I often joke that my academic research in women's history is ridiculously easy, because unconscious bias has caused others to overlook facts which are easy to find in primary sources. I don't need to ferret out new and unexamined sources I just use what's always been readily available and easily accessible.
Over twenty years ago, as a mum with a history degree, I offered to write a centenary history of my children's primary school. It's a bog standard state primary, originally serving a catchment area dominated by railway workers.
The first surprise was that in 1900, one of the teachers took leave of absence to attend the International Socialist Congress in Paris, possibly as a delegate on the education committee. I tried to research her in secondary sources. She appeared only as a footnote to her husband, who became an M.P. in 1921. Apparently her own political efforts were purely as "helpmeet" to her husband, despite the fact that she had been politically active for a decade prior to their marriage.
She died in 1917 - had she lived I assume she would have stood for Parliament. There are no shortage of primary sources - newspaper reports, School Board records, census returns, etc. but somehow she had elided notice.
(I'm reluctant to name her here because googling her will throw up my RL name but PM me if you are interested.)
The second surprise was that the retirement presentation to the first headmaster was chaired by someone described as one of Aberdeen's most senior headteachers - Mrs X. Checked the secondary sources which all said that married women didn't have significant teaching careers in Victorian times. Checked the census returns - definitely married. Headteacher of a 1,000 pupil mixed sex school. Author of a series of textbooks. Fellow of the E.I.S. and a member of the E.I.S. General Committee. Noted public speaker. Highly paid. Literally dozens of mentions in the newspapers of the day, sometimes quoting her speeches in full. Literally hundreds of primary sources available.
And yet perfectly competent historians (*cough* Tom Devine *cough*) had used the same resources and failed to spot her, or any other woman like her and wrote that women didn't have significant teaching careers and could not become head teachers in Victorian Scotland. (He's since amended that statement).
If a secondary source states that something didn't happen, it doesn't encourage research into the primary sources. I was just lucky that I started with primary sources.
The problem for women in the C20th was that this deprived them of role models. I have seen many C20th women described as "ground breaking" who had no doubt fought the challenges associated with being "ground-breaking" without knowing that women had already been there and successfully done that. Women have had to continually "re-invent the wheel."
Including more women in e.g. school history syllabuses isn't a "politically correct" thing to do, it's just making the syllabus more historically accurate. It's just removing the unconscious bias which has caused researchers to fail to see the obvious.
It’s interesting that this thread has thus far been all about the unconscious biases of white men. Are we the only demographic group that has them?
If we're discussing bias, shall I point out that most posters have not discussed someone else besides themselves having bias. You may be assuming they are talking about white males having the bias but most people have not specified.
I mean...if people own their own stuff...I can own my own bias. I'm a white guy. I can't really own anyone else's.
I do suspect that a lot of PoC are also biased, but then you wander into "get the log out of your own eye" territory.
As a general rule, I tread more lightly as I step further away from my own experience.
Anecdotally, I'm reminded of a friend of mine who commented at how our black neighbor was talking all kinds of crap about black people he grew up with. We might say the guy was kinda racist, but in a sense, it's his business to talk about his people who, in a certain sense, aren't my people.
I think we're all kinda mired in an institutional racism, but I try focus on whittling down my own log.
I think it was Mary Beard who said that she was inspired by a female lecturer who arrived with a stick with 28 cuts on it and said that this was assumed to be the earliest example of man using a calendar. And that this was quite clearly wrong because it was obviously the first example of woman using a calendar!
(My current research is looking at a disadvantaged group; online students with mental health challenges. One of the main pieces of research in my literature review is a qualitative research study into the barriers they face. It chose a methodology which explored the lived experience of these students with the aim to give them voice and agency. But the main recommendation is that academics need to talk about how these students can be supported - no hint that you actually might ask the students what they want 🙄)
Over the years I have given many talks at WRIs and Guild meetings on the topic "Victorian schoolteachers" and I always start by asking what mental picture people have of Victorian schoolmistresses. Inevitably, everyone will "know" that they were spinsters. But in fact, in Scotland at any rate, the Marriage Bar was introduced after the First World War to create jobs for returning servicemen. Teaching was seen as an ideal career for an educated man whose pre-war career had been ended by war injury.
The non-availability of contraception meant that marriage was career ending for most women prior to that, but there was no requirement to resign on marriage. In fact, schools run by the Episcopalian Church in Scotland preferred to employ married women.
Also, female teachers who married teachers / head teachers tended to do supply work for their husband's school, to cover for staff absences, and also taught night classes. I can't quantify how much they did, and I don't know whether a day's supply teaching was dreaded or enjoyed (presumably it varied from woman to woman) but married women teachers were a feature of Victorian classrooms.
And yet, nowadays, everyone "knows" that Victorian female teachers were spinsters. And this "fact" has had an impact on the generation of married women teachers who thought they were "ground-breaking" after the Marriage Bar was lifted.
...and this is why I love "Real People" history, as opposed to monarchs and politicians. I can't claim to have found anything this exciting (TBH, as a bloke, I'd probably have only researched women teachers if I found one in the family with an interesting story to hang a handle on), but you simply cannot beat finding stuff that makes a difference to people you can relate to.
