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 97.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/04/16 01:39
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

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 +19,16 @@
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 +{{expandable summary="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
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*
... ... @@ -88,17 +88,22 @@
88 88  
89 89  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
90 90  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature08365.pdf]]
177 +##
178 + ##
91 91  {{/expandable}}
92 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*
182 +{{expandable summary="
101 101  
184 +
185 +Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"}}
186 +**Source:** *Nature*
187 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
188 +**Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
189 +**Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
190 +**DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
191 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics* 
192 +
102 102  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
103 103  1. **General Observations:**
104 104   - Analyzed **high-coverage genome sequences of 300 individuals from 142 populations**.
... ... @@ -155,18 +155,21 @@
155 155  
156 156  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
157 157  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature18964.pdf]]
249 +##
250 + ##
158 158  {{/expandable}}
159 159  {{/expandable}}
160 160  
161 -{{expandable summary="
254 +{{expandable summary="
162 162  
256 +
163 163  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*
258 +**Source:** *Nature Genetics*
259 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
260 +**Author(s):** *Tinca J. C. Polderman, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, Danielle Posthuma*
261 +**Title:** *"Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"*
262 +**DOI:** [10.1038/ng.328](https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.328)
263 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Heritability, Twin Studies, Behavioral Science* 
170 170  
171 171  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
172 172  1. **General Observations:**
... ... @@ -227,8 +227,9 @@
227 227  {{/expandable}}
228 228  {{/expandable}}
229 229  
230 -{{expandable summary="
324 +{{expandable summary="
231 231  
326 +
232 232  Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
233 233  **Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
234 234  **Date of Publication:** *2002*
... ... @@ -296,15 +296,16 @@
296 296  {{/expandable}}
297 297  {{/expandable}}
298 298  
299 -{{expandable summary="
394 +{{expandable summary="
300 300  
396 +
301 301  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*
398 +**Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
399 +**Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
400 +**Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
401 +**Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
402 +**DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
403 +**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection* 
308 308  
309 309  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
310 310  1. **General Observations:**
... ... @@ -366,14 +366,17 @@
366 366  {{/expandable}}
367 367  {{/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*
465 +{{expandable summary="
376 376  
467 +
468 +Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"}}
469 +**Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
470 +**Date of Publication:** *2013*
471 +**Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
472 +**Title:** *"The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"*
473 +**DOI:** [10.1017/thg.2013.54](https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.54)
474 +**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology* 
475 +
377 377  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
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**.
... ... @@ -433,14 +433,17 @@
433 433  {{/expandable}}
434 434  {{/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*
535 +{{expandable summary="
443 443  
537 +
538 +Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"}}
539 +**Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
540 +**Date of Publication:** *2010*
541 +**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
542 +**Title:** *"Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"*
543 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046)
544 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology* 
545 +
444 444  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
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.
... ... @@ -500,16 +500,17 @@
500 500  {{/expandable}}
501 501  {{/expandable}}
502 502  
503 -= IQ =
605 +{{expandable summary="
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*
512 512  
608 +Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"}}
609 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
610 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
611 +**Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
612 +**Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
613 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
614 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis* 
615 +
513 513  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
514 514  1. **General Observations:**
515 515   - Survey of **102 experts** on intelligence research and public discourse.
... ... @@ -569,14 +569,17 @@
569 569  {{/expandable}}
570 570  {{/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*
675 +{{expandable summary="
579 579  
677 +
678 +Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"}}
679 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
680 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
681 +**Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
682 +**Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
683 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
684 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences* 
685 +
580 580  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
581 581  1. **General Observations:**
582 582   - Study analyzed **genome-wide association studies (GWAS) hits** linked to intelligence.
... ... @@ -636,298 +636,20 @@
636 636  {{/expandable}}
637 637  {{/expandable}}
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}}
745 +{{expandable summary="
647 647  
648 -= Dating =
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*
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**.
748 +Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding"}}
749 +**Source:** Journal of Genetic Epidemiology
750 +**Date of Publication:** 2024-01-15
751 +**Author(s):** Smith et al.
752 +**Title:** "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies"
753 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
754 +**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science 
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"**.
757 += Dating =
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**.
680 -
681 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
682 - - The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way.
683 - - The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized.
684 -{{/expandable}}
685 -
686 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
687 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
688 - - Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**.
689 - - Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**.
690 -
691 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
692 - - Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning.
693 - - Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism.
694 - - Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups.
695 -
696 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
697 - - Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it.
698 - - Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds.
699 - - Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating.
700 -{{/expandable}}
701 -
702 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
703 -- Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating.
704 -- Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**.
705 -- Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**.
706 -{{/expandable}}
707 -
708 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
709 -1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection.
