Surprise, surprise, social psych tool for measuring racism doesn’t work

From Jesse Singal at New York Mag:

Perhaps no new concept from the world of academic psychology has taken hold of the public imagination more quickly and profoundly in the 21st century than implicit bias — that is, forms of bias which operate beyond the conscious awareness of individuals. That’s in large part due to the blockbuster success of the so-called implicit association test, which purports to offer a quick, easy way to measure how implicitly biased individual people are. When Hillary Clinton famously mentioned implicit bias during her first debate with Donald Trump, many people knew what she was talking about because the IAT has spread the concept so far and wide. It’s not a stretch to say that the IAT is one of the most famous psychological instruments created in recent history, and that it has been the subject of more recent fascination and acclaim than just about anything else to come out of the field of social psychology.

Unfortunately, none of that is true. A pile of scholarly work, some of it published in top psychology journals and most of it ignored by the media, suggests that the IAT falls far short of the quality-control standards normally expected of psychological instruments. The IAT, this research suggests, is a noisy, unreliable measure that correlates far too weakly with any real-world outcomes to be used to predict individuals’ behavior — even the test’s creators have now admitted as such. The history of the test suggests it was released to the public and excitedly publicized long before it had been fully validated in the rigorous, careful way normally demanded by the field of psychology. In fact, there’s a case to be made that Harvard shouldn’t be administering the test in its current form, in light of its shortcomings and its potential to mislead people about their own biases. More.

Look, all the test needs to do is provide shakedown for the race grievance industry. It wouldn’t matter how the results are derived. In a post-fact science world where objectivity is sexist or even an instance of white supremacy, can’t they just make the results up, apply for grants, and call it a day?

See also: New: First Things on March for Science, cites junk DNA as reason not to trust “consensus”

and

All sides agree: progressive politics is strangling social sciences

Share
  • Millie_Woods

    There’s no such thing as ‘social sciences’. There’s only social experimentation, which has a horrendous record of social destruction. As Mark Steyn said “nothing good begins with the word social”.

  • Exile1981

    I had a discussion with the kids school yesterday after a “government specialist” presented a film to a junior high health class.

    The film started with the kids having to listen to a 5 minute audio recording of a baby screaming as it was abused. Then they showed a bunch of pictures over and over to see how the kids responded to them. At the end of the pictures the kids where supposed to think on why any of the pictures made them react negatively.

    The pictures (the ones my kid remembered).

    1) a bunch of naked PETA types covered in blood laying on plates to protest eating meat.
    2) two men in suits kissing
    3) abused animals
    4) Starving african kids
    5) A couple pictures of abused children
    6) A rape victim
    7) Bruce Jenner pretending to be a women
    8) two lesbians making out
    There were more put those where the remembered ones.

    This seems less like a health class and more like a desensitization experiment. I’m waiting for the school to find out who authorized this crap.

    • mauser 98

      what age , grade is this shown to?

      • Exile1981

        Grade 8 – 13 and 14 year olds