It's kinda funny to claim that something isn't real, because some studies done weren't valid, but then not provide evidence to the contrary.

Being unable to replicate studies showing that something is real doesn't mean that thing is not real, it just means we don't know.

This is of course just my experience, but I know that I've had unconscious biases that I've later managed to surface and suss out (and hopefully eradicate). So maybe unconscious bias isn't as common as these studies you don't like seem to suggest, but it certainly is real, as I've experienced it myself.

Thanks for encouraging me to read more about the training my workplace required me to do. Based on what I've read, seems like there's no measurable change in people's long term behavior when given unbiasing training (sad...), but it doesn't change that you can in fact measure peoples' implicit associations (unconcious biases).

I wasn't actually talking about the training, I was talking about the concept of unconscious bias. So, keep reading. The implicit association test is what it's all based on but it doesn't have any test/retest reliability. You can test someone and it'll tell you they're a raging racist without even knowing it, and if you test them again 10 minutes later it'll tell you the opposite. It's junk science which is why unconscious bias training doesn't do anything - the problem it claims to be solving isn't real.

https://fantasticanachronism.com/2020/09/11/whats-wrong-with...

"The original IAT paper is worth revisiting. You only really need to read page 1475. The construct validity evidence is laughable. The whole thing is based on N=26 and they find no significant correlation between the IAT and explicit measures of racism. But that's OK, Greenwald says, because the IAT is meant to find secret racists ("reveal explicitly disavowed prejudice")! The question of why a null correlation between implicit and explicit racial attitudes is to be expected is left as an exercise to the reader. The correlation between two racial IATs (male and female names) is .46 and they conveniently forget to mention the comically low test-retest reliability. That's all you need for 13k citations and a consulting industry selling implicit bias to the government for millions of dollars."

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-20587-001

"IATs were poor predictors of every criterion category other than brain activity, and the IATs performed no better than simple explicit measures"