The article mentions the Milgram experiment (which has had a lasting effect on how I think about things ever since I first heard about it), and also links to the very interesting Implicit Associations Tests.
I'm sure David already knows about them, but if not, I'm sure at least he will find them interesting.
I would encourage anyone who has a few minutes to take at least one of those tests.
"Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Light Skin and Dark Skin."
BOOYAH
I still fundamentally have no earthly idea how this test works, but I have work to do. I'll read up on it later.
I saw the penis in all of the ink-blots. That means I won, right?
From the results page:
"The interpretation is described as 'automatic preference for Light Skin' if you responded faster when Light Skin faces and Good words were classified with the same key than when Dark Skin faces and Good words were classified with the same key. Depending on the magnitude of your result, your automatic preference may be described as 'slight', 'moderate', 'strong', or 'little to no preference'. Alternatively, you may have received feedback that 'there were too many errors to determine a result'."
I think the test may be hindered somewhat by the number of images used, but the people who designed it maybe did that on purpose. It would be interesting to see a paper discussing the tests, methodology, and the data.
Yeah I have seen these tests before. They are interesting.
And people are more racist than they think, because they think they're not racist, and they're wrong.
"Your data suggest a moderate association of Black Americans with Weapons compared to White Americans."
Not terribly surprising. Depressing. But not unexpected. I hoped for "slight," but I'm not stupid enough to have expected no association. I was amused by the opportunity to assert that handedness affected the outcome. In my case, because of my weird keyboard layout, I used my left hand exclusively. Maybe I'll try the Religion IAT next.
I was supposed to see a penis? I only noticed the duck.
The thing I wonder about the Milgram experiment is what happens the next time? If I take a former "teacher" and subject him to a non-obvious variation on the experiment, will he act the same way? I suspect he will.
That disturbs me. It means, if my suspicion's correct, that we may not be able to learn from this sort of experience. The operating principle of these IATs is that we don't even notice ourselves behaving in ways that we'd normally describe as objectionable. That means, regardless of how our intentions change by what we learn, our actions don't change. And that means I'm condemned to be "moderately racist" for the remainder of my life. Worse, this carries an in-built excuse. It's pointless for me to try to change. Even if I think I change, I haven't really. So where's the point in trying?
It's interesting to me how you propose an interesting experiment (that probably can't be exactly performed as the original Milgram experiment violates current human experimentation ethical standards), and then suppose a result which leads to despair.
The social reactions we have (obedience to authority, prejudice, racism) are learned behavior in the first place. If they can be learned, they can be unlearned (or change the situations in which we learn the 'harmful' behavior).
Yes. That does imply some things about my fundamental world-view. At the very least, it says something about my present mental state.
I don't agree that obedience to authority, prejudice, and racism are learned behaviors. I would argue that they are "nature" rather than "nurture." I believe we observe analogous behaviors in our primate relatives. I believe that automatic fear and rejection of "other," in a presapient organism, is an evolutionary advantage. I hold that these behaviors are largely in-built, and that the counter-behaviors are the learned ones. In my view, the difference between Ben's evaluation and mine indicates that Ben is/was more thoroughly trained than me.
If you'll forgive me for arguing by analogy, I'll refer to the immune system. It's possible to train the system, and thus expand its definition of "self." But the fundamental response is still to attack everything that is not-self. That's why this test bothers me. In order to train my "immune system," I must recognize when I'm being racist. This test tells me that, at least some of the time, I don't. (As as side-note, a similar issue hampers my fight with depression. Like most, I'm not aware of when I'm being overly-pessimistic or desperate.)
Do not, however, take the end of my previous post to mean I think it is pointless to try and change. What I was trying to express is that it's already difficult, and having an in-built excuse makes it's even easier to avoid. Certainly it is impossible to perform any kata perfectly; but it is always possible to perform it better.
I don't agree that obedience to authority, prejudice, and racism are learned behaviors.
The prevailing sociological thought would disagree with you (and they even do peer-reviewed studies and everything!).
the difference between Ben's evaluation and mine
You took different tests ;-)
Most people don't wish to act in a racist manner, having a test that discovers some preference is useful if only because it may cause one to think about their 'automatic' reactions (and begin to be able to separate out the irrational from the rational).
My point was mainly that I don't believe it provides an in-built excuse, not being aware of an actions harm changes what the response to that action should be, and knowing that is important.
The prevailing sociological thought would disagree with you (and they even do peer-reviewed studies and everything!).
Conceded, then. Evidence beats my supposition. Honesty compels me to add that I find it difficult to believe I'm wrong in this case.
Most people don't wish to act in a racist manner, having a test that discovers some preference is useful if only because it may cause one to think about their 'automatic' reactions (and begin to be able to separate out the irrational from the rational).
The test is useful, for exactly the reason you state.
My point was mainly that I don't believe it provides an in-built excuse, not being aware of an actions harm changes what the response to that action should be, and knowing that is important.
If I read this correctly, you're thinking about this harm from the perspective of the receiver-of-the-harm? Your point being something like, "When one receives harm, it's important to remember that the perpetrator is not necessarily aware he's done harm -- otherwise, one may respond inappropriately"? Is that correct?
"Now you know, and knowing is half the battle." This goes for the "giver-of-harm" too.
People are in denial of their own prejudices, that we all possess. I don't think you can grow up in this country (or this world) without learning certain prejudices. I think part of the problem is that being a "racist" or saying something "racist" has become unpopular, so people avoid certain phrases and actions so they aren't accused of being racist, but they don't understand why the words or actions are bad.
By denying you have prejudice, you don't have to look at yourself and analyze your own behavior and how that could be racist. So people may be unknowingly contributing to a racist environment (like those in the cnn.com study who did not react to the racist comments), thus being the "giver-of-harm".
If people take this test and then recognize their own prejudices (that they didn't believe they had) as a result, they might reevaluate their behaviors and try to actively fight their own prejudices. I think this is one of the valuable aspects of the test.