You're Prejudiced. Yeah, you! (but ReThugs are far worse!)

Yeah, you're prejudiced.  And so am I.  We all are.  It's just a matter of how prejudiced and towards whom.  At least, that's one of the results from the "Implicit Association Test", as profiled in today's Washington Post magazine.

According to the Wash. Post article, the test -- which measures the time it takes to respond to various pairings of words and concepts in peoples' minds -- has been taken by more than 2 million people, 90% American, has been "used in hundreds of research studies," and has "arguably revolutionized the study of prejudice."  The test findings are disturbing, not the least to our self-perception of being non-prejudiced (most people said that they had no biases -- so much for accurate self-perception!).  

That said, the test results are also verrrry interesting, with strong political implications for liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, whites and blacks, straights and gays, etc..  Check it out:

First of all, almost ALL of us are prejudiced to one degree or the other...

88 percent of white people had a pro-white or anti-black implicit bias (in other words, only 12% of whites show no anti-black bias -- yikes!!!)

83 percent of heterosexuals showed implicit biases for straight people over gays and lesbians (apparently, straight people are still stuck in the dark ages when it comes to gays, despite "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," Richard Hatch, etc.)

More than two-thirds of non-Arab, non-Muslim volunteers displayed implicit biases against Arab Muslims (this is actually lower than I expected, post-9/11)

Large majorities showed biases for Christians over Jews (anti-Semitism is apparently not dead in America)

Large majorities showed biases for the rich over the poor (hmmmm...is this support for Thomas Frank's argument in "What's the Matter with Kansas?")

Large majorities showed biases for men's careers over women's careers (Rush says: "yeah, keep 'em barefoot and pregnant!")

As if those results weren't bad enough, it gets even worse in some ways when you look at minorities' attitudes about themselves.  Turns out that a lot of them INTERNALIZE the negative biases of the majority culture:

48 percent of blacks showed a pro-white or anti-black bias

36 percent of Arab Muslims showed an anti-Muslim bias

38 percent of gays and lesbians showed a bias for straight people over homosexuals

Now, here are the juicy political findings:

Conservatives, on average, show higher levels of bias against gays, blacks and Arabs than liberals.

"Very conservative" people were STRONGLY biased against gays, compared to "very liberal" people showing almost NO anti-gay bias.

"Very conservative" people hold between "moderate" and "strong" anti-black bias.  Just plain "conservatives" score about the same, while "slightly conservative" people fall right on the "moderate" line for anti-black bias.

In contrast, liberals show only SLIGHT anti-black bias, with "very liberal" people showing essentially NONE.

"Very conservative" folks show the most anti-Arab bias, but surprisingly only between "slight" and "moderate."  Liberals show between "none" and "slight."

Interestingly, according to the Post, "Most of the people approached for this article declined to participate. Several prominent politicians, Republican and Democrat, declined to take the tests for this article. The aide to one senator bristled, "You think he is a racist!"

According to researchers, "There is likely a biological reason people so quickly make assumptions -- good or bad -- about others...The implicit system is likely a part of the "primitive" brain, designed to be reactive rather than reasoned. It specializes in quick generalizations, not subtle distinctions.  

Hmmmm...who does that sound like, conservatives ("my way or the highway," "America Love it or Leave It!", "Good and Evil," "Moral Values") or liberals ("diversity is good," "the world is a complicated place," "shades of gray not black and white")?

Also, I think the comment on the "primitive" brain, also known as the "reptilian" brain, is very telling vis-a-vis Republicans and Democrats.  According to an article in Common Dreams, "The reptile brain has a singular focus: survival. It doesn't think in abstract terms, and doesn't feel complex emotions.  Instead, it's responsible for fight-or-flight, hunger and fear, attack or run. It's also non-verbal - you can stimulate it with the right words, but it operates purely at the level of visceral stimulus-response."  Again, who does that sound like?  Hint: conservatives, Republicans, Bush.

In contrast, the "mammalian brain," also known as the "limbic brain," handles complex emotions like love, indignation, compassion, envy, and hope.  You know, the kind of emotions that Dubya -- and the whole Bush family, for that matter -- is deeply uncomfortable with ("dont put me on the couch," they say).  You know, all that "touch feely," "girly man" stuff the Democrats love so much. :)

Finally, there's the neocortex, which rests over the limbic brain (which, in turn, sits atop the reptilian brain).  The neocortex processes abstract thought, words and symbols, logic and time.  In other words, all the things that Republicans hate and liberals love.  Hence, "intelligent design," "creation science," and other "faith-based" programs being pushed by conservatives, while liberals remain generally "reality based."

In sum, what these tests prove is that we all have prejudices, but that there is a DIRECT CORRELATION between conservativism and level/extent of prejudice.  Bluntly stated, the more conservative you are, the more prejudiced, and the more liberal, the less.  

In other words, it's fair to say that "Republicans are Reptiles; Democrats are Mammals."  Also not surprising, the Republicans are far more prejudiced, violent, intolerant, harsh, and warlike than Democrats.  And we needed a bunch of social scientists and millions of tests to tell us THIS?  

•  My result was slight automatic preference

  for Black relative to White.  Just took the race test - will take the other ones later.

  lowkell - was mulling a diary topic in my head today and wanted to know if I could reference your diary?  This is really great and it'd be a shame to lose it too quickly.

  by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:02:47 AM PDT

  •  Sure, go for it!

    I think this stuff is fascinating.  By the way, I took a few of the tests and ended up with a STRONG bias in favor of Kerry over Bush (big surprise!), a SLIGHT preference for Straights over Gays, a MODERATE preference for "other people" over Arabs/Muslims, and a STRONG preference for Judaism over other religions (I was raised Jewish -- guess I'm not "self hating!").  

    by lowkell on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:10:57 AM PDT

    •  I think some folks...

      may take this test the wrong way.  What we're really measuring is a societal attitude toward race, class, religion, sexual preference, etc.

      This is what Dr. King and other civil rights people were talking about when they referenced the inherent prejudices of the English language, for instance.  "White" being associated with pure goodness and "black" being associated with death and evil.  These motifs run throughout our culture, in our language, cinema and books.

      I don't want people to think this is a personal indictment of them, but this is rather a real reflection of the subliminal messages we get every day living in this Western democracy.

      I'd look at it this way: for those folks who think that systemic racism doesn't exist, well...think again.

      by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:23:46 AM PDT

      •  It depends on how you were raised

        Before I got on the internet, I admit I was a bit of a homophobe, and I thought race was more important, now that I have experience with people of every race, and of every sexuality, I see theres no difference and I no longer judge people by this stuff.

        The cure to this is to raise people around many different types of people. The only way a person can escape the flaws of American cultural bias, is to become multi cultural and learn about other cultures.

        I've been around good gay people and bad gay people, I've been around good and bad people of every race, I've came to the conclusion that race and sexuality don't matter.

