0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 123.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/21 05:21
Change comment: Attachment moved to xwiki:Main Categories.Science & Research.Research at a Glance.Studies\: Dating.WebHome.
To version 91.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/04/15 23:13
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 +19,21 @@
19 19  - You'll also find a download link to the original full study in pdf form at the bottom of the collapsible block.
20 20  
21 21  
104 +{{toc/}}
22 22  
106 +
107 +
108 +
109 +
23 23  = Genetics =
24 24  
25 -{{expandable summary="
26 26  
27 -Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
113 +== Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History ==
114 +
115 +
116 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
117 +
118 +
28 28  **Source:** *Nature*
29 29  **Date of Publication:** *2009*
30 30  **Author(s):** *David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, Lalji Singh*
... ... @@ -32,7 +32,10 @@
32 32  **DOI:** [10.1038/nature08365](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08365)
33 33  **Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Population History, South Asian Ancestry* 
34 34  
35 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
126 +----
127 +
128 +## **Key Statistics**##
129 +
36 36  1. **General Observations:**
37 37   - Study analyzed **132 individuals from 25 diverse Indian groups**.
38 38   - Identified two major ancestral populations: **Ancestral North Indians (ANI)** and **Ancestral South Indians (ASI)**.
... ... @@ -44,9 +44,11 @@
44 44  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
45 45   - ANI ancestry ranges from **39% to 71%** across Indian groups.
46 46   - **Caste and linguistic differences** strongly correlate with genetic variation.
47 -{{/expandable}}
48 48  
49 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
142 +----
143 +
144 +## **Findings**##
145 +
50 50  1. **Primary Observations:**
51 51   - The genetic landscape of India has been shaped by **thousands of years of endogamy**.
52 52   - Groups with **only ASI ancestry no longer exist** in mainland India.
... ... @@ -58,9 +58,11 @@
58 58  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
59 59   - **Founder effects** have maintained allele frequency differences among Indian groups.
60 60   - Predicts **higher incidence of recessive diseases** due to historical genetic isolation.
61 -{{/expandable}}
62 62  
63 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
158 +----
159 +
160 +## **Critique and Observations**##
161 +
64 64  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
65 65   - **First large-scale genetic analysis** of Indian population history.
66 66   - Introduces **new methods for ancestry estimation without direct ancestral reference groups**.
... ... @@ -72,34 +72,55 @@
72 72  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
73 73   - Future research should **expand sampling across more Indian tribal groups**.
74 74   - Use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer resolution of ancestry.
75 -{{/expandable}}
76 76  
77 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
174 +----
175 +
176 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
78 78  - Provides a **genetic basis for caste and linguistic diversity** in India.
79 79  - Highlights **founder effects and genetic drift** shaping South Asian populations.
80 -- Supports research on **medical genetics and disease risk prediction** in Indian populations.
81 -{{/expandable}}
179 +- Supports research on **medical genetics and disease risk prediction** in Indian populations.##
82 82  
83 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
181 +----
182 +
183 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
184 +
84 84  1. Examine **genetic markers linked to disease susceptibility** in Indian subpopulations.
85 85  2. Investigate the impact of **recent migration patterns on ANI-ASI ancestry distribution**.
86 86  3. Study **gene flow between Indian populations and other global groups**.
87 -{{/expandable}}
88 88  
89 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
90 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature08365.pdf]]
189 +----
190 +
191 +## **Summary of Research Study**
192 +This study reconstructs **the genetic history of India**, revealing two ancestral populations—**ANI (related to West Eurasians) and ASI (distinctly South Asian)**. By analyzing **25 diverse Indian groups**, the researchers demonstrate how **historical endogamy and founder effects** have maintained genetic differentiation. The findings have **implications for medical genetics, population history, and the study of South Asian ancestry**.##
193 +
194 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
195 +
196 +----
197 +
198 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
199 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature08365.pdf]]##
200 +
201 +
91 91  {{/expandable}}
92 -{{/expandable}}
93 93  
94 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"}}
95 -**Source:** *Nature*
96 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
97 -**Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
98 -**Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
99 -**DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
100 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics*
101 101  
102 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
205 +== Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations ==
206 +
207 +
208 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"}}
209 +
210 +
211 +**Source:** *Nature*
212 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
213 +**Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
214 +**Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
215 +**DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
216 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics* 
217 +
218 +----
219 +
220 +## **Key Statistics**##
221 +
103 103  1. **General Observations:**
104 104   - Analyzed **high-coverage genome sequences of 300 individuals from 142 populations**.
105 105   - Included **many underrepresented and indigenous groups** from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas.
... ... @@ -111,9 +111,11 @@
111 111  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
112 112   - Identified **5.8 million base pairs absent from the human reference genome**.
113 113   - Estimated that **mutations have accumulated 5% faster in non-Africans than in Africans**.
114 -{{/expandable}}
115 115  
116 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
234 +----
235 +
236 +## **Findings**##
237 +
117 117  1. **Primary Observations:**
118 118   - **African populations harbor the greatest genetic diversity**, confirming an out-of-Africa dispersal model.
119 119   - Indigenous Australians and New Guineans **share a common ancestral population with other non-Africans**.
... ... @@ -125,9 +125,11 @@
125 125  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
126 126   - **Neanderthal ancestry is higher in East Asians than in Europeans**.
127 127   - African hunter-gatherer groups show **deep population splits over 100,000 years ago**.
128 -{{/expandable}}
129 129  
130 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
250 +----
251 +
252 +## **Critique and Observations**##
253 +
131 131  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
132 132   - **Largest global genetic dataset** outside of the 1000 Genomes Project.
133 133   - High sequencing depth allows **more accurate identification of genetic variants**.
... ... @@ -139,36 +139,52 @@
139 139  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
140 140   - Future studies should include **ancient genomes** to improve demographic modeling.
141 141   - Expand research into **how genetic variation affects health outcomes** across populations.
142 -{{/expandable}}
143 143  
144 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
266 +----
267 +
268 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
145 145  - Provides **comprehensive data on human genetic diversity**, useful for **evolutionary studies**.
146 146  - Supports research on **Neanderthal and Denisovan introgression** in modern human populations.
147 -- Enhances understanding of **genetic adaptation and disease susceptibility across groups**.
148 -{{/expandable}}
271 +- Enhances understanding of **genetic adaptation and disease susceptibility across groups**.##
149 149  
150 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
273 +----
274 +
275 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
276 +
151 151  1. Investigate **functional consequences of genetic variation in underrepresented populations**.
152 152  2. Study **how selection pressures shaped genetic diversity across different environments**.
153 153  3. Explore **medical applications of population-specific genetic markers**.
154 -{{/expandable}}
155 155  
156 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
157 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature18964.pdf]]
281 +----
282 +
283 +## **Summary of Research Study**
284 +This study presents **high-coverage genome sequences from 300 individuals across 142 populations**, offering **new insights into global genetic diversity and human evolution**. The findings highlight **deep African population splits, widespread archaic ancestry in non-Africans, and unique variants absent from the human reference genome**. The research enhances our understanding of **migration patterns, adaptation, and evolutionary history**.##
285 +
286 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
287 +
288 +----
289 +
290 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
291 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature18964.pdf]]##
292 +
293 +
158 158  {{/expandable}}
159 -{{/expandable}}
160 160  
161 -{{expandable summary="
162 162  
163 -Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
164 -**Source:** *Nature Genetics*
165 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
166 -**Author(s):** *Tinca J. C. Polderman, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, Danielle Posthuma*
167 -**Title:** *"Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"*
168 -**DOI:** [10.1038/ng.328](https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.328)
169 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Heritability, Twin Studies, Behavioral Science*
297 +== Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies ==
170 170  
171 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
299 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
300 +**Source:** *Nature Genetics*
301 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
302 +**Author(s):** *Tinca J. C. Polderman, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, Danielle Posthuma*
303 +**Title:** *"Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"*
304 +**DOI:** [10.1038/ng.328](https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.328)
305 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Heritability, Twin Studies, Behavioral Science* 
306 +
307 +----
308 +
309 +## **Key Statistics**##
310 +
172 172  1. **General Observations:**
173 173   - Analyzed **17,804 traits from 2,748 twin studies** published between **1958 and 2012**.
174 174   - Included data from **14,558,903 twin pairs**, making it the largest meta-analysis on human heritability.
... ... @@ -180,9 +180,11 @@
180 180  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
181 181   - **Neurological, metabolic, and psychiatric traits** showed the highest heritability estimates.
182 182   - Traits related to **social values and environmental interactions** had lower heritability estimates.
183 -{{/expandable}}
184 184  
185 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
323 +----
324 +
325 +## **Findings**##
326 +
186 186  1. **Primary Observations:**
187 187   - Across all traits, genetic factors play a significant role in individual differences.
188 188   - The study contradicts models that **overestimate environmental effects in behavioral and cognitive traits**.
... ... @@ -194,9 +194,11 @@
194 194  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
195 195   - Twin correlations suggest **limited evidence for strong non-additive genetic influences**.
196 196   - The study highlights **missing heritability in complex traits**, which genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have yet to fully explain.
197 -{{/expandable}}
198 198  
199 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
339 +----
340 +
341 +## **Critique and Observations**##
342 +
200 200  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
201 201   - **Largest-ever heritability meta-analysis**, covering nearly all published twin studies.
202 202   - Provides a **comprehensive framework for understanding gene-environment contributions**.
... ... @@ -208,28 +208,39 @@
208 208  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
209 209   - Future research should use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer-grained heritability estimates.
210 210   - **Incorporate non-Western populations** to assess global heritability trends.
211 -{{/expandable}}
212 212  
213 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
355 +----
356 +
357 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
214 214  - Establishes a **quantitative benchmark for heritability across human traits**.
215 215  - Reinforces **genetic influence on cognitive, behavioral, and physical traits**.
216 -- Highlights the need for **genome-wide studies to identify missing heritability**.
217 -{{/expandable}}
360 +- Highlights the need for **genome-wide studies to identify missing heritability**.##
218 218  
219 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
362 +----
363 +
364 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
365 +
220 220  1. Investigate how **heritability estimates compare across different socioeconomic backgrounds**.
221 221  2. Examine **gene-environment interactions in cognitive and psychiatric traits**.
222 222  3. Explore **non-additive genetic effects on human traits using newer statistical models**.
223 -{{/expandable}}
224 224  
225 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
226 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_ng.328.pdf]]
370 +----
371 +
372 +## **Summary of Research Study**
373 +This study presents a **comprehensive meta-analysis of human trait heritability**, covering **over 50 years of twin research**. The findings confirm **genes play a predominant role in shaping human traits**, with an **average heritability of 49%** across all measured characteristics. The research offers **valuable insights into genetic and environmental influences**, guiding future gene-mapping efforts and behavioral genetics studies.##
374 +
375 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
376 +
377 +----
378 +
379 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
380 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_ng.328.pdf]]##
227 227  {{/expandable}}
228 -{{/expandable}}
229 229  
230 -{{expandable summary="
231 231  
232 -Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
384 +== Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease ==
385 +
386 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
233 233  **Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
234 234  **Date of Publication:** *2002*
235 235  **Author(s):** *Sarah A. Tishkoff, Scott M. Williams*
... ... @@ -237,7 +237,10 @@
237 237  **DOI:** [10.1038/nrg865](https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg865)
238 238  **Subject Matter:** *Population Genetics, Human Evolution, Complex Diseases* 
239 239  
240 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
394 +----
395 +
396 +## **Key Statistics**##
397 +
241 241  1. **General Observations:**
242 242   - Africa harbors **the highest genetic diversity** of any region, making it key to understanding human evolution.
243 243   - The study analyzes **genetic variation and linkage disequilibrium (LD) in African populations**.
... ... @@ -249,9 +249,11 @@
249 249  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
250 250   - The **effective population size (Ne) of Africans** is higher than that of non-African populations.
251 251   - LD blocks are **shorter in African genomes**, suggesting more historical recombination events.
