Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Bias, as I use the term, is not a pejorative. It's just a quality of being human.
.
Started by borne_before
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
I can't remember the last time someone legitimately discussed empirically based cognitive biases in a CE that I have attended.
I don't see bias as pejorative. I was referring to the notion that if you bring up the obvious and glaring methodological/statistical shortcomings of certain research, pejoratives are assigned to you.
D
deleted1129370
So, after saying all that, and let's say you admit to everybody in some public forum.....then what? Should we take a Game of Thrones approach and parade you down a cobble-stone alley?
Alternatively, people would say that by going out to proclaim said biases, that if the function is to provide validation to others who come from marginalized groups, this could be construed as false virtue-signaling. It's like how you see big companies these days rolling out TV commercials that all of a sudden have gay men holding hands and kissing vs. the ads of 5 years ago that showed them bumping fists and pretending to be best buds (those are my favorite...reminds me of my closeted years. Good times).
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I don't know- an b expectation of debate without logical fallacies does not seem out-of-order in a- presumably- academic forum
I can see that you are being clear in expressing what you mean by the term and that's admirable (and helps discussion).
I guess I get tripped up sometimes because the term 'bias' (as in 'implicit bias') has so often been employed to mean MORE than just accuracy/inaccuracy.
Same. I've had terrible experiences in MC discussions--adopting an anti-science/rational perspective is a great way to get me to shut down and stop listening. That said, I've been to enough good ones to re-evaluate my own attitudes in light of new information about their impact on historically marginalized people and I think I'm a better person for it.
You won't find them there, but it doesn't mean they don't exist in cognition as some posters upthread are trying to claim.
Agreed, the MC discussions I've had in the US have been about 95% terrible. Luckily, my job takes me to multiple continents to work, which has been infinitely more illuminating than anything stateside.
I only speak for me in this discussion. As a neuro person, I readily admit to many of the well established cognitive biases.
You are attributing to me things I'm not saying. Researchbsuggests we are all biased (because we're humans). Most of us acknowledge that and try to be decent folk. Many of us are successful, to some degree. Some are not. That's just humanity. Not a woke I interpretation. Bias is not a pejorative. It's just a thing that exist. Introducing the construct of "wokeness" to the debate is obfuscation.So, after saying all that, and let's say you admit to everybody in some public forum.....then what? Should we take a Game of Thrones approach and parade you down a cobble-stone alley?
Alternatively, people would say that by going out to proclaim said biases, that if the function is to provide validation to others who come from marginalized groups, this could be construed as false virtue-signaling. It's like how you see big companies these days rolling out TV commercials that all of a sudden have gay men holding hands and kissing vs. the ads of 5 years ago that showed them bumping fits and pretending to be best buds (those are my favorite...reminds me of my closeted years. Good times).
I am biased. Are you saying you are not?
D
deleted1129370
So, because you admit it, then it confirms your preconceived notion that all people are biased? Therefore if I don't admit it as you did, then I am....ignorant? Interesting.
Research btw (as I outlined above) is varied. We do not know 100% for certain regarding this construct. We have some good ideas about it, lots of good theories, but they are theories and there will always be room for alternative views on the matter. That is the essence of science - it can be falsifiable and possibly refuted.
Last edited by a moderator:
N = 1.5 maybe, but I have to actually hand it to one of my internship faculty who was very traveled, and led many of our MC discussions that year. Something to the international perspective, maybe?
Fundamental attribution error. Outgroup/ingroup bias. Anyone want to present evidence that these aren't real phenomenon?
Probably. I imagine someone has a better perspective on MC issues having been well traveled, vs. most of the people here who have barely left their geographic region lecturing on the issue in a dogmatic way. I've definitely found that people with actual lived/traveled experience have been better at this as well. Unfortuately, this has been the exception rather than the rule.
Yeah- Cohen's d is only, like, equal to .9 or so. Still some room to debate the existence of the effect of bias.
