3 ms·

> >do I need to go into details how being presumed "by default" to be non-trustworthy and potentially a criminal/thief can seriously impact your lifetime opport

by euyyn 9y ago

> >do I need to go into details how being presumed "by default" to be non-trustworthy and potentially a criminal/thief can seriously impact your lifetime opportunities? > Yes, please do. When you do, take into account that "per default" means "as long as no other information is available", which only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with. Not OP, but it's easy to come up with examples: in Spain it's very probable that after interviewing two candidates with otherwise the same qualifications, the one without the gipsy accent will get the job offer over the one with a gipsy accent. The same has been shown to be true in the US for resumes with typically African-American names vs the same resume with a typically Caucasian name. I don't really know where your skepticism is coming from, as it's not even surprising that these things happen.

mpweiher 9y ago
> after interviewing two candidates ... This contradicts the evidence that: "When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent." After the interview, you have individuating information. In fact, you probably have individuating information beforehand, such as the resume, maybe references etc. So your claim contradicts this study. As I haven't seen any evidence for your claim, my tendency is to believe the study. But certainly something that probably warrants further study.
- euyyn 9y ago
  Your quote refers to idividuating information that is, in the mind of the interviewer, unambiguous and certain. To take the example from the paper, "the person was seen punching an adult". I don't know if you've ever interviewed someone for a job, but I wish the information I gather from interviews were at the same time unambiguous, relevant, and certain. The very same paper is littered with examples of cases in which stereotypes affect the judgement of people when your clause ("only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with") doesn't apply. So I'm not sure if you're being intellectually honest, or cherry-picking the most extreme circumstances examined in the paper and generalizing them. Just one of a multitude of examples cited: > a child from a high socioeconomic background who displayed a mixed performance on an ability test was rated as higher in ability than a child from a low socioeconomic background with the same performance (p. 293, citing two different studies) So if you honestly believe that the stereotypes associated with gipsies cannot impact their lifetime opportunities in a harmful way, please do read in detail the Kunda & Thagard paper. And by all means believe the paper.

by euyyn 9y ago

mpweiher 9y ago

> after interviewing two candidates ... This contradicts the evidence that: "When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent." After the interview, you have individuating information. In fact, you probably have individuating information beforehand, such as the resume, maybe references etc. So your claim contradicts this study. As I haven't seen any evidence for your claim, my tendency is to believe the study. But certainly something that probably warrants further study.

euyyn 9y ago
Your quote refers to idividuating information that is, in the mind of the interviewer, unambiguous and certain. To take the example from the paper, "the person was seen punching an adult". I don't know if you've ever interviewed someone for a job, but I wish the information I gather from interviews were at the same time unambiguous, relevant, and certain. The very same paper is littered with examples of cases in which stereotypes affect the judgement of people when your clause ("only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with") doesn't apply. So I'm not sure if you're being intellectually honest, or cherry-picking the most extreme circumstances examined in the paper and generalizing them. Just one of a multitude of examples cited: > a child from a high socioeconomic background who displayed a mixed performance on an ability test was rated as higher in ability than a child from a low socioeconomic background with the same performance (p. 293, citing two different studies) So if you honestly believe that the stereotypes associated with gipsies cannot impact their lifetime opportunities in a harmful way, please do read in detail the Kunda & Thagard paper. And by all means believe the paper.