What's new

Please take this test from Harvard regarding bias.

Scott Cee aka 2drx4

Taste the butwhole
Joined
Jun 13, 2020
Member Number
1991
Messages
736
Loc
The middle of BC, Canada
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html


"On the next page you'll be asked to select an Implicit Association Test (IAT) from a list of possible topics . We will also ask you (optionally) to report your attitudes or beliefs about these topics and provide some information about yourself.

We ask these questions because the IAT can be more valuable if you also describe your own self-understanding of the attitude or stereotype that the IAT measures. We would also like to compare differences between people and groups."

Please try to get through it and tell me what you think.
 
So it figures out which button you click faster by mixing "good" words and weird faces of various skin colors. Which is dumb cause most of their "good" words I didn't really agree with and would hit the wrong button and it's easy for me to just go into "this goes in that bucket, that goes in this bucket" per the instructions.

Oh and I favor darker skin over lighter skin apparently. :rolleyes: I put the same on the first question.
 
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html


"On the next page you'll be asked to select an Implicit Association Test (IAT) from a list of possible topics . We will also ask you (optionally) to report your attitudes or beliefs about these topics and provide some information about yourself.

We ask these questions because the IAT can be more valuable if you also describe your own self-understanding of the attitude or stereotype that the IAT measures. We would also like to compare differences between people and groups."

Please try to get through it and tell me what you think.

So I took the first one (skin color preference) and it seemed like conditioning to me? I got a moderate automatic preference for light skinned. I did eff up a couple times in either direction.
 
I quit when I got to the political leaning question on sexuality.

I've tried about 4 or 5 of them.

Their bias is obvious.

They "train" you on the first round to associate the items/people one way, which is the "bad" way to associate them, then make you do another round with them reversed to prove that you are "racist/sexists/whateverist" because it takes longer or you make more errors. Of course if you brain has been trained to do something, it typically takes as long or longer to remove that training, so without providing some sort of means to do that the test will almost always prove what is only logical, which is that you're best at what you were trained at originally.
 
I quit when I got to the political leaning question on sexuality.

can't read so well? You can skip all those bullshit questions.

I said I don't associate black people with weapons and my test agreed with me. Still think it's dumb.
 
That was a biased test designed to show the outcome they want to push their sjw bullshit.
 
So it figures out which button you click faster by mixing "good" words and weird faces of various skin colors. Which is dumb cause most of their "good" words I didn't really agree with and would hit the wrong button and it's easy for me to just go into "this goes in that bucket, that goes in this bucket" per the instructions.

Oh and I favor darker skin over lighter skin apparently. :rolleyes: I put the same on the first question.

I've tried about 4 or 5 of them.

Their bias is obvious.

They "train" you on the first round to associate the items/people one way, which is the "bad" way to associate them, then make you do another round with them reversed to prove that you are "racist/sexists/whateverist" because it takes longer or you make more errors. Of course if you brain has been trained to do something, it typically takes as long or longer to remove that training, so without providing some sort of means to do that the test will almost always prove what is only logical, which is that you're best at what you were trained at originally.

To save you lesser-ableds the trouble: Yes, THIS iat is biased. And it's biased to make easily manipulable people (women and lefty men) think they are racist.



Ahhh, finally something I know about.

I take IATs for a living. I've probably done 2 or 3 thousand of them.

Yes, IATs are biased. 'They' (researchers) know they are biased. Here's what the inventor of the test had to say:

“The test-retest reliability is okay for research, but not very good for an individual difference measure that you want to be diagnostic of a single person.”

-Anthony Greenwald, inventor of the IAT

IATs
only count across populations, not for individual measure.

That is what makes the Harvard IAT racist: it is literally trying to convince whites that they are racist, even while the originator of the test knows that it is not valid on a per-person basis.

Researchers can adjust for bias across populations.

So, this is yet another one of those Social Sciences things where 'they' adjust according to the outcomes that they want, then announce that gentile whites are racist.

tenor.gif
 
That was a biased test designed to show the outcome they want to push their sjw bullshit.

I believe so.

I think most people are simply training muscle memory when shown the images/words. I know I am. And the way they set it up guarantees I will associate things in a manner that will produce the "bad" result they want.

Other people may not "learn" this way and thus produce other results.

I did learn something though. Apparently Chaz Bono is trans? :confused:
 
To save you lesser-ableds the trouble: Yes, THIS iat is biased. And it's biased to make easily manipulable people (women and lefty men) think they are racist.



Ahhh, finally something I know about.

I take IATs for a living. I've probably done 2 or 3 thousand of them.

Yes, IATs are biased. 'They' (researchers) know they are biased. Here's what the inventor of the test had to say:

“The test-retest reliability is okay for research, but not very good for an individual difference measure that you want to be diagnostic of a single person.”

-Anthony Greenwald, inventor of the IAT

IATs
only count across populations, not for individual measure.

That is what makes the Harvard IAT racist: it is literally trying to convince whites that they are racist, even while the originator of the test knows that it is not valid on a per-person basis.

Researchers can adjust for bias across populations.

So, this is yet another one of those Social Sciences things where 'they' adjust according to the outcomes that they want, then announce that gentile whites are racist.

tenor.gif

Is the format of this IAT normal?

It seems to me like if they are all formatted like this, you might as well just throw a bunch of different coloured bowling balls off a cliff and then conclude whatever you want. :confused:
 
I believe so.

I think most people are simply training muscle memory when shown the images/words. I know I am. And the way they set it up guarantees I will associate things in a manner that will produce the "bad" result they want.

Other people may not "learn" this way and thus produce other results.

I did learn something though. Apparently Chaz Bono is trans? :confused:

And peolpe fall for this shit every damn day.
 
Is the format of this IAT normal?

It seems to me like if they are all formatted like this, you might as well just throw a bunch of different coloured bowling balls off a cliff and then conclude whatever you want. :confused:

Yep, that is stock-standard. Many of them that I take use a piece of research software that runs on my computer that makes it the only thing you can see and interact with. They're not going to do that to you on a voluntary basis because of, believe it or not, research ethics. Like, they don't want to stress you out, because you haven't consented to be a research subject. Also I'd guess they wouldn't get as many respondents either. But clicking 'yes' on the internet on an anonymous basis does not pass the bar of research consent.

If you can believe it, I've sat down and taken a 300 item IAT. Yes, it sucked.

But other than that, yeah, the test is literally designed to be confusing or have you make wrong answers a certain number of times. They don't want you doing perfectly, they want you in a state of UNreadiness so that they can measure your actual bias.

I'll give you an example: These tests can reliably predict whether a consumer segment will like a certain cookie-box design. Like they can take this test and the results, and choose a design from two, then market and sell those two designs. The design that the IAT test predicted would do better, DOES sell better.

They do work.
 
To save you lesser-ableds the trouble: Yes, THIS iat is biased. And it's biased to make easily manipulable people (women and lefty men) think they are racist.



Ahhh, finally something I know about.

I take IATs for a living. I've probably done 2 or 3 thousand of them.

Yes, IATs are biased. 'They' (researchers) know they are biased. Here's what the inventor of the test had to say:

“The test-retest reliability is okay for research, but not very good for an individual difference measure that you want to be diagnostic of a single person.”

-Anthony Greenwald, inventor of the IAT

IATs
only count across populations, not for individual measure.

That is what makes the Harvard IAT racist: it is literally trying to convince whites that they are racist, even while the originator of the test knows that it is not valid on a per-person basis.

Researchers can adjust for bias across populations.

So, this is yet another one of those Social Sciences things where 'they' adjust according to the outcomes that they want, then announce that gentile whites are racist.

tenor.gif

This is interesting. Thanks.
 
This thread reminds me of something my wife says occasionally: "Hey, this is rotten and disgusting- smell it!"
 
Top Back Refresh