
Study: Bias Drops Dramatically for Sexual Orientation and Race – But Not Weight - jonathanjaeger
https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2019/01/11/implicit-bias-gay-black-weight
======
asabjorn
One of the core authors of the IAT paper administered here to measure implicit
bias released a paper last year showing how the test doesn't actually measure
bias, and how it is not clear what this kind of test actually measures.

Many of us wish that there was a simple link between an unconscious bias, as
measured by the popular IAT test administered by Hardvard or similar tests,
and biased behavior. This would give a clear path to fix any bias problem.
However, Brian Nosek who is one of the co-authors of the IAT test just
released a paper [1] that show that changes in implicit bias don’t lead to
changes in behavior. You can find a summary of the article and its findings
here [2].

The paper examining 499 studies over 20 years involving 80,859 participants
that used the IAT and other, similar measures. They discovered two things: One
is that the correlation between implicit bias and discriminatory behavior
appears weaker than previously thought. They also conclude that there is very
little evidence that changes in implicit bias have anything to do with changes
in a person’s behavior. These findings, they write, "produce a challenge for
this area of research." The finding that changes in implicit bias don’t lead
to changes in behavior, Forscher says, "should be stunning."

"I see implicit bias as a potential means to an end, something that tells us
what to do and some possible remedies for what we see in the world," Forscher
says. "So if there’s little evidence to show that changing implicit bias is a
useful way of changing those behaviors, my next question is ‘What should we
do?’"

[1] [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308926636_A_Meta-
An...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308926636_A_Meta-
Analysis_of_Change_in_Implicit_Bias)

[2] [https://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-
Impl...](https://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-
Implicit/238807)

~~~
xster
This is my biggest confusion reading the summary. Since all kinds of inputs
can lead to the same measured output (such as being more scared about the
entire theme and self-censoring), how would they single out 'implicit bias'
and decide to label it as the cause?

Also [http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research/understanding-
implic...](http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research/understanding-implicit-
bias/)

"Implicit biases are malleable. Our brains are incredibly complex, and the
implicit associations that we have formed can be gradually unlearned through a
variety of debiasing techniques."

I don't know... isn't it almost by definition not 'implicit bias' then?

~~~
asabjorn
Yes, it is shoddy science or possibly not science at all. Testing an assertion
using known measures that have been shown to not test what you want to test
does not add to the scientific knowledge and instead subtract by adding noise.

Building upon tests that has not held up to scrutiny without having a good
argument for why it is different this time violates how science explores and
builds knowledge. Science is a technique that produce a network of knowledge
[1], where the core nodes are viewed as facts because they have successfully
held up to scrutiny by other pieces of knowledge and has worked as a
foundation for other pieces of knowledge.

In science pieces of knowledge that builds upon claims that are shown to be
invalid, such as the IAT test, are viewed as inheriting the problems of the
knowledge it builds upon.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxdBRKmPhe4&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxdBRKmPhe4&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0Fs1MrUFlMAE-
zhRCdakL8BFbqf-OtNnK41UYlvb1bxkgrOxymt_UpgAA)

------
yters
There is such focus on being tolerant regardless of sexual orientation, but
many more people face much greater discrimination on a wider variety of
issues, such as being handicapped, unattractive, mentally challenged, etc. I
wonder why these groups don't get anywhere as much focus as the small number
of gender non-conformist? Seems from a utilitarian perspective a much greater
reduction of human suffering would be achieved by learning to appreciate the
groups I mentioned, than the current mega focus on gender non-conformists. I
think it is because gender-nonconformists can still be highly intelligent and
attractive, thus are still useful from our society's image and performance
driven perspective.

~~~
skywhopper
I think you're misreading a few things, and inverting some causes and effects
here.

There are people who, for political purposes, demonize people for their sexual
orientation or gender identity, and actively seek to enact laws designed to
punish and/or humiliate those people. However, I'm not aware at this time of
any particular attempt to pass laws to make it more difficult and dangerous
for, say, ugly people to use the restroom, or forbidding handicapped people
from getting married (that's not to say these things are not possible! there's
certainly plenty of systemic bias against these groups, and there have been
political movements against disabled individuals in the past--including some
which categorized "gender non-conformity" as a mental illness--but that's not
the focus of current political movements that I'm aware of).

So, naturally the immediate focus is on pushing back against the currently
demonized group. In the future, when the focus of demagogues who invent
enemies to foment rage and gain votes shifts to handicapped individuals or
overweight people, then it will be critical to focus on fighting those forms
of hate.

