Banner
    Is Racism Due To Perceptual Illusions?
    By Mark Changizi | February 4th 2010 10:01 AM | 25 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Mark

    Mark Changizi is Director of Human Cognition at 2AI, and the author of The Vision Revolution (Benbella 2009) and Harnessed: How...

    View Mark's Profile
    Other people have an accent, but not me. And this is not just because I have no accent. I wouldn’t have an accent even if I had one!

    Accent is a strange thing (as is my reasoning style). No matter the accent you get stuck with – southern, New Yorker, or my valley girl rendition – you feel as if it is the other accents that sound accented to you. Your own accent sounds, well, unaccented, like vanilla, corn flakes, or white bread. Arguments about which person “has an accent” don’t tend to be productive; just a lot of pointing and reiterating the pearl, “No, you’re the one with the accent.”

    And it is not just accent where we find ourselves behaving badly. We do the same for skin color. Most people feel that their own skin color is fairly uncolorful, and difficult to accurately name. Why are our perceptual systems like this? Here’s what I said about this in The Vision Revolution.
    “Why would we evolve to perceive our own skin color as uncategorizable and uncolored? How could this be a useful thing? Consider an object with a color that is highly categorizable­say an orange. If I place 100 oranges in front of you, there will actually be some variation in their colors, but you won’t pay much attention to these differences. You will subconsciously lump together all the different hues into the same category: “orange.” Ignoring differences is a central feature of categorization. To categorize is to stereotype. When a color is uncategorizable, however, the opposite of stereotyping occurs. Rather than lumping together all the different colors, you appreciate all the little differences. Because our skin color cannot be categorized, we are better able to see very minor deviations in skin color, and therefore register minor changes in others’ skin color as they occur.”
    Unfortunately, this fine discrimination around one’s own skin color (or accent, or the taste of your own saliva, for that matter) has an unintended consequence: it can lead to racism.
    racism skin color perceptual illusion vision Mark Changizi

    Could racism really be a side effect of highly efficient perceptual mechanisms? I’m afraid so. Here’s an excerpt from The Vision Revolution where I discuss why…

    ***

    If our skin color is so uncolored, why do we use color terms so often to refer to race? Races may not literally be white, black, brown, red or yellow, but people do perceive other races to be colored in the general direction of these fundamental colors, which is why color terms are used at all. So, what is all this nonsense about uncolored skin?

    To answer this, one must remember that it is only one’s own skin that appears uncolored. I perceive my saliva as tasteless, but I might taste a sample of some of yours. I don’t smell my nose, but I might be able to smell yours. Similarly, my own skin may appear uncolored to me, but a consequence of being designed to perceive the changes around baseline is that even fairly small deviations from baseline are perceived as qualitatively colored, just as a 100 degree temperature is perceived as hot. An alien coming to visit us would find it utterly perplexing that a white person perceives a black person’s skin to be so different from his own, and vice versa. Their spectra are practically identical (see Figure 3). But then again, this alien would be surprised to learn that you perceive 100 degree skin as hot, even though 98.6 degrees and 100 degrees are practically the same. 

    Therefore, the fact that languages tend to use color terms to refer to other races is not at all mysterious. It is consistent with what would be expected if our color vision is designed for seeing color changes around baseline skin color. Whereas your baseline skin color is uncategorizable and appears uncolored, skin colors deviating even a little from baseline appear categorizably colorey.

    Skin color is probably a lot like accents. Rather than asking about the color of your skin, let’s now ask, What is the accent of your own voice? The answer is that you perceive it to have no accent. But you perceive people coming from other regions or countries to have an accent. Of course, they believe that you are the one with the accent, not them. This is because we are designed to ably discriminate the voices of people in our lives who have the same accent (or non-accent) as ourselves. We need to discriminate between different people’s voices, and we also need to discriminate the inflections in the voice of a single individual. A consequence of this is that our own voice and those typical of our community are perceived as non-accented, and even fairly small deviations away from this baseline accent are perceived as categorizably accented (e.g., country, urban, Boston, New York, English, Irish, German and Latino accents). Because of this, people find it difficult to recognize people by voice when they have an accent. People also find it more difficult to discriminate the tone or emotional inflections of the speaker when the speaker has an accent. 

    In talking about your perception of your own skin color earlier, for simplicity I was implicitly assuming that the community you have grown up around shares approximately the same skin color. For most of our evolutionary history this was certainly the case. And even today most people are raised and live among individuals largely sharing their own skin color, but by no means always. If you are an ethnic minority in your community, your skin color may differ from the average skin color around you, and your baseline skin color may well end up to be different from your own. If this were the case, then you may in principle perceive your own skin to be colored. For example, if you are of African descent but living in the U.S., then because the baseline skin color of the U.S. leans toward that of Caucasians, you may perceive your own skin to be color-ey. Similarly, if someone with a Southern accent moves to New York City, he may begin to notice his own accent because the baseline accent of his community has changed (but his accent may not much change). 

    One implication of all this is that our perception of the skin color of various races is illusory, and these illusions are potentially one factor underlying racism. In fact, it leads to at least three distinct (but related) illusions of racial skin color. To understand these three illusions, it is helpful to consider these illusions in the context of perceived temperature.

    First, as noted earlier, we perceive 98.6 degrees to be neither warm nor cold, yet we perceive 100 degrees as hot. That is, we perceive one temperature to have no perceptual quality of warmth/cold, whereas we perceive the other temperature to categorically possess a temperature (namely hot). This is an illusion because there is nothing in the physics of temperature that underlies this perceived qualitative difference between these two temperatures. For skin there is an analogous illusion, namely the perception we have that one’s own skin is uncolorful but that the skin of other races is colored. This is an illusion because there is no objective sense in which your skin is uncolorful but that of others is colorful. (Similarly, there is no objective truth underlying the perception that one’s own voice is not accented but that foreign voices are.) 

    A second consequent illusion is illustrated by the fact that we perceive 98.6 degrees as very different from 100 degrees, even though they are objectively not very different. This is closely related to the first illusion, but differs because whereas the first concerns the absence versus the presence of a perceived categorical quality, this illusion concerns the perceived difference in the two cases. The analogous illusion for skin is the perception that your own skin is very different from that of some other races. This is an illusion because the spectra underlying skin colors of different races are actually very similar.

    And third, we perceive 102 degrees and 104 degrees as very similar in temperature, despite their objective difference being greater than the difference between 98.6 degrees and 100 degrees, the latter which we perceive as very different. For skin colors, we lump together the skin colors of some other races as similar to one another, even though in some cases their colors may differ as much as your own color does from either of them. For example, while people of African descent distinguish between many varieties of African skin, Caucasians tend to lump them all together as “black” skin. (And for the perception of voice, many Americans confuse Australian accents with English ones, two accents which are probably just as objectively different as American is to English.)

    As a whole, these illusions lead to the false impression that other races are qualitatively very different from ourselves, and that other races are homogeneous compared to our own. It is, then, no wonder that we humans have a tendency to stereotype other races: we suffer from perceptual illusions that encourage this. But by recognizing that we suffer from these illusions, we can more ably counter them.

    ***

    How much of the human tendency toward racism is explained by these perceptual mechanisms? I don’t know, but I would not underestimate the power of such illusions, for they fundamentally affect – or color – how we see the world and the people in it.

    Comments

    This is all well and good, but it doesn't actually explain racism. It merely explains a mechanism that allows us to be racist if we choose to be. There's no reason to conclude that recognizing those of different hues to be a different color leads to a negative attitude about other colors. You don't hate oranges because they aren't the same color as you. If you are light skinned, you don't hate folks who get sun-tanned, even though you would recognize they are a different color now. No, there must be some other reason, beyond just seeing different colors, the sustains our hatred and fear of other groups of people . . since this hatred and fear extends to things besides color, like religion, ethnicity and the like. . . something that makes us choose the characteristic of another group and use it to make them OTHER. Like the Irish, if it were just that we tend to see other races because their color falls out of our spectrum of hues, why were the Irish as hated as the blacks a century ago?

    Mark Changizi

    I'm certainly not suggesting that perceptual illusions are the sole contributor!  But I do suspect they contribute. And although I focus on color, there are a suite of similar mechanisms that do the same sort of thing for other stimulus attributes of the face, like perceived "face ethnicity". One's own ethnicity's facial features come in a huge variety -- but "those people" all look the same. ...and so on.

