. Because of confirmation bias they tended to remember when blacks gave wrong answers and when whites gave right ones. So even though blacks did just as well as whites, it seemed like they did worse!
Confirmation bias is why those who believe in stereotypes say they are true. Even some who know plenty of blacks will still believe the stereotypes about them – even if they are black themselves! The few cases that confirm a stereotype are given more weight in their minds than the many cases that do not.
In America stereotypes against blacks are supported by more than just confirmation bias. There is the self-interest of whites and the constant stream of racist messages. There is also out-group homogeneity bias, the idea that people in an out-group are pretty much all the same. That is why whites say they are individuals but then reduce 40 millions blacks to a half dozen Hollywood stereotypes. Or talk about black culture but say there is no such thing as white culture.
By using an MRI machine we now know which part of the brain confirmation bias takes place in: a part that deals not with thought but with feelings! It causes you to discount or overlook facts that go against dearly held beliefs, often without you even knowing it.
Thanks to commenter Jasmin for her help with this post. All mistakes, of course, are mine alone.
See also:
- stereotype
- whites are individuals
- Thomas Kuhn – on how science progresses
- Zora Neale Hurston: What White Publishers Won’t Print – Hurston also argues that whites think stereotypes are true to life.
Abagond 
Confirmation bias is a harmful thing, because it help inaccurate assumptions exist. a stereotype starts and continues to exist, and after a while it’s almost impossible to get rid of it.
But I also believe it’s impossible to escape confirmation bias. It seems that humans work that way. Even those who should know better (scientists) can’t escape it. Not to mention regular folks. And yes, whether you’re the one being affected by a stereotype doesn’t always mean you’ll be free from it.
On the other hand, some (smart?) people say it’s not confirmation bias or even stereotype formation bad per se. What is bad is the difficulty of unlearning those things.
What I’m saying is, cultural prejudices can help people understand others better- without it it would not be such a thing as a group culture. What is problem is people’s inability or unwillingness to unlearn those prejudices/get rid of confirmation bias. Most of the people don’t even try.
LikeLike
I deal with confirmation bias all the time. People are forever seeing “hundreds” even “thousands” of children in Rio’s red light districts. In 7 years of research, I’ve probably seen about five and maybe 100 16-17 year olds out of a grand total of probably 25,000 prostitutes.
But because seeing a child dressed like a prostitute is shocking, that’s what sticks in people’s minds. I can’t tell you how many times folks have told me “Copacabana is just crawling with kids!” and when I say “Prove it!” we go and find nothing.
Confirmation bias at work: one night they passed along Avenida Atlântica and saw a shockingly young prostitute and that image stayed with them, despite the fact that night after night, they’d pass by the same spot and see nothing but hundreds of adult women.
LikeLike
Oh, and for those of you who’ll chime in to say “Even one kid is too much,” I agree.
And I agree it’s too much in the case of the Church as well, too. So if we’re going to judge prostitution by the 0-2% of underage pros that are on Copa on any given night, perhaps we should also judge the Church by the number of kids who are being given “special” religious training by priests and pastors…. hmmmm?
The point being that, sadly, pedophilia is something that one finds in all social groups. What gets lost in the outrage is that the vast majority of cases ARE NOT like this.
LikeLike
Excellent post Abagond! When I was student at VA Tech, there was always the perception that we Black students were the dominant minority group (in population size) on campus. In all actuality, the Asian student population out numbered the Black student population approximately 3 to 1. But if you ask anyone which minority group they think is largest, I can guarantee they will say the Black students. Although we would gather in small groups just as the other races did, people seem to remember the “big gang” of Black people rather than the group of Asian students walking across campus.
LikeLike
This phenomenon I believe is one of the biggest factors that lead to the hindrance of progress and understanding. What’s to dissuade you of false notions when you already have your mind made up?
LikeLike
Mira,
I agree with you that confirmation bias distorts our perceived version of reality. I think it is quite astute of you to notice that cultural prejudices can lead to greater inter-group understanding. We should all question our cultural assumptions for a more accurate view of human nature. But confirmation bias only partially explains the persistence of stereotypes. As I have stated many times on this blog, stereotypes just don’t pop out of thin air. Often times, there is more than a grain of truth to a given stereotype. Let’s examine two popular stereotypes:
1) Ashkenazi Jews are smart.
2) Blacks are fast.
