5 ms·

Exactly! I had 'unconcious bias' training at work, one of the learning outcomes of which was to understand the 'scientific basis' for unconcious bias. After rev

Exactly! I had 'unconcious bias' training at work, one of the learning outcomes of which was to understand the 'scientific basis' for unconcious bias. After reviewing the material and finding myself somewhat dubious of its claims, I - as a good scientist working in a technical role in a technical company - went off to research for myself. Turns out the supposed scientific basis is deeply flawed. And yet, this training is being rolled out in many companies across the UK: training based on nonsense. What's deeply insulting - and worrying - is that this should be pushed on educated, intelligent people whose jobs in no small part depend on sniffing out bullshit. Do they think we won't find out the truth? Are the management so clueless/compromised that they actually believe in it? IDK.

dekhn 7y ago
I think the right way to think about this is that psychology has the imprimatur of legitimate science (and some pscyhological research is indeed legitimate), but a lot of it is more about having an idea you like, conducting a few inadequate studies, and publishing them in a domain journal with little critical review and no reproduction. Then, the folks who teach these courses see these papers (presumably in their undergraduate psych classes?) and end up believing them, becacuse they don't have the necessary scientific analytic/critical skills to evaluate them. At my employer, the IAT was originally presented as scientific fact (with citations). Over time, the citations changed from "This is great!" to "This work appears to not be scientifically accurate, but we like the idea" to "we will not be using this, unless you want to try it voluntarily". I think in general most people in society don't really have the ability to differentiate bullshit science from real science. I've actually left my scientific field permanently because I've seen far too enough examples of fraud and incompetence leading to tenure track positions.
- kbenson 7y ago
  > I think in general most people in society don't really have the ability to differentiate bullshit science from real science. I would say in many ways they can't, at least not without significant time investment every time they need to make that assessment, which is often. A domain expert is likely able to identify the smell of bullshit in their field extremely quickly. An expert in an adjacent domain will be able to apply some of their expertise, but not all, and sniff out some problems, but other might elude them. That is, a physicist might be able to note some likely problematic parts of statements to do with biology based somewhat on the science, somewhat on the shared methodology, and somewhat on the shared politics they might experience. A layperson may have very little experience to draw upon for some scientific statement, and even when they have experience with the underlying principles (a general interest in the area, experience in college), that may not be enough to identify problem areas. That's not a problem we can expect the layperson to be responsible for correcting (at least not beyond a healthy skepticism), unless we expect them all to increase their knowledge in every domain that they might make an assessment about (this happens, but it happens at a societal level, and over the span of many years). Psychology seems to share relatively little with most hard sciences, so it's particularly hard for both laypeople and scientists in other fields to assess without effort (as evidenced here though the multiple stories of people that put in that actual effort). I'm not sure we'll see improvement on this issue until we have better norms about communicating results. There's a natural inflation that happens when different parties take a finding and explain it, and possibly over-emphasize portions of it. That this happens twice now, once with the PR department associated with the group doing the study and once by the media that goes by what the PR department say, means that the average person gets a very distorted view of what's actually going on.
raxxorrax 7y ago
I would immediately change your workplace if you are able to do so.
bjourne 7y ago
Let me ask you something: Is unconscious bias training the worst example of bullshit you have experienced in your professional life or the thing that has aggravated you the most? Does that tell you anything about your unconscious biases? The point of the training is for companies to absolve themselves of culpability. If you act like a jerk after unconscious bias training you are on your own and the company hopes that it can't be blamed for it.
- thestephen 7y ago
  > Is unconscious bias training the worst example of bullshit you have experienced in your professional life or the thing that has aggravated you the most? I can't see the parent making this claim at all; are you sure that your interpretation is in good faith?
  - izzydata 7y ago
    They might be unconsciously biased.
- mc32 7y ago
  Maybe it’s worth asking what other types of “bs” training they received at work. Maybe it’s one among many or maybe it’s the only one. We don’t know. That said, most training is about absolving the company of responsibility and putting it on you (security training for example). On the surface it would seem a good idea to train against harassment at work, but I’d be keen to know if it has an effect on behavior or is it the HR consequences that affect behavior more than the training, for example.
- giggles_giggles 7y ago
  I've seen studies[1][2] which indicate that unconscious racial bias training increases racist attitudes among those who are put through it. If that's true, unconscious bias training might be worse than bullshit, it might be actively harmful and counterproductive to its stated goals. 1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524213/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524213/ 2 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0950017017719841 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/095001701771984...
freepor 7y ago
You have to forgive the diversity training industry a little as they are being hired to convince people of a fact that is known to be wrong. If you look at the most successful tech companies in history, they are all built by teams that are >90% white and Asian men, and as they grow hire more white and Asian women. Yet we’re supposed to believe that we can do even better through different methods, and become even more successful than Apple and Amazon etc. If virtually all NBA players were eating eggs for breakfast, and someone hired you to convince young basketball players that the key to success was instead to eat cheese, wouldn’t you need to rely on anecdata and pseudoscience?
- koube 7y ago
  I have not been led to the same conclusion (we can balance out workforce racial population) by my unconscious bias training, I have been led to conclusions that I find quite reasonable (watch for these thought patterns that indicate racial bias, such as if the person is X then the person is also Y, also be sure to keep questions to things that are essential to the job role). We might be taking different diversity training.
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  > Yet we’re supposed to believe that we can do even better through different methods, and become even more successful than Apple and Amazon etc. This is a prime example of why diversity training is needed. People are deeply biased in regards to seeing something successful and then thinking that is the formula to success. It's textbook survivorship bias. Furthermore, it completely misses the material basis for why these companies would have such hiring patterns: there were higher rates of asian and white college-educated men in CS, but, as hiring pools change, so do hiring patterns. There isn't some innate ability to found software companies in white or asian men.
  - freepor 7y ago
    Yes, aspirants pattern-match from success and make tweaks they deem essential to their goals. That‘s the history of human endeavor. Already you see female software engineering hiring growing in priority in the companies that are struggling with hiring.
hannasanarion 7y ago
"bias training doesn't eliminate bias" isn't the same thing as "bias doesn't exist".
- tgv 7y ago
  There's no evidence, and certainly not a plausible model, that supports/explains how reaction times reflect attitudes, and how changes in attitude change reaction times.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
luckylion 7y ago
Understanding the "scientific basis" of something unscientific is a ritual. It's 2+2=5, a test of your willingness to say things that are obviously false when that's asked of you by those above you.
planetzero 7y ago
It really has nothing to do with science at all. It's just another way to punish the majority for crimes of their ancestors, and to forcibly give power to a minority for simply existing and being a certain race or gender. Nobody really wants equality. They want supremacy. If they did have equality, they would be treated like everyone else and lose all of their power/special treatment. They are also tools of our politicians to be a permanent victim class, so the politicians can dole out justice and get votes.
rolltiide 7y ago
Are you guys talking about things like this? "here comes Karen, let me discriminate by noticing how I might discriminate so to make her more comfortable because I can't perceive my privilege but now I can alter my behavior just around her" Isn't there some utility in keeping the workplace productive just by being sensitive, as opposed to quantifying if it "reduces discrimination"
LanceH 7y ago
If it were truly scientific we could test out and get certified, then we would only have to attend refresher courses. I'm serious when I say this is one of the best things about being a contractor or consultant. I can just sign a paper saying that I'm responsible for my behavior.

