Actually, Stim, my understanding is that people who take the exercises repeatedly do not tend to demonstrate significant shifts in "results" over time. That is one point made in the 2nd video.
I am also realizing that most people are interested enough to first check out the first video to which I linked, which greatly enhances understanding of both what is being measured, and the effect of implicit assumptions on what we "see."
I didn't give the title in the first post because Implicit.com encompasses many topics other than racism, but perhaps that was a mistake.
From approximately 2:30 through 5:30 on the tape, she demonstrates , and the audience participates how our minds can keep us from seeing what is, or keep us from seeing similarities. I recommend watching the video, but will go into some descriptive detail because I choose to believe that some people might actually decide to inform themselves before jumping to conclusions about this study. Doesn't mean some won't still think it is horse shit. (Not singling you out, Jack, you simply stated the majority reaction more frankly than the mostly more polite and less aggressive people who have posted did.) I also don't suggest that those who choose to educate themselves a bit before deciding this research is horse shit, must surely do a 180. Some or all who thought it horse shit to begin with may still hold that view. But at least it will be a somewhat more informed view.
In the first instance there are two drawings of tables. The surface areas of the tables are identical but are drawn from different perspectives. The difference in perspectives results in one not being able to see the tables are the same. No matter how long or how many times one looks. Even once it is clearly and visually demonstrated the surfaces are the same in shape and size so that one knows it intellectually, one can not see it. (I dunno, there are some unusual minds around this joint, maybe some one on Mudcat will be the first.)
In the 2nd demonstration, in which the audience participates, she first puts up a transparency of colomns of clustered letters that don't spell words. The clusters are different colors. She tells the audience to ignore the letters and simply call out the color the in which the letter clusters are printed. The audience aces it.
Then she puts up another transparency. The clusters of letters spell color words. If I recall correctly, red, green, blue and brown. The instructions are to ignore what the letters spell and simply call out the color of the print. The first several sets are the same color as the word, then the words are in different colors from what the word spells. Very, very quickly, the audience fumbles and instead of calling out the color of the print, is calling out the color the word spells.
Our minds are always playing tricks on us. I happen to think there is some value in me understanding that about my own particular mind and also in understanding that about other people, and the effects within society.
Upthread Bert said he has a prejudice against stupidity and bigotry.