.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
borne_before said:
I do think that might be one of my own biases, is tendency use race as a proxy for ethnicity, subculture, and SES.
Click to expand...
I would encourage you to learn about the various ethnicities in different "racial" groups. Followed by learning about "class", rather than SES.
 
I have lots of general resources, but one strategy I find helpful with biases is imagining a particular group completely in charge of different aspects of my training and career. For example, what if hospitals for decades were designed from the ground up by 90% women, how would it be different? If folks who identify as a part of the LGBTQ+ community were always in charge, how would it be different? Are there things that would make me more or less comfortable? Then I add intersections. If I'm not sure about something, I go do research on cultural blind spots I have.
 
Great topic for discussion as we 100% carry biases into our work.

Maybe the most common area where bias likely emerges is how we think about how our patients are engaging with our healthcare and how that is likely influenced by race, culture, socioeconomics, life circumstances such as caregiving, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

There's what we directly experience as providers (which we are often appropriately classified as a 'therapy interfering behavior') and then there's the life stuff that our patients are/have/will go through that then shows up in our brief interactions with them.

I've personally found a dialectical approach to be helpful, where we hold space for both truths but then push ourselves to search for potentially more balanced synthesis, rather than sticking to just our experience (often of frustration) or being 100% accepting of their experience to the detriment of things like accountability and more adaptive engagement with care.
 
borne_before said:
Like this: "Pfff... sounds like a buncha namby pamby stuff."
Click to expand...
More like responding to that question with aggressive/defensive question of your own, but I think you know what I'm talking about.

From a psychologist/empiricist perspective, I think it is helpful to familiarize/refamiliarize oneself with the social/congnitive psych research related to biases, social cognition, and social decision making, as well as the more applied research in the area. Additionally, read/listen to other's experiences living within the cultures/regions/etc. that we live in. Identify the biased behaviors of those you were exposed to and taught by at a young age (such as parents, friends), and then identify which of those behaviors you have engaged in or still engage in. Develop a strategy (specific behavior for avoiding/counteracting those behaviors in yourself).
 
PsyDr said:
Under what conditions is it acceptable to assume the existence of bias, based upon appearance?
Click to expand...
We use all sorts of visual cues, symbols, etc. that are often culture bound. Some of our routine behavioral descriptions of patients are based on how a person looks. I make a determination of what is "appropriate" dress and hygiene based on cultural norms for this area. Some of my younger clients will come into my office in their pajamas. My brain is less likely to pick up on this when I'm tired, hungry, etc. as a thing to check in on because I'm used to seeing this behavior as levels of formality shift. If an older client come in with pajamas, it is more likely to cue my brain because it is less common for me to see. The individual reasons are going to vary person to person but I will notice it more in older folks. I need to be aware that I'm noticing it to make sure I don't lean on erroneous information based on passive societal information I have been exposed to. I don't want to do away with this information. I want it to be culturally and content specific. I can only attend to so many things at once. What is salient to me will consistently shift. I am constantly making decisions about what is important to attend to and what is most likely to be irrelevant. Because I am constantly filtering information, I need to be diligent about how it is being filter.
 
I think mindfulness (non-judgmental awareness of thoughts and feelings) is key to understanding our biases. I encourage students and clients to notice and pay attention to moments when something or someone is not as they imagined or expected, thus providing a window into pre-judgements. I also encourage students and clients to find low-stakes opportunities to practice new thoughts and behaviors. Even better if you can find a trusted non-judgmental other to share them with (e.g., therapist, friend, professor).

Traffic has become a "fun" laboratory for examining my biases. CA traffic is bad and I often feel stressed. When I encounter a "bad driver" I allow my mind to run with my bias. Who do I imagine is driving that car? What clues lead me to believe that? As much as possible I attempt to verify my imagined bad driver, and guess what? I'm usually wrong and able to dig a little deeper into my automatic thoughts. If my wife is in the car we share with each other who we think is driving and similarly debrief.

