On implicit bias

[bibiche]

Should we talk about implicit bias or is pointing it out insulting?

 

 

Here's one resource: http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research/understanding-implicit-bias/

 

Another:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/education.html

Edited October 6, 2016 by bibiche

[TranquilMind]

This first article is wholly political and left-leaning.    

 

Probably better move it to the Politics board if you want people to discuss it. 

 

Regarding your test (which I may go back and take), there is an implicit bias right in the instructions, which I find ironic:

 

"For example, you may believe that women and men should be equally associated with science, but your automatic associations could show that you (like many others) associate men with science more than you associate women with science."

 

Just because you do believe that men and women should be equally associated with science (I do) does not eliminate reality, that men do indeed outnumber women in science.  You don't have to ignore that reality to be unbiased.  That would be biased in itself.   

 

From here:  According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, women in fields commonly referred to as STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) made up 7 percent of that workforce in 1970, a figure that had jumped to 23 percent by 1990. But the rise essentially stopped there. Two decades later, in 2011, women made up 26 percent of the science workforce.

[Guest]

Link was removed from OP, carry on.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[TranquilMind]

The disclaimer on the test is hilarious, by the way: 

 

Important disclaimer: In reporting to you results of any IAT test that you take, we will mention possible interpretations that have a basis in research done (at the University of Washington, University of Virginia, Harvard University, and Yale University) with these tests. However, these Universities, as well as the individual researchers who have contributed to this site, make no claim for the validity of these suggested interpretations. If you are unprepared to encounter interpretations that you might find objectionable, please do not proceed further. You may prefer to examine general information about the IAT before deciding whether or not to proceed.

 

I am aware of the possibility of encountering interpretations of my IAT test performance with which I may not agree. Knowing this, I wish to proceed

 

 

Oh NO!  No claim of validity and interpretations with which I may not agree!  Lol

[Bluegoat]

What people seem to miss, when they talk about this, is that it applies to everyone, including those with the "right" biases, or those who are in the less powerful position.  And there is no particular reason, logically speaking, that those biases will be more accurate or self-conscious than the "wrong" biases.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Bluegoat

[bibiche]

Hmm, I don't see this as political, but I will certainly delete the NYT link if that seems to be the offensive one.

 

The other two links aren't remotely political, and I fail to see how the subject is.

[TranquilMind]

Ok, I took the first test in line referencing Asian Americans

Goodness. It was so confusing, and sometimes you just hit the wrong button.  It means NOTHING at all, except an inability to hit ever-changing categories at a breakneck speed.  They kept changing them back and forth.  If I took an hour, and did it at a normal pace with precision (which they warn you not to do), it would reflect my actual feelings.  I have Asian friends and love them. 

 

Got this:  Your data suggest a moderate automatic association for American with European American and Foreign with Asian American.

 

No, my data suggest an inability to switch back and forth on the buttons very quickly.  Sometimes a key was for "Foreign OR Asian American."  Sometimes for American or Asian American, Sometimes for European American/Foreign and sometimes with Asian/Foreign.

 

Confusing as heck to have the categories switch back and forth. Not any preference whatsoever. 

And what's with all the extreme data-mining at the end before you get results?  At least, to their credit, they give you a button marked "Decline to answer". 

 

Because hell will freeze over before I share all that personal information. 

[Pawz4me]

How is talking about implicit bias insulting or political? :confused1: 

 

This is an education board. I'd be really surprised if there are very many people here who don't understand that implicit bias exists.

[Jean in Newcastle]

How is talking about implicit bias insulting or political? :confused1:

 

This is an education board. I'd be really surprised if there are very many people here who don't understand that implicit bias exists.

 

I see it more as a "d'uh" kind of thing not really necessary to be pointed out. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

 

And what's with all the extreme data-mining at the end before you get results?  At least, to their credit, they give you a button marked "Decline to answer". 

 

 

 

Yeah, it's almost like they are trying to collect data to help with their research or something.

