Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Find Racial Bias In Virtual Worlds
schliz writes "Real-world behaviours and racial biases could carry forward into virtual worlds such as Second Life, social psychologists say. According to a study that was conducted in There.com, virtual world avatars respond to social cues in the same ways that people do in the real world. Users, who were unaware that they were part of a psychological study, were approached by a researcher's avatar for either a 'foot-in-the-door' (FITD) or 'door-in-the-face' (DITF) experiment. While results of the FITD experiment revealed no racial bias, the effect of the DITF technique was significantly reduced when the experimenter took the form of a dark-skinned avatar."
A relatively interesting experiment, no doubt, but the article didn't answer a lot of obvious and relevant questions.
First, how big was the sample size? Everything is given as percentages and we all know how meaningless they can be if the number of people tested is small.
Second, what is the racial demographic of the users on There.com? There are plenty of parts of the world, e.g. Russia, where racism (in particular against black people) would not come as a surprise to anyone. If the demographic is primarily American or European then it would be slightly more surprising.
Third, and this is just curiosity, how many people actually complied with the first (totally unreasonable) request in the DITF experiment?
apterous.org
If you dropped two people without any knowledge of how the world currently works in a room together
And since when is total isolation natural? Humans evolved in tribes. We've a whole bunch of routines hard-coded in our brains to distinguish between 'kin' and 'other'. A different skin colour is a massive red flag.
While results of the FITD experiment revealed no racial bias, the effect of the DITF technique was significantly reduced when the experimenter took the form of a dark-skinned avatar.
Okay, black vs white. Easy enough. It makes sense that people's IRL biases would carry over to the online world - You can see that clearly enough with gender, where having an even remotely female-sounding name results in far more attention (sometimes unwanted) and deferential behavior than a neutral or male name.
But what about anthropomorphic animal avatars (furries)? What about blue-skinned humanoids? What about amorphous purple blobs? This study had the potential to reveal so much more, yet they limited it to merely demonstrating online what we already knew from the real world. Pity.
Can't agree with you more.
Racism acts like a poison for mind and children are basically free from it before they get to know about it from others/elders. I know it, because, I had been poisoned, and I had to work hard to get rid of it. I started mixing with that community and started seeing the positive side of their culture. And that helped me survive happily while living in many different countries.
hilarious
"virtual world avatars respond to social cues in the same ways that people do in the real world"
This phrase made me lol. Though I understand it's a metonymy, I choose to nitpick this fine morning, so there.
Avatars can't respond to anything, being representations. But people respond to representations in much the same ways as to the represented. So, to fix the phrase: "People respond to representations of social cues through avatars in virtual worlds in the same ways people respond to social cues." The claim has this "duh" quality. There is a reason those things are called "representations": they represent something for humans. We react to a video, a story or a picture of a love scene or a murder scene in ways similar to our reactions to the real thing, if weaker. All culture, from casual conversations (word representations) to art in any media is based on that premise. Why would the Second Life be any different?
Interesting though that I can say "I only find women with black hair attractive"
and nobody will blink.
If I however say "I only find women with black/white skin attractive"
Suddenly I'm a flavour of racist.
Hell I could probably get away with including "applicants must have black hair" on a job ad and get away with it.
they're both nothing more than pigments but if you use one to make a descision about people then you're a dirty racist.
Down with Hairism!
Guess what, that's totally true.
It's just that it doesn't play a major role in society that nobody cares about it. The only thing I can think of is people with ginger hair. Those people are called lighthouses as a derogatory word where I live.
It's just as crappy as racism.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Well, we all have many cognitive biases, such as sample bias and so forth. Of the socially learned biases, racial bias is the most widespread of all, so all things being equal one can assume that one carries at least a bit of it.
I think, however, that being a racist has to do with how you rationalize your biases.
