A pill to cure racism?

[ThinkAnarchy]

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

Volunteers given the beta-blocker, used to treat chest pains and lower heart rates, scored lower on a standard psychological test of "implicit" racist attitudes.

They appeared to be less racially prejudiced at a subconscious level than another group treated with a "dummy" placebo pill.

Two groups of 18 participants took part in the study. Each volunteer was asked to undertake a "racial Implicit Association Test" (IAT) one to two hours after taking propranolol or the placebo.

The test involved categorising positive and negative words, and pictures of black and white individuals, on a computer screen.

The scientists wrote: "The main finding of our study is that propranolol significantly reduced implicit but not explicit racial bias."

Despite the study's small size and limitations, the researchers believe it raises important ethical and philosophical questions.

This site has a large population of those with a better than average understanding of science, so I'm curious of your opinions. The study seems to small conclude or even suggest much.

Also, from a philosophical point of view, isn't it kind of pointless if it only effects implicit racism? Perhaps I'm misinformed, but implicit racism typically doesn't lead to violence or outward bigotry, correct? I thought it was more of an unwarranted belief in racial superiority and a passive form of racism.

If they could cure explicit racism, it would seem more valuable.

Also, on a philosophical level, isn't prejudice and racism a valid survival mechanism.

Edit: Due to an unfinished sentence being removed.

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm guessing here, but I think I read or saw something which did link instinctive tribalism and emotional (in a broad sense) responses. There was even a test done where people were put in a hypothetical situation where their survival in some form was threatened and they tended to have a bias towards people who were more like them (evolutionarily with a higher chance of being family or closer related I think). The bias went beyond "race" to even giving preference to people with more closely resembling faces even over those of the same "race". If you accept the idea of the selfish gene (an idea that Dawkins popularised with a book of the same name), which basically says that genes are the smallest unit of competition and individuals are the vehicle of competing genes. Because of this, the closer a relative is, which means that the more genes you share with that person, the more you'll recognise that helping ensure the survival on that person will also help ensure the survival of a number of the genes you carry and so higher preference for altruistic behaviours is for people who share a higher percentage of the same genes you have.

Since animals that share a higher number of genes are more likely to be altruistic towards eachother, then sticking with kin is a valid survival mechanism.

Here's a 3 min video of Dawkins explaining it himself

I should mention however that there are a few controversies with kin selection and the evolution of altruism, but the study which showed that people had an implicit and even sometimes subconscious bias towards those who were more similar happened, I just can't find the link to that particular one now. ???

Kin or group selection is good, but it's not really applicable for totally explaining humans with the complexities of nurture versus nature, taking experiences and upbringing into account.   

This goes into how people's cognitive control centers lit up in a fMRI during the test which suggest that there's emotional control going on. But once again, they don't really know what people are trying to control against. 

This link (to a downloadable pdf file): http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEoQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psych.nyu.edu%2Famodiolab%2FPublications_files%2FAmodio_2008_ERSP.pdf&ei=x2VlT__5DYG3twfIk8H9DQ&usg=AFQjCNH2QgLNtbCipgfcJ4CcLbaz_VqqwA&sig2=d9vNmF4yR1mWaPiwhy0U2A mentions the sometimes faulty associations between the fear processing and causing amygdala and implicit biases. So once again, they don't really know the specifics of what is going on exactly.

There is a mention of anxiety-causing situational contexts though:

