quote:The better you understand yourself and the effects of bias on assessment, the more you recognize that you are unable to make any objective judgement about your own self-knowledge.
I think this particular claim is not based on evidence; the idea that the human mind is unknowable is a faith-based assertion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Not in the least, you evidently didn't read the last paragraph.
I avoided reading it so hard that I gave it it's own section in my reply, and devoted more time to it than I had the first two paragraphs.
Man, I'm not very good at avoiding things, am I? Maybe I really don't know myself as well as I thought!
As to the rest of what you said, you didn't confirm if I'd understood or not, but that's okay, because Tom already cut to the chase above me.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me see if I understand what you're saying here:
If a field is complex or difficult, the likelihood of someone being good in that field is lower.
If a field is easy or simple, then the likelihood of someone being good is higher.
But if a field is deceptively complex, so people often think it's easy, then there will be a large number of people who think they are good at it. So there will be a higher number of people who erroneously think they're good?
Is that about right? If so, I think that's an interesting assessment.
That's part of it, but there is more. Being truly excellent at anything is hard so from one perspective its deceptive if anything of worth appears to be simple. Talent only goes so far. No one ever achieves excellence unless they have a drive to improve. That implies both a strong desire to excel and a recognizing a need to improve. That combination is certain to bias excellent people to under-estimate their own ability.
[ May 15, 2012, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for replying to that, Rabbit! I thought you'd ignored it, so I mean that sincerely I really appreciate it.
My problem with what you're saying is that this statement "a recognition that you haven't arrived yet" is too vague and broad for our purposes here.
Certainly, achieving excellence in a field requires that you be self-critical, and not just ignore or hide your shortcomings. And one way of doing this is broadly, as you described. Keeping generally humble and recognizing that you "haven't arrived yet" will usually lead to being self-critical.
But it's not the best way to be self-critical. You can also be self-critical in areas you are weak while fully recognizing your overwhelming skills in other areas. Lots of wildly skilled people are also massively arrogant douchebags, after all.
And, of course, you could be self-critical, and recognize your strengths, without being a douchebag, though that is perhaps less common.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps putting things another way will be helpful. Knowing one's own mind, or knowledge and expertise in a complex field, isn't an effort such as running the 100m dash. Even in that, for just about every person ever born, there will forever be lots of things they could do to improve their time whether it was changing diet, changing running technique, working out, making innumerable small tweaks to all of those things the better one gets. But eventually, no matter how skilled one is at running the 100m dash, while there will still be those innumerable small improvements they can make to squeeze out a few extra tenths of a second, there comes a point when that person can really know that there simply isn't much better that they can get. Their time is so fast that they are simply approaching the limits of their own human possibility at this time.
They can know this because it's possible to put pretty effective ranges on a human's running speed, reflexes, coordination, etc., and while a given human (even the best) can always make some changes to attempt improvement in some of those areas, they also know there's not some hidden skill they haven't learned or hidden food they haven't eaten that will let a human being run at, for example, 50mph.
When it comes to the human mind, though, it's different. The tool we use to estimate how much there might be left to learn, how many hidden plateuas there may be, is the human mind. You can't ever really know you're thinking the quickest and most rationally that you possibly can, because the tool you would measure that by is the tool you are also attempting to measure. You can estimate, but by necessity your estimates are going to be much less reliable than, say, an estimate of how fast a human being could possibly run a 100m dash-because in the latter, you can study and measure all sorts of things individually and improve them separately, such as diet, muscle strength, reflexes, so on and so forth. And the tools with which you measure those things are tools such as stopwatches, nutrition tables, etc. You're not simply running as fast as you possibly can and afterwards trying to gauge whether that was really as fast as you could've run.
Does that make sense? This is why I, and now others, take issue with your claims to sureness here-even though you don't claim to be overall really sure or anything. The tool you're using the feel sure is the tool you're saying you feel sure about.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: When it comes to the human mind, though, it's different. The tool we use to estimate how much there might be left to learn, how many hidden plateuas there may be, is the human mind. You can't ever really know you're thinking the quickest and most rationally that you possibly can, because the tool you would measure that by is the tool you are also attempting to measure. You can estimate, but by necessity your estimates are going to be much less reliable than, say, an estimate of how fast a human being could possibly run a 100m dash-because in the latter, you can study and measure all sorts of things individually and improve them separately, such as diet, muscle strength, reflexes, so on and so forth. And the tools with which you measure those things are tools such as stopwatches, nutrition tables, etc. You're not simply running as fast as you possibly can and afterwards trying to gauge whether that was really as fast as you could've run.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, not only does it make sense, I think it's one of the truest things I've ever seen you write. It also doubles as a serviceable explanation for why I got interested in epistemology in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is why I, and now others, take issue with your claims to sureness here-even though you don't claim to be overall really sure or anything. The tool you're using the feel sure is the tool you're saying you feel sure about.