That is so interesting NEQ. All of your research reporting on the subject
I am reminded about a piece of reported history which slides as a tangent across that, but can't at the moment recall where or how I met it.
It concerned someone coming across a book about or by James Croll of Glasgow, whose work on glaciations was initially overlooked because he worked as a school janitor - there has been a flutter of publicity about him in recent years, as, like Gideon Mantell in Sussex, and William Smith who did the first geological map of Britain (not the BB founder, if Glasgow is still in your mind), the bias of scientific societies was against people of their class.
The unconscious bias in the report I read was in the account of the book. It was awarded as a school prize (I think in Edinburgh) to a girl, in a girls' school, as her choice for the English prize either at the end of the 19th century, or beginning of the 20th. I felt, and in fact wrote to the publisher about this, that ignoring this was applying bias to hide something very interesting about what was going on with girls and schools at the time.
I am reminded about a piece of reported history which slides as a tangent across that, but can't at the moment recall where or how I met it.
It concerned someone coming across a book about or by James Croll of Glasgow, whose work on glaciations was initially overlooked because he worked as a school janitor - there has been a flutter of publicity about him in recent years, as, like Gideon Mantell in Sussex, and William Smith who did the first geological map of Britain (not the BB founder, if Glasgow is still in your mind), the bias of scientific societies was against people of their class.
I wonder whether that's really about bias (at least in the pejorative sense that seems to undergird this thread.) It sounds more like, e.g., Gregor Mendel, who was ignored in his own lifetime by other biologists. The reason was that he published his work in a very minor journal and virtually no-one read it. It was only when his results were rediscovered (by three separate researchers) in the early 19th century that his original paper was also rediscovered. Mendel was then given full credit for the work by people in his field.
The only sense that Mendel's story exhibits bias is in the sense that professionals preferentially read major journals over the myriad minor publications that exist in any given field. Today, computer searches may help lift these kinds of papers out of obscurity. But it strikes me as an odd use of the term to call this kind of slight "bias."
I, too, very much enjoyed the recent post from North East Quine.
The reference to gender roles and education reminds me of the 'Red' Duchess of Atholl who inherited the Parliamentary constituency of Kinross and West Perthshire from her husband on his translation to the Lords. When she was a member of Perthshire's education authority and meetings went on longer than anticipated the departure of the train from Perth to Blair Atholl would be delayed until after her arrival at the station. I think class came into the equation somewhere.
It was only when his results were rediscovered (by three separate researchers) in the early 19th century that his original paper was also rediscovered.
Sorry. That should be early 20th century, of course.
Yes. Everyone knows that big geographical barriers promote speciation. Fewer people know that small physical and behavioural barriers do so too. If a bird's plumage isn't quite right, it can't find a mate. If its song or dance aren't quite right, it can't find a mate.
My guess is all living things act on unconscious biases, and this has been one of the main drivers of evolution. In other words, it's a good and creative force.
White people are biased toward white people, and black toward black? Welcome to Biology 101. Assuming international travel breaks down, and given a few hundred thousand years, we'll end up with at least three distinct species of human. Diversity is good, right?
Unconscious bias is a good thing on a small scale too. Our choice of spouse is informed by bias. (Bob is attracted to Sally, but can't quite say why.) Bias helps inform our choice of friends, career, politics, religion, and leisure activities.
Unconscious bias means we know far more than we know we know.
And now we have all these do-good interferers who want to fiddle with this ancient and universal mechanism, to make the world a better place.
Well, you could only quote the very beginning of what I said to support what you've just said. But it appears you're just being obstinate, and I'm not really interested in engaging that.
Sons are buggers like that. I was walking up to my straight off the street front door when footsteps behind me turned in to a run. I positioned my arms to act as counterbalanced pendulums to smash the nose of whoever it was for a start when they said 'Dad!'.
You mean my reference to 'babbling' didn't give you a warm homey feeling?
The reference to babbling made me smile. The sentence before it did not.
If you're not complaining about the style of argument, then why bring it up?
You forgot to use the word "because".
My points were humorous errors because...
"teenage know-it-all skepticism" is not an argument.
I note that you do not actually mention my analogy about brains in vats.
I didn't see the relevance.
trying to run two arguments:
one, that studies showing the existence of unconscious bias may themselves be biased (on a priori grounds) and can therefore be dismissed - that's a universal skeptical solvent argument
Like all studies, bias studies are biased. It's perfectly reasonable to point this out, especially when it's clear the theory has become a sacred cow and a political tool. Perhaps true believers spend hours contemplating the insidious bias that lurks within their theory, but I doubt it.
that bias is natural and evolved and therefore biased judgements are perfectly proper.
All judgements are biased to some degree. Bias drives evolution. Attempts to fiddle with this simply introduce other biases that, being contrived, may well be more harmful than the first. The Harvard admissions scandal springs to mind.
