Who's the Racist (test)

[Nie Trink Wasser]

test your own racial bias with a grain of salt.

http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/index.html

[Jude]

I took the White/Black Adult test. It said I had a slight preference for European Americans. It seemed more like a mind game than any kind of racism guage.

[Tricky]

Inconclusive on everything. I guess that show that I have no automatic bias at all. How did you score, NTW?

[Wile E. Coyote]

Looking at the results, I think it has more to do with the order or the tests. By the end of the test, you are accustomed to pressing different buttons for different stimuli, so when you see a word or picture, you automatically pick what you are trained to pick.

The last part of the test becomes more difficult because by this point you have been trained one way and then asked to do things another way. Of course there are going to be mistakes.

The test is more biased than the testees.

[Wile E. Coyote]

On second thought, and to expand upon my last post, this test is incredibly stupid.

You spend the first three tests learning a behavior, and then they switch the behavior around on you for the last test. This tests nothing but my ability to recall which option is on the left or right side.

I imagine if they used a similar test with repect to fruits/vegetables, the results would be in favor of whichever was given the "good" side first.

It just one more way for them to say "you are all despicable racist scum".

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
Looking at the results, I think it has more to do with the order or the tests. By the end of the test, you are accustomed to pressing different buttons for different stimuli, so when you see a word or picture, you automatically pick what you are trained to pick.

On second thought, and to expand upon my last post, this test is incredibly stupid.

You spend the first three tests learning a behavior, and then they switch the behavior around on you for the last test. This tests nothing but my ability to recall which option is on the left or right side.

I imagine if they used a similar test with repect to fruits/vegetables, the results would be in favor of whichever was given the "good" side first.

It just one more way for them to say "you are all despicable racist scum".



:clap:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
You spend the first three tests learning a behavior, and then they switch the behavior around on you for the last test. This tests nothing but my ability to recall which option is on the left or right side.

It just one more way for them to say "you are all despicable racist scum".
My problem with the test is that it tends to test your skills at electronic games more than anything. People who play a lot of video games probably come up with "no prejudice" more often than others, simply because they are better at the type of hand-eye coordination required for this sort of "test".

The idea is that you will subtly make mistakes on the side of your prejudice, but in actuality, some people just don't make as many mistakes.

[Ladewig]

I wasn't able to take any tests because of the site's intolerance of Explorer version 5 for Macintosh.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tricky

The idea is that you will subtly make mistakes on the side of your prejudice, but in actuality, some people just don't make as many mistakes.

Exactly. And I made most mistakes at the end of the test by which time Im thinking "oh for fooksake! when is this crap ending already!!"

[jj]

Total bull. Whatever it is isn't a test of tolerance, if anything it's a test of conditioning.

[Jude]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
I imagine if they used a similar test with repect to fruits/vegetables, the results would be in favor of whichever was given the "good" side first.

I think you're correct. I took some of the other tests and my results leaned to the left category every time.

[GroundStrength]

Your data suggests little or no automatic preference

What I thought was interesting was the results at the end of the test that showed 48% of people who took the test had a preference for caucasions and 6% for people of african descent.

This test validates the saying "Figures don't lie, but liars figure"

[corplinx]

"Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for European Americans."

Well darn, a java applet says I'm biased from a group with something to prove. I guess I should go listen to Al Green until I'm cured.

[Sundog]

Okay... Where I live, I am definitely a minority as a tall, blonde Anglo. I never feel as if I belong. When I go home to Oklahoma and am surrounded by other Anglos, I feel more at home. (well, duh! I feel at home when I'm at home! ;) ) Am I a racist?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Sundog
Okay... Where I live, I am definitely a minority as a tall, blonde Anglo. I never feel as if I belong. When I go home to Oklahoma and am surrounded by other Anglos, I feel more at home. (well, duh! I feel at home when I'm at home! ;) ) Am I a racist?

Heh, I grew up as a white boy in an African country. I was very comfortable being the only white person for miles. Visiting a country like the UK for a holiday I would be very uncomfortable surrounded by all these white people!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I got tired of guessing which people were white and which were Indians, so I quit. Not sure what that is supposed to prove.

Stupid.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by corplinx
"Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for European Americans."

Well darn, a java applet says I'm biased from a group with something to prove. I guess I should go listen to Al Green until I'm cured.


