Jordan Peterson trashed this implicit bias test and "training" a while ago. He also advised against taking it all together. Hughes is yet another voice to confirm it.
Jacob Jorgenson ? Yeah he grew a chemical dependency to a drug he was prescribed, and went to Russia to get urgent care for it, what exactly is your point?
A voice being added is just that: one voice. It's also extremely dangerous to put too much weight into one person's voice, simply because they have a platform. For Coleman to say "there's no evidence for this" implies that he's actually read the full literature. He very likely hasn't, simply due to the volume of IAT-based research that has been published to-date. It's also extremely easy to manipulate an author of the IATs' comments into something that fits your argument - there's no context given for that author's comments, or how generalisable those comments were. I'm not saying Coleman is wrong. I'm saying it's silly for yourself to overweigh two (intelligent) people's comments in place of potentially thousands of other (intelligent) people's comments and/or research
I love listening to Coleman Hughes not because I 'like' what he says but because I love rational elequent people and that is a real treat in a world of hysterical tweeters !
I remember taking the implicit bias test a handful of times. It made me biased towards whichever race was first associated with good, and towards whichever race I said I was. It was obvious even during the first time that it was just a muscle memory training device. Any gamer or musician would recognize this.
You let that fool you into the idea that he has real intelligence on this issue? Were you easier to convince because his black skin was used to convince you that racism isn't a prevalent and strong problem? His analysis on these issues doesn't even reach a level of quality I'd expect from someone about to finish high school because he misses how to apply probability and statistics. I'm not a math graduate by any means but I am in STEM, and this guy is dumb AF. Even his agreeable interviewer catches him off guard with the "where did you get that 1 in a billion number from?" and he admits he pulled it out of his ass. He should put it back up there. What's wrong with the question: "what are my chances of getting struck by lighting?" Answer: you haven't defined the discrete context in which that event may or may not happen to record a statistic and further measure and express a meaningful probability. Fixed: "What are my chances of getting struck by lightning in a year?" Even this is incomplete as most people need to, or mean to, go further in specifying "during a thunderstorm?" "while driving in a thunderstorm?" "in Florida?" "while standing under a tall tree or power line?" etc etc. That he even mentions 1 in a billion chances of a racist event with no observation context, is stupid. Furthermore, what limits when a person may or may not experience racism? Maybe the chances are far lower than 1 in a billion? Maybe the chances are 1 out of 1e18 (that's 1 billion times 1 billion), but if he can't event define the observation period limits? Is he arbitrarily starting a clock for every minute and each minute racism can either happen or not happen? Is it every time a black person is speaking to another person? Only the introduction or can it be observed 5 minutes into the conversation again? Can he say that a person's average day has 10 opportunities to experience racism? Is it 100, or 10,000? What are those events, and what aren't those events? If you can't say, his ideas about any numerical probability has no meaning at all. He was trying to confuse folks into thinking he's smart about probability when all he wanted to say was "we may be seeing a hyper focus on a problem that now gets video taped and overly shared." Coleman is half right. If we're talking George Floyd and Walter Scott like situations, those type of events rare relative to 40 million black people in the U.S. I wouldn't call police killing unarmed black men an epidemic for sure in terms of pure numbers. But it happens more than it should because police are supposed to do exactly opposite of that and almost always is justice denied. But Coleman further shows off his ignorance on this important issue by forgetting that police violence doesn't always result in death and police violence isn't always recorded on video. How acceptable is it for a police officer to just walk up to a teenager or young adult on the street and beat em up? What should happen to that officer? What would happen to the officer if it weren't caught on tape? Or maybe if some part of the interaction was caught on tape? Those situations are never reported because any sensible black or brown person living in such areas or communities know that kind of complaint will fall on deaf ears so why bother? I'm sure if you engaged Coleman on that question, he would say "I'm sure some there are bad cops that lie on report. "But how do you know this probability Coleman?" He would pause and intellectually posture, and then say "I made it up." You see a pattern here? Also, real talk: even if there are only a few bad cops, why do about all of the other cops protect them?
@@EbonySeraphim "im not a math graduate but I am in stem"- isn't math the last letter of stem? also, if he is a high school kid like you mentioned, why would you be mad at his inability to "apply probability and statistics"? Lastly, your username is more than enough evidence about your character : emotional, sensitive BW. He obviously struck a nerve
Raoul M you just conflated being a math graduate and being in stem? Some people don’t realize one of the core abilities of useful intelligence is being able to make proper, nuanced, and meaningful distinctions. You missed the 6th grade class on that just now. Coleman does strike a nerve in a general sense, but you’re incapable of having that discussion. And seen this play from conservatives a lot: “I’m so unemotional about this and it makes me right and unbiased.” Cool story bro! Take your lack of caring on the hell out of here then
@@EbonySeraphim Crime statistics for Bias Motivation Categories: by race/ethnicity: www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics ~7,000 per year in US for all races/ethnicity. Sure, not all cases are recorded. Multiplying by 100 then divided by 365. Roughly it will give us 2000 incidents per day. Now you can calculate the probability.
Remember Alamo so Coleman was referring to hate crimes specifically? Oh wait...no he wasn’t. And I won’t even take you seriously if you think “hate crimes” are close to capturing problematic racial bias behavior in this country
I disagree, I find his arguments lack much depth. Littered with hasty generalizations, its actually incredible to see that his opinions are gaining traction with any community; even those on the right who clearly favor his opinions to justify their systematic racism.
Man, What an intelligent and articulate couple of young adults. Maybe there is hope for humanity after all! Coleman is full of insightful information and Michele has a knack for asking the right questions and letting the interviewee speak. Bravo
The point Coleman Hughes is trying to make at minute four is called an availability cascade. Daniel Keniman has a body of research on the topic in his book "Thinking Fast and Slow".
@@mister--clean5038 Absolutely. That book is brilliant. Even though I had been cognizant of a decent amount of the research and ideas in there before it was published, the way Kahnemann weaves it all together illuminated each specific part like never before for me. Changed the way I think.
The point made at around @5:30, about how people view racism as a curable "disease", is such a great perspective. It makes a lot of sense to me, in terms of understanding how people have recently approached these problems.
Please listen to more people because his logic is intelligent, yell very short sighted. Please read some authors that are a bit more seasoned on the topic of race.
@@j3cruz1 ^Can you define "preconceived notions on race?" And in what context? As of now, your comment reads as a loaded question, based on a relatively vague idea. If you're going to make a counter point, you should be more specific.
My work just required it. I refused to take it and explained my thoughts behind it, that it was inappropriate for the work environment. They removed my name from the list to complete it.
I gotta give it to the interviewer she was very fair. Rare to find nowadays. Simply interested in what the guest has to say and nothing more than that.
Man he is so smart. The one in a billion thing describes what is happening now and we as people really are too dumb to understand it. Some of us do but most of us think it’s happening all the time to everyone when it’s not. Videos like this need to be mandatory.
Hi Michelle, I’m really enjoying your channel. If I could offer a suggestion... include a link to the full interview in the description of clip videos. It’s convenient for the viewer who wishes to view the full interview, and helps to increase your overview views numbers. Cheers!
