Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   White liberals dumb themselves down when they speak to black people, a new study contends (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=866632)

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 11:25 AM

White liberals dumb themselves down when they speak to black people, a new study contends
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.54b025a06356

There was a study conducted which found that white liberals “downshift” their presented competency when interacting with people they perceive as black. Conservatives did no such thing, and interacted with perceived blacks the same as they acted with perceived whites.

There was also an evaluation of the speeches of liberal and conservative politicians. They found that liberals dropped references to “agency” and “power” when speaking to audiences perceived as black. Conservatives did no such thing. The authors say this is because conservatives don’t want to interact with outgroups. This could be true. Conservatives could also feel that black people don’t want to hear what conservatives have to say because conservatives make assumptions about the political preferences of black people.

I’m more interested in the perceptions liberals have of black people. I believe the study has demonstrated that liberals treat people differently solely because of their race, and that this informs their preferred political policies. They believe they must be the “white knight” for black people because they are viewed as less competent. They also believe that “agency” is not worth discussing in front of black people. For me this strengthens personal anecdotal evidence of the complexities of race relations.

Perhaps liberals will view the results of the study differently.

Velocity 12-04-2018 11:29 AM

Sounds like an example of benevolent racism. Believing that Group X is disadvantaged doesn't necessarily mean a diminished view of them, but the two could easily go hand in hand - if you think Group X needs extra help and a boost, you may see them as needing help because of being inferior.

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21358177)
Sounds like an example of benevolent racism. Believing that Group X is disadvantaged doesn't necessarily mean a diminished view of them, but the two could easily go hand in hand - if you think Group X needs extra help and a boost, you may see them as needing help because of being inferior.

I believe it demonstrates that liberals view blacks as less competent. Whether they want to help them or not, that’s how they feel in the current situation. I believe this is why liberals think they need special policies to boost black people. Agency is disregarded to potentially disastrous consequences.

Joey P 12-04-2018 11:41 AM

This isn't really anything new. You'll find it referred to as "code shifting". I haven't given it a whole lot of thought but I'm not sure it's necessarily wrong to speak to different groups of people differently.
Also, who judged this? That is, who decided that they were speaking 'dumb' some people and not others? Could it be looked at as them speaking in a way that's more likely to engage their audience?
This, IIRC, is where I first heard the term.

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey P (Post 21358199)
This isn't really anything new. You'll find it referred to as "code shifting". I haven't given it a whole lot of thought but I'm not sure it's necessarily wrong to speak to different groups of people differently.
Also, who judged this? That is, who decided that they were speaking 'dumb' some people and not others? Could it be looked at as them speaking in a way that's more likely to engage their audience?
This, IIRC, is where I first heard the term.

I thought code switching was when black people talk to black people differently than they talk to whites. They change their speech to whites because they believe it will benefit them.

I don’t view changing speech patterns with different audiences as “wrong” either. I believe it does inform poor political policies to believe black people are less capable.

EscAlaMike 12-04-2018 11:46 AM

Here's a link to the actual study from Yale

The authors of the study seem to presume that white liberals are "less biased" and more "well-intentioned".

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscAlaMike (Post 21358207)
Here's a link to the actual study from Yale

The authors of the study seem to presume that white liberals are "less biased" and more "well-intentioned".

Do they offer any support in favor of the “well-intentioned” part? Seems like a projection of the authors own political preferences.

Joey P 12-04-2018 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21358206)
I thought code switching was when black people talk to black people differently than they talk to whites.

What difference would it make? Black people talking to black people differently than white people could be called the same thing as white people talking to white people differently than black people. Substitute any groups in there that you want.

Also, code shifting is talking to two different groups of people differently. Whether both groups speak the same language but use different vernacular or the two groups speak two totally different languages.
So, in any case, it's still code shifting.

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey P (Post 21358215)
What difference would it make? Black people talking to black people differently than white people could be called the same thing as white people talking to white people differently than black people. Substitute any groups in there that you want.

