Physical Revue says "Whiteboards are Racist"

[CharonY]

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

I suspect these researchers are so blinded by their ideological prejudice that they simplistically attempt to attribute everything to race, when there may be other, more obvious, factors at play.

Actually they acknowledge that race did not play a factor (only a female in the group was characterized as white). It was more that "whiteness" was used to describe the hierarchical structure (and again, I am not sure whether that is actually a thing in social sciences or whether that is the actual stretch).

IMO it is a case where the use of language actually leads folks to misunderstand the situation. I am not versed in social sciences so cannot comment whether the authors actually used correct terminology to begin with, which could aggravate issues.

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

Too many social science branches rely on faux-scientific analysis that can masssage data into any shape desired.  For every paper about white domination of seminars I am sure you can find one about male domination or capitalist domination or dog owner domination or whoever's silhouette is hanging up there in the ideological shooting gallery.  

Actually that is not the case, what I have read more about is the use of e.g. colonizers which is typically used specifically with regard to indigenous interaction and related to history of the colonial past (or present). Male dominance is pretty much ubiquitous and does intersect with most dominance structure, regardless of the area (i.e. race, social status, economic system etc). While social sciences are often on shakier ground, it is a bit problematic to dismiss them wholesale. We do not do that in natural sciences and we should not do that for other sciences, at least not without studying some foundations first.

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yeah but I bet you are guilty of leading a discussion with a marker pen and whiteboard at some point in your life, you evil white supremacist. I know I have, on numerous occasions, mea culpa.  

And that is again an overinterpretation base on the headlights. Rather the assumption (whether true or false) is that folks used to a social hierarchy are more likely organize knowledge transfer and presentation in a hierarchical manner. I.e. a person takes charges, structures information and creates a hierarchical flow.  I.e. information presentation is then guided, rather than created collaboratively.

A side aspect is that men are more likely to do that (though based on the glimpse I am not sure whether that was emphasized, I cannot remember and the paper was not interesting enough for me to read it again). Saying that this is indicative of white supremacism is, in my reading, rather missing the point (similar as the title of the article in OP).

What it is saying is that we are used to a certain structure of information forming and that this mechanism is, in effect, invisible to the participants. That is because we are so used to it (as various folks mentioned). They could give it a different name (e.g. Western style learning or whatever rather than whiteness), but the basic idea I got from it is that we generally acquiesce to these structures without much thinking about it. And it might very well be the best way to form information. But ultimately the structures that creates them are invisible to us, and so are the issues that may arise from them. 

For example, we might (and we do) assign competence to the person who tends to direct most attention to themselves, rather than those that build critical knowledge, but remain in the background.

If anything these types of thoughts help to think outside the box (or rather, identify potential boxes).

[Phi for All]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

Hey !  I'm a white male capitalist ( with a soft socialist underbelly ).
I think I treat my fellow humans decently and with respect.
And I don't even have a dog ...

Last I checked, W Buffet and B Gates were both white male capitalists, and each of them has donated more money to various charities than all of SFn's members combined incomes.
( although Bill did treat his wife badly )

Generalizations about people often come back to bite you in the ass.

You made this generalization, not me. I was commenting on the culprits behind most racial injustice. 

But on that subject, I make a distinction between extremist billionaires and the ones who understand how a society works. Buffet, Gates, and Abigail Disney have both repeatedly encouraged Congress to charge a wealth tax. 

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yeah but I bet you are guilty of leading a discussion with a marker pen and whiteboard at some point in your life, you evil white supremacist. I know I have, on numerous occasions, mea culpa.  

As I said before, I don't mind a little over sensitivity when it comes to something I've probably not paid enough attention to in the past because I knew my intentions were good. Questioning entrenched systems doesn't have to be evil. 

[MigL]

Even if you remove the offensive whiteboard and marker, there is an inherent hierarchical structure to the teacher/student relation which cannot be disposed of.
A boardroom or meeting room might be different, but you simply cannot have 'equality' in a teaching situation.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

but you simply cannot have 'equality' in a teaching situation.

Is not the goal to have equality in learning situations, at least in terms of opportunity and experience?

[MigL]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Is not the goal to have equality in learning situations, at least in terms of opportunity and experience?

Certainly among the students.
Would you think  the teacher, at the whiteboard ( or blackboard ), should have equal 'opportunity and experience' ?
Or do you agree there has to be a hierarchy there.

[iNow]

I’m not in the habit of making broad sweeping generalizations. Details matter. 

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Even if you remove the offensive whiteboard and marker, there is an inherent hierarchical structure to the teacher/student relation which cannot be disposed of.

Except the observation was set up specifically without someone with more knowledge (i.e. teacher). It was a group of peers and the idea is that even under this condition a hierarchy forms.

[MigL]

You're right CharonY, I didn't read the original paper.
What struck me as odd ( and L Krauss ) was the fact that a scientific rebuttal wasn't allowed, because the original paper was deemed 'non-scientific'.
So why was it printed in a scientific journal ?

I only bring up the teacher/student example to demonstrate that sometimes hierarchical structures are necessary.
Like going to war with an army without hierarchy, and everyone is equal ?|
Or you can tell a judge he's out of order at your trial ?

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You're right CharonY, I didn't read the original paper.
What struck me as odd ( and L Krauss ) was the fact that a scientific rebuttal wasn't allowed, because the original paper was deemed 'non-scientific'.
So why was it printed in a scientific journal ?

I only bring up the teacher/student example to demonstrate that sometimes hierarchical structures are necessary.
Like going to war with an army without hierarchy, and everyone is equal ?|
Or you can tell a judge he's out of order at your trial ?

The uniquely bonkers feature of the paper, it seems to me,  is the apparent equating of any form of hierarchy with “whiteness”. 

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

I only bring up the teacher/student example to demonstrate that sometimes hierarchical structures are necessary.
Like going to war with an army without hierarchy, and everyone is equal ?|
Or you can tell a judge he's out of order at your trial ?

I don't think that I ever came across a proposal to make teaching non-hierarchical, and I do not think it was brought up as an issue, well anywhere I looked, at least.

Generally the research is about what formal or informal hierarchies are formed which are considered normal, but remain invisible. For example, a teacher student relationship is generally known to be hierarchical. There, one could e.g. explore cultural differences in teaching and learning, but also how e.g. students perceive authority coming from a male vs female teacher (and there is a lot to say here).

But that is not what the area the paper tries to explore (successfully or not). It is about group learning (i.e. a bunch of equally clueless peers) and how they spontaneously build power structures. Generally speaking these small group observational studies have little to no explanatory power by themselves. However, there is the general idea that cultural norms create these power structures and because they are considered normal, folks engaging in them do not realize what they do. Moreover, often non-normative behavior can often create issues. So in gender-based power structures, a female student taking lead is more likely to be perceived negatively as an equally uninformed male student. Conversely, a male student engaged in very collaborative knowledge formation, will more likely to be perceived as weak or not knowledgeable. And there are cultural dimensions on top.

9 hours ago, MigL said:

What struck me as odd ( and L Krauss ) was the fact that a scientific rebuttal wasn't allowed, because the original paper was deemed 'non-scientific'.
So why was it printed in a scientific journal ?

The journal is an education journal, not a physics science paper. From the looks of it, you submit e.g. suggestions of doing classes, it does include simple experiment to teach concepts but also discussions on how to lead classes etc.  I'll have a few minutes of time and will check out the article.

 

Edit: so based on the article, which is rather thin on details the issue that the editors brought up was that the comment was:

Quote

“framed from the perspective of a research paradigm that is different from the one of the research being critiqued.”

I.e. it seems that the argument was (if valid) that the comment was actually discussing something entirely different then what the paper was actually describing, similar to what we are doing here. 

In order to figure whether that was justified, I would now need to read the comment in question, but that takes time. I will again note that what is emblematic for this whole discussion that folks do not actually provide full context and that folks are ready to chime in without reading the underlying papers in detail.

I think the paper has obvious methodological issues (if it really was about determining the dynamics) to draw scientific conclusions and I would not be surprised if the comment authors heavily picked up on that. I would not consider the paper to be valuable other than a think piece to consider dynamics in class rooms, for example (and the framework seems questionable, but then I have not well read enough to comment on whether that is true or not).

 

Putting the comment issues aside, I do not blame folks that they are unwilling, unable (as research might not be intelligible) or just plain do not have the time to read those things, but I wished that folks would then refrain from engaging, before they do. I blame twitter for these bit-sized discussions that seem to mostly generate outrage but no real discourse (I note that the editor noted harassment, which seems to be the norm nowadays).

Edit2:

Actually I may have done the paper a bit of an injustice, I thought that there was no effect of race as I only skimmed the whiteboard part, but there is a bit which the authors observe that while the Hispanic woman supported the (middle-Eastern) man, the white woman actually kept on challenging him. They suggest that there is some intersectionality at play here, where power dynamics are not only governed by gender (as I assumed) but also by race. I.e. when one wanted to study these dynamics in more detail than the paper, one should not only focus on one or the other.

That part is actually interesting as a thought (though poor in data). 

[Intoscience]

On 5/16/2023 at 6:29 PM, Phi for All said:

That's because the culprits of most racial injustice are white male capitalists who treat their dogs better than most people.

Just a side note:

My dog is part of my family and loved as any person would love a child. My dog also loves each of his family (us). I would treat my dog better than I would treat some of the  greedy, selfish, self-centered, attention seeking people often found in modern society.   

On 5/16/2023 at 9:21 PM, Phi for All said:

As I said before, I don't mind a little over sensitivity when it comes to something I've probably not paid enough attention to in the past because I knew my intentions were good. Questioning entrenched systems doesn't have to be evil.

+1

Though branding a person, racist because they used a term (out of years of habit) without context, that is a little sensitive in modern society,  does not make them evil either. 

A little education in decorum and respect is all it takes, most people (those that do care) will accept this and try to change the terms they use. I find myself most days doing this, I have learned to stop and think what terms I should be using during discussions, but sometimes I still slip up out of habit.

I was glad when white boards were introduced and black boards were no longer used! Not because I'm racist, but because the sound of chalk squeaking against the black board I found totally unbearable.    

[CharonY]

With regards to racist, the issue is indeed that folks assume that folks with racist worldviews are incorrigible. It is, ironically something engraved in typically conservative worldview (things are a  certain way because it is how it is supposed to be or natural or something on that line) and some progressives have taken a similar mindset (someone with racist mindsets are incorrigible).

Unfortunately this results in a situation where folks o  both sides of the issue think that racism is terminal. As such many uneducated progressives attack rather than educate, whereas folks on the right then just try to define it in a way that would absolve them from that label, regardless how obviously vile that may be (now Nazis are OK...?).

Even worse, in the US the gop now actively try to abo.ish such education, which actually would have shifted the discussion from personal failure to system issues. These, in theory are much easier to discuss dispassionately.

Instead now Rosa Parks was just a random bus passenger who complained too much.

 

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Just a side note:

My dog is part of my family and loved as any person would love a child. My dog also loves each of his family (us). I would treat my dog better than I would treat some of the  greedy, selfish, self-centered, attention seeking people often found in modern society.   

I've loved every dog I ever had, and they all wanted for nothing, and were considered part of the family. But none of them were EVER loved as I love my child. As much as it would bring me terrible grief, I'd sacrifice any dog for my child if it were required. 

Sorry if it seems callous, but I'd sacrifice the best of my dogs to save the life of any human if I knew it would work. When it comes to human life that I have a chance to save, I wouldn't stop to ask about their ethics. I may regret it later if I found out they were a shithead, but I wouldn't be OK with letting a person die to save my dog's life.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Though branding a person, racist because they used a term (out of years of habit) without context, that is a little sensitive in modern society,  does not make them evil either. 

Branding? I guarantee you that you have many racist tendencies if you're white in the US, simply because it's part of the structure of the country. It's up to all of us to remove as many as we can if we want equity for our citizenry. "Branding" implies something that can't be removed that others have placed upon you against your will. Maybe you should think of racism as more of a stain that YOU got on yourself by interacting with racists, but you can wash it off if you put a little work into it. 

[TheVat]

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

Actually I may have done the paper a bit of an injustice, I thought that there was no effect of race as I only skimmed the whiteboard part, but there is a bit which the authors observe that while the Hispanic woman supported the (middle-Eastern) man, the white woman actually kept on challenging him. They suggest that there is some intersectionality at play here, where power dynamics are not only governed by gender (as I assumed) but also by race. I.e. when one wanted to study these dynamics in more detail than the paper, one should not only focus on one or the other.

