That's good, and here is some more including different ways to measure implicit bias that have emerged. The point stands that people aren't objective:
>White applicants get about 50 percent more call-backs than black applicants with the same resumes; college professors are 26 percent more likely to respond to a student’s email when it is signed by Brad rather than Lamar; and physicians recommend less pain medication for black patients than white patients with the same injury.
> Almost a third of naturalizing immigrants abandoned their first names by 1930 and acquired popular American names such as William, John or Charles. [...] Widespread name Americanization prompts the question of whether it had an impact on migrants’ economic success. Figure 1 provides a preliminary answer to this question. Name Americanization into the most popular names - e.g. the top quartile - was associated with an occupation-based earnings increase of above 10%. These gains were larger than those experienced by migrants Americanizing into less popular names - e.g. the first quartile - and even more so than those experienced by migrants who kept their original name or changed to a more distinctive name.
As to speculation on why that is, could be as simple as the fact that the brain capacity is rather limited. Handling unfamiliar letter/phoneme sequences requires more energy. As entropic creatures, we simply take the lowest energy path whenever possible.
>White applicants get about 50 percent more call-backs than black applicants with the same resumes; college professors are 26 percent more likely to respond to a student’s email when it is signed by Brad rather than Lamar; and physicians recommend less pain medication for black patients than white patients with the same injury.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-think-abou...