Another one for me is new class rosters. All the new names! Fertile ground for pre-judgements. I try and notice what comes up as I look at the names and then reflect on my assumptions. More than once I've seen a name I assumed belonged to a Latino/a and was to be pronounced in Spanish (e.g., Sergio Ramon), only to actually encounter a Black student who wanted to be called Serge Ramon (with a long A) -- not their real name!

Read a book before seeing a movie? What do you expect the characters to look like?
Got a new client? What assumptions do you make from their name? presenting concern? insurance carrier?
Heard about the latest mass shooting? Who do you picture as the perpetrator?

We're very good at making quick judgements and assessments, and there is nothing inherently maladaptive about that cognitive process. However, don't believe everything you think.
 
Shiori said:
My brain is less likely to pick up on this when I'm tired, hungry, etc..... I am constantly making decisions about what is important to attend to and what is most likely to be irrelevant. Because I am constantly filtering information, I need to be diligent about how it is being filter.
Click to expand...
Research supports this. We are always making judgements/evaluations/decisions about where to focus our attention. In times of high cognitive demand, we're much less likely to stop and reflect on our initial assumptions. Also as the power imbalance increases, folks are less likely to examine assumptions. Combine the two (high stress + large power imbalance) and the results can be deadly.
 
Shiori said:
We use all sorts of visual cues, symbols, etc. that are often culture bound. Some of our routine behavioral descriptions of patients are based on how a person looks. I make a determination of what is "appropriate" dress and hygiene based on cultural norms for this area. Some of my younger clients will come into my office in their pajamas. My brain is less likely to pick up on this when I'm tired, hungry, etc. as a thing to check in on because I'm used to seeing this behavior as levels of formality shift. If an older client come in with pajamas, it is more likely to cue my brain because it is less common for me to see. The individual reasons are going to vary person to person but I will notice it more in older folks. I need to be aware that I'm noticing it to make sure I don't lean on erroneous information based on passive societal information I have been exposed to. I don't want to do away with this information. I want it to be culturally and content specific. I can only attend to so many things at once. What is salient to me will consistently shift. I am constantly making decisions about what is important to attend to and what is most likely to be irrelevant. Because I am constantly filtering information, I need to be diligent about how it is being filter.
Click to expand...
That describes bias, but does not answer my question. Under what specific observable conditions can someone claim you are biased? Outside of objective evidence the claim that someone is biased, is speculative.

calimich said:
Research supports this. We are always making judgements/evaluations/decisions about where to focus our attention. In times of high cognitive demand, we're much less likely to stop and reflect on our initial assumptions. Also as the power imbalance increases, folks are less likely to examine assumptions. Combine the two (high stress + large power imbalance) and the results can be deadly.
Click to expand...

You cannot know the other person's assumptions, until they tell you.

I would love to see the mortality data on this.
 
PsyDr said:
Under what conditions is it acceptable to assume the existence of bias, based upon appearance?
Click to expand...
I assume it based on species (and make the assumption that anyone demonstrating stimulus equivalence through spoken or written language is a member of Homo Sapiens). Though there is some evidence- IIRC- that I could also assume it based on Genus. At the tribe and subfamily level, intergroup aggression/segregation is probably not due to biases, as we would currently identify them, but rather to more innate/instinctual behavior that would be difficult to change at the level of the individual organism.
 
Last edited:
PsyDr said:
Under what specific observable conditions can someone claim you are biased?
Click to expand...
being human and having thoughts, feelings, or behaviors

You cannot know the other person's assumptions, until they tell you.
Click to expand...
Right. It doesn't really matter that I know or understand your assumptions. I don't think that's the point. It's not the point I'm trying to make.

What matters is that you know your assumptions, and how they influence your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. And then I think we agree, you cannot know your own assumptions unless you discover them yourself. I'm suggesting mindfulness is a tool for discovering your assumptions.
 
Last edited:
My point: Someone is claiming X about another person, without evidence. That evidence-less claim is discordant from the professional standards of almost any other personality variable.

If you wrote a report that said someone had an intellectual disability, I would want to see scores and history to support that position. That standard is dismissed in the case of bias.
 
Fox Tv Popcorn GIF by The Four
 
PsyDr said:
My point: Someone is claiming X about another person, without evidence. That evidence-less claim is discordant from the professional standards of almost any other personality variable.