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh go away and post this on the political board. Sheesh. Reported.

 

Reported for what?  What was political in her OP?

[Pawz4me]

I see it more as a "d'uh" kind of thing not really necessary to be pointed out. 

 

I agree with that. But there are lots of topics here that are "duh" for me. But if someone else wants to discuss them I figure that's their business.

[Upward Journey]

Should we talk about implicit bias or is pointing it out insulting?

 

 

Here's one resource: http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research/understanding-implicit-bias/

 

Another:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/education.html

 

There was a really good article about this on Slate yesterday.

 

I have to admit that I usually start rolling my eyes when this topic comes up. However, I found the article really enlightening, and it got me thinking.  I'm glad I read it.

 

eta. I'm not linking, because probably Slate is considered to be political, though I didn't find this article to be particularly so.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Upward Journey

[TranquilMind]

nm 

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer

[TranquilMind]

 

 

And what's with all the extreme data-mining at the end before you get results?  At least, to their credit, they give you a button marked "Decline to answer". 

 

 

 

Yeah, it's almost like they are trying to collect data to help with their research or something.

 

 

Asking very personal questions is inappropriate.  General stuff like educational attainment, or even race or general geographic location is much less offensive and I answered a couple of those. 

 

Feel free to answer them all if you like.  I won't.  It is irrelevant to my relative ability to click ever-changing category buttons without error at a rapid pace. 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by TranquilMind

[SemiSweet]

 

 

 

And what's with all the extreme data-mining at the end before you get results? At least, to their credit, they give you a button marked "Decline to answer".

 

 

 

Yeah, it's almost like they are trying to collect data to help with their research or something.

Seriously, the Harvard link is extremely well respected, it's mentioned in almost every single sociology class I've taken, like 15 some odd classes. But yeah, it kind of makes sense that they would want to know who is taking the tests and answering that way.

[SemiSweet]

Ok, I took the first test in line referencing Asian Americans

Goodness. It was so confusing, and sometimes you just hit the wrong button. It means NOTHING at all, except an inability to hit ever-changing categories at a breakneck speed. They kept changing them back and forth. If I took an hour, and did it at a normal pace with precision (which they warn you not to do), it would reflect my actual feelings. I have Asian friends and love them.

 

Got this: Your data suggest a moderate automatic association for American with European American and Foreign with Asian American.

 

No, my data suggest an inability to switch back and forth on the buttons very quickly. Sometimes a key was for "Foreign OR Asian American." Sometimes for American or Asian American, Sometimes for European American/Foreign and sometimes with Asian/Foreign.

 

Confusing as heck to have the categories switch back and forth. Not any preference whatsoever.

 

And what's with all the extreme data-mining at the end before you get results? At least, to their credit, they give you a button marked "Decline to answer".

 

Because hell will freeze over before I share all that personal information.

That's actually the point of the test, it's not what you answer but how long it takes to answer that they base the results off of, because our biases are the first instinct, then most of us will check ourselves and try to correct them, so they're trying to get that first instinct.

[TranquilMind]

That's actually the point of the test, it's not what you answer but how long it takes to answer that they base the results off of, because our biases are the first instinct, then most of us will check ourselves and try to correct them, so they're trying to get that first instinct.

 

That may be what they say, but my inability to keep up with the changing categories affected my results.  When you accidentally hit what was just "European American/Foreign" but is now "Asian American/Foreign" and you can't correct what you didn't mean to hit (because it was something else a few seconds ago), that affects outcome. 

 

Did you take it?  Maybe it is only me who has difficulty remembering that we changed categories 10 seconds ago, and I'm hitting the same answer that would have been what I meant then.

 

But then, full disclosure, I once made a basket for the opposing team at an official game before the whole school.  We had just changed at halftime, and I had a moment where I just spaced out on that and made a perfect basket for the opposing team.

 

So maybe it is just my issue.  I would like to hear if anyone else had trouble keeping these changing categories of labeling people and landmarks straight. 

