Morehouse Story On Unconscious Bias

[HawksMN]

What a bunch of dialogue, man. All this crap came to a head starting in 2008-when one moron decided to stir some pots and grind some axes.

 

[skinnykilmer17]

I know we landed on the moon. I also know "Unconscious Bias" is about as legit as "global warming...er...climate change!", especially of the "man-made

Quit showing us how you're so "woke". It ain't a good look.

Thanks for being concerned with my look. Maybe you can help me reconcile my unconscious bias that all guys named hawkeyebob62 are mental "vertically challenged people." Probably not.

"Unconscious bias or usually known as implicit bias is a "positive or negative mental attitude towards a person, thing, or group that a person holds at a subconscious level".[70] Based on a Stanford medical website, unconscious bias is believed to be established from our own interaction with other people in our society, as well as exposure from the media. Constant exposure to it will eventually develop as some kind of habit that we naturally perceive. Likewise, in 1995, researchers Banaji and Greenwaldnoted that someone’s social learning experiences, such as observing parents, friends, or others, could trigger this type of bias. Many studies have found that culture is able to stimulate biases as well, both in a negative and positive way regardless someone’s personal experience with other cultures.[71] As far as many people are concerned, implicit bias knows no age restriction and it can be held by anyone regardless of their age. In fact, unconscious bias can be found in a person as young as six years old.[71]Even though unconscious bias may be difficult to catch, especially compared to explicit bias, it can be measured through a number of mechanisms, such as sequential priming, response competition, EDA, EMG, fMRI, ERP and ITA. Thus, once a person becomes aware of their own bias, they can take action to change it, if they wish.

The existence of implicit stereotypes is supported by several articles in psychological literature. Adults- and even children- may hold implicit stereotypes of social categories, categories to which they may themselves belong to. Without intention, or even awareness, implicit stereotypes affect human behavior and judgments. This has wide-ranging implications for society, from discrimination and personal career choices to understanding others in social interactions each day.[1][20][17][33][52]"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/02/unconscious-bias-what-is-it-and-can-it-be-eliminated

Maybe you are simply vertically challenged Bob?
》》》》》
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ort-people-intellectually-challenged-too.html

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Thanks for being concerned with my look. Maybe you can help me reconcile my unconscious bias that all guys named hawkeyebob62 are mental "vertically challenged people." Probably not.

"Unconscious bias or usually known as implicit bias is a "positive or negative mental attitude towards a person, thing, or group that a person holds at a subconscious level".[70] Based on a Stanford medical website, unconscious bias is believed to be established from our own interaction with other people in our society, as well as exposure from the media. Constant exposure to it will eventually develop as some kind of habit that we naturally perceive. Likewise, in 1995, researchers Banaji and Greenwaldnoted that someone’s social learning experiences, such as observing parents, friends, or others, could trigger this type of bias. Many studies have found that culture is able to stimulate biases as well, both in a negative and positive way regardless someone’s personal experience with other cultures.[71] As far as many people are concerned, implicit bias knows no age restriction and it can be held by anyone regardless of their age. In fact, unconscious bias can be found in a person as young as six years old.[71]Even though unconscious bias may be difficult to catch, especially compared to explicit bias, it can be measured through a number of mechanisms, such as sequential priming, response competition, EDA, EMG, fMRI, ERP and ITA. Thus, once a person becomes aware of their own bias, they can take action to change it, if they wish.

The existence of implicit stereotypes is supported by several articles in psychological literature. Adults- and even children- may hold implicit stereotypes of social categories, categories to which they may themselves belong to. Without intention, or even awareness, implicit stereotypes affect human behavior and judgments. This has wide-ranging implications for society, from discrimination and personal career choices to understanding others in social interactions each day.[1][20][17][33][52]"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/02/unconscious-bias-what-is-it-and-can-it-be-eliminated

Maybe you are simply vertically challenged Bob?
》》》》》
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ort-people-intellectually-challenged-too.html

What I lack in "height" I compensate for with "girth"

 

[Bigtenchamp]

You a "woke" guy, too? Cool.

