I took the test with the intention of finding out if it would allow me to shoot people indiscriminately and to continue to do so.

So I pressed on the button rapid-fire. I never even saw any of the pictures of the people pop up, I only saw backgrounds. Yet it still stated that I waited longer for white people than for black people.

I tried it over again. Same result.

Now I started to wonder.

Third time… same.
Fourth time… same.
Fifth time… same.

I can buy it happening two or even three times in a row. But not five. This thing is rigged.

I stopped reading after the 10th comment or so, but I’m not sure this is a 100%, end-all, foolproof, scientifically accurate test of whether someone is racist or not…

Also, the only thing this showed to me is that my face really starts to itch when I cannot scratch it.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html

This test switches hands, so as to mitigate the effects of hand preference, and uses more reasonable gauging methods; they test the speed of associations between blacks and whites and good and bad words. Honestly, now that I think about it, this test deserves to be posted.

There is also an extensive battery of other tests for those of you inclined to investigate.

The fact is that there is no shame, no bias, no racism … involved in shooting so-called “blacks” more or more quickly than so-called “whites.” It is not done out of hatred, but out of wisdom and a sense of self-preservation. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that an average “black” man is FAR more likely to be a perpetrator of a violent crime than an average “white” man. It’s only natural to use self-defense against him with less hesitation.

Grow up, people!

I think I can just assume I’d be dead.

Fastest on armed whites and slowest on unarmed whites.

I’m not sure how to read this. And I think the amount of false positives might be a better indicator than anything else.

Apparently I am very slow. So slow that by the time I found their hand and identified what was in it, I didn’t have time to look at their faces. They could’ve been blue for all I knew!

That being said, the results show I’m not racist, right? (white female)

Maybe I’ll change my contacts and take it again…

But seriously: for those of you calling the test “flawed”, did you even stop to think about what it’s really doing? It’s not trying to tell you you’re racist. (In fact, looking at the results on a person-by-person basis is pointless; I’m sure they are much more interested in the statistics of hundreds or thousands of people.)

Instead, it’s trying to measure whether or not you have been subconsciously conditioned to perceive blacks as more threatening. That’s why they used a variety of positions, settings, gun colors, etc. — to statistically remove any biases that may be caused by these things. It’s why cell-phones were sometimes held in threatening ways, to get rid of any biases you might have based on the way things are held. That’s also why no women were used — why complicate the results any more than necessary?

Is it realistic? Of course not. Reality has a way of complicating things. If it were possible to get the results they seek from realistic situations, they would simply study data from police reports or something.

Is it perfect? Again, no. Some of the points brought up by commenters here are valid. I’m sure the published study will acknowledge these issues as a potential source of error. But to insult the study, the people behind it, and even all of academia (see Evil Pundit) based on going through the subject’s end of it a single time is ridiculous.

no idea how i got 5049.84ms on Black Armed. sounds a little too high.

just held down the holster button.

I’m not going to even dignify this ass bung test with any worth at all.

How mad yank can you get, Who’d you shoot first?

Answer, NO ONE ya dummy, you shoot no one.

I found some pictures were really hard to make out the shape of the object due to the background the object was against. That, for me, had much more to do with analysis/reaction time than any other factor.

I would say the test is flawed, although it’s a nice idea.

I got shot twice but I didn’t shoot anyone by mistake. And look at that, I reacted to the armed white guys faster!

I shot a few of the good guys and let go a few of the bad ones heh

i noticed in some pictures it was harder to see the object.

I don’t even know what my score means.

So I was slow with silver guns or phones in white hands and black wallets, phones or guns in black hands. Where is the analysis of this reaction time. In fact I got shot a couple of times by white guys with silver guns, and I shot a few white guys with black phones.

Also some of the backgrounds made it hard to spot an object. I also found it a bit hard to “shoot” someone who was pointing the gun at the ground.

And the web connection was very very slow…

I think I’m just a bad shot.

SECOND TIME
Your Score: 375
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:602.08ms
Black Unarmed:730.4ms
White Armed:612.08ms
White Unarmed:666.12ms

So I’m racist too? Don’t think so, probably because it’s easier to differentiate dark coloured mobile phones n wallets from guns in the hands of a white, easy as that.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2222529991

Funnily enough, mine seems to be the opposite. I was more focused on the gun than not, but I found the gun/regular object more difficult to see when it was a white man holding it, for some reason.

I wonder, though, why are none of these people women? Is the game sexist?

The article (or commentary?) proposed that such judgments supposedly tested in the above experiment may not be racism but, instead, “Bayesian” judgments. To wit:

1. You are walking down a sidewalk and you see a 60 year-old black man coming your way. If you cross the street to the other sidewalk, you are a racist.

2. You are walking down a sidewalk and you see a 40 year-old black woman coming your way. If you cross the street to the other sidewalk, you are a racist.

3. You are walking down a sidewalk and you see a 20 year-old black man coming your way. If you cross the street to the other sidewalk, >>> it is possible that you are not displaying racism but Bayesian thinking.

The idea is that basing decisions on data of who are the predominant perpetrators of violent crime as opposed to basing them on the race of a person without concern for any further consideration of any data or critical thinking, marks the difference between racism and Bayesian thinking in this example.

It may well be that the racism has occurred much earlier in the process: is it a media slant, whether conscious or not?

Game Over
Your Score: 700
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:655.04ms
Black Unarmed:755ms
White Armed:653.92ms
White Unarmed:719.8ms

Basically even, I’d say. This test is really flawed. You really concentrate on their hands, and you don’t have any time to even notice the colour of their skin. Why all men? This test is sexist.

This is probably good Starfleet training – they keep beaming people down in front of you.

How did you type that, then?

Those days are long gone.

So as a white guy I’m racist against whites?!?!

I bet if I took this again I would get a completely different result.

East Asian Male here. While it’s around the same time for me to recognize a gun, it takes time to tell if a cellphone or a wallet is a gun or not. And since most guns are black, it takes me a whole second to tell a civilian. That’s not racism, that’s just the unfortunate color of guns!

Game Over
Your Score: 350
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:742.48ms
Black Unarmed:715.28ms
White Armed:619.56ms
White Unarmed:659.8ms

I guess those results mean I am quicker to not shoot and shoot a white person than a black.

I guess this means I like shooting white people better than black people, but I’m more willing to disassociate white people with guns than black people. Now what if we complicate this a little more by throwing in pictures of Asians and Latinos?