0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/06/26 03:09

From version 107.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/04 07:06
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 121.1
edited by XWikiGuest
on 2025/06/19 19:12
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
1 +XWiki.XWikiGuest
Content
... ... @@ -22,9 +22,8 @@
22 22  
23 23  = Genetics =
24 24  
25 -{{expandable summary="
25 +{{expandable summary="
26 26  
27 -
28 28  Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
29 29  **Source:** *Nature*
30 30  **Date of Publication:** *2009*
... ... @@ -648,6 +648,427 @@
648 648  
649 649  = Dating =
650 650  
650 +{{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}}
651 +**Source:** *Social Forces*
652 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
653 +**Author(s):** *Stephanie M. Curington, Kevin K. Anderson, and Jennifer Glass*
654 +**Title:** *"Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"*
655 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007](https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007)
656 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Dating, Multiracial Identity, Online Behavior*
657 +
658 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
659 +1. **General Observations:**
660 + - Data drawn from **over 1 million messaging records** from an online dating site.
661 + - Focused on how **monoracial users** (especially Whites) interact with **multiracial daters**.
662 +
663 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
664 + - **Multiracial Black/White and Asian/White women** received **fewer responses from White men** than their monoracial counterparts.
665 + - White daters showed **stronger preferences for monoracial identities**, particularly **own-race pairings**.
666 +
667 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
668 + - **Multiracial men** fared worse than multiracial women across most pairings.
669 + - **Latina/White and Asian/White multiracial women** were **more positively received by Black and Hispanic men**.
670 +{{/expandable}}
671 +
672 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
673 +1. **Primary Observations:**
674 + - White users demonstrated a clear pattern of **in-group preference**, preferring other White users (monoracial or partially White) over more ambiguous multiracial identities.
675 + - Authors suggest this reflects **"boundary-maintaining behavior"** and **"latent racial bias"**.
676 +
677 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
678 + - **Multiracial women with partial minority backgrounds** were more acceptable to non-White men than White men.
679 + - Multiracial daters were **often treated as ambiguous or “less desirable”** in ways the authors frame as **resistance to racial integration**.
680 +
681 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
682 + - The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way.
683 + - The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized.
684 +{{/expandable}}
685 +
686 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
687 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
688 + - Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**.
689 + - Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**.
690 +
691 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
692 + - Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning.
693 + - Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism.
694 + - Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups.
695 +
696 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
697 + - Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it.
698 + - Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds.
699 + - Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating.
700 +{{/expandable}}
701 +
702 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
703 +- Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating.
704 +- Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**.
705 +- Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**.
706 +{{/expandable}}
707 +
708 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
709 +1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection.
710 +2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**.
711 +3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection.
712 +{{/expandable}}
713 +
714 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
715 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]]
716 +{{/expandable}}
717 +{{/expandable}}
718 +
719 +
720 +{{expandable summary="Study: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}}
721 +**Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity*
722 +**Date of Publication:** *2020*
723 +**Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter*
724 +**Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"*
725 +**DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232)
726 +**Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior*
727 +
728 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
729 +1. **General Observations:**
730 + - Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070).
731 + - Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners.
732 +
733 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
734 + - **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**.
735 + - White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**.
736 + - **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability.
737 +
738 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
739 + - **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.”
740 + - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**.
741 +{{/expandable}}
742 +
743 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
744 +1. **Primary Observations:**
745 + - Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality.
746 + - Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations.
747 +
748 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
749 + - White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes.
750 + - White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites.
751 +
752 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
753 + - The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties.
754 + - Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**.
755 +{{/expandable}}
756 +
757 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
758 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
759 + - Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences.
760 + - Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases.
761 +
762 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
763 + - Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior.
764 + - **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races.
765 + - Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**.
766 +
767 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
768 + - Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites).
769 + - Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability.
770 + - Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits.
771 +{{/expandable}}
772 +
773 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
774 +- Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community.
775 +- Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing.
776 +- Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones.
777 +{{/expandable}}
778 +
779 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
780 +1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted.
781 +2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships.
782 +3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races.
783 +{{/expandable}}
784 +
785 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
786 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_2332649219871232.pdf]]
787 +{{/expandable}}
788 +{{/expandable}}
789 +
790 +
791 +{{expandable summary="Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}}
792 +**Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)*
793 +**Date of Publication:** *2024*
794 +**Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon*
795 +**Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"*
796 +**DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978)
797 +**Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility*
798 +
799 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
800 +1. **General Observations:**
801 + - Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**.
802 + - Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**.
803 + - Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**.
804 +
805 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
806 + - Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas.
807 + - **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions.
808 +
809 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
810 + - Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites.
811 + - Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors.
812 +{{/expandable}}
813 +
814 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
815 +1. **Primary Observations:**
816 + - Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables.
817 + - **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression.
818 +
819 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
820 + - White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation.
821 + - **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes.
822 +
823 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
824 + - High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades.
825 + - Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects.
826 +{{/expandable}}
827 +
828 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
829 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
830 + - Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse.
831 + - Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources.
832 +
833 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
834 + - Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly.
835 + - Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility.
836 +
837 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
838 + - Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas.
839 + - Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends.
840 +{{/expandable}}
841 +
842 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
843 +- Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis.
844 +- Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**.
845 +- Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism.
846 +{{/expandable}}
847 +
848 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
849 +1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change.
850 +2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making.
851 +3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**.
852 +{{/expandable}}
853 +
854 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
855 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:12.Gurun_Solomon_Diversity_BirthRates.pdf]]
856 +{{/expandable}}
857 +{{/expandable}}
858 +
859 +
860 +{{expandable summary="Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}}
861 +**Source:** *Porn Studies*
862 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
863 +**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika*
864 +**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"*
865 +**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389)
866 +**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique*
867 +
868 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
869 +1. **General Observations:**
870 + - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women.
871 + - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality.
872 +
873 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
874 + - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**.
875 + - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.”
876 +
877 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
878 + - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue.
879 + - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.”
880 +{{/expandable}}
881 +
882 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
883 +1. **Primary Observations:**
884 + - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity.
885 + - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men.
886 +
887 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
888 + - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism.
889 + - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**.
890 +
891 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
892 + - Cites scenes where Black male actors degrade or dominate White women as **“transgressive acts” that destabilize White power**, rather than examples of racial hostility or objectification.
893 + - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics.
894 +{{/expandable}}
895 +
896 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
897 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
898 + - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds.
899 + - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia.
900 +
901 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
902 + - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media.
903 + - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison.
904 + - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard.
905 +
906 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
907 + - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres.
908 + - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media.
909 + - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men.
910 +{{/expandable}}
911 +
912 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
913 +- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment.
914 +- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity.
915 +- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**.
916 +{{/expandable}}
917 +
918 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
919 +1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**.
920 +2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**.
921 +3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men.
922 +{{/expandable}}
923 +
924 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
925 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]]
926 +{{/expandable}}
927 +{{/expandable}}
928 +
929 +
930 +{{expandable summary="Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}}
931 +**Source:** *Social Science Research*
932 +**Date of Publication:** *2009*
933 +**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie*
934 +**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"*
935 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004)
936 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy*
937 +
938 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
939 +1. **General Observations:**
940 + - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California.
941 + - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles.
942 +
943 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
944 + - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men.
945 + - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women.
946 +
947 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
948 + - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**.
949 + - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**.
950 +{{/expandable}}
951 +
952 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
953 +1. **Primary Observations:**
954 + - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context.
955 + - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**.
956 +
957 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
958 + - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping.
959 + - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race.
960 +
961 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
962 + - Highlighted that **Latina and Asian women were more open to White men** than to men of their own ethnicity, which was not treated as exclusionary.
963 + - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.**
964 +{{/expandable}}
965 +
966 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
967 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
968 + - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles.
969 + - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**.
970 +
971 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
972 + - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users.
973 + - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.**
974 + - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.**
975 +
976 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
977 + - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**.
978 + - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**.
979 + - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites.
980 +{{/expandable}}
981 +
982 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
983 +- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**.
984 +- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized.
985 +- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites.
986 +{{/expandable}}
987 +
988 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
989 +1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race.
990 +2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism.
991 +3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites.
992 +{{/expandable}}
993 +
994 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
995 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]]
996 +{{/expandable}}
997 +{{/expandable}}
998 +
999 +
1000 +{{expandable summary="Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}}
1001 +**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis*
1002 +**Date of Publication:** *2009*
1003 +**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*))
1004 +**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"*
1005 +**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication*
1006 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization*
1007 +
1008 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1009 +1. **General Observations:**
1010 + - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study.
1011 + - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex.
1012 + - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization.
1013 +
1014 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1015 + - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men.
1016 + - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order.
1017 +
1018 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1019 + - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture.
1020 + - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative.
1021 +{{/expandable}}
1022 +
1023 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1024 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1025 + - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**.
1026 + - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness.
1027 +
1028 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1029 + - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism.
1030 + - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism.
1031 +
1032 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1033 + - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression.
1034 + - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**.
1035 +{{/expandable}}
1036 +
1037 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1038 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1039 + - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon.
1040 + - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory.
1041 +
1042 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1043 + - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative.
1044 + - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish.
1045 + - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.”
1046 +
1047 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1048 + - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being.
1049 + - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**.
1050 + - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism.
1051 +{{/expandable}}
1052 +
1053 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1054 +- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**.
1055 +- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**.
1056 +- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance.
1057 +{{/expandable}}
1058 +
1059 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1060 +1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**.
1061 +2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men.
1062 +3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**.
1063 +{{/expandable}}
1064 +
1065 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1066 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]]
1067 +{{/expandable}}
1068 +{{/expandable}}
1069 +
1070 +
651 651  {{expandable summary="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}
652 652  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
653 653  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
... ... @@ -1052,9 +1052,8 @@
1052 1052  {{/expandable}}
1053 1053  {{/expandable}}
1054 1054  
1055 -{{expandable summary="
1475 +{{expandable summary="
1056 1056  
1057 -
1058 1058  Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1059 1059  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1060 1060  **Date of Publication:** *2014*
... ... @@ -1124,66 +1124,206 @@
1124 1124  
1125 1125  = Whiteness & White Guilt =
1126 1126  
1546 +{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}}
1547 +**Source:** *Psychological Science*
1548 +**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1549 +**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.*
1550 +**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"*
1551 +**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812)
1552 +**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning*
1553 +
1554 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1555 +1. **General Observations:**
1556 + - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test).
1557 + - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias.
1558 +
1559 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1560 + - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly.
1561 + - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**.
1562 +
1563 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1564 + - The **"Black hero" intervention**, where participants imagined being violently attacked by a White man and rescued by a Black man, was among the most effective.
1565 + - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change.
1566 +{{/expandable}}
1567 +
1568 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1569 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1570 + - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors.
1571 + - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations.
1572 +
1573 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1574 + - In the **"Black hero" condition**, participants were asked to imagine being physically beaten by a White person and then rescued by a Black person — an intentionally vivid and disturbing scenario.
1575 + - The **"Black victim" intervention** relied on emotionally shocking imagery of anti-Black violence (e.g., lynching) to induce guilt and disrupt positive associations with Whiteness.
1576 +
1577 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1578 + - None of the scenarios reversed the framing (e.g., Black aggressor/White victim), confirming the ideological goal was **to degrade White identity**, not merely reduce bias.
1579 + - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations.
1580 +{{/expandable}}
1581 +
1582 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1583 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1584 + - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types.
1585 + - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone.
1586 +
1587 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1588 + - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**.
1589 + - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups.
1590 + - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized.
1591 +
1592 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1593 + - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change.
1594 + - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups.
1595 + - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.”
