I'm just going to post this quote about going with your gut from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"But one example of the unconscious bias that still exists was a Title VII suit brought in the late 70s, and the plaintiffs were women who had not succeeded in getting middle management jobs at AT&T. They did very, very well on all the standard criteria, but they flunked disproportionately at the last stage, and what was that last stage? It was what was called a “total person test.” The “total person test” was an executive interviewing the candidate for promotion. And why were women dropping out disproportionately? It was because of a certain discomfort that the executive had in dealing with someone who is different. If he’s interviewing a man, well, he sort of knows this person is just like me and he’s comfortable. But if it’s a woman, or a member of a minority group, he feels uncomfortable. This person is a stranger to him and that shows up in how he rates the candidate."

Sure, using your gut instinct in things like hiring, things where we want and need to be as objective as possible, is probably a recipe for bias and that's bad. Interviewing for roommates is something different, more intimate. You're going to be sharing space with this person and letting your gut reject someone is fine. If you're not comfortable having a female rommate, fine. If you're not comfortable with someone, for whatever reason, there is nothing morally or legally[0] wrong in rejecting them.

[0] - YMMV

I get what you're saying but I never understood why people make a distinction between doing it in your private life vs doing it on the job. Yes, I understand that it's more intimate and personal, as you mentioned. But why is it inherently more acceptable to do when, for example, finding a roommate? I mean a lot of us spend more time with coworkers than family. Is it simply because laws require business practices to not discriminate against protected classes? Or is there something more to this line of thinking? Like a moral justification for the personal case or something like that.

You have a right to control you who live with, that's why.

Sure, but doesn't an employer also have a right to decide to they want to have work for/with them?

> If you believe you do not have racial, ethnic, and gender biases you are wrong.

When does trusting your gut mean you don't know you are biased? Everyone is biased, get over it. If you are living with someone - yes please trust your gut, live with who you want to live with.

as per the article the move in happened quickly and they were seemingly desperate to get someone in to cover the rent.

I didn't suggest that trusting your gut means you're not aware you can be biased.

I'm not sure what you mean by gender bias, but I am pretty sure, all things being equal, I'd likely let to a woman than a man, even if I were a different sex. All things being equal --income, social traits, etc.

I think guys in these cases would be at a disadvantage.

> I'm not sure what you mean by gender bias,

> I'd [be more?] likely let to a woman than a man

There's your gender bias. When you are more likely to let to one gender (female), than another (male).

I agree with your second paragraph, but I suspect that a person holding your views is more easily persuaded that they are being unreasonable when things start to go wrong. One should be much more suspicious of one's gut instincts when one is in a position of power than when one might be a victim.

Not so fast. The comment by a student saying that he scared them is also mentioned in the article.

The student is leaving it on a rating website and so likely was taking his course, which is much more than first impressions.

So, you're a trusting fool? Having the ability to quickly discern someone's initial intentions is a good trait to have. Second guessing your own subconscious judgement based on concern for biases is going to make you an easy dupe.

No, I'm not a trusting fool. I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

I think you're arguing for the opposite of what you're saying. Con artists rely completely on our subconscious judgement, rather than rational thinking, and second guessing it is often the key to realizing you're a mark.

Not trusting your gut instincts, but rather taking the time to think things through rationally and come up with a basis for your judgements is what I am arguing for.

On the other hand, gut reactions to sociopaths and psychopaths are a thing. Too often though people take your view of it, and try to rationalize that feeling away. I’d rather trust my gut and ignore the pretty mediocre studies about unconscious bias that seem hard to replicate, thanks.

Gut reactions to psychopaths tend to be the opposite: they are charming, and charismatic. Theres's a very good chance that you will like them, from the first impression. That's one of the traits/signs of a psychopath. That's why you shouldn't trust your gut, at least not in this case.

And the experiences of the victims in the article reinforce this point, at least in the first encounters: a courtly gentleman, he was very respectful.

>...a courtly gentleman, he was very respectful.

Actually that's the thing that threw me off. I mean why would a successful, well-adjusted "gentleman" even be in a situation where the best option for him is to live in a shared apartment with a woman considerably younger than him? Sure he gave her a reason, but well, he has to come up with _something_ doesn't he?

To me it seems much more likely that she agreed to him as her new room-mate out of desperate need for another person paying half of the rent.

I find the dismissal of "gut feeling" in these answers a bit ridiculous (when it comes to non-professional arrangements). Sure, you might be biased, but if you're not feeling comfortable living with someone don't move in with them!

> I mean why would a successful, well-adjusted "gentleman" even be in a situation where the best option for him is to live in a shared apartment with a woman considerably younger than him? Sure he gave her a reason, but well, he has to come up with _something_ doesn't he?

But isn't this your logic/rational mind kicking in? I think you're making my point that trusting gut feelings (a well-adjusted gentleman) isn't reliable, and taking some time to calmly and rationally assess the situation (the quick background check the victim's mother did for example) is a much better alternative.

You're right that being in a desperate need for a roommate, for financial reasons, may have been a major factor here. But again, psychopaths are manipulative and able to choose their victims and spot their weaknesses. Bachman may well have sensed this was a great opportunity, and pushed the right buttons (immediately writing a check).

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this.

When I was 35 I was getting divorced, and for simplicity, I moved into a shared apartment with a bunch of students (as I had to pay for the apartment with my wife, I didn't want to pay rent for two full apartments at the same time). I was a professional software Java developer at the time.

I appreciate 35 isn't 55, and I appreciate Java software developer isn't successful lawyer, but I can still see it happening even if I was older and in an even more lucrative profession. I mean people do have strange times in their lives, and not everyone is rich just because they're successful (e.g. divorce, health issues, downturn in the job market, bad decisions, etc.)

Your situation seems considerably less weird too me though. Another important difference is you moved in with „a bunch“ of people whereas the woman in the article was alone. I‘d sure as hell not want to be on my own if it turns out my new 35-year-old Java-developer roommate is a lunatic after all :D

No. It's in the eyes. If you know what you look for, psychopaths eyes are different. I can't explain it in physical terms, but when I look into a psychopaths eyes, there's nothing there.

Also, psychopaths don't have a startle reflex (but sociopaths do). So, drop a dish and see if they jump.

That’s a common myth. In fact the reaction tends to be highly negative, but subsequent charming behavior leads people to ignore their initial reaction.

http://drreidmeloy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2002_Auton...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/criminal-minds/201301/d...

In other words, a gut reaction isn’t proof of anything, and neither is a lack of a gut reaction, BUT... when it happens, and when it’s a high risk situation, listen to your gut.

The Gift of Fear is all about listening to your "gut". We have a very highly evolved ability to take in the high bandwidth data from our environment and decide "danger", but living in large anonymous social groups can lead us to suppress this feeling.

The Gift of Fear and Other Survival Signals that Protect Us From Violence

https://www.amazon.com/Other-Survival-Signals-Protect-Violen...

Yes in this instance false negatives are very bad. It's better to reject ten perfectly acceptable roommates than to accept one crazy ax-murderer roommate.

not for those ten potential roommates it's not. :)

Is it really rational to reject those 10 roommates for no good reason to avoid the 1 in a million hellish roommates?

You'd have to reject 9 of them anyway, assuming you only have one room to let. It's not a big deal to reject all 10.

>not for those ten potential roommates it's not. :)

But you're doing what makes sense for yourself. Why would you consider a random stranger above yourself in such a situation?

Sorry, I know I'm reading into your statement, but your reaction is very stereotypical 'liberal', aka 'thinks too much'. I do agree with you in that people do have biases, but there are several levels to this, perhaps. The biases you speak of are surface level ones, but 'gut' things are at a deeper level, at least how I'd define things.

I'd say there is a learning curve associated with 'gut' instincts. If your parents were good ones, you'd have acquired such knowledge earlier than I ever did, which to say was much later than ideal... But once you have dealt with enough assholes and full blown psychopaths, your 'gut' is better at picking up the subtle clues.

Then you can start seeing thru the surface impressions easier - I'd say the people you speak of just hadn't had enough adversity in their life yet - and from a BS New Age point of view, that's what allowed this guy to install himself in their lives, to provide them with some life lesson they needed to go through. I'm certainly not blaming the victim - it's just that if they don't take away a useful life lesson then they're missing out on extracting some value from the experience.

I empathize with the people in the article immensely. I'd just say they were too trusting, too 'liberal' (in all the associated stereotypes) and their 'gut' was dumb/inexperienced. The psychopaths/Machiavellians I've had to deal with were not involved in my life as much as a co-tenant would be, but they were close enough. And I consciously picked up little clues to their essential nature over time, but kept not integrating them into a larger more comprehensive picture till it all became a crisis. It is acting on those clues fast enough that is key, and that requires learning through experience.

tldr; there are book smarts and there are street smarts. Both have utility and to rely heavily on one and discount the other is unwise. Street smarts involve training your gut to deal with the jackasses and worse you will encounter in life.