~~~
yters
If the focus is on enacting laws to make society more accepting of ostracized
groups, still the gender nonconformists are a very small minority of those who
are oppressed in our society, see lists I've provided.

Now, if you are only focused on repealing laws, then you might have a case,
but a lot of the gender nonconformist activism focuses on positive laws and
other forms of punishment on those who don't accept them. So, insofar as there
is a positive push, then it is only a small interest group out of the
suffering multitudes that are benefited and my case stands that the focus on
gender nonconformism is myopic.

------
ralusek
Fantastic comment on reddit regarding how unscientific these "implicit bias"
tests are:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/afmxkx/americans_u...](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/afmxkx/americans_unconscious_bias_on_the_basis_of_sexual/ee0t1xs/)

~~~
noobermin
Tbh, we all have qualms about psychological studies in general, especially
coming from a physical scientist (physics) like myself. Every time I see data
points where the error bars overlap and the authors declare an difference
between the points, my gut says, "that's BS." But then again, they can't just
"run more experiments" like I can, so we're left with what they have.

I'm not sure what the solution is.

~~~
jerf
One of the accidental biases I think is introduced to people by their
schooling is the idea that all problems have solutions. This is not a
deliberate bias or anything, but an accidental one introduced by the fact that
the entire process of being educated is basically being walked down a
cultivated garden trail in which you are presented with a series of carefully-
designed problems where the answers are intended to help your understanding of
some topic. But in the real world, problems don't always have answers. If you
can't get the data to answer a question, the correct answer is to not answer
the question. If you can't gather enough data to separate the error bars, then
you don't have an answer to the question. All you can say is that the effect,
if it exists, isn't large, and you're not too sure about the effect. If what
you have is not sufficient to make a call... _stop_.

Once you see this clearly, the idea that one can be literally unable to gather
enough data, but somehow one is obligated to just create an answer even so is
just... weird.

And one of the major criticisms of the current scientific system is that you
can't publish a paper that says "We looked for X and didn't find it", so
there's massive incentive to just force an answer out. And when you force an
answer out, whereever the answer came from... it isn't the data. It's
something else. Varies depending on the topic, of course, but it's certainly
not the data.

(By contrast, in life we must frequently create answers to questions we don't
have enough data to scientifically answer the question. That's the nature of
the ride we're on. But it is improper to force answers in the scientific
domain.)

~~~
james_s_tayler
> One of the accidental biases I think is introduced to people by their
> schooling is the idea that all problems have solutions.

This. I've been trying to find a way to articulate that for months.

------
wilgertvelinga
Unlike being of a certain skin color or sexual orientation being overweight is
actually bad for your health and both mental and physical performance. I'm not
surprised bias is not falling.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
> Unlike being of a certain skin color or sexual orientation being overweight
> is actually bad for your health and both mental and physical performance.

That also would have been once an argument used against homosexuality.

~~~
hashkb
Are you saying you don't believe it's unhealthy to be obese?

~~~
greycol
No he is saying that homosexual behaviour was considered a health risk. There
were plenty of bigots who even called aids punishment from god.

~~~
ivalm
But we do know homosexuality is not a health risk while obesity is very
demonstrably a health risk. Are you really going to claim that obesity does
not increase morbidity?

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
> But we do know homosexuality is not a health risk

In the 80's it was considered fact that homosexuality was a health risk. AIDs
was a huge concern.

~~~
bdibs
That was just fearmongering, we have countless studies today that state
obesity is linked to a higher overall mortality rate.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
It's not. Even today, 67% of new cases of AIDs are among gay and bisexual
men[1].

I don't argue that obesity isn't bad for you, but the issue is more complex,
and I don't think it's right to stigmatize people for it.

[1]
[https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html)

~~~
ivalm
It's not their sexuality that causes the risk, it is unsafe sexual practices
and increased prevalence of disease in that subpopulation. Which is to said
AIDs and homosexuality correlate but homosexuality doesn't cause AIDs. Obesity
causes, not just correlates, a whole slew of morbidities.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
So their practicing of unsafe sexual practices would have justified the
ostracization?

~~~
ivalm
I think having negative attitudes towards unsafe sexual practices is fine.
Having negative attitudes towards a sexual orientation that correlates with
unsafe sexual practices is not fine. I think it is important to differentiate
correlation and causation. If something causes morbidity, we should have
negative attitudes towards it. If something correlates with morbidity, we need
to tread carefully.

------
babyslothzoo
Unsurprising, given that sexual orientation and race are not the result of
choices. There is no decision to be made, no change in input will change the
output.

Dietary habits are entirely active choices, it's an active decision making
process, and weight is the outcome of those inputs. Gaining or losing weight
is basic physics.

Perhaps obesity and food abuse/addiction should be looked at much the same way
that drug abuse/addiction is looked at. Obesity is the natural outcome of food
abuse.

