TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2023
On its face, a peculiar procedure: We apologize for the amount of time it has taken to conduct our ongoing Case Study. We ran into some holiday delays, and some other surprises besides.
Our Case study has dragged on and on. Still, we plan to continue the Case Study this week because, in our view, there's a lot we can learn from the complex undertaking.
At issue is an academic study conducted by four researchers at the University of Virginia. The four researchers are good, decent people. As their research article begins, they offer this account of their study, title included:
Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment recommendations, and false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites
Significance
The present work examines beliefs associated with racial bias in pain management, a critical health care domain with well-documented racial disparities. Specifically, this work reveals that a substantial number of white laypeople and medical students and residents hold false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites and demonstrates that these beliefs predict racial bias in pain perception and treatment recommendation accuracy. It also provides the first evidence that racial bias in pain perception is associated with racial bias in pain treatment recommendations. Taken together, this work provides evidence that false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites continue to shape the way we perceive and treat black people—they are associated with racial disparities in pain assessment and treatment recommendations.
As you can see at the link we've provided, that's the way the four researchers' report on their study begins.
Let it be said that the UVa study dealt with "racial bias," a very important topic.
More specifically, it dealt with "racial bias in pain perception and treatment recommendation." According to the study, such phenomena could be predicted by the degree to which "a substantial number of white...medical students and residents hold false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites."
For the record, medical students aren't yet charged with the very important task of making treatment recommendations for actual patients. Is it possible that (some) first and second year medical students "hold false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites"—false beliefs which may correlate with inappropriate treatment recommendations?
Of course it's possible; after all, everything is! That said, it might not be entirely shocking to find that (some) first year medical students hold some sorts of false beliefs, or to find that some such students might be inclined to make inappropriate treatment recommendations.
If these first year students already knew everything there was to know. why would they be medical students at all? Why wouldn't they already be out in the field, serving as actual doctors?
We'll admit that some such thoughts popped into our heads when we saw the way this study tilted toward research on first and second year medical students, rather than on third year medical students and (fourth year) medical residents. That said, it might be valuable to see what kinds of "false beliefs" such trainees actually hold—and to see the extent to which such beliefs might serve to predict the types of treatment recommendations which exhibit "racial bias."
At any rate, so it might go as observers ponder that statement of this study's alleged significance. But at this point, we'll admit that we're brought up short by one aspect of this study:
We're brought up short by the fact that this UVa study seems to involve the beliefs and recommendations of "white" medical students and residents—of white medical trainees and those of no other flavor.
Was there a reason for the apparent fact that the researchers studied white medical trainees, but none who were black or Hispanic or Asian American? Also, what in the world could this excerpt from the researchers' opening passage possibly mean:
"Taken together, this work provides evidence that false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites continue to shape the way we perceive and treat black people..."
The way we perceive and treat black people? Who in the world is the "we" to whom the four researchers refer? Do they hail from the antique world in which it is assumed that only "white" people treat patients?
Why in the world would four researchers research the views of "white" trainees, and of no one else? Imaginably. there may be a very good reason for the decision to conduct a study that way, but the opening passages of this research article fail to explain what it was.
Having said that, let's be fair. If the study produced significant findings about the beliefs and treatment recommendations of these white medical trainees, that might represent a valuable addition to the world's understanding of such significant issues. But is it possible that black trainees, or Hispanic or Asian American trainees, also harbor "false beliefs," and are also inclined to issue "racially biased" treatment recommendations?
Why wouldn't we want to know about that? Why would these researchers have conducted a study in which no "nonwhite" medical trainees needed to apply?
An observer might have such questions about this UVa study. These questions are especially important because the entire question of "racial bias" is such a significant topic within our national discourse.
Due to our nation's brutal racial history, questions of the type this study examines carry great emotional weight. That emotional weight was quite apparent when Professor Sabin offered this startling overview of what the study had found:
SABIN (1/6/20): “Black people’s nerve endings are less sensitive than white people’s.” “Black people’s skin is thicker than white people’s.” “Black people’s blood coagulates more quickly than white people’s.”
These disturbing beliefs are not long-forgotten 19th-century relics. They are notions harbored by far too many medical students and residents as recently as 2016. In fact, half of trainees surveyed held one or more such false beliefs, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. I find it shocking that 40% of first- and second-year medical students endorsed the belief that “black people’s skin is thicker than white people’s.”
