There is no factual disagreement of the observed effect, you are correct. The particular (potentially subtle) line I was trying to draw is that there is not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between biases known to psychology and biases known to neuroscience.
When an observation of a bias is made in the field of psychology, it is up in the air whether it is a bias in higher cognition or whether it is a bias that is due to a direct physiological effect. Psychology, as a whole, is a field that does not talk about neuroscience, or physiological reasons for behavior; it is a more top-down perspective. (Yes, there are subfields of psychology that try to engage with neuroscience, but they are not the norm.)
What you call "more technical detail" exactly addresses that distinction; the recognition of faces of people of another race which one has not been much exposed to can be directly correlated with a specific neurophysiological observation, not an observation of higher cognition which has no neurophysiological explanation.
It is a very important distinction, even if it seems subtle from the outside.
When an observation of a bias is made in the field of psychology, it is up in the air whether it is a bias in higher cognition or whether it is a bias that is due to a direct physiological effect. Psychology, as a whole, is a field that does not talk about neuroscience, or physiological reasons for behavior; it is a more top-down perspective. (Yes, there are subfields of psychology that try to engage with neuroscience, but they are not the norm.)
What you call "more technical detail" exactly addresses that distinction; the recognition of faces of people of another race which one has not been much exposed to can be directly correlated with a specific neurophysiological observation, not an observation of higher cognition which has no neurophysiological explanation.
It is a very important distinction, even if it seems subtle from the outside.