Whether or not reverse discrimination was taking place at Yahoo, it is worthwhile to try to reduce the implicit bias we practice in our own lives.
> In a narrower sense, it refers to the specific negative impacts Whites or males may experience because of affirmative action policies. The two meanings are often conflated, which leads to confusion and misinformation.
As companies try to fight historical biases, there will be some from the dominant group that suffer — those that might have been promoted under the old biased system won't be under a new less biased system. Advantages that the dominant group had will naturally be eroded. That's all well and good; an inevitable and desirable consequence of progress in the right direction.
However, if the Yahoo! figures from the article are right, this seems to be a case of active discrimination against male employees, which isn't the same thing at all.
Calling them both "reverse discrimination" elides the difference between those two possible meanings. So I prefer to think of what we're discussing here as active discrimination of no substantive difference to the usual historical discrimination. In Yahoo! some female managers were the dominant group — they had the power — and they used that power to discriminate against male employees to fill the ranks with other women. That's straight-up discrimination.
Of course, the whole thing might be nonsense, but we'll have to wait and see.
There isn't a thing as 'reverse discrimination'. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who is doing it.
There's a good Dr Seuss story about a guy that comes into town with a machine that stamps a star on your chest. A few people get it and think they're better than everyone else until everyone gets the star and the fashion becomes not having the star, and the story oscillates between star and no-star until everyone's out of money and the huckster with the star/no-star machine moves onto the next town.
Discrimination of all kinds is and has always been about mobilizing people against each other for the sake of accumulating power/money/resources.
Discrimination... discrimination never changes.
>there is also little evidence that the IAT can meaningfully predict discrimination
I wouldn't treat a Vox article as evidence that something is true.
> Worth reading this tweet storm...
LOL.
As others have pointed out already [0] IAT hasn't faired well in the replication crisis.
Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that 'implicit bias' doesn't exist in any form. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm just pointing out that saying "a real phenomenon backed up by good studies" in light of recent studies is kind of a stretch.
That said, this account doesn't seem to have any provable credentials associated with it and lacks even a first and last name...