Here you sort of offhandedly gloss over the fact that I am, in fact, not at all sure of what you think I'm sure of, but you seem to think that's immaterial. Or you think that I think it's immaterial. Not sure. Either way, that's an important miscommunication!
In part I think it may be due to a language barrier. In casual conversation, I frequently use words like "know" and similar as shorthand for "has not yet been refuted by criticism," perhaps because I'm lazy and often use imprecise language and colloquial phrases. It's something other Popperians sometimes give me crap for... with good reason, since they are epistemologically very different statements.
To "know" something, in the philosophical sense of "justified, true belief" is, in Popper's opinion (and mine) impossible. But I'm not going to let a perfectly good word like "know" go totally to waste. Especially when, in layman's conversations, if I'm talking about a theory that has not yet been successfully refuted by criticism, I'm going to act as though that theory were true until I have reason to do otherwise.
Which means, for functional purposes, it's something I "know."
Getting back on the rails of what you were saying: Again, I'm not "sure" at all. But until I find new internal or external criticism that contradicts it, I'm going to act on the idea that my current understanding is a functional approximation of truth.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here you sort of offhandedly gloss over the fact that I am, in fact, not at all sure of what you think I'm sure of, but you seem to think that's immaterial. Or you think that I think it's immaterial. Not sure. Either way, that's an important miscommunication!
This latest round of discussion started when you described yourself as 'very open' to discovering these sorts of tendancies about yourself. If by that you meant, "I feel like I'm very open, and until I have encountered a reason to think I might not be, I will behave as if I am," then I suppose that's a very different thing...
Though I would say that there are more than one really good reasons to look askance at one's own feelings of just how open one really is. After all, this isn't like being 'very open' to trying new things or something, sexual things or food things or sports things or acting things. With such a feeling, one can more easily remind one's self about, "Wait a second, I need to try this!" if there's a moment of doubt.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here you sort of offhandedly gloss over the fact that I am, in fact, not at all sure of what you think I'm sure of, but you seem to think that's immaterial. Or you think that I think it's immaterial. Not sure. Either way, that's an important miscommunication!
This latest round of discussion started when you described yourself as 'very open' to discovering these sorts of tendancies about yourself. If by that you meant, "I feel like I'm very open, and until I have encountered a reason to think I might not be, I will behave as if I am," then I suppose that's a very different thing...
Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. Except if we're trying to be precise, "feel" is probably too vague. I don't think I'm open to self-identifying errors because I just feel so open to the idea. I think I'm open because, whenever possible, I consider my thoughts and actions critically, and often find errors.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Though I would say that there are more than one really good reasons to look askance at one's own feelings of just how open one really is. After all, this isn't like being 'very open' to trying new things or something, sexual things or food things or sports things or acting things. With such a feeling, one can more easily remind one's self about, "Wait a second, I need to try this!" if there's a moment of doubt.
Right.
I think we may be starting to talk in circles.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. Except if we're trying to be precise, "feel" is probably too vague. I don't think I'm open to self-identifying errors because I just feel so open to the idea. I think I'm open because, whenever possible, I consider my thoughts and actions critically, and often find errors.
But we haven't been talking about conscious thoughts and actions, we've been talking about implicit subconscious bias. Implicit biases can often be quite different from our conscious thoughts which makes them challenging to recognize.
How would you go about determining whether or not you had an implicit bias against, for example, short men. This kind of bias is well demonstrated (by numerous different measures) and quite common but I doubt anyone ever consciously thinks -- he's short -- he must be stupid and incompetent. It's certainly not something I've ever heard anyone say. From a purely statistical basis, it's highly likely that you have a bias against short men. What kind of thing would you look for to decide whether or not you had this very common subconscious prejudice against short guys?
In this thread, you were shown a tool that is claimed to be a reasonably reliable way of detecting subconscious bias and you rejected it pretty much out of hand. That makes it hard for me to believe you are truly open to considering whether you have subconscious biases. I can believe that you are open to the idea that you could have implicit biases but closed to the idea that simple psychological tests are likely to having any meaning, but if you reject any kind of test for subconscious bias -- what's left? What would you consider a valid means of detecting a subconscious bias? Examining your conscious thoughts critically just doesn't seem that likely to tell you anything about your subconscious biases. It's like using a topomap of the surface to study what's inside caves.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When it comes to the human mind, though, it's different. The tool we use to estimate how much there might be left to learn, how many hidden plateuas there may be, is the human mind.
Thanks Rakeesh, you explained that very well.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. Except if we're trying to be precise, "feel" is probably too vague. I don't think I'm open to self-identifying errors because I just feel so open to the idea. I think I'm open because, whenever possible, I consider my thoughts and actions critically, and often find errors.
But we haven't been talking about conscious thoughts and actions, we've been talking about implicit subconscious bias. Implicit biases can often be quite different from our conscious thoughts which makes them challenging to recognize.
How would you go about determining whether or not you had an implicit bias against, for example, short men. This kind of bias is well demonstrated (by numerous different measures) and quite common but I doubt anyone ever consciously thinks -- he's short -- he must be stupid and incompetent. It's certainly not something I've ever heard anyone say. From a purely statistical basis, it's highly likely that you have a bias against short men. What kind of thing would you look for to decide whether or not you had this very common subconscious prejudice against short guys?
In this thread, you were shown a tool that is claimed to be a reasonably reliable way of detecting subconscious bias and you rejected it pretty much out of hand. That makes it hard for me to believe you are truly open to considering whether you have subconscious biases. I can believe that you are open to the idea that you could have implicit biases but closed to the idea that simple psychological tests are likely to having any meaning, but if you reject any kind of test for subconscious bias -- what's left? What would you consider a valid means of detecting a subconscious bias? Examining your conscious thoughts critically just doesn't seem that likely to tell you anything about your subconscious biases. It's like using a topomap of the surface to study what's inside caves.
I didn't reject it out of hand! I've taken Implicit tests 5 times to date, 3 on the same test and 2 different tests once each. I certainly was skeptical of the test's efficacy from the get-go, but that's not the same thing at all.
Anyway, to your greater issue:
Earlier I agreed with Rakeesh that unconscious attitudes exist, but maybe I need to clarify that here for you (and maybe him).
The existence of unconscious thoughts does not in any way imply (to me, anyway) that it is impossible to consciously access or understand those thoughts.
So, yes, I think that applying critical scrutiny to your actions and thoughts is definitely a way to understand, and change, your unconscious ones.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The existence of unconscious thoughts does not in any way imply (to me, anyway) that it is impossible to consciously access or understand those thoughts.
So, yes, I think that applying critical scrutiny to your actions and thoughts is definitely a way to understand, and change, your unconscious ones.
This is simply not a logically sound conclusion. One of the most basic principles of measurement science is that no instrument can be used by itself to determine whether there is a bias in the measurements it makes. There has to be an independent means of verification. Nothing is capable of objectively observing itself. That is a logical contradiction.
It's not that it is impossible to consciously access or understand what is happening in your subconscious. The problem is that you can never be certain that any conscious thought is not being influenced by the your implicit biases. That’s what it means to have an implicit bias. To be certain whether or not you have a bias, you need an independent means of verifying your observations that can not be influenced by that bias. Your own brain can not meet that criteria.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I see what you are trying to say, I have to disagree that Dan's thought "is simply not a logical sound conclusion".
Here is an (made up) example of of what I'm (and possibly Dan) is talking about.
Every time I walk down the street and see a black person, I immediately feel a gut drop of fear, and I have to override it in my brain. Clearly my subconscious is afraid of black people. Now that I know that about myself, I make it a point to try and engage more black people in conversation, and smile and wave to black strangers, and the more contact I have with them, the less I have this unconscious reaction and I find it is easier to get over.
Or in other words, train the brain.
Saying that you can't use your conscious brain to analyze or change your subconscious is painful to me, because how the hell else are you going to modify your knee jerk reactions? Are you suggesting that we are all trapped, powerless to whatever our subconscious spouts into our conscious mind?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that you can't use your conscious brain to analyze or change your subconscious is painful to me, because how the hell else are you going to modify your knee jerk reactions? Are you suggesting that we are all trapped, powerless to whatever our subconscious spouts into our conscious mind?
I did not say you can't use your conscious brain to analyze or change your subconscious. What I said, and it a logical certainty, it is impossible using only your own brain to determine whether or not your brain is biased. You have to have input from some external source that can not be affected by your biases.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can you say that when I even included an example of exactly what you are saying is impossible?
Or to put it another way, I disagree, a lot.
Or to put it yet another way, considering you are saying you can analyze and change your subconscious with your brain...I have no idea what your point is, your first sentence seems to conflict hugely with your second one.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you saying that sitting in a blank room, just thinking about things, you -can't- determine if your subconscious's feelings about things?
If so, I guess it's possible, but still, kinda silly.
I mean, you could still -remember- past reactions which would give you clues to your subconscious's reactions.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A few things about that example. First, even by the description given, you haven't actually removed your subconscious bias yet, nor can you really guarantee that you will eventually be 100% successful-nobody could, though I don't doubt you are making good progress, so to speak.
Two, even in this example, this change isn't something you're doing entirely on your own-or did you reach the conclusion that it was wrong to have that visceral fear of black people totally on your own, independent of any outside influence? It's the 21st century, after all, and I suspect you were taught about the Civil Rights Movement in school, and that society has reinforced this early lesson that racism is bad at many points in your life since then.
Given these things, while you certainly get the credit for recognizing and working on the problem, how do you claim to have made that decision using only the work of your own brain?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if I use a crescent wrench and my own two hands to fix a leaky faucet, it's wrong to claim "I fixed it" because surely someone somewhere taught me how to use a wrench and "righty tighty, lefty loosey" and heck, someone invented and produced the wrench.
Edit: I just don't see why this level of specificity is needed. Of course when people use their brain they use their knowledge and experience as well. Why is it important to note that that means we didn't use -just- our brain?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can you say that when I even included an example of exactly what you are saying is impossible?
Your hypothetical example is critically flawed. Its an over simplified unrealistic scenario that does not reflect the real complexity of implicit biases. The problem is not that a person can't figure out that they have a particular bias and then try to change it, the problem is that people can't ever accurately determine when they are truly unbiased.
Having an implicit bias means that your brain automatically edits out information that is inconsistent with your bias. The human brain is really actually terribly flawed in this respect. We see only what we are looking for. Have you ever seen the video where you are asked to count the number of times a team in white passes a ball?
Here is the way your scenario is more likely to work. A person who consciously believes that racism is a bad thing will usually have a strong implicit bias that they are not racist. The same person could also have a strong implicit bias that black people are dangerous so when they see a black stranger on a street they are more likely to be afraid than if the stranger is white. Because the person has an implicit bias that they aren't racist, they are unlikely to be consciously aware that they are afraid because the stranger is black. If they examine the situation critically, their own implicit bias will skew their own conscious critical analysis of the situation and they are probably going to conclude, "I was scared because of his mannerisms and the way he dressed, not because he was black." They may not even be consciously aware that person was black. Or they might rationalize that its fair to be more fearful in a neighborhood that has a high black population because the crime rates in that neighborhood are actually higher. And sometimes those reasons will be valid. The problem is that the person's implicit biases make it impossible for him to determine when those reasons are valid and when they aren't. That's what it means to be biased. And the stronger the bias is, the harder it will be for a person to see that thoughts and actions are not rationally consistent.
This is not to say that it isn't possible to figure out that you have a bias and to work to change that bias. It just isn't possible to determine that you don't have a bias without some sort of external input that is free from that bias. And, as a rule, people don't figure out that they do have a bias unless there is some external input that reveals the bias.
[ May 16, 2012, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Are you saying that sitting in a blank room, just thinking about things, you -can't- determine if your subconscious's feelings about things?
If so, I guess it's possible, but still, kinda silly.
I mean, you could still -remember- past reactions which would give you clues to your subconscious's reactions.
No, I'm saying that if you had a strong implicit bias that you weren't racist and you walked down the street and passed 10 black people and 10 white people and you felt that 5 scariest people were all black -- you would be unfit to judge whether that showed a racial bias or not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, that makes more sense to me, all except for the "just isn't possible to determine that you don't have a bias without some sort of external input that is free from that bias."
How can you be so certain it is -impossible-? Very difficult, sure, but a bias isn't necessarily all encompassing, utterly editing out all info that might allow someone to understand their are biased, right?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The better you understand yourself and the effects of bias on assessment, the more you recognize that you are unable to make any objective judgement about your own self-knowledge.
