4 ms·
1. That's not the problem of anybody except the person who does not negotiate aggressively. 2. People respond differently to men and women (a fact that seems t
by hajile 10y ago
1. That's not the problem of anybody except the person who does not negotiate aggressively.
2. People respond differently to men and women (a fact that seems to be true across all species). We don't have a clear, testable model for why this happens.
3. Implicit bias is not scientific and not relevant. Sorry for the lengthy write-up, but this should be called out for being farcical and/or psychologically dangerous.
Implicit bias scores have no meaningful correlation with actual actions and the scores themselves will vary wildly for the same person for reasons that are unknown and unaccounted for. This lack of correlation turns it into a baseless accusation.
Lots of people accept IAT (which has a super low predictive validity) as true while rejecting IQ which has an amazing amount of predictive validity in all kinds of areas. Interestingly, higher IQ is linked to lower rates of racism and other bias. Given that programmers have on average significantly higher IQ scores relative to the general population, you would expect such things to not be the primary issues of the field.
Even if we assume implicit bias exists, does it matter if you cannot prove it has any real world effects (and such effects have not been proven). If we assume even further (against good evidence) that such implicit bias exists AND has real world effects, is there a solution?
Lots of companies force their employees to undergo implicit bias training. There are ZERO studies proving that the training works. Much more scarily, we don't know if it has other negative psychological impacts. Companies messing around with peoples heads without any supporting studies and clinical trials is EXTREMELY dangerous.
Finally, let's examine the theoretical framework for fixing implicit bias (under the assumption that it exists and that the individual does not consciously desire to be biased). We must start by either assuming that implicit outweighs explicit (radical behavioralism with no free will) or that explicit outweighs implicit.
If explicit outweighs implicit, then teach people the golden rule, tell them discrimination is bad, and call it a day because that's all you can do. Implicit bias training is sold on the basis that this is not enough and will not work. It thus carries the implication that you cannot choose to not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, but if you give them your money, they have the magic incantations to "pray the <bias> away".
How do you change the subconscious? The first option is new age garbage. The second is hypnosis (we can't prove hypnosis even exists). The third is operant and/or classical conditioning of the most extreme variety (to reach past the conscious and modify the subconscious -- hopefully without ripping the individual apart in the process) may be enough to do the trick (immersive re-education camps are a must in order to ensure all aspects of the subject are controlled for). Basically no other ideas exist.
TL;DR
With no solid supporting science behind the idea of implicit bias, there remains only moral panic and ideological fanaticism attempting to sell either snake-oil cures or barbaric, unethical psychological experiments of a most Stalinesque variety.
- emodendroket 10y agoWell I suggested a handful of measures that don't involve "implicit bias training," which I agree is unlikely to work, but I question your claim that there isn't any evidence for implicit bias. If you want to conclude that either women are just inherently inferior or else that they aren't but it's ok to systematically underpay them then I guess that's your prerogative but I'm not really interested in going down such a rabbit hole.
- hajile 10y agoI would argue that women and men are different both physically and psychologically and have different interests arising from these differences. I would further argue that negotiation is a skill that some people have and others do not. Should we refuse to reward someone for their skill in negotiation? Should we even try? On the first count, the brains of men and women are structurally different (women have drastically more white matter and men have drastically more gray matter). The observation that men and women view the world very differently is universal. When looking at the big five personality traits, men and women consistently show far different norms. If all observations both casual and professional tend to indicate significant differences, the possibility should be seriously entertained. If men and women are identical, why do we need women in STEM? The men we have would work just as well. If one is making the case for more people overall in STEM, then they are making an economic argument (and one that doesn't favor STEM workers -- only employers of STEM workers). If one makes a case for different life experience, then there is an acknowledgement of difference. If men and women are different, then there is a distinct possibility that one group is better or more interested in a particular field than the other. In either situation, there seems to be little case for drastic change (except for employers suppressing wages by increasing the supply of workers). As to the second count, let's say we put two people (of the same gender for sake of limiting differences) with the same qualifications into the same job with the exception that one is more skilled at negotiation. We then force both to work for the same pay. Will that end the advantages of the more skilled negotiator? The better negotiator will still be better at getting the good projects or a faster promotion. In the long term, the negotiation skillset will simply turn into more profit in other ways and the level of control required to prevent this from happening is so draconian as to be unthinkable.