Adam Jones, race and misrepresentations...

[Lucky Jim]

I get what you're saying, but this is not something as "strange" as warehouse tampering with the message board.

My intention was never to directly or indirectly accuse someone of being a card-carrying racist for daring to criticize Adam Jones. I had seen a lot of critique of the man that I found somewhat unnecessary and postulated whether or not subconscious racial bias played a role in that based on the very real and consistent negative portrayal of black athletes in the mainstream sports media.

If I somehow indicted people by suggesting this, I do apologize for that, but I do not apologize for raising the issue. It needs to be discussed and when people react this way to a straightforward discussion that wasn't malicious in intent or tone, it does get a bit disturbing.

MSK

Hey, I've defended you throughout this thread - while noting, at times, what I think are the limitations of your theory.

It's not about "strangeness" (i.e., the sock-puppeting), it's about the application of real - but limited - theories and concepts to inappropriate contexts in order to back up a more general, and pre-determined point. You're mis-using the concept, just as you (for instance) mis-used the First Amendment.

That prior conversation aside, when you're dealing with the issues you are in this thread (i.e., bounded rationality), you're dealing in things that I've spent a lot of time on. In this case, you've ignored the fundamental fact that the power of these biases fade over time w/ increased information. It's that simple.

We're wired to make snap judgments of difference because, anthropologically, it was often a life or death decision. The role of that association bias, however, diminishes as life/death wanes, and as information accrues. Bounded rationality is a function of limited information. As a result, and by definition, we're unlikely to be as influenced by it w/ Jones because - at this point - our information isn't all that limited.

Association bias isn't going to be influenced by media, either. I don't understand the intersection you're positing here. There's real bias in the media. It has nothing to do with the test that you linked.

[El Gordo]

I get what you're saying, but this is not something as "strange" as warehouse tampering with the message board.

My intention was never to directly or indirectly accuse someone of being a card-carrying racist for daring to criticize Adam Jones. I had seen a lot of critique of the man that I found somewhat unnecessary and postulated whether or not subconscious racial bias played a role in that based on the very real and consistent negative portrayal of black athletes in the mainstream sports media.

If I somehow indicted people by suggesting this, I do apologize for that, but I do not apologize for raising the issue. It needs to be discussed and when people react this way to a straightforward discussion that wasn't malicious in intent or tone, it does get a bit disturbing.

MSK

You keep saying this, but I can only find two examples, one of which you misunderstood. A lot of something is more than two. Please give a few more. That as a culture we are subject to unconscious predispositions of racial bias is not something I would argue against in the least. But unless you can give me more examples than bubble gum, as it applies to critism of AJ, I have to dismiss your OP as one of your usual semi coherent ramblings. As far as I can tell the vast majority of criticism is related to his performance, and not "nitpicky" in the least.

[RShack]

I've been using it for three years. They should've looked it up by now.

From Wiki, but good for what's been discussed:

Bounded rationality is a concept based on the fact that rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make decisions. This identifies the concept of rationality as optimization.[1] Another way to look at bounded rationality is that, because decision-makers lack the ability and resources to arrive at the optimal solution, they instead apply their rationality only after having greatly simplified the choices available. Thus the decision-maker is a satisficer, one seeking a satisfactory solution rather than the optimal one.[2]

Some models of human behavior in the social sciences assume that humans can be reasonably approximated or described as "rational" entities (see for example rational choice theory). Many economics models assume that people are on average rational, and can in large enough quantities be approximated to act according to their preferences. The concept of bounded rationality revises this assumption to account for the fact that perfectly rational decisions are often not feasible in practice due to the finite computational resources available for making them.

Ugh.

Now, I know that def isn't your fault, but I somehow don't think it's gonna be very helpful. It might be complete, and it might touch on the various bases, but jeez, it almost put me to sleep, and I was looking forward to seeing what you'd say ;-)

Let's try this lousy made-up def and see... It means that people are rational as far as they can see... but there's things we can't see. Not because we're lousy people, and not because we have some horrible character flaw, and not because of any other bad thing about us-as-people... but simply because we're all people, not omniscient super-beings, and we cannot possibly see and be aware of everything that influences us in the moment that we make a decision, or have a reaction, or form an opinion, or whatever it is we do. So, because of that, we can be as rational as we can possibly be, and we still have blind spots anyway... not because we want to, but just because we can't help it. And anybody who thinks they are blind-spot-proof is kidding themsevles, because nobody is blind-spot-proof. Nobody. (How's that?)

