So the idea is to use your test results to help optimize happiness through overtly racist behavior? This strikes me as a bad idea that could be misapplied widely.
Also, Steven Pinker suggests in Better Angels of Our Nature that rationality/the enlightenment has lead to a decline in racism/nationalism. I buy his argument, and think that it would be a much better to apply rationality toward that end than to use implicit biases to justify or guide behavior. Maybe I’m missing something, but this idea doesn’t seem to fit with this site, which started out as Overcoming Bias, not “justify behavior caused/influenced by implicit biases.”
I think the idea is more that you will realize that you may be irrationally discounting a house based on its neighbors—not that you will concede extra ground to your prejudice.
you will realize that you may be irrationally discounting a house based on its neighbors
This seems like a good example of a rationalist winning to me.
Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted what Imm said above, but I think he was sort of saying the opposite: “The test shows I have a strong implicit bias against [name minority], so I should move to an all-white [or name your in-group here] neighborhood to be happier. In this situation, it seems like you are using knowledge of your bias to increase your irrational discounting of a house or neighborhood.
It was kind of ambiguous. BUT the sort of implicit association that this test measures is the kind that actual exposure would tend to diminish, so there’s not much point in avoiding.
Rationalists should win, and feeling vaguely unhappy as you go about your life but not knowing why is not winning. The point is to overcome bias, not to pretend it isn’t there (and believing one isn’t biased when one is is one of the more pernicious and common biases). Sure, if you have a technique for magically making people not racist then that’s better than a technique for figuring out how racist they are, but in the absence of the former the latter is useful.
if you have a technique for magically making people not racist
Pinker points to some non-magical causes: greater commerce, greater literacy, larger political and military coalitions. Essentially, greater exposure allowing people to view other people as useful (instrumentally in many cases), rational beings. He points to how much progress inter-racial relationships and gay relationships have made in acceptance; it wasn’t due to people moving away from the people they didn’t like. The relevant point is that people don’t feel those biases as strongly any longer.
The point is to overcome bias, not to pretend it isn’t there
I really like the way you put this.
Rationalists should win
I guess I think deliberately acting on implicit racist bias doesn’t seem like a win for a particular rationalist or rationalism generally
We all like to imagine we’re not racist. But knowing how racist one is can help optimize one’s happiness when e.g. choosing where to buy a house.
So the idea is to use your test results to help optimize happiness through overtly racist behavior? This strikes me as a bad idea that could be misapplied widely.
Also, Steven Pinker suggests in Better Angels of Our Nature that rationality/the enlightenment has lead to a decline in racism/nationalism. I buy his argument, and think that it would be a much better to apply rationality toward that end than to use implicit biases to justify or guide behavior. Maybe I’m missing something, but this idea doesn’t seem to fit with this site, which started out as Overcoming Bias, not “justify behavior caused/influenced by implicit biases.”
I think the idea is more that you will realize that you may be irrationally discounting a house based on its neighbors—not that you will concede extra ground to your prejudice.
This seems like a good example of a rationalist winning to me.
Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted what Imm said above, but I think he was sort of saying the opposite: “The test shows I have a strong implicit bias against [name minority], so I should move to an all-white [or name your in-group here] neighborhood to be happier. In this situation, it seems like you are using knowledge of your bias to increase your irrational discounting of a house or neighborhood.
It was kind of ambiguous. BUT the sort of implicit association that this test measures is the kind that actual exposure would tend to diminish, so there’s not much point in avoiding.
Rationalists should win, and feeling vaguely unhappy as you go about your life but not knowing why is not winning. The point is to overcome bias, not to pretend it isn’t there (and believing one isn’t biased when one is is one of the more pernicious and common biases). Sure, if you have a technique for magically making people not racist then that’s better than a technique for figuring out how racist they are, but in the absence of the former the latter is useful.
Pinker points to some non-magical causes: greater commerce, greater literacy, larger political and military coalitions. Essentially, greater exposure allowing people to view other people as useful (instrumentally in many cases), rational beings. He points to how much progress inter-racial relationships and gay relationships have made in acceptance; it wasn’t due to people moving away from the people they didn’t like. The relevant point is that people don’t feel those biases as strongly any longer.
I really like the way you put this.
I guess I think deliberately acting on implicit racist bias doesn’t seem like a win for a particular rationalist or rationalism generally