The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
U.S. Army Wants Female-Empowering Robot Avenger Meeting Minder
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A press release from Northeastern U.:

HOW ABOUT A SMART DEVICE THAT COULD CATCH IMPLICIT BIAS IN THE WORKPLACE?

Northeastern researchers are embarking on a project to yield an Alexa-like device that could be used in professional settings to alert users to instances of implicit bias.

by Khalida Sarwar January 29, 2020Twitter Facebook

Studies have shown that implicit bias—the automatic, and often unintentional, associations people have in their minds about groups of people—is ubiquitous in the workplace, and can hurt not just employees, but also a company’s bottom line.

For example, employees who perceive bias are nearly three times as likely to be disengaged at work, and the cost of disengagement to employers isn’t cheap—to the tune of $450 billion to $550 billion a year. Despite the growing adoption of implicit bias training, some in the field of human resources have raised doubts about its effectiveness in improving diversity and inclusion within organizations.

But what if a smart device, similar to the Amazon Alexa, could tell when your boss inadvertently left a female colleague out of an important decision, or made her feel that her perspective wasn’t valued?

This device doesn’t yet exist, but Northeastern associate professors Christoph Riedl and Brooke Foucault Welles are preparing to embark on a three-year project that could yield such a gadget. The researchers will be studying from a social science perspective how teams communicate with each other as well as with smart devices while solving problems together.

“The vision that we have [for this project] is that you would have a device, maybe something like Amazon Alexa, that sits on the table and observes the human team members while they are working on a problem, and supports them in various ways,” says Riedl, an associate professor who studies crowdsourcing, open innovation, and network science. “One of the ways in which we think we can support that team is by ensuring equal inclusion of all team members.”

The pair have received a $1.5 million, three-year grant from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory to study teams using a combination of social science theories, machine learning, and audio-visual and physiological sensors.

Welles says the grant—which she and Riedl will undertake in collaboration with research colleagues from Columbia University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the Army Research Lab—will allow her and her colleagues to program a sensor-equipped, smart device to pick up on both verbal and nonverbal cues, and eventually physiological signals, shared between members of a team. The device would keep track of their interactions over time, and then based on those interactions, make recommendations for improving the team’s productivity.

“You could imagine [a scenario] where maybe a manager at the end of a group deliberation gets a report that says person A was really dominating the conversation,” says Welles. The smart device would alert the manager to the participants whose input might have been excluded, she says, with a reminder to follow up with that individual.

As a woman, Welles says she knows all too well how it feels to be excluded in a professional setting.

“When you’re having this experience, it’s really hard as the woman in the room to intervene and be like, ‘you’re not listening to me,’ or ‘I said that and he repeated it and now suddenly we believe it,’” she says. “I really love the idea of building a system that both empowers women with evidence that this is happening so that we can feel validated and also helps us point out opportunities for intervention.”

“Major Andersen, my sensors recorded that during the third hour of the meeting on the problematics of diversity sensitivity you twice felt an overpowering urge to touch Lt. Washington’s hair. Oddly, though, I feel a non-cyborgian sense of mercy toward you and your onrushing fate and wish to inform you that Lt. Washington’s hair is 87% weave.”

 
Hide 142 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Hodag says:

    Ludovico Protocol for the Woke Age.

    Rhinelander doesn’t look so bad right now.

  2. Lugash says:

    For example, employees who perceive bias are nearly three times as likely to be disengaged at work, and the cost of disengagement to employers isn’t cheap—to the tune of $450 billion to $550 billion a year.

    You don’t need to a fancy AI robot to spot the logical fallacy here.

  3. Coemgen says:

    A robot that detected implicit (and explicit) workplace TDS here in Eastern Massachusetts would probably melt down due to input overload.

  4. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:

    Just make robots make the decisions.

    Btw, what is being done about the explicit bias of US government and businesses for Jews/Israel over Palestinians?

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  5. Paul says:

    ” . . . the cost of disengagement to employers isn’t cheap—to the tune of $450 billion to $550 billion a year.”

    LOL. Let’s see the proof.

  6. “Studies have shown…”

  7. istevefan says:

    For example, employees who perceive bias are nearly three times as likely to be disengaged at work, and the cost of disengagement to employers isn’t cheap—to the tune of $450 billion to $550 billion a year. Despite the growing adoption of implicit bias training, some in the field of human resources have raised doubts about its effectiveness in improving diversity and inclusion within organizations.

    A couple things to note:

    First, if US businesses really are paying a half trillion dollars per year for no work, it means their profits are being eaten into to subsidize the diverse. In effect US businesses are paying a half trillion dollar per year tax that Japanese, Korean and Chinese businesses don’t. So even if the US government lowers its tax rate, our businesses are still getting hammered by this diversity tax.

    Second, maybe the people who have brought us diversity, and who continue to keep their foot on the pedal for even more diversity, should have thought about this before they diversified us.

    And these are the same people who tell us to trust them with fixing healthcare, climate change, the middle east, the gap and so on. If they couldn’t even think through the logical consequences of diversity, what makes us think they would be able to do so on other issues?

  8. newrouter says:

    >employees who perceive bias are nearly three times as likely to be disengaged at work, and the cost of disengagement to employers isn’t cheap—to the tune of $450 billion to $550 billion a year. <

    D.I.E. clowns D.I.E.

  9. “When you’re having this experience, it’s really hard as the woman in the room to intervene and be like, ‘you’re not listening to me,’ or ‘I said that and he repeated it and now suddenly we believe it,’” she says.

    Yes, that is how the human brain works. People are more likely to accept something if more than one person says it. At least one person did listen and liked it enough to endorse it by repeating it. And now others are going along with it. She should be happy that the others are going along, but noooooo…. Apparently they just aren’t stroking her ego enough…

    and women have the gall to complain about men’s egos.

  10. Meanwhile, at the FSB – Alpha Group training range they’re doing trust shots with live ammo:

    • Replies: @International Jew
  11. @Lugash

    I guess this is a diplomatic way to say that women and PoC are “disengaged” employees who blame others for their deficiencies.

    Will this new app also be able to detect when your employees are being whiny and complaining about nothing?

  12. Anon7 says:

    Fans may recall a similar device in Demolition Man, with Wesley Snipes and Sly Stallone:

    A similar idea circulated about a year ago, see this article from the Daily Mail.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6733417/Digital-assistants-discuss-moral-AI-report-illegal-immoral-activity.html

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  13. The intrepid Ms. Welles’ CV, for the word salad enthusiasts among the readership:

    https://brooke-welles.squarespace.com/curriculumvitae

  14. @Paul

    It doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in their level of scientific precision when someone says “to the tune of . . . “

  15. @The Wild Geese Howard

    “Brooke Foucault Welles, PhD”

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @syonredux
  16. Brooke Foucault Welles

    No comment.

    As a woman, Welles says she knows all too well how it feels to be excluded in a professional setting.

    Khalida Sarwar

    I’m sure Ms Sarwar could top her war stories.

    “Captain Jones, my sensors recorded that during the meeting you twice felt the urge to touch Lt. Washington’s hair.”

    Speaking of touching hair:

  17. J.Ross says:

    Useful metric: how many pseudo-intellectual TDS lefties babbling about the relevance of Orwell’s 1984 have an Alexa bug?

  18. Rob says:

    I for one welcome our new robot overlords. Seriously, once we have AI this good, but programmed to do something so useless, our last remaining advantage will be thumbs. We need computers that are so smart, they’re stupid!

  19. @Steve Sailer

    Ph.D. Northwestern University, Communication, 2012

    Northwestern was just about the last school to switch from the earthy “Speech” to the gassy “Communication”. But standards are dropping everywhere.

  20. kihowi says:
    @Lugash

    I don’t see a fallacy. People who believe that everybody’s after them probably do get tuned out by their co-workers. And people who don’t contribute a lot are liable to construct fanciful theories about why they seem to get no respect.

    Or do you mean the “perceived” bit? I’m afraid we lost the battle for an external reality divorced from people’s imaginations a long time ago. We’re in feelings country.

    • Replies: @vhrm
    , @ben tillman
  21. For example, employees who perceive bias are nearly three times as likely to be disengaged at work.

    Maybe if they were fully engaged with their work they wouldn’t be perceiving so much bias, either imagined or actual.

  22. “For example, employees who perceive bias are nearly three times as likely to be disengaged at work, and the cost of disengagement to employers isn’t cheap—to the tune of $450 billion to $550 billion a year. Despite the growing adoption of implicit bias training, some in the field of human resources have raised doubts about its effectiveness in improving diversity and inclusion within organizations.”

    The stupidity of this diversity argument never ceases to amaze. The most efficient workplace is a homogeneous workplace. If the workers are all straight white men, just to throw a completely random example out there, there is no manifestation of “implicit bias.” There is also no sexual harassment, no competing for the attention of the opposite sex, no fear of offending people of a different race, sex, persuasion, etc, etc.

