• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Psychology of Blink

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
^The ENTIRE point is to reveal the associations you DON'T know you have.
The science is sound but you don't have to accept the conclusions, up to you. :shrug:

Thanks for giving me the option there (?). I don't think the test is sound, so I don't accept it's conclusions.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Perhaps you'd like to explain what's wrong with it then. (Other than that you don't like what it's telling you.)
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
Perhaps you'd like to explain what's wrong with it then. (Other than that you don't like what it's telling you.)

I already did that. Why don'y you tell me what this reveals that is of profound significance to your understanding of human nature? You seem sold on it.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I already did that.
I disagree. You'd have to demonstrate that there is something flawed about the methodology, the execution or the conclusions.
You haven't done any of that. You're just being kinda petulant and annoying - classic defensive posturing.
Why don'y you tell me what this reveals that is of profound significance to your understanding of human nature? You seem sold on it.
I think it's interesting. I've given a couple of examples. For more read the site, books or other published articles. I've no interest in spoon-feeding people.
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
I disagree. You'd have to demonstrate that there is something flawed about the methodology, the execution or the conclusions.
You haven't done any of that. You're just being kinda petulant and annoying - classic defensive posturing.
I think it's interesting. I've given a couple of examples. For more read the site, books or other published articles. I've no interest in spoon-feeding people.

It seemed more like a test of one's adaptibility to the test itself. When they reversed sides, I found that confusing, but I was suppossed to still go as fast as possible, so some of my answers had as much to do with the fact that I had not fully made that switch. it would have been better to have a seperate activity between the first and switched sections to reduce this. I have numb hands and fingers, and my reaction time is slow, but this possibility was not taken into account by the testers. So there a flaw.
Also, I don't know how this reveals anything useful about the test taker. It claims to reveal hidden bias, and insofar as it may make a person examine their deeply held beliefs, that's a good thing. the fact is that we all have these deeply held beliefs, and changing them is always a matter of self examination. But this test attempts to reveal bias as an abstraction, without any context before or after, so I don't find it's conclusions to be of any direct use.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I've taken one test: the Presidential Popularity IAT (demonstration test, not research test).

Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for Barack Obama compared to Recent Presidents.

I get what it's doing, and I found the testing process interesting (it would seem to cancel out a lot of the "noise", thereby leading to accurate results), but I'm not quite sure what to think about the results.

What and how much exactly does my clicking on Obama's face when it is linked with "Good" faster than my clicking on Recent Presidents' faces when they're linked with "Good" tell me about my opinions, thoughts, feelings, and disposition towards Barack Obama?

My thoughts on Obama are complex -- there's things I do like and there's things I don't -- and they certainly couldn't be wrapped up in one figure and quantified...

So, what does this result mean?

My current estimation is that it roughly represents a degree of positivity or negativity I would feel towards Obama, relative to the feeling of positivity or negativity I would feel towards a composite or group of the recent Presidents it displayed (Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon).

Is that what it's measuring?

A certain degree of positivity or negativity?

And, if so, what is that really?

Is it something more basic than one's thoughts/opinions (intentionally excluding feelings), or is it the totality of one's thoughts/opinions/feelings?

Is it what we might call a "general disposition towards"?
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
^General disposition? I don't think so. What it is supposed to reveal are your real associations - irrespective of your intentions. We absorb such associations from our environment without conscious effort.
It is only with conscious effort that we can undermine the irrational ones which form the basis of stereotypes. Our unconscious mind does not discriminate or filter based on rational criteria - it just says "X and Y seem to always go together so they get filed in the same schema". Eg. "Women" and "home", "men" and "work", "blacks" and "guns".
If it takes longer for you to match "whites" and "guns" than it does "blacks" - it's indicative that you are having to work harder to bypass your mental schema - or internal representation of the world.
It seemed more like a test of one's adaptibility to the test itself. When they reversed sides, I found that confusing, but I was suppossed to still go as fast as possible, so some of my answers had as much to do with the fact that I had not fully made that switch. it would have been better to have a seperate activity between the first and switched sections to reduce this. I have numb hands and fingers, and my reaction time is slow, but this possibility was not taken into account by the testers. So there a flaw.
Also, I don't know how this reveals anything useful about the test taker. It claims to reveal hidden bias, and insofar as it may make a person examine their deeply held beliefs, that's a good thing. the fact is that we all have these deeply held beliefs, and changing them is always a matter of self examination. But this test attempts to reveal bias as an abstraction, without any context before or after, so I don't find it's conclusions to be of any direct use.
I'm not really sure what you mean about reversing sides, but I agree - fatigue could well prejudice the results.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I got a bit of an odd test; initially it seemed very much to do with how quick you were in terms of speed/accuracy of making a really fast judgment - measured in milliseconds, no less. eek!

