Is Race Perception Automatic?

Tom Stafford, BBC Future, April 23, 2013

When we meet someone we tend to label them in certain ways. “Tall guy” you might think, or “Ugly kid”. Lots of work in social psychology suggests that there are some categorisations that spring faster to mind. So fast, in fact, that they can be automatic. Sex is an example: we tend to notice if someone is a man or a woman, and remember that fact, without any deliberate effort. Age is another example. You can see this in the way people talk about others. If you said you went to a party and met someone, most people wouldn’t let you continue with your story until you said if it was a man or a woman, and there’s a good chance they’d also want to know how old they were too.

Unfortunately, a swathe of evidence from the 1980s and 1990s also seemed to suggest that race is an automatic categorisation, in that people effortlessly and rapidly identified and remembered which ethnic group an individual appeared to belong to. “Unfortunate”, because if perceiving race is automatic then it lays a foundation for racism, and appears to put a limit on efforts to educate people to be “colourblind”, or put aside prejudices in other ways.

Over a decade of research failed to uncover experimental conditions that could prevent people instinctively categorising by race, until a trio of evolutionary psychologists came along with a very different take on the subject. Now, it seems only fair to say that evolutionary psychologists have a mixed reputation among psychologists. As a flavour of psychology it has been associated with political opinions that tend towards the conservative. Often, scientific racists claim to base their views on some jumbled version of evolutionary psychology (scientific racism is racism dressed up as science, not racisms based on science, in case you wondered). So it was a delightful surprise when researchers from one of the world centres for evolutionary psychology intervened in the debate on social categorisation, by conducting an experiment they claimed showed that labelling people by race was far less automatic and inevitable than all previous research seemed to show.

Powerful force

The research used something called a “memory confusion protocol”. This works by asking experiment participants to remember a series of pictures of individuals, who vary along various dimensions–for example, some have black hair and some blond, some are men, some women, etc. When participants’ memories are tested, the errors they make reveal something about how they judged the pictures of individuals–what sticks in their mind most and least. If a participant more often confuses a black-haired man with a blond-haired man, it suggests that the category of hair colour is less important than the category of gender (and similarly, if people rarely confuse a man for a woman, that also shows that gender is the stronger category).

Using this protocol, the researchers tested the strength of categorisation by race, something all previous efforts had shown was automatic. The twist they added was to throw in another powerful psychological force–group membership. People had to remember individuals who wore either yellow or grey basketball shirts, and whose pictures were presented alongside statements indicating which team they were in. Without the shirts, the pattern of errors were clear: participants automatically categorised the individuals by their race (in this case: African American or Euro American). But with the coloured shirts, this automatic categorisation didn’t happen: people’s errors revealed that team membership had become the dominant category, not the race of the players.

It’s important to understand that the memory test was both a surprise–participants didn’t know it was coming up–and an unobtrusive measure of racial categorising. Participants couldn’t guess that the researchers were going to make inferences about how they categorised people in the pictures–so if they didn’t want to appear to perceive people on the basis of race, it wouldn’t be clear how they should change their behaviour to do this. Because of this we can assume we have a fairly direct measure of their real categorisation, unbiased by any desire to monitor how they appear.

So despite what dozens of experiments had appeared to show, this experiment created a situation where categorisation by race faded into the background. The explanation, according to the researchers, is that race is only important when it might indicate coalitional information–that is, whose team you are on. In situations where race isn’t correlated with coalition, it ceases to be important. This, they claim, makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. For most of ancestors age and gender would be important predictors of another person’s behaviour, but race wouldn’t–since most people lived in areas with no differences as large as the ones we associate with “race” today (a concept, incidentally, which has little currency among human biologists).

Since the experiment was published, the response from social psychologists has been muted. But supporting evidence is beginning to be reported, suggesting that the finding will hold. It’s an unfortunate fact of human psychology that we are quick to lump people into groups, even on the slimmest evidence. And once we’ve identified a group, it’s also seems automatic to jump to conclusions about what they are like. But this experiment suggests that although perceiving groups on the basis of race might be easy, it is far from inevitable.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • The__Bobster

    Unfortunately, a swathe of evidence from the 1980s and 1990s also seemed to suggest that race is an automatic categorisation, in that people effortlessly and rapidly identified and remembered which ethnic group an individual appeared to belong to.
    ___________

    More and more, I have to use a new category: Mystery meat.

    • sbuffalonative

      Just like sex and age, RACE is clearly an “automatic categorization”. That’s why we expect to see them when a crime is reported and why it’s troubling when it isn’t reported. It’s all part of basic information that is being left out.
      The question is how can researchers ‘turn off’ this automatic response.

      • Svigor

        Sex, of course, is perfectly valid info. The AP “style book” doesn’t prohibit its use in a description, even when there’s little else to distinguish the suspect. But race is not valid when there’s little else to go on. The AP excuses this by saying it’s not enough to go on; it’s so broad, it describes entire groups.

        E.g., “a black male, 6′ tall” is verboten. But “a male, 6′ tall” is hunkey-dorey. So it’s okay to profile all men, but not okay to narrow it down to black men.

        Their excuse is obviously a lie. Men are a group, as are blacks; one group is okay to profile, the other is not. Ergo, it’s not concern over profiling groups per se that explain the guidelines. The motivation here is obviously pro-black anti-white Political Correctness.

        I’ve actually read descriptions in the media for suspects at large that includes their height, approximate weight, and what they were wearing, but not their race (all TNB crimes, of course).