It's not my opinion.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
To be clear, I am very skeptical of the idea that we can validly measure implicit bias, that we have effective interventions to decrease implicit bias, or that implicit bias is as harmful as proponents (e.g., those that make a career through it) of it proclaim. I am fairly certain this is supported in the empirical literature (though debated by many).
Additionally, I am fairly confident that each human being has a broad set of biases that can be harmful or discriminatory against other people due to race/ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation and many other factors.
Do posters on this board disagree with this perspective?
Additionally, I am fairly confident that each human being has a broad set of biases that can be harmful or discriminatory against other people due to race/ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation and many other factors.
Do posters on this board disagree with this perspective?
I am in agreement with you here.
your perspective sounds fine to me, and somewhat reminds me of general philosophy of science ideas. I think most of our constructs can fit into your first paragraph. How about:
"To be clear, I am very skeptical of the idea that we can validly measure
Overall your perspective seems like another dialectic. Also very important to explore I think. Sometimes my students grapple with the realization that their families worked extremely hard AND benefited from the Dawes and Homesteading Acts.
this is a great entry point. confirmation bias. halo effect. fundamental attribution errors. ultimate attribution errors. availability heuristic. false consensus effect. in-group bias. out-group homogeneity effect. illusory correlation....
are these some you admit to? are there others?
Do posters on this board seriously question the existence of these thought patterns?
No.
However, as I stated previously, the assertion that 'biases exist' is no more controversial or contested than the statement "PTSD exists."
The point of contention is always going to be...
In THIS individual does X bias exist or not? And, relatedly, what consensually defined reliable and valid procedures can we utilize to meaningfully make such a determination?
I do not agree that the facts of "person A is of a majority racial/ethnic group" and "person B is of a minority ethnic group" and "person B accuses person A of exhibiting "bias"" are sufficient to establish the presence of bias.
Definitely agree that people are susceptible to those biases, and that all people are susceptible to those biases. How these are measured and substantiated are a different issue.
It's a small point, but I do wonder if prejudice would be better conceptualized as an attitude (e.g., you're not going to educate out the confirmation bias, but you may be able to succeed in changing someone's attitude towards race, for instance, when they are provided with more information).
I was trained from very early on that part of being a psychologist or any scientist for that matter is the recognition of bias and designing experiments to minimize that. I also know that our field has failed at upholding that goal many time. I personally have no problem answering the question as I visit it every day in my practice. I assume people on the extremes of political discourse are simplistic and rigid in their thinking that is one bias. I assume that people from certain cultural backgrounds might have similar values or perspective, that is another bias. I tend to think that my background and experience has led me to values and perspectives that I think are more accurate than others and that is clearly a bias. What is funny is that since I grew up in different countries with widely varying cultures, I have the experience of seeing American culture from an outsiders perspective more than the average person who doesn’t have that experience. I am biased in my thinking that this gives me a “better“ perspective.
I am not a big fan of the more recent trends in this area because it has conflated ideology with the concept of bias so I am biased about that. I also feel more comfortable around people who are similar to me and have to make more of an effort to understand those who are less similar. I also find that this similar vs dissimilar has less to do with race or gender or ethnicity for me than it does with other aspects of people such as being friendly or having a sense of humor that I can connect with or even being way too interested in the field of psychology!
I am not a big fan of the more recent trends in this area because it has conflated ideology with the concept of bias so I am biased about that. I also feel more comfortable around people who are similar to me and have to make more of an effort to understand those who are less similar. I also find that this similar vs dissimilar has less to do with race or gender or ethnicity for me than it does with other aspects of people such as being friendly or having a sense of humor that I can connect with or even being way too interested in the field of psychology!
I know we're shifting more to big picture stuff, but I also really like the Working Alliance Inventory to explore things that I miss with my patients. By the end of therapy, I am more likely to get the fruitful, but hard conversations that are easy to gloss over in the context of a very brief therapy hour. It was what I was terrified to hear as an intern, but I really appreciate now.
