![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
As with so many Wikipedia articles, this started out as a clear explanation of a specific concept. Then a wide variety of us (yes, including myself) began adding our ideas. Sadly, the present article has swollen as people have added text on a growing list of sub-topics. The article has long struggled with people adding example after example of specific examples/events that they see as exemplifying microagressions. Some of these have been pruned. I raise a question for all of us to ponder: Are we genuinely improving the article by our additions? I think the article is most valuable and helpful when it is concise. Gently. Pete unseth ( talk) 19:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I am getting ready to post this to the main page soon:
According to Lui and Quezada from a 2019 article, a more complete view on the relationship between microaggressions and adjustment outcomes was uncovered. Adjustment outcomes is otherwise known as “self-esteem, perceived stress, negative and positive affect, depression and anxiety symptoms (Hu & Taylor, 2016; Hughes et al., 2016; Ong et al., 2013)." [1] They achieved this by combining all published/unpublished research and narrative reviews on the relationship between microaggressions and adjustment outcomes from several countries, examining existing disparities, and by developing their own cube model.
The cube model is a tool used to help with categorizing microaggressions on differing social groups in differing locations. One side of the cube has the social group dimension, another side has the category of the microaggression dimension, and the final side has the social level dimension. The purpose of this is to show that the cube can show any specific type of microaggression. [2]
What Lui and Quezada found was a "statistically significant summary correlation between microaggressions and adjustment outcomes." [3] Specifically, this was true for microaggressions related to race, LGBTQ, and health statuses - a non-exhaustive list. What this means is that microaggression do impact people's self-esteem, perceived stress, negative and positive affect, depression and anxiety symptoms when it comes to racial, LGBTQ, and health statuses.
Maddek ( talk) 15:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
A 2019 paper by Lui and Quezada surveyed research from several countries, studying the connection between microaggressions and "self-esteem,..."[4]. They stated that there was a "statistically significant correlation" between exposure to microaggression and certain negative emotional effects.
these studies have been largely correlational and based on recall and self-report, making it difficult to determine whether racial microaggressions actually cause negative health outcomes and, if so, through what mechanisms. Thus, we don't know whether the supposed effects of microaggressions reported by Liu and Quezada are real or are only an artifact of the methodology in these studies. For example, it's possible that there's no actual correlation between amount of exposure to microaggressions and low self-esteem. Rather, people with high self-esteem might be less likely to notice microaggressions, less likely to remember them, and less likely to report them in response to the researchers' surveys. People with low self-esteem might be more likely to scrutinize remarks that other people make and interpret them as microaggressions. Even if there is a true correlation between amount of exposure to microaggressions and low self-esteem, that doesn't mean that the greater number of microaggressions necessarily caused the low self-esteem. The causality could be the other way around. Namely, people might be less likely to make disparaging comments to someone who exudes self-confidence than to someone who exhibits low self-esteem. So we have to be careful not to report on papers such as the one by Liu and Quezada as if they've uncovered facts. The claim of impact of microaggressions on physical or mental health is merely one possible interpretation. NightHeron ( talk) 16:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); External link in |doi=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); External link in |doi=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); External link in |doi=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); External link in |doi=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); External link in |doi=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); External link in |doi=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
For example, the first source in the added material does not use the word microaggression or mention the concept in the abstract. (Rather, it says "Common issues discussed by respondents include disconnect from communities, relationships between identities, coming out, and stress and anxiety. The primary concepts introduced in this study include positive intersectionality and come out stress.") Neither does the third. The second source used is an unpublished dissertation, not RS. One can't regard any source that discusses racial identity or discrimination as being about microaggressions. NightHeron ( talk) 11:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
References 1,2,3,4,5 are outdated, are from print books, which are not available to view online. Referencing of this quality would yield a fail, if used in first year BSc or BA undergraduate degree. Learnedresponsibility ( talk) 04:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
By Wikipedia policy, cited references are NOT required to be accessible online. Pete unseth ( talk) 14:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Kliu38.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Maddek,
MariVillal.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 May 2021 and 6 August 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Nicgrana. Peer reviewers:
MedLife4,
Zweathersby,
Skymcm2015.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 18 November 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ajain02.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
In My Opinion, it only deals with the United States because, in my political conservative opinion, this is the leftists stirring the pot, mainly democrats and progressives and post-modernist only prevalent in the U.S. and I think this'll never spread, so this article does not need fixing, and I think it is just another political ruse. I'd even say due to it being heavily a political ruse, it would be unnotable without the politics behind it. I'm not nominating it for deletion NOW, but it might have to go when the woke wave dies down. but, this is mainly my POLITICAL opinion, however, I still think it is a trivial ruse nonetheless and is not notable. I may be wrong, but I'd have to wait. at best, just remove the template and move on. this only NEEDS to deal with the U.S. since this, microaggression call out stuff isn't a worldwide thing 2189 is out of order ( talk) 04:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
There are several problems with the recent additions. First, it's far too much attention to a single source, see
WP:UNDUE. Second, wikivoice is used non-neutrally, for example, "A major 2019 study, however, found
". Thirdly, the logic of the additions is often unclear. For example, what does "minority identity did not moderate this relationship" mean and what does it have to do with hypersensitivity?