252 -{{/expandable}}
253 253  
254 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
410 +----
411 +
412 +## **Findings**##
413 +
255 255  1. **Primary Observations:**
256 256   - African populations are the **most genetically diverse**, supporting the *Recent African Origin* hypothesis.
257 257   - Genetic variation in African populations can **help fine-map complex disease genes**.
... ... @@ -263,9 +263,11 @@
263 263  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
264 264   - Admixture in African Americans includes **West African and European genetic contributions**.
265 265   - SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) diversity in African genomes **exceeds that of non-African groups**.
266 -{{/expandable}}
267 267  
268 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
426 +----
427 +
428 +## **Critique and Observations**##
429 +
269 269  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
270 270   - Provides **comprehensive genetic analysis** of diverse African populations.
271 271   - Highlights **how genetic diversity impacts health disparities and disease risks**.
... ... @@ -277,36 +277,50 @@
277 277  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
278 278   - Expand research into **underrepresented African populations**.
279 279   - Integrate **whole-genome sequencing for a more detailed evolutionary timeline**.
280 -{{/expandable}}
281 281  
282 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
442 +----
443 +
444 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
283 283  - Supports **genetic models of human evolution** and the **out-of-Africa hypothesis**.
284 284  - Reinforces **Africa’s key role in disease gene mapping and precision medicine**.
285 -- Provides insight into **historical migration patterns and their genetic impact**.
286 -{{/expandable}}
447 +- Provides insight into **historical migration patterns and their genetic impact**.##
287 287  
288 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
449 +----
450 +
451 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
452 +
289 289  1. Investigate **genetic adaptations to local environments within Africa**.
290 290  2. Study **the role of African genetic diversity in disease resistance**.
291 291  3. Expand research on **how ancient migration patterns shaped modern genetic structure**.
292 -{{/expandable}}
293 293  
294 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
295 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nrg865MODERN.pdf]]
457 +----
458 +
459 +## **Summary of Research Study**
460 +This study explores the **genetic diversity of African populations**, analyzing their role in **human evolution and complex disease research**. The findings highlight **Africa’s unique genetic landscape**, confirming it as the most genetically diverse continent. The research provides valuable insights into **how genetic variation influences disease susceptibility, evolution, and population structure**.##
461 +
462 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
463 +
464 +----
465 +
466 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
467 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nrg865MODERN.pdf]]##
296 296  {{/expandable}}
297 -{{/expandable}}
298 298  
299 -{{expandable summary="
300 300  
301 -Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
302 -**Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
303 -**Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
304 -**Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
305 -**Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
306 -**DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
307 -**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection*
471 +== Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA ==
308 308  
309 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
473 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
474 +**Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
475 +**Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
476 +**Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
477 +**Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
478 +**DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
479 +**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection* 
480 +
481 +----
482 +
483 +## **Key Statistics**##
484 +
310 310  1. **General Observations:**
311 311   - Study analyzes **8,433 ancient individuals** from the past **14,000 years**.
312 312   - Identifies **347 genome-wide significant loci** showing strong selection.
... ... @@ -318,9 +318,11 @@
318 318  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
319 319   - **10,000 years of directional selection** affected metabolic, immune, and cognitive traits.
320 320   - **Strong selection signals** found for traits like **skin pigmentation, cognitive function, and immunity**.
321 -{{/expandable}}
322 322  
323 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
497 +----
498 +
499 +## **Findings**##
500 +
324 324  1. **Primary Observations:**
325 325   - **Hundreds of alleles have been subject to directional selection** over recent millennia.
326 326   - Traits like **immune function, metabolism, and cognitive performance** show strong selection.
... ... @@ -333,9 +333,11 @@
333 333   - **Celiac disease risk allele** increased from **0% to 20%** in 4,000 years.
334 334   - **Blood type B frequency rose from 0% to 8% in 6,000 years**.
335 335   - **Tuberculosis risk allele** fluctuated from **2% to 9% over 3,000 years before declining**.
336 -{{/expandable}}
337 337  
338 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
514 +----
515 +
516 +## **Critique and Observations**##
517 +
339 339  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
340 340   - **Largest dataset to date** on natural selection in human ancient DNA.
341 341   - Uses **direct allele frequency tracking instead of indirect measures**.
... ... @@ -347,34 +347,48 @@
347 347  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
348 348   - Expanding research to **other global populations** to assess universal trends.
349 349   - Investigating **long-term evolutionary trade-offs of selected alleles**.
350 -{{/expandable}}
351 351  
352 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
530 +----
531 +
532 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
353 353  - Provides **direct evidence of long-term genetic adaptation** in human populations.
354 354  - Supports theories on **polygenic selection shaping human cognition, metabolism, and immunity**.
355 -- Highlights **how past selection pressures may still influence modern health and disease prevalence**.
356 -{{/expandable}}
535 +- Highlights **how past selection pressures may still influence modern health and disease prevalence**.##
357 357  
358 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
537 +----
538 +
539 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
540 +
359 359  1. Examine **selection patterns in non-European populations** for comparison.
360 360  2. Investigate **how environmental and cultural shifts influenced genetic selection**.
361 361  3. Explore **the genetic basis of traits linked to past and present-day human survival**.
362 -{{/expandable}}
363 363  
364 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
365 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1101_2024.09.14.613021doi_.pdf]]
545 +----
546 +
547 +## **Summary of Research Study**
548 +This study examines **how human genetic adaptation has unfolded over 14,000 years**, using a **large dataset of ancient DNA**. It highlights **strong selection on immune function, metabolism, and cognitive traits**, revealing **hundreds of loci affected by directional selection**. The findings emphasize **the power of ancient DNA in tracking human evolution and adaptation**.##
549 +
550 +----
551 +
552 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
553 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1101_2024.09.14.613021doi_.pdf]]##
366 366  {{/expandable}}
367 -{{/expandable}}
368 368  
369 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"}}
370 -**Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
371 -**Date of Publication:** *2013*
372 -**Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
373 -**Title:** *"The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"*
374 -**DOI:** [10.1017/thg.2013.54](https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.54)
375 -**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology*
376 376  
377 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
557 +== Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age ==
558 +
559 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"}}
560 +**Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
561 +**Date of Publication:** *2013*
562 +**Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
563 +**Title:** *"The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"*
564 +**DOI:** [10.1017/thg.2013.54](https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.54)
565 +**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology* 
566 +
567 +----
568 +
569 +## **Key Statistics**##
570 +
378 378  1. **General Observations:**
379 379   - The study documents how the **heritability of IQ increases with age**, reaching an asymptote at **0.80 by adulthood**.
380 380   - Analysis is based on **longitudinal twin and adoption studies**.
... ... @@ -386,9 +386,11 @@
386 386  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
387 387   - Data from the **Louisville Longitudinal Twin Study and cross-national twin samples** support findings.
388 388   - IQ stability over time is **influenced more by genetics than by shared environmental factors**.
389 -{{/expandable}}
390 390  
391 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
583 +----
584 +
585 +## **Findings**##
586 +
392 392  1. **Primary Observations:**
393 393   - Intelligence heritability **strengthens throughout development**, contrary to early environmental models.
394 394   - Shared environmental effects **decrease by late adolescence**, emphasizing **genetic influence in adulthood**.
... ... @@ -400,9 +400,11 @@
400 400  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
401 401   - Longitudinal adoption studies show **declining impact of adoptive parental influence on IQ** as children age.
402 402   - Cross-sectional twin data confirm **higher IQ correlations for monozygotic twins in adulthood**.
403 -{{/expandable}}
404 404  
405 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
599 +----
600 +
601 +## **Critique and Observations**##
602 +
406 406  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
407 407   - **Robust dataset covering multiple twin and adoption studies over decades**.
408 408   - **Clear, replicable trend** demonstrating the increasing role of genetics in intelligence.
... ... @@ -414,34 +414,50 @@
414 414  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
415 415   - Future research should investigate **gene-environment interactions in cognitive aging**.
416 416   - Examine **heritability trends in non-Western populations** to determine cross-cultural consistency.
417 -{{/expandable}}
418 418  
419 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
615 +----
616 +
617 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
420 420  - Provides **strong evidence for the genetic basis of intelligence**.
421 421  - Highlights the **diminishing role of shared environment in cognitive development**.
422 -- Supports research on **cognitive aging and heritability across the lifespan**.
423 -{{/expandable}}
620 +- Supports research on **cognitive aging and heritability across the lifespan**.##
424 424  
425 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
622 +----
623 +
624 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
625 +
426 426  1. Investigate **neurogenetic pathways underlying IQ development**.
427 427  2. Examine **how education and socioeconomic factors interact with genetic IQ influences**.
428 428  3. Study **heritability trends in aging populations and cognitive decline**.
429 -{{/expandable}}
430 430  
431 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
432 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1017_thg.2013.54.pdf]]
630 +----
631 +
632 +## **Summary of Research Study**
633 +This study documents **The Wilson Effect**, demonstrating how the **heritability of IQ increases throughout development**, reaching a plateau of **0.80 by adulthood**. The findings indicate that **shared environmental effects diminish with age**, while **genetic influences on intelligence strengthen**. Using **longitudinal twin and adoption data**, the research provides **strong empirical support for the increasing role of genetics in cognitive ability over time**.##
634 +
635 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
636 +
637 +----
638 +
639 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
640 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1017_thg.2013.54.pdf]]##
433 433  {{/expandable}}
434 -{{/expandable}}
435 435  
436 -{{expandable summary="Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"}}
437 -**Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
438 -**Date of Publication:** *2010*
439 -**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
440 -**Title:** *"Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"*
441 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046)
442 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology*
443 443  
444 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
644 +== Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications ==
645 +
646 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"}}
647 +**Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
648 +**Date of Publication:** *2010*
649 +**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
650 +**Title:** *"Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"*
651 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046)
652 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology* 
653 +
654 +----
655 +
656 +## **Key Statistics**##
657 +
445 445  1. **General Observations:**
446 446   - The study argues that **Homo sapiens is polytypic**, meaning it consists of multiple subspecies rather than a single monotypic species.
447 447   - Examines **genetic diversity, morphological variation, and evolutionary lineage** in humans.
... ... @@ -453,9 +453,11 @@
453 453  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
454 454   - The study evaluates **FST values (genetic differentiation measure)** and argues that human genetic differentiation is comparable to that of recognized subspecies in other species.
455 455   - Considers **phylogenetic species concepts** in defining human variation.
456 -{{/expandable}}
457 457  
458 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
670 +----
671 +
672 +## **Findings**##
673 +
459 459  1. **Primary Observations:**
460 460   - Proposes that **modern human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**.
461 461   - Highlights **medical and evolutionary implications** of human taxonomic diversity.
... ... @@ -467,9 +467,11 @@
467 467  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
468 468   - Evaluates how **genetic markers correlate with population structure**.
469 469   - Addresses the **controversy over race classification in modern anthropology**.
470 -{{/expandable}}
471 471  
472 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
686 +----
687 +
688 +## **Critique and Observations**##
689 +
473 473  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
474 474   - Uses **comparative species analysis** to assess human classification.
475 475   - Provides a **biological perspective** on the race concept, moving beyond social constructivism arguments.
... ... @@ -481,36 +481,50 @@
481 481  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
482 482   - Further research should **incorporate whole-genome studies** to refine subspecies classifications.
483 483   - Investigate **how admixture affects taxonomic classification over time**.
484 -{{/expandable}}
485 485  
486 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
702 +----
703 +
704 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
487 487  - Contributes to discussions on **evolutionary taxonomy and species classification**.
488 488  - Provides evidence on **genetic differentiation among human populations**.
489 -- Highlights **historical and contemporary scientific debates on race and human variation**.
490 -{{/expandable}}
707 +- Highlights **historical and contemporary scientific debates on race and human variation**.##
491 491  
492 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
709 +----
710 +
711 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
712 +
493 493  1. Examine **FST values in modern and ancient human populations**.
494 494  2. Investigate how **adaptive evolution influences population differentiation**.
