+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Project Implicit. (/thread-5317.html)
Pages:
1
2
Project Implicit. - Chesspiece_face - 11-14-2005
For those that took the political compass test and didn't like it, here is another set of tests that will give you results that you don't want to see:
Project Implicit
Project Implicit FAQ
Project Implicit. - Occhidiangela - 11-14-2005
Chesspiece_face,Nov 14 2005, 04:17 PM Wrote:For those that took the political compass test and didn't like it, here is another set of tests that will give you results that you don't want to see:
Project Implicit
Project Implicit FAQ
[right][snapback]94792[/snapback][/right]
First test I took was pretty worthless. It forced answers. What is the point of that?
Occhi
Project Implicit. - Doc - 11-14-2005
Um... Those tests... I am not sure I like those tests.
:blush: Tests say I can't stand looking at white people. :blink:
My wife is white. Hell, I love her. I married her for crying out loud. Where does some screwball interwebby thingamajig test come off saying I can't stand looking at white folk?
I can't stand looking at young people either. Well DUH! Who can? Youth is wasted on the young. Walking around acting like they know everything. And those smug looks on their faces. "Look at me! I am young!"
These tests are the worst yet.
Project Implicit. - Chesspiece_face - 11-14-2005
Doc,Nov 14 2005, 05:57 PM Wrote:Um... Those tests... I am not sure I like those tests.
:blush: Tests say I can't stand looking at white people. :blink:
My wife is white. Hell, I love her. I married her for crying out loud. Where does some screwball interwebby thingamajig test come off saying I can't stand looking at white folk?
I can't stand looking at young people either. Well DUH! Who can? Youth is wasted on the young. Walking around acting like they know everything. And those smug looks on their faces. "Look at me! I am young!"
These tests are the worst yet.
[right][snapback]94799[/snapback][/right]
Actually the tests say nothing of the sort. Had you read the FAQ's or test descriptions you would have seen that. The results of the test have nothing to do with concious items regarding likes or dislikes. what they do attemtp to analyze is unconcious associations.
If i take the test of black/white-good/bad and am able to respond to the associations of white/good on an average of 1 second but it takes me an average of 2 seconds to respond when the associations are black/good it just says, that for whatever reason, it is harder for my unconcious mind to associate those two things.
When the test uses the word Preference it isn't implying personal choice, it's just saying that it's easier to make certain unconcious associations.
as for responding to Occhi's post. the forced answers hold no bearing on the end results of the test. it is very easy to filter out forced answers and to expand the test runs so that enough data points are collected. The only time that forced "wrong" answers would impact the test is if there were such a large amount of them that the data would be forced inconclusive. Getting a "wrong" answer doesn't have any effect on the test other than to push the subject to answer the questions as fast as possible. for the test to be viable they need to have people answer as quickly as possible so that the differences between concious and unconcious associations begins to show.
going back to the above example of the black/white-good/bad test, If i answer good/white with an average of 1s I am able to associate those things fairly strongly on an unconcious level. If it takes me 2 seconds to do the good/black associations than It's harder for me to make those associations on an unconcious level and i require more time for my concious thoughts to resolve the association.
Project Implicit. - Doc - 11-15-2005
Chesspiece_face,Nov 14 2005, 06:52 PM Wrote:Actually the tests say nothing of the sort. Had you read the FAQ's or test descriptions you would have seen that. The results of the test have nothing to do with concious items regarding likes or dislikes. what they do attemtp to analyze is unconcious associations.
If i take the test of black/white-good/bad and am able to respond to the associations of white/good on an average of 1 second but it takes me an average of 2 seconds to respond when the associations are black/good it just says, that for whatever reason, it is harder for my unconcious mind to associate those two things.
