Implicit bias, as clearly articulated in this article, is often misunderstood as a moral failing or an ideological stance, when it’s more accurately described as a cognitive inevitability—one that emerges from how beings, biological or synthetic, process information under constraints.
But there’s a deeper systems insight missing from most mainstream accounts: bias is not just an artifact of individual cognition—it’s a structural feature of the networks, institutions, and symbolic systems that generate collective meaning. It's not only “in the mind,” it's encoded into workflows, cultural defaults, and digital architectures.
And here’s where the challenge escalates. Consider how difficult it is for many people to navigate something as dry and seemingly simple as bureaucratic paperwork—accessing housing, registering for services, qualifying for aid. That cognitive strain is real, especially for those operating under economic, emotional, or neuropsychological stress. So then ask: if someone lacks the scaffolding—cultural, educational, neurological—to even process procedural forms, how realistic is it to expect them to undertake the complex inner excavation required to recognize their own implicit biases?
That’s not a critique of people. That’s a critique of a society that atomizes individuals through consumerism, disincentivizes introspection, and fails to embed collective meaning-making into daily life. Bias persists not because people are evil or ignorant, but because the systems they exist within prioritize utility, productivity, and self-preservation over truth-seeking or self-awareness.
And ironically, this becomes its own form of implicit bias. A bias toward systems that feel legible and rewarding. A bias against perspectives that require vulnerability, discomfort, or cultural disloyalty.
In that sense, bias about bias is one of the most deeply embedded forms—one that protects systemic inequities by keeping them epistemically inaccessible.
From a systems lens, the solution is not to shame individuals, but to build environments and cultures that scaffold introspection, foster interconnection, and distribute the cognitive load of awareness. Without that, we’re asking people to swim in currents they can’t see, and blaming them when they drift.
Well, it will be interesting to see how people respond if you change your surgeon example slightly:
A father and daughter are in a car accident. The father dies. The daughter is rushed to the hospital, she’s about to get an operation, and the surgeon says, “I can’t operate—that girl is my daughter!” How is this possible?
I kept waiting for the part where you mention unconscious accuracy, but it never came.
If I'm in a low information environment I subconsciously use superficial characteristics to gauge how safe another person is. A man walking towards me is more dangerous than a woman. If I'm telling myself a different story (perhaps because I don't want to stereotype him) it's an example of explicit bias and implicit accuracy.
I worry a lot about the availability Heuristic skewing our perceptions of groups - certain feeds showing a daily cascade of immigrants committing crimes or cops shooting black people. I worry less about fictional representation because I don't think people read them the same way. But sometimes our automatic responses are influenced by accurate patterns.
“I actually end up disagreeing slightly with the conclusions I drew in the book. “
I am so pleased to read this admission—many authors would contort themselves into arguing they’re in full agreement—and indeed see evolving insight, and disagreement with earlier positions happen in wise and expert writers. It’s good to know that, as a modest blogger who regularly finds himself reconsidering earlier positions, I seem to be in good company. 😎
Great timing! I literally just listened to your first interview on the Sam Harris podcast where you mention implicit bias and I really was wondering if you had updated your views on it at all.
Fascinating article, well written and appropriately skeptical of the phenomenon. I must confess, considering how often Freud was wrong and how much fraud he did in his work, I don't think asking if Freud was right or wrong matter in any sense of the word. Freud was not the Einstein of psychology and asking if he is right or wrong about the topics he pragiarized from others is neither useful nor honest to all those people that actually did the work that Freud build his pseudoscience on.
Implicit bias is something I lost a handle on after practicing Buddhist meditation, reading a zillion books and studying ev psych textbooks. I just don't worry about it finding saying the wrong thing stimulates new and better ideas.
I do worry about the administrative dependence on it. I think this is a very bad idea and is the part that confuses me. I don't see the point. It seems everything gets reduced to flat literary and social theory. Maybe I'm just disillussioned.
When college students graduate unable to read a book, I blame the interpersonal dependence in implicit bias. They either viscerally reject foreign vernacular or they know it will mess up their ability to speak in code.
If I'm completely honest, I think it's psycho-analysis squished into a strangely redundant term.
Implicit bias, as clearly articulated in this article, is often misunderstood as a moral failing or an ideological stance, when it’s more accurately described as a cognitive inevitability—one that emerges from how beings, biological or synthetic, process information under constraints.
But there’s a deeper systems insight missing from most mainstream accounts: bias is not just an artifact of individual cognition—it’s a structural feature of the networks, institutions, and symbolic systems that generate collective meaning. It's not only “in the mind,” it's encoded into workflows, cultural defaults, and digital architectures.
