WMN: t3_2epkxz_t1_ck2622a

[TITLE]

CMV: As an individual who wished to remain non-racist, it is counterproductive for me to inform myself about race based research

[ethicsandracism]

I am vehemently not a racist. I think all human beings must be treated as equal irrespective of their intelligence, social standing or physical prowess. Yes I can't practically treat them equally, I form relationships with some of them, some of them are my boss, etc. But that's not what I am talking about. I am talking about basic courtesies and forming informed opinions about people. It is irrelevant to me if one race (or group) is advantaged in some area, as morally I think all humans are equal. However - I am not a perfect person. If I do follow research which in some case might show some race as advantaged in some way, or mentally or physically inferior - I am afraid that it might form in me some kind of bias. It doesn't have to be "race" per se, but any sort of grouping. Country, language, grouping, etc. This will not change my opinion on how this group must be treated morally, but it might poison my perspective. I do not want this. I don't see any good that will come out of it. Is there any good reason to inform myself about such things? Now I am not interested in whether such trends have so far been shown to exist. In principle - it could be possible, and the underpinnings of my moral framework are independent of what such findings might reveal. Now I don't believe this to be true, but if we study enough groupings - we might find some generalisation which is sufficiently robust. I am not a law or policy maker. I am not a doctor. I am not an administrator. I am an engineer. I do not have to form policy around such trends. I do not have to look for certain diseases. I don't see how it is relevant to me. Why should I potentially inform myself about such trends? What good will come of it? What good can come of it? I expect the major response to this would be "race isn't real". That's a rabbit hole I don't think is particularly pertinent here, and I am sure there is some sort of grouping which is better, and the same issues would exist. So... CMV? Edit: Thanks for the discussion everyone _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[mrspuff202]

You should think about the way you think of causality in terms of stereotypes in research. It's less than races are treated differently because they're different, it's more that they're different *BECAUSE* they are treated differently. Here's kind of an oversimplification but a funny way of expressing the point I'm making: http://youtu.be/0SHjAmD3eWs?t=1m31s

[ethicsandracism]

I understand it was comedy, and a very silly one at that. But while you may in some cases be correct - this isn't always the case. Let us take diseases, for example. Some ethnic groups are more likely to get certain diseases than others. As a doctor, it might be the responsible thing to do to inform yourself of such trends. These trends don't necessarily exist because these groups were treated differently. It is very possible for these trends to evolve organically.

[AliceHouse]

They evolve organically in populations. Which is different from race.

[Melancholicdrunk]

But being aware that someone with a family history of breast cancer has a higher chance of getting breast cancer isn't discriminating. In the same way as knowing white people are way more likely to get skin cancer isn't discriminating. It's just knowing about diseases and probabilities. When it comes to other research which is far more to do with culture and upbringing and treatment by society then it's different, and that's where racism comes in. But reading can debunk studies which claim racist things, because there's generally a load more well respected studies disproving them.

[Melancholicdrunk]

The reason that I think reading on this sort of thing is important is that our views are already informed by things around us. No opinion is formed in a vacuum, we get a lot of messages about race every day just by going outside our houses, or even staying in and watching TV. So I think the reason doing wider reading is important is to think more deeply about things than the messages we're given. Lots of messages are negative and to read more into it can counter those negative views and give us more balance. (I'm aware of confirmation bias and everything and know reading things you already agree with is a thing but I still think attempting to read widely is better than not at all)

[ethicsandracism]

While I understand the need to inform myself - I am wary in this case because I believe less information can be better. It's kind of like a jury not being exposed to certain information - because it might poison their perspective on a case.

[Melancholicdrunk]

But a jury gets all the facts of a case and quite a deep understanding. They just aren't told prejudicial information. My point was essentially that we are given prejudicial information every day so reading should counter that.

[ethicsandracism]

It often doesn't get *all* the facts of a case. It gets the facts which are relevant to the proceedings, and are told to deliberately ignore some information. It doesn't always work, but that's the principle.

[Melancholicdrunk]

It gets all the facts that are relevant. Which means all the facts of the case. They aren't told all the facts of the defendants life because that's not relevant to the case.

[ethicsandracism]

Right - so my parallel was that people have equal moral worth, and so the science is irrelevant to how I should treat them.

[Melancholicdrunk]

Yes. But why would reading some science make you treat people differently?

[Melancholicdrunk]

I didn't explain that amazingly well. Essentially I'm trying to say that even if we're vehemently anti racist, without interrogating the messages we get every day, we may accidentally be accepting views that are racist. A lot of the messages we get about race every day are subtle enough that we might accept them, reading can give better awareness of this sort of subtle racism. (and sexism, homophobia, everything else blah blah blah etc)

[ethicsandracism]

Are you saying it is easier to remain non racist in spite of true information that might undermine my non racist views rather than ignore cues (true or false) that may subtly be racist?

[Melancholicdrunk]

That was a very confusing sentence. Assuming it meant what I think it did, then no that's not what I was saying? I was saying it's quite hard to ignore the subtle messages we have sold to us every day without doing some reading to help us be aware of what's being sold to us and why.

[ethicsandracism]

I am sorry. I was basically asking if it would be preferable to investigate something and find it to be true, even if that may have the potential to be harmful, as opposed to treating it as de facto false. You are right that we get subtle messages everyday however, and in general it isn't very high quality information.

[Melancholicdrunk]

Erm? I suppose I still think yes you should investigate things, but obviously I don't think investigating things in this context could be harmful. Because I don't think any studies which claim racist things (certain races are genetically inferior etc) have ever been shown to be true. I think enough investigation shows all racist claims to be bullshit. So it's better to have the counter arguments from reading to hand when people spout racist rubbish.

[ethicsandracism]

I am not convinced by this line of reasoning. It is true that some ethnic groups have predilections for certain diseases, for example. I cannot base this behaviour choice on the expectation that there will never be such a trend, however I do think any such trends are irrelevant to the ethics of how we should treat people.

[Melancholicdrunk]

Are we arguing at cross purposes here???? Are you talking about reading research into diseases and how they affect different people and only that sort of thing? Because I was talking about how we should do reading to understand how our society is racist and not get sucked into that.

[ethicsandracism]

No no - I understand your point. I just brought up the issue of diseases where there is a relative noncontroversy, however such trends can exist in other fields as well. I do think society is racist and there is subtle racism in more places than I'd expect if I didn't look. I agree with you there.

[Melancholicdrunk]

Yeah. I've recently got into reading a load of stuff about advertising and beauty standards and how we're totally sold the idea that european features are the only attractive ones etc. It's really interesting (and scary) how pervasive that kind of racism is.

[Melancholicdrunk]

But the fact that white people can't get sickle cell anaemia isn't a racist fact. It's just a fact. If someone said it in a racist context as in "therefore white people are superior" obviously that would be ridiculous, but some easy reading could prove them wrong. Because they'd be spouting rubbish, pretending that just because part of their argument was a fact all of it is. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here? But yes, obviously I think whatever you're reading you should treat people nicely. I just don't think reading would make you not? Unless you've got a worldview I totally can't get my head around.

[ethicsandracism]

[STA-CITE]>But yes, obviously I think whatever you're reading you should treat people nicely. I just don't think reading would make you not? Unless you've got a worldview I totally can't get my head around. [END-CITE]That's not what I meant. At least not in the same degree. I was merely considering it a danger. It isn't always sickle cell, sometimes it is about things tied more closely to identity like intelligence and behaviour patterns.

[Melancholicdrunk]

Oooh. Kind of my point was that although those studies are out there it's easy to find reading debunking them. There's a load of people who claim white men are the most intelligent because they do best at IQ tests, when obviously it's quite easy to read up and be like "oh yeah, but it's white men who write IQ tests. There's obviously cultural bias there."

[GnosticGnome]

[STA-CITE]>If I do follow research which in some case might show some race as advantaged in some way, or mentally or physically inferior - I am afraid that it might form in me some kind of bias. [END-CITE]People are powerfully affected by information they try to ignore. If you are consciously avoiding this research, you will be inadvertently exposed to bits of it and will not be able to completely ignore it. Rather, you will subconsciously assume some things are true even where the studies are weak. So by looking at the research when it seems interesting, you may actually be less apt to be "made racist by it" than if you try to ignore it.