        We’ll know the public attitude has started to approach good sense when people routinely refer to “journalists” as whores.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          Control language, control discourse.

          Duckspeak is a prime tool of White genocide.

    • SoCal LoCal

      It is automatic, like breathing, and just as key to survival.

      P.S. In CA we now have categories for “mystery meat”.

  • The__Bobster

    “Unfortunate”, because if perceiving race is automatic then it lays a foundation for racism, and appears to put a limit on efforts to educate people to be “colourblind”, or put aside prejudices in other ways.
    ____________

    It’s “unfortunate” to allow one’s natural instincts to kick in, overriding the liberal brainwashing? I’ll trust my instincts if you don’t mind.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      It’s more unfortunate for brainwashed lambs to be led to slaughter by stupid, evil ideology that attempts to abnegate God given common sense and spot on survival instinct.

      Ask the White woman who was gang raped in New Guinea…or any other poor unfortunate who bought into that garbage. Libtards are indirect murderers.

      • robinbishop34

        I had a sociology class a while back and the textbook starts off by talking about the importance of an ‘open mind’ and how important it is to not reflexively dismiss ideas that are contrary to what the student may instinctively feel. Then it literally said, and I’m not kidding, to NOT use common sense when reading the chapters. I read that at least a half dozen times throughout the course. It was that direct.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          That was golden. Don’t you love the pseudosciences? Nothing but covens of liblefty ideologues.

          • robinbishop34

            It was common throughout the text that the student was reminded that sociology was a legitimate science backed by ’empirical evidence’ over and over. A dead giveaway that the author knew he was writing bonafide B.S.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Methinks social science doth protest too vigorously…

            It was bad enough when I was in college. Appears to have only gotten worse.

          • robinbishop34

            The unfortunate thing is that most kids will just swallow this garbage wholesale and never question it because it’s printed in a book. These ‘educators’ are predatory. They know how to manipulate young people still in the psychological stages of adolescence and churn out strident foot-soldiers by the bushel.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Wait until they try to find a job and pay off those loans. Reality starts smacking in the face real quick. Teach your children well…

          • Erasmus

            Paid for with your tax dollars.

        • bigone4u

          I don’t doubt that the liberals in Marxist fields like sociology ask you to put aside common sense. When I taught economics, a conservative subject for the most part, I told the students to be suspicious if research did not jibe with their common sense. Sociologists are what Plato called “sophists,” people who think they can prove anything with clever distortions.

        • If you do use common sense, then you can’t agree with them.

          It’s the same with known and accepted facts. They don’t like you using them either.

          The use of statistics that back up your argument is also frowned upon.

          Quoting respected academics is also a no-no. They would prefer you quoted and take as fact what is said by some dude off the street with a chip on his/her shoulder and who can hardly speak English.

      • anonymous_amren

        Common sense is not God given. There’s another article on here about the genes that cause it. It is a product of evolution, as any good evolutionary psychologist can tell you.

      • Erasmus

        Of course race is automatic. It’s how people have distinguished self from non-self for countless eons. Only with higher education does one learn that what’s natural is “wrong.”

        Sending generations of children to college only made many of them stupider.

    • Sue

      It’s the same mechanism that stops animals from breeding with other species. The idea is to keep your species alive not kill it. To stop your natural instincts with psychological mumbo jumbo is madness!

      • sbuffalonative

        Exactly.
        That’s why in nature, we have true diversity. We have cardinals, humming birds, ostriches, penguins, and hundreds more. They’re all unique. Their natural instincts are to remain separate. They don’t interbred. That’s what diversity is.They are separate and different.

        Race mixers have no understanding of what diversity is. They have co opted and corrupted a biological term to mean the opposite of what it means.

        • Alexandra

          Yep. You can’t mix everyone together and have diversity.
          If each race has its own nation(s) then we have diversity.

    • Alexandra

      I’ve said it before, liberals are all about going against what’s natural.
      You know the old saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? They’re trying to fix something that isn’t broke…and making a huge mess in the process.

    • soccer2mom

      Because using our God given inclinations of discernment and observing the moral characteristics to arrive at the perception that a certain person, or group of persons, are thuggish, and mentally handicapped-would be imbalanced. I will take my actually perceived observations and stack them up to a fascist liberal any day. Mine based on factual and theirs pulled from thin air. Hands down facts win over liberals drooling with drivel that they make up as they go along to fit whatever it is they are trying to win. It usually makes as much sense as you trying to logically imagine how to fit a square peg into a round hole. If you need that explained to you-you have failed the test on how to think for yourself, please remove yourself from the public until further notice.

  • The__Bobster

    But with the coloured shirts, this automatic categorisation didn’t happen: people’s errors revealed that team membership had become the dominant category, not the race of the players.
    _______________

    Which is why I shun most professional sports.

    • Anon12

      I ALWAYS see the color of the player FIRST and foremost, then I proceed to turn the channel since most are the color black.

      • Michael_C_Scott

        I don’t watch team sports. I used to shoot rifles a lot. Well, a whole lot, or even a bit more than that. I took my mother shooting once, and she trained up rather well, except she was curious as to why shells for my rifles looked so big. I was going to buy a 37mm harpoon gun before my July 2000 arrest, which might have upset her. I have made a coilgun since being released from federal probation.

        • StillModerated

          I prefer deep baritone in the 17Hz range. It induces fear, and travels for miles.

          • freddy_hills

            Please elaborate. Thanks.

        • freddy_hills

          Sorry to hear about your situation. Don’t take this as legal advice but I’ve read some states allow compound bows, crossbows and even blackpowder. Basically, anything that doesn’t require FFL. Depending on the nature of the offense and current status. Better check first, though. Or you could look into expungement.