Suppose you don't like somebody who happens to be green skinned, and somebody puts the race card on the table. I think virtually everybody would, at least initially, deny race has anything to do with it. It seems that we can consider a range of responses:
(1) Maybe I am being racist. Let me think about it.
(2) No, I don't like him because he doesn't listen and he interrupts.
(3) He is disrespectful.
(4) Green people are ignorant; they should keep their mouths shut unless spoken to.
Response 3 is right on the cusp of racism. It's not necessarily different from 2, it's just the point where you go from specifics about behavior to generalizations about the person. Those generalizations can be drawn from two sources: the behavior of the individual, and stereotypes about the race. If you are drawing your generalization from 2 it is not racist; if you are drawing your generalization from 3 it is.
In a society where racism is strongly frowned upon, it's not always obvious when somebody is drawing a characterization from a stereotype and when he is drawing it from an individual's behavior. In fact, you can do both, since people are very skillful at seeing what they expect to see.
That's what makes racial bias insidious when we draw conclusions about people's general character. It is possible to be unconsciously racist. But it's also generally wiser in all instances to avoid generalizations about a person if it is not strictly necessary. Racism is only one kind of bias.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You can't and _shouldn't_ have to dye the color of your skin.
"_shouldn't_"???
Wow, this is part of it though. Skin color is holy. it's alright to change your hair colour but changing your skin colour is some kind of betrayal.
If tomorrow someone developed a method as easy and cheap as hair dye to change your skin colour would you look down on people who took advantage of it? if yes why?
Was it just the skin color? Was it two avatars in the same suit, just different skin tones or was one a black rastafarian and the other a white office worker?
That puts it at far more then simple racism. If I avoid the black drug-dealer on the corner but happily sit next to the white nun you could say I am judging on race but that ain't really the case. I would also avoid the WHITE drug-dealer and sit next to the BLACK nun.
In the series frazier there is a character called Ken Winston or something. What do you first think when you see him. 'Snob', 'brit' or 'black'? I didn't even realize he was black until someone commented that this was the only black character to appear on the show repeatedly. His dark skin tone alone was not enough to trigger the 'black' response in me, because he is whiter then Niles.
Same in real life, do we judge people of other races purely on their skin color OR on behaviors that we have come to associate with negative experiences with people in the past?
I do know racism exist, but do you know where I find it strongest, among so called minorities themselves. Was on a job with an older turkish man and we were in and out of the car constantly, I asked if he shouldn't lock it. He said, no need, there are no morocans around. A white person would have been in serious trouble for saying that but a turk had no problem saying it.
There is plenty of scientific evidence to back it up. Turks are, in holland, less likely to commit crime then other immigrant groups. Turkish men have a rep of being a bit slow/stupid mostly because their language skills tend to be poor but on the whole trustworthy. Men that look 'turkish' get no overly negative response. Turks tend be slightly heavier and hairier. Morocans on the other hand are lighter, often thin and less facial hair. They got a bad rep in holland, not entirely undeserved as a group.
The odd effect is that I seen a morocan guy with a high education but who physical appearance is associated with trouble youth get badly treated while the turkish guy is treated friendly but as a retard.
Of course, that was if I stood WELL to the back. Because invariably if people got a choice between a white guy, a turk and a morocan, they talk to the white guy. The killer? I ain't white, just pale but my genetics come from the same corner of the world.
So I wonder, did this experiment PURELY test skin color or where the avatars behaving differently as well and what does it ultimately show? That we use past experience to judge our reaction to new situations.
I am convinced that if a person never had any reason to associate race X/group Y with a negative experience before, they wouldn't react to it.
The proof? Do you react negativly to say an american indian as a european? No, you never dealt with them, never heard negative stories about them, didn't see them hanging on street corners, so you start the encounter with a blank slate.
Do another experiment, this time use a green-skinned avatar. Then you know wether it is about skin color OR the association we make based on visual signals about what type of person we are dealing with. I am convinced that as soon as you add other signals that this person belongs to a group you can trust, the skin color quickly disappears.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Except "White race" is not an organism. And nobody outside the biggest blowhards will fault you for preferring someone's look over another. This includes preferring a certain skin color.
