EPTanyways, does it always start with white / good on right, and then switch to white / bad on left?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1700
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
anyways, does it always start with white / good on right, and then switch to white / bad on left? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17979 Posts
On March 06 2015 03:41 dAPhREAk wrote: so , i took the test and it says i have a strong preference for asian females. don't know how that worked out, but coolio. anyways, does it always start with white / good on right, and then switch to white / bad on left? That's what I had. I would like to claim that my lefthandedness is to blame for my racial bias, but I don't know in how much that works. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 06 2015 03:50 Acrofales wrote: That's what I had. I would like to claim that my lefthandedness is to blame for my racial bias, but I don't know in how much that works. well, my concern is more that the test teaches you to associate black with bad, tells you to go as fast as possible, then tries to re-teach you to associate white with bad and tells you to go as fast as possible. i noticed in the later rounds i was incorrectly identifying words and faces with the wrong side because i was still in the black is bad, white is good mindset that allowed me to go fast in the first few rounds. also, fuck you harvard for telling me love is not bad! | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
I see you still fighting the good fight GH. *salute* | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On March 06 2015 03:55 oneofthem wrote: yep, the training then re-training will throw people off quite a bit. that's the point I thought? Figuring out what way you're thrown off more This is going to sound horrible, but I did get it the "other way around" for sexual orientation bias. It started with hetero+bad vs homo+good | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 06 2015 04:04 Toadesstern wrote: that's the point I thought? Figuring out what way you're thrown off more This is going to sound horrible, but I did get it the "other way around" for sexual orientation bias. It started with hetero+bad vs homo+good that procses can't be assumed to be commutative tho. the first pairing will be stronger | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
Researchers must be careful in interpreting IAT effects because of the cognitive inertia inherent to the IAT task. Cognitive inertia denotes the difficulty of switching from one categorization rule in the first block to the opposite categorization rule in the second block. Response latencies are slower in the block that is administered second, and IAT effects depend on the order in which the two blocks are administered. When the faster block comes first, cognitive inertia slows down responses in the subsequent block, thus enlarging the IAT effects. When the slower block comes first, cognitive inertia slows down responses in the faster block and thus decreases the IAT effects. https://archive.ama.org/Archive/AboutAMA/Pages/AMA Publications/AMA Journals/Journal of Marketing Research/TOCs/SUM_2010.2/Cognitive_Inertia.aspx | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On March 06 2015 04:41 oneofthem wrote: that procses can't be assumed to be commutative tho. the first pairing will be stronger yeah but I'd assume they're accounting for that? On March 06 2015 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote: https://archive.ama.org/Archive/AboutAMA/Pages/AMA Publications/AMA Journals/Journal of Marketing Research/TOCs/SUM_2010.2/Cognitive_Inertia.aspx figured as much. So to get it absolutely correct the test would have to know what way you're swinging before doing the test to ascertain how "badly" it is? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 06 2015 04:48 Toadesstern wrote: yeah but I'd assume they're accounting for that? i didn't see that' | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 06 2015 04:48 Toadesstern wrote: yeah but I'd assume they're accounting for that? figured as much. So to get it absolutely correct the test would have to know what way you're swinging before doing the test to ascertain how "badly" it is? i have not done extensive research, but i think there is criticism of IAT for assessing individuals. it is better for assessing groups. and when you have groups, you can control for this factor (e.g., by reversing the order half the time). honestly, if the person you are testing knows what you are testing for, tests like this are easy to fudge anyways. thats why in the standard battery of tests given to plaintiffs in active litigation there are tests that do not test for anything but whether the person is trying to fudge the test. it is really amusing evidence at trial. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
did they actually show the algorithm on the side? Didn't really bother to look that much into it and considered it a fun timewaste. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On March 06 2015 05:02 oneofthem wrote: it was a simple two part trial, and i don't see an easy way of figuring out, on an individual basis, how to counter this training effect since one pairing will always be stronger and you can't exactly have different rules within the same battery of tests to obtain a reliable sample. of course it's not going to get 100% accurate. It's a 5 minute online test... but it shouldn't be difficult to test that out on 2 as neutral as posible subjects beforehand... like, idk colors and numbers and figure out about how big that influence is on average. I'm not going to say the test is good on an individual basis but, should be doable to get it somewhat in the right area? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On March 06 2015 05:18 oneofthem wrote: well that's what i'm saying with the individual qualifier, you have two potential effects, the cognitive task switching effect and the attitude bias effect. the size of both are different by individual, and an average won't help you here all that much. okay let's settle on we didn't understand what we both were getting at and think the same way? I read that: On March 06 2015 04:41 oneofthem wrote: that procses can't be assumed to be commutative tho. the first pairing will be stronger and thought you meant they don't account for it at all which led me to believe that they're probably trying to account for it in general, just not with accuracy for a single guy taking the test due to the nature of it being a 5 minute online test. Thus me concluding 'So to get it absolutely correct the test would have to know what way you're swinging before doing the test to ascertain how "badly" it is?'... well or know the other one, how good you are with dealing with those kind of things. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
using your proposal the way the test would weed out the cognitive task switching effect would be just to run two tests, one for color one for the thing htey want to test. but there was no such control | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23217 Posts
On March 05 2015 21:59 zlefin wrote: If he doesn't understand jonny's arguments, he should ask jonny, instead of badgering someone else. lol. you interjected yourself into the discussion between jonny and myself claiming Jonny was right and I was wrong. All I did was ask what the point Jonny was making and how it was relevant? If you were so sure he was right it shouldn't be hard to say what he was right about and why. You have to see the comedy of complaining about getting "badgered" on a internet forum where you are free to read/say as much or little as you wish, in the context of innocent black Americans being illegally detained, aggressively questioned, verbally threatened, physically abused, and systematically stripped of their rights and their dignity. I think the test obviously has short comings, but it should at least help people realize they aren't absolutely neutral about everything. I'm sure some people would be skeptical of any result that didn't say they have no preference. Fact is they are most probably wrong about that. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17979 Posts
Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Gay People and Straight People. That is also what I was expecting. So maybe I do have some unconscious bias with regard to skin color. Also, thankfully: Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Other People and Arab Muslims. Good thing too, because my girlfriend is an Arab Muslim! :D | ||
| ||
