Race and Childrens Perceptions

[HydrogenBond]

Race is a superficial thing, which allows birds of a feather to flock together, for safety and security. Similar behavior is often shown by animals. Therefore, racism is quite primitive; it represents a continuity from the animals and would have been part of early human cultural evolution. Instead of the superficial of an animal, say we used more of human philosophical filter. Instead of what enters the eyes, as color difference, like an animal, say we filter through the mind's eye (learning, POV and imagination).

For example, the battle between science and religion, is not much different than racism, with each side teaching the benefit of its own POV filter and the flaws in the other POV filter. Do science and religion both discriminate? Birds of a feather still flock together and one needs to be the right POV color to be accepted.

What I like about these two POV's philosophical filters, neither discriminate using only the surface effect common to animals. One can be anything on the sensory surface, as long as they are internally, with the program, with respect to the protocol.

From an early age, children will show certain natural talents. Some have a propensity for math, science, language, art, sports and some for religion. Children will gravitate to their talent-race, with culture adding an external force, that pushes toward a POV direction. If these two overlap, the child is fine, since they are true to their natural and the cultural POV race. If these don't overlap there is an inner conflict.

It would be similar to placing a green child in a purple neighborhood. They can learn the culture to blend and copy behavior. But there are some differences which the more racist of the group will not let them forget. There will also be inner uneasiness, which they may not be able to shake, because they can see the differences.

If the parents are democrat or republican, they will teach this POV racism. It contains truth but not the whole truth. Some children will be natural for this specialty POV and some are not. The effect would be like parents having children of different colors and teaching all one color. Some will fit right in, without animal conflict, and others will have to try to fit in, even if they are a square peg in a round hole.

Those who have to try the hardest, to overcome inner/outer differences, can become the most fanatical. They need to pound the square peg in the round hole, since they not only have to learn but overcome their own inertia. But if the peg just won't fit, they become apathetic. If the peg is forced fit by culture/parents and their inner nature is not comfortable, they may become rebellious, for the activation energy needed to undo the POV force fit.

S

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Theory5

ITs the same thing with groups and cliches in high school, except those kids know a little more about the world, and they know there are other similarities other than race.
These kids arnt racist they are simply trying to stay with the most familiar thing they know.

Originally Posted by lemmit

but you aren't contributing significantly to the understanding of a developed human being.

First and again, this article isnt about racism/discrimination, its about categorization and our human processes and development.

Now the article goes into further developments with older kids:
"Like most people, I assumed that after 30 years of desegregation, it would have a long track record of scientific research proving that the Diverse Environment Theory works."

"Duke University's James Moody—an expert on how adolescents form and maintain social networks—analyzed data on more than 90,000 teenagers at 112 different schools from every region of the country."

"Moody found that the more diverse the school, the more the kids self-segregate by race and ethnicity within the school, and thus the likelihood that any two kids of different races have a friendship goes down."

"The rule still holds true: more diversity translates into more division among students."

"Even in multiracial schools, once young people leave the classroom, very little interracial discussion takes place because a desire to associate with one's own ethnic group often discourages interaction between groups," wrote Brendesha Tynes of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign."

"Cross-race friends also tend to share a single activity, rather than multiple activities; as a result, these friendships are more likely to be lost over time, as children transition from middle school to high school."

So as they (teens) become more aware of the world (compared to children), there doesnt seem to be an increase of similarities, rather it seems the relationship is likely based on a self-reward (cant think of the proper term). Meaning, I [people with cross race friendship] associate with you because there is something to gain for me (shared interest).

Another way to think about the above. My kids school was not 'diverse'. Out of 500 kids there was maybe 2-3 black kids, and these kids tended to get invited into various group events. I imagine that with the less amount of diversity, there was an extra effort to include these kids in 'groups'. Where with a more diverse environment, there isnt that group guilt (we dont have to invite someone who doesnt really share our interests because they have groups of their own).