If you wrote a report that said someone had an intellectual disability, I would want to see scores and history to support that position. That standard is dismissed in the case of bias.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of evidence to say that you, as a member of our species (I know- big assumption there) are biased. However, it would be much less accurate and evidenced based to state any specific nature of your bias. It would be even less evidenced based to assume specific behaviors on your part that result from that bias (i.e. discrimination). If your position is that you'd be more correct to to assume that a human was not biased in any way, I'd suggest you were being disingenuous or argumentative (because I don't think you're ignorant).
 
And to be clear- saying that all humans are biased is not equivalent to saying all humans are racist or all humans discriminate. While there is some good evidence for the the latter two statements, there is, AFAIK, more evidence of the former. There is also some good evidence that recognizing the existence of the former within oneself can lead to oneself doing less of the latter.
 
PsyDr said:
If you wrote a report that said someone had an intellectual disability, I would want to see scores and history to support that position. That standard is dismissed in the case of bias.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't any potential objective measurement of bias also be.............incredibly biased by design?

In an ideal case scenario, I see the calling out/addressing of bias not like scarlett letter/cancel culture-y but as an opportunity to reflect and be more thoughtful/aware. I know it doesn't work out that way a lot of time, including by people who self-identify as warriors for justice.

My personal perspective is that there's always many degrees of bias always happening. From the person calling it out, the person being called out, the random person just minding their own business in that same space, etc. And that's OK because we are human and bias is fundamental for organzing and categorizing and making decisions and so on and so forth.

But we also can benefit from continued reflection and awareness of how we are navigating living in a culture that is informed by all kinds of beliefs.

I am a DBT person and I especially love the falliability team agreeement and when I try to actually try to live my life in this way, it's super powerful. Because the point isn't identifying or triangulating the mistake/bias but about what comes next and whether what comes next can be bettered by this awareness/reflection/etc:
We agree ahead of time that we are each fallible and make mistakes. We agree that we have probably done whatever problematic thing we’re being accused of, or some part of it, and so we can let go of assuming a defensive stance to prove our virtue or competence. Because we are fallible, it is agreed that we will inevitably violate all of these agreements, and when this is done we will rely on each other to point out the polarity and move to a synthesis. - Kelly Koerner
Click to expand...
 
PsyDr said:
My point: Someone is claiming X about another person, without evidence. That evidence-less claim is discordant from the professional standards of almost any other personality variable.

If you wrote a report that said someone had an intellectual disability, I would want to see scores and history to support that position. That standard is dismissed in the case of bias.
Click to expand...
To me, the question is how harmful are the biases rather than whether one has any biases. I think it is fair to say that all human being have some sort of biases in the area.
 
I will attempt to provide an opinion as to not lean in any one particular direction (i.e. yes we are all biased vs. no we are not). From a neuroscientific perspective, our brains very much process information in various modalities (e.g., parallel processes, nodal distributions) that make it more plausible than not, that such information processing models outline that our brains constantly integrate information, store it, consolidate, re-consolidate, and retrieve information from various sensory inputs, and are computed in such a way that aligns with how that information is maximally processed and used (e.g., cyto-architectural specificity). All of this is to say, that it's also plausible that information is processed in such a way, then it is more implausible that we would be without the ability to retrieve information that varies in sensory modality as well as valence (e.g., strong vs. weak). So, this is where one could integrate the cognitive perspective, especially developmental and social cognition where such valences and sensory modalities will be very context specific, (e.g., being in combat, your wedding day, etc. and how those experiences were integrated from a sensory perspective). So, for example, it would make sense that it is likely that if you are to experience a traumatic situation such as combat, that one is experiencing that event via multiple modalities (e.g., touch, sound, sight, smell, etc.), and are further influenced by neurochemical processes that could enhance that information processing and storage. If one's brain has developed in an adverse environment (e.g., being poor, exposed to poverty, etc.), then their information processes will be relative and specific to them. If certain life experiences activate schemas or "nodes" throughout their life, then it is possible that any information learned from times past will be activated and used to apply to a given novel situation (e.g., top-down process).

Alternatively, we also have various decision-making and bias models proposed by Daniel Kahneman and Elizabeth Loftus that take these perspectives and shape them in a specific way. Loftus's perspectives on erroneous eye witness testimony could be evidence that from a social perspective, our past experiences could skew how we go about our lives and integrate information that is consistent with ones' beliefs and expectations, thus, depending on the nature of a crime that one is being asked to testify in, information gleaned by the eye witness my be skewed from the very beginning and could be mis-construed as being reliable due to how vivid and confident the witness expresses themselves.

So...perhaps bias exists? Maybe. Bias is more of a social and cognitive construct vs. that of a biological one as the available methods of measuring such phenomena are not very unitary to promote optimal construct validity. We can hook people up to do various psychophysical testing, use DTI, fMRI, etc. to look at associations between a behavior and supposed/hypothesized brain activity, but they are just that....hypothesized. That's the best modern science really has to offer at the moment. So, as long as there is a level of uncertainty associated with studying psychological constructs, there were always be questions that cannot be 100% answered, and therefore, are open for speculation.

My brain hurts after typing all of this...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
calimich said:
Traffic has become a "fun" laboratory for examining my biases. CA traffic is bad and I often feel stressed. When I encounter a "bad driver" I allow my mind to run with my bias. Who do I imagine is driving that car? What clues lead me to believe that? As much as possible I attempt to verify my imagined bad driver, and guess what? I'm usually wrong and able to dig a little deeper into my automatic thoughts. If my wife is in the car we share with each other who we think is driving and similarly debrief.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, bad drivers. Whenever I see a jacked up giant truck aka an Emotional Support Truck (EST), covered in flags & vulgar bumper stickers, with a pair of plastic testicles on the trailer hitch I think to myself "I wonder if they would prefer constructive feedback (delivered verbally or using hand gestures) or if they prefer vigorous debate?" I would try to keep it on topic, but often unrelated topics and assumptions seem to come up. By that point I've not even considered their race or ethnicity, but I would look for context clues so as to not let my own opinions and prior experiences shade my perspective. Just because someone NEEEEEEDS their emotional support truck to survive, with its obnoxiously large flags and music that everyone in a 5 county radius can hear, doesn't mean that I should "assume" anything. At that point the Emotional Support Truck driver usually reveals themselves through calm discourse, though sometimes...and I don't mean to imply everyone, but sometimes...they might come off a bit more...aggressive, waving a gun, loudly inquiring about my country of origin, etc. Some people have a strong interest in geography, so who am I discourage their genuine interest in other countries and cultures? It's at this point I would usually invite them to visit different places, and often I might even offer my assistance to get them to those places, post-haste. Being able to engage in quality discourse and not fall into old biases and ideas is key in these interactions. Benny Hill said it best when he said, you mustn't ASSUME or you make an ass out of u and me. Funny lad that one.

(Okay, now back to report writing, thank you for the brief distraction. I will come back and contribute a bit more directly)
 
Shiori said:
I wonder if there are any cognitive/experimental psychologists feeling like this is their time to shine.
Click to expand...
being neither, the way I oversimplify it for students goes something like this:

brains are primed/have evolved to recognize perceived threats and danger. evolutionarily, perhaps some degree of overestimation conferred an advantage. human brains have evolved to recognize patterns, especially facial patterns. parts of the limbic system (amygdala, hippocampus) and the temporal lobe (FFA - fusiform face area) "light up" in response to faces. this process is automatic and effortless. we share similar brain structures with all mammals and many of our non-mammal cousins. however, the goddess has endowed us with frontal lobes. we are not reptiles. humans can metacognate, we can think about our thinking. this takes place in the frontal lobes. reflection, metacognition is NOT automatic and requires effort.

having bias is effortless, examining your bias requires work
 
summerbabe said:
Wouldn't any potential objective measurement of bias also be.............incredibly biased by design?

In an ideal case scenario, I see the calling out/addressing of bias not like scarlett letter/cancel culture-y but as an opportunity to reflect and be more thoughtful/aware. I know it doesn't work out that way a lot of time, including by people who self-identify as warriors for justice.

