5 ms·

There is a TON of data out there demonstrating we all have subconscious bias. Moreso than we believe. Even of our own groups! We are slaves to our brain! This

There is a TON of data out there demonstrating we all have subconscious bias. Moreso than we believe. Even of our own groups! We are slaves to our brain! This is a good summary of some of the data: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-racism-or-racial-bias/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-racism-or-racial-b... Professors at the University of Chicago and MIT sent 5,000 fictitious resumes in response to 1,300 help wanted ads. Each resume listed identical qualifications except for one variation -- some applicants had Anglo-sounding names such as "Brendan," while others had black-sounding names such as "Jamal." Applicants with Anglo-sounding names were 50% more likely to get calls for interviews than their black-sounding counterparts. Most of the people who didn't call "Jamal" were probably unaware that their decision was motivated by racial bias, says Daniel L. Ames, a UCLA researcher who has studied and written about bias. "If you ask someone on the hiring committee, none of them are going to say they're racially biased," Ames says. "They're not lying. They're just wrong."

orbitur 12y ago
That's not a very relevant study, since you (and Ames) are just guessing at the motive. Many people are consciously racist, not in a "I want them all lynched" way, but in a "meh, I'd rather not meet with a black guy, probably a waste of time" way. Of course they aren't going to admit that sort of bias. And again, you're just guessing at what happened. There is indeed subconscious bias, and it rears its ugly head when we're observing people's mannerisms, their speech, their attractiveness, and yes, their skin color. But just looking at names on a resume, I'd argue the decision of calling someone back, based on the stereotypical application of their first name, is just a conscious bias.
- UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
  It isn't "a study," It is an article summarizing a lot of the data on subconscious bias as it relates to race, specifically white/black in the US. If you read it you'd know that. Huh? I never guessed that anything happened or guessing at any motives of anyone...? The same resume experiment has been tested with male/female names as well.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    You wrote "There is a TON of data out there demonstrating we all have subconscious bias." Is that not guessing at motives (or the lack of a motive, I suppose)? The point the above commenter made is that the CV example does not demonstrate subconscious bias. The researcher in question said they were "probably unaware", and said that "if you ask someone on the hiring committee", implying that they did not even try to measure whether or not this bias was conscious or not, but that they assume a lot of it was subconscious. It's quite possible - even likely - they're right about that, but from the description it does not sound like that study is a good basis for demonstrating subconscious basis. > The same resume experiment has been tested with male/female names as well. Many people openly admit to biases against females in certain jobs, so that too is a bad example for establishing subconscious bias. I agree with you that there is a lot of subconscious bias (and the article has much better examples, such as the knife example where there's no motive for people to pick the wrong person), but it's not clear that the CV example demonstrates subconscious bias. It certainly does demonstrate bias though.
    - UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
      Your missing the forest for the trees. Don't get hung up on one example I quoted because I found it interesting.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tomp 12y ago
I'm not from the US, but don't many American blacks have white-sounding names? And I assume those blacks are more likely to come from families that are wealthier and better educated. If yes, the other explanation could be that the employers were considering the name an indication of background, i.e. a "Jamal" is more likely to come "from the hood" (poor neighborhood) than a "James". The point is, "discrimination" is sometimes just applying statistics. Just because some statistical factors correlate with race doesn't mean one is being racist; they are just optimizing their selection process.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > The point is, "discrimination" is sometimes just applying statistics. Just because some statistical factors correlate with race doesn't mean one is being racist; they are just optimizing their selection process. If your optimized selection process selects away from Black candidates it is by definition racist.
  - tomp 12y ago
    So, is college selection process in the US racist? The process is SAT, and AFAIK blacks and Hispanics score less than whites, who score less than Asians. Is is also sexist (as more women than men study)? I don't think so. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Edit: also, since more Asians and less blacks are accepted at good universities, if your company relies on the name of university when selecting candidates (e.g. a candidate from Harvard is more likely to have an interview than a candidate from an unknown state school), by your logic that's racist as well.
    - UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
      We have a term for that in US law - "disparate impact." And yes, if your hiring practices are found to have a disparate impact on a protected class, it is illegal.
      - tomp 12y ago
        All hiring practices have a disparate impact on protected classes. The only issue is proving it. God I hate such laws!

orbitur 12y ago

That's not a very relevant study, since you (and Ames) are just guessing at the motive. Many people are consciously racist, not in a "I want them all lynched" way, but in a "meh, I'd rather not meet with a black guy, probably a waste of time" way. Of course they aren't going to admit that sort of bias. And again, you're just guessing at what happened. There is indeed subconscious bias, and it rears its ugly head when we're observing people's mannerisms, their speech, their attractiveness, and yes, their skin color. But just looking at names on a resume, I'd argue the decision of calling someone back, based on the stereotypical application of their first name, is just a conscious bias.

UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
It isn't "a study," It is an article summarizing a lot of the data on subconscious bias as it relates to race, specifically white/black in the US. If you read it you'd know that. Huh? I never guessed that anything happened or guessing at any motives of anyone...? The same resume experiment has been tested with male/female names as well.
- vidarh 12y ago
  You wrote "There is a TON of data out there demonstrating we all have subconscious bias." Is that not guessing at motives (or the lack of a motive, I suppose)? The point the above commenter made is that the CV example does not demonstrate subconscious bias. The researcher in question said they were "probably unaware", and said that "if you ask someone on the hiring committee", implying that they did not even try to measure whether or not this bias was conscious or not, but that they assume a lot of it was subconscious. It's quite possible - even likely - they're right about that, but from the description it does not sound like that study is a good basis for demonstrating subconscious basis. > The same resume experiment has been tested with male/female names as well. Many people openly admit to biases against females in certain jobs, so that too is a bad example for establishing subconscious bias. I agree with you that there is a lot of subconscious bias (and the article has much better examples, such as the knife example where there's no motive for people to pick the wrong person), but it's not clear that the CV example demonstrates subconscious bias. It certainly does demonstrate bias though.
  - UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
    Your missing the forest for the trees. Don't get hung up on one example I quoted because I found it interesting.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tomp 12y ago

I'm not from the US, but don't many American blacks have white-sounding names? And I assume those blacks are more likely to come from families that are wealthier and better educated. If yes, the other explanation could be that the employers were considering the name an indication of background, i.e. a "Jamal" is more likely to come "from the hood" (poor neighborhood) than a "James". The point is, "discrimination" is sometimes just applying statistics. Just because some statistical factors correlate with race doesn't mean one is being racist; they are just optimizing their selection process.

DanBC 12y ago
> The point is, "discrimination" is sometimes just applying statistics. Just because some statistical factors correlate with race doesn't mean one is being racist; they are just optimizing their selection process. If your optimized selection process selects away from Black candidates it is by definition racist.
- tomp 12y ago
  So, is college selection process in the US racist? The process is SAT, and AFAIK blacks and Hispanics score less than whites, who score less than Asians. Is is also sexist (as more women than men study)? I don't think so. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Edit: also, since more Asians and less blacks are accepted at good universities, if your company relies on the name of university when selecting candidates (e.g. a candidate from Harvard is more likely to have an interview than a candidate from an unknown state school), by your logic that's racist as well.
  - UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
    We have a term for that in US law - "disparate impact." And yes, if your hiring practices are found to have a disparate impact on a protected class, it is illegal.
    - tomp 12y ago
      All hiring practices have a disparate impact on protected classes. The only issue is proving it. God I hate such laws!