Harvard Quiz: Are You a Racist?

[pakicetus]

So I found something called the "Black-White Implicit Association Test" (IAT) that's supposed to tell you if you're subconsciously racist against blacks. You can take it here. (That link also has IATs for a bunch of other groups, like women, gays, Asians, and Native Americans.)

I thought it might be relevant to the whole political debate over the prevalence of racism (which made it way easier to find a subforum for this thread). The test itself is just an association game, so if you're asked any questions at all (like "Would you choose to live in a black neighborhood?" or "Do we need a strong leader to punish nonconformists?" or whatever), they're not part of the test.

I took it, and it said I had a "strong preference for white people." 80% of other whites and 40% of blacks get the same result.

 

[seashale76]

Actually, it doesn't really tell you if you're subconsciously racist. There are a variety of reasons a person could get whatever results they get. My results said: Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for European American compared to African American.

 

[pakicetus]

Actually, it doesn't really tell you if you're subconsciously racist. There are a variety of reasons a person could get whatever results they get.

Maybe. I think I might associate blacks with "badness" and whites with "goodness" because I grew up in a racist culture -- but the fact that those associations even exist in my head is interesting and worth knowing. And it's actually hard to see how they wouldn't lead to some subconscious racism.

 

[seashale76]

Maybe. I think I might associate blacks with "badness" and whites with "goodness" because I grew up in a racist culture -- but the fact that I even associate them is interesting and worth knowing. And it's easy to see how associating them might lead me to be subconsciously racist and make discriminatory decisions without realizing it.

Implied correlation in one on-line quiz does not causation make. One of the issues they even noted was that left or right handedness was a legitimate thing that could affect results.

 

[pakicetus]

Implied correlation in one on-line quiz does not causation make.

I think it probably does in my case. When I was supposed to connect white people to good words, it was incredibly easy -- I think I even zoned out. But when I was supposed to connect black people to good words and white people to bad ones, it didn't just take longer: it felt much harder. I actually got frustrated trying it. I thought that might've been caused by the order of the test, so I took it again in a different order -- same result.

I think it's a pretty straightforward test. If it takes you longer to select white people when a bad word comes up, that either means it's harder for you or you're not trying. If it's harder for you, then you must associate black people with bad things.

One of the issues they even noted was that left or right handedness was a legitimate thing that could affect results.

I think they said it tended to very slightly affect results, but I could be mistaken. Not willing to retake the test to find out.

 

[seashale76]

Being in the 20% of whites that didn't have a 'strong automatic preference', I wonder if my results would have come up as firmly neutral had I answered the pre-test questions less honestly, because I made about as many mistakes in favor of blacks on that automatic test as against? I'm always critical of these types of quizzes.

 

[pakicetus]

Being in the 20% of whites that didn't have a 'strong automatic preference', I wonder if my results would have come up as firmly neutral had I answered the pre-test questions less honestly, because I made about as many mistakes in favor of blacks on that automatic test as against? I'm always critical of these types of quizzes.

The pre-test questions don't influence your results, and the test isn't based on how many mistakes you made. It's based on how long it takes you to associate whites with good things or blacks with bad things. If you take longer to connect whites to bad things than blacks, the test assumes you found it harder to do.

 

[Winepress777]

So I found something called the "Black-White Implicit Association Test" (IAT) that's supposed to tell you if you're subconsciously racist against blacks. You can take it here. (That link also has IATs for a bunch of other things, like gender and sexual orientation.)

I thought it might be relevant to the whole political debate over the prevalence of racism (which made it way easier to find a subforum for this thread). The test itself is just an association game, so if you're asked any questions at all (like "Would you choose to live in a black neighborhood?" or "Do we need a strong leader to punish nonconformists?" or whatever), they're not part of the test.

I took it, and it said I had a "strong preference for white people." 80% of other whites and 40% of blacks get the same result.

All creatures prefer their own species. God made us that way. It's always been that way and will always be that way. It is natural. Not "racist".

 

[seashale76]

The pre-test questions don't factor in to your results. If you made "as many mistakes in favor of blacks as against," but still wound up with an automatic preference, it's probably because you took longer to connect blacks with good things or whites with bad things (in other words, you found it harder to do).

It's probably because when they switched it over, I still made the same types of mistakes except the other way around. So, my bias (which was also anti-white) was associated with handedness, which makes the actual results I got suspicious to me if the pre-test questions didn't factor in. I may go back and answer those differently and take it again to see if my results differ.

 

[pakicetus]

All creatures prefer their own species.

Blacks are actually just as likely to have a measurable bias against other blacks as they are against whites (at least according to the IAT). But then again, last I checked, blacks and whites are the same species.

Not to mention, I actually don't prefer my own species. I like dogs way more than humans.

It's always been that way and will always be that way.

I shudder when I hear that phrase.

It is natural. Not "racist".

If preferring one race to another isn't racist, what is?

 

[seashale76]

If preferring one race to another isn't racist, what is?

Can three-month-olds be racist? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/

I see you arguing preference as racism- when the two are not the same thing.

 

[Hetta]

Yes, I didn't know there was another species of human other than ... human.

 

[seashale76]

Yes, I didn't know there was another species of human other than ... human.

I put that on the census instead of race. However, we're now told that's a micro aggression.

 

[pakicetus]

Can three-month-olds be racist? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/

I see you arguing preference as racism- when the two are not the same thing.

Well racism has a few different definitions. Racial prejudice is definitely one of them. The problem is, when you say something or someone is racist, a lot of people think you're saying they consciously hate blacks and intentionally discriminate against them, when racism is usually a lot more mild and subtle than that. So of course when people like me start calling decent everyday people "racist," it sounds vicious and hyperbolic.

 

[Hetta]

From my bio classes I seem to recall that species is a biological classification, so unless I missed a day or two, I think that human is a species of its own.

 

[Vylo]

I was actually surprised at the results:

Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between European American and African American.

I guess its because I judge people more on where they come from than race. For example black people in my county have always seemed friendly to me, but from say Camden...NOPE.

 

[seashale76]

Well racism has a few different definitions. Racial prejudice is definitely one of them. The problem is, when you say something or someone is racist, a lot of people think you're saying they consciously hate blacks and intentionally discriminate against them, when racism can be a lot more mild and subtle than that. So of course when people like me start calling decent everyday people "racist," it sounds vicious and hyperbolic.

Actually- a lot of blacks that don't believe that they can be racist as they consider themselves oppressed- will firmly cop to being prejudiced instead. They do not equate racism and prejudice as being the same thing, and they're right on that, they're not.

 

[Winepress777]

Blacks are actually just as likely to have a measurable bias against other blacks as they are against whites (at least according to the IAT). But then again, last I checked, blacks and whites are the same species.

Not to mention, I actually don't prefer my own species. I like dogs way more than humans.

I shudder when I hear that phrase.

If preferring one race to another isn't racist, what is?

Racism is hate. Irrational hate for an entire race. That has nothing to do with my post. And "race" = "species" according to the English language

 

[seashale76]

I took it a second time and declined to answer anything except clicking on the pictures and the words. My new results:
Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between African American and European American.

 

[Hetta]

Race -/- species. Take some basic bio classes for goodness sake.