Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Apr 19 19:26:39 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / Implicit bias training
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 29 02:28:16
Is horse shit. The UK, gets it now.

http://www...over-unconscious-bias-training


Ehum.... We fucking todeso, didn’t we? Years ago, the science was in and we todeso. Yet sebastian was here defending it, on the premise of (I will never forget), ”phenomenology”. i.e because we can make up a system of words, to describe a phenomena, not only is the horse shit real, but the counter meassures are effective. It aint, and here you were, not only wasting tax payer money on utter horse shit andforcing people to endure it, but also admonishing and making suspect, people who questioned it.

What have we learned?
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 29 04:01:45
Nim:

"i.e because we can make up a system of words, to describe a phenomena, not only is the horse shit real, but the counter meassures are effective"

Unpacking that sentence is amazing.

"make up a system of words to describe a phenomena" suggests you accept the phenomena exists and object to the language with which it is documented; phenomenology refers to documenting the features of a repteatable phenomena - not the technical terminology used to define it.

So yes, if you have a documented phenomenology, that implies the thing is real; irrespective of the words used to describe it.

The article itself does not deny the phenomenology, it says it is ineffective - in some circumstances - and can become a performative exercise.

As for the Civil Service banning it, yes - but that was heavily pushed by the govt itself (in a breach of the civil service code) - another example of the govt engaging in virtue signaling to pepole like Nim.

What have we learned:

1. Nim does not understand terminology, and harbours an utterly incoherent throught process when he triggered.

2. The UK Govt thinks the civil service is its plaything.

3. Virtue signalling is fine if you describe the things you consider virtuous as just plain common sense.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 29 05:30:10
“you accept the phenomena exists”

So based on Christian phenomenology, you accept that god exists and in extension you think this validates the efficacy of prayers? Something is going on, but is it the holy ghost? Because that is where the rubber meets the road, no one denies the existence of phenomena that people experience, like spiritual experiences and the human ability to systematize these experiences where we can talk about them intersubjectively. Which is what phenomenology does, it provides a shared system a language to describe the experiences. It doesn’t assess how valid the explanations are and their congruence with objective reality.

“that implies the thing is real”

So, because I can describe the effects of the holy ghost on my life and my choices, how the holy ghost saved me from alcoholism. That means….?

This may be the dumbest thing you have said, in defiance of scientific and the philosophy of science. A phenomenology is the most basic level needed for most attempts at a systematic understanding, i.e the systematization of subjective experiences of a phenomena. However, phenomenology *isn’t* ontology (what is), logic (validity) or epistemology (knowledge), things some would claim are important for doing science and understanding things and stuff.

There is now an emergent phenomenology around the usage of psychedelics, different people who have the same experiences, taking DMT or muhsrooms. The same experience of leaving this world for another dimension and encountering “beings”, is repeated independent of subject. What does that mean seb? Has the mind really crossed over to another dimension and are these fractal beings real?

*I* don’t care what nonsense people believe in or talk about, I only care about:

“wasting tax payer money on utter horse shit and forcing people to endure it, but also admonishing and making suspect, people who questioned it.”

The writing was on the wall, from publication bias to the total lack of decent efficacy studies. You can thank the evolutionary psychology people for this one. They do real science based on more parameters than the existence of a phenomenology.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 29 06:29:27
Nim:

"So based on Christian phenomenology"

Such as?


"you accept that god exists"

No, I would accept the phenomenon exists.

"and in extension you think this validates the efficacy of prayers?"

No. But in the tortured analogy you have constructed here, you were not arguing about the *efficacy* of implicit bias workshops in tackling implicit bias, but whether implicit bias existed - and there is ample evidence that it does.

This is what I mean by your evident deep confusion. In your tortured analogy, you are standing in front of a statue with a red liquid emerging from the eyes and arguing that it absolutely cannot be so because that would mean prayers must be effective and by definition they cannot be effective, because GOD doesn't exist, QED there cannot be red liquid coming out of this statue.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 29 06:31:58
It is interesting to me that you feel so much more strongly about unconscious bias training than any other management fad - Myers Briggs is far more discredited and far more widespread consumer of wasted hours.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 29 09:28:50
"Such as?"