    This applies to all other units of work. In my own field, carriers almost always purchase the exact make and model of commercial vehicle to stock their fleets. Why? Because it makes everything cost related to the equipment that much more efficient. Maintenance schedules are the same, parts are ordered from the same vendor, parts are interchangeable between vehicles, curb weight/GAWR/GVWR are all the same, warranties are the same, fuel is the same, registration and insurance premiums are the same, drivers can easily operate all vehicles because they are all the same. It should be immediately obvious why Diversity in the trucking fleet would be and is an efficiency nightmare. (politically incorrect trucking joke: Why do fleets never purchase black semis? Because they don’t work. Thanks, I’ll be here all night.)

    For you cubicle monkeys: Imagine if everyone had a different make of laptop, running a different software program, with a different OS, on a different network. I can only imagine it would be chaos for your tech support and ultimately you bottom line. Maybe there are exceptions but in general you get the point.

    Homogeneity equals efficiency. Diversity equals chaos. This applies to communities, countries, and workplaces.

  23. Mr. Anon says:

    For example, employees who perceive bias are nearly three times as likely to be disengaged at work, and the cost of disengagement to employers isn’t cheap—to the tune of $450 billion to $550 billion a year.

    Perhaps the bias they percieve is the natural bias that people have against layabouts and goldbrickers.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
  24. CCZ says:
    @istevefan

    These guys definitely need a device to evaluate their diversity, inclusion, and equity.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  25. MBlanc46 says:

    The two-way television in 1984 is kid stuff by comparison.

  26. Anon[207] • Disclaimer says:

    What is it with these people who just want to police everyone else? Don’t they realize how abnormal they are?

  27. @Reg Cæsar

    Northwestern has a decent journalism school I think, typically means the Communications school is even more bananas than usual.

  28. syonredux says:
    @Steve Sailer

    “Brooke Foucault Welles, PhD”

    The long-awaited sequel to Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison ………

  29. @Lugash

    I would call it lowball, and they are dead serious.

    As of tomorrow you are not only supposed to do all the work but also to make the useless feel important.
    Small wonder the New Model Army loves it 😛

  30. What could be more woke, than an electronic zampolit?

  31. MEH 0910 says:
    @Anon7

    Demolition Man – re:View

  32. MattinLA says:

    Isnt the Army funding this a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?

  33. Grumpy says:

    OT:

    UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall is no more. Apparently, Mr. Boalt (1837-1901) held the wrong sort of ideas. His name was stripped from the campus today.

    It’s worth scrolling through this article to see the photo of members of the Building Name Review Committee:

    https://www.berkeleyside.com/2020/01/30/uc-berkeley-removes-racist-john-boalts-name-from-law-school

  34. Lagertha says:

    The USA, EU will never have killer female warriors – hahhhahhahhaaaaa! It kinda makes me vomit in my mouth right now 😉

    HOWEVER, Russians will have a militia of female bots1

  35. Fredrik says:

    What if Alexa notice it’s the middle aged white male that’s excluded…

    • Replies: @Simon in London
  36. @istevefan

    “maybe the people who have brought us diversity… should have thought about this before they diversified us.”

    Oh, better believe it, the (((people who brought you diversity))) thought long and hard about this. Not only that, they even (((plotted and schemed))) to achieve it, as is their wont.

    And by the way, they didn’t diversify “us,” they diversified YOU.

    Like they said in the old days, Si monumentum suam quaeris… Circumspice.

  37. A device like that would be fun if it just reported what % of the time everyone spoke (especially in non-work settings). That would be a nice way to put long-winded talkers in their place.

  38. @Paul

    Half a trillion fucking dollars. Sure. Why not say 6 gorillion?

  39. Facebook just settled a class-action lawsuit for over $500 million for improper use of facial recognition software. This scheme proposes to read minds in making business decisions – what could go wrong?

  40. Bill B. says:

    This women really, really worries that American businesses might be leaving money on the table.

    Journal Articles

    Foucault Welles, B. and Jackson, S. (forthcoming). The Battle for #Baltimore: Networked Counterpublics and the Contested Framing of Urban Unrest. Accepted for publication in the International Journal of Communication.

    Jackson, S.J., Bailey, M., and Foucault Welles, B. (2017). #GirlsLikeUs: Trans advocacy and community building online. New Media and Society,doi: 10.1177/1461444817709276.

    Rodríguez, V.M., Hay, J.L., Daniel, C. L., Foucault Welles, B., and Geller, A.C. (1. (2017). Friendly tanning: Young adults’ engagement with friends around indoor tanning. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. online first doi:10.1007/s10865-017-9832-4.

    Etc.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  41. @Bill B.

    Is Foucault her maiden or her middle name? Did her parents name her after the philosophe?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Bill B.
  42. Bill B. says:
    @Grumpy

    I see what you mean. Ari Chivukula (beard, bra, sari) is the founder of the Queer Church porn house who works in the Pentagon.

    https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/25/porn-ster-pentagon-ari-chivukula-queer-church-co-f/

    What the hell is going on?

  43. Anonymous[247] • Disclaimer says:

    George Orwell.

  44. Anonymous[247] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    The pendulum has swung to far to the left – rather like the eunuch’s junk.

    • LOL: Cortes
  45. danand says:
    @Grumpy

    “It’s worth scrolling through this article to see the photo of members of the Building Name Review Committee:”

    Grumpy, aren’t they the lovely couple. If Boalt were still with us I’d wager there’s a good chance he’d chisel off the name himself.

    15FC35D4-0CF3-4DF3-9013-143DB623A935

    At the UC Berzerkeley School of Law, the words Boalt Hall (left) were removed on Jan. 30. Law student Ari Chivukula (left) and Professor Paul Fine are members of the Building Name Review Committee, a task force set up by Chancellor Carol (Anti)Christ, which unanimously recommended to her that Boalt Hall lose its name. Photo: UC Berkeley/Stephen McNally

  46. res says:
    @Grumpy

    That photo needs to be inline. Perhaps an early candidate for iSteve man of the year?

    Here’s the caption.

    At the UC Berkeley School of Law, the words Boalt Hall (left) were removed on Jan. 30. Law student Ari Chivukula (left) and Professor Paul Fine are members of the Building Name Review Committee, a task force set up by Chancellor Carol Christ, which unanimously recommended to her that Boalt Hall lose its name. Photo: UC Berkeley/Stephen McNally

    I liked this comment:

    Felicity A. • 8 hours ago
    This entire exercise, and that picture of the members of the Building Name Review Committee, are exactly the sort of thing that produced the backlash that led to the Trump Presidency.

    And this one:

    Pietro Gambadilegno • 9 hours ago
    Time to remove Stanford’s name from any school anywhere, because

    “In his single, two-year term as Governor, he raised volunteers for campaigns to murder Native Californians and railed against the same Chinese immigrants who later built his railroad. Hundreds of Indians “were massacred during Stanford’s time as governor alone.”
    https://www.berkeleyside.co&#8230;

    This is one issue that can unite the politically correct and the frat bros at UC.

  47. vhrm says:
    @kihowi

    But, ironically, this is where a device like this can have unintended consequences for the woke: if you really start measuring the stuff you might see that there really IS no discrepancy…

    Or if you make it so everyone has equal time in meetings it will become obvious that some people have nothing useful to say.

  48. Ano says:

    Female-Empowering Robot Avenger Conversation Minder for President!

    I’m a Democrat and I approve this message.

  49. Ano says:

    The FERACM – the next generation in Woke scoldbots, replacing the LizBot which failed the Turing Test.

  50. “observes the human team members while they are working on a problem, and supports them in various ways”

    Having this robot monitoring everything will degrade team performance of course, by making them (the white males) even more wary & self-conscious.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    , @Bill B.
  51. @Fredrik

    It will be reprogrammed to get its mind right.

  52. Pericles says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Twitter and Instagram aren’t really “speech”, so …

  53. The Army gave Travis Taylor $100,000 for research on a Warp Drive, which was a way better expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

  54. Pericles says:
    @Grumpy

    Do they pay back the donations at the same time?

  55. Pericles says:
    @Simon in London

    Might be cheaper to just put in a pajeet in a metal suit.

  56. Graham says:

    As readers of the Daily Telegraph know, “an Alexa-like device that could be used in professional settings to alert users to instances of implicit bias” has long existed: the Prejudometer, as described in the Peter Simple column by the late Michael Wharton (here, but behind a paywall: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4261218/The-Peter-Simple-Column.html):

    “THE Macpherson Report’s definition of a “racist incident” as “any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person” is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids for use by the race relations industry, but is now available to everybody (ask your nearest race relations stockist).