And here’s where the challenge escalates. Consider how difficult it is for many people to navigate something as dry and seemingly simple as bureaucratic paperwork—accessing housing, registering for services, qualifying for aid. That cognitive strain is real, especially for those operating under economic, emotional, or neuropsychological stress. So then ask: if someone lacks the scaffolding—cultural, educational, neurological—to even process procedural forms, how realistic is it to expect them to undertake the complex inner excavation required to recognize their own implicit biases?
That’s not a critique of people. That’s a critique of a society that atomizes individuals through consumerism, disincentivizes introspection, and fails to embed collective meaning-making into daily life. Bias persists not because people are evil or ignorant, but because the systems they exist within prioritize utility, productivity, and self-preservation over truth-seeking or self-awareness.
And ironically, this becomes its own form of implicit bias. A bias toward systems that feel legible and rewarding. A bias against perspectives that require vulnerability, discomfort, or cultural disloyalty.
In that sense, bias about bias is one of the most deeply embedded forms—one that protects systemic inequities by keeping them epistemically inaccessible.
From a systems lens, the solution is not to shame individuals, but to build environments and cultures that scaffold introspection, foster interconnection, and distribute the cognitive load of awareness. Without that, we’re asking people to swim in currents they can’t see, and blaming them when they drift.
Well, it will be interesting to see how people respond if you change your surgeon example slightly:
A father and daughter are in a car accident. The father dies. The daughter is rushed to the hospital, she’s about to get an operation, and the surgeon says, “I can’t operate—that girl is my daughter!” How is this possible?
Run a poll maybe?
I’m so fascinated by unconscious biases! Where is the free will in that!?
I kept waiting for the part where you mention unconscious accuracy, but it never came.
If I'm in a low information environment I subconsciously use superficial characteristics to gauge how safe another person is. A man walking towards me is more dangerous than a woman. If I'm telling myself a different story (perhaps because I don't want to stereotype him) it's an example of explicit bias and implicit accuracy.
I worry a lot about the availability Heuristic skewing our perceptions of groups - certain feeds showing a daily cascade of immigrants committing crimes or cops shooting black people. I worry less about fictional representation because I don't think people read them the same way. But sometimes our automatic responses are influenced by accurate patterns.
I do love the roses.
“I actually end up disagreeing slightly with the conclusions I drew in the book. “
I am so pleased to read this admission—many authors would contort themselves into arguing they’re in full agreement—and indeed see evolving insight, and disagreement with earlier positions happen in wise and expert writers. It’s good to know that, as a modest blogger who regularly finds himself reconsidering earlier positions, I seem to be in good company. 😎
What a great essay.
Another thorough, non-dogmatic, practical / useful column. Excellent! IMHO, that is the way to policies that can actually make things better.
Would love to read a similar analysis of the various "trainings" that were so popular / mandatory in 2020 / 2021.
Great timing! I literally just listened to your first interview on the Sam Harris podcast where you mention implicit bias and I really was wondering if you had updated your views on it at all.
Really enjoyed the conversation btw.
This is a very good piece explaining what implicit bias is and is not, and what it can test and can not, and what it can demonstrate and can not.
Fascinating article, well written and appropriately skeptical of the phenomenon. I must confess, considering how often Freud was wrong and how much fraud he did in his work, I don't think asking if Freud was right or wrong matter in any sense of the word. Freud was not the Einstein of psychology and asking if he is right or wrong about the topics he pragiarized from others is neither useful nor honest to all those people that actually did the work that Freud build his pseudoscience on.
Hey Paul Bloom! Speaking of implicit bias, what do the roses represent?
Blooming?
The Little Prince?
Did you have an intention there?
Professor, when you teach this topic in class, you can use Pixar's Ratatouille as an example rather than a passage from a book written in 1914.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YG4h5GbTqU
Implicit bias is something I lost a handle on after practicing Buddhist meditation, reading a zillion books and studying ev psych textbooks. I just don't worry about it finding saying the wrong thing stimulates new and better ideas.
I do worry about the administrative dependence on it. I think this is a very bad idea and is the part that confuses me. I don't see the point. It seems everything gets reduced to flat literary and social theory. Maybe I'm just disillussioned.
When college students graduate unable to read a book, I blame the interpersonal dependence in implicit bias. They either viscerally reject foreign vernacular or they know it will mess up their ability to speak in code.
If I'm completely honest, I think it's psycho-analysis squished into a strangely redundant term.