Google religious phenomenology.

"No, I would accept the phenomenon exists."

Thank you for answering rhetorical questions. I accept that people may have biases they are not conscious about. However, given the gross simplification of reality that is needed to do study complex human behavior, it is not known to which extent these tests capture the phenomena we think we are measuring.

[i.e there is a distinction between “implicit bias” as a general phenomena and the whatever it is the researchers are measuring. Think IQ, no one denies the existence of Intelligence as a trait, but are IQ tests measuring what we call intelligence? How well? *Mind you there is infinitely more robust data and studies on IQ than IB, yet the question is still valid IMO].

Further it is unknown how these biases affect real world outcomes, if at all, and to what degree.

*We have not even come to, what is an effective way to influence the thing we are measuring.*

In other words, you need a whole lot more than phenomenology to get from where you are, to holding mandatory courses funded by tax payers. I can only applaud the UK’s push to take science informed policy seriously, I remember a BBC article from a couple of years ago about it. I assume this is one of the fruits of that project and sincerely hope other countries are looking at the UK and taking notes.

"It is interesting to me that you feel so much more strongly about unconscious bias training than any other management fad"

Tsk…Seb please. Racial, sexual and ethnic bias is interesting to me as a nominally terrorist looking fellow. For that reason alone, it is important to me. It also happens to be a topic at the epicenter of the culture war, making it relevant and interesting for those reasons. That is, on top of 2 decades of increasing interest in behavioral science, evolutionary psychology and a career long involvement in organizational matters. The ways in which this is interesting to me, you fail to grasp.

You are of course free to make extrapolations and form conclusions based on these limited exchanges, but they are not valuable and will often leave you disappointed as to how well your perception of Nimatzo aligns with Nima. For instance, you still think I am or were a lean consultant and years ago, you thought I was a second or third gen immigrant. I am neither of those things.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 29 10:22:25
Nim:

"Google religious phenomenology."
You are the one invoking "Christian phenomenology" as an analogy... which bits of "Christian phenomenology" are you referring to? Stuff that is demonstrably not evidenced as even existing so cannot be considered by anyone other than a devout believer as a phenomenology, or stuff that definitely is evidenced, but explainable by more parsimonious means, or simply unexplainable as yet?

You picked this terrible, terrible analogy, it's your job to make it make sense, not mine!
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 29 10:26:50
Nim:

"I accept that people may have biases they are not conscious about."

Earlier, you appeared to be arguing that unconscious bias did not exist.

You are now watering it down to whether unconscious bias training works.

Given there are a range of approaches to this,
at the very worst, it helps prompt people to stop and ensure that they are making a decision consciously - which is likely to be somewhat effective.

Don't you think you are awfully over-invested in something that is, on the whole, less likely to be damaging than MBPTI that leads to rampant stereotyping and can limit peoples career options as a result?
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 29 10:27:52
Nim:

"For that reason alone, it is important to me."

Can you explain to me how unconscious bias could negatively affect you on the basis of race, colour or religion?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 29 11:02:51
"You picked this terrible, terrible analogy"

It is a great example of how phenomenology isn't enough to establish anything other than "I think this is something".

"Earlier, you appeared to be arguing that unconscious bias did not exist."

And later I made a distinction. Which you didn't read, or read and failed to incorporate into your understanding, otherwise what you just wrote does not make sense:

[i.e there is a distinction between “implicit bias” as a general phenomena and the whatever it is the researchers are measuring. Think IQ...]

And when I can respond to "new" questions with things I have already written, this is always a bad sign.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 29 11:08:43
Nim:

By earlier I mean "that last conversation which you are misremembering and in your confusion claiming is now vindicated over by this article".

"And when I can respond to "new" questions with things I have already written, this is always a bad sign."

Indeed. Applies equally to the issues raised in the opening post.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 29 13:21:06
"misremembering and in your confusion"

Maybe I am, I looked for the thread and could not find it. On the other hand, you are the guy who still will not admit you said, all the homophobia is in the OT. Despite that thread still floating around. Honestly, that experience makes me more sympathetic towards Sam Adams and his mean vs median obsession. Trivial and pointless, but I believe him, despite not even having read the original thread.