dekhn 7y ago

I think the right way to think about this is that psychology has the imprimatur of legitimate science (and some pscyhological research is indeed legitimate), but a lot of it is more about having an idea you like, conducting a few inadequate studies, and publishing them in a domain journal with little critical review and no reproduction. Then, the folks who teach these courses see these papers (presumably in their undergraduate psych classes?) and end up believing them, becacuse they don't have the necessary scientific analytic/critical skills to evaluate them. At my employer, the IAT was originally presented as scientific fact (with citations). Over time, the citations changed from "This is great!" to "This work appears to not be scientifically accurate, but we like the idea" to "we will not be using this, unless you want to try it voluntarily". I think in general most people in society don't really have the ability to differentiate bullshit science from real science. I've actually left my scientific field permanently because I've seen far too enough examples of fraud and incompetence leading to tenure track positions.

kbenson 7y ago
> I think in general most people in society don't really have the ability to differentiate bullshit science from real science. I would say in many ways they can't, at least not without significant time investment every time they need to make that assessment, which is often. A domain expert is likely able to identify the smell of bullshit in their field extremely quickly. An expert in an adjacent domain will be able to apply some of their expertise, but not all, and sniff out some problems, but other might elude them. That is, a physicist might be able to note some likely problematic parts of statements to do with biology based somewhat on the science, somewhat on the shared methodology, and somewhat on the shared politics they might experience. A layperson may have very little experience to draw upon for some scientific statement, and even when they have experience with the underlying principles (a general interest in the area, experience in college), that may not be enough to identify problem areas. That's not a problem we can expect the layperson to be responsible for correcting (at least not beyond a healthy skepticism), unless we expect them all to increase their knowledge in every domain that they might make an assessment about (this happens, but it happens at a societal level, and over the span of many years). Psychology seems to share relatively little with most hard sciences, so it's particularly hard for both laypeople and scientists in other fields to assess without effort (as evidenced here though the multiple stories of people that put in that actual effort). I'm not sure we'll see improvement on this issue until we have better norms about communicating results. There's a natural inflation that happens when different parties take a finding and explain it, and possibly over-emphasize portions of it. That this happens twice now, once with the PR department associated with the group doing the study and once by the media that goes by what the PR department say, means that the average person gets a very distorted view of what's actually going on.

