The stronger discrimination behaviour of vaccinated individuals matches the finding that perceptions of being discriminated against were reported more frequently by unvaccinated people. This suggests that reports of discrimination are not fiction but fact.
Thanks for the detailed breakdown.
I take issue with their "analysis" of discrimination, even if they seem to reach the appropriate conclusion.
They frame here "discrimination" against the unvaxxed as a behavioural and psychological construct of individual persons and tested their hypothesis whether the unjabbed's grievances were fake news.
While there certainly was some bigotry at the individual level from family/friends/co-workers/etc, framing and testing "discrimination" against the unjabbed as a phenomenon between two individuals ignores the greater objective reality of true systemic discrimination where the State capriciously robbed individuals of their rights to work, to cross borders, to travel, to conduct commerce, to enter premises, to experience entertainment, etc.
Oh it is undoubtedly quite artificial and individual how they looked at it, 100%. However, I don't see a good way that they can test for it otherwise. But then I also don't see that the state level systemic stuff needs much testing when you can just examine policy. You want to examine its effects sure, but it's certain that it exists. This is new then, whereas the evidence for the state level stuff just needs cataloguing. So this is my view in many ways even more useful because now we can show evidence for all levels of discrimination, at the system state level and personal. Any state policies or advertisements that help promote it as an identity can in fact now even be tied to causing personal level grief also.
They were wrong to ignore the state discrimination (and to propose more of it even in the discussion), but we've at least got some interesting data here.
To investigate whether perceived discrimination had any factual basis, participants were asked to play two dictator games.
This suggests that reports of discrimination are not fiction but fact
I think it's the condescending and smarmy way that they presented this part of their experiment.
They framed it where if their stupid construct didn't detect measurable interpersonal bias, that all the bitching about gross rights violations was misinformation.
Yeah you've got a good point here and it shows how bias can find its way in. You're right, not finding measurable interpersonal bias wouldn't prove the null, it would simply fail to prove the alternative in that experiment, they should know better and phrase it that way. That they didn't is revealing
I agree with your concerns there too, the authors are far from perfect in that regard, but still maintain that this is rather useful and interesting data. They had to begrudgingly admit we are right on this. The fact that even through their bias and awful recommendations this shows we are right is itself interesting.
Thanks for the detailed breakdown.
I take issue with their "analysis" of discrimination, even if they seem to reach the appropriate conclusion.
They frame here "discrimination" against the unvaxxed as a behavioural and psychological construct of individual persons and tested their hypothesis whether the unjabbed's grievances were fake news.
While there certainly was some bigotry at the individual level from family/friends/co-workers/etc, framing and testing "discrimination" against the unjabbed as a phenomenon between two individuals ignores the greater objective reality of true systemic discrimination where the State capriciously robbed individuals of their rights to work, to cross borders, to travel, to conduct commerce, to enter premises, to experience entertainment, etc.
Oh it is undoubtedly quite artificial and individual how they looked at it, 100%. However, I don't see a good way that they can test for it otherwise. But then I also don't see that the state level systemic stuff needs much testing when you can just examine policy. You want to examine its effects sure, but it's certain that it exists. This is new then, whereas the evidence for the state level stuff just needs cataloguing. So this is my view in many ways even more useful because now we can show evidence for all levels of discrimination, at the system state level and personal. Any state policies or advertisements that help promote it as an identity can in fact now even be tied to causing personal level grief also.
They were wrong to ignore the state discrimination (and to propose more of it even in the discussion), but we've at least got some interesting data here.
I think it's the condescending and smarmy way that they presented this part of their experiment.
They framed it where if their stupid construct didn't detect measurable interpersonal bias, that all the bitching about gross rights violations was misinformation.
Yeah you've got a good point here and it shows how bias can find its way in. You're right, not finding measurable interpersonal bias wouldn't prove the null, it would simply fail to prove the alternative in that experiment, they should know better and phrase it that way. That they didn't is revealing
I agree with your concerns there too, the authors are far from perfect in that regard, but still maintain that this is rather useful and interesting data. They had to begrudgingly admit we are right on this. The fact that even through their bias and awful recommendations this shows we are right is itself interesting.