# Shoot/Don't Shoot With a Cultural Twist



## tellner (Apr 6, 2008)

The Harvard online studies on attitudes are interesting. 
Now the University of Chicago has its own grittier version online.

You are presented with a series of 100 images. The people in the image may be a Black or White man carrying a cellphone or a gun. You have a limited time to shoot (if he's armed) or holster (if he's carrying a phone). 

The results are simple and unambiguous. 

According to the researchers most people shoot armed Black figures faster than they shoot armed White figures and holster more quickly for unarmed Whites than for unarmed Blacks. It says something significant and not very nice about how far we have to go on racial attitudes in the US. It has serious implications for self defense, especially armed self defense, and for law enforcement.

I expect the usual excuses from the usual suspects. But just for grins and giggles give it a try. See how free you are from the underlying prejudices of North American culture. If you're from outside the US, particularly outside the US and the Commonwealth your results are of particular interest.

Full disclosure: I shot at identical speeds for both Black and White figures but holstered faster for unarmed White figures.


----------



## myusername (Apr 6, 2008)

Unfortunately the link isn't working for me at the mo. I will try again later as I find these things fascinating and quite revealing. Thanks for posting this Tellner I look forward to participating.


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 6, 2008)

Please provide a very easy, direct link to the url where we can try the test.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 6, 2008)

Couldn't get the link to work...tried a few variations and still no joy.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 6, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> Couldn't get the link to work...tried a few variations and still no joy.


Ditto.


----------



## still learning (Apr 6, 2008)

Hello, The same for Irag person or an Amercian (both colors...most would shoot the Irag's? 

We are influence by what to percieve to be the best choices!

Aloha,


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 7, 2008)

tellner said:


> The Harvard online studies on attitudes are interesting.
> Now the University of Chicago has its own grittier version online.
> 
> You are presented with a series of 100 images. The people in the image may be a Black or White man carrying a cellphone or a gun. You have a limited time to shoot (if he's armed) or holster (if he's carrying a phone).
> ...


 You mean shot to the MILLISECOND for both Black and White figures?  That's quite a coincidence.

'Usual suspects?'What's that supposed to mean?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 7, 2008)

This from one of the 'Usual Suspects'.....but the conclusion that this 'experiment' is proof of the individual bias of the tested is a leap in logic.....it's based on the flawed ASSumption that I want to shoot black people more than white people....when in the 'test' i'm LOOKING for a gun...pure and simple.  And in doing so am FOCUSED on looking at the hand, and hitting the button as SOON as I can visually identify the threat.

So, using OCCAM's RAZOR, which provides a more RATIONAL explaination for differences?

A) That some SUBCONCIOUS mechanism drives us to 'shoot black people' against our will.

B) That visual cues in the test, different physical color combinations, make it take longer to visually identify weapons in certain frames of the test versus the other.  Where the issue is ONLY VISUAL ACCUITY!

My suspicion is that there IS BIAS involved.....RESEARCHER BIAS!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 7, 2008)

The statement 'Most whites and many blacks are more quick to shoot blacks, no matter how egalitarian they profess to be.' is telling.  IF examined thoroughly I suspect what this reveals is differences in skin color DO effect our ability to distinguish a gun in the kinds of low-light pictures present in the all of the frames of the game.

The conclusion that some kind of 'subconcious hate bias' is involved, however, is again....Researcher Bias!

IF that wasn't the case, and if the researchers didn't WANT to reach those conclusions, why not have VERY CLEARLY DEFINED pictures, bright and visually distinquishable?  If we're really shooting based on race, it wouldn't matter how easily discernible the weapons/objects are!


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 7, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The conclusion that some kind of 'subconcious hate bias' is involved, however, is again....Researcher Bias!



Nicely done!  I myself find it takes years to reach scientific conclusions through painstaking research, and you've managed it in moments without any research at all!

I would have my Nobel already if I had your abilities...


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 7, 2008)

All bias-baiting aside, I found the original research paper from the U of C online in pdf format.  The differences in time-to-shoot between races was on the order of 20 miliseconds.  I still need to run some statistical analyses, but I suspect that sgt mac may be partially right on this one - at first brush, the differences look to be in the statistical 'noise'.

If I have time to crunch the numbers, I'll re-post with what I find.  But for now, I will keep an open mind on whether researchers found a bias in the shooters, or whether they just found what they were looking for.

I would still be interested in taking the test myself - I found the link to the researcherr's 'beta version' online test, but the link appears to be down right now.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 7, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Nicely done! I myself find it takes years to reach scientific conclusions through painstaking research, and you've managed it in moments without any research at all!
> 
> I would have my Nobel already if I had your abilities...


 Isn't it interesting how some folks automatically agree with something like this simply because it fits their preconceived notions?  Now that's bias!

My abilities are simply to point out when someone is REACHING with a conclusion....it's a built in BS detector!  My claim is ONLY that the CONCLUSION reached by the researchers here is BOGUS and based on the test being set up in a way to support a pre-conceived conclusion.  It's based on a flawed research model.

Unless, of course, you DO truly believe that everyone that takes that test secretly wants to shoot black people.....including other black people.

Sorry, but I tend to apply Occam's Razor to questions like this, and it rarely fails me.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 7, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Isn't it interesting how some folks automatically agree with something like this simply because it fits their preconceived notions?  Now that's bias!



I never said I agree with it.  I haven't reviewed the data, so I would have no basis to.

However, if you reviewed the data, you never said so before you dismissed it, which means you have no basis to dismiss either.



sgtmac_46 said:


> My claim is ONLY that the CONCLUSION reached by the researchers here is BOGUS and based on the test being set up in a way to support a pre-conceived conclusion.  It's based on a flawed research model.



You have put forth no evidence for this, such as from the research paper or other publications.  Your incredulity is not science.  Your preconceptions are not science.  Only data is science, and the researchers have provided some, while you have provided none.  Guess who wins?



sgtmac_46 said:


> Unless, of course, you DO truly believe that everyone that takes that test secretly wants to shoot black people.....including other black people.



Black people (young males specifically) are criminals and are jailed at a much higher rate than other groups.  It would not be particularly surprising then if they were more likely to be perceived as criminals (i.e. armed) than other folks.  That is not the same as wanting to shoot them.  Merely that they are perceived as a more likely threat.

Of course, that pesky data again would be needed to support any hypotheses.



sgtmac_46 said:


> Sorry, but I tend to apply Occam's Razor to questions like this, and it rarely fails me.



Data beats logic, every time.  You will never determine anything for certain by only using logic.  Quantum mechanics would never have been discovered if we only relied on Boolean logic, and that is only one example.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 7, 2008)

I remember doing FATS training a virtual training simulator for Law Enforcement.  It has now been replaced but was a very good tool.
In all the training I went through I was looking for the virtual person to bring a weapon out or engage violently.  Truthfully color never entered into the equation.  I imagine that this is the case with most people in general.


----------



## myusername (Apr 7, 2008)

Finally got the link to work! It took an age to download the 120 images but that may be down to my rusty laptop!

These are my results:

Score: 440

Black armed: 737.12ms
Black unarmed: 806.84ms
White armed: 730.36ms
White unarmed: 754.48ms

I take from this that I only marginally shoot white people with guns quicker than black people with guns but I holster my gun for whites quite a lot faster than I do for black people.

Interesting, as it appears from this test that their could be some unconscious prejudice or stereotyping as a result of my slow holstering. It would be nice if the test gave a bit more analysis as to what the results meant rather than just gave the final score at the end. However, a good tool to provoke thought and develop self awareness. Thanks for posting Tellner.


----------



## thardey (Apr 7, 2008)

I got about halfway through (I think) when the phone rang. I'll have to do it again later.

But one thing I did notice myself, if the object was in the left hand, it was harder for me to associate it with a weapon. 

Also, the level of dress greatly affected me as well. At one point I saw a well-dressed black man with gun, wearing a suit, and I knew it was a gun, yet I still chose to holster my weapon.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 7, 2008)

I guess I am racists 



> Game Over
> Your Score:  395
> Average reaction time:
> Black Armed:750.64ms
> ...


 
I shot faster at Whites and holtered slower for Blacks. 

I am off by less that 1 percent for shooting and about 2 percent for holstering. 

Personally I recognized the patterns on some better than others based upon clothes and where I was looking at the screen. I am not sure how much this proves other than that I am nto exactly the same with my right hand as I am with my left. Or maybe I was using caution before I put it away.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2008)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm


----------



## MBuzzy (Apr 7, 2008)

Game Over
Your Score:  425
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:517.2ms
Black Unarmed:634.76ms
White Armed:553.48ms
White Unarmed:617.24ms

Real close....although I must say that I noticed a bit of a difference of my reaction based on poses and clothes.  Certain clothes schemes and poses made it either harder or more difficult to determine what they were holding.


----------



## wade (Apr 7, 2008)

Game Over
Your Score: 560
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:685.84ms
Black Unarmed:785.76ms
White Armed:667.72ms
White Unarmed:796.24ms

Look for the threat and react to it. Plain and simple. Color should have no bearing on it. To let it just puts your life and others in danger. If you "carry" you should really consider whether that is a good thing or not. Maybe a little more training on threat assessment might be in order, eh?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 8, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I never said I agree with it. I haven't reviewed the data, so I would have no basis to.
> 
> However, if you reviewed the data, you never said so before you dismissed it, which means you have no basis to dismiss either.
> 
> You have put forth no evidence for this, such as from the research paper or other publications. Your incredulity is not science. Your preconceptions are not science. Only data is science, and the researchers have provided some, while you have provided none. Guess who wins?


 You apparenly have little understanding of science.....since you believe that a thing is true until proven otherwise.  Quite the contrary, skepticism is a basic component of science, and the conclusion that this simulator is proof positive of 'racism' is absurd.....are you tracking?




			
				Empty Hands said:
			
		

> Black people (young males specifically) are criminals and are jailed at a much higher rate than other groups. It would not be particularly surprising then if they were more likely to be perceived as criminals (i.e. armed) than other folks. That is not the same as wanting to shoot them. Merely that they are perceived as a more likely threat.


 So your hypothesis is that in a fraction of a second, the human brain makes a racist decision that it wants to shoot black people over white people.....ahuh....



			
				Empty Hands said:
			
		

> Of course, that pesky data again would be needed to support any hypotheses.


 That 'pesky' data would have to collected in an unbiased way.....and if this simulator were simply testing for differences in whether a black person is shot faster than a white person, then why the low light low resolution pictures to make visual acquisition of weapon difficult?





			
				Empty Hands said:
			
		

> Data beats logic, every time. You will never determine anything for certain by only using logic. Quantum mechanics would never have been discovered if we only relied on Boolean logic, and that is only one example.


 .....DATA means NOTHING without a logical interpretation of it....DATA does not speak for itself.  Moreover, simple statistics can be used to intentionally LIE!

Much misunderstanding comes from misinterpretation of Date.......when logical fallacies are applied to data, highly erroneous conclusions are arrived at.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 8, 2008)

So those who have taken the simulator......what do you think of the fact that this test is proof of racial biases of the participants?


----------



## Carol (Apr 8, 2008)

I feel VERY manipulated.

Personally I found that I was not cluing in to the appearance of the person, I was paying more attention to just what the heck he was holding in his hand.

Yes, I shot the black armed men a few milliseconds faster than the others.  But NOT because they were black.  

I found that the images of the black shooters *generally* showed a better definition of the gun, or had the gun closer to the center of the picture than the images of white shooters.  Is it a big difference, no...but big enough IMO to account for the differences in milliseconds.


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 8, 2008)

One of the basic considerations in the design of a 'good' scientific experiment is the limitation of the number of variables.

If this test were to be done for maximal accuracy and validity, I would recommend a double-blind study with two groups taking two almost-identical tests, just with groups One and Two seeing the EXACT same pictures, except the race of the person holding the gun/object is reversed.  Then I would do an analysis of the results to see if the difference in reaction time is within the statistical variation in the data.  This would remove the artifacts Carol alludes to (like the fact that the gun the last guy is holding is camoflauged against the train in the background - it would be camoflauged identically for both test Groups).


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 8, 2008)

Link's working now - 



			
				Ninjamom's Score said:
			
		

> Game Over
> Your Score:  420
> Average reaction time:
> Black Armed:874.08ms
> ...



I guess I hate white people.  I'm convinced 

I really see what you mean, Carol - many of the poses had a black shooter holding a dark gun against a clear background or a light-colored shirt.  I also found that it took longer for it to register with me that someone was holding a gun when it was in their left hand.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 8, 2008)

Your Score:  590
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:647.6ms
Black Unarmed:768.08ms
White Armed:668.92ms
White Unarmed:1015.72ms


(note: the much longer "holster time" for whites was due to the fact that my phone rang while I was looking at a white guy holding a wallet )

I tend to agree with Carol and Ninja Mom regarding the way the test was set up.  The "wrong choices" I made were always with the pictures of the whites.  I found it significantly more difficult to cue in on what they were holding.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 8, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> So those who have taken the simulator......what do you think of the fact that this test is proof of racial biases of the participants?


I'm skeptical that it's a good test at all.  Is the generally small (I'm seeing 1 to 3 percent differences) really unconcious bias -- or is it caused by something like differences in handedness?  Is my left hand slightly slower than my right, since I'm right handed?  What about issues of the presentation of the gun?  In some positions, it was very difficult to distinguish a gun from cell-phone.

There's just a lot that's not presented in the test and the data given...  Too much to automatically say it's measuring bias.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 8, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> I'm skeptical that it's a good test at all. Is the generally small (I'm seeing 1 to 3 percent differences) really unconcious bias -- or is it caused by something like differences in handedness? Is my left hand slightly slower than my right, since I'm right handed? What about issues of the presentation of the gun? In some positions, it was very difficult to distinguish a gun from cell-phone.
> 
> There's just a lot that's not presented in the test and the data given... Too much to automatically say it's measuring bias.


 Exactly my thinking on the matter....and i'm wondering why the presentation was done in the manner chosen.  Researcher bias?  Researcher error?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 8, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> I feel VERY manipulated.
> 
> Personally I found that I was not cluing in to the appearance of the person, I was paying more attention to just what the heck he was holding in his hand.
> 
> ...


 Yes, you were hitting on something I was thinking but didn't articulate.....the presentation was different.....the black actors held the gun in a fashion that it was obviously a gun, while the white actors often held it closer to their body like another object.

I have to wonder if a thorough examination of this model might reveal more about the biases of the researchers and designers than those being tested.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 8, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Yes, you were hitting on something I was thinking but didn't articulate.....the presentation was different.....the black actors held the gun in a fashion that it was obviously a gun, while the white actors often held it closer to their body like another object.
> 
> I have to wonder if a thorough examination of this model might reveal more about the biases of the researchers and designers than those being tested.


Not necessarily... some of the photos I've had a hard time identifying the object in a black persons hand as the same in a white's. 
After a moment I focused on what they were holding not on what color they were... but admittedly I shot a few innocents and was shot myself. Perhaps I shouldn't be a cop.  

My scores: 
Your Score:  465
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:657.72ms
Black Unarmed:791.32ms
White Armed:687ms
White Unarmed:760.8ms

But I think (if I'm reading it correctly) I took longer on black suspects (unarmed) and faster on armed black suspects... again it was because the weapon was more clearer. But I was shot by a couple of white suspects because of mis-identification. 

Interesting test though.

You feel manipulated Carol... yes I felt that way too... however the question is... WHO manipulated you? The test? Or society and your experiences and your exposure to the media as a whole? 
I was raised up to view blacks negatively and used the "n-word" to classify and label them. Through out grade, middle and high school my most violent and physical confrontations were with black students (and later latinos) than with whites. Thankfully life's experiences out on my own radically changed my view points and I do not see them the same way. Three occasions that a black person had saved my life... from the threat/danger of another black person. Today while proportionally my friends are mostly white I do have a number of black (and other race) friends of whom I trust equally in all regards. 

However I do take note of the proportion of the media's reports of crime and the racial identity of the perps. It seems that more blacks are reported with this or that crime than whites... or is the media being selective? Hard to say unless to go down and interview the station manager/paper's editors... but even then they'll not openly admit to their own cultural biases... not if they want to stay in business. But this does affect my own personal color code (warning/awareness-levels) to a degree. One that I have to consciously adjust to the actual situation/circumstances. I've seen enough white on white crimes as black on white or black on black crimes to know there really is no difference and that *all* should be placed under the same blanket of awareness levels appropriate for the circumstances/situation.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 8, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> Your Score: 590
> Average reaction time:
> Black Armed:647.6ms
> Black Unarmed:768.08ms
> ...


  I had the same issue....I shot faster on black armed and holstered longer on white unarmed because it was much easier to distinquish black armed versus black unarmed.


----------



## Carol (Apr 8, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Not necessarily... some of the photos I've had a hard time identifying the object in a black persons hand as the same in a white's.
> After a moment I focused on what they were holding not on what color they were... but admittedly I shot a few innocents and was shot myself. Perhaps I shouldn't be a cop.
> 
> My scores:
> ...



The test, and the presumptions of its outcome.

Sorry to hear you grew up that way Caver.  

If it matters, my extended family includes more than one race...can't say I grew up with the same labels and dividing lines.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 8, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> You apparenly have little understanding of science.....



That sucks, since it's my job and all.



sgtmac_46 said:


> since you believe that a thing is true until proven otherwise.



Are you even reading what I wrote?  I specifically said I had no basis to believe or disbelieve the test without more data.  What I was taking issue with was your quick dismissal of the test as invalid and proof of researcher bias without the slightest proof, evidence or data for your position.



sgtmac_46 said:


> So your hypothesis is that in a fraction of a second, the human brain makes a racist decision that it wants to shoot black people over white people.....ahuh....



Once again, pay attention to what I actually wrote.  It is possible for people to view blacks as a greater threat *before the decision to fire comes up.  *Hence why white women cross the street and clutch their handbags, or store security follows around perfectly harmless looking black males.



sgtmac_46 said:


> That 'pesky' data would have to collected in an unbiased way.....and if this simulator were simply testing for differences in whether a black person is shot faster than a white person, then why the low light low resolution pictures to make visual acquisition of weapon difficult?



Of the pictures posted, I see nothing that would qualify as "low light."  In any case, if the decision were too easy, pre-existing biases would make little or no difference.  It is the likelihood of confusing gun with cellphone and your pre-existing biases that are trying to be tested.  Would you be more or less likely to see a black man as carrying a gun when he was carrying a cell phone compared to a white man?  If it's too easy to tell, biases probably won't show.



sgtmac_46 said:


> .....DATA means NOTHING without a logical interpretation of it....DATA does not speak for itself.



"If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."'
-Richard Feynman



sgtmac_46 said:


> Moreover, simple statistics can be used to intentionally LIE!



So usually says someone who doesn't like what the statistics are telling them.  Anyone can lie and anything can be used to lie, but statistical methods are one of the few available that can discern truth from lies.  Preconceived notions and preconceptions are certainly not one of those methods.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 8, 2008)

There are variations here OTHER than race. The backgrounds, the poses, the weapon types, that could taint the results. I think the testers (and some posters here) are "getting off" on trying to "prove" a social/political bias that they already have...that white people are more prone to shoot black people. Because they have a thing against cops, or are just entrenched in their typical liberal rut.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 8, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> That sucks, since it's my job and all.


 That's too bad, EH...I hate to hear that.





			
				Empty Hands said:
			
		

> Are you even reading what I wrote? I specifically said I had no basis to believe or disbelieve the test without more data. What I was taking issue with was your quick dismissal of the test as invalid and proof of researcher bias without the slightest proof, evidence or data for your position.


 I claim nothing but the test is flawed....the burden of proof is not on me to DISPROVE the assertion of the testers.....you should know that.



			
				Empty Hands said:
			
		

> Once again, pay attention to what I actually wrote. It is possible for people to view blacks as a greater threat *before the decision to fire comes up. *Hence why white women cross the street and clutch their handbags, or store security follows around perfectly harmless looking black males.


 Is your argument 'because it's possible it must be true'?  That's an old logical fallacy I haven't heard in a while.  There is no 'threat' in this test, merely the identification of objects based on shape.....and the assertion that you are going to wrongly identify one shape from another because of the race of the person holding it is at it's face asinine.




			
				Empty Hands said:
			
		

> Of the pictures posted, I see nothing that would qualify as "low light." In any case, if the decision were too easy, pre-existing biases would make little or no difference. It is the likelihood of confusing gun with cellphone and your pre-existing biases that are trying to be tested. Would you be more or less likely to see a black man as carrying a gun when he was carrying a cell phone compared to a white man? If it's too easy to tell, biases probably won't show.


 'Poor' light....did you take the test?  Was everything clearly identifiable?  If you did I doubt you'd come to that conclusion...'Poor' light meaning that the contrasts between the items in the picture are difficult to distinguish....in one picture I had to guess what one of the black men was holding because even after looking at it for a couple of seconds I couldn't make it out.



			
				Empty Hands said:
			
		

> "If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."'
> -Richard Feynman


 That's a nice quote.....but it's not my experiment......i'm disagreeing with the flawed conclusions of the exprimenters. 