Very insightful examples. I really appreciated the "One in a billion" calculation of a country as populated as the US is. It gives a lot of perspective.
That Starbucks incident was totally trumped-up, too! Those two men hung out there for at least ten minutes before the manager politely asked them if they'd like to order something, even a water, since those tables were for customers only, (as everyone knows, especially those in the city where there is a huge problem with homeless, addicted people who loiter in the dining rooms of coffee shops, often camping out in the restrooms to shoot up. They deliberately refused to follow the store's stated policy, by design, so they could claim racism and get fame and money. They were on the Today Show, etc.) As someone who used to live near there, I know that many, many black people come there, and that manager wouldn't have lasted a day if she were racist by one iota!
Not really. It was to make the point that we have so many people in the USA that you can have a dozen to 2 dozen people have this sort of racist event happen and run with the epidemic narrative. If that’s the case you can make up quite a number of narratives that aren’t so. That seems to be the trend these days in the news media and politics.
If you are curious how much implicit bias you have, you can take the test here: implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html -- It seems like we are all biased towards our own race, inherently. It doesn't mean we are racist. But taking the test was fascinating for me.
Can you refuse to take am implicit bias test from a company or institution and have a legal leg to stand on particularly given that it has been widely debunked?
em3sis Then again, a conservative or libertarian judge would say that a company is free to ask whatever they want when deciding who to employ so... I’d say arguing with a leftist judge would be easier.
I took a few of the tests...for one of them I didn’t have the bias that I was “supposed to have” as a white man. I’m a gay man, yet the bias test on sexuality was not representative of my experience in this community. It was truly leftist.
On the other hand, I, a white, straight woman, just took two tests that indicate I am slightly biased in favour of black people and gay people. I suppose from a leftist perspective that's good, but it doesn't make much sense. I am pretty skeptical of these tests XD. Maybe it's my inferiority complex coming out.
Miranda Thomson I’m slightly biased towards straight people, but I’m chalking it up to my experience of straight people being nicer to me than gay people (in general). If you ask me, bias training and noticing them or working on them should be a personal, individual journey.
in the star bucks incident, i think those people were waiting, not buying anything, and wanted to use the bathroom. the employee insisted they order something, before being allowed to use the facility...that lead to some altercation?....
Akira LeVa It’s so funny cuz 😂 I thought he was gonna talk about how implicit bias is an “underlying oppressive force” with a condescending professional body language. But then he kept saying great things and totally surprised me! I completely agree with what he said and not like 90% I mean 100% agree with what he said. 💫 This guy is really freakin smart!
What I've read indicates it's an extremely mild startle reflex, your brain sees a pattern, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, TURTLE! and you get the same response. Are people implicitly biased against turtles? No. Flip it around with turtle, turtle, turtle, RABBIT! and it looks the other way around. It's meaningless. It's just your brain processing patterns w/expectations as to what falls next in the sequence.
PockASqueeno i love coleman hughes. But the dude spouts off a bunch of data and facts and never discloses what study he is talking about. It is kind of frustrating and a trend i notice.
@@tylerasmith52 while I get that, the amount of memorization it would take for him to accurately cite, off the cuff, specific studies to the standard they must be in an academic setting, is unreasonable. He is sharing interpretations of data, not churning out citation after citation. Many people are more big-picture rather than detail/memorization oriented, which makes the issue even worse. Unless someone is using a power point, with prepared notes (which is almost antithetical to the format of an interview) then giving specific citations will always be the exception, not the rule.
This dude gets so much hate, just check out his instagram page, there are people who have committed their lives to harassing him. Regardless on whether you agree with him or not, he is a definition of integrity.
I like this young man, much of what he says is true. I do feel that ethnic groups often feel discrimination when it isn't there. But how he presents things it is clear he is ignorant in some ways. Let's look at the sociological studies which had identical résumés submitted to employers following job vacancies being advertised, the only difference being the name of the applicant. Findings show that applications with ethnic sounding names got less responses than those with White sounding names. Also what about those studies showing that ethnic minorities are more likely to experience police brutality (not murders). We could also bring it to gender. In terms of differences in pay for the same roles and the fact that men are more likely to be hired for more senior roles than women, and that women are more likely to be hired for certain other roles. Anyone who doesn't think we all have biases is living in cloud cuckoo land.
I was thinking the same thing. Really smart dude but as we all are in some capacity, ignorant on some of his points. One thing to note is although there aren’t (arguably) any indication that implicit bias reinforces the prediction of real world bias, one can argue that statement in reverse. There’s no evidence that implicit bias DOES NOT reinforce the prediction of real world bias either. The state of being human has been studied for a millennia and we are still defining what it actually is to be human.
@@christopherlong4287 the burden of proof is on the assertion. there's no proof that implicit bias causes liver cancer either -- so unless and until we find evidence to the contrary, it can be dismissed out of hand. I agree with your last sentence very much -- we are still studying what it means to be human -- but that doesn't mean we should automatically assume that every theory about human nature has merit. As the great Hitchens put it: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Think about it: how could Coleman (or anyone else, for that matter) possibly be expected to prove the negative.
One correction to OP's statement: in the studies with identical resumes submitted, they found it was actually class discrimination and not racism. People will lower class names were discriminated against more, not just black names.
Max Rose how was his example good? He’s using a billion to make it seem like that’s the actual likelihood of a black person getting the cops called on them when it isn’t. He admits I just made it up and then gives another example having to do with lighting, still putting in the viewers mind that the likelihood of a racist incident is about as likely as getting hit by lightning. Very disingenuous, I don’t know why she didn’t follow up.
@@thamerooni1 He's saying that a "one in a billion" event, whatever that may be, will happen every 3rd day in the United States because we have over 300 million people. If we could list 100 scary scenarios that all have 1 in a billion chances of happening, I bet you and most people would say you're not afraid of any of the scenarios because it's only one in a billion. So, his point his, unlikely scenarios happen somewhere in the US every few days, but that doesn't mean the event, whatever it may be, is likely to happen to the average citizen. I think that's a good point.
We can and we should resist reacting too rashly. Bad thoughts occur to me all the time. Bad thoughts do not determine my hatred towards someone. If I nurse hatred and think about it a lot, it can develop bad behaviors.
This guy has to be a huge Sam Harris fan... He's a copy of Sam, from arguments, posture, cadence, even hand gestures. I like him, but less Sam and more him would be more appealing.
The IAT is a useless statistical instrument because of its variability and margin of error. The same person can take the test multiple times and get wildly different answers across the entire spectrum of results. It doesn't yield the same results when taken by the same person multiple times, which is one of the major criticisms of the "test's" internal measurement validity. You can take the test, be racist on Monday, not racist on Tuesday, and super racist on Wednesday...all within a HUGE margin of error, meaning that a result of slightly racist might actually be a result of slightly NOT racist, but the test is so vague and poorly designed that no one knows what side of the margin of error the "correct" result is on. The test is such a bad scientific instrument that even it's best results, whether they reveal true racism or not, are so vague and unscientific that the entire thing becomes useless...as a scientific instrument. The bigger the margin of error, the worse the statistical instrument. If I told you that you were "slightly racist"...within a 95% margin of error, how does that help anyone? Would you use a 5% effective condom? If I told you that you were "very likely" to win the lottery, with .000001% certainty...would you invest your life savings on lottery tickets? No?... then why would you rest your perception of racism, and how others perceive you as racist, up to a test with a huge margin of error and inconsistent results? As a political tool and money making venture it's a great asset... which is how it is being used ...but that's a different conversation. You can take the "test" multiple times online and see for yourself.