Knowing that the point of it is that it's trying to tap into more unconscious processing, or testing for that and seeing if it was the case, I suppose it makes more sense. But initially, while doing it, as far as I was concerned I was totally ignoring all of the random-4-letter-words prior and was only focusing on the thing-to-be-judged itself. The 4-letter jibberish prior was meaningless as far as my performing what was requested of me. (Or... was it?... lol... that's what they're trying to measure) Personally I feel like there's a bit more tied to chance than actually measuring a specific type of learning - or at the very least, more weight might lie on motor-skills/reflexes, and 'mastering' the task, rather than learning itself occurring.

**TASK SPOILER BELOW** lol

.............................................
In the first few rounds of the task that you completed, the string BMVZ always appeared before Male names, and the string GKQX always appeared before Female names.

Then, we tested whether in the rest of the task, you performed better when BMVZ appeared before Male names, and GKQX appeared before Female names, than when BMVZ appeared before Female names, and GKQX appeared before Male names. This is what we found:

14 correct responses (and on time) when the correct response after BMVZ was male
13 correct responses (and on time) when the correct response after GKQX was female
3 correct responses (and on time) when the correct response after GKQX was male
8 correct responses (and on time) when the correct response after BMVZ was female


If learning happened, then you should show more correct responses when Male names appeared after BMVZ, and when Female names appeared after GKQX. Of course, it might also happened or not just because of chance. This is why we have many participants, and we will test whether, on average, this rapid learning paradigm works.

This type learning is a potentially important psychological phenomenon. It may help people learn how their environment works and adapt very quickly to any temporary regularity in their environment. If such learning exists, then it means that people can make split-second decisions based on what they learned only a few moments ago. This might be one of the mechanisms behind what is sometimes called intuition.
 

The Outsider

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,418
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for Young compared to Old.
Your data suggest a slight association of Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts compared to Female with Science and Male with Liberal Arts.
Your data suggest little or no association between Black American and White American with Harmless Objects and Weapons.
Your data suggest a moderate association of European American with American and Asian American with Foreign compared to Asian American with American and European American with Foreign.
Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for Straight People compared to Gay People.
Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for Thin People compared to Fat People.
Your data suggest a moderate preference for Not Smoking compared to Smoking.

I'm too tired to take any more.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Good book. Thanks for posting this, salami. :)

I'll take the test once my computer decides not to be a dick. (Imposes subconscious prejudice on laptop)
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
^General disposition? I don't think so. What it is supposed to reveal are your real associations - irrespective of your intentions. We absorb such associations from our environment without conscious effort.
It is only with conscious effort that we can undermine the irrational ones which form the basis of stereotypes. Our unconscious mind does not discriminate or filter based on rational criteria - it just says "X and Y seem to always go together so they get filed in the same schema". Eg. "Women" and "home", "men" and "work", "blacks" and "guns".
If it takes longer for you to match "whites" and "guns" than it does "blacks" - it's indicative that you are having to work harder to bypass your mental schema - or internal representation of the world.

Ok, then. Good enough. Two follow-ups:

First, what's the relationship between these associations (I was tempted to say unconscious, but need they really be?) and one's general disposition towards the same objects of these associations?

Second, are these associations necessarily irrational? And, by your definition, are accurate and irrational mutually exclusive or not? (Personally, I find the words "rational" and "irrational" highly problematic in discourse. They tend to become a catch-all for "your opinion is different than mine" or "you are saying something I don't like.")
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
First, what's the relationship between these associations (I was tempted to say unconscious, but need they really be?) and one's general disposition towards the same objects of these associations?
It’s not a linear relationship – very much depends on the individual – education, self-knowledge, etc, influence outcome. Plenty of studies demonstrate the negative effect such associations can have though (on women/ethnic minorities) even when they remain unconscious. (Obviously, conscious negative associations producing negative results shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.) Where they remain unconscious the danger is that rationalizations replace sound rationale for decision-making. For example, it has been found in a number of studies that qualities seen as essential for a job, rather than being an objective standard against which all candidates are measured, are frequently skewed in favour of actual characteristics of candidates from a preferred demographic (usually white, male).
Second, are these associations necessarily irrational?
Yes. Such associations are based on (unconscious) correlations. There is no reasoning process associated with arriving at them – hence irrational.
Correlation <> causation.

And, by your definition, are accurate and irrational mutually exclusive or not?
Something may be irrational yet accurate – but in order to prove accuracy, one must resort to logic, not rely on "hunches".
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's quite possible that one simply makes this associations the way one recognizes the symbols on a restroom door.

However, I feel some skepticism about the capacity of this veritable video-game to reveal something deep about the people interacting with them. I feel like most of the points that could be made or subjects that could be pursued by this have better material to do so. And I always hate trying to capture the sub-conscious. It's never clean work.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
It’s not a linear relationship – very much depends on the individual – education, self-knowledge, etc, influence outcome. Plenty of studies demonstrate the negative effect such associations can have though (on women/ethnic minorities) even when they remain unconscious. (Obviously, conscious negative associations producing negative results shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.) Where they remain unconscious the danger is that rationalizations replace sound rationale for decision-making. For example, it has been found in a number of studies that qualities seen as essential for a job, rather than being an objective standard against which all candidates are measured, are frequently skewed in favour of actual characteristics of candidates from a preferred demographic (usually white, male).

I can agree with all of this.

With regards to the last sentence, I am a bit confused though...

Are you saying that the desired qualities for the job are skewed in order to fit a specific demographic (i.e., rigging the game to a specific demographic), or that interviewers (etc.) perceive qualities in certain candidates due to the candidates' demographic profiles and the interviewers' unconscious associations?

Yes. Such associations are based on (unconscious) correlations. There is no reasoning process associated with arriving at them – hence irrational.
Correlation <> causation.

I guess I take more issue here...

I'm not sure I'm willing to say the unconscious has no reasoning process.

I think the unconscious could very well have a phenomenal reasoning process.

Which, I add, is not to deny the fact that it can also have plenty of irrational workings and associations.

What would you say to this notion?

Something may be irrational yet accurate – but in order to prove accuracy, one must resort to logic, not rely on "hunches".

So one can know something accurately, but their accurate thought is not a rational thought unless its accuracy can be proven by logic?

(And, so you know, I'm not asking these questions as some fruitless exercise; I want to understand how you use these terms so I have a clearer barometer in the future. In fact, within your first couple sentences I actually let one layer of my guard down, as it became apparent that I can appreciate and agree with the perspective you're taking on this to at least a certain degree. [Is that rational or irrational of me?])
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
It's quite possible that one simply makes this associations the way one recognizes the symbols on a restroom door.

I believe you'd be referring to semiotics.

This is part of my reasoning for questioning Morgan.

I'm not too adept in semiotic theory, but I've had my fair share of exposure.

Part of my concern is where you draw the line between an accurate association and an inaccurate association.

Do you consciously or unconsciously recognize what a stop sign means?

If unconscious, then it would seem rather important to possess these unconscious associations, would it not?

Ought there be a distinction between a problematic and an unproblematic unconscious association?

When ought we recognize one of these unconscious associations as problematic, and when unproblematic?

And what's the relationship between an accurate or inaccurate association, and one that is problematic or unproblematic?

Imagine a society made up of 50% red people and 50% blue people, and 5% of blue people happen to react violently if you try to chat with them about the weather.

Is there a problem with having one's unconscious mind remind oneself to be wary of chatting with blue people about the weather?

Also, to what extent can we consciously override these unconscious associations? And to what extent do we override them?

If we can and do consciously override these unconscious associations, to what extent do they cause real-world problems?

And, finally, which ones should be overridden? All conscious and unconscious ones? Accurate and inaccurate ones? Problematic and unproblematic ones?

