You are here

Blink Link!

Lisa Spitalewitz's picture
Projects: 
I thought I would link you all to the website I demonstrated Monday in my report about Blink. This is the Project Implicit website, where you, too, can spend time freaking out about how prejudiced you are, probably about groups that include yourself. (For example, I happen to "fail" the Gender-Career test miserably.)

Comments

Kathy Maffei's picture

Here's the link to my page on Six Degrees by Duncan Watts, a really interesting and relevant book on networks. Notice all the different topics he covers! Since I barely skimmed over it in class, and I thought it was some rather interesting stuff, I figured to post the link. Something I meant to mention yesterday was that Watts stressed several times in the book that it took contributions from people in many kinds of fields - with their particular perspectives - to really clarify some of the issues involved. So, not only are networks and emergence relevant across disciplines, but our understanding of them so far required the multiple approaches to analysis that came from the different sciences.
Leslie McTavish's picture

The discussions about Blink reminded me so much about something that came up in csem last semester.. especially when the reference to tennis players came up. I don't recall that anyone actually mentioned this term when talking about the book (but sometimes with the fans it was hard to hear). That term is tacit knowledge . Tacit knowing relates to things that we learn through experience. I think that maybe it is what underlies why our first instinct is sometimes the best one. The example that I like is that of playing a sport or an instrument. It's something that you can do without even thinking about it, in fact if you think too much about it, you'll probably make mistakes and do worse than if you just stop thinking and let it happen. In this system, having a director actually makes the system less effective than it is without one. It makes me think that there are probably other types of systems that someone is trying to improve by directing them, when they should probably just be left alone.
AngadSingh's picture

I looked through the website and didn't find any information describing the general procedure by which they measure your implicit associations. I assume it is some combination of number of right/wrong responses and the time with which it takes the person to make the connection. Is that right? Is one variable more important than the other? If so, why? Also, the set-up of each test is predisposes you to make the "racist" or "sexist" association. For instance, in the Race IAT, the first association that you are forced to make is between white/good. Later in the test, you are forced to make the association between black/good. In my eyes, if you are normally able to make those particular associations with equal accuracy in daily life, the test will still classify you as associating white with good with greater frequency. When you make the association between black/good, you have to break the association you just made between white/good. This association between white/good is not necessarily a prejudice deeply engrained in your psyche - it could just be an association the test forced you to make.
Laura Cyckowski's picture

I agree, I didn't find the demonstration convincing in terms of race/sex/etc. associations. I think by having the standard of "correct" and "incorrect" as the first part it temporarily conditions you to a certain association and sets you up to delay associations between the subsequent set. I think it'd be more interesting if it just let you make the associations without putting in any "correction" device.