          If you’re into making stuff there are some sites that sell hardware for some really cool looking medieval crossbows. Apparently that’s a hobby for some. You can find them by googling “arbalest”. I’ve been wanting to build one myself. Along with a lot of other things including a coil gun.

          • Michael_C_Scott

            I made an electromagnetic coilgun and some crossbows. My wife loves archery with the latter. I would never qualify for the expungement. I’ve been off paper for six years, and tried to enlist before my stroke, but the army reserve couldn’t accept me on paper, and while I was recovering from my 2006 stroke, I passed the age for boot camp.

            My crime was technically “violent”: extortion by demands for money accompanied by threats of mutilation followed by death. I wish I had not done it. This expungement also requires no misdemeanor convictions of any sort, which also does not apply in my case. I would never have done this to anyone other than my ex-father.

            I don’t need or even want my felony conviction expunged. I just want to be able to go shooting again. The last firearm I shot was a friend’s registered Bren gun on July 4, 2000, ten days before my arrest by the FBI. I miss FN-49s, G-43s; Walthers and Lugers some of my favorite things.

          • freddy_hills

            Geez. That’s young. You must have had high blood pressure or something. I had a coworker/friend with high blood pressure who had a stroke in his late 30s, too. It messed up his vision.

            You’ve made some really cool stuff. I’ve been meaning to make those things myself. Since you’ve already been there, are there any plans or kit that you’d recommend?

      • whiteuncleruckus

        I also see the color of the player first then the team. So do the players. This is the hypothical example I use: If a White player on the Bears called a black player on the Packers the n-word, who do you think the black players on the Bears would support? Their teammate or their “brotha?” The answer should be fairly obvious to anyone with any understanding as to how racial dynamics work.

  • Ralph

    I wrote–on this site–about this psychological technique that is being used on this and other White sites, whereby a polite Black or some other non-White will indicate his race and then submit one or more other identifiers such as that he’s a strong Christian, or a staunch conservative or is gay, or that he supports White rights.

    The manipulators are trying to find ways to convert “racist” Whites to loving non-Whites.

    Still not clear? The idea is to give so-called racist Whites more than just a racial category to consider in another person, such that the White will ignore the race and accept the other person based on this other identity.

    Don’t fall for it. It’s a step toward our blending in with non-Whites. Race is our most important identifier, bar none. Know it and live it.

    • Andy

      Race is not our most important identifier. It is along the lines of a very, very extended family. Our first (and only) loyalty must be to what is right. “He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” Putting our race (or any other humans) first is putting fallible, frequently wicked creatures in front of God. It is choosing the side of evil.

      When we judge good and evil, we do not look to the standard of the white man. The average white man lies to himself and others, frequently lacks courage, and has the driving instinct to put himself before others. We have to keep our urges in check. We judge what is right and wrong by a standard of perfection.

      If a man shares my race, he is my brother in the flesh. I will defend him against other races as I would my literal brother against the neighbor, a human against a dog, a dog against a crocodile. But if I see a man kicking a dog, I will take the dog’s side.

      If a man follows Christ, he is my brother in spirit, and our ultimate allegiance lies in the same place.

      It would be a tragedy for the white race to “gain the world but lose their own souls”. If we turn to blind race loyalty in response to the attacks on us we step back from a ditch and fall in a canyon.

      Our fathers trusted in You;
      They trusted, and You delivered them.
      They cried to You, and were delivered;
      They trusted in You, and were not ashamed.

      • David Ashton

        Whether a Christian believes in evolution or creationism, the races that exist presumably exist with the approval of Christ, and there is no scriptural mandate to mix them together or destroy any of them. The preservation of our own race and its civilization is therefore compatible with Christianity if not specifically mandated by it. This does not mean that we tolerate evils within our own race, or that we require evil methods to preserve it.

        Who are “our fathers” in your quotation: is this an “extended family” reference?
        Is Christianity incompatible with the Commandment at Exodus 20.12?
        Or Acts 17.26?

        • anonymous_amren

          All Christians, by definition, believe in creationism. And they are all wrong. Evolution is obviously true, and it directly contradicts Christianity.

          • David Ashton

            One among several reasons why I personally am not a fundamentalist Christian is because of the presumed date of the global Deluge; even a literalist, however, would require some human evolution after Noah’s tiny family emerged from the Ark to give rise to the different peoples on the planet.
            My point is that Christianity does not require white genocide through racial out-crossing. Mass miscegenation can and should be opposed by Christians and non-Christians alike.

      • Michael_C_Scott

        I have no father anymore, but I love my mother, daughter and wife more than I love God. I suppose I’ll go to Hell for this, but I’m also going there for a very long list of other things.

        Even my friends I prefer to God. By age 34 I took stock, and most had let me down. At age 47, I have few left, but those remaining are real treasures. I’ll put my trust in my mother, and after her my best friend Glenn. After them, Dean, a rather old Green Beret sergeant, and then my wife and daughter. God is somewhere after them.

        • Robert Binion

          When our god is not aworkin’, where could we be but Hell? I trust you, Michael, but wait until you are sixty. When banality, the bromides and booze no longer suffice, belief in any deity becomes a luxury.

          • Michael_C_Scott

            I refuse to worship an allegedly all-powerful, all-seeing “god” who is vindictive. I’ll go to Hell first.

      • Ralph

        I was speaking of identity. You acknowledge this in your first sentence above: “Race is not our most important identifier.” Then, in your third sentence you substitute the term “loyality,” for identity. You then veer off into promoting your particular religious views.

