Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do

“Our experiences in the world seep into our brain over time, and without our awareness they conspire to reshape the workings of our mind.”

One might summarize the equation of bias as experience + brain functioning = bias. Eberhardt argues that awareness through education and training is the best way to dismantle this equation. By understanding that bias is the result of normal processing and brain function, she is able to offer an objective roadmap for addressing it.

“Whether bad or good, whether justified or unjustified, our beliefs and attitudes can become so strongly associated with the category that they are automatically triggered, affecting our behavior and decision making.”

This quotation shows how the normal brain process of categorization can have external ramifications. Categorization happens naturally and is influenced by culture and experience. The beliefs that humans assign to categories can become ingrained components of the decision-making process.

“In the great blooming, buzzing confusion of the outer world we pick out what our culture has already defined for us, and we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by our culture.”

This quote is by journalist Walter Lippman in his 1922 book Public Opinion. Lippmann defined the term stereotype and recognized the way Americans made political choices based upon preconceived ideas. Society repeats these preconceived ideas so often that they become ingrained in people’s minds as stereotypes.

“Bias, even when we are not conscious of it, has consequences that we need to understand and mitigate. The stereotypic associations we carry in our heads can affect what we perceive, how we think, and the action we take.”

This was the message Dr. Eberhardt wanted law enforcement officers to take away from her training—that implicit bias, when unchecked, could subconsciously influence the choices officers made in their day-to-day interactions. Rather than dismissing police officers as racist, Eberhardt showed how bias affected their relationship with race and how they acted on the job.

“They used to know what to tell their boys: Be respectful if you’re stopped by police. Keep your hands on the wheel. Don’t run away. They believed that if they followed this script, their children would be safe. But these days they’re at a loss for what to say. ‘You put your hands up,’ you could still be shot. ‘You be respectful,’ you can still be shot. There’s a real fear that if you have a black son, he could die at the hands of the state and there’s no way you can prevent that.”

Here, Eberhardt refers to a long-standing tradition in Black communities to have “the talk” with their children about how to interact with police officers. The actions described here are a part of traditional pieces of advice passed down from generation to generation. However, families expressed to Eberhardt a growing concern that even simple instructions like “be respectful” were no longer useful in keeping their children safe. Black parents felt fearful for their offspring and unable to equip them with what they needed to navigate interactions with police.

“Ellison described the black American predicament as one where black people are visually registered only with the aid of cultural stereotypes that function to distort their image. These stereotypes lead blacks to be the subject of gaze, then block them from being fully seen.”

Attentional bias and selective attention are key components of Eberhardt’s research. The results of these is the duality of high visibility and invisibility for Black men and women. In studies in which participants were primed with words related to crime, their attention was more drawn toward Black faces, and the same was true for law enforcement officers who had been conditioned to associate Black men with crime. Yet, when brains were not primed with thoughts of crime, they tended to focus more attention on white faces.

“To understand police-community relations, we need to consider not only basic facts about how our minds are designed to work, but our history and our culture as well. Every encounter police officers and community members have with each other happens in a larger societal context that shapes how each responds.”

This quotation reflects Eberhardt’s approach throughout the book, to show the historical roots of something, to offer its societal context, and then to look at its individual ramifications and implications. Bias is a complex issue that takes a whole picture understanding in order to tackle it.

“Relying on racial disparities to gauge the quality of policing can be a double-edged sword. The same disparities that community leaders view as proof of racial profiling can be cited by police officers as proof of who is most likely to commit crimes.”

Eberhardt shows how bias research can be flipped to appear as confirmation for other arguments which skew the narrative. In cases where Black people are disproportionately arrested, opposing sides may argue that this is further proof that Black people are more likely to commit crimes.

“But we do know that regardless of the source of the racial differences, the stakes are higher than hurt feelings or raised voices. An officer’s language and the attitude it conveys could decrease a black driver’s inclination to cooperate. That increases the likelihood that the interaction might escalate and lead to an altercation and an arrest—or worse—that could have been avoided.”

After showing multiple data points which reveal the disparities in how law enforcement officers treat Black individuals versus White individuals in regular stops, Eberhardt suggests that society must consider the potential risk of allowing bias to affect law enforcement decision processes. Unchecked, this bias can lead to extreme inequality and violent outcomes.

“The men stared at me expectantly as I tried to get my bearings. I’d taught this subject many times and knew the spiel by heart, but this was so disorienting that I fumbled through my start.”

Here, Eberhardt describes her first day teaching a class to several San Quentin inmates. She realized that her own bias affected her performance and influenced how she saw her students. When a student stood up, she felt a sense of panic, even though the pupil was only leaving for a restroom break. Time and exposure eventually led her to feel more comfortable in her surroundings: key components in combating bias of any kind.

“Have you ever asked someone to come into your laboratory and you put them in one of those situations and then, right in the middle of your situation, a scary monster jumps out from behind the computer screen and yells, ‘Raaaah!!!?’”

This question posed to Dr. Eberhardt by her elementary school-aged son provided a framework for her discussion in this chapter about the persistent and historical societal impression of Black men and women as “monsters.” She explores the history of scientific racism and how these foundational stereotypes continue to influence and distort Black perceptions.

“A prognathous [forward-jutting] face, more or less black color of the skin, woolly hair and intellectual and social inferiority are often associated, while more or less white skin, straight hair and an orthognathous [straight] face are the ordinary equipment of the highest groups in the human series.”

