4 ms·

> I should ignore results from the fields of psychology or sociology for the foreseeable future Yes, you should. The problem is that some of these bad results

by fdsaaf 10y ago

> I should ignore results from the fields of psychology or sociology for the foreseeable future Yes, you should. The problem is that some of these bad results have become key political tenets. Try voicing skepticism about the reality of stereotype threat and see how long it is before HR finds some excuse to fire you. If you haven't noticed, there are powerful social pressures in the Bay Area to go along with certain kinds of reality denial. The more reality suggests that dominant Bay Area social beliefs are false, the louder supporters reiterate these beliefs and the greater the ferocity with which they punish dissent.

mysterypie 10y ago
I didn't know the term "stereotype threat" and had to google it. Here is one of the clearer explanations I found: "Black and White college students a half-hour test using difficult items from the verbal Graduate Record Exam (GRE). In the stereotype-threat condition, they told students the test diagnosed intellectual ability, thus potentially eliciting the stereotype that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. In the no-stereotype-threat condition, the researchers told students that the test was a problem-solving lab task that said nothing about ability, presumably rendering stereotypes irrelevant. In the stereotype threat condition, Blacks did less well than Whites. In the no stereotype-threat condition, Blacks' performance rose to match that of equally skilled Whites."[1] "Merely telling women that a math test does not show gender differences improved their test performance. The researchers gave a math test to men and women after telling half the women that the test had shown gender differences, and telling the rest that it found none. When test administrators told women that that tests showed no gender differences, the women performed equal to men. Those who were told the test showed gender differences did significantly worse than men, just like women who were told nothing about the test."[1] [1] http://www.apa.org/research/action/stereotype.aspx http://www.apa.org/research/action/stereotype.aspx (I'm not saying that this effect is real. I'm just passing along an explanation of the term for the benefit of others.)
popra 10y ago
> HR finds some excuse to fire you Which shouldn't be surprising, because unless carefully expressed, skepticism towards the stereotype threat effect can be interpreted as a justification for stereotyping, especially when the skepticism is expressed in the context of political tenets.
- fdsaaf 10y ago
  Stereotypes are accurate, though. People are good pattern-recognizers, and the characteristics that we use to form stereotype do convey useful information. Pretending that stereotypes are factually bogus is wrong. It creates resentment. It's much better to accept that stereotypes exist for a reason, but emphasize that it's a grave injustice to let stereotypes hurt our evaluation of people who defy these stereotypes. > skepticism towards the stereotype threat effect can be interpreted as a justification for stereotyping Current HR policies go beyond requiring fair treatment of individuals as individuals. Every sane person supports doing that. HR demands that we silence truths about the natural world go unstated. HR demands that we make untrue statements about the world. That's anathema to anyone technically-minded.
  - popra 10y ago
    I like to think of myself as technically minded. However, your stereotype of technically minded people seems to sugest that either I accept the "natural truth" of stereotype accuracy or forfeit my technically minded view of myself. I will do neither. The claim that one can engage in stereotyping people while exibiting fair threatment of the same people as individuals is dubious to say the least given the definition of stereotyping. Once engaged in stereotyping no amount of post factum fair threatment of the individual will make up for the unfairness. Later edit: People are imperfect pattern recognisers, in fact our pattern recognition generates a significant amount of false positives. From an evolutionary perspective this was acceptable at a time when tigers could be lurking in the bush. The penalty for running from an imaginary tiger in the bush is insignifiant compared to the penalty of not running from an undetected tiger.

by fdsaaf 10y ago

mysterypie 10y ago

I didn't know the term "stereotype threat" and had to google it. Here is one of the clearer explanations I found: "Black and White college students a half-hour test using difficult items from the verbal Graduate Record Exam (GRE). In the stereotype-threat condition, they told students the test diagnosed intellectual ability, thus potentially eliciting the stereotype that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. In the no-stereotype-threat condition, the researchers told students that the test was a problem-solving lab task that said nothing about ability, presumably rendering stereotypes irrelevant. In the stereotype threat condition, Blacks did less well than Whites. In the no stereotype-threat condition, Blacks' performance rose to match that of equally skilled Whites."[1] "Merely telling women that a math test does not show gender differences improved their test performance. The researchers gave a math test to men and women after telling half the women that the test had shown gender differences, and telling the rest that it found none. When test administrators told women that that tests showed no gender differences, the women performed equal to men. Those who were told the test showed gender differences did significantly worse than men, just like women who were told nothing about the test."[1] [1] http://www.apa.org/research/action/stereotype.aspx http://www.apa.org/research/action/stereotype.aspx (I'm not saying that this effect is real. I'm just passing along an explanation of the term for the benefit of others.)

popra 10y ago

> HR finds some excuse to fire you Which shouldn't be surprising, because unless carefully expressed, skepticism towards the stereotype threat effect can be interpreted as a justification for stereotyping, especially when the skepticism is expressed in the context of political tenets.

fdsaaf 10y ago
Stereotypes are accurate, though. People are good pattern-recognizers, and the characteristics that we use to form stereotype do convey useful information. Pretending that stereotypes are factually bogus is wrong. It creates resentment. It's much better to accept that stereotypes exist for a reason, but emphasize that it's a grave injustice to let stereotypes hurt our evaluation of people who defy these stereotypes. > skepticism towards the stereotype threat effect can be interpreted as a justification for stereotyping Current HR policies go beyond requiring fair treatment of individuals as individuals. Every sane person supports doing that. HR demands that we silence truths about the natural world go unstated. HR demands that we make untrue statements about the world. That's anathema to anyone technically-minded.
- popra 10y ago
  I like to think of myself as technically minded. However, your stereotype of technically minded people seems to sugest that either I accept the "natural truth" of stereotype accuracy or forfeit my technically minded view of myself. I will do neither. The claim that one can engage in stereotyping people while exibiting fair threatment of the same people as individuals is dubious to say the least given the definition of stereotyping. Once engaged in stereotyping no amount of post factum fair threatment of the individual will make up for the unfairness. Later edit: People are imperfect pattern recognisers, in fact our pattern recognition generates a significant amount of false positives. From an evolutionary perspective this was acceptable at a time when tigers could be lurking in the bush. The penalty for running from an imaginary tiger in the bush is insignifiant compared to the penalty of not running from an undetected tiger.