Read 🤏 E.P.U.B Blindspot

Blindspot

Link to Downlload ⇒ Downlload Now!

Link to Read ⇒ Reaad Now!

 

Review : "I know my own mind. I am able to assess others in a fair and accurate way." These self-perceptions are challenged by leading psychologists Mahzarin R. Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald as they explore the hidden biases we all carry from a lifetime of exposure to cultural attitudes about age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, social class, sexuality, disability status, and nationality. “Blindspot” is the authors’ metaphor for the portion of the mind that houses hidden biases. Writing with simplicity and verve, Banaji and Greenwald question the extent to which our perceptions of social groups—without our awareness or conscious control—shape our likes and dislikes and our judgments about people’s character, abilities, and potential. In Blindspot , the authors reveal hidden biases based on their experience with the Implicit Association Test, a method that has revolutionized the way scientists learn about the human mind and that gives us a glimpse into what lies within the metaphoric blindspot. The book’s “good people” are those of us who strive to align our behavior with our intentions. The aim of Blindspot is to explain the science in plain enough language to help well-intentioned people achieve that alignment. By gaining awareness, we can adapt beliefs and behavior and “outsmart the machine” in our heads so we can be fairer to those around us. Venturing into this book is an invitation to understand our own minds. Brilliant, authoritative, and utterly accessible, Blindspot is a book that will challenge and change readers for years to come. Read more

 

