White Babies develop racist traits aged nine months

  Quote

White babies aged just nine-months-old show signs of racial bias, according to a study in facial recognition.

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst found that by the young age the babies were already discriminating against those of different races in their ability to recognise faces and emotional expressions.

 

They analysed 48 Caucasian babies with little to no experience of African-American or black individuals.

 

 

 

Split into a group of five-months-olds and another of babies aged nine months, they were tasked with differentiating between faces of their people within own race and then of those belonged to another, unfamiliar, race.

 

Babies from the five-month-old group were far more adept at distinguishing faces from different races, while the nine-month-olds were able to tell apart two faces within their own race with greater ease.

 

 

In a second experiment the babies’ brain activity was detected using sensors.

 

They were shown images of faces of Caucasian or African-American races expressing emotions that either matched or did not match sounds they heard, such as laughing and crying.

 

Brain-activity measurements showed the nine-month-olds processed emotional expressions among Caucasian faces differently than those of African-American faces, while the 5-month-olds did not.

 

The shift in recognition ability was not a cultural thing, rather a result of physical development.

 

 

Campus: The University of Massachusetts, where the research was carried out

 

Researchers found that the processing of facial emotions moved from the front of the brain to regions in the back of the brain in the older age group.

 

 

‘These results suggest that biases in face recognition and perception begin in preverbal infants, well before concepts about race are formed,’ said study leader Lisa Scott in a statement.

 

‘It is important for us to understand the nature of these biases in order to reduce or eliminate [the biases].'

 

This is similar to how babies learn language,

medicalxpress.com reported. Early in infancy babies do not know yet which sounds are meaningful in their native language, so they treat all sounds similarly.

 

As they learn the language spoken around them, their ability to tell apart sounds within other languages declines and their ability to differentiate sounds within their native language improves.

 

The results further earlier research which found that adults have more difficulty recognizing faces that belong to people of another race, indicating that the disparity begins sooner than previously realised.

 

The report is published in the May issue of the journal Development Science.

 

 

Read more:

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1u2IH0rQs

 

-sie-

The study is demonstrating that the babies find a related race that has brought them up familiar and so respond to it. And are perplexed by that which they've not had contact with yet. This is obvious in the extreme. Therefore i don't see what posting it here is meant to illustrate.

jesus christ if they're ALL caucasian they're just recognizing what what they're not used to, and that difference is manifest in the physical characteristic of a differing skin tone.

wow how about reversing the study?

edit: also small lol at the image being held at W. E. B. DuBois library

Fucking crackers

fucking lol

just white babies then?

well the other races are different looking than their parents, so I don't see how any of that is weird?

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't this been known and documented for a long time? Also lol at the source being The Daily Mail, one of the main sources for racist bullshit in the UK tabloids.

Just got off the blower with Kaiser Wilhelm II, he says not to treat regurgitated press releases from sociology think tanks as facts.

hey look what chunky drags into it

IT'S A CULTURAL MARXIST CONSPIRACY EVERYBODY

  On 5/6/2012 at 12:41 AM, triachus said:

hey look what chunky drags into it

I'm afraid I haven't the wit to decipher your superior argument so I'll defer to youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTAxlPMuOyw

  On 5/6/2012 at 12:31 AM, Brian Sweeney Fitzgerald said:

lol at the source being The Daily Mail

Alright you two cheeky little punks, switch off the Charlie Brooker DVD for five minutes and read this quote from Uncle Auberon:

The press.

The press is a thoroughly good thing, adding enormously to the gaiety of the nation and even to its intellectual vitality by feeding it with a constant stream of information — some more or less true, some more or less false — for people to discuss, believe or disbelieve, approve or disapprove and fit into the pattern of their lives. But having said that, I must obviously qualify the word ‘good’. Newspapermen are not like nurses, midwives, ministers of religion or Salvation Army volunteers. They do not provide a public service in the sense that firemen, policemen, even soldiers, provide one. They are not ‘good’ in the socialist sense of making a selfless contribution to the social structure, only ‘good’ in the sense that entertainers and candy-floss salesman are good. It is when these two ideas of goodness grow confused that I begin to lose my enthusiasm for the press. There are those, of course, who see its role as being more important than the chronicling of events as they seem to unfold, commenting on them and making jokes or indignant noises about them, as seems most appropriate. There are those who feel the press should have an active role in shaping events, influencing political decisions, exposing malfunctions of the administrative process and acting as a general coppers’ nark. Nobody, so far as I know, has ever asked the press to do any of these things. It is a role that it has adopted on its own in a spirit of goody-goodyism, sometimes marred by self-importance and even spite.

(Auberon Waugh - The Spectator 29/1/83)

fuuuckk offfffffffffffffffffffffffffff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

utter bollocks

only in portugal!!

(would this be reposted)

babies already think modern art is pretentious crap

that painting is dead

and that i'm their dad

  On 5/6/2012 at 1:09 AM, chunky said:

There are those who feel the press should have an active role in shaping events, influencing political decisions, exposing malfunctions of the administrative process and acting as a general coppers’ nark. Nobody, so far as I know, has ever asked the press to do any of these things. It is a role that it has adopted on its own in a spirit of goody-goodyism, sometimes marred by self-importance and even spite.

(Auberon Waugh - The Spectator 29/1/83)

Whilst it's all well and good to think theoretically about the roles of the press whilst sitting in some isolationist Middle England bubble, that fact is like it or not the actions of the press does have an effect on the society that consumes the information it provides.

Now in the case of The Daily Mail, my judgement about them is not based on the opinions of your typical Guardian journalist, but from actual first hand experience. Growing up I was subjected to abuse due to coming from a gypsy background and despite the fact I was trying to escape from the environment I grew up in and wanting to integrate myself with the rest of society, I was constantly held back, only to be told in nine out of ten cases "I / my parents read The Daily Mail, they've told me / I know about gypsies and I don't want anything to do with you". Now having that obstacle constantly put against you due to sensationalist reporting, you can kinda see how in my perception The Daily Mail has no credibility.

Then again not being born in a middle / upper class background means I don't have the accumulated wisdom needed to agree or even understand the Burkean conservatism that Waugh loved so much, so my whole basis for this argument could be merely bullshit falsely justified by that dang dirty troll cultural marxist Charlie Brooker.

you're citing the daily mail as a credible source? seriously?

this is the worst thread.

i bet those poor lil white babbys are regular cancer magnets.

EDIT - BSF i feel ya, all the irish are good for in the daily maul - scapegoating or being lovable idiots.

  On 5/6/2012 at 2:07 AM, kaini said:

you're citing the daily mail as a credible source? seriously?

 

this is the worst thread.

 

i bet those poor lil white babbys are regular cancer magnets.

 

EDIT - BSF i feel ya, all the irish are good for in the daily maul - scapegoating or being lovable idiots.

And that's the end of that.