Controlling situational influences

Most discussions of prejudice reduction focus on eliminating racist attitudes and beliefs. However, an often-underappreciated mode of prejudice reduction involves the reconfiguration of situational factors in a way that reduces bias and promotes intergroup harmony. One widely studied situational intervention is intergroup contact (Allport, 1954; Brown &Hewstone, 2005). Decades of research on intergroup contact has shown that, under the right conditions, personal contact among members of different groups will lead to reduced expressions of prejudice (Hewstone, 1996; Pettigrew, 1998). However, several theorists have noted that anxiety associated with an interracial interaction may undermine the prejudice reducing effects of contact (Richeson & Shelton, 2003; Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Our recent research linking a generalised amygdala-based substrate of anxiety to the amplification of implicit evaluation (Amodio & Hamilton, 2008) suggests that general anxiety-reducing procedures, even if they have
little to do with a particular intergroup dynamic, should facilitate the effects of contact by reducing the activation of implicit evaluative bias. That is, intergroup contact procedures should be more successful when they take place in an anxiety-reducing context.
Along similar lines, much recent research has shown that the context in which one perceives an outgroup member affects the degree to which automatic intergroup biases are activated (Barden, Maddux, Petty, &
Brewer, 2004; Lowery, Hardin, & Sinclair, 2001; Wittenbrink et al., 1997). For example, a picture of a Black person is less likely to elicit automatic stereotyping when it is superimposed over a non-threatening background (e.g., a church) versus a threatening background (e.g., a dark alley; Wittenbrink et al., 1997). Interpretations of such findings have focused on the malleability of individuals' representations of African Americans. However, these effects suggest another form of prejudice reduction that focuses on manipulating the situational environment in such a way as to attenuate the activation of implicit biases. These effects may be driven in part by the non-deliberative forms of control and interpersonal engagement
associated with ACC and mPFC functions—a hypothesis suggested by social neuroscience perspectives on self-regulation.

If the effect of that medication can be conclusively measured, it can help making a case for isolating what causes implicit bias. Apparently the idea that fear, anxiety and panic are rather generalised and fear or anxiety of what exactly isn't as clear cut. It isn't as simple as that.

I would guess that those who are more explicitly racist don't have as good emotional control, but that's another thing altogether. They're impulsive.

[Sweetdeath]

Doesn't knowledge and understanding "cure" rascim as well? I don't buy this pill thing. Sadly, I think prejudice and rascim will exist as long as some people continue to be stereotypes.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I'm guessing here, but I think I read or saw something which did link instinctive tribalism and emotional (in a broad sense) responses. There was even a test done where people were put in a hypothetical situation where their survival in some form was threatened and they tended to have a bias towards people who were more like them (evolutionarily with a higher chance of being family or closer related I think). The bias went beyond "race" to even giving preference to people with more closely resembling faces even over those of the same "race". If you accept the idea of the selfish gene (an idea that Dawkins popularised with a book of the same name), which basically says that genes are the smallest unit of competition and individuals are the vehicle of competing genes. Because of this, the closer a relative is, which means that the more genes you share with that person, the more you'll recognise that helping ensure the survival on that person will also help ensure the survival of a number of the genes you carry and so higher preference for altruistic behaviours is for people who share a higher percentage of the same genes you have.

Since animals that share a higher number of genes are more likely to be altruistic towards eachother, then sticking with kin is a valid survival mechanism.

Here's a 3 min video of Dawkins explaining it himself

I will have to pick up the Selfish Gene. After watching the Dawkins video, it seems similar to the reasons I give for alturism, essentially that it is rooted in selfishness, mainly in that those who act altruistically feel good for doing so. They help others, not because "it's the right thing to do," but because they themselves benefit from it. The selfish gene makes a lot of sense though.

For the rest, I can only speak from personal experience. I know I'm implicitly racist and I discriminate against people for many reasons. I live in a city with a high crime rate and most of the violent crimes are committed by black men between the ages of 16-45 years old. Therefor, when I'm on the city streets at night, I'm super vigilant when around that profile, especially if they continue to fit the profile by wearing baggy pants and a doo-rag. On the other hand, when it's a black man who is well dressed, I do not feel on guard or paranoid.

We look for patterns in nature. In my city there is a pattern with crime and a disproportionate amount is committed by one race. To not pay closer attention to members of that race is counter-intuitive to my survival instincts. In the same token, I'm cautious of white men in baggy pants and do-rags as well. It also has not stopped me from making black friends, which is why I simply don't see implicit racism as a problem. I would not choose to cure mine even if I could.

I should mention however that there are a few controversies with kin selection and the evolution of altruism, but the study which showed that people had an implicit and even sometimes subconscious bias towards those who were more similar happened, I just can't find the link to that particular one now. ???

Kin or group selection is good, but it's not really applicable for totally explaining humans with the complexities of nurture versus nature, taking experiences and upbringing into account.   

I thought he separated kin and group selection. I could simply have not watched the video closely enough. The kin selection seems more universal in that it seems most parents would risk their lives to save their child's. Group selection, purely off my initial impulse would seem less likely to be universal. Or are they the same exact thing? 

Sorry, I accidentally deleted the below link.

This [link] goes into how people's cognitive control centers lit up in a fMRI during the test which suggest that there's emotional control going on. But once again, they don't really know what people are trying to control against. 

Interesting read. I wonder if my brain would show implicit racism. I don't view all black people as equal though, just as I don't view all whites as equal. When I'm being interviewed by a black man, I'm not consciously thinking he his black, nor is my fear of black criminals consciously being thought of. He/she is simply a person I'm talking to because I need a new job.

This link (to a downloadable pdf file): http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEoQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psych.nyu.edu%2Famodiolab%2FPublications_files%2FAmodio_2008_ERSP.pdf&ei=x2VlT__5DYG3twfIk8H9DQ&usg=AFQjCNH2QgLNtbCipgfcJ4CcLbaz_VqqwA&sig2=d9vNmF4yR1mWaPiwhy0U2A mentions the sometimes faulty associations between the fear processing and causing amygdala and implicit biases. So once again, they don't really know the specifics of what is going on exactly.

I have downloaded the pdf, but I don't have time to read through it today.

Controlling situational influences

Most discussions of prejudice reduction focus on eliminating racist attitudes and beliefs. However, an often-underappreciated mode of prejudice reduction involves the reconfiguration of situational factors in a way that reduces bias and promotes intergroup harmony. One widely studied situational intervention is intergroup contact (Allport, 1954; Brown &Hewstone, 2005). Decades of research on intergroup contact has shown that, under the right conditions, personal contact among members of different groups will lead to reduced expressions of prejudice (Hewstone, 1996; Pettigrew, 1998). However, several theorists have noted that anxiety associated with an interracial interaction may undermine the prejudice reducing effects of contact (Richeson & Shelton, 2003; Stephan & Stephan, 1985).

This seems to explain my prejudices fairly well. I moved to a more rural area for college with much lower crime rates. As a result I made several black friends and wasn't nearly as cautious. The reason being that the crime rate was much lower and it was more proportional in terms of the population. There wasn't as great a probability of being robbed, shot, or having my wife raped.

As soon as I moved back to my crime ridden city, I became overly cautious again, and more racist than in the rural town, due to the disproportionate crime rates being committed by black men. The inconsiderate nature, is another aspect. I don't let black people and women of any race get infront of me while driving because a vast majority don't courtesy wave. With white men, it's about a 50/50 chance of them being polite and saying thank you, so I let them pull out in front of me. The other male races I have too little experience with, so it depends on my mood and how pissed off I am while driving.

I have had several friends from the north and west cost who were appalled at the level of racism when they moved to my city. Within 6 months they not only understood, but began to develop the same prejudices and levels of racism.

Our recent research linking a generalised amygdala-based substrate of anxiety to the amplification of implicit evaluation (Amodio & Hamilton, 2008) suggests that general anxiety-reducing procedures, even if they have
little to do with a particular intergroup dynamic, should facilitate the effects of contact by reducing the activation of implicit evaluative bias. That is, intergroup contact procedures should be more successful when they take place in an anxiety-reducing context.
Along similar lines, much recent research has shown that the context in which one perceives an outgroup member affects the degree to which automatic intergroup biases are activated (Barden, Maddux, Petty, &
Brewer, 2004; Lowery, Hardin, & Sinclair, 2001; Wittenbrink et al., 1997). For example, a picture of a Black person is less likely to elicit automatic stereotyping when it is superimposed over a non-threatening background (e.g., a church) versus a threatening background (e.g., a dark alley; Wittenbrink et al., 1997). Interpretations of such findings have focused on the malleability of individuals' representations of African Americans. However, these effects suggest another form of prejudice reduction that focuses on manipulating the situational environment in such a way as to attenuate the activation of implicit biases. These effects may be driven in part by the non-deliberative forms of control and interpersonal engagement
associated with ACC and mPFC functions—a hypothesis suggested by social neuroscience perspectives on self-regulation.[/size]

This too states what I already knew about myself. I do argue it's a valid survival mechanism though.

If the effect of that medication can be conclusively measured, it can help making a case for isolating what causes implicit bias. Apparently the idea that fear, anxiety and panic are rather generalised and fear or anxiety of what exactly isn't as clear cut. It isn't as simple as that.

I would guess that those who are more explicitly racist don't have as good emotional control, but that's another thing altogether. They're impulsive.

Fair enough, but based on the sources you provided, I have to maintain that implicit racism is a natural part of life and a valid form of survival. I see some benefits to being able to prevent it, but implicit racism doesn't seem to directly affect the group the feelings are directed at.

I really appreciate the thought out response and I found the links you provided very helpful and interesting.

From this point on I will likely be known as the token racist, but oh well. I'm nothing if not honest. 

[ThinkAnarchy]

Doesn't knowledge and understanding "cure" rascim as well? I don't buy this pill thing. Sadly, I think prejudice and rascim will exist as long as some people continue to be stereotypes.

That is certainly true. A man has never rear ended me while driving. 

[Sweetdeath]

Doesn't knowledge and understanding "cure" rascim as well? I don't buy this pill thing. Sadly, I think prejudice and rascim will exist as long as some people continue to be stereotypes.

That is certainly true. A man has never rear ended me while driving. 

What about a dog?


Bad driving has nothing to do with gender, just experience on the road .

[ThinkAnarchy]

Doesn't knowledge and understanding "cure" rascim as well? I don't buy this pill thing. Sadly, I think prejudice and rascim will exist as long as some people continue to be stereotypes.

That is certainly true. A man has never rear ended me while driving.  

What about a dog?


Bad driving has nothing to do with gender, just experience on the road .

I do take that back. I have actually been hit by two male drivers. Once by a fire truck pulling into a gas station and once at work by some douche who kept driving. The fire truck incident was understandable though and I told him I didn't even need is info if he could tell me how to get to a PJ's coffee house. We were out of town and the wife and I had an agreement that if I could find her the coffee shop I got a certain sexual favor. Plus the fireman was nice and apologetic and I didn't want him loosing his job for doing a little bit of damage to an already beat up car.

But I ramble, you are correct, it has nothing to do with gender. But men tend to drive more aggressively while paying attention. Women drive less aggressively but tend to get distracted by putting on makeup or answering the phone.

Regardless of any facts you provide, I will maintain you're a worse driver than me, however.  

Edit: Thanks to the two of us, this thread is getting an unhealthy level of emoticons.

[Sweetdeath]

Doesn't knowledge and understanding "cure" rascim as well? I don't buy this pill thing. Sadly, I think prejudice and rascim will exist as long as some people continue to be stereotypes.

That is certainly true. A man has never rear ended me while driving. 

What about a dog?


Bad driving has nothing to do with gender, just experience on the road .

I do take that back. I have actually been hit by two male drivers. Once by a fire truck pulling into a gas station and once at work by some douche who kept driving. The fire truck incident was understandable though and I told him I didn't even need is info if he could tell me how to get to a PJ's coffee house. We were out of town and the wife and I had an agreement that if I could find her the coffee shop I got a certain sexual favor. Plus the fireman was nice and apologetic and I didn't want him loosing his job for doing a little bit of damage to an already beat up car.

But I ramble, you are correct, it has nothing to do with gender. But men tend to drive more aggressively while paying attention. Women drive less aggressively but tend to get distracted by putting on makeup or answering the phone.

Regardless of any facts you provide, I will maintain you're a worse driver than me, however. 

No logical person puts on make up while driving. I have many female friends and none have done such a dumb thing.
I have seen both tertible male and female drivers in maryland, while my gf is drivng us around.
Maybe you can stop your sexist comments?


I dont drive, because I live in NYC, and therefore take the subway/metro everywhere I need.

[ThinkAnarchy]

They were only meant in jest, but I apologize if they offended you. I live in a city where most people drive though, and I regularly see women applying makeup while driving. It was a joke, but it is based on actual evidence.

Added: It's also why young male premiums are higher than women. It isn't due to fewer accidents by women, but because male accidents tend to cause more damage due to high speeds and reckless driving. Accidents caused by women tend to be at lower speeds due to distractions and cause less damage.

[Sweetdeath]

No, I understand your experiences are different than mine, so yeah. ^^;;

I dont like reckless drivers of any sort. Car accidents really scare me. bad drivers shouldnt be allowed to drive.

[ThinkAnarchy]

No, I understand your experiences are different than mine, so yeah. ^^;;

I dont like reckless drivers of any sort. Car accidents really scare me. bad drivers shouldnt be allowed to drive.

I agree with you. As I said, I was simply trying to joke around. I don't actually believe woman are any worse at driving than men.

The next time someone accuses me of hijacking a thread, I'm going to virtually punch them. I get off topic even in the threads I create.

[Asmodean]

Bad driving has nothing to do with gender, just experience on the road .

Also, overly reckless and overly cautious attitudes.

Yes, the last time I drove in truly shitty road conditions, the drivers who seemed to have the highest potential for creating dangerous situation were mostly women. However, I doubt it was because they were women.

[Sweetdeath]

No, I understand your experiences are different than mine, so yeah. ^^;;

I dont like reckless drivers of any sort. Car accidents really scare me. bad drivers shouldnt be allowed to drive.

I agree with you. As I said, I was simply trying to joke around. I don't actually believe woman are any worse at driving than men.

The next time someone accuses me of hijacking a thread, I'm going to virtually punch them. I get off topic even in the threads I create.

You totally do go off topic a lot, but so do i.

I like off topic conversations sometimes.

[xSilverPhinx]

I will have to pick up the Selfish Gene. After watching the Dawkins video, it seems similar to the reasons I give for altruism, essentially that it is rooted in selfishness, mainly in that those who act artistically feel good for doing so. They help others, not because "it's the right thing to do," but because they themselves benefit from it. The selfish gene makes a lot of sense though.

Just to clear up any possible misunderstandings, the Selfish Gene isn't about whether it can be said that people being altruistic for the 'feel good' feelings the their brains reward them with are being selfish or not. Some will think not, but IMO it isn't an entirely selfless act, but I don't see anything wrong with that. I do see it as selfish, but it's a win-win situation, so good for all involved. Some people don't like the name "selfish gene", thinks it means that animals are incapable of less selfish acts and so dismiss the entire idea altogether. It's more at the creationists I know are reading this that I'm having another go at elaborating an explanation. 

The selfish gene basically means that genes are driving the world of competition and are selected for whatever reason. Individuals benefit because they are made of a bunch of genes, some of which got selected, while others are "piggy-back" riding along with them, being part of the same organism. So instead of the smallest unit being an individual animal or organism, it's at the genetic level. If a gene for altruism or which causes altruistic behaviours evolves, one way to ensure it (the gene) survives is to help give added fitness to other organisms that also have the gene. Mathematically, those would be family. That's kin selection.

So from this perspective, being altruistic towards someone who shares 50% of your genes (such as one of your parents or your children) is only half selfless The other 50% of your genes have a vested interested in preserving the genes you have in common.