        Religion is artificial, race is real. You can change your religion (because it is artificial), but you cannot change your race (because it is real).

        • whiteuncleruckus

          I completely agree with you Ralph. Religion IS artificial. People aren’t born with a particular religion but are born with a race. It truely breaks my heart to hear White people talk about religion being more important than race. It’s not and never will be. Religion actually convinces people that “we are all God’s children” and therefore doesn’t matter. That arguement in absolutely no way, shape, or form means that race doesn’t matter. That way of thinking is not good for White people.

          • Funruffian

            That is my only problem with Christianity. It welcomes anyone who professes to believe in it. But Christianity was exclusively started by a particular race, The White race. And making generalizations that “We are all God’s Children” are misleading and “God loves us all equally”. I find it very difficult to make a moral balance when comparing a sociopathic killer or rapist with that of a hard-working, salt of the earth person, who never committed a crime both equal of God’s love. I think that is a perversion of the Bible’s teachings and is a derangement of moral thinking.

          • Alexandra

            The first Christians were Jews (in fact the apostle Paul was a Benjamite). Jews are Shemites; Whites, Japhethites.
            I’m white. A black Christian IS my brother in Christ…but that does not mean that white and black should mix. We will still have our physical differences in this life.

            Galatians 3:28 gets twisted around. I’ve heard it used to justify homosexuality! It reads: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. That is meant spiritually, not physically.

            I also believe that ideally, missionaries to any foreign country should get a church established–then hand over everything to the natives.

          • Michael_C_Scott

            I am not a Christian, and was never baptised. I’m vaguely white. I believe in fighting to the death, even though I expect no afterlife. I refuse to be afraid of a certainty.

            I believe that all people should be treated by the law as if they were equal, but I understand that in fact they are not.

          • David Ashton

            Male and female obviously still remain in Paul’s theology even when both are Christian. So also Jews and Scythians, etc.

        • NYB

          A person can change creeds like they change socks.

          Christianity is an Abrahamic sub-sect of Judaism. I hold Druidism, Odinism and Wicca in higher esteem.

          • Katherine McChesney

            You’re witchy. It’s all for show. And it’s all for evil. Curses, sacrifices, sex rituals. Cats and Dogs slain as sacrifice for Samhain. Would you participate in human sacrifice?

          • Michael_C_Scott

            That depends on the individual being sacrificed.

          • Proud White Pagan

            Katherine, Please, please find out what you’re writing about before you indulge in slander. The first rule of Wicca is “harm none”. That includes animals too. No blood sacrifice involved.

        • Ralph

          I saw a real example of what happens when you substitute an artificial identity for your real racial identity on another site.

          In brief, a White “nationalist” kept bringing up Christianity at every turn, and said that he couldn’t accept a non-Christian (i.e. a pagan or atheist et al.) White nationalist in his home.

          So, he was asked if he would accept a Black Christian over a White Pagan in his home–maybe even marrying his daughter. He refused to answer the question, which was tantamount to answering in the affirmative.

          IMO, we White nationalists must have religious beliefs and nationhood combined into one unbreakable whole with our race. If one believes in a God, then that God must be 100 percent behind us as a race. If one honors a nation, then that nation must be 100 percent for our race.

          To those who say this puts man above God, I would say not necessarily. Our race is the result of a genetic code that one can, if one wishes, say was written by God. Others may take a more scientific view and say it was written by nature via the fundamental forces of evolution. In either case, the belief, as fully developed, still puts race as our primary identifier.

          • Alexandra

            I’d take neither the black Christian nor the white pagan. LOL

          • Ralph

            Suppose you MUST take one. Which would you choose?

          • Katherine McChesney

            There is no law; therefore, we aren’t forced to accept either. The black Christian usually have some pagan beliefs in their services. For instance, a resident here is a member of Daughter of Isis in her congregation. She is a pagan. It disqualifies her from being a Christian.

          • Ralph

            You miss the point. Of course there’s no law about this. The question remains, would Alexandra, and now you, Katherine, accept a Black Christian over a White pagan?

            It just requires as simple yes or no answer.

          • Michael_C_Scott

            I would insist on the white pagan. Blacks are blacks, Christian or otherwise.

        • TheAntidote

          Thank you, thank you Ralph. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for White people if, like the Jews, our religion was our race?

      • Svigor

        If I did believe in God, that belief, like the faith of adherents to “black liberation theology,” would hinge on my belief in God’s love for my race, and its racialism. Similar to what one of “Reverend Wright’s” mentors (IIRC) once said, I believe that if God does not love white people, does not want them to thrive as a race, and does not approve of their racialism, then he is not God – not worthy of worship. In this case, he is not God, but something else.

        Basically, my race before God.

        After all, God does not need my help. My race does.

        “Christians” need not bother constructing hypotheticals for me. E.g., “yeah but what if the white race turned evil and God demanded they be eradicated?” Questions like that are themselves born only of evil. Such discussions of “righteousness” are themselves born of unrighteousness.

        And no, I don’t take the side of dogs against white men. Not unless it’s my dog. 🙂

        • NeanderthalDNA

          My God is Truth and science is the search for Him.

          And Truth as evinced by real science is on our side, brother Svigor.

          “Turn the other cheek” is White genocide incarnate. Action/reaction is our salvation…

        • Katherine McChesney

          Black Liberation Theology originated with Catholics…the Jesuits. There is paganism in Catholicism. IHS stands for Isis, Horus and Seb.