The professor said she was shocked by the "disturbing beliefs" of those medical trainees—and the headline which sat atop her essay established the fact that all the trainees were white.
Indeed, the disturbing beliefs of those white trainees seemed like they ought to be "long-forgotten 19th-century relics." Within the contemporary context, everyone knows what's being said when such dramatic statements are made:
The medical trainees, all of them white, gave voice to shocking false beliefs—false beliefs which seemed to come, live and direct, from our nation's brutal racial past.
In December 2020, the Washington Post's Michele Norris linked to Professor Sabin's essay as the source for her own account of that UVa study. Those medical students, all of them white, were hammered for their false beliefs again.
For today, we'll leave you right here, with one question still unanswered—why had the four researchers surveyed the views of white trainees and of no one else?
Thankfully, we no longer live in a world where all the doctors are white, or even where all the doctors are men! Thankfully, there are plenty of doctors and other medical practitioners who are black or Hispanic or Asian American.
Given that obvious fact, wouldn't it be important to know if trainees of those descriptions harbored the same shocking and disturbing false beliefs as their "white" counterparts? Wouldn't it be important to know if they were inclined to offer the same racially biased medical recommendations?
In short, an observer might wonder why the UVa study chose to erect this sign:
No nonwhite trainees need apply.
And then, dear God, some such observer might look at this overview of the UVa study. Having given a clear and concise account of the study, the report adds this at the end:
"The researchers also performed this experiment with non-white medical students but did not include the findings in this study."
Say what? The researchers had actually surveyed nonwhite trainees too? They had surveyed such personnel, but they had omitted those findings from their report?
Professor Sabin said she was shocked by the disturbing false beliefs of the white medical trainees. We all know what such histrionics are meant to convey in the current environment.
Should Professor Sabin have sought to review the data from the "nonwhite" trainees too? Should she possibly have toned her outrage down a tad in the absence of such data?
We leave you today with one basic claim:
Understandably, such topics are highly sensitive. For that very reason, academics and journalists should be very careful in the things they say about such topics.
In our view, that hasn't happened in the case of this UVa study, which was surely well-intentioned. But then, within prevailing blue tribe journalism, the effort to review such topics with care rarely does prevail.
Much heat has emerged from the UVa study, but perhaps a great deal less light. We'll turn to the study's omitted findings when we return to this topic tomorrow.
It seems to us there's a lot we can learn, within our self-impressed blue tribe, from the peculiar design of this study, and from the subsequent journalism. In closing, we'll leave you with this:
There was no need to be shocked or disturbed by what this study seems to have revealed. At present, though, our blue tribe loves to be shocked and disturbed in this sensitive area, and we should possibly knock these behaviors off.
Tomorrow: Beliefs and recommendations of the "nonwhite" trainees, presumably good people all
It's never been more clear. Bob Somerby is a racist.
ReplyDeleteAh, as someone on in the comment section once argued.... a drunk?
DeleteAccusing Somerby of being a drunk racist may reflect the ugly stereotype about the Irish and drinking.
DeleteNotice that top secret documents have been found at Joe Biden's think tank and not one peep from Somerby about it.
ReplyDeleteNotice that the right is attempting to make a big deal out of something that is in no way like what Trump did, didn't compromise any documents, and has now been resolved with the archives.
DeleteSomerby's silence on the matter speaks volumes.
DeleteYour noise on the subject also speaks volumes.
Delete10:13: Give Somerby a chance. The story just came out. If it turns into a big time right wing grievance, you can bet that he will probably weigh in to disparage the “blue” tribe.
DeleteLet's wait for the investigations to determine the level of culpability and what the appropriate punishment should be.
DeleteOne thing you can be sure of: Somerby will never accuse the Republicans and right wing media of wanting to put the others in jail when they launch their myriad investigations into Hunter or Joe Biden et al, nor will he suggest that Hunter or Joe are mentally ill and deserving of sympathy or pity. He has already put his thumb on that scale.
Delete
DeleteThe Big Guy is a good decent person. 10% is the least he deserves.
We'll have to see where the investigation leads before we make any determination about impeachment or jail time.
DeleteThe Republicans started introducing motions to impeach Biden after Biden was first elected President.
Delete"rather than on third year medical students and (fourth year) medical residents."