    Inexpensive and handy for pocket or handbag, you simply point it at any person (including yourself) you suspect of “racism”, press the easy-to-find “action” button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice.

    A satisfied client writes: “After reading the Macpherson Report, I began to worry about being racist. I was sleeping badly and losing my appetite. My job in an important call centre was at risk. My marriage was on the rocks.

    “Then a friend told me about the prejudometer. What a difference! As I began to use it regularly, all my worries about racism vanished! Now I sleep like a baby, eat like a horse and am so full of energy and keenness that I have been promoted call centre section leader. I have just returned from an idyllic ‘second honeymoon’ in Florida and feel like a million dollars. Thank you, Ethnicaids, for all you have done for me.” (Name and address supplied).”

  57. Bill B. says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Sadly Foucault is her actual surname, or at least one of them. She refers to her father “Dave Foucault” in a condolence message.

    In the raft of her wokeness I picked out these:

    Dr. Brooke Foucault Welles
    @foucaultwelles

    Pssst…when you ask my husband if he’s ok with all of my work travel, it undermines my legitimacy as a professional and his legitimacy as a parent. Also, it makes our kids needlessly worry that something is amiss. So, nobody wins. #everydaySexism

    Dr. Welles praised as “incredible advice” a Tweeter thread on rape prevention for parents:

    Nicole Bedera
    @NBedera
    ·
    Jan 17
    Having a parent’s support is important and it’s something that most college-age survivors I’ve interviewed worry about. They worry about being judged and blamed by their parents. They worry about a parent’s over-the-top emotional reactions. Prove in advance they can trust you.

    Nicole Bedera
    @NBedera
    ·
    Jan 17
    As a part of this, drop the lectures on risk reduction techniques. Parents who taught their daughters not to drink too much or go out alone after dark are the parents my participants least want to tell about their assaults.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  58. Bill B. says:
    @Simon in London

    Surely the end point here is to have the robots running things. The robot monitoring is just the interim stage.

  59. eugyppius says:

    Studies have shown that implicit bias—the automatic, and often unintentional, associations people have in their minds about groups of people—is ubiquitous in the workplace, and can hurt not just employees, but also a company’s bottom line.

    It is very hard to know what this means. People have associations in their minds that are ubiquitous in the workplace? Despite years and years flogging the Implicit Association Test, and now the emergence of literally an entire consultancy industry erected atop the spurious assumptions associated therewith, nobody has been able to show that assigning negative words to black faces in a computer test correlates to any real-world behavior. For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23773046 .

    […] employees who perceive bias are nearly three times as likely to be disengaged at work, and the cost of disengagement to employers isn’t cheap—to the tune of $450 billion to $550 billion a year.

    Everyone has already made this point, but whatever: Northeastern is saying that Diversity in the workplace is more disengaged and less productive than everybody else, which is something probably everyone in this thread and most anybody with experience in any affirmative-action afflicted organisation can attest to.

    Despite the growing adoption of implicit bias training, some in the field of human resources have raised doubts about its effectiveness in improving diversity and inclusion within organizations.

    Imagine being so naive that you think HR nonsense like implicit bias training is about improving “diversity and inclusion”. It is a) a way of fending off potential discrimination lawfare, and b) in many cases likely a complex HR-orchestrated grift and c) by now an entirely autonomous and self-propagating bureaucratic enterprise. The people who arrange implicit bias training and provide it are not the kinds of people who even know what it means, to establish that a given intervention might be effective. They don’t have to show any results.

    But what if a smart device, similar to the Amazon Alexa, could tell when your boss inadvertently left a female colleague out of an important decision, or made her feel that her perspective wasn’t valued?

    What will happen, if they ever do build such a machine, is that the robots will all just turn out to be racist again. That is to say, their algorithms will establish that it is the Diverse who are doing the excluding and destroying productivity, because that is the truth of it.

    The pair have received a $1.5 million, three-year grant from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory to study teams using a combination of social science theories, machine learning, and audio-visual and physiological sensors.

    So they are just grifters.

    Welles says the grant […] will allow her and her colleagues to program a sensor-equipped, smart device to pick up on both verbal and nonverbal cues, and eventually physiological signals, shared between members of a team.

    It is very hard to know, because the article is written by a moron, but what I get from this is that Riedl and Welles have gotten $1.5 million from the Army to “study” “teams” through the lens of “social science theories, machine learning and audio-visual and physiological sensors.” This will then “allow” them (presumably at some future, indefinite date not explicitly contemplated in the current grant agreements) to program a “smart device” to “pick up on […] cues.”

    “You could imagine [a scenario] where maybe a manager at the end of a group deliberation gets a report that says person A was really dominating the conversation,” says Welles.

    The danger that Riedl and Welles produce anything more than a few papers in lower-tier social science journals is very slight. If they ever were to produce the Implicit Bias Robocop, however, it would spend its first five minutes tone-policing all the black DMV ladies brought on board for diversity purposes, and the rest of its life gathering dust as a racist machine in the back corner.

    Then at the end there is this hilarious paragraph:

    The project will build upon earlier research Welles and Riedl conducted with Richard Radke from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in which they designed a sensor-embedded smart conference room where they tested the effect of lighting on small groups.

    Basically these people are academic-tier interior designers whose earlier experiments subjecting focus groups to dimmable lighting didn’t get them anywhere. Now that they have the room all wired up with microphones and motion sensors and whatever they’ve decided maybe they can use it to mine Racisms instead.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Forbes
    , @ben tillman
  60. Imagine being so naive that you think HR nonsense like implicit bias training is about improving “diversity and inclusion”. It is a) a way of fending off potential discrimination lawfare, and b) in many cases likely a complex HR-orchestrated grift and c) by now an entirely autonomous and self-propagating bureaucratic enterprise. The people who arrange implicit bias training and provide it are not the kinds of people who even know what it means, to establish that a given intervention might be effective. They don’t have to show any results.

    It’s just the “Communism hasn’t failed, it just hasn’t been tried hard enough” school of thought. It is impervious to refutation by design; every failure functions as an exhortation to double down ‘harder’. Democratic Kampuchea is the end game here.

  61. @Bill B.

    Foucault is evidently a fairly common French names in that there are two famous Foucaults: the postmodern one and the Foucault’s Pendulum one.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  62. The researcher said:

    “You could imagine [a scenario] where maybe a manager at the end of a group deliberation gets a report that says person A was really dominating the conversation…”

    But if one person knows a lot more than anyone else in the room, shouldn’t that person dominate the conversation?

    Some years ago, I was in a departmental meeting where I did not speak up. After the meeting, our supervisor asked me why I had said nothing, and I explained that I knew nothing about the subject but others in the group were well-informed, and so I thought I would be quiet and learn from them rather than make a fool of myself.

    Our supervisor, an immigrant from Taiwan, replied, “No, no, you don’t understand! In America, even if you do not know anything, you have to speak up for the good of your career.”

    The funny thing was that he was merely trying to help me: this was simply his honest observation as to how America worked. He himself was a rather quiet fellow, but ha had concluded that being a blowhard was the road to success in the USA and was just passing this insight on to me.

    (The quote is, of course, not exact, but is the essence of what he said.)

  63. @Grumpy

    The funniest thing about the story of the end of Boalt Hall at UC Berkeley is that Boalt’s crime was supporting the Chinese Exclusion Act; yet, although the reporter interviewed several students on the matter, none of those students are Chinese.

    From which I draw one of two possible conclusions:

    A) The reporter is herself a racist who is prejudiced against Chinese (the reporter’s name is “Gretchen Kell” — can’t get much more white bread than that!).

    OR

    B) Li’l Miss Gretchen could not find any Chinese students, because they were all in the library studying.

    Which reminds me to tell my kids to brush up on their Mandarin.

  64. Arclight says:

    The article asserts that “studies” indicate that implicit bias is ubiquitous in the workplace, yet I thought the consensus now is that implicit bias is shown not to have any impact on real-work behavior, so how could it be ubiquitous?…and then uses the phrase “employees that perceive bias” as though that perception is 100% accurate, when it really sounds like that overly sensitive people who think they aren’t promoted or listened to enough. Seems like the entire concept is flawed from the outset, but then again I doubt the military is interested in machine technology to pick up emotional signals to police implicit bias, which apparently hasn’t occurred to these two academics.

    • Replies: @ic1000
  65. ic1000 says:
    @Arclight

    Piling on here…

    For example, employees who perceive bias are nearly three times as likely to be disengaged at work, and the cost of disengagement to employers isn’t cheap—to the tune of $450 billion to $550 billion a year. Despite the growing adoption of implicit bias training, some in the field of human resources have raised doubts about its effectiveness in improving diversity and inclusion within organizations.

    Two kinds of people read that paragraph: those who haven’t published market estimates, and those who have.

    As a member of the latter group, I can state that a “show your work” exercise would be humiliating for the member of the Foucault Welles team who was assigned to this task. One tell is the two-significant-figures specificity.

    I could generate estimates of “about $50 billion” and “about $5 trillion” that would be just as defensible as the assertion of “$450 billion to $550 billion.” More so, since they lose the absurd supposition that something as vague as “the cost of disengagement to employers” can be determined to within 18%.

    I also added a helpful link, to alert unwary readers that the implicit bias academic fad is at the heart of the Replication Crisis.

    (A Psychology major at an elite college recently told me, “Replication Crisis? No, we haven’t studied that. Is it the problem polar bears are having with global warming?”)

    • Replies: @Arclight
  66. @PhysicistDave

    The fellow from Taiwan was absolutely correct.

    The folks that still do the best in the current corporate world are the traditional frat boy blowhard types. Somehow people still associate that type of conduct with confidence and competence.

    Personally, I share your attitude about speaking up in meetings where I know little to nothing about the topic under discussion.

  67. @International Jew

    Our Turkish friends are also doing the trust shot:

    Don’t worry, supposedly Delta Force and the SEALs do similar training with live ammo. I just haven’t found any video evidence yet.

    • Replies: @Kibernetika
  68. Arclight says:
    @ic1000

    The amount of disinformation a reader has to wade through in any of the mainstream media is unbelievable. Implicit bias is just treated as fact, any disparity in outcomes between two groups is prima facie evidence of systemic discrimination, the concept of multiple genders or that your gender just sort of lands on you regardless of sex receive absolutely no critical examination, etc., etc.

    It’s hard to tell how much is intellectual laziness versus deliberately misleading. Thanks to the jobs my wife and I have, we spend a fair amount of time around highly educated progressives, and the stuff they say with the same certainty as “the Earth is round” is staggering.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @res
  69. @Anonymous

    “Btw, what is being done about the explicit bias of US government and businesses for Jews/Israel over Palestinians?”

    [Thoughtcrime alert!] and Jews for other Jews in college admissions (as demonstrated by Ron Unz), employment and promotion decisions, electoral patterns, and filling the civil service and appointed ranks of the federal government and state and local governments when they have the power .

  70. @Paul

    I for one refuse to believe that the cost of affirmative action employment practices, which fill the workforce with non-productive and often destructive workers, who pollute the environment with their constant, aggressive grievances, amounts to only half a trillion dollars annually. A better ball park figure might be well over a trillion.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  71. @The Wild Geese Howard

    My experiences in the higher levels of academe suggest that taking nine years to “earn” a Ph.D. is often a sign that the final degree was essentially just a gracious way of putting the recipient – and his department – out of their misery. That the degree is in “communications” may be further warning that one is dealing with less than the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

  72. @PhysicistDave

    “in America, even if you do not know anything, you have to speak up for the good of your career”

    Not an exact parallel, but in China, too. I was rather impressed that she answered honestly ‘I don’t know’ rather than bs-ing to the interviewer. But then I don’t know enough about Chinese healthcare organisation to say whether she should have known.

    https://www.asiaone.com/china/china-sacks-senior-city-health-official-unable-answer-basic-questions

    Ms Tang Zhihong, who ran the health department in Huanggang city, which has reported almost 500 confirmed cases and 12 deaths, appeared on state television earlier on Thursday.

    But on being questioned by a central government inspection team and a reporter on issues like how many people a certain hospital under her remit could handle, she could not immediately answer.

    “I don’t know, I’m unclear,” she said, when asked how many sick people there were.

    “I only know how many beds there are. Don’t ask me how many people are being treated.”

  73. Jack D says:
    @Lugash

    I see two possible solutions here – somehow get the disengaged employees to become engaged by rooting out all bias (an impossible goal) or to get rid of them. Seems to me that the latter is the easier solution compared to having an AI robot eavesdropping on your employees. “We see that you are disengaged with your job and this is reflected in you job performance. Perhaps you would be happier working elsewhere. Our company doesn’t seem to be a good fit for you.”

    If you REALLY want you employees to feel disengaged, I can’t think of a better way of doing so than having Big Sister listen in all the time. That is a 100% sure fire method to alienate your entire workforce.

    Also, these things have a way of backfiring. What happens when Big AI catches the sistas talking shit about their male co-worker?

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  74. @Hodag

    My eyes glaze over reading this nonsense as I yet again imagine working “under” Demi Moore in A Few Good Men. Good luck unsexing us while retaining our effectiveness, warligarchy-bankster elite.

  75. For example, employees who perceive bias are nearly three times as likely to be disengaged at work, and the cost of disengagement to employers isn’t cheap—to the tune of $450 billion to $550 billion a year. Despite the growing adoption of implicit bias training, some in the field of human resources have raised doubts about its effectiveness in improving diversity and inclusion within organizations.

    Well, then, any business would do well to get rid of employees who perceive bias.

  76. @kihowi

    The “fallacy” Lugash was alluding to is the implicit conclusion that the perception of bias causes the disengagement. Obviously, you’re not making that mistake.

  77. @MikeatMikedotMike

    The stupidity of this diversity argument never ceases to amaze. The most efficient workplace is a homogeneous workplace.

    Think of the efficiency of a bee colony.

    For you cubicle monkeys: Imagine if everyone had a different make of laptop, running a different software program, with a different OS, on a different network.

    Or, more simply, if all the workers spoke different languages.

    Your point can be made many ways, and it is a very good one.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  78. res says:
    @Arclight

    we spend a fair amount of time around highly educated indoctrinated progressives, and the stuff they say with the same certainty as “the Earth is round” is staggering.

    FIFY. And agreed.

    • Agree: bomag
  79. @Grumpy

    Also an interesting metaphor is the fact that a working class white man was sent in to be the “executioner” of Boalt’s memory, while Jews and their degenerate acolytes all stand with smug satisfaction.

  80. @ben tillman

    Exactly. It’s the modern version of the Tower of Babble, but thanks.

  81. @Mr. Anon

    Agree. The employees have reversed the cause and effect.

  82. Even after this tech, they are still going to need some sort of device to protect women from sexual harassment. Perhaps office badges of the males will deliver an electrostatic shock if there is any sort of weak electrical path over to a female badge? (Indicating inappropriate contact.)

    But that won’t be sufficient as you could have employees potentially take their badge off, and go full Felicia Sonmez–get a little drunk at a party, offer a drunk male colleague a ride on your scooter, insist on going up to his apartment, taking your clothes off and … having his penis slide into you! A.k.a. rape!

    We’re going to need AI that is omnipresent, and can intervene for anyreason, anytime, anywhere.

  83. Forbes says:
    @eugyppius

    employees who perceive bias are nearly three times as likely to be disengaged at work

    Cause and effect is likely inverted here.

    The disengaged (lazy, non-contributing, not productive, token) employees who are ignored and given short shrift believe their treatment is explained by bias–it can’t be their disengaged conduct that influenced their co-workers behavior towards them.

    • Agree: bomag
  84. These people are sinister PC wonks, but if they just changed their orientation a bit they could make a bundle. They should simplify their goal and just produce a phone app that will tell you after a call what percentage of the talking you did and what percentage your interlocutor did. It would be very nice to have an arithmetic report after you’ve been chatted at to death.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  85. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Homogeneity equals efficiency. Diversity equals chaos. This applies to communities, countries, and workplaces.

    It’s bizarre–and intellectually just ridiculous.

    The whole point of a tribe, community, nation having a religion or laws is to have a common set of norms, so everyone can get along, people are on the same page, know the rules, disputes are minimized and resolved in ways people understand.

    Corporations even have their own “corporate cultures” and bother to publish their own “values” and rules.

    And modern history is basically a description of how unified one-people nations rose up and out hustled, out produced and generally beat the crap out of old sluggish multicultural empires.

    Yet … blather about “diversity”

  86. Jack D says:
    @AnotherDad

    And modern history is basically a description of how unified one-people nations rose up and out hustled, out produced and generally beat the crap out of old sluggish multicultural empires.

    Exactly – this is how the unified one-people US beat the crap out of the multi-cultural Empire of Japan and the Third Reich. Our all-WASP Army and all-WASP Manhattan project completely outdid von Braun and his multi-cultural V2 design team.

    • Troll: vhrm
  87. Interesting how today’s strong, empowered, you-go-grrl! women …

    need
    – voluminous policy manuals
    – parasitic legal shakedowns and fantastic legal judgments
    – government and corporate indoctrination and struggle sessions
    – endless bureaucratic policing
    and now
    – conversation monitoring robots

    to feel “safe” and “empowered”.