I think we should stop speculating about unconscious motives that are quite beyond our knowledge and control. Instead, we should strengthen the conscious will by loving God and neighbour.
I think we should stop speculating about unconscious motives that are quite beyond our knowledge and control.
But this is nonsense. You can, with work, identify your biases. And if you can identify them, you can overcome them. I gave an example of one of mine early in the thread.
The study showed, across all demographics, that Americans were generally quicker to recognize the gun if they'd been shown a Black man's face than if they were shown a white man's face.
I note you capitalise Black, but not white. That's racist.
Your woke indoctrination has substituted one bias with another. Before, your alleged racism was unconscious. Now, your racism is overt. Before, you resisted racist bias. Now you are proud to declare it.
Regarding that study, non-black Americans are wary of random black strangers, not because they're racist, but because they know blacks are significantly more likely to commit violent crimes than any other racial group.
What are the chances that blacks also react negatively to black faces?
I think we should stop speculating about unconscious motives that are quite beyond our knowledge and control.
But this is nonsense. You can, with work, identify your biases. And if you can identify them, you can overcome them. I gave an example of one of mine early in the thread.
What percentage of your unconscious biases have you unearthed?
Have you unearthed the really, really bad ones?
Have you actually fixed some bad biases, or are you unconsciously deluding yourself?
You have absolutely no idea.
Is it possible you are replacing one set of biases with a worse set?
White people are biased toward white people, and black toward black? Welcome to Biology 101.
While there probably is an innate tendency to favor one's own in-group, there's no evidence that skin color was a significant factor in in-group identification until the transatlantic slave trade made it economically relevant.
Stay near the campfire, be wary of the people in the next valley, they may hurt or kill you. I suspect we're all descended from people who instilled such attitudes for hundreds of generations, and those who did not listen have left few descendants themselves.
Our bodies also evolved in a situation of "the next meal may be days away; gorge yourself now, especially on fat and high-sugar foods." Yet many people can overcome this.
I have some doubts, to be honest, about how much most training can do to reform the human heart. I mean, there's basic awareness, which is good and useful if they don't have it already. But you always hear in the news about a company promising "sensitivity training" or what have you after a spectacularly ugly act of racism that was clearly done by someone who knew exactly what they were doing and didn't give a shit. I doubt any training will help with that--unless it's the 10 minute kind that says "Behavior of type X will get you fired so fast you'll smell something burning."
The study showed, across all demographics, that Americans were generally quicker to recognize the gun if they'd been shown a Black man's face than if they were shown a white man's face.
I note you capitalise Black, but not white. That's racist.
Your woke indoctrination has substituted one bias with another. Before, your alleged racism was unconscious. Now, your racism is overt. Before, you resisted racist bias. Now you are proud to declare it.
Regarding that study, non-black Americans are wary of random black strangers, not because they're racist, but because they know blacks are significantly more likely to commit violent crimes than any other racial group.
What are the chances that blacks also react negatively to black faces?
It’s interesting that this thread has thus far been all about the unconscious biases of white men. Are we the only demographic group that has them?
If we're discussing bias, shall I point out that most posters have not discussed someone else besides themselves having bias. You may be assuming they are talking about white males having the bias but most people have not specified.
I happened to hear part of an interesting discussion on the radio last week where a black woman was talking about the biases they had growing up in a black community.
I think we should stop speculating about unconscious motives that are quite beyond our knowledge and control. Instead, we should strengthen the conscious will by loving God and neighbour.
And how do we really love our neighbor if we’re not willing to examine the biases we may have against them?
I think we should stop speculating about unconscious motives that are quite beyond our knowledge and control. Instead, we should strengthen the conscious will by loving God and neighbour.
And how do we really love our neighbor if we’re not willing to examine the biases we may have against them?
A case of trying to love our neighbour while failing to examine our biases which we used in Primary Ed. - the well-meaning comment regarding sports day that it "gives the Black boys a chance to shine". Quite apart from the assumption of athletic prowess that any individual may or may not have, there's also the assumption that the Black boys won't be doing well academically - which has the potential to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Have you actually fixed some bad biases, or are you unconsciously deluding yourself?
Yes. I spoke earlier about my reaction to certain black faces. That's a bad bias - it made me unfairly look with disfavour on people that had those facial features. I am now able to consciously override my instinctive response. So, to a significant extent, I consider that bias "fixed". I don't know if my brain will ever reprogram itself so that the instinctive response doesn't happen in these cases. It would be good if it did, but I've successfully neutered this particular bias.
Have you unearthed the really, really bad ones?
You have absolutely no idea.
Again, this just isn't true. You are "arguing" by assertion, and your assertions are simply false. Biases can be statistically testable. Here's an example: I have enough female colleagues at various levels of seniority that I am able to form a statistically relevant sample of my interactions with male and female colleagues, to see if there's any evidence that I have a bias about their competence. This is something I have actually done (albeit informally) and have concluded that I don't have a bias about the competence of my colleagues related to their gender. I'm not surprised by this: I was fortunate to grow up surrounded by smart, competent women, which is likely to have largely defused any bias I might have inherited from the general sexism in society.