710 -2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**.
711 -3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection.
712 -{{/expandable}}
713 -
714 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
715 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]]
716 -{{/expandable}}
717 -{{/expandable}}
718 -
719 -
720 -{{expandable summary="Study: 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 -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.
732 -
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.”
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}}
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.
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**.
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.
754 -{{/expandable}}
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 -
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.
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}}
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 -
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}}
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 -
931 931  {{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"}}
932 932  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
933 933  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
... ... @@ -989,18 +989,21 @@
989 989  {{/expandable}}
990 990  
991 991  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
992 -
820 +
993 993  {{/expandable}}
994 994  {{/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*
824 +{{expandable summary="
1003 1003  
826 +
827 +Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}
828 +**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
829 +**Date of Publication:** *2012*
830 +**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
831 +**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
832 +**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
833 +**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities* 
834 +
1004 1004  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1005 1005  1. **General Observations:**
1006 1006   - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
... ... @@ -1062,14 +1062,17 @@
1062 1062  {{/expandable}}
1063 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*
896 +{{expandable summary="
1072 1072  
898 +
899 +Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
900 +**Source:** *Current Psychology*
901 +**Date of Publication:** *2024*
902 +**Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
903 +**Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
904 +**DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
905 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation* 
906 +
1073 1073  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1074 1074  1. **General Observations:**
1075 1075   - Study analyzed **67 self-identified incels** and **103 non-incel men**.
... ... @@ -1127,18 +1127,24 @@
1127 1127  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1128 1128  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]
1129 1129  {{/expandable}}
1130 -{{/expandable}}
964 +
1131 1131  
1132 1132  = Crime and Substance Abuse =
967 +
968 +
969 +{{/expandable}}
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*
971 +{{expandable summary="
1141 1141  
973 +
974 +Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
975 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
976 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
977 +**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
978 +**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
979 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
980 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
981 +
1142 1142  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1143 1143  1. **General Observations:**
1144 1144   - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
... ... @@ -1198,14 +1198,17 @@
1198 1198  {{/expandable}}
1199 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*
1041 +{{expandable summary="
1208 1208  
1043 +
1044 +Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
1045 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1046 +**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1047 +**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1048 +**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1049 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1050 +**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research* 
1051 +
1209 1209  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1210 1210  1. **General Observations:**
1211 1211   - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
... ... @@ -1225,25 +1225,25 @@
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:**
1071 +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:**
1075 +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 1235  {{/expandable}}
1236 1236  
1237 1237  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1238 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1081 +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:**
1085 +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:**
1089 +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 1249  {{/expandable}}
... ... @@ -1265,14 +1265,17 @@
1265 1265  {{/expandable}}
1266 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*
1111 +{{expandable summary="
1275 1275  
1113 +
1114 +Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1115 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1116 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1117 +**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1118 +**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1119 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1120 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1121 +
1276 1276  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1277 1277  1. **General Observations:**
1278 1278   - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
... ... @@ -1332,16 +1332,21 @@
1332 1332  {{/expandable}}
1333 1333  {{/expandable}}
1334 1334  
1335 -{{expandable summary="
1181 +{{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*
1344 1344  
1184 +Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"}}
1185 +
1186 +{{/expandable}}
1187 +
1188 +{{expandable summary="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1189 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1190 +**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1191 +**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
1192 +**Title:** *"Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"*
1193 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012)
1194 +**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics* 
1195 +
1345 1345  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1346 1346  1. **General Observations:**
1347 1347   - The study examines reaction time data from **13 age-matched studies** spanning **1884–2004**.
... ... @@ -1399,142 +1399,76 @@
1399 1399  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1400 1400  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]
1401 1401  {{/expandable}}
1402 -{{/expandable}}
1253 +
1403 1403  
1404 1404  = Whiteness & White Guilt =
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*
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.
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.
1256 +
1257 +
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.
1260 +{{expandable summary="
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.
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}}
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"}}
1263 +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*
1269 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism* 
1483 1483  
1484 1484  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
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.
1273 + - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1274 + - 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**.
1277 + - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1278 + - **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.
1281 + - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1282 + - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1496 1496  {{/expandable}}
1497 1497  
1498 1498  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
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.
1287 + - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1288 + - 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.
1291 + - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1292 + - **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.
1295 + - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1296 + - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1510 1510  {{/expandable}}
1511 1511  
1512 1512  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
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.
1301 + - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1302 + - 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.
1305 + - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1306 + - 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.
1309 + - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1310 + - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1526 1526  {{/expandable}}
1527 1527  
1528 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).
1314 +- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1315 +- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1316 +- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.