ReplyDeleteAs was pointed out yesterday, medical residents are NOT fourth year medical students. Somerby makes a mistake and then repeats it because he doesn't read his comments. That means that any mistake he makes just gets repeated, day after day. A person who cannot be corrected and does not listen to feedback is just going to go through life making mistakes and repeating them. And that makes him someone with nothing to say to other people.
If you still care about this study, go back and read the blog comments from the first day Somerby began talking about it -- no not last year, a year before that, the first time Somerby brought this up, received comments on his misunderstandings and misrepresentation of the study, and didn't read any of the feedback then either.
"Of course it's possible; after all, everything is! That said, it might not be entirely shocking to find that (some) first year medical students hold some sorts of false beliefs, or to find that some such students might be inclined to make inappropriate treatment recommendations. "
ReplyDeleteHere Somerby finally admits that the findings of the study may be accurate. But he says, how can the students know what is true if they haven't learned about black physiology? This is exactly the point -- students need to be told the truth so that they WILL know how to accurately treat ALL patients after graduation.
No one is saying it is anyone's fault that knowledge of black physiology has been wrong in the past (or present). They are saying it should be corrected so that doctors make decisions based on accurate info, for all patients. Even Somerby seems to get this now.
Everything is not possible. There are many impossible things. And there are many more things that are so unlikely as to be considered impossible. This conceit of Somerby's is destructive because it encourages people to believe fanciful things without evidence.
Delete"The researchers also performed this experiment with non-white medical students but did not include the findings in this study."
ReplyDeleteHere Somerby repeats another mistaken claim from past days. He says the report didn't describe the findings for the nonwhite subjects. Notice that Somerby has moved away from his position earlier that there were NO nonwhite participants. Now he is claiming that their results were not included in the study. This is untrue. They are described separately from the findings for white students, and it is clearly stated that the results for nonwhite subjects were non-significant.
No study reports non-significant findings. The agreed upon way of reporting such findings is to simply state that they were non-significant. This is what the UVa study did. Why? Because space is generally at a premium and it is wasteful of space to report non-significant findings. Further, it is confusing to readers to report findings when they don't show any significant differences. The word significant refers to statistical significance, not importance. Such findings are called null findings because they fail to disconfirm the null hypothesis. They show that nothing special was happening with the nonwhite subjects, in contrast to the white subjects who DID show a statistically significant difference when assessing pain for the white target compared to the black one. Nonwhite subjects showed no such difference. The report states that and reports only the findings that occurred for reasons beyond chance.
This is standard practice in a research report. It is not "disappearing" the nonwhite findings (there were no significant findings) as Somerby has been claiming. And they were mentioned in the study itself, in the manner appropriate for reporting non-significant results.
This is another example of Somerby's ignorance about how scientific reports are written. It would be embarrassing if a psychology undergrad made such a mistake. Somerby has no training, but it is still embarrassing because he is showing hubris and seemingly unaware of how much he does not know about research methodology.
"Should Professor Sabin have sought to review the data from the "nonwhite" trainees too? Should she possibly have toned her outrage down a tad in the absence of such data?"
ReplyDeleteProfessor Sabin is not the person who didn't understand that the results for nonwhite subjects were non-significant (showing no differences, no findings to report). She read it in the study report herself and understood what she read. That is why she didn't focus on the non-white subjects. She showed outrage about the results that were significant, as appropriate. She most likely knew there was nothing to say about the non-white subjects, because she read it in the study, as did several of us commenters, who explained that patiently in comments and were ignored.
Why does Somerby call the non-white subjects trainees? It is not the term used to talk about medical students, who are attending college, not being "trained"? He calls the white subjects students, but the non-white subjects trainees, but they are undergoing the same program in medical school. This seems kind of odd to me.
"Readers may also be interested in analyses for nonwhite participants (Asian, n = 43; black, n = 21; biracial, n = 28; Hispanic/Latino, n = 11; other, n = 3). When examining the same models for nonwhites, there were no effects for pain ratings or treatment recommendation accuracy (P > 0.250)."
These results were provided in the SI Text (Supplemental Information) which is part of the study report. This is also where Somerby found the specific questions themselves listed, which we know he found because he quoted some of them. We also know that Drum found them because he attempted an analysis of the specific question data that was also part of the SI Text. So, this isn't exactly disappearing anything, and the claims that this wasn't in the study are wrong. Nor does the study refer to the non-white subjects as "trainees".
Somerby today proposes that because some of the subjects were first-year students, they can be expected not to know specifics about black physiology that they will learn later. This suggestion is the point of an analysis in which the authors of the study removed the first year students entirely and reanalyzed the data. If the first year students were accounting for most of the effect, due to being beginners and more ignorant about blacks, the effect should weaken or go away when the first-years are removed from the data. Here is what happened:
ReplyDelete"Of note, one could argue that first-year students’ lack of experience in medical training may be unduly influencing the treatment recommendation accuracy findings. However, the pattern of results does not change when removing first-year students [F(1,147) = 5.50, P = 0.020, η2G = 0.01 (target race × false beliefs interaction)]."
The pattern of results does not change. This disallows Somerby's suggestion. The data itself shows that Somerby's suggestion that the first-years were ignorant is NOT the reason why there was a finding of difference in treatment for black vs white targets.
It is fine to speculate, but when there is a test of a speculation and it shows the speculation to be wrong, the data forces the researcher to abandon that particular speculation. Somerby's problem is that he doesn't change his mind about what is happening based on the results, the pattern in the data. He clings to it, just as he clings to his preferred narratives, beliefs, in the face of comments showing he is wrong about this or that. He won't listen to facts.
Who else does this? Republicans who support Trump. They don't read and don't respond to disconfirming evidence of various sorts, preferring their fantasies and conspiracies to reality. This is a dangerous way to live one's life. But this also suggests that those who stake their own opinions on Somerby's mistaken beliefs are being conned, as surely as Trump followers are being conned.
Bob's going the bigotry route to distract the "economically anxious" Republican voters from going after the new Republican House of Representatives for trying to gut the IRS budget.
ReplyDeleteIt won't work, Bob. The corporate-owned media has consistently "reported" that Republican voters hate the rigged economy, and aren't at all bigots.
"For today, we'll leave you right here, with one question still unanswered—why had the four researchers surveyed the views of white trainees and of no one else? "
ReplyDeleteThey didn't do that. They looked at all of the results and only found these racially divergent results for the white subjects, then reported that the results for everyone else were non-significant, then reported the significant white results in detail, because that is how researchers always report results. You don't report non-significant findings, no matter who produces them. But the non-white "trainees" (as Somerby calls these med students), were not the ones showing bias. It was the white students only.
ReplyDelete"There was no need to be shocked or disturbed by what this study seems to have revealed. "
Meh. Indeed, dear Bob, there is -- as far as your tribe is concerned -- an urgent need for race-baiting dembottery.
Without it, a large chunk of voters your tribe relies on would not care to vote for your tribe's war-mongering globalist chiefs.
...and that's all there is to it, dear Bob...
Studies of under-treatment for pain among black patients go back decades. Before that, there were similar studies showing undertreatment of women and immigrants. Because actual studies exist showing such findings (based on chart review, not solely patient complaints), this is not a case of "race-baiting" but an ongoing problem in the medical community which has been addressed recently via better training and review of pain treatment by hospitals under monitoring by hospital regulators. This study only arose because it was suggested that the hsitory of such problems might be contributing to reluctance by black people to get vaccinated for covid. That is a current problem, not race-baiting. The vaccination data for blacks suggests that there is something causing them to seek vaccination at lower rates, so it is appropriate to speculate. Calling such concern "race-baiting" is ridiculous in the face of different rates of covid fatality by race and ethnicity. It would be a sin not to be concerned about such a finding, which did exist at the time this was being discussed.
DeleteNote that Somerby has revived this topic years after the journalists were discussing it in the media.
It is fair to ask why Somerby has brought up a topic again that is no longer current, simply to accuse the left of being obsessed with race. And now Somerby shows a clear obsession with this study, refusing to move on from it until he can make its findings about race-related differences go away. Why?
This has nothing to do with the "blue tribe" and everything to do with Somerby's peculiar sensitivites on race.
db zjlhbjahbvljbvjbvsjbvjbvjsdfbjbv
Deletecjbjbvjahbvlajbvlave
..and that's all there is to it, dear Bob...
Fixed for accuracy.
Without it, a large chunk of voters your tribe relies on would not care to vote for your tribe's war-mongering globalist chiefs.
DeleteRestored for posterity.
Does anyone really believe black people will vote for Republicans under any circumstances after this last circus? Libs don't need to engage in performative posturing over race to keep minority voters. All we need to do is let the Republicans do whatever they want in the House and make sure prospective voters know about it.
Delete"It seems to us there's a lot we can learn, within our self-impressed blue tribe, from the peculiar design of this study, and from the subsequent journalism. "
ReplyDeleteSomerby calls this study's design "peculiar" but he has no basis for deciding what is peculiar and what is not because he knows nothing about research methods. He has shown that with his ridiculously wrong reading of this paper and its statistics.
Simply using the word peculiar doesn't make this study peculiar in any sense. It tells us that Somerby doesn't like the study and wants to undermine its credibility. That's all, since Somerby doesn't have the chops to say anything meaningful about this study in a scientific sense.
"Beliefs and recommendations of the "nonwhite" trainees, presumably good people all"
ReplyDeleteWould you call students in law school "law trainees"? No, because that would confuse them with paralegals or court reporters, who are called trainees during their training.
Would you call college students learning accounting or economics in business school "trainees"? No, because those pursuing CPA certification or MBA degrees are not being trained but are being educated.
Somerby's use of the term trainee to refer to medical students, who are not nurses or technicians or aides or clerks, is the wrong word choice. I suspect Somerby may be using that word today to emphasize his suggestion that the first-years are likely ignorant about a lot of things, being at the beginning of their training. It is an example of putting one's thumb on the scales using language. In this case, he uses the wrong word and especially applies it to the non-white subjects as well. One of those non-white medical students might consider that a slight.
Somerby is correct that many medical students these days are non-white, and even women. He neglects pointing out that:
"The 2019 data (PDF) released Tuesday build on the milestone reached in 2017 when women comprised the majority of first-year medical students, the AAMC said. Now, in 2019, women comprise 50.5% of all medical school students, the data showed."
It was only discrimination against women that artificially kept the percentages low back in the bad old days. In 1970, less than 10% were female.
"It wasn't until the 1970-71 academic year that women accounted for more than 10% of a single U.S. medical school class. The incoming class of 1992-93 was the first to reach 40%, but it took more than two decades for women to finally break the 50% mark in 2017-18."
“We apologize for the amount of time it has taken to conduct our ongoing Case Study.”
ReplyDeleteWe understand, Bob. You’ve only had seven years since the study first appeared, or two years since you discovered it through Norris’ opinion piece, when you first wrote multiple posts about it, almost identical to your present ones.
No one could possibly develop a cogent, coherent argument in that kind of time frame, not even Einstein or Lord Russell.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“is it possible that black trainees, or Hispanic or Asian American trainees, also harbor "false beliefs," and are also inclined to issue "racially biased" treatment recommendations?”
ReplyDeleteJesus Christ. I wasn’t going to comment again on this study.
But for Christ’s sake, I posted this yesterday:
“The study says:
“Readers may also be interested in analyses for nonwhite participants (Asian, n = 43; black, n = 21; biracial, n = 28; Hispanic/Latino, n = 11; other, n = 3). When examining the same models for nonwhites, there were no effects for pain ratings or treatment recommendation accuracy (P > 0.250).”
In other words, the nonwhite med students did not differ in their pain estimates for a black vs. a white target .”
(This last statement was my own, to summarize the preceding excerpt from the study.)
THIS IS WHAT THE FUCKING STUDY SHOWED AND CLEARLY STATED.
Does Somerby just feel that anything goes when criticizing liberals, including lying or repeating false information?
Do none of Somerby’s defenders see his bad faith in this?
What an asshole Somerby is.
I guess you're not super great at reading comprehension.
DeleteAre you, 12:57? Can you read, and have you actually read the study, from which I quoted the results for nonwhites? Are you fond of being embarrassed?
DeleteYour comprehension error is plain as day.
DeleteThere is Somerby with his wrong statements, there are commenters who are trying to correct his wrongness, there are trolls defending Somerby's misunderstandings, and then there are trolls like @12:57 who are just stirring up trouble and contributing nothing to discussion.
DeleteI agree with mh that first year medical students wouldn't prescribe enough opioids to black people if they were doctors.
DeleteDo you feel that you’ve shifted the goalposts sufficiently, 1:15? I am not advocating anything except a correct understanding of the study.
DeleteAccording to the study, conducted in 2015, prescribing narcotics (including opioids) for acute pain was in accordance with WHO guidelines at the time.
Today, hospitals use fentanyl too. The misuse of pain medication as a street drug doesn't preclude the appropriate use of such medication to treat pain in medical settings.
DeleteYes, I agree with you that the study shows a majority of the students reported lower pain ratings for whites. But that is probably just because blacks usually report greater pain than whites.
