Talk:Implicit bias training
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 October 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
A fact from Implicit bias training appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 May 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]Creating just a stub for now. Some resource links:
- Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/11/02/rise-of-the-bias-busters-how-unconscious-bias-became-silicon-valleys-newest-target/ http://archive.is/q9KTL
- Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/unconscious-bias-training/525405/
- Microsoft's program https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/diversity/training/default.aspx
- Fortune http://fortune.com/2015/11/10/test-racism-sexism-unconscious-bias/
- Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2017/04/dont-give-up-on-unconscious-bias-training-make-it-better http://archive.is/6GcBG
- USNews https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/29/can-bias-training-really-improve-diversity-in-tech
It seems a lot of places mention the Implicit Association Test, so there may be a connection there -- however it's not clear to me it is part of actual training materials.
--Nanite (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Lexical ambiguity requires research for clarification
[edit]The first sentence in the 2nd paragraph says the following: "A critical component of implicit bias training is creating awareness for implicit bias, with some recent evidence indicating awareness of implicit biases growing." The second portion of the sentence is unclear as to whether it is the awareness that is growing or the implicit biases that are growing. A further look into the source may be required to figure out what is actually meant here, and the page should be edited accordingly. The wording is also fairly redundant, so if it is the awareness that is growing, using a pronoun to refer to the previously noted idea would be beneficial for simplicity. SandWitch1000 (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Questions
[edit]It is mentioned in the article that the IAT, a major testing component in studies on this topic, was shown to be a weak predictor. Have there been any updates to this test to improve its reliability? 5150EditWiki (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- No. It remains questionable what it even measures it. It may simply be salience asymmetry. Most likely it's associative closeness of terms. Ice and fire are associate closely. Yet nobody believes fire is cold. Relevant decisions we make are conscious. Telling somebody that he is implicitly biased anyways may actually increase stereotyping. Same goes for forcing somebody to go through exhausting training that turns out to be ineffective.
- Re-testability is bad so it might measure nothing at all. That the IAT is taken this seriously is a catastrophe to science and emancipation.
- The criticism and controversy section is the most relevant thing on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test 2001:A61:1225:3401:ED60:7C0C:7AE0:2202 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- Mid-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- C-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles