How can one tell from a box score which ref called a certain foul on which player? Or do you think they strictly did "all white officiating crews" and "all black officiating crews"?
How can one tell from a box score which ref called a certain foul on which player? Or do you think they strictly did "all white officiating crews" and "all black officiating crews"?
It's bullshit, plain and simple.
1) Veteran players that are out on the court claim they've never witnessed it.
2) The piece itself has "not yet undergone peer review"
3) And one of the writers suggests "spray painting one of your starters" to win more games.
How can one tell from a box score which ref called a certain foul on which player? Or do you think they strictly did "all white officiating crews" and "all black officiating crews"?
It's bullshit, plain and simple.
1) Veteran players that are out on the court claim they've never witnessed it.
2) The piece itself has "not yet undergone peer review"
3) And one of the writers suggests "spray painting one of your starters" to win more games.
What a bunch of crap.
I agree with your previous arguments about the majority of players being Black, and that the aggressors are called the foul. Simple as that.
I believe the findings will be much more accurate and revealing if they took "Supermarket checkout lines" or "How people are treated differently at restaurants" and did the same analysis.
How can one tell from a box score which ref called a certain foul on which player? Or do you think they strictly did "all white officiating crews" and "all black officiating crews"?
It's bullshit, plain and simple.
1) Veteran players that are out on the court claim they've never witnessed it.
2) The piece itself has "not yet undergone peer review"
3) And one of the writers suggests "spray painting one of your starters" to win more games.
What a bunch of crap.
Rock-
I've always appreciated the element of diversity your opinions bring to this board, and I respect the fact that you continue to contribute them despite the backlash they often elicit. That said, there are some things that are simply beyond argument. You may have issues with the way this particular study was done, but Rock, my man, racism is a part of this country's infrastructure.
Previous to this article, if you had asked me if I thought that white refs called more foul's on black players than on white players, I would have bet my entire collection on it (yes, all 200 crates). The subconscious racial bias has been documented so thoroughly in the academic press that at this point it is no longer open to rebuttal. Does this mean that all NBA refs are racist? I don't know, and frankly I don't feel I'm in the position to say. What I will say is that you can consider yourself extremely lucky if you were raised in an environment socially enlightened enough to prevent you from adopting some implicitly racist tendencies.
If you have any interest in reading articles on the subject, I will gladly forward you some of the landmark studies in this area.
Previous to this article, if you had asked me if I thought that white refs called more foul's on black players than on white players, I would have bet my entire collection on it (yes, all 200 crates).
Wow. In 15 some odd years of playing and watching the NBA, this is the first time I've actually heard of something like this. (Not being confrontational, just surprised).
My observations:
1) Majority of ballers are African-American. 2) Many refs are Caucasian. Some of the most well-known refs are Caucasian. 3) Certain races dispaly certain attributes on the court. 4) I know through experience that highly responsive/reactionary/athletic players tend to reach/rip or go for the block more often than moving your feet, and staying in front of the offensive player.
Considering all of these factors, you can probably guess that the odds of a "Black player being called for a foul by a White Ref" are pretty high. I don't see much "subconscious racism" in it.
Break, I truly appreciate the sincere and respectful comments. Quite frankly I'm not much interested in what "Academia" has to say based on studies who's main intent was to "study racism".
What I base my opinions on is many years of varying and diverse life experiences, most of which can certainly represent the last 35 years of our society.
What I know beyond question is.....
1) America has purposefully and earnestly taken measures to reduce, if not eliminate racism. These attempts, whether they be social programs or laws, have been more prolific during the last 30 years than any other period in our country's history. That alone deserves some positive recognition.
2) Most humans are haters. I've met very few people who haven't had ill words and/or feelings towards somebody. Some ignorant white people use the black race as their object of hate, some black people use Asians. One of the most eye opening experiences I've ever had was having a black friend bitch at me for hanging around with a "Fuckin' Rastaman". There are infinite reasons one person will hate/discriminate against another. Color just happens to be one of them.
3) Digging academically into every facet of life with the purpose of the results being to define the morals or tolerance of any group of humans is a scary and questionable goal. And said results are to be taken lightly.
4) Any study/article that uncovers a variance of 0.12% is worthless.