And if I haven't - so what? "You can't fix all your problems, so there's no point in fixing any of them" is a really stupid argument.
Although a common one - e.g. "you can't eliminate all distractions when driving so using a mobile phone at the wheel shouldn't be illegal", advanced some years ago on the old vessel in Hell.
Although a common one - e.g. "you can't eliminate all distractions when driving so using a mobile phone at the wheel shouldn't be illegal", advanced some years ago on the old vessel in Hell.
Although using a phone whilst driving is a cost-benefit tradeoff. There's no benefit to my being biased against particular black people. I don't gain anything at all from it - it's a cost to me and it's a cost to them.
White people are biased toward white people, and black toward black? Welcome to Biology 101.
While there probably is an innate tendency to favor one's own in-group, there's no evidence that skin color was a significant factor in in-group identification until the transatlantic slave trade made it economically relevant.
This is true. I actually heard about this just yesterday, in a rather different context about how people interpret a passage in Ephesians 2 (the BibleProject podcast strikes again). Conceptions of groups used to be much more about culture and practice.
EDIT: More recently I've heard various suggestions about how we are now getting to Politics 101: Democrats are biased towards Democrats and Republicans are biased towards Republicans. Though on yet another podcast a researcher suggested that actually the greater division is between people who constantly talk about politics (akin to following sporting teams) and people who sit at the dinner table wishing X would shut the fuck up about politics.
Though on yet another podcast a researcher suggested that actually the greater division is between people who constantly talk about politics (akin to following sporting teams) and people who sit at the dinner table wishing X would shut the fuck up about politics.
In my experience, one can belong to both groups at the same time.
And how do we really love our neighbor if we’re not willing to examine the biases we may have against them?
Jesus told us to do as we would be done by. He didn't tell us to unearth unconscious bias.
Do I like freedom? Then let others be free. That's the end of slavery, right there.
The reason slavery continued wasn't that people had problems with all their unconscious stuff. Their decision to love money more than their neighbour was the real problem, and it was quite conscious.
And how do we really love our neighbor if we’re not willing to examine the biases we may have against them?
Jesus told us to do as we would be done by. He didn't tell us to unearth unconscious bias.
Do I like freedom? Then let others be free. That's the end of slavery, right there.
If I believe that in Christ all are one irrespective of gender or race, but the evidence shows that in my employment decisions I consistently favour white male candidates over other races, genders or ethnicities then I need to do something about it. I need to treat everyone as fairly as I would wish to be treated.
The evidence is strong for the existence of bias. It is clear, I think, even in those who wish and claim to be unbiased. That strongly suggests that unconscious bias is real. There is controversy about whether unconscious bias training is actually effective. But there are other ways of addressing it such as removing race or gender information from applications where that can reasonably be done.
Richard Feynman (Nobel-winning physicist) who died over 30 years ago was shown an application form for the university of which he was newly a professor. He said it was a good candidate, they should accept him. He was asked if he wanted to see a photograph. ‘What possible difference could that make?’ he responded. His colleague had been testing him for bias on the basis of race. He simply declined to engage with information that would enable race to be a factor.
Since the existence of bias, and most probably unconscious bias as well, is clearly demonstrable, it seems to me that, if we are going to do as we would be done by, we need to do what we can to eliminate it and/or to overcome its effects.
Including:
37. “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
I don't know how much I still have about who or what, but I have been surprised on a couple of occasions by my reactions to people of colour in places I wouldn't expect.
I'd spent plenty of time in and around Brixton, where it is usual to see the streets full of multicultural peoples going about their normal business. I don't know when I first saw non-white people in everyday life. (There were a couple of African students at college, but they were not in my year and were kept away from us by residing in a convent up the road, so they were marked as unusual.)
So, I was walking through the quiet Cotswold town of Cirencester when round the corner came a large black USAF sergeant, and I had an inward reaction I didn't like. As he got closer, it turned out he was walking beside a smaller white USAF officer. I'm still not sure if it was the American-ness or the blackness that caused that reaction. (I had once been glared at in a layby in Yorkshire by a jeepload of USAF security types*, which might have triggered the reaction to the guys from Fairford.)
And then, I was watching the TV and a surgeon was brought on to discuss some issue, and she was black, and I had a reaction again. Just for a moment, we don't have black women surgeons. And I didn't like myself for it.
I hope I've dealt with those biases - but I don't know if there are any others.
*Can't remember the colour, can remember feeling offended "This land is my land, it isn't your land, and I wanted a Roman road you've built your unmapped base on."
Do I need to quote Secretary Rumsfeld on "unknown unknowns" to you?
Almost all actions performed by my body are automatic. The few authentic decisions I've made have been strongly influenced by biology and by socialisation. It's my belief that the factors that bring me to choose A instead of B are complex beyond imagining. I have as much chance of understanding myself as a frog has of understanding a frog, and so I see no point trying.
Jesus doesn't exhort us to understand ourselves, or to unearth the hidden mysteries of the subconscious. Instead, he tells us to obey his commands. As we attempt the difficult task of obedience, God will fix our secret selves in his own good time.
