Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 03 Nov '16 20:28
    I did an implicit attitudes test that was very interesting.
    https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html
    Basically the test explains that you may think your brain works, but you actually don't. I wasn't actually surprised by my results.

    For the European/African american, I wasn't surprised to hear that I have a moderate bias towards European Americans. Coming from South Africa where racial attitudes run high, it's something that I think about and work on every day. I guess our subconscious thinks differently, but that's honesty.

    Muslim / other people - I have little to no preference apparently, which makes sense. I have many Muslim friends which I have had since childhood, and as such my subconscious is more aware of them (I spent a large portion of my childhood in the small town of Corner Brook Newfoundland, Canada, where there were many Japanese and Muslims but unfortunately no people of African descent. I think this affected my subconscious accordingly.

    Asian-European american - once again no preference, for the aforementioned reasons.

    Sexuality - I had a strong bias towards gay people over straight which makes sense since I am gay, no surprise there whatsover.

    I just thought it was very interesting, while I expected myself to be biased, this was an eye opener and I have my work cut out for me.
  2. 04 Nov '16 02:04 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    I did an implicit attitudes test that was very interesting.
    https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html
    Basically the test explains that you may think your brain works, but you actually don't. I wasn't actually surprised by my results.

    For the European/African american, I wasn't surprised to hear that I have a moderate bias towards Europea ...[text shortened]... while I expected myself to be biased, this was an eye opener and I have my work cut out for me.
    "For the European/African American, I wasn't surprised to hear that *I have a moderate bias
    towards European Americans.* Coming from South Africa where racial attitudes run high,
    it's something that I think about and work on every day."
    --Ash

    "How dare you first of all assume that I am white..."
    --Ash (22 October 2016)

    Actually, I never wrote that Ash must be white. I noted that Ash's evident pro-Israeli views
    (which he later denied were pro-Israeli) seem more common among white than black South Africans.

    Would Ash like to explain why, *if he's not white*, he has a 'moderate bias *towards*' white Americans?
    Wouldn't it be odd for a real black South African to be biased toward white Americans and against black Americans?
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    04 Nov '16 04:06 / 2 edits
    "Your result is described as an "Automatic preference for African Americans over European Americans" if you were faster responding when African Americans and Good are assigned to the same response key than when European Americans and Good were classified with the same key."

    ^ That's pure BS

    . The test started off by assigning "whites" and "good" the same key. When it was switched to "blacks" and "good" being assigned the same key, I was already used to to the original designation, and had to slow down to remember which key was which. Had blacks started off with the "Good" key, I still would've slowed down when when the assignment was switched.

    Stupid, idiotic test.
  4. 04 Nov '16 05:30
    Originally posted by vivify
    "Your result is described as an "Automatic preference for African Americans over European Americans" if you were faster responding when African Americans and Good are assigned to the same response key than when European Americans and Good were classified with the same key."

    ^ That's pure BS

    . The test started off by assigning "whites" and "good" the sa ...[text shortened]... , I still would've slowed down when when the assignment was switched.

    Stupid, idiotic test.
    It's harvard so lol
  5. 04 Nov '16 05:32
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "For the European/African American, I wasn't surprised to hear that *I have a moderate bias
    towards European Americans.* Coming from South Africa where racial attitudes run high,
    it's something that I think about and work on every day."
    --Ash

    "How dare you first of all assume that I am white..."
    --Ash (22 October 2016)

    Actually, I never wrote ...[text shortened]... for a real black South African to be biased toward white Americans and against black Americans?
    Yeah I am white, OBVIOUSLY, it's just annoying that you make such assumptions when the stats show that the chances of me being white when from south africa is 8 percent.
  6. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    04 Nov '16 06:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    Yeah I am white, OBVIOUSLY, it's just annoying that you make such assumptions when the stats show that the chances of me being white when from south africa is 8 percent.
    Well, duh.

    This is an internet forum. The only way we can reasonably judge people is by what they say. She would rightfully put more confidence in supposing your "white/black -ness" based on your attitudes about things rather than by exactly what you say, since people could also be lying. What concepts you defend versus what concepts you attack, etc.

    It's really the only reasonable way to discern this because after all, we cannot see the people we talk to. Not that it really matters so much. And yeah, personal bias also slips in this way also.

    I just don't see what the actual ratio of white people to black people in South Africa has to do with anyone's guess as to which you are.

    Edit: I think I will go see this online test you mention. These things fascinate me.
  7. 04 Nov '16 11:18
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Well, duh.