My personal perspective is that there's always many degrees of bias always happening. From the person calling it out, the person being called out, the random person just minding their own business in that same space, etc. And that's OK because we are human and bias is fundamental for organzing and categorizing and making decisions and so on and so forth.

But we also can benefit from continued reflection and awareness of how we are navigating living in a culture that is informed by all kinds of beliefs.

I am a DBT person and I especially love the falliability team agreeement and when I try to actually try to live my life in this way, it's super powerful. Because the point isn't identifying or triangulating the mistake/bias but about what comes next and whether what comes next can be bettered by this awareness/reflection/etc:
Click to expand...
Views of the world, reality, another person, one's self, etc. all can vary with respect to how 'accurate' they are based on reason and evidence. If two (or more) people are engaged in an exploratory process, in good faith, of trying to identify and test their assumptions about these things, then, I mean that's the central task of all psychotherapy (and science), no?

I think the spirit with which this enterprise is entered into (by both parties) is crucial. It may be a personal preference but I think it generally proceeds best if neither party uses language/concepts that may inherently send a message that one party is particularly prone to being biased whereas the other party isn't.

If, in a therapeutic or scientific exchange between two parties, both agree that both are fallible and that the goal is for each one to learn from the other (and, importantly, from some external source of data), then something akin to a logical empirical approach (in science) or a collaborative empirical approach (in cognitive psychotherapy) ensues.

If one side attempts to enter into the exchange with a sense of inherent superiority (e.g., 'YOU're full of biases but I am not') it isn't going to be a productive exchange and it will just end up with both parties accusing the other of being 'the more biased.'

Those who would reflexively label another person's viewpoint a 'bias' should be careful not to slip into the logical fallacy of petitio principii ('begging the question'). If person A puts forth a particular viewpoint/hypothesis about a state-of-affairs and person B simply retorts that this is person A "showing their bias" then this would be 'begging the question' (another way of looking at it would be that this is an example of the cognitive error of 'labeling').
 
Last edited:
summerbabe said:
Wouldn't any potential objective measurement of bias also be.............incredibly biased by design?

In an ideal case scenario, I see the calling out/addressing of bias not like scarlett letter/cancel culture-y but as an opportunity to reflect and be more thoughtful/aware. I know it doesn't work out that way a lot of time, including by people who self-identify as warriors for justice.

My personal perspective is that there's always many degrees of bias always happening. From the person calling it out, the person being called out, the random person just minding their own business in that same space, etc. And that's OK because we are human and bias is fundamental for organzing and categorizing and making decisions and so on and so forth.

But we also can benefit from continued reflection and awareness of how we are navigating living in a culture that is informed by all kinds of beliefs.

I am a DBT person and I especially love the falliability team agreeement and when I try to actually try to live my life in this way, it's super powerful. Because the point isn't identifying or triangulating the mistake/bias but about what comes next and whether what comes next can be bettered by this awareness/reflection/etc:
Click to expand...

So the construct cannot be measured or defined, and it is likely a reflexive construct anyway, but people can make statements about it, without any evidence.
 
WisNeuro said:
I think the telling issue is that the original question is only asked of certain people. Psychology is not overly concerned with bias as an overall construct. They are overly concerned with a specific set of alleged biases.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I'd also add that it's one thing to assert that there are demonstrable 'biases' that can be studied nomothetically (say, in research studies) vs. asserting that a particular individual IS engaging in a bias in a particular context with respect to a particular other individual.

And, last I heard, the whole replication crisis hit the areas of social psychology (in general) and the whole stereotype/bias area pretty hard.

In an individual context, the term 'bias' comes off as a pretty loaded (and unidirectional) insult/accusation rather than as an open invitation to inquiry among equals.
 
Last edited:
I would not hyperfocus on “class“ at the expense of race and other observable indicators of outgroup membership. Class/wealth/status is not the great equalizer that certain people like to think it is. That could also possibly be a tool for certain individuals to justify their own biases. Two people could both be high SES and still get treated very differently. Billionaire celebrity Oprah Winfrey herself has examples of instances where she was blatantly racially discriminated against. Back when Kanye West made sense, he said it best: “Even if you in a Benz, you still a — in a coupe”. I’m sure that applies to other racial/gender/ses/etc groups as well
 
Last edited:
PsyDr said:
So the construct cannot be measured or defined, and it is likely a reflexive construct anyway, but people can make statements about it, without any evidence.
Click to expand...

What they are wanting is something like.... "I am a white, cis-gender, LGBTQIA+, pro-colonial, socio-economically advantaged psychologist who may or may not engage in gaslighting of various minority group members due to my inherent proclivity towards micro-aggressions regarding justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI), because I have internalized homophobia that may or may not influence individuals who may struggle with internalized racism."

How'd I do?

I feel like I need to go to a strip joint after saying that.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
Agreed.

I'd also add that it's one thing to assert that there are demonstrable 'biases' that can be studied nomothetically (say, in research studies) vs. asserting that a particular individual IS engaging in a bias in a particular context with a particular other individual.

And, last I heard, the whole replication crisis hit the areas of social psychology (in general) and the whole prejudice/bias area pretty hard.

In an individual context, the term 'bias' comes off as a pretty loaded (and unidirectional) insult/accusation rather than as an open invitation to inquiry among equals.
Click to expand...

Well, there is the whole debacle that is the IAT, though people still trot that out as the gold standard for some reason. I think most people agree that these things exist, but the empirical literature is pretty terrible in terms of replication, operationalization, etc. And, it's anathema to say that in most settings.
 
texanpsychdoc said:
What they are wanting is something like.... "I am a white, cis-gender, LGBTQIA+, pro-colonial, socio-economically advantaged psychologist who may or may not engage in gaslighting of various minority group members due to my inherent proclivity towards micro-aggressions regarding justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI), because I have internalized homophobia that may or may not influence individuals who may struggle with internalized racism."

How'd I do?

I feel like I need to go to a strip joint after saying that.
Click to expand...
No. I expect intellectual consistency. We're all biased. Doesn't mean we all act on it.
 
texanpsychdoc said:
What they are wanting is something like.... "I am a white, cis-gender, LGBTQIA+, pro-colonial, socio-economically advantaged psychologist who may or may not engage in gaslighting of various minority group members due to my inherent proclivity towards micro-aggressions regarding justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI), because I have internalized homophobia that may or may not influence individuals who may struggle with internalized racism."

How'd I do?

I feel like I need to go to a strip joint after saying that.
Click to expand...
Also, freaking' strawman. C'mon, folks- be better.
 
ClinicalABA said:
No. I expect intellectual consistency. We're all biased. Doesn't mean we all act on it.
Click to expand...

Then some questions I have:

1. Do you think that people haven't realized this before? Are we to assume that people with above average intelligence haven't sat and pondered about maybe how their biases (if they have any) are impacting how they practice? This has only recently became flavor of the month, especially as it coincides with the JEDI movement.

2. How will verbally stating to yourself "hi, my name is Bob, and I am a "fill in the blank bias of your choice" change anything? Are you doing it for yourself or for others? If for others, do you think that is adding significant value to their lives, how they receive you as a provider, etc?
 
texanpsychdoc said:
I will attempt to provide an opinion as to not lean in any one particular direction (i.e. yes we are all biased vs. no we are not). From a neuroscientific perspective, our brains very much process information in various modalities (e.g., parallel processes, nodal distributions) that make it more plausible than not, that such information processing models outline that our brains constantly integrate information, store it, consolidate, re-consolidate, and retrieve information from various sensory inputs, and are computed in such a way that aligns with how that information is maximally processed and used (e.g., cyto-architectural specificity). All of this is to say, that it's also plausible that information is processed in such a way, then it is more implausible that we would be without the ability to retrieve information that varies in sensory modality as well as valence (e.g., strong vs. weak). So, this is where one could integrate the cognitive perspective, especially developmental and social cognition where such valences and sensory modalities will be very context specific, (e.g., being in combat, your wedding day, etc. and how those experiences were integrated from a sensory perspective). So, for example, it would make sense that it is likely that if you are to experience a traumatic situation such as combat, that one is experiencing that event via multiple modalities (e.g., touch, sound, sight, smell, etc.), and are further influenced by neurochemical processes that could enhance that information processing and storage. If one's brain has developed in an adverse environment (e.g., being poor, exposed to poverty, etc.), then their information processes will be relative and specific to them. If certain life experiences activate schemas or "nodes" throughout their life, then it is possible that any information learned from times past will be activated and used to apply to a given novel situation (e.g., top-down process).

