|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 17, 2017 12:54:04 GMT
Do you actually need me to cite the cases in colleges where the progressive stack is used? Do you want me to cite the PoC only Safe Space demands? Identity politics by its nature segregates. Diversity is, still, not 'segregation' despite your peculiar take on things. And it is diversity that is being discussed here (as well as you thinking it is "no good for anything" since, among other things it "discriminates against white men" - that long suffering, and downtrodden minority in the west. But thanks for the diversion. You said that "increasing diversity necessarily means discriminating against white men." Unless of course you really think that diversity is not increasing - in which case rail against it? - then that is as good as. 'For the sake of it' is a new qualification from you. I doubt if progessives would institutes policies favouring more diversity 'just for the sake of it'. But of course since you don't recognised the justification for such things, one imagines any move towards more inclusiveness could be construed 'just for the sake of it'. After all, all those disadvantaged and underprivileged men deserve better than damaging token gestures, don't they? LOL I brought it up since you mentioned how women might be put off by something 'physical and dangerous'. While this might be a consideration - just as it might be for anyone - there are likely to be other elements at play too. For instance Brenda Berkman took legal action against a discriminating physical test of the FDNY in 1982. After winning the case she and about 40 other women promptly became the first female fire fighters in the history of New York City. And in the UK it was only in 1978 that it was announced that females would henceforth be accepted generally into the fire service. As of 2017 there are now 300 female fire fighters in the London Fire Brigade, 7% of the total. More shocking 'discrimination against white males' for you, right there eh? You are the one condemning varied employment practices since such progressive actions 'discriminate against white men' and lead to what you deem 'segregation' my friend. Those refused, or discouraged entry to employment are, by definition, kept apart from it. QED. The same observation might be to those who oppose diversity - that the races are different and white (men, as it would be in your preferred case) do things that other races just can't. See how this rubs both ways? In actual fact though, if we ignore your unpleasant playing of the race card, then we can readily see that other cultures, for instance, can indeed be different - which, it can be argued might bring advantages to any company hoping to deal with all in the way of business. Women can certainly offer views and skills which your disadvantaged and downtrodden white males may not offer in a number of fields. None of this really ought need to be pointed out. QED. And I thank you. One notes the geographical location of the London Fire Brigade the source of your orginal gripe. But go on... Thank you for not wondering off the narrow point we are disputing in an attempt to distract. But the Saudis, at least, care very much about their privilege - especially the social privileges of men over women in their very conservative country - so much so that it was only recently females were allowed to drive about on their own account. But I think you really know that. There are observations to be made, too, about feminism in Japan. I don't know why you would assert this since, especially since in previous disputes you have made much of the legal responsibilities of (UK) companies to elimination such discrimination, and so it is hard to make it out as a matter of process. But it no doubt suits your purpose to claim such things. I would agree that implicit discrimination exists still in the UK though, so naturally I am pleased that I can assume by your remarks you agree with me there. And: uk.businessinsider.com/psychology-biases-that-benefit-white-men-2015-2?r=US&IR=T Feel free to link to any research which shows the reverse as a general rule.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 17, 2017 13:02:16 GMT
I have a feeling this objection would come down to nothing more than another semantic debate over what counts as "unconscious or subconscious mental content," but basically what they're describing are the kind of biases found in "fast thinking" ala Kahneman. It's an ontological disagreement, about what sort of stuff/phenomena exist. If there's a bias, it's a conscious bias that the person in question is aware of (at least in the sense of being aware of having a preference). The issue is whether there's any reason to believe that someone can have a bias (again, at least in the form of having preferences) that they're not aware of having. There's no reason to believe this. Being aware of having a preference doesn't mean being aware of what factors went into that preference--ie, the bias. Most biases work via emotional/intuitive associations and triggers that allow us to make decisions quickly based on little information and without rational processing of that information. We may be aware, vaguely, of whatever feeling the bias produces and our resulting preferences, but not of the bias-mechanism that went into producing it. So it's entirely possible to know you prefer the company of these people without knowing it's due to them being similar to you. What happened to the part of the sentence beginning with "because"? AFAICT, I copied and responded to it. It wasn't a case of identical resumes to the same hiring manager/HR person/etc.. A hiring manager is going to notice two identical resumes, the same dates for the same exact employment history, education history, the same exact wording re job responsibilities, etc. Actually the study doesn't specify that, but I would assume the employers would get at least one resume for both a black and white candidate. Maybe I'm mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 17, 2017 13:11:43 GMT