If "woke" means knowing basic reality that a 9 year old should know.. then I guess...

 

[Ree4]

I know we landed on the moon. I also know "Unconscious Bias" is about as legit as "global warming...er...climate change!", especially of the "man-made variety".

Quit showing us how you're so "woke". It ain't a good look.

Hahahah, wow.

This thread is making me lose faith in humanity.

I don't know that I ever had much =/

 

[1977Hawkeye]

You are guessing if you try to say why Dolph chose King Kong. Maybe it was unconscious bias and maybe it wasn't. There is no way to know for sure. I doubt Dolph even knows for sure.

There is clearly an issue with all races having unconscious biases. Everyone should work on this. If a black man was offended by what Dolph said, it's either because he had a really hard life or he was raised to think white people all hate black people. Either way, he needs to be educated on his uncontrolled bias so he can better make decisions on what is and isn't offensive. If white people are offended by what Dolph said, then I have a really strong opinion of them that I wont share.

And this is not even restricted to a race thing. We had a session at my company related to interviewing job candidates, and they told us a riddle. I forgot how it all went, but it was related to a doctor - and literally everyone in the room assumed that the doctor was a man. The answer was that the doctor is a woman. It doesn't mean any of us were opposed to a woman being a doctor. Just that we all just assumed (poorly) in this case. The point was to avoid making those types of assumptions.

In this case - was Dolph's KK comment a result of some sort of "unconscious bias"? I very highly doubt it.

 

[revkev73]

Not trying to be the spelling police but it was actually "secession". But you're exactly right about the cause of the Civil War. Lincoln's election in 1860 was what was the spark for secession as they feared he would put an end to their slave-dominated culture and economy.

Similar to attempting to raise the national minimum wage, or limiting illegal immigration, cuts into profits!

 

[revkev73]

70s movies you should try and watch:

- Godfather (1 and 2) (1972 and 1974)
- Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
- Kramer vs Kramer (1979)
- Jaws (1975) - my personal favorite
- One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
- All The President's Men (1976)

There's more, but that will get you started.

Not a big fan of "should" but thanks for the suggestions!

Best movie to describe Iowa's current leadership team? "Cape Fear?"

 

[dirtwrap]

And this is not even restricted to a race thing. We had a session at my company related to interviewing job candidates, and they told us a riddle. I forgot how it all went, but it was related to a doctor - and literally everyone in the room assumed that the doctor was a man. The answer was that the doctor is a woman. It doesn't mean any of us were opposed to a woman being a doctor. Just that we all just assumed (poorly) in this case. The point was to avoid making those types of assumptions.

In this case - was Dolph's KK comment a result of some sort of "unconscious bias"? I very highly doubt it.

I agree with your point whole-heartily. We all carry this type of "unconscious imagery" (I will not use bias, because it has nothing to do with being biased) with us everyday in so many things that we do. We try to imagine a face with a voice, or what someone looks like from a resume, or what someones wife, or husband, or what their kids look like with respect to the way they look, or how old someone is, or what race a person is based on accomplishments that we read about or crimes in the news. This imagery can come from anywhere, from real past experiences, movies, books, media, etc.

This unconscious imagery is harmless and shows our curiosity. Now, with respect to this discussion, and an adaptation to your riddle, if that were a job interview and everyone in the room assumed the candidate was white, however, upon the candidate entering you see they are black, and you determine the job offer by their race that makes you a racist. However, if this person was what you thought they were according to your image or not, and that had nothing to do with employment opportunities, then it is just this unconscious imagery.

With regards to Dolph, he has been doing this for 25 years. I am just assuming here, but I bet he uses the same descriptions and metaphors over and over again, and being since King Kong has been out as long as we have been alive, I wonder if he has ever used this metaphor in the past with a white person. Has anyone asked him? Maybe Jess Settles in the past?

