#bias and discrimination

[pddparthi]

The Ethical Considerations of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence

The rapid advancements in robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have brought forth a multitude of ethical considerations of robotics that need to be carefully examined. As robots and AI systems become more integrated into our daily lives, it is essential to reflect upon the potential impact they can have on society, individuals, and the ethical values we hold. In this article, we…

[mtbcleadgenbuzz]

Transform Your Marketing Strategy With AI-Generated Blogs, Podcasts, And Videos: Watch Your Sales Skyrocket!

Transform Your Marketing Strategy With AI-Generated Blogs, Podcasts, And Videos: Watch Your Sales Skyrocket! Are you tired of spending countless hours creating content for your marketing strategy? Do you want to watch your sales skyrocket without sacrificing all of your free time? Look no further than AI-generated blogs, podcasts, and videos. With the advancements in artificial intelligence…

[alwaysbewoke]

[thepersonalwords]

Prejudice plunges you into a world of fear and hate. That's no way to live.

DaShanne Stokes

[cyarskaren52]

It’s giving

[thatspookyagent]

Being Black and presenting as masculine, embracing masculinity, traditionally masculine gender roles, and so much more that may be viewed as masculine within certain societies, is not lesser than anything associated with femininity. Black masculine women and femmes do not need to conform or perform to your standards and ideas of femininity, in order to be seen as human, gentle, caring, dainty, or worthy of protection. Neither do masc presenting Black women and femmes need to even like being feminine or have to be feminine in general, in order to be important and cherished voices within their respective communities.

All Black women and femmes, regardless of identities and presentations, do not need to embrace and present as feminine in order for our lives to be seen as valuable. We do NOT need to be feminine in order to receive sympathy or empathy. We do not need to be feminine in order to be included in the phrase/movement of Protect Black Women. And we don't need a connection to or to identify with womanhood in order for our voices to be heard.

This goes double for brown and dark skinned Black women and femmes even more. Challenge the systems that make it so darker Black women and femmes are barred from or have restricted access on exploring, embracing, and being seen feminine or women but also challenge the views and associations that being masculine or having a close and intimate relationship with manhood as a darker skinned Black woman/femme is inherently violent, inherently angrier, and inherently unattractive.

Last but not least darker skinned Black women and femmes who are plus sized and present as masculine, should not be anyone's epitomy of what violent, dangerous, or aggressive looks like. Biases like those directly contribute to systematic oppression against fat Black women/femmes on daily basis. They don't exist in a vacuum and should not be taken lightly.

Ultimately Black women and femmes having femininity, the right to identify or be seen as women stripped from us by white people and white supremacy, does not mean make masculinity unaccessible to us, or that presenting as masculine doesn't have its own prejudices and biases to dismantle, or that masculinity is a prison to us or our only viable option. If you're not advocating for and protecting all Black women and femmes than your activism, allyship, actions, and words, are empty.

[raynedayys2]

Friendly reminder that diagnosis is a privilege & many doctors still have biases against minorities. It's not that the person is faking it, but the system is literally working against them so they can't get the treatment they need.

[aphverse-confessions]

i find people who include fantasy racism, sexism and homophobia in their rewrites for ‘added drama’ and ‘issues’ are extremely unoriginal and lacking creativity. if your go to conflict is always fascism just because you have no creativity to try and come up with anything else besides what you know and is obviously ingrained in your brain, you should sit down and think why your go to awnser is always fascism.

.

[nokingsonlyfooles]

Your Daily Reminder that Bias Kills!

This intersects with use of algorithms, which predate AI, and seem to postdate the more obvious racism of the past... but a lot of this shit was just calculated on paper back when they came up with it. But the kidney algorithm dates to 1999! It was based on a small study that was quickly discredited, but it got embedded in the system and kept killing people for decades! Wow!

Just as a precaution, they began including a number in standard reports that suggested maaaybe Black people don't really need kidneys. Maybe they do! But there's a possibility they don't! And that's all it takes to get your doctor to kill you. If maybe they don't need to provide complicated and expensive care, they won't.

Don't trust your doctors. Check their work whenever you can. Hell, that goes for anyone with the authority to gatekeep shit you need to live. And when you can't... hope like hell for systemic progress and fight for it whenever you can.

[princess-of-thebes-1995]

Innocent Ukranians can come but not innocent Palestinians. Not only deport but ban new refugees from coming. Ain't this a bitch?

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

At a fundamental level, for a patriarchy to exist, men will have to value other men, above women.

We know the story by now.

Laws, policies, jobs, departments, societal structures and social strategies, are designed for the advancement of men – aka male privilege.

But whilst it’s undeniable that the laws are written by men (mostly), this in no way means that the laws are written *for* men.

Because they aren’t.

I’ve never heard of the Office for Mens Health, or seen the Minister for Men.

I must have missed the Violence Against Men Act, or lost the Biden Agenda For Men.

I for one am looking forward to @UNWomen (and the dozens of other handles the UN has for women) making their first account for men, so too I’m excited to see the Department of Labor launch their Men’s Bureau too.

I mean, have you *ever* seen a political leader advocate for men’s issues, or call themselves a men’s advocate?

It’s certainly a strange kind of patriarchy.

I joke, but beneath this is an obvious truth, for which there is lots of scientific evidence: as a group, men don’t actually value other men above women.

And even more uncomfortable, this in-group bias is far more pronounced in women.

So let’s take a look.

-- Sources:

Study, In Group Bias: http://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf

Four experiments confirmed that women’s automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men’s and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.

Fake Gendered Articles: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12463

Abstract Two studies investigated (1) how people react to research describing a sex difference, depending on whether that difference favours males or females, and (2) how accurately people can predict how the average man and woman will react. In Study 1, Western participants (N = 492) viewed a fictional popular-science article describing either a male-favouring or a female-favouring sex difference (i.e., men/women draw better; women/men lie more). Both sexes reacted less positively to the male-favouring differences, judging the findings to be less important, less credible, and more offensive, harmful, and upsetting. Participants predicted that the average man and woman would react more positively to sex differences favouring their own sex. This was true of the average woman, although the level of own-sex favouritism was lower than participants predicted. It was not true, however, of the average man, who – like the average woman – reacted more positively to the female-favouring differences. Study 2 replicated these findings in a Southeast Asian sample (N = 336). Our results are consistent with the idea that both sexes are more protective of women than men, but that both exaggerate the level of same-sex favouritism within each sex – a misconception that could potentially harm relations between the sexes.

APA In Group Bias: https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec04/women

Women like women more than men like men

Women are nearly five times more likely to show an automatic preference for their own gender than men are to show such favoritism for their own gender, according to a study in the October issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 87, No. 4).

Through four experiments, psychologists Laurie A. Rudman, PhD, of Rutgers, and Stephanie A. Goodwin, PhD, of Purdue University, used the Implicit Association Test to discover 204 heterosexual college students' automatic gender preferences and gender identity by asking them to associate positive and negative gender-free words with either "men" or "women." They also tested participants' self-esteem by asking them to associate those words with "I" or "others."

Both male and female participants associated the positive words--such as good, happy and sunshine--more often with women than with men, Rudman says.

Moreover, men and women tended to show high implicit self-esteem and high gender identity; however, men showed low pro-male gender attitudes, according to the study.

"A clear pattern shown in all four studies is that men do not like themselves automatically as much as women like themselves," Rudman says. "This contradicts a lot of theoretical thinking about implicit attitudes regarding status differences."

Hiring Bias: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176519303428

Abstract We investigate in-group gender bias in real-world hiring decisions by combining administrative data with data from a large-scale field experiment on hiring in which fictitious resumes with randomly assigned information about gender were sent to Swedish employers. Our results suggest that women (female recruiters or firms with a high share of female employees) favor women in the recruitment process. In contrast, we do not find much evidence that men (male recruiters or firms with a high share of male employees) favor men.

==

Theologians don't study cosmology, evolution, developmental psychology, evolutionary psychology, biology, anthropology or the evolution and origin of morality. They study one book of dogma, and "sin," and parse the latter through the former.

Feminist theorists don't study human psychology, evolutionary psychology, sociology, developmental psychology , statistics, biology or demography. They study a canon of dogmatic presuppositions and parse their personal grievances through it.

There is nothing evidence-based, rigorous or intellectually honest about either. They're not even wrong, because they're unfalsifiable and believed based on faith.

Here's a couple of extras:

"Going blind to see more clearly: unconscious bias in Australian Public Service shortlisting processes": https://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/projects/unconscious-bias.pdf

This study assessed whether women and minorities are discriminated against in the early stages of the recruitment process for senior positions in the APS, while also testing the impact of implementing a ‘blind’ or de-identified approach to reviewing candidates.

Over 2,100 public servants from 14 agencies participated in the trial. They completed an exercise in which they shortlisted applicants for a hypothetical senior role in their agency. Participants were randomly assigned to receive application materials for candidates in standard form or in de-identified form (with information about candidate gender, race and ethnicity removed). We found that the public servants engaged in positive (not negative) discrimination towards female and minority candidates:

Participants were 2.9% more likely to shortlist female candidates and 3.2% less likely to shortlist male applicants when they were identifiable, compared with when they were de-identified.

Minority males were 5.8% more likely to be shortlisted and minority females were 8.6% more likely to be shortlisted when identifiable compared to when applications were de-identified.

The positive discrimination was strongest for Indigenous female candidates who were 22.2% more likely to be shortlisted when identifiable compared to when the applications were de-identified.

Interestingly, male reviewers displayed markedly more positive discrimination in favour of minority candidates than did female counterparts, and reviewers aged 40+ displayed much stronger affirmative action in favour for both women and minorities than did younger ones.

Overall, the results indicate the need for caution when moving towards ’blind’ recruitment processes in the Australian Public Service, as de-identification may frustrate efforts aimed at promoting diversity.

