Skip

Tacit racism and sexism
October 4, 2011 6:10 AM   Subscribe

The Implicit Bias & Philosophy International Research Project brings together philosophers, psychologists, and policy professionals to study unconscious biases against members of stigmatized groups. The recommended reading page collects recent scholarly articles available for download. (Previously)
posted by painquale (10 comments total) 12 users marked this as a favorite

 
...brings together philosophers, psychologists, and policy professionals to study unconscious biases against members of stigmatized groups

You mean developing Weapons of Mass Conservatives?
posted by DU at 6:21 AM on October 4, 2011


[Let's try this without the out-of-the-gate dismissive jokes, please. ]
posted by restless_nomad at 9:13 AM on October 4, 2011


against members of stigmatized groups

Isn't it a problem if they're purporting to do an objective, empirical study, but they've decided at the outside which groups are "stigmatized" and which aren't?
posted by John Cohen at 9:57 AM on October 4, 2011


Notice that this can be a problem even if no specific finding is inaccurately reported. There's still a decision to make (or publish) certain findings and not others. For instance, the first link describes research showing that people are more likely to associate blacks than whites with crime-related objects like guns. But are they going to study people's association of men/women with crime? Presumably not, because that doesn't satisfy people's desire to signal how much they care about blacks and women. Though this project holds itself out as ground-breaking, there's nothing new about people observing that blacks are viewed as disproportionately likely to be criminals. Just once, I'd like to see someone explain why this is a huge problem for blacks but not a problem for men. I don't understand how people are able to totally disconnect the race issue from the gender issue when it comes to crime and fear.
posted by John Cohen at 10:03 AM on October 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


(And if the answer is "Because men haven't been historically oppressed!," I would just ask why you choose to apply the word "oppression" to a presumption of criminality against blacks, but not for a similar presumption against men.)
posted by John Cohen at 10:06 AM on October 4, 2011


Nice collection of papers. I've been meaning to read up on "aliefs" since Gendler did that Philosophy TV dialogue. Thanks!
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:22 AM on October 4, 2011


Just once, I'd like to see someone explain why this is a huge problem for blacks but not a problem for men.

It's actually a huge problem for whites. I'm just walking down the street. If you're jumping into traffic to avoid me, you're the one with the problem. Especially since from what I remember, you're more likely to catch a beat down by some male you associate with, than me.

Oh sure, when it comes to things like employment, it does turn into a problem for me, because it is a problem for whites (who are often in charge of the hiring). So uh, cut that out. Look at my resume, not my name. Look at my qualifications and abilities, not my skin color.

John Cohen, you've got multiple replies in here and clearly you've taken an adversarial stance against this group. I think Men get by with this because they are already in positions of power, and dominate things. Think about what you're saying. "Why is it that a man in general, isn't looked at as a criminal?" In American society, "a man in general" would get conceptualized as a white man. So why is it that although aside from Obama every single president has been a white male, congress is made up by white males, as well as the supreme court, most executive boards for companies and industries - white males aren't stigmatized as criminals? And voila, you've answered your own question.

But don't stop with me. I'm just a random commenter on a website. Why don't you email the people that make up this group, and ask them your questions. I haven't looked at their CVs but I'm guessing they have degrees in the study of this stuff, and they'd love to answer your questions and address any concerns you have. Maybe you'll bring something up that they hadn't considered, and you'll add to the literature. Email them!
posted by cashman at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2011 [2 favorites]


John Cohen, they are actually not 'deciding' which groups arestigmatized: "There is by now substantial empirical support for the claim that most people— even those who explicitly and sincerely avow egalitarian views—hold what have been described as implicit biases against such groups as blacks, women, gay people, and so on. (This is true even of members of the “target” group.)"

So, based on the science, people even stigmatize people like them, people who belong to the same group.
posted by misha at 11:50 AM on October 4, 2011


For instance, the first link describes research showing that people are more likely to associate blacks than whites with crime-related objects like guns. But are they going to study people's association of men/women with crime?

No, because there's a polarity switch between the two usages of "association".
posted by polymodus at 12:31 PM on October 4, 2011


John Cohen has a point, but, it's one that we routinely deal. Yes, men are more likely criminals than women. More likely violent, too. And that's always been the case, and dealing with it comes natural. . Otherwise, who in their right mind would allow fathers or uncles to ever be around children?! The whole race thing though, is still something we're trying to get past.
posted by Goofyy at 5:43 AM on October 6, 2011


« Older Kicking Queen   |   E.M. Cioran Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post