From these conversations and consultations/supervision, I struggle with slowing down and checking in for comprehension. I think and talk fast (and miss stuff), so I operate like everyone is moving at my speed. I have to tell myself a little mantra like "it's okay to be still and wait." This is something I really have to think about because a wide variety of people don't process information quickly or in the same manner.
Another exercise I'll do with myself is think about what I think I know about a culture and try to piece together why I think I know that. It's usually based on something I've seen on TV. TV is a very warped way to gain information about a group, especially if they're not the authors of the story. It's where my assumptions will creep in.
If I feel surprised by something my client says, that is another little bodily cue that I have an assumption working in the background. My data scientist is a black woman. Intellectually, I know that data scientists look all sorts of different ways. I still felt surprised. It was a pleasant surprise for me (as another black woman), but a surprise nonetheless. It was a clue to myself that I'd already formed a picture in my mind of what I was expecting and she was not it.
I am compiling a list of my little quirks to regularly check in on to "recalibrate" myself. I'm tired today. I'm more likely to default to fast-talking and jargon. It takes more mental energy to slow down and thoughtfully pick better, more clear language.
From these conversations and consultations/supervision, I struggle with slowing down and checking in for comprehension. I think and talk fast (and miss stuff), so I operate like everyone is moving at my speed. I have to tell myself a little mantra like "it's okay to be still and wait." This is something I really have to think about because a wide variety of people don't process information quickly or in the same manner.
Another exercise I'll do with myself is think about what I think I know about a culture and try to piece together why I think I know that. It's usually based on something I've seen on TV. TV is a very warped way to gain information about a group, especially if they're not the authors of the story. It's where my assumptions will creep in.
If I feel surprised by something my client says, that is another little bodily cue that I have an assumption working in the background. My data scientist is a black woman. Intellectually, I know that data scientists look all sorts of different ways. I still felt surprised. It was a pleasant surprise for me (as another black woman), but a surprise nonetheless. It was a clue to myself that I'd already formed a picture in my mind of what I was expecting and she was not it.
I am compiling a list of my little quirks to regularly check in on to "recalibrate" myself. I'm tired today. I'm more likely to default to fast-talking and jargon. It takes more mental energy to slow down and thoughtfully pick better, more clear language.
Not surprised this got controversial, but not really sure why it would be. I largely agree with ClinicalABA - we all have biases. Its not "bad" per se. Many are evolutionarily adaptive and simply necessary to function in the world (speaking largely of cognitive biases here). Failure to even try and recognize/monitor and adjust for them can lead to a world of problems for yourself and those around you. This is true of biases RE: race/sex/etc. Its also true of biases RE: politically innocuous things ("That study is never going to work!" to pick a work example most of us are likely familiar with).
Agree with whoever above, it is largely a mindfulness/meta-cognitive practice. For me, it unfortunately still entails a very healthy amount of work on the back-end. Many times I don't even recognize I've made an assumption until something proves that assumption incorrect. I try to reflect back and learn from the experience when it happens. In the hustle & bustle of day-to-day life, sometimes I fail even to do that and it slips by largely unacknowledged.
I don't think I'm particularly good or bad at this. I suspect I'm fairly normative and fall somewhere in the meaty part of the bell curve. I try to be self-aware but fail frequently. Much of the time it seems like I'm just trying to keep my head above water and monitoring biases/deep reflection on experiences is an easy thing to let go. Sometimes its fine, sometimes it isn't.
I don't practice clinically anymore, but when I did I tried to remain more attuned to this in clinical contexts. The stakes are a bit higher and I view it as part of my job. Much the same way that remaining aware of and accounting for the bias that my hypothesis about xyz must be right is part of my job when I have my scientist hat on. Clinical consultation groups can be helpful, but they have to be good consultation groups. Most I've been involved with were not. Ideally I'd journal each night about anything I "caught" myself on to help process and consolidate the memory. Since my kiddo was born, my night time journaling routine has turned into collapsing into bed exhausted. Wish I had resources to point to.
Agree with whoever above, it is largely a mindfulness/meta-cognitive practice. For me, it unfortunately still entails a very healthy amount of work on the back-end. Many times I don't even recognize I've made an assumption until something proves that assumption incorrect. I try to reflect back and learn from the experience when it happens. In the hustle & bustle of day-to-day life, sometimes I fail even to do that and it slips by largely unacknowledged.
I don't think I'm particularly good or bad at this. I suspect I'm fairly normative and fall somewhere in the meaty part of the bell curve. I try to be self-aware but fail frequently. Much of the time it seems like I'm just trying to keep my head above water and monitoring biases/deep reflection on experiences is an easy thing to let go. Sometimes its fine, sometimes it isn't.
I don't practice clinically anymore, but when I did I tried to remain more attuned to this in clinical contexts. The stakes are a bit higher and I view it as part of my job. Much the same way that remaining aware of and accounting for the bias that my hypothesis about xyz must be right is part of my job when I have my scientist hat on. Clinical consultation groups can be helpful, but they have to be good consultation groups. Most I've been involved with were not. Ideally I'd journal each night about anything I "caught" myself on to help process and consolidate the memory. Since my kiddo was born, my night time journaling routine has turned into collapsing into bed exhausted. Wish I had resources to point to.
I think the highlighted portion is where we may be arguing about different things. Assuming you mean the standard definition of "preconceived" (i.e., arrived at without evidence for it's existence/non-existence"), I believe you have misconstrued my position here. The social cognition literature (at least that which I was exposed to during my training), provides some pretty good evidence for the existence of biased decision making in humans. Of course there are issues with sampling, validity, definitions of constructs, etc. that come into play with all research, but- on the whole- there's a lot of research suggesting that we don't always make decisions based purely on facts, and that the non-facts we add-in are, to some extent, based on things like our own own experiences and own cultural/geographic/racial/sexual/etc. identities. I was really not aware that that is a controversial statement. It seems like you are trying to accuse me of or bait me into some other discussion related to discrimination, inequality, etc. While those things are very much related to the topic of bias, that's not what I was talking about. The question was raised as to why the OP's therapist assumed they had bias. I (and many others), presumably drawing on our education and training regarding human decision making processes, responded to that question by suggesting that it's a safe assumption that membership in our species alone is sufficient evidence that of biased decision making. For most of us, most of the time, that works out ok for us those around us. It's a useful (if not necessary) shortcut for getting on with our lives. Sometimes, however, our biases can lead to decisions that are problematic for ourselves, our clients, and others around us. I think that's a pretty reasonable, evidence-based response to that question. All that said, I am biased towards empiricism and logical consistency. There are others ways of knowing and arguing.
I concede that many constructs, to a degree, can somewhat fit into that statement. The important aspect is the degree and utility. For example:
I am not skeptical about effective interventions for BPD (and many other disorders), and nearly all disorders, by the nature of being a disorder, are indeed harmful (e.g., affect functioning enough to be considered a disorder).
Many constructs in psychology are difficult to measure validly and disorders are on top of the list. However, disorders, per the DSM, are not designed to be valid constructs (only reliable). However, many other constructs are indeed high in validity, such as intelligence. More importantly, many of the other biases identified by psychology can be (more) validly measured.
Constructs low in validity (e.g., disorders) have a great deal of utility. Sure the personality disorders, as an example, are a validity mess but their utility is high because they attempt to create reliable categories to discuss a set of problematic behaviors to provide help for individuals experiencing these problems. Due to the three domains I identified, I do not see high utility of implicit bias. I can be more comfortable with lower validity if the interventions were effective or if the construct was anywhere close to harmful as disorders.
How about general in-group/out-group biases? Would you not say that almost every person is walking around with these biases?
Completely agreed. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously that would agree with that statement.
confirmation bias. halo effect. fundamental attribution errors. ultimate attribution errors. availability heuristic. false consensus effect. in-group bias. out-group homogeneity effect. illusory correlation....
