
Racial Bias, Even When We Have Good Intentions - jeremynixon
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/upshot/the-measuring-sticks-of-racial-bias-.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0
======
aaronharnly
I do a lot of hiring. It drives me crazy that applicant names (which signal
gender and ethnicity) are literally the first thing I see in our candidate
screening system.

So I wrote a GreaseMonkey script to replace candidate names with dictionary
words. It isn't perfect -- names show up on resumes, and every other stage if
the hiring process. I wish name-substitution were a standard feature of these
systems!

~~~
UrMomReadsHN
Great thinking.

Perhaps its me but I know for me, a woman in software engineering, I
constantly worry about what my name signals to potential employers. I wish my
gender could be erased while being evaluated as I don't wish for it to be
unintentionally or intentionally a factor in evaluating my job qualifications.
Or the quality of any work I might publish online. No matter if it works out
in my favor or not. I am kinda disturbed by the trend of LinkedIn profiles
because I believe you are (apparently? I think...) encouraged to upload a
picture of yourself. We did away with including a picture with your resume for
a reason, now it seems to be coming back?

Seems as if employer tend to hire "potental friends" over potentally over more
qualified applicants
[[http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/12/03/employers-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/12/03/employers-
hire-potential-drinking-buddies-ahead-of-top-candidates/)] which I think is
part of the gender/race/ethnicity divide. People want to surround themselves
with others like them.

As an aside, my experience seems to be that many employers of middle class
jobs seem to expect candidates to come from a middle class upbringing and
perhaps don't understand the opportunities that weren't available to some
candidate due to growing up poor.

Just my opinions and thoughts on the matter.

------
Houshalter
It's not just race. Ugly people are incredibly discriminated against.
Attractive politicians receive two and a half times as many votes as
unattractive ones. Attractive people are far more likely to get hired and get
paid 14% more. Unattractive people are twice as likely to be convicted for the
same crimes in court, and have to pay damages twice as high on average.

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/lj/the_halo_effect/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/lj/the_halo_effect/)

~~~
steveeq1
Good point. Whenever I read articles like this, I often wonder if we are over-
optimizing for racial discrimination and under-optimizing for other other
forms. Interestingly, the people who cry out the loudest for racial
discrimination often could care less about the type of discrimination you just
pointed out (from my experience).

~~~
potatolicious
The two concepts are IMO not so easily separable - see the widespread finding
of blacks in the US to be "unattractive". Attractiveness is, despite the loud
griping of evo-psych proponents, largely cultural. Our perceptions of race, of
gender roles, of etc etc, contribute greatly to attraction.

Discrimination in all its forms are often hard to disentangle.

~~~
steveeq1
Not always. Short people, for example, are biased against in job interviews
and most people don't care.

~~~
potatolicious
The short people thing IMO supports my argument. There's a lot of evolutionary
psychology drivel about how we're genetically predisposed to disliking short
people due to lack of fitness, etc etc.

But a lot of the bias against short people is cultural in origin and hasn't
always been the case. See the historically shifting attitudes towards fat
people (from envy to disdain, as societies have industrialized).

We're _taught_ by our upbringing and our surroundings to be biased against
certain features in certain contexts - whether that's skin color, height,
gender, orientation, or anything else. Some of this is colored by racism,
sexism, or any number of other -isms we suffer from.

~~~
steveeq1
The shortness-bias is fairly culturally-universal, actually. And your point
does little to refute that no one makes a big deal about this particular bias.
(Not that I'm saying they shouldn't).

------
stared
If you want to test your own _implicit_ biases (sexism, agism, homophobia,
racism), there is a nice battery of tests
[https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/](https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/),
which base on reaction times.

There are two interesting things about it:

\- even if you are liberal, implicit biases may persist (because of various
biological and cultural factors),

\- its about you (its easy to excuse oneself that implicit x-isms are only
about others, less rational or something).

------
fcanela
Being caucasian I have a hard time finding objective examples of etnic
discrimination which I could give to people who thinks that it's a solved
issue.