This quote from French scientist Paul Broca reveals the racist ideologies which dominated the scientific world in the 19th century. It was common for scientists to perpetuate falsities about Black evolution and intellectual capabilities to further propel white advancement and wealth.

“But I’d come to realize I wasn’t bound to the misery, even though that misery had begun to occupy more and more space in my mind. I could reconfigure my thinking and reconnect with the hope that had propelled me from the start.”

Dr. Eberhardt found her experiences studying the roots of scientific racism extremely troubling. However, after sharing her findings with a group of enraptured San Quentin inmates, she found renewed purpose and hope in her research.

“The residue of those discriminatory practices lingers today, fueling stereotypes that seed the stigma attached to black people and black places. Research has shown the power of those stereotypes to shape one of the most fundamental decisions of our lives: where we make our homes.”

The discriminatory practices described here refer to zoning restrictions, mortgage refusals, and other government-sanctioned biases which influenced the housing market. Eberhardt shows how the history of discrimination and legislation has influenced a modern landscape of continued segregation.

“In many ways, this is how bias operates. It conditions how we look at the world and the people within it, despite our conscious motivations and desires, and even when such conditioning can put us in harm’s way.”

Eberhardt tells a story about sitting in the passenger seat with her husband in a foreign country as he attempted to drive on the “wrong side” of the car and the “wrong side” of the road. She draws a connection between how the brain becomes conditioned to certain variables and expectations and how it also exhibits bias despite a person’s desire to be without prejudice.

“People of all races who attended racially diverse schools are more likely to have friends of other races, choose to live and raise their children in integrated neighborhoods, and have higher levels of civic engagement than those who did not.”

This quote comes within the context of a chapter about the influences of bias on education. Bias negatively affects everyone involved, and the outcomes of combating it by promoting diversity can have profound effects on society and culture.

“Integrated schools promise to turn us into global citizens, appreciative of cultural differences, skilled at navigating diversity. In integrated spaces, we become more practiced at communicating across racial lines. And it is true that personal contact across racial and ethnic lines can often blunt or mitigate bias.”

Eberhardt makes another appeal for integrated schools, but also warns that integrated spaces can “heighten the threat of becoming the target of bias” (205). Because human brains are influenced by our culture and our experiences, integrated spaces allow people to become more familiar with those who are different and to break down preconceived ideas. However, this must be approached with a sense of awareness and understanding that bias can still play a role in human interactions.

“Instead, one of the most common practices schools foster is the strategy of color blindness. Try not to notice color. Try not to think about color. If you don’t allow yourself to think about race, you can never be biased.”

A key tenet of Critical Race Theory, color blindness can also lead to discrimination blindness. Eberhardt asserts that this approach is not supported by science and is virtually impossible when brains are wired to notice differences and to create categories. Rather than avoidance of thinking about color, an intentional focus on color can bring real change.

“The strategy of turning a blind eye to bias has indeed failed to stem discrimination. But there are powerful currents that pull people away from confronting bias, even when they believe that’s the right thing to do. Even small-scale actions that people might take when they see discrimination in play—standing up for a victim or scolding someone for using a racial slut—can require more energy and risk than many people are willing to expend.”

This excerpt comes amid Eberhardt’s descriptions of the neo-Nazis circling a synagogue in Charlottesville on Saturday morning during the Summer of Hate. The Jewish community in Charlottesville understood the irony—that Jews came to the US to escape the threat of Nazis only to be confronted by them yet again in 2017. The words here mirror those of Jewish author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel in his Nobel Prize speech: “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.”

“But you can condemn what people say without condemning their legal right to say it.”

Students from the University of Virginia felt deeply both the struggle and the silence as they attempted to return to their classes. Eberhardt heard those she interviewed share that, regardless of the message, First Amendment rights must always be protected, but many students felt that university leaders weren’t doing enough to help those affected by hate speech on campus.

“It’s true that we are wired for bias. But the problem with narrowly settling for that perspective is that it can lead us to care less about the danger associated with bias, instead of more. When something is regarded as a norm, people cease to judge it harshly.”

Eberhardt warns against complacency and normalizing bias in a way that makes it feel too commonplace to combat. Many social psychologists worry that there hasn’t been enough research on bias training and its effects. When humans are trained to recognize bias as a norm, the jump is short between “the way things are” and “the way things should be” (281).

“It doesn’t just come down to ‘Am I a bigot, or am I not? Can I or can I not get trained out of this?’ Bias is operating on a kind of cosmic level, connecting factors and conditions that we must individually make an effort to comprehend and control.”

In this section, the author asserts that combating bias takes individual effort and a willingness to tolerate discomfort. Bias isn’t something that can simply go away. Instead, it is something that needs a diligent watchful eye on the part of the individual and the larger organizations which control a widespread narrative.

“The narratives that prop up inequality can help us to live less troubled in a troubling world. But they also narrow our vision and strand ‘others’ on the wrong side of the opportunity divide. When our comfort comes at their expense, that’s a social cost that ultimately shortchanges everyone.”

Strong narratives have the ability to justify wrongful decisions and behaviors; these narratives are driven by the disparities that are normalized by bias. Therefore, Eberhardt argues, breaking down these narratives must be a conscious choice that is part of a larger moral directive on behalf of society. It has to be tackled collectively rather than merely individually.