You react to certain faces? "Love your neighbour" is all you need to know. "Blessed are the merciful" provides us with more than enough motivation to treat others with fair-minded kindness. Speculation about the unconscious adds nothing.
... a bias about the competence of my colleagues related to their gender.
Why not ask, "Am I treating my staff fairly?"
"You can't fix all your problems, so there's no point in fixing any of them" is a really stupid argument.
Do I need to quote Secretary Rumsfeld on "unknown unknowns" to you?
Almost all actions performed by my body are automatic. The few authentic decisions I've made have been strongly influenced by biology and by socialisation. It's my belief that the factors that bring me to choose A instead of B are complex beyond imagining. I have as much chance of understanding myself as a frog has of understanding a frog, and so I see no point trying.
Jesus doesn't exhort us to understand ourselves, or to unearth the hidden mysteries of the subconscious. Instead, he tells us to obey his commands. As we attempt the difficult task of obedience, God will fix our secret selves in his own good time.
You react to certain faces? "Love your neighbour" is all you need to know. "Blessed are the merciful" provides us with more than enough motivation to treat others with fair-minded kindness. Speculation about the unconscious adds nothing.
... a bias about the competence of my colleagues related to their gender.
Why not ask, "Am I treating my staff fairly?"
"You can't fix all your problems, so there's no point in fixing any of them" is a really stupid argument.
It's equally stupid to fix the wrong problem.
Wow, do you actually believe what you've written here?
Wow, do you actually believe what you've written here?
Which bits do you disagree with? No insults, please. Some arguments would be helpful.
The whole point of unconscious bias is that it’s unconscious. So you might earnestly and honestly believe you’re loving your neighbour or treating your staff fairly, but not actually be doing so because of biases you’re not even aware you have.
Do I need to quote Secretary Rumsfeld on "unknown unknowns" to you?
Almost all actions performed by my body are automatic. The few authentic decisions I've made have been strongly influenced by biology and by socialisation. It's my belief that the factors that bring me to choose A instead of B are complex beyond imagining. I have as much chance of understanding myself as a frog has of understanding a frog, and so I see no point trying.
Jesus doesn't exhort us to understand ourselves, or to unearth the hidden mysteries of the subconscious. Instead, he tells us to obey his commands. As we attempt the difficult task of obedience, God will fix our secret selves in his own good time.
You react to certain faces? "Love your neighbour" is all you need to know. "Blessed are the merciful" provides us with more than enough motivation to treat others with fair-minded kindness. Speculation about the unconscious adds nothing.
... a bias about the competence of my colleagues related to their gender.
Why not ask, "Am I treating my staff fairly?"
"You can't fix all your problems, so there's no point in fixing any of them" is a really stupid argument.
It's equally stupid to fix the wrong problem.
Wow, do you actually believe what you've written here?
Wow, do you actually believe what you've written here?
Which bits do you disagree with? No insults, please. Some arguments would be helpful.
I'll take that as a "yes" then.
So, you state categorically that obeying the commandment to Love one's neighbour is of paramount importance. Straightforward Christology there and no arguments here.
The problem comes with "all you need to know." That's wrong. In fact it's silly. Let me give you a really simple example from my life. A very good friend of mine has significant mental health issues and PTSD from childhood trauma. I think loving her as Christ does is really important, not least because she really struggles to love herself. I know her really well and know that she is in great need of physical contact with other human persons. So hugging is really important.
But, I also know that as a result of her childhood trauma - sexual abuse in this case, she struggles with men with beards. I happen to be a man with a beard. So should I hug her?
Now, to short cut this I know the answer, I know what she needs from me. But I can only obey Jesus' commandment to love her by knowing how to do so. There's a lot more to know than what the commandment is in order to be able to follow it.
No unconscious issues here, of course, but, but there's a lot to know.
So, coming back to unconscious bias: if it is a real phenomenon found in humans, (spoiler alert: it is! (I discussed this previously) and if I am a human (debatable but I am) then it is something I am susceptible to. Therefore, it is possible (likely?) that my unconscious biases will impede me from loving my neighbour. If I am serious about obeying Jesus' instruction, then I must examine myself and be prepared to be humble enough to admit that I might have subtle prejudices that I need to address as they stop me from loving my neighbour.
Or you could down a different line of theological thought. You imply that we simply choose to obey and it's that easy. The apostle Paul clearly disagreed (see Romans 7:15). Paul describes a bias towards sin. You could argue (and I would) that an unconscious bias that leads us to discrimination behaviours is another manifestation of our sinful nature; because it means I am not loving my neighbour as myself. If you aren't prepared to examine yourself, you can maintain a blissful ignorance of this sin. As John Newton wrote;(almost certainly drawing on Paul's theology in this section of Romans) "it's grace that taught my heart to fear..." because it's God's grace, expressed in the perfect law that shows us our sin.
I cannot love my neighbour as I ought is my unconscious bias makes me prejudicial. If I am serious about following Jesus and obeying his command then I must examine myself and seek to change that which makes me fall short. If I choose to ensure that I am ignorant of my failings, I have no hope of obeying.
