I'm not sure that the article-writer understood the study he or she was reporting on. For instance, the article says "To prevent an inflated tally, the researchers counted students as friends only if each listed the other as a friend." But as far as I can tell, that just isn't true; the paper itself says nothing of the kind.

"High-achieving Hispanics and blacks also had fewer friends, even when there was a relative abundance of same-race friends with similar GPAs in their classes." No, that's not what the study found, either. What they found is that high-GPA Hispanics and blacks had fewer friends, on average, than those with lower GPAs, even when there was a relative abudance of high-GPA Hispanic and black students within their school.

"So being acknowledged by the right set makes you more popular than being acknowledged by a great number of people."

This was certainly true in my Jr. High School and High School; I had a lot of friends, but at the same time I was widely acknowleged to be unpopular, because my friends were nerds. Maybe it would be more accurate to describe it as a measure of social status than as a measure of pure popularity, but it's certainly true that who considers A their friend has a lot to do with how popular A is perceived as being.

The study itself argues that the "sabatoge" idea - that black (and hispanic) students sabatoge their high-grade peers - isn't true. I don't think the study could be fairly said to be saying that kids are monsters, although I can see how this article made that impression. 

I need to read the study. And I may need to understand why Fryer allows himself to be represented that way if that's not his intent. As the author of the study a couple of letters to the editor would clean all that up.

This I know: the crap spewed by the article can not go unchallenged. 

Supposedly Morin is the polling director and staff writer for the Washington Post. One would think he could comprehend and explain polls. Obviously not.

Suppose he does comprehend?

This is a good paper.  I would suggest you actually READ it before commenting.  The measurement of popularity is sound.  There IS a significant modeling problem...in that there is no way to know what classes the kids are actually taking, whether AP or not.  

The measurement of popularity is sound.

It just doesn't say anything significant about "acting white." in a paper titled An Empirical Analysis of 'Acting White' that's a very significant flaw for a central modeling technique. From pages 7-8 of the report:

While we are cognizant of the complications and nuances in what is often meant by ‘acting white,’ our data are not rich enough to test many of the plausible definitions. 4 As such, for the purposes of this paper, we say ‘acting white’ exists if there are statistically significant racial differences in the relationship between popularity and grades.

What has THAT got to do with what "acting white"means in common discussion?

Nothing. And nothing in the paper counters what I've said about the way the paper is presented and he assumptions that presentation support.

As for giving space to shills like Fryer, I am more comfortable leaving others to support the less probable conditions.

No.  I'm not saying give space to Fryer.  

Now the presentation of the paper is problematic.  And there is NOTHING in Fryer's brief public history to suggest that this was not planned, or at least supported by him. This is a different issue though. 

That stuff doesn't matter half as much as what people write about it.

how would you measure popularity?

it just now occurred to me what an afrodemic stag-o-lee (julius lester's version) it would take to actually research "the price of acting white" and measure that as the return on investment obtained from the efforts of unproductive white male personnel in the military and prison industrial complexes..,

how would you measure popularity?

I don't know of a way to deal with it quantitatively. I CERTAINLY wouldn't claim objectivity for reasoning  based on high school kids' answers to "How popular are you?"

It does seem he's trying to measure social status.

i don't understand.  are you saying that he DID ask the question "how popular are you?"  or are you just saying that if you were doing it you wouldn't do it this way?

The dataset he analyzed asked the question "How popular are you." Had three possible responses.

Interesting evaluation of data.

It was a quick read, but still a little bit taxing.

Anyhew....

"Self reporting" was valid criticism of the Cook & Ludwig data evaulation. Now we get to reporting based on number of friends a person has.

Well....

The data then "shows" that "acting white" == encouraging poor school performance doesn't add up for segregated schools.

Sigh...

But the number of friends, self reported, doesn't take into account personality types. For example, I'm an introvert. By definition, I won't, and don't, have a lot of friends but extroverts do.

This one is still problematic.

