4 ms·

Implicit bias is a real phenomenon backed up by good studies: http://www.vox.com/2014/12/26/7443979/racism-implicit-racial-bias http://www.vox.com/2014/12/26/74

Implicit bias is a real phenomenon backed up by good studies: http://www.vox.com/2014/12/26/7443979/racism-implicit-racial-bias http://www.vox.com/2014/12/26/7443979/racism-implicit-racial... Whether or not reverse discrimination was taking place at Yahoo, it is worthwhile to try to reduce the implicit bias we practice in our own lives.

Veen 10y ago
It's not reverse discrimination; it's just discrimination.
- dankohn1 10y ago
  Yes, reverse discrimination[0] is an example of discrimination. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination
  - Veen 10y ago
    I object to the term because of this, from the article you linked to: > In a narrower sense, it refers to the specific negative impacts Whites or males may experience because of affirmative action policies. The two meanings are often conflated, which leads to confusion and misinformation. As companies try to fight historical biases, there will be some from the dominant group that suffer — those that might have been promoted under the old biased system won't be under a new less biased system. Advantages that the dominant group had will naturally be eroded. That's all well and good; an inevitable and desirable consequence of progress in the right direction. However, if the Yahoo! figures from the article are right, this seems to be a case of active discrimination against male employees, which isn't the same thing at all. Calling them both "reverse discrimination" elides the difference between those two possible meanings. So I prefer to think of what we're discussing here as active discrimination of no substantive difference to the usual historical discrimination. In Yahoo! some female managers were the dominant group — they had the power — and they used that power to discriminate against male employees to fill the ranks with other women. That's straight-up discrimination. Of course, the whole thing might be nonsense, but we'll have to wait and see.
  - mixedCase 10y ago
    The term "reverse discrimination" is one of the biggest examples of modern racist and sexist thought. Using it makes it clear that you don't believe women/non-whites to be equal to white men.
- Icedcool 10y ago
  So much this. There isn't a thing as 'reverse discrimination'. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who is doing it.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    Reverse discrimination is just reactionary discrimination that hasn't become mainstream yet. There's a good Dr Seuss story about a guy that comes into town with a machine that stamps a star on your chest. A few people get it and think they're better than everyone else until everyone gets the star and the fashion becomes not having the star, and the story oscillates between star and no-star until everyone's out of money and the huckster with the star/no-star machine moves onto the next town. Discrimination of all kinds is and has always been about mobilizing people against each other for the sake of accumulating power/money/resources. Discrimination... discrimination never changes.
lhnz 10y ago
Implicit bias tests could end up becoming another big embarrassment for psychology. Worth reading this tweet storm [0] for the little amount of conflicting [1] literature that is available. I wouldn't treat a Vox article as evidence that something is true. [0] https://twitter.com/Billare/status/783482251761815552 https://twitter.com/Billare/status/783482251761815552 [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cfz6CgVWQAELrwZ.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cfz6CgVWQAELrwZ.jpg:large
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > I wouldn't treat a Vox article as evidence that something is true. > Worth reading this tweet storm... LOL.
  - lhnz 10y ago
    Nice snark. But, the point isn't to trust a Twitter account, the point is to read the actual scientific literature that they linked to... As others have pointed out already [0] IAT hasn't faired well in the replication crisis. Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that 'implicit bias' doesn't exist in any form. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm just pointing out that saying "a real phenomenon backed up by good studies" in light of recent studies is kind of a stretch. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12659715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12659715
  - roninb 10y ago
    I usually wouldn't agree with this because plenty of experts have twitter accounts that are more reliable and accurate than text books in their field. That said, this account doesn't seem to have any provable credentials associated with it and lacks even a first and last name...
    - ad-hominem 10y ago
      Ad-hominem. If the account is linking to real scientific studies, then you should read them and judge the points based on their merit, not who is pronouncing them.
bobcostas55 10y ago
It's one of those things that have fallen in the replication crisis. Take a look at this meta-analysis, for example: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12288/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12288/abstra... >there is also little evidence that the IAT can meaningfully predict discrimination
EJTH 10y ago
"reverse discrimination" What does that even mean? It really comes out as a bullshit term to be honest. How can you be reverse discriminated? It makes no sense! Its either discrimination or it is not.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  reverse discrimination is a specific type of discrimination.
  - EJTH 10y ago
    Wouldn't it just be discrimination really? Its the same with reverse racism, it doesn't exist because it is just racism, nothing more nothing less.
    - oh_sigh 10y ago
      That's like saying because turning exist, left turns aren't a thing. "Reverse discrimination" is a bad name, but it represents a specific type of discrimination. That doesn't mean it isn't discrimination.
whack 10y ago
Not sure why Dan is being downvoted. Implicit bias is a very well documented phenomenon. Just because Yahoo might have done something really stupid, doesn't diminish the problem of implicit bias in any way. http://nyti.ms/1AnvWzW http://nyti.ms/1AnvWzW

Veen 10y ago

It's not reverse discrimination; it's just discrimination.

dankohn1 10y ago
Yes, reverse discrimination[0] is an example of discrimination. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination
- Veen 10y ago
  I object to the term because of this, from the article you linked to: > In a narrower sense, it refers to the specific negative impacts Whites or males may experience because of affirmative action policies. The two meanings are often conflated, which leads to confusion and misinformation. As companies try to fight historical biases, there will be some from the dominant group that suffer — those that might have been promoted under the old biased system won't be under a new less biased system. Advantages that the dominant group had will naturally be eroded. That's all well and good; an inevitable and desirable consequence of progress in the right direction. However, if the Yahoo! figures from the article are right, this seems to be a case of active discrimination against male employees, which isn't the same thing at all. Calling them both "reverse discrimination" elides the difference between those two possible meanings. So I prefer to think of what we're discussing here as active discrimination of no substantive difference to the usual historical discrimination. In Yahoo! some female managers were the dominant group — they had the power — and they used that power to discriminate against male employees to fill the ranks with other women. That's straight-up discrimination. Of course, the whole thing might be nonsense, but we'll have to wait and see.
- mixedCase 10y ago
  The term "reverse discrimination" is one of the biggest examples of modern racist and sexist thought. Using it makes it clear that you don't believe women/non-whites to be equal to white men.
Icedcool 10y ago
So much this. There isn't a thing as 'reverse discrimination'. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who is doing it.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Reverse discrimination is just reactionary discrimination that hasn't become mainstream yet. There's a good Dr Seuss story about a guy that comes into town with a machine that stamps a star on your chest. A few people get it and think they're better than everyone else until everyone gets the star and the fashion becomes not having the star, and the story oscillates between star and no-star until everyone's out of money and the huckster with the star/no-star machine moves onto the next town. Discrimination of all kinds is and has always been about mobilizing people against each other for the sake of accumulating power/money/resources. Discrimination... discrimination never changes.

lhnz 10y ago

Implicit bias tests could end up becoming another big embarrassment for psychology. Worth reading this tweet storm [0] for the little amount of conflicting [1] literature that is available. I wouldn't treat a Vox article as evidence that something is true. [0] https://twitter.com/Billare/status/783482251761815552 https://twitter.com/Billare/status/783482251761815552 [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cfz6CgVWQAELrwZ.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cfz6CgVWQAELrwZ.jpg:large

ceejayoz 10y ago
> I wouldn't treat a Vox article as evidence that something is true. > Worth reading this tweet storm... LOL.
- lhnz 10y ago
  Nice snark. But, the point isn't to trust a Twitter account, the point is to read the actual scientific literature that they linked to... As others have pointed out already [0] IAT hasn't faired well in the replication crisis. Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that 'implicit bias' doesn't exist in any form. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm just pointing out that saying "a real phenomenon backed up by good studies" in light of recent studies is kind of a stretch. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12659715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12659715
- roninb 10y ago
  I usually wouldn't agree with this because plenty of experts have twitter accounts that are more reliable and accurate than text books in their field. That said, this account doesn't seem to have any provable credentials associated with it and lacks even a first and last name...
  - ad-hominem 10y ago
    Ad-hominem. If the account is linking to real scientific studies, then you should read them and judge the points based on their merit, not who is pronouncing them.

bobcostas55 10y ago

It's one of those things that have fallen in the replication crisis. Take a look at this meta-analysis, for example: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12288/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12288/abstra... >there is also little evidence that the IAT can meaningfully predict discrimination

EJTH 10y ago

"reverse discrimination" What does that even mean? It really comes out as a bullshit term to be honest. How can you be reverse discriminated? It makes no sense! Its either discrimination or it is not.

oh_sigh 10y ago
reverse discrimination is a specific type of discrimination.
- EJTH 10y ago
  Wouldn't it just be discrimination really? Its the same with reverse racism, it doesn't exist because it is just racism, nothing more nothing less.
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    That's like saying because turning exist, left turns aren't a thing. "Reverse discrimination" is a bad name, but it represents a specific type of discrimination. That doesn't mean it isn't discrimination.

whack 10y ago

Not sure why Dan is being downvoted. Implicit bias is a very well documented phenomenon. Just because Yahoo might have done something really stupid, doesn't diminish the problem of implicit bias in any way. http://nyti.ms/1AnvWzW http://nyti.ms/1AnvWzW