:roll: :roll:

[JAR]

I took some of those tests and they said:

1. that I liked white people more than black people(that came as no surprise considering that I chose the option of strongly preferring whites over blacks),

2. that I preferred lighter skinned people over darker skinned people(that came as no surprise considering that all the times in middle school where a person mugged me in the school restroom or attempted to mug me in the school restroom, the mugger or muggers were non-white),

3. that I didn't think Native Americans were less American than European-Americans(it's strange that I'd think that being that Native Americans tend to be less characteristically American than European-Americans. Americans are a branch of the English-speaking people, not of the Native Americans. I probably have listened to too much left-wing propaganda and it influenced my results on the test),

4. and that I had a slight preference for Muslims over non-Muslims(that came as no surprise being that I have a Lebanese shepherd smoking a hookah for my avatar and I also tend to find Arab women more attractive than white women and black women).

[Edited to add: All I changed in the edit was "people doing it" to "mugger or muggers."]

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tricky

My problem with the test is that it tends to test your skills at electronic games more than anything. People who play a lot of video games probably come up with "no prejudice" more often than others, simply because they are better at the type of hand-eye coordination required for this sort of "test".

The idea is that you will subtly make mistakes on the side of your prejudice, but in actuality, some people just don't make as many mistakes.

For the anti-Semitic test:

Your data suggest little or no automatic preference[quote]

For the adult Blck White:

[quote]Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for African American

:p

I wish you coudl get stats that show the results of all people, like which groups are more baised. I bet that well educated atheists are the least biased ;)

[Earthborn]

I did this test a while ago, but it was on another site.

My result: too slow. This test is biased against people don't let their biases overrule reason and who actually think before they pass judgements. :cool:

[JAR]

Originally posted by Malachi151
For the adult Blck White:

[quote]Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for African American
Malachi151, what draws you to the African-American culture? African-Americans you've met who act characteristically white don't count as reasons you like African-American culture.

What I want to know is whether you like things like rap music, rock music(an African-American came up with it but it was later pretty much dominated by non-African-Americans), jazz, ragtime, soul music, R & B, hip hop, basketball, youth gangs, and drive-by shootings.

Do drive-by shootings and youth gangs appeal to you?

[jj]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I did this test a while ago, but it was on another site.

My result: too slow. This test is biased against people don't let their biases overrule reason and who actually think before they pass judgements. :cool:

Yep, and that's the way you avoid their conditioning, by thinking before each answer.

Otherwise they can make the test come out any way they want, I suspect.

Things like this are very order-sensitive.

[peptoabysmal]

I actually find my fellow white folk rather annoying and prefer the company of asians, so I took the asian bias test, and got no results whatsoever, not even inconclusive. <<<shrug>>> Stupid Java Applets.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Heh, I grew up as a white boy in an African country. I was very comfortable being the only white person for miles. Visiting a country like the UK for a holiday I would be very uncomfortable surrounded by all these white people!

Ditto. I went back to UK two years ago for the first time in a decade, I truly have never felt more foreign and out of place than that trip.

[Selvedge]

I took some of these tests a few years ago, when there were fewer of them -- just the ones for dark/light skin color bias, African race bias, Asian bias, age and gender, IIRC.

I actually tested as having a bias in favor of Africans and darker-skinned people. Neutral on Asians and old folks. And a bias toward men over women.

Why the dark-skin bias I have no idea, since I'm white. I would consider that I was somehow over-compensating in trying not to seem racist. But that seems improbable, since my eye-hand coordination isn't that good, so who knows?

The gender bias seemed even odder, since I'm a card-carrying feminazi. ;) But I noticed that (at that time) the gender test was the only one that used text instead of pictures, so perhaps that had some effect.

Part of the problem is that there's no way to test this test. If we could find someone who we all somehow agree is totally pure of heart & innocent of any bias, and have them take it along with, say, Archie Bunker, then we could get a baseline reading. Without that, how can we know what the test measures?

[swstephe]

My children are exactly 1/2 Chinese and 1/2 whatever I am, (white with known Native American influence). I see them for who they are, not based on which racial classification they are. In fact, it is a big topic that we have all grown up with. We all get annoyed at the American persistence to classify someone. My kids are never sure what they are supposed to enter when asked on tests and forms, "Chinese"? "White non-Hispanic"? "Other"? They are told to go with which group they identify most closely with culturally. That's also a big issue. I insisted on them retaining a good knowledge of Chinese culture. I *only* spoke Chinese to them until they entered school in America so they wouldn't forget that language. Once they learned English, in school, then I started to speak to them in English. The kids they hang out with are of many different racial categories, they spent most of their lives in America. When they have questions about "race", I tell them that they are who they are and shouldn't even have to answer the question. When I was growing up, I thought that, until everyone in America writes "Other" *all the time*, only then will racism disappear from America.

I find this is still a big problem for America. Halle Barry wins an Oscar, everyone is happy that a black woman wins, even though she immediately goes over and hugs her white mother. Nobody says, Halle won based on her skills. Tiger Woods is another one. In America he is considered black. In Asia, they consider him Thai. Racism won't go away until he is treated no differently than anyone else.

Then those tests. On "Black/White" adult, I had a big problem with it because I'm not used to classifying people unless they want to be classified. It was a test of whether you would classify the people in these fictitious groups the same way as the testers or not. It apparently goes by the errors you make, (possibly with the speed you reply).

The test said I was biased toward "European Whites". I'm old enough and experienced enough to *know* my bias. When I'm overseas, I usually avoid lighter skinned people and am closer to the native people, usually dark skinned. I prefer being the minority. I find other people from my country to be arrogant, ignorant and intollerant of other people's views so often that it is usally a good initial assumption. That's just my preference and personal opinon. Some people find skinny women more attractive. I find dark skin attractive. I analyzed it a while ago and thought that, for white people, very pale skin meant "sick or dying" and darker skin, (with a tan), meant "healthy and active". I thought that was wear it came from. When I see people in Asia trying to make their skin lighter, it looks unnatural and unhealthy to me.

What the test *should* have done is shown two pictures, one with lighter skin, one with darker skin, and stated a fact, and make you guess which one you thought the fact was about. Without more information, your bias would stick out. Nothing about race or categories. Right or wrong would be purely based on your intuition. I was going to write up a test like this, myself, on some biases I wanted to expose. But I haven't found the time.

[JAR]

Originally posted by swstephe
When I was growing up, I thought that, until everyone in America writes "Other" *all the time*, only then will racism disappear from America.

Racism is one thing I don't want to disappear from America. In fact, it will never disappear. Logical sensible people around the world are racists. I am a racist. They who are not racists are people who reject that which is obvious.

People who are against racism often don't even bother to look up the words "race" and "racism" in the dictionary. Either that or they buy into the "blank slate" concept that Rousseau came up with.

[Luke T.]

I've run so many freaking anti-spyware programs and anti-virus programs and system security website checks on my computer lately, it will no longer run Java no matter what I try.

[LW]

Originally posted by JAR



People who are against racism often don't even bother to look up the words "race" and "racism" in the dictionary.

I think you'd better state what dictionary you are using before presenting that argument. Random House Webster's gives:
racism 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usu. involving the idea that one's own race is superior. 2. a policy, system of government, etc. based on such doctrine. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.[/b]

[JAR]

Originally posted by LW


I think you'd better state what dictionary you are using before presenting that argument. Random House Webster's gives:

[racism 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usu. involving the idea that one's own race is superior. 2. a policy, system of government, etc. based on such doctrine. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races./B]
I think that a portion of the time, inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement. Therefore, I am a racist.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by JAR

Malachi151, what draws you to the African-American culture? African-Americans you've met who act characteristically white don't count as reasons you like African-American culture.

What I want to know is whether you like things like rap music, rock music(an African-American came up with it but it was later pretty much dominated by non-African-Americans), jazz, ragtime, soul music, R & B, hip hop, basketball, youth gangs, and drive-by shootings.

Do drive-by shootings and youth gangs appeal to you?

I just now got you pm :p

I don't think I actually am, that's just what the test said, however I don't think I see blacks any differant than whites in any way. I grew up going to the Bahamas a lot and have black friends there, I've dated 3 black women, but it was never very serious. I'm not drawn to or repulsed by blacks or black culture in any way, though I am sympathetic with their struggle.

My mucical tastes are varied and do not include much rap, though I enjoy it at parties and when I'm clubbing, at home I prever speed metal, 60s rock, techno, jam bands, and acid rock the most, but I like various ethinic music as well and have several African drum and reggae CDs, along with Native America, Pakistani, Brazilian, and Asian CDs.

Race is a non-issue for me.

[American]

I scored:

java.lang.arrayoutofboundsindex


Am I a racist?

[LawnOven]

*sigh*

OK as an anthropologist in training, I feel the need to point out that there are no such thing as human "races". But Jesus, why is it necessary to point this out? :rolleyes:

I'm not usually one to cause trouble around here but that's just f*cking stupid.

just in case *proof* (jesus!) is necessary:

LINK (http://old.smh.com.au/news/specials/intl/genome/genom2.html)

LINK 2 (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php)

those "inherent differences" that JAR speaks of, DO NOT exist. And we've known this... for a while now.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

^Very well said Lawn Oven!

