'Project Implicit', Harvard.edu. Psychoilogical testing

imported post

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

imported post

Done it before, not impressed. Too many other possible explanations for the results (as pointed out in the questions at the end).

imported post

co-relation isn't cause

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Done it before, not impressed. Too many other possible explanations for the results (as pointed out in the questions at the end).

Click to expand...

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

The topic of this task was randomly assigned to you from a list of dozens of topics. You are welcome to complete as many sessions as you wish, and every session will be a different topic. Some will be topics you have thought about many times, others might be new or unusual topics that you have not considered before. Just return to the login page and enter your email address to start again

Click to expand...

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

imported post

The tests are all essentially the same, regardless of subject. It's the test procedure that I take issue with, not the test material.

imported post

double

imported post

No1 padawan has it just right, correlation is not cause and I doubt 'StyleZ' has wits enough to criticize Implicit Attitudes Testing' protocol.

As I said, it is interesting, it tests an attitude toward weapons [obligatory On Topic] and is no more valuable than a shoot/no-shoot exercise.

Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview.

imported post

I just took the one about weapons. It says that I associate weapons slightly more with blacks than with whites. Since I'm part black, does that make me racist against myself?

imported post

Michigander wrote:

I just took the one about weapons. It says that I associate weapons slightly more with blacks than with whites. Since I'm part black, does that make me racist against myself?

Click to expand...

Thus confirming exactly what I said...

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

No1 padawan has it just right, correlation is not cause and I doubt 'StyleZ' has wits enough to criticize Implicit Attitudes Testing' protocol.

As I said, it is interesting, it tests an attitude toward weapons [obligatory On Topic] and is no more valuable than a shoot/no-shoot exercise.

Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the test concluded I associate weapons more with blacks than whites, which is not true. The result had nothing to do with subconcious association and everything to with the "weapons/white" catagory being presented first and run through twice. Obviously the testee will do poorly with this association because they're unfamiliar with the test. After practicing the game twice, and getting the hang of the multiple association, they then present you with the "weapons/black" catagory. You can now go through this exercise quickly and accurately because of the previous practice, not because you associate blacks with weapons. They then conclude that you associate weapons with blacks based on that result - not true. Start the test over, now that you're practiced, and I guarantee your results are different.

imported post

Colletive conscientiously those that did not vote for Obama are now indeed you know what, if the administrating observer is inclined to designsuch anoutcome .Not to mention the fact that we as a nation are arming ourselves to the teeth . Prejudging an event properly is called foresight . Those with the talent of foresight are now rare , due to being killed before procreation is achieved.

After an event a family is walking back to their car when aperson with a knife jumps outat them . What had they done ? What had society done ?

After an event a family is walking back to their car when a person with a knife jumps out at them . Great shot Dad . Yea and nice grouping too Dad .

Happy Father's day