Citations Needed: Links to Interesting Research - Page 16 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

When sports comes on again, every commercial is going to be big multinational corporations (the exact entities Bernie Sanders is trying to reign in) going full justice warrior mode, and you will nod your head in approval, and maybe even shed a tear, and never question for a second what is really going on.

lol

Legitimate question who wins between Kelhus and Trump for "most likely to present the exact opposite of reality as objective fact"

Quote

06-23-2020 , 04:33 PM

#377

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

When the dogma of the mainstream right is that there are no facts except the ones they approve of, any attempt at objective reporting will be branded left wing, and the only media that is not is straight right wing sycophancy and propaganda.

Quote

06-23-2020 , 04:36 PM

#378

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

I never thought I'd be debating reliable reporting with someone who considers the ****ing Daily Mail the bastion of journalistic integrity. We really are in the Twilight Zone.

Quote

06-23-2020 , 04:45 PM

#379

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelhus100

As long as we acknowledge the media has a left bias...

I have a bit of a philosophical objection to the way people tend to use the word bias in this context.

I think the problem is that this concept of bias has an implicit and overly idealized concept of neutrality in it, which I don't think is very useful. Basically it's the idea that any deviation from this notion of neutrality constitutes a problematic "bias," where neutrality is imagined as the complete lack of a viewpoint, and even the refusal to reach a conclusion on an issue.

So the first problem is just that this neutral viewpoint doesn't and can't exist. The second problem is that I don't think it's immediately a failure (therefore) that one cannot speak from such a neutral place.

A corollary to this, though, is that it's true that media institutions have editorial viewpoints, as it were. Institutional cultures, you might say. They are informed by the views and backgrounds of the people that inhabit them (social location, again). All media is "biased" in this sense. And everyone else, from scientists to forum posters. It probably doesn't make sense to plot this on a simple left-right axis, but it's certainly good to be aware of it, and it's the fundamental idea that leads to the idea that diversity is beneficial, because no single viewpoint will capture everything.

But what I want from journalists, researchers, and even internet posters is not an imagined neutrality, too often feigned by just "presenting both sides". I want fairness and accuracy, thoughtfulness, epistemic humility, and integrity. There are definitely plenty of failures to live up to those ideals, and you could even call them biases. I'm not sure exactly where being profit-driven falls on that list, but it ought to be in there somewhere. But a lot of what gets called bias is really just having a viewpoint, as if that were inherently problematic. I don't think this works. Partly because it's inevitable, but also partly because some points of view really are superior, as are some conclusions. The main issue then is just that you can't really measure the quality of media by divergence from this kind of imagined neutrality.

Quote

06-23-2020 , 04:49 PM

#380

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

Also, to be clear, I think lots (most?) media kind of sucks, it's just that it's not because of "bias."

Quote

06-23-2020 , 05:06 PM

#381

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

I think the problem is that this concept of bias has an implicit and overly idealized concept of neutrality in it, which I don't think is very useful. Basically it's the idea that any deviation from this notion of neutrality constitutes a problematic "bias," where neutrality is imagined as the complete lack of a viewpoint, and even the refusal to reach a conclusion on an issue.

This is sort of the phrasing I've been searching for when confronted by family with similar claims of "left wing media bias". Very nicely put.

Quote

06-23-2020 , 05:44 PM

#382

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

You're definitely in trouble if my writing is any kind of improvement.

Quote

06-23-2020 , 05:57 PM

#383

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

You're definitely in trouble if my writing is any kind of improvement.

Meh, maybe I should engage them some time when I'm sober. Lacking that, I'll just memorise your little soliloquy by rote

Quote

06-23-2020 , 07:14 PM

#384

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

A staggering amount of the country thinks these tweets (by someone who works for CNN) are evidence of left bias in the MSM.

Quote

06-24-2020 , 11:32 AM

#385

bacalaopeace

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 1,881

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelhus100

As long as we acknowledge the media has a left bias, and are giving this as reason for why, that is perfectly fine. It is probably even true to an extent, although to a much lower extent than commonly believed.

This is a line of bullshit that was peddled aggressively in the Reagan era, but probably goes back further.

Most of the media is controlled by superrich people with business interests. It follows naturally that most of the media does not have a left wing bias.

Quote

06-24-2020 , 01:48 PM

#386

Kelhus100

banned

Join Date: Mar 2020 Posts: 2,504

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

This is admittedly a giant derail which I started, but interesting nonetheless so I shall continue. In the context of this point (which is a fair point) I think my main objection is that the "left" MSM presents a viewpoint which IMO does not map reality very well, and which is making everything worse.

I already acknowledged I was using "left" in the specific framework of US identity politics, so the whole "the media isn't really left, gotcha" angle seems dishonest to me.

This is tying into another bigger point, but I do think a major part of our problem is that as a society we seem to be wedded to a false "left-right" duality based on ideological identity politics. Where neither viewpoint maps reality very well or will lead to very good outcomes. And I admit I do find it interesting that the posters I perceive as being very most accepting of this false duality are the ones pushing the "the MSM isn't really left" narrative. To them I would say, if the MSM really isn't left, then perhaps you aren't either.

Quote

06-24-2020 , 05:56 PM

#387

aflametotheground

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,851

Quote

06-25-2020 , 08:23 AM

#388

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelhus100

At this point I think it is very fair to say the MSM (minus FoxNews if you consider that media) is partisan towards the left and has been for awhile (In the US view of the left, yes Luckbox I know they aren't really left).

Of course you could argue that that is because the left has much better ideas and that is why. But if we can't even acknowledge the partisan lean in the first place, then we don't really have common ground to even have a meaningful discussion why.

Well as long as you acknowledge that...

Quote

06-29-2020 , 04:55 PM

#389

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

Cultural Evolution of Genetic Heritability

A preprint, and mostly theoretical, but it's an interesting read on the complexity of measuring heritability and interactions between genes and environment.

Quote:

As an illustration of how cultural transmission inflates heritability, consider the effect of standardized education. When Samuelsson et al. (2008) measured the heritability of reading and spelling test scores, Australian twins demonstrated a narrow-sense heritability of 0.84 in kindergarten and a similar score of 0.80 in Grade 1. But in their cohort of Swedish and Norwegian twins, heritability was only 0.33 in kindergarten, but rose to 0.79 in Grade 1. Heritability was at the same level in both the Australian and Scandinavian children in Grade 1, but not in kindergarten. Why? Australian children begin receiving compulsory literacy instruction in kindergarten, while in Scandinavia the kindergarten curriculum emphasizes social, emotional, and aesthetic development—literacy instruction only begins in Grade 1. Therefore, Australian kindergarteners are exposed to standardized environmental input and much of the remaining variation in reading ability is explained by genetic differences, whereas for the Swedish and Norwegian kindergarteners, variation in the amount of reading instruction received at home is much larger than any genetic differences. In line with this interpretation, Samuelsson et al. (2008) show that the boost in heritability among the Scandinavian children was also accompanied by an almost equivalent decrease in phenotypic variance attributed to the common (home) environment, which would include home instruction.

These results demonstrate how heritability does not depend on the intrinsic properties of genes alone. Heritability measures the effect of genes against a background of environmental variation: it is highest when the relevant environmental input is uniform across a sample, and shrinks as environmental input becomes more varied. In the present example, it is standardized education that flattens environmental variance, but any mechanism that contributes to the homogenization of relevant environmental features will amplify heritability. When we say that the heritability of reading among Scandinavian children jumps up to 0.79 when they enter first-grade, this measurement reveals just as much about the power of modern schooling as it does about the genetic basis of literacy.

Quote:

3.1. Heritability across socioeconomic levels

The heritability of general intelligence is higher among affluent, high socioeconomic status (SES) households than poorer, low SES households in some societies (sometimes referred to as the Scarr-Rowe effect; Scarr-Salapatek 1971; Rowe, Jacobson, and Van den Oord 1999), but the correlation is mixed in other societies (Nisbett et al. 2012; Hanscombe et al. 2012; van der Sluis et al. 2008; Turkheimer et al. 2003; Giangrande et al. 2019; Platt et al. 2019). A meta-analysis (Tucker-Drob and Bates 2015) found the effect in a subset of US samples, but not in samples from Europe and Australia. Pooling the US studies, the authors found an effect size that corresponds to a heritability estimate of 0.61 at 2 standard deviations above the mean SES but only 0.26 at 2 standard deviations below the mean. In Europe and Australia, heritability is more uniform. The cause of this interaction is still debated.

Several researchers (e.g., Bates, Lewis, and Weiss 2013; Beam et al. 2015) have suggested that gene-environment correlation via phenotype-to-environment transmission, otherwise referred to as ‘reciprocal causation’ (Dickens and Flynn 2001; Bronfenbrenner and Ceci 1994; Scarr 1992), is the most likely explanation. By this explanation, those with genes well suited to a task can better nurture their skills in a wealthier environment than in a poorer environment. That is, initially small differences in genetic potential become gradually amplified over time due to the iterative matching of environments to abilities: an increase in expressed ability brings forth new environmental conditions that enable further growth along that dimension (Dickens and Flynn 2001; Bronfenbrenner and Ceci 1994; Scarr 1992). Such processes can increase genetic heritability, but through reciprocal shaping between genetic potential and environment, rather than through innately specified ability levels. The reasoning is that high-SES households are able to provide environments that do this more effectively and are thereby able to let genetic potential be more reliably associated with corresponding outcomes, lifting heritability as a result. While such reciprocal causation may indeed be occurring, reconciling this explanation with the findings from Europe and Australia seems more challenging.

A cultural evolution of genetic heritability explanation would instead suggest that heritability is a function of the variability in culture. In the United States, the differences between, for example, school and home environments among high SES households is small relative to differences between school and home environments among low SES households, where factors such as school lotteries can dramatically affect the cultural input. In contrast, the cultural environment is less unequal in Europe and Australia, where, for example, high quality schools are available across SES. Where these explanations make a different prediction is for poorer countries. The reciprocal causation explanation would predict low heritability in poorer countries. The cultural evolution of genetic heritability explanation would instead predict high heritability where there is equal access to similarly poor schools and households, but low heritability if inequality is high. That is, heritability is a direct function of variability in culture. More generally, we would predict a negative correlation between environmental variability and heritability (consistent with Davis et al. 2012).

Quote

07-05-2020 , 11:46 AM

#390

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

A pointed and entertaining critique of personality research in social psychology: The Ongoing Accomplishment of the Big Five

Quote:

As a novice to the study of the Big Five, I found that I had many misconceptions. For example, I thought that the Big Five were considered to be universal, in some sense, and not just descriptive of WEIRD college students. But in fact, it is not simply that the Big Five factors fail to fall out of the analysis of large surveys in other languages and cultures. They don’t even fall out of Big Five-specific questions administered in non-WEIRD populations (Gurven et al., 2013). Many of the concepts mentioned in the Big Five survey instruments do not even exist in non-WEIRD languages as such, particularly abstract nouns (Gurven et al., 2013). Of course a concept that does not exist across cultures could not form the basis for a universally important personality trait, as measured by language....

Third, I’d thought that the Big Five were relatively stable across the life course; however, longitudinal studies of several cohorts of adults, born between 1914 and 1960, revealed that most traits changed over the life course in distinct patterns (Roberts et al., 2006), with social dominance (an aspect of extraversion), agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability increasing in adulthood and/or later life.

Finally, I’d thought that the traits themselves were orthogonal, in that they were genuinely separate traits that didn’t covary much. I’d thought that this was a major focus of the factoring process, and an aspect of the traits’ specialness and validity. However, the traits covary a great deal. Lukaszewski et al. (2017) found positive mean inter-factor correlations for every country in a large international sample, and an especially high value for Tanzania, the outlier apparently driving their result (that complex societies decrease trait covariance through specialization). Nor is it unusual to find big correlations between the factors; in a large sample of twins, Shane et al. (2010) found correlations of .39 between Extraversion and Openness to Experience, and .30 between Emotional Stability and Agreeableness. Chang et al. (2012) address the problem of the non-orthogonality of the Big Five, and report that even with a methodological correction to eliminate “methods bias,” they could not eliminate correlations between many factors, suggesting some may be “redundant.”

If the Big Five are not universal, stable, or orthogonal, what good are they? They have a perfectly clear use. They replicate: the answers to many other survey instruments can be found to correlate with the Big Five survey responses, in multiple samples of survey-takers. To complain that the Big Five are meaningless is somewhat unscientific. They have a very specific meaning within the language game they belong to, and they are popular and memetically successful tools within that sphere.

The Big Five are, in a sense, protected from falsification. They make no predictions; there is no underlying causal model. As I understand it, no study could be devised to prove that the Big Five aren’t real, because they make no formal pretense to reality.

Quote

07-05-2020 , 12:08 PM

#391

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

A pointed and entertaining critique of personality research in social psychology: The Ongoing Accomplishment of the Big Five

I think it's kind of banal. The complexities and variations of a personality is difficult to study. Consequently, you have rough and generalized tools to measure it. With that said, it's much easier to identify the abnormal, or negative personality traits with accuracy, than the normal ones.

Quote

07-05-2020 , 12:33 PM

#392

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

I certainly agree that it's a difficult task. I assume I have a more positive view of social science, including psychology, than the author. But that's also why I think it's a good idea for me to take the criticisms seriously, and I think the author makes plenty of fair points.

It does often seem a little too easy to me to overestimate the epistemic value of social science methods. The formalisms in which we dress them probably give too strong an air of authority.

Quote

07-05-2020 , 01:20 PM

#393

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

I guess I'm a skeptic, so the criticisms seem obvious to me. I'm fan of psychology, sociology, and the social sciences as well, but I have trouble putting faith in them.

Quote:

Social sciences are, in a sense, protected from falsification. They make no predictions; there is no underlying causal model. As I understand it, no study could be devised to prove that the social sciences aren’t real, because they make no formal pretense to reality.

I think this is because they are trying to understand human perspectives at the macro level (group level), and that naturally creates a lot of ambiguity, because perspectives only exist in the mind. When they focus on one or two traits/behaviors, it's easier, but an entire personality? It might be impossible.

Quote

07-08-2020 , 05:11 AM

#394

aflametotheground

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,851

What do the studies show on police shootings, is there any studies that show real bias against blacks?

Quote

07-09-2020 , 01:02 PM

#395

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

A Multi-Level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings at the County-Level in the United States, 2011–2014

But, see also:

An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force

A recent summary from the author of that paper: What the Data Say About Police

Quote:

There are large racial differences in police use of nonlethal force. My research team analyzed nearly five million police encounters from New York City. We found that when police reported the incidents, they were 53% more likely to use physical force on a black civilian than a white one. In a separate, nationally representative dataset asking civilians about their experiences with police, we found the use of physical force on blacks to be 350% as likely. This is true of every level of nonlethal force, from officers putting their hands on civilians to striking them with batons. We controlled for every variable available in myriad ways. That reduced the racial disparities by 66%, but blacks were still significantly more likely to endure police force.

We didn’t find racial differences in officer-involved shootings. Our data come from localities in California, Colorado, Florida, Texas and Washington state and contain accounts of 1,399 police shootings at civilians between 2000 and 2015. In addition, from Houston only in those same years, we had reports describing situations in which gunfire might have been justified by department guidelines but the cops didn’t shoot. This is a key piece of data that popular online databases don’t include.

No matter how we analyzed the data, we found no racial differences in shootings overall, in any city in particular, or in any subset of the data. I have grappled with these results for years as I witnessed videos of unmistakable police brutality against black men. How can the data tell a story so different from what we see with our eyes?

Our analysis tells us what happens on average. It isn’t average when a police officer casually kneels on someone’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. Are there racial differences in the most extreme forms of police violence? The Southern boy in me says yes; the economist says we don’t know.

Several scholars have rightly pointed out that these data all begin with an interaction, and suggested that racist policing manifests itself in more interactions between blacks and the police. The impact of this hypothesis in our shootings data seems minimal. The results on police shootings are statistically the same across all call types—ranging from officer-initiated contact with a suspicious person (where racism in whom to police is likely paramount) to a 911 call of a homicide in progress (where interaction with the potential suspect is more likely independent of race).