    As for non-perceptual contributors to racism, surely the fact that we're inherently "tribal" is crucial. But I think that's a fairly obvious point, whereas I don't think many people are consciously aware of these perceptual contributors.

    -Mark
    The Irish were hated because they were perceived to be mostly Catholic and less cultured. The same reasons they were marginalized in the old country. They were new comers, immigrants, with less money being placed into an already existing culture. May I suggest that the real reason the Irish were hated was their standing relative to the English immigrants. Racism, was that the reason? Citing racism prima facia in this case or others where there are obvious racial differences is an easy way of ascribing a root cause for social stress. No, it is something deeper. Something that we as a nation still struggle with today and will use every other term possible but for its name. It is class struggle. Rednecks against the city folks, North against South, Protestant against Catholic, Sunni against Shi'ah, Black against White, house negro against field negro... Sadly, I could keep going. Is racism caused by perception illusions? No, there is no illusion and no consensus. We are all different.

    Racism is in large part based in a societal structure that privileges those people who have what society has deemed the "better" skin color.

    When talking about the "root of racism" I think it's important to listen to the voices of those who are oppressed by it. White (privileged) people talking about a biological root to racism tends to alleviate them of their responsibility as people privileged by the system to help break down the barriers of oppression. The same thing happens with sexism, or ableism, or homophobia, or transphobia, or fatphobia, or really any oppressive system. The best way to combat oppression is to listen to the people who experience the oppression and follow their lead on how to eliminate it.

    Which is not to say that it is the responsibility of any given oppressed person to educate the oppressor on how to stop. More that oppressed groups consist of many, many people and there are those within speaking up about how to dismantle the oppressive system. Privileged people demanding the answer from a given person in an oppressed group perpetuates the oppression. But as privileged people, we should be actively seeking and listening to those in oppressed groups who are speaking out against their oppression and educate ourselves on the ways in which our actions oppress others.

    Or, in other words, instead of discussing theory of how we became racist due to biology (and thus negating our responsibility for it), why not focus on ways to be less racist?

    Mark Changizi

    Darn. And I was so close to achieving my master plan of absolving racists of all responsibility! No, the point is that if one can better recognize one's own psychological biases that help lead to racism, one can better go about rectifying it. 
    vongehr
    He he - now you admitted it (Don't you know sarcasm is too high level?). Anyways, an interesting post well written. I love the you can't smell your nose part. Actually, mine smells like shit whenever I pick it or squeeze it a certain way at the tip - wonder what that is all about (no, I washed my hands before - it is not the brown stuff under the nails).

    BTW: You mentioned the almost equal spectra ("see below") as if you originally had a picture about that, which would be interesting to see, although it is a little off the topic (black colored skin is differentiated by reflectance more than colors I would guess - same with the moon's albedo - the moon is also black in a way, still, it is white, you know what I mean - the spectrum is never enough to distinguish (perceived) color, especially not with black and white being the main issue).
    Gerhard Adam
    Mark

    I think you've raised a good point.  In socially cooperative species, belonging to a group has significant repercussions in how you will be treated and how you are perceived.  In the broad social context, as you described with a person's accent, it is interesting to consider that if the accent isn't significantly different (i.e. northern/southern) then it is possible to begin to pick up the accent of the local environment without realizing it.  I suspect that this may simply be a vehicle to become integrated into the group in which you now reside.

    Something like skin color represents a permanent difference, so that there is no doubt that these differences mark group differences.  At this point, one's cultural viewpoint can determine whether that affects the behavior or not.  In other words, you can choose to amplify the difference, or be indifferent to it.  However, each would represent a response to how strongly the group identity is reflected in the individual's belief.

    I suspect we have similar illusions when we consider how old we look versus how others see us.  Just as ants may use pheremones to identify members of the nest, we use our visual cues similarly (although with our large diverse population, lots of complexity has been introduced).

    I don't think it's a coincidence that many groups in our society rely on uniforms to create an identity for members.  Since clothes are used to provide such identifications, uniforms emphasize it.  Similarly, I would suspect that skin color could certainly fulfill a comparable function, and where that was insufficient, local body decorations would've helped that process.

