Summary Of On The Epistemic Cost Of Implicit Bias

In Gendler’s paper, On the Epistemic Costs of Implicit Bias, the dilemma between social knowledge and unfair treatment is presented and discussed. Gendler starts by presenting information on base rates and how background information that can show to be extremely important can be mentally dismissed since our minds are not trained for statistical calculations of chance. Then, she speaks directly to the reader on how categorizing is something that we all do, in order to prove her point that mere knowledge of stereotypes can lead to categorizing in a way that can ignore base rates and other relevant information, leading to unfair treatment. Gendler presents the ethical-epistemic dilemma by showing that once knowledge is obtained, humans have an
Madva argues that not knowing of stereotypes can also lead to unfair treatment, for example, when a person is in a situation where they witness stereotyping and unfair treatment of others, and ethically act on it. Moreover, Madva points out that persons and institutions can still have knowledge of stereotypes without giving up morality by “regulating the cognitive accessibility” to only recall information about stereotypes in relevant context that can allow for fair treatment of others. Lastly, he gives solutions to be practiced to better control how we can regulate cognitive accessibility of stereotypes such as if-then
Implicit biases and stereotypes have an interconnected relationship with the social setting that a person is in. Furthermore, an individual’s morality is rather insignificant when considering the social structures that stereotypes are thriving in. Even if Gendler’s reader is able to achieve perfect ignorance of all stereotypes, and is somehow never put in a situation where there must be knowledge of stereotypes in order to act ethically, she is still not contributing heavily to the cause of injustice and unfair treatment. Madva’s reader has to overcome information that is too readily accessible, but does not have to avoid situations that call for action in order to subvert stereotypes or defend a person being stereotyped, etc. However, his reader’s effects on the social climate is still insignificant in comparison to the larger