[ethicsandracism]

Hmm - I hadn't thought about it that way. While what you are saying may be correct, let us assume a case where the studies aren't weak. Why is it advantageous for me to know a piece of information that may undermine my non racist beliefs instead of assuming that piece of information to be false? Basically I am adopting those beliefs which will help me behave most ethically, even if they may be false.

[GnosticGnome]

[STA-CITE]>let us assume a case where the studies aren't weak. Why is it advantageous for me to know a piece of information that may undermine my non racist beliefs instead of assuming that piece of information to be false? [END-CITE]First, I do have to point out the "let us assume... the studies aren't weak": as a person who isn't reading the studies, you may be giving them way too much credit. (yes, I know that's not what you meant) But even with that assumption, you're comparing not knowing to knowing the information. But you can't do that - only a sneaky censor can do that. You can choose to know or to [not know but know that you don't know]. By avoiding the studies, you can't avoid the problem of knowing you're avoiding the studies. Accordingly, I think that reading the studies and taking the chance that some might be strong is less risky than studiously avoiding them and internalizing the knowledge that you're avoiding them (thus giving them power).

[ethicsandracism]

I am not sure if you are necessarily correct. Juries are told often to not consider certain pieces of evidence, or not do their own investigation. I see what I am doing as something similar. I don't think people who do this kind of research necessarily have sinister motives - and may be doing solid science, however their results are often used by racists to justify their bigotry. This is one of the reasons that such science often has a lot of ethical issues around its study. I am not entirely sure what you meant by sneaky censor, but there are a lot of things in life that I know nothing about. I mean I truly know nothing about because I have not taken the effort to learn about it. It isn't because I am somehow actively censoring myself. However I am still thinking over what you said.

[GnosticGnome]

[STA-CITE]>Juries are told often to not consider certain pieces of evidence [END-CITE]They are certainly told that, but it [probably doesn't work](http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=lsrp_papers) "For example, Justice Robert Jackson once argued that “[t]he naive assumption that prejudicial effects can be overcome by instructions to the jury . . . all practicing lawyers know to be unmitigated fiction.”15 Judge Learned Hand agreed with this skeptical assessment. He said that when judges attempt to “unring the bell”16 by telling jurors to limit their use of evidence or to ignore it entirely, they are recommending a “mental gymnastic which is beyond, not only their powers, but anybody[] else[’s].”17 Legal scholars concur that some prohibitory and limiting instructions do not work,18 and may even be counterproductive.19" [STA-CITE]>I am not entirely sure what you meant by sneaky censor, but there are a lot of things in life that I know nothing about. I mean I truly know nothing about because I have not taken the effort to learn about it. It isn't because I am somehow actively censoring myself. [END-CITE]I mean that if it weren't *you* who deprived you of the information, but rather were some sort of Censor hired by the CIA or Yale in order to ban/hinder/discredit or otherwise eliminate research that might contribute to racism, and who was so adept that her efforts were unknown to you, that such a person could get rid of these studies' effects on you, but that you cannot do that to yourself. [STA-CITE]>I mean I truly know nothing about because I have not taken the effort to learn about it. [END-CITE]Now, that's different. If you aren't reading something because you think social science is BS, or because you have more important things to do, etc - then you aren't going to be affected the same way as if you are actively avoiding something because you don't want to be exposed to a specific set of information.

