*Jennifer Saul on Implicit Bias

In this podcast at Philosophy Bites, Jennifer Saul from the University of Sheffield discusses 'implicit bias'.  She is currently taking this research further to develop an epistemology of scepticism.

For Saul, 'implicit bias' refers to "a collection of largely unconscious associations ...  all humans are prone to" that "affect how we perceive, interact with, and evaluate members of social groups." She draws largely on social psychological evidence to indicate that certain associations pervade societies and that even members of the same social groups will carry out these "unconscious associations" against their own groups. 

From what I understand, 'implicit bias' refers to cognitive shortcuts and the way in which stereotypes are formulated in society. There is an abundance of literature on these topics and it is not necessarily the case that these are negative associations. Implicit biases or cognitive shortcuts can certainly assist us in our daily lives. They are expectations (built upon certain social ethos and habits of social functions) that we have of other persons, services, and things we anticipate by living in a particular society. The implicit bias that Jennifer Saul is particularly interested in are the biases, expectations, cognitive shortcuts a society instills in its members about a stigmatized group. 

She uses the example of the job market: two identical CVs, one with a male name, and the other with a female name. She states that the CV with the male name received more calls for interviews than the CV with female names. This points to the bias of male workers over female workers - by whatever criteria a business may judge, whether it is based on competence, sociability, etc. One related discussion is about the profession of philosophy and why there are more male philosophers than female philosophers in University departments. Hanah Arendt discusses this question in her interview here, on the common association of philosopher with male, Arendt denounces the label of 'philosopher' and considers herself as a 'political theorist'. In a similar study with CVs, instead of males and females, the researchers contrasted names that sounded particularly black e.g. "Lakisha" and names that did not e.g. "Emily". The study found that names that sounded "black" returned significantly less calls than those that sounded "white". In other words, despite all CVs having the same information, Emily and Greg received more calls for employment than Jamal and Lakisha. In another study when participants were shown faces, African-Americans were perceived to be more criminal than non-African-American faces. This finding is also discussed by Joshua Greene in his book 'Moral Tribes' and discussed here on a panel about the 'Biology and Psychology of Ethical Behaviour'. Jennifer Saul points out that these stereotypes also influence members of the same social group. She provided the example of Jesse Jackson who negatively stereotyped another black man. During the late 80s and 90s in the U.S. the television show 'Cops' had an overwhelming amount of episodes showing black criminals. Later on, the show was called out for perpetuating racism and instilling this association into the minds of the American people. Similarly, there is Disney and the princess movie mold that provide certain examples of how girls should look, behave, and so on (this is also the case with male characters in these movies as well). Television and movies can perpetuate unconscious associations in the minds of viewers. We have also seen the development of such implicit bias with the media blitz on Muslims over the past decade. Similar biases exist regarding the poor and the homeless. Each of these biases function within the minds of persons and influence our actions to one degree or another (although this is contingent, not deterministic).  Implicit biases - shaped by a social culture - contingently influence our thoughts about other persons regardless of the social group we belong and that these biases may be positive or negative or seemingly neutral. 

The discussion of 'implicit biases' draws strong parallels with the social sciences. Namely, we can discuss unconscious associations in terms of knowledge of other bodies and knowledge as a particular body, without consciously reflecting on our 'techniques of the body' (habitus). This can also be considered largely in terms of embodiment as well. That we learn and embody certain ways of behaving and operating within society. Good examples are reactions of disgust. What foods are acceptable and what is not. What social events do we find abhorrent. Or what social events induce sympathy. For example, when we hear about a divorce or a death. The first reaction is sympathy and consolation. This is an embodied reaction and evidence of a social habitus. I only raise this example after watching a clip by comedian Louis CK who didn't like the "awww" reactions when he told people of his divorce. Louis CK states that he was happy that a bad marriage ended. Without diving into the ethics of marriage, this kind of reaction serves as one example of how we have embodied social reactions to certain events and kinds of information.

Another way of discussing 'implicit biases' is through Daniel Kahneman's System 1 and System 2. Expounded for a broader audience in his book, Thinking Fast and Slow. The biases that Saul refers to is System 1.While I don't think it was Saul's intention but she left the impression that these biases are inevitable and uncorrectable, which I disagree with here. One of the methods we can begin to correct these biases is to engage System 2 and slowly change the habits (implicit biases) of System 1. This entails, at times, confronting particular biases in certain ways to prompt thought and reflection such that one can recognize the System 1 bias when it occurs. In other words, creating cognitive dissonance can bring unconscious associations into conscious consideration. Although, how the dissonance is reduced is another set of issues on its own; it's not always for the better. 

One of Jennifer Saul's projects is to take this evidence into developing an epistemology of scepticism. Not only would such a scepticism question many of the assumptions by which we operate with respect to stigmatized groups - gender, sexuality, race, religion, etc - but it also serves to question other habits as we go up the social hierarchy. I find this to be an interesting move by Jennifer Saul, one that I can appreciate, and certainly applaud. Epistemology, in my opinion, should take into account the findings from psychology rather than relying on the intuitions of philosophers alone. This is a project that also coincides with the Experimental Philosophy movement. One caveat, however, is the danger in presupposing that the findings from psychology are generalizable across cultures. Heine and Norenzayan noted the phenomena of W.E.I.R.D. in social psychology. They point out that most psychological studies have been conducted on persons from White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic societies. In this regard there is a danger in developing an epistemology that is infused with an implicit bias towards the WEIRD perspective. That is, a scepticism based on the awareness of 'implicit bias' may fall into an 'implicit bias' blindspot of its own.     

Nevertheless, I am willing to agree that 'implicit biases' exist in all societies and cultures. But would add that the particularities of such biases will vary from culture to culture. And although there may be structural similarities (e.g. sexism) in 'implicit biases', the cultural bases for them will also vary. At any rate, I look forward to how she develops her scepticism and epistemology as well as what can be established as "knowledge" or "belief".