As it pertains the matters that may-or-may-not have racial components, it's especially tricky because racism is a powerful thing, in ways that go way beyond America's story about slavery, etc. Race is a powerful thing for various reasons, some of which nobody chose to invent, but rather because that's just how it is. Some of it appears to be evolutionary (in the sense of how we're wired), some of it appears to be social (in the sense of cultural things), and a lot of it is not well understood, even by people who devote their entire professional lives studying stuff like this. There's tons of evidence that race is a powerful issue in ways that have zilch to do with what kind of person somebody is, belief-wise or character-wise.

Now, it gets especially tricky when you take the facts of that, about people in general, and mix it together with America's unique story about race relations. AFAIK, America's story demonstrates that we've done a better job about this issue than have other countries who didn't have as much of a problem to deal with as we did. We did better at addressing a max-hard problem, while other societies have done way worse than us (even though they deny it) when, for them, it was an easier problem to begin with. Because of America's history about it, pretty much everybody here agrees racism is wrong, and agrees that it's a sad fact that it loomed so large in our history, but that-was-then and now-is-now, and we're all doing the best we can. That's not saying we're perfect, but it is saying that we've pretty much turned the corner about putting up with rotten racist BS... or at least the great majority of us have. In today's America, decent people not only don't wanna be racist, they also do want to be not-racist. Most everybody agrees with that, at least good folks do, and that's most people.

So, because we mostly agree about that, any time it comes up that maybe we're sometimes a little bit racist-by-accident (due to all the stuff about it that nobody understands, and not because we mean to be), some folks misunderstand what is being said, and they take something as an insult that's not really an insult at all. Why? Because unless you happen to be familiar with either real life examples or with the research about it (or both), then it's both easy and quite natural to equate two things that, in reality, are very different:

1. The kind of racism that is the ugly, hateful kind from our past, from back before America turned the corner about it, from back before we started trying to get rid of racism. Let's call that "acceptance of being racist". It's something that lots of America used to accept, back when... but it's stuff that we don't accept anymore. Nowadays, we think it's wrong and we don't put up with it, or at least decent folks don't anyway.

2. The kind of racism that is not the ugly hateful kind, but is the more subtle kind that even the experts don't quite understand. Some of it appears to be evolutionary, and maybe some of it is culturally based, and some of it is stuff nobody knows where it comes from. But we know for a fact that even people who are not racist in the ugly hateful sense *do* react differently to situations based on how similar or different other folks are to how they are. It's just a fact, whether we like it or not. Let's call this "accidental racism".

When these 2 things get confused, people get steamed because they think any reference to the 2nd kind (accidental racism) is really code for the 1st kind (acceptance of being racist), so they take it as an insult. And it *would* be an insult if that's what somebody was talking about. It would be equivalent to saying "You're just like those hateful old crackers who thought black folks were inferior beings and deserved to be treated like they were animals". That *would* be an insult, but that's not what the 2nd kind is about. The 2nd kind is not about our opinions on race, it's not about whether we think white people are somehow better than black people (or yellow people, or red people, or whatever), it's not about saying we think there should be one standard for This Group and another standard for That Group. It's not that at all. Rather, it's about how we can perceive things differently, based on race, and do it completely by accident, without even realizing we're doing it.

I think this is what happened in what Scottie was talking about... he felt that he was being accused (or almost being accused) of the 1st kind, the hateful kind, the old "acceptance of being racist" that we don't accept anymore. If it's the 1st kind of racism, then what he says below totally makes sense:

In some cases MSK dances gently around the actual word 'racism'. While he didn't come out and say "Y'all are critical of Adam Jones because you hate black people!" it's abundantly clear that he's at least posing the question and likely with the noblist of intentions.

I'm an intelligent, fair-minded person. I've been critical of Adam here on this message board. I found the original post insulting on several levels.

But I don't think anybody thinks that about Scottie. I sure don't anyway. I think the problem happens because there's not just that one kind of racism, there is also the 2nd kind, the accidental kind that nobody means, but it still happens anyway. Now, I can give you various examples of the 2nd kind, examples that I know about because they happened to me: I reacted to something in a way that was, shall we say, "tinged with race", even though I am not a racist at all when it comes to the 1st kind of racism. I think racism in society is wrong, I think it's the great shame of American history and, while I don't think our society is completely over it, I very much think American society has made way, way more progress, and made bigger changes in this regard, than has any place else. And, when I say "bigger changes", I don't just mean about civil rights law, I also mean about how normal, everyday people raise their kids. It's not just that America's laws are way better about it than they use to be, it's that the American people as a whole are way better about it than in the past. So, if somebody thought I am racist of the 1st kind, they'd just be flat-out wrong and they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

But sometimes I have noticed the 2nd-kind of racism in my reactions... the accidental kind. Not in a big way. Not in a way that had me treating anybody unfairly, or saying anything mean to anybody or about anybody... but rather just in my momentary internal reaction to little things. Here's an example:

Event 1. I used to live in a town in GA that had a very ordinary state college in it, and I was driving thru the campus because it was a short-cut to where I was going. I went past what was then the Student Center which had an open courtyard near the street. Clogging up the middle of the courtyard was a bunch of college kids, and they were mostly all black. And they were playing a radio loud, and jumping around, and talking loud, and showing off to each other, and generally making a big scene, both sound-wise and activity-wise. And it annoyed me. I didn't do anything or say anything, but I kinda glanced over at them with a frowny look on my face, and pretty much thought that they ought to act better than that... better than clogging up the courtyard and being loud and running around, etc., in a way that everybody else who happened to be there had to put up with, whether they wanted to or not. So, to me, it was a case of them not acting right. Not breaking any laws, not doing anything morally wrong, but just being inconsiderate about how their behavior was intruding on other folks like, for example, me. Now, I was just driving by, and the whole thing happened in less time than it took you to read this paragraph. So, it was a really quick little thing that didn't amount to much. But then I had second thoughts. I wondered if I was reacting like I did because they were black. But then I decided, hell, no, they were just being inconsiderate, and just because they happen to be a bunch of black kids instead of white kids, that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Event 2. Some time later, I was driving through the Georgia Tech campus because I worked there and I leaving my office and going home. The path I drove took me down public streets that had frat houses on them. And in the front yards of a couple of the frat houses, and on the sidewalks in front of them, and sorta leaking out into the street, there was a bunch of college kids clogging things up, and they were mostly white. And they were playing stereos loud (through big honking speakers that they'd dragged outside), and they were jumping around, and talking loud, and showing off to each other, and generally making a big scene, both sound-wise and activity-wise. And it did not annoy me. Rather, I just thought it looked like they were having fun, and it made me think how lucky you are if you're 20 and away at college and having fun. I did not glance over at them with a frowny look on my face. And I did not think that they ought to act better than that... better than clogging up the sidewalk and being loud and running around, etc. It didn't bother me one bit that everybody else who happened to be there had to put up with that, whether they wanted to or not. So, to me, it was not a case of them not acting right, not a case of them being inconsiderate about how their behavior was intruding on other folks. Instead, I thought they were just college kids acting like college kids, and how it looked like they were having fun.

Now, as I'm sure you can see, in all meaningful respects, the behavior of the group of black college kids was virtually identical to the behavior of the group of white college kids. But my reaction to them wasn't. My reaction was that the black kids were being inconsiderate and not acting right, and should know how to act better... but my reaction to the white kids was that they were lucky to be at college having fun. BUT THEY WERE DOING THE SAME DAMN THING. The *only* difference was their skin color... and my reaction to how they were behaving. On some level that I didn't even realize, I was cutting the white kids slack, and kinda looked at them approvingly, as if that's a great thing to do when you're 20... but I applied a different standard to the black kids, and looked at them as if they were not acting right, and should know better and do better and not be acting like that.

When I noticed this, I was kinda surprised at myself. Why? Because I firmly believe that I am not a racist (in the 1st sense, anyway), but yet my reaction demonstrated that I was reacting differently to 2 versions of the exact same thing BASED ON RACE. Now, does this mean that I'm some horrible person who's a racist? No, I certainly don't think so. But it does tell me that I'm not above it all. It proved to me that I am vulnerable to perceiving things differently based on race... and in ways that I'm not even aware of. To me, this was something that happened to me, something that made me stop and think. But the only thing that "happened to me" was my very own race-based reactions.

And that is the kind of racism that I think goes on a whole lot: the accidental kind. Not the kind that's based on hatred or having a mean heart, but the kind that's based on God-only-knows-what, the kind that's a surprise when it happens... the kind that really is a freakin' accident. I didn't mean it, but I did it anyway... by accident. In both events, my reaction took only a tiny-split-second to happen. My reactions to the 2 events were not *based* on bad thoughts, but my reactions *gave me* critical thoughts about the black kids and approving thoughts about the white kids... when they were doing the same thing. And I am 100% sure that this happens all the time in tiny little ways to lotsa folks, both black and white, and it happens *before* you even have a chance to think about it. I could give you a half-dozen other little examples that boil down to the same thing. And, when I started noticing it, I asked friends and family about it. And at first, most of them said "No way. Not me."... but then some of them (not all, but some) would come back later and say, "Guess what just happened the other day?" and they'd tell me about the same kind of thing, the accidental kind. And as they told me about it, I could tell they felt sorta sheepish about it, as if they thought they did something wrong. But they didn't really. They weren't mean to anybody, or anything like that. All they did was notice how their personal reactions happened, which I think is mostly a good thing to do.

So, based on all this, I think it's actually kinda normal. Maybe not desirable, but normal. Normal for white folks, normal for black folks, normal for any flavor of folks. Which matches what the research says (which I only found out about later, because I got curious and looked.) It's not just about whether people think about things in a racist way; that's the 1st kind, but that's not what this is about. This is about the 2nd kind: it's about the reactions we have *before* we think about it, reactions that help shape our thoughts whether we mean it or not. And I don't think it's anybody's fault that it happens. But I do think this kind of phenomena is part of why nobody who's a white guy has gone from being a popular Oriole to being called a "clubhouse cancer". And I also think it's part of why people likely will have more patience with Matt Wieters than they will with AJ... I'm not saying it's the *only* reason, but I am saying I think it's one of the reasons, and I think that's true whether anybody intends for it to happen that way or not.

[TiredofLosing20]

I think it is absolutely crazy to believe that our life experiences, the media, the community that we grew up in, our family, friends, human natural instincts (as LJ noted) and all other social interactions and relationships we participate in life have no effect on our subconscious and biases. I tend to think MSK is right on here.

With that said, I believe he is completely wrong about these biases playing a significant enough role in the criticism of Jones as to have to address it in a thread. While certainly not exempt from the pervasive social undertones of today, sports tends to be a place where performance trumps everything. If Jones was batting .350 and playing good defense his bubble blowing would most likely make him a "character". But instead he has played poorly and so the bubble blowing is a "distraction" Nothing to do with race, simply performance.

Now with that said, there are no absolutes. Are their people here who are subconsciously more likely to jump on Jones because he is black, most likely. Do I think this is driving the criticism of Jones on the OH, absolutely not.

To put it simply, I really do get what MSK is saying here and in a general sense I agree with him but as far as his application of this theory to the OH criticism of AJ, I think he is just dead wrong.

[Lucky Jim]

Ugh.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. (I only quoted the above because bandwidth is a non-renewable resource. )

As for the definition, I actually prefer the the Wiki-definition to your folksy spin on it. It's somewhat technical, but it gets it exactly right. If there are words folks don't understand - and if they want to (not a guarantee reading responses here) - then they can look them up.

The only other point I'd make is that, while "racism" (and I'm not sure what we're talking about here is "racism") may be a component of association bias, the crux of the issue is actually difference. Race is a kind of difference. But many things could be.

To the extent that "racism" is defined as a belief in superiority, then it doesn't seem to be "racism" at work.

I agree w/ Tired (and have said so). These are interesting concepts - and ones we should be aware of when we make judgments - but ill-applied to Adam Jones.

[TonySoprano]

However, I now know where people stand and its always good to know who understands where you're coming from and who has a hair-trigger mentality towards having a mature discussion about real social problems.

Scottie and TonySoprano are acting like I called them Klan members or something. Talk about overreaction.

Criticism of Adam Jones based on his on-field performance is not a REAL social problem. That's a severe overestimation on your part. It's soooo far down the list of what could be called a REAL social problem that it doesn't even apply.

You took a precursory overview of a subject in a science magazine and (as you've been told by several people) your misapplication of the theory doesn't apply in the case of Jones.

[El Gordo]

I finally see something I can both understand and completely agree with.

Me too.:laughlol:

[Sport Foo]

Great post MSK, many posters on here for years and years have former a bias towards certain players. While I am not sure that a lot of it is 'race' based, I am sure sometimes it subconsciously slips into a few peoples minds.

I believe what MSK is stating is we are not all racists, but a few of the criticisms have been unwarranted. The OH has long been a site where the knee-jerk reaction is king, and Adam Jones has been a prime target. I do not know if I can pin muc of it on criticism, I believe he is just the flavor of the moment here and if he begins to hit, everyone will find someone else.

The Bubble Gum issue is over blown, since many people that play ball chew gum, and I have seen a ton of bubbles when I've been on the field. The only part that I think draws the race flag is the 'gang' related comments. And in my opinion these are all subconcsiously racist. If Kevin Millwood had tweeted the same comments as Jones, we would all think he was just a crazy old white man trying to be funny. No one would have asked him if he is in a gang. Adam has always acted with class and with incredible personality, as well as being a fun character on and off the field. The ganag comment when I first saw it, was way off base.

I truely hope that comment really wasnt not asked to him in a live chat...it would truely sad.

[El Gordo]

I wonder how long this thread would be if we were discussing veiled homophobia and misogyny in baseball?........:scratchchinhmm:

[Beltwayman]

I think it is absolutely crazy to believe that our life experiences, the media, the community that we grew up in, our family, friends, human natural instincts (as LJ noted) and all other social interactions and relationships we participate in life have no effect on our subconscious and biases. I tend to think MSK is right on here.

With that said, I believe he is completely wrong about these biases playing a significant enough role in the criticism of Jones as to have to address it in a thread. While certainly not exempt from the pervasive social undertones of today, sports tends to be a place where performance trumps everything. If Jones was batting .350 and playing good defense his bubble blowing would most likely make him a "character". But instead he has played poorly and so the bubble blowing is a "distraction" Nothing to do with race, simply performance.

Now with that said, there are no absolutes. Are their people here who are subconsciously more likely to jump on Jones because he is black, most likely. Do I think this is driving the criticism of Jones on the OH, absolutely not.

To put it simply, I really do get what MSK is saying here and in a general sense I agree with him but as far as his application of this theory to the OH criticism of AJ, I think he is just dead wrong.

Well said!:thumbsup1:

I would think that Adam wouldnt face that kind of discrimination; of all the players he could have singled out, Adam would be the last on the list, imo. If he had started this thread last year when all that criticism was flying around about Pie, I'd find that more credible. Pie had the added dissadvantage of being a percieved failed prospect. The reason why that is important, in my experience, is that prejudicial folks tend to want certain races to have limited opportunities, as if that success took from thier race an equal opportunity (I wont bother you with my life examples), so that person/persons would not want Pie to have success here at all. Adam gets a pass, because he's seen as an organizational 'hope'. Simularly, Joe Louis only got a pass from that kind of criticism when he became a white hope as well when he faced up against Max Schnelling, the face of Germany, Nazism and Hitler. Now this happened during our fathers (mine), grandfathers, or great gfathers time period, and I would presume that most caucasians on this board would like to think that they have 'evolved' from those attitudes, and I'm certain noone has the same degree of double standard as then. Joe Louis/Schnelling was 74 years ago! That has given whites 74 years to work on that double standard (and certainly Ali confronted these attitudes as well). I have found that in this day, that a large many blacks have as bad a discrimination problem of thier own today as whites did in 1936. Targets of thier discrimination are fellow blacks, mixed race, foriegn born/immigrants, and whites. I hope they evolve from thier attitudes as whites have been evolving from thiers. I think Adam is more of an affectation example of this kind of discrimination, and Pie would be closer to a real example. Giving a Ryan Freel a second and third chance, for example, but not a second chance for Pie, saving harsher criticism for him. Both Ryan and Pie, of course, had struggled prior to coming to Baltimore, and in my oppinion are good examples of this kind of discrimination. If you felt your reading this and you felt that way about Freel and Pie, I'd search my own heart attitudes for an answer.

[RShack]

I agree w/ Tired (and have said so). These are interesting concepts - and ones we should be aware of when we make judgments - but ill-applied to Adam Jones.

Well, it's not a binary question. It's not like either the criticism is due to how he plays vs. the criticism is fabricated due to race-related stuff. I think the criticism (or about 97% of it) as about how he plays. Nothing wrong with that, and I never meant to convey otherwise.