    Mark Changizi
    ...and on uniforms, indeed, non-military folk can't see the military-uniform distinctions military folk can see.
    I don't think it's a coincidence that many groups in our society rely on uniforms to create an identity for members. Since clothes are used to provide such identifications, uniforms emphasize it. Similarly, I would suspect that skin color could certainly fulfill a comparable function, and where that was insufficient, local body decorations would've helped that process.

    Good stuff Gerhard. I like to extend to the concept of uniforms to include general dress preferences in the population. For example, the suit and tie, even down here in hot Aus wearing the business uniform is considered essential for certain roles and aspirations. Then there are "bogans", a sub culture of sorts typically identified with lower socio economic status and poor prospects for advancement.

    "Superficial characteristics" are anything but superficial. We make a great deal out of how people dress and their general appearance. Have a look at some studies on facial disfigurement. That research is truly scary and highlights how quickly we make judgment calls on people.

    All of these things (voice, skin color, facial features, etc.) are cues prompted by our brain structure (specifically, the medial prefrontal cortex; mPFC) to identify members of "our" group...no doubt selected for over millions of years of evolution. In the mPFC, there are two major "compartments"--the dorsal and ventral mPFC...the dorsal becomes highly activated when it perceives (when we are looking at) a person exhibiting cues/signs of "in group" (our group) identity, the ventral becomes activated when the person exhibits cues/signs that are identified (through social and biological conditioning) as "out group"....interestingly, when we look at someone who exhibits cues/signs that are a mixture of in and out group identifiers (say, a white person with dreadlocks), both compartments of the mPFC become equally active....and no definitive categorization is made...what would be called a state of "confusion".
    Racism--the belief that one group is superior or inferior to another--maybe an extreme outgrowth of this innate compartmentalization. The aforementioned example of a "confusion" of in and out group "indentifiers" may hold the key to overcoming--or at least stalling--the racial, or out group, distinctions made automatically by our mPFCs. Blacks becoming more white, whites becoming more black, etc.
    Note how formerly, laws forbidding inter-racial marriage were common...understandable if one wishes to perpetuate racial bias and racist privilege, and the "purity" of one's group (which is, apparently, and instinctive outgrowth of the mPFC)...For, inter-racial marriage very often leads to children of "mixed blood" (that is, mixed racial traits)...which confuses the issue (i.e., the need to identify the group membership of the "other").
    This works both ways: in black communities, bi-racial kids are frequently the targets of slurs, ridicule and 'in group' persecution...and speaking without an Afro-American, urban dialect (and being academically inclined) is often condemned as being "white"--all attempts to "preserve" the racial uniformity (and clear identity) of the group.
    How do we overcome...short-circuit the mPFC!

    Mark Changizi

    Thanks, Michael, for the nice discussion. On the short-circuit... Doctor: "Just insert this wire into your mPFC, and you will no longer be such a sonofabi***! "

    Ha...funny!...You're right of course, nothing is quite so easy....also, I should have said that these visual cues act in concert with the compartmentalization activity of the mPFC, or perhaps exist in a feedback loop of some kind, rather than the cues "prompting" the mPFC...the mPFC came first (serving as it did some ancient survival/recognition function), and only later, as small groups moved out into the world--new lands, new territories--and encountered more variable (in appearance) groups, the mPFC's function was "adapted" to the new conditions; new signs of distinction (and group membership) were added to the store of instinctive cues....the more different looking the group, the more reflexive (perhaps) the in/out group response, and the more active the (ventral) mPFC became....or something like that....just a theory--trying to map your theory onto the neuroscience....

    Observed average behaviors of ingroups and outgroups are much more relevant to intergroup attitudes than skin color. Limiting discussion of racial outlooks to considerations of superficial characteristics is not very productive.

    Mark Changizi

    Behavior matters, but I disagree that superficial characteristics don't matter. Unfortunately they do.
    Racism and Bias is always a rather heated topic and it is interesting to see how some read into your observations in, at least for me, what was a very interesting look at some factors that cause racism.

