The Implicit Association Test

[Trausti]

Can we please be rid of this voodoo nonsense?

The problem, as I showed in a lengthy rundown of the many, many problems with the test published this past January, is that there’s very little evidence to support that claim that the IAT meaningfully predicts anything. In fact, the test is riddled with statistical problems — problems severe enough that it’s fair to ask whether it is effectively “misdiagnosing” the millions of people who have taken it, the vast majority of whom are likely unaware of its very serious shortcomings. There’s now solid research published in a top journal strongly suggesting the test cannot even meaningfully predict individual behavior. And if the test can’t predict individual behavior, it’s unclear exactly what it does do or why it should be the center of so many conversations and programs geared at fighting racism.

The Creators of the Implicit Association Test Should Get Their Story Straight

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It shows people are racist, that's all that matters. Whether it tells the truth or not is irrelevant.

 

[Angry Floof]

It does usefully measure subconscious bias. It's the "predicts real world behaviors" part that is questionable.

In my mind, the best purpose these timed response tests is personal self reflection. It's a mistake, and possibly a dangerous one, to use it to judge or label people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It does usefully measure subconscious bias. It's the "predicts real world behaviors" part that is questionable.

In my mind, the best purpose these timed response tests is personal self reflection. It's a mistake, and possibly a dangerous one, to use it to judge or label people.

It is categorically not of any use on an individual basis.

It's easier to learn a pattern than to erase a pattern and learn a new one. Thus one's times on the first part will be better than one's times on the second part.

Of course you can make people think it's showing racism by doing the white-good pairing before the white-bad pairing.

 

[Angry Floof]

Whether you erase a pattern or learn a new one or spin one out of dingleberries, someone's got to be paying some conscious attention whatever patterns are there to begin with. The human capacity to observe our own thoughts and feelings and patterns is useful like that.

You certainly don't need this test to do that. It's just a tool. We're largely invisible to ourselves. Anything that offers new perspective on our own habits is potentially useful. Even feedback from people who are just being assholes to us can be useful. A test that illuminates our own reactions to things in some way doesn't need to be a truth teller or dictator. It's just measuring response time to images and concepts. Whatever else anyone wants to try to add to that, this much is at least true. How is that not useful?

 

[fromderinside]

Can we please be rid of this voodoo nonsense?

The problem, as I showed in a lengthy rundown of the many, many problems with the test published this past January, is that there’s very little evidence to support that claim that the IAT meaningfully predicts anything. In fact, the test is riddled with statistical problems — problems severe enough that it’s fair to ask whether it is effectively “misdiagnosing” the millions of people who have taken it, the vast majority of whom are likely unaware of its very serious shortcomings. There’s now solid research published in a top journal strongly suggesting the test cannot even meaningfully predict individual behavior. And if the test can’t predict individual behavior, it’s unclear exactly what it does do or why it should be the center of so many conversations and programs geared at fighting racism.

The Creators of the Implicit Association Test Should Get Their Story Straight

Interesting. Timely, Thanks.

That 'scientists' would use before replicating or validating is a gross methodological sin in general and an even greater injustice to society and the academic community in particular.

Why not just go back to gabbing over the fence?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whether you erase a pattern or learn a new one or spin one out of dingleberries, someone's got to be paying some conscious attention whatever patterns are there to begin with. The human capacity to observe our own thoughts and feelings and patterns is useful like that.

You certainly don't need this test to do that. It's just a tool. We're largely invisible to ourselves. Anything that offers new perspective on our own habits is potentially useful. Even feedback from people who are just being assholes to us can be useful. A test that illuminates our own reactions to things in some way doesn't need to be a truth teller or dictator. It's just measuring response time to images and concepts. Whatever else anyone wants to try to add to that, this much is at least true. How is that not useful?

The thing is it's basic human nature that you'll do the first part faster than the second part. Trying to draw conclusions from this about how one feels about the things is stupid.

Put two cups in the microwave. One holds tap water, the other holds ice water & cubes. Should we conclude the microwave doesn't like ice because it's slower to boil? Drawing an individual conclusion from the IAT is about as intelligent.

 

[Angry Floof]

Whether you erase a pattern or learn a new one or spin one out of dingleberries, someone's got to be paying some conscious attention whatever patterns are there to begin with. The human capacity to observe our own thoughts and feelings and patterns is useful like that.

You certainly don't need this test to do that. It's just a tool. We're largely invisible to ourselves. Anything that offers new perspective on our own habits is potentially useful. Even feedback from people who are just being assholes to us can be useful. A test that illuminates our own reactions to things in some way doesn't need to be a truth teller or dictator. It's just measuring response time to images and concepts. Whatever else anyone wants to try to add to that, this much is at least true. How is that not useful?

The thing is it's basic human nature that you'll do the first part faster than the second part. Trying to draw conclusions from this about how one feels about the things is stupid.

Put two cups in the microwave. One holds tap water, the other holds ice water & cubes. Should we conclude the microwave doesn't like ice because it's slower to boil? Drawing an individual conclusion from the IAT is about as intelligent.

I think we are disagreeing about the "drawing a conclusion" part.

Also, self reflection is not high priority for everyone.

 

[ronburgundy]

It does usefully measure subconscious bias.