    This is an internet forum. The only way we can reasonably judge people is by what they say. She would rightfully put more confidence in supposing your "white/black -ness" based on your attitudes about things rather than by exactly what you say, since people could also be lying. What concepts you defend versus what concepts you attack, etc. ...[text shortened]... ou are.

    Edit: I think I will go see this online test you mention. These things fascinate me.
    Yeah it's a very interesting test, it does take a little while though
  8. Standard member vivify
    rain
    04 Nov '16 12:04
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    It's harvard so lol
    That makes it even worse. Harvard should know better.

    The creators of the test seem to be trying to manufacture results. They even tell you at the end that the results are based on your reaction time, and not your actual responses.

    This is nothing more than a test in how the human brain works. It's not any indicator of personal bias.
  9. 04 Nov '16 12:22
    Originally posted by vivify
    That makes it even worse. Harvard should know better.

    The creators of the test seem to be trying to manufacture results. They even tell you at the end that the results are based on your reaction time, and not your actual responses.

    This is nothing more than a test in how the human brain works. It's not any indicator of personal bias.
    It's an indicator of IMPLICIT bias. That's the title and that's what it does. Your brain finds it more difficult to associate certain things with certain words which is why reaction times matter. You're missing how it works.
  10. Standard member vivify
    rain
    04 Nov '16 12:52
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    It's an indicator of IMPLICIT bias. That's the title and that's what it does. Your brain finds it more difficult to associate certain things with certain words which is why reaction times matter. You're missing how it works.
    The results would be the exact opposite if "blacks" and "good" were assigned the same key at the beginning. That's the point. The results would've said I had a "bias" in favor of blacks if the order was switched. This had nothing to do with my brain finding it "more difficult" to associate anything good with blacks.
  11. 04 Nov '16 19:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Suzianne to Ash
    Well, duh.

    This is an internet forum. The only way we can reasonably judge people is by what they say. She would rightfully put more confidence in supposing your "white/black -ness" based on your attitudes about things rather than by exactly what you say, since people could also be lying. What concepts you defend versus what concepts you attack ...[text shortened]... ou are.

    Edit: I think I will go see this online test you mention. These things fascinate me.
    Ash's argument is typically disingenuous because I did *not* have to make a *random
    guess* about his identity based *only* upon South Africa's raw demographics.
    I already had more information about Ash based upon the evidence of his posts.

    Ash's argument also misleadingly implies that white and non-white South Africans are
    equally likely to be have enough internet access to be members of RHP. In fact,
    non-white South Africans are more likely to be poor and lack internet access at home.
    The other RHP members (CalJust, Twhitehead) in South Africa with whom I already
    have communicated have described themselves as white men.

    And Ash's claim that he (at age 18; he wrote that he was born in 1998) already has
    traveled to and experienced life in many societies outside Africa shows that he comes
    from an affluent privileged background. So he's more likely to be a white South African.

    By the way, I note that some trolls here like to make racist comments about non-white
    people and then disingenuously argue, in effect, "How do you know my comment's racist?
    How can you prove that I am white?" There's a British writer who has claimed to be of
    'mixed race' while being an ardent supporter (minimizing slavery's influence) of the CSA.
    (To what extent he's really of 'mixed race', I cannot say.)
  12. 04 Nov '16 20:15
    Oh here we go again... another decent thread sabotaged
  13. 04 Nov '16 20:17
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    It's an indicator of IMPLICIT bias. That's the title and that's what it does. Your brain finds it more difficult to associate certain things with certain words which is why reaction times matter. You're missing how it works.
    The problem is that the implicit bias it is testing is reaction times and not the conclusions drawn.
  14. 04 Nov '16 20:19
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The problem is that the implicit bias it is testing is reaction times and not the conclusions drawn.
    That's precisely the point. Some things come more naturally to the brain, and therefore your reaction time is exactly reflective of this.
  15. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Nov '16 20:21
    Originally posted by vivify
    That makes it even worse. Harvard should know better.

    The creators of the test seem to be trying to manufacture results. They even tell you at the end that the results are based on your reaction time, and not your actual responses.

    This is nothing more than a test in how the human brain works. It's not any indicator of personal bias.
    Are you a psychologist? sounds like you are just making flash judgements based on zero evidence. My guess is they have already tested thousands of people and notated their indicated biases from surveys and were able to correlate and verify the results of the surveys and thus had predictive power.

    I don't think they would do such a test based on say 10 subjects and pronouce it a done deal.