A Consuming Experience

Some (very selective) notes and quotes from an excellent session on "Private Lives - a thing of the past?"¹ at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) on 19 June 2008, which was sponsored by Reuters Institute and Media Standards Trust, and was on information privacy and data privacy.

The format was very effective, with disciplined timekeeping by the chair (which is very important, I feel). The "witnesses" gave their views, on which a panel of "judges" questioned and commented, then there were comments and questions from the floor followed by the "judges" summarising in one minute each what their thoughts on the subject were after hearing the witnesses.

The only possible improvements would have been for the chairman to read the biographies more slowly so that the audience could hear them properly - talk about rapidfire machinegun rattle - and someone should please give the chairman an actual chair at the side and make him sit down while witnesses/judges are speaking, as he often stood in front of the panel with his back to the audience blocking their view of the speakers, so unfortunately he was more "gerroutawayman" than chairman!

Note that many of the following quotes won't be precisely verbatim or in the exact order said - this is just my attempt to convey their gist, so by all means blame my hasty note-taking if I've paraphrased inaccurately - but at least you'll be able to hear the speakers direct in the MP3 recording of the session, available in about a week or so from the RSA events pages.

The "judges"

• Stephen Whittle, visiting fellow at the Reuters Institute of Journalism at Oxford University and a former BBC Controller.
  
  
• Claire Fox, director of Institute of Ideas and BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze panelist
  
  
• Iain Dale, political commentator and Conservative Party activist (see Iain Dale's own write-up of the event.)
  
  
• Chair: Matthew Taylor, CEO of the RSA.

The "witnesses"

Dominic Campbell of consultancy FutureGov, who lives his life online via Twitter etc - "*My* declarative lifestyle"

Is this the end of multiple identities: public, private, personal, political/professional? He pointed out everyone goes to work and just acts - he doesn't want to do that. He's gained work through living this way, breaking down the barriers between work and private life.

He acknowledged it was a form of micro celebrity but it's very unlikely he'll ever be a politician as a result of what he's put online!

He played to the audience the well known Facebloke spoof video about Facebook, which I've embedded below - if you've not already seen it do, it's a good laugh and makes some telling points:

Quotes/points

"You seem to be replicating village life - and the village idiot." (Claire Fox)

Isn't putting things into the public realm where they're of no interest even to him, somehow insulting to himself? (didn't note who said that)

Tom Ilube, CEO of online identity company Garlik:

We're in a phased transition, ice to water. People don't always understand the digital trails they're leaving. Information the government publishes about people and that people publish about themselves can be searched and joined up to provide insights into their personal information that they don't expect.

He thinks there's a kind of Moore's Law for information - the amount of personal information about us doubles about every 12 months; in 5 years there'll be 10 times the info out there, joined up in ways we don't know about today.

He showed how quick and easy it is to find out about someone and their life just by typing their name into a search engine etc, using Claire Fox as an example - Google, Google Images, ZoomInfo (see my review of an early version of ZoomInfo) and other very well funded people search engines, a Times article, 192.com for her address, a genealogy site for her mother's maiden name, even a photo of her house... he can make up a utility bill with someone's name on it in 5 minutes!

He's been the victim of identity theft because of the info out there about him (luckily being in the industry he knew how to deal with it) but on the other hand through the Net he's also found a sister thousands of miles away he'd not seen for 30 years.

The ease of finding information about others can be empowering for people too, e.g. in a recent survey of about 2000 respondents:

• 16% will search for their neighbours on Google before moving house or flat (notice I carefully don't use "Google" as a verb!)
  
• 20% of parents, on their child's teacher
• 30% of respondents, on doctors, lawyers etc they're thinking of going to

He believes in 10 years it'll be impossible to be totally private in the digital economy. There's info even about his eldest sister, who's never gone online, put out there by others.

He thinks there should be a difference between the private and the public in some ways, but in terms of the technology there isn't. You can't even enforce it through laws - the information could be obtained through a service in another country e.g. Zoominfo is a US corporation.

He'd like stronger data protection laws to help us find out what info organisations hold about us and what decisions they are making based on it. He sends out subject access requests (under the UK Data Protection Act) from time to time, and e.g. the Institute of Directors had not only the date he joined and left and his credit card details, but also a log of every single time he'd been in and out of the building over 10 years ago.

Many organisations may have no idea why they're holding certain information until someone suggests that they sell it - and then they will!

His point is, things are profoundly different now - not necessarily bad or scary, but different - and people need to engage with their own digital identity.

Dr Tanya Byron - child psychologist and author of the UK government commissioned Byron Review on children's use of the internet and videogames:

Technology is great, her daughter can visit the US Library of Congress from her bedroom, but there's a digital generation divide (or perhaps generational digital divide). Kids are web 2.0 content creators, but their parents, most people over 35, are web 1.0: email, surfing.

Kids socialise via technology. Our culture is now so risk averse we don't let kids out into the streets - the radius for children has reduced by 80% since 1977. They can't go outside so they go online.

They're tech savvy but haven't got the skills of critical evaluation to keep themselves safe, e.g. posting photos on social networking pages not understanding the consequences, that once it's out there it's out there forever. 1 in 10 children meet someone they first encountered online.

The safety of children is paramount and privacy should be constructed on that basis.

Policing is pointless: Australia tried to set up blocking at ISP level, and within 24 hours a 14 year old boy had got round it by guessing his mother's password! It's not about prying, or even warning kids about predators online (in fact cyberbullying is their biggest fear); it's about supervision and thought.

Parenting is an online not just offline task. Parents need to talk to their children, make sure that they think, that they know who they're talking to: prepare their children to understand the risks, give them the tools and critical evaluation skills to check the reliability of sources and that people are who they say they are.

Jean Seaton, Professor of Media History at the University of Westminster and the BBC's Official Historian

Mores and sensibilities change. She favours opacity because some things can't be said, particularly in front of children. There are things you'd say to your spouse you wouldn't say to anyone else, because you're testing them out, just like governments may test some things in the JS Mill's way that they would not wish to get out.

Robespierre wanted transparency of souls, and he was not exactly a nice man!

She thinks we need more negotiated wrenching back of things that are or should be secret.

We can't reverse what's been happening but it's important to work out and define what it is we still don't know, what we know more or less of. In Britain today we know less of what's happening in India than we did in the 19th century.

Parents have to let their children go. Suffering one minor beating up is a learning experience!

Other people and other cultures should be treated properly, with concerned engaged respect.

Camilla Wright, co-founder of popular celeb and music site Popbitch

Once, only carefully controlled information was let out by celebrities. Popbitch was started to show the pop world in a more human light, with trivia about their pets, "celebrity urinal" etc.

Celebrity gossip is one way of putting info out there that people can share as social currency - talk about it on the bus the next day etc.

Now there's a tsunami of information deliberately released by celebrities, it's even considered legitimate to make and market your own sex tape in order to become famous - public and private life have become confused. What's private on Monday can be public on Tuesday etc.

Yet anyone who has enough money can invoke the Human Rights Act e.g. a husband was even stopped from telling anyone about his wife's affair.

Even serious public figures want to reveal all now too - Cherie Blair, John Prescott. It's a confessional world now, perhaps it's the influence of US talk shows etc, perhaps they think it makes them seem more authentic. But it seems people only want to reveal information when they're getting paid for it!

Popbitch will consider it public domain when people choose to make their own lives public, but they steer clear of children, "unfunny" things like cancer or mental illness.

Other points

"Governments often want more information about people than a good man should want or a bad man should have." (A paraphrase of this quote about power, I believe.)

Iain Dale's 10 points from the session (I didn't get them all!):

6. If he didn't consider ID cards bad before he would now!
5. He's moving to the remote mountains of West Virginia..
1. There's no such thing as privacy.

Claire Fox:

Intellectually we've lost sight of how to defend privacy as a society. The focus seems to be on the risks, e.g. paedophiles, or calling for more regulation, which holds back journalism.

We should be able to test out ideas without everything being minutely scrutinised.

Part of being free is being able to experiment away from prying eyes, of the state or other people. If we give up privacy we give up freedom and the right to be treated as adults.

Stephen Whittle:

It's important to have the ability to develop some of your life in private. A society that does not value and protect privacy runs the risk of being one without intimacy, honesty, trust.

That's our challenge. Our own dignity requires some degree of self-restraint, our own liberty requires some degree of civic engagement. We'll lose a lot if we don't care about privacy and engagement.

