Well, it wasn't so much his PRESENCE as being reminded of his existence as a black candidate/president.
The study explains that women who are reminded of their femaleness and (subtly) the stereotype that "women aren't good at math" do worse on math tests, whereas when their test is proctored by a female mathmetician, their test scores go up. Therefore, I can see why the researchers might expect a similar effect by reminding African-American students about Obama.
Maybe if Obama had been actually been present to proctor the test, it would've worked!
The study explains that women who are reminded of their femaleness and (subtly) the stereotype that "women aren't good at math" do worse on math tests, whereas when their test is proctored by a female mathmetician, their test scores go up. Therefore, I can see why the researchers might expect a similar effect by reminding African-American students about Obama.
Having women give the test isn't in the same category as reminding some kid that there's a black prez. Watermelons and pomegranates.
I remembered learning about that study in a couple of psych classes. That study was on stereotypes, not one person. If someone prompted me to think of Kennedy or FDR before a test, that has nothing to do with stereotypes. I think it's fair to say that FDR is not a stereotypical white man, and I wouldn't call Obama a stereotypical black man either.
This article is really fucking stupid, I cannot actually believed this was published; it is somewhat racist, and it grossly misunderstands psychology. As if I needed another reason not to look at Vanderbilt as a possible place for a masters.
There also seems to be some journalistic malpractice taking place in terms of quoting the NYU study. The surprise seems to be coming from Begley, not Aronson (the researcher). He seems to be taken out of context.
I dunno. I think it's astonishing that you can manipulate test scores by manipulating stereotypes in general. And there's be some other studies which had effects that this particular study failed to replicate. It's far from stupid to figure out exactly what the parameters are for stereotype threat.
That's the thing though; from what I gather from the NYU study, it seemed legitimate. However, Begley seemed genuinely surprised by the results of the study, as if she expected Barack to some how wave a magic wand and completely do away with any previous black stereotype and set himself as the new stereotype.
wow...that would be something...what i wouldn pay to see he'd go off on a socio-economical tangent on how "minorities are less affected by external social stimulation and therefore shouldn't expect any economical"...there isn't a small enough amount of money i would pay to see him spit that shit!
I actually wrote this woman and asked her what the purpose of this piece was supposed to be.
It'll be interesting to see if she responds. These "studies" always get me. It certainly has it's place, but I've never really understood (had to learn it, though) what this incessant need to MEASURE and quantify damn near everything is supposed to be about. The way I see it in terms of testing and such......
These kinds of test scores tend to improve based on increased knowledge of the subject matter and test sophistication. If you're solid in both of these areas, you kick butt. If you aren't - you don't.
SOMEwhere along the line these blasted things began to be used to bolster the false premise of the genetic intellectual supremacy of the lack of melanin in the skin. These tests do what I mentioned above. They DON'T speak in the LEAST bit to ANYbody's intellectual genetic superiority/inferiority because these tests do NOT test GENES.
It's not that simple and you've got it complete backwards.
Researching these things is a way of understanding how performance is affected by factors such as stereotype threat.
If we didn't learn about such things as "stereotype threat", then it would be EASIER to believe that the performance of African Americans on certain tests are inferior due to some genetic inferiority, instead of the now well-accepted view that a stereotype threat lowers performance because it distracts the test-taker.
Radiolab did a podcast on this subject. It made me... uncomfortable... When you're taking about influences of that sort, even if they do exist, they're nearly impossible to untangle from the confounding factors. I'm all for scientific curiosity, but there are definitely times when the grant writers should have stopped and thought "Is there any point in actually spending money on this?"
The whole point is to find the real explanation of differences in the performance between members of different races.
And guess what, stereotype threat has been shown to be a very good explanation -- one which rejects the notion that differences are due to some inherent genetic quality -- how is that NOT a good study to spend money on?
Yo, I'm surprised Ta-Nehisi. There is plenty of good science surrounding stereotyping and test performance. The first real study I ever saw was on white children and the stereotype was on eye color. But they did it both ways. One day the blue-eyed kids were "smarter" the next the brown eyes, and it did in fact affect negatively test performance in the same children. The mechanism on why this is is a subject of debate and further study, but when I read some of the comments I was reminded of Palin's fruit fly speech. Real science is about how our world is not how it conforms to "common" sense or our moral prejudices.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Well, it wasn't so much his PRESENCE as being reminded of his existence as a black candidate/president.
The study explains that women who are reminded of their femaleness and (subtly) the stereotype that "women aren't good at math" do worse on math tests, whereas when their test is proctored by a female mathmetician, their test scores go up. Therefore, I can see why the researchers might expect a similar effect by reminding African-American students about Obama.
Maybe if Obama had been actually been present to proctor the test, it would've worked!
Having women give the test isn't in the same category as reminding some kid that there's a black prez. Watermelons and pomegranates.
Having women give the test isn't in the same category as reminding some kid that there's a black prez. Watermelons and pomegranates.
FTW!!!
I remembered learning about that study in a couple of psych classes. That study was on stereotypes, not one person. If someone prompted me to think of Kennedy or FDR before a test, that has nothing to do with stereotypes. I think it's fair to say that FDR is not a stereotypical white man, and I wouldn't call Obama a stereotypical black man either.
This article is really fucking stupid, I cannot actually believed this was published; it is somewhat racist, and it grossly misunderstands psychology. As if I needed another reason not to look at Vanderbilt as a possible place for a masters.
There also seems to be some journalistic malpractice taking place in terms of quoting the NYU study. The surprise seems to be coming from Begley, not Aronson (the researcher). He seems to be taken out of context.
I dunno. I think it's astonishing that you can manipulate test scores by manipulating stereotypes in general. And there's be some other studies which had effects that this particular study failed to replicate. It's far from stupid to figure out exactly what the parameters are for stereotype threat.
That's the thing though; from what I gather from the NYU study, it seemed legitimate. However, Begley seemed genuinely surprised by the results of the study, as if she expected Barack to some how wave a magic wand and completely do away with any previous black stereotype and set himself as the new stereotype.
He doesn't seemed to have helped much of the GOP on this issue of intelligence either.
Is this a case of art imitating life, Life immitating art or Newsweek imitating the Onion?
Yet another failure of the Obama administration. I expect to hear Glenn Beck talking about it tomorrow.......
wow...that would be something...what i wouldn pay to see he'd go off on a socio-economical tangent on how "minorities are less affected by external social stimulation and therefore shouldn't expect any economical"...there isn't a small enough amount of money i would pay to see him spit that shit!
The water into wine thing is still true though, right?
HA! And thinking about President Obama when I pick my MegaMillions numbers is supposed to work, right!
Yes, but not on sundays(blue laws).
"The lack of an Obama Effect was surprising ..." - presumably because the person who wrote that sentence is an idiot.
This is just following up on a study that men do better on tests after being reminded of the existence of Megan Fox.
Well it appears Obama's presence is making some people stupider, so maybe a positive correlations was also expected?
I actually wrote this woman and asked her what the purpose of this piece was supposed to be.
It'll be interesting to see if she responds. These "studies" always get me. It certainly has it's place, but I've never really understood (had to learn it, though) what this incessant need to MEASURE and quantify damn near everything is supposed to be about. The way I see it in terms of testing and such......
These kinds of test scores tend to improve based on increased knowledge of the subject matter and test sophistication. If you're solid in both of these areas, you kick butt. If you aren't - you don't.
SOMEwhere along the line these blasted things began to be used to bolster the false premise of the genetic intellectual supremacy of the lack of melanin in the skin. These tests do what I mentioned above. They DON'T speak in the LEAST bit to ANYbody's intellectual genetic superiority/inferiority because these tests do NOT test GENES.
In fact, it's that simple.
It's not that simple and you've got it complete backwards.
Researching these things is a way of understanding how performance is affected by factors such as stereotype threat.
If we didn't learn about such things as "stereotype threat", then it would be EASIER to believe that the performance of African Americans on certain tests are inferior due to some genetic inferiority, instead of the now well-accepted view that a stereotype threat lowers performance because it distracts the test-taker.
Radiolab did a podcast on this subject. It made me... uncomfortable... When you're taking about influences of that sort, even if they do exist, they're nearly impossible to untangle from the confounding factors. I'm all for scientific curiosity, but there are definitely times when the grant writers should have stopped and thought "Is there any point in actually spending money on this?"
The whole point is to find the real explanation of differences in the performance between members of different races.
And guess what, stereotype threat has been shown to be a very good explanation -- one which rejects the notion that differences are due to some inherent genetic quality -- how is that NOT a good study to spend money on?
At some point - when exactly, I'm not sure - real life began surpassing the Onion. This article is another reminder of this fact.
Yo, I'm surprised Ta-Nehisi. There is plenty of good science surrounding stereotyping and test performance. The first real study I ever saw was on white children and the stereotype was on eye color. But they did it both ways. One day the blue-eyed kids were "smarter" the next the brown eyes, and it did in fact affect negatively test performance in the same children. The mechanism on why this is is a subject of debate and further study, but when I read some of the comments I was reminded of Palin's fruit fly speech. Real science is about how our world is not how it conforms to "common" sense or our moral prejudices.