Feed on

Shitlibs and anti-White bigots who fear a White America have desperately clung to a wish fulfillment belief called the “Contact Hypothesis”, which claims, against all the real world observational evidence, that different races grow to lurv each other with increased contact. It’s a flip of the “familiarity breeds contempt” aphorism, embodied in the vapid leftoid newspeak “love wins”.

I hadn’t realized that there was a meta-analysis (a study of studies) which the smarter shitlibs liked to reference whenever they needed the notarization of ¡SCIENCE! to pad their virtue sniveling about Diversity™, and to smugly condescend toward BadThink Whites.

Unfortunately for these frantic smuglibs, that meta-analysis (Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)) was undermined by contemporary research, which found the opposite of the claim made by Pettigrew et al, and then invalidated by a 2018 study which concluded that the original 2006 meta-analysis finding support for the Contact Hypothesis was irretrievably marred by the inclusion of a ton of shit studies.

h/t CAPSLOCKHUSTLER for providing the link to the following Twatter thread on the subject of the invalidated Contact Hypothesis.

The Contact Hypothesis is a Mess: Thread
The Contact Hypothesis (hence, “CH”) is an old idea in social psych: That contact between groups reduces prejudice. This was one central theme of Allport’s 1954 classic The Nature of Prejudice, built on even earlier ideas.

— Lee Jussim (@PsychRabble) November 8, 2018

I’ll quote the remaining thread below:

Beneficial effects of contact have always been difficult to obtain, requiring an ever-growing list of conditions supposedly necessary or at least beneficial to get it to work (equal status, cooperation, common goals, supports from authorities, and more).

This recent award-receiving meta-analysis by Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) gave the answer so many social psychologists had been (I suspect) rooting** for. Slam dunk, contact works!
** nearly 6k citations
** supports left view/values (eg, immigration? let em all in, contact works!).

Except … there was always reason to doubt this. In the real world, Putnam showed at about the same time, in both work groups and communities, diversity lowered cohesion & social trust, and led to high turnover and lower public investment.

A 2014 updating by van der Meer & Tolsma found basically the same thing, especially in the U.S.

WTF is going on? No one really knows, but enter @betsylevyp and her team, with this amazing 2018 paper.

They conducted their own meta-analysis, starting w/ALL the studies in Pettigrew&Tropp’s. But to be included, they required studies to meet all of the following criteria:

1. They had to randomly assign people to contact. I.e., they only included true experiments, which is the clearest way to eliminate correlation&causality inference problems.

2. They had to measure intergroup outcomes more than one day after the treatment. That is, there had to be at least some evidence that the effect was not completely fleeting and ephemeral.

3. The studies had to have actual face-to-face contact.
4. There had to be a no contact control group.
P&G had 713 samples from 515 papers.
By the time Paluck et al’s (some might argue, “minimalist”) standards were met, there were 8 papers reporting 9 studies. [ed: LOL]

They then scoured the lit for studies meeting their standards post 2006. They found a bunch, bringing the total up to 27 studies (still a far far far far cry from the 713 of P&G).

Here are their main findings, reported in Figure 1 of p. 18 of their paper. Its hard to make out, but you have the link to the actual paper.

Several patterns are notable:
1. The effects hover near 0.
2. The one exception is for contact w/ppl w/disabilities. Remove that, and the results are still above 0 (ie, *some* effect of contact), BUT:

3. Fig 1 plots the effect size against the std errors (SEs). Smaller Ns produce larger SEs, and Fig 1 shows larger effects w/larger SEs (smaller samples). This is classic evid. of publication bias.

Note also the sloping line. It means the larger the sample, the smaller the effect. In fact, when they used SE to predict effect, the intercept was negative, meaning that the *predicted* effect of large samples (low SEs) is to (slightly) *increase* prejudice, not reduce it. [ed: kumbaya shitlibs BTFO]

4. Interestingly, the effects for the groups social psychologists seem to be generally most concerned about — groups oppressed based on race, religion, sexual orientation — the effects hover barely above 0, especially for larger studies.

Bottom lines? We know a lot less about contact than Pettigrew & Tropp’s meta-analysis has led us to believe. There may be a there there, but if there is, that there is a helluva lot less and more equivocal than the there that is cracked up to be there.

Contact almost surely can be either harmful or beneficial with respect to intergroup hostility. But, just as surely, the benefits of contact have been wildly oversold to an overeager social psychology consuming audience. End.

AKA GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

Social psychology may have been at one time, long ago in the pre-zogged era, a useful field of study. Today, it’s a factory of lies to assuage leftoid egos. That’s what happens when leftoids march through the institutions and then turn the places into a giant cistern for them to take a poop on.

I’ve tackled the problem of meta-analyses before, initially provoked to the task by jabba jayman’s reliance on them to deny the fucking obvious fact that environmental inputs have spurred the post-1970 obesity pandemic, regardless of the hereditary nature of susceptibility to fat accumulation.

Bottom line: Meta-analyses can be clarifying, but only if the studies they aggregate aren’t garbage. If you put garbage studies into a meta-analysis, you’ll get a garbage conclusion in return. If researcher bias pollutes the findings of multiple studies, then those studies will pollute the finding of a meta-analysis of them.

Which is exactly what happened with Pettigrew & Tropp’s original meta-analysis finding support for the Contact Hypothesis: the included studies were shit. So many of the studies were shit that nearly all of them had to be tossed out in a more recent and improved meta-analysis, which, unsurprisingly, found the opposite and commonsensical result that contact with different races and groups doesn’t make us like each other more; in fact, all that difference irritates us more than we would have been had we stayed separate and out-of-contact.

But equalist shitlibs run social science, so they have an inherent bias — much as a latino judge might have an inherent bias against Trump — to produce shit studies and to choose shit studies for meta-analyses which buttress their egos, and to handwave the flaws in those studies when a realtalker calls them out on it.

Not anymore. Because


  • Bitcoin
  • Ethereum
  • Bitcoin cash
  • Litecoin
  • Monero
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to 3C99iaxKpMgNq95sn6ZBHoy75Z4MfPiAo7

Donate BTC

Scan the QR code or copy the address below into your wallet to send btc.

Scan to Donate Ethereum to 0x5667AaC05953840FD2DDCdB5e6d1B3511caa858d

Donate BTC

Scan the QR code or copy the address below into your wallet to send btc.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin cash to qz9srlhlwmn5q8m4fa9fjx6ppwag7zd50cn7e25a4h

Donate BTC

Scan the QR code or copy the address below into your wallet to send btc.

Scan to Donate Litecoin to MWynJmvAfRx3fC8MaZatwhNyfJs3EmTKEC

Donate BTC

Scan the QR code or copy the address below into your wallet to send btc.

Scan to Donate Monero to 46pKgZYgk8iS7hZtr3T489JgDRcF6he2m2o3mUQ9hktbNqTKrmbyp8CQ4eyEEVrySQVX78sDEd4vdBMRhFq525bRHWqgggE

Donate BTC

Scan the QR code or copy the address below into your wallet to send btc.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: