Implicit Bias—or Complete Bullshit?
The Washington Post Magazine has an interesting article (finally!) about "implicit bias"--the notion that, as the sub-headline puts it, "Many Americans believe they are not prejudiced. Now a new test provides powerful evidence that a majority of us really are. Assuming we accept the results, what can we do about it?"
Whole story here.
Let's leave aside that final question for the moment and focus on the first part. The article talks up a Harvard-based site called Project Implicit which has three automated "implicit association tests" to search for bias when it comes to career, race, and weight.
Check out the tests here.
Full disclosure: I took the career one and was told that I hold a "moderate" correlation between maleness and career. Not sure what that means exactly but it's an interesting exercise nonetheless--like a free Scientology audit, you've got nothing to lose but your sense of self.
(One wonders what Larry Summers might score, needless to say. Somehow I expect the Gert Frobe-like university president to more highly correlate extra chins with career than he might women and career.)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
moderate correlation Male and Career
no correlation Fat and Good
The correct answer is, "Complete Bullshit".
Read this: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_01_21.shtml#1106492912
I e-mailed the article to a psychology professor, who finds the study as interesting and useful, but with the following reservation:
"I've taken this myself and was somewhat surprised by the results, though I have a methodological concern. If one does the white-good black-bad test first, one may then have trouble 'unlearning' the first rule the second time around."
"Your data suggest little or no automatic preference for White relative to Black."
Haha! Shows you how worthless that test is. I can't stand darkies.
"Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for Black relative to White."
This from a euro-american guy from southwestern Indiana, who grew up in a town with no african-americans at all. I guess I like variety. Or maybe I was raised right. Or maybe the "Implicit Bias" has little relation to upbringing.
Or maybe, just maybe, that is the benefit of an education in psychology: You know how to answer profile tests to get the results you want.
complete bullshit. The divergence in answers comes completely from location, once you get used to them being in one position when they switch you get mixed up -- what they call "prejudice" is memory lapse, nothing more.
Ok, maybe these test *are* bullshit, but these statistical/memory lapse theories people are suggesting are clearly wrong. If you read into it just a tiny little bit, the tests are carefully designed to balance just those sort of statistical biases. Before you make off-hand criticisms, read the FAQs.
Anyway, I took the three tests, and showed one level of bias or another for whites over blacks, thinness over fattness, and for assiciating men with carreers (vs. women with family). So I guess I'm just an awful awful person. I just can't wait for the ugly/pretty test to come along! I wonder if they have a political affiliation test...
Anyway, I'm having trouble figuring out what might be inherently flawed with these tests... seem to be a fair indicator of bias to me.
After taking the test, I have to say that the methodology reminds me somewhat of John Cleese's in "The Holy Grail":
VILLAGER #1: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE: And therefore?
VILLAGER #2: A witch!
Perhaps the results were determined by my improving ability to play the game. Nah, this is SCIENCE we're talking about here.
It seems fairly clear to me that any individual might exhibit some sort of idiosyncratic bias when forced to make choices quickly. The nature and extent of these biases will vary subject to both nature and nurture. Certainly there will be a training effect during the test itself that might be corrected by clever design. Just as certainly there will also be bias - understood in this case as a greater liklihood of a choice for "A + B" than a choice for "B + C".
But this raises two questions:
1. Should the liklihood of each choice be equal? (i.e. is nature indifferent to the outcome?)
and
2. Are snap judgments an appropriate way to assess an individual's character?
Clearly, the answer to the first question depends on who's asking it and when. The answer to the second question is a more guarded "no". I am inclined to believe that the results of this sort of survey are of interest to the sort who put a lot of stock in factor analysis.
I do not deny the utility of such analyses in fundamental research that tries to tease meaning from the complexity of nature as we find it lying on the ground before us. However, when such tenuously defined notions are taken out of that context into the larger world of behavior and consequence, its applicability is unclear.
BTW, thinking about the issues presented in these surveys and attempting to do the survey based on such a rational analysis, invalidates the result (it becomes "inconclusive") because speed is of the essence.
Does it make sense that a concept so weakly defined should have some wider utility (for example finding gender bias in college hiring prectises)?
Maybe, but until it's clearly demonstrated, my view is that it lies more on the complete bullshit side of the ledger.
Cornel: "Do you expect me to cave, white boy?"
Summers: No, Mr. West, I expect you to DIEEE!!!
Are snap judgments an appropriate way to assess an individual's character?
What counts as a snap judgment? I
It's amusing how people try to shoot holes in the methodoly. Some people suggest that "of course we'll perform better on the second run, practice makes perfect!" while others say "we'll clearly perform *worse* on the second run, because it's tough to unlearn which key we should hit". Now, if you read the FAQs, you'll see that the designers of the test have cleverly dealt with this issue, and even suggest retaking the test until the order of the challenges is reversed (yes, the order is assigned randomly). And they even have a small correction factor to try to correct for this, though they say the correction is small.
Are snap judgments an appropriate way to assess an individual's character?
What counts as a snap judgment? I don't have the time, after all, to spend deeply analyzing the character of everyone I encounter.
There's nothing more that my brothers an' I loved to do but go down the the creek, fish, drink some hooch and shoot holes in the methodoly.
The whole exercise is kinda dumb if you ask me. Your brain organizes information by grouping at some boundary conditions, otherwise you wouldn't be able to think. The question is not whether you group people, or - egad, Pre Judge them, it is the degree to which you recognize the boundaries as arbitrary.
Tests of mental grouping through loose association are not tests of behaviors.
Are snap judgments an appropriate way to assess an individual's character?
Read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell
"Let's leave aside that final question for the moment and focus on the first part."
Well that's the more interesting part... As for the results of the tests: who cares, anyway? Is anything solved by proving that "everyone is prejudiced"? The fact that the vast majority of people are able to deal just fine with black/fat/ugly people proves (to me) that this sort of exercise is a waste. I can easily imagine some "well-meaning" bureaucracy using these results as justification to meddle around in our lives a bit more. No thanks.
Tests? Tests? I don need no steenkin' tests!
I am biased, dammit, and that's all there is to it.
P.S. And so are you.
I'm not prejudiced, I hate everyone equally.
When I was 15 I made a sweatshirt that said, "I HATE BIGOTS!" You wouldn't believe the negative reactions I got from that.
What counts as snap judgements?
Well, when I see a late model sedan pulled over on the side of freeway near the Gestapo (Border Patrol) Checkpoint and then I notice that the occupants being rousted are all Ricardo Montalban stand-ins complete with suits and ties I think:
Harrassment
When I notice a lowered '63 Chevy with way too much pounding bass and four guys inside scrunched way down in the seats (their watchcaps ditty bopping like bobble head dolls to the pulsing beat of the music) pulled over by RPD in Casa Blanca I think:
Got Dam Bangers
Thus proving that everyone makes snap judgements based on appearances and personal experience.
Everyone instantly condemns snap judgements. 🙂
"When I was 15 I made a sweatshirt that said, "I HATE BIGOTS!" You wouldn't believe the negative reactions I got from that."
From whom? And how? Do you live in the South? 😉
This test gave me a headache. It reminded me of those stupid, pedantic memory games when I was a kid. As usual, I did lousy, so I guess that makes me a racist.
On the other hand, a friend sent me a test where you sorted out fake breasts from real ones. It met the highest scientific standards and was very informative.
Apparently I like fat blacks.
The main thing that disturbs me about this is that there is no attempt to establish a control. Where is the banana-orange/good-bad test? Pretending I manage not to subconsciously alter my behavior so that I can take a similar test more than once, what does it mean if I have the same correlation between "oranges" and "bad" that I do with "white" and "bad"? Does that mean that deep down inside I hate oranges and white people?
Assuming that the test stands up to control testing, what if I was raised to have a moderate sense of "us vs. them", but I managed to jettison that "ethical model" fairly early in life? Now if the decision patterns of this test encourage binary evaluations that I never employ in ethical decisions, even snap ethical decisions, how does this show that I am a closet bigot?
It seems to rely on the assumption that everyone must use the same skills to prejudge people qualitatively as they do to categorize people for identification? "What did she look like?" "Well, she was this bad...uh, I mean big-boned gal from southern Alberta."
Another stupid thing about this test is that I find the divisions overly simplistic. For example, is pain "bad" when it wakes one up to life's difficulties.. toughens one up? And is laughter "good" when it is done at a child's humiliation?