When the test uses the word Preference it isn't implying personal choice, it's just saying that it's easier to make certain unconcious associations.
as for responding to Occhi's post. the forced answers hold no bearing on the end results of the test. it is very easy to filter out forced answers and to expand the test runs so that enough data points are collected. The only time that forced "wrong" answers would impact the test is if there were such a large amount of them that the data would be forced inconclusive. Getting a "wrong" answer doesn't have any effect on the test other than to push the subject to answer the questions as fast as possible. for the test to be viable they need to have people answer as quickly as possible so that the differences between concious and unconcious associations begins to show.
going back to the above example of the black/white-good/bad test, If i answer good/white with an average of 1s I am able to associate those things fairly strongly on an unconcious level. If it takes me 2 seconds to do the good/black associations than It's harder for me to make those associations on an unconcious level and i require more time for my concious thoughts to resolve the association.
[right][snapback]94809[/snapback][/right]
Which implies that I subconciously don't like or otherwise can't stand white people. I don't care how you dance around the issue or try to change the wording or try to justify it, these tests imply something that can be quite bad. I don't care how you slice it, cake is cake. And these tests try to implant some kind of racism in the mind. Or at least the idea of racism.
Project Implicit. - Occhidiangela - 11-15-2005
Chesspiece_face,Nov 14 2005, 05:52 PM Wrote:Actually the tests say nothing of the sort. Had you read the FAQ's or test descriptions you would have seen that. The results of the test have nothing to do with concious items regarding likes or dislikes. what they do attemtp to analyze is unconcious associations.
If i take the test of black/white-good/bad and am able to respond to the associations of white/good on an average of 1 second but it takes me an average of 2 seconds to respond when the associations are black/good it just says, that for whatever reason, it is harder for my unconcious mind to associate those two things.
When the test uses the word Preference it isn't implying personal choice, it's just saying that it's easier to make certain unconcious associations.
as for responding to Occhi's post. the forced answers hold no bearing on the end results of the test. it is very easy to filter out forced answers and to expand the test runs so that enough data points are collected. The only time that forced "wrong" answers would impact the test is if there were such a large amount of them that the data would be forced inconclusive. Getting a "wrong" answer doesn't have any effect on the test other than to push the subject to answer the questions as fast as possible. for the test to be viable they need to have people answer as quickly as possible so that the differences between concious and unconcious associations begins to show.
going back to the above example of the black/white-good/bad test, If i answer good/white with an average of 1s I am able to associate those things fairly strongly on an unconcious level. If it takes me 2 seconds to do the good/black associations than It's harder for me to make those associations on an unconcious level and i require more time for my concious thoughts to resolve the association.
[right][snapback]94809[/snapback][/right]
Hogwash.
I was presented with an old face, was given the choice of Young or Good, and chose Good. I marked me wrong. That fails logic 101 regarding or, and, etcetera. Not playing. The forced association are in the minds of the wanker who wrote that test. He is welcome to try again.
I know BS when I see it. I have wallowed in it myself now and again, as many a Lurker has witnessed. That test was full of BS, like any number of psychologists I have worked with.
Luckily, for the sake of psychologists, I have met a few who have their stuff together, and who impress the hell out of me. Absent those folks, I'd have written off all psychlogists to the category of "wankers and snake oil medicine vendors."
Learning from folks who understand the science of learning and ergonomics, and virtual reality's true limitations opens windows of perception. It also refines one's own BS detector, far better than simply experiencing the military can. Trust me on this, being in the military teaches you at least one thing: how to smell BS.
Occhi
EDITED: I used two colons in one sentence. One colon is that standard sentence for life. ;)
Project Implicit. - Doc - 11-15-2005
Occhi, my minors were in various forms of psychology.
And I agree with you.
When I took abnormal psy, I concluded that I must be a serial killer, a freak, a psycho, hell, all kinds of things wrong with me. The more I learned, the worse I became. It nearly caused me to have a nervous breakdown, and I knew I was having a nervous breakdown, which really messed with my head.
The logical conclusion? Psychology is something that psychologists take to learn to diagnose and treat themselves, and then spend the rest of their lives diagnosing other people with even worse problems to artificially inflate their own sagging self esteem. By picking apart other people and making them seem worse, they can make them selves seem better, if only by comparison. I would say most are over analytical with a slight to extreme touch of obcessive compulsive disorder, and I would venture a guess that most are so anally retentive that they were probably potty trained at gunpoint.
When I presented this idea to an actual psychologist, he called my idea absurd and suspected that I had something wrong with me mentally and offered me a free session on the house. I of course, took this as a sign that I was correct, and even said so outloud. He became quite enraged. I would say he had anger management issues, perhaps stemming from his own self inflicted neurosis and possibly a type of phobia about being wrong. I mentioned that his need to pick me apart and diagnose me clearly shows a type of repressed symbolic mental penis envy. He only wanted to pick me apart to prove to himself that I was more screwed up than he was (And I probably am) thus satisfying his inner need for superiourity.
I can be a lot of fun at parties.
Project Implicit. - Minionman - 11-15-2005
I did the male/female scienceberal arts one, and I think the results were messed up because I'm right handed. The test first has male/science on the left side, femaleberal arts on the right side, than switrches the male and female. It than said "strong correlation between male and science, since science went to the male side", however because that side was my right finger, it pressed faster, and the sudden jerks tend to get my right hand pressing faster. I'm guessing the results would have been weaker had they used all four possible combinations.
Project Implicit. - Minionman - 11-15-2005
Wow, even more strange results come in "slight automatic preference for Bush over Clinton". :lol: :lol: :lol:
Considering I don't use faces for politicians, this kind of falls apart anyway. And of course I'm young enough to have seen more Bush pictures that stick around.
Project Implicit. - Minionman - 11-15-2005
Occhidiangela,Nov 14 2005, 04:31 PM Wrote:First test I took was pretty worthless. It forced answers. What is the point of that?
Occhi
[right][snapback]94793[/snapback][/right]
Have to agree with this. On the "scienceberal arts male/female" one, I actually associate history and the "creative" stuff sligghtly more with science, they're sort of in the middle, and think of liberal arts mostly as literature studying and such.
After the second one, I think typos from zoning out from clicking cause some problems as well.
Project Implicit. - jahcs - 11-15-2005
Minionman,Nov 14 2005, 06:58 PM Wrote:I did the male/female scienceberal arts one, and I think the results were messed up because I'm right handed. The test first has male/science on the left side, femaleberal arts on the right side, than switrches the male and female. It than said "strong correlation between male and science, since science went to the male side", however because that side was my right finger, it pressed faster, and the sudden jerks tend to get my right hand pressing faster. I'm guessing the results would have been weaker had they used all four possible combinations.
[right][snapback]94825[/snapback][/right]
I noticed the same thing regarding my handedness. During the young/old test the easiest sorting factor for me was "right finger bad, left finger good." I am left handed. Things I grab with my left hand are better, at a subconcious level, because I can use them more effectively. I scored no prejudice toward the young or old.
While testing I noticed my mind sorting things in a two step process. First: word or picture. Then young/old or good/bad as appropriate.
These are sorting drills, not psycological examinations. They test the logic and sorting function of your brain - not the true emotional response to images.
I found myself comparing this test to the coding drills on the ASVAB. The coding drills were a more effective study of the mind. It could have tested my prejudice toward young and old people better by asking me "Would you want to talk to this person?" and giving me a 1-10 scale every time a picture popped up.
The most effective test I've seen for gut reaction emotional responses is the test where you have pictures of folks holding everyday items and weapons. In poorly lit conditions or, for many participants, if the subject was African-American more people thought everyday objects were threatening weapons.
Project Implicit. - Doc - 11-15-2005
jahcs,Nov 14 2005, 10:20 PM Wrote:I noticed the same thing regarding my handedness. During the young/old test the easiest sorting factor for me was "right finger bad, left finger good." I am left handed. Things I grab with my left hand are better, at a subconcious level, because I can use them more effectively. I scored no prejudice toward the young or old.
While testing I noticed my mind sorting things in a two step process. First: word or picture. Then young/old or good/bad as appropriate.
These are sorting drills, not psycological examinations. They test the logic and sorting function of your brain - not the true emotional response to images.
I found myself comparing this test to the coding drills on the ASVAB. The coding drills were a more effective study of the mind. It could have tested my prejudice toward young and old people better by asking me "Would you want to talk to this person?" and giving me a 1-10 scale every time a picture popped up.
The most effective test I've seen for gut reaction emotional responses is the test where you have pictures of folks holding everyday items and weapons. In poorly lit conditions or, for many participants, if the subject was African-American more people thought everyday objects were threatening weapons.
[right][snapback]94828[/snapback][/right]
Try to kill somebody often enough and they develop this strange aversion to anything that might be a weapon. Go figure!
Project Implicit. - Chesspiece_face - 11-15-2005
jahcs,Nov 14 2005, 10:20 PM Wrote:The most effective test I've seen for gut reaction emotional responses is the test where you have pictures of folks holding everyday items and weapons. In poorly lit conditions or, for many participants, if the subject was African-American more people thought everyday objects were threatening weapons.
[right][snapback]94828[/snapback][/right]
The test you mention is actually an off-shoot of the base IAT's that I linked above and was done at the University of Washington.
Linky
Project Implicit. - whyBish - 11-15-2005
Occhidiangela,Nov 15 2005, 02:19 PM Wrote:That test was full of BS, like any number of psychologists I have worked with.
[right][snapback]94817[/snapback][/right]
Psychologists, Economists, and Astrologers are all at the same level of 'science'. Ask the same question to enough of them and you'll get the answer you're after, the completely opposite answer, and an answer you didn't expect... and all of them will be able to 'prove' that their answer is the correct one.
Project Implicit. - Occhidiangela - 11-15-2005
whyBish,Nov 14 2005, 11:50 PM Wrote:Psychologists, Economists, and Astrologers are all at the same level of 'science'. Ask the same question to enough of them and you'll get the answer you're after, the completely opposite answer, and an answer you didn't expect... and all of them will be able to 'prove' that their answer is the correct one.
[right][snapback]94838[/snapback][/right]
While my gut feel is that you are absolutely right, some of the proofs will work logically if the assumptions and initial conditions are crafted well enough, and variables are all accounted for. If we could control variables that easily IRL, I am guessing the Brave New World would have already arrived. That's the catch, isn't it, accounting for variation, or inherent variables?
Filtering cause and effect in human behavior is extremely difficult. I've had to delve into that under the limited case of training people how to fly. I do not envy the psychologists their challenges, due to the interaction of many inputs to an output, or series of outputs.
What disturbs me are the glib conclusions passed on to the public (or to decision makers) "because a study indicated such and so" without reference to boundary conditions, assumptions, and critical review of the study's biases. The hardest thing, I think, is to recognize the assumptions you don't realize you are making.
Occhi
Project Implicit. - Doc - 11-15-2005
Hey now, Adam Smith was absolutely right.
Economics... There is nothing wrong with economics as a science. Some of it can be used for quackery, but understanding a system of trade is a good thing. Be real careful on this one please, as I rather like economics.
Project Implicit. - Jeunemaitre - 11-15-2005
Chesspiece_face,Nov 14 2005, 06:17 PM Wrote:For those that took the political compass test and didn't like it, here is another set of tests that will give you results that you don't want to see:As someone who designed a similar reaction-time based study (albeit for a psychology research methods class several years ago) the problem that Doc experienced is likely due to a confounding element in the study design. The long explanation is below, but the short of it is that presenting individual results is virtually meaningless because you can't determine what amount of the increase between the expected match and the incongruous match is based on preference, and what amount is based on order in which the sets are presented (when you get used to hitting one key for one set and have to change that association).
[right][snapback]94792[/snapback][/right]
whyBish,Nov 14 2005, 11:50 PM Wrote:Psychologists, Economists, and Astrologers are all at the same level of 'science'... [snip]As someone with a degree in psychology, who currently works in economic research, I'll grant you that psychologists and economists are on the same level, but I have to object to the grouping with astrologers. Yes, you can misuse much of what is determined from psychologic or economic studies, but when you look at the specific setting from which the results are derived, you can generally point out what people are getting wrong. With astrologers, you can't help but point at everything as being wrong.
