Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, 156:65 | Cite as

Comments on Gendler’s, “the epistemic costs of implicit bias”

  • Andy Egan
Article

I’m grateful for the opportunity to comment on Tamar Gendler’s extremely interesting and thought-provoking paper. I’ve profited a great deal from reading and thinking about it, and I haven’t found much to disagree with. I’ll quibble at a few points, but mostly what I’ll do here is say why some initially attractive ways of defusing some of Gendler’s pessimistic conclusions don’t actually look very promising, and draw some connections with discussions of conflict between epistemic and non-epistemic norms in other domains.

Alief

Gendler frames much of her discussion of the negative consequences of living in a society structured by objectionable racial categories in terms of her notion of alief, and chalks up much of the epistemic costliness of living in such a society to the fact that we are the sorts of agents that have alief-based (or anyway, alief-including) psychologies. This makes it tempting to object to her diagnosis of our compromised epistemic position by objecting to her...

Keywords

Motivational State Stereotype Threat Racial Category Positive Illusion Base Rate Information 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Brendan Dill, Tyler Doggett, Jason Stanley, and especially Tamar Gendler, for comments on drafts of these comments, and to Anne Barnhill, Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins, Dilip Ninan, and the participants in 2010 Oberlin Colloquium for extremely helpful discussions.

References

  1. Anderson, L., & Lepore, E. (n.d.). Slurring words. Noûs.Google Scholar
  2. Bargh, J., & Chartrand, T. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Trötschel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1014–1027. American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1014.Google Scholar
  4. Bortolotti, L. (2010). Delusions and other irrational beliefs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognition, 4(4), 353–376. doi: 10.1521/soco.1986.4.4.353. Guilford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, J. D., & Dutton, K. A. (1995). Truth and consequences: The costs and benefits of accurate self-knowledge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(12), 1288–1296. doi: 10.1177/01461672952112006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Driver, J. (1989). The virtues of ignorance. The Journal of Philosophy, 86(7), 373–384.Google Scholar
  8. Driver, J. (1999). Modesty and ignorance. Ethics.Google Scholar
  9. Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989). Ambiguity and self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1082–1090. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Egan, A. (2008). Seeing and believing: perception, belief formation and the divided mind. Philosophical Studies, 140(1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Egan, A. (2009). Imagination, delusion, and self-deception. In T. Bayne & J. Fernandez (Eds.), New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  12. Elga, A. (2005). On overrating oneself, and knowing it. Philosophical Studies, 123(1), 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitzsimons, G., & Bargh, J. (2003). Thinking of you: Nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gendler, T. (2007). Self-deception as pretense. Philosophical Perspectives, 21, 231–258.Google Scholar
  16. Gendler, T. (2008a). Alief and belief. Journal of Philosophy, 105(10), 634–663.Google Scholar
  17. Gendler, T. (2008b). Alief in action (and reaction). Mind & Language, 23(5), 552–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert, D. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert, D., Krull, D., & Malone, P. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 601–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert, D., Tafarodi, R., & Malone, P. (1993). You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hornsby, J. (2001). Meaning and uselessness: how to think about derogatory words. In P. French & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Midwest studies in philosophy (Vol. 25, pp. 128–141).Google Scholar
  23. Huebner, B. (2009). Troubles with Stereotypes for Spinozan minds. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 39(1), 63–92.Google Scholar
  24. Keller, S. (2004). Friendship and belief. Philosophical Papers, 33(3), 329–351. doi: 10.1080/05568640409485146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leslie, S.-J. (n.d.). The original sin of cognition. Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  26. Lewis, D. (1982). Logic for equivocators. Noûs.Google Scholar
  27. Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 808–817. American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.808.Google Scholar
  28. Mandelbaum, E. (2011). The architecture of belief: An essay on the unbearable automaticity of believing. In J. Prinz (Ed.), University of North Carolina, Carolina.Google Scholar
  29. Reed, G. M., Kemeny, M. E., Taylor, S. E., Wang, H.-Y. J., et al. (1994). Realistic acceptance as a predictor of decreased survival time in gay men with AIDS. Health Psychology, 13(4), 299–307. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.13.4.299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richard, M. (2008). When truth gives out. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwartz, B. (2005). The paradox of choice. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  32. Schwitzgebel, E. (2001). In‐between believing. The Philosophical Quarterly, 51(202), 76–82.Google Scholar
  33. Schwitzgebel, E. (2002). A phenomenal, dispositional account of belief. Noûs, 36(2), 249–275.Google Scholar
  34. Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sterelny, K. (2003). Thought in a hostile world: The evolution of human cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Stroud, S. (2006). Epistemic partiality in friendship*. Ethics, 116, 498–524.Google Scholar
  37. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 21–27. American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.21.Google Scholar
  39. Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., & White, T. L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 5–13. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Williamson, T. (2009). Reference, inference, and the semantics of pejoratives. In J. Almog & P. Leonardi (Eds.), The philosophy of David Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.Arché Philosophical Research CentreUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsScotland

Personalised recommendations