There’s a very interesting website that purports to test your unconscious association between different classes of things. Many of the tests are to identify whether you have a implicit preference for certain types of people (black or white, old or young, slim or overweight, etc.) but there are other tests that operate on names or religious imagery, etc.
The tests are apparently based on reaction time and number of mistakes made. In the race/weapons test, which is the only one I’ve taken, you’re shown pictures of white and black faces and asked to quickly press a key to categorize them as white or black. You’re then shown pictures of harmless object or weapons and also asked to quickly categorize them. The system then shows you pictures of faces and objects interspersed, and asks you to categorize them as “white or weapon” or “black or harmless”, and then switches to “black or weapon” and “white or harmless”.
It appears that what it’s measuring is whether you will more quickly/easily be able to associate black faces or white faces with violent objects based on how fast and accurately you can categorize the images you are shown.
I was pretty fascinated with this methodology; it seems pretty valid to me, and I’m interested to try out some of the other surveys. I’d love to know the heuristic they use to grade the results. Interestingly, they give you a questionnaire at the end where they ask you how valid you think the study is, and I suspect this is a major part of their analysis. They try to give you an out — one of the questions gives you the option to say that the survey reflects the culture to which you’ve been exposed, but doesn’t say anything about you personally, while other options let you say you think the test is a valid reflection of your conscious or unconscious preferences.
My guess is that those people who achieve “desirable” results (no association of weapons with race) will be more likely to ascribe validity to the survey and to believe it reflects their true outlook, and frankly that might be the whole point of the study. Regardless of whether the picture association component is meaningful or not, they could just be measuring how much more likely you are to put faith in a seemingly authoritative statement that tells you something good about yourself as opposed to a similar statement that tells you something bad about yourself.
Ah, psychology is great! No other field of science gets to combine experimental design with stage magicians’ sleight of hand.
![racial+harmony[1]](http://www.wigdahl.net/quern/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/racial+harmony1-300x187.jpg)
![gemcraft[1]](http://www.wigdahl.net/quern/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/gemcraft1-300x226.jpg)
![infocom[1] infocom[1]](http://www.wigdahl.net/quern/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/infocom1-300x200.jpg)
![BLOWUP_nomnomnom_640[1] BLOWUP_nomnomnom_640[1]](http://www.wigdahl.net/quern/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/BLOWUP_nomnomnom_6401-286x300.jpg)
Emily Short
If you are interested in interactive fiction, the
I’ve
I ran across
Warning: 