• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Split]When are you white?

Sure. Just go to any black neighborhood theater and see for yourself. This is assuming you really do know what "black" is.

ETA: Or would you be completely clueless in finding a black neighborhood?

That's not evidence. You know that.

Um, I don't think you know what the verb "to cite" means. "To cite" means "to provide references to." I didn't cite the references, I provided them.

And there's avery good reason that I won't provide the evidence. Aside from the copyright restrictions, I'm not going to type in a 200-page book to an Internet forum.

Nobody is asking you to. All you need to to is provide the evidence. You can do that without typing in 200 pages from a book, can't you? Or is every single comma necessary for you to provide evidence of your claims? You don't expect anyone to believe that, do you?

Yeah, whatever. If your expectation is that I provide a factually-accurate precis of thirty years worth of research by a top psychologist that's nevertheless short enough to fit into an Internet message board.... my only response would be "welcome to real life, princess, please enjoy your stay."

"Colour me unimpressed" indeed.

All you need to do is provide evidence of your claims.

Because I've already provided the layman's answer to the relevant questions, and you're demonstrably not qualified to read or understanding the expert's.

That is yet another claim you have not been able to back up with evidence. Please do so.

The sociological and experimental details are neither interesting enough for me to re-read and re-type, nor are they relevant enough to matter, nor am I willing to burden you with decontextualized and therefore easily misunderstood information when you obviously don't understand the contextualized summaries I've already provided.

Or in other words -- I've already shared. I've cited evidence from my very first post in this discussion, including a web page that you've obviously either not read or not understood. (If you had, you wouldn't even bother to ask the question about "prototypically black.")

That is a load of male bovine manure.

You have a tendency to hide behind demands for evidence when you're losing a discussion. Well. I call.

I have a tendency to call for evidence when I see claims. Well. I call. I have called several times. So far, you have not answered.

I've provided the evidence supporting my point of you; you've merely expressed your incredulity (as though your ignorance were somehow evidence against me) while refusing to check out the citations I've provided.

Consider your bluff called. Read the citations provided(and refute them) or provide evidence that any statement I've made in this entire discussion has been wrong.

Consider the fact that your bluff has been called: You have not answered the questions. Here they are again:

  • Do other groups than blacks act the same way? Whites trying to be as white as possible?
  • What is the difference between white behavior and black behavior?
  • How many blacks self-identify as blacks because they find it beneficial if they are in a strongly black community?
  • Out of how many blacks in all?
  • Can you explain what a "prototypically black" is?
  • What is this measuring tool that a funds officer/administrator has to measure up against?

Again, if you know something, share it.
 
Your line of reasoning suffers from one fundamental flaw: If people can simply self-identify, why would anyone want to self-identify as a race that they know would be discriminated against? Why would a black man self-identify as black, if he knew it would get him in trouble more than it would benefit him?

How do you suppose Martin Luther King, Jr. would answer that?
 
You are asking me to provide the evidence. You know it doesn't work that way.

I'm asking a simple question. Would you be able to find a black neighborhood in NYC?

You say, "I am not drawing a line at all." We can't help you if that is not true.
 
I'm asking a simple question. Would you be able to find a black neighborhood in NYC?

You say, "I am not drawing a line at all." We can't help you if that is not true.

I wouldn't know how to recognize a "black neighborhood" in NYC.

I am aware that other people call some 'hoods "black", but I have never found out what distinguishes them from other, non-"black" 'hoods.

How do I know if I am in a "black" neighborhood in NYC? Is there a certain number of "blacks" - whatever that is - that has to occupy a certain number of homes within a certain area?
 
Nobody is asking you to. All you need to to is provide the evidence. You can do that without typing in 200 pages from a book, can't you?

Not in a form you would understand, no.

That is yet another claim you have not been able to back up with evidence. Please do so.

Certainly. Question number five on your "I can't be bothered to do the reading" list is:

Can you explain what a "prototypically black" is?

The answer is, "yes, I can." A more detailed answer includes "... but I shouldn't have to, because it's implicit in the Wikipedia article."