[ethicsandracism]

I think I owe you a ∆. You have sufficiently broadened my perspective on this, and showed me the detriment to active avoidance. I find it hard to believe that people can deliberately disregard information. In fact I think this was a subplot of one arc of House of Cards (not sure if US or BBC). However - it is imperative to do so if one wants to function ethically. A jury should disregard information, but because of difficulties in doing so they are told to avoid certain new outlets, etc. Certainly they ought not to do extra investigating, and this is much easier to practice than "not letting this information affect your judgement". [STA-CITE]>Now, that's different. If you aren't reading something because you think social science is BS, or because you have more important things to do, etc - then you aren't going to be affected the same way as if you are actively avoiding something because you don't want to be exposed to a specific set of information. [END-CITE]I could read someone's diary, and I have knowledge that I don't have knowledge of it (the diary's contents), but I can still stop myself from accessing that information. I am not sure. Say there was a "journal of race based science". I don't know if one exists, but if it did I could simply avoid reading it. I could stay away from subs like /r/greatapes. As a curious person, I want to know more, but I feel like this knowledge has to be restricted by some ethical boundaries. Of course - this process isn't perfect, but I don't feel like it is altogether impossible. Where you have given me pause is that if I do come across a vocal racist claim, it may be in my interest to investigate it.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/GnosticGnome. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/GnosticGnome)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[GnosticGnome]

[STA-CITE]>I could read someone's diary, and I have knowledge that I don't have knowledge of it (the diary's contents), but I can still stop myself from accessing that information. I am not sure. Say there was a "journal of race based science". I don't know if one exists, but if it did I could simply avoid reading it. I could stay away from subs like [END-CITE] One difference there is that your description of the diary (so far) makes it sound like you have no idea what's in it. It's not like you're deliberately failing to read "Tom's extra-long entry for July 12" when you're mad at your wife for disappearing for several hours on July 12. Whereas you have some guesses and prejudices about what the studies might show. You might not want to have them, but you do.1 [STA-CITE]>Where you have given me pause is that if I do come across a vocal racist claim, it may be in my interest to investigate it. [END-CITE]I'd say this is my strongest claim. It's likely many such claims are far weaker than those trumpeting them like to pretend.

[ethicsandracism]

I have some idea of the contents of people's journals. Not as much as the other cases we are discussing here, but I still do (or can potentially). I think the part about this that is somewhat disconcerting for me is that I am unsure how to deal with the dilemna this science poses. What is - i.e. comparisons of objective qualities of races cannot dictate what ought to be .i.e. the ethics of how we treat people. I cannot predicate my equal treatment of people on the fact that they are equal (not in a moral sense, but in a material sense) as this may or may not be true. I think it is also the reason it makes many people jittery because the two are inextricably linked together.

[ricebasket]

I think it's important to be knowledgeable about it when complaints of racism become big news. For instance, stop and frisk laws in New York, the documentation requirements in Arizona, and the proportion of police stops by race in Ferguson. Anecdotally, after reading about the disproportionate stopping of black people in ferguson by police I felt I had a more informed idea of why the protests have been on such a scale.

[ralph-j]

It's all about consciousness-raising. You might not be aware of all the ways certain groups could be disadvantaged in society, or that certain specific groups are a disadvantaged group to begin with. Or you might have incorrect ideas about the level of disadvantage a certain group experiences, because of misconceptions that the people around you have. Being better aware of these issues raises your consciousness, and since you already want to treat everyone equally, will make it more likely for you to recognize situations in which it would be better to adjust your behavior (even in very minimal ways).

[caw81]

* You need to realize that the individual can be different from a group. "Black men are 10 times less funny than Asian women" does not mean that your friend Sue (Asian Male) is funnier than any black male. * You can read something that goes against your existing bias. * When someone cites research, you can find flaws in the study and debunk their arguments rather than just allowing them to accept it.

[rigamortus76]

You are probably acutely aware of various differences between males and females. Do you think being aware of them makes you a sexist? It's not racist to identify legitimate differences between members of various races, it's racist to assume all members of that race are a certain way or should be treated a certain way because of some generalization you've made about the group, or that people can be ranked from "best" to "worst" based on race, however defined. We can recognize diversity without being racist. No need to avoid learning about reality. Edited for clarity, spelling.

[ethicsandracism]

I don't think it does, but if there was some way to not be aware of them - it might help my perspective. I do also have some motivation to inform myself specifically about women because as a straight male it is in my interest to educate myself about certain differences, but even here I stay away from certain research for the same reasons.

