|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 19, 2017 14:14:38 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? Yes, but I think there's a few different things people can mean by saying someone is "unaware" of such things: 1. They can mean they're unaware of the real things behind them. EG, I might be aware of desiring ice cream, but maybe I only really desire sugar and ice cream just popped into my head as a way of getting sugar. 2. They can mean they were briefly aware of such things, but the awareness was so fleeting that it faded out of awareness eventually but perhaps had a lingering influence as a causal "brain state." EG, maybe once upon a time I was picked on for my weight, so it motivated me to get thin. But after that I became obsessed with health to the point I forgot about the original motivation and "being thin" just became the motivation itself. 3. They can mean that people are not able to verbalize those things. 4. They can literally mean there was never any awareness at all of those things (I would agree with you that this probably doesn't happen). So, again, it really does come down to what one means by being "unaware" of such things.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 19, 2017 14:23:32 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? Yes, but I think there's a few different things people can mean by saying someone is "unaware" of such things: 1. They can mean they're unaware of the real things behind them. EG, I might be aware of desiring ice cream, but maybe I only really desire sugar and ice cream just popped into my head as a way of getting sugar. 2. They can mean they were briefly aware of such things, but the awareness was so fleeting that it faded out of awareness eventually but perhaps had a lingering influence as a causal "brain state." EG, maybe once upon a time I was picked on for my weight, so it motivated me to get thin. But after that I became obsessed with health to the point I forgot about the original motivation and "being thin" just became the motivation itself. 3. They can mean that people are not able to verbalize those things. 4. They can literally mean there was never any awareness at all of those things (I would agree with you that this probably doesn't happen). So, again, it really does come down to what one means by being "unaware" of such things. Right, so you don't believe that people are very often saying that people can have thoughts, desires, etc. that they're literally not at all conscious of?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 19, 2017 23:08:07 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. You just said ".. 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..." You are conflating being inclusive with being intentionally diverse. I can be inclusive of Jews without actively seeking to recruit more Jews. Hmm, lets look at them 1) Talks about experience, not ethnicity. 2) The only one that claims to link to "research" but actually doesn't. Although does include this quote from the "researcher" "Importantly, these ideas do not necessarily come from the network members who are culturally different from you.” 3) Objectively false. Trying to achieve a desired demographic make up cannot make recruitment easier. 4) Conjecture. Bigotry of low expectations. So not only have you failed to offer what you think are the benefits, you've actually offered a list that is speculative nonsense. What those "official restrictions" that haven't existed for two generations? Its no mystery that the actual physical requirements of the job are going to be harder for women, for example, Casualty Evacuation requires the candidate to wear full kit, about 25lbs, and drag a 120lbs weight 30 metres. That is the average weight of a healthy, average sized woman. Since women have significantly less upper body strength, do you think that would affect the numbers of women able to join or not? I have never said that. Why do you lie so much? Women joining the service because they are the best available candidate isn't discriminatory. Actively increasing the number of women because you want more women is discriminatory. Again, why do you keep arguing about things I didn't say? Yes......again for the slow. A women being hired because she is the best candidate isn't discriminatory. A woman hired for being a woman is...... Please quote where I said "diversity" in itself was a disadvantage? You really need to actually try to argue against thing I actually say, not things you wished I'd said. Argument ad populum, to add to your strawmen and simple lies. There it is. Why should I "move over?" Why should anyone? Hell, the Indians do better than white people, want them to move over? In the US Asian women do better than Black men, should those women "move over" or does "Male Privilege" mean the black guys have to suck it up? What about the successful white men who are gay? Where do they fit in your oppression league table? Above women? Below Jewish men? Your arguments are laughable. Every person is an individual and anyone who has worked to achieve something owes nobody anything because of their race, gender, sexuality or gender identity. Hell, the Jews as a group are incredible successful, yet pointing that out is somehow racist to people like you. It all boils down to "white man bad." Nope, that is a deflection. Name one benefit cultural or ethnic diversity brings to firefighting. Cool, quote some figures then. Numbers of active front line soldiers in any army? You won't because that was a red herring to start with. Your list of logical fallacies is ever growing. Dude. They just don't care. The concept doesn't exist. If foreign people