Whether a discussion is useful depends on the results of the discussion. There are a lot of true things you can say that don’t advance a discussion into a direction that leads to a positive outcome.
People could discuss cognitive biases in a really stupid and irrational way that would make it unproductive? If that’s what you mean, then, yeah. Of course.
It wasn’t a discussion of how implicit bias works but an uncited assertion that it has effects in certain conditions.
Yeah? It wasn’t really the format for a CFAR plug.
That might be true but it’s not what the LW mission of rationality that’s about systematic winning is about. I understand the mission to be about finding thinking strategies that lead to making winning decisions.
Right. Like approaching policy debates with a reduction in mind-killedness. Acknowledging implicit bias is a great step.
You can also look at the decision making literature and see what saying “everyone has biases” does to a person self awareness of their own biases. It generally does little.
It does more than not acknowledging people are biased—this was literally what Clinton’s critics said in regard to her comment. They essentially denied that implicit bias exists.
You seem to making a black or white argument that Clinton’s comment isn’t useful because it’s not that useful—it won’t solve anything or make rationality win U.S. policy on this issue. I am not under the illusion her one sentence will un-mindkill U.S. politics. I’m merely contrasting the (a) acknowledgement of bias with (b) being apparently unaware that it exists.
People could discuss cognitive biases in a really stupid and irrational way that would make it unproductive?
The way she discussed it wasn’t productive. There also the general field of Gender studies. As a field it doesn’t encourage open and data driven debate about the subject. When you start a discussion with saying that your opponent holds their position because of implicit bias that doesn’t tend to be a discussion where it’s easy to focus on rational argument.
Yeah?
The problem is that you are making claims that are wrong. It wasn’t a discussion of how implicit bias works. If you want to analyse claims about a debate it’s useful to stay with the facts.
You seem to making a black or white argument that Clinton’s comment isn’t useful because it’s not that useful
No.
Focusing a discussion on implicit bias means to not focus the discussion on “How can we solve this problem?”
It’s a rhetoric strategy to signal concern about Black Lives Matter while at the same time not having to actually discuss policy solutions to the problems.
There’s also a good chance that a conservative person who hears the debate is harder to educate about the concept of implicit bias after listening the debate.
The intellectual toolkit of Gender studies with includes asserting that the opponent is driven by implicit bias and privilege is not useful for having rational discussions. The communities that engage in that toolkit generally don’t want to let data decide.
The also don’t ask the obvious questions such as whether the fact that more Whites get killed than Asians is also due to implicit bias. That a very straightforward question if you look at the data and want to use implicit bias as a cognitive tool for explaining the data of police killers.
They also don’t ask the obvious questions such as whether the fact that more Whites get killed than Asians is also due to implicit bias. That a very straightforward question if you look at the data and want to use implicit bias as a cognitive tool for explaining the data of police killers.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Can you restate it?
Gender studies
You mentioned “gender studies” a couple times in a negative light—Why? It doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion.
...
Generally, the idea that (a) we all have implicit biases based on how our brain works and our life experiences, (b) these biases may significantly obscure our map of the territory, and (c) in the special case of police—where men and women need to quickly make highly consequential decisions under extreme stress—this obscured map may lead to irrational, “non-winning”, decisions seems uncontroversial. Certainly nothing you’ve said has rebutted it.
For the record, I don’t think every police shooting is racist. Not even close. And I think the left goes way too far trying to spin this.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Can you restate it?
Why aren’t you seeking to explain why White’s get more likely to be killed by police than Asian’s? Why do you think it’s a question that people like Clinton don’t address?
You mentioned “gender studies” a couple times in a negative light—Why? It doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion.
Because it’s difficult to have a conservation about the quality of the public debate without accounting for the cultural forces that are responsible for the public debate being the way it currently is.
where men and women need to quickly make highly consequential decisions under extreme stress—this obscured map may lead to irrational, “non-winning”, decisions seems uncontroversial. Certainly nothing you’ve said has rebutted it.
Making winning decisions is about agency. Hillary Clinton could say that she wants that all police wear body camera’s. If she can win a majority for that policy she can implement it.
On the other hand you can’t pass a law that people shouldn’t have implicit bias anymore. Speaking about it is useful if Hillary Clinton wants to engage in virtue signaling but not actually focus on getting policies changed.
If she wanted to do rational policy making she could say: “We should do controlled trials that try different policies in different area’s to find out which policies actually help with changing the status quo.”
