Again with the double posts---can't you keep it togather IJ??
Nope, I just don't have the ideological bindness that so effects your own perceptions.
These are some pretty gaping holes in the fundamental assumtions of the study/studies.
Serious problems with the methodlogy that seriously call into question the validity of their conclusions.
You tell me, on just ONE of the questions BTW--that the fundamental assumptions ask people to prove a negative ie the doctors can't prove that they are immune to racism.
YOU can't prove YOUR not a bigot--how can they?
Lets turn this around:
-Presentation of studies as facts while being to lazy to present the whole thing--then using said laziness as a prop as to why people don't do YOUR legwork.
If you don't think its important enough to take the time to post--why should anyone else?
-Failure to ask basic questions as to the methodology of a given study.
Simply accepting it because it confirms your pre-concieved bias is BAD SCIENCE--and the mark of a poor scientist I might add.
I sudder to think of of the care you would be giveing your patients should the orthodoxy you embrace accept demonic possion as the causes of illness.
-Failure to consider other potential explinations of the possible conculsions of the studies.
-Turning scientific method in its head--in part by asserting a conclusion that by its very nature ie "subconcious" can't really be established in concrete fashion.
-Failure to consider tester bias as a driver for the conclusions.
-Failure to estatblish how bias was kept out of the studies.
-Failure to consider the ramifications of the study--if Nuez-Smith is correct and there is such a thing as "subconcious" racism/bias--that a person "might not even be aware of" then Nuez-Smith ALSO might be a victem of the SAME "subconcious" bias--therefore the study itself might be the result of such a bais--therefore the study negates ITSELF.
Now if you want to talk about the "self reporting" there are still serious questions.
The least of which is that if the words used were in fact "in any way" then.
-Your STILL ignoreing that the vast number of people answered that in the NEGATIVE.
A conclusion you keep wanting to sweep under the rug.
-We have no idea what the person being asked MEANT when they answered "yes"--could be something INCREDABLY minor--and the study didn't establish that.
In fact that the study used such verbage and failed to ask the logical follow up questions is fairly significant support that the study itself commits serious tester bias--and was done for the direct purpose of being able to claim a "flashy" result.
-As mentioend MANY times--there is a serioius difference between a personal feeling and overt expressed behavior.
What one feels and thinks--even if its wrong--is a VERY different kettle of fish than actually DOING IT.
The study did not link feelings to actions--so its a "so what"--if LBJ can be the personal bigot he was and the professional champion of Civil Rights he ALSO was--then mere feelings are not effectively relevent.
In similar vein, you THINKING/FEELING somebody is hot does NOT mean that your actually cheating on your signaficant other.
Or does it?
And by that ahm......."logic" of that study the adultry and cheating rate MUST be VASTLY higher than reported.
And I already commented on the HUD study.
Jesus IJ, at least READ what I wrote before you make claims.
But then again, flying off the handle and posting stuff that you don't really understand OR read throughly is a distressing habit with you.
Anything that might confirm your pre-chosen bias is accpeted without question and without exception.
Anything that might deny/contridict it is subject to the most harsh questioning and most devote attempts to disavow it.
The main difference between you and I is that I'm operating from a place of objective, rational evaluation.
Your operating from a highly emotional, irrational,
Lysenko-esque, ideologicaly driven place.
Of course, you also deny the slighest possility that YOU, YOURSELF is gulity of bias and bigotry in any form.
Yet your so very quick to assert that other folks ARE--just because of the color of thier skin.
Sad that YOU personally demand and argue for every possible benefit of the doubt--while denying pretty much EVERYONE else the same consideration.