With how much we know about implicit bias causing so many problems in equity for things like promotions and opportunity in the workplace, having someone publicly espouse explicit bias should come with some consequences. The glass ceiling exists.
You’re saying it shouldn’t be based on an out of context fragment, and I agree but often in those situations in context can mean the same thing. Case by case for sure but if you’re saying white supremacist/chauvinistic talking points online and you’re in any position of responsibility, people who are not white or male are justified in not feeling like they’ll get a fair shake.
There's "feeling" you're getting a fair shake, and then there's actually getting a fair shake. If you're going to destroy someone's livelihood, it should be for something they actually do, not for what someone imagines they might hypothetically do.
Turns out those feelings are true more often than not and there are statistics to back it up. Not that ones feelings is enough to ruin someone’s livelihood, but sorry if you’re responsible for people’s career development in 2021 there shouldn’t be any reasonable questions about your being actually biased against groups. It’s against the law even.
May be talking past each other here, but I’m thinking of a scenario where a person puts out writing that shows mysogynistic or racist/homophobic views and then is responsible for giving performance reviews, or hiring/firing people.
Bias is hard to prove in the moment as there can always be other factors to point to, but easy to see in statistics of who gets hired and promoted.
Right, my point is that it's the statistics that matter, not circumstantial evidence like opinions they expressed in the past.
If there's a murder in the workplace, sure, maybe the employee who writes murder mysteries on the weekend did it. But you'd still need actual evidence to convict them.
We're not talking about convicting them though, we're talking about whether they can continue being a part of the workplace without making others feel threatened.
If you're black, and you know that one of your managers is a member of the KKK, there's absolutely zero chance you'll feel that they are treating you fairly. There's also nearly zero chance they will treat you fairly.
The fact of the matter is that work life does not exist in a vacuum. People don't come to work and pretend that things outside of work don't exist. They are also not obligated to treat their coworkers as simple cogs in a machine. This is why things people do outside of work can reflect upon their work relationships. Expecting the opposite is just naive.
Feelings are often wrong. That's why we don't make important decisions that affect people's lives based on feelings. We make them on facts and evidence.
It is everyone's job to temper their feelings with reason. Your feelings are not an absolute truth that must be obeyed no matter what.
I don’t think that’s what the person you’re responding to is saying, and it seems like you’re saying it as if they’re talking about the primacy of feelings over facts. It’s a bit of a straw man.
Take the example they made of a KKK member - should they be trusted to make those decisions based on facts and evidence?
In their example, the manager is already employed there. You don't have to trust them. You can look at the decisions they've made and see whether they made them fairly. If not, then go ahead and fire them.
But "I feel they might be unfair", when all the evidence shows that they have in fact been fair, is not a valid reason to fire someone.
Glad your life is working out for you and your experience leads you to believe in a just world. Discrimination is hard to prove. Having someone even tell you they are biased doesn’t seem to meet your bar. I hope you never have to experience it.
That quote you pulled about there being no causal relationship is from a list of 4 possible reasons they didn't find a relationship. That's not a claim they were making. It's one of a few proposed explanations for the data.
If by material, you mean less than d=0.3, then you appear to be correct.
It's gonna be really difficult to estimate reliable effects from a meta-analysis of such disparate studies, which is normally the case in psychology.
Anyway, it would make sense that cognitive interventions are more effective, as this would suggest that a lot of implicit biases represent pre-conscious reactions (which is interesting in and of itself).
Don't worry, if you read even the just article he linked, you'll realize that the quote he pulled is out of a list of multiple reasons their metastudy did not come up with conclusive results. There's a list of possibilities, and there not being a correlation is a possibility, but due to the nature of metastudies, they are not willing to make that statement.
You’re saying it shouldn’t be based on an out of context fragment, and I agree but often in those situations in context can mean the same thing. Case by case for sure but if you’re saying white supremacist/chauvinistic talking points online and you’re in any position of responsibility, people who are not white or male are justified in not feeling like they’ll get a fair shake.