Comments?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Cedars

...
What needs to be 'managed'? This is where the separation of the science from everything else (such as philosophy) gets blurry for me. ...

i think the article is clear on what needs to be managed, though this part has gone un-mentioned by everyone posting so far. in short, clear discussion/explanation from parents for their children from infancy. here's some limited quotes from the article i find illustrative of my point.

Even Babies Discriminate: A NurtureShock Excerpt. | Newsweek Life | Newsweek.com

Originally Posted by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman

...Bigler's experiment seems to show how children will use whatever you give them to create divisions—seeming to confirm that race becomes an issue only if we make it an issue. So why does Bigler think it's important to talk to children about race as early as the age of 3?

Her reasoning is that kids are developmentally prone to in-group favoritism; they're going to form these preferences on their own. Children naturally try to categorize everything, and the attribute they rely on is that which is the most clearly visible.

We might imagine we're creating color-blind environments for children, but differences in skin color or hair or weight are like differences in gender—they're plainly visible. Even if no teacher or parent mentions race, kids will use skin color on their own, the same way they use T-shirt colors. Bigler contends that children extend their shared appearances much further—believing that those who look similar to them enjoy the same things they do. Anything a child doesn't like thus belongs to those who look the least similar to him. The spontaneous tendency to assume your group shares characteristics—such as niceness, or smarts—is called essentialism.
...
Several studies point to the possibility of developmental windows—stages when children's attitudes might be most amenable to change. In one experiment, children were put in cross-race study groups, and then were observed on the playground to see if the interracial classroom time led to interracial play at recess. The researchers found mixed study groups worked wonders with the first-grade children, but it made no difference with third graders. It's possible that by third grade, when parents usually recognize it's safe to start talking a little about race, the developmental window has already closed....
As a parent, I dealt with these moments explicitly, telling my son it was wrong to choose anyone as his friend, or his "favorite," on the basis of skin color. We pointed out how certain friends wouldn't be in our lives if we picked friends for their color. Over time he not only accepted but embraced this lesson. Now he talks openly about equality and the wrongfulness of discrimination.

Not knowing then what I do now, I had a hard time understanding my son's initial impulses. Katz's work helped me to realize that Luke was never actually colorblind. He didn't talk about race in his first five years because our silence had unwittingly communicated that race was something he could not ask about. ...

[HydrogenBond]

I remember in college, I had a best friend from my home town, who I barely knew in High School. In High School, we shared many of the same college prep classes. But we were from different parts of the city, so we usually hung with our own neighborhood groups after school. We were causal acquaintances.

Once we started college, we met, neither knowing the other was going to the same school. Instantly, we had more in common, since the school was out of state, full of students from all over country and world. In that larger context, we had a shared history, which was not important, in the context of our smaller geographical neighborhoods. I made other friends, which I built history of shared common memories, but this friend had a pre-build feature.

In the family home, one may have more in common with one of our siblings, due to age, for example (large family). When we go out in the hood, all the members of the family feel closer now, compared to these strangers, especially as children. As we leave the hood and wander to other other hoods, and meet someone from our hood, they become closer, simply because they lived on our street.

If we leave the city for another city, and meet someone from our home town, now we share a common link that was not important before. If go out of state, and meet someone from our home state, now we instantly share something in common, with this person who has been a stranger in the smaller context. If we left the earth and began to travel to others worlds, we would have a special place for earthlings. It is nice to see someone with only two arms and two legs, no matter what the color or language.

What this tells me, one needs to open up their world/mind to overcome the narrow mindedness of a smaller world. You need to find a big place in the mind, where what we share in common is larger than what we can share in small places.

[HydrogenBond]

The public education system is run by the liberals. I don't mean that as an insult, but as an observation. Simple things, like pledge allegiance to the flag, although nationalist, did create a larger common world. They are on the same team for 30 seconds. Once you get rid of this and other large commonality, it is expected that worlds become smaller. Where is the meeting point where they all come together?

