I am not a fan of IAT (in fact I distinctly remember writing one of my seminar paper on the problems of IAT, especially on whether it measures actual bias or mere association), but I actually think that Corneille and Gawronski and yourself are being a bit too harsh here. The main question here, and it really is more theoretical than empirical I think, is what is bias to begin with. If bias is indeed a single construct that self-reports and IAT both measure differently, than it makes sense to compare them and which one is better, more robust etc.
However if there really is a difference between implicit and explicit bias (as Gawronsky himself agrees), than comparing IAT, a measure of implicit bias, to self-reports, i.e. a measure of explicit bias, is rather odd to begin with (That's like measuring fluency by comparing reading comprehension to reaction times on a word-nonword task: sure, they both tap into a similar cognitive process, but it is very likely that they are better suited to evaluate different aspects of it, and comparing them would be useless).
So the question becomes - what evidence do we have that IAT badly measures implicit bias. I think some of the points raised by Corneille and Gawronski don't directly answer that, instead just pointing that IAT is not a great measure of bias in general. Even worse, other points just show that IAT is a bad measure of ^insert false assumption regarding implicit bias^, which is definintely not the problem of IAT, that accurately reflects a reality we just didn't hypothesize.
Therefore the problem, I think, is more related to your second point, about the rush to theorize and measure. Fortunatly, that does not mean the field cannot recover - it actually seems to me like a healthy process of regrouping, matching our expectations from IAT to its actual capabilities and properly theorize the differences between implicit and explicit biases.
That being said, I 100% share both the mad respect for Corneille and Gawronski, and the aversion to the rush of the theory-evidence-intervention-policy process. BTW, I think it is a very American (perhaps Anglo-Saxon?) thing - at least from what I see in Europe and here (Israel), people are actually pretty cautious (probably too cautions) about turning social psychology findings into policy.
I am not in this field, but I am frustrated by the constant claims that this is a "healthy process of regrouping". Social psychology has had a major impact in workplaces and politics. In my opinion, it has done damage to interpersonal relationships (e.g., those from an oppressed group should look at everyone as being against them). Research such as this is being pushed because it fits a narrative, and before it is accurately vetted (in fact, questioning it brought reputational harm). It is yet another indication I should not trust this field in any way.
>bias is absolutely real. Anyone paying attention can see how prejudice can shape things from job interviews to traffic stops.
Prejudice and bias aren't interchangeable. Researchers were biased in favor of the IAT (irrationally seeking only confirmatory evidence), whereas it is unclear to what extent preference for white sounding names is based in bias (someone's race legitimately correlates with desired characteristics in an employee not on the resume, like their tendency to show up on time or not).
Frankly, the field failed here because the discussion fails to include the biases and assumptions of people who have the very left-wing perspective typical of the researchers themselves, that racism is a strong explaining factor in behavior, that biases are specific instead of general, .etc.
Great article. Thank you. "study after study shows people can predict their implicit scores" Demming Kruger is not exactly this, but adjacent. oh wait, another better source that utterly contradicts this.
THE ENTIRE INTERNET.
People are not aware:
Plain racism. Seen Trump? Seen HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION? Do you think any of them think they are unfair/racist/biased? Yeah, that's what the article is about. Almost doesn't matter.
Eggs and pancakes. I'm an MD PhD pharmacologist so I know the tongue has a lot to do with taste especially salt and sweet. You might not know the tongue does this. Which might be the reason why you put the salt and the sweet as far from the tongue on top of the pancakes and eggs. I actually got trolled when suggesting this in NYT cooking. (see above, people are unaware) and you need under a fifth of the seasoning if you season the plate. The plating guy on instagram banned me for this. What we don't perceive isn't there at all bias.
Word bias. I am an active anti-Worfian as I get older. The words put fences up and mess up how we know about meaning. "DEI put unfit workers into positiions they had no experience for". What is unfit? what is no experience? Isn't the rate of development of fit and experience the real issue? wouldn't someone moving up in social class demonstrating those traits? Nobody questioned the words.
I enjoyed this essay, the title not so much. Calling it a "bamboozle" implies nefarious intent to con people. This is just an example of the messiness of social science. Calling it a bamboozle stokes an angry reaction unnecessarily.
I think your quality writing deserves a quality title.
"Think about all the intellectual energy, research funding, and graduate student careers that went into developing and refining these measures."
Consider that the gaps between population groups in IQ tests are real (not 100% environment) and that the behavior patterns people were recognizing were real (not irrational bias). Consider that social scientists wouldn't accept this fact and so created a vast apparatus of research and funding to find solutions for the persistent gaps without ever once considering the true root cause.
Imagine that for decades, in the most advanced and scientific society that has ever existed, that we completely ignored reality and made hugely consequential decisions to solve a problem that never really existed, and that because of those decisions the very survival of our democracy is now at stake, due to the rise of populist anger.
Imagine that social scientists still won't admin the truth.