Review : Banaji, Mahzarin, & Greenwald, Anthony (2016). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. New York: Bantam Books. The authors developed the IAT, Implicit Assocation Test, which purports to show hidden biases, including “implicit racism.” What it really measures, however, is a surrogate, delayed response time. Even if this is accurately measured, it is not really a surrogate for racism, as it would measure only response and not chosen behavior. The concept of IMPLICIT or Institutional RACISM is wrong, and derives from materialism / Marxism /Communism, and their rejection of individual responsibility and truth, and false/incorrect ideas about human nature and action. “Implicit racism” is alleged to exist when there is no evidence of actual racism, or evidence to the contrary. In my 20s, raised Catholic, I was for my sins condemned to read to the end every book I started, including the works of Karl Marx. I also read about him, and spend long days and nights being lectured to about Marx and his wonders. These friends and “teachers” all predicted the imminent, inevitable, self-destruction of free market capitalism. I was invited to entire weekend discussions devoted to Marx and his works, and his successors, which it was preached and taught as dogma. Later, I also came to read great writers who took Marx to pieces and pointed out his dishonesty, broken promises, awful personal life, and inconsistencies or outright lies in his works. I was also insulated against Marxism / Communism /Socialism because of Captive Europe, Europe behind the Iron Curtain, and stories of life in Communist USSR, the satellite countries, Red China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, and so on. I grew up among friends who themselves and their families has escaped from the horrors of Captive Europe, from such as Lithuania and Poland, and knew its evils first-hand. Communism proved horribly wrong in practice as well as theory. It presented itself always as the more moral option: it promised equality, but delivered poverty and slavery. The capitalism it criticized endlessly was said to be immoral, but was based on the mutually beneficial exchange, and delivered wealth and freedom. One imposed itself by force, while the other offered its benefits. I read the works which praised communism and found them full of lies, deception, and self-deception. One of the great scandals of the 20th Century is the deceptions and self-deception of intellectuals with respect to Communism and Socialism. I read The God That Failed, Robert Conquest, Witness, 1984, Animal Farm, Farewell to Catalonia, Solzhenitsyn, Sidney Hook, Hayek (The Road to Serfdom), Leo XIII, and more. Much later, I came to love Michael Novak, who also grew up in my same Western Pennsylvania, such as The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, and “Liberation Theology: But does it liberate?” I watched millions flee or try to flee Communism, and flee to the United States and England. Even Marx himself had fled Germany and found refuge in England, though he never showed gratitude. Voltaire had taught us, long before, that England exemplified freedom in the world. Throughout my early university years—1967-74--- I watched Marxists and their supporters with endless criticism of the US and the West, while they sycophantically praised the USSR, Mao and Red China, and such villains as Castro and “Che,” the latter still idolized and romanticized by youth and adults who wear his picture and thus honor his murders. The Marxists, then as now, find causes of behavior not in individuals but in larger events and qualities, such as economic systems and class. They talked of people being “objectively” wrong, even when well=intentioned. Of course, they rejected free will (although they knew little of its history—ask your Marxist friends to recount and distinguish Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, or the later Luther, and to explain each’s version of what causes men to do evil, even when they know it to be evil. Ask them about how people “blind themselves” and “harden their hearts.”). Today’s Intersectionalists [I prefer “Deer at the Crossroads”], and Post-truth advocates, likewise reject ideas of individual responsibility (except when it comes to Police, Republicans, and CEOs, whom they blame and want to imprison), seeking “the root causes” of poverty, and to change the “system,” rather than individual behavior. To them, as to the Marxists, individual behavior is epiphenomenal, merely a symptom of the “system,” which must first be changed if change is to occur. They claim there is no objective truth (although this would seem, if true, to apply to them as well…yet they are full of such contradictions). I remember, from childhood, the motto of the McKeesport Police Department: Before you seek to change the world, first change yourself. Good behavior starts with humility and acceptance of responsibility for one’s own actions. Today’s ideas of institutional or implicit racism are unscientific nonsense, but flow directly from the unscientific nonsense of Marxism and its assumptions. Polygraphs (lie detector machines) do not test for truth, but rather for physical phenomena, which are interpreted by the Polygrapher to indicate truthfulness or not. The machine does not and cannot measure whether the person is lying, but only measure physical conditions (See National Academy of Sciences report debunking polygraphs). In much of science, there are attempts to measure what cannot be measured by finding surrogates. In implicit racism theory, Greenwalt and Banaji developed in the 1990s the IAT Test (IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST), which purports to measure racism, sexism, or the like. What it actually measures, however, is the quickness or slowness of response to certain pictures. This was developed in their book BLINDSPOT (The hidden biases of good people). On line, one can take IAT tests, which have become a multi-million dollar industry, just like other unscientific tests (such as Meyers Briggs and its cousins. Read the legal fine print and disclaimers at the Myers Briggs website). Don’t forget Lincoln: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time,…” The IAT tests do not and cannot measure what they purport to measure. Even if they measure correctly that a person had racist thoughts or feelings, that still would not show that the person was racist. We are not responsible for our thoughts or feelings or dreams, but rather for what we do with them. A person can be “born” homosexual, but choose to be celibate. We may be born with predispositions to alcohol, but choose not to drink, and thus avoid “occasions of sin.” We are dealt our cards, on where we are born, but we play our own cards. Poverty does not cause crime: most poor people are not criminals. We are not condemned to smoke, because our parents smoked, or to be violent if those who raised us were violent. We can choose to have, as wrote Dr. Laura Schlessinger, a BAD CHILDHOOD, [but a ] GOOD LIFE. There is often one correct admission even from the implicit (and institutional) racism advocates: it has become increasingly harder to find explicit racism (that is, racism for which there is actual evidence), Implicit racism means racism for which there is no evidence (but we “know” it must be there. How clever they were to hide it so well). When actual racism is discovered, we have ample laws to deal with it. Those who “find” racism everywhere in reality are impelled by false dogma, and not by science or evidence. Such imputations of racism arise from “disparate” results, such as when it is alleged that a group, such as blacks, is more affected, disproportionately to its presence in the population. Blacks commit proportionately more violent crimes, including murder, than whites. Blacks are proportionately more convicted and imprisoned than whites. Some insist that such findings must be the result of racism, “implicit” when it we cannot otherwise find proof. The evidence and studies actually show that, when the nature of the crime and criminal history of the offender are taken into account, racism disappears as an explanatory factor. Rabid students and professors assert that even to allege or discuss such “facts” as the excessive black crime rate is “racist.” They reject science and its methods as racist. In my recent attendance at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, I heard professors and students, on the panels, in the audiences, and in the hallways, make such assertions of implicit racism, and applaud asserters, and jeer if any panelist or questioner suggested that actual evidence was required. They were an intellectual mob. When the Obama Administration and some Courts find “disparate” conditions, they infer racism, and (at least since the Griggs v Duke Power “disparate impact” 1971 case) shift the burden of proof to employers and others to prove that they are NOT racist. This is wrong and absurd, but infects today’s law. Then court findings and consent decrees are taken as “proof” that there is racism, even though it remains assumed and imputed, not proved. The Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald wrote, in the Wall Street Journal (10-10-2017), “The False “Science” of Implicit Bias,” worth reading, which dissects this madness, although she does not there trace it to its roots in materialism, determinism, and Marxism/Communism. These have taken hold in the American Universities, which power and politics have replaced the honest search for truth. If there is an “institutional” bias, it is in these places against the truth and common sense. Plaintiffs are deemed innocent, and Defendants presumed guilty. This is Red Queen country from Alice in Wonderland.