1532 1532  {{/expandable}}
1533 1533  
1534 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**.
1320 +1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1321 +2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1322 +3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1538 1538  {{/expandable}}
1539 1539  
1540 1540  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1542,70 +1542,69 @@
1542 1542  {{/expandable}}
1543 1543  {{/expandable}}
1544 1544  
1330 +{{expandable summary="
1545 1545  
1546 -{{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1332 +
1333 +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*
1336 +**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*
1339 +**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment* 
1553 1553  
1554 1554  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
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**.
1343 + - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1344 + - 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**.
1347 + - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1348 + - 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.
1351 + - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1352 + - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1567 1567  {{/expandable}}
1568 1568  
1569 1569  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
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.
1357 + - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1358 + - 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**.
1361 + - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1362 + - 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.
1365 + - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1366 + - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1581 1581  {{/expandable}}
1582 1582  
1583 1583  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
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**.
1371 + - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1372 + - 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**.
1375 + - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1376 + - 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.
1379 + - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1380 + - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1597 1597  {{/expandable}}
1598 1598  
1599 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**.
1384 +- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1385 +- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1386 +- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.
1603 1603  {{/expandable}}
1604 1604  
1605 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**.
1390 +1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1391 +2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1392 +3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1609 1609  {{/expandable}}
1610 1610  
1611 1611  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1613,15 +1613,17 @@
1613 1613  {{/expandable}}
1614 1614  {{/expandable}}
1615 1615  
1400 +{{expandable summary="
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*
1624 1624  
1403 +Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1404 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1405 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
1406 +**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1407 +**Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1408 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1409 +**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors* 
1410 +
1625 1625  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1626 1626  1. **General Observations:**
1627 1627   - Mortality rates among **middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans (ages 45–54)** increased from 1999 to 2013.
... ... @@ -1681,85 +1681,90 @@
1681 1681  {{/expandable}}
1682 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*
1470 +{{expandable summary="
1471 +
1472 +
1473 +Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1474 +**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1686 1686  **Date of Publication:** *2023*
1687 -**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
1476 +**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*
1478 +**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1479 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration* 
1691 1691  
1692 1692  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
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”.
1483 + - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1484 + - 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.
1487 + - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1488 + - 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.
1491 + - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1492 + - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1704 1704  {{/expandable}}
1705 1705  
1706 1706  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
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.
1497 + - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1498 + - 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.
1501 + - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1502 + - 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.**
1505 + - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1506 + - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1718 1718  {{/expandable}}
1719 1719  
1720 1720  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
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.**
1511 + - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1512 + - 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.
1515 + - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1516 + - 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.**
1519 + - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1520 + - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1734 1734  {{/expandable}}
1735 1735  
1736 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.**
1524 +- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1525 +- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1526 +- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.
1740 1740  {{/expandable}}
1741 1741  
1742 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.
1530 +1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1531 +2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1532 +3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1746 1746  {{/expandable}}
1747 1747  
1748 1748  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1749 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1536 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1750 1750  {{/expandable}}
1538 +
1539 += Media =
1540 +
1541 +
1751 1751  {{/expandable}}
1752 1752  
1544 +{{expandable summary="
1753 1753  
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*
1547 +Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
1548 +**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1549 +**Date of Publication:** *2021*
1550 +**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
1551 +**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
1552 +**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
1553 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies* 
1763 1763  
1764 1764  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1765 1765  1. **General Observations:**
... ... @@ -1820,14 +1820,17 @@
1820 1820  {{/expandable}}
1821 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*
1614 +{{expandable summary="
1830 1830  
1616 +
1617 +Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"}}
1618 +**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
1619 +**Date of Publication:** *2007*
1620 +**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
1621 +**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
1622 +**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
1623 +**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence* 
1624 +
1831 1831  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1832 1832  1. **General Observations:**
1833 1833   - Examines **media coverage of same-sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011**.
... ... @@ -1887,14 +1887,17 @@
1887 1887  {{/expandable}}
1888 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*
1684 +{{expandable summary="
1897 1897  
1686 +
1687 +Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion"}}
1688 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
1689 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1690 +**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
1691 +**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
1692 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
1693 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion* 
1694 +
1898 1898  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1899 1899  1. **General Observations:**
1900 1900   - Conducted **12 experimental studies** on **digital media's impact on political beliefs**.
... ... @@ -1951,239 +1951,6 @@
1951 1951  
1952 1952  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1953 1953  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
1751 +##~{~{/expand}}##
1954 1954  {{/expandable}}
1955 1955  {{/expandable}}
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
1964 -
1965 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
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 -
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