Status
Available
Collection
Publication
Bantam (2016), 272 pages
Description
In this accessible and groundbreaking look at the science of prejudice, Banaji and Greenwald show that prejudice and unconscious biases toward others are a fundamental part of the human psyche.
User reviews
LibraryThing member gaisce
People, even people with the best of intentions, have biases. We say that justice is blind because we know how sight might betray us with instinctive acknowledgement of things unnecessary and detracting from the scales of equal consideration, thus deceiving the principle we hope to uphold. But what
These "mindbugs" are everywhere, Banaji and Greenwald assert. Just as our sight can fool us with optical illusions about table sizes and shades of grey on a chessboard, so can our mind trick us into pitfalls and blind areas that we consciously fail to notice most of the time. This is why people, even those who try to be "good *," often fall short of their own expectations.
Admittedly, I did not find the concept so earth shattering to my self-perception, but that could be because I immediately found evidence of my unconscious bias while reading the first few pages. When the authors were introduced, and Mahzarin was described with a female pronoun, I mentally paused. It was silly, because I know women are just as capable as men in science and higher education. I have argued with people on it extensively. Heck, my sociologist and anthropologist professors were women! But here I was, accidentally assuming at the first named author of a scientific book was male. Does this make me a bad person? A traitor to the feminist cause?
No. But, like Mahzarin said when receiving test results that showed her own bias, it made me feel like I failed somehow. And how even those who fight tirelessly for issues of social equality—even their own equality—may be susceptible to the biases that permeate the world around them.
The foundation of the book comes from the Implicit Association Test (IAT). The IAT is so important to their thesis that they provide several examples of the test for readers to try on their own, and they exhort the importance of the results as the only way to truly comprehend the effects of unconscious bias.
Basically, the IAT works by comparing two attempts at grouping various objects and if one grouping takes a longer time to do than the other, you realize that your mind more readily associates some things with others. For example, grouping a deck of cards into hearts/diamonds and clubs/spades is likely to take you less time than hearts/spades and clubs/diamonds. They point out that it is easier to group the cards by their color and have to mentally forestall that association when doing it the other way.
Blindspot: The Hidden Biases of Good People presents many of these tests that deal with race, age, and sex related attitudes. If there is a difference between the test times, then it would be marked as bias and quantified by degrees, depending on how significant the difference in time it takes to complete them.
Thankfully, they do not rest solely on IAT for the entirety of the book, and branch out into other studies that continue to point out bias associations. Examples are not given equal time, largely in part because they mention how racial studies have the most data to discuss, that there is a better sampling of US studies than global ones, etc. Blindspots serves more as an exploratory book of the concept rather than a compendium of all related bias studies.
However, the book is not simply sociological data discussions. There is an almost informal tone for an academic book in some cases, as the authors—particularly Mahzarin—inject anecdotes of how unconscious bias can manifest itself in daily life or impact the people subjected to it. They employ famous "riddles" like the one about the son and father who get into a car accident; the father dies on the scene, and when the boy is taken to the emergency room the surgeon announces, "I can’t operate on him, this is my son." These attempts make the book easily accessible to audiences that have never taken Sociology 101, yet present the information in a way that makes even long-term academics rethink their preconceived notions.
If there is anything to really complain about in Blindspots, it would be the footnotes.* Some of them gave details on the studies briefly referenced in the text itself, explaining how the study was conducted, what the population was, and so on. Others seemed to be a a simple source citation, but sometimes the references are vague. For example, on page 114: "Stereotypes do not take special effort to acquire. Quite the opposite—they are acquired effortlessly, and take special effort to discount. 13" and then the footnote lists "13. Gilbert, 1991." Did the study pertain to special efforts for discounting? Is it simply a study on stereotypes and if so why this one in particular? Instead of filling in details of the text, most footnotes left me scratching my head as to why a study was listed, or frustrated at the lack of context provided.
As a whole work, Blindspots: The Hidden Biases of Good People is a book that is very relevant to our day and age. They do not end with platitudes or a ten point list of how to fix these mindbugs (although I wish they went into detail about how the spider phobia study also seemed to break certain racial discrimination!) but instead explain that awareness of these biases might be the first step to further studies in correcting them. I would highly recommend anyone who wants to gain insight into their perceptions giving this book a read.
* Good is defined in this case as “those of us who strive to align our behavior with our intentions”
* I like footnotes at the bottom of the relevant page, and the galley copy had them snuck in between the references and appendixes. As you can guess, this is highly annoying when flipping between pages.
Show More
happens when that prejudice goes beyond your senses and resides in your mind, in the dark unconscious recesses that even your consciousness can't rationalize away? These "mindbugs" are everywhere, Banaji and Greenwald assert. Just as our sight can fool us with optical illusions about table sizes and shades of grey on a chessboard, so can our mind trick us into pitfalls and blind areas that we consciously fail to notice most of the time. This is why people, even those who try to be "good *," often fall short of their own expectations.
Admittedly, I did not find the concept so earth shattering to my self-perception, but that could be because I immediately found evidence of my unconscious bias while reading the first few pages. When the authors were introduced, and Mahzarin was described with a female pronoun, I mentally paused. It was silly, because I know women are just as capable as men in science and higher education. I have argued with people on it extensively. Heck, my sociologist and anthropologist professors were women! But here I was, accidentally assuming at the first named author of a scientific book was male. Does this make me a bad person? A traitor to the feminist cause?
No. But, like Mahzarin said when receiving test results that showed her own bias, it made me feel like I failed somehow. And how even those who fight tirelessly for issues of social equality—even their own equality—may be susceptible to the biases that permeate the world around them.
The foundation of the book comes from the Implicit Association Test (IAT). The IAT is so important to their thesis that they provide several examples of the test for readers to try on their own, and they exhort the importance of the results as the only way to truly comprehend the effects of unconscious bias.
Basically, the IAT works by comparing two attempts at grouping various objects and if one grouping takes a longer time to do than the other, you realize that your mind more readily associates some things with others. For example, grouping a deck of cards into hearts/diamonds and clubs/spades is likely to take you less time than hearts/spades and clubs/diamonds. They point out that it is easier to group the cards by their color and have to mentally forestall that association when doing it the other way.
Blindspot: The Hidden Biases of Good People presents many of these tests that deal with race, age, and sex related attitudes. If there is a difference between the test times, then it would be marked as bias and quantified by degrees, depending on how significant the difference in time it takes to complete them.
Thankfully, they do not rest solely on IAT for the entirety of the book, and branch out into other studies that continue to point out bias associations. Examples are not given equal time, largely in part because they mention how racial studies have the most data to discuss, that there is a better sampling of US studies than global ones, etc. Blindspots serves more as an exploratory book of the concept rather than a compendium of all related bias studies.
However, the book is not simply sociological data discussions. There is an almost informal tone for an academic book in some cases, as the authors—particularly Mahzarin—inject anecdotes of how unconscious bias can manifest itself in daily life or impact the people subjected to it. They employ famous "riddles" like the one about the son and father who get into a car accident; the father dies on the scene, and when the boy is taken to the emergency room the surgeon announces, "I can’t operate on him, this is my son." These attempts make the book easily accessible to audiences that have never taken Sociology 101, yet present the information in a way that makes even long-term academics rethink their preconceived notions.
If there is anything to really complain about in Blindspots, it would be the footnotes.* Some of them gave details on the studies briefly referenced in the text itself, explaining how the study was conducted, what the population was, and so on. Others seemed to be a a simple source citation, but sometimes the references are vague. For example, on page 114: "Stereotypes do not take special effort to acquire. Quite the opposite—they are acquired effortlessly, and take special effort to discount. 13" and then the footnote lists "13. Gilbert, 1991." Did the study pertain to special efforts for discounting? Is it simply a study on stereotypes and if so why this one in particular? Instead of filling in details of the text, most footnotes left me scratching my head as to why a study was listed, or frustrated at the lack of context provided.
As a whole work, Blindspots: The Hidden Biases of Good People is a book that is very relevant to our day and age. They do not end with platitudes or a ten point list of how to fix these mindbugs (although I wish they went into detail about how the spider phobia study also seemed to break certain racial discrimination!) but instead explain that awareness of these biases might be the first step to further studies in correcting them. I would highly recommend anyone who wants to gain insight into their perceptions giving this book a read.
* Good is defined in this case as “those of us who strive to align our behavior with our intentions”
* I like footnotes at the bottom of the relevant page, and the galley copy had them snuck in between the references and appendixes. As you can guess, this is highly annoying when flipping between pages.
Show Less
LibraryThing member vlodko62
There are very few books that I would put on my "must read" list, and this - along with Man's Search for Meaning" - is one of them. Certainly not a well-known book, written by two social psychologists, it explores "the hidden biases of good people." It also provides the reader with several good
Show More
self assessments about his/her own biases. I am currently reading it for the third time. Show Less
LibraryThing member bexaplex
If you know what the term "stereotype threat" is then this book is not going to reveal a lot of new information. But that doesn't make it a bad book - it's a nice easy read (except if you want to look up the numerical endnotes, which you have to look up in two different sections - Notes and
Because of my own reading patterns and interests, I was envisioning the missing chapter on developing true compassion, and whether that overcomes the mindbugs, or changes the areas of the brain that we use to think about ourselves versus others. But I didn't honestly think an American popular science book on bias was going to include any reference to the Buddhist conception of compassion.
Show More
References. GAH why do book publishers do this?!?!?) with solid research behind it.Because of my own reading patterns and interests, I was envisioning the missing chapter on developing true compassion, and whether that overcomes the mindbugs, or changes the areas of the brain that we use to think about ourselves versus others. But I didn't honestly think an American popular science book on bias was going to include any reference to the Buddhist conception of compassion.
Show Less
LibraryThing member RoxieT
Enjoyed this more than I thought. Heavily geared towards social psychology research over many decades pertaining to biases and discrimination. I appreciated the authors sound approach at not only presenting the research results, but clearly describing the impact that biases and unconscious
Show More
preferences have today. There were many opportunities for "hands-on" revelations of our own biases. Show Less
LibraryThing member _Zoe_
This is exactly what a popular psychology book should be: both extremely informative and extremely readable.
At the core of this book is a fairly new method for measuring people's hidden biases, called an Implicit Association Test (IAT). It's worth explaining this test in some detail because it
We're introduced to the general concept via the sorting of playing cards, and strongly encouraged to physically carry out the procedure. Imagine taking a deck of cards and sorting it into two piles: clubs and hearts in one pile, and spades and diamonds in another pile. Then imagine sorting in a different way: clubs and spades in one pile, hearts and diamonds in the other. The second sorting method is much easier, because the two groups are united by a common feature: clubs and spades are black, while hearts and diamonds are red. Clubs and spades are similar in a way that clubs and hearts are not.
The same sort of idea can be applied to other concepts as well: we more easily associate insects with negative words and flowers with positive words. And it turns out that most of us also also find it easier to associate black people with negative words and white people with positive words. Similarly, it's easier to associate women with home words and men with career words. Even when we don't make these associations consciously, the ease or difficulty of making certain groupings reveals that the associations do exist somewhere in our minds. These are the blindspots that the title is talking about.
Given the subtitle, the conclusions weren't quite as surprising to me as the authors seemed to expect: we know going in that supposedly good people are going to turn out to have hidden biases. But the tests are unusually persuasive. We don't just learn that there are studies showing that people in general are biased; we learn that we ourselves are biased, in a way that's apparent in the test-taking process even before tabulating the results.
In addition to bringing home this lesson in a very powerful way, the authors present other related studies and discuss the consequences of hidden biases more broadly. And they do it all in a very readable way. I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in issues of discrimination, or anyone who who just wants to gain some new insight into their own mind.
At the core of this book is a fairly new method for measuring people's hidden biases, called an Implicit Association Test (IAT). It's worth explaining this test in some detail because it
Show More
forms such a central part of the book's arguments.We're introduced to the general concept via the sorting of playing cards, and strongly encouraged to physically carry out the procedure. Imagine taking a deck of cards and sorting it into two piles: clubs and hearts in one pile, and spades and diamonds in another pile. Then imagine sorting in a different way: clubs and spades in one pile, hearts and diamonds in the other. The second sorting method is much easier, because the two groups are united by a common feature: clubs and spades are black, while hearts and diamonds are red. Clubs and spades are similar in a way that clubs and hearts are not.
The same sort of idea can be applied to other concepts as well: we more easily associate insects with negative words and flowers with positive words. And it turns out that most of us also also find it easier to associate black people with negative words and white people with positive words. Similarly, it's easier to associate women with home words and men with career words. Even when we don't make these associations consciously, the ease or difficulty of making certain groupings reveals that the associations do exist somewhere in our minds. These are the blindspots that the title is talking about.
Given the subtitle, the conclusions weren't quite as surprising to me as the authors seemed to expect: we know going in that supposedly good people are going to turn out to have hidden biases. But the tests are unusually persuasive. We don't just learn that there are studies showing that people in general are biased; we learn that we ourselves are biased, in a way that's apparent in the test-taking process even before tabulating the results.
In addition to bringing home this lesson in a very powerful way, the authors present other related studies and discuss the consequences of hidden biases more broadly. And they do it all in a very readable way. I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in issues of discrimination, or anyone who who just wants to gain some new insight into their own mind.
