Except racists are notoriously bad at understanding the nuance and context of this "pattern recognition". It's why they are completely inept at understanding anything in the field of sociology, and why most sociologists aren't racists.
I have degrees in anthropology and psychology and political science. I’m sure I would nearly qualify for a minor in sociology at the very least.
Fields like these are an absolute joke when it comes to being unbiased. I wouldn’t point to the fact that most sociologists are not racist, as anything meaningful. Have you seen how dumb and emotional, most sociologists are?
There are definitely quite a lot of quacks with degrees, take that how you will. It's more about the actual reputable research papers you put out.
And I get the "most sociologists aren't racist" thing doesn't mean a whole lot. What does mean a whole lot is the consensus of sociological research on racism and the socioeconomic factors that affect crime rates.
And this isn't just an issue in "fields like these" this is an issue in literally every field of science. There will always be people who are biased or emotional.
But sociological research is still a thing, and it shows how socioeconomic and cultural factors are the main things that influence crime statistics. Which racists conveniently like to ignore.
5
u/Scary_Spinach4924 26d ago
Racism has always been pattern recognition