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.