Previous to this article, if you had asked me if I thought that white refs called more foul's on black players than on white players, I would have bet my entire collection on it (yes, all 200 crates).
Wow. In 15 some odd years of playing and watching the NBA, this is the first time I've actually heard of something like this. (Not being confrontational, just surprised).
My observations:
1) Majority of ballers are African-American. 2) Many refs are Caucasian. Some of the most well-known refs are Caucasian. 3) Certain races dispaly certain attributes on the court. 4) I know through experience that highly responsive/reactionary/athletic players tend to reach/rip or go for the block more often than moving your feet, and staying in front of the offensive player.
Considering all of these factors, you can probably guess that the odds of a "Black player being called for a foul by a White Ref" are pretty high. I don't see much "subconscious racism" in it.
The presumption of course is that you, as a basketball player and fan, would be able to detect this type of trend, but in reality the statistical probabilities would be far to difficult for an individual to track. The reason is because in a single game there may be a displacement of only one foul in favor of white players over black players, and for players and spectators this would go completely unnoticed. When you start to compile data from thousands of games the 'one's start to add up. Eventually you will get to a point where you can conclude that this one foul difference, which seems completely insignificant on a game-to-game basis, is not a product of coincidence, but of a subtle systematic bias.
The points you make are certainly valid though, and if you wanted to design a perfectly air-tight examination of a possible foul bias, you would have to control for a lot of factors, including the position the players play, how frequently their points come from inside the paint, etc.
Previous to this article, if you had asked me if I thought that white refs called more foul's on black players than on white players, I would have bet my entire collection on it (yes, all 200 crates).
Wow. In 15 some odd years of playing and watching the NBA, this is the first time I've actually heard of something like this. (Not being confrontational, just surprised).
My observations:
1) Majority of ballers are African-American. 2) Many refs are Caucasian. Some of the most well-known refs are Caucasian. 3) Certain races dispaly certain attributes on the court. 4) I know through experience that highly responsive/reactionary/athletic players tend to reach/rip or go for the block more often than moving your feet, and staying in front of the offensive player.
Considering all of these factors, you can probably guess that the odds of a "Black player being called for a foul by a White Ref" are pretty high. I don't see much "subconscious racism" in it.
The presumption of course is that you, as a basketball player and fan, would be able to detect this type of trend, but in reality the statistical probabilities would be far to difficult for an individual to track. The reason is because in a single game there may be a displacement of only one foul in favor of white players over black players, and for players and spectators this would go completely unnoticed. When you start to compile data from thousands of games the 'one's start to add up. Eventually you will get to a point where you can conclude that this one foul difference, which seems completely insignificant on a game-to-game basis, is not a product of coincidence, but of a subtle systematic bias.
The points you make are certainly valid though, and if you wanted to design a perfectly air-tight examination of a possible foul bias, you would have to control for a lot of factors, including the position the players play, how frequently their points come from inside the paint, etc.
What you say makes perfect sense.
But then again, wouldn't it be hard to identify that "one" incident. What criteria would have to be used to identify this one incidence of racial bias? In the end, I just think it's immaterial.
You make very good points though. I'm about to watch the Lakers/Suns. I hope this discussion doesn't take away from the game.
3) Digging academically into every facet of life with the purpose of the results being to define the morals or tolerance of any group of humans is a scary and questionable goal. And said results are to be taken lightly.
I think it just tells people "maybe this ought to be taken into consideration". People can be highly impressionistic and biased. The dudes that might wanna pay attention are consequently the ones that don't.
Quite frankly I'm not much interested in what "Academia" has to say based on studies who's main intent was to "study racism".
I guess I'm not exactly sure when, or by whom, you think racism in America - and I assume you think this is a topic worth examining - should be studied then?!? Perhaps by a different set of scientists that are more interested in the mating habits of [/i]drosophila[/i]?? Maybe by astronauts?
In all seriousness, I understand your incredulity, and I agree that academia should be carefully scrutinized, but to entirely dismiss the findings of academics is preposterous. The computer in front of you did not assemble itself, it is the product of scientific investigation. Good scientists don't (or shouldn't) care about whether or not their experiment 'works', they're interested in learning about their object of inquiry, and in this regard, a failed experiment is as informative as a successful experiment.
