0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 120.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 06:04
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 93.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/04/16 00:28
Change comment: Rollback to version 91.1

Summary

Details

Page properties
Parent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -Main Categories.Science & Research.WebHome
1 +Main.Studies.WebHome
Content
... ... @@ -1,17 +4,99 @@
1 -{{toc/}}
2 -
3 -
4 4  = Research at a Glance =
5 5  
6 6  
7 7  
8 - Welcome to the **Research at a Glance** repository. This section serves as a **centralized reference hub** for key academic studies related to various important Racial themes. Each study is categorized for easy navigation and presented in a **collapsible format** to maintain a clean layout. I wanted to make this for a couple of reasons. Number one is organization. There are a ton of useful studies out there that expose the truth, sometimes inadvertently. You'll notice that in this initial draft the summaries are often woke and reflect the bias of the AI writing them as well as the researchers politically correct conclusion in most cases. That's because I haven't gotten to going through and pointing out the reasons I put all of them in here.
5 + Welcome to the **Research at a Glance** repository. This section serves as a **centralized reference hub** for key academic studies related to various important Racial themes. Each study is categorized for easy navigation and presented in a **collapsible format** to maintain a clean layout. I wanted to make this for a couple of reasons. Number one is organization. There are a ton of useful studies out there that expose the truth, sometimes inadvertently. You'll notice that in this initial draft the summaries are often woke and reflect the bias of the AI writing them as well as the researchers politically correct conclusion in most cases. That's because I haven't gotten to going through and pointing out the reasons I put all of them in here.
9 9  
10 10  
11 11   There is often an underlying hypocrisy or double standard, saying the quiet part out loud, or conclusions that are so much of an antithesis to what the data shows that made me want to include it. At least, thats the idea for once its polished. I have about 150 more studies to upload, so it will be a few weeks before I get through it all. Until such time, feel free to search for them yourself and edit in what you find, or add your own studies. If you like you can do it manually, or if you'd rather go the route I did, just rename the study to its doi number and feed the study into an AI and tell them to summarize the study using the following format:
12 12  
10 +{{example}}
11 +~= Study: [Study Title] =
13 13  
13 +~{~{expand title="Study: [Study Title] (Click to Expand)" expanded="false"}}
14 +~*~*Source:~*~* *[Journal/Institution Name]*
15 +~*~*Date of Publication:~*~* *[Publication Date]*
16 +~*~*Author(s):~*~* *[Author(s) Name(s)]*
17 +~*~*Title:~*~* *"[Study Title]"*
18 +~*~*DOI:~*~* [DOI or Link]
19 +~*~*Subject Matter:~*~* *[Broad Research Area, e.g., Social Psychology, Public Policy, Behavioral Economics]* 
14 14  
21 +~-~--
22 +
23 +~#~# ~*~*Key Statistics~*~*
24 +~1. ~*~*General Observations:~*~*
25 + - [Statistical finding or observation]
26 + - [Statistical finding or observation]
27 +
28 +2. ~*~*Subgroup Analysis:~*~*
29 + - [Breakdown of findings by gender, race, or other subgroups]
30 +
31 +3. ~*~*Other Significant Data Points:~*~*
32 + - [Any additional findings or significant statistics]
33 +
34 +~-~--
35 +
36 +~#~# ~*~*Findings~*~*
37 +~1. ~*~*Primary Observations:~*~*
38 + - [High-level findings or trends in the study]
39 +
40 +2. ~*~*Subgroup Trends:~*~*
41 + - [Disparities or differences highlighted in the study]
42 +
43 +3. ~*~*Specific Case Analysis:~*~*
44 + - [Detailed explanation of any notable specific findings]
45 +
46 +~-~--
47 +
48 +~#~# ~*~*Critique and Observations~*~*
49 +~1. ~*~*Strengths of the Study:~*~*
50 + - [Examples: strong methodology, large dataset, etc.]
51 +
52 +2. ~*~*Limitations of the Study:~*~*
53 + - [Examples: data gaps, lack of upstream analysis, etc.]
54 +
55 +3. ~*~*Suggestions for Improvement:~*~*
56 + - [Ideas for further research or addressing limitations]
57 +
58 +~-~--
59 +
60 +~#~# ~*~*Relevance to Subproject~*~*
61 +- [Explanation of how this study contributes to your subproject goals.]
62 +- [Any key arguments or findings that support or challenge your views.]
63 +
64 +~-~--
65 +
66 +~#~# ~*~*Suggestions for Further Exploration~*~*
67 +~1. [Research questions or areas to investigate further.]
68 +2. [Potential studies or sources to complement this analysis.]
69 +
70 +~-~--
71 +
72 +~#~# ~*~*Summary of Research Study~*~*
73 +This study examines ~*~*[core research question or focus]~*~*, providing insights into ~*~*[main subject area]~*~*. The research utilized ~*~*[sample size and methodology]~*~* to assess ~*~*[key variables or measured outcomes]~*~*. 
74 +
75 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
76 +
77 +~-~--
78 +
79 +~#~# ~*~*📄 Download Full Study~*~*
80 +~{~{velocity}}
81 +#set($doi = "[Insert DOI Here]")
82 +#set($filename = "${doi}.pdf")
83 +#if($xwiki.exists("attach~:$filename"))
84 +~[~[Download Full Study>>attach~:$filename]]
85 +#else
86 +~{~{html}}<span style="color:red; font-weight:bold;">🚨 PDF Not Available 🚨</span>~{~{/html}}
87 +#end
88 +~{~{/velocity}}
89 +
90 +~{~{/expand}}
91 +
92 +
93 +{{/example}}
94 +
95 +
96 +
15 15  - Click on a **category** in the **Table of Contents** to browse studies related to that topic.
16 16  - Click on a **study title** to expand its details, including **key findings, critique, and relevance**.
17 17  - Use the **search function** (Ctrl + F or XWiki's built-in search) to quickly find specific topics or authors.
... ... @@ -19,12 +19,21 @@
19 19  - You'll also find a download link to the original full study in pdf form at the bottom of the collapsible block.
20 20  
21 21  
104 +{{toc/}}
22 22  
106 +
107 +
108 +
109 +
23 23  = Genetics =
24 24  
25 -{{expandable summary="
26 26  
27 -Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
113 +== Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History ==
114 +
115 +
116 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
117 +
118 +
28 28  **Source:** *Nature*
29 29  **Date of Publication:** *2009*
30 30  **Author(s):** *David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, Lalji Singh*
... ... @@ -32,7 +32,10 @@
32 32  **DOI:** [10.1038/nature08365](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08365)
33 33  **Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Population History, South Asian Ancestry* 
34 34  
35 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
126 +----
127 +
128 +## **Key Statistics**##
129 +
36 36  1. **General Observations:**
37 37   - Study analyzed **132 individuals from 25 diverse Indian groups**.
38 38   - Identified two major ancestral populations: **Ancestral North Indians (ANI)** and **Ancestral South Indians (ASI)**.
... ... @@ -44,9 +44,11 @@
44 44  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
45 45   - ANI ancestry ranges from **39% to 71%** across Indian groups.
46 46   - **Caste and linguistic differences** strongly correlate with genetic variation.
47 -{{/expandable}}
48 48  
49 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
142 +----
143 +
144 +## **Findings**##
145 +
50 50  1. **Primary Observations:**
51 51   - The genetic landscape of India has been shaped by **thousands of years of endogamy**.
52 52   - Groups with **only ASI ancestry no longer exist** in mainland India.
... ... @@ -58,9 +58,11 @@
58 58  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
59 59   - **Founder effects** have maintained allele frequency differences among Indian groups.
60 60   - Predicts **higher incidence of recessive diseases** due to historical genetic isolation.
61 -{{/expandable}}
62 62  
63 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
158 +----
159 +
160 +## **Critique and Observations**##
161 +
64 64  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
65 65   - **First large-scale genetic analysis** of Indian population history.
66 66   - Introduces **new methods for ancestry estimation without direct ancestral reference groups**.
... ... @@ -72,34 +72,55 @@
72 72  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
73 73   - Future research should **expand sampling across more Indian tribal groups**.
74 74   - Use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer resolution of ancestry.
75 -{{/expandable}}
76 76  
77 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
174 +----
175 +
176 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
78 78  - Provides a **genetic basis for caste and linguistic diversity** in India.
79 79  - Highlights **founder effects and genetic drift** shaping South Asian populations.
80 -- Supports research on **medical genetics and disease risk prediction** in Indian populations.
81 -{{/expandable}}
179 +- Supports research on **medical genetics and disease risk prediction** in Indian populations.##
82 82  
83 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
181 +----
182 +
183 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
184 +
84 84  1. Examine **genetic markers linked to disease susceptibility** in Indian subpopulations.
85 85  2. Investigate the impact of **recent migration patterns on ANI-ASI ancestry distribution**.
86 86  3. Study **gene flow between Indian populations and other global groups**.
87 -{{/expandable}}
88 88  
89 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
90 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature08365.pdf]]
189 +----
190 +
191 +## **Summary of Research Study**
192 +This study reconstructs **the genetic history of India**, revealing two ancestral populations—**ANI (related to West Eurasians) and ASI (distinctly South Asian)**. By analyzing **25 diverse Indian groups**, the researchers demonstrate how **historical endogamy and founder effects** have maintained genetic differentiation. The findings have **implications for medical genetics, population history, and the study of South Asian ancestry**.##
193 +
194 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
195 +
196 +----
197 +
198 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
199 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature08365.pdf]]##
200 +
201 +
91 91  {{/expandable}}
92 -{{/expandable}}
93 93  
94 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"}}
95 -**Source:** *Nature*
96 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
97 -**Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
98 -**Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
99 -**DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
100 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics*
101 101  
102 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
205 +== Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations ==
206 +
207 +
208 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"}}
209 +
210 +
211 +**Source:** *Nature*
212 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
213 +**Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
214 +**Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
215 +**DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
216 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics* 
217 +
218 +----
219 +
220 +## **Key Statistics**##
221 +
103 103  1. **General Observations:**
104 104   - Analyzed **high-coverage genome sequences of 300 individuals from 142 populations**.
105 105   - Included **many underrepresented and indigenous groups** from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas.
... ... @@ -111,9 +111,11 @@
111 111  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
112 112   - Identified **5.8 million base pairs absent from the human reference genome**.
113 113   - Estimated that **mutations have accumulated 5% faster in non-Africans than in Africans**.
114 -{{/expandable}}
115 115  
116 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
234 +----
235 +
236 +## **Findings**##
237 +
117 117  1. **Primary Observations:**
118 118   - **African populations harbor the greatest genetic diversity**, confirming an out-of-Africa dispersal model.
119 119   - Indigenous Australians and New Guineans **share a common ancestral population with other non-Africans**.
... ... @@ -125,9 +125,11 @@
125 125  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
126 126   - **Neanderthal ancestry is higher in East Asians than in Europeans**.
127 127   - African hunter-gatherer groups show **deep population splits over 100,000 years ago**.
128 -{{/expandable}}
129 129  
130 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
250 +----
251 +
252 +## **Critique and Observations**##
253 +
131 131  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
132 132   - **Largest global genetic dataset** outside of the 1000 Genomes Project.
133 133   - High sequencing depth allows **more accurate identification of genetic variants**.
... ... @@ -139,36 +139,52 @@
139 139  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
140 140   - Future studies should include **ancient genomes** to improve demographic modeling.
141 141   - Expand research into **how genetic variation affects health outcomes** across populations.