do well in Japan, they do well. If they don't they don't. The Japanese don't start blaming themselves. Saudi Arabia relies on foreign workers, but they don't give a shit if those workers do well or not. I'm not splitting hairs. They still require male permission. Actually, I'm not, but nice avoidance of the question.....again. No.....Remember your own questions. You asked for research that counteracted "male privilege" From the link. You know what? You know that little "gotcha" you tried to throw in? I don't think white men are not attending university because of discrimination? I know right? I tend not to jump to the obvious and asinine answer. Okay. And Jews, Indians and East Asians tend to do better than Pakistanis or Bangladeshis. What is your point? Why does White Privilege affect Pakistanis more than Black people? Is Indian privilege keeping the Carribeans down? Does Chinese privilege affect Pakistanis more than Africans. If so why? Could it be that recent migrants from non English speaking nations do not earn as much as their second and third generation counterparts, thus drag the demographics earning down? If so how is that the fault of white people? Pakistani women do not tend to work and are estimated to be the least integrated group in UK society, could that affect household income at all? Its almost like the idea of blaming things on "white privilege" is laughably simplistic. Erm, nope. I wish to preserve a meritocracy. If 30 stupid white people and 5 clever black people apply for 5 jobs, I want the black people to get them. I do not want 2 of the white people hired to fit a diversity ideology. What part of this don't you understand? I want the best doctor. I don't want one picked to fit a diversity quota, be they white, black, asian, gay, male, female or trans.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 20, 2017 0:39:50 GMT
Yes, but I think there's a few different things people can mean by saying someone is "unaware" of such things: 1. They can mean they're unaware of the real things behind them. EG, I might be aware of desiring ice cream, but maybe I only really desire sugar and ice cream just popped into my head as a way of getting sugar. 2. They can mean they were briefly aware of such things, but the awareness was so fleeting that it faded out of awareness eventually but perhaps had a lingering influence as a causal "brain state." EG, maybe once upon a time I was picked on for my weight, so it motivated me to get thin. But after that I became obsessed with health to the point I forgot about the original motivation and "being thin" just became the motivation itself. 3. They can mean that people are not able to verbalize those things. 4. They can literally mean there was never any awareness at all of those things (I would agree with you that this probably doesn't happen). So, again, it really does come down to what one means by being "unaware" of such things. Right, so you don't believe that people are very often saying that people can have thoughts, desires, etc. that they're literally not at all conscious of? I have no idea how often they mean that VS the other options I mentioned, but when a study/article is talking about "subconscious racism" and discusses biases, it's probably safe to say it's the biases they're referring to as being subconscious. In fact, in the study you cited that started this tangent, they explicitly said: "Increasingly, unequal employment outcomes tended to be the product not of conscious racism or sexism but of more subtle, often unconscious, bias..."
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 20, 2017 1:55:56 GMT
Right, so you don't believe that people are very often saying that people can have thoughts, desires, etc. that they're literally not at all conscious of? I have no idea how often they mean that VS the other options I mentioned, but when a study/article is talking about "subconscious racism" and discusses biases, it's probably safe to say it's the biases they're referring to as being subconscious. In fact, in the study you cited that started this tangent, they explicitly said: "Increasingly, unequal employment outcomes tended to be the product not of conscious racism or sexism but of more subtle, often unconscious, bias..." Okay, and a bias as something non-mental would be what?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 2:00:49 GMT
Terrapin Station , we started a convo about direct realism a while ago. And I'm bored so want to bring this up here because it's pretty much the same thing RE: unconscious mental content. I'm curious as to how dreams fit into your ontology. For example people talk in dreams and say things you (from a phenomenal pov) don't know what they will say until they say it. That seems like an example of direct semantic content which is usually reserved for mental states. Would you say that is something that does not happen for whatever reason? Or that meaning is being projected by the individual after the fact?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 20, 2017 2:11:10 GMT
I have no idea how often they mean that VS the other options I mentioned, but when a study/article is talking about "subconscious racism" and discusses biases, it's probably safe to say it's the biases they're referring to as being subconscious. In fact, in the study you cited that started this tangent, they explicitly said: "Increasingly, unequal employment outcomes tended to be the product not of conscious racism or sexism but of more subtle, often unconscious, bias..." Okay, and a bias as something non-mental would be what? Most biases could qualify, stuff like the Representative heuristic we discussed earlier. They would be the "non-mental reasons for preferences and choices, such as details of non-mental brain states" to use your exact phrasing. I doubt that biases are always non-mental, or that we can't be aware of them, but I definitely think that for most people most of the time they are.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 20, 2017 2:55:39 GMT
Okay, and a bias as something non-mental would be what? Most biases could qualify, stuff like the Representative heuristic we discussed earlier. They would be the "non-mental reasons for preferences and choices, such as details of non-mental brain states" to use your exact phrasing. I doubt that biases are always non-mental, or that we can't be aware of them, but I definitely think that for most people most of the time they are. I wasn't clear: I was looking more for an example of a non-mental bias. Th reason I'm asking is that I'm not sure the idea of bias makes much sense in this context as something non-mental. For example, a standard definition of "bias" is "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair," and a standard definition of "prejudice" is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason." A problem with this is that opinions and feelings (in this sense--we're not talking about whether one has nerve sensations in one's arm, say) are mental phenomena. So I was looking for an example of a bias that would be unconscious or subconscious, to try to get an idea of what we'd be referring to that could be non-mental.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 20, 2017 3:41:54 GMT
Terrapin Station , we started a convo about direct realism a while ago. And I'm bored so want to bring this up here because it's pretty much the same thing RE: unconscious mental content. I'm curious as to how dreams fit into your ontology. For example people talk in dreams and say things you (from a phenomenal pov) don't know what they will say until they say it. That seems like an example of direct semantic content which is usually reserved for mental states. Would you say that is something that does not happen for whatever reason? Or that meaning is being projected by the individual after the fact? In my view dreams aren't unconscious or subconscious phenomena, they're conscious phenomena--you're aware of them, at least at the time you're having the dream. It's just a different mode of consciousness than waking consciousness, although there are similarities to daydreaming/wakeful fantasizing.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 20, 2017 13:19:04 GMT
Most biases could qualify, stuff like the Representative heuristic we discussed earlier. They would be the "non-mental reasons for preferences and choices, such as details of non-mental brain states" to use your exact phrasing. I doubt that biases are always non-mental, or that we can't be aware of them, but I definitely think that for most people most of the time they are. Th reason I'm asking is that I'm not sure the idea of bias makes much sense in this context as something non-mental. For example, a standard definition of "bias" is "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair," and a standard definition of "prejudice" is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason." I'm talking of cognitive biases rather than the more colloquial definition you gave there. I think cognitive biases can be both mental and non-mental depending on the bias and the individual, but probably more-often-than-not are part of non-mental brain-states that simply lead to conscious choices/emotions/preferences/etc. Evolutionarily speaking, they probably developed as a way to help unload our conscious processing and have certain decisions/preferences become automated the more they happened.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 20, 2017 13:41:18 GMT
Th reason I'm asking is that I'm not sure the idea of bias makes much sense in this context as something non-mental. For example, a standard definition of "bias" is "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair," and a standard definition of "prejudice" is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason." I'm talking of cognitive biases rather than the more colloquial definition you gave there. I think cognitive biases can be both mental and non-mental depending on the bias and the individual, but probably more-often-than-not are part of non-mental brain-states that simply lead to conscious choices/emotions/preferences/etc. Evolutionarily speaking, they probably developed as a way to help unload our conscious processing and have certain decisions/preferences become automated the more they happened. Why can't you give an example of a bias? (also the definition you're linking to is framed in terms of judgments and logic; both of those are mental phenomena)
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 20, 2017 14:03:30 GMT
I'm talking of cognitive biases rather than the more colloquial definition you gave there. I think cognitive biases can be both mental and non-mental depending on the bias and the individual, but probably more-often-than-not are part of non-mental brain-states that simply lead to conscious choices/emotions/preferences/etc. Evolutionarily speaking, they probably developed as a way to help unload our conscious processing and have certain decisions/preferences become automated the more they happened. Why can't you give an example of a bias? (also the definition you're linking to is framed in terms of judgments and logic; both of those are mental phenomena) Well, here's a whole list of them. To just take the first one I'm rather familiar with, the anchoring effect would seem to be a pretty obvious example of a non-mental bias. Do you think people are consciously AWARE they're using one piece of information to anchor future judgments on, or do you think this is just something that happens in brain-states that produces a judgment? Judgments are mental phenomena that biases lead to so it gets included in the field of study as an outcome of those biases. Logic has to do with correct and fallacious modes of reasoning, and I don't think all reasoning must happen mentally. I think it's just as likely that most reasoning happens non-mentally and that non-mental reasoning (the biases) produce a mental judgment/choice.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 20, 2017 14:07:23 GMT
Okay, so you want to use this for your example? "The tendency to rely too heavily, or 'anchor,' on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (usually the first piece of information acquired on that subject)" Are you saying that the one trait or piece of information is unconscious, or the fact that the person is "relying too heavily" on that one trait or piece of information is what's unconscious?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 20, 2017 14:12:02 GMT
Are you saying that the one trait or piece of information is unconscious, or the fact that the person is "relying too heavily" on that one trait or piece of information is what's unconscious? The latter.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 20, 2017 14:15:38 GMT
Are you saying that the one trait or piece of information is unconscious, or the fact that the person is "relying too heavily" on that one trait or piece of information is what's unconscious? The latter. Well, "relying too heavily on such and such" is a judgment that someone else makes, right? (or that the same person makes at some other time) How would that be a bias that the person in question has (at time T1) that they're not aware of?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 20, 2017 14:25:22 GMT
Well, "relying too heavily on such and such" is a judgment that someone else makes, right? (or that the same person makes at some other time) How would that be a bias that the person in question has (at time T1) that they're not aware of? No, because the entire idea is that it happens automatically. Look at one of the first experiments: "In one of their first studies, participants were asked to compute, within 5 seconds, the product of the numbers one through eight, either as {\displaystyle 1\times 2\times 3\times 4\times 5\times 6\times 7\times 8} 1 \times 2 \times 3 \times 4 \times 5 \times 6 \times 7 \times 8 or reversed as {\displaystyle 8\times 7\times 6\times 5\times 4\times 3\times 2\times 1} 8 \times 7 \times 6 \times 5 \times 4 \times 3 \times 2 \times 1. Because participants did not have enough time to calculate the full answer, they had to make an estimate after their first few multiplications. When these first multiplications gave a small answer – because the sequence started with small numbers – the median estimate was 512; when the sequence started with the larger numbers, the median estimate was 2,250. (The correct answer was 40,320.)" Now, given the exercise, do you think when someone is trying to do multiplication in their head and must estimate because they can't complete the problem in time that the thought "I'll give more weight to the first number I heard and estimate higher/lower" ever consciously enters their mind?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 20, 2017 14:43:31 GMT
Well, "relying too heavily on such and such" is a judgment that someone else makes, right? (or that the same person makes at some other time) How would that be a bias that the person in question has (at time T1) that they're not aware of? No, because the entire idea is that it happens automatically. "Too heavily" is a judgment. You're claiming that there's an objective, right amount that someone should rely on something?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 20, 2017 15:03:19 GMT
No, because the entire idea is that it happens automatically. "Too heavily" is a judgment. You're claiming that there's an objective, right amount that someone should rely on something?
In this context, yes: whatever amount leads to the correct answer. Not sure what this question has to do with the bias being unconscious/conscious, though.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 20, 2017 15:13:06 GMT
"Too heavily" is a judgment. You're claiming that there's an objective, right amount that someone should rely on something?
In this context, yes: whatever amount leads to the correct answer. Not sure what this question has to do with the bias being unconscious/conscious, though. A right answer per conventions that people accept you mean?
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Nov 20, 2017 15:22:18 GMT
"Too heavily" is a judgment. You're claiming that there's an objective, right amount that someone should rely on something?
In this context, yes: whatever amount leads to the correct answer. Not sure what this question has to do with the bias being unconscious/conscious, though. In that context NO! That example is explicitly designed for the purpose of fooling people. It tells you nothing about the practicality of “relying heavily on the first number” except that it’s wrong in some cases, which is useless. No one doesn’t already know that. The weighting is being applied precisely because they don’t have time to calculate. Why hasn't Google’s unconscious bias training reduced unconscious bias? The firing of James Damore shows Google is completely blind to bias. They’re doing what you’re doing. Parallaxing all bias against their own.
|
|