In particular, the Wikicite includes the following:

Thus instead of a definition based model - e.g. a bird may be defined as elements with the features [+feathers], [+beak] and [+ability to fly], prototype theory would consider a category like bird as consisting of different elements which have unequal status - e.g. a robin is more prototypical of a bird than, say a penguin. This leads to a graded notion of categories, which is a central notion in many models of cognitive science and cognitive semantics

Similarly, a category like "black" consists of different elements which have unequal status.

As described in the Wikicite, Gardenfors has a mathematical implementation of this formulation ...

in terms of multi-dimensional feature spaces, where a category is defined in terms of a conceptual distance.....He postulates that most natural categories exhibit a convexity in conceptual space, in that if x and y are elements of a category, and if z is between x and y, then z is also likely to belong to the category.

And earlier:
The term prototype has been defined in Eleanor Rosch's study "Natural Categories" (1973) and was first defined as a stimulus, which takes a salient position in the formation of a category as it is the first stimulus to be associated with that category. Later, she redefined it as the most central member of a category.

So a "prototypical black" would be a person (category element) centrally located in the abstract conceptual space of features that correlate with (racial) blackness. A little bit of thought should give you a partial list of "black" features : you can start with skin pigmentation, hair colour and apparent curliness, shape of facial features, accent, dress style, and so forth.

A person "centrally located" on all of the aspects associated with "blackness" would be prototypically black, just as an animal "centrally located" on all of the aspects associated with "bird" would be a prototypical bird. Colin Powell is demonstrably non-prototypical in a number of ways (skin colour, dress style, accent); Spike Lee or Will Smith is more prototypical in most of these regards.

Furthermore, such a prototypical element is "privileged" in a number of testable ways that make it clear what are and are not the "prototypical" category elements. Among the ways listed on the Wikicite are

1. Response Time: Queries involving a prototypical members (e.g. is a robin a bird) elicited faster response times than for non-prototypical members.

2. Priming: When primed with the higher-level (superordinate) category, subjects were faster in identifying if two words are the same. Thus, after flashing furniture, the equivalence of chair-chair is detected more rapidly than stove-stove.

3. Exemplars: When asked to name a few exemplars, the more prototypical items came up more frequently.

And, of course, any of this would let us test the claim that Will Smith or Spike Lee are more prototypical than Colin Powell; simply measure people's time to answer the quetsion "Is X black" and observe differences.

All of this is present in the Wikipedia citation and addresses the question quite thoroughly. As I said earlier, this is fairly basis cognitive psychology. That you didn't manage to figure this out on your own from the Wikicite suggests either that you didn't bother to read it (in which case there's little point in my providing further evidence of any sort), or that you read it but couldn't be bothered to think about it (which again suggests there's little point in providing more evidence).

So, yes, I stand by my statement that you're demonstrably not qualified to read or to understand the expert documents.

For the rest of your questions -- most of them are not discussed in the Wikicite. But they are discussed in McWhorter and Rosch. To which I refer you.
 
I wouldn't know how to recognize a "black neighborhood" in NYC.

I am aware that other people call some 'hoods "black", but I have never found out what distinguishes them from other, non-"black" 'hoods.

How do I know if I am in a "black" neighborhood in NYC? Is there a certain number of "blacks" - whatever that is - that has to occupy a certain number of homes within a certain area?

God, how did I know I would get an answer like this? :rolleyes:

A person does not judge a neighborhood as "black" by [nasal white professor voice]measuring that greater than 88.5 percent of the residents have self-identified on a survey they are African-American[/voice].

But they know when they are in a black neighborhood. And they know when they are in a white neighborhood.


Everyone on Earth but you does, we are supposed to believe. We have this AMAZING ability to tell when we are in a white or black neighborhood on the fly! From inside our car while its in motion! It's truly paranormal!
 
Not in a form you would understand, no.

Try me.

Certainly. Question number five on your "I can't be bothered to do the reading" list is:

The answer is, "yes, I can." A more detailed answer includes "... but I shouldn't have to, because it's implicit in the Wikipedia article."

In particular, the Wikicite includes the following:

Similarly, a category like "black" consists of different elements which have unequal status.

As described in the Wikicite, Gardenfors has a mathematical implementation of this formulation ...

And earlier:

So a "prototypical black" would be a person (category element) centrally located in the abstract conceptual space of features that correlate with (racial) blackness. A little bit of thought should give you a partial list of "black" features : you can start with skin pigmentation, hair colour and apparent curliness, shape of facial features, accent, dress style, and so forth.

How do we recognize a "black" person's skin pigmentation?

How is a "black" person's hair defined?

How is a "black" person's hair "curliness" defined?

How is a "black" person's shape of facial features defined?

How is a "black" person's accent defined?

How is a "black" person's dress style defined?

As you can see, you response raises far more questions than it answers. But, I'm sure you have the answers ready.

A person "centrally located" on all of the aspects associated with "blackness" would be prototypically black, just as an animal "centrally located" on all of the aspects associated with "bird" would be a prototypical bird. Colin Powell is demonstrably non-prototypical in a number of ways (skin colour, dress style, accent); Spike Lee or Will Smith is more prototypical in most of these regards.

Really? Is that a "black" prototype or a "black" stereotype?

Furthermore, such a prototypical element is "privileged" in a number of testable ways that make it clear what are and are not the "prototypical" category elements. Among the ways listed on the Wikicite are

And, of course, any of this would let us test the claim that Will Smith or Spike Lee are more prototypical than Colin Powell; simply measure people's time to answer the quetsion "Is X black" and observe differences.

But how do we know this isn't stereotype instead of prototype? Perhaps there is no real difference?

All of this is present in the Wikipedia citation and addresses the question quite thoroughly. As I said earlier, this is fairly basis cognitive psychology. That you didn't manage to figure this out on your own from the Wikicite suggests either that you didn't bother to read it (in which case there's little point in my providing further evidence of any sort), or that you read it but couldn't be bothered to think about it (which again suggests there's little point in providing more evidence).

So, yes, I stand by my statement that you're demonstrably not qualified to read or to understand the expert documents.

That is your claim. You have yet to provide evidence hereof.

For the rest of your questions -- most of them are not discussed in the Wikicite. But they are discussed in McWhorter and Rosch. To which I refer you.

It didn't work before, and it still doesn't work now. Answer the questions:

  • Do other groups than blacks act the same way? Whites trying to be as white as possible?
  • What is the difference between white behavior and black behavior?
  • How many blacks self-identify as blacks because they find it beneficial if they are in a strongly black community?
  • Out of how many blacks in all?
  • What is this measuring tool that a funds officer/administrator has to measure up against?

God, how did I know I would get an answer like this? :rolleyes:

A person does not judge a neighborhood as "black" by [nasal white professor voice]measuring that greater than 88.5 percent of the residents have self-identified on a survey they are African-American[/voice].

But they know when they are in a black neighborhood. And they know when they are in a white neighborhood.

Everyone on Earth but you does, we are supposed to believe. We have this AMAZING ability to tell when we are in a white or black neighborhood on the fly! From inside our car while its in motion! It's truly paranormal!

It sure sounds like that to me.

Why am I wrong? Luke, I ask you for evidence, and you give me this? Why should I accept such shoddy argumentation? Because it deals with race?

"We cannot walk alone."

Deep, man.

How does that answer the question as to why a "black" man would identify himself as "black"? It seems to me that he would avoid such stereotypes.
 
Why would anyone want to self-identify as a creed that they know would be discriminated against? Why would an atheist man self-identify as atheist, if he knew it would get him in trouble more than it would benefit him?

When are you not a skeptic? Where is the line?
 
Doggone it, you guys would have this discussion while I'm at school! ;)

I'm hungry, I'm tired, and I don't want to read all five pages right this second. I'll read them after lunch and my nap. Ergo, I may say things now that other folks have already said.

One usually self-identifies as belonging to one race or another, although again there are certain exceptions. Tiger does not consider himself black. When asked to label himself, he chose "Cablinasian," meaning caucasian, black, Indian and Asian. But in general, no one tells you what race you are; you tell them, and you determine it by what you learn in your family. My family self-identifies as white, and always has. That's how I know I'm white, aside from my obvious pale skin color and European facial features.

Race is easier to determine at the extremes, and gets progressively harder to determine as we reach the indeterminate middle. This is but one clue of many that it's not a cut-and-dried issue.

Race does have meaning; in fact, it has levels of meaning, within context. Some of those meanings are now outmoded (i.e. black people are stupid, Latinos are lazy, Indians are drunkards, etc.) and so their meaning has become empty and useless. In that sense alone, the concept of race is meaningless. But race definitely has other kinds of meaning which are pertinent and important.

The exceptions I mentioned above, about people "telling you" what your race is, usually occur in matters in which race will earn you (or deny you) a benefit. For instance, if the Cherokee Nation is offering scholarships to tribal members, then not just anyone who wants to self-identify as Cherokee qualifies, and proof would be necessary, such as a tribal enrollment card. Someone on the scholarship board could, in a manner of speaking, tell you that you are not "Cherokee enough" to qualify for the award, if you don't have that card. But that is just a loose example.

The concept of race does tend to fall apart in the middle: if one has a European mother and a Lakota father, is one white or Lakota? That's up to you to decide for yourself, but generally not for you to decide for someone else. If your ancestry, like Tiger's, encompasses several races, you might find others identifying you racially in ways you don't accept.

Why do we still identify ourselves and others according to race? Old habits die hard. In the sense of essential qualities, race has little meaning. What difference does it make if you are black and he is white and she is Asian? That depends on context. For instance, in one of my Mass Communications classes, we learned that newspaper editors still tend to be white, middle-class males. That black editors of either gender comprise only 3% of all editors in America, total, is cause for some concern. At least, it should be.

Okay, I'm really hungry now, and really tired. I'll come back to this later, and I promise to read what's come before, first. :)
 
Last edited:
It sure sounds like that to me.

Why am I wrong? Luke, I ask you for evidence, and you give me this? Why should I accept such shoddy argumentation? Because it deals with race?

Maybe my last post will help you understand that there is no numerical, scientific formula. Sometimes society defines a term, and sometimes we define it for ourselves. Sometimes both. And sometimes a personal definition differs from the majority's definition.

I self-identify as a skeptic. But there are those who say I am not a skeptic because I am a Deist.

An atheist skeptic is more of a prototypical skeptic than a Deist skeptic.

I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this. I think Dr. Kitten has done a fantastic job of explaining it, with more patience than I would have.


Deep, man.

How does that answer the question as to why a "black" man would identify himself as "black"? It seems to me that he would avoid such stereotypes.

Why do you self-identify as a skeptic?

As one who speaks loud and often about the "skeptical movement" and how we need to quite bickering amongst ourselves and adhere to some kind of party line in a world dominated by woos, I would think you above all others would understand the principle at work.
 

Sure. Here's more proof.


Really? Is that a "black" prototype or a "black" stereotype?

That's the wrong question. Prototypes are stereotypes. People don't have the cognitive capacity to remember everything that has happened to them, so everything that gets incorporated into the mind is a stereotype. More accurately, a "stereotype" is simply a shared cultural artefact describing a commonly held cognitive prototype. "Bird" is a stereotype -- a prototypical ("stereotypical") bird has wings and flies, while an non-prototypical bird like an ostrich or penguin doesn't.

Similarly, a prototypical black person has highly pigmented skin, dark and curly hair, etc. Just like the stereotype. A "sterotype" without a basis in a cognitive prototype wouldn't be successful.

So if you want to know

How do we recognize a "black" person's skin pigmentation?

How is a "black" person's hair defined?

How is a "black" person's hair "curliness" defined?

How is a "black" person's shape of facial features defined?

How is a "black" person's accent defined?

How is a "black" person's dress style defined?

As you can see, you response raises far more questions than it answers. But, I'm sure you have the answers ready.