142 -{{/expandable}}
143 143  
144 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
266 +----
267 +
268 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
145 145  - Provides **comprehensive data on human genetic diversity**, useful for **evolutionary studies**.
146 146  - Supports research on **Neanderthal and Denisovan introgression** in modern human populations.
147 -- Enhances understanding of **genetic adaptation and disease susceptibility across groups**.
148 -{{/expandable}}
271 +- Enhances understanding of **genetic adaptation and disease susceptibility across groups**.##
149 149  
150 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
273 +----
274 +
275 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
276 +
151 151  1. Investigate **functional consequences of genetic variation in underrepresented populations**.
152 152  2. Study **how selection pressures shaped genetic diversity across different environments**.
153 153  3. Explore **medical applications of population-specific genetic markers**.
154 -{{/expandable}}
155 155  
156 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
157 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature18964.pdf]]
281 +----
282 +
283 +## **Summary of Research Study**
284 +This study presents **high-coverage genome sequences from 300 individuals across 142 populations**, offering **new insights into global genetic diversity and human evolution**. The findings highlight **deep African population splits, widespread archaic ancestry in non-Africans, and unique variants absent from the human reference genome**. The research enhances our understanding of **migration patterns, adaptation, and evolutionary history**.##
285 +
286 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
287 +
288 +----
289 +
290 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
291 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature18964.pdf]]##
292 +
293 +
158 158  {{/expandable}}
159 -{{/expandable}}
160 160  
161 -{{expandable summary="
162 162  
163 -Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
164 -**Source:** *Nature Genetics*
165 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
166 -**Author(s):** *Tinca J. C. Polderman, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, Danielle Posthuma*
167 -**Title:** *"Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"*
168 -**DOI:** [10.1038/ng.328](https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.328)
169 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Heritability, Twin Studies, Behavioral Science*
297 +== Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies ==
170 170  
171 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
299 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
300 +**Source:** *Nature Genetics*
301 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
302 +**Author(s):** *Tinca J. C. Polderman, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, Danielle Posthuma*
303 +**Title:** *"Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"*
304 +**DOI:** [10.1038/ng.328](https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.328)
305 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Heritability, Twin Studies, Behavioral Science* 
306 +
307 +----
308 +
309 +## **Key Statistics**##
310 +
172 172  1. **General Observations:**
173 173   - Analyzed **17,804 traits from 2,748 twin studies** published between **1958 and 2012**.
174 174   - Included data from **14,558,903 twin pairs**, making it the largest meta-analysis on human heritability.
... ... @@ -180,9 +180,11 @@
180 180  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
181 181   - **Neurological, metabolic, and psychiatric traits** showed the highest heritability estimates.
182 182   - Traits related to **social values and environmental interactions** had lower heritability estimates.
183 -{{/expandable}}
184 184  
185 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
323 +----
324 +
325 +## **Findings**##
326 +
186 186  1. **Primary Observations:**
187 187   - Across all traits, genetic factors play a significant role in individual differences.
188 188   - The study contradicts models that **overestimate environmental effects in behavioral and cognitive traits**.
... ... @@ -194,9 +194,11 @@
194 194  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
195 195   - Twin correlations suggest **limited evidence for strong non-additive genetic influences**.
196 196   - The study highlights **missing heritability in complex traits**, which genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have yet to fully explain.
197 -{{/expandable}}
198 198  
199 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
339 +----
340 +
341 +## **Critique and Observations**##
342 +
200 200  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
201 201   - **Largest-ever heritability meta-analysis**, covering nearly all published twin studies.
202 202   - Provides a **comprehensive framework for understanding gene-environment contributions**.
... ... @@ -208,28 +208,39 @@
208 208  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
209 209   - Future research should use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer-grained heritability estimates.
210 210   - **Incorporate non-Western populations** to assess global heritability trends.
211 -{{/expandable}}
212 212  
213 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
355 +----
356 +
357 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
214 214  - Establishes a **quantitative benchmark for heritability across human traits**.
215 215  - Reinforces **genetic influence on cognitive, behavioral, and physical traits**.
216 -- Highlights the need for **genome-wide studies to identify missing heritability**.
217 -{{/expandable}}
360 +- Highlights the need for **genome-wide studies to identify missing heritability**.##
218 218  
219 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
362 +----
363 +
364 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
365 +
220 220  1. Investigate how **heritability estimates compare across different socioeconomic backgrounds**.
221 221  2. Examine **gene-environment interactions in cognitive and psychiatric traits**.
222 222  3. Explore **non-additive genetic effects on human traits using newer statistical models**.
223 -{{/expandable}}
224 224  
225 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
226 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_ng.328.pdf]]
370 +----
371 +
372 +## **Summary of Research Study**
373 +This study presents a **comprehensive meta-analysis of human trait heritability**, covering **over 50 years of twin research**. The findings confirm **genes play a predominant role in shaping human traits**, with an **average heritability of 49%** across all measured characteristics. The research offers **valuable insights into genetic and environmental influences**, guiding future gene-mapping efforts and behavioral genetics studies.##
374 +
375 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
376 +
377 +----
378 +
379 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
380 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_ng.328.pdf]]##
227 227  {{/expandable}}
228 -{{/expandable}}
229 229  
230 -{{expandable summary="
231 231  
232 -Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
384 +== Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease ==
385 +
386 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
233 233  **Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
234 234  **Date of Publication:** *2002*
235 235  **Author(s):** *Sarah A. Tishkoff, Scott M. Williams*
... ... @@ -237,7 +237,10 @@
237 237  **DOI:** [10.1038/nrg865](https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg865)
238 238  **Subject Matter:** *Population Genetics, Human Evolution, Complex Diseases* 
239 239  
240 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
394 +----
395 +
396 +## **Key Statistics**##
397 +
241 241  1. **General Observations:**
242 242   - Africa harbors **the highest genetic diversity** of any region, making it key to understanding human evolution.
243 243   - The study analyzes **genetic variation and linkage disequilibrium (LD) in African populations**.
... ... @@ -249,9 +249,11 @@
249 249  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
250 250   - The **effective population size (Ne) of Africans** is higher than that of non-African populations.
251 251   - LD blocks are **shorter in African genomes**, suggesting more historical recombination events.
252 -{{/expandable}}
253 253  
254 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
410 +----
411 +
412 +## **Findings**##
413 +
255 255  1. **Primary Observations:**
256 256   - African populations are the **most genetically diverse**, supporting the *Recent African Origin* hypothesis.
257 257   - Genetic variation in African populations can **help fine-map complex disease genes**.
... ... @@ -263,9 +263,11 @@
263 263  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
264 264   - Admixture in African Americans includes **West African and European genetic contributions**.
265 265   - SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) diversity in African genomes **exceeds that of non-African groups**.
266 -{{/expandable}}
267 267  
268 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
426 +----
427 +
428 +## **Critique and Observations**##
429 +
269 269  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
270 270   - Provides **comprehensive genetic analysis** of diverse African populations.
271 271   - Highlights **how genetic diversity impacts health disparities and disease risks**.
... ... @@ -277,36 +277,50 @@
277 277  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
278 278   - Expand research into **underrepresented African populations**.
279 279   - Integrate **whole-genome sequencing for a more detailed evolutionary timeline**.
280 -{{/expandable}}
281 281  
282 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
442 +----
443 +
444 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
283 283  - Supports **genetic models of human evolution** and the **out-of-Africa hypothesis**.
284 284  - Reinforces **Africa’s key role in disease gene mapping and precision medicine**.
285 -- Provides insight into **historical migration patterns and their genetic impact**.
286 -{{/expandable}}
447 +- Provides insight into **historical migration patterns and their genetic impact**.##
287 287  
288 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
449 +----
450 +
451 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
452 +
289 289  1. Investigate **genetic adaptations to local environments within Africa**.
290 290  2. Study **the role of African genetic diversity in disease resistance**.
291 291  3. Expand research on **how ancient migration patterns shaped modern genetic structure**.
292 -{{/expandable}}
293 293  
294 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
295 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nrg865MODERN.pdf]]
457 +----
458 +
459 +## **Summary of Research Study**
460 +This study explores the **genetic diversity of African populations**, analyzing their role in **human evolution and complex disease research**. The findings highlight **Africa’s unique genetic landscape**, confirming it as the most genetically diverse continent. The research provides valuable insights into **how genetic variation influences disease susceptibility, evolution, and population structure**.##
461 +
462 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
463 +
464 +----
465 +
466 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
467 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nrg865MODERN.pdf]]##
296 296  {{/expandable}}
297 -{{/expandable}}
298 298  
299 -{{expandable summary="
300 300  
301 -Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
302 -**Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
303 -**Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
304 -**Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
305 -**Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
306 -**DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
307 -**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection*
471 +== Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA ==
308 308  
309 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
473 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
474 +**Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
475 +**Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
476 +**Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
477 +**Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
478 +**DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
479 +**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection* 
480 +
481 +----
482 +
483 +## **Key Statistics**##
484 +
310 310  1. **General Observations:**
311 311   - Study analyzes **8,433 ancient individuals** from the past **14,000 years**.
312 312   - Identifies **347 genome-wide significant loci** showing strong selection.
... ... @@ -318,9 +318,11 @@
318 318  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
319 319   - **10,000 years of directional selection** affected metabolic, immune, and cognitive traits.
320 320   - **Strong selection signals** found for traits like **skin pigmentation, cognitive function, and immunity**.
321 -{{/expandable}}
322 322  
323 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
497 +----
498 +
499 +## **Findings**##
500 +
324 324  1. **Primary Observations:**
325 325   - **Hundreds of alleles have been subject to directional selection** over recent millennia.
326 326   - Traits like **immune function, metabolism, and cognitive performance** show strong selection.
... ... @@ -333,9 +333,11 @@
333 333   - **Celiac disease risk allele** increased from **0% to 20%** in 4,000 years.
334 334   - **Blood type B frequency rose from 0% to 8% in 6,000 years**.
335 335   - **Tuberculosis risk allele** fluctuated from **2% to 9% over 3,000 years before declining**.
336 -{{/expandable}}
337 337  
338 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
514 +----
515 +
516 +## **Critique and Observations**##
517 +
339 339  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
340 340   - **Largest dataset to date** on natural selection in human ancient DNA.
341 341   - Uses **direct allele frequency tracking instead of indirect measures**.
... ... @@ -347,34 +347,48 @@
347 347  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
348 348   - Expanding research to **other global populations** to assess universal trends.
349 349   - Investigating **long-term evolutionary trade-offs of selected alleles**.
350 -{{/expandable}}
351 351  
352 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
530 +----
531 +
532 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
353 353  - Provides **direct evidence of long-term genetic adaptation** in human populations.
354 354  - Supports theories on **polygenic selection shaping human cognition, metabolism, and immunity**.
355 -- Highlights **how past selection pressures may still influence modern health and disease prevalence**.
356 -{{/expandable}}
535 +- Highlights **how past selection pressures may still influence modern health and disease prevalence**.##
357 357  
358 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
537 +----
538 +
539 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
540 +
359 359  1. Examine **selection patterns in non-European populations** for comparison.
360 360  2. Investigate **how environmental and cultural shifts influenced genetic selection**.
361 361  3. Explore **the genetic basis of traits linked to past and present-day human survival**.