1596 +{{/expandable}}
1597 +
1598 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1599 +- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**.
1600 +- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios.
1601 +- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies.
1602 +{{/expandable}}
1603 +
1604 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1605 +1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings.
1606 +2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies.
1607 +3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks.
1608 +{{/expandable}}
1609 +
1610 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1611 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]]
1612 +{{/expandable}}
1613 +{{/expandable}}
1614 +
1615 +
1616 +{{expandable summary="Study: School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"}}
1617 +**Source:** *Social Science Research Network (SSRN)*
1618 +**Date of Publication:** *2020*
1619 +**Author(s):** *Eric Kaufmann, David Goldberg*
1620 +**Title:** *"School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"*
1621 +**DOI:** [10.2139/ssrn.3730517](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730517)
1622 +**Subject Matter:** *K–12 Education, CRT, Indoctrination, Teacher Training*
1623 +
1624 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1625 +1. **General Observations:**
1626 + - Surveyed **over 800 educators** and analyzed **curricula, training materials, and administrator communications**.
1627 + - Found that **CSJ ideology is deeply embedded in public school systems**, including charter and magnet schools.
1628 +
1629 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1630 + - Teachers reported being trained to believe **Whiteness = privilege + harm**, not just historical context.
1631 + - Administrators disproportionately **disciplined or suppressed dissenting White teachers or parents**.
1632 +
1633 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1634 + - **Majority of educators fear retribution** if they question CSJ orthodoxy.
1635 + - **Curriculum mandates racial self-critique** primarily for White students, often starting in elementary grades.
1636 +{{/expandable}}
1637 +
1638 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1639 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1640 + - CSJ ideology **functions as an implicit worldview**, not a neutral teaching tool.
1641 + - “Equity” in practice means **dismantling of perceived White dominance**, often through emotional manipulation of students.
1642 +
1643 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1644 + - White students and teachers report **feeling targeted or dehumanized** in diversity sessions.
1645 + - Minority students were often **placed in victim-centric identity frameworks**, reinforcing grievance politics.
1646 +
1647 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1648 + - In several documented districts, **student activities included “unlearning Whiteness” workshops**.
1649 + - One district mandated that teachers **“de-center White perspectives”** in all classroom subjects.
1650 +{{/expandable}}
1651 +
1652 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1653 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1654 + - One of the few empirical studies documenting **systemic ideological bias in education**.
1655 + - Strong evidentiary base drawn from **firsthand educator testimony** and training materials.
1656 +
1657 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1658 + - Study is based on **self-reported perceptions**, though many are substantiated with examples.
1659 + - Focus is primarily U.S.-centric; international parallels not explored.
1660 +
1661 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1662 + - Future studies could **quantify the academic and emotional impact** on White students.
1663 + - Comparative analysis with **non-CSJ schools** (e.g., classical models) would clarify causal impact.
1664 +{{/expandable}}
1665 +
1666 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1667 +- Documents how **CRT-aligned ideology disproportionately targets White students and teachers**.
1668 +- Confirms that **school choice fails to protect against ideological indoctrination** when CSJ is systemic.
1669 +- Supports the need for **explicitly anti-indoctrination educational frameworks** grounded in neutrality and merit.
1670 +{{/expandable}}
1671 +
1672 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1673 +1. Investigate **legal protections for students against compelled ideological speech**.
1674 +2. Study **alternatives to CSJ pedagogy**, such as classical liberal education or civic humanism.
1675 +3. Examine **psychological outcomes** of guilt-based racial framing among White children.
1676 +{{/expandable}}
1677 +
1678 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1679 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:11.Goldberg_Kaufmann_CSJ_Education_Impact.pdf]]
1680 +{{/expandable}}
1681 +{{/expandable}}
1682 +
1683 +
1127 1127  {{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1128 -**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1129 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1130 -**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1131 -**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1132 -**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1133 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism*
1685 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1686 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1687 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1688 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1689 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1690 +**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing*
1134 1134  
1135 1135  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1136 1136  1. **General Observations:**
1137 - - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1138 - - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
1694 + - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
1695 + - The study claims **segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance.
1139 1139  
1140 1140  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1141 - - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1142 - - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
1698 + - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
1699 + - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**.
1143 1143  
1144 1144  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1145 - - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1146 - - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1702 + - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
1703 + - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria.
1147 1147  {{/expandable}}
1148 1148  
1149 1149  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1150 1150  1. **Primary Observations:**
1151 - - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1152 - - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
1708 + - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
1709 + - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball.
1153 1153  
1154 1154  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1155 - - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1156 - - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
1712 + - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
1713 + - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration.
1157 1157  
1158 1158  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1159 - - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1160 - - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1716 + - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
1717 + - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race.
1161 1161  {{/expandable}}
1162 1162  
1163 1163  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1164 1164  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1165 - - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1166 - - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
1722 + - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
1723 + - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants.
1167 1167  
1168 1168  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1169 - - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1170 - - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
1726 + - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
1727 + - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
1728 + - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context.
1171 1171  
1172 1172  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1173 - - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1174 - - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1731 + - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
1732 + - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
1733 + - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically.
1175 1175  {{/expandable}}
1176 1176  
1177 1177  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1178 -- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1179 -- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1180 -- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.
1737 +- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
1738 +- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
1739 +- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics).
1181 1181  {{/expandable}}
1182 1182  
1183 1183  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1184 -1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1185 -2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1186 -3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1743 +1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
1744 +2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
1745 +3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**.
1187 1187  {{/expandable}}
1188 1188  
1189 1189  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1191,66 +1191,70 @@
1191 1191  {{/expandable}}
1192 1192  {{/expandable}}
1193 1193  
1753 +
1194 1194  {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1195 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1196 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1197 -**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1755 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1756 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1757 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver*
1198 1198  **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1199 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1200 -**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment*
1759 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1760 +**Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias*
1201 1201  
1202 1202  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1203 1203  1. **General Observations:**
1204 - - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1205 - - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
1764 + - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**.
1765 + - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**.
1766 + - Measured how those beliefs affected **pain ratings and treatment recommendations**.
1206 1206  
1207 1207  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1208 - - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1209 - - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients pain levels**.
1769 + - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings).
1770 + - Those who endorsed false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients' pain**.
1210 1210  
1211 1211  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1212 - - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1213 - - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1773 + - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
1774 + - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data.
1214 1214  {{/expandable}}
1215 1215  
1216 1216  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1217 1217  1. **Primary Observations:**
1218 - - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1219 - - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
1779 + - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment.
1780 + - Endorsement of such beliefs led to **less appropriate treatment for Black patients** in fictional cases.
1220 1220  
1221 1221  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1222 - - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1223 - - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
1783 + - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**.
1784 + - No evidence was presented of **active discrimination** — bias appeared linked to **misinformation, not malice**.
1224 1224  
1225 1225  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1226 - - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1227 - - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1787 + - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care.
1788 + - The study **did not show bias against White patients**, nor explore disparities affecting them.
1228 1228  {{/expandable}}
1229 1229  
1230 1230  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1231 1231  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1232 - - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1233 - - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
1793 + - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
1794 + - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**.
1234 1234  
1235 1235  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1236 - - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1237 - - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
1797 + - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health.
1798 + - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study.
1799 + - **Overemphasizes "racial bias"** narrative despite the findings being more about **ignorance than intent**.
1238 1238  
1239 1239  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1240 - - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1241 - - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1802 + - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework.
1803 + - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest.
1804 + - Clarify the **distinction between false belief and racial animus**, which the study conflates under CRT framing.
1242 1242  {{/expandable}}
1243 1243  
1244 1244  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1245 -- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1246 -- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1247 -- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.
1808 +- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
1809 +- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
1810 +- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**.
1248 1248  {{/expandable}}
1249 1249  
1250 1250  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1251 -1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1252 -2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1253 -3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1814 +1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
1815 +2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
1816 +3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**.
1254 1254  {{/expandable}}
1255 1255  
1256 1256  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1258,6 +1258,7 @@
1258 1258  {{/expandable}}
1259 1259  {{/expandable}}
1260 1260  
1824 +
1261 1261  {{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1262 1262  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1263 1263  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
... ... @@ -1326,71 +1326,75 @@
1326 1326  {{/expandable}}
1327 1327  
1328 1328  {{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1329 -**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1330 -**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1331 -**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1332 -**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1333 -**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1334 -**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration*
1893 +**Source:** *Urban Studies*
1894 +**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1895 +**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
1896 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1897 +**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057)
1898 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Diversity, Migration, Identity Politics*
1335 1335  
1336 1336  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1337 1337  1. **General Observations:**
1338 - - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1339 - - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
1902 + - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities.
1903 + - Focused on how **"non-migrants" (code for native Whites)** perceive and adapt to so-called “superdiversity”.
1340 1340  
1341 1341  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1342 - - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1343 - - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
1906 + - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
1907 + - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change.
1344 1344  
1345 1345  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1346 - - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1347 - - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1910 + - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”**
1911 + - Provides **no quantitative data** on actual neighborhood changes or crime statistics.
1348 1348  {{/expandable}}
1349 1349  
1350 1350  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1351 1351  1. **Primary Observations:**
1352 - - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1353 - - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
1916 + - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”**
1917 + - Positions White cultural norms as inherently oppressive or exclusionary.
1354 1354  
1355 1355  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1356 - - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1357 - - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
1920 + - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
1921 + - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of invisible boundary-making.
1358 1358  
1359 1359  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1360 - - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1361 - - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1924 + - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded racism.
1925 + - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.**
1362 1362  {{/expandable}}
1363 1363  
1364 1364  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1365 1365  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1366 - - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1367 - - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
1930 + - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
1931 + - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.**
1368 1368  
1369 1369  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1370 - - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1371 - - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
1934 + - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites.
1935 + - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers.
1936 + - Lacks analysis of **economic factors, crime, housing scarcity, or policy failures** contributing to discontent.
1372 1372  
1373 1373  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1374 - - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1375 - - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1939 + - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.**
1940 + - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith.
1941 + - Balance cultural analysis with **hard demographic and economic data.**
1376 1376  {{/expandable}}
1377 1377  
1378 1378  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1379 -- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1380 -- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1381 -- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.
1945 +- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life.
1946 +- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.**
1947 +- Useful for exposing how **CRT and superdiversity discourse erase White communities' legitimacy.**
1382 1382  {{/expandable}}
1383 1383  
1384 1384  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1385 -1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1386 -2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1387 -3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1951 +1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
1952 +2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones.
1953 +3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration.
1388 1388  {{/expandable}}
1389 1389  
1390 1390  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1391 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1957 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1392 1392  {{/expandable}}
1959 +{{/expandable}}
1393 1393  
1961 +
1394 1394  = Media =
1395 1395  
1396 1396  {{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
... ... @@ -1593,4 +1593,237 @@
1593 1593  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
1594 1594  {{/expandable}}
1595 1595  {{/expandable}}
2164 +
2165 +{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
2166 +Source: Journal of Advertising Research
2167 +Date of Publication: 2022
2168 +Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim
2169 +Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
2170 +DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028
2171 +Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
2172 +
2173 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2174 +
2175 +**General Observations:**
2176 +
2177 +Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
2178 +
2179 +Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
2180 +
2181 +**Subgroup Analysis:**
2182 +
2183 +Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers.
2184 +
2185 +Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones.
2186 +
2187 +**Other Significant Data Points:**
2188 +
2189 +Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation.
2190 +
2191 +No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation.
1596 1596  {{/expandable}}
2193 +
2194 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2195 +
2196 +**Primary Observations:**
2197 +
2198 +White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
2199 +
2200 +These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
2201 +
2202 +**Subgroup Trends:**
2203 +
2204 +Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades.
2205 +
2206 +The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
2207 +
2208 +**Specific Case Analysis:**
2209 +
2210 +The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives.
2211 +
2212 +Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations.
2213 +{{/expandable}}
2214 +
2215 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2216 +
2217 +**Strengths of the Study:**
2218 +
2219 +Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
2220 +
2221 +Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
2222 +
2223 +**Limitations of the Study:**
2224 +
2225 +Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
2226 +
2227 +Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising.
2228 +
2229 +Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts.
2230 +
2231 +**Suggestions for Improvement:**
2232 +
2233 +Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
2234 +
2235 +Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
2236 +
2237 +Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages.
2238 +{{/expandable}}
2239 +
2240 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2241 +
2242 +Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
2243 +
2244 +Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.”
2245 +
2246 +Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation.
2247 +{{/expandable}}
2248 +
2249 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2250 +
2251 +Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
2252 +
2253 +Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
2254 +
2255 +Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
2256 +{{/expandable}}
2257 +
2258 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2259 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
2260 +{{/expandable}}
2261 +{{/expandable}}
2262 +
2263 +{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}}
2264 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2265 +**Date of Publication:** *2020*
2266 +**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee*
2267 +**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"*
2268 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032)
2269 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations*
2270 +
2271 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2272 +1. **General Observations:**
2273 + - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**.
2274 + - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites).
2275 +
2276 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2277 + - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news.
2278 + - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”.
2279 +
2280 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2281 + - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**.
2282 + - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**.
2283 +{{/expandable}}
2284 +
2285 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2286 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2287 + - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact.
2288 + - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias.
2289 +
2290 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2291 + - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning.
2292 + - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**.
2293 +
2294 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2295 + - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships.
2296 + - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society.
2297 +{{/expandable}}
2298 +
2299 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2300 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2301 + - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling.
2302 + - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact.
2303 +
2304 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2305 + - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias.
2306 + - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash.
2307 + - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”.
2308 +
2309 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2310 + - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**.
2311 + - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers.
2312 + - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging.
2313 +{{/expandable}}
2314 +
2315 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2316 +- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact.
2317 +- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus.
2318 +- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected.
2319 +{{/expandable}}
2320 +
2321 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2322 +1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health.
2323 +2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns.
2324 +3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives.
2325 +{{/expandable}}
2326 +
2327 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2328 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]]
2329 +{{/expandable}}
2330 +{{/expandable}}
2331 +
2332 +
2333 +{{expandable summary="Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}}
2334 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2335 +**Date of Publication:** *2018*
2336 +**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah*
2337 +**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"*
2338 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2339 +**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation*
2340 +
2341 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2342 +1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study.
2343 +2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including:
2344 + - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes”
2345 + - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race
2346 + - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact
2347 +
2348 +3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent.
2349 +{{/expandable}}
2350 +
2351 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2352 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2353 + - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups.
2354 + - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context.
2355 + - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations.
2356 +
2357 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2358 + - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”).
2359 + - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias.
2360 +
2361 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2362 + - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively.
2363 +{{/expandable}}
2364 +
2365 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2366 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2367 + - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception.
2368 + - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon.
2369 +
2370 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2371 + - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**.
2372 + - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality.
2373 + - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values).
2374 +
2375 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2376 + - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity.
2377 + - Needs empirical validation of claims.
2378 + - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity.
2379 +{{/expandable}}
2380 +
2381 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2382 +- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance.
2383 +- Directly supports the narrative that **pro-White identity is systematically delegitimized**, while pro-Black identity is commodified and glamorized — then sold back to White youth.
2384 +- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation.
2385 +{{/expandable}}
2386 +
2387 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2388 +1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites?
2389 +2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest?
2390 +3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it?
2391 +{{/expandable}}
2392 +
2393 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2394 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]]
2395 +{{/expandable}}
2396 +{{/expandable}}
2397 +
Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +472.9 KB
Content
lai2014.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +15.4 MB
Content
lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2.1 MB
Content