495 495  3. Explore **the impact of genetic diversity on medical treatments and disease susceptibility**.
496 -{{/expandable}}
497 497  
498 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
499 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.mehy.2009.07.046.pdf]]
717 +----
718 +
719 +## **Summary of Research Study**
720 +This study evaluates **whether Homo sapiens should be classified as a polytypic species**, analyzing **genetic diversity, evolutionary lineage, and morphological variation**. Using comparative analysis with other primates and mammals, the research suggests that **human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**, with implications for **evolutionary biology, anthropology, and medicine**.##
721 +
722 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
723 +
724 +----
725 +
726 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
727 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.mehy.2009.07.046.pdf]]##
500 500  {{/expandable}}
501 -{{/expandable}}
502 502  
503 -= IQ =
504 504  
505 -{{expandable summary="Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"}}
506 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
507 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
508 -**Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
509 -**Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
510 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
511 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis*
731 +== Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media ==
512 512  
513 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
733 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"}}
734 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
735 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
736 +**Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
737 +**Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
738 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
739 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis* 
740 +
741 +----
742 +
743 +## **Key Statistics**##
744 +
514 514  1. **General Observations:**
515 515   - Survey of **102 experts** on intelligence research and public discourse.
516 516   - Evaluated experts' backgrounds, political affiliations, and views on controversial topics in intelligence research.
... ... @@ -522,9 +522,11 @@
522 522  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
523 523   - Experts rated media coverage of intelligence research as **poor (avg. 3.1 on a 9-point scale)**.
524 524   - **50% of experts attributed US Black-White IQ differences to genetic factors, 50% to environmental factors**.
525 -{{/expandable}}
526 526  
527 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
757 +----
758 +
759 +## **Findings**##
760 +
528 528  1. **Primary Observations:**
529 529   - Experts overwhelmingly support **the g-factor theory of intelligence**.
530 530   - **Heritability of intelligence** was widely accepted, though views differed on race and group differences.
... ... @@ -536,9 +536,11 @@
536 536  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
537 537   - The study compared **media coverage of intelligence research** with expert opinions.
538 538   - Found a **disconnect between journalists and intelligence researchers**, especially regarding politically sensitive issues.
539 -{{/expandable}}
540 540  
541 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
773 +----
774 +
775 +## **Critique and Observations**##
776 +
542 542  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
543 543   - **Largest expert survey on intelligence research** to date.
544 544   - Provides insight into **how political orientation influences scientific perspectives**.
... ... @@ -550,34 +550,50 @@
550 550  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
551 551   - Future studies should include **a broader range of global experts**.
552 552   - Additional research needed on **media biases and misrepresentation of intelligence research**.
553 -{{/expandable}}
554 554  
555 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
789 +----
790 +
791 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
556 556  - Provides insight into **expert consensus and division on intelligence research**.
557 557  - Highlights the **role of media bias** in shaping public perception of intelligence science.
558 -- Useful for understanding **the intersection of science, politics, and public discourse** on intelligence research.
559 -{{/expandable}}
794 +- Useful for understanding **the intersection of science, politics, and public discourse** on intelligence research.##
560 560  
561 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
796 +----
797 +
798 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
799 +
562 562  1. Examine **cross-national differences** in expert opinions on intelligence.
563 563  2. Investigate how **media bias impacts public understanding of intelligence research**.
564 564  3. Conduct follow-up studies with **a more diverse expert pool** to test findings.
565 -{{/expandable}}
566 566  
567 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
568 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2019.101406.pdf]]
804 +----
805 +
806 +## **Summary of Research Study**
807 +This study surveys **expert opinions on intelligence research**, analyzing **how backgrounds, political ideologies, and media representation influence perspectives on intelligence**. The findings highlight **divisions in scientific consensus**, particularly on **genetic vs. environmental causes of IQ disparities**. Additionally, the research uncovers **widespread dissatisfaction with media portrayals of intelligence research**, pointing to **the impact of ideological biases on public discourse**.##
808 +
809 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
810 +
811 +----
812 +
813 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
814 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2019.101406.pdf]]##
569 569  {{/expandable}}
570 -{{/expandable}}
571 571  
572 -{{expandable summary="Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"}}
573 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
574 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
575 -**Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
576 -**Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
577 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
578 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences*
579 579  
580 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
818 +== Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation ==
819 +
820 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"}}
821 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
822 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
823 +**Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
824 +**Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
825 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
826 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences* 
827 +
828 +----
829 +
830 +## **Key Statistics**##
831 +
581 581  1. **General Observations:**
582 582   - Study analyzed **genome-wide association studies (GWAS) hits** linked to intelligence.
583 583   - Found a **strong correlation (r = .91) between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**.
... ... @@ -589,9 +589,11 @@
589 589  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
590 590   - GWAS intelligence SNPs predicted **IQ levels more strongly than random genetic markers**.
591 591   - Genetic differentiation (Fst values) showed that **selection pressure, rather than drift, influenced intelligence-related allele distributions**.
592 -{{/expandable}}
593 593  
594 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
844 +----
845 +
846 +## **Findings**##
847 +
595 595  1. **Primary Observations:**
596 596   - Intelligence-associated SNP frequencies correlate **highly with national IQ levels**.
597 597   - Genetic selection for intelligence appears **stronger than selection for height-related genes**.
... ... @@ -603,9 +603,11 @@
603 603  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
604 604   - Polygenic scores using **intelligence-related alleles significantly outperformed random SNPs** in predicting IQ.
605 605   - Selection pressures **may explain differences in global intelligence distribution** beyond genetic drift effects.
606 -{{/expandable}}
607 607  
608 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
860 +----
861 +
862 +## **Critique and Observations**##
863 +
609 609  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
610 610   - **Comprehensive genetic analysis** of intelligence-linked SNPs.
611 611   - Uses **multiple statistical methods (factor analysis, Fst analysis) to confirm results**.
... ... @@ -617,470 +617,78 @@
617 617  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
618 618   - Larger **cross-population GWAS studies** needed to validate findings.
619 619   - Investigate **non-genetic contributors to IQ variance** in addition to genetic factors.
620 -{{/expandable}}
621 621  
622 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
876 +----
877 +
878 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
623 623  - Supports research on **genetic influences on intelligence at a population level**.
624 624  - Aligns with broader discussions on **cognitive genetics and natural selection effects**.
625 -- Provides a **quantitative framework for analyzing polygenic selection in intelligence studies**.
626 -{{/expandable}}
881 +- Provides a **quantitative framework for analyzing polygenic selection in intelligence studies**.##
627 627  
628 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
883 +----
884 +
885 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
886 +
629 629  1. Conduct **expanded GWAS studies** including diverse populations.
630 630  2. Investigate **gene-environment interactions influencing intelligence**.
631 631  3. Explore **historical selection pressures shaping intelligence-related alleles**.
632 -{{/expandable}}
633 633  
634 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
635 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2015.08.008.pdf]]
636 -{{/expandable}}
637 -{{/expandable}}
891 +----
638 638  
639 -{{expandable summary="Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding"}}
640 -**Source:** Journal of Genetic Epidemiology
641 -**Date of Publication:** 2024-01-15
642 -**Author(s):** Smith et al.
643 -**Title:** "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies"
644 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
645 -**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science
646 -{{/expandable}}
893 +## **Summary of Research Study**
894 +This study reviews **genome-wide association study (GWAS) findings on intelligence**, demonstrating a **strong correlation between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**. The research highlights how **genetic selection may explain population-level cognitive differences beyond genetic drift effects**. Intelligence-linked alleles showed **higher variability across populations than height-related alleles**, suggesting stronger selection pressures.  ##
647 647  
648 -= Dating =
896 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
649 649  
650 -{{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}}
651 -**Source:** *Social Forces*
652 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
653 -**Author(s):** *Stephanie M. Curington, Kevin K. Anderson, and Jennifer Glass*
654 -**Title:** *"Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"*
655 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007](https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007)
656 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Dating, Multiracial Identity, Online Behavior*
898 +----
657 657  
658 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
659 -1. **General Observations:**
660 - - Data drawn from **over 1 million messaging records** from an online dating site.
661 - - Focused on how **monoracial users** (especially Whites) interact with **multiracial daters**.
662 -
663 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
664 - - **Multiracial Black/White and Asian/White women** received **fewer responses from White men** than their monoracial counterparts.
665 - - White daters showed **stronger preferences for monoracial identities**, particularly **own-race pairings**.
666 -
667 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
668 - - **Multiracial men** fared worse than multiracial women across most pairings.
669 - - **Latina/White and Asian/White multiracial women** were **more positively received by Black and Hispanic men**.
900 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
901 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2015.08.008.pdf]]##
670 670  {{/expandable}}
671 671  
672 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
673 -1. **Primary Observations:**
674 - - White users demonstrated a clear pattern of **in-group preference**, preferring other White users (monoracial or partially White) over more ambiguous multiracial identities.
675 - - Authors suggest this reflects **"boundary-maintaining behavior"** and **"latent racial bias"**.
676 676  
677 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
678 - - **Multiracial women with partial minority backgrounds** were more acceptable to non-White men than White men.
679 - - Multiracial daters were **often treated as ambiguous or “less desirable”** in ways the authors frame as **resistance to racial integration**.
905 +== Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding ==
680 680  
681 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
682 - - The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way.
683 - - The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized.
684 -{{/expandable}}
907 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Click here to expand details"}}
908 +**Source:** Journal of Genetic Epidemiology
909 +**Date of Publication:** 2024-01-15
910 +**Author(s):** Smith et al.
911 +**Title:** "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies"
912 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
913 +**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science 
685 685  
686 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
687 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
688 - - Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**.
689 - - Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**.
915 +**Tags:** `Genetics` `Race & Ethnicity` `Biomedical Research`
690 690  
691 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
692 - - Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning.
693 - - Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism.
694 - - Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups.
917 + **Key Statistics**
695 695  
696 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
697 - - Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it.
698 - - Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds.
699 - - Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating.
700 -{{/expandable}}
701 -
702 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
703 -- Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating.
704 -- Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**.
705 -- Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**.
706 -{{/expandable}}
707 -
708 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
709 -1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection.
710 -2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**.
711 -3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection.
712 -{{/expandable}}
713 -
714 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
715 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]]
716 -{{/expandable}}
717 -{{/expandable}}
718 -
719 -{{expandable summary="
720 -
721 -
722 -Study: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}}
723 -**Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity*
724 -**Date of Publication:** *2020*
725 -**Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter*
726 -**Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"*
727 -**DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232)
728 -**Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior*
729 -
730 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
731 731  1. **General Observations:**
732 - - Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070).
733 - - Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners.
920 + - A near-perfect alignment between self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) and genetic ancestry was observed.
921 + - Misclassification rate: **0.14%**.
734 734  
735 735  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
736 - - **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**.
737 - - White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**.
738 - - **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability.
924 + - Four groups analyzed: **White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic**.
925 + - Hispanic genetic clusters showed significant European and Native American lineage.
739 739  
740 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
741 - - **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.”
742 - - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**.
743 -{{/expandable}}
927 + **Findings**
744 744  
745 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
746 -1. **Primary Observations:**
747 - - Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality.
748 - - Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations.
929 +- Self-identified race strongly aligns with genetic ancestry.
930 +- Minor discrepancies exist but do not significantly impact classification.
749 749  
750 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
751 - - White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes.
752 - - White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites.
932 + **Relevance to Subproject**
753 753  
754 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
755 - - The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties.
756 - - Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**.
934 +- Reinforces the reliability of **self-reported racial identity** in genetic research.
935 +- Highlights **policy considerations** in biomedical studies.
757 757  {{/expandable}}
758 758  
759 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
760 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
761 - - Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences.
762 - - Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases.
763 763  
764 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
765 - - Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior.
766 - - **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races.
767 - - Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**.
939 +----
768 768  
769 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
770 - - Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites).
771 - - Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability.
772 - - Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits.