I think this particular claim is not based on evidence; the idea that the human mind is unknowable is a faith-based assertion.
I think its a straight forward matter question of definition. An "objective observation" is one in which the observation being made is dependent only on the state of the object being observed and independent of the state of the observer. By definition, objective self-knowledge is a logical impossibility because the observed and the the observer are one and the same.
[ May 16, 2012, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can you be so certain it is -impossible-? Very difficult, sure, but a bias isn't necessarily all encompassing, utterly editing out all info that might allow someone to understand their are biased, right?
Like I said at the out set, this is a fundamental principle of measurement science. If there is a systematic error (i.e. bias) in measurment instrument that error can not be detected using only that biased instrument. Imagine for example that you have a measuring tape is incorrectly marked so that each inch on the tape is really only 0.9 inches. This could be said to be a biased measurement device. Every time you use this device you are going to get an answer that is bigger than the true answer. If this is the only device you have for measuring things, there is no way to figure out that the measuring tape is wrong. To do that, you have to have an independent means of measuring that isn't subject to the same error.
It's possible that a person could have a bias that only affects certain kinds of thoughts but not others. In those case, it would be possible for the person to identify the bias through exclusive self examination. But if a person has a bias that influences all their thoughts about their thoughts, it will be impossible to discover that bias by self examination because the bias will affect the outcome of the self examination.
It's not impossible for a person to discover they have a bias via self assessment but it is impossible for a person to determine they don't have a bias via self assessment.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, since this topic came up because of me, I can't help but assume that, in your mind, you're still talking about me.
If so, your claims here are... odd, to say the least.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ...it is impossible using only your own brain to determine whether or not your brain is biased.
To this quote, I just want to double check that you know I referred several times to "external and internal" information, right? Not "using only my brain." I'm checking because maybe your bias caused you to selectively edit out instances where I mentioned the word "external."
You seem to be defining "Self-assessment" as "self-assessment with no external information," which is arbitrary and not at all congruent with what I've said.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It's not impossible for a person to discover they have a bias via self assessment but it is impossible for a person to determine they don't have a bias via self assessment.
Yeah, that's true.
It's also impossible to determine that there isn't a fossil somewhere that would disprove evolution. It's also impossible to determine whether or not anyone in history has ever been born with psychic abilities (or ever will be).
You're confusing tentative conjectural knowledge with justified true belief.
It is possible to reach fallible, mutable, functionally true realizations about your biases after self-assessment (utilizing internal and external information and metrics).
What I said here doesn't actually contradict the line I've quoted from you, but I'm not sure you'll see that.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not trying to rub your nose in it or anything, but can you see how far you have changed what you are saying from:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:...I think that applying critical scrutiny to your actions and thoughts is definitely a way to understand, and change, your unconscious ones.
This is simply not a logically sound conclusion.
To this:
quote:...it would be possible for the person to identify the bias through exclusive self examination.
You've taken my quotes out of context. When I look at the full context, I don't see any inconsistency. It isn't logically sound to presume you can accurately understand your own biases by critically scrutinizing your own conscious thoughts and actions. Any critical scrutiny you perform is going to be influenced by the biases you are trying to detect. That doesn't mean you can't ever detect any bias in you might hold -- it means you can't do it reliably enough to ever exclude the possibility that your self-assessment was skewed by an implicit bias.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To this quote, I just want to double check that you know I referred several times to "external and internal" information, right? Not "using only my brain." I'm checking because maybe your bias caused you to selectively edit out instances where I mentioned the word "external".
No I did not miss you reference to using external information but perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by that. Using external information in a self assessment is not the same thing as considering the results of external independent assessment. Your comments seemed to imply that you were willing to consider external information but not an external assessment of your bias. If I am incorrect, can you please explain what kinds of external assessments you have used or would be willing to use to determine whether you have subconscious biases?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm struggling to see where Rabbit has said nobody anywhere can ever root out an implicit bias by self-assessment alone. Rather she seems to be questioning how one can claim to know they have done so, at all.
Imagine you're playing horshoes, but you're blindfolded. You manage to get yourself pointed in the right general direction (somehow, though probably because someone pointed you that way). You start tossing, and after a lot of thumps in sand you hear that sweet musical clang!
You then claim that you've wrapped that horshoe around the post. But...well, obviously that may not have happened. Perhaps it simply hit it hard and landed beside the post. Perhaps it spun such that it's not touching the post, but is partially encircling it. Or perhaps it is indeed still touching it inside the 'u' when you lift the blindfold.
Unless you're Daredevil, your ears will only ever be able to tell you so much about how accurate you were. In some cases, they will even give you an answer that has a very high likelihood of being right, and for the purposes of everyday living that will almost always be sufficient.
But even then, you won't know. You can't be sure. You can't be 'very open' about it, because while your ears may in fact give you the right answer, well, a stopped clock is right twice a day too. That ruler which shows 11.95'' to the foot will, in most cases you'd use a ruler, be thoroughly effective. But it still won't be right.
The idea that something as partially understood (even by medical professionals, much of which you reject if I'm not mistaken, Dan) can be as close to true as you suggest was and remains odd. Now if you're going to say, "I try to keep an eye out for implicit biases and think I do a good job rooting them out, but realistically I can't be sure," that's an entirely different conversation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: [quote] quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
It's not impossible for a person to discover they have a bias via self assessment but it is impossible for a person to determine they don't have a bias via self assessment.[quote]
Yeah, that's true.
It's also impossible to determine that there isn't a fossil somewhere that would disprove evolution. It's also impossible to determine whether or not anyone in history has ever been born with psychic abilities (or ever will be).
Those things are not analogous. It is not logically impossible to find every fossil on the planet and determine whether or not it is consistent with evolutionary theory. It is technologically impossible at this time but it is not a logical impossibility. There is no inherent reason that we could not sort through every particle of the earth and find and study every fossil. We don't have a reliable test for psychic ability that can be used on living of deceased persons, but such a test is not logically impossible. If such a test were invented, every person who lived or ever lived could be tested and it could be proven whether anyone live or dead psychic ability.
In contrast, objective self-assessment is a logical impossibility. A biased instrument can not be used to study its own bias.
quote:You're confusing tentative conjectural knowledge with justified true belief.
No. If something is a logical impossibility, neither of those concepts is relevant.
quote:It is possible to reach fallible, mutable, functionally true realizations about your biases after self-assessment (utilizing internal and external information and metrics).
What I said here doesn't actually contradict the line I've quoted from you, but I'm not sure you'll see that.
I have no clue what you mean by "functionally true". Perhaps you can define.
As for the rest of the sentence, yes it is entirely possible for someone to arrive at fallible, subjective, biased conclusions about their own biases via self-assessment that they might feel are useful to them in some way. I've never questioned that.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You've taken my quotes out of context. When I look at the full context, I don't see any inconsistency. It isn't logically sound to presume you can accurately understand your own biases by critically scrutinizing your own conscious thoughts and actions. Any critical scrutiny you perform is going to be influenced by the biases you are trying to detect. That doesn't mean you can't ever detect any bias in you might hold -- it means you can't do it reliably enough to ever exclude the possibility that your self-assessment was skewed by an implicit bias.
Perhaps you were simply overstating your case initially, as what you seem to be conveying is not that Dan's is a simple illogical conclusion.
I think I understand your point, and to the extent that "external perspective is invaluable when attempting to understand/root out bias" I agree.
The reason I object was you so thoroughly dismissed Dan's claims of self analysis.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: "I try to keep an eye out for implicit biases and think I do a good job rooting them out, but realistically I can't be sure,"
Rakeesh, you have, throughout this conversation, attempted to paraphrase what I said or rephrase my position. That's not a criticism; everybody does that during an argument, even if they do it implicitly, because you interpret the other side's argument in order to form your response.
I think it's even better to do it explicitly (which you've done a few times as well) because that way if you misunderstood something it's usually easier for the other side to spot it. It's exceedingly helpful in argument to be able to restate your opposition's opinion in your own words, in a way they will agree still represents their opinion.
Anyway, I say all of that to get to this point:
The above quote is, by a wide margin, the closest you've come to accurately restating my position in your own words.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To this quote, I just want to double check that you know I referred several times to "external and internal" information, right? Not "using only my brain." I'm checking because maybe your bias caused you to selectively edit out instances where I mentioned the word "external".
No I did not miss you reference to using external information but perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by that. Using external information in a self assessment is not the same thing as considering the results of external independent assessment. Your comments seemed to imply that you were willing to consider external information but not an external assessment of your bias. If I am incorrect, can you please explain what kinds of external assessments you have used or would be willing to use to determine whether you have subconscious biases?
Seems like keep shifting the goal posts around, Rabbit, but I probably misunderstood you before. Earlier you said:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: And, as a rule, people don't figure out that they do have a bias unless there is some external input that reveals the bias.
In your mind, is the only form of "external input" actually an "external assessment?"
I think they're different. You could be implicitly racist by having a gut reaction fear response towards black people, and then an external input could occur, like a scary looking black guy helping you change a flat tire in a desolate road in the middle of the night, that caused you to realize your fear response was irrational. This wouldn't necessarily remove that response, but it could certainly make you aware of it.
I think earlier Rakeesh discussed having similar external "inputs" when befriending gay people and realizing he was biased against them.
There were external forces here, but no "assessments," at least not by my understanding of the word.
Since you asked, no, I've got no inherent problem with external assessments. If someone says I'm saying or doing something that betrays a bias, I listen to that criticism and either refute it or accept that they're right. What I'm particularly skeptical of is tests with some sort of "trick" intended to show such bias. Like the one you mention here:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Having an implicit bias means that your brain automatically edits out information that is inconsistent with your bias. The human brain is really actually terribly flawed in this respect. We see only what we are looking for. Have you ever seen the video where you are asked to count the number of times a team in white passes a ball?
Yeah, I've seen the video. I saw the bear. I don't think "tricks" like that actually reveal the deep truths about our brains that you think they do. I'm skeptical that they reveal much at all, except that many people don't think very critically or pay very much attention to how they live their lives. I certainly don't manage to do so all the time! But the assertion that we somehow can't do so seems totally false to me.
I may have figured out a source of disconnect, below.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Here is the way your scenario is more likely to work. A person who consciously believes that racism is a bad thing will usually have a strong implicit bias that they are not racist. The same person could also have a strong implicit bias that black people are dangerous so when they see a black stranger on a street they are more likely to be afraid than if the stranger is white. Because the person has an implicit bias that they aren't racist, they are unlikely to be consciously aware that they are afraid because the stranger is black. If they examine the situation critically, their own implicit bias will skew their own conscious critical analysis of the situation and they are probably going to conclude, "I was scared because of his mannerisms and the way he dressed, not because he was black." They may not even be consciously aware that person was black. Or they might rationalize that its fair to be more fearful in a neighborhood that has a high black population because the crime rates in that neighborhood are actually higher. And sometimes those reasons will be valid. The problem is that the person's implicit biases make it impossible for him to determine when those reasons are valid and when they aren't. That's what it means to be biased. And the stronger the bias is, the harder it will be for a person to see that thoughts and actions are not rationally consistent.
See, your example here actually gets to a crux of the issue. Forget biases, it seems like you don't think that any sort of rational self-criticism is possible.
If you don't criticize your own ideas constantly, then the idea of criticizing your own ideas when it comes to racist bias or any other small subsection will sound absurd.
If someone tries to critically analyze their reaction every time they feel fear, however, to identify why they are afraid and if being afraid is a rational response to what's happening (it usually isn't)... then they will not simply accept the rationales you're giving as examples.
"I was scared because of his mannerisms and the way he dressed, not because he was black" won't cut it. Someone's mode of dress shouldn't elicit a fear response. Someone glaring at you shouldn't either. Especially since mannerisms and expressions are easy to misconstrue, so before you assume someone is glaring you should consider other possibilities. Maybe they're squinting because the sun is in their eyes, which can often cause the nose to draw up too, causing a frown and narrowed eyes. Those are the two essential components of a glare, so it's easy to mistake one for the other.
"Or they might rationalize that its fair to be more fearful in a neighborhood that has a high black population because the crime rates in that neighborhood are actually higher." This one is insufficient as well. First of all, because assessing threats based on crime rate in an area is inefficient. Secondly, unless you have an iPhone app that tells you the crime rate in every street you walk down, you would be applying this fear inconsistently. That's a readily apparent fact that you can notice if you analyze your behavior critically.
Your assertion that sometimes these reactions are valid, so we can't know when they are or aren't, is wrong and obfuscatory. If you analyze your behavior regularly and try to avoid irrational actions, then you won't fall prey to pseudo reasons like the ones you gave. And a rational reason for fear (like, the guy is approaching you with a gun drawn) is, inherently, not going to be based in irrational bias.