 

[PCHawk]

And this is not even restricted to a race thing. We had a session at my company related to interviewing job candidates, and they told us a riddle. I forgot how it all went, but it was related to a doctor - and literally everyone in the room assumed that the doctor was a man. The answer was that the doctor is a woman. It doesn't mean any of us were opposed to a woman being a doctor. Just that we all just assumed (poorly) in this case. The point was to avoid making those types of assumptions.

In this case - was Dolph's KK comment a result of some sort of "unconscious bias"? I very highly doubt it.

I've heard that riddle in a movie before. It had me stumped and was so obvious when they said the answer.

Also can you please stop referring to King Kong as KK? That looks too much like KKK for me to not be offended.

 

[Robowe]

I've heard that riddle in a movie before. It had me stumped and was so obvious when they said the answer.

Also can you please stop referring to King Kong as KK? That looks too much like KKK for me to not be offended.

 

[Thawki]

it sure is a horrible feeling being called a racist (in my opinion, the biggest scourge within humanity) when i am absolutely and without question not a racist.

to me, the point of this should be that if bruno fernando was offended, then dolph should have spoken directly to him and they work it out. no one can ever know the true intent of another person. what has been lost in this society is the realization that, sometimes, people offend and can be offended but no intent to offend was meant. a heartfelt and true apology used to be acceptable. has bruno fernando stated he was offended? if he has, then dolph should still reach out to him. but gary barta and learfield comms shouldn't be the arbitors to settle the issue and take a side by applying an intent towards what was said.

This thread is very entertaining.

Morehouse talks to a social scientist who explains how we in this country think in binary terms re race. If the statement Dolph made is racist, that doesn’t make Dolph a bad guy, nor does it place intent on what he said.

Meanwhile, everyone on here feels the need to defend Dolph because they don’t want what he said to be racist because then they would have to admit that they have had racist thoughts, even if it was unintentional. They see what Dolph did as binary, and cannot see that there is more to it.

It is interesting that someone commented that they were entertained that a white person would be offended for black people, or something like that. That seems like stupid statement. Shouldn’t everyone be offended by racism when it is seen, whether they were the aggrieved party or not?

I find it interesting that the people who don’t think anything needed to be addressed in this instance are so adamant that even if it wasn’t intentional, what was said couldn’t have been offensive to someone else. Surely EVERY person that claims offense in this instance has some sort of axe to grind, and the offense is not legitimate.

That is a rather binary approach, it seems to me. And THAT was a big point of the article. Unfortunately, no one on this thread seems to want to talk much about the article. A few people did, and that should be commended. But most people on this thread can’t even address the article. I wonder why that is?

 

[Robowe]

Morehouse had another story related to Dolphin today - very personal.

 

[dirtwrap]

Has Dolph ever used the metaphor "King Kong" for anyone who was not black?

 

[ArvadaHawk]

This thread is very entertaining.

Morehouse talks to a social scientist who explains how we in this country think in binary terms re race. If the statement Dolph made is racist, that doesn’t make Dolph a bad guy, nor does it place intent on what he said.

Morehouse spoke to a student of counseling psychology.

Racism doesn't exist as a thought or in a vacuum. Racism is action, speech and carrying out intentions against another person or group to cause some kind of harm. To say a person that makes a racist statement doesn't make that person a bad person, is misguided, at best. And this is why you damn well better be able to prove intent before you announce someone made a racist statement because once you do, that person will always be know as a racist.

Meanwhile, everyone on here feels the need to defend Dolph because they don’t want what he said to be racist because then they would have to admit that they have had racist thoughts, even if it was unintentional. They see what Dolph did as binary, and cannot see that there is more to it.

"Everyone" is a pretty general term. Speaking for myself, this has nothing to do with any personal fear or self realization on my part, or even defending Dolph. It has everything to do with due process and being fair and not ruining someones (perhaps) life or reputation over something that has not been proven to be true. Again, without intent, you cannot prove.

It is interesting that someone commented that they were entertained that a white person would be offended for black people, or something like that. That seems like stupid statement. Shouldn’t everyone be offended by racism when it is seen, whether they were the aggrieved party or not?

rac·ism
[ˈrāˌsizəm]
NOUN

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

The definition of racism, above, is not an acceptable way to treat any person. Which again demands that you must prove intent before you can even come to the definition.

I find it interesting that the people who don’t think anything needed to be addressed in this instance are so adamant that even if it wasn’t intentional, what was said couldn’t have been offensive to someone else. Surely EVERY person that claims offense in this instance has some sort of axe to grind, and the offense is not legitimate.

If you are referring to my posts, then you've missed the target. The issue is ruining a reputation in the public square. And to remind everyone, the reporting that is out there when this story first broke is that just one email had been received complaining about the term used. So, "every" equaled one. And, that one wasn't the subject of the comment. Have we reached a point where a single anonymous voice can ruin an entire livelihood? Couldn't that anonymous person have a racial intent to ruin another person? So, again, that is why intent must be proven.

That is a rather binary approach, it seems to me. And THAT was a big point of the article. Unfortunately, no one on this thread seems to want to talk much about the article. A few people did, and that should be commended. But most people on this thread can’t even address the article. I wonder why that is?

The expert in the article: "Dave Drustrup, 32, studying counseling psychology at the UI. His Twitter account is “Black Lives Matter.” His emphasis is “whiteness” and racism. He is a white male from Des Moines."

Regarding the article: Unconscious bias applies only to white people? Perhaps Morehouse should have also queried a geneticist to provide which gene white people have that causes unconscious bias? So, only white people can be racist? Spike Lee agrees with the article.

 

[Thawki]

I agree. This IS NOT a Howard Cosell "Look at that little monkey run" kind of situation.

Well, after reviewing the Cosell situation, I guess it kind of is. Howard Cosell made reference to "little monkey" to both white and black players. It didn't matter as he was referencing the play of the player. I didn't realize that until I read about it a bit just now. One interviewee stated Cosell was not the least bit racist.

Actually, Howard Cosell wasn’t just not a racist. He was a neighbor and close personal friend of Jackie Robinson from some time in the 60s until Robinson’s death.

He was probably the opposite of a racist, and he took great exception to the fact that he felt his high profile announcing mates hung him out to dry for quite some time re this incident being referenced.

 

[Thawki]

The problem with this (and it's a big problem) is the line "he should've known" . . . when the goal posts are moved on a daily basis, rational people can't predict what irrational people will freak out over. More importantly, rational people shouldn't have to answer to the irrational. In fact it should be the other way around. For those who haven't noticed during the last several years - COMEDY IS GONE. Late night hosts and comedians are looking for APPLAUSE, not laughs.
There's a war going on folks. And the good guys have opted out of this war for the last 50 years. It's gotten to the point where that isn't an option anymore. The reason people were shocked in 2016 is cuz the rational's thought the war had been lost. The adults have let the children set the narrative for too long and the time has come to say "enough".

So anyone that sees things differently than you is irrational?

 

[Robowe]

So anyone that sees things differently than you is irrational?

 

[SteveGarvey1]

Actually, Howard Cossel wasn’t just not a racist. He was a neighbor and close personal friend of Jackie Robinson from some time in the 60s until Robinson’s death.

He was probably the opposite of a racist, and he took great exception to the fact that he felt his high profile announcing mates hung him out to dry for quite some time re this incident being referenced.

Yeah, I don't think Ali would have let him hang around him and interview him that much if he was a racist.

 

[PCHawk]

Actually, Howard Cosell wasn’t just not a racist. He was a neighbor and close personal friend of Jackie Robinson from some time in the 60s until Robinson’s death.

He was probably the opposite of a racist, and he took great exception to the fact that he felt his high profile announcing mates hung him out to dry for quite some time re this incident being referenced.

That makes sense since the more "not racist" you are, the less likely you would be to connect dots to stereotypes.