Social Yale study: Libs talk down to minorities

[sangreporsangre]

I haven't seen a lot of that in Toronto, the exception being when someone has an accent.

Maybe she just moves in more "progressive" circles. Certainly she works with people like that, and of course she had the experience while going to U of T.

 

[kpt018]

Question, why is a variation in word choice considered "dumbing down" in this situation? Are you insinuating that a dialect like AAVE is indicative of a lesser intelligence simply due to word variation and lack of adherence to standard english?

We may be on to something here....

 

[Leagon]

well atleast it's uncommon for a white person to have their "whiteness" put into question when they vote against republicans. can't say the same about black people not voting democrat

Well, "whiteness" isn't an identifier. Whites are the majority and considered the norm. White people who identify strongly with being white are generally considered radicals.

But white people who vote Democrat definitely have their patriotism called into question.

And I think it's a bit childish to start your post with "well at least" lol. Such a defensive phrasing. I wasn't attacking you, I was talking about Donald's rhetorical strategy.

 

[Leagon]

I think "Black people voting Democratic" has less to do with pandering, and more to do with the whole "not promoting politics that actively harm us".

You can't intentionally slap me in the face and then get butthurt when I enjoy the company of someone who accidentally disrespected me. No amount of studies are going to make Republicans palatable to black people en masse if they can't even get their white supremacist streak under control.

Fair point.

 

[panamaican]

i understand why a non-lawyer might not understand all the legal terms, or why a kid wouldn't understand all the terms an adult would understand. but why would a black crowd not understand the terms a white crowd would understand?

Who says they wouldn't understand. The authors say that people do it to appear more likeable and friendly.

The language differences cited in the article were not about terms that people would or would not understand. They were terms that downplayed the speaker's competence and raised the speaker's warmth.

You ever spoke with someone about a subject as equals and then, a day later, you find out that they have 30 years of experience in the field? They don't do that because they think you're stupid. They do it so you can connect on a more personal level.

Contrast that with those people who wield their intellect like a blunt instrument. It can be tiresome when someone refuses to just speak at a conversational level.

Anyway, there are studies on this regarding managers. Managers that use more conversational language are rated as better managers than those who don't. This is regardless of actual performance. So, it's not surprising that a well-known communication tool for connecting with people should be present in political communication as well. I'd be more surprised if it wasn't.

 

[dontsnitch]

Maybe she just moves in more "progressive" circles. Certainly she works with people like that, and of course had the experience while going to U of T.

Toronto definitely has changed, I forget that sometimes.

 

[SammyPops]

Not surprising .... what do you think about this very important and sensitive topic @Zer ? Take your time before you answer.

 

[voxom]

Question, why is a variation in word choice considered "dumbing down" in this situation? Are you insinuating that a dialect like AAVE is indicative of a lesser intelligence simply due to word variation and lack of adherence to standard english?

because the study didn't just say they used variations of words, it said they intentially were down playing their competence whent alking to black people.

"white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities"

"The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences."

"The researchers found that liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white."


they've even done follow up studies and the inital data shows they downplay their competence less when they already think the black person is smart
"Initial data from follow-up studies suggest that describing a black person as highly intelligent, thus reversing the stereotype, or as already highly motivated to get along with whites, thus removing the need to prove goodwill, can reduce the likelihood that a white person will downplay their competence in their interactions with the black person."


so the they don't downplay their competence to a white audience, or to a black audience that they are told is smart. but they generally do to a black audience(that they haven't been told about their intelligence). it's not hard to figure it out from there.

 

[Falsedawn]

We may be on to something here....

Really hoping Inga answers that question, because as an actual black dude, I see this totally different based on the article.

@panamaican got into it on a professional level, but i'm gonna address it from an ethnic view. Due to our history in this country, African American culture is in itself, a distinctive culture unique from what we consider mainline "American Culture". Facets of it may have penetrated the mainstream (for better or worse), but it seems fairly obvious that that's a truism.

The problem with presenting this as "dumbing it down" is that the researcher presents their 'portraying higher intelligence' scenario as the person also wanting to be agreeable to white people. To me, that indicates an effort to internalize that mainline culture, and acts as an indicator that they're versed in it. So yeah, you might act differently, because they've been steeped in your culture instead of another that developed concurrently (yet tangentially) to the mainline culture.

You could just as easily draw the assumption that Republicans lack empathy. *shrugs*

 

[Fawlty]

Detecting a bit of confirmation bias here, when motive comes into it. You can't infer a motive along the lines of: "Democrats are really the stereotyping racists" from this, but I'm sure it's tempting.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Detecting a bit of confirmation bias here, when motive comes into it. You can't infer a motive along the lines of: "Democrats are really the stereotyping racists" from this, but I'm sure it's tempting.

That's basically what always happens with these kinds of studies. The opposite conclusion would probably still be taken as proof of something bad about the Other Side by the TS.

 

[Zer]

Not surprising .... what do you think about this very important and sensitive topic @Zer ? Take your time before you answer.

Offer an actual political opinion in the war room?

 

[panamaican]

What do you think about the finding that knowing that a minority individual is intelligent lessens the amount of language change? And yes, everyone "code switches" to some extent, but the way white liberals try to connect with minorities is pretty telling. They talk down.

Also, the analogy to needing technical knowledge dumbed down breaks down given the general nature of the study. White libs seem to have a very broad range of topics they think need to be dumbed down for blacks.

What do I think about it? I think very little about it. When I know my audience's details, I speak to them differently than if I don't. If you tell me that everyone in the room is a college graduate 20 years out that's different from if everyone is a high school graduate 2 years out.

First, they said "highly intelligent" or "highly motivated to get along with whites"

So, when the speaker knew the audience characteristics, they did not code switch. This should outrage people? I will do what it takes to communicate with these people that I do not know by increasing the chances for us to make a connection via speech. That is shameful?

 

[Joe265]

This is why I am no longer a Democrat. The entire ideology has been hijacked.

.

Because politics is fundamentally about power, not ideology. I hope you’re not fooling yourself to believe either party is representative of the ppl.

 

[Falsedawn]

because the study didn't just say they used variations of words, it said they intentially were down playing their competence whent alking to black people.

"white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities"

"The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences."

"The researchers found that liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white."


they've even done follow up studies and the inital data shows they downplay their competence less when they already think the black person is smart
"Initial data from follow-up studies suggest that describing a black person as highly intelligent, thus reversing the stereotype, or as already highly motivated to get along with whites, thus removing the need to prove goodwill, can reduce the likelihood that a white person will downplay their competence in their interactions with the black person."





so the they don't downplay their competence to a white audience, or to a black audience that they are told is smart. but they do to a general black audience. it's not hard to figure it out from there.

"Or already highly motivated to get along with whites"

That's really important, and says nothing about the intelligence of the person in this situation. The researcher even mentioned that it represented the lack of need to establish goodwill, hence my argument about culture a few posts ago.

If I shoot guns, and you don't, i'm probably not going to start going on about gas blocks and charging handles without getting an idea of what exactly you know. If someone tells me you shoot guns, i'm not going to have to establish that baseline. If I don't give a shit about what you know, I might not give a shit about establishing that baseline.

Extrapolate that how you will.

 

[voxom]

Who says they wouldn't understand. The authors say that people do it to appear more likeable and friendly.

i was going off of yuor anecdote about the client not understanding

Contrast that with those people who wield their intellect like a blunt instrument. It can be tiresome when someone refuses to just speak at a conversational level.

like having a lawyer that you need to stop and ask to speak at a conversational level?

Anyway, there are studies on this regarding managers. Managers that use more conversational language are rated as better managers than those who don't. This is regardless of actual performance. So, it's not surprising that a well-known communication tool for connecting with people should be present in political communication as well. I'd be more surprised if it wasn't.

but then, according to democrats, why does dumbed down language connect better with blacks than with whites? why does this well-known communication tool only get used when talking to black people and not white?

 

[kpt018]

Really hoping Inga answers that question, because as an actual black dude, I see this totally different based on the article.

@panamaican got into it on a professional level, but i'm gonna address it from an ethnic view. Due to our history in this country, African American culture is in itself, a distinctive culture unique from what we consider mainline "American Culture". Facets of it may have penetrated the mainstream (for better or worse), but it seems fairly obvious that that's a truism.

The problem with presenting this as "dumbing it down" is that the researcher presents their 'portraying higher intelligence' scenario as the person also wanting to be agreeable to white people. To me, that indicates an effort to internalize that mainline culture, and acts as an indicator that they're versed in it. So yeah, you might act differently, because they've been steeped in your culture instead of another that developed concurrently (yet tangentially) to the mainline culture.

You could just as easily draw the assumption that Republicans lack empathy. *shrugs*

Your whole post is great but I think you nail the main issue in the last sentence. This behavior is human nature and is common for folks who do have empathy or high emotional IQ (whatever you want to call it) and do make an effort to be relatable.

This is anecdotal, but those of us living in diverse areas see this happening in conversations all the time. We begin to sound like the people we are surrounded with. I sound like a very different person when presenting financial results to management, talking to my wife, talking to my daughter, drinking a beer with friends or playing sports competitively. We customize our vernacular to individuals in our lives.

And color me shocked to see skilled politicians customize their speeches to their audiences. As I said to Igna, the results of this, to the extent they can be relied upon at all (which I think is limited) is that conservatives are just looking to explain away why they do so poorly with minorities when the answer is staring them right in the face.

 

[Hognoxious]

Dem politicians and people who identify as politically liberal tend to choose words that downplay their own competence and emphasize warmth and friendliness instead when talking to blacks and other racial minorities. This is in contrast with how they speak to other whites. Conservatives and Republican politicians do not make any significant word choice changes based on the race of their audience. Here's an article on the study, which is due for publication soon: https://insights.som.yale.edu/insig...petent-in-interactions-with-african-americans.

In the first part, they studied speeches given by Democrats and Republicans going back several decades and found that Dem politicians had significant variation in their word choices based on the race of their audience. The sample size for Republican speeches to majority black or hispanic audiences was smaller, but there was no similar variation in word choice based on race. “It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.” I liked this line, because I don't find the result surprising.

The study also had people compose e-mails to people they didn't know, and in emails to people with black sounding names like Lakisha liberals tended to vary their word choice to present themselves as less competent, while conservatives did not. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree says. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.” Again, is this surprising to anyone other than Dr. Dupree?

And finally, "Initial data from follow-up studies suggest that describing a black person as highly intelligent, thus reversing the stereotype, or as already highly motivated to get along with whites, thus removing the need to prove goodwill, can reduce the likelihood that a white person will downplay their competence in their interactions with the black person." So initial data from followup studies suggests that at least some of the time the problem may be a common assumption among liberals that racial minorities are not very smart, thus the need to use easier words to communicate with them. This is why when it is a given that a racial minority is highly intelligent, the variation in word choice lessens or disappears.

Anyway, a patronizing liberal attitude toward blacks and other racial minorities has long been a complaint on the right, at least as far back as George HW Bush's "the soft bigotry of low expectations". Does this prove it exists or are there other explanations?

Your thread made me think of this....

 

[MicroBrew]

Lol @ right wingers all of a sudden loving academic studies

And lol at rightwingers suddenly shedding tears (crocodile tears) and showing faux concern for minorities.

 

[Prokofievian]

I think "Black people voting Democratic" has less to do with pandering, and more to do with the whole "not promoting politics that actively harm us".

You can't intentionally slap me in the face and then get butthurt when I enjoy the company of someone who accidentally disrespected me. No amount of studies are going to make Republicans palatable to black people en masse if they can't even get their white supremacist streak under control.

He's so articulate.