How would you like to measure your implicit biases...?

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Wait, did you actually take the test, or did you just take the questionnaire that comes before the test?

Its purpose is to measure your explicit biases; it's the place where you say what you truly think you believe. It's not trying to trap you by getting you to rank Native/White Americans higher or lower than the other; if you truly believe that both are equally 'american', just say so. That's probably what they expect.

THEN, you take the real test. ^^

[Azifri]

A test on the internet... sounds suuuper serious.

[elyss]

Oh really? Okay, I pulled out because of that. Still, I didn't like that I was 'wrong' because I saw certain things certain ways.

[Noorie]

Lol

[vothnthorvaldson]

Oh, I actually did some analysis on such a test years ago.

Found out my weird results were coming from a pattern of clicking I was doing unconsciously. I think some of those tests are somewhat taking in account the laziness of respondants (as, the bias due to answering unconsciously by the response that is closest to the last stuff one clicked on), but there is no taking in account more complex rhythmic patterns.

I have extremely little trust in such tests in general (and even if they worked as they are supposed to, it's so times-dependant, culturally and ideologically marked that I consider them useless) but since then I'm even more suspicious.

[Kann]

I tried to take this test but It's way too confusing for my brain with attention span of a squirrel and I forgot what I was supposed to do right away...

Edit: Tried again and finished it this time, but it was frustrating to do it while remembering I had to answer fast. xD

[punkarsenic]

1) There is debate about the validity of the test itself...whether pressing a button to match a concept is actually measuring your beliefs or measuring something different...like, response time. Or memory for rules. Or attention span. =/

yeahhhh, i remember doing this a few years ago n getting confused between phases of positives and negatives and clicking the wrong things due to muscle memory. its almost like the creators had............ an implicit bias.............. against people with accessibility needs.........................

2) I don't think there's anything wrong with having implicit biases. I mean, sure, best case scenario is that we don't, but that just isn't feasible in today's world. America's civil rights movement was merely ONE generation ago; we're still new at this whole 'thinking of other human beings as equals' thing. So, so new...

yeah, we shouldnt feel guilty abt having biases, certainly. guilt isnt a useful reaction and weve all had these biases trained into us. but its kinda helpful to recognise that you have them, so you can reevaluate any decisions being affected by bias? like, if you work in recruitment you defo need to keep your implicit bias in check.

[dawgofdawgness]

I remember doing this test in freshman year and it found that I had a preference for straight people over gay people. Just thought that was really funny because I am literally gay and I have lived with gay people my whole life LOL

I do think that there are outside factors affecting your score when you take the test... I mean there are too many to count for the test to actually have any significance honestly.
The second round was harder because the positions switched places, doy. I can see what the test is going for but I still think it’s not very “accurate” if you will. Is it eye-opening? Sure, but I would still take the results with a grain of salt.

But also, this is a Harvard study and I’m just some teenage girl so .. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ just my thoughts

[indagold]

Tried the lgbt one and it says I have no biases what so ever and the mental illness one says I have a tiny bias mentally ill people can be dangerous? Is that really a bias? I struggled with severe mental illnesses and if it didn't get treated years ago there'd be a chance i'd be a danger to myself or others. Doesn't really offer nuance there lol

[DokiDokiTsuna]

I have a tiny bias mentally ill people can be dangerous? Is that really a bias?

I think it is. The vast majority of the mentally ill are not any more dangerous than 'sane' people are, despite how they're usually portrayed in fiction.

[indagold]

Its not. Im fully acknowleding some mental disorders can cause someone to act irrationally or dangerous. I used to pretend this wasn’t the case and all mental illness is the same after being diagnosed and going through a “dangerous mentally ill people only exist in movies” phase until I realized after further research that it can happen to some people not to mention I have a disorder that causes that if left untreated. My doctor even acknowledged it and it is scary but true. it's kinda in the same vein as I do believe someone with a mental illness can be abusive.
If that makes me secretly a bigot than so be it haha

[vothnthorvaldson]

I'm a bit in the same situation than @indagold personally, and there is also mental illness in both my family and my in-laws.

I think what is overestimated in the general population, and may constitute a prejudice, are the random, crazy acts of violence by mentally ill persons.

But the fact that people who are mentally instable are more prone to some kind of violent behavior, in particular with close ones, I do think is true (and pretty logical!). I do think it's unfair to family and friends of mentally ill people to deny and hide that fact, as well as a little bit patronizing to mentally ill persons.

[Cavechan]

Apparently: "Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for Gay people over Straight people."

K.

And: "Your data suggest a slight automatic association for Male with Career and Female with Family."

Also, k.

I just feel like this test isn't really indicative of much. I felt most of the hesitation I had was from figuring out which side the word was supposed to go on more than it being easier to associate family words with female.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

If that makes me secretly a bigot than so be it haha

Look, no one's calling you a bigot, but if your first thought when hearing that someone has a mental illness is 'watch out', that's a bias. It's not right or wrong, it just is. =/

I also acknowledge that the presence of mental illness can correlate with violence, in the cases of people who are borderline, psycopathic, suffering from PTSD, etc. But there are plenty of mental illnesses like depression and anxiety that rarely hurt anyone but the sufferer, and they're actually far more common.

That's why the stigma of 'mentally ill = dangerous' causes a lot of problems: people who wouldn't hurt a fly (AND people who might hurt someone in the future) often choose not to seek help because they don't want the label.

[indagold]

I don't think mentally ill people are all dangerous, I literally said I acknowledge that some mental illnesses can make people act irrationally or dangerous. I don't want to pretend that doesn't exist in order to be "open minded" just like those people who deny abuse at the hands of someone mentally ill because they think they're being accepting of people with disabilities. The test doesn't offer that nuance just "are mentally ill people dangerous agree or disagree"

[LordVincent]

The problem here in both directions is generalization. The problem many non-dangerous mentally ill people face in current society is that people live under the impression that any mental illness implies a higher likeliness that the individual is dangerous. This test does the same generalization, except it implies that we should assume no mentally ill person runs the risk of being more dangerous than someone who is not mentally ill.

I would argue that fighting one generalized conclusion with another is neither going to get rid of the first generalized view, nor be helpful in the big picture.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

I would argue that fighting one generalized conclusion with another is neither going to get rid of the first generalized view, nor be helpful in the big picture.

I agree with this, but I'd like to point out that the two generalizations are not necessarily equal. If you just compare the diagnosis rates of certain mental illnesses- psychopathy vs. depression, for instance (~1% vs. ~40% of the population in the U.S.) you will find that those that are the least dangerous are usually the most common. So if you're going to pick a generalization to make when you don't know all the facts yet, one of them is clearly more accurate, statistically speaking.

Of course, you should probably wait until you know all the facts (or as many as you can get, considering your relationship with the person in question) before you judge. I'm just saying.

[OttoGruenwald]

Always look twice at a test created and administered by people with a vested interest in a specific result. You get grant money if you can study something like implicit bias if you can "prove" it exists. You don't get money to study something that doesn't exist.

[Azifri]

As someone who has written grants I agree with you.

[LordVincent]

You get grant money if you can study something like implicit bias if you can "prove" it exists. You don't get money to study something that doesn't exist.

This is a problem with science in general these days. It's supposed to be a matter of "explore this area, make an assumption and test it neutrally" but has instead become a matter of deciding the result you want and later proving that result. Especially if the scientist in question is paid by a contractor with a biased interest.

In the scenarios where this is not the case, the most active "science community" appears to be the dietary/scare tactic one that sells quickly produced conclusions that have yet to be tested in other lab teams (and rarely are; You don't get paid well to be the second guy to discover a thing, nor the guy that double checks some other dude's claim) to papers and blogs that use them to rake in sales and clicks.

I was about to say the only science field I trust entirely is the medical one but... there are cheap sharks looking to make a quick buck not caring who gets hurt there, too...