Article Description
Resolve Or Resign ADHD sucks. Yeah, yeah, Ferrari engine with Raleigh brakes, thinking outside the box, creativity, all that stuff. But there’s also heart on your sleeve, and the risk of opening your … ...
Five Relationship Skills-Building Tips for Youth Workers... The relationships we have with the adolescents with whom we work the foundation upon which all of our professional skills rest. In turn, our skills strengthen the relationship. The two combined provide the glue that foster adolescents to growth and change. But relationship building can … ...
How to Stop the Racist in You In the wake of racially charged bloodshed in Baton Rouge, Minneapolis, and Dallas, the city of Cleveland hosted the Republican National Convention. There Iowa Rep. Steve King argued that only whites had made contributions to civilization, while other “sub-groups” did not. Asked to clarify his remarks, King—who keeps a Confederate flag on his desk—did not back down. “The Western civilization and the American civilization are a superior culture,” he said, deliberately associating “Western” and “American” with white. No leader at the convention publicly disavowed King’s assertion. This is just the latest example of what seems to be a rise in polarizing public language that meets the dictionary definition of “racist”—“having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.” King’s argument is an example of explicit, conscious prejudice, when someone outwardly expresses, through words or behavior, a view denigrating a particular group. But what explains the fact that police departments are more likely to use force against black suspects than white ones, at a time when so many departments are consciously trying to reduce these discrepancies? What could explain why companies explicitly committed to diversity show racial bias in hiring decisions? Why would caring teachers be more likely to punish black students more harshly than white students? In these cases, and many others, scientific evidence suggests that we’re seeing the effects not of explicit prejudice but of implicit bias—the unconscious, often knee-jerk prejudices that subtly guide our behavior. The distinction between explicit and implicit bias is important, because it changes how we address prejudice in every corner of society, from police departments to schools to homes. If the problem is with racists—individuals like Steve King—then the solution is to identify them and limit their influence. That does need to happen; indeed, after Chief David Brown took over the Dallas police department in 2010, he fired over 70 officers from his force—and excessive-force complaints dropped 64 percent. But the new science of implicit bias suggests that the problem is not only with bad applies, for prejudice is a conflict that plays out within each and every one of us. Since we published the book Are We Born Racist? in 2010—which explores racial prejudice as a neurological and psychological process—we’ve seen more and more research into the automatic and measurable associations that people have about others, and the subtle and unconscious behaviors that these associations influence. In many daily circumstances, automatic associations are natural and harmless. Not so when a police officer pulls a car over for a broken tail light, and the negative associations he has with the face of the driver can produce deadly results; or when a black defendant’s facial features can make a jury more likely to give him the death penalty. Last summer, Greater Good published a series of articles by researchers and law enforcement officials about how implicit bias can be used to reduce racial discrepancies in criminal justice. But this research isn’t just for cops and judges—it can help all of us to understand how our brains work and why we are not as different as we might like to think from a police officer who shoots an unarmed suspect. Indeed, the fact that implicit bias occurs outside of our awareness but affects explicit behaviors—from whether we pull a trigger to how we judge a resume to how we discipline young children—can deeply threaten our self-image. If I have implicit bias, does that mean I’m not really committed to fairness and equality? Am I, at a deep and unconscious level, actually a racist? The answer is both yes and no. We all carry prejudices within ourselves—and we all have the tools to keep them in check. From explicit to implicit bias When we think of “racists,” our minds conjure up people like the San Francisco police officers who were recently caught using racially derogatory words in text messages, or perhaps politicians like King. Their pronouncements shock many of us with their old-fashioned racism, in which people’s out-group attitudes are conscious, explicit, and openly endorsed. This type of racism was characteristic of majority group members’ attitudes up to around the 1950’s—and today it does indeed appear to be undergoing a vocal revival in public life. What current discussions about implicit bias recognize, however, is that a great deal of contemporary racism comes from people who say they don’t want to be racist. Manifestations of this tendency emerged when negative attitudes or stereotypes became publicly frowned upon in the 1960’s and 70’s, and many people felt social pressure to not get “caught” saying something that sounds racist—an extrinsic motivation that many have labeled “political correctness.” This formulation implies that egalitarian behavior is not real or truly felt, but rather, a social grace to cover an unacceptable attitude. As many supporters have said about Trump, he “says what nearly everybody thinks, but is too fearful or polite to say.” This conception makes someone like Trump sound “honest,”  but by implication, suggests that those who speak up for egalitarianism are being somehow “dishonest.” Things become even more complicated when a person (or institution) sincerely values egalitarianism yet engages in some kind of behavior that nonetheless betrays bias. Many studies find evidence of anti-black bias in pain-killer prescription and other kinds of medical treatment. Another study found that job applicants with stereotypically African-American names were less likely to be invited to interviews. And, despite the avowed commitment of the courts to “justice for all”, the connection between criminal sentencing and race is well documented. For many people, the very possibility that they too might get caught saying one thing but doing another is extremely threatening and aversive. That threat, in fact, has a name: aversive racism. It refers to the type of racism in which a person’s implicit biases are so out of line with their conscious values that social situations where they experience this conflict—such as interracial interactions—are something to fear and avoid. In one study, for example, white participants who were about to discuss affirmative action with a fellow study participant who was black literally sat further away from them, and this distance was not predicted by their bias. Instead, it was predicted by their fear of being perceived as racist. In these kinds of situations, we create a self-fulfilling cycle of negative racial interactions—and to avoid them we may avoid contact with different kinds of people altogether. This dynamic, ironically, can deepen racial segregation and inequality. Did we evolve to be racist? These behavioral findings have counterparts in neuroscience. We often hear descriptions of the limbic system as our “reptilian brains” that respond to environmental cues with the same level of sophistication as alligator. Lightning quick and outside of our control, the limbic system has been called the seat of our fight-or-flight responses, perfectly adapted to the eat-or-be eaten environment of our early ancestors.  A central player in this prehistoric narrative is the amygdala, a pair of almond like structures that form part of the limbic system. Early findings that the amygdala responds strongly to fear conditioning led to the view that the amygdala is the structure that sets in motion the fight or flight response. Researchers like Elizabeth Phelps and Mahzarin Banaji wrote a significant chapter in our understanding of implicit bias with findings showing differential amygdala activation for faces of different races, as well as findings showing a relationship between levels of implicit bias and amygdala activity. These findings have fueled a conception of implicit bias as not only unconscious and automatic, but additionally as biologically determined—part of our ancestral heritage—with our only hope being to contain it but never realistically to overcome it. Newer research—often by the same people—is beginning to challenge the core assumptions of this narrative. Once again, the amygdala plays a central role. Scientists are beginning recognize that the amygdala, rather than responding exclusively to negative or fear-inducing stimuli, instead seems to be exquisitely sensitive to emotionally important information in the environment.  This is a subtle but important difference, and suggests that depending on the task or the situation at hand, the amygdala may be able to respond differentially. In one study, for example, researchers found that the amygdalas of participants activated in relation to how negatively they rated a set of faces, consistent with prior findings. However, amygdala activity was also related to their judgments of the positivity of faces. And when respondents made face judgments using a scale that was anchored by both positive and negative endpoints, the amygdala tracked the overall intensity of the responses. In another study, researchers had participants engage in a face-sorting task in one of two different conditions—either by race, or by membership in teams that included people of different races. Interestingly, the amygdala did not only track race information—it tracked the socially relevant membership (team or race) depending on the social task in front of participants. This tells us that the amydgala is not necessarily pre-wired to detect race information, but rather, it is wired to track and respond to the category or social grouping that is most relevant at a given time. Rather than contradicting an evolutionary narrative, however, this type of data merely challenges us to think a little more broadly about the usefulness of categorization even in early times—we may have had to quickly recognize an out-group on the basis of race, but it would have been just as helpful to easily track whether a same-race individual was part of a nearby enemy tribe. When we consider that in-group versus out-group distinctions don’t neatly fall along racial categories, we can begin to consider that race is not a biological inevitability, but a social construction with social significance that our amygdala tracks. In other words, if the brain adjusts to quickly process information that is deemed as socially relevant, it may be within our power to redefine what is socially relevant. And, rather than needing to squash or cover up our base biases, perpetually caught in Freudian tug-of-war between Id and Superego, the current view opens the possibility of redefining our social environment so that it doesn’t need to track race as a socially significant marker. Six ways to stop the racist in you What are the implications of this new way of thinking and conceptualizing brain function for our understanding of prejudice—and of how we can address it? At its most basic level, this new understanding of the brain reveals it not as a layered organ that reveals the layers of our evolution, as might layers of sediment in a canyon. Rather than thinking in terms of dualistic structures—primitive/evolved, emotion/thought, limbic system/neocortex—we are coming to understand that the brain is much more interconnected than previously thought. But beyond this understanding, these new findings show that our automatic processes (including our implicit biases) are not unchangeable, and that we can learn new behaviors that can become second nature. An everyday example shows how this is possible. Consider that not one of us is born learning how to drive, and yet by the time many people are adults, it is a skill that meets many of the features of automaticity, and find ourselves not even thinking about it even as we expertly maneuver the car. One day, with practice, egalitarianism might be like driving a car: a skill learned over time but eventually so automatic as to be second nature.. So what are the tricks that you can use to stop the racist in you? There are many, of course, but here are six to consider that follow from the scientific insights we describe. Consciously commit yourself to egalitarianism. But recognize that unconscious bias is no more “the real you” than your conscious values. You are both the unconscious and the conscious. Acknowledge differences, rather than pretend that you are ignoring them. Seek out friendship with people from different groups, in order to increase your brain’s familiarity with different people and expand your point of view. It’s natural to focus on how people are different from you, but try to consciously identify what qualities and goals you might have in common. When you encounter examples of unambiguous bias, speak out against them. Why? Because that helps create and reinforce a standard for yourself and the people around you, in addition to providing some help to those who are the targets of explicit and implicit prejudice. Those are steps you can take right now, without waiting for the world to change. But this research has implications that goes well beyond the personal. The split-second reaction of a police officer who shoots an unarmed black man might not be very different from your own. Instead of asking the question of whether a person is or is not racist—because we’re all a mix—we can turn to thinking of the ways in which we might engineer our social environment to address racism and its worst effects, without believing that it’s a blanket fix. Knowing that bias is part of the structure of our minds we can ask, for example, how can we change policing so that the results of bias are less deadly? How can we address economic inequality between different groups so as to reduce the stress on communities that are historically the targets of racism? What can school districts do to make sure teachers come in daily positive contact with different kinds of people, and receive training in tools to help them consciously reduce bias? There are many fronts in the campaign against bias, both implicit and explicit, but they all have one thing in common: us. We are all potentially part of the problem—and we can all become a part of the solution. This essay was revised and updated by Smith from a piece by Mendoza-Denton and Amanda Perez in the journal Othering & Belonging, published by the UC Berkeley Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society.
