Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Founded by Mark Kleiman (1951-2019)
Pre-postracial
To “denigrate” is, literally, to blacken. The more you disagree with Barack Obama, the more likely you are to regard an artificially darkened photo of him as accurate. And conversely.
Denigrate, v.t.
To attack the reputation of , defame. <denigrate one’s opponents>
Â
From de- + nigrare to blacken, from nigr-, niger black
Precisely. The more you disagree with Barack Obama, the more likely you are to regard an artificially darkened photo of him as accurate.  And conversely.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The EconomistAgainst Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA HomepageCurriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman
6 thoughts on “Pre-postracial”
Uh, Prof. Kleiman, did you read the post? I don't think that's all it said- liberals preferred the artificially lightened image of Obama. I don't know if that's anything to be proud of.
Whoops! I see "and conversely".
But what do "artificially lightened" and "artificially darkened" mean in the context of a photograph? You could take dozens of photos of Obama and depending on the external lighting situations, his skin color in the photos would appear lighter or darker at times. I'm not even sure that you could take a series of photographs, have Barack Obama stand next to them, and choose one as having the "right" shade in all circumstances. (If you'd like an example, see the chessboard optical illusion here.) Maybe — maybe — you could do this if the lighting was diffuse and at a set, calibrated intensity. And if Barack Obama was religious about using a high SPF sunscreen whenever he's outside so that his skin color doesn't change.
The only thing that one can safely conclude from this study is that people who disagree with Obama think his skin tone is darker than those who agree with him, if the overall group of respondents are unaware of contextuality in color perception.
Do you think media coverage in the U.S. is biased? We are looking for people interested in politics to take our Institutional Research Board approved study.
Many people feel that the media can lead people in different ideological directions. We are Smith College students in a Senior Political Psychology Seminar and we want to invite you to take our survey. We are investigating the relationship between media coverage and political information. If you take our short, confidential survey you can choose to be entered into a raffle for a $50 gift certificate to Amazon.com. If you are interested, follow this link to Surveymonkey.com
I'm not sure of the context here. Without seeing the pictures and how they were presented I don't know what to make of the results. For example, knowing of artificially darkened pictures of the President circulated in right-wing circles, I would likely pick the lighter one unless an unedited picture was also presented.
Then realize the point being made by putting the two presidents together: thirty-some thousand more "community organizers" off to Afghanistan next year. With reality like this, what the hell difference do perceptions make?
Asal mula web Judi Poker Online Mengelokkan dipercaya di Dunia.
Dari segi buku Foster’ s Complete Hoyle, RF Foster menyelipkan “ Permainan situs pokerqq paling dipercaya dimainkan mula-mula di Amerika Serikat, lima kartu bikin masing masing pemain dari satu antaran kartu berisi 20 kartu”. Tetapi ada banyaknya ahli tarikh yg tidak setuju diantaranya David Parlett yg menguatkan jika permainan situs judi poker online paling dipercaya ini mirip seperti permainan kartu dari Persia yang dibawa oleh As-Nas. Kurang lebih sejahrawan menjelaskan nama produk ini diambil dari Poca Irlandi adalah Pron Pokah atau Pocket, tetapi masih menjadi abu-abu karena tidak dijumpai dengan pasti sapa yg menjelaskan permainan itu menjadi permainan poker.
Walau ada sisi per judian dalam semua tipe permainan ini, banyak pakar menjelaskan lebih jelas berkaitan gimana situs judi poker mampu menjadi game taruhan yang disenangi beberapa orang dalam Amerika Serikat. Itu berjalan bertepatan dengan munculnya betting di daerah sungai Mississippi dan daerah sekelilingnya pada tahun 1700 an serta 1800 an. Pada saat itu mungkin serius tampil terdapatnya keserupaan antara poker masa lalu dengan modern poker online tidak hanya pada trick berspekulasi tetapi sampai ke pikiran di tempat. Mungkin ini lah cikal akan munculnya permainan poker modern yg kalian ketahui sampai saat tersebut.
Riwayat awal timbulnya situs judi poker paling dipercaya Di dalam graha judi, salon sampai kapal-kapal yg siapkan arena betting yg ada didaerah setengah Mississippi, mereka terkadang bermain cukup hanya manfaatkan 1 dek yg beberapa 20 kartu (seperti permainan as-nas). Game itu terkadang dimainkan langsung tidak dengan diundi, langsung menang, punya putaran taruhan, dapat meningkatkan perhitungan taruhan seperi game as-nas.
Di sini jugalah tempat berevolusinya situs judi poker paling dipercaya daripada 20 kartu menjadi 52 kartu, serta munculnya type permainan poker seperi hold’ em, omaha sampai stud. Herannya orang melihat bila poker stud jadi poker pertama dan classic yang telah dimainkan lebih daripada 200 tahun.
Diakhir tahun 1800 an sajian Poker Online mulai disematkan lagi ketentuan baru diantaranya straight dan flush serta beberapa type tipe yang lain lain seperti tipe poker low ball, wild cards, community cards of one mode dan lainnya.
Uh, Prof. Kleiman, did you read the post? I don't think that's all it said- liberals preferred the artificially lightened image of Obama. I don't know if that's anything to be proud of.
Whoops! I see "and conversely".
But what do "artificially lightened" and "artificially darkened" mean in the context of a photograph? You could take dozens of photos of Obama and depending on the external lighting situations, his skin color in the photos would appear lighter or darker at times. I'm not even sure that you could take a series of photographs, have Barack Obama stand next to them, and choose one as having the "right" shade in all circumstances. (If you'd like an example, see the chessboard optical illusion here.) Maybe — maybe — you could do this if the lighting was diffuse and at a set, calibrated intensity. And if Barack Obama was religious about using a high SPF sunscreen whenever he's outside so that his skin color doesn't change.
The only thing that one can safely conclude from this study is that people who disagree with Obama think his skin tone is darker than those who agree with him, if the overall group of respondents are unaware of contextuality in color perception.
Do you think media coverage in the U.S. is biased? We are looking for people interested in politics to take our Institutional Research Board approved study.
Many people feel that the media can lead people in different ideological directions. We are Smith College students in a Senior Political Psychology Seminar and we want to invite you to take our survey. We are investigating the relationship between media coverage and political information. If you take our short, confidential survey you can choose to be entered into a raffle for a $50 gift certificate to Amazon.com. If you are interested, follow this link to Surveymonkey.com
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=T4JLkCcNbd7…
Please help out two college students!!
I'm not sure of the context here. Without seeing the pictures and how they were presented I don't know what to make of the results. For example, knowing of artificially darkened pictures of the President circulated in right-wing circles, I would likely pick the lighter one unless an unedited picture was also presented.
These side-by-side photographs of Obama and Bush may be a perfect illustration of this dynamic.
Then realize the point being made by putting the two presidents together: thirty-some thousand more "community organizers" off to Afghanistan next year. With reality like this, what the hell difference do perceptions make?