Funny thing that occurred to me now is that we humans are really not that genetically diverse, especially when compared to other apes, the explanation for this being that humans went through some huge selective pressures a while back, and we were an endangered species (odd to think about). Don't know if that  causes anything according to this gene idea.

For the rest, I can only speak from personal experience. I know I'm implicitly racist and I discriminate against people for many reasons. I live in a city with a high crime rate and most of the violent crimes are committed by black men between the ages of 16-45 years old. Therefor, when I'm on the city streets at night, I'm super vigilant when around that profile, especially if they continue to fit the profile by wearing baggy pants and a doo-rag. On the other hand, when it's a black man who is well dressed, I do not feel on guard or paranoid.

We look for patterns in nature. In my city there is a pattern with crime and a disproportionate amount is committed by one race. To not pay closer attention to members of that race is counter-intuitive to my survival instincts. In the same token, I'm cautious of white men in baggy pants and do-rags as well. It also has not stopped me from making black friends, which is why I simply don't see implicit racism as a problem. I would not choose to cure mine even if I could.

I think you pretty much nailed it there, with the pattern searching thing. I would guess that if in a hypothetical world where there were people of different skin colours and social classes, if 90% of all crime were commited by those who wore yellow jackets, then people would be watching out for and wary of those wearing yellow jackets with the same anxiety. That's why IMO it's difficult to pin down if implicit racism is hardwired and has to do with the fact that people have a different skin colour or because it's the result a preventative thing they learned through experience.  I don't think that kin selection really has that much to do with it. Nature vs nurture is a bit too complex for that as a sole explanatory model.

As for your experiences, it seems like perfectly normal reactions to a group of people more correlated with blacks though I see it as a social rather than biological correlation, so biological racism isn't justified.

I thought he separated kin and group selection. I could simply have not watched the video closely enough. The kin selection seems more universal in that it seems most parents would risk their lives to save their child's. Group selection, purely off my initial impulse would seem less likely to be universal. Or are they the same exact thing? 

As far as I know Dawkins isn't a huge fan of group selection (though in my layperson's opinion I think he's wrong). It's slightly different because it's where groups evolve as groups and compete with other groups. A group of organisms becomes one superorganism. Many people don't like the idea because it lessens the focus on individual fitness and the passing on of individual genes, making it less important than in more traditional ideas. In this case it's the group that is trying to survive.

It's what happens with colonies of diverse and specialised insects such as ants, bees etc. and (I don't really know if applicable) the aglomoration of diverse and specialised cells in  multicellular organisms.

I do argue it's a valid survival mechanism though.

I think so too. You learn through experience to be fearful and anxious of what you have associated to be dangerous. Thing is, implicit racism doesn't mean that a "race" is implicitely worse than another. It goes back to my yellow jacket example.

Fair enough, but based on the sources you provided, I have to maintain that implicit racism is a natural part of life and a valid form of survival. I see some benefits to being able to prevent it, but implicit racism doesn't seem to directly affect the group the feelings are directed at.

I really appreciate the thought out response and I found the links you provided very helpful and interesting.

From this point on I will likely be known as the token racist, but oh well. I'm nothing if not honest.

Thanks, I grew up in some really racist countries and others less so, with definite cultural differences so it's not something I could help thinking about and feeling the need to bore people with . Glad to see it didn't bore you to death it seems...

Hey, I won't throw in with the same group of people who really can't help voicing their beliefs to incite violence, but they would be among those with poorer emotional control Between a cool headed person with implicit racism and a hot headed idiot, I would much rather hang around the former.

[Sweetdeath]

I agree very much about Think Arnarchy's experience and survival mechanism.
He makes a lot of valid points.
I live in an area with a lot of sadly ghetto black teenagers who   dont respect anyone.
I make it a point not to get into an elevator with black guys. I dont care if it is only one. I live on the 26th floor. Any thing can happen.

I was harrassed twice before by these kinds of idiots cuz I was the only girl in the lift. I dont care if it seems rascist, I call I being smarter after my terrible experiences.