 

[bibiche]

Reported for what? What was political in her OP?

I linked to a NYTimes article which though it mentioned that the topic had come up in the debates did not seem political to me but rather a good introduction to people who dont know what implicit bias is. I deleted the link.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

nm 

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[bibiche]

I see it more as a "d'uh" kind of thing not really necessary to be pointed out.

As did I. But the article discussed that a lot of people hear "implicit bias" and think that is academic speak for "racist" and is an insult. Which is why I brought it up.

[Upward Journey]

As did I. But the article discussed that a lot of people hear "implicit bias" and think that is academic speak for "racist" and is an insult. Which is why I brought it up.

 

Same article, different publications?

[Upward Journey]

The only place I frequent where it's insulting is here :)

 

People who understand implicit bias also know they share it. It's not a matter of those other redneck people having the wrong ones, and we good liberal people having the right ones.

 

We are all a lot more impacted by our (racist) environments that we think.

 

The only difference so far as I can see is between people who own it and attempt to compensate, and people who think it's a terrible insult and besides, they do NOT have these biases, what, are you calling them racist, they have a black bestie blah blah blah.

 

Reporting this thread was a little OTT.

 

I have to admit that I didn't actually get this point, understand exactly what was meant by implicit bias, until I read the Slate article this morning.

 

I think it's going to be a game changer for me.

 

I want to say more, to clarify why I think that's the case, but I'm afraid that if I do it will venture too far into the realm of politics.

[bibiche]

Same article, different publications?

 

I went and read the Slate one you posted and no, not the same article, although it said pretty much the same thing: that people are incorrectly assuming that "implicit bias" = "racist."

[Scarlett]

Well I am the least political person on this entire board......seriously I think I would win the prize..I wish I could see the test.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I took the quiz related to bias against body weight.  It came out that I am not biased towards body weight. 

 

The way they structured the questioning was very interesting.

 

 

[Scarlett]

Where are the quizzes?

[Scarlett]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/upshot/were-all-a-little-biased-even-if-we-dont-know-it.html

 

Because the mention of a politician is for context, as in 'why are we writing about this today'. It's NOT an article about politics.

 

IAT for anyone who wants to take it. However take with somewhat of a grain of salt, as you've already been primed by this discussion and any links you've just read.

Grr. It wouldn't work on my iPad. Edited October 6, 2016 by Scarlett

[Cecropia]

I took one of the Harvard tests, and this was at the end with my results.
 

What Can I Do About an Implicit Preference That I Do Not Want?

Right now, there is not enough research to say for sure that implicit biases can be reduced, let alone eliminated. Packaged "diversity trainings" generally do not use evidence-based methods of reducing implicit biases. Therefore, we encourage people not to focus on strategies for reducing bias, but to focus instead on strategies that deny implicit biases the chance to operate, such as blind auditions and well-designed "structured" decision processes. Investment by federal and private funding sources in research to develop evidence-based methods of reducing implicit biases is, right now, quite minimal.

 

Well, that's depressing. The biases I hold may be beyond any conscious efforts to significantly change them. I don't even know how I could tell they had changed... after all, it felt like I answered all the questions at generally the same speed. The difference is so subtle. 

 

It would be even more depressing if my job involved split-second life-or-death decisions (such as a law enforcement officer)... implicit bias linked to the fear response, a double whammy.  I know from personal experience just how difficult it is to work on a (irrational, in my case) fear response.

[Pam in CT]

re assessing relative speed vs # of correct answers

That's actually the point of the test, it's not what you answer but how long it takes to answer that they base the results off of, because our biases are the first instinct, then most of us will check ourselves and try to correct them, so they're trying to get that first instinct.

Right -- the design of the test is to tease out which pairings come easily & naturally & quickly, vs which pairings require us to override our "natural," implicit pairings in order to categorize things together about which we feel differently.  Lovely adjectives with insects, for example; and ghastly adjectives with puppies and kittens.  Most people can sort more quickly if the words "feel" the same; and have to slow down if the pairings evoke a dissonant reaction.  A few days ago in another thread over on the political board I described my own experience taking the test -- I could physically feel my brain slowly down.  It was very disconcerting, and dismaying.

 

 

 

Well I am the least political person on this entire board......seriously I think I would win the prize..I wish I could see the test.

 

 

You can see the test here, or read this excellent book which summarizes both the test and the researchers' findings over a two-decade period.  I'd be curious whether being institutionally "apolitical" makes much difference -- the idea is that we've all grown up within society and been affected by it in all sorts of ways, not all of which are evident to us.

[Pam in CT]

re no quick fixes

I took one of the Harvard tests, and this was at the end with my results.
 

 

Well, that's depressing. The biases I hold may be beyond any conscious efforts to significantly change them. I don't even know how I could tell they had changed... after all, it felt like I answered all the questions at generally the same speed. The difference is so subtle. 

 

It would be even more depressing if my job involved split-second life-or-death decisions (such as a law enforcement officer)... implicit bias linked to the fear response, a double whammy.  I know from personal experience just how difficult it is to work on a (irrational, in my case) fear response.

 

 

Well, yes and no.  OTOH, sure, it is depressing that there's no magic wand.  OTO, advocating for the institution of changes like blind auditions to mitigate the effect of implicit bias is both pretty easy/feasible/practical and also (as discussed in the link) quite transformative.

 

 

[Scarlett]

re assessing relative speed vs # of correct answers

Right -- the design of the test is to tease out which pairings come easily & naturally & quickly, vs which pairings require us to override our "natural," implicit pairings in order to categorize things together about which we feel differently. Lovely adjectives with insects, for example; and ghastly adjectives with puppies and kittens. Most people can sort more quickly if the words "feel" the same; and have to slow down if the pairings evoke a dissonant reaction. A few days ago in another thread over on the political board I described my own experience taking the test -- I could physically feel my brain slowly down. It was very disconcerting, and dismaying.

 

 

 

 

 

You can see the test here, or read this excellent book which summarizes both the test and the researchers' findings over a two-decade period. I'd be curious whether being institutionally "apolitical" makes much difference -- the idea is that we've all grown up within society and been affected by it in all sorts of ways, not all of which are evident to us.

Yes that is of interest to me as well.

[Garga]

Well, I took the gay/straight test and the black/white test.  

 

No implicit bias for gay/straight.  Moderate (lowest you could be) for black/white.

 

I don't know if it's true or not.  I had trouble trying to get things straight in my head and really, I was going with alphabetical order or not.  So if I'm thinking "black" or "white", I'm thinking right to left, and if black was on the E (to the right) I'm thinking, "It comes first alphabetically," so it was easier to pick quickly.  Once black moved to "i", then I struggled with remember which was which.  Same with the B in bad and the G in good.  (That probably doesn't make sense...sorry.)

 

So I don't know if I have an implicit bias or whether I was so busying thinking about the alphabet that it skewed things.

 

The above results could be true.  I hope so, because if they are that's pretty good news. I would have loved for them both to be no bias, but a moderate one isn't too awful, being that I have little control over implicit biases.  My mother did a really good job in teaching me that everyone was equal.  I harp on it quite a bit to my sons.  

 

I'd like to try one for men vs women.  Because, honestly, men make me pretty angry a lot of the time.  I know I have a bias against them.  I mean, one on one, they're great.  But when I think of "men" as a group, I get mad at them and disdainful toward them.  I'm actually a little ashamed of the knee jerk reaction I have about men.  But I get so tired of hearing about them being sexist and it's really colored how I think of men as a group.  

 

The only men/women tests are related to men and women in science or other careers.  

Edited October 7, 2016 by Garga

[Paige]

I think the test has merit but think it was not designed as well as it could be. I took several of them and noticed that in each test the user is forced to first associate the minority group with the negative words and the majority or preferred group with the positive words. Later it switches, but the pattern is the same with every test, and it repeatedly puts the thoughts into your head. I think it can create or exaggerate bias by always conditioning you to think one way first.

 

I'd have more faith in the results if sometimes the test showed the commonly biased against group with positive words first and sometimes second instead of ALWAYS second.

 

I don't believe it should be a political issue, but a philosophical, scientific, sociological, and psychological one. 

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Paige

[MomatHWTK]

Bias Isn't Just A Police Problem, It's A Preschool Problem

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/09/28/495488716/bias-isnt-just-a-police-problem-its-a-preschool-problem

Edited October 7, 2016 by MomatHWTK

[bibiche]

Bias Isn't Just A Police Problem, It's A Preschool Problem

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/09/28/495488716/bias-isnt-just-a-police-problem-its-a-preschool-problem

Oh, thanks for posting this. I wanted to read this but didn't get around to it and then I lost track.

[Crimson Wife]

A big part of the problem is that the word "bias" is so negatively loaded. I think the concept would be much less controversial if it had a more neutral term like "subconscious first reaction". It would put people less on the defensive and more willing to do something to consciously counter those subconscious first reactions.

[SKL]

I think the test has merit but think it was not designed as well as it could be. I took several of them and noticed that in each test the user is forced to first associate the minority group with the negative words and the majority or preferred group with the positive words. Later it switches, but the pattern is the same with every test, and it repeatedly puts the thoughts into your head. I think it can create or exaggerate bias by always conditioning you to think one way first.

 

I'd have more faith in the results if sometimes the test showed the commonly biased against group with positive words first and sometimes second instead of ALWAYS second.

 

I don't believe it should be a political issue, but a philosophical, scientific, sociological, and psychological one. 

 

I took one of these some time ago and this was how I felt too.  I know that there are people on this board who think I am racist anyway, so I didn't bother to say it, but I'm glad someone else said it for me.  IMO the test design reflects the implicit bias of the makers that most people in the "dominant" groups are biased against other groups.  Therefore I feel the value of these tests is zero.

 

[Susan Wise Bauer]

For those of you whose posts were removed: We don't talk about politics on this board because it instantly becomes personal and insulting. As those posts demonstrated. The rest of you, carry on.

[Bluegoat]

That may be what they say, but my inability to keep up with the changing categories affected my results.  When you accidentally hit what was just "European American/Foreign" but is now "Asian American/Foreign" and you can't correct what you didn't mean to hit (because it was something else a few seconds ago), that affects outcome. 

 

Did you take it?  Maybe it is only me who has difficulty remembering that we changed categories 10 seconds ago, and I'm hitting the same answer that would have been what I meant then.

 

But then, full disclosure, I once made a basket for the opposing team at an official game before the whole school.  We had just changed at halftime, and I had a moment where I just spaced out on that and made a perfect basket for the opposing team.

 

So maybe it is just my issue.  I would like to hear if anyone else had trouble keeping these changing categories of labeling people and landmarks straight. 

 

 

The thing is, you actually have to take the directions seriously for it to work.  That is, don't slow down to be more accurate in the second part of the test after they change catagories, just do your best.  You might get more errors, but they expect that.

 

If you get too many errors, they will say you are unscorable, but that is just a limit of the test.  If you slow down to maintain accuracy, though, it will actually affect the test results.

 

I do wonder a bit how clear that really is to people who haven't seen the format before, and I think maybe the directions are a little purposefully vague so they don't tip people off to the method. 

 

And I wonder if it works better for some than others.  I always end up slowing down a fair bit because I just can't stand to get the red X, even though I know it makes no sense and is irrelevant and I should just let it go.

[Bluegoat]

As did I. But the article discussed that a lot of people hear "implicit bias" and think that is academic speak for "racist" and is an insult. Which is why I brought it up.

 

Yeah, I think there is a good reason people think that though, which is a lot of times people do mean it that way. 

 

You don't often hear someone say something like "John who is a member of X minority in Y community feels that he and others are being persecuted for their race, but that perception is likely influenced by his implicit bias..."

 

It's something that almost always in conversations people level against someone who they think is wrong and rarely against those they are already inclined to agree with.

[SKL]

I also wonder if individual issues such as face blindness or slow processing affect the test results.  I know it takes me several meaningful interactions before I recognize people's faces, and I'm a slow reader, and I have a hard time transitioning between tasks without taking a break in between.  I assume the test design is quite "biased" against people like me.

[bibiche]

I also wonder if individual issues such as face blindness or slow processing affect the test results. I know it takes me several meaningful interactions before I recognize people's faces, and I'm a slow reader, and I have a hard time transitioning between tasks without taking a break in between. I assume the test design is quite "biased" against people like me.

Unless your face blindness only affects you when looking at a specific type of face and your reading is only slow at certain times, it seems to me it wouldn't change the results. Is the study flawed? I have no idea, but it doesn't really matter for people taking it. For people taking it, I think the test is a good tool for identifying and examining bias and provoking thought. I don't think one's take should be "oh, it says I'm a racist, that's typical liberal Ivy League BS" but more "hmm, maybe I do react in a certain way to certain people. I wasn't aware of that. I wonder why that is. I wonder how that affects my interactions with people, etc." So it leads to thoughts about ourselves, which might provoke thought about how implicit bias affects others, and how other people also have biases, and then it gets people thinking about the effect of implicit bias on society in general. Anything that gets people to stop and think is a good thing, IMO.

[SKL]

Unless your face blindness only affects you when looking at a specific type of face and your reading is only slow at certain times, it seems to me it wouldn't change the results. Is the study flawed? I have no idea, but it doesn't really matter for people taking it. For people taking it, I think the test is a good tool for identifying and examining bias and provoking thought. I don't think one's take should be "oh, it says I'm a racist, that's typical liberal Ivy League BS" but more "hmm, maybe I do react in a certain way to certain people. I wasn't aware of that. I wonder why that is. I wonder how that affects my interactions with people, etc." So it leads to thoughts about ourselves, which might provoke thought about how implicit bias affects others, and how other people also have biases, and then it gets people thinking about the effect of implicit bias on society in general. Anything that gets people to stop and think is a good thing, IMO.

 

Well it does affect the test results because they set it up to first teach you to answer negatively to one kind of person and then you are supposed to lose the training.  Now this thread says it's random who is told to label group A negatively vs. group B in the beginning.  I'm not sure I believe that, but even if true, that does not mean the results have any integrity.  It just means a "you aren't negatively biased" result is no more reliable or helpful than a "you are negatively biased" result.

 

Sure, it's helpful to think about things, but I don't agree that this test is a good way to encourage that.  If anything it feeds unhelpful biases.

 

[Pam in CT]

re provocativeness of the term itself:

A big part of the problem is that the word "bias" is so negatively loaded. I think the concept would be much less controversial if it had a more neutral term like "subconscious first reaction". It would put people less on the defensive and more willing to do something to consciously counter those subconscious first reactions.

 

Yeah, I think there is a good reason people think that though, which is a lot of times people do mean it that way. 

 

You don't often hear someone say something like "John who is a member of X minority in Y community feels that he and others are being persecuted for their race, but that perception is likely influenced by his implicit bias..."

 

It's something that almost always in conversations people level against someone who they think is wrong and rarely against those they are already inclined to agree with.

 

I think there is something to this idea, and it relates back to how narrowly or systemically different people think of bias and racism.  People who understand racism as rooted in Bull Connor-style individual malice / intent (as many white Americans do), the concept of implicit bias triggers something like

 

implicit bias = racism,

racism = Bull Connor,

I am definitely not Bull Connor, therefore the concept that I have implicit bias is both nonsense, and offensive.

 

Whereas people who understand racism as rooted more systemically, and sustained merely by indifference or inattention to its effects, tend to be a little more open to the concept of implicit bias and how it can operate.

 

 

I think the (by now well-documented) example of widespread implicit bias among orchestras is instructive.  Orchestras have every reason to choose the best instrumentalists available to them.  There was no defensible artistic or business reason for intentional discrimination against women players.  And yet: the evidence is clear, across many orchestras in many regions, that when orchestras began to hold auditions blind, behind a screen, the percentage of women increased dramatically.  Bias existed even though it was neither intended nor helpful.  That doesn't make orchestral directors BAD PEOPLE or intentionally misogynist but it demonstrates that there's more going on, than we are aware is going on.

[TravelingChris]

Men finding women wearing red more attractive is part of implicit bias too.  I saw one study that showed that blue eyed people are regarded as cold and less trustworthy by a lot of people.  Implicit bias can be that police are the enemy.  It can also be a conscious decision too.  That is the problem I have with these studies.  We do all have tendencies to see others who are like us more favorably but we have subconscious ideas about lots of things from colors to sounds to smells to how people dress or groom their hair,  However most of us aren't dementia patients and we can make a conscious decision not to let our subconscious take over. 

[TranquilMind]

That's actually the point of the test, it's not what you answer but how long it takes to answer that they base the results off of, because our biases are the first instinct, then most of us will check ourselves and try to correct them, so they're trying to get that first instinct.

No. It is not instinct that makes me stop and say, "Wait- where is that bridge again? Is it foreign or American? I think I recognize it..." Mine had foreign and American landmarks mixed with Asian American and non-Asian people. I had no problem with the latter.

[Pam in CT]

re conscious effort to override our subconscious bias

Men finding women wearing red more attractive is part of implicit bias too.  I saw one study that showed that blue eyed people are regarded as cold and less trustworthy by a lot of people.  Implicit bias can be that police are the enemy.  It can also be a conscious decision too.  That is the problem I have with these studies.  We do all have tendencies to see others who are like us more favorably but we have subconscious ideas about lots of things from colors to sounds to smells to how people dress or groom their hair,  However most of us aren't dementia patients and we can make a conscious decision not to let our subconscious take over. 

 

To the extent that we are aware of, and accept, our implicit biases, we do have some ability to override them, particularly when we have time and emotional space to do so -- as LEO in the midst of confrontations do not always have.

 

But the orchestra case suggests that we are not necessarily aware of our implicit biases.  Those directors  genuinely believed they were picking the best musicians - why wouldn't they want to?  So they were unable to override their subconscious bias because it was, well, subconscious.

[Scarlett]

re provocativeness of the term itself:

 

 

I think there is something to this idea, and it relates back to how narrowly or systemically different people think of bias and racism.  People who understand racism as rooted in Bull Connor-style individual malice / intent (as many white Americans do), the concept of implicit bias triggers something like

 

implicit bias = racism,

racism = Bull Connor,

I am definitely not Bull Connor, therefore the concept that I have implicit bias is both nonsense, and offensive.

 

Whereas people who understand racism as rooted more systemically, and sustained merely by indifference or inattention to its effects, tend to be a little more open to the concept of implicit bias and how it can operate.

 

 

I think the (by now well-documented) example of widespread implicit bias among orchestras is instructive.  Orchestras have every reason to choose the best instrumentalists available to them.  There was no defensible artistic or business reason for intentional discrimination against women players.  And yet: the evidence is clear, across many orchestras in many regions, that when orchestras began to hold auditions blind, behind a screen, the percentage of women increased dramatically.  Bias existed even though it was neither intended nor helpful.  That doesn't make orchestral directors BAD PEOPLE or intentionally misogynist but it demonstrates that there's more going on, than we are aware is going on.

 

 

That is so interesting!

[Tanaqui]

However most of us aren't dementia patients and we can make a conscious decision not to let our subconscious take over.

 

If we're aware of it, yes. But if we're not, we're stuck.