Alternatively, we also have various decision-making and bias models proposed by Daniel Kahneman and Elizabeth Loftus that take these perspectives and shape them in a specific way. Loftus's perspectives on erroneous eye witness testimony could be evidence that from a social perspective, our past experiences could skew how we go about our lives and integrate information that is consistent with ones' beliefs and expectations, thus, depending on the nature of a crime that one is being asked to testify in, information gleaned by the eye witness my be skewed from the very beginning and could be mis-construed as being reliable due to how vivid and confident the witness expresses themselves.

So...perhaps bias exists? Maybe. Bias is more of a social and cognitive construct vs. that of a biological one as the available methods of measuring such phenomena are not very unitary to promote optimal construct validity. We can hook people up to do various psychophysical testing, use DTI, fMRI, etc. to look at associations between a behavior and supposed/hypothesized brain activity, but they are just that....hypothesized. That's the best modern science really has to offer at the moment. So, as long as there is a level of uncertainty associated with studying psychological constructs, there were always be questions that cannot be 100% answered, and therefore, are open for speculation.

My brain hurts after typing all of this...
Click to expand...
The evolutionary angle is an interesting observation.

My taste buds being 'biased' to strongly prefer fats, salts, and sweets would not have been a bad idea if I lived 20,000 years ago in a tribe of hunter gatherers on the plains. Today...it's a 'bias' I'd do better without.

I remember there being quite a bit of a stir about some finding that 3 month old babies prefer faces of the 'same race' as being evidence of 'racism' or some other such nonsense. Again, 20,000 years ago there may have been realities afoot that are less relevant today.
 
Last edited:
I'm actually fairly open to these discussions and literature, as I come from a background of rigorous scientific debate and discussion. It's just that there usually exists a double standard to debate and discussion here. You simply cannot criticize the methodology and statistics of these studies without a pejorative thrown out. It can happen, but it's fairly rare. I simply refuse to discuss a topic are in which certain things are held out as exempt from criticism. It's intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.

That being said, I've had some vert good multicultural/bias CE presentations, but they are by far the exception to the rule.
 
WisNeuro said:
I think the telling issue is that the original question is only asked of certain people. Psychology is not overly concerned with bias as an overall construct. They are overly concerned with a specific set of alleged biases.
Click to expand...

What's being conflated in this discussion is cognitive bias, which has a large amount of empirical support, and bias as it relates to discussions of intersectionality. The former is very much the concern of psychology (I can name at least one psychologist who won a Nobel Prize for their research in biases), the latter describes how the term has been co-opted in discussions, which IMO, is structurally probably more of an attitude based on prejudice than a straight-up bias.
 
texanpsychdoc said:
Then some questions I have:

1. Do you think that people haven't realized this before? Are we to assume that people with above average intelligence haven't sat and pondered about maybe how their biases (if they have any) are impacting how they practice? This has only recently became flavor of the month, especially as it coincides with the JEDI movement.

2. How will verbally stating to yourself "hi, my name is Bob, and I am a "fill in the blank bias of your choice" change anything? Are you doing it for yourself or for others? If for others, do you think that is adding significant value to their lives, how they receive you as a provider, etc?
Click to expand...
We are all biased. We are not all racist/discriminatory/etc.

As to question #2, personally- for example- grew up in a time, place, culture where "bosses/supervisors/people in charge were predominantly white males. If you were to say to me, today, think of a boss/person in charge, I'd likely envision a white male. That's bias. I've learned to not act on that bias and not differeentially consider white males as- de facto- more qualified for leadership positions (which would be discrimination), or to consider African Americans- de facto- less qualified for such positions (which would be racism). Nevertheless, my bias is still there (and I am what you'd probably call a very "woke" SOB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top