disutility function

[The study] explored relationships between racial bias and political affiliation by analyzing self-reported beliefs, voting patterns and the results of psychological tests that measure implicit attitudes — subtle stereotypes people hold about various groups.

That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.
[…]
The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces — evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush.

“Obviously, such research does not speak at all to the question of the prejudice level of the president,” said Banaji, “but it does show that George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice.”

now, im sorry but, if you don’t find that hilariously worded there is “obviously” something very wrong with you.

seriously, as they are scientists, we have to assume they understand correlation, right?

ok, ok, i know there’s a lot of big science words in there (and you damn well better know that i, too, realize this is a simplistic argument to make in the first place, but shit, this is a blog isn’t it?) but here’s the gist of it: if you support the current president (and we know who you are) you are more likely to be racist than someone who does not support the president. Full Stop.

… and i’m sure (and bill hicks will back me up on this one) if you follow the logic to its completion, this likely applies to other areas of personal stereotypes … … like, i dont know, sexism? no? ok how about homophobia? no? ok, yr probably right.

Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said he disagreed with the study’s conclusions but that it was difficult to offer a detailed critique, as the research had not yet been published and he could not review the methodology. He also questioned whether the researchers themselves had implicit biases — against Republicans — noting that Nosek and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats.

“There are a lot of factors that go into political affiliation, and snap determinations may be interesting for an academic study, but the real-world application seems somewhat murky,” Jones said.

thank goodness the RNC spokesman is there to offer his big-science-word-of-the-day desk calendar assistance. Where, o where, would we be without you, Brian?

anyway, even beyond all that, there’s actually a lot of humor in the article; that is, if you find subtlety humorous … and i do, so thank you very much

there’s a part of me that wants to talk about this a bit - you know, mention how the scientists are dancing around the issue and calling them ’subtle racial issues’ that most people don’t know about themselves:

“What automatic biases reveal is that while we have the feeling we are living up to our values, that feeling may not be right,” said University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek, who helped conduct the race analysis. “We are not aware of everything that causes our behavior, even things in our own lives.”

when i’d have to disagree. i tend to think most people are at least aware of the fact they have a racist, sexist, etc tendency - what is more subtle, and arguably more interesting, i suspect, is the degree to which they really feel these things.

but, then again, i can’t say that i’d be doing anything more by talking about this than actually pointing out the obvious fact that to many of us this is already, well, obvious.

but then again, i believe in dinosaurs.

…

i think god put you here to test my faith, dude.

Basically, the JD ordered Google to produce all of their records of users’ search queries for the months of June and July 2005. After some discussion, it seems, the JD decided Google would provide them with a random sample of a million search queries. The claim by the JD is that this request will in some way help them fight the battle against child pornography, or internet pornography, or children on the internet, or people posting pictures of their children’s crappy birthday parties on their .mac sites…in any case, this claim, in light of the administration spying on its own innocent citizens, is, well, quite obviously bullshit.

and the best part? Google pretty much calls them on it.

In their response to the subpoena, Google not only tears apart the idea that they are some sort of a free service the government can use however and whenever they feel the urge to flex their totalitarian pectoralis majors (or, who ordered the Big Government Conservative Special?) but, they also patently call them out on the constitutionality of this subpoena in the first place. There are two favorite parts of their response I’d like to mention because, well, why not?

Google, in its huge and powerful, industry-leading way, wields the sword of business telling the JD, in no unclear terms, that by disclosing this information they will most certainly be forced to disclose proprietary information about their own business and business practices, and thus, this subpoena is bullshit.

Google objects to Defendant’s view of Google’s highly proprietary database - the primary reason for the company’s success - as a free resource that Defendant can access and use, some levels removed, to formulate its own defense. This is not an appropriate use of the federal courts’ subpoena power … More broadly, Defendant’s dissatisfaction with other information sources does not authorize Defendant to seek proprietary information from Google.

I also enjoy the part at the beginning where they thank the JD for reducing the scope of the disclosure and then quite clearly say they refuse to do it any way. And in fact, would have refused the first request as well, “albeit with even more force.” Because, ahem, its bullshit.

oh and shit, they even object to the JD’s definition of ‘query’…how much funnier could it get?

the real issue, though, as we all know, and as John at AmericaBlog states so calmly:

this has nothing to do with child pornography. It has everything to do with the federal government going on a massive fishing expedition to weed out all the “sinners” in America, and all under the veil of the war on terror.

but then again, maybe not…since Scottie has explained the government’s position on fishing at a recent press conference:

Q: Going back to the Abramoff investigation, do you have an update for us on any records or phone calls or e-mails between staff members and Mr. Abramoff or photos of the President with him?

McClellan: No, as I laid out yesterday, we’re not going to engage in any sort of fishing expedition.

Anyway, I’m getting off the subject. My main thought is how its nice to see a business giant like Google get right up in the govt’s face like this. Its refreshing to see a company that was built by hackers and the like still has some sort of sense of what its like to really be free, and not just tied to your own interests outside of the people you serve.

…Google’s acceding to the Request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept. And one can envision scenarios where queries alone could reveal identifying information about a specific Google user, which is another outcome that Google cannot accept.

See how they worded that? They are not willing to reveal private information about their users. That was a pretty heavy statement about Google and its actual, human morality, not just about this particular request. They believe their users’ private information is just that, private. See how easy it is to follow that logic?

We ought to keep our eye on this and see just how hard the Justice Dept. is willing to push. A googol is made up of mostly zeros. But those zeros add up to a hell of a lot.

…
you can read Google’s response here (pdf) …Google’s letter starts on page 14, recommended

edited a little for relevance