raxxorrax 7y ago

I would immediately change your workplace if you are able to do so.

bjourne 7y ago

Let me ask you something: Is unconscious bias training the worst example of bullshit you have experienced in your professional life or the thing that has aggravated you the most? Does that tell you anything about your unconscious biases? The point of the training is for companies to absolve themselves of culpability. If you act like a jerk after unconscious bias training you are on your own and the company hopes that it can't be blamed for it.

thestephen 7y ago
> Is unconscious bias training the worst example of bullshit you have experienced in your professional life or the thing that has aggravated you the most? I can't see the parent making this claim at all; are you sure that your interpretation is in good faith?
- izzydata 7y ago
  They might be unconsciously biased.
mc32 7y ago
Maybe it’s worth asking what other types of “bs” training they received at work. Maybe it’s one among many or maybe it’s the only one. We don’t know. That said, most training is about absolving the company of responsibility and putting it on you (security training for example). On the surface it would seem a good idea to train against harassment at work, but I’d be keen to know if it has an effect on behavior or is it the HR consequences that affect behavior more than the training, for example.
giggles_giggles 7y ago
I've seen studies[1][2] which indicate that unconscious racial bias training increases racist attitudes among those who are put through it. If that's true, unconscious bias training might be worse than bullshit, it might be actively harmful and counterproductive to its stated goals. 1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524213/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524213/ 2 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0950017017719841 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/095001701771984...

freepor 7y ago

You have to forgive the diversity training industry a little as they are being hired to convince people of a fact that is known to be wrong. If you look at the most successful tech companies in history, they are all built by teams that are >90% white and Asian men, and as they grow hire more white and Asian women. Yet we’re supposed to believe that we can do even better through different methods, and become even more successful than Apple and Amazon etc. If virtually all NBA players were eating eggs for breakfast, and someone hired you to convince young basketball players that the key to success was instead to eat cheese, wouldn’t you need to rely on anecdata and pseudoscience?

koube 7y ago
I have not been led to the same conclusion (we can balance out workforce racial population) by my unconscious bias training, I have been led to conclusions that I find quite reasonable (watch for these thought patterns that indicate racial bias, such as if the person is X then the person is also Y, also be sure to keep questions to things that are essential to the job role). We might be taking different diversity training.
ianleeclark 7y ago
> Yet we’re supposed to believe that we can do even better through different methods, and become even more successful than Apple and Amazon etc. This is a prime example of why diversity training is needed. People are deeply biased in regards to seeing something successful and then thinking that is the formula to success. It's textbook survivorship bias. Furthermore, it completely misses the material basis for why these companies would have such hiring patterns: there were higher rates of asian and white college-educated men in CS, but, as hiring pools change, so do hiring patterns. There isn't some innate ability to found software companies in white or asian men.
- freepor 7y ago
  Yes, aspirants pattern-match from success and make tweaks they deem essential to their goals. That‘s the history of human endeavor. Already you see female software engineering hiring growing in priority in the companies that are struggling with hiring.

hannasanarion 7y ago

"bias training doesn't eliminate bias" isn't the same thing as "bias doesn't exist".

tgv 7y ago
There's no evidence, and certainly not a plausible model, that supports/explains how reaction times reflect attitudes, and how changes in attitude change reaction times.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

luckylion 7y ago

Understanding the "scientific basis" of something unscientific is a ritual. It's 2+2=5, a test of your willingness to say things that are obviously false when that's asked of you by those above you.

planetzero 7y ago

It really has nothing to do with science at all. It's just another way to punish the majority for crimes of their ancestors, and to forcibly give power to a minority for simply existing and being a certain race or gender. Nobody really wants equality. They want supremacy. If they did have equality, they would be treated like everyone else and lose all of their power/special treatment. They are also tools of our politicians to be a permanent victim class, so the politicians can dole out justice and get votes.

rolltiide 7y ago

Are you guys talking about things like this? "here comes Karen, let me discriminate by noticing how I might discriminate so to make her more comfortable because I can't perceive my privilege but now I can alter my behavior just around her" Isn't there some utility in keeping the workplace productive just by being sensitive, as opposed to quantifying if it "reduces discrimination"

LanceH 7y ago

If it were truly scientific we could test out and get certified, then we would only have to attend refresher courses. I'm serious when I say this is one of the best things about being a contractor or consultant. I can just sign a paper saying that I'm responsible for my behavior.