Where are all these "Muslim hate preachers" publishing in the west? I see alt-right racists on 2p2, but I haven't seen many of the "Muslim hate preachers" you speak of.

There was that one poster--forget his name, (kid403somethingsomething?) He was more anti-Israel/Jew than anything else, but lots of leftists chewed on that guy. His hate was as unwelcome as yours.

looooooooooooo

stronkt

I actually think the test is pretty interesting.

however, when framed as a "bigot test", it fails for obvious reasons. but I don't see any flaws with the test as a predictor for other things. (for example the results definitely seems to support the idea that in group preferences exist. but we already knew that..) I took the old-age one each way and both times came up biased towards younger people. but to go a step further and imply that I'm bigoted against old people is some BS, I think.

so I don't think this test belongs in a "bigot questionnaire" thread.

The test-retest validity is pretty low and the behavioral correlates of scores on the test are abysmal.

There are tons of better studies of ethnic bias out there that demonstrate that it is endemic.

This positive and negative association tests are scientific disasters. They don't even consider novelty response which is blatantly obvious to anyone trying to conduct honest readearch without an agenda. Oh i guess when that gets brought up they address the issue, right?

I don't disagree although I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically re: tests of ethnic bias, and im curious what you have in mind.

I think we're evaluating the implicit bias test against different expectations. I've never referred to it as a demonstration of the existence of racism, for example. I don't consider it a test of bigotry either, re: behavioral correlates. I suppose I didn't consider the possibility someone would infer that given the subject of this thread. I don't think an individual should consider that the test tells them anything definitively.

But, when I first took the test over a decade ago it was a thought provoking exercise and I think it at least is useful in that sense. My somewhat lazy review of the development of the methodology since then made me think that the test does measure a real effect, even if imperfectly. And with regard to specific questions raised about the methodology here, my point is only that they have been accounted for and the impact of things like the order of elements tested.

I posted the first link in this thread and this is why. The value is for the person taking the test. Also it's fun to give unexpected answers to rhetoricalish questions.

My take away from the test was hey, there are parts of my mind that don't get to speak but do get to vote on behavior. You think the part that's talking inside your head is everything, but look who is telling you that.

Similar but different:

I suggest BroadwaySushi and 5ive go back to $20k, and spend about $1k on arbitration.

Ok. Test-retest validity is pretty important. The easiest way of understanding poor test-retest validity is if I had a test to measure how tall you were and it gave you wildly different heights each time. It is pretty darn important in that if you don't have good test-retest validity you aren't actually measuring anything. That a test without test-retest validity doesn't predict anything is perfectly expected: my highly variable measure of your height isn't going to predict which shirt will fit you.

I agree that the IBT is good for a conversation starter.

The easiest studies to understand (and most convincing) re: bias involve resumes that are the same other than the use of gender- and ethnicity-identifying names. I am pretty sure that you are already aware of them based on things you have written here in the past.

That is an irrelevant and silly response. The tests were initially developed to see if there were such a thing as a Stroop Effect that applied to values and group-typings. The key word is "if."

I'm not sure what this "novelty response" might be in relationship to this discussion. As far as I am aware, the study participants have been exposed to photographs and words at some point in their lives prior to being studied. Is there some new research on the "novelty response" that you can share with us?

Things like level of bigotry are too nuanced and slippery to assign over a meaningful array. Yeah, if you're a complete bigot the test should tell you. But other than at the extremes there are no approximately objective measures. I mean, a generalized misanthropy would skew that test into complete irrelevance.

Say you were a bigot according to a test. What then? At the end of the day you should just ask yourself if you treat people how you'd like to be treated along certain universal considerations like respect, dignity, protection, etc. It's all about the Golden Rule as the fundamental human value. Or, if you've got a better rule, go with that. Just keep in mind that any rule which doesn't respect other people, for whatever reason, does open the possibility of your own matching fate.