What I think is related to this issue is the *intensity* of the reaction that accompanies the criticism. And, again, it's not everybody. But you can see people criticizing how Matt is hitting, and you can see people criticizing how AJ is hitting, and the degree of harshness and/or impatience and/or animosity that is conveyed with the criticism is IMO way different. Referring to the example I gave of my own reaction, it's almost like Matt is like the frat guys at GT and AJ is like the black kids by the Student Center... not exactly, but kinda-sorta. Matt is getting cut a lot more slack for the same kind of team-hurting O-disappointment than AJ is... just like I accidentally was more critical of the black college kids than I was of the white college kids, when what they were doing was the same thing. For Matt, the attitude is more like "Come on, buddy, you can do it... just please hurry up, will ya please?"... whereas with AJ, it's more like, "Dammit, why did you swing at that pitch, you &@^#%$#&@. What's the matter with you? We should send you down to Norfolk!"

Now, people can say it's because of D, or because of bubblegum, or because of whatever. But I think that the racial diff likely has something to do with it too. To say that, yeah, sure, race effects everybody (or at least lots of people) in ways that we don't intend and don't always recognize... and it's normal for that to be true... except around here, where it's somehow not true, well, I don't think that's plausible at all. I think that falls into the category of "Sure... everybody... except me...." I don't know why it would be any different here. It's not like we actually know these guys, a lot of what we see in them is a projective test. Not all, certainly, but a lot...

[Smokin' Joe O]

If the entire point of the original post was to point out that a SMALL AMOUNT of the criticism of Adam Jones MIGHT be attributed to some subconscious racial items in SOME people, then what's the point of starting the thread?

What really is this adding? Some people might find it easier to criticize Atkins because he looks like a doofy white guy. If he looked cooler, maybe people would cut him some more slack...should I start the thread?

No offense to the OP because it was a well thought out post, but I just don't see the point. A small minority of people might be unknowingly basing a small minority of their criticisms on something that is race-related...fine. The vast majority of the people are not. Next topic.

[Lucky Jim]

Well, it's not a binary question. It's not like either the criticism is due to how he plays vs. the criticism is fabricated due to race-related stuff. I think the criticism (or about 97% of it) as about how he plays. Nothing wrong with that, and I never meant to convey otherwise.

What I think is related to this issue is the *intensity* of the reaction that accompanies the criticism. And, again, it's not everybody. You can see people criticizing how Matt is hitting, and you can see people criticizing how AJ is hitting, and the degree of harshness and/or impatience and/or animosity that is conveyed with the criticism is IMO way different.

Referring to the example I gave of my own reaction, it's almost like Matt is like the frat guys at GT and AJ is like the black kids by the Student Center... not exactly, but kinda-sorta. Matt is getting cut a lot more slack. Now, people can say it's because of D, or because of bubblegum, or because of whatever. But I think that the racial diff likely has something to do with it to it. To say that, yeah, sure, race effects everybody (or at least lots of people) in ways that we don't intend and don't always recognize... and it's normal for that to be true... except around here, where it's somehow not true, well, I don't think that's plausible at all. I think that falls into the category of "Sure... everybody... except me...." I don't know why it would be any different here. It's not like we actually know these guys, a lot of what we see in them is a projective test. Not all, certainly, but a lot...

But there are a variety of factors here: (i) tenure (this is Jones third "full" year); (ii) nature of struggles (Wieters even though swinging poorly shows better discipline at the plate, Jones doesn't and thus reinforces a known sore-spot for the O's); (iii) personality (Wieters is quiet, unassuming and Jones self-admittedly brash); (iv) position (Jones judgment is under the spotlight in CF, Wieters' judgment - while maybe more crucial - is also more hidden.)

Any number of things could be influencing the differences here. In fact, looking at it this way, I'm the one arguing that it's not binary. Your black/white take, w/o accounting for confounding factors, creates a kind of false binarism. (Granted, you said that it may be a factor amid all the others. I agree, but that's a watery standard for validity).

I actually think that the better comparison might be the board's reaction to Reimold's struggles versus Jones, as well as the board's apparent consensus that the personal component of Reimold's struggles are inappropriate for consideration.

Reimold played a shoddy left field and looked horrible at the plate. So, why were there threads talking about the "injustice" done to him when he was sent down? I don't know.

This is part of the problem of looking at these issues through a singular lens, I think. If you can rationalize the Jones criticism, then you can dismiss MSK's point (largely) as unfounded. But even supplying Reimold is a poor control, because folks' affection for Reimold may be generated by any number of things.

That said, we've strayed from the actual subject of MSK's post, which was association bias. As I've said repeatedly, increased information generally makes these biases less powerful. Your example of Frat Boys v. Non-Frat Boys is a perfect example: it was a snapshot. How does that snapshot apply to Jones, who we've been living with since 2007? If you'd grown up on the same block as the guys you felt critical of, would it really have been an example of association bias, simply because you're white and they're not, or would it simply have been your conclusion drawn from years of first-hand evidence?

Indeed, you may be right that race plays a role in how we perceive Jones, and how we perceive Wieters. But if that's the case, then it's likely something far more insidious than what MSK alleged. Flush with information about both of them, if race still overwhelms that information, we have a problem. That's because it's no longer bounded rationality at work, no longer a quick heuristic born of a drive toward self-preservation, a quick probabilistic assessment of who is friend and who is foe.

In a sense, the mis-use of association bias (and, let's be clear, it is MISUSE) here absolves us of considering what might be a bigger, deeper issue. Is anyone going to really question whether issues of race play some role in the relationship between Baltimore - of all places - and its sports teams? To acknowledge that the existence of complex race dynamics is more-than-likely in Baltimore is not to say that the relationship is defined by race, of course. Nor is it to say that criticism is generated by racial bias. Or that everyone in Baltimore is a racist. But Baltimore has a complex history, and the residue of that history plays itself out daily, even if only if its just the last reverberations from some historical butterfly flapping its wings in 1862.

I'm of a mind that, in this instance, race isn't likely much of a factor in these reactions. Save for those for whom it is a factor. And for them, it's doubtful that it's subconscious, or an example of bounded rationality. There's a lot of racism in the world. It's hardly unlikely that Type 1 racism exists among some posters.*

*There is no accusation meant by this. It's just a simple fact. We know very little about one another, and masking bias in a controlled environment isn't so hard. All I'm saying is that, probabilistically, some bias very likely lurks (by what race and toward what race I make no claims).

[El Gordo]

Well, it's not a binary question. It's not like either the criticism is due to how he plays vs. the criticism is fabricated due to race-related stuff. I think the criticism (or about 97% of it) as about how he plays. Nothing wrong with that, and I never meant to convey otherwise.

What I think is related to this issue is the *intensity* of the reaction that accompanies the criticism. And, again, it's not everybody. You can see people criticizing how Matt is hitting, and you can see people criticizing how AJ is hitting, and the degree of harshness and/or impatience and/or animosity that is conveyed with the criticism is IMO way different. Referring to the example I gave of my own reaction, it's almost like Matt is like the frat guys at GT and AJ is like the black kids by the Student Center... not exactly, but kinda-sorta. Matt is getting cut a lot more slack for the same kind of team-hurting O-disappointment than AJ is... just like I accidentally was more critical of the black college kids than I was of the white college kids, when what they were doing was the same thing. For Matt, the attitude is more like "Come on, buddy, you can do it... just please hurry up, will ya please?"... whereas with AJ, it's more like, "Dammit, why did you swing at that pitch, you &@^#%$#&@. What's the matter with you? We should send you down to Norfolk!"

Now, people can say it's because of D, or because of bubblegum, or because of whatever. But I think that the racial diff likely has something to do with it too. To say that, yeah, sure, race effects everybody (or at least lots of people) in ways that we don't intend and don't always recognize... and it's normal for that to be true... except around here, where it's somehow not true, well, I don't think that's plausible at all. I think that falls into the category of "Sure... everybody... except me...." I don't know why it would be any different here. It's not like we actually know these guys, a lot of what we see in them is a projective test. Not all, certainly, but a lot...

Who knows. Personally I find Jones a more engaging character than Wieters. I am more disappointed in Jones because I root for him more. I never cared much for frat boys. I just wish AJ hadn't been so eager with the PR side of things. But I think he is getting his priorities straight. We'll know for sure when he goes on a HR spurt. If he can keep from trying to pull everything again, he will be back on track.

[Lucky Jim]

Who knows. Personally I find Jones a more engaging character than Wieters. I am more disappointed in Jones because I root for him more. I never cared much for frat boys. I just wish AJ hadn't been so eager with the PR side of things. But I think he is getting his priorities straight. We'll know for sure when he goes on a HR spurt. If he can keep from trying to pull everything again, he will be back on track.

Talk about bias. Now I know why you criticize me so much. (Sorry, forgot the )