8 ms·

How to Fight Unconscious Bias and Become a Better Ally

51 points by englishm 11y ago

thwest 11y ago
There are some other things you can do that don't rely on your effort level to police your own thoughts: - don't speak, let those you want to support speak instead - remove names from resumes on first few passes
relbys 11y ago
Could this be something that is a bit of a mix of age/gender bias? I can't help but think that someone 40+ years old would be more likely to speak those kind of things. For men of my age (my perspective/experiences), the examples look more like this: - "That young person over there? Must be an intern or just came into the field" - "Back in my day we did it with punch cards, boy" - "So easy even your grandparents could do it."
- supercanuck 11y ago
  I'm young, 6'6 and work in IT. The two statements I hear the most are 1. Do you play Basketball and 2. I remember when punchcards... blah blah blah...
  - coolstorybro22 11y ago
    "Cool story bro" <-- I bet you also hear that a lot too!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
yummyfajitas 11y ago
The article is confusing a prior with a bias. They aren't the same thing. A prior is a belief you hold before any evidence is present. A bias is a failure to properly update your beliefs after obtaining evidence. Believing a woman at a tech conference is a recruiter (before interacting with her) is merely a prior. In my experience it's also a reasonably accurate one. If one were to fail to change that opinion after a woman claims she is a developer, that would be a bias.
- inverba 11y ago
  By most definitions, bias includes the negative prior as well as the refusal. For example: "Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias.
  - malisper 11y ago
    > bias includes the negative prior How is the prior negative if it is accurate?
    - beat 11y ago
      This is where I rant about "common sense". Common sense is a first approximation of reality. It's actually right the majority of the time. If "the majority of the time" is sufficient for your purposes, it's fine. If it's not, then you're a fool for relying on common sense when you need accuracy. So basically, you're arguing that "common sense" tells you that women at tech conferences are recruiters or HR. And from a common sense perspective, it may be right. But you didn't say common sense. You said "How is the prior negative if it is accurate?" By definition, the prior is not going to be accurate for a significant minority (if not a majority) of the women at the conference. And every time you're wrong, you are negatively affecting individuals. Don't want to talk to recruiters? You avoid them. You don't bring them into conversations, or don't assume they can keep up. Your avoidance harms their networking opportunities. You're hurting them. This, this is why bias matters.
      - malisper 11y ago
        I believe this is the heart of the problem of all of the bias flamewars. I think we can agree that it is reasonable to make statements about the group as long as the statements are true (women are more likely to be recruiters). It becomes much more fuzzy when trying to figure out how to apply that to an individual. That is where I draw the line. When you say an individual is a recruiter because they are female, you are doing something harmful.
dominotw 11y ago
Age bias is so obvious that its actually celebrated. Look at this example from Jetbrains Jobs page https://www.jetbrains.com/company/jobs/ https://www.jetbrains.com/company/jobs/ We offer: Fascinating work in a friendly, young team
- Bostonian 11y ago
  Fluid intelligence peaks by the early 20s and then declines with age, so "age bias" is rational. When the law mandates non-economic behavior, some people will ignore the law.
  - __z 11y ago
    From what I have experienced personally the older members of the team are often the most valuable.
  - cousin_it 11y ago
    Society should care for all its members. If that's "non-economic behavior", so be it.
  - beat 11y ago
    Come tell us that story again in 20 years.
    - Bostonian 11y ago
      I am in my 40s and think I was probably smarter in my 20s. What is your point?
      - beat 11y ago
        I'm 50 and I'm far smarter than I was in my 20s. I find that's true of most people who keep their mind sharp and don't let life beat them down. edit: A lot of people are beaten down by the time they're in their 40s. They feel like failure and they've lost hope, or they're stuck in a game of Prisoner's Dilemma. Those people aren't as smart as they were back when they were making the mistakes that led to their sorry state.
grovulent 11y ago
So - does anyone have a good understanding of the quality science behind those implicit association tests? To be honest - I tend to take any psychology results with a grain of salt... given the crisis of replicability that it is currently facing.
- frandroid 11y ago
  The amount of testing behind association tests is pretty large, it's uncontroversial at this point.
  - grovulent 11y ago