        I still may have some biases, but they arent based on race. I have biases in that I don't really trust people in general, I have some cultural biases perhaps because I don't think all cultures are equal, but my biases arent the biases in those tests.

        by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:44:39 AM PDT

        •  No argument from me

          yes, prolonged exposure to diverse communities is the antidote to these subconscious biases.  Like I said, I think the only reason why I tested slightly pro-Black is due to prolonged exposure to Dr. King's speeches and philosophy, and the fact that I lived in a majority black neighborhood for a few years.

          Before that I have no doubt I would have tested with a pro-white bias.

          This is about...hate to say it...deconstructing our culture (ugh - the word's been so overused but it's appropriate here).  Or if you will, having pro-diversity propaganda to counteract the cultural influences being pushed on us every day...

          ...which is why I'm still thinking about a new frame to the "culture wars".

          by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:52:23 AM PDT

          •  I've been online for 10 years

            And during those 10 years I broke free from American culture and its flaws.

            When you only are in America, you see the world as very black and white. The fact that Affirmative Action and Welfare are linked to Black and Money and Power are linked to Whites are stereotypes only people locked into American culture could understand. When the Republicans mentioned welfare and affirmative action everyone automatically assumed only black people were on it. Plus theres the meme/myth that black people are lazy when in reality black people did all the work building the country during slavery. You have the myth that asians are hard working, you have the myth that Rap music is black and rock music is white when in reality blacks created both genres of music, you have all these myths and memes which don't really apply and sound absolutely ridiculous when you look at them from a neutral point of view.

            Step outside of yourself for a moment, view this as an alien from another planet. How stupid does it look for the human species to be fighting over appearance? This would be like watching animals and seeing all the black cats fighting all the white cats. You'd think WTF? You'd think it was stupid right?

            Humans seem to be less evolved than the animals when it comes to judging on appearance. This is because animals know they all are the same species and somehow have a sense of connection that humans lack. This lack of connection was created deliberately by racists and people who work hard to create memes, myths and stereotypes to divide the races so they can keep power over them.

            by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:02:26 AM PDT

            •  I think we're very much in agreement

              This is also why folks like O'Reilly are afraid of the internet - they can't control the information presented.

              I'm glad you've been working so hard on this.  If each one of us does what you did, we'll start to change society from the bottom-up.

              by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:10:41 AM PDT

              •  The solution is

                to have an open culture. I promote this in a lot of my previous comments on this site and on others. The internet has an open culture, anyone from any race can join any group, any club, and be a part of any culture. Because of this, all the rules and control mechanism to prevent people from meeting people of other races and cultures ends. Suddenly you can talk to anyone from anywhere in the world, and you can listen to rap, or punk rock and be on any race and no one cares. Slowly over time you begin to understand other cultures and eventually you understand other people.

                The best way to end racism is to promote the internet, and promote music. I don't mean music on MTV, but music in general. Eminem for example is doing more to end racism than any musician, because he combines white and black culture. You have black rock n roll stars, and people like snoop dogg etc who cross cultures as well. The only real solution however is to have open cultures, cultures from which anyone of any age, sex, gender, race can join and experience. Right now this only happens online because people offline are too ignorant to allow people who look different to join or experience their culture, but at some point this will end, because the youth is a lot less racist than the elders, and this is going to keep growing.

                The best thing you can do, if you are a grandmother as your name says, is to work with the youth, get them online and introduce them to youth of other races. By doing it online, it will be in a way which causes the least amount of cultural shock, and they won't have to worry about stuff like appearance.

                by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:21:09 AM PDT

                •  My handle

                  is actually a tribute to my great-grandmother, a lifelong Dem and rabble-rouser.

                  But I agree - all of the things you're talking about are important ways to help change people's biases.

                  by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:27:09 AM PDT

                  •  Ok

                    Read some of my diaries. you might find more of my ideas interesting.

                    by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:28:08 AM PDT

            •  Rousseau

              During the 1700s, Jean Jacques Rousseau made the distinction between humans and other less evolved animals by noting that we humans possess vanity. That's an important distinction and is still relevant, if not more so, today.

              Much of mankind lives in fear of lack of acceptance and approval due to vanity. As such, we are very open to manipulation and negative attitudes towards others. As far as evolution goes, sometimes the animals win since they're not burdened by so many of our human failings.
              

              by catnip on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 12:21:21 PM PDT

            •  "Only a Pawn in Their Game"

              "This lack of connection was created deliberately by racists and people who work hard to create memes, myths and stereotypes to divide the races so they can keep power over them."

              Yup. And Bob Dylan said it:

              Today, Medgar Evers was buried from the bullet he caught.
              They lowered him down as a king.
              But when the shadowy sun sets on the one
              That fired the gun
              He'll see by his grave
              On the stone that remains
              Carved next to his name
              His epitaph plain:
              Only a pawn in their game.
              

              by marylrgn on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 01:13:44 PM PDT

  •  Me too!

    I have a slight automatic preference for black relative to white and thin relative to fat people. Little or no preference with regard to: Gender(science or job), religion(judiasim), muslims or gays...does this mean I can now claim super neo-cortex status? (also strong preference for Kerry)

    I wonder what would happen if it asked about my wing-nut bias...probably off the charts!

    by rcvanoz on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 02:28:45 PM PDT

    •  i found it interesting

      that most of the tests have a comment along the lines of "this test usually indicates..."

      by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 03:09:30 PM PDT

  •  Slight bias

    That's what I scored on that one two.  With Muslims no bias at all.  I'm glad to find out that I'm only "slightly" a bigot.  Interesting tests. Gonna take them all.

    by elveta on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 02:40:31 PM PDT

•  eh no

  Yeah, you're prejudiced.  And so am I.  We all are.  It's just a matter of how prejudiced and towards whom.  At least, that's one of the results from the "Implicit Association Test", as profiled in today's Washington Post magazine.

  Don't let some magazine convince you that every human on earth relies on prejudgement. I don't prejudge anyone. Everyone I judge I've watched how they act and analyzed their character. Prejudgement is illogical.
  

  by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:07:36 AM PDT

  •  It's not "some magazine"

    that convinced me...not sure why you'd say that, given that you don't even know me.  For one thing, I majored in psychology with a strong focus in social psych. For another, there are lots of studies on this subject, and while they don't show that every single person is prejudiced, the vast majority do appear to be.  In my opinion, this Implicit Association Test is very powerful, in part because of the way it's designed and in part because it confirms so much other social psych. research out there). Finally, I think the results coincide with many of our observations about Republicans and conservatives being more prejudiced than Democrats and liberals.

    by lowkell on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:17:21 AM PDT

    •  Experience

      Psychology and school can only teach you so much. Racial bias comes from racial prefrences, I don't really view the human species as a group of "races" anymore. I don't view different races as different species or different kinds of people, I just view race as appearance because thats what it is. Race is a mixture of culture and appearance. The typical human traits and personality types are accross all the races, I've seen it.

      So it depends on how much exposure you have to other races which decides if you are racially biased or not. I could be biased in other ways, but certainly not racially biased because I never grew up around one race or one culture, it was never like that for me. I've always known people every race, and people of every race have all the common traits, short tempers, greed, immaturity, maturity, loving, hateful, jealous and so on. I've learned that I cannot judge people on appearance because people who look good may not be a good person.

      by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:23:41 AM PDT

      •  Huh?

        I just view race as appearance because thats what it is. Race is a mixture of culture and appearance. The typical human traits and personality types are accross all the races, I've seen it.

        ~snip~

        I've learned that I cannot judge people on appearance because people who look good may not be a good person.

        Can you please tell me how these two sentences belong in the same comment?

        And how does the first statement really deal with people as individuals if all races and all people have the same traits and personality types?  Doesn't culture play any part in people of different races living together in the same society?

        Mark

        by Dems2004 on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:34:39 AM PDT

        •  Yeah

          I never said I wasnt culturally biased. I said I don't judge people on racial appearance.

          Culture is a different story, some cultures I like more than others, I don't think the American greed culture is all that great, and I'm not exactly a Republican, but it has nothing to do with appearance.

          All people are the same accross races, NOT across cultures.

          by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:47:35 AM PDT

          •  I challenge you to take the tests

            and let us know how you do.

            by lowkell on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:08:48 AM PDT

            •  I took

              I took the racial test, but the test is online and the format I don't think really works. The test I saw was just a bunch of faces with words. Unless somehow I'm supposed to respond differently to different faces, the test is different. It's not like I havent seen black and white people before, and the test was so basic that it was just a bunch of flashing faces with words, I viewed the test as a waste of my time.

              Honestly you could put any kinda face up there and it wouldnt influence the words. This test could be done in person, show someone a card and ask them to think of a word. If they don't connect faces to words, then its just a bunch of flashing faces with words.
              

              by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:13:50 AM PDT

              •  I'm convinced that it DOES work...

                give it a try!

                by lowkell on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:16:06 AM PDT

                •  It only works

                  On people who are of a certain culture. It only works if you view races in the wrong way. Saying it works on everyone is like trying to say everyone can be Republican. Like I said, the entire concept of race is just a false frame. Race? Why do we use the word race to describe appearance instead of type or just appearance? Because race is a frame. When you say race you believe theres winners and losers because all competitions have winners and losers. When you say appearance then theres no winners and losers. When you say culture then theres no winners and losers. Race however makes it seem like everyones on their own track in competition with everyone else. If you know about framing then you know race is just a bad frame, which racists and others manipulate.
                  

                  by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:32:54 AM PDT

                  •  Then try

                    the gender one.  I'd be fascinated to see your results.

                    by Poor Statue on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 03:22:10 PM PDT

                  •  it only works on people

                    intelligent enough to read and follow the directions and then report what result they got.

                    by jqb on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 11:54:22 PM PDT

              •  huh?

                You missed the whole point of the test.  Read the directions first, complain later.

                by elveta on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 02:42:42 PM PDT

        •  reading comprehension?

          Try this equivalent: "hair color is just a matter of appearance.  Human traits and personality types occur across all hair colors.  One cannot judge people based solely on their hair color."
          

          by jqb on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 11:48:23 PM PDT

    •  Don't let

      'someone' tell you that tests that measure people's reactions to reace or gender issues are all full of crap.

      Just like all other data, it is to be studied, bent, twisted and mutiliated into whatever you want it to be.  If nothing else it is interesting, and helps reinforce some of what some people have been feeling and thinking for some time now. "How do I REALLY feel about race issues?"

      Thanks for the contribution, Lowell. Well done, as usual.

      Mark

      by Dems2004 on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:28:24 AM PDT

      •  Once again

        This assumes everyone views race in the same way. The tests are culturally biased. Someone who is multi cultural like myself will see the test as a complete waste of time because the test attempts to create bias which doesnt actually exist.

        I could create a test to create bias too. The test just was a bunch of flashing pictures of faces connected to words, the only thing difficult about the test was matching the words to the faces using the keyboard, but really I don't view faces and think of words so the test for me was mostly about coordination and timing.

        If the test were given on paper, with unlimited time, or the test was a test on cultural biases instead of appearance based biases I think it would be more useful. I think I could be culturally biased, but I'm not appearance biased. I've learned from my experiences with females that appearance means shit, literally, and that people cannot be judged by that. Some of the worst people you'll ever meet will look pretty, beautiful, etc.
        

        by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:36:38 AM PDT

        •  asdf

          The tests are culturally biased. Someone who is multi cultural like myself will see the test as a complete waste of time because the test attempts to create bias which doesnt actually exist.

          If by "culturally biased", you mean skewed toward American audiences, I agree.  So what?  That doesn't discredit the results; it simply means that interpreting results for non-American tesktakers is either an interesting exercise in cross-cultural study, or able to be ignored.

          If, as you assert, you don't think in terms of appearance or race, that's good for you.  If you see the test as a complete waste of time, you must be very secure (or very insecure) in your convictions.  However, to use your personal experience to attempt to discredit the idea of prejudice or to disregard a test which attempts to seek that prejudice out is simply myopic.

          If the test were given on paper, with unlimited time, or the test was a test on cultural biases instead of appearance based biases I think it would be more useful.

          Unlimited time would undermine the whole experiment.  If you didn't gather, the point is to measure your gut reaction to a face or an image.

          Basically, if I understand it correctly, if you see a face of a group you favor, you will naturally expect a positive word to come, and with a group you don't favor, a negative word.  Therefore, if a word expressing the idea opposite of what you were thinking comes up, you have to adjust your thinking (or accidentally choose the wrong category).  By measuring how much longer it takes when an unexpected word comes up, it can approximate how strong your association with "good" words is to "good" groups, and vice versa.  Therefore, you need a time limit and quick responses.  Reaction time is the whole point.  

          by TheCrimsonKid on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 10:29:22 AM PDT

          •  But

            Once again this assumes you grew up in some segregated rural area. What about people in the urban community? Once again, to a lot of people faces are just faces.  We don't really get a reaction, or at least I don't, because in general I don't care how people look. I only care how people act.

            by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 05:16:01 PM PDT

        •  the test for everyone is about timing

          " the only thing difficult about the test was matching the words to the faces using the keyboard"

          You weren't supposed to match words to faces.

          The test also implicitly tests for a minimum amount of intelligence to read the instructions and grasp what the test is all about.

          by jqb on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 12:01:19 AM PDT

      •  You're welcome, and on a different topic

        go Kaine!!!

        by lowkell on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:17:11 AM PDT

  •  I generally give anyone the benefit

    of being trustworthy- Have gotten myself in lots of trouble because of not 'pre-judging' and met some real creeps. But oddly it hasn't jaded me too much as I can usually find something good and beautiful in everyone. Some people say I am naive- but I think I am more idealistic than naive. What I have learned to do is pay attention to my instincts and 'red- flags' (no pun intended). If a really bad person comes into my aura my hair stands on end. And I truly feel that when Bush comes into range....