DeleteYou're right that Somerby did miss that.
1:39: gibberish.
DeleteIt was in figure 2. "participants ... rated the black target as feeling more pain than the white target ... blacks tend to report greater pain than do white patients."
DeleteIt's right there. Plain as day.
mh - I would suggest reading the study next time if you want to try to appear to have some kind of understanding of it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGee, 1:47, what are those convenient dots you have placed in your comment? Looks to me as if you left out important things. (If you’re going to try to pervert the results of the study, why give yourself away like this? Next time, just pretend you quoted straight. You’re STOOPID. )
DeleteHere's the straight quote sans ellipses:
Delete"In contrast to white medical students and residents who endorsed false beliefs, those who did not endorse (or endorsed fewer) false beliefs reported that a white (vs. black) target patient would feel less pain. This opposite bias perhaps reflects real-world differences, as previous work has shown that black patients tend to report greater pain than do white patients.
It's there in figure 2, section A.
Deletemh - I'm going to need you to bone up on your reading comprehension and phonics when you get a chance.
DeleteAre you all 1:47 now?
DeleteDo you know what treatment recommendations were made by the students who did not endorse (or endorsed fewer) false beliefs and reported that a white target would feel less pain?
Because, ultimately, the study was about the treatment recommendation.
Did you know that this has nothing to do with whether the results for nonwhite med students were ”disappeared”, as Somerby erroneously states, as I originally commented?
Yes, I do know.
Delete(It's just that you had made a false claim about a previous commenter perverting results.)
DeleteI guess Norris may have said "A recent study of white medical students found that half believed that white patients had a higher tolerance for pain yet were not likely to prescribe inadequate medical treatment which may because black patients tend to report greater pain than whites."
DeleteBut I get this all this may be a little above your head.
Cheers!
What was it, 2:31?
Delete2:54
DeleteI'm the one asking questions.
I want to know what white patients have to say about what black medical students think about white medical student opinions on black patients.
DeleteI look forward to when our society can move on from racial issues.
Amen. Let's start by calling out when major journalists make misstatements about racial issues based on misreadings of flimsy studies
DeleteMH you defend the study on and on, though I can't see anything you have said that shows there is anything meaningful about the study (I could explain but I've done that in detail several times already, and you always deflect, or ignore the obvious shortcomings of the study I, TDH and others point out). But, as much as you disagree with what I just said - just one question that you have avoided addressing, and it is the basic point of TDH's extensive howling - isn't it true that Norris substantially distorted what the study says? Nothing in the study says that 50% of the students believe that blacks are more tolerant of pain than whites.
DeleteAC/MA, you sound just as obsessed about this study as Somerby. For all we know, you ARE Somerby. If you don't understand what the study said, and you don't understand what mh said, and you certainly didn't understand what I said, and you say you don't give a damn if black people get pain treatment when they get cancer or have a tooth pulled (because that is what the study is about), then why persist in commenting about it?
DeleteAnd no, it isn't true that Norris distorted the study, because Norris quoted directly from the study.
The abstract says:
"Study 2 extended these findings to the medical context and found that half of a sample of white medical students and residents endorsed these beliefs. Moreover, participants who endorsed these beliefs rated the black (vs. white) patient’s pain as lower and made less accurate treatment recommendations."
Tolerant of pain means they rated the pain lower, they thought the black people were experiencing less pain. That is what those who endorsed more the wrong beliefs tended to do in the rating portion of the study (which Somerby never talks about).
50% of the subjects endorsed at least one wrong belief about black physiology (relevant to pain) and those same subjects who endorsed the wrong beliefs tended to give lower ratings to those black people in pain in the rating portion of the study. That justifies both Norris's statement and the abstract itserlf, from which Norris took her statement.
Who thought so? The authors of the study, the editor of the journal, the 5 to 7 anonymous peer reviewers who reviewed the article prior to publication and could have demanded any wording changes they wanted, and all of the English speakers besides you, AC/MA and Somerby and Drum, who understand the study just fine.
Are you now down to the point where you are admitting the other points we have been arguing, but are stuck on this trivial nitpick that is consistent with the findings and the spirit of the rest of the research along these lines, but you just can't admit it? Or are you just stubborn as shit and cannot stand to let the libs own Somerby for a change?
AC, did you ever look up some statistics, eg the statistical model the study is using, or did you simply blow it off and pretend that it doesn’t matter, because statistics schmatistics, amirite?