Both of these stereotypes are long standing but is there any truth to them? I’ve encountered dumb Jews and slow blacks before, so I know that these stereotypes don’t strictly hold. But on virtually every standard of intellectual measure, Ashkenazi Jews are disproportionally over represented. Blacks are also disproportionally over represented among the world’s elite runners. So, what do we do with these true stereotypes? Should we accept the fact that some stereotypes are true? Or should we utilize our own confirmation bias in disproving the stereotypes above? As Thaddeus points out in his example, some notions endure despite objective proof to the contrary. Other notions like “Johannesburg has a lot crime” hold because they are basically true. I have a stereotype that I have concocted recently concerning Central American migrant workers:
Mexican and Central American migrant workers do not wear safety helmets while riding their bicycles to and from work.
Have my observations been affected by confirmation bias because I am opposed to immigration? Maybe, but my observation is true, nonetheless.
LikeLike
Abagond,
I have noticed a certain confirmation bias on your part. Having read your blog for some time now, it seems that most of your race related commentary is tendentiously biased toward blaming whites for the problems of blacks. You confirmation bias is exemplified by the following blog entry:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/zora-neale-hurston-what-white-publishers-wont-print/#comment-56858
The 75% is just a quick way of saying “well over half and yet not nearly all” black problems are rooted in racism, either white or internalized. It was not obtained by careful measurement of anything.
Despite the fact that you have never explained how you quantified white racism, you cling to this notion. The bulk of your commentary on race is based on your “gut” (confirmation bias), not dispassionate analysis. Thus, most of your posts are, at root, of the “blame whitey” variety, instead of “What are we blacks doing wrong?” type.
LikeLike
Mira,
Yes, it is pretty much impossible to escape, for a few reasons:
1) It’s humanly impossible to take note of every person/thing in a given category (e.g., if you are trying to draw conclusions about everyone wearing blue shirts, you can’t possible catch every single person in a blue shirt).
2) Even in lab experiments, qualitative data is subject to confirmation bias because independent raters have their own biases (e.g., Blacks are overdiagnosed with schizophrenia, even though they are being evaluated by people who have been trained to avoid confirmation bias and they have lower overall rates of mental illness).
3) Also, even when people are made aware of confirmation bias, they still engage in it and just call it by a different name (not pointing any fingers ;-)). For example, if a recruiter believes that Blacks are naturally better at football, then s/he’ll probably pay more attention to Black males at high school football games, focus recruiting efforts on predominantly Black schools/neighborhoods, etc. That part is actually the biased sample. The confirmation bias comes in when he selects all of the recruits and then says, “See? Blacks must be better than non-Blacks at football, because there are more Blacks on the team.” He just completely ignores the fact that he started out with a narrowed sample (of mostly Blacks), so within that sample it makes sense, statistically, that more Blacks would be chosen.
When it comes to American White people, confirmation bias plays into institutional racism in that White people have historically made up entire sample sizes (e.g., in college admissions). It makes no sense to restrict admission to Whites (sometimes, non-Jewish Whites) only and then say that the demographics of the university reflect intelligence.
Abagond, if you want to add a stereotype formation model to the post (or, just FYI), I’d draw it like this:
biased sample–>biased measurement–>stereotype
This is just a simplification: If I were hand drawing the model I’d probably draw a circle around the whole thing and label it “cultural influence”, plus I’d made the model itself circular (i.e., draw another arrow from “stereotype” leading back to “biased sample”). Sorry I’m so long-winded, but confirmation bias is like Psych 101, and since so many of your posts are taking an admittedly amateur social science perspective, you should get your disclaimer about confirmation bias out there to weed out the trolls/derailments more easily.
LikeLike
Jasmin,
The football example you gave is an excellent case of confirmation bias, but does not invalidate the use of stereotypes. Sure, a biased recruiter could restrict his search for recruits to mostly black schools and areas, but what would incline a recruiter to do such a thing in the first place? What would make a recruiter believe that blacks are better football players than others? There was a time when no blacks played football. The stereotype then was that blacks weren’t tough enough for football and would break under the pressure. That stereotype fell by the wayside once blacks actually started playing the game….and playing it well. This is quite the opposite of the college admission example given. The application process to selective colleges (except HBCUs) is not restricted by race. Anyone can apply to Harvard. Many blacks do. The fact that very few blacks, but a disproportionally large percentage of Jews are accepted does not prove that Harvard admission officers exhibit confirmation bias with respect to Negro and Jewish admissions. It might very well point to the fact that blacks are generally less academically strong than other groups of students, especially Jews.
Abagond, if you want to add a stereotype formation model to the post (or, just FYI), I’d draw it like this:
biased sample–>biased measurement–>stereotype
But your whole line of reasoning is circular. By your reasoning, no sample could be unbiased, thus no objective result could ever be reached. Surely, there must be some way to achieve unbiased results. Hey, what about track? The times in track are objectively measured. Putting aside the question of performance enhancing drugs for the moment, track is probably one of the purest unbiased tests there is. Everybody runs at some time in their lives. People find out pretty quickly whether they are fast or not. One can’t really turn himself into a world-class sprinter through dint of will. So, why is it that blacks (specifically Negroes of West African descent) dominate the sprints? Is the stereotype of fast Negroes true? It seems to me that it is.
LikeLike
@ RR
“So, what do we do with these true stereotypes? Should we accept the fact that some stereotypes are true?”
A stereotype by DEFINITION is NOT TRUTH. It is an exaggeration of information. It is an inaccuracy made to look true based on LIMITED INFORMATION. Why are these even question?
Again, fast blacks are the cream of the crop in thier sports. Blacks that compete in sports GET more encouragement to do them than those who don’t. Smart Jew are the one who got the resources to compete and do well. Dumb ones either didn’t get resources or don’t want to put energy into studies for whatever reason.
LikeLike
The main problem with stereotypes is that they are not true- but you can always find people who fit them perfectly (or, due to confirmation bias, they appear to fit perfectly).
LikeLike
Confirmation bias shows why you shouldn’t make generalizations based on anecdotal information. However, that doesn’t mean that valid generalizations can’t be made based on representative quantitative data.
LikeLike
FG,
You are exactly right. Confirmation bias is never useful because it distorts the result of a particular measurement. But stereotypes are not inherently non-factual nor are they always harmful or useless.
asada, Mira,
Here is a definition of stereotype:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stereotype
Useful snip:
Sociology . a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group
So, it seems, by definition, a stereotype CAN be true.
LikeLike
Sociological stereotypes are properly called “ideal types”, following Max Weber.
The difference between ideal types and stereotypes is that we do not believe that ideal types are universally true, only useful abstractions to understand the complexity of reality. Ideal types should never be used in determinist fashion, as you are doing RR when you say “Blacks are fast”.
LikeLike
Thad,
I don’t think I am using ideal types, as you have described them, in a deterministic fashion. I am not asserting that race, in itself, makes blacks fast. But there are specific physiological advantages that come together in West African descended Negroes to a greater extent than with other groups, which has led to sprinting excellence.
LikeLike
I read this post and thought, I love that study with the kids being fed answers! Great way to show that we do have biases. Maybe more people need to take part in a test like that, and be confronted at the end with their bias (and much more horrifying, the cumulative statistics that show the bias is a consensus). Perhaps someone should put the video up online, or simulate it with an animation. Just my 2cents.
LikeLike
But there are specific physiological advantages that come together in West African descended Negroes to a greater extent than with other groups, which has led to sprinting excellence.
So now we’ve gone from “blacks” to “west African negros”. So you mean that Ethiopians, say, are fast? They’re West African Negros…
LikeLike
And RR, you prove once again that you don’t have any educational background in the things you talk about. You really should spend more time in a classroom learning rather then speaking nonsensically.
In terms of stereotype formation, yes, no sample is unbiased, because no sample takes into account every individual who is included in the stereotype. (With racial/ethnic stereotypes you get into the whole sticky situation of determining who counts in the actual group, but that’s another story.) And even the biggest ignoramus should know that unless you have research to back it up, what you (as an individual) believe to be a true stereotype is a moot point. You proved it with your football example–once one (or two or three) Black people showed that they had talent in football, people started to pay attention to Blacks who attempted football. Unexpected results (in this case, Blacks who are good at football) can trigger a confirmation bias, because people start looking for examples to confirm their (new) belief. In an experimental manipulation, you can only change one thing at a time to accurately draw a conclusion. People who attempt to determine the origins of a stereotype tend to notice the examples that fit the stereotype (and generally compare them to the relative lack of examples from the past), but they don’t notice their attention to things that fit the stereotype (and the corresponding lack of attention they had before the one, two, three “exceptions” popped on to the screen).
I have answered your inquiry since you directed it toward me, but I would rather you not address me in the context of this blog (or ever) again.