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 12:18:40 PM PDT

•  These tests

  These tests in my opinion only work on the culturally ignorant. If you get a bad score or you are scored bias it usually means you don't have enough cultural experience.

  I took the test on the site, the racial test to be precise and the test seemed like a challenging on timing moreso than on actual bias. I'm sure you can capture bias through tests, and I'm sure most Americans are culturally ignorant enough to judge on appearance, but from what I know about people

  All people across all races that I've met were the same, the only differences between them were/are culture.

  by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:19:09 AM PDT

  •  I agree about the timing thing

    I came out as a Super Tolerant (must be a Liberal Democrat!)...

    but realy, the pictures just seem to be a test of reflexes and itming, to me.

    Maybe I'm wrong. Dunno. I suspect I have a lot more ingrained prejudices than my score on these types of tests would indicate.

    by Maryscott OConnor on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:46:29 AM PDT

    •  i took the black/white test

      and was told my data "suggest a slight automatic preference for Black American relative to White American."

      fascinating.  i assumed i'd be neutral.

      do not read any further if you do not want any subjective info about the test influencing your experience

      the explanation that your timing is largely what makes their determinations caught my attention:  if you responded more quickly when black was associated with "good," you have this inherent preference for black over white.  conversely, if your replies came quicker when white and "good" were the same button, you favor whites.

      i certainly can't speak for everyone, but i know exactly why it took me longer to respond when white and "good" were on the same button - because "good" was associated with black first.  so for that whole round, i'd just spent however many questions telling my brain "good and black go with this button" and "bad and white go with this button."  my brain, having learned what it was supposed to do well, had a really hard time re-associating "good" with white after working with black/good in the previous round.

      i guess this is what someone upthread meant by "creating a bias where there is none."

      i wonder if any test takers get the questions in a different order, i.e. have "good" associated with white first.

      by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 03:42:55 PM PDT

      •  perhaps you responded too slowly

        If you respond immediately, without conscious thinking, such short-term conscious associations shouldn't come into play.  Try taking the test again a few times (with several hours in between).

        by jqb on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 12:13:44 AM PDT

    •  you're wrong

      People consistently have the same timing biases between categories of faces and categories of words, regardless of which side they appear on.  So this is a controlled experiment that reveals timing delays in brain processing that indicate mental associations between the face categories and the word categories.

      "I suspect I have a lot more ingrained prejudices than my score on these types of tests would indicate."

      Try the Kerry vs. Bush and "other recent presidents" vs. Bush tests.

      by jqb on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 12:09:38 AM PDT

      •  So...

        What's your conclusion, then? I really AM a "Super Tolerant Fabulous Liberal with virtually no racial prejudices?"

        Not that I'd find that a BAD thing, but I really do suspect I've got a lot of prejudices that may simply be too subtle for me or you to pick out on first inspection...

        by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 12:26:28 PM PDT

  •  You should read the Washington Post article

    I'd be willing to guess that you haven't, because many of the problems that you have with the IAT that you raised in this and your other comments on the topic were, in fact, addressed in the article.

    I don't think it's helpful to just say that the tests only work on culturally-ignorant people/people who haven't had enough cultural experience, or that the tests are culturally-biased, without understanding what the tests actually represent.  What they measure is, to quote from the article, "the thumbprint of the culture on our minds", or the extent to which people are culturally-biased.  Later, one of the researchers says "Is the IAT picking up something about the culture?  Yes, but it is picking up that aspect of the culture that has gotten into your brain and your mind."

    In saying that the tests only work on the culturally-ignorant, you're not saying anything the people who conduct the IAT don't already know and haven't already accounted for.  That's actually sort of the point.

    The researchers know that people have biases.  At the same time, almost nobody admits that they're biased, so you have to find a way around the fact that people lie to themselves and especially to other people about their beliefs and attitudes.  So how can you measure bias?  Not by asking people directly, they'll just lie.  No, you measure bias by using that little timing thing in the test that you so casually dismiss.  "Connecting concepts that the mind perceives as incompatible simply takes extra time.  The time difference can be quantified and, the creators of the test argue, is an objective measure of people's implicit attitudes."

    To use other examples from the article, it's easy to see "Thunder" and match it with "Lightning", or salt with pepper, or day with night.  It's easy for people to match "insects" with negative things like evil, poison, and devil.  But it's hard for people to associate "flowers" with those same terms.  It's harder, so people are slower, and since they're slower, you can figure out people's attitudes towards insects (generally negative) and flowers (generally positive).  The same principle applies to the judgments that people make based on appearance.  This isn't some flash-in-the-pan hare-brained scheme--they've been refining this timing thing for a long time, and with respect to the issue of race, for at least a decade.

    So unlike you, I think the test works, and I think it's useful.  If someone was to take the test in good faith, without an agenda, and without trying to "beat" the test ("Research has shown that individuals who are highly motivated can successfully fool the tests by temporarily holding counter-stereotypes in their minds."), they just might learn something about themselves that they didn't expect.  Having learned that they have biases where they thought none existed, they could then do something about their biases, like go out and have what researchers call "counter-stereotypical experiences", which is a fancy way of saying that people should get to know people they ordinarily haven't made an effort to meet/interact with.

    In the end, you and the peple who run the IAT have the same prescription to counter people's biases.  "Living in a diverse neighborhood does not in itself seem to reduce bias, but having close friendships with people from other ethnic groups does appear to lower bias, the IAT researchers have found."  But I think that first, people need to realize that they have biases, acknowledge that they have them, and understand how they can counter them.  The IAT is one method by which people can get the process started.

    by donkeyking on Sun Jan 23, 2005 at 11:48:13 PM PDT

  •  if you are scored biased then you're biased

    That's the whole point of the test.  The idea that it "only works" if you are scored as having a bias is whacked.  If you got a neutral score and you're neutral, then the test worked just fine.  But since you never even say what score you got, I think the only thing not working is you.

    by jqb on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 12:17:24 AM PDT

•  I Predict

  That there will be silent howls of rejection as people take this thing here - and are confronted with their own subconscious thought. (Indeed, it would be depressing, but not surprising, if this diary drifted into obscurity despite its critical importance).

  I have always felt that what the researchers reported was true and explains much of what goes on today at least as far as race goes, the results don't surprise me in the least.  I've made a lot of enemies saying that, because folks don't want to hear it.  Not anymore.  My parents often say that at least as far as race went, it used to be far easier to deal with people as human beings because they were racist and knew it, such that you knew where you stood as a Black person right away.  Today, everyone talks the talk, but their behavior doesn't mirror it.  When you make that type of accusation, and call it what it is (racism) people immediately freak out as if you'd said their mama was a ho.  There has been nothing so depressing in my experience as trying to talk about the unconscious, suppressed bias that ALL of us carry around with us, and how nothing less than active re-education over generations can possibly undo the harm.

  It takes a very strong person to look in the mirror and accept that deep down, their unconscious thoughts do not mirror what their conscious ones do.  That they are racist, or sexist, or anti-gay, but not a bad person.  Just misled, as we all are pretty much from birth in our culture.  Tim Wise, an anti-racist activist, tells the story of his very progressive, very anti-racist grandmother's descent into Alzheimers resulted in.  When she no longer had control over what she thought and said because of the disease, when her unconscious thoughts were able to overcome her years of conscious rejection, the old social message began coming through again loud and clear.

  Frankly, I don't think we as a country are mature enough to accept the reality that the IAT is bringing out - which is that no matter how much folks indoctrinate themselves with "the right feelings" the wrong, cultural feelings they have learned and absorbed don't go anywhere but underground - and continue to play out every day.

  As for myself, I have done two so far.  One I had a strong pro-Black bias.  The other, a moderate anti-gay bias, which is cause for reflection since I am myself bisexual (although monogamously married for many years, so that may be a factor).  Unlike those who have and will probably rant and rail about the test, its invalidity, its inappropriateness and its wrongness, I will simply do one thing - go face the mirror.  Reflect.  And commit to keep working on it, every day.

  I often pray that we as a country, particularly those who insist that there is no prejudice left within them, are strong enough to do the same.

  by shanikka on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:20:10 AM PDT

  •  This depends on culture

    Racism is cultural. It's just a set of memes which combine to cause racism. The word race is a frame which makes people view appearances as competitive. Race in my opinion is just appearance. Someone can have black genes and be white, or have white genes and be black. The days of racial purity are long past, so race is just appearance at this point.

    Since we all share the same genes, and we all share the same personality types, race is just a frame, and racism is just a set of memes and stereotypes. If you move beyond race you begin to view humanity as a group, or as a species, and races become appearance. Just like dogs or cats with different colour fur, same species, different appearances.

    In general, just like dogs, humans have different looks, but dogs have more variation to their genes between appearance than we do. With us, theres not a lot of difference between races because we all are mixed at this point. I have ancestors of different races, and if you are American I'm pretty sure you do too.

    If you view it in a scientific way, evolution depends on racial mixing, without it there will be no way to increase your gene pool. Mixing occured most likely thousands of years ago. Until scientists can prove that people of different races actually have unique genetics, race to me is the scientific definition, its appearance.

    by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:30:23 AM PDT

  •  Now a member of the shanikka fan club

    Yes!  It's a shame this won't make it into the recommends.  It should.  For instance, I think the only reason I tilted slightly pro-Black was that I've immersed myself in Dr. King's philosophies for a few years now.  It's pretty hard to not associate "black" with "good" after that.

    Haven't taken the rest of the tests cuz I'm watching my daughter, and they said this needed to be "free of distractions".  But I will take them later as I really want to see where I stand on stuff like this.

    It's just a lesson that we can all be constantly improving in these areas, and no one should come out of this thinking that they are a "bad person".  It's the culture that is bad and that's what we need to fix.

    Thinking of a diary focusing a new frame on the "culture wars" after this...will try to post later today.

    by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:32:32 AM PDT

    •  Me too

      Grannyhelen.

      Good work, shanikka

      Mark

      by Dems2004 on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:36:23 AM PDT

    •  The test has its flaws

      The test itself however assumes people think in a certain way, or follow a certain culture. I admit most Americans will do bad on this test because most Americans don't know a lot of people outside their race, but I know more people outside my race than inside it. The test in my opinion should have been a test on cultural bias.

      Example, ask about rap music vs rock music vs punk music. Ask about movies, movie stars, etc. Cultural bias is real and we all have that. Racial bias however requires you to be raised in a certain way, or to follow a certain culture, and if you are multicultural the test just seems beyond silly.

      by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:39:56 AM PDT

      •  But this IS what the test measures

        I think this should be viewed as a gauge on how multicultural our society is.  If you're so multicultural already that this literally doesn't make any sense to you, GREAT!  That's the whole point.

        Problem is there are still real biases in our society and I think that's part of the point.

        by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:47:16 AM PDT

        •  I understand that but

          Bias is taught, its not something you learn on your own, its just a bunch of stupid stereotypes people tell you, rumors, myths and other stupid crap.

          Like the myths about jews, and the myths about blacks,  or the myths about whites. When actually start to pay closer attention to the individual and not the race you begin to see all the bad traits are spread across all the races so the myths apply to humanity itself.

          The memes or myths about the jews being greedy also applies to whites, and it also applies to blacks, every race has its greedy population

          Every race has its murderers, serial killers, child molestors, gangsters, drug dealers, drug users, etc. Now the media might try to spread stereotypes by pretending only one race commits certain types of crimes or only one race has a certain problem but thats the bias of FoxNews and News reporters. I do my own research on difference races and my own conclusion is theres no difference. Theres good and bad people in every race, period.
          

          by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:52:03 AM PDT

          •  Bias is more than being taught

            There is a "push" toward bias, to borrow a marketing phrase.  Rich people are portrayed in our culture as being happy, healthy and young...and mostly white.  Poor people are portrayed as being unhappy, uneducated, with failing health and bad teeth...and mostly brown.  

            Rich people are portrayed as law abiding; poor people are portrayed as law breaking.

            So, you sit there and think to yourself: well, that does have a basis in reality, doesn't it?  I mean, crime rates among African Americans and Hispanics are higher than among whites, and so are poverty rates.  So what's the beef?

            The problem is that these images become part of the cultural subconscious, and can become a self-fulfilling prophecy for both minorities and whites.  The problem happens when you start to think that poor people are poor because they are lazy criminals; and rich people are rich because they are better educated, more law abiding citizens.

            Can anyone say "Enron"?

            The obvious way of correcting this bias is to put society on its head and actually fix poverty, which is what Dr. King was working on when he got assassinated.  

            There is a part of our society that is sick, literally, and needs to get healed.  Part of the cure is the acknowledgement that this is even a problem in the first place.  

            by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:02:07 AM PDT

            •  Yes but thats all made up

              Crime rates seem higher because minorites get caught more and put in jail quicker. Most crimes however are commited by whites. Being caught and commit crimes are not the same.

              The reason people can think like this is because they don't know any poor people, they don't know anyone of different races and they don't want to know them. People like this never want to learn the truth so how do you show them?

              by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:09:39 AM PDT

              •  Have them take the test

                I would argue this is the first step.  It can be used as a wake-up call to the psyche, along the lines of "hey, I didn't know I had this problem".

                As the article cited, that's probably why they met with a lot of resistance.  I think there's a part of people's rational minds that understands there is a problem but they don't want to confront it.

