Thread by @PsychRabble

Thread: Mostly Accessible Sources* Critical of "Implicit Bias" and "Implicit Bias Trainings"
*Serious scientific and science reporting sources. Not talking your libertarian uncle who runs a car dealership.
1/n Ending in END.
Reupping this blog for the evening crowd.

Before @jessesingal wrote this article, attempts to scientifically criticize implicit bias or the implicit association test were demonized, derogated, and dismissed. This opened the floodgates.
thecut.com/2017/01/psycho…

Jesse is a science news reporter, so that is written in a manner that most people can understand. So is this:
qz.com/1144504/the-wo…
Referring to implicit bias trainings: "The results are underwhelming"

Another nice 1 by @jessesingal showing IAT advocates talk out of both sides of their mouths (e.g., proclaiming in popular press the power of their findings, then objecting to others criticizing those findings in the popular press rather than peer review).
nymag.com/intelligencer/…

"“scientists don’t know how to measure implicit bias with any confidence and that they shouldn’t pretend otherwise.”
From an article mostly on the legal issues of implicit bias & associated trainings in Canada.
litigationguy.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/unc…

An earlier blog of mine, in which Mahzarin Banaji, one of the foremost advocates of the IAT and implicit bias, comes out against mandatory implicit bias trainings.
psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
From the blog:

Nice, short accessible video by @Counter_Weight_


Critique of the IAT, scientifically on target, 5 minutes.

Critique of Unconscious Bias Trainings also by @Counter_Weight_. Also scientifically on target, and less than 5 minutes.

Ok, so much for "accessible." Ready for the deep, scientific, technical dive? Good, because you won't get that on Twitter. You will actually have to read stuff, slowly and carefully, preferably with some background in stats and methods to render it comprehensible.

I have created a repository of over 30 articles, chapters, and presentation slides for a talk or two, all of which is critical of the concept of implicit bias, critical of the IAT, or which walks back some of the extravagant claims made by its founders.

You can still find such extravagant claims today, so this stuff NEEDS BIGTIME WALKING BACK. For example, Psych Today cut this from my most recent blog:

Here is the repository of the >30 critical scientific articles:
osf.io/74whk/

I will next highlight just a few. If this is important to you, I strongly recommend taking the time to at least skim them to see which you will find most useful.

Almost Every Criticism You Would Ever Need about the IAT and Implicit
can be found in my chapter reviewing it. Its not actually comprehensive, because a SLEW of critiques came out AFTER it went to press. But its close. Bonus: Its not too technical.
osf.io/4nhdm/
TOC:

"We recommend discontinuing the usage of the “implicit” terminology in attitude research and research inspired by it."

"neither the IAT nor its derivatives have fulfilled these expectations. Their predictive value for behavioral criteria is weak and their incremental validity over and above self-report measures is negligible."
osf.io/xyhu2/

IAT is 20% signal (e.g., stereotype or prejudice or attitude) and 80% error.
osf.io/pfdhq/

IAT/Implicit bias advocates have 3 main moves in response to this.

1. Ignore it.
This "works" because implicit bias scientists function like a guild. You pub my papers, I pub yours. You fund my grants, I fund yours.

Then to critics: "Its science! Are you a science denier?"

This means the actual substance of the criticisms (definitional incoherence, bizarre statistical behavior, exaggerated effects) never actually get addressed.

Move 2: Claim critics have cherrypicked critical articles and ignored more persuasive evidence. To which I can only say:

Why? I have repeatedly locked at their "best" evidence. Its usually horrible. Tw is not the place to review all of this, so here is just one example.

See this? Ironclad, right? Ten Studies No Manager Should Ignore. Doesn't get any stronger, right?

That paper was a response to one arguing that the race IAT was not up to the job (ala the @jessesingal essay linked earlier).

I did a deep dive into those 10 papers. You can't make this up. 7 of the 10 papers were not even about racial prejudice.

What about the other 3? They reported 4 studies. And those studies found hardly any evidence of racial prejudice.

You really can't make this up. You can safely ignore the 10 studies No Manager Can Ignore.

Move 3: Argue "The field has moved beyond those criticisms."

So, if the measure colloquially sucks, or, more technically, is heavily polluted by artifacts and measurement error, explain to us, exactly, how you "move on" by NOT addressing that and just continuing to use the IAT?

The level of bullshit (in the academic sense of "flagrant disregard for truth," shown below) and misinformation (in the sense of "promoting things as true that one cannot possibly know are true") in this area is piled high and deep.

I hope, you have some tools at your fingertips for clearing wherever you live of the b that is piled high and deep regarding implicit bias and implicit bias trainings.

P.S. Remember this thread next time someone tells you "political bias in social science is a nonproblem."
END