An essay on the degeneration of anti-racism into ‘unconscious bias’ training. It was originally published on 12 July 2020, under the headline ‘Enough of the psychobabble. Racism is not something to fix with therapy’.
The only meaningful claim in this article is that the IAT is inaccurate. The author links to another 2 articles rather than the study itself, so why not just post those articles, they seem far...
The only meaningful claim in this article is that the IAT is inaccurate. The author links to another 2 articles rather than the study itself, so why not just post those articles, they seem far more substantial.
This is a bizarre and unconstructive comment. Essays don't exist to give you a list of factual claims, they're there to advance a broader argument, which is summarized in the conclusion.
This is a bizarre and unconstructive comment. Essays don't exist to give you a list of factual claims, they're there to advance a broader argument, which is summarized in the conclusion.
The biggest problem, though, is that which Sivanandan and Lasch-Quinn warned about: the shift of focus from social change to personal therapy. Nobody actually says, ‘we don’t want to change society’. But by focusing on whiteness and personal psychology, the significance of laws and social structures is downgraded in favour of unconscious thought.
. . .
The Black Lives Matter protests have brought the issue of racism to the heart of public debate. It would be a tragedy if all that energy is dissipated in irrational and divisive ideas of what constitutes racism, leaving the real issues untouched.
I agree with you. This article paints a much clearer picture about the discussions regarding the effectiveness/applicability of the IAT. There is an appropriate time and place to use the IAT, and...
I agree with you. This article paints a much clearer picture about the discussions regarding the effectiveness/applicability of the IAT.
There is an appropriate time and place to use the IAT, and to expect certain results, but its often misapplied and grossly over-estimated on what its actually capable of. I know the author of the OP was trying to make that point, but it was obviously incredibly reductive. The IAT is a tool for personal development, to help solve personal problems. There are people who make unconscious decisions based on preferences they may not know they have, for example unconscious selection on resumes. The IAT is a useful tool in this context because it can help highlight to recruiters that they may be unconsciously biasing their selection pool for hiring. It helps initiate the conversation. The IAT is obviously not going to solve police brutality or discrimination, but it does have its use as one piece in a 1,000 piece puzzle.
Anytime you see a psychology measure that supposedly predicts behavior, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Human behavior is incredibly complicated, and as someone who has a Master's degree in Industrial-Organizational Psychology, I can tell you that the intersection between psychology and capitalism leads down a road of exaggerations for the sake of consulting gigs. Look at how prevalent the MBTI is in organizations, when that has been clearly de-bunked for uses in training and selection. It's widespread use is the work of some highly effective marketing, to the point where people will self-identify with their 4-letter acronym, and associate every behavior they have with that acronym. Despite test-retest validity being incredibly low.
Bottom line though, human behavior is hard to predict. I'm biased towards behaviorism and neurobiology when its comes to explaining behavior because:
Behaviors are observable and is the effect of any cause. For example, your comment was a stimulus that evoked my behavior of writing this comment, and based on how many votes/exemplary labels, will either reinforce this behavior, or extinguish it.
Neurotransmitters, hormones, the brain, etc., don't lie. We can measure, and in some instances observe, what is going on in the body to diagnose individuals that are exhibiting behaviors that are negatively impacting their life. For example, major depressive disorder is linked to numerous behaviors, that we can ultimately tie back to changes in neuroanatomical structure and function in the hippocampus. Which can then be influenced and changes observed through the use of a pharmacological solution.
The only meaningful claim in this article is that the IAT is inaccurate. The author links to another 2 articles rather than the study itself, so why not just post those articles, they seem far more substantial.
This is a bizarre and unconstructive comment. Essays don't exist to give you a list of factual claims, they're there to advance a broader argument, which is summarized in the conclusion.
I agree with you. This article paints a much clearer picture about the discussions regarding the effectiveness/applicability of the IAT.
There is an appropriate time and place to use the IAT, and to expect certain results, but its often misapplied and grossly over-estimated on what its actually capable of. I know the author of the OP was trying to make that point, but it was obviously incredibly reductive. The IAT is a tool for personal development, to help solve personal problems. There are people who make unconscious decisions based on preferences they may not know they have, for example unconscious selection on resumes. The IAT is a useful tool in this context because it can help highlight to recruiters that they may be unconsciously biasing their selection pool for hiring. It helps initiate the conversation. The IAT is obviously not going to solve police brutality or discrimination, but it does have its use as one piece in a 1,000 piece puzzle.
Anytime you see a psychology measure that supposedly predicts behavior, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Human behavior is incredibly complicated, and as someone who has a Master's degree in Industrial-Organizational Psychology, I can tell you that the intersection between psychology and capitalism leads down a road of exaggerations for the sake of consulting gigs. Look at how prevalent the MBTI is in organizations, when that has been clearly de-bunked for uses in training and selection. It's widespread use is the work of some highly effective marketing, to the point where people will self-identify with their 4-letter acronym, and associate every behavior they have with that acronym. Despite test-retest validity being incredibly low.
Bottom line though, human behavior is hard to predict. I'm biased towards behaviorism and neurobiology when its comes to explaining behavior because:
Behaviors are observable and is the effect of any cause. For example, your comment was a stimulus that evoked my behavior of writing this comment, and based on how many votes/exemplary labels, will either reinforce this behavior, or extinguish it.
Neurotransmitters, hormones, the brain, etc., don't lie. We can measure, and in some instances observe, what is going on in the body to diagnose individuals that are exhibiting behaviors that are negatively impacting their life. For example, major depressive disorder is linked to numerous behaviors, that we can ultimately tie back to changes in neuroanatomical structure and function in the hippocampus. Which can then be influenced and changes observed through the use of a pharmacological solution.
Sorry for ranting!