~~~
LanceH
> Obesity is the natural outcome of food abuse.

Or food enjoyment. A different reaction to the realization that we are mortal.

~~~
babyslothzoo
Sure, now replace "food" with "drug" or "alcohol" and it's the same argument,
and much of the same pathology for that matter

------
beering
There was some discussion about the methodology on Reddit, but I think there
is some controversy over whether the methodology used to measure bias is
sound. Basically, you're asked to categorize a series of items as quickly as
possible, and the time taken is used to measure your "implicit bias".

You can try it out for yourself at:
[https://implicit.harvard.edu/](https://implicit.harvard.edu/)

~~~
User23
As usual for things where people can have strong incentives to lie, revealed
preference is the only reliable indicator. But since that can't be observed in
a psychology lab, instead we see questionable attempts at mind-reading like
drawing spurious conclusions from response times. It would be just as
scientific to hook the subject up to a polygraph and ask about biases.

Since obesity is generally seen as a moral failing rather than something that
can't be controlled, people are comfortable admitting their bias. However, for
race where it's rather unfair and also doing so will get you fired or worse
they prefer not to.

------
bloak
The term "bias" is unhelpfully vague, as is the term "unconscious", so
"unconscious bias" is a dialectical disaster zone.

The IAT tests measure association (that's what the "A" stands for), not
"bias". Probably I associate "Norwegian" with "tall", but that doesn't
necessarily mean I'll overestimate the height of a Norwegian person who is
standing in front of me. Perhaps I will, but that's an entirely different
question, and the bias might go in the other direction from the association:
if you're expecting someone to be tall then they might look short when they're
in fact average.

------
heavymark
That makes sense, as orientation and race one are born with and we are also
not born to be bias against them but nurtured. Where is weight (which we are
certainly nurtured with every marketing element we see) its also nature and
evolution to in general be attracted or find pleasing healthy people since
that results in healthier communities and off spring in general. The same goes
for the others they mentioned such as disability. So while the nurture part
could certainly change our genetic bias towards healthy people most likely
will not. Hopefully the nurture part will since people are bias against people
who are healthy but not peak perfection healthy.

~~~
noobermin
i think there is a big argument that the rise of obesity specifically in
America is in large part due to diet, heavy in sugars and corn syrup, in
response to the "low-fat" fad and corn subsidies respectively. That coupled
with the love of cars and sprawl, society in America leads to obesity unless
you are wealthy and have time to exercise and can afford food without
processed sugars and corn syrup.

Therefore, fat is more or less a signifier of class, just as race is, and the
bias against fat people is more or less just a manifestation in part of how
much we demonize the poor in this country.

~~~
drankula3
Rich fat people exist, and are demonized too. Obesity is a result of
overeating, and can be avoided even if you're poor. Rice and frozen bags of
rich veggies are cheap.

------
TACIXAT
The weight one is really interesting. If we were to see a drop in the rates of
overweight and obese people, I wonder if an increase in bias would be a
precursor. Not in the sense that everyone hates them and they change their
habits out of societal pressure, but even among that population, a negative
bias toward obesity could be a shift toward a more healthy mindset.

~~~
nategri
There is already TONS of negative cultural bias towards being
overweight/obese. The fact that there are still so many overweight/obese
people shows that we really still don't understand the problem or how to treat
it.

------
noobermin
Philosophy academics (the dreaded "post-modernists") have been saying how such
biases are socially constructed for so long, that if the conditions in society
change, people's perspectives will change. Looks like attitudes really are not
so "natural" as people put them.

~~~
tlb
Also, bird migration patterns are changing, therefore they must also be
socially constructed.

When you use "socially constructed" to mean "influenced in any way at all by
society," it becomes meaningless. Its strong meaning, "entirely constructed by
society with no natural basis at all," is a useful idea.

I don't know that any serious person has claimed that attitudes about weight
and homosexuality are unchanging human universals. Historical literature shows
a variety of attitudes to both. Societies around the world have a range of
attitudes. A post-modernist who claims to have discovered this idea is being
disingenuous.

------
erikpukinskis
Intetesting they didn’t look at sex-based discrimination.

