Select the Race IAT:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html
Harvard's Implicit Association Test-- Are You a Racist? Post Your Results
- Thread starter Costanza
- Start date
The test doesn't really measure racism as much as it measures bias but is often promoted by asking "Are You a Racist?"
This unrelated article, in it's discussion of Black History Month, does a good job of explaining influences that feed black and white people in this country and produce biases that result in negative associations with blacks (i.e. words like "agony") that are not really racist.
What Is the “Real” Black History?
The African-American story is not just activism and resistance.
* By: Tara Bynum | Posted: February 16, 2010 at 6:20 AM
It's Black History Month yet again. With several years of university teaching under my belt, I've begun to wonder what black history my students have actually learned during this month or any month before entering college. It's clear the students know a version of black history that moves rather quickly from slavery to Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Movement to the election of Barack Obama.
They describe black history with words, such as "real," "struggle," and "overcoming." "Real" captures the racial authenticity that privileges those stories, which emphasize the ways in which black people have fought back against an oppressive system through invention, revolution, and political activism. What the students have learned seems to suggest that a history of the black experience documents how black Americans have "kept it real" in spite of racism.
After numerous classroom discussions, I've come to understand that though this "real" history is important, it overshadows the moments where resistance and activism are not obvious concerns. There is a black history that exists outside of the "real" story. Here, I am reminded of 18th century poet Phillis Wheatley, whose poems possess no apparent literary activism. Her well-formed elegies barely discuss slavery and certainly do not seem to oppose its practice. Before we place her outside of black history or chastise her lack of racial consciousness, we must recognize that Wheatley may offer an alternative story. Let's assume that Wheatley's intention was not to inaugurate this "real" history. Let's concede that Wheatley does not keep real the narrative of struggle and resistance that has become synonymous with blackness.
What Wheatley does offer is a story where choice is privileged alongside resistance and struggle. Her poetry makes evident her choice to write about that which makes her human. In the 18th century, it's God and faith. Wheatley is not alone in choice. She is joined by countless others—such as the famed trans-Atlantic minister and Prince Hall Mason chaplain, John Marrant and the poets, Jupiter Hammon and Lucy Terry—who write poems, autobiographical narratives, sermons, and stories that may not appear rife with literary activism.
Though the examples I cite here are all from the 18th century, Wheatley, Hammon, and Terry, nonetheless, represent the less-known black histories that span all centuries since the colonization of North America. They represent the women and men that altered the course of history through their choices. Some of those choices may look like resistance, as in the case of Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, or David Walker. Other times, these choices may look to us like survival or complacency as with Wheatley or the actor Bert Williams.
But these words— resistance, survival, and complacency— limit black history and deny the varied way in which black people have contributed to this history. Instead of resistance, let's heed Ralph Ellison's charge to pursue that which he could only describe as the "something else" of black life. Let's document not only the moments when we actively struggled but also those times when we lived everyday lives. It should be the living that we celebrate this month because it's through the living that we make and change history.
http://www.theroot.com/views/what-real-black-history
This unrelated article, in it's discussion of Black History Month, does a good job of explaining influences that feed black and white people in this country and produce biases that result in negative associations with blacks (i.e. words like "agony") that are not really racist.
What Is the “Real” Black History?
The African-American story is not just activism and resistance.
* By: Tara Bynum | Posted: February 16, 2010 at 6:20 AM
It's Black History Month yet again. With several years of university teaching under my belt, I've begun to wonder what black history my students have actually learned during this month or any month before entering college. It's clear the students know a version of black history that moves rather quickly from slavery to Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Movement to the election of Barack Obama.
They describe black history with words, such as "real," "struggle," and "overcoming." "Real" captures the racial authenticity that privileges those stories, which emphasize the ways in which black people have fought back against an oppressive system through invention, revolution, and political activism. What the students have learned seems to suggest that a history of the black experience documents how black Americans have "kept it real" in spite of racism.
After numerous classroom discussions, I've come to understand that though this "real" history is important, it overshadows the moments where resistance and activism are not obvious concerns. There is a black history that exists outside of the "real" story. Here, I am reminded of 18th century poet Phillis Wheatley, whose poems possess no apparent literary activism. Her well-formed elegies barely discuss slavery and certainly do not seem to oppose its practice. Before we place her outside of black history or chastise her lack of racial consciousness, we must recognize that Wheatley may offer an alternative story. Let's assume that Wheatley's intention was not to inaugurate this "real" history. Let's concede that Wheatley does not keep real the narrative of struggle and resistance that has become synonymous with blackness.
What Wheatley does offer is a story where choice is privileged alongside resistance and struggle. Her poetry makes evident her choice to write about that which makes her human. In the 18th century, it's God and faith. Wheatley is not alone in choice. She is joined by countless others—such as the famed trans-Atlantic minister and Prince Hall Mason chaplain, John Marrant and the poets, Jupiter Hammon and Lucy Terry—who write poems, autobiographical narratives, sermons, and stories that may not appear rife with literary activism.
Though the examples I cite here are all from the 18th century, Wheatley, Hammon, and Terry, nonetheless, represent the less-known black histories that span all centuries since the colonization of North America. They represent the women and men that altered the course of history through their choices. Some of those choices may look like resistance, as in the case of Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, or David Walker. Other times, these choices may look to us like survival or complacency as with Wheatley or the actor Bert Williams.
But these words— resistance, survival, and complacency— limit black history and deny the varied way in which black people have contributed to this history. Instead of resistance, let's heed Ralph Ellison's charge to pursue that which he could only describe as the "something else" of black life. Let's document not only the moments when we actively struggled but also those times when we lived everyday lives. It should be the living that we celebrate this month because it's through the living that we make and change history.
http://www.theroot.com/views/what-real-black-history
This test is extremely faulty. I wrote Harvard last year telling them as much. If you are a great test taker or extremely mentally sharp then the test will result in their system telling you that you have "no automatic preference". This was the result I was aiming for and achieved. Again, their test and results prove nothing. By the way, I didn't get a response. 
I last took this years ago-- I'd say 2003ish-- and scored a moderate preference for African Americans.
I had some family take it recently and was disappointed with the results-- most scored a preference for European Americans and some even explicitly self-identified as prefering European Americans.
I just took it now for the first time in at least five years and "Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for African American compared to European American."
I was
as I went through it... I would honestly prefer not to have a bias and don't like that it grew stronger. I guess I prefer that bias to a self-hating bias but I'd rather be able to judge people as people.
The only reason I retook the test just now was so I could access this graphic of the typical results:
The overwhelming majority of both blacks and whites score a bias in favor of European Americans.
I had some family take it recently and was disappointed with the results-- most scored a preference for European Americans and some even explicitly self-identified as prefering European Americans.
I just took it now for the first time in at least five years and "Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for African American compared to European American."
I was
as I went through it... I would honestly prefer not to have a bias and don't like that it grew stronger. I guess I prefer that bias to a self-hating bias but I'd rather be able to judge people as people.The only reason I retook the test just now was so I could access this graphic of the typical results:
The overwhelming majority of both blacks and whites score a bias in favor of European Americans.
This test is extremely faulty. I wrote Harvard last year telling them as much. If you are a great test taker or extremely mentally sharp then the test will result in their system telling you that you have "no automatic preference". This was the result I was aiming for and achieved. Again, their test and results prove nothing. By the way, I didn't get a response.
The majority of people are not great test takers, though... I agree the test is flawed-- You can also score "no automatic preference" if you are too dull mentally and fuck up on the part just comparing pictures. I witnessed family who scored no bias who I clearly observed associating black faces with the negative terms.
Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between African American and European American.
Depends. BGOL might be the only Colored people taking the test.The only reason I retook the test just now was so I could access this graphic of the typical results:
The overwhelming majority of both blacks and whites score a bias in favor of European Americans.
I'm just glad I got my Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for African American compared to European American.
Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for African American compared to European American
Nah... The test has been around for ten years; I'm sure there have been a lot more whites taking it than anything else but I'm sure they have had more than enough black people take the test as well.
i'll come back & give it a try later.
Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for African American compared to European American.
The basaboor guides me.
bunch of racists
nagg
Banned
bunch of racists
Wallahi, you are my white brother. If you come for water, you will not thirst. If you come for food, you will not hunger.
Wallahi, you are my white brother. If you come for water, you will not thirst. If you come for food, you will not hunger.
I doubt Mr. 15 day even took the test; it takes a good ten minutes and he replied within five of me bumping this thread.bunch of racists
nagg
Banned
Why do you attack me, Costanza?
bunch of racists
Also, if a person's experiences bring them to associate whites more with terms like "hurt" rather than "peace" and "love" does that necessarily make that person racist?
Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for African American compared to European American.
Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between African American and European American.
This test was fucked up. Some of the shit they said was bad, I don't think of in that way....
Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for African American compared to European American.
Good:
Joy, Love, Peace, Wonderful, Pleasure, Glorious, Laughter, Happy
Bad:
Agony, Terrible, Horrible, Nasty, Evil, Awful, Failure, Hurt
Joy, Love, Peace, Wonderful, Pleasure, Glorious, Laughter, Happy
Bad:
Agony, Terrible, Horrible, Nasty, Evil, Awful, Failure, Hurt
I think those are all of the words used. The only way I can think of them as not negative is if you look at the word "hurt" on some sadomasicistic shit.
Your Result
Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for African American compared to European American.
took this test some years back, same result.
Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for African American compared to European American.
took this test some years back, same result.
you smiling and winking cuz a ftp hit on you?
Your data suggest automatically, you can't stand a retarded racist CAC, especially Blunt. 