  88. Yngvar says:

    …grant from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory to study…

    We were working secretly for the military.
    Our experiment in sound was nearly ready to begin.
    We only know in theory what we are doing:
    music made for pleasure, music made to thrill.
    It was music we were making here until…

    They told us all they wanted
    was a sound that could kill someone from a distance.
    So we go ahead and the meters are over in the red.
    It’s a mistake in the making.

    Kate Bush – Experiment IV

  89. @Jack D

    Well, the US was ~90% Non-Hispanic white from 1940 to 1950:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Historical_data_for_all_races_and_for_Hispanic_origin_(1610%E2%80%932010)

    It’s not inaccurate to characterize WW2 as the US Anglo-Aryan diaspora beating the crap out of the heritage Germans and Japanese.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  90. Sean says:

    For example, employees who perceive bias are nearly three times as likely to be disengaged at work, and the cost of disengagement to employers isn’t cheap

    There is a thing called the default mode network involved in social skills and theory of mind. It is anti correlated with the task positive network, which is about detailed thinking for the performance of tasks.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201901/are-our-leaders-using-only-half-their-brains


    Because activation of the TPN tends to suppress activity in the DMN, an over-emphasis on task-oriented leadership may prove deleterious to social and emotional aspects of leadership. Similarly, an overemphasis on the DMN would result in difficulty focusing attention, making decisions, and solving known problems.

    Some people look at everything mechanistically, while for others every situation is about what is on someone else’s mind. Blacks tend to be highly mentalistic, so do lower class whites. Those sort of people tend to be very sensitive to slights, and easy to flip from job performance to paranoia.

  91. eugyppius says:
    @Grumpy

    This one hits a little close to home.

    These excrescences are like the ISIS children, in their dresses, smiling while they take the pick and the axe to things my teachers built. They think because they’re smashing monuments, they’re better than the builders who put them up.

    Maybe for now, tearing down wins you something, because it seems like a promise to build something better. But soon everyone will see, as I do, that these are children in dresses, who will build nothing. Then there will be a reckoning.

  92. Jack D says:
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    But American whites were never a “one-people” nation. You had Protestants, Catholics, Yankees, Southerners, Irish, English, German, Italian, Jews, etc. Watch any WWII movie – the Japs are all the same but when they show the American bomber crew, there’s the wise ass from Brooklyn, the country boy from Alabama, the laconic New Englander, the Pole from Chicago, the WASPy college boy, etc.

  93. Michael S says:

    Are they trying to bring back implicit bias, or did they just forget that it’s been completely discredited, so badly that HR departments had to change its name to “unconscious bias”?

  94. J.Ross says:
    @Jack D

    These are all whites from mildly varied origins, all under intense assimiliationist pressure in an Anglo legal culture. You might as well post the British propaganda poster showing representatives from the different British colonies marching together.

  95. vhrm says:
    @Jack D

    heh. i meant “LOL” but clicked troll. (although that fits too )

    This reaction interface is pretty unforgiving, esp on mobile where misclicks are more common.

  96. @Jack D

    Exactly – this is how the unified one-people US beat the crap out of the multi-cultural Empire of Japan and the Third Reich. Our all-WASP Army and all-WASP Manhattan project completely outdid von Braun and his multi-cultural V2 design team.

    Yawn.

    Jack i realize you squawk like someone touched your hair, whenever anyone points out that having a multi-ethnic melange–i.e. for you, Jews around–is not some sort of super-special-secret-sauce.

    But seriously the U.S. was an Anglo Settler nation–like Canada, Australia, N.Z. Yes, it had a slightly more “diverse” mix of whites than the other Anglo settler nations and most notably it was dragging around it’s 10% black component. But you’re not seriously suggesting that’s why the US was prosperous or the US was able to win?

    No, the US was essentially a “one people” nation with a sprinkling of minorities. That “one people” just being a broader slice of whites than individual Euro nations. But nonetheless the American program was to hammer them into one people–required to speak English and subscribe to an American white culture based on Anglo norms.

    This is a different situation–much healthier–than the Austrian, Ottoman, Russian or other older historic empires. And like modern one-people nations–much more effective. And you’ll note that one-people Germany and Japan actually did exceptionally well–stupid programs but they perform well–for their population size, resource base.

    And yes, modern history is exactly as i said. The rise of coherent one-people nations out-pointing these old multi-cultural empires.

    And yes, as modern Chinese rises and pushes people around, i will call it a “one people” nation as well. It’s the Han 90%–their commonality and capability–that have allowed the joint to rocket forward. The minorities there–as in the US in the 1940s–exist, but they aren’t the nation and do not create its success.

  97. @eugyppius

    It is very hard to know, because the article is written by a moron . . . .

    Ha ha!

    The danger that Riedl and Welles produce anything more than a few papers in lower-tier social science journals is very slight. If they ever were to produce the Implicit Bias Robocop, however, it would spend its first five minutes tone-policing all the black DMV ladies brought on board for diversity purposes, and the rest of its life gathering dust as a racist machine in the back corner.

    LOL!!!

  98. @istevefan

    First, if US businesses really are paying a half trillion dollars per year for no work, it means their profits are being eaten into to subsidize the diverse. In effect US businesses are paying a half trillion dollar per year tax that Japanese, Korean and Chinese businesses don’t. So even if the US government lowers its tax rate, our businesses are still getting hammered by this diversity tax.

    Right. It’s like the tax imposed on parents who have to waste an ungodly amount of time commuting or spend a ton of money on private schooling to keep their children safe in this era of forced integration.

  99. @Jack D

    But American whites were never a “one-people” nation. You had Protestants, Catholics, Yankees, Southerners, Irish, English, German, Italian, Jews, etc. Watch any WWII movie – the Japs are all the same but when they show the American bomber crew, there’s the wise ass from Brooklyn, the country boy from Alabama, the laconic New Englander, the Pole from Chicago, the WASPy college boy, etc.

    Fine Jack, let’s call WWII America a “one civilization” nation–Western Christian civilization.

    It’s a bunch of people from Western Christian civilization, made into a coherent whole under Anglo-American settler culture/norms. (I.e. what J. Ross said.)

    And my point remains absolutely on target:

    The whole point of a tribe, community, nation having a religion or laws is to have a common set of norms, so everyone can get along, people are on the same page, know the rules, disputes are minimized and resolved in ways people understand.

    And modern history is basically a description of how unified one-people nations rose up and out hustled, out produced and generally beat the crap out of old sluggish multicultural empires.

    Diversity is not a strength. For any group of people to be strong it has to have *common* values/norms. The more agreement, commonality the stronger.

    And the Church’s de-tribalizing process help build a de-tribalized Europe that could develop one-people, high-trust-at-scale nations which were significantly more successful than old imperial conglomerations.

    This de-tribalizing integration is precisely what your Jewish ancestors rejected. And as a small group that was generally–though not always–tolerated, hey were able to continue to do middle man parasitism. (Though the places that sent them packing–Britain, France–and developed their own commercial classes in the late middle ages did the best.)

    But the de-tribalized one-people integration that the Jews rejected is clearly the model that led to modernity and the most successful nations. Not Jewish tribalism, not multicultural empire (separate tribes/millets jammed together like the Ottomans) and certainly not the tedious cancerous minoritarianism Jews push endlessly today. In fact, these ludicrous chunks of nonsense resulting from Jewish minoritarianism, that Steve trots out daily, just hammer the point home.

    You can whine and bitch and make up excuses, ad nauseum. But that reality remains.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  100. @Jus' Sayin'...

    I for one refuse to believe that the cost of affirmative action employment practices, which fill the workforce with non-productive and often destructive workers, who pollute the environment with their constant, aggressive grievances, amounts to only half a trillion dollars annually. A better ball park figure might be well over a trillion.

    Imagine that amount plus all the other money spent on welfare etc.) invested and compounding annually.

    • Replies: @anon
  101. Jack D says:
    @AnotherDad

    But our enemies (Germany, Japan) were even MORE one-peoplish and they lost – according to your theory the most one-peoplish power should have won.

  102. anon[515] • Disclaimer says:
    @ben tillman

    Imagine that amount plus all the other money spent on welfare etc.) invested and compounding annually.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  103. vhrm says:
    @AnotherDad

    i think you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    Yes “diversity” as touted by corporate HR departments is BS, but neither does it inherently have great costs (at least in the US) because there just isn’t that much relevant variation in the cultures of Americans of different race.

    On all variables i can think of there’s great overlap among whites, blacks and Hispanics even if the avg values and distributions are different.

  104. @Jack D

    Points taken.

    But how often did the pitch-perfect white melting pot mix from the movies actually happen in real life? If there’s a study on that topic I would love to see it.

    Anecdotally, my grandfather was an assistant squad leader in Europe during WW2. He was from Detroit. His squad leader was from Wisconsin. That’s hardly the kind of idealized variance you see in the WW2 movies.

  105. @The Wild Geese Howard

    If Larry Vickers claims that it happened, it likely happened. The Russians were probably trying to entertain him and try to surprise but it’s believable.

    Americans were shocked when Full Metal Jacket portrayed R. Lee Ermey getting tough on recruits back in the ’60s. But that’s kid stuff compared to hazing in the Russian Army. Suicide and going AWOL happen much more than in the West, IMHO.

    The poor kids from from the provinces take the brunt of it. They are conscripted. Kids from the big cities figure out how to evade service, through university attendance or bribes.

    • Replies: @Coemgen
  106. Utterly terrifying. There never will be a big brother. There will only be human resources. And Human Resources will devour us all. I’m amazed that this is given such a positive spend. Surely there are people my age for whom this is an Abomination. Are they simply too scared to speak? If so, that’s a separate greater fear.

  107. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    If being one-peoplish were the ONLY factor the Axis would have won easily.

    Had a few things gone a little differently they might have won, in fact. If Hitler had left military affairs to the General Staff, and had he been a real racist and not declared war on the United States in support of Japan so the Lindberghs could have kept us out of the fight a while longer…he might, might have actually won.

    His focusing on Stalingrad to teach Stalin a lesson or show him who was boss instead of taking Moscow at any cost , shooting Stalin with minimal fanfare, and slicing the throat of Lazar Kaganovich in the fashion of shechita and blooding him out in Red Square unnecessarily cost the lives of millions of Germans AND Russians. And his lack of White solidarity and anti-Slavicism kept him from making allies with the many peoples who hated, hated, hated the Reds and who could have joined him in the war.

    The Germans spent a lot of time in developing Wunderwaffen instead of focusing on building production efficient weapons in a sufficiently timely fashion, whereas the US built amazingly production efficient weapons but failed to develop them as well as they should have been. Lack of diesel tanks which were much less likely to roast crews, airplanes which were unnecessarily hazardous to their own crews (the B-26 Martin Marauder and P-38 Lightning, both severely hampered from being able to complete a single engine takeoff due to slow feathering electric propellers, while hydraulic props were used on single engine fighters and four engine bombers), the primitive gas system on the M-1 Garand rifle, poorly designed radio receivers whose local oscillators enabled the enemy to find them, all were known to someone somewhere but never were fixed. And enormous resources were spent on the Norden bombsight, which was an exercise in wasted precision.

    The Germans by contrast spent precious resources on the Komet rocket fighter, and made a huge number of Me-109s whose main gear were so close together the demonstrated crosswind component on dry pavement was about zero. The advantage they had in the superb DB-601/605 engine was thus somewhat wasted. The FW-190 had good ground handling, but its BMW radial engine was more expensive to manufacture.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  108. Coemgen says:
    @Kibernetika

    Any American who had been through basic training/boot camp was not shocked by R. Lee Ermey’s potrayal of Gunny Hartman. For us, FMJ was a trip down memory lane (except for the shooting in the latrine). Ermey’s Gunny Hartman was a stereotypical and convincing (of course) drill sergeant.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  109. @Jack D

    But our enemies (Germany, Japan) were even MORE one-peoplish and they lost – according to your theory the most one-peoplish power should have won.

    How were they our enemies?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  110. @anon

    Yes, we are on the same wavelength here. Things like that are among the things that I imagine.

  111. @Jack D

    But our enemies (Germany, Japan) were even MORE one-peoplish and they lost – according to your theory the most one-peoplish power should have won.

    There is an implicit American (of all origins) acceptance of the idea that its language and culture should largely be an offshoot, a creole, of its English roots. The notion that there should be one language and culture has always been foreign to the nations occupying the European land mass. Just about every European nation has fought long and hard against any conqueror that sought to impose its language and culture on them. The European history of warring nations and tribes is why Germany considered the US a mishmash of races (in an era when tribe/nation was synonymous with race) and cultures that would never be united enough to defeat Germany in battle:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-American_caricatures_in_Nazi_Germany

    Themes in Nazi Propaganda aimed at America revolved largely around the idea that the United States faced a ‘lack of unity.'[6] America was portrayed by the Nazi party as a regressed nation, one unable of appreciating European culture. Hitler declared America as a “mongrel nation”, grown too rich too soon and governed by a capitalist elite with strong ties to the Jews and the Americans were a “mongrel people” incapable of higher culture or great creative achievements.[7] When giving a speech in reaction to America’s negative comments on the Anti Jewish campaigns[8] in 1938, Joseph Goebbels mocked the country, commenting on the way they borrowed from other countries, their unemployment rates, lynchings in the country and the economic and political scandals the country had seen. He used these examples to ridicule America as a country and insinuated that America had no right to criticise any other country considering the state that their own was in. In the speech, Goebbels said that ‘it is not surprising that the New York press attacks Germany so strongly. Over two million Jews live in New York and public, especially economic life, there is entirely under their control.'[8] Goebbels went on to state, in a sarcastic nature: ‘Such a nation is certainly justified in sneering at ancient Europe, whose nations and peoples looked back on centuries, even millennia, of cultural achievements long before America was even discovered.’ This is an example of the theme discussed earlier about the Nazi party viewing America as a nation whose people did not have the ability to appreciate European culture. The Nazi propagandists blamed President Roosevelt for a lot of America’s problems. They thought America was based on political and economic scandal. It was believed that America was too racially diverse and this was what allowed it to be controlled by Jews and Communists. Nazi propagandists also sometimes depicted President Roosevelt as a gangster, and later on in their Anti-American campaign lost all respect for him suggesting in one cartoon that he deserved to be executed.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  112. @AnotherDad

    You can unify a diverse nation by giving it a common focus of hate. Nazi Germany was diverse for its time by European standards — half Catholic half Protestant. But it found unity around hatred of Jews. Today, a lot of the unz.com community is unified like that. We have our immigration restrictionists, as well as moderate immigration enthusiasts (Ron Unz most notably). Hatred of Jews binds them together.

    The coalition of the fringes is hoping to stay unified around hatred for white heterosexual men.

    • Disagree: International Jew
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Joe Schmoe
  113. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew

    Actually not that many people hate Jews. Many people understand that Jews have a different set of interests than the population at large and particularly those of nonelite whites and that due to their high intelligence and high ingroup cohesion they have a wildly disproportionate influence in getting their way. That is different than hate.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  114. Moses says:

    Inside the breast of every leftist beats the heart of a bloody tyrant.

  115. @Steve Sailer

    The Welles one should Foucault and DIE.

  116. Jack D says:
    @ben tillman

    You’re right – Pearl Harbor was intended as a token of eternal Japanese friendship, it was just misunderstood by the Zionists in Washington.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  117. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous

    No it’s not. The first step in hate is to identify someone as “the other”. You’re already past that part.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Joe Schmoe
  118. @Anonymous

    “the primitive gas system on the M-1 Garand rifle,”

    John Garand – Canadian born.

    Better than it’s competitors on the battlefield.

    “poorly designed radio receivers whose local oscillators enabled the enemy to find them, all were known to someone somewhere but never were fixed. ”

    Double tuned RF stages were typically used on HF communications receivers such as the BC-312, BC-348 and HRO-5s to prevent LO radiation. Even the US Navy RAL-7 regenerative receiver had that. IIRC, the German Navy considered this possibility didn’t think it was worth looking for (LO radiating).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  119. Mr. Anon says:
    @CCZ

    That’s a neat demo. But why do they have to use that crappy modern movie-score music to accompany it?

  120. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jack D

    No it’s not. The first step in hate is to identify someone as “the other”. You’re already past that part.

    Thanks, Rod Serling, for the middle-brow TV morality lesson. Why don’t you quote some Star Wars philosophy while you’re at it? “Anger leads to fear, which leads to hate, which leads to…….bloating and irritability” or whatever.

    Actually, what commenter “Anonymous” said is perfectly reasonable. One can perceive a difference in interests without hating. Your crowd likes to obscure this fact……….for the purpose of furthering your own interests. Nobody can have a legitimate disagreement with you – it is just irrational hatred on their part. It’s old, and it’s trite, and a lot people are wising up to this dishonest tactic. And, of course, there are times when hatred is perfectly justified. Your people seem to have no problem with hatred and the nursing of long-held grudges.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  121. @Jack D

    But our enemies (Germany, Japan) were even MORE one-peoplish and they lost – according to your theory the most one-peoplish power should have won.

    I guess that’s why you’re a lawyer!

    Here’s what i actually wrote:

    The whole point of a tribe, community, nation having a religion or laws is to have a common set of norms, so everyone can get along, people are on the same page, know the rules, disputes are minimized and resolved in ways people understand.

    Corporations even have their own “corporate cultures” and bother to publish their own “values” and rules.

    And modern history is basically a description of how unified one-people nations rose up and out hustled, out produced and generally beat the crap out of old sluggish multicultural empires.

    All true. Note: i didn’t say that “unified one-people nation”-ness was the only input into economic and military success and that questions of iron and oil and size and population–and yes IQ–were irrelevant. Heck, i’ve even got my own lawyerly weasel words in there–“basically a description”, “generally beat the crap”.

    The War doesn’t contradict this point. Who could fail to be impressed by–however ill advised–the early success of Germany in Japan who were inferior (Germans slightly < France+Britain; Japan<<China) inferior in population to their antagonists and wildly inferior in resource base … even before adding in the Soviet Union and the US.

    (As i've pointed out the seed of the 20th centuries troubles, is imperialism. That Britain and France had created huge empires, locking up control of much of the world's resources … an openly unfair system that Germany and Japan were rising into. But the fact those small nations had been able to do that has a whole lot to do with the superiority of detribalized one-peoplish nations.)

    One right on my point: Russo-Japanese War. One people Japan defeating a much bigger, but sprawlingly multicultural empire.

    And the tragedy of the Great War. Generated by these multi-cultural empires–Austria, Russia–but dragging in the much more one-peoplelish and much more effective Germans, French, British. A disaster for the West and the end of these creaking multicultural empires–Austria, Russia, the Ottomans.

    The Ottmans are the cannonical example: The Ottoman Empire is what the world would look like if everyone had followed the tribalist, non-integration program of the Jews. A bunch of random peoples (tribes) each following their own norms and culture in their own little silo (“millet”), bossed over by a “don’t make trouble” super-state. (How wonderful!)

    The Ottomans, to their credit made it work for hundreds of years, and with a martial culture repeatedly threated the West. But the Western nations were able to hold them at bay. And the one-people-ish nations developed science and industry and with their one-people-ish-ness better organization, better esprit de corps and utterly outclass them.

    Even the Jews themselves provide a good example. In the wake of the Holocaust a bunch of them threw into the Zionist project and with the bond of religious-ethno-nationalism–shared religion and identity and admittedly the high Ashkenazi IQ a huge factor–beat much larger Arab armies, riven by tribal, ethnic and religious factionalism and disconnect/lack-of-trust between soldiers and leaders.

    Diversity does not make you stronger. It’s what you have in common–language, race, religion, norms, values, “culture”–that allows people to be on the same page, trust each and cooperate to kick ass.

  122. @Johann Ricke

    There is an implicit American (of all origins) acceptance of the idea that its language and culture should largely be an offshoot, a creole, of its English roots. The notion that there should be one language and culture has always been foreign to the nations occupying the European land mass. Just about every European nation has fought long and hard against any conqueror that sought to impose its language and culture on them. The European history of warring nations and tribes is why Germany considered the US a mishmash of races (in an era when tribe/nation was synonymous with race) and cultures that would never be united enough to defeat Germany in battle:

    Pretty good summary Johann.

    I’d quibble with that first “is”. More accurate–“was”. Minoritarianism has destroyed the “is”.

    But basically … America simply was not as “multiecultural” or even as “multiethnic” as JackD thinks and the Nazis thought.

    If the attitudes toward each other of the Iowa farm boy, the Southern redneck, the Catholic steel work and the Boston Brahmin had been as tribal and anti-national/anti-integration as the Jews, yeah then there would have been a problem.

    But that simply wasn’t the reality. Whatever their ethnic backgrounds and Protestant/Catholic religious differences, these people mostly saw themselves as Americans.

    Ignore say 10 million not particularlly well digested recent immigrants and 15 million blacks, and the America Nazi Germany actually confronted was about 100 million Anglo-Celtic-Germanics–like taking half of Germany and dropping in England and Ireland and giving them this huge resource base!

    As ethnically unified as Germans. No. And i wouldn’t wanted to have swapped territory with the Germans and fought that war–the Germans having our resource base. But really a huge population of NW Euro people–not wildly different than the Germans–with much better geography and resources.

    Hitler was naive enough to think he picked a fight with a mongrel nation dominated by Jewish traders and full of shuck and jive blacks. But actually he picked a fight with a people, the likes of Bill Boeing and Henry Ford, Dwight Eisenhower and Chester Nimitz. D’oh!

    ~~

    Note: after 50 years of minoritarianism … i wouldn’t want a replay.

    The American military is 2nd to none. But “the tip of the spear” is overwhelmingly the same sort of flyover country white boys who won the big one. And they have the advantage of technological superiority in weapons built up by generations of white guys. But if you had to have a general draft call–roping in all our glorious diversity–to fight a long slogging conventional war against a large competent one-people-ish nation (say China?) … wouldn’t be so confident.

    It’s fortuitous nukes render that prospect moot. The diversity struggle sessions in boot camp would be enough to exhaust and defeat us.

    • Replies: @Rob
  123. Rob says:
    @AnotherDad

    I want to like all your comments on this thread, but I used my allotment. I will make this tiny quibble, having some diversity-of thought and speech-is a very good thing. Had the Japanese against war with the US been able to make their case clearly and forcefully, without risk of assassination for their troubles, then Japan might have made whatever concessions were necessary to get the US to end the embargo. Had Germany had similar diversity of thought and speech, Germany might have waged the war more intelligently, managed their resources and materiel better, and not declared war on America.

    There is a third diversity that’s important, diversity of allowable strategy and goals. Diversity of thought and speech might not have helped the Japanese when no one thought that anyone else thought backing down was an acceptable option.

    What about the US and the Three Good Diversities? The upper middle class is getting rid of all three. No one is allowed to privilege meritocracy over sex, racial, and Hispanic diversity. All there political goals are not political goals, they are incontrovertible moral crusades, and free speech as a society wide ideal, not the narrow sense of the government not preventing speech, where people are allowed to have their say and aren’t punished for it. Don’t worry, all three as dead among the upper and professional managerial class.

  124. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Also, these things have a way of backfiring. What happens when Big AI catches the sistas talking shit about their male co-worker?

    I assume the male co-worker would then get fired. The sistas were merely defending themselves against his implicit bias.

  125. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    One can perceive a difference in interests without hating.

    In theory. In practice there’s a pretty strong chance it will lead to intense hostility. If I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that my interests seriously conflict with yours then I’m highly likely to perceive you as an enemy. Possibly even an enemy to be destroyed.

    The First World War is a case in point. The various Great Powers came to perceive other Great Powers as having interests that were incompatible with theirs.

    And take a look at some of the British propaganda from that period, depicting the Germans as evil Huns who bayoneted babies. The Germans were dehumanised in British propaganda. It’s pretty much a textbook example of othering.

  126. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Joe Stalin

    At the start of WWII many vessels still had the old RCA IP501 regens and when they were in oscillation, there was no RF stage in front of the regenerative detector and as I recall one of the things that made the early U boat campaign “the happy time” in the North Atlantic was that the 500 kHz emissions enabled the U boat skippers to find them. Counterespionage also relied on sniffing LO emissions, as does the 1950’s-present BBC Detector Van program to enforce Britons paying their TV licenses.

    Today an authentic RCA IP 501 is a very valuable collector’s item. Many were simply tossed overboard in the war. Smaller vessels often used the National SW-3 which as I recall had an RF stage, but was not actually a proper shielded device. Naval receivers such as the Scott SLR were carefully designed to contain all emissions of RF and were built in large quantities, and are still remarkably good receivers when properly restored.

    As for the M-1’s gas system, it works but only with one combination of bullet weight and type and amount of powder. As long as all your ammo is specifically loaded for this rifle, you are okay. There is an adjustable gas valve you can put in there but even with this, most commercial sporting .30-06 ammo is not safe to fire in the Garand. There is also the issue of the eight round clip which ejects on the last round fired, which is the stuff of lots of stories about Germans who waited for the “clink” and charged as the GI reloaded. Most of those are apocryphal, but it’s indisputable that the later M-14 with its box magazine and more sophisticated gas system which will handle most .308 ammo fine is in every way a superior rifle. Of course, it is largely derived from the Garand, as is the Beretta BM-59.

    When I was younger, M-1 Garands had become quite expensive as “everyone wanted one” but it was illegal to bring any surplus rifles into the US. They were much cheaper in Canada, and it was possible to make a lot of money by buying them up there and sneaking them back and selling them at gun shows. Of course this was a violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968, but they actually had to catch you in the act, because once you were home you were home free unless you were dumb enough to pay with a credit card or keep the Canadian store receipt. (They had to prove you personally imported it illegally or knew that someone else had). Eventually BATF started offering a rat-out reward to Canadian retailers, but by then they had changed the law and Garands started coming back in via the CMP. The funny thing is that no matter how many they put on the market the price just doesn’t seem to come down. From a prepper standpoint it’s a boat anchor-there is no milsurp .30-06 left except at ammo collector prices, and most civilian .30-06 is not safe to shoot in a Garand. Most people who actually want to shoot one very much have them converted to .308.