This is the problem with racism (which is exactly what you're describing). It justifies xenophobia through a complete fallacy. There hasn't been a single genetic marker that codes for race, and definitions of race are as varied as the groups that try to promote them.
I also like your reference to white guilt in a later post. Nice try. How are your friends in the National Alliance? Are you part of the Separatism group, or do you just want to kick everyone who is not White out of the US?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
For anyone interested, look up the recent posts of Thufir. He's nothing but a Vanilla Neo-Nazi. I have to say, I'm almost amused by the logical contortions Neo-Nazis create to justify their bigotry. They've created some interesting new definitions because they couldn't defend their old definitions. Just in this post, I see brand new definitions for:
Racism (Racially Biased)
White race (organism)
Lynching (helping your own race first)
Nice work, ass-pirate.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I had made a blue female character in Second Life. She was blue, but she had a beautiful body. If racism includes every guy (and most of the women) that saw her offering sex, yes, racism is present.
When I made a white male character in the same game, he didn't get the same attention.
Then I changed the blue female character to a pale white female character. The result was just about the same.
My conclusion. Guys want to have sexual relations with hot women, regardless of their color.
Regardless, the amount you state, of 10%, is huge. It means extinction of distinctiveness in only a short period of time. At the least, it means we will be a minority in our own country in short time, at which time we will no longer have any real political power.
Jesus H. Fucking Christ, that statement pisses me off. Why the fuck would I want to have "any real political power" if I'm sharing it with people with your attitude? Go start a blue-eyed fucking pure-blood Aryan nation somewhere and leave me the fuck alone. As if white people vote in a block and feel part of some brotherhood. Holy shit!
As to the brainwashing - has it ever occurred to you that if you are living in an extreme minority, you are more likely to intermarry? In GB, or Germany for that matter, blacks make up such a vanishingly small part of the population that it would be nigh impossible to retain a separate community. In the US they constitute about 15% of the population - and about 1/3 in some southern states.
By the way, much of the black-white intermixing that occurred in the US happened before the end of SLAVERY, let alone Jim Crowe. Are you really going to argue that the US government was actively trying to get us to mix up while still supporting slavery? Because that is just asinine.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I moved from a smaller city in western Canada to a large city in Ontario. Culturally, Canada is a pretty good mixing pot in general, but there's definitely a bigger mix here.
Hopefully I'm being honest with myself when I say that I didn't come with a lot of preconceptions about certain races/origins. I had never really met people from these places before, and had nothing to form an opinion on (either positive or negative).
However, I have come to recognize certain patterns derived from cultural backgrounds of various ethnicities.
Do these apply all the time: no. But they do apply often enough that one begins to profile, even if unwillingly, various others. Ways of doing business, driving habits, etc, can be very strongly influenced by one's origins. Certain countries have driving conditions much different than here, and it seems their driving habits often reflect this. Certain countries do business differently, and their business-habits reflect this. What's polite in one place can be rude in the other.
So, when coming across people from these various origins, whether driving on the road, in the store, or elsewhere, is it truly racist to have some bias based on prior experience?
If 85% of purple people tend to drive aggressively (maybe because in their originating country traffic patterns dictated this as normal), is it racist of me to take extra care when driving around somebody that appears to be of this origin?
If people from a predominantly Mauve country have a tendency to fudge facts on their resume (maybe it's easier due to corruption/politics in that country), what does it mean if I take extra care to verify the details of a Mauve person's resume.
One of the things I hate these days is feeling like a racist due to situations like the above. What's racism and what's prudence. Certainly I wouldn't hire a less-skilled Blue person over a more-skinned Orange person over personal bias, nor would I intentionally treat either one person with less respect. But what's bias, what's profiling, and what's experience?