Spence? What say you?

At the end of the paper, Fryer and Torelli provide a quick summary of the questions they used in the paper.  There is no "popularity" question.  From everything I read, they used the social network index as a measure of popularity rather than a self-analysis question like you posed above.  Where did you read this again?  

The Price of Neurotype Variation in Normal Population Distributions....,

Neurotyping would allow for a scrupulously onto mapping of these data. However, the mainstream is not yet ready for a rigorous science of neurotypes - and must instead satisfy itself with mudpies made up from the childish myths of race...,

I hope my grandchildren will one day be able to laugh at the absurdity of what is now seen as rigorous inquiry - distorted as it all is by the logically inverting lens of supreezy

In the paper, he relies on how many friends a person has.

Ed I didn't see your comments before.  I apologize.  What the dataset doesn't take into account is personality types...you are correct there.  And if there is a relationship between personality types and academic performance then he won't be able to capture this.  BUT his central argument seems to be that as one's grades go up the more popular one becomes (in both black and white communities, but in black communities only up to a 3.5).  Ed are you arguing that black honor roll types may be more likely to be introverted than white honor roll types?  

BUT his central argument seems to be that as one's grades go up the more popular one becomes (in both black and white communities, but in black communities only up to a 3.5).

Well, he says that it goes up for Blacks in segregated schools. He says it goes up in integrated schools BUT THEN GOES DOWN the more the Black kid excels. The first matches the Cook and Ludwig study I've been pointing out for years.

Ed are you arguing that black honor roll types may be more likely to be introverted than white honor roll types?

No, I'm wondering, strongly :-), if he basis his study on the social circle of the kid, then shouldn't he also take into account the personality type?

One of the things that stands out about this paper, if we read IT rather than the press releases ABOUT it, is the dual finding that neither Ogbu's nor McWhorter's theories about acting white stand up to rigorous scrutiny. Both Ogbu and McWhorter would be hardpressed to explain the finding that blacks in all black schools don't have the "acting white" problem.

Yep. And he flat out states it. But he also states that Cook and Ludwig get it wrong because they base their study on self reporting. That's the sole reason, if I remember, that Ogbu said the Cook and Ludwig study was not valid.

Oh, and the press release about it is flat out wrng. Even though P6 didn't read the report, his garbage meter needle was right.

Fryer's focus--like other economists--takes the market as a given and does not examine the possibility that the market is in fact gamed.

Given your example, that's a good point.

One of the things that stands out about this paper, if we read IT rather than the press releases ABOUT it, is the dual finding that neither Ogbu's nor McWhorter's theories about acting white stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

Since I never gave either much credence that didn't stand out.

When one reads BOTH the paper AND the press about it, one notes the very title of the paper has nothing to do with the points you find central and valid. One would likely choose to comment on the paper and context.

Salvage what of his work you can. But though I can hang, I am not an academic. I'm a polemicist. It should not surprise you that I don't approach things like an academic.

Ed how would you reconcile the finding about blacks in all-black schools (and private ones too), with your idea about personality types?

Like I said, salvage what you can.

I don't see how anyone who is concerned about the  "acting white" issue and understands what is being called "acting white" in the paper will find anything of use in it at all. In fact, the choice of the term combined with the publicity he will get when his monthly co-authored paper is published creates definite harm. Have you checked Technorati about Mr. Fryer?

Clarity. At minimum it's about making the fog obvious. And that would shut him up

the entire "acting white" phenomenon is a product of white supremacist intellectual production.  to the extent that this piece actually helps shut mcwhorter and ogbu up (ogbu is dead...but his work unfortunately lives on), I don't see how one could NOT use it.  

I don't see how one could NOT use it. 

Do you think you could describe the paper without using the term "acting white"? Of course you can. 

the paper CAN be [harmful] (depending on how it is presented) but is NOT.

Depending on how it's presented? 