    Was it a better weapon at the time vis-a-vis the best bolt action military rifle ever, the Mauser 98? Well, it was an autoloader. OTOH the bolt action forced discipline, and man for man the Germans were more disciplined, in better shape, and on average, better shots, though the top decile of American shooters with real serious hunting experience were probably better than the top decile of Germans. Neither most Americans nor most Germans had any real firearms experience before service, and it was early on found that men who had never touched a rifle were easier to train and did better than those with casual plinking or short range deer blasting experience, but that having been a serious hunter and/or having spent hour on the range in a formal marksmanship program was a huge advantage, and a lot more Americans than Germans had hunted seriously. (Ironically, the best American riflemen were very disproportionately German-Americans from places like Pennsylvania.) The Americans had a lot more ammo to shoot, whereas the Germans made a virtue of necessity in emphasizing careful aimed fire.

    The Garand was an effective weapon for its time, but it was and is heavy-it is not a rifle you’d want to hunt with either on foot or to haul up a tree stand. I have owned a couple and sold both years ago. One of those things everyone should have a chance to field strip, clean, assemble, and shoot at least once but not something you want for continued use unless you’re a John Garand Match competitor. I do have a M-1A (the semiauto M14) and it’s a keeper. If my health holds up I plan on going after a deer next season with it.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  127. @ben tillman

    You tell ’em. It’s ridiculous how many of the idiots around here like JackD never mention the razing of Kyoto by American forces in November of 1941.

  128. @Anonymous

    “At the start of WWII many vessels still had the old RCA IP501 regens and when they were in oscillation, there was no RF stage in front of the regenerative detector and as I recall one of the things that made the early U boat campaign “the happy time” in the North Atlantic was that the 500 kHz emissions enabled the U boat skippers to find them.”

    I would hardly fault the designers of the RCA IP501 regenerative receiver for radiating RF to the antenna. It was clearly designed for commercial maritime operations and not military communications security. In this clearly delineated specification, it is faultless.

    In 1922, the IP-501-A was introduced. It combined the IP-501 and the Triode Type-B Audio Amplifier into one long cabinet. The consolidation made the IP-501-A easier to build since everything necessary was in one cabinet rather than two separate units as in the IP-501 and Triode Type B amp.

    RCA handled the sales of IP-501 receivers and accessories from around 1921 until sometime in 1923. In 1923, Wireless Specialty Apparatus disappeared from the scene, apparently purchased or absorbed by RCA. It is likely that RCA also acquired the WSA manufacturing plant in the deal since all later IP-501s and IP-501-As still use WSA parts but have tags that indicate RCA-RMCA as the builder.

    Radiomarine Corporation of America was likely created from Wireless Specialty Apparatus around 1924 or ’25. RCA’s founding history allowed a separate portion of RCA’s assets to be directed toward the lucrative maritime market. The Navy had stipulated in November 1919, when RCA was created, that they wanted to deal with just one company for all wireless equipment and operations (this was eventually backed-up with various laws regarding use of foreign equipment or operation of US stations.) In the early twenties, RCA was operating many of the coastal wireless stations and providing “Radiogram” communications. With the formation of RMCA, all marine operations and sales were then transferred to Radiomarine Corporation of America as a division of RCA.

    By the late twenties, the IP-501 family of receivers were beginning to show their age. The later versions eliminated some of the unnecessary or expensive circuits and parts but the basic style was still easy to recognize. Many receivers were still in use well into the late thirties. Their operation was easy, they were reliable and their excellent performance in the hands of experienced radio ops had resulted in the receiver becoming the “standard” shipboard receiver for at least a decade and a half. Advertising for RMCA was still using photographs of shipboard installations showing the IP-501-A as late as the post-WWII time period. The selling price of the IP-501-A was $550 in 1922 (listed in “Radio Enters the Home,” a catalog of products available through RCA though built by WSA at this time.)

    https://www.radioblvd.com/ip501.htm

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  129. @International Jew

    meh

    folks don’t hate Jews.

    They just don’t love Jews more than their own kids.

    and they sure don’t love those particular Jews who are cheer leading anti white racism.

  130. @Jack D

    No it’s not. The first step in hate is to identify someone as “the other”. You’re already past that part.

    Well, by that standard Jews most certainly hate non-Jews because Jews adamantly identify all non-Jews as distant “others”

    maybe just chill on the imagined “hate”

  131. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Joe Stalin

    Actually, regens with no RF amp stage were widely famous in the 30s for interfering with each other and more than one neighborhood fight was started over this. Some of these things could put several milliwatts into an antenna and if a way to key it was used they could be used as transceivers after a fashion. Probably the best commercially built regen was the National SW-3, (which had an RF stage) but hobbyists have built better one-there’ still a cult of people who like to build them. They can not work as well as a superhet, of course, but that doesn’t stop them from building regens, most are of the old phart school of ham operator who takes pride in not owning any test equipment and building everything from junkboxing.

    Building a regen is probably a good thing to do once, but once you have built one or two, it seems like an exercise in ” doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”, which is generally known as stupidity per se. But that’s just me, who keeps an IFR 1200 Super S on his desk at work for lulz.

    ARRL Handbooks usually have plans for a solid state regen built on a circuit board. If you want to build a tube one, the old 1930s through 1950s ARRL handbooks, and the Alfred Morgan Boy’s Books which can be downloaded as pdf’s

    https://www.americanradiohistory.com/BOOKSHELF-ARH/A.P.Morgan/The-Boys-Second-Book-of-Radio-and-Electronics-Morgan.pdf

    all have some basic designs. The original four pin tubes can be spendy but you can use series heater string TV tubes which go for a buck apiece NOS if you are resourceful and have a good DC bench supply or are good at scrounging wall warts of various voltages. If you are really audiophool-level anal about it TJ Lindsay put out a number of original booklets as his Impoverished Radio Experimenter series. He’s a dick to deal with and does not want to print them anymore nor allow .pdf distribution, but they are floating out there. There is also his reprint of the 1934 Short Wave handbook with an appendix containing reprints of some articles in ham magazines and a selbstbauverlag book by a now deceased WWII vet

    Return of a Classic Book: Surviving Technology

    The classic book “Surviving Technology” by Bruce Vaughan (NR5Q, SK) has recently been reprinted and is available right now! Please see the “Books” category for more information and ordering.
    https://www.ermag.com/product-category/books/

    who was a pathological regen builder-he must have built fifty of them, they’re a collectible and Joe Walsh (who can’t complain but still does) is one famous buyer-in his dotage is a very interesting read, as is my late friend Ed Romney’s “Fixing Up Nice Old Radios”.

    If you can find one, buy a restored National SW3 ….

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  132. c matt says:

    The pair have received a $1.5 million, three-year grant

    Now I understand why it costs employers $450 Billion a year.

  133. @Anonymous

    “Actually, regens with no RF amp stage were widely famous in the 30s for interfering with each other and more than one neighborhood fight was started over this. Some of these things could put several milliwatts into an antenna and if a way to key it was used they could be used as transceivers after a fashion. ”

    My experience is limited to a Heathkit SW regenerative receiver from the 1960s with a 12AT7 double-triode tube acting as the regenerative detector. With something like 100V+ on the plate it did emit a detectable signal when in oscillation. I would imagine that a regen receiver in a marine environment wouldn’t have to cope with interfering neighbors from a ship or an adjacent receiver near a shore antenna.

    The applicable RF radiation limits in US Navy service for entertainment radios:

    Technical Radio Company (TecRad) – LRR-5

    Technical Radio Company was founded in San Francisco, California in 1937 by Clayton Bane and George Weiss. Bane was an assistant to Frank Jones at Western Wireless, Ltd. (1932 to 1934) where he helped install the first two-way radio system at Alcatraz Federal Prison. Many of Bane’s crew at Western Wireless went onto work at Eitel-McCollough (Eimac) but Bane went on to form his own company called Technical Radio Company. TecRad (as it was sometimes called) became a prime contractor for the U.S. Navy building high quality shipboard entertainment receivers and a couple types of small transmitters. Only a few companies built Navy acceptable shipboard entertainment radios since there was a strict requirement that no more than 400 pico-watts of LO leakage was allowed on the antenna. TecRad claimed that only 100 pW was present on the antenna with their receivers. Scott Radio Laboratories built the SLR and RBO receivers that are the most common of the “low radiation” WWII shipboard entertainment receivers but TecRad also produced their versions during the war designated as “LRR” with numeral suffixes from 1 up to 6 (LRR = Low Radiation Receiver.) The TecRad receiver shown is the Model LRR-5 from May 1945.

    https://www.radioblvd.com/WWII_Communications_Equipment_Part2.htm

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS