The fact that a claim is true doesn't automatically mean that it's useful to discuss it.
It doesn't? In what way would it not be useful?
I think it's extremely useful to discuss how the brain you are using to solve problems has flaws that may be inhibiting you from solving those problems, or even recognizing the problems accurately. (It's why I was on LW originally...)
(Maybe you're using "automatically" here as a qualifier to make your statement technically correct—Is that what you mean? Like, people could discuss cognitive biases in a really stupid and irrational way that would make it unproductive? If that's what you mean, then, yeah. Of course.)
No, it's not an admission of Clinton that her maps have errors.
It's not? I thought she said we all (i.e. humans) have implicit biases? Wouldn't that include Clinton?
It doesn't? In what way would it not be useful?
Whether a discussion is useful depends on the results of the discussion. There are a lot of true things you can say that don't advance a discussion into a direction that leads to a positive outcome.
I think it's extremely useful to discuss how the brain you are using to solve problems has flaws that may be inhibiting you from solving those problems
It wasn't a discussion of how implicit bias works but an uncited assertion that it has effects in certain conditions.
It's why I was on LW originally
That ...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "