https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/index.jsp
I found this test on Slate, in an article by Jay Dixit. My result was 'slightly biased', which I'm not proud of, but I'm not surprised by it. I think we all are, a bit. It would take an unusual upbringing (hopefully it becomes a more common upbringing) to avoid it.
It's an interesting idea, because it's supposed to measure your unconcious associations, and it's almost impossible to fool the test. (The Slate article give a coupls of examples, applications and potential abuses.) An important point is that a person who has biases may not act on them (or speak them, or admit it to themselves), and if they don't, should we hold it against them?
It's good to know "What's your Stripper Song?" (I think mine was the Requiem Mass), but this test was cool too.
so this is pretty much just your blog now, right?
ReplyDeleteThe Malcolm Gladwell book we talked about the other day (Blink) refers to this test too. His solution to the issue of jury-bias is not to keep juries free from "biased people" (Because, umm, that wouldn't leave anyone in the jury box) but rather to keep the jury from ever seeing the defendant.
ReplyDeleteno, it's not k.b. the other folks don't post a lot but CN posts once a month or so. If she wants to post more, I would love that, but I don't want to pressure her, cuz she's busy enough as it is.
ReplyDeletefaux: I have to read that, or the Tipping Point, or both. I don't know if keeping the jury away from the defendant would be the best solution. I see the pluses. But people can still judge based on voice, name, a thousand other details. And it would prevent defendants from appealing to juries on a personal level, however one may feel about that. Would we even it out by keeping victims behind a screen too?
Yeah, you're right--there are about a dozen ways it just doesn't seem practical.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Gladwell's overriding premise is that as long as the *right* information is presented, and people are trained how to use the information, we can come to smart, correct answers. He calls this "thin slicing." (You can make correct snap judgements in the blink of an eye, so long as you don't get tripped up by the extraneous details.)
His example: Emergency room doctors are trained to ask a bazillion questions of heart patients, to figure out whether or not they're really at risk of a heart attack. But, they're not very good at really figuring it out. He suggests that as you find out more information, the doctors are actually worse at predicting. Gladwell then points to a hospitol in Chicago that only lets drs. ask four questions and look at an EKG. The results are better by far. From this, Gladwell suggests that in many situations, you need less information, not more, to make good decisions.
But: the big trick: What are the right things to focus on? Race is clearly the wrong thing, but in a trial context, how do you find the right four questions?
(Gladwell's trial discussion comes not from Blink, but from a talk he gave at Hamline. Haven't read Tipping Point...it might be in there.)
I saw a book at Barnes & Noble that was supposed to refute Blink, but why bother? it's a Big Idea book, and why not have more of those?
ReplyDeleteBut refuting is such fun, non?
ReplyDelete(I am negative and critical.)
And that's why we love you, kiddo! I can't not be contradictory some days. an old college friend used to call it 'instigating', and probably, 'bitchery'.
ReplyDeleteIt's an instinct and a gift...
ReplyDeletei did it, but each test came back with 'unable to determine' results. i did it really fast like they said. so weird, and kind of annoying since it ate up 10 min of my time...
ReplyDeletethey couldn't handle your truth, hb.
ReplyDeleteit didn't work for me the first time either, it froze up explorer or something.