Show Less
LibraryThing member MartyAllen
This book will have readers second guessing their choices and statements. The research is surprising, though some of it may be familiar. Tests are sprinkled throughout, making it interactive and making the discoveries immediately applicable. Some of the statements are a little confusing and may
Show More
require more education than the layperson will have, but for the most part, it is an interesting read. Show Less
LibraryThing member ellen.w
Important subject, good information! I wish everyone (especially everyone who claims they don't judge people by race) could read this book.
That said, it's kind of poorly written -- like a research paper stretched out to become book length (which is probably what happened). A little too much
That said, it's kind of poorly written -- like a research paper stretched out to become book length (which is probably what happened). A little too much
Show More
dependence on their own terms and tests and a style that is clear but not at all evocative. Mixed bag. Show Less
LibraryThing member ellen.w
Important subject, good information! I wish everyone (especially everyone who claims they don't judge people by race) could read this book.
That said, it's kind of poorly written -- like a research paper stretched out to become book length (which is probably what happened). A little too much
That said, it's kind of poorly written -- like a research paper stretched out to become book length (which is probably what happened). A little too much
Show More
dependence on their own terms and tests and a style that is clear but not at all evocative. Mixed bag. Show Less
LibraryThing member jwood652
This book delves into our psychological blind spot, the subconcious biases that can affect our actions. Despite what we consciously think, this blind spot also controls our emotions and actions. The authors are noted authorities on the subject and developed a test, the IAT or implicit association
Show More
test, to explore this phenomenom. There are different tests on many aspects such as racial, gender and age bias. The reader can take the provided tests from the book or go to implicit.harvard.edu. The book is easy to read and cites many studies to complement their findings. It is great to get an understanding of this blind spot but I was hoping for some practical strategies that individuals could use. There is much ongoing research and their are strategies in use such as blind auditions for orchestras. As more is uncovered about the blind spot, there undoubtedly will be more ways developed to deal with it. Show Less
LibraryThing member jwood652
This book delves into our psychological blind spot, the subconcious biases that can affect our actions. Despite what we consciously think, this blind spot also controls our emotions and actions. The authors are noted authorities on the subject and developed a test, the IAT or implicit association
Show More
test, to explore this phenomenom. There are different tests on many aspects such as racial, gender and age bias. The reader can take the provided tests from the book or go to implicit.harvard.edu. The book is easy to read and cites many studies to complement their findings. It is great to get an understanding of this blind spot but I was hoping for some practical strategies that individuals could use. There is much ongoing research and their are strategies in use such as blind auditions for orchestras. As more is uncovered about the blind spot, there undoubtedly will be more ways developed to deal with it. Show Less
LibraryThing member Kaethe
The short form:
Humans are really good at detecting patterns
All cultures include assumptions about groups
Humans absorb these assumptions as implicit associations regardless of their explicit beliefs
More privileged people grossly underestimate the harm from small acts of prejudice against less
Good people recognize these mindbugs and seek ways to work around them
Try and be excellent to each other
Library copy
Humans are really good at detecting patterns
All cultures include assumptions about groups
Humans absorb these assumptions as implicit associations regardless of their explicit beliefs
More privileged people grossly underestimate the harm from small acts of prejudice against less
Show More
privileged peopleGood people recognize these mindbugs and seek ways to work around them
Try and be excellent to each other
Library copy
Show Less
LibraryThing member Razinha
I participated in a workshop on Inclusion and Diversity and the presenters quoted from this book, so I found it and read it. Mixed thoughts. I've seen the IAT (Implicit Association Test) cited in other works and was familiar with the tests and the conclusions...this pretty much beat the subject
The best takeaway from this book are the strategies for potentially outsmarting the "mindbugs". I like to think that intelligence can win, but I know better and this just implies further confirmation. When you try to outsmart yourself...good luck.
Show More
into the ground. Okay, okay! Even if we don't think we have biases, the data show we do, and if we do acknowledge we have biases, the data show they are worse than we think. The best takeaway from this book are the strategies for potentially outsmarting the "mindbugs". I like to think that intelligence can win, but I know better and this just implies further confirmation. When you try to outsmart yourself...good luck.