Spence, my brother, check the linked article. 

the only thing i check technorati for is visioncircle numbers.  i don't use it for anything else.  what should i be lookinng for?

This 

Marginal Revolution points to this study entitled "An Empirical Analysis of ‘Acting White’" by Roland G. Fryer, Jr. and Paul Torelli. The paper reports on the high social costs among minorities should they "act white" by achieving high scores in school.

and this 

---

Comments

I wonder how many federal grant dollars went into supporting that study.
Posted by: guy in the UNLV jacket at June 6, 2005 06:53 PM

Probably none. All the federal dollars supporting black people go to keeping the projects run down and making sure that there is lots of quick money to be made selling rocks.
Posted by: Phelps at June 6, 2005 07:40 PM

---

and this 

Mediocrity Loves Company

— Patrick Rodriguez @ 4:37 pm

At least in the case of blacks and Hispanics in public schools, as this newly released study [pdf] shows. Richard Morin of the Washington Post takes a quick look at it:

And this 

Poor Parenting + Peer Pressure = Two Strikes Against Black Kids

Two Harvard economists have released a study supporting the notion that for black and Hispanic students, doing well in school has a major social cost. As reported in the Washington Post:

I note you've looked into this a bit already. Marginal Revolution gets more eyeballs in seven days than many newsweeklies. And as you said, they get it wrong.

This is how this shit mutates and spreads. And if I don't bitch, there's not a negative thing said about  it all, and "acting white" is finally established as the root of all problems with Black scholars and scholarship.

I know brothers like yourself will be fair and open about the scholarship because that's your profession. I will continue to hate on the surrounding rhetoric, both stated and implied. I feel that's a nice division of labor.

The division of labor isn't necessarily who cuts the rhetoric and who cuts the article, though I'd be cool with that:

The real skinny is this;

A real science of mind and behaviour rooted in genomic mechanism is in formation

It is a demonstrable fact that almost every human population differs from every other population in allele frequencies at one or more loci, but that the largest fraction by far of genetic diversity occurs among members of the same population.

Thus we can dismiss colloquialisms like personality type and go directly to neurotype which would describe neurotransmission and neuroreceptor proclivities, right? Said proclivities affecting behaviour in fairly predictable ways, right?

Nevertheless, we have ass-clowns like Fryer et al, stoking the fires of the most ignorant and backwards-assed superstitious nonsense, and, more troublesome still, people like
Armand Leroi who ought to know better, but keep the Fuhrer's pseudo-science in full effizi all the same. In addition, we have big pharma branding drugs as if there are *race specific* characteristics that these drugs can target. Such nonsense is dangerous in the extreme and needs to be put into check as soon as humanly possible, because..., let's say it all together for emphasis;

It is a demonstrable fact that almost every human population differs from every other population in allele frequencies at one or more loci, but that the largest fraction by far of genetic diversity occurs among members of the same population.

Blogging clowns, media clowns, academic clowns...my issue is the impact more than the source.

Your analysis is welcome, always. Let's be clear about that up front.

But just as you're an academic who blogs, I'm a Black partisan with a web site or two. I obviously will support research into Black culture and such. But (and I hate to even go there) the impact of the way this is framed is unacceptable.

Of course we agree here.  

Ed how would you reconcile the finding about blacks in all-black schools (and private ones too), with your idea about personality types?

I can't. I just see it as a fundamental flaw in the study.

here's another way of asking the question.  if personality types were important, why wouldn't they be important in all-black schools?

Because the question of same race friends is void when everyone is of the same race.

I have to echo P6's comment. For same race friends, the pool is larger, but the personality type is still important.

I have to re-read the study.

No.  What Darkstar is suggesting is that one reason for the finding--outside of politics or whatever--is that smartness is associated with certain personality types that may not be as social.  So the reason why smart people tend to have fewer friends is because smart people tend to be socially inept.  If this is true universally, why wouldn't smart kids in black schools have fewer friends?  Shouldn't they be socially inept too?