Association task confound explanation:
The basis of the conclusion is the difference in reaction time between what the computer determines as your expected preference match and the incongruous match. In the series that I did, I compared Apple to Microsoft: in the preliminary list of questions, I indicated a slight preference for Apple, so the computer set up the "expected match" set of frames as Apple + Positive vs. Microsoft + Negative. The analysis therefore compared my reaction time in this setting vs. my reaction time in Apple + Negative vs. Microsoft + Positive. My reaction time results indicated a strong preference for Apple vs. Microsoft, but the confounding order effect is likely the source of the result. Because the Apple + Positive frames were presented first I made the association I=apple; I=Positive. When the categories switch to the incongruous (Apple + Negative) I had to change to I=apple; E=positive. This change is likely the result in the increase in reaction time, not the latent association Microsoft=Negative. The only way to address this change is to randomize participants to the order in which the see the association frames (whether the expected set comes first, or the incongruous set comes first). Basically, the only way to get results out of this is to look across a large population and control for the size of the change when the series flips in order to make a statement about the preferences of the group. When done on an individual basis, it is virtually meaningless.
Project Implicit. - whyBish - 11-16-2005
Occhidiangela,Nov 16 2005, 06:39 AM Wrote:some of the proofs will work logically if the assumptions and initial conditions are crafted well enough, and variables are all accounted for.
...
The hardest thing, I think, is to recognize the assumptions you don't realize you are making.
Occhi
[right][snapback]94906[/snapback][/right]
I work with economists far to often (Still working on a project for one of the big five banks here). The main problem with economists is what level of simplification they run models at.
An example is the question "What happens if the demand for power (electricity) goes up?"
level 1:
The supply of electricity is fixed, so price goes up.
level 2:
The supply is actually variable, but capped (i.e. there is some slack in the generation), so price may not change much at all, unless the demand exceeds the supply cap.
level 3:
The price goes up in the short term, and so more power stations are built.
level 4:
Power station building is lumpy so if the govt. environment (tax / regulation) is not predictable enough then it is too risky to invest in new power generation.
level 5:
Research into alternative energy sources increase.
level 6:
The substitution effect kicks in and people start using candles instead of lightbulbs (for example)
level 7:
Candles are made from oil, so the demand for oil increases.
level 8:
All of the above arguements about what will happen to the price of oil
level 9:
Since the price of oil increases, power generated from that source becomes more costly. However, substituation to other forms of generation + the reduction in demand affect the price in the opposite direction.
(Sorry I shouldn't have assigned numbers to these levels, I am trying to show additional levels of complexity to the model)
Result: Different answer depending on what model is chosen. Different answer depending on what timeframe was chosen. Different answer depending on a whole bunch of factors that are practically important, but the economist would call them 'confounding' factors (e.g. regulatory environment, substitutes etc.)
So they can prove that in *model* X when event Y occurs the outcome is Z, but then they apply that to the real world and it falls apart.
Project Implicit. - whyBish - 11-16-2005
Jeunemaitre,Nov 16 2005, 07:59 AM Wrote:As someone with a degree in psychology, who currently works in economic research, I'll grant you that psychologists and economists are on the same level, but I have to object to the grouping with astrologers. Yes, you can misuse much of what is determined from psychologic or economic studies, but when you look at the specific setting from which the results are derived, you can generally point out what people are getting wrong. With astrologers, you can't help but point at everything as being wrong.
[right][snapback]94924[/snapback][/right]
As above, I'm not arguing the model is wrong, just the blatant application of the model to the real world. Hence my inclusion of astrologers, they claim their (simple) system applies to the (complex) real world just like (none,some,most,all?) economists/psychologists.
Maybe I should conduct an experiment, and get some psychologists and some astrologers to predict how some particular couple will get on, and see what the results are.... meh, too much work, I think I'll stick to making wild, unfounded, generalisations :P
Project Implicit. - whyBish - 11-16-2005
Doc,Nov 16 2005, 07:20 AM Wrote:Hey now, Adam Smith was absolutely right.Some of astrology can be used for quackery too, but understanding the links between the movement of celestial bodies, and the actions of man is a good thing. :P
Economics... There is nothing wrong with economics as a science. Some of it can be used for quackery, but understanding a system of trade is a good thing. Be real careful on this one please, as I rather like economics.
[right][snapback]94915[/snapback][/right]