..., simply consult your own personal stereotypes. After all, it's your prototype, in your head -- I don't share it. Whatever salient features you use to categorize people as "black" are the elements of your prototype. Although given our shared culture and language), we probably share large elements of our prototypes (otherwise communication would be nearly impossible). This also, of course, explains how our categorization decisions can be strongly correlated without being identical; if someone were to show us 100 celebrity photographs, we'd probably agree on the race of the majority of them (you're not going to tell me that Pope Benedict is Asian) -- but some people, like Tiger Woods or Colin Powell, people who are near the periphery of most people's racial prototypes, would produce some disagreement.
 
To answer Larsen, being as my mother is white and my paternal grandparents are Korean and black, under common usage, I'd be described as half white, quarter black, quarter Korean.

Is it silly? Sure. But it is a simple shorthand way of denoting my ethnic background for some folks. In the context of the conversation that was going on, I used it.

Normally, if I'm asked, I rattle of the list. Because it amuses me to watch the facial expressions.
 
To answer Larsen, being as my mother is white and my paternal grandparents are Korean and black, under common usage, I'd be described as half white, quarter black, quarter Korean.

Is it silly? Sure. But it is a simple shorthand way of denoting my ethnic background for some folks. In the context of the conversation that was going on, I used it.

Normally, if I'm asked, I rattle of the list. Because it amuses me to watch the facial expressions.

You have any male siblings? Because if they ever make Snow Crash into a movie, he should audition for the role of Hiro Protagonist.

ETA: And before anyone gives me any crap, I know Hiro was half black and half Japanese.
 
Last edited:
You have any male siblings? Because if they ever make Snow Crash into a movie, he should audition for the role of Hiro Protagonist.

ETA: And before anyone gives me any crap, I know Hiro was half black and half Japanese.

Well, Mom says me and my sister are the sons she never had...
 
...the other being blue.

I could never figure out what "white" means. When are you not "white"?

It's a pretty simple thing. We as humans didn't define them by the vague seperation between them, but by the MASSIVE seperation between them, which is to say by creating nice mental "archetypes" which represent the extremes. From there we just judge if something is closer to one extreme or the other and label accordingly, and get all confused when something is more "to the middlin'". It's not a hard concept. Night, day, bright, dim, lighter toned skin or darker toned, we do this sort of thing all the time. The middle ground isn't defined because all we did was define the extreme ends and go from there.

That's how we can tell the difference. In other words, there's no point in the label "white" and "black" in terms of determining someone's worth or their abilities or any such thing (except black people are more resistant to sun burn, and that's about all I've learned), but if you had to describe someone to a sketch artist I'm pretty sure you'd be able to say if they were more "whitish" or "blackish" (among other traits), and it would prove beneficial in finding the suspect when you did as most people would have a good enough understanding of it to be able to "label" a human being as such.
 
Why would anyone want to self-identify as a creed that they know would be discriminated against? Why would an atheist man self-identify as atheist, if he knew it would get him in trouble more than it would benefit him?

Bad example: You know damn well that being an Atheist is not something you brag about in the US.

When are you not a skeptic? Where is the line?

I'm not a skeptic in situations where skepticism cannot give me an answer.

Doggone it, you guys would have this discussion while I'm at school! ;)

See what I mean? Don't ever go offline...

But in general, no one tells you what race you are; you tell them, and you determine it by what you learn in your family.

Oh, come on, that's naive. People group and judge you by your race, whether you like it or not. It's called prejudice.

Race is easier to determine at the extremes, and gets progressively harder to determine as we reach the indeterminate middle. This is but one clue of many that it's not a cut-and-dried issue.

It sure isn't. My point is only, that when we have to make a decision based on race, we have to have clear demarcations.

Race does have meaning; in fact, it has levels of meaning, within context. Some of those meanings are now outmoded (i.e. black people are stupid, Latinos are lazy, Indians are drunkards, etc.) and so their meaning has become empty and useless. In that sense alone, the concept of race is meaningless.

But that is the very problem with the concept of race: These stereotypes live on, even today.