362 -{{/expandable}}
363 363  
364 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
365 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1101_2024.09.14.613021doi_.pdf]]
545 +----
546 +
547 +## **Summary of Research Study**
548 +This study examines **how human genetic adaptation has unfolded over 14,000 years**, using a **large dataset of ancient DNA**. It highlights **strong selection on immune function, metabolism, and cognitive traits**, revealing **hundreds of loci affected by directional selection**. The findings emphasize **the power of ancient DNA in tracking human evolution and adaptation**.##
549 +
550 +----
551 +
552 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
553 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1101_2024.09.14.613021doi_.pdf]]##
366 366  {{/expandable}}
367 -{{/expandable}}
368 368  
369 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"}}
370 -**Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
371 -**Date of Publication:** *2013*
372 -**Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
373 -**Title:** *"The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"*
374 -**DOI:** [10.1017/thg.2013.54](https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.54)
375 -**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology*
376 376  
377 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
557 +== Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age ==
558 +
559 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"}}
560 +**Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
561 +**Date of Publication:** *2013*
562 +**Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
563 +**Title:** *"The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"*
564 +**DOI:** [10.1017/thg.2013.54](https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.54)
565 +**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology* 
566 +
567 +----
568 +
569 +## **Key Statistics**##
570 +
378 378  1. **General Observations:**
379 379   - The study documents how the **heritability of IQ increases with age**, reaching an asymptote at **0.80 by adulthood**.
380 380   - Analysis is based on **longitudinal twin and adoption studies**.
... ... @@ -386,9 +386,11 @@
386 386  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
387 387   - Data from the **Louisville Longitudinal Twin Study and cross-national twin samples** support findings.
388 388   - IQ stability over time is **influenced more by genetics than by shared environmental factors**.
389 -{{/expandable}}
390 390  
391 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
583 +----
584 +
585 +## **Findings**##
586 +
392 392  1. **Primary Observations:**
393 393   - Intelligence heritability **strengthens throughout development**, contrary to early environmental models.
394 394   - Shared environmental effects **decrease by late adolescence**, emphasizing **genetic influence in adulthood**.
... ... @@ -400,9 +400,11 @@
400 400  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
401 401   - Longitudinal adoption studies show **declining impact of adoptive parental influence on IQ** as children age.
402 402   - Cross-sectional twin data confirm **higher IQ correlations for monozygotic twins in adulthood**.
403 -{{/expandable}}
404 404  
405 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
599 +----
600 +
601 +## **Critique and Observations**##
602 +
406 406  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
407 407   - **Robust dataset covering multiple twin and adoption studies over decades**.
408 408   - **Clear, replicable trend** demonstrating the increasing role of genetics in intelligence.
... ... @@ -414,34 +414,50 @@
414 414  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
415 415   - Future research should investigate **gene-environment interactions in cognitive aging**.
416 416   - Examine **heritability trends in non-Western populations** to determine cross-cultural consistency.
417 -{{/expandable}}
418 418  
419 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
615 +----
616 +
617 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
420 420  - Provides **strong evidence for the genetic basis of intelligence**.
421 421  - Highlights the **diminishing role of shared environment in cognitive development**.
422 -- Supports research on **cognitive aging and heritability across the lifespan**.
423 -{{/expandable}}
620 +- Supports research on **cognitive aging and heritability across the lifespan**.##
424 424  
425 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
622 +----
623 +
624 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
625 +
426 426  1. Investigate **neurogenetic pathways underlying IQ development**.
427 427  2. Examine **how education and socioeconomic factors interact with genetic IQ influences**.
428 428  3. Study **heritability trends in aging populations and cognitive decline**.
429 -{{/expandable}}
430 430  
431 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
432 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1017_thg.2013.54.pdf]]
630 +----
631 +
632 +## **Summary of Research Study**
633 +This study documents **The Wilson Effect**, demonstrating how the **heritability of IQ increases throughout development**, reaching a plateau of **0.80 by adulthood**. The findings indicate that **shared environmental effects diminish with age**, while **genetic influences on intelligence strengthen**. Using **longitudinal twin and adoption data**, the research provides **strong empirical support for the increasing role of genetics in cognitive ability over time**.##
634 +
635 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
636 +
637 +----
638 +
639 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
640 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1017_thg.2013.54.pdf]]##
433 433  {{/expandable}}
434 -{{/expandable}}
435 435  
436 -{{expandable summary="Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"}}
437 -**Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
438 -**Date of Publication:** *2010*
439 -**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
440 -**Title:** *"Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"*
441 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046)
442 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology*
443 443  
444 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
644 +== Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications ==
645 +
646 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"}}
647 +**Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
648 +**Date of Publication:** *2010*
649 +**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
650 +**Title:** *"Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"*
651 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046)
652 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology* 
653 +
654 +----
655 +
656 +## **Key Statistics**##
657 +
445 445  1. **General Observations:**
446 446   - The study argues that **Homo sapiens is polytypic**, meaning it consists of multiple subspecies rather than a single monotypic species.
447 447   - Examines **genetic diversity, morphological variation, and evolutionary lineage** in humans.
... ... @@ -453,9 +453,11 @@
453 453  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
454 454   - The study evaluates **FST values (genetic differentiation measure)** and argues that human genetic differentiation is comparable to that of recognized subspecies in other species.
455 455   - Considers **phylogenetic species concepts** in defining human variation.
456 -{{/expandable}}
457 457  
458 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
670 +----
671 +
672 +## **Findings**##
673 +
459 459  1. **Primary Observations:**
460 460   - Proposes that **modern human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**.
461 461   - Highlights **medical and evolutionary implications** of human taxonomic diversity.
... ... @@ -467,9 +467,11 @@
467 467  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
468 468   - Evaluates how **genetic markers correlate with population structure**.
469 469   - Addresses the **controversy over race classification in modern anthropology**.
470 -{{/expandable}}
471 471  
472 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
686 +----
687 +
688 +## **Critique and Observations**##
689 +
473 473  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
474 474   - Uses **comparative species analysis** to assess human classification.
475 475   - Provides a **biological perspective** on the race concept, moving beyond social constructivism arguments.
... ... @@ -481,36 +481,50 @@
481 481  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
482 482   - Further research should **incorporate whole-genome studies** to refine subspecies classifications.
483 483   - Investigate **how admixture affects taxonomic classification over time**.
484 -{{/expandable}}
485 485  
486 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
702 +----
703 +
704 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
487 487  - Contributes to discussions on **evolutionary taxonomy and species classification**.
488 488  - Provides evidence on **genetic differentiation among human populations**.
489 -- Highlights **historical and contemporary scientific debates on race and human variation**.
490 -{{/expandable}}
707 +- Highlights **historical and contemporary scientific debates on race and human variation**.##
491 491  
492 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
709 +----
710 +
711 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
712 +
493 493  1. Examine **FST values in modern and ancient human populations**.
494 494  2. Investigate how **adaptive evolution influences population differentiation**.
495 495  3. Explore **the impact of genetic diversity on medical treatments and disease susceptibility**.
496 -{{/expandable}}
497 497  
498 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
499 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.mehy.2009.07.046.pdf]]
717 +----
718 +
719 +## **Summary of Research Study**
720 +This study evaluates **whether Homo sapiens should be classified as a polytypic species**, analyzing **genetic diversity, evolutionary lineage, and morphological variation**. Using comparative analysis with other primates and mammals, the research suggests that **human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**, with implications for **evolutionary biology, anthropology, and medicine**.##
721 +
722 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
723 +
724 +----
725 +
726 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
727 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.mehy.2009.07.046.pdf]]##
500 500  {{/expandable}}
501 -{{/expandable}}
502 502  
503 -= IQ =
504 504  
505 -{{expandable summary="Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"}}
506 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
507 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
508 -**Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
509 -**Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
510 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
511 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis*
731 +== Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media ==
512 512  
513 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
733 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"}}
734 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
735 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
736 +**Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
737 +**Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
738 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
739 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis* 
740 +
741 +----
742 +
743 +## **Key Statistics**##
744 +
514 514  1. **General Observations:**
515 515   - Survey of **102 experts** on intelligence research and public discourse.
516 516   - Evaluated experts' backgrounds, political affiliations, and views on controversial topics in intelligence research.
... ... @@ -522,9 +522,11 @@
522 522  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
523 523   - Experts rated media coverage of intelligence research as **poor (avg. 3.1 on a 9-point scale)**.
524 524   - **50% of experts attributed US Black-White IQ differences to genetic factors, 50% to environmental factors**.
525 -{{/expandable}}
526 526  
527 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
757 +----
758 +
759 +## **Findings**##
760 +
528 528  1. **Primary Observations:**
529 529   - Experts overwhelmingly support **the g-factor theory of intelligence**.
530 530   - **Heritability of intelligence** was widely accepted, though views differed on race and group differences.
... ... @@ -536,9 +536,11 @@
536 536  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
537 537   - The study compared **media coverage of intelligence research** with expert opinions.
538 538   - Found a **disconnect between journalists and intelligence researchers**, especially regarding politically sensitive issues.
539 -{{/expandable}}
540 540  
541 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
773 +----
774 +
775 +## **Critique and Observations**##
776 +
542 542  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
543 543   - **Largest expert survey on intelligence research** to date.
544 544   - Provides insight into **how political orientation influences scientific perspectives**.
... ... @@ -550,34 +550,50 @@
550 550  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
551 551   - Future studies should include **a broader range of global experts**.
552 552   - Additional research needed on **media biases and misrepresentation of intelligence research**.
553 -{{/expandable}}
554 554  
555 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
789 +----
790 +
791 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
556 556  - Provides insight into **expert consensus and division on intelligence research**.
557 557  - Highlights the **role of media bias** in shaping public perception of intelligence science.
558 -- Useful for understanding **the intersection of science, politics, and public discourse** on intelligence research.
559 -{{/expandable}}
794 +- Useful for understanding **the intersection of science, politics, and public discourse** on intelligence research.##
560 560  
561 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
796 +----
797 +
798 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
799 +
562 562  1. Examine **cross-national differences** in expert opinions on intelligence.
563 563  2. Investigate how **media bias impacts public understanding of intelligence research**.
564 564  3. Conduct follow-up studies with **a more diverse expert pool** to test findings.
565 -{{/expandable}}
566 566  
567 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
568 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2019.101406.pdf]]
804 +----
805 +
806 +## **Summary of Research Study**
807 +This study surveys **expert opinions on intelligence research**, analyzing **how backgrounds, political ideologies, and media representation influence perspectives on intelligence**. The findings highlight **divisions in scientific consensus**, particularly on **genetic vs. environmental causes of IQ disparities**. Additionally, the research uncovers **widespread dissatisfaction with media portrayals of intelligence research**, pointing to **the impact of ideological biases on public discourse**.##
808 +
809 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
810 +
811 +----
812 +
813 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
814 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2019.101406.pdf]]##
569 569  {{/expandable}}
570 -{{/expandable}}
571 571  
572 -{{expandable summary="Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"}}
573 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
574 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
575 -**Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
576 -**Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
577 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
578 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences*
579 579  
580 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
818 +== Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation ==
819 +
820 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"}}
821 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
822 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
823 +**Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
824 +**Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
825 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
826 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences* 
827 +
828 +----
829 +
830 +## **Key Statistics**##
831 +
581 581  1. **General Observations:**
582 582   - Study analyzed **genome-wide association studies (GWAS) hits** linked to intelligence.
583 583   - Found a **strong correlation (r = .91) between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**.
... ... @@ -589,9 +589,11 @@
589 589  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
590 590   - GWAS intelligence SNPs predicted **IQ levels more strongly than random genetic markers**.
591 591   - Genetic differentiation (Fst values) showed that **selection pressure, rather than drift, influenced intelligence-related allele distributions**.
592 -{{/expandable}}
593 593  
594 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
844 +----
845 +
846 +## **Findings**##
847 +
595 595  1. **Primary Observations:**
596 596   - Intelligence-associated SNP frequencies correlate **highly with national IQ levels**.