Note

1. I've linked to the Google cache of the events page only - I'll update this post to link properly to the events page ASAP, but they've inexplicably deleted it from their Forthcoming events page without adding it to their Past Events, it's currently an inaccessible password-protected page.

Labels: culture, digital rights, internet, privacy, society

New Scientist magazine back in July had a fascinating article by psychologist Dr Patrick Leman called "The Lure of the Conspiracy Theory" - about the psychology behind belief in conspiracy theories, which seems to be increasing in modern society, and indeed has become something of a cultural phenomenon.

The Net is partly to blame: "One factor fuelling the general growth of conspiracy beliefs is likely to be that the internet allows new theories to be quickly created, and endlessly debated by a wider audience than ever."

The article makes the point that there are good and bad things about conspiracy theories. The good: sometimes conspiracy theories are true (e.g. the Iran-Contra affair), and conspiracy theorists can be the little guys keeping big corporations or government in check. The bad: they can spread (misplaced) mistrust and fear, which can get in the way of reality and what is actually true and important.

Research has been conducted, by Dr Leman and others, into what makes people believe, who tend to be believers, and why. Age, ethnicity, income are apparently all factors. The possible link: those who feel generally disaffected, disempowered in society, are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

Some other interesting concepts in the article:

• "Flashbulb memory" - the recall of a sudden event, often shocking and global, which affects individuals on a personal level. Apparently this type of memory is more easily formed between 20 and 35 years of age, which is why different events tend to trigger flashbulb memories for different generations - the John F Kennedy assassination, Princess Diana's death, etc.


• "Major event - major cause" - people often believe an event with major consequences is likely to have been caused by something major. Because if the cause was minor (e.g. a single drunk driver) then it seems like there's been no real cause and effect, life feels more unpredictable and uncertain, which makes us uncomfortable. Easier to assume the cause was something big.


• "Confirmation bias" - people generally tend to pay more attention to info that is consistent with their existing beliefs, and absorb that kind of info more readily. This applies to both conspiracy theorists and anti-theorists equally (and, in my view, many so-called "scientists" too) - rather than objectively consider all the evidence, both look for "facts" which fit in with their existing theories and dismiss or discount evidence to the contrary, or change their theory to tie into the new info! Research in fact shows that different people can claim to use the same bit of evidence to support entirely different theories.
  

How to create the perfect conspiracy theory, step by step

Finally, based on his findings, he produced a presumably tongue in cheek howto on producing the perfect conspiracy theory. I can foresee some unscrupulous people cynically exploiting this to make up and spread conspiracy theories of their choice - but then they'd probably work all this out for themselves anyway, it actually seems pretty much common sense to me.

If I want to deliberately build a conspiracy theory for maximum dissemination and then make a fortune writing a book about it, well now I certainly know how to start!

Here's his guide on how to construct a conspiracy theory that'll seize the imagination of the masses, in 4 easy steps:

1. Pick your bad guy - government, big corporations etc. Ideally also pick on some shadowy, cult-like organisation which can supposedly be connected with your adversary. (I know The Da Vinci Code is fictional but, heh, Opus Dei was a good pick!)
   
   
2. Pick a major current event to base your theory on - especially an unexpected, shocking, visual event that's shared.
   
   
3. Develop your story - pick & choose your source info, construct a compelling story from it, and hey if something doesn't fit your story, reinterpret it! Sow uncertainty, query the official evidence, find new facts contradicting it.
   
   
4. Prepare your defence - be prepared to tweak your conspiracy theory around the edges should anyone point out any inconsistencies etc, but always hold to the core theory, emphasising that it's just a question of getting the evidence to prove its truth. And if others question your theory, well they must be in on the conspiracy too, mustn't they?

Labels: internet, psychology, society

Posting this for the 2.3 people who haven't tried the Pew Internet & American Life Project's quiz to see which category you fall into, in their "typology" of information and communications technology (ICT) users.

What kind of user are you? Are you an Omnivore, Connector, Lacklustre Veteran, Productivity Enhancer, Mobile Centrics, Connected but Hassled, Inexperienced Experimenter, Light but Satisfied, Indifferent or Off the Network? Take the quiz.