1) America has purposefully and earnestly taken measures to reduce, if not eliminate racism. These attempts, whether they be social programs or laws, have been more prolific during the last 30 years than any other period in our country's history. That alone deserves some positive recognition.
This exceeds the scope of the point I was trying to make.
3) Digging academically into every facet of life with the purpose of the results being to define the morals or tolerance of any group of humans is a scary and questionable goal. And said results are to be taken lightly.
This has never been the purpose of rigorous academic investigation. The goal of social sciences, in this case, social psychology is to document and provide testable explanations for some of the social phenomena that prevail in our society. Current explanations of these phenomena will be replaced as soon as a model is found that fits the data better. Science would never attempt to make judgments about morality because morals can't be quantified.
4) Any study/article that uncovers a variance of 0.12% is worthless.
I think you're confusing variance with either probability or frequency. Variance is a measure of how far, on average, your individual data points differ from your sample mean. Usually low variance is evidence that the trend your examining is consistent.
I think you're confusing variance with either probability or frequency. Variance is a measure of how far, on average, your individual data points differ from your sample mean. Usually low variance is evidence that the trend your examining is consistent.
I don't disagree with your overall view, I just trust my own experiences more than any "study".
The original article read......
???we find that black players receive around 0.12-0.20 more fouls per 48 minutes played
Previous to this article, if you had asked me if I thought that white refs called more foul's on black players than on white players, I would have bet my entire collection on it (yes, all 200 crates).
Wow. In 15 some odd years of playing and watching the NBA, this is the first time I've actually heard of something like this. (Not being confrontational, just surprised).
My observations:
1) Majority of ballers are African-American. 2) Many refs are Caucasian. Some of the most well-known refs are Caucasian. 3) Certain races dispaly certain attributes on the court. 4) I know through experience that highly responsive/reactionary/athletic players tend to reach/rip or go for the block more often than moving your feet, and staying in front of the offensive player.
Considering all of these factors, you can probably guess that the odds of a "Black player being called for a foul by a White Ref" are pretty high. I don't see much "subconscious racism" in it.
The presumption of course is that you, as a basketball player and fan, would be able to detect this type of trend... you would have to control for a lot of factors, including the position the players play, how frequently their points come from inside the paint, etc.
What you say makes perfect sense.
But then again, wouldn't it be hard to identify that "one" incident. What criteria would have to be used to identify this one incidence of racial bias? In the end, I just think it's immaterial.
You make very good points though. I'm about to watch the Lakers/Suns. I hope this discussion doesn't take away from the game.
I most certainly agree that this is a very difficult phenomenon to nail down. There are so many competing variables that it's almost impossible to draw a definitive conclusion. In a properly designed study you would have to watch tapes of hundreds, if not thousands, of games and record not only the race of the ref and the player, but the race of the person who was fouled, the positions of both players, how many fouls a game they averaged, whether the foul was called against a member of the home or away team, what quarter it was, how close the game was, etc., etc., etc.
I think you're confusing variance with either probability or frequency. Variance is a measure of how far, on average, your individual data points differ from your sample mean. Usually low variance is evidence that the trend your examining is consistent.
I don't disagree with your overall view, I just trust my own experiences more than any "study".
In the end, personal experience is all we really have, so I certainly won't hold your opinion against you.
The original article read......
???we find that black players receive around 0.12-0.20 more fouls per 48 minutes played
Is that not variance??
That looks like a simple comparision of means to me, or maybe a confidence interval. If it's a confidence interval, the interpretation of it would be something like, "99.5% of black players will receive between .12 and .20 more fouls per 48 minutes than white players"
It could also be the case that they used several different methods of computing their averages, and the end results were always between .12 and .2
Lurking statistics majors please feel free to step in.
I didn't read that article nor am I going to but what was the control in this experiment if the statistics were taken from box scores?
Can someone break the procedure down simply for us?
I didn't read the article that closely either, so I couldn't tell you. They don't often break these things down all that thoroughly in print, though.
Again, I'm not as interested in this particular result as I am in the process behind it. I do, however, like the fact that these results are coming from a domain of enough public interest to demand attention.
Apologies for flooding this thread, dudes, but for those that are interested, here's the abstract of a short, but frequently cited article on this subject:
This is the abstract:
In a modified 4X4 factorial design with race (black-white) of the harm-doer and race (black-white) of the victim as the major factors, the phenomenon of differential social perception of intergroup violence was established. White subjects, observing a videotape of purported ongoing interaction occuring in another room, labeled an act (ambiguous shove) as more violent when it was performed by a black than when the same act was perpetrated by a white. That is, the concept of violence was more accessible when viewing a black than when viewing a white committing the same act. Causal attributions were also found to be divergent. Situation attributions were preferred when the harm-doer was white, and person (dispositional) attributions were preferred in the black-protagonist conditions The results are discussed in terms of perceptual threshold, stereotypy, and attributional biases.
Comments
How can one tell from a box score which ref called a certain foul on which player? Or do you think they strictly did "all white officiating crews" and "all black officiating crews"?
There certainly is. That's why I get extra gay (joyful) when people of another race show consideration and common sense towards me.
But I've come to accept these biases more or less, especially living in LA. Where there are defined communities based on race.
It's human nature to treat something different, differently. We can make conscious efforts to control our impulses, but most people don't.
It's bullshit, plain and simple.
1) Veteran players that are out on the court claim they've never witnessed it.
2) The piece itself has "not yet undergone peer review"
3) And one of the writers suggests "spray painting one of your starters" to win more games.
What a bunch of crap.
Is it possible, that most people, regardless of race, suck??
Why would you say this??
I agree with your previous arguments about the majority of players being Black, and that the aggressors are called the foul. Simple as that.
I believe the findings will be much more accurate and revealing if they took "Supermarket checkout lines" or "How people are treated differently at restaurants" and did the same analysis.
Yea, more or less. haha.
Rock-
I've always appreciated the element of diversity your opinions bring to this board, and I respect the fact that you continue to contribute them despite the backlash they often elicit. That said, there are some things that are simply beyond argument. You may have issues with the way this particular study was done, but Rock, my man, racism is a part of this country's infrastructure.
Previous to this article, if you had asked me if I thought that white refs called more foul's on black players than on white players, I would have bet my entire collection on it (yes, all 200 crates). The subconscious racial bias has been documented so thoroughly in the academic press that at this point it is no longer open to rebuttal. Does this mean that all NBA refs are racist? I don't know, and frankly I don't feel I'm in the position to say. What I will say is that you can consider yourself extremely lucky if you were raised in an environment socially enlightened enough to prevent you from adopting some implicitly racist tendencies.
If you have any interest in reading articles on the subject, I will gladly forward you some of the landmark studies in this area.
Wow. In 15 some odd years of playing and watching the NBA, this is the first time I've actually heard of something like this. (Not being confrontational, just surprised).
My observations:
1) Majority of ballers are African-American.
2) Many refs are Caucasian. Some of the most well-known refs are Caucasian.
3) Certain races dispaly certain attributes on the court.
4) I know through experience that highly responsive/reactionary/athletic players tend to reach/rip or go for the block more often than moving your feet, and staying in front of the offensive player.
Considering all of these factors, you can probably guess that the odds of a "Black player being called for a foul by a White Ref" are pretty high. I don't see much "subconscious racism" in it.
I truly appreciate the sincere and respectful comments. Quite frankly I'm not much interested in what "Academia" has to say based on studies who's main intent was to "study racism".
What I base my opinions on is many years of varying and diverse life experiences, most of which can certainly represent the last 35 years of our society.
What I know beyond question is.....
1) America has purposefully and earnestly taken measures to reduce, if not eliminate racism. These attempts, whether they be social programs or laws, have been more prolific during the last 30 years than any other period in our country's history. That alone deserves some positive recognition.
2) Most humans are haters. I've met very few people who haven't had ill words and/or feelings towards somebody. Some ignorant white people use the black race as their object of hate, some black people use Asians. One of the most eye opening experiences I've ever had was having a black friend bitch at me for hanging around with a "Fuckin' Rastaman". There are infinite reasons one person will hate/discriminate against another. Color just happens to be one of them.
3) Digging academically into every facet of life with the purpose of the results being to define the morals or tolerance of any group of humans is a scary and questionable goal. And said results are to be taken lightly.
4) Any study/article that uncovers a variance of 0.12% is worthless.
The presumption of course is that you, as a basketball player and fan, would be able to detect this type of trend, but in reality the statistical probabilities would be far to difficult for an individual to track. The reason is because in a single game there may be a displacement of only one foul in favor of white players over black players, and for players and spectators this would go completely unnoticed. When you start to compile data from thousands of games the 'one's start to add up. Eventually you will get to a point where you can conclude that this one foul difference, which seems completely insignificant on a game-to-game basis, is not a product of coincidence, but of a subtle systematic bias.
The points you make are certainly valid though, and if you wanted to design a perfectly air-tight examination of a possible foul bias, you would have to control for a lot of factors, including the position the players play, how frequently their points come from inside the paint, etc.
What you say makes perfect sense.
But then again, wouldn't it be hard to identify that "one" incident. What criteria would have to be used to identify this one incidence of racial bias?
In the end, I just think it's immaterial.
You make very good points though. I'm about to watch the Lakers/Suns. I hope this discussion doesn't take away from the game.
I think it just tells people "maybe this ought to be taken into consideration". People can be highly impressionistic and biased. The dudes that might wanna pay attention are consequently the ones that don't.
I guess I'm not exactly sure when, or by whom, you think racism in America - and I assume you think this is a topic worth examining - should be studied then?!? Perhaps by a different set of scientists that are more interested in the mating habits of [/i]drosophila[/i]?? Maybe by astronauts?
In all seriousness, I understand your incredulity, and I agree that academia should be carefully scrutinized, but to entirely dismiss the findings of academics is preposterous. The computer in front of you did not assemble itself, it is the product of scientific investigation. Good scientists don't (or shouldn't) care about whether or not their experiment 'works', they're interested in learning about their object of inquiry, and in this regard, a failed experiment is as informative as a successful experiment.
This exceeds the scope of the point I was trying to make.
This has never been the purpose of rigorous academic investigation. The goal of social sciences, in this case, social psychology is to document and provide testable explanations for some of the social phenomena that prevail in our society. Current explanations of these phenomena will be replaced as soon as a model is found that fits the data better. Science would never attempt to make judgments about morality because morals can't be quantified.
I think you're confusing variance with either probability or frequency. Variance is a measure of how far, on average, your individual data points differ from your sample mean. Usually low variance is evidence that the trend your examining is consistent.
Can someone break the procedure down simply for us?
I don't disagree with your overall view, I just trust my own experiences more than any "study".
The original article read......
???we find that black players receive around 0.12-0.20 more fouls per 48 minutes played
Is that not variance??
I most certainly agree that this is a very difficult phenomenon to nail down. There are so many competing variables that it's almost impossible to draw a definitive conclusion. In a properly designed study you would have to watch tapes of hundreds, if not thousands, of games and record not only the race of the ref and the player, but the race of the person who was fouled, the positions of both players, how many fouls a game they averaged, whether the foul was called against a member of the home or away team, what quarter it was, how close the game was, etc., etc., etc.
In the end, personal experience is all we really have, so I certainly won't hold your opinion against you.
That looks like a simple comparision of means to me, or maybe a confidence interval. If it's a confidence interval, the interpretation of it would be something like, "99.5% of black players will receive between .12 and .20 more fouls per 48 minutes than white players"
It could also be the case that they used several different methods of computing their averages, and the end results were always between .12 and .2
Lurking statistics majors please feel free to step in.
I didn't read the article that closely either, so I couldn't tell you. They don't often break these things down all that thoroughly in print, though.
Again, I'm not as interested in this particular result as I am in the process behind it. I do, however, like the fact that these results are coming from a domain of enough public interest to demand attention.
This is the abstract:
In a modified 4X4 factorial design with race (black-white) of the harm-doer and race (black-white) of the victim as the major factors, the phenomenon of differential social perception of intergroup violence was established. White subjects, observing a videotape of purported ongoing interaction occuring in another room, labeled an act (ambiguous shove) as more violent when it was performed by a black than when the same act was perpetrated by a white. That is, the concept of violence was more accessible when viewing a black than when viewing a white committing the same act. Causal attributions were also found to be divergent. Situation attributions were preferred when the harm-doer was white, and person (dispositional) attributions were preferred in the black-protagonist conditions The results are discussed in terms of perceptual threshold, stereotypy, and attributional biases.
Full article can be downloaded here:
DivShare File - PsycARTICLES_1977-21139-001.pdf