LikeLike
FG,
True, but then you get into the problems of finding a representative sample, standardizing your measures, eliminating spurious correlations, and doing enough replication to uphold the validity of your results. Social science would cease to exist if generalizations weren’t allowed, I think most social scientists just get annoyed when random joes who don’t understand how research is conducted try to throw in their $.02 without ever having cracked open a research journal. (Take it away Thad! ;-))
LikeLike
Exactly, Jasmin. Especially when they are guys who’s principal purpose in life seems to be to distort science any way they choose so that it better lines up with their preconceived notiuons of reality.
LikeLike
Jasmin,
I am not debating the reality of confirmation bias. I am asserting that some stereotypes are true and quite useful, despite confirmation bias. Consider the following stereotype:
“Men are taller than women”.
Would this stereotype be subject to confirmation bias? Certainly, there are many men who are shorter than most women, and many women who are taller than most men. But the stereotype itself is true for most cases. How would one even determine when a confirmation bias is present regarding a stereotype if the stereotype is true most of the time?
LikeLike
RR, generalizations are not stereotypes. Stereotypes are fixed notions which attempt to see the world in determinist terms.
Now, you can make all the semantic arguments you like, but there are indeed differences between stereotypes, ideal types and generalizations.
LikeLike
An ideal type is…
1) Unilateral (I build it based on my experiences and the evidence I have seen – I do not presume that it is true in a universalist sense).
2) Utopian (it is a fiction built to help us better grasp reality – it is not reality itself).
3) Rational (it is based on objective evidence, not on subjective belief).
LikeLike
Thad, Jasmin,
Please focus on what is actually being debated here. This is a blog. If you want to rely on some sort of credentialing mechanism to filter posts on social topics, there are other places on the web to do that. It is my understanding that, on this blog, anyone can have an opinion on anything. The debate is the heart of the matter. Please refer to Abagond’s excellent post “The seven levels of disagreement”
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/the-seven-levels-of-disagreement/
LikeLike
Stereotypes are not necessarily any of those things.
LikeLike
Thad wrote:
So you mean that Ethiopians, say, are fast?
Yes, at long distances. I’m not sure what you meant by the rest of your remark.
Now, you can make all the semantic arguments you like, but there are indeed differences between stereotypes, ideal types and generalizations.
Ok. If you say so. I’m not going to get into a sematics debate with you. From my perspective, a stereotype is a type of generalization. My point is that stereotypes are often true, whether confirmation bias is present or not. All stereotypes are not the result of confirmation bias.
LikeLike
Thaddeus,
But stereotypes CAN be Unilateral, Utopian or Rational, right? So, a stereotype can come about through rational thought and be spot on most of the time. Stereotypes have some utility then, correct?
LikeLike
Proof, RR? Many Ethiopians winning races out there, are there? Seems to me you’re confusing Kenayns with Ethiopians, son.
But stereotypes CAN be Unilateral, Utopian or Rational, right?
A stereotype is fixed and determinist generalization which presumes universal truth.
These distinctions aren’t much to laymen, I know, but are quite important to social scientists.
LikeLike
Stereotypes have some utility then, correct?
Sure. They’re vulgar tools which allow people to make rough approximations. reducing the ammount of data they need to deal with. They make life easier for people and that’s why people use them.
The problem is, stereotypes are HIGHLY subject to confirmation bias because they do not presume that they have been built by the people using them. Rather, they presume that the world really IS that way. A person who goes on stereotypes is eventually going to have reality slap herself on the ass.
LikeLike
Thad,
I am not confusing Kenyans with Ethiopians. Ethiopians have distinguished themselves as runners. Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/sports/othersports/01track.html
These distinctions aren’t much to laymen, I know, but are quite important to social scientists.
Let’s go with it. I’m learning something here. So stereotypes are highly subject to confirmation bias, but not absolutely subject to it. Is that right? That is, not all stereotypes are the product of confirmation bias. Aren’t stereotypes and other types of generalizations probablistic?
LikeLike
Abagond,
I already asked RR not to address me again (I think you have at least some idea why). A refusal to comply with my request is a form of harrassment, no?
LikeLike
Thank you for giving me a great example of confirmation bias and stereotypes, RR! 😀
You are a racist in the scientific sense of the world. To you, then, any distinction in human behavior must be founded in race.
The article you refer to says only a few things:
1) Ethiopia is producing good distance runners.
2) That this dominance is due to a series of significant factors (none of which is racial in nature).
You use it as proof that “Western Africans are good runners”, and yet apparently these Ethiopians are only winning in one kind of modality: distance running. Sprinting and marathons? Nope.
So right off the bat, we need to knock off part of your hypothesis: it is not “running”, in general, that these people are good at but a very specific kind of it.
Secondly, it is not all Ethiopians who are good at distance running but a very particular KIND of Ethiopian: rural Ethiopians who live in a particular environment and eat a certain diet. Furthermore, the ones who are winning are the ones who are receiving support and training. finally, distance running has been a prestige sport in Ethiopia since the 1960s – one of the countriy’s only prestige sports. This means a lot of people try out for it and the talent base is thus very wide (a similar phenomenon happens with football in Brazil – see here for a sport scientist’s take on why Ethiopia produces good runners: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/06/ethiopian-running-dynasty-what-is.html).
So at the very best, all one can say is that whatever physical potential these people have, it must be effectuated by environment, social support and training. Only after all these things are factored out, can we isolate physical traits which might make these people good runners.
But finally, “Ethiopian” is not a homogenous type: there are many different ethnic groups in the country and not all of them are producing top runners.
So what we have here is an even smaller subset.
We began with “blacks” and saw that the proposition that they run faster than other peoples is not true (certainly the San and the Aborigines of Australia – both blacks – are not particularly well known as runners). You then switched to “West Africans”, but not all West African countries produce good runners (Mozambique is not well known for its runners). I suggested Ethiopia and you obligingly googled your way along into the pop article you found. Now we find that not all Ethiopian groups produce good runners.
To top it all off, what we’re talking about is a very, very small, self-selected group of Ethiopians and Kenyans who’re good runners, not the Ethiopian or Kenyan man in general.
Now what a responsible scientist would say is this:
Ethiopia and Kenya seem to produce quality middle and log distance runners. Training, social, nutritional and environmental factors have all been firmly identified in this. There may be a genetic factor, too, but that has yet to be established. Given that these runners are a tiny portion of both nations, it would be unwise to presume that any genetic factor is evenly spread among the peoples of both nations.
That would be a responsible ideal type which tries to include the possibility of biology.
You, on the other hand, wedded as you are to the nineteenth century notion that “black” must have some genetic meaning, quickly craft a stereotype which confirms your biases. You see fast Kenyans and Ethiopians winning 5-20 klick races and see “Black people are naturally fast”.
Instead of rationally accounting for the observable data, you attempt to make that data determine a general trait for a group of close to a billion people. You then ascribe said trait to a natural order without having any proof that such a thing exists (and plenty of proof that non-natural but socio-historic reasons influence this situation).
You are not making an ideal typification, or even a good generalization. You are making a stereotype.
QED.
LikeLike
@RR
You say you are learning something here. Which is really what I take to be the point of this blog.
So perhaps in the spirit of enlightenment for everyone here why not provide an example of a stereotype which (in your opinion) is not subject to confirmation bias?
This would be in line with your argument:
LikeLike
Stereotypes are not true themselves. However, in a cultural/social sense of the word, they are real, because whatever a group of people think it’s true, become true. What I’m saying is, black men being good basketball players and Asian women being submissive are just stereotypes. They are not true in a way they tell us anything about black men, Asian women, basketball players or submissive women.
But since (apparently) many people believe these stereotypes are true, they have an influence on people- a real influence and thus, in a way, become “true” in a way you must take them into account if you want to understand the way people see the world and interact with each other.
LikeLike
Aren’t stereotypes and other types of generalizations probablistic?
Not at all.
Your stereotype – “blacks are good runners” – has no probability to back it up. when we are talking about Kenyan and Ethiopian long and middle distance runners, we are talking about a community of maybe 300 people out of a total “black” population of a billion or so. There are easily several thousand “white” runners who are as good as most of these guys and ALMOST as good as the best of them. When it comes down to it, we’re talking about a fight for dominance between maybe two dozen people, worldwide – and a dominance that’s measured in small amounts (a minute in a 20km race). The scales of the two phenomenons (top class racers and white and black populations in general) are absoultely incomparable. In statistical terms, you’re probably as likely to pick a fast white guy as a fast black guy, just fishing at random from the two populations.
In other words, the self-selected, highly trained top runners of this planet do not allow you to say anything, statistically speaking, about the relative speeds of your two mega-racial categories. In statistical terms, you’re trying to use radical outliers to prove something about the average. That’s not how probability works, Stevie.
LikeLike
Also, RR, I note that you’re going at this bassackwards in terms of scientific method. You ASSUME there must be racial differences, so any difference must be racial. You then go look for proof to back you up.
That’s not how science works. That’s “top down” thinking. Science goes “bottom up”.
Scientists take ALL observable data and build theories to account for it in the best manner possible.
In the case of the Ethiopian runners, we KNOW that running is a prestige sport in the country, that the populations who produce the runners live in a proper climate for it and eat a proper diet for it. We know that their daily cultures emphasize running. we also know that when good runners are found, the State does what it can to cultivate them and that Ethiopia has an excellent training program.
All these are observable facts which must be accounted for in your theory. The question then is, “Is there another factor?” You believe that there MUST be not because we’ve found any genetic element which would indicate this, but because your racist ideology says such an element MUST exist.
In other words, you are not letting the data speak for itself: you are attempting to create data which will support your pet theory. You are not working from data to theory (bottom up), you are working from theory to data (top down).
LikeLike
First time poster!
Just wanna say Abagond, really appreciate the work you do. Really liked the OP.
And Thaddeus, hats off to you. Great response. Your patience is admirable!
LikeLike
@ RR:
Jasmin said:
“Abagond,
I already asked RR not to address me again (I think you have at least some idea why). A refusal to comply with my request is a form of harrassment, no?”
Please respect Jasmin’s wishes in this matter. If you fail to do so I will mark you as a source of spam.
LikeLike
Thad wrote:
To you, then, any distinction in human behavior must be founded in race.
Come, come now Thad. I never stated nor implied that any distinction in human behavior is race related. Obviously, men and women behave in different ways, depending on the circumstances. This is clearly not attributable to race. Men are taller than women on average. This is also not related to race. Please focus on what I actually write instead of what you think I am thinking.
That said, the races do differ on some important standards of measure.
You use it as proof that “Western Africans are good runners”, and yet apparently these Ethiopians are only winning in one kind of modality: distance running. Sprinting and marathons? Nope.
Recall what I said. I said “Blacks are fast runners”. West African descended blacks are good sprinters. East African descended blacks (e.g. Ethiopians) are good long distance runners. Both groups of blacks are good runners. Of course, as I mentioned previously, not all blacks are fast runners. Some blacks are quite slow. Some whites are faster than most blacks. This does not change the fact that blacks (i.e. sub-Saharan African descended blacks) are, on average, faster than other groups at running.
So at the very best, all one can say is that whatever physical potential these people have, it must be effectuated by environment, social support and training.
And genetics, which is basically to say ancesteral environment. Over millennia, environment influences genes and genes influence environment. Here is a snip from an old Sailer article
(http://www.isteve.com/2001_kenyan_runners_nature_or_nurture.htm) on Kenyan running prowess:
Manners theorizes that running got into their blood through a Darwinian process. Although most Kalenjin are farmers now, their traditional livelihood was from herding. As “horseless cowboys,” they had to run down stray cattle on foot. The faster the runner, the bigger his herd, the more wives he could afford to buy, and therefore the more descendents that carried on his genes.
For fun and profit, the Kalenjin enjoyed nothing more than long-distance cattle-rustling. A group of youths would raid a distant tribe and try to hustle their steers home. The fastest runners brought home the livestock, earning the affection of the local maidens. The slowest runners ended up with spears in their backs and no descendents.
Now we find that not all Ethiopian groups produce good runners.
Yeah. So? Not all Jews are geniuses and not all American blacks are good at basketball. Nonetheless, both groups are disproportionally represented at elite levels in intellectual activity and basketball, respectively. Your argument seems to rest on the fact that stereotypes are not always true. So what? Generalizations of any sort don’t necessarily hold for all cases. You are not saying much here. Generalizations are probabilistic. They don’t hold all of the time, but they do hold for a percentage of cases. This is what gives generalizations their power.
You see fast Kenyans and Ethiopians winning 5-20 klick races and see “Black people are naturally fast”.
No. I see West African and East African descended people dominating the running races and think “Blacks are fast”.
Your stereotype – “blacks are good runners” – has no probability to back it up.
Actually, there are quite a lot of statistics and probabilistics that back up this particular stereotype.
You ASSUME there must be racial differences, so any difference must be racial.
Please don’t make any assumptions about my assumptions. If I have not stated an assumption, do not take liberties regarding the contents of my thoughts. Focus on what I actually write.
LikeLike
Kwamla wrote:
So perhaps in the spirit of enlightenment for everyone here why not provide an example of a stereotype which (in your opinion) is not subject to confirmation bias?
I already have, but I will repeat it. The following statement is an example of a stereotype that is not subject to confirmation bias:
Men are taller than women.
LikeLike
Abagond,
Do your dirtiest. Presumably, Jasmin is a big girl. If she is not a big girl then she shouldn’t be posting to this blog. If I deem any of her commentary comment worthy, then I will respond. She has the right not to respond to me. That what big people do. She should know that.
LikeLike
RR has harassed Jasmin before and seems set to do it again. Since he does not wish to listen to me on the matter, he is banned.
LikeLike
@abagond
Actually, thats a shame. I respect that this is your blog and you do have a rules of conduct policy which everyone can see and make efforts to abide by.
While this may be true its clear that the context in which this takes place needs to be respected and appreciated.
There has obviously been some history of personal harassment of Jasmin in other posts. (Incidentally, I would be interested in reading them)
While I may not be totally in agreement with RR’s points. I would have to concede that he made some interesting contributions to a lot of your discussions. Particularly in the ongoing exchanges with Thaddeus.
My own view is if people like RR can make the time to contribute to informed discussion in a way that challenges and broadens the debate about the many, complex and varied manifestations of racism – however misguided they may be. Then perhaps they should be allowed to contribute. Its people like RR who actually need to have these types of debates within forums like yours. Where else would they have them? Now theres a confirmed bias for a stereotype!!!
And of course this is only my view.
LikeLike
Kwamla:
From an ideological point of view I am sad to see him go, especially since I plan to do two more posts on “The Bell Curve”. But in my experience when someone wilfully refuses to listen to your rules it is an extremely bad sign and has to be dealt with sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
RR sez:
Come, come now Thad. I never stated nor implied that any distinction in human behavior is race related. Obviously, men and women behave in different ways, depending on the circumstances.
I correct myself. You are a biological determinist in general, as well as being a racist.
West African descended blacks are good sprinters.
That would include the San peoples, then? And East African blacks includes the Mozambiqueans?
We’re right back where we were before, RR: obviously, only a SMALL group of these populations reliably generates fast runners. As far as I know, there is no reliable scientific study, conducted with adequate sampling techniques, that would allow one to say that “sub-Saharan African descended blacks are, on average, faster than other groups at running”. This is a complete fabrication on your part, using – as I pointed out above – radical outliers to try to prove something about averages.
Statistically speaking, you’re talking out you ass, RR.
And genetics, which is basically to say ancesteral environment.
Again, there’s been no genetic factor discovered as of yet, which is not to say we won’t find one. Stevie’s SPECULATIONS on this topic do not count as proof, RR.
Yeah. So? Not all Jews are geniuses and not all American blacks are good at basketball.
So? If we’re talking about “probabilities”, Stevie, you’re not allowed to salt your samples with radical outliers in order to make their averages pop up. The “fast” blacks you are talking about are a relative handful of people belonging to a small number of groups which have good socio-historical reasons to be fast and among which no genetic factor for speed has yet been discovered. You then stick these people into a vast group and attempt to show how their very particular characteristics are, in fact, a “natural” characteristic of the group as a whole.
That is exactly the OPPOSITE way in which stats are supposed to work, Steve. Stats are supposed to be used to simplify observable realities and make them easier to grasp (in science, stats are supposed to be ideal typifications), not used to create fictional realities (“blacks on the average are faster than whites – this is a black racial trait).
So once again, this is an excellent example of confirmation bias and stereotypes. Even if we presume that CERTAIN groups of blacks or Jews genetically produce higher rates of genius or speed, this does not tell us anything at all about the genetics of the rest of the population.
statistics do not create reality in science, Steve: reality is supposed to create statistics, with the scientist adequately accounting for radical outliers, not incorporating them as a way to artificially boost his petb theory.
No. I see West African and East African descended people dominating the running races and think “Blacks are fast”.
Exactly.
1) Confirmation bias: we have no proof taht the vast majority of blacks are no more “faster”, on average, than the vast majority of whites, you assume this because pf a previously held notion that “blacks” must be noticeably physically different than “whites” in all resepcts.
2) Combined with a stereotype: you abstract from a very small sample of blacks who are socially and self-selected for speed and trained by their countries to perfrom well in races and stretch that observation to fit billions of people in a deterministic and rigid fashion.
Actually, there are quite a lot of statistics and probabilistics that back up this particular stereotype.
Let’s see some peer reviewed scientific papers which use acceptable methodology including proper sampling techniques and clear-cut and operable biological definitions of race and I’ll be willing to change my mind about this. I’m not interested in fluff pieces produced by the media or non-peer reviewed political pieces produced by folks with a racist agenda.
Think you can find us anything? I very much doubt it.
Please don’t make any assumptions about my assumptions. If I have not stated an assumption, do not take liberties regarding the contents of my thoughts.
RR, you’ve been posting here for almost a year now and it is VERY obvious that you believe that “black” and “white” are discrete, biologically definable races which determine a huge portion of human behavior. I don’t need to assume this: I can easily induce it from your writings. To ask me to ignore this quite obvious fact is an excercize in double talk a newspeach.
Perhaps I am wrong in my induction, however. OK, fair go. Then it would be incumbent upon you to clearly state or explain your position instead of coyly shying away from it, as you always do.
The following statement is an example of a stereotype that is not subject to confirmation bias:
Men are taller than women.
Au contraire. That statement can very easily be subject to confirmation bias. I think we could easily engineer a situtaion in which the average woman’s height was taller than the average man’s height and then ask people, after the situation, to write down what they thought the avergae heights were. I’d lay dollars to donuts most would place the women as shorter than the men.
What you have there, RR, is a generalization. If you feel that it holds true in all circumstances, regardless of what your eyes SHOULD be telling you, then you have a stereotype which is being held in place by confirmation bias.
Thanks for closing out your time here on this board with a clear demonstration that, while you may be a talented polemicist and rhetorician (and what should one expect from a journalist and computer salesman?), you have a very shaky understanding of science and its logical foundations.
See you in the funny papers, Stevie! 😀
LikeLike
Good post!
Could I use an example that’s not a physical thing? In The Catcher in the Rye, Holden makes a remark about Catholics, to the effect that: If a Catholic finds out you’re Catholic, they kind of like you a little bit more.
(I’m Catholic, by the way.)
So this is a stereotype, but I laughed when I read that because it’s sort of true, but it’s probably true when someone meets someone new and finds out they’re Mormon or Southern Baptist or Muslim or grew up in the same hometown — you have a little cultural background thing in common. It may not mean you LIKE them more, but they know the same rituals you know, you can make a reference to your first communion or going to confession and they’ll get it. If you marry their brother you mom will be pleased about the church wedding. Stuff like that. It doesn’t mean you’ll give them a job when they apply, or whatever, but in a negative way, it might lead to that because you might cut them some similarity slack. Or you might find out they’re a jerk – hey, I love to meet people from my hometown and feel warm feelings toward them because we can chat about the view of the foothills, but if they’re not a good person, that initial thing in common won’t matter.
Again, a stereotype. Could be seen as negative or neutral or okay, not true for all people but applies to some.
LikeLike
RR would have done better to just have argued for the validity of some generalizations, not stereotypes. Stereotypes almost always fall down because, by definition, they talk in terms of absolutes. Only a few things are absolute: death, taxes, and the fact that the beautiful ones break the picture – always, every time (hi Prince.)
It seems to me that the word “generalization” has started to get lumped in with stereotype, and that folks are arguing that generalizations are bad, nowadays (though I didn’t exactly see that in this post.)
It’s ashamed that RR got himself banned over what started out as essentially a debate about semantics, not really about the meat and potatoes of his idea about general truths (I think he got caught up in it and didn’t realize it was just a semantic thing, himself.)
LikeLike
I hear you about the “generalization” thing, SA. I need to pound this out of my students’ heads every semester: generalizations aren’t bad in and of themselves. Generalizations which are consciously used to help us simplify the world and better work with available data are good. Generalizations which try to make the data fit one’s worldview are bad: we call them stereotypes.
RR knows full well, btw, that Abagond WILL ban your ass if he tells you he’s going to if you keep something up.
My take on RR is this: he’s probably Steve Sailer or a like minded individual who seeks to use the internet to propagate political theories of science. He might even be paid to do this. Recently on this site, however, he’s been pwned several times by many people. His sort of agitation only works well where there are few people who actually understand science and race.
Frankly, I think his giving the virtual finger to Abagond was simply a way for him to jump out of here, looking like a martyr, while dedicating himself to greener fields of political activity.
Call me paranoid, but that’s my take on it.
LikeLike
Until the fall of the Berlin wall I kept thinking that most Soviets and East Germans are fast runners… 😉
LikeLike
lol……….it was cool reading his arguments, but as they say all good things must come to an end n policy a jus policy.
LikeLike
[…] dem Blog Abagond schreibt der Autor darüber, warum Vorurteile uns oftmals als wahr […]
LikeLike
[…] […]
LikeLike
I honestly didn’t know there was such a thing as confirmation bias I was never told thank you. I gave been trying to work on my own conformation via for years but never knew the name of it much appreciated.
LikeLike