"They all look alike": Understanding the "other race effect"

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Fine, making a thread, then bed. As if saying it makes it more real...

You have to say it three times for it to happen.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

You have to say it three times for it to happen.

Oh it's 3 times? That explains why calling Beatlejuice didn't wor..... Oh shit, gtg.


/Bloody Mary

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

1 + 3 = 4
0 + 4 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
8 - 4 = 4
2 * 2 = 4
16 / 4 = 4

They all equal 4 but the "how" and "why" are different.

Why do you think that? If the test subjects showed the same pattern then wouldn't it be logical to assume the "how" and "why" are the same for both? Do you think that an Asians brain is "wired" differently than a caucasians?

For instance, the neural signals that were triggered when a Western Caucasian saw the face of an East Asian twice were no different from the signals triggered when he saw two completely different Western Caucasian faces. The same effect was seen in East Asians; the neural signal showed no recognition when presented with faces from another race.

These results show that N170, the highly-specific facial recognition signal, cannot discriminate between "other race" faces. This inability had not been known previously, and this study is the first to identify a possible neurophysiological basis of the other race effect.

It has been suggested that the other race effect is simply a result of differing amounts of facial variation between races, or varying observational abilities of particular races. However, in this study, subjects of both races showed the same trends, suggesting that the other race effect is a generalized phenomenon experienced by people of more than one race.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

AGDee and Alumiyum, are these nonwhites who were confusing you with another white person?

I notice differences between the stories the white GCers have shared as compared to the nonwhite GCers.

Both whites and nonwhites. My theory is this: Everybody seems to use 2-3 characteristics to initially identify people. Hair color definitely seems to be the standout in all of these stories. I know for me, eye color probably comes next and then body type. Not necessarily height because the vast majority of people are "taller than me".. so it wouldn't matter whether someone is 4 inches taller or 8 inches taller, they are "tall" to me. I'm thinking that the two to three characteristics that I use developed because those are the things that were most quickly identifiable, even from a distance, when I was a child and pretty much only had exposure to Caucasians and some Filipinos. So, very early in life, I could distinguish between most people by hair color, eye color and body type. Since two of the three tend to be much more similar in other races, it requires more detailed observation to distinguish among people. If someone grew up in a more homogeneous environment, where more people had the same hair and eye color, they would not learn to use those characteristics. They would learn, from a young age, to use different types of characteristics.

Conversely, the characteristics that non-whites would use to distinguish between people are characteristics that are more similar among whites than different.

I do find that I have a harder time distinguishing between, say, the white dads of marching band students. Why? They now are all gray and balding and wear glasses so I have to find other characteristics to go by. Until I have some real interaction with each of them, I have a hard time figuring out who is who. Once I actually interact with them (anybody, really), I then use deeper characteristics to distinguish them.

When I look at police artist renderings of people they are looking for after a crime, I'm always kind of shocked that a witness could give them enough information to get a realistic looking picture. I don't think I have a good enough memory for facial characteristics to do that. Unless there is an extremely unusual characteristic, I'm not sure I notice things like shape/size of nose, face shape, eye shape, etc. of someone I don't know.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Why do you think that? If the test subjects showed the same pattern then wouldn't it be logical to assume the "how" and "why" are the same for both?

Why do I think they all equal 4 but the "how" and "why" are different?

You are going based on one study that only provides a partial explanation based on researchers' research questions and interpretation of their own findings. Their version of "how" and "why" is based on their field of expertise. Research is to be taken within proper context and in combination with other research. This is a topic that has been discussed and researched for years so that one study is a discussion piece but not conclusive.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Do you think that an Asians brain is "wired" differently than a caucasians?

Nothing in any of my posts had anything to do with "wiring." This is not a "wiring" topic. You can read my posts and see what I think.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

So the nonwhite GCers have shared stories.

Do the GC white folks want to share a "we all look alike" story in which they were confused for another white person? Perhaps a white person who they look like and/or a white person who they look NOTHING alike.

This is white folks' opportunity to be the "what do whites (your people) think about this" representatives. That's a rarity.

I'm pretty constantly mistaken for someone else. Strangers walk up to me and strike up a conversation only to pause when I look stunned. I think it has to do with the fact that I'm overweight, so my face is rounder and my features aren't as pronounced.

I'm horrible with faces and names, but I don't have any trouble telling people apart. Even "identical twins" don't look the same to me. I have an auditory/visual figure-ground perception disorder caused by brain injury, so I've had years of therapy to be able see clarity in patterns.

Asians don't look the same/similar to me, but I'm not able to tell which country a person/person's ancestors hailed from. That's quite a skill.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Why do I think they all equal 4 but the "how" and "why" are different?

You are going based on one study that only provides a partial explanation based on researchers' research questions and interpretation of their own findings. Their version of "how" and "why" is based on their field of expertise. Research is to be taken within proper context and in combination with other research. This is a topic that has been discussed and researched for years so that one study is a discussion piece but not conclusive.



Nothing in any of my posts had anything to do with "wiring." This is not a "wiring" topic. You can read my posts and see what I think.

I'm going based on the OP that started this thread and by all means feel free to post links to the other "years and years" of discussions and theory's.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I'm going based on the OP that started this thread and by all means feel free to post links to the other "years and years" of discussions and theory's.

Right, you're going based on the study in the OP. Many of us are not.

LOL. Since you want "links," here is a "link" of a 2000 psychology article that provides an illustration of both sides of the issue that are both being discussed in this thread. It still doesn't delve far enough but delves further than the article in the OP. Dr. Brian Mullen, the social psychologist, speaks to what some of us are saying in this thread and I would expect nothing less from a social psychologist.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec00/lookalike.aspx

Most of the years of theory and research regarding this topic and across fields of discipline are not in "links."

[PiKA2001]

link it link it link it link it link it!

This thread is bouncing all over the place and not really hitting the point. I've had a white girl come up to me in the mall thinking I was her cousin/teacher/uncle cracker but that is not what this article/study/topic is about. Personally, I've never had problems confusing people or not being able to tell people apart especially if I know them. I'm also the first to admit that if I pass a group of 4 or 5 Asian men with the same hair styles and body types and just take a quick glance, yeah they DO look alike to me.

Do you guys believe that this is strictly a social function or half social, half biological?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

This thread is bouncing all over the place and not really hitting the point.

Do you guys believe that this is strictly a social function or half social, half biological?

Your post was quite predicted and is why I only spent 30 seconds on a Google link in response to your "link" request. GC discourse and requests for additional research should be taken as seriously as the ladybug that is crawling on my window sill. Damn ladybugs...they lack depth...and can't see when a question has already been answered.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I'm pretty constantly mistaken for someone else. Strangers walk up to me and strike up a conversation only to pause when I look stunned. I think it has to do with the fact that I'm overweight, so my face is rounder and my features aren't as pronounced.

I'm horrible with faces and names, but I don't have any trouble telling people apart. Even "identical twins" don't look the same to me. I have an auditory/visual figure-ground perception disorder caused by brain injury, so I've had years of therapy to be able see clarity in patterns.

Asians don't look the same/similar to me, but I'm not able to tell which country a person/person's ancestors hailed from. That's quite a skill.

It isn't so much country that I can identify, though it can happen. Could I for sure say someone is Vietnamese, Cambodian, or Laotian if they were in the exact same clothing and had no cultural markers like jewelry, maybe not, but I can place someone to a smaller area or region. There are physical traits that can place people, say eye and nose shape, as well as hair type and color, skin, body shape and size, and things unseen like bones. If one thinks of variation from pole to pole, there are a lot of extremes at certain places, but just north and south of the equator there are more similarities and other factors become determinant. Blood type has often been used to look at groups, but really we're moving towards a lot of people being type O more similar traits due to increased mobility and people choosing different mates.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

Blood type has often been used to look at groups, but really we're moving towards a lot of people being type O more similar traits due to increased mobility and people choosing different mates.

Wait really? But to be type O you have to have both recessive Os both A and B are dominant over the O*. How does that work? Any cross reduces the chance of an O in the next generation by at least 50% - or entirely - depending on the partner's genotype.




*YKMBMK

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Wait really? But to be type O you have to have both recessive Os both A and B are dominant over the O*. How does that work? Any cross reduces the chance of an O in the next generation by at least 50% - or entirely - depending on the partner's genotype.




*YKMBMK

O is the most common blood type already. You have to understand the genotype and phenotype of the ABO system to see what's happening. Genotype is the genetic message, and phenotype is what is expressed and we can see. Genotypes for ABO are AA AO AB BB BO and OO where O is recessive and AB are codominant. Phenotypes are A B AB and O, and I'm not discussing rh +/- here for the big picture. When a person is O and AB, their genotype and phenotype match, however an A or B person can be AO or BO and their offspring can be O, and since so many people are type O, the more they get together the more O will be the blood type. When two recessive traits get together, or a dominant trait also carries a recessive, the chances of the offspring carrying the recessive increase and it can show in later generations.

O will still be recessive, but now, and in the future it has more opportunity to have offspring with another O or a person with AO BO genotype O will increase.

[AGDLynn]

My sorority sister was offended when I said she was from Atlanta, she said "I'm from Marietta, not Atlanta!".


That was the first semester away from home...45 miles on the east side of Atlanta and UWG was about 30 minutes west of Atlanta so everything else was Atlanta.

When I am out of state these days, people ask me where I'm from and I say "Atlanta...or at least 30 minutes south of the Atl airport or 45 minutes east".

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

O is the most common blood type already. You have to understand the genotype and phenotype of the ABO system to see what's happening. Genotype is the genetic message, and phenotype is what is expressed and we can see. Genotypes for ABO are AA AO AB BB BO and OO where O is recessive and AB are codominant. Phenotypes are A B AB and O, and I'm not discussing rh +/- here for the big picture. When a person is O and AB, their genotype and phenotype match, however an A or B person can be AO or BO and their offspring can be O, and since so many people are type O, the more they get together the more O will be the blood type. When two recessive traits get together, or a dominant trait also carries a recessive, the chances of the offspring carrying the recessive increase and it can show in later generations.

O will still be recessive, but now, and in the future it has more opportunity to have offspring with another O or a person with AO BO genotype O will increase.

I'm aware of AO/BO genotypes - and how the crossing works, but what confuses me is the idea that OO is on the increase when a cross with any non-OO reduces the chances of passing the OO on from 100% to at most 50% and down to as low as 0% if the partner is AA/AB/BB. It seems as if there is an equilibrium of sorts, but not necessarily an increase?