                We need to just keep at it.  I'm hopeful that everyone can change.

                by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:13:54 AM PDT

                •  But

                  this assumes people are in denial. I think the problem isnt denial, the problem is their culture. The problem is they never met enough people who were different from them. Republicans fear this because in order to be a Republican you have to believe the myths.

                  Race is a frame. I believe if you destroy the frame you destroy the whole set of thoughts which help lead to the problem. If Race is simply appearance, then it becomes like for example people with blonde or brown hair, blue or brown eyes, etc.  You don't have to like every appearance, but its just an appearance, its not a race.

                  The cultural problem will be solved by having an open culture. When you have segregated culture then it fuels racism. This is why we need open culture and why open culture should be a Democratic value/principle.

                  by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:40:21 AM PDT

                  •  This is where I disagree

                    a lot of people ARE in denial, specifically about the realities of their culture and how it influences them.

                    Look at it this way: if rich people were portrayed all the time as Scrooge, how many folks walking around out there would want to be rich?  Conversely, what would that do to the entire basis of American capitalism?

                    I don't disagree on your proposed cures, but I do think a lot of people just don't want to think about these things too deeply.

                    by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:45:58 AM PDT

    •  Thanks to your support...

      this is now a recommended diary.

      by lowkell on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 10:27:20 AM PDT

  •  Institutionaliszed racism

    is the most insidious form of all.

    The idea that things are just the way they are and it is not racism.

    You could say the same about sexism these days.

    Nowadays there are only two groups that are open targets for blatant and overt racism per our society (meaning it is socially acceptable to target them for hate and discrimination):

    gays and muslims

    It is open season on both in Bush's America.

    But the underlying issues of race and racism remain embedded and entrenched in every level of American society.

    Just ask ANY person of color who has not traded their own identity for faux acceptance in dominant society (ie: Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Abu Gonzales and their ilk).
    

    by wild salmon on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 11:58:29 AM PDT

    •  Uh

      Muslims arent a race, and neither are gays. Just don't tell people you are islamic or gay.

      by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 05:18:34 PM PDT

•  Well...um...that's embarrassing....

  So I have a...well..."Strong automatic prejudice for whites over blacks?"  Man, that's disturbing.  I never would have guessed.  On the bright side, I got a not prejudiced on the straight/gay test, so I am doing well on something.  (I also got a moderate preference for young/old, which considering my age makes sense.  I'll try the others later)

  by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:39:17 AM PDT

  •  Well

    The solution to this, find some black friends and be around more black people. The only reason you'd be prejudiced is if you arent around other races or perhaps you don't have a lot of friends of other races? If you do, can you actually see a difference between your white and black friends? I can't.

    by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 08:55:30 AM PDT

•  Seems I have...

  no preference black/white but a slight preference for young vs old. Who knew? I actually quite like old people, considering I'm well on my way to being one. Well, hopefully.

  Will take the others later.

  by Nanette K on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:35:32 AM PDT

•  Hey, wait...

  Some of my best friends are....

  by gttim on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:38:27 AM PDT

•  i was truly surprised...

  i have a strong preference for black over white. i'm 1/2 native american 1/2 irish & i felt going into the test that i was probably slightly prejudiced against blacks. but after seeing the faces (all male) i realize i'm not so much pro-black as anti-white. i just think that all those white males have a greater possibility for doing true evil in the world than the black folks do. while some of the black people in my neighborhood (a primarily black city [new orleans]) annoy the crap out of me with their loud cars & 1am street basketball games outside my sleeping baby's window, i just can't see that as being evil, just rude. while i just automatically expect the white folks (frat boys) in the neighborhood (i live near tulane) to eventually grow up to be lesser versions of bush -- capible of doing true evil.

  by stay at home dad on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:59:30 AM PDT

  •  wow

    i just think that all those white males have a greater possibility for doing true evil in the world than the black folks do... i just automatically expect the white folks (frat boys) in the neighborhood (i live near tulane) to eventually grow up to be lesser versions of bush -- capible of doing true evil.

    That's highly offensive.  To say that you "automatically expect" a certain race and gender is more disposed to true evil, to be honest, disgusts me.

    Let's look at this:

    "i just think that all those black males have a greater possibility for doing true evil in the world than the white folks do."

    I'm pretty sure I would get banned for saying that, and rightly so.

    Racism isn't any less racist when it's targeted at the perceived oppressors.

    by TheCrimsonKid on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 10:50:37 AM PDT

    •  Currently, white males have most

      of the power in the world, so they have most of the potential to do harm.  That's nothing genetic or anything, just a fact of the current world.   But yeah, to think that any one group would be INHERENTLY more likely to be harmful seems to me both offensive and almost certainly wrong...go see "Hotel Rwanda" for instance, to be reminded of what black people can do to other black people.  Or, read "The Rape of Nanking" or "The Killing Fields" to be reminded what Asians can do to other Asians.  And on and on...depressingly on.

      by lowkell on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 10:57:58 AM PDT

    •  the ability to do evil

      resides with the ability to wield power over others. in america today, that ability resides almost solely with white males. as long as that is the case, i will always regard white males, especially those in the upper & upper middle classes as particularly suspect.

      perhaps that is wrong of me. but the test was to judge what prejudices we hold, and those are mine due to my personal experience. it wasn't black people who put up signs "no indians allowed" in places in the town my mom grew up in. it was the white people who did that.

      for me, true evil resides hand in hand with power. people who do bad things out of desperate situations aren't evil, just unfortunate & sad. terrible as it is, the guy who robs a convenience store because he needs a fix to help him self-medicate to escape a tragic life isn't as evil as the rich industrialist who knowingly allows a dangerous product to remain on the shelf, or the politician who is so eager for his money that he turns a blind eye to it. and yes, i say he and yes i think white. because despite inroads made by women & minorities, the power elite is still white male and the crumbs are left to the rest.

      by stay at home dad on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 11:32:28 AM PDT

    •  I think

      I think the point he was making is that most of the evil in the world and most of the crimes commited in the world are being commited by white males, and this much is true, but this is only true because white males happen to be in power. We simply don't know if a black male or a white female would be any better so we cannot assume only white males are capable of evil. How about you get Obama elected and find out? If the racists allow Obama to even run for office.

      by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 05:21:44 PM PDT

    •  I'm white and I think he's obviously right

      "Racism isn't any less racist when it's targeted at the perceived oppressors."

      Next you'll be telling us that affirmative action is reverse discrimination.
      

      by jqb on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 12:34:05 AM PDT

  •  Not surpising at all

    Most Native Amerian communities are deeply entrenched in and continually struggling with the realities of racism against them.

    Not hard to figure out why: genocide and continual discrimination and oppression rationalized by notions of the racial superiority of whites, and notions about the sub-human nature of Native Americans. The flip side is a strong anti-white bias.

    The whole pratice of BQ ("how Indian are you") is upon some fairly unscientific notions of race and percentages. And it is STILL the determining factor for enrollment in a federally recognized Indian tribe.

    I am also Native American and Irish. I live and work in a Native American community. Notions of perceived differences re: race are constant and prevelant in every level of the community. My experiences have led me to conclude, conclusively, that racism is a very destructive social mechanism- no matter what side of it you find yourself in.

    And the irony for me is- Irish (celts) were discriminated against in Europe due to perceived notions of their racial inferiority.

    So it is no surpise to me that there are so many Native American-Irish people out there.

    by wild salmon on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 12:23:41 PM PDT

•  I'm prejudiced

  Against stupid people.  I'm talking about people who should know better, but refuse to learn.  

  by fabooj on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 10:01:23 AM PDT

  •  So far

    Here's me:  I'm a hetero, black, 32 year old Muslim female.  I scored slight pref. young/old, which is interesting because when the word choices got mixed up, I thought I would.
    I scored no automatic preference for white/black.  I thought I would have a slight white pref. since my husband is white.  There is a photo of a guy in there who looks like my husband and I kept choosing him for the African American side no matter what.  Also there were two word choices (Agony and Tragic) that I chose for the African American side no matter.
    I scored very liberal and they seemed to think I liked Kerry over Bush.  Who knew?  No matter what the evil word was, especailly Crash, Tragedy and Stink, I always associated it with Bush.
    I have no automatic preference for gay vs. straight people. I thought I'd lean more to heteosexuals.  
    I have a strong automatic preference for Arab Muslims vs. Other People.  I thought I'd be neutral on this.  

    Very interesting way of putting together images and phrases.  It was weird how some of the negatives would go to a certain type of people because of life experiences.  I'm going to share this on my birth club boards.  There are a lot of conservative women there and it would be interesting to see their results.  I can't wait to take the rest of the tests.

    by fabooj on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 11:28:31 AM PDT

  •  A Quote

    Yesterday Lou Dobbs said it was unamerican to be stupid.  Ha!

    by JenAtlanta on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 11:30:33 AM PDT

    •  No he didn't! Really?

      Then what does that make him?  Quick!  Somebody deport Dobbs.  He's obviously un-American.

      by fabooj on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 12:01:01 PM PDT

      •  They showed it on 20/20 last night.

        I nearly keeled over from laughing so hard.

        by JenAtlanta on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 12:55:03 PM PDT

•  "reptile" vs. "mammal" brain

  The whole reptilian vs. mammalian brain thing is a myth.  The brain is a highly integrated organ, and it is a gross oversimplification to say that Republicans use their "reptilian brains" more than liberals.  The attitude of preferring one race over another has nothing to do with using your cortex over your amygdala.  As several commenters above have mentioned, race preferences are a learned behavior.  You can't simultaneously ascribe conservative's preferences for their own race to their "reptilian brain" and to a complex set of learned ideas at the same time.

  by Scott in NAZ on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 10:11:50 AM PDT

  •  and

    all this "reptilian brain," "limbic brain" nonsense is just more evolution malarkey, anyway.

    </sarcasm>

    by LegalSpice on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 12:02:59 PM PDT

  •  well

    You can't simultaneously ascribe conservative's preferences for their own race to their "reptilian brain" and to a complex set of learned ideas at the same time.

    hard to argue with that one.  but i'm stubborn.  you are spot on with the contradiction about the origins of conservative bias.  but i'm afraid i can't back you up on calling the reptilian/mammalian brain model a "myth."  

    yes, the brain is a highly integrated organ, but think about what "integrated" means - several parts working together.  in this case, the older (reptilian) portion of our brains and the responses controlled by it are integrated with the evolved mammalian brain and its respective neurological functions.  it is true that psychology and the brain do largely remain a mystery; but we do have a fairly good map of which regions do what neurologically.  

    yes, the cortices work together on the larger scale, but that does not preclude them from having a specific function.  much like your heart and lungs work together, but do completely different things.

    by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 05:01:51 PM PDT

  •  Not all brains are alike

    In fact, out of all of our organs our brains are the organs with the most genetic variation. Most of us think very differently to the point where we all are in our own worlds. Republicans tend to be selfish by nature and they simply justify it with words, however there are selfish people who are Democrat for the simply reason that its logical. If you pay attention to game theory it makes perfect sense that we share certain things because sometimes its better for us all to win instead of raising the stakes and then no one wins. When we all win, winning is guarenteed because we don't have to compete with each other. I like guarenteed success. Republicans are the opposite, they want winners and losers just so they can feel proud about their own success.

    by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 05:27:15 PM PDT

  •  run some fMRIs and watch the amygdala light up

    "The brain is a highly integrated organ"

    In fact the brain is far more modular than we used to think.

    "You can't simultaneously ascribe conservative's preferences for their own race to their "reptilian brain" and to a complex set of learned ideas at the same time."

    Of course you can, since emotional reactions to stimuli are learned.

    by jqb on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 12:43:51 AM PDT

•  prejudice depends on where you live

  I have the strong feeling that if you live in rural America with very little contact with cities, you are highly likely to score as prejudiced. That's because you never come in contact with blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc. You only have what's on TV and we know how blacks, etc., are treated there.

  I live in a community where people are from everywhere and we have all shades of the rainbow (okay, no blue or green people) and it requires that we are all tolerant of each other. Except for the very reclusive religious groups that won't talk to use because we don't follow their customs. But that's rare.

  Just my take on this. I didn't take the test. I'm sure a little prejudice will show up. Hey, we all have it, whether we know it or not! But as a "very liberal" person, I highly doubt I'd be on the bigoted side of the equation.

  Lynn

  by bastetmax on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 10:28:51 AM PDT

  •  I've Lived in Big Cities...

    ...and believe me there are PLENTY of white people from New York, Philadelphia, and other Northern cities who are as racist as any Grand Dragon of the KKK.

    by Grand Poobah on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 12:35:38 PM PDT

  •  so where do the people who put stuff on TV live?

    "You only have what's on TV and we know how blacks, etc., are treated there."

    Think about it.
    

    by jqb on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 11:38:11 PM PDT

•  yeah

  And we needed a bunch of social scientists and millions of tests to tell us THIS?

  Let's just say the results weren't exactly surprising.

  by Planet B on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 10:29:49 AM PDT

  •  Who knew?

    I'm totally neutral on race, gender and sexual orientation, but I really don't like fat people.  I guess I must be "sizeist" or something.  Somebody page pathology, stat!

    by felagund on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 10:55:19 AM PDT

    •  Interesting...most Americans probably

      are prejudiced against fat people, even though we're in the midst of an obesity epidemic...the fattest nation ever in the history of the planet.

      by lowkell on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 10:59:50 AM PDT

•  I'm really surprised that you're all not

  focusing on the key finding here, that the more conservative you are, the more prejudiced.  It's a strong and direct correlation.  So, what does this mean for the future of the Democratic Party, progressivism, liberalism, and the strategy to become competitive again in the South?

  by lowkell on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 11:02:03 AM PDT

  •  Hmmm...

