More Bonkers ‘Research’

Dr Chris Chambers, from the University of Cardiff’s School of Psychology, said the results should be viewed with ‘extreme caution’.

He said: ‘We don’t know whether the drug influenced racial attitudes only or whether it altered implicit brain systems more generally.

‘And we can’t rule out the possibility that the effects were due to the drug incidentally reducing heart rate. So although interesting, in my view these preliminary results are a long way from suggesting that propranolol specifically influences racial attitudes.’

Well, thanks for that note of caution, but perhaps you should instead explain what the holy hell made Oxford University’s experimental psychologist Dr Sylvia Terbeck experiment with this in the first place?

And who the hell volunteers for this sort of thing?

Two groups of 18 white participants took part in the study. Each volunteer was asked to undertake a ‘racial Implicit Association Test’ (IAT) one to two hours after taking propranolol or the placebo.

Only white participants? Isn’t that going to make your little experiment rather one-sided?

I mean, racism crosses all races. Doesn’t it?

9 comments for “More Bonkers ‘Research’

  1. March 12, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    Is anyone else reminded of the redoubtable Dr von Blimenstein in Tom Sharpe’s novel ‘Indecent Exposure’?

    • March 13, 2012 at 5:21 am

      Yes! 😀

  2. March 12, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Of course it doesn’t cross all races. Racism, like all discrimination, only works in one direction – against the most vociferous and state approved minorities.

  3. March 12, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    “Only white participants? Isn’t that going to make your little experiment rather one-sided?”

    It will. They were all young too, average age 22.

    • March 13, 2012 at 5:23 am

      A generation which, if progressive theory has truly taken effect, would be expected to be far less ‘racist’, surely?

      • March 13, 2012 at 2:10 pm

        Or just more anxious about hints of personal racism and therefore more susceptible to an anxiety-reducing drug.

  4. Chuckles
    March 12, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    Matt Briggs has some useful comments on the ahem, science, and some additional useful info on the study –

    • March 13, 2012 at 5:28 am

      “One of the co-authors is the notorious Julian Savulescu, editor of the “Why should the baby live?” paper which gave the thumbs up to killing newborns. “

      Ah, I thought I’d seen that name somewhere before…

Comments are closed.