That is, they discovered they didn't have the problem they assumed they did. There is already "positive" racial and sexual discrimination in favor of women and racial minorities, and de-identification removes that bias. Except there's no such thing as "positive" discrimination. It's just discrimination. But they were fine to just keep that discrimination in place when it's against men and white people, to the extent of warning against implementing de-identification.

-

Intersectional implicit bias: Evidence for asymmetrically compounding bias and the predominance of target gender: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35587425/

Abstract Little is known about implicit evaluations of complex, multiply categorizable social targets. Across five studies (N = 5,204), we investigated implicit evaluations of targets varying in race, gender, social class, and age. Overall, the largest and most consistent evaluative bias was pro-women/anti-men bias, followed by smaller but nonetheless consistent pro-upper-class/anti-lower-class biases. By contrast, we observed less consistent effects of targets' race, no effects of targets' age, and no consistent interactions between target-level categories. An integrative data analysis highlighted a number of moderating factors, but a stable pro-women/anti-men and pro-upper-class/anti-lower-class bias across demographic groups. Overall, these results suggest that implicit biases compound across multiple categories asymmetrically, with a dominant category (here, gender) largely driving evaluations, and ancillary categories (here, social class and race) exerting relatively smaller additional effects. We discuss potential implications of this work for understanding how implicit biases operate in real-world social settings.

While demonstrably false, what the feminist pseudoscience of "the patriarchy" does do is accidentally reveal the thinking behind those who conceived it and those who subscribe to it. It's a projection of their own biases and prejudices, mapped onto everyone else, as they assume everyone else thinks the same way they do. That is, they assume men are out to hurt them, because they're out to hurt men. The non-existent "male in-group bias" required for the mythological "patriarchy" is simply an assumption based on the biases of those who came up with this conspiracy theory in the first place: "the patriarchy" is just a mirror image of themselves, and what they want to do.

[living400lbs]

"While both men and women experience greater discrimination if they are fat, women suffer more for failing to be thin enough. Study after study shows that overweight women are more likely to be unemployed than their thinner counterparts. When they are employed, larger women earn less, with smaller penalties for Black and Hispanic women, who already earn less, on average. Overweight white and Asian women experience the labor market discrimination that Black and Hispanic women already do.

Outside of the workplace, the trend of educational and economic elites marrying, befriending and socializing with one another — assortative matching and mating — is also a marked characteristic of our time. Elite homogeneity has a look and the look is thin. So when women say that it is better to be sick and thin than healthy and fat, they are perfectly rational."

- Tressie McMillan Cottom

[alwaysbewoke]

[afriblaq]

The Very Dark Side Of AI ALL Black People Need To Know

In this video, we are going to talk about different problems posed by AI. First, how the AI designed to flag hate speech is actually increasing racial bias. Second, how AI puts out misinformation about Black people. And lastly, how AI bias caused 80% of Black mortgage applicants to be denied

[gravityoflight]

Hey! Can you share some interesting, weird or funny insights about being a psych major? 😊

Ah! I'm not very far in, yet, but in my Psychology of Discrimination and Bias class, I learned that a person who is actively trying to apply less stereotypical thinking will succeed.

There's a few steps to how stereotypes exist and are used in the brain.

First, there's the learning of them; this is what happens when you constantly see Black people portrayed as violent gang members in media, what happens when you see trans women portrayed variously as predators/pathetic/deceivers (Julia Serano's Whipping Girl expands very well on this trinity, and is a book I would generally recommend), what happens when autistic people are all Rain Man or Temple Grandin (to whom I bear no grudge! I think she's a delightful woman, and did well to manage her own autistic traits with no proper support from her family).

Then, there's the activation step- say you're a neurotypical out shopping for groceries, and you've been chatting with your cashier as they scan through your order. You mention your autistic child or friend, and the cashier (who hasn't seemed to have trouble with the small talk with which you've been engaging them, and has made occasional eye contact between weighing your produce) says "oh, I'm autistic!"

(ID: a greyscale image of Robert Downey Jr. in a fancy suit, indicating himself with a hand to his chest and a mildly surprised expression, accompanied by the text "I'm the cashier")

Instantly, whether or not you intend it, your brain looks up the information you have about autistic people, true or untrue- Rain Man, Temple Grandin, your child or your friend. This is called "stereotype activation".

Next, you apply this knowledge to the cashier- and it's true, they haven't made steady eye contact at any point, and their voice is a little monotonous (though clearly friendly). Their autistic traits are subtle, but you can understand how they might be! "You don't seem autistic," you tell them, and they suppress a sigh; this is something they've heard a lot. This is stereotype application, as well as acting on it (in a manner likely intended to be complimentary, but the stereotype application is clear nonetheless).

But let's say you're doing your best to learn about autism, or neurodivergence in general, so you stop, and instead of saying "you don't seem autistic", you put your preconceptions away and say something like "oh, thank you for telling me!" TL;DR: If a person is motivated to not apply the stereotypes they've learned, it might activate in the back of their mind (that shit's hard to unlearn), but it's in not applying it that progress is made.

This is a neat fact I learned in one of my psych classes, which fits in with what I had already hoped was true, and it makes me happy that it's scientifically proven. ^^