At any rate, my position has not changed from the thread now lost and I did a pretty good summary of it here Mon Mar 29 09:28:50

Anyone can make the distinction I made, but you did not or if you did, lacked the courtesy to extend such a trivial exercise to me (equally bad for different reason), instead you acted like you were about to get me. Tsk tsk tsk…

It would be like me saying you think intelligence does not exist, because you question the validity of standardized IQ test. That is why IQ is such a good example. The same department of academia, far more evidence, yet perfectly valid to ask, what are we even measuring? Is this really a measure of intelligence? Then why do all these high IQ people do as bad as these functionally retarded people? A lot of valid questions and skepticism. Likewise, it is valid to ask, people who score high on IB tests, has anyone bothered to verify if these people are more biased IRL and what the outcome of this implicit bias is IRL? You know establish a link between what the test measures and real-life outcome, like scientists have done with IQ tests. Nope. Didn’t stop a fucking industry to emerge around it and milk tax money though.. didn’t stop anyone from out of hand dismissing IQ tests as bunk or dangerous pseudoscience.

At first glance your position on these two subjects seems paradoxical, but it is easily resolved with a simple explanation that would make the good old friar Ockam proud. IQ tests are designed to exclude people, IB tests are designed to ultimately increase inclusivity. A general outcome is that IQ tests exclude the people IB test are meant to include. And therein lies the mystery, as to why you think one is valid and the other is not. It has _nothing_ to do with the science or evidence.

I understand you, better than you understand me and perhaps even yourself. You have yet to say something to make me doubt my assertion even the slightest.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 29 13:34:29
Nim:

"you are the guy who still will not admit you said, all the homophobia is in the OT. Despite that thread still floating around"

Sorry, I'm not even sure what you are saying now - what exactly is it I am supposed to be admitting?

"Trivial and pointless, but I believe him, despite not even having read the original thread."

I will leave it to the reader to determine whether they think it is a mark of good judgement to outsource credibility to Sam Adam's whose honesty and ability to interpret a sentence is well, lets just say beyond any doubt.


"people who score high on IB tests, has anyone bothered to verify if these people are more biased IRL and what the outcome of this implicit bias is IRL?"

Ah, but now we are talking about unconscious bias test vs unconscious bias training.

Here are a number of statements that can all be true (for example, other combinations true/false are also possible).

1. People can be unconsciously biased.

2. Unconscious bias can help, on average, a workforce reduce the instances of unconscious bias affecting work place relations.

3. Unconscious bias tests are flawed and do not, on the whole, corelate with the likelihood of an individual displaying noticeably biased behavior.

4. Improvements in unconscious bias score as a result of training sessions do correlate with the effectiveness of training; even if they do not represent a levelised predictor of an individuals propensity to display bias.

Ho hum.

"I understand you, better than you understand me"
It is evident to me that you do not, given your continued misunderstanding of my position and tiresome threads where you accuse me of holding positions I don't actually hold. That you chose to believe this is a matter for you.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 29 13:44:19
Used, not ”designed.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Mar 29 14:15:59
"what exactly is it I am supposed to be admitting?"

That you claimed all the homophobia was in the OT.

"I will leave it to the reader to determine"

I actually have faith, that most readers will, unlike you, understand what I said there.

"Ah, but now we are talking about unconscious bias test vs unconscious bias training."

lol, now? Here I was thinking I have been talking about both the tests as marketed and the solutions as invoiced.

"2. Unconscious bias can help, on average, a workforce reduce the instances of unconscious bias affecting work place relations."

It could, but nobody has bothered to study it, at the level IQ (that you dismiss) has been established as relevant to predict dozens of real life outcomes. It is honestly unfair of me to compare them with each other.

3&4 is meaningless to even pursue before it is established that IB tests (on which the solutions are based) actually predict real outcomes (validate the test). It has not even come close to doing that, the tests do not even validate other tests and often can not be reproduced! You can just take a look at most behavioral study designs to appreciate how crude the tools are vs the complexity of the problems, to realize these people will have a hard time to approximate real life conditions.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 29 16:44:32
Nim:

"That you claimed all the homophobia was in the OT."

I literally do not understand what this sentence means, shorn of context as it is. Can you elaborate? What is "the" homophobia? What is "OT"?

Cut to the chase to and give me a link.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 29 16:46:05
"Here I was thinking I have been talking about both the tests as marketed and the solutions as invoiced."

How, exactly, do you think this works in reality?

I've been through unconscious bias training at three different organisations.

At no point was there a test.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 29 16:50:37
"It could, but nobody has bothered to study it"

I have some very very bad news for you about other things companies spend millions training people in. MBTI has been studied and shown to be definitively wrong.

PRINCE2 is associated with 60% failure rates.

I could go on.

If "OMG the evidence base is weak" was a reason to not undertake activity, most companies wwould never do anything.

This is the weakest fucking argument ever.

Demanding unusual thresholds that you would not for other policies is a normative choice in itself - this is why I ask about your attitude to other corporate policies and practices.
Dukhat
Member
Tue Mar 30 04:13:23
More Nim whining about nothing. Unrepentant narcissist whines about having to maybe practice a little bit of empathy for a few minutes.

Fucking kill yourself Nim. Your wife will enjoy the reprieve from being raped daily.
Seb
Member
Tue Mar 30 04:53:27
There is really no call for that.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Mar 30 11:02:21
“Can you elaborate? What is "the" homophobia? What is "OT"?”

lol, I am reminded that the last time I reminded you about this, it wasn't obvious what "OT" was then either. I apologize, it is a bad habit of mine. Old testament, this is an uninteresting side your started, by saying I don’t remember and am confused. Not a hill I want to waste bullets on. :)

“How, exactly, do you think this works in reality?

I've been through unconscious bias training at three different organisations.

At no point was there a test.”

It works like this. Research is highly publicized (and researchers are not careful) causal language and outlandish claims are made publicizing their research around implicit bias or Implicit association including the tests used to score bias. Some smert social psychologists create training courses, in the training courses, they refer to “the science and research behind their work”, using even more direct and absolute language etc., then they invoice you. Tests are not widely used in the training courses, but they are used. If the stuff you have experienced was something else, not associated with Implicit association research and tests, then I have no opinions about what you experienced.

“I have some very very bad news for you about other things companies spend millions training people in. MBTI has been studied and shown to be definitively wrong.

PRINCE2 is associated with 60% failure rates.”

While I am most concerned about taxpayer money, these are two very different kinds of training and underlying claims. There is no novelty in taking a regular course, based on the aggregated experience of professionals in that field on how to best to the work of that field. We don’t need to validate an education practice we have been using for hundreds of years. That is PRINCE2, you listen, you read, you take an exam to test your understanding, you get quantitative and qualitative feedback on how well you did. I don’t expect everyone to succeed at anything. Especially corporate level courses, that require no entry (no selection), people can be “rewarded” with these course. There are studies that show the so called “top schools” have no correlation with hos well people succeed once you factor ability, a minor effect for minorities. What does that say, it says other factors are more important than the letter head of your degree for success. i.e other factors are more important for project success than the certificate the project manager has. That is, without knowing the details of “60% failure”.

None of this applies to IB training or IAT/research. There is *no* association establish between IAT test scores and real-life outcomes hence it is not known what IAT tests are measuring or what the courses achieve. A comparable scenario to the regular formal education you brought would be, you do an IAT, you have a course and then you do IAT again. There is no such data on IAT or IB training. You could at least produce the figure 60% for PRINCE2. There is a gap here. Bigly.

MBTI is not something I am familiar with, so I have no opinion on its’ validity. On the corporate side I do my homework and form my opinions about these things as I encounter them.

“was a reason to not undertake activity”

It is *a* reason to not undertake an activity, wouldn’t you say? It all depends on the objective and the context. The context being people claim their work is based on research and science, you look up the research and measure it with the claims and things unravel from there. This isn’t inviting over a speaker to your company, to talk about racism for an hour.

“Demanding unusual thresholds that you would not for other policies is a normative choice in itself”

Specifically which policy, private or public (that are not commonly accepted educational practices) do I have a lower threshold of evidence for? I am on record on this forum multiple times, saying “I forbid thee from making policy based on social science research”, of course not in the absolute, it is my general stance, because I know the results energize people into action, while the evidence leaves you disappointed.
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 31 04:16:52
Nim:

"It works like this. Research is highly publicized (and researchers are not careful) causal language and outlandish claims are made publicizing their research around implicit bias or Implicit association including the tests used to score bias. Some smert social psychologists create training courses, in the training courses, they refer to “the science and research behind their work”, using even more direct and absolute language etc., then they invoice you. Tests are not widely used in the training courses, but they are used. If the stuff you have experienced was something else, not associated with Implicit association research and tests, then I have no opinions about what you experienced."


And this is my point: it is indistinguishable from a host of methodologies and trainings and certifications that are foisted around (including Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicators - which remain a huge fad).

However what is clear:

1. Unconscious bias exists, there is a robust phenomenology that can show at a statistical level that it happens (e.g. impact of adoption of name blind CV on acceptance rates). We assume this is not entirely due to conscious racial hatred.

2. Unconscious bias training ultimately is simply a facilitated session intended to explain the importance of consciously reflecting before making decisions/actions and considering implications of those decisions which is almost certainly beneficial and highly unlikely to be harmful - irrespective of how effective it is in changing minds and behaviors; at the very least the firm can say it has done the bare minimum in trying to ensure it's staff are not discriminating against each other on the basis of race.

In that sense it is similar to the anti corruption shit we have to watch once a year. It's not going to stop someone intent on bribery. It will remind people that there are certain types of gifts and hospitality they cannot automatically accept and perhaps prevent some people thoughtlessly putting the firm in legal jeopardy. And it will definitely ensure that nobody can plead ignorance if they are caught breaking the policy, and allows the firm to mitigate it's liability.

The vehemence with which you object to it stands out of all proportion of what the activity itself entails, and is far, far less damaging and less an abuse of science than other similar fads and methodologies.

It simply isn't worth the time and looks really weird. Why, or all things, are you so obsessed with this?
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 31 04:26:39
Nobody runs around screaming "where is the scientific basis that the methodology used in anti-corruption training is sound? Where is the evidence it actually reduces corruption! This is a scandal!".
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Mar 31 05:50:51
"Nobody runs around screaming "where is the scientific basis that the methodology used in anti-corruption training is sound?"

Then they are idiots or eye-servants, or idiotic eye-servants. The fact that nobody seems to care about the efficacy of anti-corruption work, is a fucking problem! Not an argument to take other important issues equally unserious. I can't believe the length you will take this. Is anything important that we need science to inform our decisions? Physics? IT infrastructure, things you know and understand, right?

And then you have audacity to argue against me, when I do my rants about the system wide rot.

Anyways.. Whether I obsess or not has no impact on the validity of IAT research or IB training. Whether there are other useless things out there, has no impact on the validity IAT research or IB training.

I saw it back then, I actually bothered to read the research and listen in to the discussions. I predicted this development, so I am entitled to a follow up thread. If that and the fact that the broader issue of social science as reoccuring element in my career (heavy involvment in organizational issues), counts as an "obsession". I will leave that to the jury of our peers.
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 31 13:12:40
Nim:

"Is anything important that we need science to inform our decisions?"

If we waited for science to definitive prove the utility and efficiency of everything before we did it, we would spend 99% of our lives sitting on our hands and nobody would be able to do anything new.

Anti Bribery training is very effective at mitigating liability, as is unconscious bias training, whether it is effective or not. They both also are very likely to have positive benefit and do little harm.

Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 31 13:59:13
"They both also are very likely to have positive benefit and do little harm."

Wasting everones time.

"Anti Bribery training is very effective at mitigating liability"

The first honest thing seb has said in years. Its not about effective training. Its about checking a box on some lawyer/bureaucrat's form.
Y2A
Member
Wed Mar 31 14:37:12
http://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Apr 01 03:58:32
"If we waited for science to definitive prove the utility and efficiency of everything before"

Ok, but that isn't anything remotely close to what I have said. You add this word "definitive", nothing is ever definitive. I provided a context for research based policy, a context where claims and evidence do not add up and a provision for experimenting. Even in the 1 line you quote I say "inform our decisions".

I dismiss your false representation.

"Anti Bribery training is very effective at mitigating liability"

I am shell shocked, that people engage in useless compliance activity. Not to say all compliance is useless.

Why on earth should this nonsense go on, instead of putting those resources towards understanding the problem (corruption) better? It is insane, that you do not see the direct opportunity cost here! Financially, money is going into some sort of compliance system, psychologically people are fooling themselves into contention, "we are doing something". It is a direct obstacles to making progress on anti-corruption.

You make no sense seb, considering your stance against slavish adherence to "the process". The process is there to deliver an outcome, right? I know that is what I am aiming for every morning I get up, I wonder what useless but harmless things I can do today!

"They both also are very likely to have positive benefit and do little harm."

They do little harm the way getting a small dose of radioactivity doesn't give you cancer. Get enough such small doses and eventually you will get cancer. Within this thread, by your own hands you have given several examples of these small doses of radioactivity beyond IB/IAT. It goes ON AND ON you wrote, remember? I know it does, on and on and on and every year it keeps going on.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Apr 01 04:29:29
"They both also are very likely to have positive benefit and do little harm."

Your assertions have empirical answers. Would you have your child vaccinated with something that had been studied so little regarding effectiveness as IB training? They tell you, "it probably hasn't harmed anyone, but we also have no idea if it is effective, because haven't studied it". Year after year the vaccine providers fail to do effect studies.

How many such vaccines would you jab your child with?

These activities are individually relatively harmless, but can become systemic death by a thousand cuts, the slow cooking of frogs.
Seb
Member
Thu Apr 01 09:11:30
Nim:

"Ok, but that isn't anything remotely close to what I have said. You add this word "definitive", nothing is ever definitive. I provided a context for research based policy, a context where claims and evidence do not add up and a provision for experimenting. Even in the 1 line you quote I say "inform our decisions"."

Sorry, this is pedantry. Most corporate and government policy does not have a strong scientific evidence base. If we limited decisions to only those that had a strong scientific evidence base, we would never do anything, but sit on our hands waiting for a scientific consensus to emerge.

Science is valuable when it comes to a conclusion, precisely because it can provide some definitive input into decision making.

Believing science should inform decision making is not the same as saying decisions or actions should only be taken if there is a robust scientific evidence base to support it.

Indeed, such a statement would be obviously flawed because the decision not to change something is itself a decision - so we are back into the world of the choice of null hypothesis being a normative decision, not a scientific one.

What you are arguing for is unrealistic - and I say that someone who has actually been a scientist professionally.

"Why on earth should this nonsense go on, instead of putting those resources towards understanding the problem (corruption) better?"

The problem is understood well enough indeed. Part of the solution is to ensure that nobody can claim not to know the rules. That means, when anyone breaks them, they can be held accountable.

This is not rocket science, Nim.

"The process is there to deliver an outcome, right?"

And it does - the outcome is that a firm can demonstrably prove that everyone has been informed of the rules, and so any breach of the rules by an employee is malicious or incompetent.

"They do little harm the way getting a small dose of radioactivity doesn't give you cancer."

You will need to provide a stronger justification for this analogy, that likens a training that asks you to reflect on others life experience is somehow akin to high energy particles damaging whatever the equivalent in this analogy is to cellular machinery.

"Would you have your child vaccinated with something that had been studied so little regarding effectiveness as IB training?"

In this analogy you are likening IB training as a "dangerous idea" that could have as much impact on my mind as a foreign chemical or bioactive substance could have on my child's body.

I would then have to keep myself in a sealed box until I had "approved" (by some authority) each concept, requiring a strong scientific evidence basis.

Does this analogy sound remotely sane to you or reflective of what you are actually trying to argue?

I would encourage you to re-forumlate it, because the only way to parse it is going to lead to you complaining I am misrepresenting your position.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Apr 15 08:24:24
"I would encourage you to re-forumlate it"

Ok ready? You have no scientific evidence for something, but you believe there is something there. So, you set up a quasi-experiment within your organisation, you study stuff before, implement whatever it is you think is something and then study the effects after. Tadaaa. There is the way out of this strawman prison you have created, where we can't do anything without definitive science. Or as I have told you, things I have literally done on a factory floor with high school dropouts.

Your PhD in applied strawman physics comes in handy I bet, but it isn't pedantry to differentiate between "definitive science before we act" and "science should inform our decisions before we act". Your proposition has already closed the door to any action before this _definitive_ science emerges, mine is open. Now read the next paragraph.

"not the same as saying decisions or actions should only be taken if there is a robust scientific evidence base to support it."

Ah, so I need to recapitulate the problem, because you don't read? THERE IS SCIENCE ON IAT and IB, it is just very very bad, much worse than IQ (something I am still divided about). Nothing material has been established about IAT and how it relates to the real world. Zero, just some test, that measures how quickly people associate stuff with other stuff.

How do you not get this? Someone comes to you and makes a bunch of claims, they refer to science. You read the science and realize these claims do not hold up. So, now you have an option, experiment and study the effects or just thanks, but no thanks. It all depends on other parameters and the bigger context. Don't you do this where you work? I literally do this, as part of what I do. I read stuff and conclude how well these claims align with reality. Sometimes it is studies, sometimes test reports etc. and so on.

"Part of the solution is to ensure that nobody can claim not to know the rules. "

Then why the fuck do you introduce it, as useless against corruption? See, part of the problem here is that I uncritically assume, you have understood what I am saying and that you understand what you are talking about. This anti-corruption thing, is another PRINCE2. Educating people about objectives facts about the regulatory framework that governs their work. Obviously this isn't useless, but also obviously, people generally do not take bribes because "I didn't know it was illegal". Though admittedly, since I have sat through these things, some details are not clear, but at the end of the day, they are all objective facts.

The liability part is a side effect of the fact that these institutes have requirements to employ COMPETENT people, part of that competency can be knowledge about laws. If you have not employed or educated the correct people, you can be found liable.

Trust me, I am quite familiar with compliance schemes, as I have written a few. And I am not happy with you and people like you, who undermine my work, with useless bullshit. Stuff that gives ammo to "muh regulation is bad" people. Do you understand where I am coming from? This is a matter of professional integrity. If you claim shit, you better prove it. If you don't claim shit, then it has to be interesting enough so I am willing to spend money testing it. Sell it to me raw and without bullshit. What I will never do however, is uncritically accept the things you claim.
TJ
Member
Sat Apr 17 11:38:28
Curveball!

Maybe I should start a movement titled: SLM

Where does genetic discrimination begin and end in societal thinking? "Short Lives Matter"
Maybe I'm being satirical or maybe I'm not...

How important is emotional sensitivity and how does it affect mental stability in societies? The point of focus is misguided if you consider the plethora of implicit bias'. There is no singular implicit bias that is more important than another when it comes to overall mental health. Something that Implicit Bias Training should consider in its approach.

Dislike is an undefeatable nature in societies and sensitivities are overrated in the desire to erase them. There are approximately 15 million individuals 5'7" or under in the U.S. alone. It is a good thing I didn't allow my 5'6" height influence my struggle for success.
Balloons pop when you stick them with a pin.

It is of my opinion that a single focus can create the opposite intention. It is a matter of my professional integrity. The big picture, pun intended.

http://ope...rticle=1432&context=law_review
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Apr 18 15:50:20
Bad news. Height is largely determined by genes :/ On the bright side, a lot of people need what I call, an adversity narrative to make it :) Also, I guess BDE help.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BDE
jergul
large member
Sun Apr 18 16:29:26
Nimi
I think that globally, nutrition is the main determinant. TJ is certainly of an age where it would matter still if he grew up in parts of Northern Norway. But perhaps not where he was fostered.
TJ
Member
Sun Apr 18 17:47:01
The deal is set, what you do with it is not. Thoughts develop character and adversity reveals it.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Apr 18 18:34:03
You gave me this concept, of adversity as a mason, chiseling in granite, to reveal the character of your thoughts.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share