    Well, personally, I wouldn't focus on the "key finding" because for one thing, saying "the more conservative you are, the more prejudiced" immediately removes individuality from a person and places them in yet another "group", even if not racial. And for another, there are so many other factors that go into prejudice/bias against any group of people that I can't see how one can just make a blanket statement.

    I have a very liberal friend who is very uncomfortable about black people, cuz of how he was raised. And a very conservative one who doesn't even see color at all (just whether you are pro or anti Bush, lol). Same for treatment/views of gays etc. I suppose because where I live (California) we get people moving from all over the country, we wind up with sometimes a very odd mixture of Conservatives who act like Liberals in some ways and vise versa, depending on where they originated.

    My philosophy? Take each person as an individual, and deal with them... good or bad, as who they are, not who you think (or want) them to be.
    

    by Nanette K on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 11:32:18 AM PDT

  •  Prejudice Is Central

    Obviously, prejudice is central to movement conservatism. This is not news. The question is twofold: (1) What else is connected to it and how? (2) What to do about it?  

    I offer only the most tentative beginnings on both:

    (1) As I note in another comment, there are two very strong modalities connecting conservatism and prejudice. They work differently and have relatively little overlap.

    Those high in RWA are fearful of the world becoming increasingly jungle-like. Those high in SDO are determined to be the eaters, rather than the eaten. High-RWAs are, intutively, a better fit with social conservatives, particularly the religious right. High-SDOs are a better fit with neo-cons.

    There's been a lot of research showing that high-RWAs don't think too good. The same sort of research hasn't been done with high-SDOs, but I would venture that they probably aren't as badly impaired.

    (2) In Social Dominance, the authors note that egalitarianism has gained a great deal as a value, and as a result a good deal of prejudicial attitudes are masked. One example they look at in some detail is the way that people who score higher in SDO (more prejudiced against outgroups, even to the point of violence) are more likely to use egalitarian-style arguments against affirmative action. (Arguments that are false, btw.)

    This, to my mind, is the key thing we need to be focusing on--the way in which conservative (prejudiced) political agendas are sold in liberal (anti-prejudiced) packages. This is, after all, what all that "freedom talk" in Bush's SOT was about.  It is what his nominations of Rice and Gonzales is all about, too.

    by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 11:51:16 AM PDT

  •  i'm not sure

    how armor-clad the correlation is.  if you ask me, i think there's a flaw with the test administration that introduces a bias.

    by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 05:07:19 PM PDT

    •  re: i'm not sure

       When the Harvard researchers first came up with the idea of testing racial/cultural bias, they "reversed the order of the names in the test . . . [and] switched the left and right keys" and the results didn't change.  That was 10 years ago.  While the author of the article didn't get into it in detail, based on what they did right off the bat, I suspect that the researchers have accounted for the issue that you raised.  So if there's a flaw in the test methodology (and there might be, who knows), I don't think it's the one you've described.

      you wrote:
      the explanation that your timing is largely what makes their determinations caught my attention:  if you responded more quickly when black was associated with "good," you have this inherent preference for black over white.  conversely, if your replies came quicker when white and "good" were the same button, you favor whites.

      i certainly can't speak for everyone, but i know exactly why it took me longer to respond when white and "good" were on the same button - because "good" was associated with black first.  so for that whole round, i'd just spent however many questions telling my brain "good and black go with this button" and "bad and white go with this button."  my brain, having learned what it was supposed to do well, had a really hard time re-associating "good" with white after working with black/good in the previous round.

      i guess this is what someone upthread meant by "creating a bias where there is none."

      i wonder if any test takers get the questions in a different order, i.e. have "good" associated with white first.

      by donkeyking on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 12:03:36 AM PDT

  •  Haha thats a good idea

    You should conduct a study and give this test to conservative voters just so you can get CNN to cover the results.

    by Lucian on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 05:28:45 PM PDT

•  Just A Piece of the Pie

  There is an extensive literature showing that prejudice and conservatism are correlated, much of it based on conscious deliberately-chosen responses. In fact, conservatism is correlated with prejudice via two distinct attitudinal constructs.

  The first, Rightwing Authoritarianism (RWA), is fleshed out in the DKosopedia here. It consists of the convergence of three attitudinal clusters:

  • Authoritarian submission: A high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
    
  • Authoritarian aggression: A general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities.
    
  • Conventionalism: A high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.

  Specific findings regarding hostility toward outgroups include:

  • Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty, such as the Bill of Rights.
    
  • Punish severely ?common? criminals in a role-playing situation.
    
  • Admit they get personal pleasure from punishing such people.
    
  • Be prejudiced against many racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
    
  • Be hostile toward homosexuals.
    
  • Support 'gay-bashing.'
    
  • Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
    
  • Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.

  The second, social dominance orientation (SDO), is the individual attitudinal component in social dominance theory (SDT), which is fully developed in the book Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto. SDT is a highly developed theory that has, among other things, a very robust explanation for outgroups harboring prejudice toward themselves, and for self-destructive behavior in outgroups.

  While the findings reported here are certainly both important and significant, it is far more important to place them into a larger framework of understanding, which, in turn, can help us strategize how to change things.

  by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 11:35:08 AM PDT

•  Blue Eyes Brown Eyes

  If you haven't seen Frontline's program, A Class Divided about Ohio schoolteacher Jane Elliott, PBS has got it online and I strongly encourage you to watch it.

  Elliott demonstrated 36 years ago how horrifyingly easy it is to instill bias in children. The good news is what is learned, can be unlearned.

  The partisan correlation I would make is I think I saw something which said that liberals tended to have higher levels of educational achievement. Which leads to another thought that's been rambling around in my brain lately--that Bushco tells lies deliberately because the effect of increased cyncism helps to keep people ignorant.

  by hono lulu on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 11:36:52 AM PDT

•  The results are in and they aren't promising...

  So I went in and took several of the tests this morning.  I discovered that I have a moderate preference for young versus old, a slight preference for Arab Muslim, and a strong preference for white over African-American.  This last result left me feeling mortified, so I took the test again. <sheepish grin>  The next time I got little or no preference, but I'm thinking that my first test result was probably the truer one.

  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, after all this is where I grew up.  But I was very disappointed in myself, because as an adult I have tried to really challenge myself on inherent, unconscious prejudices.

  Then while I was in the shower, I started thinking about how supposed difference has been used throughout history as a wedge to drive the lower classes apart in order to benefit the economic elite.  This is a very powerful idea and one we aren't, imho, going to overcome soon although we are making great progress.

  For example, an historian named Paul Finkelman has writtten extensively on the subject of slave law (please forgive me, I'm in a hurry and summarizing from memory) detailing how white slave owners used legislation to divide the lower classes.  In the late seventeenth century, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law changing