773 -{{/expandable}}
941 += Dating and Interpersonal Relationships =
774 774  
775 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
776 -- Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community.
777 -- Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing.
778 -- Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones.
779 -{{/expandable}}
780 780  
781 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
782 -1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted.
783 -2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships.
784 -3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races.
785 -{{/expandable}}
944 +== Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018 ==
786 786  
787 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
788 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_2332649219871232.pdf]]
789 -{{/expandable}}
790 -{{/expandable}}
791 -
792 -{{expandable summary="
793 -
794 -
795 -Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}}
796 -**Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)*
797 -**Date of Publication:** *2024*
798 -**Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon*
799 -**Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"*
800 -**DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978)
801 -**Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility*
802 -
803 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
804 -1. **General Observations:**
805 - - Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**.
806 - - Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**.
807 - - Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**.
808 -
809 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
810 - - Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas.
811 - - **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions.
812 -
813 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
814 - - Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites.
815 - - Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors.
816 -{{/expandable}}
817 -
818 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
819 -1. **Primary Observations:**
820 - - Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables.
821 - - **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression.
822 -
823 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
824 - - White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation.
825 - - **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes.
826 -
827 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
828 - - High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades.
829 - - Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects.
830 -{{/expandable}}
831 -
832 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
833 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
834 - - Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse.
835 - - Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources.
836 -
837 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
838 - - Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly.
839 - - Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility.
840 -
841 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
842 - - Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas.
843 - - Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends.
844 -{{/expandable}}
845 -
846 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
847 -- Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis.
848 -- Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**.
849 -- Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism.
850 -{{/expandable}}
851 -
852 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
853 -1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change.
854 -2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making.
855 -3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**.
856 -{{/expandable}}
857 -
858 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
859 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:12.Gurun_Solomon_Diversity_BirthRates.pdf]]
860 -{{/expandable}}
861 -{{/expandable}}
862 -
863 -{{expandable summary="
864 -
865 -
866 -Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}}
867 -**Source:** *Porn Studies*
868 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
869 -**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika*
870 -**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"*
871 -**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389)
872 -**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique*
873 -
874 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
875 -1. **General Observations:**
876 - - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women.
877 - - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality.
878 -
879 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
880 - - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**.
881 - - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.”
882 -
883 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
884 - - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue.
885 - - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.”
886 -{{/expandable}}
887 -
888 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
889 -1. **Primary Observations:**
890 - - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity.
891 - - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men.
892 -
893 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
894 - - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism.
895 - - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**.
896 -
897 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
898 - - 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.
899 - - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics.
900 -{{/expandable}}
901 -
902 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
903 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
904 - - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds.
905 - - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia.
906 -
907 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
908 - - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media.
909 - - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison.
910 - - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard.
911 -
912 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
913 - - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres.
914 - - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media.
915 - - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men.
916 -{{/expandable}}
917 -
918 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
919 -- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment.
920 -- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity.
921 -- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**.
922 -{{/expandable}}
923 -
924 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
925 -1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**.
926 -2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**.
927 -3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men.
928 -{{/expandable}}
929 -
930 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
931 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]]
932 -{{/expandable}}
933 -{{/expandable}}
934 -
935 -{{expandable summary="
936 -
937 -
938 -Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}}
939 -**Source:** *Social Science Research*
940 -**Date of Publication:** *2009*
941 -**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie*
942 -**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"*
943 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004)
944 -**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy*
945 -
946 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
947 -1. **General Observations:**
948 - - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California.
949 - - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles.
950 -
951 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
952 - - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men.
953 - - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women.
954 -
955 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
956 - - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**.
957 - - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**.
958 -{{/expandable}}
959 -
960 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
961 -1. **Primary Observations:**
962 - - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context.
963 - - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**.
964 -
965 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
966 - - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping.
967 - - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race.
968 -
969 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
970 - - 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.
971 - - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.**
972 -{{/expandable}}
973 -
974 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
975 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
976 - - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles.
977 - - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**.
978 -
979 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
980 - - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users.
981 - - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.**
982 - - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.**
983 -
984 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
985 - - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**.
986 - - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**.
987 - - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites.
988 -{{/expandable}}
989 -
990 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
991 -- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**.
992 -- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized.
993 -- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites.
994 -{{/expandable}}
995 -
996 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
997 -1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race.
998 -2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism.
999 -3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites.
1000 -{{/expandable}}
1001 -
1002 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1003 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]]
1004 -{{/expandable}}
1005 -{{/expandable}}
1006 -
1007 -{{expandable summary="
1008 -
1009 -
1010 -Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}}
1011 -**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis*
1012 -**Date of Publication:** *2009*
1013 -**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*))
1014 -**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"*
1015 -**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication*
1016 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization*
1017 -
1018 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1019 -1. **General Observations:**
1020 - - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study.
1021 - - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex.
1022 - - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization.
1023 -
1024 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1025 - - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men.
1026 - - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order.
1027 -
1028 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1029 - - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture.
1030 - - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative.
1031 -{{/expandable}}
1032 -
1033 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1034 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1035 - - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**.
1036 - - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness.
1037 -
1038 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1039 - - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism.
1040 - - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism.
1041 -
1042 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1043 - - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression.
1044 - - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**.
1045 -{{/expandable}}
1046 -
1047 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1048 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1049 - - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon.
1050 - - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory.
1051 -
1052 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1053 - - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative.
1054 - - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish.
1055 - - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.”
1056 -
1057 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1058 - - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being.
1059 - - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**.
1060 - - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism.
1061 -{{/expandable}}
1062 -
1063 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1064 -- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**.
1065 -- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**.
1066 -- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance.
1067 -{{/expandable}}
1068 -
1069 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1070 -1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**.
1071 -2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men.
1072 -3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**.
1073 -{{/expandable}}
1074 -
1075 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1076 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]]
1077 -{{/expandable}}
1078 -{{/expandable}}
1079 -
1080 -{{expandable summary="
1081 -
1082 -
1083 -Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}
946 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}
1084 1084  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
1085 1085  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
1086 1086  **Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.*
... ... @@ -1088,7 +1088,10 @@
1088 1088  **DOI:** [10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833)
1089 1089  **Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography* 
1090 1090  
1091 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
954 +----
955 +
956 +## **Key Statistics**##
957 +
1092 1092  1. **General Observations:**
1093 1093   - Study analyzed **General Social Survey (2000-2018)** data.
1094 1094   - Found **declining trends in sexual activity** among young adults.
... ... @@ -1100,9 +1100,11 @@
1100 1100  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1101 1101   - Frequency of sexual activity decreased by **8-10%** over the studied period.
1102 1102   - Number of sexual partners remained **relatively stable** despite declining activity rates.
1103 -{{/expandable}}
1104 1104  
1105 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
970 +----
971 +
972 +## **Findings**##
973 +
1106 1106  1. **Primary Observations:**
1107 1107   - A significant decline in sexual frequency, especially among **younger men**.
1108 1108   - Shifts in relationship dynamics and economic stressors may contribute to the trend.
... ... @@ -1114,9 +1114,11 @@
1114 1114  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1115 1115   - **Mental health and employment status** were correlated with decreased activity.
1116 1116   - Social factors such as **screen time and digital entertainment consumption** are potential contributors.
1117 -{{/expandable}}
1118 1118  
1119 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
986 +----
987 +
988 +## **Critique and Observations**##
989 +
1120 1120  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1121 1121   - **Large sample size** from a nationally representative dataset.
1122 1122   - **Longitudinal design** enables trend analysis over time.
... ... @@ -1128,32 +1128,55 @@
1128 1128  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1129 1129   - Further studies should incorporate **qualitative data** on behavioral shifts.
1130 1130   - Additional factors such as **economic shifts and social media usage** need exploration.
1131 -{{/expandable}}
1132 1132  
1133 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1002 +----
1003 +
1004 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1134 1134  - Provides evidence on **changing demographic behaviors** in relation to relationships and social interactions.
1135 -- Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.
1136 -{{/expandable}}
1006 +- Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.##
1137 1137  
1138 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1008 +----
1009 +
1010 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1011 +
1139 1139  1. Investigate the **impact of digital media consumption** on relationship dynamics.
1140 1140  2. Examine **regional and cultural differences** in sexual activity trends.
1141 -{{/expandable}}
1142 1142  
1143 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1144 -
1015 +----
1016 +
1017 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1018 +This study examines **trends in sexual frequency and number of partners among U.S. adults (2000-2018)**, highlighting significant **declines in sexual activity, particularly among young men**. The research utilized **General Social Survey data** to analyze the impact of **sociodemographic factors, employment status, and mental well-being** on sexual behavior.  ##
1019 +
1020 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study's contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1021 +
1022 +----
1023 +
1024 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1025 +{{velocity}}
1026 +#set($doi = "10.1001_jamanetworkopen.2020.3833")
1027 +#set($filename = "${doi}.pdf")
1028 +#if($xwiki.exists("attach:$filename"))
1029 +[[Download>>attach:$filename]]
1030 +#else
1031 +{{html}}<span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">🚨 PDF Not Available 🚨</span>{{/html}}
1032 +#end {{/velocity}}##
1145 1145  {{/expandable}}
1146 -{{/expandable}}
1147 1147  
1148 -{{expandable summary="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}
1149 -**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
1150 -**Date of Publication:** *2012*
1151 -**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
1152 -**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
1153 -**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
1154 -**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities*
1155 1155  
1156 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1036 +== Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ==
1037 +
1038 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}
1039 +**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
1040 +**Date of Publication:** *2012*
1041 +**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
1042 +**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
1043 +**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
1044 +**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities* 
1045 +
1046 +----
1047 +
1048 +## **Key Statistics**##
1049 +
1157 1157  1. **General Observations:**
1158 1158   - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
1159 1159   - **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.
... ... @@ -1167,9 +1167,11 @@
1167 1167   - **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black mother–Black father (BMBF) (2.08).
1168 1168   - **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).
1169 1169   - **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).
1170 -{{/expandable}}
1171 1171  
1172 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1064 +----
1065 +
1066 +## **Findings**##
1067 +
1173 1173  1. **Primary Observations:**
1174 1174   - **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.
1175 1175   - **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.
... ... @@ -1181,9 +1181,11 @@
1181 1181  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1182 1182   - The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.
1183 1183   - **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.
1184 -{{/expandable}}
1185 1185  
1186 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1080 +----
1081 +
1082 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1083 +
1187 1187  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1188 1188   - **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.
1189 1189   - Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.
... ... @@ -1195,34 +1195,48 @@
1195 1195  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1196 1196   - Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.
1197 1197   - Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.
1198 -{{/expandable}}
1199 1199  
1200 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1096 +----
1097 +
1098 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1201 1201  - Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.
1202 1202  - Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.
1203 -- Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.
1204 -{{/expandable}}
1101 +- Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.##
1205 1205  
1206 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1103 +----
1104 +
1105 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1106 +
1207 1207  1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.
1208 1208  2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.
1209 1209  3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.
1210 -{{/expandable}}
1211 1211  
1212 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1213 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]
1111 +----
1112 +
1113 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1114 +This meta-analysis examines **the impact of biracial parentage on birth outcomes**, showing that **biracial couples face a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes than White couples but lower than Black couples**. The findings emphasize **maternal race as a key factor in birth risks**, with **Black mothers having the highest rates of preterm birth and low birthweight, regardless of paternal race**.##
1115 +
1116 +----
1117 +
1118 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1119 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]##
1214 1214  {{/expandable}}
1215 -{{/expandable}}
1216 1216  
1217 -{{expandable summary="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
1218 -**Source:** *Current Psychology*
1219 -**Date of Publication:** *2024*
1220 -**Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
1221 -**Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
1222 -**DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
1223 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation*
1224 1224  
1225 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1123 +== Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness ==
1124 +
1125 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
1126 +**Source:** *Current Psychology*
1127 +**Date of Publication:** *2024*
1128 +**Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
1129 +**Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
1130 +**DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
1131 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation* 
1132 +
1133 +----
1134 +
1135 +## **Key Statistics**##
1136 +
1226 1226  1. **General Observations:**
1227 1227   - Study analyzed **67 self-identified incels** and **103 non-incel men**.