    I've been reading some overviews - I'm already disturbed. The assumption is that the difference in response times between the association of categories reveals preferences. And they tested by using groups that were expected beforehand to have certain preferences (boys liking insects more than flowers and vice versa for girls correlated with their reaction times). But when faced with circumstances where these reactions DON'T correlate with self-reports, the conclusion is that the test reveals unconscious biases. If they confirmed their hypothesis about reaction times with groups that correlated - what entitles them to infer this further variable of unconscious bias to defend their hypothesis where the correlation fails? Uggh... I can see it's going to take an enormous amount of time to find in the enormous literature a decent answer to this question. I can't be bothered.
thanatropism 11y ago
This characteristically mixes two different political projects that have varying levels of support in the more general community: One is bias: take, for example, the archetypal example of orchestra musicians sampling their work behind a curtain so directors can be less unfair when hiring: gender distributions have indeed significantly shifted, because we've removed gender out of view for a critical moment. This, of course, doesn't work if said director is a raging misogynist who will scream "no! no women!" when the curtain reveals the looks of whom he had approved. The other is underrepresentation. This takes as a given that {women, racial minorities, the mentally ill...} should be represented in important positions in rough proportion to their general share of the population. Now, there are reasons to support this in some cases: preventing that injustices from one generation pass on to the next, for example, or ensuring that the unique contribution that epileptic cyclops can give to the world of cinema. But: -- not everyone that's in opposition to bias is also in opposition to underrepresentation per se. It's just dishonest to mix the two; particularly in tech circles that have had a long, there's-one-right-answer culture that might not be perceived as benefiting from increased diversity at all. There's also the wider issue of whether diversity should be means to an end or an end unto itself. (I mean, these are positions that exist. What bothers me is the Trojan horse mechanics at play; it predisposes me against one side when I really haven't thought enough about the subject to have a proper opinion.)
- slipjack 11y ago
  One of the points in the article is that the first often leads to the second: if your idea of a programmer is white and male, and that predisposes you to trust the capabilities of male tech candidates, you're going to end up with underrepresentation of people who are already minorities. It'll be subtle but it will be present. (ETA: who is being underrepresented.)
- ska 11y ago
  It's a good idea to clearly articulate the two situations and how they interact, but it isn't like you can decouple them in practice so some mixing is natural.
  - 11y ago
sarciszewski 11y ago
EDIT: Semantics follow. Also, trigger warning -- someone has an opinion on the Internet. Since it isn't identical to yours, butthurt may ensue. I don't want to be a better ally, and it's condescending for anyone to demand it. Definition: The enemy of your enemy is your ally. (Remix of "the enemy of your enemy is your friend".) If I and another person are fighting a common enemy, I don't suddenly earn the privilege of telling them how to conduct themselves in their own affairs. Nor does it similarly empower them to make demands of me. We agree that the enemy we're fighting is a problem. That's all being an ally means. It doesn't imply any sort of deeper relationship, just a common goal. The concept of "a better ally" is not compatible here. "Well, we're on the same side, but you're not good enough of an ally for my standards."
- JoergR 11y ago
  Maybe you should try to understand even the most basic concepts before you embarrass yourself massively by mansplaining about common sides, enemies and who is allowed to judge you.
- nostrebored 11y ago
  First of all, who is demanding it? This article is telling people who do want to help people who are underrepresented and face discrimination in technology a way in which they can do better. I, for one, like knowing how to do better. Even if I'm doing an adequate job, I appreciate when my employees tell me that I could be more productive if I changed how I worked. I enjoy acting on that change and becoming better, and seeing how changing my actions makes things run more smoothly. This situation is not very different. I think the brunt of what you're saying comes down to saying 'I don't want to be a better ally' -- why not? When you're working on a team or towards a shared agenda, you should try and communicate and best understand how to interact with the people that you're working with -- this is just basic teamwork... When you're a member of the group that's part of the problem, you should probably grant more weight to what the group that is suffering discrimination/bias is saying. Let me decode what 'you're not a good enough ally for my standards' means -- it means you're still being a dick, and not listening to what people are saying. It means you're still part of the problem. The things that were talked about in this article are things that my fiancee faces in her job as an SDE at Amazon with an unbelievable, near daily frequency, and it really irks me when people decide to put their head in the sand about it.
le_meta 11y ago
"how to ignore your cultivated intuition and be a complete idiot"

51 points by englishm 11y ago

There are some other things you can do that don't rely on your effort level to police your own thoughts: - don't speak, let those you want to support speak instead - remove names from resumes on first few passes

relbys 11y ago

Could this be something that is a bit of a mix of age/gender bias? I can't help but think that someone 40+ years old would be more likely to speak those kind of things. For men of my age (my perspective/experiences), the examples look more like this: - "That young person over there? Must be an intern or just came into the field" - "Back in my day we did it with punch cards, boy" - "So easy even your grandparents could do it."

supercanuck 11y ago
I'm young, 6'6 and work in IT. The two statements I hear the most are 1. Do you play Basketball and 2. I remember when punchcards... blah blah blah...
- coolstorybro22 11y ago
  "Cool story bro" <-- I bet you also hear that a lot too!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

yummyfajitas 11y ago

The article is confusing a prior with a bias. They aren't the same thing. A prior is a belief you hold before any evidence is present. A bias is a failure to properly update your beliefs after obtaining evidence. Believing a woman at a tech conference is a recruiter (before interacting with her) is merely a prior. In my experience it's also a reasonably accurate one. If one were to fail to change that opinion after a woman claims she is a developer, that would be a bias.

inverba 11y ago
By most definitions, bias includes the negative prior as well as the refusal. For example: "Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias.
- malisper 11y ago
  > bias includes the negative prior How is the prior negative if it is accurate?
  - beat 11y ago
    This is where I rant about "common sense". Common sense is a first approximation of reality. It's actually right the majority of the time. If "the majority of the time" is sufficient for your purposes, it's fine. If it's not, then you're a fool for relying on common sense when you need accuracy. So basically, you're arguing that "common sense" tells you that women at tech conferences are recruiters or HR. And from a common sense perspective, it may be right. But you didn't say common sense. You said "How is the prior negative if it is accurate?" By definition, the prior is not going to be accurate for a significant minority (if not a majority) of the women at the conference. And every time you're wrong, you are negatively affecting individuals. Don't want to talk to recruiters? You avoid them. You don't bring them into conversations, or don't assume they can keep up. Your avoidance harms their networking opportunities. You're hurting them. This, this is why bias matters.
    - malisper 11y ago
      I believe this is the heart of the problem of all of the bias flamewars. I think we can agree that it is reasonable to make statements about the group as long as the statements are true (women are more likely to be recruiters). It becomes much more fuzzy when trying to figure out how to apply that to an individual. That is where I draw the line. When you say an individual is a recruiter because they are female, you are doing something harmful.

dominotw 11y ago

Age bias is so obvious that its actually celebrated. Look at this example from Jetbrains Jobs page https://www.jetbrains.com/company/jobs/ https://www.jetbrains.com/company/jobs/ We offer: Fascinating work in a friendly, young team

Bostonian 11y ago
Fluid intelligence peaks by the early 20s and then declines with age, so "age bias" is rational. When the law mandates non-economic behavior, some people will ignore the law.
- __z 11y ago
  From what I have experienced personally the older members of the team are often the most valuable.
- cousin_it 11y ago
  Society should care for all its members. If that's "non-economic behavior", so be it.
- beat 11y ago
  Come tell us that story again in 20 years.
  - Bostonian 11y ago
    I am in my 40s and think I was probably smarter in my 20s. What is your point?
    - beat 11y ago
      I'm 50 and I'm far smarter than I was in my 20s. I find that's true of most people who keep their mind sharp and don't let life beat them down. edit: A lot of people are beaten down by the time they're in their 40s. They feel like failure and they've lost hope, or they're stuck in a game of Prisoner's Dilemma. Those people aren't as smart as they were back when they were making the mistakes that led to their sorry state.

grovulent 11y ago

So - does anyone have a good understanding of the quality science behind those implicit association tests? To be honest - I tend to take any psychology results with a grain of salt... given the crisis of replicability that it is currently facing.