Race is a social construct, and a relatively recent one at that. Biologically, race does not exist.

And vote YES on Prop. 54.:)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by LawnOven
*sigh*

OK as an anthropologist in training, I feel the need to point out that there are no such thing as human "races". But Jesus, why is it necessary to point this out? :rolleyes:

I'm not usually one to cause trouble around here but that's just f*cking stupid.

just in case *proof* (jesus!) is necessary:

LINK (http://old.smh.com.au/news/specials/intl/genome/genom2.html)

LINK 2 (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php)

those "inherent differences" that JAR speaks of, DO NOT exist. And we've known this... for a while now.

I agree totally. Race is an man made idea, its not a "real" thing. Genetically there is more difference between peope we call of the same race than there may be of people from different "races".

In addition, asside from teh physical stuff, the majoirty of the characteristics that people identify with race are just cultural differences. If you raise an African girl in a Japanese home they will grow up to speak and act "Japanese". Raise a Chinese girl in a Russian home and they will act "Russian", etc.

And of course the fact that when two people of different "races" mate, their offspring is... what? Its just a person, becuase we are all just people. Race is meaningless.

[Dancing David]

Race is a cultural bais, just like italian and the french, they thought they were differnt races a hundred years ago.

Anthroplogy is a science but most conservatives don't like what it has to say.

Here comes the bogus fiveteen point IQ difference.

Hi Lawn Oven, I now live in shampoo but grew up in banana.

[Tricky]

As a biologist, I agree that there is no real thing such as race. However, as a social construct, it is useful. If the word "race" did not exist, we would have to coin another one to describe the phenomenon of certain characteristics being grouped (I think "cline" is the scientific word for it.) But if you were describing a person (for the police, for example) would you describe each individual characteristic, or use a word that summarizes characteristics that tend to occur in groups.

There is no sense in dancing around the issue.

[JAR]

Originally posted by LawnOven
*sigh*

OK as an anthropologist in training, I feel the need to point out that there are no such thing as human "races". But Jesus, why is it necessary to point this out? :rolleyes:

I'm not usually one to cause trouble around here but that's just f*cking stupid.

just in case *proof* (jesus!) is necessary:

LINK (http://old.smh.com.au/news/specials/intl/genome/genom2.html)

LINK 2 (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php)

those "inherent differences" that JAR speaks of, DO NOT exist. And we've known this... for a while now.
My "Introduction to Human Geography" college textbook defines "race" as:

"Identity with a group of people descended from a common ancestor."

Sounds to me like such a thing exists.

What definition of the word "race" are you using LawnOven?

[JAR]

Originally posted by LawnOven
[snip]
those "inherent differences" that JAR speaks of, DO NOT exist. And we've known this... for a while now.
Is it just me, or did you just say something to the effect that all humans are entirely genetically identical?

If so, that's just not true and it doesn't take a genius to notice that people tend to look something like their parents and that matings between white people aren't producing black infants.

If you think that all humans are entirely genetically the same, I can only conclude that you are a complete moron.

[JAR]

Now you guys are sort of right that race doesn't exist, but for the wrong reasons.

As of now, there is not a universally accepted definition of the words "race" and "racism", so you could speak of "race" and "racism" as not existing.

This brings up the question of why is a racist such a horrible thing to be when we don't even have an accepted definition of what it is?

[JAR]

Originally posted by LawnOven
*sigh*

OK as an anthropologist in training, I feel the need to point out that there are no such thing as human "races". But Jesus, why is it necessary to point this out? :rolleyes:

I'm not usually one to cause trouble around here but that's just f*cking stupid.

just in case *proof* (jesus!) is necessary:

LINK (http://old.smh.com.au/news/specials/intl/genome/genom2.html)

LINK 2 (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php)

those "inherent differences" that JAR speaks of, DO NOT exist. And we've known this... for a while now.
What you just used was a cheap maneuver commonly used by leftists to get a lot of cheers and pats on the back from the fellow leftists crowd. It works everytime in getting the liberals to clap for oneself and its been used on the forum many a time.

But it is quite a stretch to say that there are no inherent differences among humans.

[LawnOven]

Jar says:

"Identity with a group of people descended from a common ancestor."

haha, how old is this text book?

humans all descended from A common ancestor, are you not familiar with "out of Africa" and the mitochondrial eve?

Is it just me, or did you just say something to the effect that all humans are entirely genetically identical?

