"The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally. When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception. When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent. This puts the lie to longstanding claims that “stereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.”

http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-res...

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Albert Einstein

All I see there is some study unrelated to your claim [1], except maybe in the hypothetical square-chickens-in-vacuum case ("when individuating information is clear and relevant").

Now, in real life, when is information clear? Have you heard of, say, "blind auditions" for orchestras? I guess the people who developed that (and got results!) were stupid, because if clear and individuating information was present, there would be no problem at all.

[1] your claim: > stereotypes (I) mention are (not) "incredibly harmful" to those negatively affected. Because the research shows that that is not the case

I.e. your claim is basically that research shows people negatively affected by stereotypes are not harmed much by them. There is and can be no such research.

First, it is you who made the claim, specifically that 'the stereotype "gypsy = criminal" is still incredibly harmful'. You have not backed this claim with any evidence whatsoever.

I assumed that you were aware that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, that "I claim something, prove me wrong" is not how this works. That assumption appears to have been incorrect.

Given that the burden of proof is on you, what I provided was evidence that makes your claim unlikely, specifically the following: "When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent.".

So if the effect is "weak or nonexistent" as soon as any individuating information is known, your path to showing "incredible harm" has just become that much more difficult. Of course, you haven't actually presented any evidence whatsoever, so I guess it doesn't really make much of a difference.

No, as others have observed, you're just being intellectually dishonest. You claim studies prove me wrong, and "prove that" by cherry-picking sentences that don't support your claim - not even when taken out of context!

Want proof for what I claimed? Stop quoting Einstein, and read the study you linked.

> being intellectually dishonest

Nope, that would be you. You make a claim and don't back it up. You invert the burden of proof, in a "prove me wrong", which is both dishonest and ridiculous.

I write show (as in illustrate and you claim I wrote proof). So, put up with proof of your claim, or shut up, and don't accuse others of the intellectual dishonesty you yourself are guilty of.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/show

And the Einstein quote was aimed at your "proof by common sense" assertion, which is just ridiculous on the face of it.

The trouble is there is no individuating information at the first meeting. This makes the hiring (like most hiring) subject to prejudice. Which may or may not be justified or accurate. What was measured was difference in hiring rather than performance.

Unsurprising at all. The cure is either blind auditions or extended trial periods. Or impartially designed tests.

Tricky question is who is supposed to bear the cost.

That is if they problem really is of big magnitude and worth solving in the specific case. Which is done by measuring the magnitude and outcomes rather than detecting presence of prejudice. Then investigating the causes by hard analysis rather than politically biased guesswork.

It's worse than that. You don't just need the information - you need a prevalence of individuating information as well as lack of other (non-relevant/ distracting) information. The panel at the blind audition does not give you any new information - it just removes some of it, and that seems to be enough to break bias.

Making lots of money out of stock trading is rather easy in the presence of clear and relevant individuating information about all entities that are being traded. So is any decision making. That does not mean that in real life, "decision making" or "stock trading" are simple problems that we shouldn't be concerned with.

Yes, we should be concerned, especially as the outcomes other than differences have not been tested in that specific study. In other words, whether the prejudice was accurate or not and harmful ( to the goal of having a better orchestra) or not.

The irony is that there is strong prejudice that every prejudice and bias is harmful and in a major way. This actually remains to be seen.

To follow from your example, investors in many index funds do not have access to individuating information yet are making profits. Which means their perception of the market is at least somewhat accurate. But some investors who do have access to special information (and are not caught as doing insider trading) cash out much bigger. Often they do no better or worse too. You get too actually evaluate outcomes of each investment (or hiring) system.