tpfkar Sure, sure, Oliver will be sure to deliver you reports of his glee about the coming apocalypse. And no matter how many left positions you "claim" it doesn't erase the right. You might have heard this before. Wait, i stand corrected. Your ever chanted "brown people" inanity is completely atoned for by your stated preference of ethnic booty. Or maybe just your "dead can't bitch about it" psychopathic justifications. Write moar! I haven't posted anything derogatory about 'brown people' generally. The 'brown people' is meant to mock the fatuous attitudes and coddling behaviour of the regressive politically correct left. More or less everything I post about ethnic people is actually a comment on white 'social justice warriors'. Right, saying that the absurdities against them are nothing and that "progressives" "fetishize them" because they object to crazy-rightists trying to pretend there's no problem with pre-treating them all like extremists because they have a religion that has extremists, or pretending that there's some special problem with them because in some cases some try to keep up with the lily-whites in the kid-diddling department, or even in the repeated mocking usage of "brown people", none of that is derogatory to them. In any case, none of your pap does anything to rehabilitate your original wholly made-up and campily presented garbage that anybody's saying that white people are congenitally "incompetent" or "boring" and need brown people in robes to allow them to be technically proficient. Pure bullsh!t fit for a Jonesian page. As for your abiding need to rub one out about your morbid but incompetent suicide wish + "I'd like everybody gone with me" voluminous dirges, I apologize that I've been negligent in feeding your manic phases in the triggered crazy thread. I'll make sure to keep you in replies there so you feel less compelled to stain up other threads. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 17, 2017 13:30:06 GMT
Being aware of having a preference doesn't mean being aware of what factors went into that preference--ie, the bias. Most biases work via emotional/intuitive associations and triggers that allow us to make decisions quickly based on little information and without rational processing of that information. We may be aware, vaguely, of whatever feeling the bias produces and our resulting preferences, but not of the bias-mechanism that went into producing it. So it's entirely possible to know you prefer the company of these people without knowing it's due to them being similar to you. There's no reason to believe that people have emotions they're not aware of by the way. For any mental content, there's no reason to believe that anyone has mental content that they're not aware of. Re preferring something because "they're similar to me" or something like that, we can't say that's the case if the person isn't aware of it. If the same person gets a resume that says: Jamaaliquai WashingtonFeb 2014 - July 2017 Pleenash Software, Boston, MA Project Manger * Oversaw 17 computer programmers . . . blah blah blah May 2012 - Jan 2014 Jones Consulting, Braintree, MA Senior Consultant * Supervised projects . . . blah blah blah and so on, AND a resume that says Bob SmithFeb 2014 - July 2017 Pleenash Software, Boston, MA Project Manger * Oversaw 17 computer programmers . . . blah blah blah May 2012 - Jan 2014 Jones Consulting, Braintree, MA Senior Consultant * Supervised projects . . . blah blah blah they're going to know that something is up. So the study can't work if they send identical resumes, just with different names/addresses/numbers, to the same exact person (or if the same exact person in an HR department gets both).
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 17, 2017 14:50:54 GMT
Do you actually need me to cite the cases in colleges where the progressive stack is used? Do you want me to cite the PoC only Safe Space demands? Identity politics by its nature segregates. Diversity is, still, not 'segregation' despite your peculiar take on things. And it is diversity that is being discussed here (as well as you thinking it is "no good for anything" since, among other things it "discriminates against white men" - that long suffering, and downtrodden minority in the west. But thanks for the diversion. You said that "increasing diversity necessarily means discriminating against white men." Unless of course you really think that diversity is not increasing - in which case rail against it? - then that is as good as. 'For the sake of it' is a new qualification from you. I doubt if progessives would institutes policies favouring more diversity 'just for the sake of it'. But of course since you don't recognised the justification for such things, one imagines any move towards more inclusiveness could be construed 'just for the sake of it'. After all, all those disadvantaged and underprivileged men deserve better than damaging token gestures, don't they? LOL I brought it up since you mentioned how women might be put off by something 'physical and dangerous'. While this might be a consideration - just as it might be for anyone - there are likely to be other elements at play too. For instance Brenda Berkman took legal action against a discriminating physical test of the FDNY in 1982. After winning the case she and about 40 other women promptly became the first female fire fighters in the history of New York City. And in the UK it was only in 1978 that it was announced that females would henceforth be accepted generally into the fire service. As of 2017 there are now 300 female fire fighters in the London Fire Brigade, 7% of the total. More shocking 'discrimination against white males' for you, right there eh? You are the one condemning varied employment practices since such progressive actions 'discriminate against white men' and lead to what you deem 'segregation' my friend. Those refused, or discouraged entry to employment are, by definition, kept apart from it. QED. The same observation might be to those who oppose diversity - that the races are different and white (men, as it would be in your preferred case) do things that other races just can't. See how this rubs both ways? In actual fact though, if we ignore your unpleasant playing of the race