Here's Some Controversy For You
Check out this Washington Post article from yesterday (I think you have to register, but it's free). It's about social psychologists who study bias, and the findings of a new study that purports to show that biases influence political views.
Whew, doggie.
I encountered this topic and researched it in more detail than the average bear last summer when I was preparing to second-chair a deposition of an expert witness for a company my law firm is suing. It's a race-discrimination case involving claims about compensation and promotions. The thing about all employment discrimination cases these days is that they're murky. There are no blanket exclusion policies anymore, and there usually are no smoking guns (i.e., written documentation that a person was fired, not promoted, or not hired because of a forbidden characteristic like race or sex). So we rely on social scientists who analyze the "social framework" of a workplace and elucidate how discrimination can come into play, often because of what we call "excessive discretion" and "subjective decisionmaking." This is necessarily overly simplified, but suffice it to say that discrimination is largely unacknowledged and even unconscious on the part of decisionmakers.
Dr. Philip Tetlock, a professor at the Haas Business School at Berkeley, was hired as the expert for the other side in this case. He has made part of his career (he's too prolific for me to say all) out of trying to maintain the classical definition of prejudice -- hatred, malice, conscious bias -- and arguing against fellow social psychologists who have done extensive work on how the nature of racial prejudice has changed in the late 20th century because the public mores about acceptable levels of prejudice have changed. Tetlock particularly hates the test discussed in this article -- the Implicit Association Test -- for various reasons too complicated to delve into here. And he even more particularly hates the proposition, which the test purports to show here, that, not to put too fine a point on it, Republicans are more likely to be racists than Democrats.
I'm agnostic on the scientific merit of the Implicit Association Test and on what the relationship is between racial prejudice and being a Republican. I'm interested to hear others' thoughts on this issue. Go forth and engage!
Whew, doggie.
I encountered this topic and researched it in more detail than the average bear last summer when I was preparing to second-chair a deposition of an expert witness for a company my law firm is suing. It's a race-discrimination case involving claims about compensation and promotions. The thing about all employment discrimination cases these days is that they're murky. There are no blanket exclusion policies anymore, and there usually are no smoking guns (i.e., written documentation that a person was fired, not promoted, or not hired because of a forbidden characteristic like race or sex). So we rely on social scientists who analyze the "social framework" of a workplace and elucidate how discrimination can come into play, often because of what we call "excessive discretion" and "subjective decisionmaking." This is necessarily overly simplified, but suffice it to say that discrimination is largely unacknowledged and even unconscious on the part of decisionmakers.
Dr. Philip Tetlock, a professor at the Haas Business School at Berkeley, was hired as the expert for the other side in this case. He has made part of his career (he's too prolific for me to say all) out of trying to maintain the classical definition of prejudice -- hatred, malice, conscious bias -- and arguing against fellow social psychologists who have done extensive work on how the nature of racial prejudice has changed in the late 20th century because the public mores about acceptable levels of prejudice have changed. Tetlock particularly hates the test discussed in this article -- the Implicit Association Test -- for various reasons too complicated to delve into here. And he even more particularly hates the proposition, which the test purports to show here, that, not to put too fine a point on it, Republicans are more likely to be racists than Democrats.
I'm agnostic on the scientific merit of the Implicit Association Test and on what the relationship is between racial prejudice and being a Republican. I'm interested to hear others' thoughts on this issue. Go forth and engage!
posted by Sandi | 2:10 PM
6 Comments:
It will be interesting to see how this research is received when it is officially published. Besides attacking the legitimacy of the claims in the research, I'm sure there will be some justifications along the lines of what subjects did when inconsistencies in "their" candidate's speaches -- giving themselves pats on the back, psychologically speaking.
To me, the best part of the article addressed both Dems and Reps: "The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces -- evidence of implicit bias."
How do we learn to fight our own implicit prejudices?
Bias is tough nut to crack. Those of us that say we have no bias at all would probable be surprised at our results if we were to take the test. I grew up is a town that was virtually one race. Almost everyone that I was around would say that they have nothing against a particular race, but when they reach deep into their inner thoughts they might be scared to find out that they are biased against certain individuals. The overwhelming bias that exist in my town now is against the poor. There is a great divide here between the rich and the poverty stricken. I do not see that going away anytime soon.
I read the Washington Post everyday. I love the slant they give to the news. I would be interested to know if they would have published these results if the results would have said that people that voted against Bush were more inclined to harbor anti-black prejudices.
For what its worth and to stir the pot...
Many times I've heard something along the lines of this logic:
"On the whole Conservatives are usually prejudicial to minorities as a race, but not as individuals. Lberals tend to demonstrate the converse – A prejudice individually more so than as a race."
Has any one else hear this or subscribe to this opinion?
DeJon: I haven't heard of that, but its an interesting pot-stirring thought!
I took the test without studying. I was told that I have a "moderate" preference to white over black, etc. How I really feel is that I have a "strong" bias against psychological tests. There, I said it.... (it feels good to get it out!)
I'm being serious about that, however. I'm sure there's usefulness to some of them, but there's never been much usefulness to me.
Like DocWatson, I grew up in a homoracial environment. (I love making up new words!) In spite of that, I really don't feel racism is on the short list of my personal problems.
What do you guys think about this?
NEW YORK - Morgan Freeman says the concept of a month dedicated to black history is "ridiculous."
"You're going to relegate my history to a month?" the 68-year-old actor says in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" to air Sunday (7 p.m. EST). "I don't want a black history month. Black history is American history."
Freeman notes there is no "white history month," and says the only way to get rid of racism is to "stop talking about it."
The actor says he believes the labels "black" and "white" are an obstacle to beating racism.
"I am going to stop calling you a white man and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man," Freeman says.
Interesting discussion ... very glad to get your perspective as a social scientist, Whitney.
When I was in college, the "drinks around the pool" wisdom about Republicans were that they were either racist or obsessed with "keeping their money" (i.e. not paying taxes). Particularly in the South, my understanding is that many political scientists and social psychologists believe that, at an aggregate level at least, racism is a major cause for the rise of the Republican party. Personally, I think gender plays at least as large a role. (But you knew I would say that!)
As for biases, I absolutely believe that we all have them. Of course people of color are biased against their own race. Women are sexist, gays are homophobic ... when you grow up in a prejudiced culture, you inevitably internalize those prejudices. It is incredibly sad, but not really surprising.
I get onto anyone, of any political stripe, who declares herself or himself free of latent bias. I think the only way to deal with these biases is to make them conscious and go from there. So, when you see a black man walking down the street and you instinctively reach over and lock your car door, realize what you're doing and hold yourself accountable (in whatever way seems logical to you). Absolutely no one in this culture is completely non-racist, although there are of course degrees. I hate it when anyone, progressive or conservative, tries to declare themself the exception.
After studying it a bit in preparation for the deposition, I was persuaded that the IAT has flaws inasmuch as it purports to measure the level of someone's prejudices. I look at it as kind of a fun thing to do when you're goofing off at work (I've taken tons of different versions) rather than what its creators wanted it to be, a scientific way to measure bias.
The deeper problem, which I alluded to in my post, is that there is disagreement over the very meaning of the concept of bias. Some folks, like Professor Tetlock, don't accept that anything short of conscious hatred or ill feeling is bias and can cause discriminatory behavior. Since most discrimination is no longer caused by conscious racism, this is problematic.
Didn't mean anything personal, Whitney. I've just been exposed to a few tests, and those haven't been very helpful to me. It was probably the practitioners more than the tests themselves.
For instance, Jody and I took one when we were applying to work at a children's home, and what they told us about ourselves was the exact opposite of the truth (Jody would be too soft on the kids, and I'd be strict - I turned out to be the softie in that arena). Things like that have left me w/o lots of faith in them (just bad experiences probably).
Anyhoo, didn't mean to take a shot at the whole field.
Post a Comment
<< Home