Globalist piece of shit Sam Harris has deleted his twitter account.
(mobile.twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (81)
sorted by:
I'm personally a big fan of reading Philosophical works and applying them more than Psych books. Psych books are constantly constrained by either being paid shills, or having to pre-empt damage control to avoid getting cancelled. And if you don't have enough knowledge to catch those things when you see them, you'll get misled easily. One specific one that I credit with radically changing how I thought of human social relations was Nietzche's Genealogy of Morals, specifically the piece on how the sick are the greatest danger to the healthy. I know Nietzche is a meme, but most people don't read beyond the bite sized memeable bits to find the much better stuff.
But in terms of them, generally anything in the Bio Psyche category will be clean enough though its far more dry. I gleaned a lot from reading the DSM 1-5 and the discussions had between versions about changes and why they needed to happen, which then lead to good jumping off points on things that catch your interest. The discussions regarding removing the Autism Spectrum from DSM5 will probably appeal to a lot of people here.
Similarly, reading up famous "studies" and then trying to poke holes in it will give you a lot of practical knowledge to see marketing and misinformation as it happens, because the media uses "studies" to launch their talking points. The Black Doll and Stanford experiments are landmark, but so full of holes its hilarious and that's a great place to start doing such. Once you get good at it, you can start getting actual useful data even from complete shams and lies of a work because they usually aren't smart enough to see what parts they failed to scrub.
I know that's all kinda boring and vague, but I got my education through near a decade in schooling so it was gleaned through such channels instead of easily digestible books.
Well, most knowledge is not given/acquired easily, at the very least you help by pointing in the right direction.
Yeah, but I do feel bad being unable to offer more concrete answers to the question. But between how long its been and the aforementioned "learned in college" its quite difficult to go back to the basics.
It doesn't have an explicit name, which makes referring to it a lot harder. Usually some variation of the Doll Test. I call it Black Doll because if you google that you'll find it.
Basic gist is they took some black dolls and white dolls, and found that children didn't like the black ones and did like the white ones. They ascribed negative traits to the black ones, including the black kids who did identify that it represented them more than the white ones.
It was one of the cornerstones of the Brown vs Board of Education case, and likely it wouldn't have succeeded without the study backing it to prove that racism was internalized and damaging literal children.
But its also a study involving children and self reporting children at that, meaning that half of it is just "well we think this is what that means" and completely assumes that black has only meaning in regards to skin color (and not, let's say an instinctual dislike of black things because of fear of the dark and other caveman shit).
Replicating studies from just a few years ago found that its actually gotten worse, and little girls from all colors hate the black dolls so much they exhibit incredibly abusive and dehumanized behavior towards them. Stepping on them, beating them, cooking them, refusing to even try to touch their hair, etc. However this only applies to black dolls. Every other non-white color has minimal difference.
Which leads me to the two theories to draw from it of: there is something about the black doll that is activating a stressor or reaction in the children beyond what its meant to represent (as I alluded to above); or going with the conclusion from the original study which means racism has gotten infinitely worse in the last decades to a laughable extent and civil rights has done nothing to combat it.
That last one might be a "no duh" moment from a political standpoint, but from a raw data its rare to see it said. You'll also note that what I drew from this study is in complete opposition to the researchers beliefs and conclusions, which is what I meant by what you can gain from reading it regardless of their Leftist bullshit.
True, but we also need to keep in mind that this is from the minds of children and thereby it requires them to have noticed and internalized such things. Which means it should be a lot more of a 1:1 scenario, instead of a reactionary "hates blacks because media demonized whites too much" like a lot of people.
It would support their claim of racism being so omnipresent that it caused such negative associations, but then why only the black doll? Racism against Latinos is just as prevalent in most areas, but they were almost unchanged in their opinions of that doll. Which then requires one to believe there is something specific about the black one, and thereby black people if you take the doll as a perfect representation.
I'd disagree with this, at least partially. Black culture is very popular with the youth because its built on the same short term goal seeking ideas. That's why wiggers are almost exclusively a teen or younger thing. Children would lack the greater scope thinking and understanding to see why black culture could be called inferior.
And despite what I said, I do think racism played some role in it. Children aren't that deaf, and during the original study's era it was easy to pick up. But I also don't think its as deafeningly loud to the level they want us to believe, nor is the study "unquestionable" because it has too many glaring holes. It shows us a lot of smoke, I don't buy that this single factor is the fire.