card, then we can readily see that other cultures, for instance, can indeed be different - which, it can be argued might bring advantages to any company hoping to deal with all in the way of business. Women can certainly offer views and skills which your disadvantaged and downtrodden white males may not offer in a number of fields. None of this really ought need to be pointed out. QED. And I thank you. One notes the geographical location of the London Fire Brigade the source of your orginal gripe. But go on... Thank you for not wondering off the narrow point we are disputing in an attempt to distract. But the Saudis, at least, care very much about their privilege - especially the social privileges of men over women in their very conservative country - so much so that it was only recently females were allowed to drive about on their own account. But I think you really know that. There are observations to be made, too, about feminism in Japan. I don't know why you would assert this since, especially since in previous disputes you have made much of the legal responsibilities of (UK) companies to elimination such discrimination, and so it is hard to make it out as a matter of process. But it no doubt suits your purpose to claim such things. I would agree that implicit discrimination exists still in the UK though, so naturally I am pleased that I can assume by your remarks you agree with me there. And: uk.businessinsider.com/psychology-biases-that-benefit-white-men-2015-2?r=US&IR=T Feel free to link to any research which shows the reverse as a general rule. I contend that this i the aim of progressive types, based on their need to remove white men for others to feel safe. Such as London Transport Police. Inclusion and diversity are not the same thing. And you know that, but you want to muddy the waters a bit to avoid the awkward admission that you can offer no demonstrable benefit to diversity. I don't recognise the justification for diversity, because nobody has made it. Feel free. What are the benefits of diversity? What point do you think you are making here? So women have been able to join the Fire Brigade for almost 40 years and they currently make up 5% of the total staff? So what? Again, I have never said they cannot do, or shouldn't be allowed to do the job. Nor have I said that women doing the job is discrimination against men. You either have reading issues or are just, as usual blatantly misrepresenting what I say to make a facile "muh sexisms" argument. This straw man is well and truly beaten. Find an actual argument. No, I'm saying that intentionally trying to change the demographic make up of a workplace, for no actual benefit is discriminatory. I would say exactly the same thing about trying to get higher representation of white men in the MBA. OR the EPL. Well you could say that, if you were an idiot. Good thing I've never said anything like that. Since I'm not the one who thinks race is an issue for employment. . Wow. From you? Jesus. Your attitude to white men is frankly shocking. But whatever, muh power plus privilege, ammirite? Okay, what can other cultures bring to firefighting? Or women? I'm all ears. What does growing up in Africa, or being raised Muslim bring to the issue of putting out fire? Quote mining is still lying, no matter how many different threads you do it in. You are now accusing me of deflection? Okay, bring up the British army some more, because that was all relevant. Jesus..... And no, no they don't. The Japanese do not care that anyone things they favour the Japanese. The West is the only culture that tries to flagellate itself because some immigrant populations do not do as well as the native population. And Saudi women still cannot drive on their own account. Then explain by what mechanism you increase diversity without reducing the number of white men you hire? And www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888White men are not the best educated group. Don't have the highest income. Do not have the highest IQ. Working class white Britons do worst in primary school of any demographic. Presumably because of white male privilege.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 15:06:32 GMT
Being aware of having a preference doesn't mean being aware of what factors went into that preference--ie, the bias. Most biases work via emotional/intuitive associations and triggers that allow us to make decisions quickly based on little information and without rational processing of that information. We may be aware, vaguely, of whatever feeling the bias produces and our resulting preferences, but not of the bias-mechanism that went into producing it. So it's entirely possible to know you prefer the company of these people without knowing it's due to them being similar to you. There's no reason to believe that people have emotions they're not aware of by the way. For any mental content, there's no reason to believe that anyone has mental content that they're not aware of. Re preferring something because "they're similar to me" or something like that, we can't say that's the case if the person isn't aware of it. If the same person gets a resume that says: Jamaaliquai WashingtonFeb 2014 - July 2017 Pleenash Software, Boston, MA Project Manger * Oversaw 17 computer programmers . . . blah blah blah May 2012 - Jan 2014 Jones Consulting, Braintree, MA Senior Consultant * Supervised projects . . . blah blah blah and so on, AND a resume that says Bob SmithFeb 2014 - July 2017 Pleenash Software, Boston, MA Project Manger * Oversaw 17 computer programmers . . . blah blah blah May 2012 - Jan 2014 Jones Consulting, Braintree, MA Senior Consultant * Supervised projects . . . blah blah blah they're going to know that something is up. So the study can't work if they send identical resumes, just with different names/addresses/numbers, to the same exact person (or if the same exact person in an HR department gets both). www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/unconscious_facial_reactions_to_emotional_facial_expressions.pdf
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 17, 2017 15:07:54 GMT
You don't create diversity when it's already there.
If there is a reduction of white dudes being employed, it still only means that there were qualified candidates within the community job pool of other races.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 17, 2017 15:23:44 GMT
There's no reason to believe that people have emotions they're not aware of by the way. For any mental content, there's no reason to believe that anyone has mental content that they're not aware of. Re preferring something because "they're similar to me" or something like that, we can't say that's the case if the person isn't aware of it. If the same person gets a resume that says: Jamaaliquai WashingtonFeb 2014 - July 2017 Pleenash Software, Boston, MA Project Manger * Oversaw 17 computer programmers . . . blah blah blah May 2012 - Jan 2014 Jones Consulting, Braintree, MA Senior Consultant * Supervised projects . . . blah blah blah and so on, AND a resume that says Bob SmithFeb 2014 - July 2017 Pleenash Software, Boston, MA Project Manger * Oversaw 17 computer programmers . . . blah blah blah May 2012 - Jan 2014 Jones Consulting, Braintree, MA Senior Consultant * Supervised projects . . . blah blah blah they're going to know that something is up. So the study can't work if they send identical resumes, just with different names/addresses/numbers, to the same exact person (or if the same exact person in an HR department gets both). www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/unconscious_facial_reactions_to_emotional_facial_expressions.pdfYou're not positing that observable behavior, such as facial muscle movements, is the same thing as mental content, are you?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 17, 2017 15:36:10 GMT
Being aware of having a preference doesn't mean being aware of what factors went into that preference--ie, the bias. Most biases work via emotional/intuitive associations and triggers that allow us to make decisions quickly based on little information and without rational processing of that information. We may be aware, vaguely, of whatever feeling the bias produces and our resulting preferences, but not of the bias-mechanism that went into producing it. So it's entirely possible to know you prefer the company of these people without knowing it's due to them being similar to you. There's no reason to believe that people have emotions they're not aware of by the way. For any mental content, there's no reason to believe that anyone has mental content that they're not aware of. Re preferring something because "they're similar to me" or something like that, we can't say that's the case if the person isn't aware of it. If the same person gets a resume that says: Jamaaliquai WashingtonFeb 2014 - July 2017 Pleenash Software, Boston, MA Project Manger * Oversaw 17 computer programmers . . . blah blah blah May 2012 - Jan 2014 Jones Consulting, Braintree, MA Senior Consultant * Supervised projects . . . blah blah blah and so on, AND a resume that says Bob SmithFeb 2014 - July 2017 Pleenash Software, Boston, MA Project Manger * Oversaw 17 computer programmers . . . blah blah blah May 2012 - Jan 2014 Jones Consulting, Braintree, MA Senior Consultant * Supervised projects . . . blah blah blah they're going to know that something is up. So the study can't work if they send identical resumes, just with different names/addresses/numbers, to the same exact person (or if the same exact person in an HR department gets both). Candidate selection isn't an emotional process. Having a preference or bias to be around people similar to us is not an emotional response either. After all, people of similar race or background can love each other, hate each other, compete with each other, & negotiate/communicate with people of dissimilar backgrounds. A white dude who loses a job to another white dude is not going to be any more sympathetic to the white dude he lost to. It's largely about commonality and the perception that it's easier to learn fewer things about people who share similar backgrounds and it can definitely be done subconsciously since the recruitment process itself can mask the bias.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 17, 2017 15:46:21 GMT
Candidate selection isn't an emotional process. Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you, but no one said that it was. You didn't understand the comments you were quoting.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 17, 2017 16:21:07 GMT
Inclusion and diversity are not the same thing. When I say that, be sure to make that point again. Since you can't think of any yourself (which is hard to believe, but still) here is a link which will help, considering the matter from an entrepreneurial perspective: www.entrepreneur.com/article/240550 The point that women are not just put off by personal reasons, or the mere fact that a job may be 'physical and dangerous' - but by more official restrictions. Didn't you read the paragraph? So, they joined up once they were able, and are doing so more and more. Obviously though, this leads to unwanted 'discrimination' against all those terribly underprivileged white males lol And again: just as well you don't. Does not your claim that 'diversity leads to discrimination' against "white men" include, er, men then? Some likely benefits of variety within companies have been linked to above already. One notes that you still have not listed any disadvantages (even your one link fails, see below), except that the overall numbers of whites may suffer. This concern with all those supposed disadvantaged and underprivileged white men in our society is yours - and even then oddly does not reflect your recent admission above that, yes "[there are]those white Europeans, privileged in Europe" lol. But keep going. Well plenty of people say it, and recognise the extra things a diverse group (not just considering race, which appears your particular bête noir, talking always of white men) can bring to a business. So I guess it makes them all 'idiots' then? But you are right: I would not expect you to admit something like that. After all, as you have assured me, "diversity is not good for anything" ... right? What 'attitude' to white men shocks you from me, Thor? The notion that sometimes the (as you admitted) European over-privileged ought to, in fairness, move over and let another type of person have a go, if only just to reflect a wider society, and so help stop all the implicit racism, sexism etc which still exists? I stand guilty there. The answer is best put by the question of: what makes you think that white males, alone, necessarily bring everything there can be to any job in every context? Oh yes my mistake: it was the UK Fire Brigade's policy that you took issue in the OP with not just London's. But then again, that is still Europe. You know, the place where you just admitted the privileged white males at least are? The Saudi and the Japanese examples didn't work out for you, then huh? Also you ought to know that front line troops are not just in the UK. Those white male soldiers are so discriminated against everywhere! Caring is a positive thing my friend. Japanese culture is not necessarily recommendable for the way they view foreigners or its women. And it is arguably one measure of a caring and responsible society the way it treats minorities, of whatever sort. Giving them equal opportunities for employment for instance. I am sorry, naturally, that this so upsets the conservative readers of The Daily Mail. And those all disadvantaged white englishmen of course. Soon baby, soon. Saudi Arabia's King Salman has issued a decree allowing women to drive for the first time - which was the point, not really when it will happen. But thank you for not hair-splitting. It appears you are the only one worried about any perceived discrimination against white males, Thor. In any case taking on fewer of this sort may just mean that those who are employed are better suited, being brighter and learned. After all don't you, here, tell me how white males are not smarter, or better educated, than their erstwhile competitors for work? LOL! you ought to read your own link. The conclusion there not that diversity is "not good for anything", or even close - but merely that it was anticipated that blind recruitment would have a positive impact on diversity — making it more likely that female candidates and those from ethnic minorities are selected for the shortlist, while in fact de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist. i.e. diversity is not at issue, just the way it was implemented. But, good try. Black and Asian teenagers are certainly more likely to apply to university than white youngsters in England, (hey, but perhaps white men don't apply so much for "personal reasons", eh?) although obviously success in application would, one imagines, for you at least necessarily mean 'discrimination' against white male aspirants competing for the same places. But then one reads such things as: www.theguardian.com/education/2008/sep/05/raceineducation.raceinschools Around two-fifths of people from ethnic minorities live in low-income households, twice the rate for White people. The jury is still out on this one, and I presume you are aware of Dr Watson's notorious research in this area, and they way is fraught. So you will excuse me from taking this point further In which case why would one wish to preserve a recruitment process which ends up with such dunces in the majority? Shot and foot there.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 17, 2017 16:24:33 GMT
Candidate selection isn't an emotional process. Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you, but no one said that it was. You didn't understand the comments you were quoting. Well, just consider it free education for you!
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 17, 2017 16:29:00 GMT
Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you, but no one said that it was. You didn't understand the comments you were quoting. Well, just consider it free education for you! I had already learned that you have bad reading comprehension months ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 16:45:36 GMT
You're not positing that observable behavior, such as facial muscle movements, is the same thing as mental content, are you? Not the same as, but a good sign of – of course, seeing your typical responses to others, these are signs you have trouble recognizing.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 17, 2017 16:57:57 GMT
You're not positing that observable behavior, such as facial muscle movements, is the same thing as mental content, are you? Not the same as, but a good sign of – of course, seeing your typical responses to others, these are signs you have trouble recognizing. On what evidential grounds would they be good signs of unconscious/subconscious mental content?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 17, 2017 18:41:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 17, 2017 23:25:16 GMT
Being aware of having a preference doesn't mean being aware of what factors went into that preference--ie, the bias. Most biases work via emotional/intuitive associations and triggers that allow us to make decisions quickly based on little information and without rational processing of that information. We may be aware, vaguely, of whatever feeling the bias produces and our resulting preferences, but not of the bias-mechanism that went into producing it. So it's entirely possible to know you prefer the company of these people without knowing it's due to them being similar to you. There's no reason to believe that people have emotions they're not aware of by the way. For any mental content, there's no reason to believe that anyone has mental content that they're not aware of. Re preferring something because "they're similar to me" or something like that, we can't say that's the case if the person isn't aware of it. I didn't say they weren't aware of the emotions, in fact I explicitly said that was what they were aware of, I said they were unaware of the biases that went into producing the emotions, and that it's entirely possible to know you enjoy being around "these people" without understanding the reason for that preference is because "these people" are similar to you. You really think people are consciously aware of the reasons behind all their preferences and choices? That people consciously understand stuff like the Representative heuristic that undoubtedly influences how we judge people? If the same person gets a resume that says: ...they're going to know that something is up. So the study can't work if they send identical resumes, just with different names/addresses/numbers, to the same exact person (or if the same exact person in an HR department gets both). 1. I'd think that would depend on how many resumees the employers get. I'd think it would be easy to overlook identical ones if they're reviewing dozens a day. 2. This would seem to be an empirical claim that YOU have no basis for other than your intuitive hunch.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 17, 2017 23:49:52 GMT
You really think people are consciously aware of the reasons behind all their preferences and choices? That people consciously understand stuff like the Representative heuristic that undoubtedly influences how we judge people? People are aware of any mental reasons behind preferences, choices, etc., insofar as there are any for the individual in question. That means that "I prefer S because S is similar to me" only obtains when someone has that explicit, conscious mental content. Reasons such as that do not work if we try to parse them non-mentally. I'm not saying that people are aware of all of the non-mental reasons for preferences and choices, such as details of non-mental brain states. Re the representativeness heuristic, that only obtains, where it's anything like mental content, when it's explicitly, consciously present. And by the way--although I know I've mentioned this to you a couple times in the past in other contexts, I do not at all but Bayesian probability. I'm a frequentist only, although I even have some doubts about frequentist probability being ontologically significant. Or rather my wife is a business consultant who works with tons of different HR people. If a business is big enough that it goes through that many resumes per day, there's going to be an HR department, it's not just going to be one person going through the resumes, and there's no way to tell without monitoring it that the same person is assessing the identical resumes with different names.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 19, 2017 13:57:35 GMT
You really think people are consciously aware of the reasons behind all their preferences and choices? That people consciously understand stuff like the Representative heuristic that undoubtedly influences how we judge people? People are aware of any mental reasons behind preferences, choices, etc., insofar as there are any for the individual in question. That means that "I prefer S because S is similar to me" only obtains when someone has that explicit, conscious mental content. Reasons such as that do not work if we try to parse them non-mentally. I'm not saying that people are aware of all of the non-mental reasons for preferences and choices, such as details of non-mental brain states. OK, so I think what you're calling "non-mental reasons for preferences and choices, such as... brain states," most people would call "unconscious" or "subconscious." In fact, that seems to be what the "un" and "sub" refers to if we're taking "consciousness" to be "awareness (of mental states)" (the latter part would be redundant if you think all mental states must include the awareness of them). So I was right that it would basically come down to semantics. And by the way--although I know I've mentioned this to you a couple times in the past in other contexts, I do not at all but Bayesian probability. I'm a frequentist only, although I even have some doubts about frequentist probability being ontologically significant. I don't know what you mean by "I do not at all but Bayesian probability," but if you're saying you're a "frequentist only," I'll just drop this here: Or rather my wife is a business consultant who works with tons of different HR people. If a business is big enough that it goes through that many resumes per day, there's going to be an HR department, it's not just going to be one person going through the resumes, and there's no way to tell without monitoring it that the same person is assessing the identical resumes with different names. You're probably right, but either way I don't think it mattered as to the relevancy of the experiment's results.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 19, 2017 14:03:07 GMT
Are you familiar with the idea that there are things like thoughts, concepts, desires, emotions, motivations, etc. that people can have but not be aware of having?
|
|