Are the data nationally representative? We don’t know. But at least two other studies, both published in 2016—by Phillip Atiba Goff et al. and Ted R. Miller et al.—have since found the same using different data. Moreover, when we use our data to calculate the descriptive statistics used in popular databases such as the Washington Post’s, we find a higher percentage of black civilians among unarmed men killed by the police than they do. Those statistics, however, cannot address the fundamental question: When a shooting might be justified by department standards, are police more likely actually to shoot if the civilian is black? Only our data can answer this question, because it contains information on situations in which a shooting might meet departmental standards but didn’t happen. The answer appears to be no.

I think a significant caveat here is that I'm not sure if we have sufficient data to answer some of our questions definitively. The question as to whether those datasets are nationally representative seems pretty important to me. But it seems plausible based on the research I've seen that racial biases in many other areas of policing (e.g. stops and searches, along with the prior citation on use of force) are biasing perceptions about shootings specifically.

Also, I would say that problems involving the relative immunity of police to prosecution (at least historically) are separate from questions of statistical bias. I think the reaction to cases where police kill people is not really entirely about statistical bias. It's about police killing people so unnecessarily and with so little consequence.

Quote

07-09-2020 , 02:36 PM

#396

EADGBE

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 15,841

From what I've read, there is no disparity in shootings when adjusting for crime rates.

Also, interestingly, non-white police officers are more likely to shoot blacks than white police officers (a stat I've heard quoted endlessly by conservative talking heads), however they chalk this up to police departments usually being more representative of the population they are policing, not white PO's being more cognizant of the race dynamic than black PO's. So promoting diversity in hiring probably does nothing in the end.

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

Quote

07-10-2020 , 01:42 PM

#397

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,558

Police Killings in the U.S. — Inequalities by Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Position
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org...ceKillings.pdf

Quote:

INTRODUCTION
Research on social inequality in US police killings has focused on race/ethnicity while largely ignoring the role of socioeconomic position. Prior research has found substantially higher rates of police killings among black people, and moderately higher rates among Latinos, compared to whites in the US.1 The degree to which socioeconomic factors contribute to racial inequalities in police killings is unclear, and data on the socioeconomic position of those killed by police is not readily available. Using census tract poverty rate as a proxy for individual socioeconomic position, this paper aims to:

1-describe racial/ethnic differences in rates of police killings;
2-describe socioeconomic patterning of police killings within and between racial/ethnic groups; and
3-estimate the degree to which racial/ethnic inequalities in police killings are attributable to differences in the population distribution of census tract poverty.

Quote:

Discussion
In addition to confirming previously documented racial/ethnic inequalities in the United States, the analyses above identify strong socioeconomic inequalities in rates of police killings. Rates of police killings increase in tandem with census tract poverty for the overall population, and within the white, black, and Latino populations. For white people, the rate of police killings among the poorest fifth of census tracts (7.9 per million) is similar to the rate among black people in census tracts with the second-lowest poverty (i.e. the second quintile; 7.7 per million).

Higher poverty among the black population accounts for a meaningful, but relatively modest, portion of the black-white gap in police killing rates. In contrast, higher census tract poverty fully explained the Latino-white gap, and the police killing rate among Latinos was lower than expected given their relatively high rates of census tract poverty.

Quote

07-10-2020 , 05:46 PM

#398

EADGBE

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 15,841

I don't know if you posted that in response or not, but the study I posted was adjusted for crime rate, while the one you posted was adjusted for poverty levels. Blacks commit crime at a higher rate than Latinos, also shootings != killings so I don't think the studies necessarily contradict one another.

Quote

07-10-2020 , 05:49 PM

#399

EADGBE

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 15,841

I don't know if you needed a study to tell you this, but I guess it's nice that they did the legwork.

