Then, the folks who teach these courses see these papers (presumably in their undergraduate psych classes?) and end up believing them, becacuse they don't have the necessary scientific analytic/critical skills to evaluate them.
At my employer, the IAT was originally presented as scientific fact (with citations). Over time, the citations changed from "This is great!" to "This work appears to not be scientifically accurate, but we like the idea" to "we will not be using this, unless you want to try it voluntarily".
I think in general most people in society don't really have the ability to differentiate bullshit science from real science. I've actually left my scientific field permanently because I've seen far too enough examples of fraud and incompetence leading to tenure track positions.
I would say in many ways they can't, at least not without significant time investment every time they need to make that assessment, which is often.
A domain expert is likely able to identify the smell of bullshit in their field extremely quickly. An expert in an adjacent domain will be able to apply some of their expertise, but not all, and sniff out some problems, but other might elude them. That is, a physicist might be able to note some likely problematic parts of statements to do with biology based somewhat on the science, somewhat on the shared methodology, and somewhat on the shared politics they might experience.
A layperson may have very little experience to draw upon for some scientific statement, and even when they have experience with the underlying principles (a general interest in the area, experience in college), that may not be enough to identify problem areas. That's not a problem we can expect the layperson to be responsible for correcting (at least not beyond a healthy skepticism), unless we expect them all to increase their knowledge in every domain that they might make an assessment about (this happens, but it happens at a societal level, and over the span of many years).
Psychology seems to share relatively little with most hard sciences, so it's particularly hard for both laypeople and scientists in other fields to assess without effort (as evidenced here though the multiple stories of people that put in that actual effort).
I'm not sure we'll see improvement on this issue until we have better norms about communicating results. There's a natural inflation that happens when different parties take a finding and explain it, and possibly over-emphasize portions of it. That this happens twice now, once with the PR department associated with the group doing the study and once by the media that goes by what the PR department say, means that the average person gets a very distorted view of what's actually going on.
Nobody really wants equality. They want supremacy. If they did have equality, they would be treated like everyone else and lose all of their power/special treatment.
They are also tools of our politicians to be a permanent victim class, so the politicians can dole out justice and get votes.
I'm serious when I say this is one of the best things about being a contractor or consultant. I can just sign a paper saying that I'm responsible for my behavior.
The point of the training is for companies to absolve themselves of culpability. If you act like a jerk after unconscious bias training you are on your own and the company hopes that it can't be blamed for it.
Your comment would be just fine with just the second paragraph.
I can't see the parent making this claim at all; are you sure that your interpretation is in good faith?
I had training called 'cultural awareness' or similar at another company which was basically very similar material, but without the bogus claims that it was rooted in science. It's the latter that I object to - if they are going to enforce behavioural standards just be honest about it, rather than gaslighting people with this arrant nonsense that we're all unknowing bigots through some kind of original sin.
My point is that even if unconscious bias training is 100% bullshit, it is among the most benign forms of business bullshit I've experienced. Thus, I cannot understand why it is so upsetting to so many.
I'd argue the opposite actually - it's insidious, because any objection is liable to get you labelled a racist etc., and it's dangerous, because it's effectively telling you that no matter how hard you try you cannot escape being a racist (etc.). The latter is pretty much a textbook definition of gaslighting. I don't want my employer gaslighting me.
Bullshit is distinguished by the speaker not even caring if it's true. Usually it is meant to distract you from what you are not supposed to notice.
Maybe it’s one among many or maybe it’s the only one. We don’t know.
That said, most training is about absolving the company of responsibility and putting it on you (security training for example).
On the surface it would seem a good idea to train against harassment at work, but I’d be keen to know if it has an effect on behavior or is it the HR consequences that affect behavior more than the training, for example.
I wonder how many companies can survive long term if employees don't trust their employer and the employer don't trust its employees.
1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524213/
2 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/095001701771984...
There is so much to unpack about you here
This is a prime example of why diversity training is needed. People are deeply biased in regards to seeing something successful and then thinking that is the formula to success. It's textbook survivorship bias. Furthermore, it completely misses the material basis for why these companies would have such hiring patterns: there were higher rates of asian and white college-educated men in CS, but, as hiring pools change, so do hiring patterns.
There isn't some innate ability to found software companies in white or asian men.
It sure looks that way from here.
Given your reasoning, why shouldn't someone note the plethora of successful Steve's and say, "Our team needs more Steves! Look at my pattern matching! Steves work!"
"here comes Karen, let me discriminate by noticing how I might discriminate so to make her more comfortable because I can't perceive my privilege but now I can alter my behavior just around her"
Isn't there some utility in keeping the workplace productive just by being sensitive, as opposed to quantifying if it "reduces discrimination"