Check Your Stereotyping and Prejudice!

Hmm, that took ages and it said I had no association between males and careers or females or family. But my eyes no hurt from looking at that black screen with white and green words flashing at me.

 

Meh, I did the weapon vs. harmless objects/black vs. white test. The last bit I screwed up on, so now I believe black people carry weapons and white people are harmless.

Interesting though.

 

Too much effort for a random test. This smacks of a professionally done test, and I don't do those unless I'm getting paid.

 

"Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for Arab Muslims compared to Other People."

That surprised me.

 

I did the black/white one

"Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for White American compared to African American."


Interesting, I may go back and take some of the others.

 

My brain decided it was time for a nice palsey atm. I kept hitting E5.

 

Only because it confused me when they swapped sides for the categories, so I kept putting everyone in the wrong category

 

To date:

Slightly prefer Lincoln to Bush
Strong Aversion to disabled people - Ouch.
Slightly attribute weapons with Black Americans over Whites
No difference between Arab Muslim/others (Mind you, most of the other names are bloody French!)
Slightly believe males are better at Maths
Slight preference to thin people over fat people
Slight preference to straight over gays

Edit
Strong association to Male Career/Female Family.
Strong preference for young than old (Funny, I usually have an aversion to teenagers and children, not oldsters)
Moderate Aversion Black over whites BUT
No preference between light skin and dark skin
Slight association with Asian american over europe americans (Stupid test this one, the foreign places were mostly european so I would tend to favour them with the white faces.)

Two to go, later maybe.

Little or no particular difference in association between Native and White with America.
Moderate preference for Judaism than other religions. Thanks Rally!

[ June 13, 2006, 13:48: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Yup, that's right. They've been underdogs for way too long.

 

Slight belief that males are better at science

Strong aversion to gay people - I got kind of messed up on this one because I was having trouble distinguishing between male and female faces in the photos for most of the first round (which paired gay with good). I eventually realized that all of the suit wearing people were supposed to be male even though they looked female to me so I had much better luck the second time around (which paired gay with bad).

Slight preference for thin people over fat people. I had much less trouble with the photos in this one as they were all quite distinguishable and it didn't take long to adjust for the couple of people who I labelled as fat initially but were considered thin.

Strong preference for abled over disabled.

[ June 09, 2006, 17:30: Message edited by: JSBB ]

 

I don't really get how the career vs gender one is supposed to tell you anything. It's not testing your association between gender and career as it sets one up in the first place. I.e, that first section conditions you to sort female names and family words together. If you score lower on the second part, its more likely because the headings have changed around than because you're prejudiced.

 

Lol, what an idiocy. The test claims I have a slight automatic preference for Muslim/Arab people just because I did it faster when they were groupped with good and not evil. I have the following problems with this:

- "Arab/Muslim" is a tad bit uneducated. Many Muslims aren't Arabs and some Arabs aren't Muslims. Also, non-Arab Muslims often have Arab names, while non-Muslim Arabs may still have names similar to other Arabs. For example, the name Habib predates Islam and you shouldn't be surprised when you meet a native Christian from Syria with that name.

- The test fails to consider that people can 1) learn the test mechanics on the fly and react faster, 2) get tired of all the Pavlov dog button shooting and react slower, 3) generally get dizzy from all the changing groups

- Arabs/Muslims and non-Arabs/Muslims aren't two sides of the same coin. Singling out Arabs to lump them with evil is more difficult to enact than lumping a broad range of people with evil things.

Moderate automatic preference for Jews now... Got moderate for males & career and females & family as opposed to females & career and males & family. But the only difference I see is that I lumped two female names with male in a hurry. On the other hand, two working parents don't feel strange, while a stay home husband feels much stranger than a stay home wife. And I associate office with females.

[ June 12, 2006, 15:35: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

It's very convenient to say they know you better than you do yourself after a single test, finding your deeply hidden "implicit attitudes" and saying you haven't been aware of them so far. I'm not aware of having a moderate preference for judaism over all other religions and I don't have a slight preference for Arabs, either. It's not like I'm not aware of it being there: I'm aware of it not being there, actually. The test may have some more or less coherent scientific basis, but in the end it's just one more Java Script quiz.

 

I wonder how different my test results will change if they grouped female with science first. I mean, I sorted the items into "left" or "right" to hit the appropriate button...

 

I took the abled/disabled test and must say that I'm not terribly happy with it. If you pre-establish a pattern and then change it around the mistakes made can just as easily be due to the pattern changing as they could be due to a difference in word association. I'd like to see what would happen if the test first established the pattern or matching "good" words with disability and then changed it up. I have a feeling that the results would, at least for me, come up as the complete opposite of what my results were.....saying that I had a slight preference to "disabled" individuals over "abled" individuals.