NightHeron (
talk)
09:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you on two of your points and disagree on one. First, I disagree about too much attention to one source. The source is Dr. D.W. Sue’s latest book, and since Dr. Sue is credited throughout the article as the person who popularized the term microaggressions, he has a unique position, especially in responding to his critics, such as Haidt and McWhorter. Wikipedia editors could use other articles Dr. Sue has written to do this, but that seems silly. Why not use Dr. Sue’s latest book with his most recent thinking? Second, I agree quotes were over-used. I will summarize and make it shorter. Third, I agree there were many other concepts discussed in the quotes. I will eliminate the extra information and try again. Thanks!
We could cut and paste my edits from just now, but I believe you can also look at the edits I just made in the edit history. Dr. Sue popularized the term microaggressions, and in many ways the sections on “Emotional Distress” and “Victimhood” are intellectual debates between Dr. Sue and intellectual critics who disagree with the concept of microaggressions and also disagree with causes and potential solutions to emotional distress people may feel surrounding the term. My overall point is that Dr. Sue needs to be able to respond to his critics with his latest thinking, which will create more balance in these sections and perhaps help uncover more truth in either viewpoint. I am open to your specific edits. Please feel free to discuss my most recent edits here and how you would improve them. Thank you again. I am sure you understand why I feel it is important for Dr. Sue to be able to respond to his critics in these sections. Steveok1 ( talk) 12:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I also think it is fair to give you a reasonable amount of time (12 hours? more if needed?) to propose edits to my latest submissions in the edit history on this talk page, but if you do not reply in a spirit of improving these sections, I reserve the right to restore my edits. It may require some effort on each of our parts, but I believe that is the spirit of Wikipedia, right? Steveok1 ( talk) 12:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
That is fine. Would you like to look at my edit history to have this discussion? Or are you asking me to copy and paste each sentence one at a time? In all seriousness, we can go one sentence at a time with copy and paste. Or we can look at my most recent edits in the history to have this discussion one sentence at a time. Steveok1 ( talk) 12:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Let’s start with a sentence I proposed under Criticism > Culture of Victimhood:
“Dr. Sue and his critics seem to agree that emotional distress related to microaggressions exists for many members of ethnic minority groups, but they disagree on the causes and potential solutions to this emotional distress.”
This was meant as a transition statement to Dr. Sue responding to criticisms from Haidt and Lukianoff about victimhood. But is it best to have Dr. Sue respond to Haidt and Lukianoff in the Criticism section (is that standard in Wikipedia articles? Or is it only the critics who make points in the Criticism section? I am not sure). Or what are your thoughts here? Steveok1 ( talk) 17:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Ok, we can discuss your question in the Mind Reading section, but let's move beyond transition statements for now. Staying in the Emotional Distress section, this is a key sentence (which I agree could be made shorter, but provides six crucial points of evidence challenging the criticisms of Lukianoff and Haidt) using the Keon West research:
'Dr. D.W. Sue, who popularized the term microaggressions, responded to criticisms about emotional distress from Lukianoff and Haidt with evidence from a 2019 study which showed: (a) emotional sensitivity to racial slights was not greater among ethnic minorities “than their majority counterparts,” (b) emotional distress was “due to the inordinately high number of microaggressions that they endured,” (c) the impact of “microaggressions are cumulative” and each incident may represent “a lifetime of humiliation and denigration,” (d) microaggressions are “energy depleting” because they require deciphering “double messages” and can lead to “constant vigilance required for psychological and physical survival,” (e) emotional distress is also tied to “constant reminders of a person’s second-class status in society,” (f) emotional distress is also partly explained because “microaggressions symbolize past historic injustices.”' Steveok1 ( talk) 03:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I agree responding specifically to individual critiques is the best approach in these sections. I will work on this.
In the meantime, I found what may be a small area of common ground between Dr. Sue and his critics (in fact, Lilienfeld discusses these in an article section called “The Search for Common Ground”). Here are 3 sentences I propose using somewhere in the Criticism section:
‘Lilienfeld, however, agrees with microaggression researchers that “a discussion of microaggressions, however we choose to conceptualize them, may indeed have a place on college campuses and businesses.”’
‘In such conversations, Lilienfeld states it is important to assume “most or all individuals…were genuinely offended,” “to listen nondefensively to their concerns and reactions,” and “be open to the possibility that we have been inadvertently insensitive.”’
Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691619867117
‘Dr. D.W. Sue also recommends a “collaborative rather than an attacking tone.”’
Source p. 159: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Microintervention+Strategies%3A+What+You+Can+Do+to+Disarm+and+Dismantle+Individual+and+Systemic+Racism+and+Bias-p-9781119769989 Steveok1 ( talk) 11:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I feel like there's a need for pictures on this article, it's visually very bland, and I think if there were pictures added it would become more interactive, and easy to understand. If I were to add pictures, would you guys have any suggestions of what specifically should be added? LilliBaldner ( talk) 16:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
When neighbors ask what you're doing on your own street, implying that you don't look like the kind of person who should live there, that should count as a microaggression. It especially hurts when they withhold their names and don't respond when you give yours. DorothyPugh ( talk) 17:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi guys, I'm doing a project for a class where me and my group will be adding and contributing to an article on Wikipedia, and we've chosen this article, and I was thinking about adding a section about Microaggressions in health care, clinical medicine, or just the medical community in general. What do you guys think about that? LilliBaldner ( talk) 19:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)LilliBaldner
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 September 2022 and 19 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Milesmorales2001 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Ajb321,
KoolKat1031.
— Assignment last updated by Patrickgleason6 ( talk) 16:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)