Agreed Irrational.

@Rhythm, yes of course someone could game the system. A sociopath can sometimes fool a psychiatrist face to face. Should we dismiss the results of all psychological tests because they CAN be gamed, or because they are occasionally off? Again, it's not a hard science, it isn't like mixing chemical x with chemical y produces compound z. We are still learning how to make better tests like this, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Often, psychological tests rely on people doing their honest best. So if you are honest and not trying to game it, then I think the test is fairly reliable. It may be off a bit one way or the other, but if you do your best and are NOT trying to game it, it won't, for instance, show you have no bias when you have a very strong bias.

But anyway, this is still sidestepping the main issue, which is how to avoid passing on biases like this to our kids, and how to help eliminate them in ourselves. I realize, for instance, I tell my daughter she is pretty all the time, when I probably should probably instead tell her shes capable or smart instead when I feel like boosting her confidence.

Um, also, could you link me the Wiki page you mentioned? I don't know what terms you are using to find it. I looked up Psychological testing, but I don't see that kind of testing listed specifically. What is the name of this type of testing? I'd like to read it, if only I could find it! lol

-mind you, after all of the above, I'm not suggesting that such tests, even this one, are utterly -useless-...I;m acknowledging, as has long been acknowledged, that this test (and tests like it) may not be measuring what they purport to measure, either in part or in full. Which is a hell of a problem for any conclusions or elaborations based upon their results. The reason it;s online now, in the first place, is that they hope...with a large enough data set, they can eliminate the known vectors of error, and possibly eliminate as yet undiscovered vectors of error - but the very act of formatting it for the internets introduces yet another vector. Creating an objection to methodology on top of previously existing fundamental objections. Further muddying what is already brackish water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test

(October 12, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Aroura Wrote: Agreed Irrational.

@Rhythm, yes of course someone could game the system.  A sociopath can sometimes fool a psychiatrist face to face. Should we dismiss the results of all psychological tests because they CAN be gamed, or because they are occasionally off?

If we can plainly identify both how and why they can be and have been gamed, or that no one even needs to -attempt- to game them to get uninformative results..yes, absolutely.

Quote:Again, it's not a hard science, it isn't like mixing chemical x with chemical y produces compound z.  We are still learning how to make better tests like this, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  

Is there a baby in the bathwater?  That's the problem with personality tests as a category, no matter what we call them.  

Quote:Often, psychological tests rely on people doing their honest best.  So if you are honest and not trying to game it, then I think the test is fairly reliable.  It may be off a bit one way or the other, but if you do your best and are NOT trying to game it, it won't, for instance, show you have no bias when you have a very strong bias.

Doing my honest best can, along the lines I've described to you, hide rather than expose any bias. Simply because my "honest best" may be more suitable to the test format than someone else's.

Quote:But anyway, this is still sidestepping the main issue, which is how to avoid passing on biases like this to our kids, and how to help eliminate them in ourselves.  I realize, for instance, I tell my daughter she is pretty all the time, when I probably should probably instead tell her shes capable or smart instead when I feel like boosting her confidence.

She's probably pretty, though, right?  So tell her all of the above.  I rack my brain over this one, honestly.  I've been watching my daughters grow up...and ofc they;re still very little....but they don;t seem to define themselves along any of the lines I'm most often focused on.  I've made a conscious effort, for example, not to promote or focus on gender stereotypes when I compliment them, or engage in their interests with them.  For some odd reason, though, one of my daughters is noticeably more interested in painting her nails than in building a fishtank with me, even though she loves fishtanks.  The other, despite - to some extent, enforcing those stereoptypes before it really hit my radar..is just a born tomboy, it seems.

I mean, I say this, but tommorrow it may be the tomboy that wants me to braid her hair and play dolls....and the nailpainter who wants to shoot her sisters pretty pink bb gun. From where I sit they're both movable puzzleboxes.

(October 12, 2016 at 12:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -mind you, after all of the above, I'm not suggesting that such tests, even this one, are utterly -useless-...I;m acknowledging, as has long been acknowledged, that this test (and tests like it) may not be measuring what they purport to measure, either in part or in full.  Which is a hell of a problem for any conclusions or elaborations based upon their results.  The reason it;s online now, in the first place, is that they hope...with a large enough data set, they can eliminate the known vectors of error, and possibly eliminate as yet undiscovered vectors of error - but the very act of formatting it for the internets introduces yet another vector.  Creating an objection to methodology on top of previously existing fundamental objections.  Further muddying what is already brackish  water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test

Ha, the actual name, lol.  Ok, I'll read it on my next break, and thanks for the link.

Thank you for your well-written, thought provoking op, Aroura.  The concept of implicit bias reminds me of the book Whistling Vivaldi by Claude M. Steele.  This book explores the implicit biases we form subconsciously, which affect how we interact with others and our environment.  In particular, Steel focuses on the concept of 'stereotype threat': in certain contexts, we may not fit a particular stereotype; however, due to the societal thought patterns that result from equating stereotypes with normalcy, we may still find ourselves feeling threatened by stereotypes.  For example, if Joe is an exceptionally gifted mathematician, musician, and writer who belongs to a certain cultural group that has been socially equated with low intellectual and artistic ability, then he may find himself battling these stereotypes and falling prey to them, especially when he is called upon to demonstrate his abilities via various aptitude tests and demonstrations of his talents and abilities  to other cultural groups.

As much as we'd like to think that we as individuals completely shape our personal identities, there is no denying the observation that cultural influences and social norms affect us in one way or another. Perhaps, if people embrace this observation, then it will help them spot their tendency to substitute stereotypical shortsightedness for mindful inquiry; thus, increasing our awareness of our various cultural starting points and preparing us to engage other starting points with curiosity, not fear.  


References

Steele, Claude M.  Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 2010.

(October 11, 2016 at 9:40 pm)Aroura Wrote: I think psychotic testing is always more variable as well, as it relies on a lot of self reporting. I guess that is one of the reasons some people consider it a soft science?

Man, I didn't see that there was a psychotic test or I would have been all over that sucker.

I was taught that I would have implicit bias, that it would be a given. Is my bias bias?

(October 12, 2016 at 9:35 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I was taught that I would have implicit bias, that it would be a given. Is my bias bias?

Yes. It's clearly a taco inside of a taco.

(October 12, 2016 at 10:02 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(October 12, 2016 at 9:35 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I was taught that I would have implicit bias, that it would be a given. Is my bias bias?

Yes. It's clearly a taco inside of a taco.

What if it were tacos all the way down, nestled russian doll style?