For the record, I don’t think every police shooting is racist. Not even close. And I think the left goes way too far trying to spin this.
In what kind of ontology do you believe if you think that a police shooting could be racist, even in principle? That there are some police shootings that are racists and other that aren’t?
If you want to use the word “racist” to be a property of events and not a property of people than it means something qualitatively different than what the term “implicit racism” is about.
This looks like your conceptualization of racism is the standard meaning of the word and has little to do with the academic term of “implicit racism”.
Why aren’t you seeking to explain why White’s get more likely to be killed by police than Asian’s? Why do you think it’s a question that people like Clinton don’t address?
She didn’t address it because it wasn’t relevant to the discussion at hand. Is the disparity between Whites and Asians killed by police significant? Is it an issue that is pressing in terms of it’s current effect on the body politic?
Making winning decisions is about agency. Hillary Clinton could say that she wants that all police wear body camera’s. If she can win a majority for that policy she can implement it.
On the other hand you can’t pass a law that people shouldn’t have implicit bias anymore. Speaking about it is useful if Hillary Clinton wants to engage in virtue signaling but not actually focus on getting policies changed.
If she wanted to do rational policy making she could say: “We should do controlled trials that try different policies in different area’s to find out which policies actually help with changing the status quo.”
You speak about this is a very definitive way, as if you know exactly what would work. I don’t know what would work. It seems to me these are complex issues. I just noted it was good and, I think, useful to hear someone mention the everyone is subject to bias as opposed to the same old Red v. Blue talking points. I’d have praised anyone who said something similar, regardless of which team they played for.
In what kind of ontology do you believe if you think that a police shooting could be racist, even in principle? That there are some police shootings that are racists and other that aren’t? If you want to use the word “racist” to be a property of events and not a property of people than it means something qualitatively different than what the term “implicit racism” is about.
This looks like your conceptualization of racism is the standard meaning of the word and has little to do with the academic term of “implicit racism”.
My phrasing was poor.
I don’t think race is a factor in every police shooting. Despite this, the left seems to try and make every single police shooting involving an African American into another example of blatant, explicit racism. I don’t agree with this at all and I think it detracts from the effort to improve things. Every police shooting ought to be examined based on the objective facts.
The idea that an officer (or judge, or anyone) could have an implicit bias against a group of people, and that that bias is consequential, seem to me to be worth exploring.
Is the disparity between Whites and Asians killed by police significant?
In 2016 the difference is slightly stronger than the difference between Whites and Black getting killed. It’s a fact that easily knowable if you care to look for the numbers of police killings by race.
Anybody who cares enough about the issue to know the fact should know it if the can read numbers in a straightforward way instead of just trying to validate their party line.
You speak about this is a very definitive way, as if you know exactly what would work. I don’t know what would work.
You don’t know what would work because Clinton doesn’t speak about the evidence for what works. It’s not the conversation she tries to have on the subject. There’s good evidence that body camera’s do work.
The fact that creating legal structure where police can effectively prosecuted for wrongdoing seem obvious to me. I don’t have specific evidence for it, but it feels like an elephant in the room.
Evidence-based policy making and running trials to see which policies perform best is a framework that applying rationality. In fairly confident that it’s better than blaming people for having biases and hoping that they will change as a result.
I don’t have studies that validate that claim but it again seem obviously true.
I don’t think race is a factor in every police shooting.
If you think that the logical conclusion would be that Clinton was wrong when she claimed that everybody suffers from implicit bias.
That’s exactly why it’s unproductive. You don’t actually think in terms of “implicit racism” but simply use the new name to label concepts that you already knew beforehand.
Every police shooting ought to be examined based on the objective facts.
That sounds again like a rejection of using the framework of implicit bias. You don’t see evidence of implicit bias in a case by case basis. You see it when you look in aggregate on choices.
A person with implicit bias has higher availability for certain action and thus likely reacts a little faster, even if both cases result in a dead suspect.
In 2016 the difference is slightly stronger than the difference between Whites and Black getting killed. It’s a fact that easily knowable if you care to look for the numbers of police killings by race. Anybody who cares enough about the issue to know the fact should know it if the can read numbers in a straightforward way instead of just trying to validate their party line.
Do you have a preferred source?
In fairly confident that it’s better than blaming people for having biases and hoping that they will change as a result.
Who’s doing this?
If you think that the logical conclusion would be that Clinton was wrong when she claimed that everybody suffers from implicit bias.