Is it just me or did you not read the REAL SCIENCE in those articles there...? That isn’t what I said at all.

What you just used was a cheap maneuver commonly used by leftists to get a lot of cheers and pats on the back from the fellow leftists crowd. It works every time in getting the liberals to clap for oneself and its been used on the forum many a time.

What you just used was a cheap maneuver commonly used by right-wingers called "attack the person not the idea." (you see I can bitch about with the best of them JAR, but I really prefer not to).

But it is quite a stretch to say that there are no inherent differences among humans.

Are you seriously doubting the authenticity of biological sciences, which dissagree with you here?

[LawnOven]

Tricky says...

As a biologist, I agree that there is no real thing such as race. However, as a social construct, it is useful. If the word "race" did not exist, we would have to coin another one to describe the phenomenon of certain characteristics being grouped (I think "cline" is the scientific word for it.) But if you were describing a person (for the police, for example) would you describe each individual characteristic, or use a word that summarizes characteristics that tend to occur in groups.


I understand your point Tricky however…
“Race” to a great number of people is synonymous with “species” so when you say the white or black “race” people attribute mentally a lot more characteristics to those terms than they really should. The genetic differences that make up the differences in human “races” are ridiculously insignificant. I’m sure you know that. :) There’s a lot of semantics here really (in regards to race), but the words we use do effect how we think about the thing we are describing, the words you use to describe something DO MATTER for this reason.

Further…

You say describing each characteristic like that’s a bad thing. Having to do this would make people much less lazy in the way they think about other people. No longer could somebody be written off as a “black male” and everything that entails.

I suppose I just think that working for a color blind (not culturally blind) society is not exactly a bad thing. I just see no need in focusing on differences, which don’t matter in the least.

There is no sense in dancing around the issue.

I'm not dancing around it, but rather, right into it, which was the point of me posting that in the first place :).

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Race is a cultural bais, just like italian and the french, they thought they were differnt races a hundred years ago.

Anthroplogy is a science but most conservatives don't like what it has to say.

Here comes the bogus fiveteen point IQ difference.

Hi Lawn Oven, I now live in shampoo but grew up in banana.

Hi Dancing David :).

Haha, so you moved to the Dark Side eh? :p

What was it; the property taxes?

I don't actually "live" there most of the time either, but it's where my heart is ( I grew up in the Old Banana as well) Currently I spend most of my days in Normal; I'm enrollled at Illinois State.

I love Urbana (and Champaign), I suppose that makes me a towny.

Is Chompsky coming to the U of I? do you know? He's going to be in Normal on Tuesday (I believe) giving a free talk. I thought that was pretty cool, whether or not you agree with the guy his ideas are rarely boring. I wish he'd talk about linguistics but I think he's talking about politics.

Haha, wow way off topic, but whatever.

whatever dude.

hehe :)

[JAR]

Originally posted by LawnOven
[snip]
haha, how old is this text book?
[snip]
Okay, Mr. Anthropologist in training. I'll give you a definition of race that is more suitable to your tastes.

It comes from a textbook I have titled "Introduction: Cultural Anthropology" by Roberta Edwards Lenkeit. It was copyrighted in 2001.

The book says on page 287: "racial group: A biological grouping based on a cluster of inherited biological features."

And the book doesn't end it there, instead it goes on to say something very leftist: "Anthropologists take the position that such human groups do not exist."

Anthropologists may take that position, but I sure don't.

I can think of a human racial group according to that definition right now. It's called the human male gender. If you want me to think of another one, I will.

[JAR]

Originally posted by LawnOven
humans all descended from A common ancestor, are you not familiar with "out of Africa" and the mitochondrial eve?[snip]
I'm familiar with it. If you think there is a human race, than you and me agree on something.

[JAR]

Originally posted by LawnOven
[snip]
haha, how old is this text book?
[snip]
That text book, called "Seventh Edition: The Cultural Landscape: An Introduction to Human Geography" by James M. Rubinstein was Copyrighted in 2002 by Prentice Hall, Inc.

Now you are not being fair with me. I gave a perfectly fine definition of the word "race" from a fairly recent textbook and you rejected it. I suspect you rejected it because it didn't support your view that human races don't exist.

Your not playing fair. You made a claim that human races don't exist, I gave you a recent definition of the word "race" from a reliable source. The definition I gave showed that human races do exist. Human races do exist. End of discussion.

[LawnOven]

As long as you admit that at this point you are basically playing a game of semantics, then yes, you are right, the discussion has ended.

You can keep your definition, and I'll keep mine. End of discussion.