          • David Ashton

            Your explanation of IHS would surprise Catholics. Don’t believe everything asserted in books like Hislop’s “Two Babylons” &c.

      • David Ashton

        You might be interested in this quotation from Dr P. P. Saydon, former Professor of the Old Testament, Malta University, on Leviticus 19.19: “Unlawful Mixtures – The breeding together of cattle of different species, the sowing of a field with two kinds of seeds…are forbidden…. ‘The motive of this prohibition’, writes S. R. Driver, ‘appears to be the preservation of natural distinctions…and a principle thus visibly impressed by the Creator upon nature is not to be interfered with….’ “(New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture [1969]).

  • Bob Willard

    Seeing race can’t be natural because I’ve had lots of Liberals tell me, “I don’t see race, man.”

    • David Ashton

      They don’t see Alsatians, Greyhounds or Dachshunds – they just see dog.

      • Secret Tribunal

        Recognizing differences is a racist Hate Crime, unless you recognize the difference between enriching but oppressed Diversity and racist White privilege.

    • Funruffian

      That’s becuase liberals are often natural born liars.

  • Andy

    It might also be possible that people note things this way because *skin color* is salient. It’s all over your body, and with blacks and whites, it’s a clear, sharp break into two groups, like gender and in this experiment shirt color. Eye color or even hair color isn’t that easy to break down.

    Now it’s also very possible people are just being tribal, but really, if you had a bunch of balls would you tend to group them by their main color or a couple little smears at the top of them?

  • Funruffian

    “Often, scientific racists claim to base their views on some jumbled version of evolutionary psychology (scientific racism is racism dressed up as science, not racisms based on science, in case you wondered). ”
    Evolutionary psychology?? Hardly. That only entails a small fraction of Darwinism and Biological Evolution. I hate when these anti-racists try to stick labels on Scientists. Reliable scientific data should never be PC.

  • purestocles

    I call bullsh*t on this experiment.

    And the reason is that we are all primed or preconditioned to group people by color of team jerseys. So that’s a terribly loaded variable to use. We all rooted for our high school, college or local pro franchise and learned to overlook the race of our team’s members. Why didn’t they dress everyone in differently colored business suits? Or identical clown suits? Or swimming suits? In any of the above, race would have been noticed.

  • Robert Binion

    “Researchers find it troubling that Suzanne Vega and Kitty Wells are distinguishable. And are especially aggrieved by the fact that bacon frying in a skillet smells delicious.”–BBC, where adjectives are feared

  • Ralph

    I see that some folks are saying this research isn’t valid. I believe they’re mistaken. It is valid. It is a study on how to condition Whites to love non-Whites and also gays and any other categories of people that polls show they don’t like. In more general terms, it is a study on how to change perceptions. In other words, it is a a study in how to effectively use propaganda and conditioning to change minds, by mixing a positive image such as sports with a negative image to trump the negative image.

    Don’t be manipulated. Use your critical thinking skills. This is just another step toward the extinction of Whites.

    • sbuffalonative

      Yes, they know race is real and they know it’s an automatic categorization. The goal of this research is the find a ‘cure’ so to speak and whites are the lab rats.

    • Funruffian

      I agree with you, Ralph. It’s similar to subliminal advertising that works on your subconsious mind. We are not always aware of the propoganda being fed to us, because it is so subtle and hard to decode.

      • NYB

        Next time I see a commercial showing a polo-shirted black man, a Chinese, an Indian and a white playing golf together I’ll contend that this is advertising doing dual duty – selling products and multiculturalism.

        • Funruffian

          That would be more obvious and lacks the subtlety of the aforementioned experiment, but I get your point.

        • robinbishop34

          Oh, you better believe it. Even the most innocuous seeming commercial or print ad almost always has some social engineering element to it. It’s not even a secret in the industry but most people don’t know it.

          To quote Malcolm Gladwell when being interviewed about his book “Tipping Point” and asked about the idea of memes, he says…

          “We sometimes think of Sesame Street as purely the result of the creative
          genius of people like Jim Henson and Frank Oz. But the truth is that it
          is carefully and painstaking engineered, down to the smallest details.”

          Children’s shows, comedies, commercials, etc are all catalysts for social/political change.

        • Katherine McChesney

          I’m bored with the commercial of a mulatto posing as a pharmacist. It’s all a manipulation.

      • Xanthippe2

        I won’t say the anti-White messages in movies, TV, print media (well about everything!) is subtle and hard to decode. It is more like intimidation. “All good people think like we do, if you don’t you are a bad, bad person.” Just reject it. Your example will inspire others to reject it too.

        • Ralph

          Yup. They’re selling the sizzle, not the steak. Good looking people all having fun. It sells cigarettes, cars, shirts, race mixing and everything else as the images of fun and happiness seep into the non-critical subconscious of the public. Of course, most of already realize this, but the subconscious isn’t very bright–it just accepts whatever comes in.

    • Ralph

      People who have Williams syndrome have a hard time distinguishing one race from another. It is a genetic disorder and one might say it is the opposite of those Whites who have the so-called racist gene which helps these lucky folks in this latter group to easily recognize other races and avoid mixing and miscegenating with them.

      Williams syndrome is a mild form or retardation. So, might we then postulate that those having the so-called racist gene are smarter than average? I think so.

      I suspect that most White nationalists have the so-called racist gene. And, it’s really a survival gene that gives us a survival advantage over those who lack it. True White nationalists are more likely to be suspicious of those of other races and to avoid miscegenation.