1228 1228   - Incels reported **higher loneliness and lower social support** compared to non-incels.
... ... @@ -1234,9 +1234,11 @@
1234 1234  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1235 1235   - 95% of incels in the study reported **having depression**, with 38% receiving a formal diagnosis.
1236 1236   - **Higher externalization of blame** was linked to stronger incel identification.
1237 -{{/expandable}}
1238 1238  
1239 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1149 +----
1150 +
1151 +## **Findings**##
1152 +
1240 1240  1. **Primary Observations:**
1241 1241   - Incels experience **heightened rejection sensitivity and loneliness**.
1242 1242   - Lack of social support correlates with **worse mental health outcomes**.
... ... @@ -1248,9 +1248,11 @@
1248 1248  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1249 1249   - Incels **engaged in fewer positive coping mechanisms** such as emotional support or positive reframing.
1250 1250   - Instead, they relied on **solitary coping strategies**, worsening their isolation.
1251 -{{/expandable}}
1252 1252  
1253 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1165 +----
1166 +
1167 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1168 +
1254 1254  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1255 1255   - **First quantitative study** on incels’ social isolation and mental health.
1256 1256   - **Robust sample size** and validated psychological measures.
... ... @@ -1262,36 +1262,53 @@
1262 1262  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1263 1263   - Future studies should **compare incel forum users vs. non-users**.
1264 1264   - Investigate **potential intervention strategies** for social integration.
1265 -{{/expandable}}
1266 1266  
1267 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1181 +----
1182 +
1183 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1268 1268  - Highlights **mental health vulnerabilities** within the incel community.
1269 1269  - Supports research on **loneliness, attachment styles, and social dominance orientation**.
1270 -- Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.
1271 -{{/expandable}}
1186 +- Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.##
1272 1272  
1273 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1188 +----
1189 +
1190 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1191 +
1274 1274  1. Explore how **online community participation** affects incel mental health.
1275 1275  2. Investigate **cognitive biases** influencing self-perceived rejection among incels.
1276 1276  3. Assess **therapeutic interventions** to address incel social isolation.
1277 -{{/expandable}}
1278 1278  
1279 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1280 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]
1196 +----
1197 +
1198 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1199 +This study examines the **psychological characteristics of self-identified incels**, comparing them with non-incel men in terms of **mental health, loneliness, and coping strategies**. The research found **higher depression, anxiety, and avoidant attachment styles among incels**, as well as **greater reliance on solitary coping mechanisms**. It suggests that **lack of social support plays a critical role in exacerbating incel identity and related mental health concerns**.##
1200 +
1201 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1202 +
1203 +----
1204 +
1205 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1206 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]##
1281 1281  {{/expandable}}
1282 -{{/expandable}}
1283 1283  
1209 +
1284 1284  = Crime and Substance Abuse =
1285 1285  
1286 -{{expandable summary="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1287 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1288 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1289 -**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1290 -**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1291 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1292 -**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
1293 1293  
1294 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1213 +== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1214 +
1215 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1216 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1217 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1218 +**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1219 +**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1220 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1221 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1222 +
1223 +----
1224 +
1225 +## **Key Statistics**##
1226 +
1295 1295  1. **General Observations:**
1296 1296   - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1297 1297   - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
... ... @@ -1303,9 +1303,11 @@
1303 1303  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1304 1304   - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1305 1305   - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1306 -{{/expandable}}
1307 1307  
1308 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1239 +----
1240 +
1241 +## **Findings**##
1242 +
1309 1309  1. **Primary Observations:**
1310 1310   - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1311 1311   - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
... ... @@ -1317,9 +1317,11 @@
1317 1317  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1318 1318   - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1319 1319   - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1320 -{{/expandable}}
1321 1321  
1322 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1255 +----
1256 +
1257 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1258 +
1323 1323  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1324 1324   - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1325 1325   - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
... ... @@ -1331,34 +1331,50 @@
1331 1331  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1332 1332   - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1333 1333   - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1334 -{{/expandable}}
1335 1335  
1336 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1271 +----
1272 +
1273 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1337 1337  - Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1338 1338  - Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1339 -- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
1340 -{{/expandable}}
1276 +- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.##
1341 1341  
1342 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1278 +----
1279 +
1280 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1281 +
1343 1343  1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1344 1344  2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1345 1345  3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1346 -{{/expandable}}
1347 1347  
1348 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1349 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]
1286 +----
1287 +
1288 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1289 +This study examines **factors influencing the completion of drug treatment court programs**, identifying **employment, education, and race as key predictors**. The research underscores **systemic disparities in drug court outcomes**, emphasizing the need for **improved support systems for at-risk populations**.##
1290 +
1291 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1292 +
1293 +----
1294 +
1295 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1296 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]##
1350 1350  {{/expandable}}
1351 -{{/expandable}}
1352 1352  
1353 -{{expandable summary="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
1354 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1355 -**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1356 -**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1357 -**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1358 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1359 -**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research*
1360 1360  
1361 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1300 +== Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys ==
1301 +
1302 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
1303 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1304 +**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1305 +**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1306 +**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1307 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1308 +**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research* 
1309 +
1310 +----
1311 +
1312 +## **Key Statistics**##
1313 +
1362 1362  1. **General Observations:**
1363 1363   - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
1364 1364   - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
... ... @@ -1370,62 +1370,82 @@
1370 1370  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1371 1371   - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
1372 1372   - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
1373 -{{/expandable}}
1374 1374  
1375 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1326 +----
1327 +
1328 +## **Findings**##
1329 +
1376 1376  1. **Primary Observations:**
1377 1377   - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
1378 1378   - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
1379 1379  
1380 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1334 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1381 1381   - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
1382 1382   - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
1383 1383  
1384 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1338 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1385 1385   - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
1386 1386   - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
1387 -{{/expandable}}
1388 1388  
1389 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1390 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1342 +----
1343 +
1344 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1345 +
1346 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1391 1391   - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
1392 1392   - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
1393 1393  
1394 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1350 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1395 1395   - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
1396 1396   - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
1397 1397  
1398 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1354 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1399 1399   - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
1400 1400   - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
1401 -{{/expandable}}
1402 1402  
1403 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1358 +----
1359 +
1360 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1404 1404  - Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
1405 1405  - Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
1406 -- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.
1407 -{{/expandable}}
1363 +- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.##
1408 1408  
1409 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1365 +----
1366 +
1367 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1368 +
1410 1410  1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
1411 1411  2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
1412 1412  3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
1413 -{{/expandable}}
1414 1414  
1415 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1416 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]
1373 +----
1374 +
1375 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1376 +This study examines **cross-cultural biases in self-reported substance use surveys**, showing that **racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to underreport drug use** due to **social stigma, research distrust, and survey administration methods**. The findings highlight **critical issues in public health data collection and the need for improved survey design**.##
1377 +
1378 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1379 +
1380 +----
1381 +
1382 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1383 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]##
1417 1417  {{/expandable}}
1418 -{{/expandable}}
1419 1419  
1420 -{{expandable summary="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1421 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1422 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1423 -**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1424 -**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1425 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1426 -**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
1427 1427  
1428 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1387 +== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1388 +
1389 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1390 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1391 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1392 +**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1393 +**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1394 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1395 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1396 +
1397 +----
1398 +
1399 +## **Key Statistics**##
1400 +
1429 1429  1. **General Observations:**
1430 1430   - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1431 1431   - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
... ... @@ -1437,9 +1437,11 @@
1437 1437  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1438 1438   - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1439 1439   - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1440 -{{/expandable}}
1441 1441  
1442 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1413 +----
1414 +
1415 +## **Findings**##
1416 +
1443 1443  1. **Primary Observations:**
1444 1444   - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1445 1445   - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
... ... @@ -1451,9 +1451,11 @@
1451 1451  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1452 1452   - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1453 1453   - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1454 -{{/expandable}}
1455 1455  
1456 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1429 +----
1430 +
1431 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1432 +
1457 1457  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1458 1458   - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1459 1459   - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
... ... @@ -1465,36 +1465,117 @@
1465 1465  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1466 1466   - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1467 1467   - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1468 -{{/expandable}}
1469 1469  
1470 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1445 +----
1446 +
1447 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1471 1471  - Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1472 1472  - Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1473 -- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
1474 -{{/expandable}}
1450 +- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.##
1475 1475  
1476 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1452 +----
1453 +
1454 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1455 +
1477 1477  1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1478 1478  2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1479 1479  3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1459 +
1460 +----
1461 +
1462 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1463 +This study examines **factors influencing the completion of drug treatment court programs**, identifying **employment, education, and race as key predictors**. The research underscores **systemic disparities in drug court outcomes**, emphasizing the need for **improved support systems for at-risk populations**.##
1464 +
1465 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1466 +
1467 +----
1468 +
1469 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1470 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]##
1480 1480  {{/expandable}}
1481 1481  
1482 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1483 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]
1473 +
1474 +== Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults ==
1475 +
1476 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"}}
1477 + Source: Addictive Behaviors
1478 +Date of Publication: 2016
1479 +Author(s): Andrea Hussong, Christy Capron, Gregory T. Smith, Jennifer L. Maggs
1480 +Title: "Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"
1481 +DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.02.030
1482 +Subject Matter: Substance Use, Mental Health, Adolescent Development
1483 +
1484 +Key Statistics
1485 +General Observations:
1486 +
1487 +Study examined cannabis use trends in young adults over time.
1488 +Found significant correlations between cannabis use and increased depressive symptoms.
1489 +Subgroup Analysis:
1490 +
1491 +Males exhibited higher rates of cannabis use, but females reported stronger mental health impacts.
1492 +Individuals with pre-existing anxiety disorders were more likely to report problematic cannabis use.
1493 +Other Significant Data Points:
1494 +
1495 +Frequent cannabis users showed a 23% higher likelihood of developing anxiety symptoms.
1496 +Co-occurring substance use (e.g., alcohol) exacerbated negative psychological effects.
1497 +Findings
1498 +Primary Observations:
1499 +
1500 +Cannabis use was linked to higher depressive and anxiety symptoms, particularly in frequent users.
1501 +Self-medication patterns emerged among those with pre-existing mental health conditions.
1502 +Subgroup Trends:
1503 +
1504 +Early cannabis initiation (before age 16) was associated with greater mental health risks.
1505 +College-aged users reported more impairments in daily functioning due to cannabis use.
1506 +Specific Case Analysis:
1507 +
1508 +Participants with a history of childhood trauma were twice as likely to develop problematic cannabis use.
1509 +Co-use of cannabis and alcohol significantly increased impulsivity scores in the study sample.
1510 +Critique and Observations
1511 +Strengths of the Study:
1512 +
1513 +Large, longitudinal dataset with a diverse sample of young adults.
1514 +Controlled for confounding variables like socioeconomic status and prior substance use.
1515 +Limitations of the Study:
1516 +
1517 +Self-reported cannabis use may introduce bias in reported frequency and effects.
1518 +Did not assess specific THC potency levels, which could influence mental health outcomes.
1519 +Suggestions for Improvement:
1520 +
1521 +Future research should investigate dose-dependent effects of cannabis on mental health.
1522 +Assess long-term psychological outcomes of early cannabis exposure.
1523 +Relevance to Subproject
1524 +Supports mental health risk assessment models related to substance use.
1525 +Highlights gender differences in substance-related psychological impacts.
1526 +Provides insight into self-medication behaviors among young adults.
1527 +Suggestions for Further Exploration
1528 +Investigate the long-term impact of cannabis use on neurodevelopment.
1529 +Examine the role of genetic predisposition in cannabis-related mental health risks.
1530 +Assess regional differences in cannabis use trends post-legalization.