(And those interested can also read their press release and report A Typology of Information and Communication Technology Users, released on 6 May 2007: "Half of all American adults are only occasional users of modern information gadgetry, while 8% are avid participants in all that digital life has to offer".)

No surprise, I'm an Omnivore. Based on the Pew Internet Project's profile of people in this group, I'm male, aged 28, and a student. So now you know. Heh.

Labels: internet, society

The tendency to discriminate against people of a different ethnic origin or skin colour may have a biological origin - there may well be a scientific basis for racism, as a manifestation of "us and them" (New Scientist article by Mark Buchanan, 17 March 2007).

Recent computer modelling by political scientists Ross Hammond of the Brookings Institute in Washington DC and Robert Axelrod of the University of Michigan showed that, when interacting with others individually, software agents which act in a "groupist" way - dividing others into groups and acting so as to favour "their group" and discriminate against, or "cheat", outsiders not in "their" group - in fact do best, at the expense of the others.

"Ethnocentric" groupists eventually come to dominate over those who adopt different behavioural strategies (e.g. acting randomly, or always cooperating with others whether in "their" group or not, etc).

In other words, groupism seems the most effective behavioural strategy for the success of an individual and their group, mathematically speaking: groupists and their group survive and even thrive.

(Interestingly, groupism also increased the general total level of cooperation between individuals in that virtual world: "Ethnocentrism is actually a mechanism for generating cooperation, and one that does not demand much in the way of cognitive ability," said Hammond. So it's not necessarily a bad thing for general cooperation in the "world", per se. )

Now, if the rule is "survival of the most groupist", i.e. if the most groupist are those who will flourish, then modern day humans may through natural selection have evolved a genetic predisposition to act groupistly, from an evolutionary biology perspective. Other experiments, e.g. by psychologist Henri Tajfel of the University of Bristol using groups of teenage boys, suggest that "if you put people into different groups, call them red and blue, north and south, or whatever, a bias towards one's own group will automatically emerge".

Obviously the computer model was simplistic, e.g. people often consider themselves to belong to more than one group for different purposes, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive - but a general biological predisposition towards groupism seems to make sense.

If "groupism wins" is the best survival rule, it's no wonder that groupism seems so prevalent in human society, and that we see so many forms of it - racism, nationalism, tribalism (including football supporters, gangbangers), discrimination against those of different religious faiths or creeds or who adopt different fashion or clothing styles or lifestyles (punks, Goths, mods, rockers), high school cliques, etc etc.

What criteria to group by?

Now for groupism to work, interestingly it seems not to matter what criteria you group by - as long as others also:

• group by the same criterion, and
• act groupistly.

(What's interesting about the delimiting criterion used is that it needn't have any inherent significance: it comes to have significance purely through people acting as if it does, i.e. using it to delineate group members by.)

But if groupism is indeed the best policy, if in-group favouritism is the best strategy, one fundamental question is: how should you assign people, what criteria should you use to determine who's in your group and who isn't?

Now research shows that color, race and ethnicity have no real intrinsic biological significance, as such: "We know that the genetic variation between individuals within one racial or ethnic group is generally much larger than the average difference between such groups. As in the virtual world, race and ethnicity are arbitrary markers that have acquired meaning" (emphasis added). So why is it that there is racial discrimination? Why do people group by race?

Like other New Scientist readers, I take issue with the suggestions that certain studies support the idea that the inclination to be racist, or at least to attribute significance to skin colour as such, is itself inbuilt. I don't think the studies reported in the article support anything of the sort but I'm not going to go into that here, see the aside at the end if you're interested.

What I want to focus on is what I believe is a more plausible explanation for why people tend to group by race. I'm no expert in biology or indeed anthropology or evolutionary psychology, but I think it's possible to look at all this logically, applying Occam's Razor - i.e. the simplest explanation is probably the best one.

Back in the prehistory of the human race (and probably still today), it would be important to decide who's in your group (and who's not) quite quickly, on first encountering them.

So the grouping criteria should allow speedy identification of other group members.

Plus they should be criteria which other potential group members are also likely to use. Including someone in your group won't help you if they don't include you in theirs.

"Looks like me"?

Now humans' primary sense is that of vision, so grouping's most likely to be done by visual means: what someone looks like.