The exceptions I mentioned above, about people "telling you" what your race is, usually occur in matters in which race will earn you (or deny you) a benefit. For instance, if the Cherokee Nation is offering scholarships to tribal members, then not just anyone who wants to self-identify as Cherokee qualifies, and proof would be necessary, such as a tribal enrollment card. Someone on the scholarship board could, in a manner of speaking, tell you that you are not "Cherokee enough" to qualify for the award, if you don't have that card. But that is just a loose example.

Do you know exactly how they determine if you are "Cherokee enough"?

The concept of race does tend to fall apart in the middle: if one has a European mother and a Lakota father, is one white or Lakota? That's up to you to decide for yourself, but generally not for you to decide for someone else. If your ancestry, like Tiger's, encompasses several races, you might find others identifying you racially in ways you don't accept.

That doesn't happen merely when you are "mixed". That happens regardless of that.

Why do we still identify ourselves and others according to race? Old habits die hard. In the sense of essential qualities, race has little meaning. What difference does it make if you are black and he is white and she is Asian? That depends on context. For instance, in one of my Mass Communications classes, we learned that newspaper editors still tend to be white, middle-class males. That black editors of either gender comprise only 3% of all editors in America, total, is cause for some concern. At least, it should be.

Sure, if the reasons are based on racial concepts and not education/skills. That's why it is so important that we know exactly what we base our segregation - and I use that word deliberately - of races on.

Why do you self-identify as a skeptic?

As one who speaks loud and often about the "skeptical movement" and how we need to quite bickering amongst ourselves and adhere to some kind of party line in a world dominated by woos, I would think you above all others would understand the principle at work.

It is exactly because I am a skeptic that I try to find out what we base these "races" on. I don't accept yours and drkittens explanations, because they are not explanations at all, just repetitions of the claims.

Sure. Here's more proof.

That's the wrong question. Prototypes are stereotypes. People don't have the cognitive capacity to remember everything that has happened to them, so everything that gets incorporated into the mind is a stereotype. More accurately, a "stereotype" is simply a shared cultural artefact describing a commonly held cognitive prototype. "Bird" is a stereotype -- a prototypical ("stereotypical") bird has wings and flies, while an non-prototypical bird like an ostrich or penguin doesn't.

Similarly, a prototypical black person has highly pigmented skin, dark and curly hair, etc. Just like the stereotype. A "sterotype" without a basis in a cognitive prototype wouldn't be successful.

The difference is that we can determine if the animal has "wings" and the "ability to fly". What I am asking you is how pigmented skin a black has to have before he is "black". How dark must his hair be? How curly?

Yes, I'm asking you. You are the one who lists these traits. You must know what they are.

..., simply consult your own personal stereotypes. After all, it's your prototype, in your head -- I don't share it. Whatever salient features you use to categorize people as "black" are the elements of your prototype. Although given our shared culture and language), we probably share large elements of our prototypes (otherwise communication would be nearly impossible). This also, of course, explains how our categorization decisions can be strongly correlated without being identical; if someone were to show us 100 celebrity photographs, we'd probably agree on the race of the majority of them (you're not going to tell me that Pope Benedict is Asian) -- but some people, like Tiger Woods or Colin Powell, people who are near the periphery of most people's racial prototypes, would produce some disagreement.

These are questions arising from your claims, from your argumentation. You have to answer them.

Here they are again:

  • How do we recognize a "black" person's skin pigmentation?
  • How is a "black" person's hair defined?
  • How is a "black" person's hair "curliness" defined?
  • How is a "black" person's shape of facial features defined?
  • How is a "black" person's accent defined?
  • How is a "black" person's dress style defined?
  • Do other groups than blacks act the same way? Whites trying to be as white as possible?
  • What is the difference between white behavior and black behavior?
  • How many blacks self-identify as blacks because they find it beneficial if they are in a strongly black community?
  • Out of how many blacks in all?
  • What is this measuring tool that a funds officer/administrator has to measure up against?
Stop stalling. Answer the questions.
 

Back
Top Bottom