Although liberals did help make integration possible, which opened a smaller mind/world, into a larger world/mind, the other hand of liberal, also fixates on the differences that will create a smaller world/mind. Things like racism, sexism, ethnic diversity, all shrink the world perception out of fear/security. This defines how the groups are suppose to split into smaller groups of birds of a feather.

Even if there is racism, this is only an empirical correlation, and not a rational relationship. A rational relationship can not have exceptions. Empirical can ignore exceptions and still be considered valid. We could just as well form another correlation that shows aspects of racism have come down. This is not rational either, just another correlation, since one can also find exceptions. However, it a correlation that opens the world because it gets rid of the fear that divides.

If you told the children, the latest empirical data shows children today like to learn more about other worlds, they will do that. They don't know the difference between rational and empirical. One only has to formulate the proper experiment and the correct premise, to make it work.

On the other other hand, if you tell the the correlation that green likes to discriminate against orange, orange will huddle for protection, and green left by itself, also starts to huddle. Some greens will be good correlation soldiers, through the power of suggestion. Other members of the green never did this, but they will be looked at like they did, due mistaken empirical for rational. With empirical, we have some flexibility within the range of proper premise wording. Why not open the world. This may not be rational, and just another correlation, but it will lead to a better result.

With the liberals there is always the oppositions of rich-poor, government-buisness, have and have-nots, black-white, male-female, gay-straight, green or not green, organic-synthetic, religion-science, ethnic diversity, etc. If you buy into those meadow muffin fixations, people will take a side. The best birds of a feather will need to have all the same attributes, which narrows even more.

With the racism studies, after the races divide, have their been studies to see how each race divides? The odds are neither race is one big happy family. Is there a push to further divide, internally?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Turtle

i think the article is clear on what needs to be managed, though this part has gone un-mentioned by everyone posting so far. in short, clear discussion/explanation from parents for their children from infancy. here's some limited quotes from the article i find illustrative of my point.

Even Babies Discriminate: A NurtureShock Excerpt. | Newsweek Life | Newsweek.com

Part of your Quote (bold mine)
Several studies point to the possibility of developmental windows—stages when children's attitudes might be most amenable to change. In one experiment, children were put in cross-race study groups, and then were observed on the playground to see if the interracial classroom time led to interracial play at recess. The researchers found mixed study groups worked wonders with the first-grade children, but it made no difference with third graders. It's possible that by third grade, when parents usually recognize it's safe to start talking a little about race, the developmental window has already closed....

As I said, the science vs philosophy becomes blurry for me.

Later in the article, we find more diversity leads to more segregation. These are the older kids, teens, who often make decisions on their own about their preferences regardless of what their parents would want them to choose.

There is limited information from this article for anyone to come to a conclusion without reading the book so we are left to our own devices and interpretations. What the article does not answer is, do the first graders from the study meld back into the behaviors seen in the first group of 3rd graders (when they age a couple of years) for their recess preferences. Without that data, its an incomplete behavior study.

So anyways, your statement that the article seems to answer the question of "managed" seems to be an assumption from the limited information given by the article, and not really answered by this article.

I was surprised a bit by the stats given on the teens, who have more experience with life and more comparisons. I had expected more diversity would lead to more integration.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Part of your Quote (bold mine)
Several studies point to the possibility of developmental windows—stages when children's attitudes might be most amenable to change. In one experiment, children were put in cross-race study groups, and then were observed on the playground to see if the interracial classroom time led to interracial play at recess. The researchers found mixed study groups worked wonders with the first-grade children, but it made no difference with third graders. It's possible that by third grade, when parents usually recognize it's safe to start talking a little about race, the developmental window has already closed...

As I said, the science vs philosophy becomes blurry for me. ...

if you don't understand it, you don't understand it. the terms you bolden and imply as suspect come from statistical analysis, the mainstay of social science. don't know what else to tell you. you clearly had something in mind by introducing the article and i get the sense you suspect the science because you disagree with the scientific conclusions. while there may be many reasons for racial and other similar prejudices, there is no excusing them.

Originally Posted by cedarino

I was surprised a bit by the stats given on the teens, who have more experience with life and more comparisons. I had expected more diversity would lead to more integration.

again you missed the point i think. according to the article, the diversity leading to integration idea was found to not hold/work/be-as-effective when introduced later in childhood.

[Turtle]

to follow up on suspicious terms:

Appendix F: Explanation of Endangered Species Rating System
Series II Gap data utilizes a table of Wildlife Habitat Relationships (WHR) to linking vegetation type to species habitats. Species habitats are graded from 1 (lowest quality) to 5 (highest quality). For each one-hectare site, we developed an index of threatened and endangered species habitat quality by, first, identifying which threatened or endangered species were most likely to be present (based on vegetation type and the WHR correspondence table); second, by multiplying each threatened and endangered species by its 1-to-5 habitat quality rating; and third, by summing the resulting species-habitat quality product over all present threatened and endangered species. Algebraically, this index takes the following form: ...

most likely? what a bamboozle!! see my point? same statistical methods, different trust.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Turtle

... the terms you bolden and imply as suspect come from statistical analysis, the mainstay of social science. don't know what else to tell you.

First it wasnt me who formed a conclusion. You formed a conclusion in response to my Question of "What needs to be managed?". You implied the answer existed in the article and I merely pointed out this 'answer' was surrounded by Maybe's. There is a big differene in a 'scientific' statement of Possibly vs Probably. And to add to this vs your attempt to justify your previous post, Most Likely was not a part of this snippet.

I already quoted one professional from this study, but I will do so again for your convience:

"Bigler: "It's an enormous step backward to increase social segregation," she says. However, she also admitted that "in the end, I was disappointed with the amount of evidence social psychology could muster [to support it]. Going to integrated schools gives you just as many chances to learn stereotypes as to unlearn them."

Theres more to this part of the article if you care to re-read it again.

Originally Posted by Turtle

you clearly had something in mind by introducing the article and i get the sense you suspect the science because you disagree with the scientific conclusions.

And what conclusions would that be? Again, you imply you have formed a conclusion [regarding my motive] based on your own assumptions, formed by what facts I am unsure of. Please clarify what facts you have to show I have posted anything about disagreement with what was seen vs the speculation points in the article.

Originally Posted by Turtle

while there may be many reasons for racial and other similar prejudices, there is no excusing them.

No where in this article is Racism, Discrimination, or any ill will towards other races implied. It simply doesnt exist in the article, yet poster after poster has attempted to ingrain these issues into this topic. I truely do not understand why so many responders in this thread cannot focus on the articles content and have to introduce their own bias/preconcieved notions to distort the topic.

Originally Posted by Turtle

again you missed the point i think. according to the article, the diversity leading to integration idea was found to not hold/work/be-as-effective when introduced later in childhood.

Again, you post an assumption that you cannot back up with data because this data was unavailable in the article. I even posted an example:

"What the article does not answer is, do the first graders from the study meld back into the behaviors seen in the first group of 3rd graders (when they age a couple of years) for their recess preferences. Without that data, its an incomplete behavior study."

I fully understand the snippet of one example where first graders reacted differently than third graders to the same stimulation, integrated studygroups. Do you have a quote from the article which verifies work in the first grade negates behavior patterns of these individuals when they hit the third grade? If not, again, I propose your conclusion is based on...well... what you imagine the results should be, rather than actual data.

Which again 'what should be' doesnt seem to be whats really happening.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Cedars

... And to add to this vs your attempt to justify your previous post, Most Likely was not a part of this snippet. ...

you have evaded my point on statistical methods and terms. you invited comment on the article; i gave it.