These are the questions that come to my mind when I think of things like these...

:thinking:

However, I feel some skepticism about the capacity of this veritable video-game to reveal something deep about the people interacting with them. I feel like most of the points that could be made or subjects that could be pursued by this have better material to do so. And I always hate trying to capture the sub-conscious. It's never clean work.

What material?
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I can agree with all of this.

With regards to the last sentence, I am a bit confused though...

Are you saying that the desired qualities for the job are skewed in order to fit a specific demographic (i.e., rigging the game to a specific demographic), or that interviewers (etc.) perceive qualities in certain candidates due to the candidates' demographic profiles and the interviewers' unconscious associations?
The first one. But the rigging isn’t consciously done. It’s a post-decision rationalization. In one example, there is a male candidate and a female candidate, he has more experience, she has better qualifications. The male candidate is chosen on the basis that “experience counts for more than qualifications in this job”. But where the situation is flipped and the female candidate is more experienced, the male candidate is chosen – on the basis of his being better qualified.

I don’t have the study to hand, I’ll have to get back to you with references.

I'm not sure I'm willing to say the unconscious has no reasoning process.

I think the unconscious could very well have a phenomenal reasoning process.

Which, I add, is not to deny the fact that it can also have plenty of irrational workings and associations.

What would you say to this notion?
Clearly some kind of algorithm is at work. But the results are what we call “intuition” –the process by which we’ve arrived at a conclusion is unknown to us. So we have no way of validating it. Reasoning has to be a conscious process.

So one can know something accurately, but their accurate thought is not a rational thought unless its accuracy can be proven by logic?
Rational means based on reason. Reason requires logic, so yeah.
You can come to the right conclusion but have the wrong set of premises. That isn’t sound reasoning.

Part of my concern is where you draw the line between an accurate association and an inaccurate association.

Do you consciously or unconsciously recognize what a stop sign means?

If unconscious, then it would seem rather important to possess these unconscious associations, would it not?
This is a conscious learning process, which with repetition becomes automatic - delegated to the unconscious but via conscious practice and effort.
The implicit associations which are the focus of Project Implicit – are not ones that we consciously train ourselves to make, they are in a sense, subliminal, but still influence our decision-making processes.

There is a well-known study* which demonstrates the effects of subtle stereotype priming on behaviour.
Two groups of men were shown a bunch of television adverts. The first group watched mostly sexist adverts (wherein women where portrayed as sex objects – draped over cars, around beer bottles, etc – tellingly, the men themselves did not perceive the content to be sexist or in any way unusual - just your average beer/car commercial). The control group were shown neutral material. Both groups were then asked to interview a female candidate. The men who were “primed” to view women as sex objects behaved in a very different fashion to the control group. They sat closer to the interviewee, flirted more and asked her more sexually inappropriate questions. Their memories and ability to gauge her qualifications were affected – they remembered more about her physical appearance but far less information that would help them to decide her suitability for the job. They also rated her as less competent – purely based on their own sexualisation of the encounter.

*Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects.

Also, to what extent can we consciously override these unconscious associations? And to what extent do we override them?
To the extent that we are 1. Aware of them. 2. Disturbed by them and desire to change them.
http://footballscholar.net/bias/Unl...ity of Implicit Prejudice and Stereotypes.pdf
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I took two, and I got neutral towards government (even though half the time the words were ambiguous and it depended how they were defined, so I guessed) and neutral on self esteem.

Are all the tests designed the same way? I noticed that after I had to associate a word with the left group and then switch to associating it on the right, it was VERY difficult and I started making mistakes left right and centre. I think this is more likely to be caused by getting in the pattern of putting it on the left side rather than your "bias", so I was puzzled why they didn't switch the sides of good and evil instead. I guess that would have its own difficulties. I don't know, I have my doubts that these tests actually measure anything useful after this experience.

I wish it had given me the interesting tests. I couldn't find a way to choose tests, it seemed to just give you a random one.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
^Maybe if you try the demo section? I didn't realise it was random like that for the "live" site.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Your data suggest a strong association of Jewish Americans with intelligence, virtue, attractiveness, sexual ability, and humor.

omg its true1!!!!!1!1!!!!!
 
Top