Overly simplistic theologies almost always lead to this kind of error.
And how do we really love our neighbor if we’re not willing to examine the biases we may have against them?
Jesus told us to do as we would be done by. He didn't tell us to unearth unconscious bias.
As others have pointed out, this is patently incorrect.
I’m frankly astonished at the suggestion that because a bias is unconscious, it must remain unconscious and cannot become known. Aside from being detached from reality, that idea seems squarely at odds with such big-standard Christian practices as examination of conscience.
Comments
That’s really interesting @North East Quine.
(sorry - it's late here and I'm tired, but I wanted to flag this particularly).
That was such a very interesting post about the history of the Primary school and about the married Secondary school head.
If we're discussing bias, shall I point out that most posters have not discussed someone else besides themselves having bias. You may be assuming they are talking about white males having the bias but most people have not specified.
I do suspect that a lot of PoC are also biased, but then you wander into "get the log out of your own eye" territory.
As a general rule, I tread more lightly as I step further away from my own experience.
Anecdotally, I'm reminded of a friend of mine who commented at how our black neighbor was talking all kinds of crap about black people he grew up with. We might say the guy was kinda racist, but in a sense, it's his business to talk about his people who, in a certain sense, aren't my people.
I think we're all kinda mired in an institutional racism, but I try focus on whittling down my own log.
(My current research is looking at a disadvantaged group; online students with mental health challenges. One of the main pieces of research in my literature review is a qualitative research study into the barriers they face. It chose a methodology which explored the lived experience of these students with the aim to give them voice and agency. But the main recommendation is that academics need to talk about how these students can be supported - no hint that you actually might ask the students what they want 🙄)
Over the years I have given many talks at WRIs and Guild meetings on the topic "Victorian schoolteachers" and I always start by asking what mental picture people have of Victorian schoolmistresses. Inevitably, everyone will "know" that they were spinsters. But in fact, in Scotland at any rate, the Marriage Bar was introduced after the First World War to create jobs for returning servicemen. Teaching was seen as an ideal career for an educated man whose pre-war career had been ended by war injury.
The non-availability of contraception meant that marriage was career ending for most women prior to that, but there was no requirement to resign on marriage. In fact, schools run by the Episcopalian Church in Scotland preferred to employ married women.
Also, female teachers who married teachers / head teachers tended to do supply work for their husband's school, to cover for staff absences, and also taught night classes. I can't quantify how much they did, and I don't know whether a day's supply teaching was dreaded or enjoyed (presumably it varied from woman to woman) but married women teachers were a feature of Victorian classrooms.
And yet, nowadays, everyone "knows" that Victorian female teachers were spinsters. And this "fact" has had an impact on the generation of married women teachers who thought they were "ground-breaking" after the Marriage Bar was lifted.
I am reminded about a piece of reported history which slides as a tangent across that, but can't at the moment recall where or how I met it.
It concerned someone coming across a book about or by James Croll of Glasgow, whose work on glaciations was initially overlooked because he worked as a school janitor - there has been a flutter of publicity about him in recent years, as, like Gideon Mantell in Sussex, and William Smith who did the first geological map of Britain (not the BB founder, if Glasgow is still in your mind), the bias of scientific societies was against people of their class.
The unconscious bias in the report I read was in the account of the book. It was awarded as a school prize (I think in Edinburgh) to a girl, in a girls' school, as her choice for the English prize either at the end of the 19th century, or beginning of the 20th. I felt, and in fact wrote to the publisher about this, that ignoring this was applying bias to hide something very interesting about what was going on with girls and schools at the time.
I wonder whether that's really about bias (at least in the pejorative sense that seems to undergird this thread.) It sounds more like, e.g., Gregor Mendel, who was ignored in his own lifetime by other biologists. The reason was that he published his work in a very minor journal and virtually no-one read it. It was only when his results were rediscovered (by three separate researchers) in the early 19th century that his original paper was also rediscovered. Mendel was then given full credit for the work by people in his field.
The only sense that Mendel's story exhibits bias is in the sense that professionals preferentially read major journals over the myriad minor publications that exist in any given field. Today, computer searches may help lift these kinds of papers out of obscurity. But it strikes me as an odd use of the term to call this kind of slight "bias."
The reference to gender roles and education reminds me of the 'Red' Duchess of Atholl who inherited the Parliamentary constituency of Kinross and West Perthshire from her husband on his translation to the Lords. When she was a member of Perthshire's education authority and meetings went on longer than anticipated the departure of the train from Perth to Blair Atholl would be delayed until after her arrival at the station. I think class came into the equation somewhere.
Sorry. That should be early 20th century, of course.
Well, you could only quote the very beginning of what I said to support what you've just said. But it appears you're just being obstinate, and I'm not really interested in engaging that.
And as you say, so often it’s just a question of what was ignored as unimportant, when the evidence is right there for anyone who is looking for it.
The reference to babbling made me smile. The sentence before it did not.
You forgot to use the word "because".
My points were humorous errors because...
"teenage know-it-all skepticism" is not an argument.
I didn't see the relevance.
Like all studies, bias studies are biased. It's perfectly reasonable to point this out, especially when it's clear the theory has become a sacred cow and a political tool. Perhaps true believers spend hours contemplating the insidious bias that lurks within their theory, but I doubt it.
All judgements are biased to some degree. Bias drives evolution. Attempts to fiddle with this simply introduce other biases that, being contrived, may well be more harmful than the first. The Harvard admissions scandal springs to mind.
I think we should stop speculating about unconscious motives that are quite beyond our knowledge and control. Instead, we should strengthen the conscious will by loving God and neighbour.
But this is nonsense. You can, with work, identify your biases. And if you can identify them, you can overcome them. I gave an example of one of mine early in the thread.
I note you capitalise Black, but not white. That's racist.
Your woke indoctrination has substituted one bias with another. Before, your alleged racism was unconscious. Now, your racism is overt. Before, you resisted racist bias. Now you are proud to declare it.
Regarding that study, non-black Americans are wary of random black strangers, not because they're racist, but because they know blacks are significantly more likely to commit violent crimes than any other racial group.
What are the chances that blacks also react negatively to black faces?
What percentage of your unconscious biases have you unearthed?
Have you unearthed the really, really bad ones?
Have you actually fixed some bad biases, or are you unconsciously deluding yourself?
You have absolutely no idea.
Is it possible you are replacing one set of biases with a worse set?
While there probably is an innate tendency to favor one's own in-group, there's no evidence that skin color was a significant factor in in-group identification until the transatlantic slave trade made it economically relevant.
Our bodies also evolved in a situation of "the next meal may be days away; gorge yourself now, especially on fat and high-sugar foods." Yet many people can overcome this.
Which seems to me better than nothing.
I've called you to hell over this post PW.
A case of trying to love our neighbour while failing to examine our biases which we used in Primary Ed. - the well-meaning comment regarding sports day that it "gives the Black boys a chance to shine". Quite apart from the assumption of athletic prowess that any individual may or may not have, there's also the assumption that the Black boys won't be doing well academically - which has the potential to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yes. I spoke earlier about my reaction to certain black faces. That's a bad bias - it made me unfairly look with disfavour on people that had those facial features. I am now able to consciously override my instinctive response. So, to a significant extent, I consider that bias "fixed". I don't know if my brain will ever reprogram itself so that the instinctive response doesn't happen in these cases. It would be good if it did, but I've successfully neutered this particular bias.
Again, this just isn't true. You are "arguing" by assertion, and your assertions are simply false. Biases can be statistically testable. Here's an example: I have enough female colleagues at various levels of seniority that I am able to form a statistically relevant sample of my interactions with male and female colleagues, to see if there's any evidence that I have a bias about their competence. This is something I have actually done (albeit informally) and have concluded that I don't have a bias about the competence of my colleagues related to their gender. I'm not surprised by this: I was fortunate to grow up surrounded by smart, competent women, which is likely to have largely defused any bias I might have inherited from the general sexism in society.
And if I haven't - so what? "You can't fix all your problems, so there's no point in fixing any of them" is a really stupid argument.
Although using a phone whilst driving is a cost-benefit tradeoff. There's no benefit to my being biased against particular black people. I don't gain anything at all from it - it's a cost to me and it's a cost to them.
This is true. I actually heard about this just yesterday, in a rather different context about how people interpret a passage in Ephesians 2 (the BibleProject podcast strikes again). Conceptions of groups used to be much more about culture and practice.
EDIT: More recently I've heard various suggestions about how we are now getting to Politics 101: Democrats are biased towards Democrats and Republicans are biased towards Republicans. Though on yet another podcast a researcher suggested that actually the greater division is between people who constantly talk about politics (akin to following sporting teams) and people who sit at the dinner table wishing X would shut the fuck up about politics.
In my experience, one can belong to both groups at the same time.
Jesus told us to do as we would be done by. He didn't tell us to unearth unconscious bias.
Do I like freedom? Then let others be free. That's the end of slavery, right there.
The reason slavery continued wasn't that people had problems with all their unconscious stuff. Their decision to love money more than their neighbour was the real problem, and it was quite conscious.
Let the unconscious bury the unconscious.
Go buy a bum a burger.
Try reading the parable of the Good Samaritan again.
Indeed!
Jesus answer to the question “Who is my neighbour?” is the gold standard in confronting unconscious bias.
The evidence is strong for the existence of bias. It is clear, I think, even in those who wish and claim to be unbiased. That strongly suggests that unconscious bias is real. There is controversy about whether unconscious bias training is actually effective. But there are other ways of addressing it such as removing race or gender information from applications where that can reasonably be done.
Richard Feynman (Nobel-winning physicist) who died over 30 years ago was shown an application form for the university of which he was newly a professor. He said it was a good candidate, they should accept him. He was asked if he wanted to see a photograph. ‘What possible difference could that make?’ he responded. His colleague had been testing him for bias on the basis of race. He simply declined to engage with information that would enable race to be a factor.
Since the existence of bias, and most probably unconscious bias as well, is clearly demonstrable, it seems to me that, if we are going to do as we would be done by, we need to do what we can to eliminate it and/or to overcome its effects.
Including:
37. “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
I'd spent plenty of time in and around Brixton, where it is usual to see the streets full of multicultural peoples going about their normal business. I don't know when I first saw non-white people in everyday life. (There were a couple of African students at college, but they were not in my year and were kept away from us by residing in a convent up the road, so they were marked as unusual.)
So, I was walking through the quiet Cotswold town of Cirencester when round the corner came a large black USAF sergeant, and I had an inward reaction I didn't like. As he got closer, it turned out he was walking beside a smaller white USAF officer. I'm still not sure if it was the American-ness or the blackness that caused that reaction. (I had once been glared at in a layby in Yorkshire by a jeepload of USAF security types*, which might have triggered the reaction to the guys from Fairford.)
And then, I was watching the TV and a surgeon was brought on to discuss some issue, and she was black, and I had a reaction again. Just for a moment, we don't have black women surgeons. And I didn't like myself for it.
I hope I've dealt with those biases - but I don't know if there are any others.
*Can't remember the colour, can remember feeling offended "This land is my land, it isn't your land, and I wanted a Roman road you've built your unmapped base on."
Almost all actions performed by my body are automatic. The few authentic decisions I've made have been strongly influenced by biology and by socialisation. It's my belief that the factors that bring me to choose A instead of B are complex beyond imagining. I have as much chance of understanding myself as a frog has of understanding a frog, and so I see no point trying.
Jesus doesn't exhort us to understand ourselves, or to unearth the hidden mysteries of the subconscious. Instead, he tells us to obey his commands. As we attempt the difficult task of obedience, God will fix our secret selves in his own good time.
You react to certain faces? "Love your neighbour" is all you need to know. "Blessed are the merciful" provides us with more than enough motivation to treat others with fair-minded kindness. Speculation about the unconscious adds nothing.
Why not ask, "Am I treating my staff fairly?"
It's equally stupid to fix the wrong problem.
Wow, do you actually believe what you've written here?
Which bits do you disagree with? No insults, please. Some arguments would be helpful.
The whole point of unconscious bias is that it’s unconscious. So you might earnestly and honestly believe you’re loving your neighbour or treating your staff fairly, but not actually be doing so because of biases you’re not even aware you have.
Wow, do you actually believe what you've written here?
I'll take that as a "yes" then.
So, you state categorically that obeying the commandment to Love one's neighbour is of paramount importance. Straightforward Christology there and no arguments here.
The problem comes with "all you need to know." That's wrong. In fact it's silly. Let me give you a really simple example from my life. A very good friend of mine has significant mental health issues and PTSD from childhood trauma. I think loving her as Christ does is really important, not least because she really struggles to love herself. I know her really well and know that she is in great need of physical contact with other human persons. So hugging is really important.
But, I also know that as a result of her childhood trauma - sexual abuse in this case, she struggles with men with beards. I happen to be a man with a beard. So should I hug her?
Now, to short cut this I know the answer, I know what she needs from me. But I can only obey Jesus' commandment to love her by knowing how to do so. There's a lot more to know than what the commandment is in order to be able to follow it.
No unconscious issues here, of course, but, but there's a lot to know.
So, coming back to unconscious bias: if it is a real phenomenon found in humans, (spoiler alert: it is! (I discussed this previously) and if I am a human (debatable but I am) then it is something I am susceptible to. Therefore, it is possible (likely?) that my unconscious biases will impede me from loving my neighbour. If I am serious about obeying Jesus' instruction, then I must examine myself and be prepared to be humble enough to admit that I might have subtle prejudices that I need to address as they stop me from loving my neighbour.
Or you could down a different line of theological thought. You imply that we simply choose to obey and it's that easy. The apostle Paul clearly disagreed (see Romans 7:15). Paul describes a bias towards sin. You could argue (and I would) that an unconscious bias that leads us to discrimination behaviours is another manifestation of our sinful nature; because it means I am not loving my neighbour as myself. If you aren't prepared to examine yourself, you can maintain a blissful ignorance of this sin. As John Newton wrote;(almost certainly drawing on Paul's theology in this section of Romans) "it's grace that taught my heart to fear..." because it's God's grace, expressed in the perfect law that shows us our sin.
I cannot love my neighbour as I ought is my unconscious bias makes me prejudicial. If I am serious about following Jesus and obeying his command then I must examine myself and seek to change that which makes me fall short. If I choose to ensure that I am ignorant of my failings, I have no hope of obeying.
Overly simplistic theologies almost always lead to this kind of error.
AFZ
I’m frankly astonished at the suggestion that because a bias is unconscious, it must remain unconscious and cannot become known. Aside from being detached from reality, that idea seems squarely at odds with such big-standard Christian practices as examination of conscience.
Thank you.
Did you notice that whilst I wrote an essay, @Nick Tamen managed it in one paragraph?