I think a reason you're having such a hard time seeing what I'm saying is that you just accept that you will have lots of irrational inexplicable reasons for your behavior, most of which you won't understand very well. In that context, I can see that self-criticism, applied inconsistently, wouldn't be very effective at revealing bias in any particular area.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I was scared because of his mannerisms and the way he dressed, not because he was black" won't cut it. Someone's mode of dress shouldn't elicit a fear response. Someone glaring at you shouldn't either. Especially since mannerisms and expressions are easy to misconstrue, so before you assume someone is glaring you should consider other possibilities. Maybe they're squinting because the sun is in their eyes, which can often cause the nose to draw up too, causing a frown and narrowed eyes. Those are the two essential components of a glare, so it's easy to mistake one for the other.
"Or they might rationalize that its fair to be more fearful in a neighborhood that has a high black population because the crime rates in that neighborhood are actually higher." This one is insufficient as well. First of all, because assessing threats based on crime rate in an area is inefficient. Secondly, unless you have an iPhone app that tells you the crime rate in every street you walk down, you would be applying this fear inconsistently. That's a readily apparent fact that you can notice if you analyze your behavior critically.
This is totally delusional nonsense. Fear is not always irrational. Fear is something that's hard wired into our brains because it's helped us survive as a species. I get the impression you have never actually had a reason to be afraid of strangers.
I live in a very dangerous place. Trinidad has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I live in a gated apartment complex. I have 4 locks on all the doors and bars on all the window (this is standard around here). My apartment was broken into once while we were home asleep and we had a second attempt not long ago. I know of several instances where people have been robbed at gun point at the gate to my apartment complex.
If there is someone suspicious looking hanging around the gate to my apartment complex, I circle the block until they are gone. Circling the block is also dangerous so I have to make an instant decision about whether the person in front of the gate is more likely to be a friend waiting for one of my neighbors to let them in or a thug waiting to rob me. I don't have time to reason through whether my biases are rational, I have to act on instinct. The way the person is dressed, their mannerisms, their age and their race are all I have to go on. If the person is wearing a suit and tie, I'm going to open the gate and go home. If he's dressed like a gang banger, I'm going to turn at the street before my gate and circle the block until he's gone.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I get the impression you have never actually had a reason to be afraid of strangers.
How likely do you actually think this is?
And if you don't really think it's likely, why would you say it? You pepper these statements in every time you talk to me, and it doesn't really bother me, but I'm curious what the motivation is.
As to the rest of what you've said, all I'll say is this: You can make rational decisions based on potential risks without letting yourself be ruled by fear. And of course someone's appearance within the context of circumstances should factor into a decision like that. But it doesn't have to make you afraid.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, I'm sorry but its going to be several days before I have time to respond. I'm not ignoring you or giving up, I'm just busy.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No apologies needed, Rabbit! The conversation isn't going anywhere, and life takes precedence.
Heck, even if it's not life but just a lack of interest in continuing right at this moment, that's 100% okay and also doesn't need any apology or justification. I've got a half-finished response to Lyrhawn's post like 4 pages back that I still plan to dust off and finish up, for example.
Hope it's a good kind of busy, though! Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: No apologies needed, Rabbit! The conversation isn't going anywhere, and life takes precedence.
Heck, even if it's not life but just a lack of interest in continuing right at this moment, that's 100% okay and also doesn't need any apology or justification. I've got a half-finished response to Lyrhawn's post like 4 pages back that I still plan to dust off and finish up, for example.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: No apologies needed, Rabbit! The conversation isn't going anywhere, and life takes precedence.
Heck, even if it's not life but just a lack of interest in continuing right at this moment, that's 100% okay and also doesn't need any apology or justification. I've got a half-finished response to Lyrhawn's post like 4 pages back that I still plan to dust off and finish up, for example.
Yeah, I made the mistake of starting and saving it on my home computer, so that made me reluctant to re-write it from work, but I do like 90% of my posting from work.
So, I'll get to it soon. As best I can, anyway. I'll admit in advance that I sort of found some parts of it to be... uh, what's a polite way of saying not relevant? Not relevant? I'll go with not relevant. At least, not relevant to any of the points I was trying to make (mostly thinking of the stuff about redlining and other defunct racist practices.)
Anyway, I'll explain more in the post.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, what I wouldn't give for a facepalm emoticon right about now. Thanks for spelling that out for me, Rivka. Went right over my head.
If that was indeed Sam's point... Shrug. If Rabbit agrees with that assessment, she's under no obligation to respond at all. It's fine with me either way. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