This article provided me few of them, thanks.

~~~
UrMomReadsHN
Blacks make up about 13% of the population but they make up 40% of male
inmates in jail or prison. With such a huge disparity one can start thinking
cultural issues (whatever they are) may be at play. Unless you subscribe to
19th Century "scientific racism."

------
rmc
That is scientific evidence for the existence of racism people.

To be real scientists, and rational, we must be willing to admit what the
evidence says, even if it makes us uncomfortabl. Creationists think evolution
means their religion is wrong, so they fight the evidence. People don't like
to think they act racist, so fight the evidence.

------
danmaz74
Interesting article.

For the "black names" thing, though, I would be curious to know if there were
any studies also comparing "stereotypical white-but-not-anglophone" names, for
example Greek, East-European, or South-European names.

And also, for example, non-traditional names that have no racial implications,
like "Rainbow" or similar.

~~~
rmc
I don't know about other ethnic names, but there have been studies with male
name versus female name, which show men get offered more jobs and more money.

~~~
icebraining
Yeap. And regardless of the gender of the person evaluating the candidate.

------
pwr22
I read about a study once where college students in the US were asked to
provide their ethnicity on the front of their test papers. This had a notable
negative effect on the scores of African-Americans due to unconscious bias, I
believe it was presented as an example of priming

~~~
tokenadult
Yes, the effect is called "stereotype threat"[1] in the psychology literature.
A professor of psychology who participates in the journal club I participate
in is deeply skeptical of how large the effect size of stereotype threat is in
the real world. On my part, I like the interventions that have been suggested
by the main stereotype threat researchers, to prime students with self-
expressed affirmations of their core values to help them boost their own
performance.

[1]
[http://mrnas.pbworks.com/f/claude%20steele%20stereotype%20th...](http://mrnas.pbworks.com/f/claude%20steele%20stereotype%20threat%201995.pdf)

[https://teachersh.scis-his.net/tmrak/wp-
content/uploads/site...](https://teachersh.scis-his.net/tmrak/wp-
content/uploads/sites/60/2014/05/Spencer-et-al-1977-Stereotype-Threat-
copy.pdf)

------
Hytosys
This article raises a question: how does one train their "fast" thinking? If
someone reads this article and recalls all of the times that at least
internally they passed a wrong judgement based on another's race, what can
they do to prevent immediately thinking such things?

I don't much like this intuitive answer: if you're simply aware of your
tendency to erroneously judge, you can consciously act against it. Is there
any way to train the subconscious? The lack of time to consciously address
racism in some situations could lead to mortality.

Awesome article; science is great.

~~~
rmc
One way is to hide the information from yourself. I've heard of orchestras
hiring by getting the applicant to play their instrument behind a screen. You
can't see them, can't see their race/ethnicity, or gender. The only
information you can use is the only information you should be using: how they
play.

~~~
Hytosys
I wasn't satisfied with this answer for a whole week, but now I'm trying to
figure out ways to integrate that hiring technique to hiring in other fields
(programming, especially). Thanks!

------
wslh
A must read paper related to this topic is "Cultural biases in economic
Exchange? [2003,2008]" [1]

[1]
[http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/sapienza/htm/cul...](http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/sapienza/htm/cultural_biases.pdf)

------
mwana
This is quite interesting. In my relations, I have subconsciously witnessed
racial bias at play without people seemingly aware. I guess a lot of
associations we make are based off things we see and not consciously decide on
in a forceful way that reinforces those beliefs to us as something we stand
by.

Much of it is down to nature. Minorities usually don't get preferential
treatment when dealing with people who just don't relate naturally with
someone they don't share natural similarities with, first-off physically.

I think it's really great that we have strong movements against racism and
other forms of stigma stereotypically-related but doing away with it totally
remains a job of nature...and people just being naturally different. Am I
painting a gloomy-picture, I hope not. I haven't come to a good conclusion on
what needs to be done to shake the associations we make in our subconscious
minds that affect others unfairly.

------
happyscrappy
Articles like this always leave out Asians because it does not fit the
narrative and forces you to think about culture as a main factor.

~~~
michaelfdeberry
Bias goes both ways and biases effecting social status for Asians are
typically positive. For example, if hiring for a Mathematician from three
resumes, 1 White, 1 Black, and 1 Asian and being unaware of actual skill, the
Asian would likely be considered first. In this case bias helped the Asian get
a job that will raise their social status.

There are negative biases towards Asians as well, but they don't have much
effect on social status, such as being bad drivers.

There are also positive biases towards Blacks, but the those positive biases
don't have much effect on social status. An example would be if basketball
team had to be constructed from a pool of available players, again unaware of
actual skill, the Black players would likely be picked first.

I think the real point is that bias does have an effect on social status.
Depending on what those biases are it could be a positive or negative effect.

~~~
unclebucknasty
I'm not sure that "positive" is the right word here. Biases seem to be
frequently double-edged at a minimum.

The negative consequence is more obvious in your basketball example. Picking
blacks for a basketball team simply because they are black is not positive. It
is part of a system of thinking, which says that "blacks are good at these
things". The corollary is that "blacks are not good at these other things".
So, even what you might consider a "positive" bias has a reinforcing effect on
the way we classify people and form other biases that are objectively and
obviously negative in socially significant ways.

Likewise, classifying Asians as good mathemeticians is part of a system of
thinking that says they are less good at other things. All of these
preconceived notions have some value attached to them which, collectively,
have a direct bearing on social status.

In short, biases tend to have a profound negative side even, or especially,
when we are unaware of as much and/or believe they are OK.

~~~
michaelfdeberry
You are correct positive may not be the best term, but I think we are in
agreement otherwise

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _positive may not be the best term, but I think we are in agreement
> otherwise_

I didn't think we were in agreement, which was why I commented.

My point was that bias generally has an overall negative effect, even when
some biases appear to be positive (as you asserted). If you agree, but simply
think that "positive" is not the best term, then I don't understand your
original comment:

> _Depending on what those biases are it could be a positive or negative
> effect._

That seemed to be your point, in summary, and I don't know what term you'd
substitute for "positive" that would be qualitatively different, while not
completely dismantling your premise.

~~~
michaelfdeberry
In context of the comment I was initially replying, regarding how Asians are
considered a counter example, I think positive is the correct term.

My initial post was strictly to point out the original posters bias towards
Asians.

So my point, in context of the original post, is that bias towards Asians give
then a higher social standing. Which I do consider a positive when compared to
other groups.

Your initial post seemed to be more in general, and I agree that all bias has
some negativity to it.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

------
stefantalpalaru
Why is the belief that the human species has races just like cats, dogs, cows,
horses, etc. so widespread in the US culture?

Even anti-racism rhetoric takes this absurd proposition as a fact. Take this
article for example: all the cases where the author talks about ethnicity he
uses "race" instead.

~~~
icebraining
No, there's the belief that the human species has races _unlike_ cats, dogs,
etc.

Just because the word is shared with the scientific concept doesn't mean it's
believed to be the same thing. It's simply a remnant of the times when that
was the general belief.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
"There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in
the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human
species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the
past." \- American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1996 -
[http://www.virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas102%20%28spring%2...](http://www.virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas102%20%28spring%2001%29/articles/AAPA_race.pdf)

~~~
icebraining
You missed my point. No, the human species doesn't have races in the
scientific sense. What you shouldn't assume is that all mentions of the word
"race" are referring to the scientific concept. Quoting census.gov:

 _The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect
a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to
define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically._

~~~
stefantalpalaru
If this "social definition" of race is accepted and somehow washed of its
original meaning, why keep on using "racism" with the obviously disconnected
meaning? How is racism defined in this brave new world of semantic
chameleonism? As a synonym for xenophobia?

~~~
icebraining
I don't think it was this definition that has mutated from the original, but
the scientific definition that got more precise and diverged from the
colloquial use. But I'm hardly an expert, so don't assume I know what I'm
talking about.

As for xenophobia and racism, from UNESCO: _Xenophobia and racism often
overlap, but are distinct phenomena. Whereas racism usually entails
distinction based on physical characteristic differences, such as skin colour,
hair type, facial features, etc, xenophobia implies behaviour based on the
idea that the other is foreign to or originates from outside the community or
nation._

------
vezzy-fnord
The term "white names" drives me insane. It usually exemplifies the cultural
ignorance and Anglocentrism of the speaker more than anything.

~~~
icebraining
I'm sure mr. Sendhil Mullainathan, born in a small farming village in India,
is completely ignorant about non-anglophone cultures.