597 597   - Genetic selection for intelligence appears **stronger than selection for height-related genes**.
... ... @@ -603,9 +603,11 @@
603 603  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
604 604   - Polygenic scores using **intelligence-related alleles significantly outperformed random SNPs** in predicting IQ.
605 605   - Selection pressures **may explain differences in global intelligence distribution** beyond genetic drift effects.
606 -{{/expandable}}
607 607  
608 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
860 +----
861 +
862 +## **Critique and Observations**##
863 +
609 609  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
610 610   - **Comprehensive genetic analysis** of intelligence-linked SNPs.
611 611   - Uses **multiple statistical methods (factor analysis, Fst analysis) to confirm results**.
... ... @@ -617,318 +617,78 @@
617 617  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
618 618   - Larger **cross-population GWAS studies** needed to validate findings.
619 619   - Investigate **non-genetic contributors to IQ variance** in addition to genetic factors.
620 -{{/expandable}}
621 621  
622 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
876 +----
877 +
878 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
623 623  - Supports research on **genetic influences on intelligence at a population level**.
624 624  - Aligns with broader discussions on **cognitive genetics and natural selection effects**.
625 -- Provides a **quantitative framework for analyzing polygenic selection in intelligence studies**.
626 -{{/expandable}}
881 +- Provides a **quantitative framework for analyzing polygenic selection in intelligence studies**.##
627 627  
628 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
883 +----
884 +
885 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
886 +
629 629  1. Conduct **expanded GWAS studies** including diverse populations.
630 630  2. Investigate **gene-environment interactions influencing intelligence**.
631 631  3. Explore **historical selection pressures shaping intelligence-related alleles**.
632 -{{/expandable}}
633 633  
634 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
635 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2015.08.008.pdf]]
636 -{{/expandable}}
637 -{{/expandable}}
891 +----
638 638  
639 -{{expandable summary="Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding"}}
640 -**Source:** Journal of Genetic Epidemiology
641 -**Date of Publication:** 2024-01-15
642 -**Author(s):** Smith et al.
643 -**Title:** "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies"
644 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
645 -**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science
646 -{{/expandable}}
893 +## **Summary of Research Study**
894 +This study reviews **genome-wide association study (GWAS) findings on intelligence**, demonstrating a **strong correlation between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**. The research highlights how **genetic selection may explain population-level cognitive differences beyond genetic drift effects**. Intelligence-linked alleles showed **higher variability across populations than height-related alleles**, suggesting stronger selection pressures.  ##
647 647  
648 -= Dating =
896 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
649 649  
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*
898 +----
657 657  
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**.
900 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
901 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2015.08.008.pdf]]##
670 670  {{/expandable}}
671 671  
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"**.
676 676  
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**.
905 +== Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding ==
680 680  
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}}
907 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Click here to expand details"}}
908 +**Source:** Journal of Genetic Epidemiology
909 +**Date of Publication:** 2024-01-15
910 +**Author(s):** Smith et al.
911 +**Title:** "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies"
912 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
913 +**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science 
685 685  
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**.
915 +**Tags:** `Genetics` `Race & Ethnicity` `Biomedical Research`
690 690  
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.
917 + **Key Statistics**
695 695  
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: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}}
721 -**Source:** *Porn Studies*
722 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
723 -**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika*
724 -**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"*
725 -**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389)
726 -**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique*
727 -
728 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
729 729  1. **General Observations:**
730 - - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women.
731 - - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality.
920 + - A near-perfect alignment between self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) and genetic ancestry was observed.
921 + - Misclassification rate: **0.14%**.
732 732  
733 733  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
734 - - Claims that **interracial porn “others and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**.
735 - - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.
924 + - Four groups analyzed: **White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic**.
925 + - Hispanic genetic clusters showed significant European and Native American lineage.
736 736  
737 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
738 - - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue.
739 - - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.”
740 -{{/expandable}}
927 + **Findings**
741 741  
742 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
743 -1. **Primary Observations:**
744 - - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity.
745 - - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men.
929 +- Self-identified race strongly aligns with genetic ancestry.
930 +- Minor discrepancies exist but do not significantly impact classification.
746 746  
747 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
748 - - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism.
749 - - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**.
932 + **Relevance to Subproject**
750 750  
751 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
752 - - 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.
753 - - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics.
934 +- Reinforces the reliability of **self-reported racial identity** in genetic research.
935 +- Highlights **policy considerations** in biomedical studies.
754 754  {{/expandable}}
755 755  
756 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
757 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
758 - - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds.
759 - - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia.
760 760  
761 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
762 - - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media.
763 - - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison.
764 - - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard.
939 +----
765 765  
766 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
767 - - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres.
768 - - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media.
769 - - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men.
770 -{{/expandable}}
941 += Dating and Interpersonal Relationships =
771 771  
772 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
773 -- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment.
774 -- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity.
775 -- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**.
776 -{{/expandable}}
777 777  
778 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
779 -1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**.
780 -2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**.
781 -3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men.
782 -{{/expandable}}
944 +== Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018 ==
783 783  
784 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
785 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]]
786 -{{/expandable}}
787 -{{/expandable}}
788 -
789 -
790 -{{expandable summary="Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}}
791 -**Source:** *Social Science Research*
792 -**Date of Publication:** *2009*
793 -**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie*
794 -**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"*
795 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004)
796 -**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy*
797 -
798 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
799 -1. **General Observations:**
800 - - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California.
801 - - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles.
802 -
803 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
804 - - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men.
805 - - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women.
806 -
807 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
808 - - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**.
809 - - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**.
810 -{{/expandable}}
811 -
812 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
813 -1. **Primary Observations:**
814 - - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context.
815 - - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**.
816 -
817 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
818 - - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping.
819 - - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race.
820 -
821 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
822 - - 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.
823 - - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.**
824 -{{/expandable}}
825 -
826 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
827 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
828 - - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles.
829 - - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**.
830 -
831 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
832 - - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users.
833 - - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.**
834 - - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.**
835 -
836 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
837 - - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**.
838 - - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**.
839 - - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites.
840 -{{/expandable}}
841 -
842 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
843 -- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**.
844 -- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized.
845 -- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites.
846 -{{/expandable}}
847 -
848 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
849 -1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race.
850 -2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism.
851 -3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites.
852 -{{/expandable}}
853 -
854 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
855 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]]
856 -{{/expandable}}
857 -{{/expandable}}
858 -
859 -
860 -{{expandable summary="Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}}
861 -**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis*
862 -**Date of Publication:** *2009*
863 -**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*))
864 -**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"*
865 -**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication*
866 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization*
867 -
868 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
869 -1. **General Observations:**
870 - - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study.
871 - - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex.
872 - - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization.
873 -
874 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
875 - - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men.
876 - - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order.
877 -
878 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
879 - - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture.
880 - - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative.
881 -{{/expandable}}
882 -
883 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
884 -1. **Primary Observations:**
885 - - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**.
886 - - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness.
887 -
888 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
889 - - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism.
890 - - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism.
891 -
892 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
893 - - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression.
894 - - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**.
895 -{{/expandable}}
896 -
897 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
898 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
899 - - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon.
900 - - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory.
901 -
902 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
903 - - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative.
904 - - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish.
905 - - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.”
906 -
907 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
908 - - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being.
909 - - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**.
910 - - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism.
911 -{{/expandable}}
912 -
913 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
914 -- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**.
915 -- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**.
916 -- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance.
917 -{{/expandable}}
918 -
919 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
920 -1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**.
921 -2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men.
922 -3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**.
923 -{{/expandable}}
924 -
925 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
926 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]]
927 -{{/expandable}}
928 -{{/expandable}}
929 -
930 -
931 -{{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"}}
946 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" 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"}}
932 932  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
933 933  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
934 934  **Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.*
... ... @@ -936,7 +936,10 @@
936 936  **DOI:** [10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833)
937 937  **Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography* 
938 938  
939 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
954 +----
955 +
956 +## **Key Statistics**##
957 +
940 940  1. **General Observations:**
941 941   - Study analyzed **General Social Survey (2000-2018)** data.
942 942   - Found **declining trends in sexual activity** among young adults.
... ... @@ -948,9 +948,11 @@
948 948  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
949 949   - Frequency of sexual activity decreased by **8-10%** over the studied period.
950 950   - Number of sexual partners remained **relatively stable** despite declining activity rates.
951 -{{/expandable}}
952 952  
953 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
970 +----
971 +
972 +## **Findings**##
973 +
954 954  1. **Primary Observations:**
955 955   - A significant decline in sexual frequency, especially among **younger men**.
956 956   - Shifts in relationship dynamics and economic stressors may contribute to the trend.
... ... @@ -962,9 +962,11 @@
962 962  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
963 963   - **Mental health and employment status** were correlated with decreased activity.
964 964   - Social factors such as **screen time and digital entertainment consumption** are potential contributors.
965 -{{/expandable}}
966 966  
967 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
986 +----
987 +
988 +## **Critique and Observations**##
989 +
968 968  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
969 969   - **Large sample size** from a nationally representative dataset.
970 970   - **Longitudinal design** enables trend analysis over time.
... ... @@ -976,32 +976,55 @@
976 976  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
977 977   - Further studies should incorporate **qualitative data** on behavioral shifts.
978 978   - Additional factors such as **economic shifts and social media usage** need exploration.
979 -{{/expandable}}
980 980  
981 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1002 +----
1003 +
1004 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
982 982  - Provides evidence on **changing demographic behaviors** in relation to relationships and social interactions.
983 -- Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.
984 -{{/expandable}}
1006 +- Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.##
985 985  
986 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1008 +----
1009 +
1010 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1011 +
987 987  1. Investigate the **impact of digital media consumption** on relationship dynamics.
988 988  2. Examine **regional and cultural differences** in sexual activity trends.
989 -{{/expandable}}
990 990  
991 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
992 -
1015 +----
1016 +
1017 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1018 +This study examines **trends in sexual frequency and number of partners among U.S. adults (2000-2018)**, highlighting significant **declines in sexual activity, particularly among young men**. The research utilized **General Social Survey data** to analyze the impact of **sociodemographic factors, employment status, and mental well-being** on sexual behavior.  ##
1019 +
1020 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study's contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1021 +
1022 +----
1023 +
1024 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1025 +{{velocity}}
1026 +#set($doi = "10.1001_jamanetworkopen.2020.3833")
1027 +#set($filename = "${doi}.pdf")
1028 +#if($xwiki.exists("attach:$filename"))
1029 +[[Download>>attach:$filename]]
1030 +#else
1031 +{{html}}<span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">🚨 PDF Not Available 🚨</span>{{/html}}
1032 +#end {{/velocity}}##
993 993  {{/expandable}}
994 -{{/expandable}}
995 995  
996 -{{expandable summary="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}
997 -**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
998 -**Date of Publication:** *2012*
999 -**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
1000 -**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
1001 -**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
1002 -**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities*
1003 1003  
1004 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1036 +== Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ==
1037 +
1038 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}
1039 +**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
1040 +**Date of Publication:** *2012*
1041 +**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
1042 +**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
1043 +**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
1044 +**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities* 
1045 +
1046 +----
1047 +
1048 +## **Key Statistics**##
1049 +
1005 1005  1. **General Observations:**
1006 1006   - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
1007 1007   - **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.
... ... @@ -1015,9 +1015,11 @@
1015 1015   - **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black mother–Black father (BMBF) (2.08).
1016 1016   - **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).
1017 1017   - **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).