Also, code shifting is talking to two different groups of people differently. Whether both groups speak the same language but use different vernacular or the two groups speak two totally different languages.
So, in any case, it's still code shifting.

Fair enough, I’ve just never heard it used in that context.

Though I must say that code switching to get a job is different from doing it because you believe the audience is at a lower competency. This ignores the political consequences as well.

UnwittingAmericans 12-04-2018 11:53 AM

Is that why Comey said "Lordy, I hope there are tapes" to the Senate Intelligence Committee? 'Cause he thinks Kamala Harris is black?

Ashtura 12-04-2018 11:56 AM

Yeah, so? Black people talk to white people differently than they do to black people, probably to a much greater degree. I would consider this a mild form of code-switching.

wolfpup 12-04-2018 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21358171)
There was a study conducted which found that white liberals “downshift” their presented competency when interacting with people they perceive as black. Conservatives did no such thing, and interacted with perceived blacks the same as they acted with perceived whites.

I assume the point here is supposed to be that liberals are evil bigots. But I wonder about the conclusion, since I wouldn't "downshift" if conversing, say, with Barack or Michelle Obama, or Neil Degrasse Tyson. But let me offer an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps the real issue is that many people labeled as "liberals" are educated academics and professionals with a wide gamut of competency who are accustomed to adapting their vocabulary to different audiences. Whereas perhaps a significant number of conservatives are already cognitively in first gear, being accustomed to the vocabulary of Fox News.

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans (Post 21358225)
Is that why Comey said "Lordy, I hope there are tapes" to the Senate Intelligence Committee? 'Cause he thinks Kamala Harris is black?

I think he is a conservative, no? Must just be how he talks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashtura (Post 21358233)
Yeah, so? Black people talk to white people differently than they do to black people, probably to a much greater degree. I would consider this a mild form of code-switching.

For the black example, the code being switched is from informal to formal because you think the audience expects formal.

For the white liberal example, the code switch is from full competency to lower competency because you think the audience... what? Can’t understand fully competent address? Expects simpler words? Fill in the blank please.

Shodan 12-04-2018 12:03 PM

I liked this paragraph particularly -
Quote:

The data doesn’t point to conclusions about whether the competence downshift is effective in smoothing fraught interactions. As the paper observes, the behavioral difference is subtle, and Dupree said it’s “possible that racial minorities don’t necessarily pick up on the shift.”
The poor dears can't even tell when they are being talked down to.

And of course -
Quote:

The findings could provide a new arrow in the quiver of those who decry identity politics practiced by liberals, and yet the paper hardly applauds conservatives for their approach, reasoning that they are simply “less motivated to affiliate with racial minorities.”
Treating someone as equal means you don't want to affiliate with them. :)

Dealing with Those People is fraught with difficulty. Treat them as inferior and you are being racist. Treat them as equals and it means you don't like them. What to do, what to do...

Regards,
Shodan

Joey P 12-04-2018 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21358218)
Fair enough, I’ve just never heard it used in that context.

Though I must say that code switching to get a job is different from doing it because you believe the audience is at a lower competency. This ignores the political consequences as well.

Regarding the Yale link, I see what they did was [objectively] count how many times certain words were used and then [subjectively] decided that it happens because white liberals think black audiences are dumb.
Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I'm sure [well, I'd hope] the paper goes into much more detail. On the face of it, to me, it seems more like tailoring what you're saying to the audience in front of you.

I'd be curious about black politicians (from both sides) speaking to those same groups.

I'd also be curious if you took the same speech, spoken the same way as delivered to white liberals and presented it to black liberals, how'd they react. That is, would they feel energized to get up and vote or would it sound cold and heartless (or over their heads since that's what the study was about)?

iiandyiiii 12-04-2018 12:04 PM

I see no evidence of "dumbing down" or "presuming less competence" in the linked article, despite the writers' and researchers' apparent assumptions. And I'll object to the completely unsurprising well poisoning by the OP in (once again) casting liberals as malevolent racists.

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 21358238)
I assume the point here is supposed to be that liberals are evil bigots. But I wonder about the conclusion, since I wouldn't "downshift" if conversing, say, with Barack or Michelle Obama, or Neil Degrasse Tyson. But let me offer an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps the real issue is that many people labeled as "liberals" are educated academics and professionals with a wide gamut of competency who are accustomed to adapting their vocabulary to different audiences. Whereas perhaps a significant number of conservatives are already cognitively in first gear, being accustomed to the vocabulary of Fox News.

I would still say there is a bigger problem if the academic believes black people should engage in a lower level conversation. It informs his poor political policies because he may have some leverage in his capacity as an expert of whatever field.

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey P (Post 21358244)
Regarding the Yale link, I see what they did was [objectively] count how many times certain words were used and then [subjectively] decided that it happens because white liberals think black audiences are dumb.
Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I'm sure [well, I'd hope] the paper goes into much more detail. On the face of it, to me, it seems more like tailoring what you're saying to the audience in front of you.

I'd be curious about black politicians (from both sides) speaking to those same groups.

I'd also be curious if you took the same speech, spoken the same way as delivered to white liberals and presented it to black liberals, how'd they react. That is, would they feel energized to get up and vote or would it sound cold and heartless (or over their heads since that's what the study was about)?

The question is why liberals believe blacks deserve speech tailored for a lower level discourse and if it informs their political positions

control-z 12-04-2018 12:11 PM

I have always felt that many well-off white liberals behave like benevolent racists towards black folks, often speaking for them and talking about them rather than to them.

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21358248)
I see no evidence of "dumbing down" or "presuming less competence" in the linked article, despite the writers' and researchers' apparent assumptions. And I'll object to the completely unsurprising well poisoning by the OP in (once again) casting liberals as malevolent racists.

I’m trying to understand why liberals would use lower level vocabulary when addressing black people. Do you have another reason they could be doing this.

I will not that have not poisoned any well. The topic is controversial, so the thinned-skin may think that. I have also not assigned malevolence to liberals. On the contrary I characterized them as “white knights”.

iiandyiiii 12-04-2018 12:14 PM

There are no "higher level" and "lower level" words. There are just words. And languages and dialects. If liberals are more aware of the existence of dialects like African American Vernacular English, and sometimes make language choices to ensure that AAVE-only speakers understand their messaging, then that sounds to be entirely reasonable, compassionate, and appropriate. The assertion or implication that AAVE is "lower level" or less competent or in any other way less than any other dialects of English is highly bigoted (and sadly quite common).

iiandyiiii 12-04-2018 12:16 PM

The linked article makes no reference to the existence of different dialects of English and I suspect that the author and researchers are unaware of their existence, or otherwise chose to ignore their existence.

AAVE is not "lower level" in discourse than any other dialect.

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21358267)
There are no "higher level" and "lower level" words. There are just words. And languages and dialects. If liberals are more aware of the existence of dialects like African American Vernacular English, and sometimes make language choices to ensure that AAVE-only speakers understand their messaging, then that sounds to be entirely reasonable, compassionate, and appropriate. The assertion or implication that AAVE is "lower level" or less competent or in any other way less than any other dialects of English is highly bigoted (and sadly quite common).

The authors used words like “sad” instead of “melancholy”. What does that have to do with AAVE? Is “sad” exclusive to AAVE. Anyway, why would the author assume the recipient prefers AAVE, an outgroup dialect associated with poor economic success? Why is there no assumption that “Emily” prefers outgroup dialects spoken by whites?

In any case, I would bet that the authors themselves think words like ”sad” are dumbed down compared to words like “melancholy”. Most people understand that.

Little Nemo 12-04-2018 12:22 PM

Conservative poster cites results of conservative study that finds conservatives are better people.

iiandyiiii 12-04-2018 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21358285)
The authors used words like “sad” instead of “melancholy”. What does that have to do with AAVE? Is “sad” exclusive to AAVE. Anyway, why would the author assume the recipient prefers AAVE, an outgroup dialect associated with poor economic success?