We have implicit biases. Biases based on race are a pretty big deal in this country, historically. In my view, the level of bias in police shootings doesn’t reach any reasonable threshold to be called anything like “racism” in many, many cases.
That’s exactly why it’s unproductive. You don’t actually think in terms of “implicit racism” but simply use the new name to label concepts that you already knew beforehand.
Perhaps this is true for you. I often think about ways my view may be biased when relating to people. And then I act to better understand and, hopefully, neutralize the bias. My efforts are clumsy and likely often fail, because I’m not particularly intelligent or skilled at overcoming bias.
At any rate, the first step toward being productive in this regard is recognizing bias exists.
You don’t see evidence of implicit bias in a case by case basis.
Sure you could. I’d agree the aggregate data would be (perhaps more) revealing, but the facts of a particular case (including the video) could also tell you something about what biases might exist and how they effected the event.
I’m tapping.
What are your political leanings? I’d like to better understand our interaction by knowing how you view yourself generally on the U.S. political spectrum. Thanks.
We have implicit biases. Biases based on race are a pretty big deal in this country, historically. In my view, the level of bias in police shootings doesn’t reach any reasonable threshold to be called anything like “racism” in many, many cases.
The academic notion of implicit racism isn’t about any other threshold than statistical significance. The tool that they developed have gotten good at picking up effects in many people so the threshold is quite low and most people suffer from implicit racism.
If you reject that concept, then it doesn’t make sense to see Hillary using it as progress.
What are your political leanings? I’d like to better understand our interaction by knowing how you view yourself generally on the U.S. political spectrum.
I’m not on the U.S. political spectrum. He Facebook political status is currently “Continental”.
My formal political associations put me left of center in Berlin.
People could discuss cognitive biases in a really stupid and irrational way that would make it unproductive? If that’s what you mean, then, yeah. Of course.
Yeah? It wasn’t really the format for a CFAR plug.
Right. Like approaching policy debates with a reduction in mind-killedness. Acknowledging implicit bias is a great step.
It does more than not acknowledging people are biased—this was literally what Clinton’s critics said in regard to her comment. They essentially denied that implicit bias exists.
You seem to making a black or white argument that Clinton’s comment isn’t useful because it’s not that useful—it won’t solve anything or make rationality win U.S. policy on this issue. I am not under the illusion her one sentence will un-mindkill U.S. politics. I’m merely contrasting the (a) acknowledgement of bias with (b) being apparently unaware that it exists.
A is better than B.
The way she discussed it wasn’t productive. There also the general field of Gender studies. As a field it doesn’t encourage open and data driven debate about the subject. When you start a discussion with saying that your opponent holds their position because of implicit bias that doesn’t tend to be a discussion where it’s easy to focus on rational argument.
The problem is that you are making claims that are wrong. It wasn’t a discussion of how implicit bias works. If you want to analyse claims about a debate it’s useful to stay with the facts.
No. Focusing a discussion on implicit bias means to not focus the discussion on “How can we solve this problem?” It’s a rhetoric strategy to signal concern about Black Lives Matter while at the same time not having to actually discuss policy solutions to the problems.
There’s also a good chance that a conservative person who hears the debate is harder to educate about the concept of implicit bias after listening the debate.
The intellectual toolkit of Gender studies with includes asserting that the opponent is driven by implicit bias and privilege is not useful for having rational discussions. The communities that engage in that toolkit generally don’t want to let data decide.
The also don’t ask the obvious questions such as whether the fact that more Whites get killed than Asians is also due to implicit bias. That a very straightforward question if you look at the data and want to use implicit bias as a cognitive tool for explaining the data of police killers.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Can you restate it?
You mentioned “gender studies” a couple times in a negative light—Why? It doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion.
...
Generally, the idea that (a) we all have implicit biases based on how our brain works and our life experiences, (b) these biases may significantly obscure our map of the territory, and (c) in the special case of police—where men and women need to quickly make highly consequential decisions under extreme stress—this obscured map may lead to irrational, “non-winning”, decisions seems uncontroversial. Certainly nothing you’ve said has rebutted it.
For the record, I don’t think every police shooting is racist. Not even close. And I think the left goes way too far trying to spin this.
Why aren’t you seeking to explain why White’s get more likely to be killed by police than Asian’s? Why do you think it’s a question that people like Clinton don’t address?
Because it’s difficult to have a conservation about the quality of the public debate without accounting for the cultural forces that are responsible for the public debate being the way it currently is.
Making winning decisions is about agency. Hillary Clinton could say that she wants that all police wear body camera’s. If she can win a majority for that policy she can implement it.
On the other hand you can’t pass a law that people shouldn’t have implicit bias anymore. Speaking about it is useful if Hillary Clinton wants to engage in virtue signaling but not actually focus on getting policies changed.
If she wanted to do rational policy making she could say: “We should do controlled trials that try different policies in different area’s to find out which policies actually help with changing the status quo.”
In what kind of ontology do you believe if you think that a police shooting could be racist, even in principle? That there are some police shootings that are racists and other that aren’t? If you want to use the word “racist” to be a property of events and not a property of people than it means something qualitatively different than what the term “implicit racism” is about.
This looks like your conceptualization of racism is the standard meaning of the word and has little to do with the academic term of “implicit racism”.
She didn’t address it because it wasn’t relevant to the discussion at hand. Is the disparity between Whites and Asians killed by police significant? Is it an issue that is pressing in terms of it’s current effect on the body politic?
You speak about this is a very definitive way, as if you know exactly what would work. I don’t know what would work. It seems to me these are complex issues. I just noted it was good and, I think, useful to hear someone mention the everyone is subject to bias as opposed to the same old Red v. Blue talking points. I’d have praised anyone who said something similar, regardless of which team they played for.
My phrasing was poor.
I don’t think race is a factor in every police shooting. Despite this, the left seems to try and make every single police shooting involving an African American into another example of blatant, explicit racism. I don’t agree with this at all and I think it detracts from the effort to improve things. Every police shooting ought to be examined based on the objective facts.
The idea that an officer (or judge, or anyone) could have an implicit bias against a group of people, and that that bias is consequential, seem to me to be worth exploring.
In 2016 the difference is slightly stronger than the difference between Whites and Black getting killed. It’s a fact that easily knowable if you care to look for the numbers of police killings by race. Anybody who cares enough about the issue to know the fact should know it if the can read numbers in a straightforward way instead of just trying to validate their party line.
You don’t know what would work because Clinton doesn’t speak about the evidence for what works. It’s not the conversation she tries to have on the subject. There’s good evidence that body camera’s do work.
The fact that creating legal structure where police can effectively prosecuted for wrongdoing seem obvious to me. I don’t have specific evidence for it, but it feels like an elephant in the room.
Evidence-based policy making and running trials to see which policies perform best is a framework that applying rationality. In fairly confident that it’s better than blaming people for having biases and hoping that they will change as a result. I don’t have studies that validate that claim but it again seem obviously true.
If you think that the logical conclusion would be that Clinton was wrong when she claimed that everybody suffers from implicit bias.
That’s exactly why it’s unproductive. You don’t actually think in terms of “implicit racism” but simply use the new name to label concepts that you already knew beforehand.
That sounds again like a rejection of using the framework of implicit bias. You don’t see evidence of implicit bias in a case by case basis. You see it when you look in aggregate on choices. A person with implicit bias has higher availability for certain action and thus likely reacts a little faster, even if both cases result in a dead suspect.
Do you have a preferred source?
Who’s doing this?
We have implicit biases. Biases based on race are a pretty big deal in this country, historically. In my view, the level of bias in police shootings doesn’t reach any reasonable threshold to be called anything like “racism” in many, many cases.
Perhaps this is true for you. I often think about ways my view may be biased when relating to people. And then I act to better understand and, hopefully, neutralize the bias. My efforts are clumsy and likely often fail, because I’m not particularly intelligent or skilled at overcoming bias.
At any rate, the first step toward being productive in this regard is recognizing bias exists.
Sure you could. I’d agree the aggregate data would be (perhaps more) revealing, but the facts of a particular case (including the video) could also tell you something about what biases might exist and how they effected the event.
I’m tapping.
What are your political leanings? I’d like to better understand our interaction by knowing how you view yourself generally on the U.S. political spectrum. Thanks.
I use the Guardian as the source https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database
The academic notion of implicit racism isn’t about any other threshold than statistical significance. The tool that they developed have gotten good at picking up effects in many people so the threshold is quite low and most people suffer from implicit racism.
If you reject that concept, then it doesn’t make sense to see Hillary using it as progress.
I’m not on the U.S. political spectrum. He Facebook political status is currently “Continental”. My formal political associations put me left of center in Berlin.