With Approach 2, you would look at what activities white dudes do and compare these activities to what black people and women do and then try to figure out what the differences are. For example, if you do west coast swing dance and notice that it's very white/asian, you might ask the black folks you see where else black people dance, get an invite to go Chicago stepping, where you'll notice that you're the only non-black person in the room who isn't the significant other of a black person.
Or you notice that your bridge/euchre/canasta game is extremely white (and in some places, also somewhat asian). You might ask the one black pair you see where else they play cards, get an invite to a spades tournament, where you look around and are the only non black person in the room.
If you do this a bunch of times, you'll notice large non-racial demographic differences between each pairwise-related groups and you can pick through the differences to try to figure out which ones are causal.
I think it would be fair to say that people who take Approach 1 are engaging in a lot of confirmation bias, but that's a much more general term and doesn't really describe the approach.
Anyway, my question is, do Approach 1 and Approach 2 have generally or somewhat understood shorthand names or, if you want to explain to a bystander what these are, do you have to actually describe the behaviors as I did above?
@ed709062 1. resolving cognitive dissonance. 2, critical thinking
For cognitive dissonance, the brain takes the most efficient path to resolve the uncomfortable emotion, then stops.
Oddbean new post about login | logout