  • bigone4u

    Old academic saying: If a research finding doesn’t jibe with common sense, it’s suspicious.

    Since I taught economics, another saying seems appropriate: If all researchers were laid end to end they could never reach a conclusion. (Replace researchers with economists and its a common economics joke)

    Another old saying in higher ed: Academic research is mental masturbation.

    Another old saying: Massage the data until it tells you what you want to hear
    .
    Bottom line: PC research conclusions pay the biggest rewards. Un-PC research extracts a price. Remember Jensen and Rushton? Remember the price they paid.

    • sbuffalonative

      The fact that they have to keep trying to find ways to undo the automatic perception of race only proves that the perception of race is automatic.
      These people are just searching effective means to brainwash people. That’s the bottom line of all of this research.

      • bigone4u

        The researchers sound like Cultural Marxists. What they did was to create an artificial situation in order to force an artificial result. It’s like the old saying, “garbage in, garbage out.” They set up a garbage situation and got garbage results. As an academic for 30 years myself, I’ve seen this type of nonsense before.

  • This is “science” ? I’ve carefully read the article & can only say the experiment described is intentionally deceptive. Of course if the primary focus of interest is the team membership (different colored basketball shirts) , the perception of race – especially in a random sample- will automatically recede into the background. One just can’t simultaneously hold “team” and “race” categories in the mental space on equal level, especially if one is explicitly told to focus on the team membership. Heck, even if the participants hadn’t been expressly told about teams, they would have focused on colored shirts, since this kind of “focusing” is expected in such experiments. Really, what junk passes for science these days ….

    • sbuffalonative

      I would like to see this study.

      How brightly colored were the shirts? What color were they? If the color of the shirts is the deciding factor in this “memory confusion protocol” , why isn’t race (as indicated by skin color) a deciding factor?

      All this study seems to indicate is that confusing people with colors and tricking people by substituting the color of clothing for the color of skin can artificially influence peoples perception. It doesn’t discount race as a automatic categorization. It only proves you can trick the mind for a few minutes.

      • bigone4u

        Very perceptive point on your part. Academics present their research at conferences and I bet they heard the same criticism from other academics. I’ll also bet quite a few academics are highly critical of the methodolgy. I was an economics prof for 30 years but I could set up an experiment that would prove your point with no trouble at all.

        Suppose we took a sample of people injured in a train wreck, in pain but conscious, and asked them to recall whether their “first responders” were black, Hispanic, or white. I would bet the ranch that they would be able to say accurately what the race was, in spite of the stress and pain. My little example is a better research design than their design.

        • Jane Johnson

          But would they remember what color shirts they were wearing? This “experiment” was junk science.

  • sbuffalonative

    Nothing but agenda driven research.
    Notice how the writer starts out by taking great pain at having to admit that research has already proven that recognition of race is deeply ingrained in our psyche.
    BUT THERE IS HOPE! With enough conditioning, it may be possible to trick the mind (brainwashing) to not see race!
    Our racial Utopia is just around the corner.

    • Lancasharia

      Well, if you lived in the UK you would have this kind of drivel shoved down your throat each and every day. The BBc is so biased it beggars belief, cheering on the replacement of the British by immigrants on a daily basis.

      • sbuffalonative

        The cultural Marxists believe that 1984 is an instruction manual and that they can keep people from looking behind the curtain.
        When you see someone, you see sex, age, race, height, signs of good or bad health, and others.
        No one believes it’s odd or unnatural for men to hang out with men or teens to associate with teens because it’s perfectly natural and normal. If we see a 50 year old man hanging around 10 year old boys, we are automatically suspicious.
        Let’s see some research on how to end ageism and genderism. Let’s find some way to get 50 year old men to spend more time with 10 year old girls for the sake of creating a better world.

      • David Ashton

        It goes back a long way and even before BBC Director Hugh Carleton Greene, protege of his Communist predecessor, explicitly announced that one thing not permitted on television was “racism” – of course, a term incrementally redefined as time went on and immigration continued.

  • guest

    This article is totally not true. Haha! They are joking.

    I read crime stories in newspapers every day and they often give descriptions of suspects but they don’t even notice the race. Obviously anyone who is a crime victim isn’t noticing race so this whole study couldn’t be right.

    • Ironies aside, you haven’t understood the “experiment”. They claim that race is secondary & actually “not noticed”. IMO, most posters just read the summary & not the entire text.

      • robinbishop34

        What difference does it make? After reading the first few words I could finish every predictable sentence this idiot writes. It’s the same old song and dance over and over.

  • Luca

    How did we ever make it this far as a species? To think that after eons of evolution, the human brain has these ingrained flaws built into it. What a shocker.

    So, according to these academic Leftists, when I see a woman, I guess it’s unfortunate that I see gender. How could nature have veered so far off the farm as to make me see a person and recognize their gender? I should just see a human being. Why should I see race? Is there a good reason for it or did nature and evolution screw up again?

    Survival of any species dictates that it should avoid danger in order to survive and thrive. And nature has wisely outfitted us with this characteristic of knowing that anything that looks or acts strange should be approached with caution or completely avoided. And then our brains allows us to remember negative experiences associated with certain characteristics so we can avoid them in the future.

    And yet the Left wants us to disregard our human nature and instincts for the sake of the “Agenda.” They want us to believe that diversity, (unbridled diversity mind you) is our strength, that everyone is completely 100% equal, there are no differences and no unique racial characteristics. Race does not exist except in the minds of feeble minded rednecks. They want us to continue to stick our hands in the fire while telling us pain does not exist and we should disregard the notion of pain.

    They won’t be happy until we are all drinking Kool-Aid and tolerating the beasts who are raping our women and who have knives at our throats. All this so they can destroy us as a power, accumulate all our wealth and control our futures.

    • sbuffalonative

      We made it this far, or at least to the beginning of the last century, because of evolution; physical and social. What’s been happening for the last century is ways to discredit Darwinism at least in regards to race.
      No one questions the natural evolutionary trend for apes and monkeys to segregate by sub species. Such evolutionary drives seems to apply to every other animal but man.

  • Secret Tribunal

    If I had babies, they’d be racists.

  • Secret Tribunal

    All my White babies are privileged racists.

  • MBlanc46

    This is not much of an argument. They set up a straw man “seeing race automatically” and then rig an experiment in which it turns out that subjects don’t include race among the primary categories used to describe a situation, and conclude that, therefore, race isn’t seen “automatically”. This is shoddy even by standard social scientific practice.

  • robin

    our brains are designed to discriminate between danger or safe, edible or not, helpful/hurtful
    etc etc…………. what a surprise.

  • GeneticsareDestiny

    Scientists have already created a pill that can make a person less racist.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9128888/Heart-disease-drug-combats-racism.html

    You should be very unnerved by this. Elite liberals are drooling at the thought of somehow mass-distributing this or something like it to all white people, in every white country.

    Don’t trust the government, and don’t take anything a doctor prescribes you if you don’t know what it is.

    • StillModerated

      It’s either a placebo or dangerous to you health, but not to the ambulance chaser advertising on the boob tube.

  • Who Me?

    People label other people with the information they see, and filter it through what they have learned about the categories they see. People judge other things by color, too. The BLACK cat, the ORANGE cat, the SIAMESE cat, for example is purely and simply judging by color and/or breed (race). Nobody that I know has a problem with judging cats this way, why is it racism when we judge people by some identifying category? The subjects in the study identified the shirtless men by color or race in the absence of any other markers. When the men wore shirts, they were identified by the team the shirts represented. This doesn’t have to be explained to those of us who are racially aware, and it’s not rocket science. A five-year-old does it instinctively, though s/he may not be able to explain exactly WHY or HOW the identification was made. The very fact that a study was done and used to try and explain something so elemental says far more about our society than the study itself.

  • Morris LeChat

    It is automatic, because it is very important to the individual who is most like him/her. IT is important for his/her survival, it is important for who he/she can trust. Blood is thicker than water, thicker than ideology, thicker than religion. Even libbbrrrraaaahhhhlllllssss that sell other white people out choose to live in all white suburban communities, they are just mentally ill when it comes to race, but they STILL choose their own kind.

  • anew

    I saw this article earlier today. One page view later, on the very same site, I found this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22252099. It’s like the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

  • NYB

    Advertising attempts to condition our coalitional instincts to believe that the consuming middle class is made up of all races, who happily shop together, socialize together and have identical tastes.

    The advertising industry is about 20 years ahead of this study. They not only wrote the book on group psychology, they actively use it on us to manipulate consumer culture.

  • JohnEngelman

    scientific racism is racism dressed up as science, not racisms based on science, in case you wondered

    – Tom Stafford, BBC Future, April 23, 2013

    “Scientific racism” is a derogatory synonym for “race realism,” which is a recognition that there is sufficient scientific evidence that racial differences are significant, and largely genetic, in case you wondered.

    • Tom

      The late (and great) Arthur R. Jensen declared about 1996 or so: “Nothing scientific can
      be racist and nothing racist can be scientific.” This anxiom rather presses confrontation
      with Mr. Fact. It also obviously establishes that decency arises from a reasoned confrontation with the all too raw facts of life. Nearly twenty years later, American society has neither a clear sense of the relevant facts nor of the sentiments and values that may
      interface to provide varied policy options ( and provide , of course, a sense of policy options beyond humane limits and thus options that could be reasonably considered
      racist. )

  • JohnEngelman

    For most of ancestors age and gender would be important predictors of another person’s behaviour, but race wouldn’t–since most people lived in areas with no differences as large as the ones we associate with “race” today.

    – Tom Stafford, BBC Future, April 23, 2013

    This is very twisted reasoning. Because our ancestors seldom encountered members of different races they would be inclined to evaluate members of their own race as individuals, but individuals of other races as others.

  • JohnEngelman

    Prejudice is based on past experience. I have been mugged and robbed at gunpoint by young black men, not young white men, not older black men, not Orientals, and not black women.

    If I see a group of young black men hanging around waiting for something to happen I feel differently than I do if they are a groups of young white men.

    Jesse Jackson has acknowledged the same apprehensions about young black men. This is what he has said, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

    • NeanderthalDNA

      He still blames all his people’s problems on Whites and is first to charge out to race bait for bucks and publicity.

    • MBlanc46

      “Prejudice is based on past experience”. In which case, it’s not actually prejudice (pre-judgment). It’s judgment base on fact.

      • JohnEngelman

        Close, but no cigar. When I see a group of young black men hanging around waiting for something to happen they are probably not waiting to rob me. They might be waiting for a Bible discussion class or an afternoon church service to begin.

        Nevertheless, the there is a greater likelihood that they are dangerous than would be a group of middle aged white women.

        • MBlanc46

          Like all judgments of fact not logic, it’s probabilistic. The experience doesn’t even have to be our own. It could be newspaper reports or government statistics. In my case, I do have personal experience. In every case in which I have been the victim of a crime (or someone known to me has been the victim of a crime), and the race of the perp has been known, the perp has been a black male. So if I’m walking down the street and see a black male, or group of black males, I immediately start formulating a plan of evasive action. As you say, they might be going to church. They probably are going to church. But the consequences of my not being prepared are likely to be serious enough that doing so is rational and experience-based, not “racial prejudice” as that expression is generally used.

          • JohnEngelman

            What you say is of course true. Because I live on the edge of a black ghetto I always carry pepper spray with me. I have done the paper work to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

            When I lived among equally poor Vietnamese war refugees in San Jose, California I did not need to take these precautions.

          • MBlanc46

            I was just trying to clarify the word “prejudice”. People are accused of prejudice when they’re being quite rational. I lived in a similar situation for many years. If you get than gun, be careful with it. Many years ago my first wife was grabbed off the street and pulled into a basement. If the guy hadn’t been distracted allowing her to make her escape, she doubtless would have been raped. Soon after, she went home to Mississippi for a few days. She returned with a .38 revolver, which we carried around. Later, we took a summer vacation, leaving the gun in our sublet apartment. The gun was stolen when the apartment was burglarized (don’t know whether that perp was black, but it’s very likely). I’ve always wondered how many crimes were committed with that gun.

          • David Ashton

            You are privileged (at present). In Britain carrying any “defensive” weapon is illegal.

        • Katherine McChesney

          Hahaha. Too funny. Young black men ‘waiting for a Bible discussion class or an afternoon church service….’

          Engleman…you’ve outdone yourself today. IMO that is the funniest thing you’ve ever said.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Barna report indicates that the segment that possesses beliefs most likely to align with those taught in the Bible are blacks. On five of the eight belief factors, blacks were more likely than either whites or Hispanics to reflect a scriptural view. Specifically, blacks were more likely than other segments to say:

            – Their religious beliefs are very important in their life today
            – They have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today
            – They believe that God is “the all-knowing, all-powerful and perfect Creator of the universe who still rules the world today”
            – They strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches
            – They have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with other people who might believe differently than they do.

            When the data pertaining to religious behaviors is examined, blacks stood out from the crowd on five of the six behaviors. In particular, the study shows that blacks were the most likely to:

            – Engage in church-centric activities, such as attending church services, attending a Sunday school class, and volunteering at their church during typical week
            – Read the Bible, other than at church events, during a typical week
            – Blacks were the least likely segment to be unchurched. In fact, they were only half as likely as either whites or Hispanics to be unchurched.
            http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2011/July30/3085.html

          • Guest

            And yet after all of that, they are more than likely to be f-ups and criminals. Fantastic!

          • Michael_C_Scott

            And they’re violent.

          • David Ashton

            Are they more intelligent than Nordic Gentile Episcopalians who go to church and have read the Bible from beginning to end in several different English translations?

      • Katherine McChesney

        Not always based on experience. I remember when I first saw a black person. I was very young. I was shocked. I drew away from her. I never trusted her. She was a neighbor of my grandmother. Later in life I realized she was a parasitical black who manipulated my grandmother into feeding her every day. She never contributed anything to my grandmother in return. So, prejudice isn’t always based on past experience. The only experience I drew from that first encounter was that she was scary…like an old spook.

        • MBlanc46

          That wasn’t prejudice so far as race is concerned. Apparently your reaction was based on other aspects of her appearance. What I’m trying to say (and I think what Engelman is saying) is that much of what’s called prejudice isn’t prejudice at all, it’s a rational reaction based on experience. I’m not suspicious of blacks because I’m prejudging them, I’m suspicious of them because of long experience with them. I’d say that, in fact, the prejudice is on the other side. Far too many people prejudge blacks as harmless because they have no experience of them.

          • Not me. I didn’t have any negative experiences with them. But, they’re viscerally repellent, just like some animals. In my case, it’s not a prejudice, nor postjudice, but an authentic biopsychological reaction.

  • anonymous_amren

    “Now, it seems only fair to say that evolutionary psychologists have a
    mixed reputation among psychologists. As a flavour of psychology it has
    been associated with political opinions that tend towards the
    conservative”

    Does he even realise how stupid he sounds? “Evolution” is not the realm of conservatives, it is heavily associated with liberals. The reason it says some “conservative” things, is because that’s the unvarnished scientific truth.

  • rightrightright

    Well, that’s the BBC for you these days. It hops along on its left foot rather than involve its right foot in the walk.

  • Ella

    If the researcher said to focus on the jersey shirt colour and made it the utmost importance, this is more of an obedience issue; whereas the mind would ignore other irrelevant information. Gestalt psychology studies figure-ground relationship. There is BETTER research with babies that could discriminate between race and gender as early as 4 months. Identifying a different race is a matter of survival for earlier man. I live in an area that is now only 25% White; I’m becoming more racially conscious due to feeling “uncomfortable” with my surroundings. You look for things that are familiar to you. If you go to Mexico with naturally blonde hair children (not advised), people will stare and want to touch the child. Media lies and psychology today is so politically correct. We’re supposed to argue are findings being part biologically influenced.

  • Katherine McChesney

    Black woman calls 911 for a refund for cocaine she purchased from her dealer.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/cocaine/drug-refund-911-call-765902

  • Tom

    Clearly a key to human evolution is a very basic “us/them” sensory and conceptual dichotomy
    that toward its perimeters is somewhat in flux but in its core is very stable. Hence, I love and
    cherish my child more than I do yours and wouild assume you to be disposed toward your child. There is nothing remotely “racist” or “unnatural” or “hateful” about such a basic element of human existence.