No it doesn't. It measures miniscule millisecond differences in how long it takes to process the semantic links between stimuli when presented in an artificial context where the stimuli have no meaning and when the processing in done to perform a completely meaningless task of button pressing of zero consequence.
Nothing beyond that can be concluded.

Claiming that is a "bias" is an unscientific interpretation and makes "bias" a meaningless string of letters.

Also, the test directly asks questions about how one feels about black and white people, prior to performing the supposed "implicit association" part. That introduces so many possible sources of variance, making the tiny millisecond differences even less meaningful.
For example, answering those questions not only could bring to mind your own feelings about different races, or simply your own awareness of how other people feel about it and about cultural level racism, how often you have heard racist remarks in your life or just recently (no matter how you feel about those remarks), or about how concerned you are if others think you are racist, etc.. Each of these are completely different, uncorrelated variables and how much they come to mind will differ greatly for each person.
Yet, any one of them could easily impact the results of the IAT. That means the exact same score could mean any infinite number of things. The leader of the KKK could get the same score as a frequent victim of racism or an objectively non-racist person who is simply knowledgeable about the extent of racism in society. That makes the results worse than meaningless. It makes them almost certainly misleading and pointing to wrong conclusions about a person.

Basically, using the IAT as a measure of anything is equal to measuring one's persons height and the length of another person's name, then comparing those two numbers as if they tell you how those people differ.

 

[repoman]

Have they done these IATs with puppies, happy children and attractive people (all races) versus snarling animals and other scary or ugly people or things?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's surprising. I had implicitly associated the IAT as a test which gave meaningful results.

 

[fromderinside]

Time to go in to your preferred mechanic for implicit association service sir.

 

[ruby sparks]

The thing is it's basic human nature that you'll do the first part faster than the second part.

So how would anyone get a 'good' score?

 

[steve_bank]

I am not too familiar with it, but I remember similar studies from the past.

They were typically designed to support a preordained conclusion. White bias. Anyone who has lived long enough in the real world and is not in denial will see bias transcends race, sex, and ethnicity. It is inherent in our culture. Most of the time we bridge it in daily lives and it diminishes generation by generation.

 

[humbleman]

Not only in psychological aspect but in the different branches of science in general.

My human behavior: finding in the article the part that is most convenient for my decaying universe and degenerated species. The current accepted theories enjoy fame but lack of factual evidence.

A reform is badly needed.

One of the major contributing factors to the replication crisis, which is centered mostly on social psychology, is human nature. Humans, being humans, do not like hearing that ideas they’ve worked on for a long time might have to get tossed in the bin, or at the very least revised significantly. That’s why some researchers — though by no means all of them — have responded to good-faith critiques of their work by attempting to derail the conversation, calling their critics crazy or mean or attributing to them dark ulterior motives. The researchers who attempt such derailings tend to be established, well-respected ones who have benefited from the old regime — the regime that led the field into its current, precarious situation, and which is now threatened by a growing reform movement.

About blacks and whites.

My thing is black women, I can't evade it. I knew a black girl who was a secretary, she lived in the poorest zone of the city. I didn't know at that moment, but her boy friend and father of her daughter was in jail because drugs. I never asked her about her past, she never did the same about me. We went out for months, and I practically lived in her apartment most of the days of the week. I had my own apartment very close to downtown.

The guys who lived in that zone were usually drug sellers and drug users. Many of them hard working people, others in the street most of the day and night. Loud music all day long in the street on Summer time.

As far as I can remember, my first night over there I was sleeping when I heard noises outside and I woke up and thru the window I saw a group of black youngsters sitting over the hood of my car drinking, smoking and talking with others sitting on the side walk. I went back to bed, and I say to myself that I probably will need to take a bus going to work.

Next day, I took my girlfriend to her work in my car. The guys didn't make any damage to it. Months living with that black girl and no one of the black guys in that neighborhood caused me any problems.

I met later on with another girl and I decided to finish my relationship with the black girl. Fortunately she had plans to do the same, and her reason was because her boyfriend and father of her daughter was ready to come out from jail.

After a few months, one day, I decided to visit her. By coincidence, when I parked my car in the street, from the car parked right in front of me, the guy came out and opened the door to the little girl. She came out from the front passenger's side. She saw me and told the guy to go that she will catch up with him.

We talk a little, and I saw her going to her apartment. The guys who were around, in good way told me to leave her alone, the boyfriend will stay with her. I left the place in peace.

To my surprise, because I was living in that town for only two years and reading the news was not part of my daily routine, a year later I found out that I was living in one of the most rough zones of Washington DC SE. Crimes happened daily, drugs the cause of most crimes, and I didn't believe it at all. I said to myself that the news media lies, because I was there and without being black nobody attempted to do any harm to me and my property (my car).

Even when the neighborhood was 100% black people, probably because her, I never had any reason to be afraid.

Of course, in my family, in other areas like NW Washington DC, in areas like 16th street close to Maryland, a group of black youngsters attacked some of my family for no reason, they didn't steal anything. And my family was greatly afraid of black people around.

By my own experience, I think that human behavior is hard to predict. We can make thousands and thousands of studies about our behavior and I guess the exceptions will overcome the rule.

About the black girl I knew years ago, I don't know how, but she found my phone number and called me to say hi. In the middle of our conversation, by hearing the different tone of her voice, I did risk our friendship asking her..." you've got fat, right?"

She laughed so hard...