That part is actually interesting as a thought (though poor in data). 

Yes, it seems more like an anecdote to spur someone to possibly consider real research.  Much of the excerpts I saw seemed like that: it was impossible to tell if behaviors were a function of gender or racial dynamics, or just the personalities that certain individuals in the group happened to have.  If I sounded dismissive of these branches of social science earlier, it was because of the methodology concerns that you expressed.  Not only the small sampling and muddy causality, but also the subjectivity and lack of definitional rigor that seems to contaminate almost every aspect of these studies.  

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I guarantee you that you have many racist tendencies if you're white in the US, simply because it's part of the structure of the country. It's up to all of us to remove as many as we can if we want equity for our citizenry. "Branding" implies something that can't be removed that others have placed upon you against your will. Maybe you should think of racism as more of a stain that YOU got on yourself by interacting with racists, but you can wash it off if you put a little work into it. 

My experience of racism, in the US great plains, was more like a heavy metal poison poured into my ears on a regular basis.  My adult life has incorporated a regular chelation therapy which slowly has removed some of the toxic buildup.  As with many people, the most powerful treatment has simply been knowing real human beings, who are always so much more than their demographic labeling.  I've noticed the most intractable bigots are often the ones who have basically never really sat down and had a conversation with someone in their most-loathed group.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Yes, it seems more like an anecdote to spur someone to possibly consider real research. 

It is not on par as a typical study, but case studies are often like that. For example for unusual manifestations of diseases you might have descriptions of what is happening with a single patient. Most of the time they do not allow any valid conclusions (e.g. in terms of treatment efficacy), but the value is really that if someone sees something similar one can start thinking about the need of conducting a full (or pilot) study. 

I have seen studies in the social sciences which are fairly well designed, but ultimately, the higher the complexity of the question, the more difficult it becomes to control for all parameters. Interestingly, behavioral biology is undergoing a change where folks realized that some of the rigors common in behavioral animal studies might actually be detrimental to the science, as it dismisses individuality that increasingly is recognized in animals (and already assumed in social sciences).

I would agree that the explanatory power of an average social science study is lower than that of natural sciences, and it generally takes many years until some sort of consensus can be formed. As a consequence they often lag behind (rapid)  societal shifts.

[Intoscience]

On 5/19/2023 at 2:36 PM, Phi for All said:

Sorry if it seems callous, but I'd sacrifice the best of my dogs to save the life of any human if I knew it would work. When it comes to human life that I have a chance to save, I wouldn't stop to ask about their ethics. I may regret it later if I found out they were a shithead, but I wouldn't be OK with letting a person die to save my dog's life

For me it would depend on the situation, I agree I would save my child before my dog. But honestly, I'm not sure I'd save every human over my dog in all situations. It may seem absurd to some, but I don't place human life, in all situations, at the top of the hierarchy.  

On 5/19/2023 at 2:36 PM, Phi for All said:

I guarantee you that you have many racist tendencies if you're white in the US

There you go, singling out one group from others. Don't you think all people have racial tendencies dependent on their social upbringing? Just for the record, I'm not a white person living in the USA so I wouldn't be able to comment on that.  

On 5/19/2023 at 2:36 PM, Phi for All said:

Maybe you should think of racism as more of a stain that YOU got on yourself by interacting with racists, but you can wash it off if you put a little work into it

That's a bold assumption, I'm sure all people interact with racist people each and every day. Though I do agree that a little effort in consideration towards others may go a long way. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 5/19/2023 at 10:36 AM, Phi for All said:

Maybe you should think of racism as more of a stain that YOU got on yourself by interacting with racists, but you can wash it off if you put a little work into it. 

More of a stain? What exactly are you subliminally implying by that Phi? (I kid...)

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There you go, singling out one group from others. Don't you think all people have racial tendencies dependent on their social upbringing? Just for the record, I'm not a white person living in the USA so I wouldn't be able to comment on that.

Are you saying "All lives matter" right after I said "Black lives matter?"

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

That's a bold assumption, I'm sure all people interact with racist people each and every day. Though I do agree that a little effort in consideration towards others may go a long way. 