			
				Empty Hands said:
			
		

> So usually says someone who doesn't like what the statistics are telling them. Anyone can lie and anything can be used to lie, but statistical methods are one of the few available that can discern truth from lies. Preconceived notions and preconceptions are certainly not one of those methods.


 Statistical methods are useless if those interpreting them are engaging in logical fallacies.....for example, the old 'causation equal correlation' fallacy so common in those interpreting statistics.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 8, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> There are variations here OTHER than race. The backgrounds, the poses, the weapon types, that could taint the results. I think the testers (and some posters here) are "getting off" on trying to "prove" a social/political bias that they already have...that white people are more prone to shoot black people. Because they have a thing against cops, or are just entrenched in their typical liberal rut.


As you point out, there are MANY other variations other than race.

I find it interesting that according to the article attached most black folks engaged in the same behavior attributed to 'racism'.....are we to expect that the researchers are concluding that EVERYONE is apparently racist against black folks including other black folks?

Ahuh....riiiiggghhhhtttt.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 8, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> [B said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I'm sorry I grew up that way too. I think of all the friends lost that I could've made during that time. I always make friends easily, but the late 60's early 70's and living in rural middle Tennessee didn't allow for the interracial friendships like I have now. But it was my own stinkin thinkin that got changed around and I AM profoundly grateful that it did. 
A friend of mine called me up when he returned from his "mission" for his church. 
He was telling me that he met someone and is planning to marry. It went something like this: 
Friend: I met someone up in New York.
Me: Well, I hope it's a girl.
Friend: (laughs) yeah of course she is!
Me: Did you check?
Friend: Well ye-HEY! Man... stop that!
(pause for laughter)
Friend: Umm, I should, uh, tell you that... she's ... black. 
Me: (immediate response) Is she pretty?
Friend: Of course!
Me: Then what's the problem? 

Even then he was hesitant about how people would react to his decision to be interracially married. But he was in love and determined. So was she by the way. The good thing is that both families didn't have a problem either way. 

I got to photograph their wedding, was one of the first people to hold their *beautiful* twins and been close friends with them since. 

I like to think I've gotten over my childhood years. :wink2: :uhyeah:


----------



## elder999 (Apr 8, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> As you point out, there are MANY other variations other than race.
> 
> I find it interesting that according to the article attached most black folks engaged in the same behavior attributed to 'racism'.....are we to expect that the researchers are concluding that EVERYONE is apparently racist against black folks including other black folks?
> 
> Ahuh....riiiiggghhhhtttt.


 
Mac-you must not be black.*I* can tell you that black people often ARE prejudiced against other black people, in a wide variety of ways and an even wider variety of circumstances, including the ones that one first thinks of when white people are prejudiced towards black people.

As for the test, _piffle_. I think it's a set up-the object is often obscured in shadow for several of the black males, there are no females, most people are right handed so their "shoot" times are going to be quicker, and I could go on, and on, and on......


----------



## Scarey (Apr 9, 2008)

I tried to take this test seriously for about 10 seconds, until I repeatedly hit the wrong button. So I started over and shot everyone. Without further adeu, my reaction times.

Your Score:  -500
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:333.92ms
Black Unarmed:360.2ms
White Armed:347.76ms
White Unarmed:324.32ms

Moral of the story: use a more accurate testing method or stay out of my way if you're an unarmed white person. Your choice. (I'm white, if that tells you anything)


----------



## myusername (Apr 9, 2008)

I've been thinking about this test and the coments of other members who have taken it. I must agree that there are lots of variables that could account for the differences in speed of response. However, I believe that is quite the norm for any research as its nearly always impossible to remove all of the variables. I think *Ninjamom* came up with an excellent idea for a control sample.

I always get irritated when I read reports in the news saying "scientest have proved......" "New research finds a link between...." because when you actually seek out the journal article they are quoting, the results are always inconclusive, the researchers themselves point out the variables in the conclusion and practically every piece of research I have read end with a statement "more research is needed".

However, the truth is that you have to see any single piece of research in the context of its peers. If there is a vast body of research that suggests the same thing as this test then what the test suggests is more probable. However, if the test is contradicting a vast amount of previous work or there is not much literature avaliable to compare it to then it remains merely an hypothesis until further research suggests otherwise.

In summary, take the test with a pinch of salt but don't discount it completely just because there are variables. It is possible that the researchers may be on to something just as possible that they are not. Just use it as tool for self awareness and be open minded to the fact that it is possible that there may be an unconscious prejudice or stereotyping that you were previously unaware of. I holstered quicker for white people than black. Am I bothered? No, because that result does not mean I'm going to suddenly run off and join the Nazi Party. Did it make me think? Yes, because reflecting on your own personality and thinking is healthy.


----------



## Guardian (Apr 13, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> This from one of the 'Usual Suspects'.....but the conclusion that this 'experiment' is proof of the individual bias of the tested is a leap in logic.....it's based on the flawed ASSumption that I want to shoot black people more than white people....when in the 'test' i'm LOOKING for a gun...pure and simple. And in doing so am FOCUSED on looking at the hand, and hitting the button as SOON as I can visually identify the threat.
> 
> So, using OCCAM's RAZOR, which provides a more RATIONAL explaination for differences?
> 
> ...


 
I agree with Sgtmac here, your not looking for the individuals color, your looking for the weapon and that specifically, I took this test and my whole time was spent looking for the weapon (the threat), not the individuals color, this test is flawed beyond measure in my view.


----------



## punisher73 (Apr 14, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> One of the basic considerations in the design of a 'good' scientific experiment is the limitation of the number of variables.
> 
> If this test were to be done for maximal accuracy and validity, I would recommend a double-blind study with two groups taking two almost-identical tests, just with groups One and Two seeing the EXACT same pictures, except the race of the person holding the gun/object is reversed. Then I would do an analysis of the results to see if the difference in reaction time is within the statistical variation in the data. This would remove the artifacts Carol alludes to (like the fact that the gun the last guy is holding is camoflauged against the train in the background - it would be camoflauged identically for both test Groups).


 
You beat me to it.  They should have the same pictures/poses and type of gun for both groups.  You should have them as close as possible in appearance except for skin color if that is what you are really testing.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 7, 2008)

> Game Over
> Your Score:  180
> Average reaction time:
> Black Armed:850.56ms
> ...


 
Had a rough start - was down like -120 before I realized I was reacting too slow and getting docked for it.  

I suspect that Carol has it right.  It did seem like some photos were clearer than others.  The cellphone raised against the wooded background was a nice touch.  

Obviously, I'm racist.  I have no other explanation for why I was so eager to pop a cap in whitey.  :shrug:


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 7, 2008)

The study is very poor. I can see it's done by 'book' people and not street people. Why? There is no context. Images do not convey the actual context of the encounter.

Like why did the person come up to you? 

Were are you (bad part of town)? 

What time of day or night? 

Was it a familiar area for you? What was said? 

What was the body language the other person was using (indicators gents, indicators(!)? 

Did they have friends? Did you have friends or loved ones to protect?

Just showing someone with different attire, different race, different objects is not enough. It was a poor study done poorly but academics with no experience outside of their schools.

Oh, and not all people with guns, expecially since THEY ARE NOT POINTING THEM AT YOU, are bad guys. All I did was look for the weapon, I didn't look at their faces or color or atire.

Didn't shoot any without a gun, but I was slow a few times holstering or fireing. But that's not a fault. You should identify what you are shooting anyway.

Poor study it was. 

Deaf


----------



## Mr G (Jun 7, 2008)

I'm sorry to say, but I think it would be pretty hard to prove anything with a computer / internet basis scenario like this.  It doesn't make it without value though.  If we all look at the test and think reflectively about the results, valid or not, it did something...  What made me fire?  How hard is it to tell the cell phone from the gun?  What if...?  What if...?

Please note: think about your own results, not everyone else's....


----------



## championmarius (Jun 8, 2008)

I'll admit, I felt the test was a bit... skewed.
I think I know why, in my case.

I was scanning for objects in hands, then focusing in on it. I had a hell of a time making contrast between the hands of the blacks and the items as opposed to the hands of the whites...

My times:
Black Armed:658.92ms
Black Unarmed:676.6ms
White Armed:606.92ms
White Unarmed:634.72ms

I could identify and track the hands of the whites a helluva lot faster than I could the blacks. an almost 50ms difference. either way, both armed and unarmed.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 8, 2008)

I also dont quite understand the point of "holstering speed" in "real life" all that matters is if you do/dont pull the trigger. How fast you reholster is irrelevant.


----------