In any case, I would bet that the authors themselves view words like ”sad” are dumbed down compared to words like “melancholy”.

Any discussion (or study) of language use and black people in America that ignores dialects, and AAVE in particular, is an incompetent study that can be dismissed in its entirety. The author of the linked article is apparently ignorant of AAVE. So, apparently, are the researchers referenced. This is sadly very common - lots and lots of Americans, liberal and moderate and conservative, are unaware of AAVE and assume that the dialect is simply lower level English (or some other bigoted categorization). Hopefully discussions like this can help to educate the ignorant about the existence and significance of AAVE, and maybe reduce the chances of ignorant articles and studies put out that ignore its existence (or worse, refer to it as "lower level" discourse).

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 21358289)
Conservative poster cites results of conservative study that finds conservatives are better people.

Except the study authors bend over backwards to explain why conservatives are bigoted and liberals are still “well-intentioned”. I don’t know if they are conservative, but I doubt it.

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21358297)
Any discussion (or study) of language use and black people in America that ignores dialects, and AAVE in particular, is an incompetent study that can be dismissed in its entirety. The author of the linked article is apparently ignorant of AAVE. So, apparently, are the researchers referenced. This is sadly very common - lots and lots of Americans, liberal and moderate and conservative, are unaware of AAVE and assume that the dialect is simply lower level English (or some other bigoted categorization). Hopefully discussions like this can help to educate the ignorant about the existence and significance of AAVE, and maybe reduce the chances of ignorant articles and studies put out that ignore its existence (or worse, refer to it as "lower level" discourse).

Why didn’t the study subjects communicate with perceived whites in outgroup dialects spoken by whites?

Why must the black people be talked to in a dialect associated with poor economic success? Seems self-defeating and presumptuous.

The spectacle of thewhite guy “trying to be down” by using AAVE in order to be “compassionate” gives me a chuckle I must say. You understand an individual like this would and should be laughed at, right?

iiandyiiii 12-04-2018 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21358308)
Why didn’t the study subjects communicate with perceived whites in outgroup dialects spoken by whites?

Based on the apparent incompetence of the study, they didn't consider dialect usage at all, and thus the study wouldn't tell us anything about whether this occurred or not. Furthermore, IMO there is a considerable lack in education and understanding of American English dialects in general, not just about AAVE.

Quote:

Why must the black people be talked to in a dialect associated with poor economic success? Seems self-defeating and presumptuous.
This paragraph just looks like a way to take a cheap shot at black Americans, and I'm not interested in responding to that.

Quote:

The spectacle of thewhite guy “trying to be down” by using AAVE in order to be “compassionate” gives me a chuckle I must say. You understand an individual like this would and should be laughed at, right?
No idea what you're talking about here, except perhaps to just deal in more cheap shots and caricatures. If you think taking dialect usage and fluency into account in crafting messaging is laughable, then we really don't have much to discuss.

Icarus 12-04-2018 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscAlaMike (Post 21358207)
Here's a link to the actual study from Yale

The authors of the study seem to presume that white liberals are "less biased" and more "well-intentioned".

Actually, no, that is a link to another article about the study, which contains a link to the study.

THIS is a link to the actual study:
https://psyarxiv.com/pv2ab/

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 12:40 PM

Also in a situation where one side prefers AAVE and another prefers academic English (or whatever it’s called) why should the default be AAVE for the sake of compassion? Why doesn’t the AAVE user adopt academic Engiish for the sake of compassion?

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21358322)
Based on the apparent incompetence of the study, they didn't consider dialect usage at all, and thus the study wouldn't tell us anything about whether this occurred or not. Furthermore, IMO there is a considerable lack in education and understanding of American English dialects in general, not just about AAVE.



This paragraph just looks like a way to take a cheap shot at black Americans, and I'm not interested in responding to that.



No idea what you're talking about here, except perhaps to just deal in more cheap shots and caricatures. If you think taking dialect usage and fluency into account in crafting messaging is laughable, then we really don't have much to discuss.

Ok maybe others will provide some insights on the word choice of liberals. Thanks for your contribution.

Joey P 12-04-2018 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21358254)
The question is why liberals believe blacks deserve speech tailored for a lower level discourse and if it informs their political positions

Before asking that question you have to show that tailoring a speech for your audience (or in this case using fewer words from a given set of words) is the same as a "lower level of discourse".

iiandyiiii 12-04-2018 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21358350)
Ok maybe others will provide some insights on the word choice of liberals. Thanks for your contribution.

If you now recognize that calling or implying AAVE is "lower level discourse" is bigoted and wrong, then this might be the most productive discussion the two of us have ever had on this board, and I'll tip my hat to you for your open mind.

EscAlaMike 12-04-2018 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 21358323)
Actually, no, that is a link to another article about the study, which contains a link to the study.

THIS is a link to the actual study:
https://psyarxiv.com/pv2ab/

Thanks :)

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21358362)
If you now recognize that calling or implying AAVE is "lower level discourse" is bigoted and wrong, then this might be the most productive discussion the two of us have ever had on this board, and I'll tip my hat to you for your open mind.

I never implied or called AAVE anything of the kind. I said AAVE was associated with poor economic success. It is. I called it an outgroup dialect which I believe is appropriate.

I did say that words like “sad” are lower level compared to words like “melancholy”. I said the language used by the study subjects with black people was lower level discourse. Lower level could mean many things. What I meant by “lower level” is that English speakers, broadly considered, will encounter and use words like “sad” at a lower level of language comprehension than the level at which they encounter and use words like “melancholy”. If you want to take the discussion of language further, I will not be able to indulge you in this thread.

Calling AAVE “lower level discourse” could be wrong depending on your definitions. It could be bigoted depending on your motivations. I will not make categorical claims on issues like these.

Shodan 12-04-2018 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21358336)
Also in a situation where one side prefers AAVE and another prefers academic English (or whatever it’s called) why should the default be AAVE for the sake of compassion? Why doesn’t the AAVE user adopt academic Engiish for the sake of compassion?

Could you say this again, using smaller words?

Regards,
Shodan

iiandyiiii 12-04-2018 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21358435)
I never implied or called AAVE anything of the kind. I said AAVE was associated with poor economic success. It is. I called it an outgroup dialect which I believe is appropriate.

I did say that words like “sad” are lower level compared to words like “melancholy”. I said the language used by the study subjects with black people was lower level discourse. Lower level could mean many things. What I meant by “lower level” is that English speakers, broadly considered, will encounter and use words like “sad” at a lower level of language comprehension than the level at which they encounter and use words like “melancholy”. If you want to take the discussion of language further, I will not be able to indulge you in this thread.

Calling AAVE “lower level discourse” could be wrong depending on your definitions. It could be bigoted depending on your motivations. I will not make categorical claims on issues like these.

What does "poor economic success" have to do with the article in the OP, or anything related to this discussion? Just more pointless cheap shots at black Americans.

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 01:30 PM

What ever could you be speaking upon, Willis?

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21358486)
What does "poor economic success" have to do with the article in the OP, or anything related to this discussion? Just more pointless cheap shots at black Americans.

I brought it up because I don’t understand why someone would choose to use that when communicating with someone considering that it is associated with lower incomes. I don’t think it is compassionate to encourage use of a dialect when doing so could bring poor economic outcomes.

Buck Godot 12-04-2018 01:44 PM

For those interested in the source material here it is.

It's an interesting study and discussion, that is poorly represented by a simple headline. It wasn't so much the liberals talked down to African American audiences, (ie I don't want to use the word melecholy because they wouldn't understand me) it is rather that they didn't use words that promoted their own competence (ie I don't want to use the word melancholy because it might sound like I'm trying to boast about my erudition.). Basically liberals were more concerned than conservatives with using language that might suggest their superiority when they were talking with blacks than when they were talking with other whites, while Conservatives were not so worried, and in some cases appeared more likely to to want to use words indicating their competence with blacks than when talking with whites.

They also found that there was a moderate negative interaction between "warmth" words and "competence" words, and that conservatives seem to be less likely to use warmth words with blacks than they are with whites, while there is no such significant change in liberals.

So basically white liberals were worried about appearing cold and like a know-it-all when talking to blacks, while conservatives either didn't care, or to some extent wanted to demonstrate their superiority.


I would also say that the statistics is a bit sketchy from a multiple comparisons point of view. They looked at 3 different measures of conservativeness in 5 different studies, and only found a few cases where the interaction between conservativeness and competence words was statistically significant (p<0.05) but the trends in the multiple studies seemed in the same direction so a meta analysis would probably show overall significance.

Ravenman 12-04-2018 01:44 PM

I, for one, am greatly relieved that people of a certain fringe political stripe don't "dumb down" their language when they speak to black people about their fondness for the Confederacy and how Abraham Lincoln was the worst president ever. That would be patronizing!

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey P (Post 21358356)
Before asking that question you have to show that tailoring a speech for your audience (or in this case using fewer words from a given set of words) is the same as a "lower level of discourse".

Why did the individuals think they needed to make a speech differently for whites and blacks? Why did that tailoring include using words like “sad” for “Lakisha” and “melancholy” for “Emily”?

WillFarnaby 12-04-2018 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Godot (Post 21358540)
For those interested in the source material here it is.

It's an interesting study and discussion, that is poorly represented by a simple headline. It wasn't so much the liberals talked down to African American audiences, (ie I don't want to use the word melecholy because they wouldn't understand me) it is rather that they didn't use words that promoted their own competence (ie I don't want to use the word melancholy because it might sound like I'm trying to boast about my erudition.). Basically liberals were more concerned than conservatives with using language that might suggest their superiority when they were talking with blacks than when they were talking with other whites, while Conservatives were not so worried, and in some cases appeared more likely to to want to use words indicating their competence with blacks than when talking with whites.

They also found that there was a moderate negative interaction between "warmth" words and "competence" words, and that conservatives seem to be less likely to use warmth words with blacks than they are with whites, while there is no such significant change in liberals.

So basically white liberals were worried about appearing cold and like a know-it-all when talking to blacks, while conservatives either didn't care, or to some extent wanted to demonstrate their superiority.


I would also say that the statistics is a bit sketchy from a multiple comparisons point of view. They looked at 3 different measures of conservativeness in 5 different studies, and only found a few cases where the interaction between conservativeness and competence words was statistically significant (p<0.05) but the trends in the multiple studies seemed in the same direction so a meta analysis would probably show overall significance.

Why did they think blacks would react negatively from a show of competence?

iiandyiiii 12-04-2018 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21358505)
I brought it up because I don’t understand why someone would choose to use that when communicating with someone considering that it is associated with lower incomes. I don’t think it is compassionate to encourage use of a dialect when doing so could bring poor economic outcomes.

So you really believe that the linguistic structure and vocabulary of a dialect is a causative factor related to economic achievement? That seems... strange, to me.

Especially when considering the likelihood (discussed in a thread I started a while back - I can link later) that when educators ignore the existence and significance of AAVE, many black students suffer considerably lower educational achievement. But when educators take AAVE into account, and treat it as a real dialect rather than "poor English", then those students do considerably better.

Seems to me that you've got it exactly backwards - taking AAVE into account and treating it like a real dialect probably results in much better things for black people than ignoring its existence and/or treating it like "poor English".

Vinyl Turnip 12-04-2018 01:58 PM

Study notwithstanding, I would like to assure all of my black peers that when I speak to you, I am exactly as dumb as I appear to be.

Joey P 12-04-2018 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21358548)
Why did the individuals think they needed to make a speech differently for whites and blacks?

A)I don't know
B)You're not going to back me into a corner like that.
C)There's an 84 page study, perhaps they mention it somewhere.

What I think would be the next logical step is to see how repeatable this study is. A couple independent groups can do a similar study (similar enough to be considered 'repeating the study') and see if they get the same results.

Quote:

Why did that tailoring include using words like “sad” for “Lakisha” and “melancholy” for “Emily”?
Because the authors hand picked those specific words and names when looking at speech transcripts (words) and setting up their hypothetical tests (names).
That would be a question for them. Whether they did that 'blind' or did it in hopes of a result, I don't know.

Something else, maybe they could count how many times each word (not their words, all words) are used in all those speeches. It might be interesting to see what other words are used more or less for certain groups instead of a small handful of words.

HurricaneDitka 12-04-2018 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 21358289)
Conservative poster cites results of conservative study that finds conservatives are better people.

Which is quite a refreshing change from our usual fare of liberal posters citing results of liberal studies that find liberals are better people. Variety, it's the spice of life.

Buck Godot 12-04-2018 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21358556)
Why did they think blacks would react negatively from a show of competence?

If I elucidate my thoughts in the following manner than I might give the erroneous impression that rather than reach a level of comity with my audience that I was attempting to demonstrate my intellectual proficiency and evoke the notion that I am putting on airs, regardless of their ability to comprehend my meaning.

But if I talk like this then it makes it easier to tell that I am friendly and don't feel in any way better than they are,

If I am aware of the fact that there is distrust of me among a disadvantaged group I may go out of my way to show that I am inclusive. OR probably put better
Quote:

Originally Posted by From the paper
High-status group members are aware that low-status groups can see their group as racist (Vorauer, Hunter, Main, & O’Connell, 2000; Vorauer, Main, & O’Connell, 1998)—or cold, more generally; this may be why, when interacting with minorities, Whites wish to appear likeable (Bergsieker, Shelton, & Richeson, 2012). However, some Whites may feel more concerned than others about how they appear in the eyes of minorities. Whites with the most egalitarian attitudes might be those who most desire to connect with minorities—but still lack the skills to act on their well-intentioned beliefs. Whites who do have concerns about appearing nonprejudiced tend to feel more anxiety and less enjoyment in interracial contexts (Shelton, 2003; Shelton, West, & Trail, 2010; Vorauer, Main, & O’Connell, 1998).

More generally, socio-political attitudes are linked with Whites’ intergroup prejudice and discrimination (Ho, Sidanius, Cuddy, & Banaji, 2013; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Knowles, Lowery, Hogan & Chow, 2009; Kteily, Cotterill, Sidanius, Sheehy-Skeffington, & Bergh, 2014; Thompsen, Green, & Sidanius, 2008). As such, those who describe themselves as lowest in socio-political conservatism (i.e., the most liberal) may be most likely to want to affiliate and therefore adjust their responses in outgroup (versus ingroup) settings.

So basically white liberals are trying to hard not to sound condescending and in the process are actually being condescending.

Ravenman 12-04-2018 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21358623)
Which is quite a refreshing change from our usual fare of liberal posters citing results of liberal studies that find liberals are better people. Variety, it's the spice of life.

Which obviously explains these quotes from the article:
Quote:

Their conservative counterparts, meanwhile, appear not to employ these stereotypes in the same way, as Dupree said, because, “we know empirically that white conservatives are less likely to be interested in getting along with racial minorities.” . . .

In tracking the word choices made by white Republican and Democratic presidential candidates before white and black voters, her sample size was limited primarily by “the number of speeches in which Republican presidential candidates showed up for black audiences,” she said. ...

"Despite the patronizing behavior that they enact, these liberal candidates may hold more goodwill toward minorities.”
Yay conservatives! You really won this study!

HurricaneDitka 12-04-2018 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21358643)
Which obviously explains these quotes from the article: Yay conservatives! You really won this study!

I'm used to us not "winning" studies. Academia has bias. That's not news to me.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.