Then why is my "assumption" bold? It's a better perspective than claiming you've been "branded", which is wrong AND racially insensitive.

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Are you saying "All lives matter" right after I said "Black lives matter?"

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are insinuating with your comment? My partner is a black lady, her life matters very much to me, not because of the colour of her skin though.  

I'm saying all people from all cultures may have inherent racial tendencies learnt from their social environment, both intended and unintended. We can all agree that racism can be eradicated through social education, we can all do better. Prejudice in any form is not the answer. I'm learning to phrase things better, consider my use of terms and language, so that it becomes more acceptable across a more diverse range of cultures and groups. But I still fall foul, and still make mistakes. I still mis-understand or even don't understand why something I say may be offensive, I'm still scrubbing out the stains.   

 

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

For me it would depend on the situation, I agree I would save my child before my dog. But honestly, I'm not sure I'd save every human over my dog in all situations. It may seem absurd to some, but I don't place human life, in all situations, at the top of the hierarchy. 

Well, those weren't the goalposts I'd aimed for originally. My statement about dogs was based on being able to save a human life through the sacrifice of my dog. You've just Strawmanned into meaninglessness. Never mind.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

More of a stain? What exactly are you subliminally implying by that Phi? (I kid...)

Kidding? Sorry, I don't get it.

Lots of white people in the US don't appreciate that we've been getting our hands dirty when it comes to discrimination against people of color just by participating in processes that actively promote it. It's not something that's been placed upon us, but rather a consequence of our own behavior. 

 

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are insinuating with your comment? My partner is a black lady, her life matters very much to me, not because of the colour of her skin though.  

I mentioned white racial tendencies as being particularly relevant to the topic, and you replied with "Don't you think all people have racial tendencies...?" It just seemed like the same argument.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

 

Kidding? Sorry, I don't get it.

 

If as the title of the thread suggests "whiteboards are racist"....then surely suggesting someone is, to their detriment, "stained" could have racist implications...

Now...obviously you didn't mean it that way, and you will no doubt be forgiven...for now...though bets are off down the road if someone more woke than anyone here manages to find it...

 

All tongue in cheek...of course

[CharonY]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If as the title of the thread suggests "whiteboards are racist"....then surely suggesting someone is, to their detriment, "stained" could have racist implications...

I think we have established that this is not what it is about.

 

14 hours ago, Phi for All said:

mentioned white racial tendencies as being particularly relevant to the topic, and you replied with "Don't you think all people have racial tendencies...?" It just seemed like the same argument.

I think it is worthwhile to iterate that everyone has implicit biases (or whatever we call them). That in itself is not the issue, folks will be arseholes regardless of the situation. But what the paper is about (and the broader discussion) is the surrounding system in which these implicit biases create issues. In the US (but also elsewhere) there are explicit as well as unintentional system that result in unequal outcomes, depending on race (and gender), even if each group has the same amount (or lack of ) implicit bias.

These structures are often invisible and it is a bit what the paper (if clumsily) seems to want to address.

I.e. they claim that in their observational mini-cohort, due to the cultural background in which it happens, the different folks (Hispanic, White, Middle Eastern, men and women) behave differently within that structure. Again, the case study does not allow conclusion in itself, but it is something that they want to try to observe.

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think we have established that this is not what it is about.

Any objection to my comment based on logic is of course not relevant given that my comment was not written within any logically rigorous framework.

[CharonY]

That would be fine if we were a social sciences forum, I guess.

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Well, those weren't the goalposts I'd aimed for originally. My statement about dogs was based on being able to save a human life through the sacrifice of my dog. You've just Strawmanned into meaninglessness. Never mind

Ok, fair enough, I mis-interpreted the context, apologies 

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I mentioned white racial tendencies as being particularly relevant to the topic, and you replied with "Don't you think all people have racial tendencies...?" It just seemed like the same argument

Fair enough,

Again, my mis-interpretation, 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If as the title of the thread suggests "whiteboards are racist"....then surely suggesting someone is, to their detriment, "stained" could have racist implications...

I think we have established that this is not what it is about

I think, though tongue in cheek, J.C in this instance makes a valid point. This is where we may find the "extreme" side of woke creating more issues than it solves.