 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Unconscious prejudices of any ilk From: Janie Date: 16 Apr 12 - 11:05 PM Most of our biases (and we all have them,) are unconscious. Some interesting research, as well as an opportunity to both participate in research and discover a little something about your own unconscious biases can be found at Project Implicit Some background and additional information, or perhaps, context can be found here and here. The second link in the above paragraph is likely to be experienced as less emotionally ladened than the first, and perhaps lead people to be less likely to be averse to exploring what their own unconscious biases might be, and makes most explicit that we do not have to be victims of our unconscious biases when it comes to how we make choices in the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices of any ilk From: Janie Date: 16 Apr 12 - 11:22 PM Perhaps not the best thread title. If an elf has a better title, or if some one else who thinks it worth the time has a better title to suggest to an elf and calls upon them to change it, please do - no consultation or permission from me required. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices of any ilk From: Bert Date: 16 Apr 12 - 11:24 PM Unfortunately, I have a very serious prejudice against stupidity and bigotry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices of any ilk From: GUEST,Hookey Wole Date: 16 Apr 12 - 11:28 PM Interesting... I am a lifelong ruthlessly self analytical & critically aware individual, and honestly believe all my well considered biases are most definitely concious. I would go as far as saying my personal ideology is defined by what I don't like about other people, much more than by what little I can positively find to like. But after 30 odd years of disappointment and disillusionment I still harbour a naive idealistic optimism to search for the best in other people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices of any ilk From: Janie Date: 16 Apr 12 - 11:50 PM Interesting reactions so far. Hope there will also be some introspective responses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Jeri Date: 16 Apr 12 - 11:51 PM I'm noticing a prejudice toward reading the thread. ;-) I did it, and it came out completely backwards, possibly having to do with the fact I'm moderately ambidextrous and frequently can't tell my right from my left. Probably why I suck at video games. Supposedly, I prefer white dresses (I don't agree) and black faces (wouldn't have thought so, but OK). But it also told me it was inconclusive because I made a big pile of mistakes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Jeri Date: 16 Apr 12 - 11:54 PM Oops-- my bad. It said IF your score was inconclusive, which it wasn't. Thing is, I had a whacky test result when I had the visual evoked potential thingie with electrodes glued onto my head, so who knows... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Janie Date: 17 Apr 12 - 12:22 AM I've been participating in both the research and the demonstrations for several weeks, and have often been surprised re the personal feedback. When I haven't liked the feedback I have wanted to diss the research and/or methodology. Fact is, in terms of social science research, they have nailed this down about as well as technology and scientific method allows so far, and accounted for handedness, etc. Response time, within limits, is not compared to the response time of other people participating, but is compared to one's own variances in response time as the response matrix becomes more complex. At least as best I can figure. I'm not a researcher but am fairly in touch with social science and psychological research and methodology, and this seems to be a pretty daggum sound project in terms of methodology from what I have read and researched. Took me a little while to understand, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Apr 12 - 01:03 AM I think it is horse shit. It started to try to train me into associating an individual with negative words and I quit it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Janie Date: 17 Apr 12 - 01:27 AM That was also my intitial concern, Jack. Read about the methodology, however, and I think you will realize that is not the case. Social science research will probably never be able to offer the vigor of hard science research. But this project and it's findings are definitely worth much more than the considerable value (to this gardener) of horse shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Ebbie Date: 17 Apr 12 - 01:49 AM Your (my) results are reported below: Your data suggest a moderate implicit preference for Barack Obama compared to Herman Cain. Your data suggest a slight implicit preference for Black People compared to White People. Interesting.But "moderate preference for Barack Obama over Herman Cain"? lol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 17 Apr 12 - 07:02 AM It made me giggle I'm afraid. I was asked to evaluate Money and Furniture!!. Questions such as "I like the smell of money" Chance would be a fine thing, I don't get near enough to my money to sniff it before it's spent. It decided at the end that I'm moderately biased in favour of furniture. (Mmm, a secret penchant for sofas eh?) Also, it decided that MY choices were wrong. If I pressed 'Good' for example, a large red cross appeared, as the survey judged it Wrong. It wanted me to press Bad. I'm worried now, I must be prejudiced in favour of tables and chairs, and there was me thinking I had no bias! Seriously though, it asked me to click on my income amount, but their choices were in dollars. I didn't have time to convert it all to pounds sterling. There ARE other currencies in the world other than the dollar!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Jeri Date: 17 Apr 12 - 09:47 AM Like Jack said... I did the dresses/people/words thing. I really resented the combo of black faces and bad words together. White faces and bad words didn't bother me. I suspect my reaction has to do with history and who's been dumped on most. Let's talk about dresses. I haven't owned a white dress since at least when I was a little kid, and probably not then because my parents were realists. White dresses get dirty. A white dress on me now would make me look bigger than a black dress. Now, I'm beginning to realize that I may have a repressed desire to be able to wear a white dress and look good, or not spill coffee or red wine on myself, or ruin it by jumping in a mud puddle or climbing a tree. Who knows? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Jeri Date: 17 Apr 12 - 10:07 AM I, apparently, do not like Bob. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 17 Apr 12 - 10:09 AM About 1980 I caught myself being prejudiced. Early in the summer, I was geologist on a drilling job with a real Bully. He had an east-coast accent and a pile of curly, black hair. What a pest! He screamed at his young helper and sulked at me. Later I went on a wonderful vacation held at what was usually a kid's camp. I very suspicious of its seeming-genial director. After a while I realized the problem was that the nice director had many characteristics of the nasty driller - white, tall, tanned, east-coast accent, and a pile of curly dark hair. Every time I saw him, the primitive, fear-bearing part of my nervous system cried, "Beware! Enemy!" Fortunately, as soon as I recognized the similarity, the fear went away. I think it's important to realize that prejudices can be subtle, personal, and complicated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,Hookey Wole Date: 17 Apr 12 - 11:40 AM I'd like to add I'm currently working up a definite prejudice against users of the word 'methinks'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,Stim Date: 17 Apr 12 - 12:27 PM I took the disability test, and the results made me laugh. As I was a bit confused by process, I tended to linger a bit on the familiar images , such as the icon from my trusty handicapped placard, only to discover that in the scoring, slow response corresponded to aversion! Intuition tells us that we tend to quickly move away from the things we are averse to, and linger on the things we are comfortable with. But the designers of these tests know better! As a PWD(Person with disability) with several family members also with disabilities, I can tell you that there much easier ways to discern unconscious prejudices--they appear regularly and repeatedly in the mannerisms and social behavior of real people in real life when a PWD walks into the room. It's pretty well documented that tests designed measure cognitive processes tend to reflect designer and tester bias. I wonder if that might be the case here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Apr 12 - 12:43 PM I have done three of these now and all start out by reinforcing the bias they are "testing for" the process is tedious and I get tired and slow down towards the end. then it says I was biased because I was slower during that phase. Did I tell you that I thought this was horse shit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: MGM·Lion Date: 17 Apr 12 - 12:43 PM "I'm currently working up a definite prejudice against users of the word 'methinks'... " .,,. Forsooth? Gadzooks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 17 Apr 12 - 01:06 PM I know what you mean, MtheGM. I decided to try Janie's second link (see first post.) Even Harvard can do better than that. First, we have a manipulative video of a man stuttering and stumbling to express I-don't-know-what. It seems to me that even if he stutters, he could have the consideration to organize his thoughts a bit and have something ready to say. I began to wonder if this was a trick site that was gonna test my aversion to speech problems. Suddenly we shift to an academic conference with a blurry image and a speaker so ill-trained and uninterested that it could have been a parody of a conference, on The Onion, perhaps. I clicked off after a few words. If these people have something to say, that have got to start saying it better than that. Jack and Stim, I agree with your remarks about the testing process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Apr 12 - 01:09 PM Janie.....I love ya'......really......I took a couple and the results were okay by me but the thing they have not asked about is my preference for these tests and I gotta' tell ya'...........I FRIGGIN' HATE THE DAMN THINGS!!!!! The only psych/behavioral test I ever liked was back at Berea I spent a few hours doing iron mazes traced on paper while blindfolded. Now that was fun! When you're doing them you see this very complex pathway through in your mind but without the blindfold it is really a simple maze. Anyway, at least I also got a "productive" date with the girl who was doing them! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 Apr 12 - 01:27 PM ...or laundering the guilt for the prejudices..but in the reverse...as in voting, or not voting, for a candidate because of the color of his skin...besides, were we told 'little white lies' to lead us into a ' black black hole'? Nothing racial about it.....the biggest black lies, hiding 'black box programs' really got ridiculous and started coming in, ....hmmm...about the time of the Warren Report!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...and just hasn't stopped since!!!!! No doubt about it! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: gnu Date: 17 Apr 12 - 01:30 PM Spaw... I have no concept of "...doing iron mazes traced on paper while blindfolded." Is there a name for same? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: greg stephens Date: 17 Apr 12 - 01:39 PM I found the instructions too difficult to understand so I gave up without starting. What does that prove about me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Apr 12 - 01:44 PM Certain members of this forum are instilling in me a disdain for rude punctuation and/or the lack thereof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,999 Date: 17 Apr 12 - 01:51 PM I'm in that boat with you, Greg. Proves we can't or won't follow instructions. It also proves we ain't gonna do the test. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Apr 12 - 02:01 PM My dear gnu, The maze is made of iron although it could be plastic or any substantial material. It measures about 9"x9" and is probably about 1/4" thick. The mazes are cut with a different pattern in each piece. You are seated at a table or desk, blindfolded, and given a pencil. The test monitor starts her clock and puts your pencil laden hand in the start gate of the maze. You try to find your way through. The proctor notes the errors and the time to finish. There ya' go.......If that don't do it for you go fuck yourself....... with your pencil. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: gnu Date: 17 Apr 12 - 03:34 PM Spaw... should I use the lead end of the pencil? Seems less daunting that the eraser end. Lube is a given, right? Of course, your explanation was clear but I am just now a senior and perhaps anal stimulation should be on my fuckit list? As you are an expert in all things ass, I would appeciate your input. (Yer welcome.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Apr 12 - 03:44 PM Gnu, Congratulations! You have just completed the "do what the Internet tells you to even to your own discomfort maze." I can see why you would have to ask the question though. I have it on good authority that Spaw buys his pencils pre-lubricated. Of course in his childbearing years he just put condoms on them. I don't want to go into what that implies about the girl who dated him. But it does speak to the attractiveness of a well-lubricated pencil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Apr 12 - 04:57 PM It might prove you're not American, greg. I had the same problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Apr 12 - 04:57 PM Enter my email address? No Register? No. Count me among those who refuse such 'tests'. Perhaps if I was 70 years younger. Unconcious prejudices? Undoubtedly. Concious ones? Many. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,Stim Date: 17 Apr 12 - 05:28 PM On reflection, it seems like a juvenile sort of joke--tricking people into checking ideas like "Black/Bad" or "White/Good" by pretending to be giving a scientific test. If it's not a joke, it's pretty funny that serious researchers at a serious institution are posting racially and socially offensive ideas on the internet as part of "serious" scientific research. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Bill D Date: 17 Apr 12 - 07:50 PM A strange eccentric offshoot of the MMPI and Meyers-Briggs? (do they still do the MMPI?) My Meyers-Briggs test showed that I am among the group that doesn't trust such tests. I KNOW I have basic tendencies toward prejudices of sorts... to certain languages, to heavy accents that I can't understand well, to certain types of food, to people who dress in certain ways or use perfume or excessive makeup, to those who drive certain types of vehicles.... etc.... SO... I admit to myself that I DO look judgmentally at some things..(even tests)... and try everyday to rise above it all and evaluate |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Bill D Date: 17 Apr 12 - 07:58 PM old joke re: mindsets Psychologist after inkblots test- "You seem to see sexual topics in all the items." Patient- "Well, doc... you're the one with all the dirty pictures." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Apr 12 - 08:14 PM Bill......re: the MMPI. They still use it at least a few years ago when son Michael was having problems. I don't know how accurate it was but some of the results made sense and at least gave us a path which eventually was successful. So on that basis, yeah, it works. I had a good friend back in the 80's who had been a psychologist and wrote a fair amount of the Xerox Professional Selling Skills course that wass a baseline standard for sales training. He was a believer in the Luscher Color Test and after an evening discussing it and trying it, I too was blown away by the accuracy. All the time we were working together we would drag it out occasionally and use it with groups. It made the trainig take on a different significance where by using the data we were better targeting the individual's needs for training. One year after I had started training the new hires and retraining our lower selling reps, sales were up and our turnover of new reps was almost nothing. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,999 Date: 17 Apr 12 - 11:16 PM IMO, the Luscher Color Test is the best of the lot that uses interpretations of color to determine things about people. Most psy tests try to fix moments of/in time; Luscher's test went beyond that and made our responses to color the important thing in the test results. He was brilliant in that regard. People who recognize the test's brilliance are usually wankers with too much thyme on the spaghetti sauce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Crowhugger Date: 18 Apr 12 - 12:05 AM I did the light-skin vs dark skin test. I know exactly what people above meant about feeling forced to associate according to stereotypes. But that was in my head, not in the test. The test merely asked me to associate light with light, dark with dark, good with good, bad with bad, sometimes grouping to the left, sometimes to the right. For the "light-dark" match part of the test (white-brown actually), I found that registering to the fact that the images were faces slowed me down. So I started paying attention only to the colour. The hard part for me was switching back and forth between a colour reflex and reading, it felt like a gear box in my head was grinding--had to do that part twice because I was too slow, though I made a lot of mistakes when I sped up. Because of an experience I had some years ago I expected to show an association of light skin with good. In an elevator one day I wanted to know what time it was. The nearest person to me was wearing a watch. He was black. I looked further afield for another wristwatch and asked someone white (I think, or it's possible I asked the black guy when I realized what I was doing...memory for that detail is fading). Anyhow, I was utterly aghast with myself when I realized what I was doing. That was the day I truly understood the power of society to create self-loathing. So I was pretty surprised that they interpreted my results as showing little to no tendency to favour light skin. Maybe because really I prefer hanging out with dogs. Thanks for an interesting excursion, Janie! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Janie Date: 18 Apr 12 - 12:19 AM Really finding your responses interesting and informative. If I had a way to do so, would call attention to your reactions to the researchers, but doubt it would be "news" to them. As most of you know, I am a social worker. My undergraduate training was obtained back in the dark ages when social work was a specialty within sociology, and I have been involved, on a minor scale, with social science research off and on beginning when I went back to graduate school 20 years ago. I may have a bit of a different understanding and a bit more respect for the value of social science research, and also perhaps a bit more understanding of what is being measured, the limitations of the research design, and also some ability to assess the validity of social science research and research design. Call the study and the methodology horse shit if you will, or endorse Jack's judgement and labeling of it as such, as some others of you have done. Decide it is nothing but mumbojumbo. That is a perfectly valid thing to do if that is your inclination. What wants or needs to remain unconscious for an individual will remain unconscious, unacknowledged and/or rejected by an individual as long as that individual "needs" to keep the psychological defenses in place that allow the denial of that material. That being said, this study offers feedback to those who are interested or able to contemplate how one's unconscious may influence one's perceptions of both one's self and the world, but that is not the function or utility of these "tests." What is being studied - what is useful and what is being measured in this study is aggregate data about unconscious social influences and unconscious social learning within a society. The "tests" are perhaps better understood as "exercises." For that matter, most psychological tests are best understood as exercises that can yield useful information. In addition, the "tests" in this longitudinal and multifacited sociological/social psychological study are not equivalent at all to the individual "testing" commonly associated with individual psychological evaluation and testing such as IQ tests, the MMPI, the Myers-Briggs,etc. Mental health professionals in general, and the psychologists who administer and interpret assorted batteries of tests when completing psychological and psychoeducational evaluations on specific individuals are well aware that psychological testing does not "pidgeon hole" an individual or define who that that person is. These well studied and validated tests do provide valuable information, but their limitations are well known and those limitations are always commented upon in the written individual report. But that is a bit of a digression, because the exercises utilized in this study fall into a different category and thinking of them, as Spaw or Bill have expressed for example, in terms of the batteries of tests used for individual psychological assessments, is comparing apples and oranges. This study is not about measuring the individual's interest, willingness or capacity to allow the unconscious to become conscious, although it offers the individual some feedback to ponder and make of it what one will. It is about researching the collective effects of unconscious attitudes (the collective effect of social learning in a society, so to speak.) Leenia provided an excellent example for what these tests do not measure and do not assert they measure. Conscious bias. Any social scientist or responsible professional who relies on social research will readily acknowledge the limitations inherent in social science research. In my view, that doesn't mean such research is not useful and valuable, whether or not I am prepared to simply be open to the possibility that I may not live my life entirely consciously. The demonstration in the first part of the first video lecture is non-threatening and illustrates very well how the unconsious operates to "fool" us. Or you could dismiss that demonstration as horse shit. It also illustrates the how and why of the exercises and demonstrates, generally speaking, what the exercises measure. Or you can dismiss that as horse shit. Or, you could simply think, "I don't get it." Or, "I don't get it and I have other things more interesting to me to do rather than make sense of this." Or, you could say "I don't get it, so it must be horse shit." Or you could say, "I get it but I don't agree so it must be horse shit." Or you can say that social science research is horse shit and has no value. Or you can say that social science research, or any research for that matter that does not support what I have already decided to believe is horse shit. Or you could say, I know institutional racism and unconscious prejudices exist, and they are all on the part of other people, not me. Or you could say, I know instituional racism exists simply because I know it and this is what happened to my best friend Samuel and I don't need no stinkin' research studies to document and understand it better. No wonder my taxes are so high, paying for crap like that. Fact is, this is one of the better and more valid studies to provide research evidence and explanation for institutional and unconscious prejudices in our society. Social science research and documentation has proven instrumental in changing laws, policies and successfully supporting legal arguments challenging social injustices and prejudices on small and large scales within our society. But to many of you, it will still just be horse shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: katlaughing Date: 18 Apr 12 - 04:00 AM Seems like some are extremely familiar with horse shit...lot of mucking out stables, eh? I only did one of the sample ones, Janie, which said I associated women more with home and men with careers. I messed up and didn't pay attention to the instructions on some, but as a card-carrying feminist who has had several careers and supported women's rights forever, I was a bit surprised. It did seem a bit skewed to me, but I don't pretend to understand all of the whys and wherefores of such things. Thanks for your explanation and for posting the links. I may take a look at it, further. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Apr 12 - 02:32 PM I do not think that social science is horse shit and has no value. I did the test three times and three times is started of when I was freshest, pair "Good" words with the thing I was supposed to biased in favor of. When I go to matching "Good" with other things, Asians and gays for example I was tired and slowed down. Even so, I scored as slightly biased in both cases. What I think is horse shit is pairing "good" of "bad" words with stereotypes that are know to engender bias in the first place. That just reinforces the stereotypes in those who believe in them and irritates those who do not. Its just smoke and mirrors pretending to be scientific. God bless the ingenuity of the person who wrote the grant for this silly, silly project. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,mg Date: 18 Apr 12 - 02:33 PM I haven't taken it but I know I do have prejudices..or perhaps just a sensory reaction to people with speech impediments...probably related to people singing off key too..I am left handed so I might be more sensitive to this than others...mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 18 Apr 12 - 02:38 PM I know full well I have innate prejudices, of which I'm thoroughly ashamed. Even though my husband is a jet-black African, I was dismayed when the optician I was booked to see turned out to be an African lady (from Nigeria) I immediately thought, "Oh dear, she won't be any good." Isn't that terrible? She was perfectly professional and competent, and we had a nice chat. Mea maxima culpa! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,Stim Date: 18 Apr 12 - 02:48 PM Sorry folks are giving you such a hard time, Janie. It's a touchy subject, and people get defensive. Anyway, it seems to me that the test really measures processing time, and the test designers have concluded that when subjects take more processing time it reflects "unconscious prejudices". That is very debatable, even before you try to define what "unconscious" and "prejudice" are. The thing is, the subjects are taking a test, and test taking is a learned skill. What is actually measured is the speed with which the subjects make conscious choices, and that's all.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Apr 12 - 05:41 PM Yeah and how do they test that the test is valid? Without have a superior way to "measure unconscious bias?" It seems that some one at Harvard has decided that everyone needs to be reminded that they are biased and someone has made up a pointless game to remind them of that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 18 Apr 12 - 08:43 PM EXCELLENT test of what it tests. Using the Stroop effect was genius. I thought I didn't like Christians, but it turns out I really don't like Jews. I was surprised. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Janie Date: 18 Apr 12 - 09:40 PM 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'll give that link again, on the slim chance some few people are interested enough in understanding, and with it's full title. Unconscious Prejudice Part 1 of 2: I'm not Racist...I think? 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. I have a a prejudice against my own ignorance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Janie Date: 18 Apr 12 - 09:45 PM Big oops from a small typo. 2nd paragraph, second sentence above should read as follows "I am also realizing that most people aren't 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." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: GUEST,Stim Date: 19 Apr 12 - 01:31 AM I watched it, Janie, and it seems like her points are moral, and that she is using science to demonstrate those points. It makes for an impressive presentation, but using science this way could really backfire-- If her conclusions are valid(and I really don't see that they are), they come close to establishing that we are hardwired to be prejudiced-- and I don't think you want to go there.... . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Apr 12 - 11:58 AM I don't think there is any doubts that people have biases, partly through the process described by henryetta, partly though fear of the unfamiliar, partly through stereotypes reinforced by the media. I have recently started watching the NBA and am still a little surprised when I see white men excelling on the court. Obviously there always have been white NBA stars, but seeing them in the media is rare whereas Black players from Chamberlain to Jordan, to Kobe, Shaq and LeBron are household names. I think that it is important that we recognize out biases and the causes. I just don't think that this test gives proper feedback. My family is white, everyone I have nurtured, everyone who has nurtured me. Of course I am going to have a bias to faces similar to those. But I have more in common with the working class African-Americans who are my neighbors than I do with "NASCAR" and NRA supporting white people. Give me those same tests with the people wearing ball caps and spitting chaw. Would the results be different? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unconscious prejudices - Harvard study From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Apr 12 - 03:27 PM I only did one of the sample ones, Janie, which said I associated women more with home and men with careers. That wouldn't in itself indicate any kind of bias, just a recognition of the way things still happen to be. Recognising the existence of a bias in society isn't the same as endorsing it. |