1018 -{{/expandable}}
1019 1019  
1020 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1064 +----
1065 +
1066 +## **Findings**##
1067 +
1021 1021  1. **Primary Observations:**
1022 1022   - **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.
1023 1023   - **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.
... ... @@ -1029,9 +1029,11 @@
1029 1029  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1030 1030   - The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.
1031 1031   - **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.
1032 -{{/expandable}}
1033 1033  
1034 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1080 +----
1081 +
1082 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1083 +
1035 1035  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1036 1036   - **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.
1037 1037   - Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.
... ... @@ -1043,34 +1043,48 @@
1043 1043  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1044 1044   - Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.
1045 1045   - Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.
1046 -{{/expandable}}
1047 1047  
1048 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1096 +----
1097 +
1098 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1049 1049  - Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.
1050 1050  - Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.
1051 -- Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.
1052 -{{/expandable}}
1101 +- Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.##
1053 1053  
1054 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1103 +----
1104 +
1105 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1106 +
1055 1055  1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.
1056 1056  2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.
1057 1057  3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.
1058 -{{/expandable}}
1059 1059  
1060 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1061 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]
1111 +----
1112 +
1113 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1114 +This meta-analysis examines **the impact of biracial parentage on birth outcomes**, showing that **biracial couples face a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes than White couples but lower than Black couples**. The findings emphasize **maternal race as a key factor in birth risks**, with **Black mothers having the highest rates of preterm birth and low birthweight, regardless of paternal race**.##
1115 +
1116 +----
1117 +
1118 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1119 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]##
1062 1062  {{/expandable}}
1063 -{{/expandable}}
1064 1064  
1065 -{{expandable summary="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
1066 -**Source:** *Current Psychology*
1067 -**Date of Publication:** *2024*
1068 -**Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
1069 -**Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
1070 -**DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
1071 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation*
1072 1072  
1073 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1123 +== Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness ==
1124 +
1125 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
1126 +**Source:** *Current Psychology*
1127 +**Date of Publication:** *2024*
1128 +**Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
1129 +**Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
1130 +**DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
1131 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation* 
1132 +
1133 +----
1134 +
1135 +## **Key Statistics**##
1136 +
1074 1074  1. **General Observations:**
1075 1075   - Study analyzed **67 self-identified incels** and **103 non-incel men**.
1076 1076   - Incels reported **higher loneliness and lower social support** compared to non-incels.
... ... @@ -1082,9 +1082,11 @@
1082 1082  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1083 1083   - 95% of incels in the study reported **having depression**, with 38% receiving a formal diagnosis.
1084 1084   - **Higher externalization of blame** was linked to stronger incel identification.
1085 -{{/expandable}}
1086 1086  
1087 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1149 +----
1150 +
1151 +## **Findings**##
1152 +
1088 1088  1. **Primary Observations:**
1089 1089   - Incels experience **heightened rejection sensitivity and loneliness**.
1090 1090   - Lack of social support correlates with **worse mental health outcomes**.
... ... @@ -1096,9 +1096,11 @@
1096 1096  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1097 1097   - Incels **engaged in fewer positive coping mechanisms** such as emotional support or positive reframing.
1098 1098   - Instead, they relied on **solitary coping strategies**, worsening their isolation.
1099 -{{/expandable}}
1100 1100  
1101 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1165 +----
1166 +
1167 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1168 +
1102 1102  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1103 1103   - **First quantitative study** on incels’ social isolation and mental health.
1104 1104   - **Robust sample size** and validated psychological measures.
... ... @@ -1110,36 +1110,53 @@
1110 1110  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1111 1111   - Future studies should **compare incel forum users vs. non-users**.
1112 1112   - Investigate **potential intervention strategies** for social integration.
1113 -{{/expandable}}
1114 1114  
1115 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1181 +----
1182 +
1183 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1116 1116  - Highlights **mental health vulnerabilities** within the incel community.
1117 1117  - Supports research on **loneliness, attachment styles, and social dominance orientation**.
1118 -- Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.
1119 -{{/expandable}}
1186 +- Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.##
1120 1120  
1121 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1188 +----
1189 +
1190 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1191 +
1122 1122  1. Explore how **online community participation** affects incel mental health.
1123 1123  2. Investigate **cognitive biases** influencing self-perceived rejection among incels.
1124 1124  3. Assess **therapeutic interventions** to address incel social isolation.
1125 -{{/expandable}}
1126 1126  
1127 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1128 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]
1196 +----
1197 +
1198 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1199 +This study examines the **psychological characteristics of self-identified incels**, comparing them with non-incel men in terms of **mental health, loneliness, and coping strategies**. The research found **higher depression, anxiety, and avoidant attachment styles among incels**, as well as **greater reliance on solitary coping mechanisms**. It suggests that **lack of social support plays a critical role in exacerbating incel identity and related mental health concerns**.##
1200 +
1201 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1202 +
1203 +----
1204 +
1205 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1206 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]##
1129 1129  {{/expandable}}
1130 -{{/expandable}}
1131 1131  
1209 +
1132 1132  = Crime and Substance Abuse =
1133 1133  
1134 -{{expandable summary="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1135 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1136 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1137 -**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1138 -**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1139 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1140 -**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
1141 1141  
1142 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1213 +== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1214 +
1215 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1216 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1217 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1218 +**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1219 +**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1220 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1221 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1222 +
1223 +----
1224 +
1225 +## **Key Statistics**##
1226 +
1143 1143  1. **General Observations:**
1144 1144   - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1145 1145   - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
... ... @@ -1151,9 +1151,11 @@
1151 1151  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1152 1152   - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1153 1153   - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1154 -{{/expandable}}
1155 1155  
1156 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1239 +----
1240 +
1241 +## **Findings**##
1242 +
1157 1157  1. **Primary Observations:**
1158 1158   - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1159 1159   - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
... ... @@ -1165,9 +1165,11 @@
1165 1165  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1166 1166   - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1167 1167   - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1168 -{{/expandable}}
1169 1169  
1170 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1255 +----
1256 +
1257 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1258 +
1171 1171  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1172 1172   - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1173 1173   - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
... ... @@ -1179,34 +1179,50 @@
1179 1179  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1180 1180   - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1181 1181   - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1182 -{{/expandable}}
1183 1183  
1184 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1271 +----
1272 +
1273 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1185 1185  - Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1186 1186  - Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1187 -- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
1188 -{{/expandable}}
1276 +- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.##
1189 1189  
1190 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1278 +----
1279 +
1280 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1281 +
1191 1191  1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1192 1192  2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1193 1193  3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1194 -{{/expandable}}
1195 1195  
1196 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1197 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]
1286 +----
1287 +
1288 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1289 +This study examines **factors influencing the completion of drug treatment court programs**, identifying **employment, education, and race as key predictors**. The research underscores **systemic disparities in drug court outcomes**, emphasizing the need for **improved support systems for at-risk populations**.##
1290 +
1291 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1292 +
1293 +----
1294 +
1295 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1296 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]##
1198 1198  {{/expandable}}
1199 -{{/expandable}}
1200 1200  
1201 -{{expandable summary="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
1202 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1203 -**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1204 -**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1205 -**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1206 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1207 -**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research*
1208 1208  
1209 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1300 +== Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys ==
1301 +
1302 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
1303 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1304 +**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1305 +**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1306 +**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1307 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1308 +**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research* 
1309 +
1310 +----
1311 +
1312 +## **Key Statistics**##
1313 +
1210 1210  1. **General Observations:**
1211 1211   - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
1212 1212   - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
... ... @@ -1218,62 +1218,82 @@
1218 1218  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1219 1219   - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
1220 1220   - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
1221 -{{/expandable}}
1222 1222  
1223 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1326 +----
1327 +
1328 +## **Findings**##
1329 +
1224 1224  1. **Primary Observations:**
1225 1225   - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
1226 1226   - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
1227 1227  
1228 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1334 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1229 1229   - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
1230 1230   - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
1231 1231  
1232 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1338 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1233 1233   - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
1234 1234   - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
1235 -{{/expandable}}
1236 1236  
1237 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1238 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1342 +----
1343 +
1344 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1345 +
1346 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1239 1239   - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
1240 1240   - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
1241 1241  
1242 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1350 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1243 1243   - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
1244 1244   - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
1245 1245  
1246 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1354 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1247 1247   - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
1248 1248   - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
1249 -{{/expandable}}
1250 1250  
1251 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1358 +----
1359 +
1360 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1252 1252  - Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
1253 1253  - Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
1254 -- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.
1255 -{{/expandable}}
1363 +- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.##
1256 1256  
1257 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1365 +----
1366 +
1367 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1368 +
1258 1258  1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
1259 1259  2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
1260 1260  3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
1261 -{{/expandable}}
1262 1262  
1263 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1264 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]
1373 +----
1374 +
1375 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1376 +This study examines **cross-cultural biases in self-reported substance use surveys**, showing that **racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to underreport drug use** due to **social stigma, research distrust, and survey administration methods**. The findings highlight **critical issues in public health data collection and the need for improved survey design**.##
1377 +
1378 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1379 +
1380 +----
1381 +
1382 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1383 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]##
1265 1265  {{/expandable}}
1266 -{{/expandable}}
1267 1267  
1268 -{{expandable summary="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1269 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1270 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1271 -**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1272 -**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1273 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1274 -**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
1275 1275  
1276 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1387 +== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1388 +
1389 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1390 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1391 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1392 +**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1393 +**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1394 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1395 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1396 +
1397 +----
1398 +
1399 +## **Key Statistics**##
1400 +
1277 1277  1. **General Observations:**
1278 1278   - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1279 1279   - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
... ... @@ -1285,9 +1285,11 @@
1285 1285  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1286 1286   - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1287 1287   - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1288 -{{/expandable}}
1289 1289  
1290 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1413 +----
1414 +
1415 +## **Findings**##
1416 +
1291 1291  1. **Primary Observations:**
1292 1292   - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1293 1293   - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
... ... @@ -1299,9 +1299,11 @@
1299 1299  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1300 1300   - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1301 1301   - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1302 -{{/expandable}}
1303 1303  
1304 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1429 +----
1430 +
1431 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1432 +
1305 1305  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1306 1306   - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1307 1307   - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
... ... @@ -1313,36 +1313,117 @@
1313 1313  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1314 1314   - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1315 1315   - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1316 -{{/expandable}}
1317 1317  
1318 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1445 +----
1446 +
1447 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1319 1319  - Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1320 1320  - Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1321 -- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
1322 -{{/expandable}}
1450 +- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.##
1323 1323  
1324 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1452 +----
1453 +
1454 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1455 +
1325 1325  1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1326 1326  2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1327 1327  3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1459 +
1460 +----
1461 +
1462 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1463 +This study examines **factors influencing the completion of drug treatment court programs**, identifying **employment, education, and race as key predictors**. The research underscores **systemic disparities in drug court outcomes**, emphasizing the need for **improved support systems for at-risk populations**.##
1464 +
1465 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1466 +
1467 +----
1468 +
1469 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1470 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]##
1328 1328  {{/expandable}}
1329 1329  
1330 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1331 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]
1473 +
1474 +== Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults ==
1475 +
1476 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"}}
1477 + Source: Addictive Behaviors
1478 +Date of Publication: 2016
1479 +Author(s): Andrea Hussong, Christy Capron, Gregory T. Smith, Jennifer L. Maggs
1480 +Title: "Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"
1481 +DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.02.030
1482 +Subject Matter: Substance Use, Mental Health, Adolescent Development
1483 +
1484 +Key Statistics
1485 +General Observations:
1486 +
1487 +Study examined cannabis use trends in young adults over time.
1488 +Found significant correlations between cannabis use and increased depressive symptoms.
1489 +Subgroup Analysis:
1490 +
1491 +Males exhibited higher rates of cannabis use, but females reported stronger mental health impacts.
1492 +Individuals with pre-existing anxiety disorders were more likely to report problematic cannabis use.
1493 +Other Significant Data Points:
1494 +
1495 +Frequent cannabis users showed a 23% higher likelihood of developing anxiety symptoms.
1496 +Co-occurring substance use (e.g., alcohol) exacerbated negative psychological effects.
1497 +Findings
1498 +Primary Observations:
1499 +
1500 +Cannabis use was linked to higher depressive and anxiety symptoms, particularly in frequent users.
1501 +Self-medication patterns emerged among those with pre-existing mental health conditions.
1502 +Subgroup Trends:
1503 +
1504 +Early cannabis initiation (before age 16) was associated with greater mental health risks.
1505 +College-aged users reported more impairments in daily functioning due to cannabis use.
1506 +Specific Case Analysis:
1507 +
1508 +Participants with a history of childhood trauma were twice as likely to develop problematic cannabis use.
1509 +Co-use of cannabis and alcohol significantly increased impulsivity scores in the study sample.
1510 +Critique and Observations
1511 +Strengths of the Study:
1512 +
1513 +Large, longitudinal dataset with a diverse sample of young adults.
1514 +Controlled for confounding variables like socioeconomic status and prior substance use.
1515 +Limitations of the Study:
1516 +
1517 +Self-reported cannabis use may introduce bias in reported frequency and effects.
1518 +Did not assess specific THC potency levels, which could influence mental health outcomes.
1519 +Suggestions for Improvement:
1520 +
1521 +Future research should investigate dose-dependent effects of cannabis on mental health.
1522 +Assess long-term psychological outcomes of early cannabis exposure.
1523 +Relevance to Subproject
1524 +Supports mental health risk assessment models related to substance use.
1525 +Highlights gender differences in substance-related psychological impacts.
1526 +Provides insight into self-medication behaviors among young adults.
1527 +Suggestions for Further Exploration
1528 +Investigate the long-term impact of cannabis use on neurodevelopment.
1529 +Examine the role of genetic predisposition in cannabis-related mental health risks.
1530 +Assess regional differences in cannabis use trends post-legalization.
1531 +Summary of Research Study
1532 +This study examines the relationship between cannabis use and mental health symptoms in young adults, focusing on depressive and anxiety-related outcomes. Using a longitudinal dataset, the researchers found higher risks of anxiety and depression in frequent cannabis users, particularly among those with pre-existing mental health conditions or early cannabis initiation.
1533 +
1534 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1535 +
1536 +📄 Download Full Study
1537 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.addbeh.2016.02.030.pdf]]
1332 1332  {{/expandable}}
1333 -{{/expandable}}
1334 1334  
1335 -{{expandable summary="
1336 1336  
1337 -Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1338 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1339 -**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1340 -**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
1341 -**Title:** *"Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"*
1342 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012)
1343 -**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics*
1541 +== Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time? ==
1344 1344  
1345 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1543 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1544 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1545 +**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1546 +**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
1547 +**Title:** *"Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"*
1548 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012)
1549 +**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics* 
1550 +
1551 +----
1552 +
1553 +## **Key Statistics**##
1554 +
1346 1346  1. **General Observations:**
1347 1347   - The study examines reaction time data from **13 age-matched studies** spanning **1884–2004**.
1348 1348   - Results suggest an estimated **decline of 13.35 IQ points** over this period.
... ... @@ -1354,9 +1354,11 @@
1354 1354  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1355 1355   - The estimated **dysgenic rate is 1.21 IQ points lost per decade**.
1356 1356   - Meta-regression analysis confirmed a **steady secular trend in slowing reaction time**.
1357 -{{/expandable}}
1358 1358  
1359 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1567 +----
1568 +
1569 +## **Findings**##
1570 +
1360 1360  1. **Primary Observations:**
1361 1361   - Supports the hypothesis of **intelligence decline due to genetic and environmental factors**.
1362 1362   - Reaction time, a **biomarker for cognitive ability**, has slowed significantly over time.
... ... @@ -1368,9 +1368,11 @@
1368 1368  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1369 1369   - Cross-national comparisons indicate a **global trend in slower reaction times**.
1370 1370   - Factors like **modern neurotoxin exposure** and **reduced selective pressure for intelligence** may contribute.
1371 -{{/expandable}}
1372 1372  
1373 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1583 +----
1584 +
1585 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1586 +
1374 1374  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1375 1375   - **Comprehensive meta-analysis** covering over a century of reaction time data.
1376 1376   - **Robust statistical corrections** for measurement variance between historical and modern studies.
... ... @@ -1382,247 +1382,226 @@
1382 1382  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1383 1383   - Future studies should **replicate results with more modern datasets**.
1384 1384   - Investigate **alternative cognitive biomarkers** for intelligence over time.
1385 -{{/expandable}}
1386 1386  
1387 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1599 +----
1600 +
1601 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1388 1388  - Provides evidence for **long-term intelligence trends**, contributing to research on **cognitive evolution**.
1389 1389  - Aligns with broader discussions on **dysgenics, neurophysiology, and cognitive load**.
1390 -- Supports the argument that **modern societies may be experiencing intelligence decline**.
1391 -{{/expandable}}
1604 +- Supports the argument that **modern societies may be experiencing intelligence decline**.##
1392 1392  
1393 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1606 +----
1607 +
1608 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1609 +
1394 1394  1. Investigate **genetic markers associated with reaction time** and intelligence decline.
1395 1395  2. Examine **regional variations in reaction time trends**.
1396 1396  3. Explore **cognitive resilience factors that counteract the decline**.
1397 -{{/expandable}}
1398 1398  
1399 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1400 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]
1401 -{{/expandable}}
1402 -{{/expandable}}
1614 +----
1403 1403  
1404 -= Whiteness & White Guilt =
1616 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1617 +This study examines **historical reaction time data** as a measure of **cognitive ability and intelligence decline**, analyzing data from **Western populations between 1884 and 2004**. The results suggest a **measurable decline in intelligence, estimated at 13.35 IQ points**, likely due to **dysgenic fertility, neurophysiological factors, and reduced selection pressures**.  ##
1405 1405  
1406 -{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}}
1407 -**Source:** *Psychological Science*
1408 -**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1409 -**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.*
1410 -**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"*
1411 -**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812)
1412 -**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning*
1619 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1413 1413  
1414 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1415 -1. **General Observations:**
1416 - - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test).
1417 - - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias.
1621 +----
1418 1418  
1419 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1420 - - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly.
1421 - - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**.
1422 -
1423 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1424 - - 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.
1425 - - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change.
1623 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1624 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]##
1426 1426  {{/expandable}}
1427 1427  
1428 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1429 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1430 - - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors.
1431 - - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations.
1432 1432  
1433 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1434 - - 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.
1435 - - 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.
1628 += Whiteness & White Guilt =
1436 1436  
1437 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1438 - - 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.
1439 - - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations.
1440 -{{/expandable}}
1630 +== Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports ==
1441 1441  
1442 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1443 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1444 - - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types.
1445 - - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone.
1446 -
1447 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1448 - - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**.
1449 - - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups.
1450 - - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized.
1451 -
1452 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1453 - - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change.
1454 - - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups.
1455 - - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.”
1456 -{{/expandable}}
1457 -
1458 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1459 -- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**.
1460 -- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios.
1461 -- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies.
1462 -{{/expandable}}
1463 -
1464 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1465 -1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings.
1466 -2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies.
1467 -3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks.
1468 -{{/expandable}}
1469 -
1470 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1471 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]]
1472 -{{/expandable}}
1473 -{{/expandable}}
1474 -
1475 -
1476 -{{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1632 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1477 1477  **Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1478 1478  **Date of Publication:** *2019*
1479 1479  **Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1480 1480  **Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1481 1481  **DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1482 -**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing*
1638 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism* 
1483 1483  
1484 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1640 +----
1641 +
1642 +## **Key Statistics**##
1643 +
1485 1485  1. **General Observations:**
1486 - - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
1487 - - The study claims **segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance.
1645 + - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1646 + - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
1488 1488  
1489 1489  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1490 - - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
1491 - - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**.
1649 + - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1650 + - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
1492 1492  
1493 1493  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1494 - - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
1495 - - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria.
1496 -{{/expandable}}
1653 + - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1654 + - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1497 1497  
1498 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1656 +----
1657 +
1658 +## **Findings**##
1659 +
1499 1499  1. **Primary Observations:**
1500 - - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
1501 - - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball.
1661 + - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1662 + - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
1502 1502  
1503 1503  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1504 - - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
1505 - - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration.
1665 + - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1666 + - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
1506 1506  
1507 1507  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1508 - - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
1509 - - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race.
1510 -{{/expandable}}
1669 + - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1670 + - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1511 1511  
1512 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1672 +----
1673 +
1674 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1675 +
1513 1513  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1514 - - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
1515 - - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants.
1677 + - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1678 + - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
1516 1516  
1517 1517  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1518 - - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
1519 - - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
1520 - - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context.
1681 + - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1682 + - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
1521 1521  
1522 1522  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1523 - - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
1524 - - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
1525 - - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically.
1526 -{{/expandable}}
1685 + - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1686 + - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1527 1527  
1528 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1529 -- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
1530 -- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
1531 -- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics).
1532 -{{/expandable}}
1688 +----
1533 1533  
1534 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1535 -1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
1536 -2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
1537 -3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**.
1538 -{{/expandable}}
1690 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1691 +- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1692 +- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1693 +- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.##
1539 1539  
1540 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1541 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1037_dhe0000140.pdf]]
1695 +----
1696 +
1697 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1698 +
1699 +1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1700 +2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1701 +3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1702 +
1703 +----
1704 +
1705 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1706 +This study explores how **racial segregation, innocence, and protection** sustain whiteness in college sports. By analyzing **47 athlete narratives**, the research reveals **how predominantly white sports programs recruit and retain white athletes** while shielding them from discussions on race. The findings highlight **institutional biases that maintain racial privilege in athletics**, offering critical insight into the **structural inequalities in higher education sports programs**.##
1707 +
1708 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1709 +
1710 +----
1711 +
1712 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1713 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1037_dhe0000140.pdf]]##
1542 1542  {{/expandable}}
1543 -{{/expandable}}
1544 1544  
1545 1545  
1546 -{{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1717 +== Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations ==
1718 +
1719 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1547 1547  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1548 1548  **Date of Publication:** *2016*
1549 -**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver*
1722 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1550 1550  **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1551 1551  **DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1552 -**Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias*
1725 +**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment* 
1553 1553  
1554 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1727 +----
1728 +
1729 +## **Key Statistics**##
1730 +
1555 1555  1. **General Observations:**
1556 - - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**.
1557 - - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**.
1558 - - Measured how those beliefs affected **pain ratings and treatment recommendations**.
1732 + - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1733 + - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
1559 1559  
1560 1560  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1561 - - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings).
1562 - - Those who endorsed false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients' pain**.
1736 + - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1737 + - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients pain levels**.
1563 1563  
1564 1564  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1565 - - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
1566 - - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data.
1567 -{{/expandable}}
1740 + - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1741 + - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1568 1568  
1569 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1743 +----
1744 +
1745 +## **Findings**##
1746 +
1570 1570  1. **Primary Observations:**
1571 - - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment.
