3 ms·

This is only a bias if the stereotype effect is stronger on measurements than in real life. If stereotype threat affects test performance and real performance t

This is only a bias if the stereotype effect is stronger on measurements than in real life. If stereotype threat affects test performance and real performance the same way, then it means that the stereotyped group is truly inferior. Do you have evidence that stereotype threat hurts test performance more than real performance? (Of course, in a hypothetical world which only eliminated the stereotype, the group would cease to be inferior. I.e., the inferiority is based on context, and is not intrinsic.)

earljwagner 11y ago
I wouldn't agree with the conclusion of being truly inferior - there could be ongoing issues with the work context. I'll put it another way: Graham says we can look at just the performance by group to detect bias in selection. But there could be bias in selection, and A) different treatment after selection, which would not be revealed through Graham's test. Or could also be bias in selection and B) continuous reminders of stereotypes triggering stereotype threat, and this would also not be revealed. Now you could point to a tech company with few underrepresented minorities, let's say 1%. If there's no overt bias in the work environment then people should succeed and if they don't they're just worse performers. On the other hand, if you're in the 1%, just noticing the underrepresentation among your coworkers might be a constant reminder of stereotypes. I don't claim to have a simple solution for this.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Differential treatment after selection would indeed invalidate Graham's test. Stereotype threat, however, is NOT such a different treatment. Again - if stereotype threat reduces measured performance by X and actual performance by Y, then the bias it introduces is Y-X. If Y=X then there is no bias. Do you believe Y != X? If so, why?
wfo 11y ago
Minority groups will generally underperform when tested by majority groups (i.e. hispanic student white proctor) according to studies though I'm citing from memory so I may be incorrect. Also minority groups have access/insight/credibility with certain consumer groups and cultures majority groups do not and there's no reason to believe this advantage would be measured appropriately by examiners not fluent in that culture. If real-life performance means 'business success' and 'measurement performance' means 'being funded when pitching a startup to a white VCs' then I think that criterion is at its face satisfied.

earljwagner 11y ago

I wouldn't agree with the conclusion of being truly inferior - there could be ongoing issues with the work context. I'll put it another way: Graham says we can look at just the performance by group to detect bias in selection. But there could be bias in selection, and A) different treatment after selection, which would not be revealed through Graham's test. Or could also be bias in selection and B) continuous reminders of stereotypes triggering stereotype threat, and this would also not be revealed. Now you could point to a tech company with few underrepresented minorities, let's say 1%. If there's no overt bias in the work environment then people should succeed and if they don't they're just worse performers. On the other hand, if you're in the 1%, just noticing the underrepresentation among your coworkers might be a constant reminder of stereotypes. I don't claim to have a simple solution for this.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Differential treatment after selection would indeed invalidate Graham's test. Stereotype threat, however, is NOT such a different treatment. Again - if stereotype threat reduces measured performance by X and actual performance by Y, then the bias it introduces is Y-X. If Y=X then there is no bias. Do you believe Y != X? If so, why?

wfo 11y ago

Minority groups will generally underperform when tested by majority groups (i.e. hispanic student white proctor) according to studies though I'm citing from memory so I may be incorrect. Also minority groups have access/insight/credibility with certain consumer groups and cultures majority groups do not and there's no reason to believe this advantage would be measured appropriately by examiners not fluent in that culture. If real-life performance means 'business success' and 'measurement performance' means 'being funded when pitching a startup to a white VCs' then I think that criterion is at its face satisfied.