    Also, as you get at in your post, the perception of difference does not only affect obvious factors, but much more subtle ones. One of the most annoying ones for me is the way people of different areas judge others. For example, you have many Northerners who feel that everyone from the South is ignorant and backwards, while many southerners share similar biases about those in the North. This misses the point, however, that pretty much no location has a monopoly on ignorance or backwardness.

    Hfarmer
    I agree with what you have here.  Take my nephew as an example of an African American raised mostly around other dark skinned black people in St. Louis.  
    I researched my own ancestry and found out what I already knew.  That I was of mixed race.  I particularly enjoyed and found out about my Native American ancestors.  I would talk about it.  He became agitated and said I was so happy to find out that I was so "white".  That's right to this young man Native Americans... the red man... are white.   He thinks Asians... the yellow men... are white.  He thinks that I think I am white.  (I think I am the same color as a penny.) 

    Allow me to lighten things up with a humorous and musical look at this very topic. Though the song is about hair texture, another variable on which prejudice can be founded, it's really about skin color.  Director Spike Lee probably didn't want to just be direct with that. 

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Mark Changizi
    Perfect video. Nice!
    Hfarmer
    On the same topic of African American Afro-type hair.  What do scientist in your field say about it's evolution.  
    African's and people of African descent see a world filled with Billions of straight haired people who are supposed to have evolved from some of us.  Yet all of them have very straight hair.   We in our turn are supposed to have evolved from apes who also have straight hair.  I suppose my question is, why would hair evolve to be straight for hundreds of millions of years in mammals?  Then in one species of  mammals evolve to be kinky?  Then after all of that evolve back to being straight? (at least on the head.  Supposedly most people in the world retain afro style hair... in the pubic region.)  

    What little I have read on the topic says it was an adaptation to walking upright in a very hot environment.  I don't know about that.  If that were the case then wouldn't more people outside Africa have retained Afro style hair.  I know some isolated groups of Islanders around the Indian ocean also have nappy hair.  

    As the owner of tightly curled but not quite nappy hair, I don't see the advantage to it.  Other than the fact it naturally stays out of  our eyes. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Gerhard Adam
    Don't know if you've seen it, but a recent Scientific American article brings up the point:

    "Tightly curled hair provides the optimum head covering in this regard [excessive heat], because it increases the thickness of the space between the surface of the hair and the scalp, allowing air to blow through.  Much remains to be discovered about the evolution of human head hair, but it is possible that tightly curled hair was the original condition in modern humans and that other hair types evolved as humans dispersed out of tropical Africa."
    Nina G. Jablonski, "The Naked Truth", Scientific American Feb. 2010
    Mark Changizi

    Yup, I saw it. Blaring oversight in the article...me!  My guess is she's not seen my color / skin research at all.  -Mark
    Gerhard Adam
    Actually I thought the same thing.  I think I see a new job opportunity; the researcher's researcher.  Someone whose job it is to simply keep track of related research that is pertinent to the original researcher's work. :)

    Hfarmer
    There's already people who do that.  They are called graduate students.  rimshot.
    Seriously I'm here all knight.  That's basically the way I had heard it in some sources.  That The tight curl of African hair was due to the extreme heat and sun.  Another scenario I heard on a documentary about the whole out of Africa VS multi regional "debate".  Said within Africa there is great variation in hair texture and every other feature simply by nature. (i.e. look at the skin color and features of the Khoisan people.  In the USA many would simply think they were mixed African and Asian.)  So by pure happen stance that first group of Homo Sapiens to leave Africa and populate the wider world had straight hair.  
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Gerhard Adam
    Well, haven't you ever just had a bad hair day and said ... "that's it ... I'm outta here".
    Hfarmer
    That's the thing.  In a certain sense African American's who have the typical Afraican American hair, always have a "bad" hair day.    Think about this.  White woman wakes up.  Finger combs her hair and throws it back.  If it's not more than shoulder length instantly she has a "professional looking" hair style.  If a black person who hasn't straightened their hair did the same thing it would not be accepted in many offices.  Let alone putting our hair in cornrow braids, or even dreadlocks.  It's almost as if a black person just washing their hair and leaving it alone would be breaking a cultural moree or folkway.  
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.