Posts Tagged ‘McConnell’

Does Automatic White Preference Mean Prejudice?

January 28, 2019

This is the fourth post based on the book Blindsight: Hidden Biases of Good People by Mazarin R. Banaji & Anthony G. Greenwald. Prior to reading this book, HM’s answer to this question would have been “no.” Moreover, if one had implicit bias, but never showed any explicit bias, then one was to be commended for overcoming his implicit bias. However, this book has changed HM’s opinion on this topic.

Because of the large amount of research on this topic two important findings are now established. First we know that automatic White preference is pervasive in American society—almost 75% of those who take the Race IAT on the Internet or in laboratory studies reveal automatic White preference.

Second, the automatic White preference expressed on the Race IAT is now established as signaling discriminatory behavior. ”It predicts discriminatory behavior even among research participants who earnestly (and we believe, honestly) espouse egalitarian beliefs.” Among research participants who describe themselves as racially egalitarian, the Race IAT has been shown, reliably and predictably, to predict discriminatory behavior that was observed in research.

The first experiment to test whether scores on the Race IAT were related to discriminatory behavior was reported in 2001 by Allen McConnell and Jill Leibold of Michigan State University. Without initially informing their research participants that the researchers videotaped these participants during two brief interviews, one conducted by a White woman, the other by a Black woman. During the interviews the participants were asked a series of innocuous preplanned questions such as “What would you change to improve psychology classes? and “What did you think about the difficulty level of the computer task? (The computer task was the Race IAT, which had been presented as if it were part of a separate experiment.)

The purpose of the videotaping was to assess whether strong automatic White preference shown on the Race IAT would predict acting in a friendlier fashion to the White interviewer than to the Black one. After completing both interviews, the experimenters explained the purposes of the videotaping and asked the students to give their permission to analyze the videotapes. Only one did not give permission.

The videotapes of the interviews were scored by counting occurrences of nonverbal behaviors that had been found, in many previous studies, to indicate friendliness or coolness. Indicators of comfort or friendliness including smiling, speaking at greater length, laughing at a joke told by the interviewer, and making spontaneous social comments. Discomfort indicators included speech errors and speech hesitations. Another measure of comfort or discomfort was how closely the subjects positioned their rolling desk chair to each of the interviewers. Immediately after each interview, both of the interviewers also made personal assessments of how friendly and comfortable they thought the subject had seemed during the interaction.

McConnell and Leibold found that subjects with higher levels of automatic White preference on the IAT showed less comfort and less friendliness when talking with the Black interviewer than with the White interviewer.

This was just the first study on the topic. By early 2007, 32 studies had been done in which the Race IAT was administered together with one or more measures of racially discriminatory behavior. These studies were among 184 in a collection that was published in 2009, using the statistical method of meta-analysis to combine all of these results for the purpose of evaluating the IATs success predicting a wide variety of judgments and behaviors.

The authors write, “The meta-analysis answered the most important question about which we had been uncertain in the first several years of the IAT’s existence. It clearly showed that the Race IAT predicted racial discriminatory behavior. A continuing reading of additional studies that have been completed since publication of the meta-analysis likewise supports the conclusion. Here are a few examples of race-relevant behaviors that were predicted by automatic White preference in these more recent studies: voting for John McCain rather than Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election; laughing at anti-Black racial humor and rating it as funny; and doctors providing medical care that we was deemed less satisfactory by their Black patients than by their White patients.”

“The meta-analysis’s findings can be summarized as saying that the IAT scores correlated moderately with discriminatory judgments and behavior. “ But it is important to realize that the forms of discrimination investigated in this research studied involved no overtly racially hostile actions—no racial slurs, no statements of disrespect, and certainly no aggressive or violent actions. The examples of research behavior that were studied—social behaviors in interracial interviews, doctors’ treatment recommendations for a cordial patient, and evaluation of job applications in a hiring situation. These are not the types of negativity or hostility that are generally taken to be characteristic of “prejudice.”

Are the Republicans Complicit with the Russians?

November 2, 2018

The big question seems to be whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians. Conspiracy would be the crime, not collusion. Actually there is a more relevant question, and that is the question posed in the title to this post. Paul Ryan, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives was discussing Russia with his fellow Republican congressmen. The Republican majority leader Kevin McCarthy expressed the belief that Donald Trump was paid by Russia. Ryan reacted by asking that such suspicions be kept “in the family.” Apparently he thought that an embarrassment within the party was more important than the violation of the sovereignty of the country.

The meeting the heads of the American Intelligence agencies had with Senate majority leader McConnell was reported in a previous healthy memory blog post. McConnell refused to accept what the intelligence agencies were telling him that we were under cyberattack by the Russians. He argued that this was a lie he was being told, that it was entirely political even though these agencies are not political See the Healthymemory blog post “House of TRUMP House of PUTIN” to see the money that McConnell had accepted from the Russians. Republicans have been thwarting the investigations being done by relevant committees in the House and the Senate. Moreover, they are attacking the Department of Justice in exercising its responsibilities as their interest clearly is not in justice, but in protecting Trump.

There is already evidence that Russia is again at work interfering in the mid-term election. And it is also clear that any positive results the Democrats have in the elections will be called fraudulent by Trump. He will charge more false news, a charge he learned from the Russians. So will these charges be resolved and how will they be resolved?

Then there is the Mueller investigation. Will it be stopped by Trump? And even if Mueller has compelling legal charges, will the Republicans still protect Trump?

A previous healthy memory post, the same one cited above based on a book by Craig Unser titled “House of TRUMP House of PUTIN” detailed the large financial dealings of Trump with the Russians. It is clear that both his current wealth and his future wealth is dependent on Russia. How can such a man serve as President? Trump’s interests are in his wealth, not in the country.

Parts based on “The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America” by Timothy Snyder

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The 2016 Election—Part Three

July 22, 2018

This post is based on David E Sanger’s, “THE PERFECT WEAPON: War, Sabotage, & Fear in the Cyber Age.” Once the GRU via Gucci 2.0, DCLeaks, and WikiLeaks, began distributing the hacked emails, each revelation of the DNC’s infighting or Hillary Clinton’s talks at fund raisers became big news. The content of the leaks overwhelmed the bigger, more important questions of whether everyone—staring with the news organizations reporting the contents of the emails—was doing Putin’s bidding. When in early August John Brennan, the CIA Director, began sending intelligence reports over to the White House in sealed envelopes, the administration was preoccupied with the possibility that a far larger plot was under way. The officials feared that the DNC was only an opening shot, or a distraction. Reports were trickling in about constant “probes” of election systems in Arizona and Illinois were traced back to Russian hackers. Two questions were: Was Putin’s bigger plan to hack the votes on November 8? and how easy would that be to pull off?

Brennan’s intelligence reports of Putin’s intentions and orders made the CIA declare with “high confidence” that the DNC hack was the work of he Russian government at a time when the NSA and other intelligence agencies still harbored doubts. The sources described a coordinated campaign ordered by Putin himself, the ultimate modern-day cyber assault—subtle, deniable, launched on many fronts-incongruously directed from behind the six-hundred walls of the Kremlin. The CIA concluded that Putin didn’t think Trump could win the election. Putin, like everyone else, was betting that his nemesis Clinton would prevail. He was hoping to weaken her by fueling a post-election-day narrative, that she had stolen the election by vote tampering.

Brennan argued that Putin and his aides had two goals: “Their first objective was to undermine the credibility and integrity of the US electoral process. They were trying to damage Hillary Clinton. They thought she would be elected and they wanted her bloodied by the time she was going to be inaugurated;” but Putin was hedging his bets by also trying to promote the prospects of Mr. Trump.

[Excuse the interruption of this discussion to consider where we stand today. Both Putin and Trump want to undermine the credibility and integrity of the US electoral process. Trump has been added because he is doing nothing to keep the Russians from interfering again. Much is written about the possibility of a “Blue Wave” being swept into power in the mid-term elections. Hacking into the electoral process again with no preventive measures would impede any such Blue Wave. Trump fears a Blue Wave as it might lead to his impeachment. This is one of his “Remain President and Keep Out of Jail Cards. Others will be discussed in later posts. ]

Returning to the blog, at this time Trump began warning about election machine tampering. He appeared with Sean Hannity on Fox News promoting his claim of fraudulent voting. He also complained about needing to scrub the voting rolls and make it as difficult as possible for non-Trump voters to vote. Moreover, he used this as his excuse for losing the popular election.

At this time Russian propaganda was in full force via the Russian TV network and Breitbart News, Steve Bannion’s mouthpiece.

A member of Obama’s team, Haines said he didn’t realized that two-thirds of American adults get their news through social media. He said, “So while we knew somethig about Russian efforts to manipulate social media, I think it is fair to say that we did not recognize the extent of the vulnerability.

Brennan was alarmed at the election risk from the Russians. He assembled a task force of CIA, NSA, and FBI experts to sort through the evidnce. And as his sense of alarm increased, he decided that he needed to personally brief the Senate and House leadership about the Russian infiltrations. One by one he got to these leaders and they had security clearances so he could paint a clear picture of Russia’s efforts.

As soon as the session with twelve congressional leaders led by Mitch McConnell began it went bad. It devolved into a partisan debate. McConnell did not believe what he was being told. He chastised the intelligence officials for buying into what he claimed was Obama administration spin. Comey tried to make the point that Russian had engaged in this kind of activity before, but this time it was on a far broader scale. The argument made no difference, It became clear that McConnell would not sign on to any statement blaming the Russians.

It should be remembered that when Obama was elected, McConnell swore he would do everything in his power to keep Obama from being reelected. McConnell is a blatant racist and 100% politician. The country is much worse for it. For McConnell professionals interested in determining the truth do not exist. All that exists is what is politically expedient for him.

There was much discussion regarding what to do about Russia. DNI Clapper warned that if the Russians truly wanted to escalate, the had an easy path. Their implants were already deep inside the American electric grid. The most efficient for turning Election Day into a chaotic finger-pointing mess would be to plunge key cities into darkness, even for just a few hours.

Another issue was that NSA’s tools had been compromised. Their implants in foreign systems exposed, the NSA temporarily went dark. At a time when the White House and Pentagon were demanding more options on Russia and a stepped-up campaign against ISIS, the NSA was building new tools because their old ones had been blown.