Do posters on this board seriously question the existence of these thought patterns? @DynamicDidactic @Fan_of_Meehl
Do posters on this board seriously question the existence of these thought patterns? @DynamicDidactic @Fan_of_Meehl
Yes. But, honestly, there's a reason we have the word/concept of 'truism,' lol.
Of course we all have tendencies toward in-group/out-group biases. And it makes sense to try to construct policies/procedures in a reasonable attempt to avoid their undue influence, e.g., having a policy for 'blind' peer review of a submitted manuscript (and multiple reviewers); by having someone from 'the public' on a state board of psychology, for example; or asking a colleague or two for input on a challenging case.
I guess the Devil is always in the details and in the attempted labeling of a particular person's opinion or actions as 'biased,' per se. I think the better tone to set is one of respectful inquiry where neither party inherently presumes a morally superior attitude or posture. A Socratic and collaborative approach, if you will. Unfortunately, for some people, using the term/concept of 'bias' (or seeing it as their perogative to 'point out' others' presumed 'biases') can distort the process into a more accusatory one that promotes defenses of one's position and this actually interferes with a process of getting more and more successful approximations of reality.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I see progress!
yes, the general public has a different meaning for the word bias then psychologists. Though, on this forum I hope we are all understanding that term accurately.
I see clarity!
Outside a possible one or two, I don't believe that the issue is whether or not some of these things exist, especially from a theoretical perspective. I think the disagreement is how these things are measured and how the terms are used in real world settings, most often in a pejorative sense, and fairly selectively.
I think another point I try to make is that it's all the real world. Yes, even SDN. This is it. Let's make it how we want it.
perhaps a topic for another thread...
I guess a better term would be theoretical/scientific settings vs. practical applications. It's all the "real" world, but there are many steps before something in that theoretical realm becomes useful and/or effective in a practical sense.
And also taking account of proportion of settings/encounters.
So, I took what you meant by 'real world settings' to mean (and imply) the vast majority (98%+?) of these conversations are taking place outside the 1-2% of contexts where people are applying doctoral/professional level frameworks and technically accurate definitions of terms.
There are far more business majors talking to HR people (and making policy with them) about these things than PhD-researcher-to-PhD-Researcher interactions.
@borne_before I feel like the thread went off course from your original question. Sorry.
clarity and progress, imo!
and sounds like general philosophy of science again...I agree, there are many steps from theory to practice.
I told someone the other day that my biggest prejudice was against dogwalkers. Specifically, “I hate all dog walkers”. I further elaborated that it was because they don’t clean up after their dogs and leave smelly dog poop at my home and my place of business. She responded with, “but not all dogwalkers are irresponsible”. I told her she clearly didn’t understand what prejudice is.
I would hesitate to use any humor like that around this topic when asked about my biases in a job interview and would obviously focus on the answer that the other wanted to hear about race and gender. At least they didn’t ask about “privilege”, that is a term that I have biases about that make it hard for me to have an objective dialogue and one of my preconceived notions is that the person using the term privilege has a lot of biases that they are unaware of and see as justified or “true” and that we are going to have a tough time communicating.
I would hesitate to use any humor like that around this topic when asked about my biases in a job interview and would obviously focus on the answer that the other wanted to hear about race and gender. At least they didn’t ask about “privilege”, that is a term that I have biases about that make it hard for me to have an objective dialogue and one of my preconceived notions is that the person using the term privilege has a lot of biases that they are unaware of and see as justified or “true” and that we are going to have a tough time communicating.
I really hate this place.
Sounds like a bias. 😉
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I seriously believe that it is impossible to determine the nature of these thought processes, in others, based upon observation of physical features. Therefore, I believe it is inappropriate to claim to know the existence of these thought processes in others.
If these biases were universally present in others, the market applications would be the biggest finding in modern history. Similarly, the presumption of bias would end the entire forensic field.