frandroid 11y ago
The amount of testing behind association tests is pretty large, it's uncontroversial at this point.
- grovulent 11y ago
  I've been reading some overviews - I'm already disturbed. The assumption is that the difference in response times between the association of categories reveals preferences. And they tested by using groups that were expected beforehand to have certain preferences (boys liking insects more than flowers and vice versa for girls correlated with their reaction times). But when faced with circumstances where these reactions DON'T correlate with self-reports, the conclusion is that the test reveals unconscious biases. If they confirmed their hypothesis about reaction times with groups that correlated - what entitles them to infer this further variable of unconscious bias to defend their hypothesis where the correlation fails? Uggh... I can see it's going to take an enormous amount of time to find in the enormous literature a decent answer to this question. I can't be bothered.

thanatropism 11y ago

This characteristically mixes two different political projects that have varying levels of support in the more general community: One is bias: take, for example, the archetypal example of orchestra musicians sampling their work behind a curtain so directors can be less unfair when hiring: gender distributions have indeed significantly shifted, because we've removed gender out of view for a critical moment. This, of course, doesn't work if said director is a raging misogynist who will scream "no! no women!" when the curtain reveals the looks of whom he had approved. The other is underrepresentation. This takes as a given that {women, racial minorities, the mentally ill...} should be represented in important positions in rough proportion to their general share of the population. Now, there are reasons to support this in some cases: preventing that injustices from one generation pass on to the next, for example, or ensuring that the unique contribution that epileptic cyclops can give to the world of cinema. But: -- not everyone that's in opposition to bias is also in opposition to underrepresentation per se. It's just dishonest to mix the two; particularly in tech circles that have had a long, there's-one-right-answer culture that might not be perceived as benefiting from increased diversity at all. There's also the wider issue of whether diversity should be means to an end or an end unto itself. (I mean, these are positions that exist. What bothers me is the Trojan horse mechanics at play; it predisposes me against one side when I really haven't thought enough about the subject to have a proper opinion.)

slipjack 11y ago
One of the points in the article is that the first often leads to the second: if your idea of a programmer is white and male, and that predisposes you to trust the capabilities of male tech candidates, you're going to end up with underrepresentation of people who are already minorities. It'll be subtle but it will be present. (ETA: who is being underrepresented.)
ska 11y ago
It's a good idea to clearly articulate the two situations and how they interact, but it isn't like you can decouple them in practice so some mixing is natural.
- 11y ago

sarciszewski 11y ago

EDIT: Semantics follow. Also, trigger warning -- someone has an opinion on the Internet. Since it isn't identical to yours, butthurt may ensue. I don't want to be a better ally, and it's condescending for anyone to demand it. Definition: The enemy of your enemy is your ally. (Remix of "the enemy of your enemy is your friend".) If I and another person are fighting a common enemy, I don't suddenly earn the privilege of telling them how to conduct themselves in their own affairs. Nor does it similarly empower them to make demands of me. We agree that the enemy we're fighting is a problem. That's all being an ally means. It doesn't imply any sort of deeper relationship, just a common goal. The concept of "a better ally" is not compatible here. "Well, we're on the same side, but you're not good enough of an ally for my standards."

JoergR 11y ago
Maybe you should try to understand even the most basic concepts before you embarrass yourself massively by mansplaining about common sides, enemies and who is allowed to judge you.
nostrebored 11y ago
First of all, who is demanding it? This article is telling people who do want to help people who are underrepresented and face discrimination in technology a way in which they can do better. I, for one, like knowing how to do better. Even if I'm doing an adequate job, I appreciate when my employees tell me that I could be more productive if I changed how I worked. I enjoy acting on that change and becoming better, and seeing how changing my actions makes things run more smoothly. This situation is not very different. I think the brunt of what you're saying comes down to saying 'I don't want to be a better ally' -- why not? When you're working on a team or towards a shared agenda, you should try and communicate and best understand how to interact with the people that you're working with -- this is just basic teamwork... When you're a member of the group that's part of the problem, you should probably grant more weight to what the group that is suffering discrimination/bias is saying. Let me decode what 'you're not a good enough ally for my standards' means -- it means you're still being a dick, and not listening to what people are saying. It means you're still part of the problem. The things that were talked about in this article are things that my fiancee faces in her job as an SDE at Amazon with an unbelievable, near daily frequency, and it really irks me when people decide to put their head in the sand about it.

le_meta 11y ago

"how to ignore your cultivated intuition and be a complete idiot"