Happiness for Sad People Modest mitigators of moroseness.
From Policies Espoused By Trump To Brexit, Is Globalization Dying? Jonathan Haidt, PhD, discusses psychology behind rise in political incivility and violence
Similarities, Differences and Marital Happiness: More Complicated Over Time... The question of whether similar or dissimilar personality traits are a source of romantic attraction and marital satisfaction has been debated for years. There are those who propose that partners … ...
Health organization weights dropping transgender identity from its list of mental disorders A new study lends additional support to a proposal that would delete the decades-old designation.
Acceptance: 5 Stages of Grief & Loss Acceptance. What comes to mind when you hear that term? Does it seem like something you should do when you are ready? Does it seem like something you will never … ...
Replication study: Money still can’t buy happiness — but it might reduce sadness The relationship between a person’s well-being and their income is more complex than a simple cliché, but according to research there is a lot of truth behind the saying that “money can’t buy you happiness”. Previous studies have supported this claim, while also discovering that income may still play a valuable role in sustaining psychological [...]
Neural circuits involved in making risky decisions identified New research sheds light on what's going on inside our heads as we decide whether to take a risk or play it safe. Scientists located a region of the brain involved in decisions made under conditions of uncertainty, and identified some of the cells involved in the decision-making process. The work could lead to treatments for psychological and psychiatric disorders that involve misjudging risk, such as problem gambling and anxiety disorders, say the researchers.
Raising The White Flag I got sick. Really sick. If you’ve been reading this blog you’ve been perhaps slowly watching me fall down the rabbit hole. It all came to a head last Thursday … ...
Pokémon Go – A New Treatment for Teen Anxiety? You can’t go anywhere without seeing the tell-tale signs of Pokémon Go players. You just have to look for the usual signs. Wondering people with their heads down staring at … ...
A Higher Power for Those Who Don’t Believe in... This article is not directed toward individuals who do not find themselves struggling to embrace a Higher Power of their understanding while working toward recovery. It is directed at those who may want to embrace something, yet cannot identify with what they are comfortable. Several … ...
Genetic factors are responsible for creating anatomical patterns in the brain cortex The highly consistent anatomical patterning found in the brain’s cortex is controlled by genetic factors, reports a new study by an international research consortium led by Chi-Hua Chen of the University of California, San Diego, and Nicholas Schork of the J. Craig Venter Institute, published on July 26 in PLOS Genetics. The human brain’s wrinkled [...]
Smell test may predict early stages of Alzheimer’s disease Researchers from Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC), New York State Psychiatric Institute, and NewYork-Presbyterian reported that an odor identification test may prove useful in predicting cognitive decline and detecting early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. Their two studies, presented at the Alzheimer’s Association’s International Conference in Toronto, Canada, suggest that the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) [...]
Witnesses confuse innocent and guilty suspects with ‘unfair’ lineups, psychology research shows Police lineups in which distinctive individual marks or features are not altered can impair witnesses’ ability to distinguish between innocent and guilty suspects, according to new research in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. The research, conducted by a team of psychology researchers from the University of Warwick in the UK, [...]
Can a brain scan predict when stress will cause eventual memory loss? “My workload has shot up after my last promotion, I know that I’m stressed out,” says a management executive from Delhi. “I feel anxious all the time, and since starting this job six months ago, I seem to be forgetting small things on a daily basis. Did I take my supplements this morning? Where did [...]
Elite cyclists are more resilient to mental fatigue, study finds As British cyclist Chris Froome celebrates his third Tour de France victory, research from the University of Kent and Australian collaborators shows for the first time that elite endurance athletes have superior ability to resist mental fatigue. Professor Samuele Marcora, Director of Research in Kent’s School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, co-authored a report in [...]
Scientists identify novel genes linked to motor neuron disease Published today in Nature Genetics, the study reveals three new risk genes for ALS and one of these – C21orf2 – increases an individual’s risk of developing the dis-ease by 65 per cent. These results could aid the development of personalised treatments for people with ALS by using gene therapy – an approach which involves [...]
Imaging the brain at multiple size scales: New technique can reveal subcellular details MIT researchers have developed a new technique for imaging brain tissue at multiple scales, allowing them to peer at molecules within cells or take a wider view of the long-range connections between neurons. This technique, known as magnified analysis of proteome (MAP), should help scientists in their ongoing efforts to chart the connectivity and functions [...]