I suggest that "looks like me" is the most logical way to work out who is or isn't in "your" group.

"Looks like me / my relatives" has the bonus of being a crude but not ineffective way to group by "is like me genetically" too, of course. Grouping by "is like me in the genetic sense" also has the biological advantage of helping to perpetuate your own gene pool, as the group you're promoting by acting groupistly would then be the one whose members have genes closest to yours. (And I think it's no coincidence that "akin" means "alike").

"Looks like me" would also be a good common criterion to help group members recognise each other clearly and quickly, and so others in the group are likely to group by this principle too.

So there's more than one reason for "looks like me" to become the favored grouping method.

Skin color, ethnicity, race

Next, what are the most obvious features about a person's looks? Skin colour and other ethnic visual features, that's what. So it's no surprise if people have evolved an innate tendency to group by race.

In short, if you're going to mentally allocate someone to a group on meeting them, the quickest way to do that is by how they look, and the most obvious thing about how someone looks is normally their skin colour / ethnicity.

No doubt other factors are relevant, but I wonder if the basic biological origin of racism might be as simple as that. If smell was our most powerful sense, we might well be grouping people instead by how they smell, perhaps.

Within a community where people have the same skin colour and ethnic origin, it's true that people can't usefully group by skin colour or ethnic features. They'd have to use other "markers" for differentiation. But that's not an argument against "looks like me". Where everyone's of the same race I think "looks like me" still works - though in that context it would then generally lead you to favour family members and relatives. And within a society of people of the same race, I think other markers or grouping guides would still be, and are, mainly visual - clothing style, hairstyle, tattoos, scarification etc - so they still enable people to identify group members on "looks like me."

Biological predisposition towards racism?

Therefore there seems no need to invoke any separate evolutionary basis or mechanism for racial prejudice. I suggest that as a matter of simple logic we can conclude that the tendency to be racist, to discriminate against others of a different skin colour or ethnicity, has become inborn in human being - just from assuming the following propositions:
A. groupism is the best behavioural strategy for individual social interactions, for both the individual and their group
B. people are affected by "survival of the fittest", i.e. natural selection works, and the "fittest" people will survive the best
C. people are motivated (unconsciously or not) to propagate their own genes, and
D. people's primary means of taking in information is through their sense of sight.

In other words, I don't think racism as such is inherent; it may actually be more general than that. Any in-built tendency towards ethnocentricity could be better explained by a broader evolved in-born tendency to group on the basis of "looks like me". A genetically preprogrammed inclination towards groupism in human beings can be deduced from a few simple givens and a further evolved adaptation to group by "looks like me" seems to me to be the easiest, quickest and simplest explanation.

Groupism as a meme

Furthermore, I suspect groupism has evolved as a cultural meme too. In groupist groups, isn't groupism likely to also become a core cultural or even "moral" value of the group as a whole, with groupist parents passing down to their children not just groupist biological tendencies but also groupism as a philosophy or way of life?

The major human social groups today, whether ethnic, cultural, religious, etc simply because they are the ones which survived to be here, are likely to be those whose members were groupist and which maintained groupist behaviour amongst their members.

If our brains are already wired to group by "looks like me", it wouldn't take much for environmental factors - upbringing, socialisation, culture - to influence us even more powerfully to group mainly by skin colour or race, as they happen to be the most obviously identifiable feature of a person.

I think groupism may be a case of nature influencing nurture reinforcing nature, perpetuating groupism both as biological pre-programming and as cultural meme, with group members inculcated or even indoctrinated to "Look after your own, stick to your own kind, don't talk to strangers, don't trust outsiders", and being encouraged to consider other group members as "brethren", "brothers and sisters", "kin". (Sound familiar?)

In short, as so often with nature v nurture issues, I suspect that racism has both biological and environmental components. Groupism has got to be one of the most powerful forces around, through both nature and nurture. No wonder racial prejudice can be so strong and deeply held.

Why do people consider group outsiders inferior or "bad"?

That's a separate but different issue, I think. The article said anthropologist Francisco Gil-White "argues that within any group of people sharing social norms, anyone who violates those will attract moral opprobrium - it is considered "bad" to flout the rules and benefit at the expense of the group. This response is then easily transferred to people from other ethnic groups. "We're tempted to treat others, who are conforming to their local norms, as violating our own local norms, and we take offence accordingly," says Gil-White. As a result we may be unconsciously inclined to see people from other ethnic groups not simply as different, but as cheats, morally corrupt, bad people."

It didn't cite any studies to back that up - if there was any, I'd have been interested to know what it was. In the absence of evidence on that, I'd say it was just his opinion. Personally, I wonder if (applying Occam's Razor again) the simpler explanation is that people are beings with (evolved?!) consciences, and some part of us, of which we may not be wholly conscious, wants a "good" reason to justify acting racistly, so that we won't feel so bad about being racially prejudiced. Maybe we sleep better at night, we feel less guilty, if we can at some level rationalise discrimination against people outside "our" group by thinking that they're inferior, bad, or morally corrupt, that it's because we're better than them - rather than because we're subconsciously driven by our heredity to be groupist (we're better than them because we're in our group, and they're not!).

How ingrained is racism? Is there hope?

I also believe with Mark Buchanan that although we may be predisposed to racism it doesn't mean we have to be racist, to act racistly. The first step towards combating racial prejudice is acknowledging that we may be biologically primed to be racist. Like Mark Buchanan I come down on the side of those who believe that we need to take account of our "natural" inclinations stemming from our animal origins and evolved instincts, but we also need to remember that as thinking creatures with the ability to reason and (in common with monkeys?) a sense of justice, we can - and in many cases should - act to resist any knee-jerk racist reaction. Most of us can control our natural impulses once we recognise them, especially when we come to realise that, if we have to be groupist, well there are other ways to group by, which may be more helpful to us personally as individuals, namely someone's personality and character.

The article pointed out a related issue. Brain-response wise, research by Susan Fiske's team from Princeton University showed that people tend to view junkies, homeless people, beggars etc as less than human. But fortunately, it doesn't take much to change that - apparently being led to see street people etc as individuals is the trick, e.g. asking "What kind of food do you think this beggar would like?"

Further on the "seeing people as individuals" theme, another New Scientist article by Paul Slovich reported other studies showing that people are more willing to help identified individuals than numbers of unidentified statistics (that simply fail to trigger human emotions and therefore to inspire action). Indeed, showing people figures or statistical summaries seems positively counterproductive as it reduces their initial compassion, according to a recent study by Deborah Small at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, George Loewenstein at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, and Paul Slovich.

Other studies by Tehila Kogut and Ilana Ritov at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and then Daniel Västfjäll, Ellen Peters and Paul Slovich respectively showed that people will contribute more to one individual than a group of 8, and feel less compassionate and donate less aid towards a pair of victims than to either individuals alone. So "compassion fatigue" may set in for groups as small as two. (This aspect of human psychology may help explain people's general indifference to mass genocide, yet their occasional heroic efforts to save individuals in need.)

I wonder if beyond one or two individuals it's just too much for our minds to take in, and perhaps also too much for us to cope with - I can try to save one person, but there's no way I can save a hundred, there's too many for me to be able to help them all, so why should I even be moved or bother in the first place? A psychological defence or protective mechanism evolved to make us behave more pragmatically and realistically and conserve our personal resources?

In conclusion I'm not saying (nor did the article) that prejudice is a good thing. I'm just saying that I think the mathematical model does suggest people are probably subconsciously predisposed to groupism, as a matter of pure evolutionary logic.

But I'm not so sure that people have a biological inclination to be racist as such; it seems more logical to me that they're inclined to group by the broader "looks like me" principle, and that in turn has made it easier for people to be brought up to be racist. In other words, I think socialisation and the environment and culture both play a part in leading people to be prejudiced on the basis of race. However it's heartening that if we're led to see others as individuals, we're more willing to co-operate with them and help them.

I think the whole area is fascinating and I hope these insights will be used to build the more cohesive society that we're going to need worldwide if we are to act together to combat threats that will affect us all, like global warming. The cynical part of me wonders if it may take something as drastic as alien invasion for us humans to redefine how we group... I certainly trust it won't come to that!

(Aside on research "showing" racism is inborn and the like

Some research reported in the article didn't make sense to me. Notably, work supposedly showing that the tendency to ascribe significance to skin colour (as opposed to a predisposition to be groupist, which I think is broader) is inherited: "[Lawrence] Hirschfeld found that by the age of 3 most children already attribute significance to skin colour. In 1993, he showed a group of children a drawing of a chubby black child dressed up as a policeman, followed by photos of several adults, each of whom had two of the three traits: being black, chubby and dressed as a policeman. Asked to decide which person was the boy as a grown-up, most children chose a black adult even though he was either not overweight or minus a police uniform. "Kids appear to believe," says Hirschfeld, "that race is more important than other physical differences in determining what sort of person one is.""

So what? To me, that just shows that kids know (whether from instinct or experience) that skin colour is a better way to identify someone than their weight or what they wear, i.e. that someone's skin colour usually doesn't change over time (certain pop stars aside!), whereas their weight or clothes might. But that doesn't mean children's brains are wired to discriminate against people by race. And, as I said above, other New Scientist readers (Tim Jackson and Miles Rzechowicz) share this view, making the same point in different words about skin color being obvious and kids knowing that skin colour is less likely to change than clothing or chubbiness.

And then there's UCLA anthropologist Rob Boyd's argument that the tendency to divide the world along ethnic lines is evolved: that people evolved to differentiate between ethnic groups because it was important for their survival that they could differentiate, and that race got "mistaken for" an ethnic group marker.

This doesn't seem to be backed up by any studies. In fact it seems to me to be the wrong way round. I'd venture to suggest that "looks like me" seems a simpler explanation. Race/skin colour is an ethnic group marker. It's the easiest way to differentiate at first sight. So it's become used as the main way to distinguish between groups. Not vice versa. Plus, I don't think they've defined clearly enough what they mean by "ethnic group" in this context, it seems a bit chicken and egg to me.

And so what if neighbouring Torguud Mongol / Kazakh tribes, when questioned by Gil-White, said they thought ethnic identity was linked more with nature (biological, depending on parents' ethnicity) than nurture (upbringing)? That's just evidence that they think "ethnic identity" (whatever they mean by that) is genetic. Not that it is genetic. Just because they hold that opinion (as no doubt do plenty of people in the developed world), it isn't proof that the opinion is true. Views aren't fact. So I'm not convinced by that research.

And even if ethnic identity is genetic, it doesn't necessarily follow that the tendency to differentiate along ethnic lines is genetic rather than learned.

So, as you can guess, I'm not so sure that the studies described provide evidence that grouping on the basis of ethnicity per se is evolved rather than learned. Personally I think it's much more likely that groupism on the basis of "looks like me" is genetic, and that that's been easily extended to encompass racism because race or skin colour is the most obvious distinguishing factor ("Not my skin color = definitely doesn't look like me!").

What of brain imaging studies in 2000 by a team led by social psychologist Allan Hart of Amherst College in Massachusetts? These found that when white and black subjects were shown faces, their amygdala, the part of the brain "involved in grasping the emotional significance to stimuli", became more active when viewing faces of a different race - whether black or white - even though the subjects weren't even conscious of an emotional response. And again what about findings by neuroscientist Elizabeth Phelps' team at New York University that the amygdala is the most active in the most racially prejudiced? Well, to me, all that those experiments show is that adults have an emotional response to those with a different skin colour. It doesn't show why they have that response - is it biologically pre-programmed, is it learned? Couldn't the response be more fundamentally triggered by "looks like me (not)"?

If those tests were done with infants I feel they'd be more persuasive, but even so, a heightened emotional response to a different race doesn't necessarily equate to racism. It could just mean "Clearly this person doesn't look like me". What I'd like to see is more "controls" for proper comparison - do they have the same level of response to objects of the same colour? Pictures of close relatives vs photos of people of the same color who however look very different from the family?

In short, I don't agree that "we have evolved a tendency to divide the world along ethnic lines" nor conversely that "our tendency to classify people by colour might simply be a modern vice, learned early and reinforced throughout our lives - even, paradoxically, by anti-racist messages." I think we have evolved a tendency to be groupist, and an inclination to discriminate against those of a different race or skin colour arises purely because our main sensory organ is our eyes, so what people look like is the first thing we base quick judgements on; plus, culturally, social groups will also tend to program the groupism meme into their members, thus reinforcing the natural inclination towards groupism. And the end result is racial prejudice (and yes religious discrimination too).)

Labels: society