4 ms·

While the outright assertion that a black suspect would have been shot is unjustified, it seems counterintuitive to simultaneously make reference to one erroneo

by fnovd 11y ago

While the outright assertion that a black suspect would have been shot is unjustified, it seems counterintuitive to simultaneously make reference to one erroneous snap judgment (the cop assuming the white woman was not the shooter) without acknowledging the other side of that coin. Why is the cop an allowable surrogate of societal stereotypes when he assumes the white woman is not the shooter, but an "individual that makes his own decisions, and has his own opinions, views and predispositions" when an alternative hypothetical is presented?

kbenson 11y ago
> it seems counterintuitive to simultaneously make reference to one erroneous snap judgment (the cop assuming the white woman was not the shooter) without acknowledging the other side of that coin. No supporting evidence has been presented that a person will necessarily attribute the same level of certainty when positively or negatively associating a person to a category, either globally or under specific circumstances that match these. Identifying someone as a threat and discounting someone as not a threat may engage different levels of reasoning and heuristics in different circumstances, and assuming they are equivalent without justification is a mistake, in my opinion. > Why is the cop an allowable surrogate of societal stereotypes when he assumes the white woman is not the shooter, but an "individual that makes his own decisions, and has his own opinions, views and predispositions" when an alternative hypothetical is presented? His behavior with regard to race was classified based purely on his profession. I'm not sure how that's justifiable. Edit: To more directly address what I think your point is, we were presented a situation, not necessarily the police officer's reasoning and perspective. We don't know if the reason he thought she was not the shooter was her color, gender, clothing, bearing or some combination of those and other factors. There is little information to go on, so we shouldn't assume we know much.
- secstate 11y ago
  In the long-form radio story, the cop very clearly presents that it was the shooters apparent gender that confused him and nearly cost him his life and the life of the perpetrator. They also noted in the story that officers are briefed on active shooter situations to assume a white male suspect. This was in Nevada, a state that has become (thanks largely to this and other similar stories) a paragon of officer education on the nature of cognitive biases and how to understand and use them to greatest affect.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    If this information was available at the start, portions of my comments would have been different. As it is, I don't think it's appropriate to assume the facts you've now presented, as it doesn't make for a good discussion, and it isn't fair to the people involved. As it is, I stand by my earlier comments which referenced what information we know or don't know, since anyone coming with information only from your original comment couldn't know that, and what's more, according to you, the skin color actually wasn't the deciding factor. I present this not as an argumentative reply to you, but just to clarify my point in my immediately preceding comment in this thread, as it seems to have been polarizing (it fluctuated from -2 to +3 multiple times, and now sits at 0).

by fnovd 11y ago

kbenson 11y ago

> it seems counterintuitive to simultaneously make reference to one erroneous snap judgment (the cop assuming the white woman was not the shooter) without acknowledging the other side of that coin. No supporting evidence has been presented that a person will necessarily attribute the same level of certainty when positively or negatively associating a person to a category, either globally or under specific circumstances that match these. Identifying someone as a threat and discounting someone as not a threat may engage different levels of reasoning and heuristics in different circumstances, and assuming they are equivalent without justification is a mistake, in my opinion. > Why is the cop an allowable surrogate of societal stereotypes when he assumes the white woman is not the shooter, but an "individual that makes his own decisions, and has his own opinions, views and predispositions" when an alternative hypothetical is presented? His behavior with regard to race was classified based purely on his profession. I'm not sure how that's justifiable. Edit: To more directly address what I think your point is, we were presented a situation, not necessarily the police officer's reasoning and perspective. We don't know if the reason he thought she was not the shooter was her color, gender, clothing, bearing or some combination of those and other factors. There is little information to go on, so we shouldn't assume we know much.

secstate 11y ago
In the long-form radio story, the cop very clearly presents that it was the shooters apparent gender that confused him and nearly cost him his life and the life of the perpetrator. They also noted in the story that officers are briefed on active shooter situations to assume a white male suspect. This was in Nevada, a state that has become (thanks largely to this and other similar stories) a paragon of officer education on the nature of cognitive biases and how to understand and use them to greatest affect.
- kbenson 11y ago
  If this information was available at the start, portions of my comments would have been different. As it is, I don't think it's appropriate to assume the facts you've now presented, as it doesn't make for a good discussion, and it isn't fair to the people involved. As it is, I stand by my earlier comments which referenced what information we know or don't know, since anyone coming with information only from your original comment couldn't know that, and what's more, according to you, the skin color actually wasn't the deciding factor. I present this not as an argumentative reply to you, but just to clarify my point in my immediately preceding comment in this thread, as it seems to have been polarizing (it fluctuated from -2 to +3 multiple times, and now sits at 0).