DeleteWhy the fuck should I or anyone else school you on statistics?
Are you in league with the trolls who are just fucking around not trying to have a rational discussion, AC? Is that how you want to roll?
DeleteIn Figure 2 (Study 2), panel A, the results for pain ratings are the same for the black target regardless of the number of false statements endorsed (low vs high). In contrast, the white target is considered to be in greater pain by those with more false beliefs about black people, whereas the white target is considered to be in less pain by those endorsing fewer false beliefs. Pain was not varied in the study, so both lines should have been parallel. It is unclear why the subjects rated the white target differently based on their knowledge of black physiology, but they appear to have done so. I would want to look at the stimuli that was being rated, and I would also wonder whether a bias to believe false things about black people also carries over to ideas about white pain, but that would be a different study.
DeleteThe important panel is B. It shows no bias for those with few false beliefs but a significant undertreatment of pain for the black target among those subjects who endorsed more false beliefs. For those who endorsed more false statements, the white target, who was rated as having more pain was also given more pain treatment, whereas the black and white targets were treated the same by those who endorsed few false statements. The slight difference in the graph is not significant.
Norris most certainly did not quote directly from the study. Rating the pain lower is most certainly not a statement of belief the subject's race has a higher tolerance of pain. That is a fanciful delusion pulled from one's ass.
DeletePathetic!
It was the lower pain treatment in panel B of Fig 2 that shows a belief that the subject had a higher tolerance of pain. Those with more false beliefs gave higher pain treatment to the white target and lower to the black target, whereas those with low false beliefs treated them both about the same.
Delete7:28 "wonder whether a bias to believe false things about black people also carries over to ideas about white pain, "
DeleteThe study suggests real-world differences, such as black patients tending to report greater pain than white patients and other automatic biases not associated with traditional implicit measures of racial attitudes.
The interesting part is that the students and researchers who held false beliefs only rated the black patients pain a half a point scale lower than their counterparts who did not hold these beliefs. A half a point on an 11-point scale. Ie it could be that both rated the pain as very severe with only a half point difference within that rating.
The claim from the journalist Norris is obvious horseshit.
DeleteHassan: another statistical illiterate. What was the p value again?
DeleteYes, this is why you do significance tests. To see if the amount of difference is big enough to have been caused by something, or whether it is just accidental (due to chance). The results were significantly different. For there to be no result worth reporting, the lines in panel B would need to be parallel to each other and flat (horizontal with no slope), like the line for the black target in panel A.
DeleteOne problem with interpreting distances on an 11 point scale is that none of the subjects likely used the extremes of the scale. No one would give very low ratings and no one would give very high ratings, given the stimuli, so all the variation is likely in the middle of the scale. That makes a half-point difference bigger relative to the range of the responses. The scale was anchored by the words "no pain" for 0 and "worst possible pain" for 11, so subjects were unlikely to use either extreme in rating. Given that 2 is mild pain and 6 is extreme pain, most of the ratings were probably between 3 and 5, which is a span that would make a half point increment biggrt than the 0-10 span would seem if people used all available ratings. Statistical analyses take into account the variability in the ratings. The difference is significant using two different test assumptions. Not even close. That means that the differences in the pain ratings matter, they are meaningful and not chance variability.
So, Norris was correct? She directly quoted the study? Half of the students and researchers "believe blacks had a higher tolerance for pain"?
DeleteNot the blacks in the study, blacks. They believed all blacks have a higher tolerance for pain. Where is that in the study?
This has been explained to death and you are now distorting things. I’m going to go watch TV now.
DeleteThe idiotbox. Makes sense.
Deleteanon 6:57 - here's some reasons why I disagree with you: (1) anon 6;57 claims that 50% of the white students endorsed at least one wrong belief "about black physiology (relevant to pain)". There were 15 questions. Neither you nor MH go into their content - but few seem to have anything to do with black physiology relevant to pain. I won't list every one, people can look them up, but here are some examples: blacks' blood coagulates quicker; blacks have a more sensitive sense of smell; whites have a more efficient respiratory system; blacks are more fertile; blacks are better at detecting movement, whites have larger brains (I would note that only 3 of 229 got this one wrong - I assume by saying it was "possibly true" - I submit that none of these examples are relevant to blacks' pain - the only one of the 15 was the one about nerve endings. (2) you say Norris was right that the 50% of the subjects believed that blacks were more tolerant of pain. Contrary to your claim, the abstract absolutely doesn't say that. it says that those 50% "tended" to give lower ratings of pain for black people. It's clear this means that on average these 50% gave lower pain estimates - not that all 50% of them did. (3) if a subject answers one of these false postulates as "possibly true" the subject is deemed to have answered incorrectly, and is part of 50%
Deletewho gave wrong answers; while another subject who responds to the same wrong question "possibly false" is deemed to have answered correctly. this doesn't make sense. (4) I'd note that it's not quite accurate that the students were evaluating a hypothetical black and white patient. They were evaluating patient's who had names that sounded "black" or "white." Maybe there's no other way to do it, but it is hardly perfect (5) I never said that I don't give a damn whether black people get pain medication when they get cancer -that's a "lie" - of course everyone should, including black people. This is an example of the weird way you reason - and impeaches your view in general. Again, the main focus of TDH's post is that Norris distorted what the study said. anon 6:57 - you mischaracterize what the abstract says. (7) as to statistics - you got me on that one - I never studied statistics, and at this point, ain't planning on doing it. But you don't know how to make good arguments. I'm a lawyer and do it for a living. Statistically, I suppose, you could take 229 med students and ask them what color they liked better - green or orange, say - and if the 50% percent who said they liked orange "tended" to rate blacks' pain lower than whites and prescribed not enough pain medication, I would say that study was meaningless. Not a perfect example, but on the same principle, (see above) the UVa study is essentially meaningless; and TDH is right about Norris, beyond question.
You have worked very hard to delude yourself. Have a nice life.
Deleteanon 12:00, I get your point: the king really is wearing clothes and I'm deluded for calling that into question.
DeleteWell, to state the obvious, Bob no longer has any
ReplyDeleteinterest in writing about the political press, and his
new topic is racial bigotry as experienced by white
Americans. Regular readers certainly could see this
coming for a long time. It's not as if there is NOTHING
to the subject. But it's obsessive attention is
clearly of interest to strange cranks and weirdos.
Bob is one messed up old fool.
He's actually writing about the MSM reporting about the study. But you may be on to something. It's a slippery slope.
Delete3:44, seems to me he’s basically obsessing on one mention of the study in an op Ed. Hardly covers the whole MSM on the study.
DeletePersonally, I think Somerby should revisit the idea that movies like “Gigi” informed Roy Moore’s decision to date 14 year olds.
ReplyDeleteThe woods are lovely, dark, and deep.
ReplyDelete“And then, dear God, some such observer might look at this overview of the UVa study. Having given a clear and concise account of the study, the report adds this at the end:
ReplyDelete"The researchers also performed this experiment with non-white medical students but did not include the findings in this study."
So, he has found a report that contains an erroneous statement about the study.
His takeaway…?
A headline on today's (Jan. 11) Boston Globe states: "Near death. racial disparities persist. Dana-Farber study finds people of color who are terminal get fewer opioids for pain." The study found that "compared to white patients, Black patients were 4.4 percent less likely to receive any opioid and 3.2 percent less likely to receive long-acting opioids near the end of life. Hispanic persons were 3.6 percent less likely to receive any opioids and 2.2 percent less likely to receive long-acting opioids." Seems to me that these are quite small disparities, and not particularly meaningful. Also of note is that the reporter also cites the UVa survey: ""A 2016 survey of 222 white medical students found that half believed Black people feel less pain than white people" - the same thing that Norris said.
ReplyDeleteWho would complain about a 4.4% tax increase?
DeleteThe number is practically meaningless, it's so small.
If blacks felt less pain why did they invent the blues?
DeleteI’m glad you’re not my doctor, AC.
Delete
DeleteJeez. Typical meaningless liberal drivel. What does "near the end of life" have to do with - specifically! - opioids?
Is it some liberal cult's ritual, taking opioids near the end of life?
There are maybe 1.4 million terminally ill patients in the US. Quick, AC. What is 4.4%? It’s over 61,000. That’s a lot of lives potentially affected for you to be so cavalier and say it doesn’t seem significant to you. Are you that callous?
Deletemh/idiot - that's another base rate fallacy.
DeleteYeah, dear mh, really...
DeleteAren't you supposed to be the expert in statistics here? Well, thanks for demonstrating that it's all bullshit...
Okay.
DeleteBigotry, white supremacy, and ignorance of math and economics.
I stand corrected.