3 ms·

> Another perspective is that a lot of bias isn't "I don't like X people", but rather "I feel X people are disproportionately Y, and I don't like Y" Of course.

> Another perspective is that a lot of bias isn't "I don't like X people", but rather "I feel X people are disproportionately Y, and I don't like Y" Of course. But the answer to this depends on: 1. the source of the belief that 'X people tend to be Y'. 2. The truth or otherwise of that belief. 3. The source of the dislike of Y. 4. Whether or not Y is a reasonable cause for dislike. Suppose that I tell you that the most important political issue for me is the welfare of animals, and in particular, that animals raised for meat should be stunned before they are slaughtered. There are definitely some people for which this is a genuinely held and rationally arrived at belief, consistent with their other beliefs and actions. There are others for which this is a device for attacking certain religious communities, through opposition to halal and shechita. Isn't it correct that we should try and understand which is taking place before responding to it? Presenting objective data to someone arguing an irrational position in bad faith does no good - the bad faith argument simply adapts.

KMag 5y ago
Sure, but we usually group these sorts of disagreements as axiomatic disagreements, not bias. Maybe I'm grossly naive, but I doubt that percentage wise there are many hiring managers who hold racial superiority as axiomatic. My understanding is that hiring bias usually boils down to assumptions about aggregate intelligence, trustworthiness, and/or work ethic of groups of people. If someone thinks Swedes just aren't that smart, it's not a matter of axiomatic disagreement about if being smart is good or bad in an employee, it is something that objective data can fix. If someone is worried that black people are generally untrustworthy due to criminal pasts, that's something that they can be objectively shown to be untrue. (Yes, I grew up in a time and place where racist/originist Sven and Ole jokes about dumb Swedes were common.)
- ingleswood 5y ago
  This is far too simplistic. There are well studied phenomena by which people apply bias along the following lines (an arbitrary example chosen): 1. I believe a stereotype that Swedish people are more friendly than Scottish people. 2. I know this person is Swedish, so I will tend to judge their behavior as generally friendly when I would interpret the same behavior by a Scottish person as less friendly. 3. I tend to assume that Scottish people do better in this job than Swedish people, perhaps because I've seen more Scots and fewer Swedes succeed in the past. 4. I therefore believe that success in this job is anti-correlated with friendliness. 5. The person in front of me would perform poorly in this role - not because he is Swedish, but because he is too friendly. Note that although in practise, I might reject a Swede and accept a Scot (who is exactly as qualified and exactly as friendly) for the same job, I don't have any dislike of Swedish people, nor do I seek to avoid hiring them. In fact I might personally prefer Swedes to Scots (because they are so friendly) and seek out their company, yet still behave as above! That's literally the meaning of unconscious in unconscious bias.
  - KMag 5y ago
    1. That's very interesting. Thanks for enlightening me. 2. I think the case of the background checks is, however, one of the simple cases. It looks like some managers have an irrational belief that they're interviewing people likely to have criminal convictions, but change their minds when background checks come back clean. Hopefully as more and more background checks come back clean, managers adjust their biases. On a side note, there is something to be said for giving convicted criminals a second chance. I'm not sure if people with a single criminal conviction are that much more likely than someone with a clean record to commit a crime that harms their employer.

KMag 5y ago

Sure, but we usually group these sorts of disagreements as axiomatic disagreements, not bias. Maybe I'm grossly naive, but I doubt that percentage wise there are many hiring managers who hold racial superiority as axiomatic. My understanding is that hiring bias usually boils down to assumptions about aggregate intelligence, trustworthiness, and/or work ethic of groups of people. If someone thinks Swedes just aren't that smart, it's not a matter of axiomatic disagreement about if being smart is good or bad in an employee, it is something that objective data can fix. If someone is worried that black people are generally untrustworthy due to criminal pasts, that's something that they can be objectively shown to be untrue. (Yes, I grew up in a time and place where racist/originist Sven and Ole jokes about dumb Swedes were common.)

ingleswood 5y ago
This is far too simplistic. There are well studied phenomena by which people apply bias along the following lines (an arbitrary example chosen): 1. I believe a stereotype that Swedish people are more friendly than Scottish people. 2. I know this person is Swedish, so I will tend to judge their behavior as generally friendly when I would interpret the same behavior by a Scottish person as less friendly. 3. I tend to assume that Scottish people do better in this job than Swedish people, perhaps because I've seen more Scots and fewer Swedes succeed in the past. 4. I therefore believe that success in this job is anti-correlated with friendliness. 5. The person in front of me would perform poorly in this role - not because he is Swedish, but because he is too friendly. Note that although in practise, I might reject a Swede and accept a Scot (who is exactly as qualified and exactly as friendly) for the same job, I don't have any dislike of Swedish people, nor do I seek to avoid hiring them. In fact I might personally prefer Swedes to Scots (because they are so friendly) and seek out their company, yet still behave as above! That's literally the meaning of unconscious in unconscious bias.
- KMag 5y ago
  1. That's very interesting. Thanks for enlightening me. 2. I think the case of the background checks is, however, one of the simple cases. It looks like some managers have an irrational belief that they're interviewing people likely to have criminal convictions, but change their minds when background checks come back clean. Hopefully as more and more background checks come back clean, managers adjust their biases. On a side note, there is something to be said for giving convicted criminals a second chance. I'm not sure if people with a single criminal conviction are that much more likely than someone with a clean record to commit a crime that harms their employer.