[rigamortus76]

I don't know, I think your reasons could (and will, imho) work against you. If you're going out of your way to remain ignorant about things, you're setting yourself up to have ill-informed ideas about them. You don't live in a vacuum; you *will* hear bits and pieces about these things no matter how hard you try to isolate yourself, and if you're forcing your own ignorance beyond what you pick up by accident, you will end up forming your own opinion based on probably a whole mess of misconceptions, uninformed opinions, incomplete and out of context information, etc. Far better for people to first learn about the things they are going to have an opinion about. Knowledge is what took us, and continues to take us away from the "isms" that you fear. Ignorance breeds those attitudes more than anything else.

[ethicsandracism]

Assuming I want to shape my behaviour in certain ways, I can expose myself to certain kinds of information. For example - I subscribe to /r/upliftingnews . Now it isn't as if the world is sunshine and roses, but I don't need an accurate tally of the suffering in the world, and am content in presuming that people are nice. It may have a risk associated with it, but one that I am happy to bear. I don't need to also look into /r/morbidreality because of this. This is just one instance, but we do it all the time.

[rigamortus76]

If you insist that ignorance is bliss, I suppose I've said all I can. I wish you luck, and I'm sorry I couldn't change your view. Knowledge is the antidote, not the poison.

[Inceptagon]

I believe you, but over time I have learned that many people do not think this way. This is slowly becoming the prevailing mindset: if you need a word to differentiate between male and female, then they are different in some way. If they are different in some way, then you're discriminating. Of course this is untrue, but there seems to be a slippery slope glitch in the brain of most people that prevents them from drawing a line in the proper place, and they will eventually come to this conclusion. It's the same reason that every single term we create to describe a handicapped person ("handicapped", "special", "cripple", "retarded", "stupid") will eventually become an insensitive and politically incorrect slur, because people just plain don't like to identify as handicapped, because that implies they are objectively inferior at something. Likewise, if you acknowledge a difference between races or genders, you are implying they are superior/inferior to one another in particular ways, and thus you are politically incorrect. So, while I personally know the difference between acknowledging diversity and racism, is there actually an effective way to preach it? And more importantly, is there actually a way to express appreciation of diversity that is impossible to mistake for racism?

[ethicsandracism]

[STA-CITE]> So, while I personally know the difference between acknowledging diversity and racism, is there actually an effective way to preach it? And more importantly, is there actually a way to express appreciation of diversity that is impossible to mistake for racism? [END-CITE]While the second part is hard, I think the first is fairly reasonably reached at least on a personal level. [STA-CITE]>It's the same reason that every single term we create to describe a handicapped person ("handicapped", "special", "cripple", "retarded", "stupid") will eventually become an insensitive and politically incorrect slur, because people just plain don't like to identify as handicapped, because that implies they are objectively inferior at something. [END-CITE]There's actually a term for this - it's called the "euphimism treadmill". http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism-treadmill-replacing-r-word.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill I think in the case of disabilities, there is a focus now on technical terminology and an active effort to prevent those terms from becoming "bad words" with varying degrees of success. Of course - one only needs to look at reddit to see people who don't care.

[TheComputerLovesYou]

I think that out of context, there's very little way to determine if what you are discussing is relevant or not. For instance, I've seen many pieces of grad student research, and a vast number of "Reddit scientists" who will happily explain how X is actually a genetic gender difference due to evolutionary psychology. For instance how men are "programmed to react rationally" and women are "programmed to react emotionally" because [blah blah insert pseudoscientific babble here]. Is that shit sexist? Yes. [STA-CITE]>It's the same reason that every single term we create to describe a handicapped person ("handicapped", "special", "cripple", "retarded", "stupid") will eventually become an insensitive and politically incorrect slur, because people just plain don't like to identify as handicapped, because that implies they are objectively inferior at something. [END-CITE]Maybe because these all became insults that were hurled at people? Not to mention that they are woefully inaccurate (what does crippled even MEAN? Are you crippled if you have a blood cell disorder that means you'll collapse after 15 or 20 minutes of exertion, even if your limbs are all functioning within normal parameters during those 15 or 20 minutes?)