(October 11, 2016 at 7:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Actually been looking into that. Apparently, people don't get the same results when they take them repeatedly. Unless their bias matrix changes between instances (in some cases just minutes), that would suggest that there's a problem. OFC it shows associations, it's an association game with a time and pattern impulse UI...but what associations?I completely agree, it's not a perfect test. Ideally, there would be someone qualified administering it and more controls and such. But for a test someone can take at home, it's decent. Better than most self administered online tests anyway, lol.
In any case, yeah....biases definitely exist. It's difficult to see how we could avoid them. Ambiguity demands interpretation, when for example, sally is having her children for dinner. Does the manner in which one interprets this sentence expose an implicit bias?
Is there a cognitive/linguistic bias involved in assuming, for example, that someone named sally, a mother, wouldn't eat her children? Or is the implicit bias more an issue of what this sentence could refer to in the first place? Is cannibalism the minority report that our subconscious ignores? Or is it, itself, associative? If I had said that jeffrey is having his friend for lunch...do we subconsciously omit (or perhaps, now, include) the dahmer?
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?
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
