We can spot this one coming

Companies may seek to dismantle prejudice among their employees – but psychologists question whether these courses effect lasting change

So therefore the insistence is that large corporations must hire more psychologists for longer periods of time.

This is the woke shouting “Gissa Job”.

14 thoughts on “We can spot this one coming”

  1. Shoegazing rationalists: “Where’s the scientific evidence implicit bias tests work?”

    Splendidly masculine lion, ferret and honey-badger Beastmasters: “Where’s the scientific evidence implicit biases are wrong?”

  2. ’… if your name is James or Emily, you will find it easier to get a job than someone called Tariq or Adeola.’

    I wonder why? Must be prejudice. Couldn’t possibly be any other reason.

    Could it?

  3. Well to be honest, Tariq or Adeola would have zero chance of getting a job with me. Wouldn’t rate James or Emily’s chances high, either. A Jim or Steve very likely. You know where you are with names like that.

  4. ’… if your name is James or Emily, you will find it easier to get a job than someone called Tariq or Adeola.’

    At the Guardian it’s the surname that counts, not the Christian name.

  5. ‘Overall, the authors concluded that the courses are effective at raising awareness of bias, but the evidence of long-lasting behavioural change is “limited” … More generally, these courses may often fail to bring about change because people become too defensive about the very idea that they may be prejudiced.’

    Then again a reluctance to change may indicate that we are comfortable with our prejudice, of a preference to surround ourselves with people that look, think and speak as we do.

  6. Sort of related, from the Telegraph.

    The charity, set up in 1948 by RAF group captain Leonard Cheshire, said that people should say “non-disabled” rather than “able-bodied.

    Non-disabled? So should I be described as non-female, non-black and non-blind as well?

  7. Ah well, Jimmers, there’s another charity that’s just volunteered to be omitted from my widow’s will.

  8. The charity, set up in 1948 by RAF group captain Leonard Cheshire, said that people should say “non-disabled” rather than “able-bodied.

    Non-disabled? So should I be described as non-female, non-black and non-blind as well?

    Would someone blind but with 2 working legs be described as “non-disabled disabled”?

  9. What about being left handed, reasonable chunk of the population and often discriminated against in terms of design and general life. Even the language is biased against us, sinister=left.
    If the criteria now is offended then why can’t those counter-handed be recognised, why do restaurants assume cutlery layout, totally offensive.

  10. Not just discriminated against… Regularly physically and mentally punished for it by the Forunners of the Skyfairy in the juvenile drill-camps called “Catholic Schools”. And from hearsay their Protestant versions were just as bad..

  11. I’ve never found being left handed a handicap although, apart from writing with my left hand, I’m pretty much ambidextrous. I suspect that, had I been forced to write with my right hand at school, I would have been right handed. I understand that this wouldn’t work for other left handed people though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *