There are a few things here that need to be taken into account. Implicit bias doesn't mean you will exhibit discriminatory behavior - that's never been something the study of implicit bias put forward - ever. The research is sound. But trying to use it to eliminate racism is a completely different issue. Just because the programs to use the learnings from it have failed doesn't mean the research is flawed, it means the ways to use the research are flawed. To me, it's obvious that a police force isn't going to be moved by implicit bias training because they probably think it's all bs. To overcome implicit bias, you need have self awareness and conviction to override it. That's not an easy thing to teach and the idea that some training will change that is a bit far in expectations.
That's why for law enforcement the solution isn't training, it's recurutiment. You are right most cops due to the culture they were raised in and their social circles being mostly right wing leaning along with scoffing at things like "liberal arts education" and most likely doing poorly academically in high school will conclude a implicit bias course or seminar with chuckles and jokes about how dumb the class is. It's because the type of people that usually are recruited don't have that level of introspective ability.
I'm not a social scientist nor is this my area within philosophy. I know that the history of implicit bias research has been contested pretty much right from the beginning. I know who the main players are but am not acquainted with the depths of the literature. So I cannot tell you whether "the research is sound" or not. I can only pass along bits and pieces of what people have said about it over time. Brian Leiter has discussed the issue on his blog many times over the years--and some of the people who are actually cited on the SEP entry for implicit bias are cited as sources for that article from Leiter's blog! so that should tell you something about Leiter's involvement in that discussion over the years. On the training issue, I have little to add beyond the observation that Machery discusses the financial aspects of how the research has been utilized in the public sector and in private institutions, and how enormous amounts of money have gone into those efforts with little to show for them. Don't kill the messenger, I'm simply summarizing what the author has to say. You can read his paper too at the linked web page. For what it's worth the SEP article (by one of the proponents of implicit bias research) is well done and includes a fairly thorough section on the critiques over time: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicit-bias/#CritResp. I am for the most part agnostic on these issues but was pretty surprised by Leiter's emphatic point--and generally since I disagree with virtually everything he writes (well, most of the time anyway), I thought it interesting to pass along in this context. I think someone like Kendi takes "implicit bias" for granted (obviously), but has little to no awareness of any potential problems with that research. I'm not sure there is a definitive "good" or "useless" bottom line for assessing implicit bias research in toto, but it is a glaring intellectual flaw in Kendi's entire framework NOT to signal some sort of broader awareness of possible problems with research he so heavily relies upon.
I can't purport to be any kind of expert on this subject matter - truthfully you are more well versed than I am. I am a marketer with a degree in physics. So I can look at research objectively and see its limitations. I think the research and idea of implicit bias is sound for demonstrating that people have subconscious or guttural biases against people. The research feels solid there. But I think it's a mistake to use it as a predictive model or as creating programs to defeat implicit bias. The research shows it exists, but there is no research on how to change people's guttural judgements. That's a whole different can of worms. Personally, I think implicit bias reflects how we are wired, and the only way someone really can overcome implicit bias is if they truly believe in an egalitarian world and are open to admitting that they have innate biases to begin with. If someone isn't in that boat, no amount of training will change someone's minds. As a marketing, my job is to induce certain behaviors through communication. It's a very difficult thing to do - if it were easy then I wouldn't have a paycheck. But that's why the nature of my work isn't to just create facebook ads with glib headlines but rather solve the deeper problems companies face. I've learned the hard way that you have more success using what people already believe to influence their behavior vs trying to make them believe in something else. That lesson is true whether you are buying products, are a NYPD recruit, or arguing on a debate and discussion board on a basketball bbs. That's why spending money to "retrain" people is a waste of money. @fchowd0311 is right, you don't try to change the cops you already hired, you recruit different cops.
Then it is meaningless. If it doesn't manifest in behavior, then who cares? In other words, if the outcome of the implicit bias test isn't predictive of discriminatory behavior, all it really measures is how you do on the implicit bias test.
How can you make such blatant statements like that? He's saying it doesn't ALWAYS show up in behavior and often it doesn't because the person with the bias is self-aware and introspective and make a concious decision to try not to have the bias effect judgement and actions.
First of all, don't go from one extreme to the other. While you might have breast cancer genes, it doesn't always mean you will get breast cancer, but it's still very useful to take the test, right? And the goal of the implicit bias test isn't for you to understand how likely you are to commit a racist act, it's to gain scientific knowledge about how humanity acts in a discriminatory way without realizing it in many cases. The concept of racism is very poorly understood. Not in action but in motivation and bias. We condemn people who are racists and use it as such a lose definition, when often times people aren't even aware they are racist. The goal of scientific study for something is to develop a deeper understanding, and then build upon that knowledge bit by bit. If it's only about the end application, then why did we go to the moon? What was the point if we didn't build moon colonies? If you are going to try to figure out something as complex as racism and why people discriminate while declaring themselves not to be racist, you need to study implicit bias.
The problem is the test has no predictive value of behavior. In other words, there is no increase in racist behavior correlated with the implicit bias score. It isn't that it doesn't ALWAYS show up in behavior, it is that there is NO predictive value. Moreover, it isn't even a good measure of how you will do on the test. Retest reliability on the IAT is poor. People get different results when they take the test multiple times, and there is low stability in rank ordering participants. If there was no positive correlation between having a positive test on the breast cancer gene screening, then no, you wouldn't get the useless test. If the test was going to come out different ways if you took it three times, you wouldn't take it. That is the point. You certainly wouldn't get a mastectomy because you took a test allegedly testing your propensity for breast cancer and 1 time in 3 it said future breast cancer was likely. People who are actually racist, know they are racist. They are happily racist. There are no accidental racists, because racism is a choice. People are probably accused of being racist who are not, but there is no lack of awareness. The lose definition is the problem, not self-awareness. When they come out with these new ideas like calling for meritocracy is racist, the problem is definitional. We went to the moon for propaganda. There is no practical application of the moon landings. Many technologies were made along the way that were useful, but actual human moon missions weren't. That is why we stopped doing them. 12 American men have walked on the moon, the last in 1972. Look at any list of benefits of the moon landings and they are all like freeze dried food, computers, fireproofing, mylar blankets, etc. People can study anything. Some things will be useful, some won't. To date, the implicit association test is not useful, and the implicit bias training is the same, except for making money for grifters. No, you should study psychology and find measurables with predictive value of racist behavior, or anti-social behaviors in general, and then work on treatments that reduce the behaviors. What we have now are test that don't measure anything but how you did on the test (and even that not reliably) and training that does nothing but waste time and money. This stuff should be back in the psych labs undergoing basic research, not being implemented in government organizations using taxpayer money.
Biden's executive order signed Friday looks to re-institute implicit bias training for federal employees: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...n-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-workforce/
Except there is a positive correlation between the test and discriminatory behavior. Your statement is simply false here. It's not 100% predictive, and it's not 0%. This is your belief and not what the science says. Again, the US benefited greatly from going to the moon which you pointed out. Given your false statements here, that we have a test doesn't measure anything, it undermines a lot of your argument. However, where I do agree with you is in the application of implicit bias to training programs. It's not ready for that - it's just basic research. It deserves greater funding an investigation - that is the right next step. I agree it's a mistake to try to apply it to training programs. But I disagree that it's a waste and measures nothing.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/23/us/pennsylvania-school-book-ban-reversed/index.html I know you gonna luv this