1572 - - Endorsement of such beliefs led to **less appropriate treatment for Black patients** in fictional cases.
1748 + - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1749 + - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
1573 1573  
1574 1574  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1575 - - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**.
1576 - - No evidence was presented of **active discrimination** — bias appeared linked to **misinformation, not malice**.
1752 + - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1753 + - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
1577 1577  
1578 1578  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1579 - - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care.
1580 - - The study **did not show bias against White patients**, nor explore disparities affecting them.
1581 -{{/expandable}}
1756 + - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1757 + - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1582 1582  
1583 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1759 +----
1760 +
1761 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1762 +
1584 1584  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1585 - - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
1586 - - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**.
1764 + - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1765 + - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
1587 1587  
1588 1588  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1589 - - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health.
1590 - - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study.
1591 - - **Overemphasizes "racial bias"** narrative despite the findings being more about **ignorance than intent**.
1768 + - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1769 + - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
1592 1592  
1593 1593  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1594 - - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework.
1595 - - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest.
1596 - - Clarify the **distinction between false belief and racial animus**, which the study conflates under CRT framing.
1597 -{{/expandable}}
1772 + - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1773 + - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1598 1598  
1599 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1600 -- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
1601 -- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
1602 -- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**.
1603 -{{/expandable}}
1775 +----
1604 1604  
1605 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1606 -1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
1607 -2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
1608 -3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**.
1609 -{{/expandable}}
1777 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1778 +- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1779 +- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1780 +- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.##
1610 1610  
1611 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1612 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]]
1782 +----
1783 +
1784 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1785 +
1786 +1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1787 +2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1788 +3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1789 +
1790 +----
1791 +
1792 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1793 +This study examines **racial bias in pain perception and treatment** among **white laypeople and medical professionals**, demonstrating that **false beliefs about biological differences contribute to disparities in pain management**. The research highlights the **systemic nature of racial bias in medicine** and underscores the **need for improved medical training to counteract these misconceptions**.##
1794 +
1795 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1796 +
1797 +----
1798 +
1799 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1800 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]]##
1613 1613  {{/expandable}}
1614 -{{/expandable}}
1615 1615  
1616 1616  
1617 -{{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1618 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1619 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
1620 -**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1621 -**Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1622 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1623 -**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors*
1804 +== Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans ==
1624 1624  
1625 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1806 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1807 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1808 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
1809 +**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1810 +**Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1811 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1812 +**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors* 
1813 +
1814 +----
1815 +
1816 +## **Key Statistics**##
1817 +
1626 1626  1. **General Observations:**
1627 1627   - Mortality rates among **middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans (ages 45–54)** increased from 1999 to 2013.
1628 1628   - This reversal in mortality trends is unique to the U.S.; **no other wealthy country experienced a similar rise**.
... ... @@ -1634,9 +1634,11 @@
1634 1634  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1635 1635   - Rising mortality was driven primarily by **suicide, drug and alcohol poisoning, and chronic liver disease**.
1636 1636   - Midlife morbidity increased as well, with more reports of **poor health, pain, and mental distress**.
1637 -{{/expandable}}
1638 1638  
1639 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1830 +----
1831 +
1832 +## **Findings**##
1833 +
1640 1640  1. **Primary Observations:**
1641 1641   - The rise in mortality is attributed to **substance abuse, economic distress, and deteriorating mental health**.
1642 1642   - The increase in **suicides and opioid overdoses parallels broader socioeconomic decline**.
... ... @@ -1648,9 +1648,11 @@
1648 1648  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1649 1649   - **Educational attainment was a major predictor of mortality trends**, with better-educated individuals experiencing lower mortality rates.
1650 1650   - Mortality among **white Americans with a college degree continued to decline**, resembling trends in other wealthy nations.
1651 -{{/expandable}}
1652 1652  
1653 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1846 +----
1847 +
1848 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1849 +
1654 1654  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1655 1655   - **First major study to highlight rising midlife mortality among U.S. whites**.
1656 1656   - Uses **CDC and Census mortality data spanning over a decade**.
... ... @@ -1662,106 +1662,140 @@
1662 1662  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1663 1663   - Future studies should explore **how economic shifts, healthcare access, and mental health treatment contribute to these trends**.
1664 1664   - Further research on **racial and socioeconomic disparities in mortality trends** is needed.
1665 -{{/expandable}}
1666 1666  
1667 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1862 +----
1863 +
1864 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1668 1668  - Highlights **socioeconomic and racial disparities** in health outcomes.
1669 1669  - Supports research on **substance abuse and mental health crises in the U.S.**.
1670 -- Provides evidence for **the role of economic instability in public health trends**.
1671 -{{/expandable}}
1867 +- Provides evidence for **the role of economic instability in public health trends**.##
1672 1672  
1673 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1869 +----
1870 +
1871 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1872 +
1674 1674  1. Investigate **regional differences in rising midlife mortality**.
1675 1675  2. Examine the **impact of the opioid crisis on long-term health trends**.
1676 1676  3. Study **policy interventions aimed at reversing rising mortality rates**.
1677 -{{/expandable}}
1678 1678  
1679 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1680 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1518393112.pdf]]
1877 +----
1878 +
1879 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1880 +This study documents a **reversal in mortality trends among middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans**, showing an increase in **suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related deaths** from 1999 to 2013. The findings highlight **socioeconomic distress, declining health, and rising morbidity** as key factors. This research underscores the **importance of economic and social policy in shaping public health outcomes**.##
1881 +
1882 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1883 +
1884 +----
1885 +
1886 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1887 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1518393112.pdf]]##
1681 1681  {{/expandable}}
1682 -{{/expandable}}
1683 1683  
1684 -{{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1685 -**Source:** *Urban Studies*
1890 +
1891 +== Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities? ==
1892 +
1893 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1894 +**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1686 1686  **Date of Publication:** *2023*
1687 -**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
1896 +**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1688 1688  **Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1689 -**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057)
1690 -**Subject Matter:** *Urban Diversity, Migration, Identity Politics*
1898 +**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1899 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration* 
1691 1691  
1692 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1901 +----
1902 +
1903 +## **Key Statistics**##
1904 +
1693 1693  1. **General Observations:**
1694 - - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities.
1695 - - Focused on how **"non-migrants" (code for native Whites)** perceive and adapt to so-called “superdiversity”.
1906 + - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1907 + - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
1696 1696  
1697 1697  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1698 - - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
1699 - - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change.
1910 + - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1911 + - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
1700 1700  
1701 1701  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1702 - - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”**
1703 - - Provides **no quantitative data** on actual neighborhood changes or crime statistics.
1704 -{{/expandable}}
1914 + - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1915 + - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1705 1705  
1706 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1917 +----
1918 +
1919 +## **Findings**##
1920 +
1707 1707  1. **Primary Observations:**
1708 - - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”**
1709 - - Positions White cultural norms as inherently oppressive or exclusionary.
1922 + - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1923 + - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
1710 1710  
1711 1711  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1712 - - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
1713 - - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of invisible boundary-making.
1926 + - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1927 + - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
1714 1714  
1715 1715  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1716 - - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded “racism.”
1717 - - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.**
1718 -{{/expandable}}
1930 + - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1931 + - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1719 1719  
1720 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1933 +----
1934 +
1935 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1936 +
1721 1721  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1722 - - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
1723 - - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.**
1938 + - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1939 + - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
1724 1724  
1725 1725  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1726 - - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites.
1727 - - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers.
1728 - - Lacks analysis of **economic factors, crime, housing scarcity, or policy failures** contributing to discontent.
1942 + - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1943 + - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
1729 1729  
1730 1730  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1731 - - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.**
1732 - - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith.
1733 - - Balance cultural analysis with **hard demographic and economic data.**
1734 -{{/expandable}}
1946 + - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1947 + - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1735 1735  
1736 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1737 -- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life.
1738 -- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.**
1739 -- Useful for exposing how **CRT and superdiversity discourse erase White communities' legitimacy.**
1740 -{{/expandable}}
1949 +----
1741 1741  
1742 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1743 -1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
1744 -2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones.
1745 -3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration.
1746 -{{/expandable}}
1951 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1952 +- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1953 +- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1954 +- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.##
1747 1747  
1748 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1749 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1956 +----
1957 +
1958 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1959 +
1960 +1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1961 +2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1962 +3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1963 +
1964 +----
1965 +
1966 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1967 +This study examines how **people without migration background experience demographic change in majority-minority cities**. Using data from the **BaM project**, it challenges traditional **one-way integration models**, showing that **non-migrants also adapt to diverse environments**. The findings highlight **the complexities of social cohesion, identity, and power in rapidly changing urban landscapes**.##
1968 +
1969 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1970 +
1971 +----
1972 +
1973 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1974 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]##
1750 1750  {{/expandable}}
1751 -{{/expandable}}
1752 1752  
1753 1753  
1754 1754  = Media =
1755 1755  
1756 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
1757 -**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1758 -**Date of Publication:** *2021*
1759 -**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
1760 -**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
1761 -**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
1762 -**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies*
1763 1763  
1764 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1981 +== Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic ==
1982 +
1983 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"}}
1984 +**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1985 +**Date of Publication:** *2021*
1986 +**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
1987 +**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
1988 +**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
1989 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies* 
1990 +
1991 +----
1992 +
1993 +## **Key Statistics**##
1994 +
1765 1765  1. **General Observations:**
1766 1766   - Analyzed **over 500,000 social media interactions** related to intergroup conflict.
1767 1767   - Found that **computer-mediated communication (CMC) intensifies polarization**.
... ... @@ -1773,9 +1773,11 @@
1773 1773  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1774 1774   - **Misinformation spread 3x faster** in polarized online discussions.
1775 1775   - Users exposed to **conflicting viewpoints were more likely to engage in retaliatory discourse**.
1776 -{{/expandable}}
1777 1777  
1778 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2007 +----
2008 +
2009 +## **Findings**##
2010 +
1779 1779  1. **Primary Observations:**
1780 1780   - **Online interactions amplify intergroup conflict** due to selective exposure and confirmation bias.
1781 1781   - **Algorithmic sorting contributes to ideological segmentation**.
... ... @@ -1787,9 +1787,11 @@
1787 1787  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1788 1788   - **CMC increased political tribalism** in digital spaces.
1789 1789   - **Emotional language spread more widely** than factual content.
1790 -{{/expandable}}
1791 1791  
1792 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2023 +----
2024 +
2025 +## **Critique and Observations**##
2026 +
1793 1793  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1794 1794   - **Largest dataset** to date analyzing **CMC and intergroup conflict**.
1795 1795   - Uses **longitudinal data tracking user behavior over time**.
... ... @@ -1801,34 +1801,48 @@
1801 1801  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1802 1802   - Future studies should **analyze private messaging platforms** in conflict dynamics.
1803 1803   - Investigate **interventions that reduce online polarization**.
1804 -{{/expandable}}
1805 1805  
1806 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2039 +----
2040 +
2041 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1807 1807  - Explores how **digital communication influences social division**.
1808 1808  - Supports research on **social media regulation and conflict mitigation**.
1809 -- Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.
1810 -{{/expandable}}
2044 +- Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.##
1811 1811  
1812 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2046 +----
2047 +
2048 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2049 +
1813 1813  1. Investigate **how online anonymity affects real-world aggression**.
1814 1814  2. Study **social media interventions that reduce political polarization**.
1815 1815  3. Explore **cross-cultural differences in CMC and intergroup hostility**.
1816 -{{/expandable}}
1817 1817  
1818 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1819 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_jcmc_zmab003.pdf]]
2054 +----
2055 +
2056 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2057 +This study examines **how online communication intensifies intergroup conflict**, using a dataset of **500,000+ social media interactions**. It highlights the role of **algorithmic filtering, anonymity, and selective exposure** in **increasing polarization and misinformation spread**. The findings emphasize the **need for policy interventions to mitigate digital conflict escalation**.##
2058 +
2059 +----
2060 +
2061 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2062 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_jcmc_zmab003.pdf]]##
1820 1820  {{/expandable}}
1821 -{{/expandable}}
1822 1822  
1823 -{{expandable summary="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"}}
1824 -**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
1825 -**Date of Publication:** *2007*
1826 -**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
1827 -**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
1828 -**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
1829 -**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence*
1830 1830  
1831 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2066 +== Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions ==
2067 +
2068 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"}}
2069 +**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
2070 +**Date of Publication:** *2007*
2071 +**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
2072 +**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
2073 +**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
2074 +**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence* 
2075 +
2076 +----
2077 +
2078 +## **Key Statistics**##
2079 +
1832 1832  1. **General Observations:**
1833 1833   - Examines **media coverage of same-sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011**.
1834 1834   - Analyzes how **media framing influences public opinion trends** on LGBTQ+ rights.
... ... @@ -1840,9 +1840,11 @@
1840 1840  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1841 1841   - When **equality framing surpasses morality framing**, public opposition declines.
1842 1842   - Media framing **directly affects public attitudes** over time, shaping policy debates.
1843 -{{/expandable}}
1844 1844  
1845 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2092 +----
2093 +
2094 +## **Findings**##
2095 +
1846 1846  1. **Primary Observations:**
1847 1847   - **Media framing plays a critical role in shaping attitudes** toward LGBTQ+ rights.
1848 1848   - **Equality-focused narratives** lead to greater public support for same-sex marriage.
... ... @@ -1854,9 +1854,11 @@
1854 1854  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1855 1855   - **Periods of increased equality framing** saw measurable **declines in opposition to LGBTQ+ rights**.
1856 1856   - **Major political events (elections, Supreme Court cases) influenced framing trends**.
1857 -{{/expandable}}
1858 1858  
1859 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2108 +----
2109 +
2110 +## **Critique and Observations**##
2111 +
1860 1860  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1861 1861   - **Longitudinal dataset spanning multiple election cycles**.
1862 1862   - Provides **quantitative analysis of how media framing shifts public opinion**.
... ... @@ -1868,34 +1868,48 @@
1868 1868  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1869 1869   - Expand the study to **global perspectives on LGBTQ+ rights and media influence**.
1870 1870   - Investigate how **different media platforms (TV vs. digital media) impact opinion shifts**.
1871 -{{/expandable}}
1872 1872  
1873 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2124 +----
2125 +
2126 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1874 1874  - Explores **how media narratives shape policy support and public sentiment**.
1875 1875  - Highlights **the strategic importance of framing in LGBTQ+ advocacy**.
1876 -- Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.
1877 -{{/expandable}}
2129 +- Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.##
1878 1878  
1879 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2131 +----
2132 +
2133 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2134 +
1880 1880  1. Examine how **social media affects framing of LGBTQ+ issues**.
1881 1881  2. Study **differences in framing across political media outlets**.
1882 1882  3. Investigate **public opinion shifts in states that legalized same-sex marriage earlier**.
1883 -{{/expandable}}
1884 1884  
1885 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1886 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]
2139 +----
2140 +
2141 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2142 +This study examines **how media framing influences public attitudes on same-sex marriage and civil unions**, analyzing **news coverage from 2004 to 2011**. It finds that **equality-based narratives reduce opposition, while morality-based narratives increase it**. The research highlights **how media coverage plays a crucial role in shaping policy debates and public sentiment**.##
2143 +
2144 +----
2145 +
2146 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2147 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]##
1887 1887  {{/expandable}}
1888 -{{/expandable}}
1889 1889  
1890 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion"}}
1891 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
1892 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1893 -**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
1894 -**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
1895 -**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
1896 -**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion*
1897 1897  
1898 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2151 +== Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion ==
2152 +
2153 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion"}}
2154 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2155 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
2156 +**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
2157 +**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
2158 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2159 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion* 
2160 +
2161 +----
2162 +
2163 +## **Key Statistics**##
2164 +
1899 1899  1. **General Observations:**
1900 1900   - Conducted **12 experimental studies** on **digital media's impact on political beliefs**.
1901 1901   - **58% of participants** showed shifts in political opinion based on online content.
... ... @@ -1907,9 +1907,11 @@
1907 1907  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1908 1908   - **Interactive media (comment sections, polls) increased political engagement**.
1909 1909   - **Exposure to counterarguments reduced partisan bias** by **14% on average**.
1910 -{{/expandable}}
1911 1911  
1912 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2177 +----
2178 +
2179 +## **Findings**##
2180 +
1913 1913  1. **Primary Observations:**
1914 1914   - **Digital media significantly influences political opinions**, with younger audiences being the most impacted.
1915 1915   - **Multimedia content is more persuasive** than traditional text-based arguments.
... ... @@ -1921,9 +1921,11 @@
1921 1921  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1922 1922   - **Highly partisan users became more entrenched in their views**, even when exposed to opposing content.
1923 1923   - **Neutral or apolitical users were more likely to shift opinions**.
1924 -{{/expandable}}
1925 1925  
1926 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2193 +----
2194 +
2195 +## **Critique and Observations**##
2196 +
1927 1927  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1928 1928   - **Large-scale experimental design** allows for controlled comparisons.
1929 1929   - Covers **multiple digital platforms**, ensuring robust findings.
... ... @@ -1935,255 +1935,29 @@
1935 1935  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1936 1936   - Future studies should track **long-term opinion changes** beyond immediate reactions.
1937 1937   - Investigate **the role of digital media literacy in resisting persuasion**.
1938 -{{/expandable}}
1939 1939  
1940 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2209 +----
2210 +
2211 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1941 1941  - Provides insights into **how digital media shapes political discourse**.
1942 1942  - Highlights **which platforms and content types are most influential**.
1943 -- Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.
1944 -{{/expandable}}
2214 +- Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.##
1945 1945  
1946 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2216 +----
2217 +
2218 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2219 +
1947 1947  1. Study how **fact-checking influences digital persuasion effects**.
1948 1948  2. Investigate the **role of political influencers in shaping opinions**.
1949 1949  3. Explore **long-term effects of social media exposure on political beliefs**.
1950 -{{/expandable}}
1951 1951  
1952 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1953 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
1954 -{{/expandable}}
1955 -{{/expandable}}
2224 +----
1956 1956  
1957 -{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
1958 -Source: Journal of Advertising Research
1959 -Date of Publication: 2022
1960 -Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim
1961 -Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
1962 -DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028
1963 -Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
2226 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2227 +This study analyzes **how digital media influences political persuasion**, using **12 experimental studies**. The findings show that **video and interactive content are the most persuasive**, while **younger users are more susceptible to political messaging shifts**. The research emphasizes the **power of digital platforms in shaping public opinion and engagement**.##
1964 1964  
1965 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2229 +----
1966 1966  
1967 -**General Observations:**
1968 -
1969 -Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
1970 -
1971 -Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
1972 -
1973 -**Subgroup Analysis:**
1974 -
1975 -Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers.
1976 -
1977 -Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones.
1978 -
1979 -**Other Significant Data Points:**
1980 -
1981 -Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation.
1982 -
1983 -No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation.
1984 -{{/expandable}}
1985 -
1986 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1987 -
1988 -**Primary Observations:**
1989 -
1990 -White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
1991 -
1992 -These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
1993 -
1994 -**Subgroup Trends:**
1995 -
1996 -Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades.
1997 -
1998 -The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
1999 -
2000 -**Specific Case Analysis:**
2001 -
2002 -The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives.
2003 -
2004 -Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations.
2005 -{{/expandable}}
2006 -
2007 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2008 -
2009 -**Strengths of the Study:**
2010 -
2011 -Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
2012 -
2013 -Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
2014 -
2015 -**Limitations of the Study:**
2016 -
2017 -Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
2018 -
2019 -Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising.
2020 -
2021 -Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts.
2022 -
2023 -**Suggestions for Improvement:**
2024 -
2025 -Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
2026 -
2027 -Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
2028 -
2029 -Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages.
2030 -{{/expandable}}
2031 -
2032 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2033 -
2034 -Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
2035 -
2036 -Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.”
2037 -
2038 -Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation.
2039 -{{/expandable}}
2040 -
2041 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2042 -
2043 -Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
2044 -
2045 -Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
2046 -
2047 -Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
2048 -{{/expandable}}
2049 -
2050 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2051 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
2052 -{{/expandable}}
2053 -{{/expandable}}
2054 -
2055 -{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}}
2056 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2057 -**Date of Publication:** *2020*
2058 -**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee*
2059 -**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"*
2060 -**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032)
2061 -**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations*
2062 -
2063 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2064 -1. **General Observations:**
2065 - - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**.
2066 - - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites).
2067 -
2068 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2069 - - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news.
2070 - - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”.
2071 -
2072 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2073 - - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**.
2074 - - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**.
2075 -{{/expandable}}
2076 -
2077 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2078 -1. **Primary Observations:**
2079 - - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact.
2080 - - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias.
2081 -
2082 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2083 - - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning.
2084 - - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**.
2085 -
2086 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2087 - - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships.
2088 - - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society.
2089 -{{/expandable}}
2090 -
2091 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2092 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2093 - - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling.
2094 - - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact.
2095 -
2096 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2097 - - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias.
2098 - - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash.
2099 - - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”.
2100 -
2101 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2102 - - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**.
2103 - - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers.
2104 - - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging.
2105 -{{/expandable}}
2106 -
2107 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2108 -- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact.
2109 -- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus.
2110 -- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected.
2111 -{{/expandable}}
2112 -
2113 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2114 -1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health.
2115 -2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns.
2116 -3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives.
2117 -{{/expandable}}
2118 -
2119 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2120 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]]
2121 -{{/expandable}}
2122 -{{/expandable}}
2123 -
2124 -
2125 -{{expandable summary="Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}}
2126 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2127 -**Date of Publication:** *2018*
2128 -**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah*
2129 -**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"*
2130 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2131 -**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation*
2132 -
2133 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2134 -1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study.
2135 -2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including:
2136 - - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes”
2137 - - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race
2138 - - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact
2139 -
2140 -3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent.
2141 -{{/expandable}}
2142 -
2143 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2144 -1. **Primary Observations:**
2145 - - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups.
2146 - - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context.
2147 - - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations.
2148 -
2149 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2150 - - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”).
2151 - - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias.
2152 -
2153 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2154 - - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively.
2155 -{{/expandable}}
2156 -
2157 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2158 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2159 - - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception.
2160 - - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon.
2161 -
2162 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2163 - - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**.
2164 - - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality.
2165 - - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values).
2166 -
2167 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2168 - - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity.
2169 - - Needs empirical validation of claims.
2170 - - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity.
2171 -{{/expandable}}
2172 -
2173 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2174 -- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance.
2175 -- 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.
2176 -- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation.
2177 -{{/expandable}}
2178 -
2179 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2180 -1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites?
2181 -2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest?
2182 -3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it?
2183 -{{/expandable}}
2184 -
2185 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2186 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]]
2187 -{{/expandable}}
2188 -{{/expandable}}
2189 -
2231 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2232 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]##
2233 +{{/expand}}
Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -472.9 KB
Content
lai2014.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
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
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2.1 MB
Content