Test your implicit racial bias...

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think this test means anything.

Your conduct with people mean something. How you treat your friends, employees, employers lovers, etc.

My wife is black, by the way. And so was my girlfriend before my wife.

Actually that is the more interesting discussion. People tend to date within a group. Mixed race couples whilst have become more common are still minority. But mixed race I mean obviously mixed race (obviously we are all mixed race).

I don't necessarily think it is "wrong" per se becuase everyone has preferences. I guess it also good to at least being open the idea of something different, than what you think is your type.

The Metropolitan Police have a team or elite "super-recognisers". These are people that are exceptionally good at recognising faces, especially in crowds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34544199

Of course they do lots of testing for entry, and also during their time. They all have gradation like an elite within an elite.

What they have found through research is that as a general rule people are better are regogising people within their ethic group.

Science is blind, so even if this might be a controversial result it makes sense becuase over time certain trait get imprinted and become part of our biology. That is not to say this is fixed it it isn't becuaserace is not fixed.

The thing is, unconscious negative associations will affect how you treat people to a lesser or greater extent, depending on how mindful you are.

Measuring this sort of thing is hard. There are very few overt racists these days, but there's still plenty of evidence for bias.

Qualified applicants with 'black names' still only get half the call backs as applicants with 'white names.'

That's a problem and it's usually caused by implicit bias.

Is implicit bias unethical, especially if it not conscious?

It help maybe to be aware of negative perceptions, but still no beat yourself up over it.

If someone encounters some black youths late at night, when they are on their own they may be a little cautious or scared. However the same to can be said if it was white youths within specific demographics an socioeconomic status.

It is also to do with how they are dressed, and the context.

This is what I mean when I say the bias is definitely there, but it is dynamic not fixed.

Telling people they are "wrong" to fear, might actually be counter productive compared to positive reinforcement. Political correctness can be counter productive to these aims, especially if people are told they are bad for perceptions.

Also I notice there is sociological phenomena, where people vibe off a stereotype, becuase that the only thing that is expected of them. It might be the only power they have experienced in their life. So I notice youths when they don't want to bee seen as weak, they talk in quite booming but sharp/cutting voice to their friends, but also to be overheard. If you are passing through this can be jarring. They block others path so people have to walk round them, it is not accidental it is a show of force.

Whereas a group of lads, that maybe have some power an influence, but just enjoying themselves talk in a more relaxed if even boisterous way, and that is generally less threatening.

The reality is the distance between the two states is not that great. I have little a bit of a death wish sometimes When I encounter the first type I often just walk through any space between them at my constant pace. The usually move out of the way, or else I'll say 'cuse. Not hyper-agreesive, but not in a threatened state. More semi-oblivious like I know where I'm going and I'm not bothered.

The reality is these people aren't as threatening as they project. Most of them aren't criminals at all. Some have the potential to be so, but so do all of us.

This is not about making people feel bad. Implicit bias causes real social problems.

If you are black and you have to deal with doctors, HR people, or police with implicit bias, the result is going to be discrimination.

Implicit bias is especially harmful because it is so insidious--because it is discrimination done by non-racist people. People don't see it and they are resistant to believe that it is there. But if it results in poor medical care, job losses, or police brutality, it's just as harmful as the old, overt racism.

Well I do notice the people do to go to GPs within their ethic group. Ethic minorities more so, but actually it is surprisingly segregated by choice. Having to secure an appointment, does eat into that.

Your logic: you should play slots when at a casino, because to think other games have a better payout would be "implicit bias", and lead to prejudice against slot machines.

You are arguing for people to ignore statistics.

That is why people will say "only go to Asian doctors", because they are most likely to become doctors due to talent (no affirmative action program).

You appear to ignore the harm done to people who ignore statistics.

I can think for several flaws in that logic. They may have trained in countries where rote learning is more prevalent, and therefore lack other skills necessary for practice.

They may have been very Americanized and were pretty average academically in comparison to other medical students, and may have not grown up with the stereotypical values attributed to Asians.

The academic performance may not be a good judge of practice.

Sure, if we learn more information, then we use it, and our bias might change.

Your speculations do not affect this bias, because everything you said could be true of any doctor of any race.

EDIT:
And academic performance does appear to greatly indicate future success as a doctor because people have to know stuff.

Your argument is asinine.
Go see whoever you like as a doctor. That has nothing to do with this.

We cannot lock people up or exclude them from employment to the basis of statistics. This is why we have HR managers and policemen. Because justice demands we judge individuals based upon their own merit.

Also, there's a concept in sociology called the Thomas theorem. It states: When people believe a thing to be true, it BECOMES true in its consequence.

As an example--Lets say all HR people decided that blacks were apt to be criminals and therefore not worthy of employment.

Unable to get legitimate jobs, many blacks WOULD be forced to resort to crime in order to make a living.

In this way, the HR people's bias against black people would create a self fulling prophecy...

This sort of thing isn't just stupid and unfair. It's extremely bad for society, and that's one reason why we have laws against racial discrimination.

I'm calling BS.

If you dismiss people out of hand on the basis of race, how are you ever going to learn anything more about them?

So, in your opinion, people don't have a racial bias against "affirmative action doctors"?

If, so, do you know why? Hint: Statistics.

I'm mostly concerned about bias against people at the margins because it has a huge, real effect on their lives.

I'm sure some doctors do suffer from bias. BUT I think the doctors can deal...

Having said that, I'm sure some bias is caused by stats, but I bet a lot more is emotional, and irrational. That's how most people operate. In my experience, most whites and blacks seem to prefer doctors who are tall, male, handsome and white.

As for myself, the only stat I'm interested in when picking a surgeon is number of operations done per year...

On a side note, I do have definite preferences in nurses/techs. I'd like them young, female and black. The white girls tend to have poor work ethics and do a sh***y job.

Gay guys aren't too bad either...except for this one nurse who was always way too eager to give me a suppository. He was creepy.

I took the test and got this:
"Your data suggest weak automatic preference for European American over African American."

Trying to actually press buttons in response to pictures was difficult though.