Quote:

Some research has examined the role of racism, particularly Modern Racism, in politics. Since the Equal Rights Movement in the U.S., there has been a significant shift in social norms regarding the open expression of racism (e.g., [38]). In contemporary times, traditional, overt forms of racism and discrimination are generally not socially acceptable. As such, racism has become more subtle and covert, and old-fashioned measures of racism are generally not valid (i.e., most respondents provide socially desirable answers). Modern Racism is a more subtle form of prejudice that is conceptualized as anti-Black feelings and beliefs that are expressed in such a way that they can easily be concealed or explained away [38,39,40]. That is, rather than endorsing overt forms of discrimination and prejudice (e.g., segregation), individuals high in Modern Racism are more likely to support policies that indirectly disadvantage African Americans (e.g., ending affirmative action).

Quote:

Of the three narratives proposed to explain the election outcome, the role of Modern Racism received the most consistent support in the current sample. Across the analyses related to both Clinton and Trump, Modern Racism was significantly associated with all outcome variables, independent of race, age, gender, party affiliation, sexism toward women, and U.S. nationalism. That is, Modern Racism was uniquely related to evaluations of and intentions to vote for Clinton and Trump. Moreover, Modern Racism prospectively predicted voting behavior. These findings align with previous research related to the 2008 U.S. presidential election, in which Modern Racism, but not ambivalent sexism toward women, was associated with evaluations of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0229432

Quote

07-10-2020 , 06:55 PM

#400

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

I think it's important to note "Modern Racism" is still a contested topic:

Quote:

A major criticism is that new experimental studies show that respondents do not answer these questions differently when groups other than African Americans are mentioned in the survey questions. For instance, when other groups such as "Albanians," "Lithuanians," "Jordanians," "Taiwanese," etc. were substituted into the same symbolic racism questions, the pattern of responses is not significantly different from responses when African Americans are the group included in the question. This undermines a primary claim made by Sears et al. that their measure of symbolic racism is a blend of "anti-Black affect" and "conservatism." Enos and Carney (2018) write: "Across multiple groups and multiple samples on different survey platforms, we find a strong an consistent pattern: the results obtained using groups other than Blacks are substantially indistinguishable from those measured when Blacks are the target group. Decomposing this measure further, we find that political conservatives express only minor differences in resentment across target groups. Far greater differences in resentment toward Blacks and other groups can be found among racially sympathetic liberals. In short, we find that modern racism questions appear to measure attitudes toward any group, rather than African Americans alone."

Here is the source for that.

Quote:

The study of intergroup attitudes is a central topic across the social sciences. While there is little doubt about the importance of intergroup attitudes in shaping behavior, both the psychological underpinnings of these attitudes and the tools used to measure them remain contentious. Modern racism scales, which are the most common way to measure anti-Black prejudice in political science, were created in response to a shift in the attitudes of white Americans toward African Americans, and reflect a mix
of social conservatism and anti-Black affect. Using experiments, we offer evidence that modern racism scales measure attitudes toward any group, rather than African Americans alone. In the spirit of the original motivation behind modern racism scales, which were created to capture changing public opinion about race, we suggest this property of modern racism may reflect a change in how stereotypes about low work ethic are applied across groups and that the target of resentment for white Americans, especially for political conservatives, has broadened beyond African Americans. Our results suggest that modern racism scales reflect a general set of attitudes about fairness and that new instruments may be needed to measure group-specific prejudice.

....

In this paper, we have demonstrated that average resentment, as measured by modern racism scales, is generally similar across all target groups, and where it does vary, this variation seems mostly driven by liberals. For conservatives, modern racism scales seem to measure a more general orientation toward fairness, such as a belief in a just world. Importantly, our results indicate that, especially among political conservatives, the attitudes contained in modern racism are applied to a broader range of groups than African Americans alone.

....

Although we cannot directly test for this relationship, we suggest a more parsimonious model, that conservatives are motivated by a belief in a just world. This model is broadly
consistent with major psychological models of conservatism. Moreover, the overall higher levels of resentment among conservatives that we observe is consistent with the idea that just world belief drives responses—conservatives are likely to agree with the statement that if somebody would only work harder they could get ahead, regardless of the group in question.

Unfortunately, part of it is some conservatives hate everyone, or maybe not.

Last edited by itshotinvegas; 07-10-2020 at 07:05 PM.