1531 +Summary of Research Study
1532 +This study examines the relationship between cannabis use and mental health symptoms in young adults, focusing on depressive and anxiety-related outcomes. Using a longitudinal dataset, the researchers found higher risks of anxiety and depression in frequent cannabis users, particularly among those with pre-existing mental health conditions or early cannabis initiation.
1533 +
1534 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1535 +
1536 +📄 Download Full Study
1537 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.addbeh.2016.02.030.pdf]]
1484 1484  {{/expandable}}
1485 -{{/expandable}}
1486 1486  
1487 -{{expandable summary="
1488 1488  
1489 -Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1490 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1491 -**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1492 -**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
1493 -**Title:** *"Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"*
1494 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012)
1495 -**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics*
1541 +== Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time? ==
1496 1496  
1497 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1543 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1544 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1545 +**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1546 +**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
1547 +**Title:** *"Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"*
1548 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012)
1549 +**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics* 
1550 +
1551 +----
1552 +
1553 +## **Key Statistics**##
1554 +
1498 1498  1. **General Observations:**
1499 1499   - The study examines reaction time data from **13 age-matched studies** spanning **1884–2004**.
1500 1500   - Results suggest an estimated **decline of 13.35 IQ points** over this period.
... ... @@ -1506,9 +1506,11 @@
1506 1506  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1507 1507   - The estimated **dysgenic rate is 1.21 IQ points lost per decade**.
1508 1508   - Meta-regression analysis confirmed a **steady secular trend in slowing reaction time**.
1509 -{{/expandable}}
1510 1510  
1511 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1567 +----
1568 +
1569 +## **Findings**##
1570 +
1512 1512  1. **Primary Observations:**
1513 1513   - Supports the hypothesis of **intelligence decline due to genetic and environmental factors**.
1514 1514   - Reaction time, a **biomarker for cognitive ability**, has slowed significantly over time.
... ... @@ -1520,9 +1520,11 @@
1520 1520  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1521 1521   - Cross-national comparisons indicate a **global trend in slower reaction times**.
1522 1522   - Factors like **modern neurotoxin exposure** and **reduced selective pressure for intelligence** may contribute.
1523 -{{/expandable}}
1524 1524  
1525 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1583 +----
1584 +
1585 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1586 +
1526 1526  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1527 1527   - **Comprehensive meta-analysis** covering over a century of reaction time data.
1528 1528   - **Robust statistical corrections** for measurement variance between historical and modern studies.
... ... @@ -1534,323 +1534,226 @@
1534 1534  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1535 1535   - Future studies should **replicate results with more modern datasets**.
1536 1536   - Investigate **alternative cognitive biomarkers** for intelligence over time.
1537 -{{/expandable}}
1538 1538  
1539 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1599 +----
1600 +
1601 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1540 1540  - Provides evidence for **long-term intelligence trends**, contributing to research on **cognitive evolution**.
1541 1541  - Aligns with broader discussions on **dysgenics, neurophysiology, and cognitive load**.
1542 -- Supports the argument that **modern societies may be experiencing intelligence decline**.
1543 -{{/expandable}}
1604 +- Supports the argument that **modern societies may be experiencing intelligence decline**.##
1544 1544  
1545 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1606 +----
1607 +
1608 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1609 +
1546 1546  1. Investigate **genetic markers associated with reaction time** and intelligence decline.
1547 1547  2. Examine **regional variations in reaction time trends**.
1548 1548  3. Explore **cognitive resilience factors that counteract the decline**.
1549 -{{/expandable}}
1550 1550  
1551 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1552 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]
1553 -{{/expandable}}
1554 -{{/expandable}}
1614 +----
1555 1555  
1556 -= Whiteness & White Guilt =
1616 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1617 +This study examines **historical reaction time data** as a measure of **cognitive ability and intelligence decline**, analyzing data from **Western populations between 1884 and 2004**. The results suggest a **measurable decline in intelligence, estimated at 13.35 IQ points**, likely due to **dysgenic fertility, neurophysiological factors, and reduced selection pressures**.  ##
1557 1557  
1558 -{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}}
1559 -**Source:** *Psychological Science*
1560 -**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1561 -**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.*
1562 -**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"*
1563 -**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812)
1564 -**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning*
1619 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1565 1565  
1566 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1567 -1. **General Observations:**
1568 - - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test).
1569 - - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias.
1621 +----
1570 1570  
1571 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1572 - - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly.
1573 - - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**.
1574 -
1575 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1576 - - 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.
1577 - - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change.
1623 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1624 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]##
1578 1578  {{/expandable}}
1579 1579  
1580 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1581 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1582 - - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors.
1583 - - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations.
1584 1584  
1585 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1586 - - 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.
1587 - - The **"Black victim" intervention** relied on emotionally shocking imagery of anti-Black violence (e.g., lynching) to induce guilt and disrupt positive associations with Whiteness.
1628 += Whiteness & White Guilt =
1588 1588  
1589 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1590 - - 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.
1591 - - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations.
1592 -{{/expandable}}
1630 +== Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports ==
1593 1593  
1594 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1595 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1596 - - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types.
1597 - - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone.
1632 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1633 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1634 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1635 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1636 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1637 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1638 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism* 
1598 1598  
1599 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1600 - - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**.
1601 - - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups.
1602 - - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized.
1640 +----
1603 1603  
1604 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1605 - - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change.
1606 - - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups.
1607 - - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.”
1608 -{{/expandable}}
1642 +## **Key Statistics**##
1609 1609  
1610 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1611 -- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**.
1612 -- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios.
1613 -- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies.
1614 -{{/expandable}}
1615 -
1616 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1617 -1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings.
1618 -2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies.
1619 -3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks. 
1620 -{{/expandable}}
1621 -
1622 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1623 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]]
1624 -{{/expandable}}
1625 -{{/expandable}}
1626 -
1627 -{{expandable summary="
1628 -
1629 -
1630 -Study: School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"}}
1631 -**Source:** *Social Science Research Network (SSRN)*
1632 -**Date of Publication:** *2020*
1633 -**Author(s):** *Eric Kaufmann, David Goldberg*
1634 -**Title:** *"School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"*
1635 -**DOI:** [10.2139/ssrn.3730517](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730517)
1636 -**Subject Matter:** *K–12 Education, CRT, Indoctrination, Teacher Training*
1637 -
1638 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1639 1639  1. **General Observations:**
1640 - - Surveyed **over 800 educators** and analyzed **curricula, training materials, and administrator communications**.
1641 - - Found that **CSJ ideology is deeply embedded in public school systems**, including charter and magnet schools.
1645 + - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1646 + - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
1642 1642  
1643 1643  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1644 - - Teachers reported being trained to believe **Whiteness = privilege + harm**, not just historical context.
1645 - - Administrators disproportionately **disciplined or suppressed dissenting White teachers or parents**.
1649 + - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1650 + - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
1646 1646  
1647 1647  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1648 - - **Majority of educators fear retribution** if they question CSJ orthodoxy.
1649 - - **Curriculum mandates racial self-critique** primarily for White students, often starting in elementary grades.
1650 -{{/expandable}}
1653 + - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1654 + - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1651 1651  
1652 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1656 +----
1657 +
1658 +## **Findings**##
1659 +
1653 1653  1. **Primary Observations:**
1654 - - CSJ ideology **functions as an implicit worldview**, not a neutral teaching tool.
1655 - - “Equity” in practice means **dismantling of perceived White dominance**, often through emotional manipulation of students.
1661 + - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1662 + - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
1656 1656  
1657 1657  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1658 - - White students and teachers report **feeling targeted or dehumanized** in diversity sessions.
1659 - - Minority students were often **placed in victim-centric identity frameworks**, reinforcing grievance politics.
1665 + - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1666 + - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
1660 1660  
1661 1661  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1662 - - In several documented districts, **student activities included “unlearning Whiteness” workshops**.
1663 - - One district mandated that teachers **“de-center White perspectives”** in all classroom subjects.
1664 -{{/expandable}}
1669 + - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1670 + - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1665 1665  
1666 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1672 +----
1673 +
1674 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1675 +
1667 1667  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1668 - - One of the few empirical studies documenting **systemic ideological bias in education**.
1669 - - Strong evidentiary base drawn from **firsthand educator testimony** and training materials.
1677 + - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1678 + - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
1670 1670  
1671 1671  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1672 - - Study is based on **self-reported perceptions**, though many are substantiated with examples.
1673 - - Focus is primarily U.S.-centric; international parallels not explored.
1681 + - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1682 + - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
1674 1674  
1675 1675  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1676 - - Future studies could **quantify the academic and emotional impact** on White students.
1677 - - Comparative analysis with **non-CSJ schools** (e.g., classical models) would clarify causal impact.
1678 -{{/expandable}}
1685 + - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1686 + - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1679 1679  
1680 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1681 -- Documents how **CRT-aligned ideology disproportionately targets White students and teachers**.
1682 -- Confirms that **school choice fails to protect against ideological indoctrination** when CSJ is systemic.
1683 -- Supports the need for **explicitly anti-indoctrination educational frameworks** grounded in neutrality and merit.
1684 -{{/expandable}}
1688 +----
1685 1685  
1686 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1687 -1. Investigate **legal protections for students against compelled ideological speech**.
1688 -2. Study **alternatives to CSJ pedagogy**, such as classical liberal education or civic humanism.
1689 -3. Examine **psychological outcomes** of guilt-based racial framing among White children.
1690 -{{/expandable}}
1690 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1691 +- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1692 +- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1693 +- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.##
1691 1691  
1692 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1693 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:11.Goldberg_Kaufmann_CSJ_Education_Impact.pdf]]
1694 -{{/expandable}}
1695 -{{/expandable}}
1695 +----
1696 1696  
1697 -{{expandable summary="
1697 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1698 1698  
1699 +1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1700 +2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1701 +3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1699 1699  
1700 -Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1701 -**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1702 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1703 -**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1704 -**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1705 -**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1706 -**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing*
1703 +----
1707 1707  
1708 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1709 -1. **General Observations:**
1710 - - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
1711 - - The study claims **“segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance.
1705 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1706 +This study explores how **racial segregation, innocence, and protection** sustain whiteness in college sports. By analyzing **47 athlete narratives**, the research reveals **how predominantly white sports programs recruit and retain white athletes** while shielding them from discussions on race. The findings highlight **institutional biases that maintain racial privilege in athletics**, offering critical insight into the **structural inequalities in higher education sports programs**.##
1712 1712  
1713 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1714 - - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
1715 - - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**.
1708 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1716 1716  
1717 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1718 - - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
1719 - - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria.
1720 -{{/expandable}}
1710 +----
1721 1721  
1722 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1723 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1724 - - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
1725 - - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball.
1726 -
1727 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1728 - - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
1729 - - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration.
1730 -
1731 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1732 - - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
1733 - - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race.
1712 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1713 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1037_dhe0000140.pdf]]##
1734 1734  {{/expandable}}
1735 1735  
1736 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1737 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1738 - - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
1739 - - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants.
1740 1740  
1741 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1742 - - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
1743 - - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
1744 - - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context.
1717 +== Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations ==
1745 1745  
1746 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1747 - - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
1748 - - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
1749 - - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically.
1750 -{{/expandable}}
1751 -
1752 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1753 -- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
1754 -- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
1755 -- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics).
1756 -{{/expandable}}
1757 -
1758 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1759 -1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
1760 -2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
1761 -3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**.
1762 -{{/expandable}}
1763 -
1764 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1765 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1037_dhe0000140.pdf]]
1766 -{{/expandable}}
1767 -{{/expandable}}
1768 -
1769 -{{expandable summary="
1770 -
1771 -
1772 -Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1719 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1773 1773  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1774 1774  **Date of Publication:** *2016*
1775 -**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver*
1722 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1776 1776  **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1777 1777  **DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1778 -**Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias*
1725 +**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment* 
1779 1779  
1780 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1727 +----
1728 +
1729 +## **Key Statistics**##
1730 +
1781 1781  1. **General Observations:**
1782 - - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**.
1783 - - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**.
1784 - - Measured how those beliefs affected **pain ratings and treatment recommendations**.
1732 + - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1733 + - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
1785 1785  
1786 1786  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1787 - - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings).
1788 - - Those who endorsed false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients' pain**.
1736 + - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1737 + - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients pain levels**.
1789 1789  
1790 1790  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1791 - - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
1792 - - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data.
1793 -{{/expandable}}
1740 + - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1741 + - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1794 1794  
1795 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1743 +----
1744 +
1745 +## **Findings**##
1746 +
1796 1796  1. **Primary Observations:**
1797 - - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment.
1798 - - Endorsement of such beliefs led to **less appropriate treatment for Black patients** in fictional cases.
1748 + - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1749 + - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
1799 1799  
1800 1800  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1801 - - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**.
1802 - - No evidence was presented of **active discrimination** — bias appeared linked to **misinformation, not malice**.
1752 + - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1753 + - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
1803 1803  
1804 1804  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1805 - - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care.
1806 - - The study **did not show bias against White patients**, nor explore disparities affecting them.
1807 -{{/expandable}}
1756 + - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1757 + - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1808 1808  
1809 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1759 +----
1760 +
1761 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1762 +
1810 1810  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1811 - - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
1812 - - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**.
1764 + - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1765 + - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
1813 1813  
1814 1814  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1815 - - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health.
1816 - - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study.
1817 - - **Overemphasizes "racial bias"** narrative despite the findings being more about **ignorance than intent**.
1768 + - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1769 + - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
1818 1818  
1819 1819  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1820 - - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework.
1821 - - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest.
1822 - - Clarify the **distinction between false belief and racial animus**, which the study conflates under CRT framing.
1823 -{{/expandable}}
1772 + - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1773 + - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1824 1824  
1825 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1826 -- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
1827 -- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
1828 -- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**. 
1829 -{{/expandable}}
1775 +----
1830 1830  
1831 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1832 -1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
1833 -2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
1834 -3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**. 
1835 -{{/expandable}}
1777 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1778 +- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1779 +- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1780 +- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.##
1836 1836  
1837 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1838 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]]
1782 +----
1783 +
1784 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1785 +
1786 +1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1787 +2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1788 +3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1789 +
1790 +----
1791 +
1792 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1793 +This study examines **racial bias in pain perception and treatment** among **white laypeople and medical professionals**, demonstrating that **false beliefs about biological differences contribute to disparities in pain management**. The research highlights the **systemic nature of racial bias in medicine** and underscores the **need for improved medical training to counteract these misconceptions**.##
1794 +
1795 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1796 +
1797 +----
1798 +
1799 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1800 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]]##
1839 1839  {{/expandable}}
1840 -{{/expandable}}
1841 1841  
1842 -{{expandable summary="
1843 1843  
1804 +== Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans ==
1844 1844  
1845 -Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1846 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1847 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
1848 -**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1849 -**Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1850 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1851 -**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors*
1806 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1807 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1808 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
1809 +**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1810 +**Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1811 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1812 +**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors* 
1852 1852  
1853 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1814 +----
1815 +
1816 +## **Key Statistics**##
1817 +
1854 1854  1. **General Observations:**
1855 1855   - Mortality rates among **middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans (ages 45–54)** increased from 1999 to 2013.
1856 1856   - This reversal in mortality trends is unique to the U.S.; **no other wealthy country experienced a similar rise**.
... ... @@ -1862,9 +1862,11 @@
1862 1862  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1863 1863   - Rising mortality was driven primarily by **suicide, drug and alcohol poisoning, and chronic liver disease**.
1864 1864   - Midlife morbidity increased as well, with more reports of **poor health, pain, and mental distress**.
1865 -{{/expandable}}
1866 1866  
1867 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1830 +----
1831 +
1832 +## **Findings**##
1833 +
1868 1868  1. **Primary Observations:**
1869 1869   - The rise in mortality is attributed to **substance abuse, economic distress, and deteriorating mental health**.
1870 1870   - The increase in **suicides and opioid overdoses parallels broader socioeconomic decline**.
... ... @@ -1876,9 +1876,11 @@
1876 1876  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1877 1877   - **Educational attainment was a major predictor of mortality trends**, with better-educated individuals experiencing lower mortality rates.
1878 1878   - Mortality among **white Americans with a college degree continued to decline**, resembling trends in other wealthy nations.
1879 -{{/expandable}}
1880 1880  
1881 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1846 +----
1847 +
1848 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1849 +
1882 1882  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1883 1883   - **First major study to highlight rising midlife mortality among U.S. whites**.
1884 1884   - Uses **CDC and Census mortality data spanning over a decade**.
... ... @@ -1890,106 +1890,140 @@
1890 1890  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1891 1891   - Future studies should explore **how economic shifts, healthcare access, and mental health treatment contribute to these trends**.
1892 1892   - Further research on **racial and socioeconomic disparities in mortality trends** is needed.
1893 -{{/expandable}}
1894 1894  
1895 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1862 +----
1863 +
1864 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1896 1896  - Highlights **socioeconomic and racial disparities** in health outcomes.
1897 1897  - Supports research on **substance abuse and mental health crises in the U.S.**.
1898 -- Provides evidence for **the role of economic instability in public health trends**.
1899 -{{/expandable}}
1867 +- Provides evidence for **the role of economic instability in public health trends**.##
1900 1900  
1901 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1869 +----
1870 +
1871 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1872 +
1902 1902  1. Investigate **regional differences in rising midlife mortality**.
1903 1903  2. Examine the **impact of the opioid crisis on long-term health trends**.
1904 1904  3. Study **policy interventions aimed at reversing rising mortality rates**.
1905 -{{/expandable}}
1906 1906  
1907 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1908 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1518393112.pdf]]
1877 +----
1878 +
1879 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1880 +This study documents a **reversal in mortality trends among middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans**, showing an increase in **suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related deaths** from 1999 to 2013. The findings highlight **socioeconomic distress, declining health, and rising morbidity** as key factors. This research underscores the **importance of economic and social policy in shaping public health outcomes**.##
1881 +
1882 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1883 +
1884 +----
1885 +
1886 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1887 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1518393112.pdf]]##
1909 1909  {{/expandable}}
1910 -{{/expandable}}
1911 1911  
1912 -{{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1913 -**Source:** *Urban Studies*
1890 +
1891 +== Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities? ==
1892 +
1893 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1894 +**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1914 1914  **Date of Publication:** *2023*
1915 -**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
1896 +**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1916 1916  **Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1917 -**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057)
1918 -**Subject Matter:** *Urban Diversity, Migration, Identity Politics*
1898 +**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1899 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration* 
1919 1919  
1920 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1901 +----
1902 +
1903 +## **Key Statistics**##
1904 +
1921 1921  1. **General Observations:**
1922 - - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities.
1923 - - Focused on how **"non-migrants" (code for native Whites)** perceive and adapt to so-called “superdiversity”.
1906 + - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1907 + - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
1924 1924  
1925 1925  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1926 - - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
1927 - - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change.
1910 + - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1911 + - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
1928 1928  
1929 1929  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1930 - - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”**
1931 - - Provides **no quantitative data** on actual neighborhood changes or crime statistics.
1932 -{{/expandable}}
1914 + - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1915 + - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1933 1933  
1934 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1917 +----
1918 +
1919 +## **Findings**##
1920 +
1935 1935  1. **Primary Observations:**
1936 - - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”**
1937 - - Positions White cultural norms as inherently oppressive or exclusionary.
1922 + - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1923 + - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
1938 1938  
1939 1939  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1940 - - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
1941 - - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of invisible boundary-making.
1926 + - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1927 + - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
1942 1942  
1943 1943  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1944 - - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded “racism.”
1945 - - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.**
1946 -{{/expandable}}
1930 + - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1931 + - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1947 1947  
1948 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1933 +----
1934 +
1935 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1936 +
1949 1949  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1950 - - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
1951 - - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.**
1938 + - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1939 + - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
1952 1952  
1953 1953  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1954 - - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites.
1955 - - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers.
1956 - - Lacks analysis of **economic factors, crime, housing scarcity, or policy failures** contributing to discontent.
1942 + - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1943 + - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
1957 1957  
1958 1958  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1959 - - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.**
1960 - - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith.
1961 - - Balance cultural analysis with **hard demographic and economic data.**
1962 -{{/expandable}}
1946 + - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1947 + - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1963 1963  
1964 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1965 -- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life.
1966 -- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.**
1967 -- Useful for exposing how **CRT and superdiversity discourse erase White communities' legitimacy.**
1968 -{{/expandable}}
1949 +----
1969 1969  
1970 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1971 -1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
1972 -2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones.
1973 -3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration. 
1974 -{{/expandable}}
1951 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1952 +- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1953 +- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1954 +- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.##
1975 1975  
1976 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1977 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1956 +----
1957 +
1958 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1959 +
1960 +1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1961 +2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1962 +3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1963 +
1964 +----
1965 +
1966 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1967 +This study examines how **people without migration background experience demographic change in majority-minority cities**. Using data from the **BaM project**, it challenges traditional **one-way integration models**, showing that **non-migrants also adapt to diverse environments**. The findings highlight **the complexities of social cohesion, identity, and power in rapidly changing urban landscapes**.##
1968 +
1969 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1970 +
1971 +----
1972 +
1973 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1974 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]##
1978 1978  {{/expandable}}
1979 -{{/expandable}}
1980 1980  
1981 1981  
1982 1982  = Media =
1983 1983  
1984 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
1985 -**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1986 -**Date of Publication:** *2021*
1987 -**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
1988 -**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
1989 -**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
1990 -**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies*
1991 1991  
1992 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1981 +== Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic ==
1982 +
1983 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"}}
1984 +**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1985 +**Date of Publication:** *2021*
1986 +**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
1987 +**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
1988 +**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
1989 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies* 
1990 +
1991 +----
1992 +
1993 +## **Key Statistics**##
1994 +
1993 1993  1. **General Observations:**
1994 1994   - Analyzed **over 500,000 social media interactions** related to intergroup conflict.
1995 1995   - Found that **computer-mediated communication (CMC) intensifies polarization**.
... ... @@ -2001,9 +2001,11 @@
2001 2001  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2002 2002   - **Misinformation spread 3x faster** in polarized online discussions.
2003 2003   - Users exposed to **conflicting viewpoints were more likely to engage in retaliatory discourse**.
2004 -{{/expandable}}
2005 2005  
2006 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2007 +----
2008 +
2009 +## **Findings**##
2010 +
2007 2007  1. **Primary Observations:**
2008 2008   - **Online interactions amplify intergroup conflict** due to selective exposure and confirmation bias.
2009 2009   - **Algorithmic sorting contributes to ideological segmentation**.
... ... @@ -2015,9 +2015,11 @@
2015 2015  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2016 2016   - **CMC increased political tribalism** in digital spaces.
2017 2017   - **Emotional language spread more widely** than factual content.
2018 -{{/expandable}}
2019 2019  
2020 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2023 +----
2024 +
2025 +## **Critique and Observations**##
2026 +
2021 2021  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2022 2022   - **Largest dataset** to date analyzing **CMC and intergroup conflict**.
2023 2023   - Uses **longitudinal data tracking user behavior over time**.
... ... @@ -2029,34 +2029,48 @@
2029 2029  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2030 2030   - Future studies should **analyze private messaging platforms** in conflict dynamics.
2031 2031   - Investigate **interventions that reduce online polarization**.
2032 -{{/expandable}}
2033 2033  
2034 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2039 +----
2040 +
2041 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
2035 2035  - Explores how **digital communication influences social division**.
2036 2036  - Supports research on **social media regulation and conflict mitigation**.
2037 -- Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.
2038 -{{/expandable}}
2044 +- Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.##
2039 2039  
2040 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2046 +----
2047 +
2048 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2049 +
2041 2041  1. Investigate **how online anonymity affects real-world aggression**.
2042 2042  2. Study **social media interventions that reduce political polarization**.
2043 2043  3. Explore **cross-cultural differences in CMC and intergroup hostility**.
2044 -{{/expandable}}
2045 2045  
2046 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2047 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_jcmc_zmab003.pdf]]
2054 +----
2055 +
2056 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2057 +This study examines **how online communication intensifies intergroup conflict**, using a dataset of **500,000+ social media interactions**. It highlights the role of **algorithmic filtering, anonymity, and selective exposure** in **increasing polarization and misinformation spread**. The findings emphasize the **need for policy interventions to mitigate digital conflict escalation**.##
2058 +
2059 +----
2060 +
2061 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2062 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_jcmc_zmab003.pdf]]##
2048 2048  {{/expandable}}
2049 -{{/expandable}}
2050 2050  
2051 -{{expandable summary="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"}}
2052 -**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
2053 -**Date of Publication:** *2007*
2054 -**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
2055 -**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
2056 -**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
2057 -**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence*
2058 2058  
2059 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2066 +== Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions ==
2067 +
2068 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"}}
2069 +**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
2070 +**Date of Publication:** *2007*
2071 +**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
2072 +**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
2073 +**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
2074 +**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence* 
2075 +
2076 +----
2077 +
2078 +## **Key Statistics**##
2079 +
2060 2060  1. **General Observations:**
2061 2061   - Examines **media coverage of same-sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011**.
2062 2062   - Analyzes how **media framing influences public opinion trends** on LGBTQ+ rights.
... ... @@ -2068,9 +2068,11 @@
2068 2068  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2069 2069   - When **equality framing surpasses morality framing**, public opposition declines.
2070 2070   - Media framing **directly affects public attitudes** over time, shaping policy debates.
2071 -{{/expandable}}
2072 2072  
2073 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2092 +----
2093 +
2094 +## **Findings**##
2095 +
2074 2074  1. **Primary Observations:**
2075 2075   - **Media framing plays a critical role in shaping attitudes** toward LGBTQ+ rights.
2076 2076   - **Equality-focused narratives** lead to greater public support for same-sex marriage.
... ... @@ -2082,9 +2082,11 @@
2082 2082  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2083 2083   - **Periods of increased equality framing** saw measurable **declines in opposition to LGBTQ+ rights**.
2084 2084   - **Major political events (elections, Supreme Court cases) influenced framing trends**.
2085 -{{/expandable}}
2086 2086  
2087 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2108 +----
2109 +
2110 +## **Critique and Observations**##
2111 +
2088 2088  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2089 2089   - **Longitudinal dataset spanning multiple election cycles**.
2090 2090   - Provides **quantitative analysis of how media framing shifts public opinion**.
... ... @@ -2096,34 +2096,48 @@
2096 2096  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2097 2097   - Expand the study to **global perspectives on LGBTQ+ rights and media influence**.
2098 2098   - Investigate how **different media platforms (TV vs. digital media) impact opinion shifts**.
2099 -{{/expandable}}
2100 2100  
2101 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2124 +----
2125 +
2126 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
2102 2102  - Explores **how media narratives shape policy support and public sentiment**.
2103 2103  - Highlights **the strategic importance of framing in LGBTQ+ advocacy**.
2104 -- Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.
2105 -{{/expandable}}
2129 +- Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.##
2106 2106  
2107 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2131 +----
2132 +
2133 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2134 +
2108 2108  1. Examine how **social media affects framing of LGBTQ+ issues**.
2109 2109  2. Study **differences in framing across political media outlets**.
2110 2110  3. Investigate **public opinion shifts in states that legalized same-sex marriage earlier**.
2111 -{{/expandable}}
2112 2112  
2113 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2114 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]
2139 +----
2140 +
2141 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2142 +This study examines **how media framing influences public attitudes on same-sex marriage and civil unions**, analyzing **news coverage from 2004 to 2011**. It finds that **equality-based narratives reduce opposition, while morality-based narratives increase it**. The research highlights **how media coverage plays a crucial role in shaping policy debates and public sentiment**.##
2143 +
2144 +----
2145 +
2146 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2147 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]##
2115 2115  {{/expandable}}
2116 -{{/expandable}}
2117 2117  
2118 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion"}}
2119 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2120 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
2121 -**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
2122 -**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
2123 -**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2124 -**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion*
2125 2125  
2126 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2151 +== Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion ==
2152 +
2153 +{{expandable expandByDefault="false" summary="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion"}}
2154 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2155 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
2156 +**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
2157 +**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
2158 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2159 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion* 
2160 +
2161 +----
2162 +
2163 +## **Key Statistics**##
2164 +
2127 2127  1. **General Observations:**
2128 2128   - Conducted **12 experimental studies** on **digital media's impact on political beliefs**.
2129 2129   - **58% of participants** showed shifts in political opinion based on online content.
... ... @@ -2135,9 +2135,11 @@
2135 2135  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2136 2136   - **Interactive media (comment sections, polls) increased political engagement**.
2137 2137   - **Exposure to counterarguments reduced partisan bias** by **14% on average**.
2138 -{{/expandable}}
2139 2139  
2140 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2177 +----
2178 +
2179 +## **Findings**##
2180 +
2141 2141  1. **Primary Observations:**
2142 2142   - **Digital media significantly influences political opinions**, with younger audiences being the most impacted.
2143 2143   - **Multimedia content is more persuasive** than traditional text-based arguments.
... ... @@ -2149,9 +2149,11 @@
2149 2149  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2150 2150   - **Highly partisan users became more entrenched in their views**, even when exposed to opposing content.
2151 2151   - **Neutral or apolitical users were more likely to shift opinions**.
2152 -{{/expandable}}
2153 2153  
2154 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2193 +----
2194 +
2195 +## **Critique and Observations**##
2196 +
2155 2155  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2156 2156   - **Large-scale experimental design** allows for controlled comparisons.
2157 2157   - Covers **multiple digital platforms**, ensuring robust findings.
... ... @@ -2163,251 +2163,29 @@
2163 2163  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2164 2164   - Future studies should track **long-term opinion changes** beyond immediate reactions.
2165 2165   - Investigate **the role of digital media literacy in resisting persuasion**.
2166 -{{/expandable}}
2167 2167  
2168 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2209 +----
2210 +
2211 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
2169 2169  - Provides insights into **how digital media shapes political discourse**.
2170 2170  - Highlights **which platforms and content types are most influential**.
2171 -- Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.
2172 -{{/expandable}}
2214 +- Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.##
2173 2173  
2174 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2216 +----
2217 +
2218 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2219 +
2175 2175  1. Study how **fact-checking influences digital persuasion effects**.
2176 2176  2. Investigate the **role of political influencers in shaping opinions**.
2177 2177  3. Explore **long-term effects of social media exposure on political beliefs**.
2178 -{{/expandable}}
2179 2179  
2180 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2181 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
2182 -{{/expandable}}
2183 -{{/expandable}}
2224 +----
2184 2184  
2185 -{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
2186 -Source: Journal of Advertising Research
2187 -Date of Publication: 2022
2188 -Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim
2189 -Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
2190 -DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028
2191 -Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
2226 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2227 +This study analyzes **how digital media influences political persuasion**, using **12 experimental studies**. The findings show that **video and interactive content are the most persuasive**, while **younger users are more susceptible to political messaging shifts**. The research emphasizes the **power of digital platforms in shaping public opinion and engagement**.##
2192 2192  
2193 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2194 -**General Observations:**
2229 +----
2195 2195  
2196 -Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
2197 -
2198 -Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
2199 -
2200 -**Subgroup Analysis:**
2201 -
2202 -Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers.
2203 -
2204 -Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones.
2205 -
2206 -**Other Significant Data Points:**
2207 -
2208 -Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation.
2209 -
2210 -No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation.
2211 -{{/expandable}}
2212 -
2213 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2214 -**Primary Observations:**
2215 -
2216 -White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
2217 -
2218 -These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
2219 -
2220 -**Subgroup Trends:**
2221 -
2222 -Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades.
2223 -
2224 -The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
2225 -
2226 -**Specific Case Analysis:**
2227 -
2228 -The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives.
2229 -
2230 -Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations.
2231 -{{/expandable}}
2232 -
2233 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2234 -**Strengths of the Study:**
2235 -
2236 -Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
2237 -
2238 -Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
2239 -
2240 -**Limitations of the Study:**
2241 -
2242 -Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
2243 -
2244 -Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising.
2245 -
2246 -Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts.
2247 -
2248 -**Suggestions for Improvement:**
2249 -
2250 -Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
2251 -
2252 -Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
2253 -
2254 -Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages.
2255 -{{/expandable}}
2256 -
2257 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2258 -Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
2259 -
2260 -Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.”
2261 -
2262 -Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation.
2263 -{{/expandable}}
2264 -
2265 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2266 -Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
2267 -
2268 -Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
2269 -
2270 -Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
2271 -{{/expandable}}
2272 -
2273 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2274 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
2275 -{{/expandable}}
2276 -{{/expandable}}
2277 -
2278 -{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}}
2279 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2280 -**Date of Publication:** *2020*
2281 -**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee*
2282 -**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"*
2283 -**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032)
2284 -**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations*
2285 -
2286 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2287 -1. **General Observations:**
2288 - - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**.
2289 - - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites).
2290 -
2291 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2292 - - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news.
2293 - - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”.
2294 -
2295 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2296 - - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**.
2297 - - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**.
2298 -{{/expandable}}
2299 -
2300 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2301 -1. **Primary Observations:**
2302 - - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact.
2303 - - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias.
2304 -
2305 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2306 - - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning.
2307 - - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**.
2308 -
2309 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2310 - - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships.
2311 - - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society.
2312 -{{/expandable}}
2313 -
2314 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2315 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2316 - - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling.
2317 - - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact.
2318 -
2319 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2320 - - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias.
2321 - - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash.
2322 - - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”.
2323 -
2324 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2325 - - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**.
2326 - - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers.
2327 - - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging.
2328 -{{/expandable}}
2329 -
2330 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2331 -- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact.
2332 -- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus.
2333 -- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected.
2334 -{{/expandable}}
2335 -
2336 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2337 -1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health.
2338 -2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns.
2339 -3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives. 
2340 -{{/expandable}}
2341 -
2342 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2343 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]]
2344 -{{/expandable}}
2345 -{{/expandable}}
2346 -
2347 -{{expandable summary="
2348 -
2349 -
2350 -Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}}
2351 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2352 -**Date of Publication:** *2018*
2353 -**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah*
2354 -**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"*
2355 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2356 -**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation*
2357 -
2358 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2359 -1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study.
2360 -2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including:
2361 - - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes”
2362 - - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race
2363 - - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact
2364 -
2365 -3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent.
2366 -{{/expandable}}
2367 -
2368 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2369 -1. **Primary Observations:**
2370 - - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups.
2371 - - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context.
2372 - - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations.
2373 -
2374 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2375 - - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”).
2376 - - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias.
2377 -
2378 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2379 - - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively.
2380 -{{/expandable}}
2381 -
2382 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2383 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2384 - - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception.
2385 - - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon.
2386 -
2387 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2388 - - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**.
2389 - - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality.
2390 - - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values).
2391 -
2392 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2393 - - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity.
2394 - - Needs empirical validation of claims.
2395 - - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity.
2396 -{{/expandable}}
2397 -
2398 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2399 -- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance.
2400 -- 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.
2401 -- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation.
2402 -{{/expandable}}
2403 -
2404 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2405 -1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites?
2406 -2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest?
2407 -3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it?
2408 -{{/expandable}}
2409 -
2410 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2411 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]]
2412 -{{/expandable}}
2413 -{{/expandable}}
2231 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2232 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]##
2233 +{{/expand}}
Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -472.9 KB
Content
lai2014.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -15.4 MB
Content
lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2.1 MB
Content
10.1891_1946.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +523.1 KB
Content