Show Less
LibraryThing member larryerick
Given the moderate ratings for this book on Goodreads, I was not expecting great scholarship, but neither was I expecting a sophomoric effort. It's ultimately a treatise on how racially biased America still is. I'll offer just a couple of many areas where they falter. In the beginning, they have
Show More
the reader take some tests that are intended to show hidden bias. Assumptions are made about the speed in which a person chooses a pairing of objects with what the testers have designated as positive or negative terms. This is done without any weight whatsoever given for a delay in choosing a pairing based on one's familiarity with it, versus how much the person dislikes or disagrees with that pairing. In another area, the authors dedicate most of a chapter to methods of discrimination, that take place in present day employment, that are much less blatant than Jim Crow laws of the past. These insights are offered like new found sociological discoveries when, in fact, they offer nothing new to this particular reader, who knew all this over 30 years ago from day to day human resource work and not from some published university experiments. These scholars come to the reader, like a child who just discovered an ant hill, and now wants to share with Mom how amazing it is. This is not rigorous, in depth, sociological nor psychological analysis. Show Less
LibraryThing member ASKelmore
You’re not racist, right? I mean, if given two equally qualified candidates for a job you were hiring for, you’d be just as likely to give it to the Black person as the White person, right? And you’re in favor of same sex marriage, so you definitely don’t give any preference to straight
Not so fast. The premise of this book – which is backed up by some pretty solid science – is that we all hold biases in our unconscious minds that influence what we do. Because they are unconscious biases, it’s hard to imagine we have them, and even harder to figure out how to address them. I mean, it’s one thing to make it illegal to ban people of a certain race from eating in one’s restaurant; how do you fix something that is so deep in your brain you don’t even know it is there?
The concepts in the book are mostly supported by the IAT, or Implicit Association Test. The book goes into much greater detail, but here’s the basic idea: when presented with a variety of words, is it easier for you (as measure by how quickly you do it) to sort them into the category associated with positive characteristics when that category is also associated with a specific race? So, if the option is Black/Positive and White/ Negative, and the word ‘happy’ pops up on the screen, is your reaction time sorting that correctly going to be slower than if the options are Black/Negative and White/Positive? If so, you have an unconscious preference for White people.
It’s a pretty fascinating test and, like I said, has been validated many times, and expanded beyond race to measure all sorts of different possible biases – I recently took the test to see if I had an unconscious negative association regarding people with disabilities. I did not – huzzah! You can play around with it yourself – but man, be prepared to be disappointed. The vast majority of folks who take the race test show at least some unconscious preference for White people. It’s a bummer.
So, what’s the point then? How do we fix this? That’s basically the problem with this book – there isn’t a lot here by way of suggestions as to how to fix this. I can think of some that are alluded to, such as vastly increasing the positive representations of people of color in the media so that those negative associations don’t creep into our minds. But being really aware of these biases seems to be a good place to start. That, and not being so defensive about whether there really still are biases out there. Just because you live in an area where people don’t call Black people the n-word or non-straight people the f-word doesn’t mean there aren’t unconscious biases at work.
Show More
people, right?Not so fast. The premise of this book – which is backed up by some pretty solid science – is that we all hold biases in our unconscious minds that influence what we do. Because they are unconscious biases, it’s hard to imagine we have them, and even harder to figure out how to address them. I mean, it’s one thing to make it illegal to ban people of a certain race from eating in one’s restaurant; how do you fix something that is so deep in your brain you don’t even know it is there?
The concepts in the book are mostly supported by the IAT, or Implicit Association Test. The book goes into much greater detail, but here’s the basic idea: when presented with a variety of words, is it easier for you (as measure by how quickly you do it) to sort them into the category associated with positive characteristics when that category is also associated with a specific race? So, if the option is Black/Positive and White/ Negative, and the word ‘happy’ pops up on the screen, is your reaction time sorting that correctly going to be slower than if the options are Black/Negative and White/Positive? If so, you have an unconscious preference for White people.
It’s a pretty fascinating test and, like I said, has been validated many times, and expanded beyond race to measure all sorts of different possible biases – I recently took the test to see if I had an unconscious negative association regarding people with disabilities. I did not – huzzah! You can play around with it yourself – but man, be prepared to be disappointed. The vast majority of folks who take the race test show at least some unconscious preference for White people. It’s a bummer.
So, what’s the point then? How do we fix this? That’s basically the problem with this book – there isn’t a lot here by way of suggestions as to how to fix this. I can think of some that are alluded to, such as vastly increasing the positive representations of people of color in the media so that those negative associations don’t creep into our minds. But being really aware of these biases seems to be a good place to start. That, and not being so defensive about whether there really still are biases out there. Just because you live in an area where people don’t call Black people the n-word or non-straight people the f-word doesn’t mean there aren’t unconscious biases at work.
Show Less
LibraryThing member swbesecker
Whoa. Intense and interesting insight to our own unconscious mind and where our bias' might lay. The book and it's accompanying website will have you taking all kinds of biased assessements - take at your own risk! You may not like what those tests have to say about you! A MUST read for all
Show More
educators and highly recommended for everyone else. Why can't we all just get along, eh? Show Less
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2013-02-12
Physical description
272 p.; 5.18 inches
ISBN
0345528433 / 9780345528438