I am not a fan of IAT (in fact I distinctly remember writing one of my seminar paper on the problems of IAT, especially on whether it measures actual bias or mere association), but I actually think that Corneille and Gawronski and yourself are being a bit too harsh here. The main question here, and it really is more theoretical than empirical I think, is what is bias to begin with. If bias is indeed a single construct that self-reports and IAT both measure differently, than it makes sense to compare them and which one is better, more robust etc.
However if there really is a difference between implicit and explicit bias (as Gawronsky himself agrees), than comparing IAT, a measure of implicit bias, to self-reports, i.e. a measure of explicit bias, is rather odd to begin with (That's like measuring fluency by comparing reading comprehension to reaction times on a word-nonword task: sure, they both tap into a similar cognitive process, but it is very likely that they are better suited to evaluate different aspects of it, and comparing them would be useless).
So the question becomes - what evidence do we have that IAT badly measures implicit bias. I think some of the points raised by Corneille and Gawronski don't directly answer that, instead just pointing that IAT is not a great measure of bias in general. Even worse, other points just show that IAT is a bad measure of ^insert false assumption regarding implicit bias^, which is definintely not the problem of IAT, that accurately reflects a reality we just didn't hypothesize.
Therefore the problem, I think, is more related to your second point, about the rush to theorize and measure. Fortunatly, that does not mean the field cannot recover - it actually seems to me like a healthy process of regrouping, matching our expectations from IAT to its actual capabilities and properly theorize the differences between implicit and explicit biases.
That being said, I 100% share both the mad respect for Corneille and Gawronski, and the aversion to the rush of the theory-evidence-intervention-policy process. BTW, I think it is a very American (perhaps Anglo-Saxon?) thing - at least from what I see in Europe and here (Israel), people are actually pretty cautious (probably too cautions) about turning social psychology findings into policy.
I am not in this field, but I am frustrated by the constant claims that this is a "healthy process of regrouping". Social psychology has had a major impact in workplaces and politics. In my opinion, it has done damage to interpersonal relationships (e.g., those from an oppressed group should look at everyone as being against them). Research such as this is being pushed because it fits a narrative, and before it is accurately vetted (in fact, questioning it brought reputational harm). It is yet another indication I should not trust this field in any way.
>bias is absolutely real. Anyone paying attention can see how prejudice can shape things from job interviews to traffic stops.
Prejudice and bias aren't interchangeable. Researchers were biased in favor of the IAT (irrationally seeking only confirmatory evidence), whereas it is unclear to what extent preference for white sounding names is based in bias (someone's race legitimately correlates with desired characteristics in an employee not on the resume, like their tendency to show up on time or not).
Frankly, the field failed here because the discussion fails to include the biases and assumptions of people who have the very left-wing perspective typical of the researchers themselves, that racism is a strong explaining factor in behavior, that biases are specific instead of general, .etc.
Great article. Thank you. "study after study shows people can predict their implicit scores" Demming Kruger is not exactly this, but adjacent. oh wait, another better source that utterly contradicts this.
THE ENTIRE INTERNET.
People are not aware:
Plain racism. Seen Trump? Seen HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION? Do you think any of them think they are unfair/racist/biased? Yeah, that's what the article is about. Almost doesn't matter.
Eggs and pancakes. I'm an MD PhD pharmacologist so I know the tongue has a lot to do with taste especially salt and sweet. You might not know the tongue does this. Which might be the reason why you put the salt and the sweet as far from the tongue on top of the pancakes and eggs. I actually got trolled when suggesting this in NYT cooking. (see above, people are unaware) and you need under a fifth of the seasoning if you season the plate. The plating guy on instagram banned me for this. What we don't perceive isn't there at all bias.
Word bias. I am an active anti-Worfian as I get older. The words put fences up and mess up how we know about meaning. "DEI put unfit workers into positiions they had no experience for". What is unfit? what is no experience? Isn't the rate of development of fit and experience the real issue? wouldn't someone moving up in social class demonstrating those traits? Nobody questioned the words.
I enjoyed this essay, the title not so much. Calling it a "bamboozle" implies nefarious intent to con people. This is just an example of the messiness of social science. Calling it a bamboozle stokes an angry reaction unnecessarily.
I think your quality writing deserves a quality title.
Fair critique! I'm terrible with titles and perhaps here is another case!
"Think about all the intellectual energy, research funding, and graduate student careers that went into developing and refining these measures."
Consider that the gaps between population groups in IQ tests are real (not 100% environment) and that the behavior patterns people were recognizing were real (not irrational bias). Consider that social scientists wouldn't accept this fact and so created a vast apparatus of research and funding to find solutions for the persistent gaps without ever once considering the true root cause.
Imagine that for decades, in the most advanced and scientific society that has ever existed, that we completely ignored reality and made hugely consequential decisions to solve a problem that never really existed, and that because of those decisions the very survival of our democracy is now at stake, due to the rise of populist anger.
Imagine that social scientists still won't admin the truth.