I've actually used the IAT in research as opposed to taking it online or reading lay people's opinions of its reliability and validity. First of all, it should never be used to label anyone anything. It only measures reaction times when categorizing a group of concepts. We can extrapolate a bunch of meaning from that, but to label someone a racist is more of a philosophical issue. It has a ton of statistical checks and balances used to validate the data. It also has its problems. However, it's not useless, because otherwise it would have never seen the light of day in the literature. It's pretty resilient against socially desirable responses that you would get in a questionnaire. It's true that it could produce different results at different times, that does not make it invalid. That's an issue of reliability, not validity. Even if an instrument produces different results at different times, it could represent something about the nature of the psychological construct being more fluid rather than static. Implicit bias may be triggered in some situations but not others. The IAT is not a perfect tool, but surprise, perfect measurement doesn't exist. We're so quick to accept polls as useful information to determine public opinion and even to draft policies, a form of measurement that is open to so many other confounding variables. That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Polls give us something to work with. While I question the extent to which implicit bias may have an impact on outcomes, I am not convinced that it doesn't exist or that it has no impact. The IAT points at some evidence of its existence, but it is by no means the only evidence there is for it.
@@j3cruz1 agreed. I don't doubt that it measures "something", and it may measure "implicit bias" whatever that's taken to mean at the time or in the context, but it's definitely not tested and proven enough to come close to supporting the claims that it is used to support; the claims discussed in the video. One researcher may be honest and accurate in the use of the tool, while another researcher may use the same tool nefariously or incorrectly, intentionally or unintentionally, misleading the public who may not have the same level of domain expertise.
@@killakrok Well, I think the issue is the idea of "proving" something. I think that if the question is whether or not implicit bias exists, I think the IAT and other data "suggest" that it does. I don't think anything can be proven for sure in the social sciences. What I'm curious about is to what degree it accounts for racial disparities in outcomes.
@Chelsea Love you can't say it about every social science, which is why I don't. I say it about this specific application of this specific test. ANY tool that gives different results under the same circumstances is unreliable as a tool. Would you use a ruler that told you that something was 12 inches, then 4 inches, then 30 inches? No, then why use a tool that can say you are kinda racist, then very much not racist, then super racist all within a week? If it is measuring people changing their opinion then, again, the test isn't measuring what it is proported to measure because that would mean that people can hide or change their "implicit associations" which is against the basic tenant of the test, that it IS valid and reliable BECAUSE people CAN'T hide or change the implicit bias that is proported to shown. If the excuse you give for the test's unreliability is true, then the validity of the entire thing is destroyed. Tests need to be valid AND reliable. This test may or may not be valid, in that is measures something, maybe even what it says it dies, but it certainly doesn't measure it reliably enough to be used with any scientific confidence, which should be the ultimate goal of any scientific measuring instrument.
@Chelsea Love if you measure a 12" piece of wood with a ruler, it is 12" everytime. That is why rulers are reliable measures of length. The IAT gives different results to the same people under the same circumstances at different times, it's like using a ruler that gives different measurements for the same object at differet times. That ruler would be as unreliable at producing usable measurements of length, as the IAT is at producing usable measurements of "implicit bias".
Try "Hidden Brain." www.npr.org/2020/06/12/876073130/the-air-we-breathe-implicit-bias-and-police-shootings Mr. Hughes is dismissing implicit bias far too easily.
In regards to the Starbucks story, I have a personal experience that i thought was quite interesting at Starbucks. While the whole push for compelled speech such as enforcing they/them/their/he/him/his/she/her/hers/cis/zer/zis etc...and the idea that you cant identify gender based on looks, Starbucks was one of the main players in implementing this ideology. Well, I was waiting to order a coffee and two women were behind the counter. Both of them had multi colored dyed hair, piercings, tattoos, weird clog boots etc, painted on oversized mascara art on their face etc. well one of them was flustered asking the other who’s coffee goes to whom and the other employee replied “its for that lady over there!!!” I immediately asked how do you know she identifies as a woman? And they looked at me shocked and upset as if they offended me and the lady. I smiled and laughed and basically told them they shouldn’t be so hard on themselves and give up their liberal leftist ideology.
Listen to Jokko talk on Rogan... Bias training (combative training) makes up a huge portion of being a Navy Seal.... Are you saying that their training is a waste of time and doesn't work? Or maybe the study you referred to was not very sound.
This sounds good and makes many of his key audience, mostly White conservatives, feel like systemic racism is some woke leftist term of art to create further divisions with in society. I do believe that his audience’s idea of racism is deplorable and would never engage in any out right racist behavior. This means that socially we can engage wonderfully together, but in this fellowship can become stressed when I explain how race, and systems where structured to limit, or exclude the formerly enslaved their descendants excess to fully engage as nothing but second class citizens. While this young man is saying some things that he’s audience loves and think he’s so brilliant, I’m left underwhelmed. He’s smart and thoughtful, but there’s much more complexity and nauseous that he’s talking points fell to address.I think a lot of his views come from a place of economic privilege. You find that certain black Americans who have been born into a certain economic privilege have a totally different lived experience. It’s important for me to stress that I’m making this assessment based on his heavy themed messaging of the lack of black accountability when it comes to how we’ve not done the work to be or do better. This is absolutely not the case. While I totally agree that there are issues within the community that we most work on a collective of people who identify as black. This is also a statement that can be applied to every group of people. The problem I have with his argument against implicit bias is that it doesn’t address the many ways in which every Americans care implicit bias. When there are certain generational memes that are cycled, or certain codes of conduct have been stratified within a culture it becomes hard to identify. Especially if you’re removed from having to engage with the negative ramifications. When discussing implicit bias, it is impossible not to have a meaningful discussion about systemic racism. Anyone that is having a hard time understanding that this is truly a thing is truly bewildering. I feel as if I’m being gaslite. America was founded with slavery built into the Constitution, were the enslaved was considered 3/4 human. There had to be an establishment of rules and laws that codified a system designed to keep the system of slavery intact. We must also understand that during the period of reconstruction formally enslaved men and women were making strong economic and political gains. Those gains were met with barbaric acts of terrorism. There are too many present examples of how the systemic racism continues to be a real issue. I’m not a person who see everything that white Americans do or say as acts of racism however, the acknowledgment that this is a problem within systems and how they never got addressed. Racism and the structures within American society is a topic that far too many people that look like me have experienced
That Starbucks thing pissed me off. It has been a known policy for a long time for any restaurant or business where there is limited sitting that there is NO LOUNGING. If you’re not buying something or eating or drinking, you need to go. But when it happens to be a white person kicking out two black people the news blows it up. As a white man, I have been called racist so many times for denying service in some manner to a black person. Not bcz I’m racist, but bcz I’m following the rules my manager makes me follow. Fake racist stories like that convince average young folks that the country is way more racist than it is.
I need to stop watching videos that really don’t matter having fake arguments in my head and do whatever I can in my sphere of influence to make my small corner of the world better
Really interesting point re disease vs crime, but wasn't the issue with the Starbucks incident that it was seen as emblematic of the problem of racism in the US? People were outraged at that particular incident, yes, but the energy there came from the perception that incidents like this are commonplace, no?
How do we know the difference between "diminishing returns" and pushback from racists and systemic, structural power gaslghting anyone who encroaches on their sphere of influence?
It’s ironic that he’s making the argument that implicit bias isn’t as pervasive as it seems by pointing out how implicit bias makes us too quickly assume that conflicts involving black people are racially-motivated.
So, if a white person points out a brown person's brown complicity, and the brown person accuses them of racism for it, and the white person accurately says, as Woke Theory says, that the brown person has brown fragility, is that racist or anti-racist?
But WHO determined that a few milliseconds of latent reaction time implies negative bias ? As a man , if I’m shown a photo of a beautiful woman who happens to also be a transvestite , perhaps my latent reaction time to that image has more to do with a concern of being “found out” that I am attracted to both genders . Who determines that my latent reaction time to a photo of a beautiful transvestite , implies some kind of negative bias ? There are a lot of things I would not want to be revealed about me - I had an affair a few years ago and , though I would do anything to keep it hidden from my wife and family , it was a wonderful affair while it lasted and I took away nothing but great memories ! A latent response to an image of a cheating couple , would not necessarily reveal a dislike for that behaviour . Silly examples , I know ... but you see my point ? The reasons given for the use of these BIAS TESTS seems corny and unscientific .
Equity through forced diversity is and will be the cause of more discrimination and bias. Bias is a mechanism of keeping track of a pattern of wrong doers in the past where one takes advantage of another; therefore, bias serves as a quick method of avoiding those individuals in the future. Think of it as a caching mechanism. If people stop trying to steal and get one up advantage on others who work much harder, then these biases and discrimination will automatically go away. I don't see people hate on people from India. Discrimination and biases in the modern era is the cause of bullying, robbery, murder, and high dispropirate rate of hard crimes which politicans can not and will not be able to solve in a system that is charged with political correctness. It is not possible to have an eye for an eye in a state where there's constant political correctness. I see the breaking up of the union may be the best solution to avoid all frictions especially when US Supreme courts will not be valued. All social problems are due to experimentation that goes against human nature. These experimentation pits one group at the expense of other groups, so of course we have so much hatred and disgust in society because the Left has replaced equality with equity. These same leftiest have no empathy, conscience, or rationale to people they affect and the harms they cause. The only path the Left create is to spiral down.
Big words, about feelings "that happen". Disliking someone, because of their color, isn't something I do, but their clothes might give me pause. This guy has something to say, but he has so much to say, his audience will never be large enough. Maybe a book for starters, pasting his accomplishments & credentials to tell who he is, inside & out. Is He looking for followers or what..?
Not bad, but Michele, you need to up your game as an interviewer if you want to attract more followers. In this segment you seemed unsure of what to contribute to the conversation. You need to either brainstorm really interesting in-depth questions on a guest-to-guest basis or learn to engage with their ideas in-depth on the spot, if you can. No "well...", "like..." or "I appreciate you coming", please - that's too shallow.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Catch Me [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KxwEXXFQMTY/mqdefault.jpg)
Jordan Peterson trashed this implicit bias test and "training" a while ago. He also advised against taking it all together. Hughes is yet another voice to confirm it.
Peterson also had a breakdown and benzo addiction and needed time in a rehab center in Russia (of all places)
Jacob Jorgenson ? Yeah he grew a chemical dependency to a drug he was prescribed, and went to Russia to get urgent care for it, what exactly is your point?
@@jackieAZ rule 13, watch out for the benzos
All I needed to do is look at it, and it didn't look to be worthwhile. People have bias, period.
A voice being added is just that: one voice. It's also extremely dangerous to put too much weight into one person's voice, simply because they have a platform. For Coleman to say "there's no evidence for this" implies that he's actually read the full literature. He very likely hasn't, simply due to the volume of IAT-based research that has been published to-date. It's also extremely easy to manipulate an author of the IATs' comments into something that fits your argument - there's no context given for that author's comments, or how generalisable those comments were.
I'm not saying Coleman is wrong. I'm saying it's silly for yourself to overweigh two (intelligent) people's comments in place of potentially thousands of other (intelligent) people's comments and/or research
I love listening to Coleman Hughes not because I 'like' what he says but because I love rational elequent people and that is a real treat in a world of hysterical tweeters !
A rare breed of people indeed.
@floss floss he might not like some of the conclusions but he likes how they were reached i.e. via empirical analysis
@@sophon238 Thanks, you have said it for me, hard to know how to reply to a comment like that :)
ruclips.net/video/hhA08CUjImU/видео.html
Great point.
His analogy with racism, small pox and diminish marginal returns was brilliant. Exactly how an eloquent rational mind thinks!
This guy is really softly spoken, he's the sort of character I'm glad is speaking on important issues!
And he’s so damn young. Glad he’s gonna be around for a while.
I remember taking the implicit bias test a handful of times. It made me biased towards whichever race was first associated with good, and towards whichever race I said I was. It was obvious even during the first time that it was just a muscle memory training device. Any gamer or musician would recognize this.
They are both so calm, which is good in and of itself
You let that fool you into the idea that he has real intelligence on this issue? Were you easier to convince because his black skin was used to convince you that racism isn't a prevalent and strong problem?
His analysis on these issues doesn't even reach a level of quality I'd expect from someone about to finish high school because he misses how to apply probability and statistics. I'm not a math graduate by any means but I am in STEM, and this guy is dumb AF. Even his agreeable interviewer catches him off guard with the "where did you get that 1 in a billion number from?" and he admits he pulled it out of his ass. He should put it back up there. What's wrong with the question: "what are my chances of getting struck by lighting?" Answer: you haven't defined the discrete context in which that event may or may not happen to record a statistic and further measure and express a meaningful probability. Fixed: "What are my chances of getting struck by lightning in a year?" Even this is incomplete as most people need to, or mean to, go further in specifying "during a thunderstorm?" "while driving in a thunderstorm?" "in Florida?" "while standing under a tall tree or power line?" etc etc. That he even mentions 1 in a billion chances of a racist event with no observation context, is stupid. Furthermore, what limits when a person may or may not experience racism? Maybe the chances are far lower than 1 in a billion? Maybe the chances are 1 out of 1e18 (that's 1 billion times 1 billion), but if he can't event define the observation period limits? Is he arbitrarily starting a clock for every minute and each minute racism can either happen or not happen? Is it every time a black person is speaking to another person? Only the introduction or can it be observed 5 minutes into the conversation again? Can he say that a person's average day has 10 opportunities to experience racism? Is it 100, or 10,000? What are those events, and what aren't those events? If you can't say, his ideas about any numerical probability has no meaning at all.
He was trying to confuse folks into thinking he's smart about probability when all he wanted to say was "we may be seeing a hyper focus on a problem that now gets video taped and overly shared." Coleman is half right. If we're talking George Floyd and Walter Scott like situations, those type of events rare relative to 40 million black people in the U.S. I wouldn't call police killing unarmed black men an epidemic for sure in terms of pure numbers. But it happens more than it should because police are supposed to do exactly opposite of that and almost always is justice denied. But Coleman further shows off his ignorance on this important issue by forgetting that police violence doesn't always result in death and police violence isn't always recorded on video. How acceptable is it for a police officer to just walk up to a teenager or young adult on the street and beat em up? What should happen to that officer? What would happen to the officer if it weren't caught on tape? Or maybe if some part of the interaction was caught on tape? Those situations are never reported because any sensible black or brown person living in such areas or communities know that kind of complaint will fall on deaf ears so why bother? I'm sure if you engaged Coleman on that question, he would say "I'm sure some there are bad cops that lie on report. "But how do you know this probability Coleman?" He would pause and intellectually posture, and then say "I made it up." You see a pattern here? Also, real talk: even if there are only a few bad cops, why do about all of the other cops protect them?
@@EbonySeraphim "im not a math graduate but I am in stem"- isn't math the last letter of stem? also, if he is a high school kid like you mentioned, why would you be mad at his inability to "apply probability and statistics"? Lastly, your username is more than enough evidence about your character : emotional, sensitive BW. He obviously struck a nerve
Raoul M you just conflated being a math graduate and being in stem? Some people don’t realize one of the core abilities of useful intelligence is being able to make proper, nuanced, and meaningful distinctions. You missed the 6th grade class on that just now.
Coleman does strike a nerve in a general sense, but you’re incapable of having that discussion. And seen this play from conservatives a lot: “I’m so unemotional about this and it makes me right and unbiased.” Cool story bro! Take your lack of caring on the hell out of here then
@@EbonySeraphim Crime statistics for Bias Motivation Categories: by race/ethnicity: www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics ~7,000 per year in US for all races/ethnicity. Sure, not all cases are recorded. Multiplying by 100 then divided by 365. Roughly it will give us 2000 incidents per day. Now you can calculate the probability.
Remember Alamo so Coleman was referring to hate crimes specifically? Oh wait...no he wasn’t. And I won’t even take you seriously if you think “hate crimes” are close to capturing problematic racial bias behavior in this country
Outstanding. Hughes is a brilliant thinker and communicator.
He does study philosophy
I disagree, I find his arguments lack much depth. Littered with hasty generalizations, its actually incredible to see that his opinions are gaining traction with any community; even those on the right who clearly favor his opinions to justify their systematic racism.
@@ggadotkelly very interesting. Precisely what has he gotten wrong?
Man, What an intelligent and articulate couple of young adults. Maybe there is hope for humanity after all! Coleman is full of insightful information and Michele has a knack for asking the right questions and letting the interviewee speak. Bravo
The point Coleman Hughes is trying to make at minute four is called an availability cascade. Daniel Keniman has a body of research on the topic in his book "Thinking Fast and Slow".
Thank you for this comment!
Great book
@@mister--clean5038 Absolutely. That book is brilliant. Even though I had been cognizant of a decent amount of the research and ideas in there before it was published, the way Kahnemann weaves it all together illuminated each specific part like never before for me. Changed the way I think.
Daniel Kahneman
The point made at around @5:30, about how people view racism as a curable "disease", is such a great perspective. It makes a lot of sense to me, in terms of understanding how people have recently approached these problems.
Coleman Hughes makes me think so much of a young JBP. His delivery, temperament, tone, pace, mannerisms, and vernacular... everything.
We desperately need more thoughtful discussion like this today.
Two intelligent people having an intelligent conversation... no wonder this has 5k views in 2 years. Zombies hate thinking.
Oh come on. Don't be like that.
What did she contribute to the conversation? Oh, tits and legs.
At least we’re here to watch and share it.
Zombies love talking, look at SJW.
Well educated people love talking based on empiricism and love saying the right words.
YUP
When I listen to Coleman, I realize how little I know. Good video.
I'm not convinced she was really up to his level.
I thought she was, but then she got lost at his "one in a billion" example, which I thought was completely clear.
This is the best explanation I have ever heard. It makes complete sense.
Coleman Hughes speaks about the topic of race in a way that is more intelligent than anyone else I've heard. Hope he writes a book!
Because he is talking down on people he looks like to get a pat on his back from white folks he is a disgusting shit of a boy
@spot light right
Please listen to more people because his logic is intelligent, yell very short sighted. Please read some authors that are a bit more seasoned on the topic of race.
Could it be because it confirms your preconceived notions on race?
@@j3cruz1 ^Can you define "preconceived notions on race?" And in what context? As of now, your comment reads as a loaded question, based on a relatively vague idea. If you're going to make a counter point, you should be more specific.
My work just required it. I refused to take it and explained my thoughts behind it, that it was inappropriate for the work environment. They removed my name from the list to complete it.
I gotta give it to the interviewer she was very fair. Rare to find nowadays. Simply interested in what the guest has to say and nothing more than that.
Coleman seems a smart, reflective and decent guy. Good stuff.
Man he is so smart. The one in a billion thing describes what is happening now and we as people really are too dumb to understand it. Some of us do but most of us think it’s happening all the time to everyone when it’s not. Videos like this need to be mandatory.
Great interview, no agenda, relaxed conversation tone. Thank you for this.
I freaking love everything about Coleman Hughes
Hi Michelle, I’m really enjoying your channel. If I could offer a suggestion... include a link to the full interview in the description of clip videos. It’s convenient for the viewer who wishes to view the full interview, and helps to increase your overview views numbers. Cheers!
Such an intelligent and articulate young man!
I came here because RUclips recommended me while I was watching "Thomas Sowell"
both of them are clear minded and eloquent
Alternate Title: Coleman Hughes and Katniss Everdeen discuss race
Very insightful examples. I really appreciated the "One in a billion" calculation of a country as populated as the US is. It gives a lot of perspective.
Its a made up numer
Implicit bias measurements presume to mind read.
Thought police essentially, and that's what the left seems to eventually want.
That Starbucks incident was totally trumped-up, too! Those two men hung out there for at least ten minutes before the manager politely asked them if they'd like to order something, even a water, since those tables were for customers only, (as everyone knows, especially those in the city where there is a huge problem with homeless, addicted people who loiter in the dining rooms of coffee shops, often camping out in the restrooms to shoot up. They deliberately refused to follow the store's stated policy, by design, so they could claim racism and get fame and money. They were on the Today Show, etc.) As someone who used to live near there, I know that many, many black people come there, and that manager wouldn't have lasted a day if she were racist by one iota!
His analogy with small pox, racism and diminishing marginal returns is brilliant. He’s got an economist’s mind!
Beautifully eloquent. Intellectual voltage at work. And he's only 24.
This is true dialogue. I can listen to Coleman Hughes any day of the week even if I may not fully agree with him.
I miss real intellectual discussion. Coleman is incredibly intelligent, succinct, and humble. I fell smarter just listening to him.
"where did you get that one in a billion number?"
"well I'm just making it up"
"ok"
Did this play like a comedy scene in anyone eleses brain?
But why male models?
I did a double take when she said "Where did you get that number?". Like, wha-- does she not understand the point of a hypothetical thought exercise?
My eyes rolled so hard they got stuck, and now I don't know what to do 😥
Not really. It was to make the point that we have so many people in the USA that you can have a dozen to 2 dozen people have this sort of racist event happen and run with the epidemic narrative. If that’s the case you can make up quite a number of narratives that aren’t so. That seems to be the trend these days in the news media and politics.
If you are curious how much implicit bias you have, you can take the test here: implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html -- It seems like we are all biased towards our own race, inherently. It doesn't mean we are racist. But taking the test was fascinating for me.
Keep flooding that algorithm!
😁😁 Thanks, Krijn!
Speaking of moral panics...
Coleman Hughes is a rising star.
Genius right there. Pay attention!
This man is going places! Pleasure to listen to.
Dudes got my vote
I hope I live long enough to see this young man as our President.
Can you refuse to take am implicit bias test from a company or institution and have a legal leg to stand on particularly given that it has been widely debunked?
Probably. If you can afford the legal fees and hope you dont get a leftist judge.
But where are his sources maybe he just made that up as well🤷
em3sis
Then again, a conservative or libertarian judge would say that a company is free to ask whatever they want when deciding who to employ so... I’d say arguing with a leftist judge would be easier.
I took a few of the tests...for one of them I didn’t have the bias that I was “supposed to have” as a white man. I’m a gay man, yet the bias test on sexuality was not representative of my experience in this community. It was truly leftist.
On the other hand, I, a white, straight woman, just took two tests that indicate I am slightly biased in favour of black people and gay people. I suppose from a leftist perspective that's good, but it doesn't make much sense. I am pretty skeptical of these tests XD. Maybe it's my inferiority complex coming out.
Miranda Thomson I’m slightly biased towards straight people, but I’m chalking it up to my experience of straight people being nicer to me than gay people (in general).
If you ask me, bias training and noticing them or working on them should be a personal, individual journey.
in the star bucks incident, i think those people were waiting, not buying anything, and wanted to use the bathroom. the employee insisted they order something, before being allowed to use the facility...that lead to some altercation?....
Lol, This is how society should be. we sit talk about ideas, not skin color. Can see the man is really knowledgable
These bite sized videos are perfect. Thank you!
So glad you are finding them helpful!
Yep, all you need to know about race relations in the US in just under 9 minutes. They're great!
"where are you getting that one in a billion number?" - lol
He's clearly using scaling in his example to make it more understandable for listeners, it still went over her head 🤷♂️
@@Whisperingtrees17 Yeh I was finding it funny that she didn't understand it haha
@@Whisperingtrees17 but its still just made up numbers there were no facts used if he did they have no sources
@@carlton5287 It was an example and wasn't meant as data.
I tried one of those tests. After I was done it said “you appear to have a preference for European baby faces”. I was like “...um...ok, sure.”
Akira LeVa
It’s so funny cuz 😂 I thought he was gonna talk about how implicit bias is an “underlying oppressive force” with a condescending professional body language. But then he kept saying great things and totally surprised me! I completely agree with what he said and not like 90% I mean 100% agree with what he said. 💫 This guy is really freakin smart!
He's body language is a lot like Sam Harris.
Voice too
What I've read indicates it's an extremely mild startle reflex, your brain sees a pattern, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, TURTLE! and you get the same response. Are people implicitly biased against turtles? No. Flip it around with turtle, turtle, turtle, RABBIT! and it looks the other way around. It's meaningless. It's just your brain processing patterns w/expectations as to what falls next in the sequence.
very smart analogy
Can someone cite me the source of this study that showed that implicit bias rarely affects racist treatment? I’m not arguing; I’m genuinely curious.
PockASqueeno i love coleman hughes. But the dude spouts off a bunch of data and facts and never discloses what study he is talking about. It is kind of frustrating and a trend i notice.
👀
@@tylerasmith52 while I get that, the amount of memorization it would take for him to accurately cite, off the cuff, specific studies to the standard they must be in an academic setting, is unreasonable. He is sharing interpretations of data, not churning out citation after citation. Many people are more big-picture rather than detail/memorization oriented, which makes the issue even worse.
Unless someone is using a power point, with prepared notes (which is almost antithetical to the format of an interview) then giving specific citations will always be the exception, not the rule.
This dude gets so much hate, just check out his instagram page, there are people who have committed their lives to harassing him. Regardless on whether you agree with him or not, he is a definition of integrity.
What is the difference between "implicit bias" and preference, and how can we be human and not have preferences?
He really makes me think.
As of 2020, this analogy has aged remarkably well.
3:29 “I’m making that number up”
Honest
THANK YOU for telling the truth about "implicit bias". There is so much nonsense floating around these days.
What a talent and what an ability has this man got !!
Yes, to make white people feel justified and a little more comfortable. He is outstanding at that.
@@j3cruz1 haha, you seem to need "white guilt" for your well being.. (if there was none, we would have to invent it for you, wouldn´t we 😁)
I like this young man, much of what he says is true. I do feel that ethnic groups often feel discrimination when it isn't there. But how he presents things it is clear he is ignorant in some ways.
Let's look at the sociological studies which had identical résumés submitted to employers following job vacancies being advertised, the only difference being the name of the applicant. Findings show that applications with ethnic sounding names got less responses than those with White sounding names.
Also what about those studies showing that ethnic minorities are more likely to experience police brutality (not murders).
We could also bring it to gender. In terms of differences in pay for the same roles and the fact that men are more likely to be hired for more senior roles than women, and that women are more likely to be hired for certain other roles. Anyone who doesn't think we all have biases is living in cloud cuckoo land.
I was thinking the same thing. Really smart dude but as we all are in some capacity, ignorant on some of his points. One thing to note is although there aren’t (arguably) any indication that implicit bias reinforces the prediction of real world bias, one can argue that statement in reverse. There’s no evidence that implicit bias DOES NOT reinforce the prediction of real world bias either. The state of being human has been studied for a millennia and we are still defining what it actually is to be human.
@@christopherlong4287 the burden of proof is on the assertion. there's no proof that implicit bias causes liver cancer either -- so unless and until we find evidence to the contrary, it can be dismissed out of hand. I agree with your last sentence very much -- we are still studying what it means to be human -- but that doesn't mean we should automatically assume that every theory about human nature has merit. As the great Hitchens put it: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Think about it: how could Coleman (or anyone else, for that matter) possibly be expected to prove the negative.
Alexander Myles Horn Great points.
One correction to OP's statement: in the studies with identical resumes submitted, they found it was actually class discrimination and not racism. People will lower class names were discriminated against more, not just black names.
"Where do you get that One in Billion Number?"
How many times did you hear that the cops were called on 2 black guys in a Starbucks for doing nothing recently?
It was a good question to check him with but his example was still really good.
Max Rose how was his example good? He’s using a billion to make it seem like that’s the actual likelihood of a black person getting the cops called on them when it isn’t. He admits I just made it up and then gives another example having to do with lighting, still putting in the viewers mind that the likelihood of a racist incident is about as likely as getting hit by lightning. Very disingenuous, I don’t know why she didn’t follow up.
i think you missed the point if you take that number was used to persuade you in that way
@@thamerooni1 He's saying that a "one in a billion" event, whatever that may be, will happen every 3rd day in the United States because we have over 300 million people. If we could list 100 scary scenarios that all have 1 in a billion chances of happening, I bet you and most people would say you're not afraid of any of the scenarios because it's only one in a billion. So, his point his, unlikely scenarios happen somewhere in the US every few days, but that doesn't mean the event, whatever it may be, is likely to happen to the average citizen. I think that's a good point.
Cooler heads prevailing...But not today!!
Really cool channel
This guy is a smart smart dude.
When you try to take the test, it is literally laughable how silly it is in finding “bias”
We can and we should resist reacting too rashly. Bad thoughts occur to me all the time. Bad thoughts do not determine my hatred towards someone. If I nurse hatred and think about it a lot, it can develop bad behaviors.
Has Minaji yet publicly stated that the reliability and validity of the IAT makes it an unworthy psychometric test?
This guy has to be a huge Sam Harris fan... He's a copy of Sam, from arguments, posture, cadence, even hand gestures. I like him, but less Sam and more him would be more appealing.
Absolutely, it’s a bit cringe.
Coleman Hughes will end up being in history books.
I thought he was floundering... then the murder analogy was like, boom!
I fought that IBT training tooth and nail but at the end they threatened me with firing so I relented.
The IAT is a useless statistical instrument because of its variability and margin of error.
The same person can take the test multiple times and get wildly different answers across the entire spectrum of results.
It doesn't yield the same results when taken by the same person multiple times, which is one of the major criticisms of the "test's" internal measurement validity.
You can take the test, be racist on Monday, not racist on Tuesday, and super racist on Wednesday...all within a HUGE margin of error, meaning that a result of slightly racist might actually be a result of slightly NOT racist, but the test is so vague and poorly designed that no one knows what side of the margin of error the "correct" result is on.
The test is such a bad scientific instrument that even it's best results, whether they reveal true racism or not, are so vague and unscientific that the entire thing becomes useless...as a scientific instrument.
The bigger the margin of error, the worse the statistical instrument.
If I told you that you were "slightly racist"...within a 95% margin of error, how does that help anyone?
Would you use a 5% effective condom?
If I told you that you were "very likely" to win the lottery, with .000001% certainty...would you invest your life savings on lottery tickets?
No?... then why would you rest your perception of racism, and how others perceive you as racist, up to a test with a huge margin of error and inconsistent results?
As a political tool and money making venture it's a great asset... which is how it is being used ...but that's a different conversation.
You can take the "test" multiple times online and see for yourself.
I've actually used the IAT in research as opposed to taking it online or reading lay people's opinions of its reliability and validity. First of all, it should never be used to label anyone anything. It only measures reaction times when categorizing a group of concepts. We can extrapolate a bunch of meaning from that, but to label someone a racist is more of a philosophical issue.
It has a ton of statistical checks and balances used to validate the data. It also has its problems. However, it's not useless, because otherwise it would have never seen the light of day in the literature. It's pretty resilient against socially desirable responses that you would get in a questionnaire. It's true that it could produce different results at different times, that does not make it invalid. That's an issue of reliability, not validity. Even if an instrument produces different results at different times, it could represent something about the nature of the psychological construct being more fluid rather than static. Implicit bias may be triggered in some situations but not others.
The IAT is not a perfect tool, but surprise, perfect measurement doesn't exist. We're so quick to accept polls as useful information to determine public opinion and even to draft policies, a form of measurement that is open to so many other confounding variables. That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Polls give us something to work with.
While I question the extent to which implicit bias may have an impact on outcomes, I am not convinced that it doesn't exist or that it has no impact. The IAT points at some evidence of its existence, but it is by no means the only evidence there is for it.
@@j3cruz1 agreed.
I don't doubt that it measures "something", and it may measure "implicit bias" whatever that's taken to mean at the time or in the context, but it's definitely not tested and proven enough to come close to supporting the claims that it is used to support; the claims discussed in the video.
One researcher may be honest and accurate in the use of the tool, while another researcher may use the same tool nefariously or incorrectly, intentionally or unintentionally, misleading the public who may not have the same level of domain expertise.
@@killakrok Well, I think the issue is the idea of "proving" something. I think that if the question is whether or not implicit bias exists, I think the IAT and other data "suggest" that it does. I don't think anything can be proven for sure in the social sciences. What I'm curious about is to what degree it accounts for racial disparities in outcomes.
@Chelsea Love you can't say it about every social science, which is why I don't.
I say it about this specific application of this specific test.
ANY tool that gives different results under the same circumstances is unreliable as a tool.
Would you use a ruler that told you that something was 12 inches, then 4 inches, then 30 inches?
No, then why use a tool that can say you are kinda racist, then very much not racist, then super racist all within a week?
If it is measuring people changing their opinion then, again, the test isn't measuring what it is proported to measure because that would mean that people can hide or change their "implicit associations" which is against the basic tenant of the test, that it IS valid and reliable BECAUSE people CAN'T hide or change the implicit bias that is proported to shown.
If the excuse you give for the test's unreliability is true, then the validity of the entire thing is destroyed.
Tests need to be valid AND reliable.
This test may or may not be valid, in that is measures something, maybe even what it says it dies, but it certainly doesn't measure it reliably enough to be used with any scientific confidence, which should be the ultimate goal of any scientific measuring instrument.
@Chelsea Love if you measure a 12" piece of wood with a ruler, it is 12" everytime.
That is why rulers are reliable measures of length.
The IAT gives different results to the same people under the same circumstances at different times, it's like using a ruler that gives different measurements for the same object at differet times.
That ruler would be as unreliable at producing usable measurements of length, as the IAT is at producing usable measurements of "implicit bias".
Would anyone be able to provide the links to the study he references that implicit bias is not a predictor of a real world bias?
Try "Hidden Brain." www.npr.org/2020/06/12/876073130/the-air-we-breathe-implicit-bias-and-police-shootings
Mr. Hughes is dismissing implicit bias far too easily.
Absolutely.
Modern-day intellectual.
In regards to the Starbucks story, I have a personal experience that i thought was quite interesting at Starbucks. While the whole push for compelled speech such as enforcing they/them/their/he/him/his/she/her/hers/cis/zer/zis etc...and the idea that you cant identify gender based on looks, Starbucks was one of the main players in implementing this ideology.
Well, I was waiting to order a coffee and two women were behind the counter. Both of them had multi colored dyed hair, piercings, tattoos, weird clog boots etc, painted on oversized mascara art on their face etc. well one of them was flustered asking the other who’s coffee goes to whom and the other employee replied “its for that lady over there!!!”
I immediately asked how do you know she identifies as a woman? And they looked at me shocked and upset as if they offended me and the lady. I smiled and laughed and basically told them they shouldn’t be so hard on themselves and give up their liberal leftist ideology.
Great dresser bro
Listen to Jokko talk on Rogan... Bias training (combative training) makes up a huge portion of being a Navy Seal.... Are you saying that their training is a waste of time and doesn't work? Or maybe the study you referred to was not very sound.
seal training and training some coffee company is going to hand you are quite different, dont you think?
Isn't it like 2 of the original professors have now rejected it
This sounds good and makes many of his key audience, mostly White conservatives, feel like systemic racism is some woke leftist term of art to create further divisions with in society. I do believe that his audience’s idea of racism is deplorable and would never engage in any out right racist behavior. This means that socially we can engage wonderfully together, but in this fellowship can become stressed when I explain how race, and systems where structured to limit, or exclude the formerly enslaved their descendants excess to fully engage as nothing but second class citizens. While this young man is saying some things that he’s audience loves and think he’s so brilliant, I’m left underwhelmed. He’s smart and thoughtful, but there’s much more complexity and nauseous that he’s talking points fell to address.I think a lot of his views come from a place of economic privilege. You find that certain black Americans who have been born into a certain economic privilege have a totally different lived experience. It’s important for me to stress that I’m making this assessment based on his heavy themed messaging of the lack of black accountability when it comes to how we’ve not done the work to be or do better. This is absolutely not the case. While I totally agree that there are issues within the community that we most work on a collective of people who identify as black. This is also a statement that can be applied to every group of people. The problem I have with his argument against implicit bias is that it doesn’t address the many ways in which every Americans care implicit bias. When there are certain generational memes that are cycled, or certain codes of conduct have been stratified within a culture it becomes hard to identify. Especially if you’re removed from having to engage with the negative ramifications.
When discussing implicit bias, it is impossible not to have a meaningful discussion about systemic racism. Anyone that is having a hard time understanding that this is truly a thing is truly bewildering. I feel as if I’m being gaslite. America was founded with slavery built into the Constitution, were the enslaved was considered 3/4 human. There had to be an establishment of rules and laws that codified a system designed to keep the system of slavery intact. We must also understand that during the period of reconstruction formally enslaved men and women were making strong economic and political gains. Those gains were met with barbaric acts of terrorism. There are too many present examples of how the systemic racism continues to be a real issue. I’m not a person who see everything that white Americans do or say as acts of racism however, the acknowledgment that this is a problem within systems and how they never got addressed. Racism and the structures within American society is a topic that far too many people that look like me have experienced
That Starbucks thing pissed me off. It has been a known policy for a long time for any restaurant or business where there is limited sitting that there is NO LOUNGING. If you’re not buying something or eating or drinking, you need to go. But when it happens to be a white person kicking out two black people the news blows it up. As a white man, I have been called racist so many times for denying service in some manner to a black person. Not bcz I’m racist, but bcz I’m following the rules my manager makes me follow. Fake racist stories like that convince average young folks that the country is way more racist than it is.
I need to stop watching videos that really don’t matter having fake arguments in my head and do whatever I can in my sphere of influence to make my small corner of the world better
When she asked him about his predictions...... If only they knew. It wasn't going to get better at all.
This young man has a high IQ and will exell far in life.
He's grifter in training!
@Andrea Mendenhall How do you know his "facts" are accurate or that his interpretation of the data is accurate?
That's great for a black guy, right? Refreshing. Would you have made that observation if he were white?
Really interesting point re disease vs crime, but wasn't the issue with the Starbucks incident that it was seen as emblematic of the problem of racism in the US? People were outraged at that particular incident, yes, but the energy there came from the perception that incidents like this are commonplace, no?
SOME people reacted and saw it that way. Unruly and rude customers are a frequent thing in retail.
I agree with him that trying eradicating racism to 100% has diminishing returns. Using homicide was a poor comparison though.
How do we know the difference between "diminishing returns" and pushback from racists and systemic, structural power gaslghting anyone who encroaches on their sphere of influence?
Observation.
It’s ironic that he’s making the argument that implicit bias isn’t as pervasive as it seems by pointing out how implicit bias makes us too quickly assume that conflicts involving black people are racially-motivated.
I have yet to see him smile.
Watch the video of him reacting to black media. He watches stuff like this is America and he laughs the whole time
So, if a white person points out a brown person's brown complicity, and the brown person accuses them of racism for it, and the white person accurately says, as Woke Theory says, that the brown person has brown fragility, is that racist or anti-racist?
Saying there is no evidence isn't the same as it being disproved! For an academic he makes more assumptions than he should.
But WHO determined that a few milliseconds of latent reaction time implies negative bias ?
As a man , if I’m shown a photo of a beautiful woman who happens to also be a transvestite , perhaps my latent reaction time to that image has more to do with a concern of being “found out” that I am attracted to both genders .
Who determines that my latent reaction time to a photo of a beautiful transvestite , implies some kind of negative bias ?
There are a lot of things I would not want to be revealed about me - I had an affair a few years ago and , though I would do anything to keep it hidden from my wife and family , it was a wonderful affair while it lasted and I took away nothing but great memories !
A latent response to an image of a cheating couple , would not necessarily reveal a dislike for that behaviour .
Silly examples , I know ... but you see my point ?
The reasons given for the use of these BIAS TESTS seems corny and unscientific .
Where was Hughes when the tobacco industry needed him?
Those tests are not grounded in science. Thanks for clearing that up.
Hahahahaha.....’where do you get that one in a billion number’? Fuck me.....
Nice snippet
Equity through forced diversity is and will be the cause of more discrimination and bias. Bias is a mechanism of keeping track of a pattern of wrong doers in the past where one takes advantage of another; therefore, bias serves as a quick method of avoiding those individuals in the future. Think of it as a caching mechanism. If people stop trying to steal and get one up advantage on others who work much harder, then these biases and discrimination will automatically go away. I don't see people hate on people from India. Discrimination and biases in the modern era is the cause of bullying, robbery, murder, and high dispropirate rate of hard crimes which politicans can not and will not be able to solve in a system that is charged with political correctness. It is not possible to have an eye for an eye in a state where there's constant political correctness. I see the breaking up of the union may be the best solution to avoid all frictions especially when US Supreme courts will not be valued. All social problems are due to experimentation that goes against human nature. These experimentation pits one group at the expense of other groups, so of course we have so much hatred and disgust in society because the Left has replaced equality with equity. These same leftiest have no empathy, conscience, or rationale to people they affect and the harms they cause. The only path the Left create is to spiral down.
Big words, about feelings "that happen". Disliking someone, because of their color, isn't something I do, but their clothes might give me pause. This guy has something to say, but he has so much to say, his audience will never be large enough. Maybe a book for starters, pasting his accomplishments & credentials to tell who he is, inside & out. Is He looking for followers or what..?
Not bad, but Michele, you need to up your game as an interviewer if you want to attract more followers. In this segment you seemed unsure of what to contribute to the conversation. You need to either brainstorm really interesting in-depth questions on a guest-to-guest basis or learn to engage with their ideas in-depth on the spot, if you can. No "well...", "like..." or "I appreciate you coming", please - that's too shallow.