Full Version: Prejudice: You have to be carefully taught
Here's a 10-minute homework assignment for this topic:
In the mail today, I found the June issue of Scientific American, with a profile of Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji, one of the pioneers of IAT. If you're subscribed to SciAm Digital, you can read it here, but I'm not, so I'll type in some quotes.
Have you ever taken an Implicit Association Test? Did it reveal any prejudices that surprised you?
Where do you think prejudice comes from?
What can be done to counter harmful prejudices? What should be done?
Edit: Add a question
QUOTE
It is well known that people don't always 'speak their minds', and it is suspected that people don't always 'know their minds'. Understanding such divergences is important to scientific psychology.
This web site presents a method that demonstrates the conscious-unconscious divergences much more convincingly than has been possible with previous methods. This new method is called the Implicit Association Test, or IAT for short.
This web site presents a method that demonstrates the conscious-unconscious divergences much more convincingly than has been possible with previous methods. This new method is called the Implicit Association Test, or IAT for short.
In the mail today, I found the June issue of Scientific American, with a profile of Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji, one of the pioneers of IAT. If you're subscribed to SciAm Digital, you can read it here, but I'm not, so I'll type in some quotes.
QUOTE
Most recently, Banaji has been trying to discern when race attitudes first form and when conscious beliefs begin to diverge from those below the surface. In child-friendly tests, Banaji discovered that Japanese and white New England children as young as six both openly and implicitly preferred people like themselves. By age 10, their unconscious and conscious attitudes began to split. Despite expressing more egalitarian views as they grew older, people in the two societies continued to show automatic bias against black faces. For Japanese participants, both implicit and explicit attitudes toward European faces became more positive.
Banaji now suspects that if she could test for prejudice in babies, she would find it.
Banaji now suspects that if she could test for prejudice in babies, she would find it.
Have you ever taken an Implicit Association Test? Did it reveal any prejudices that surprised you?
Where do you think prejudice comes from?
What can be done to counter harmful prejudices? What should be done?
Edit: Add a question
I took the test provided in the "homework assignment" link. (It took me longer than ten minutes, but that's just me.)
****SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO TAKE THE TEST****
Out of many possible subjects, I got the one comparing Japan and the United States. It was pretty clear that they were trying to see if I had some sort of automatic preference for one or the other, but I tried to answer everything as honestly as possible. The heart of the test, where you have to quickly classify words as belonging to "Japan" or "the United States" or "positive" or "negative," was tricky for me, and probably revealed an unconscious preference for my own nation. At least, the test said my result was a "moderate preference." I wouldn't say this surprised me. I am absolutely certain that I have prejudices; that I am, to some extent, racist and sexist and any other -ist you care to name.
****END SPOILER****
Prejudices come from many sources. As the linked article suggests, some of this is an inborn response to the "other" -- to the person who does not resemble the majority of those around you. Later in life, we pick up the attitudes of our families, our peers, and of society in general.
What can and should be done about harmful prejudices is education. By this I mean as wide an exposure as possible to other peoples and other cultures. If this cannot eliminate the prejudices which lurk within our hearts completely, at least it can make us ashamed of them, and make sure that our behavior is not based on them.
****SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO TAKE THE TEST****
Out of many possible subjects, I got the one comparing Japan and the United States. It was pretty clear that they were trying to see if I had some sort of automatic preference for one or the other, but I tried to answer everything as honestly as possible. The heart of the test, where you have to quickly classify words as belonging to "Japan" or "the United States" or "positive" or "negative," was tricky for me, and probably revealed an unconscious preference for my own nation. At least, the test said my result was a "moderate preference." I wouldn't say this surprised me. I am absolutely certain that I have prejudices; that I am, to some extent, racist and sexist and any other -ist you care to name.
****END SPOILER****
Prejudices come from many sources. As the linked article suggests, some of this is an inborn response to the "other" -- to the person who does not resemble the majority of those around you. Later in life, we pick up the attitudes of our families, our peers, and of society in general.
What can and should be done about harmful prejudices is education. By this I mean as wide an exposure as possible to other peoples and other cultures. If this cannot eliminate the prejudices which lurk within our hearts completely, at least it can make us ashamed of them, and make sure that our behavior is not based on them.
I took the Judaism one on the part that didn't insist on harvesting an emial. It was easy and a tad bit silly, if you ask me.
Do I prefer Judaism over other religions? That's the fundamental question. Being as I don't associate myself with organized religions, of course not. It would have been a lot easier just to ask me if I even care about organized religions.
However, I might have prejudice against organized religion in general. Actually, I do, and for good reasons. That's why I don't associate with them. And prejudice isn't really the right term. I have rejected organized religion in favor of my own take on such things. Ergo, whatever organized religions want to do doesn't concern me, until they get political or violent. But that's not religion any longer.
How about the Holy Roman Empire? Or the Taliban? Or the fundamental self-proclaimed born-agains (or never born)? Anyone with their yonkahs up in my face, I am against. It's just not religion; it's all about control, or for a better term, power. I don't consider it prejudiced to be against those who want to wield their power trips on me. It's actually self-preservation.
Did pretty good on identifying Hebrew letters and knowing where the other images come from. I might give credit here that somehow the software knew that I had done an extensive study of world religions in my twenties, but no. I don't think the software has any awareness of this.
Bottom line: I don't care about Judaism. It's not that I have no preference, just no concern. I prefer not to concern myself with Judaism, so I do have a preference. The test assumes too much. It is prejudiced.
Do I prefer Judaism over other religions? That's the fundamental question. Being as I don't associate myself with organized religions, of course not. It would have been a lot easier just to ask me if I even care about organized religions.
However, I might have prejudice against organized religion in general. Actually, I do, and for good reasons. That's why I don't associate with them. And prejudice isn't really the right term. I have rejected organized religion in favor of my own take on such things. Ergo, whatever organized religions want to do doesn't concern me, until they get political or violent. But that's not religion any longer.
How about the Holy Roman Empire? Or the Taliban? Or the fundamental self-proclaimed born-agains (or never born)? Anyone with their yonkahs up in my face, I am against. It's just not religion; it's all about control, or for a better term, power. I don't consider it prejudiced to be against those who want to wield their power trips on me. It's actually self-preservation.
Did pretty good on identifying Hebrew letters and knowing where the other images come from. I might give credit here that somehow the software knew that I had done an extensive study of world religions in my twenties, but no. I don't think the software has any awareness of this.
Bottom line: I don't care about Judaism. It's not that I have no preference, just no concern. I prefer not to concern myself with Judaism, so I do have a preference. The test assumes too much. It is prejudiced.
Have you ever taken an Implicit Association Test? Did it reveal any prejudices that surprised you?
I did take one on black vs white some years ago, and came out as slightly prejudiced against black people, which didn't surprise me at the time - I've always held the view that EVERYONE is racist, and combating racism is more about raising awareness of unconscious prejudices than about political correctness.
I took two tests here - the first was United States vs United Kingdom. I have to say I found this hard to do. At one point I found myself shouting at my monitor "I don't want to put the bad words next to Britain!!" My test results foudn I had a strong automatic preference for the United Kingdom against the United States.
Now, I have to say that I found it really easy to put photos of Blair and Bush under negative headings, but much harder to put the UK flag or map there - somewhat harder for the UK than the USA. There were no other tests on offer - I couldn't compare the UK against France, for example - so I can't tell whether I'm anti-American or just pro-British. I'll leave it for posters here who know me to judge.
I then took a test on White British vs Asian British - my first instinct was to try Black British but I then though that the coverage of Asians/Muslims ("asian" in the British context means "from the Indian subcontinent" rather than "from the Far East" would perhaps have heightened any underlying prejudice I might have. Somewwhat to my surprise, the test found I had no particular preference between White and Asian Britons, though that may have been a function of taking two tests in quick succession.
Where do you think prejudice comes from?
I'm a little surprised by your opening post that prejudices are ingrained at about age 6 and then supressed later.
I've read, and found from personal experience, that in the pre-school years, children are blithely ignorant of differences in race, religion, (dis)ability and so on - at this age the concept of 'country' is bit nebulous so it's hard to talkabout. But at age 5 or 6, they learn their prejudices from the people around them - mostly, their families and the other children they mix with. While this tallies with the opening post, it puts an entirely different spin on things by highlighting that prejudices in this context simply do not exist much before age 6.
It's at that age that kids start to tease one another over perceived differences - four year olds don't go in for that very much, certainly not in the same way.
So I'd say that prejudice is a learned phenomenon, soaked up unconsciously by kids, and more than likely exuded unconsciously by their families.
What can be done to counter harmful prejudices? What should be done? )
Based on my pervious answers, I think the key is to make people aware of their unconscious prejudices. Then any that survive will be through conscious choice and not accidental, unconscious leakage.
I did take one on black vs white some years ago, and came out as slightly prejudiced against black people, which didn't surprise me at the time - I've always held the view that EVERYONE is racist, and combating racism is more about raising awareness of unconscious prejudices than about political correctness.
I took two tests here - the first was United States vs United Kingdom. I have to say I found this hard to do. At one point I found myself shouting at my monitor "I don't want to put the bad words next to Britain!!"
My test results foudn I had a strong automatic preference for the United Kingdom against the United States. Now, I have to say that I found it really easy to put photos of Blair and Bush under negative headings, but much harder to put the UK flag or map there - somewhat harder for the UK than the USA. There were no other tests on offer - I couldn't compare the UK against France, for example - so I can't tell whether I'm anti-American or just pro-British. I'll leave it for posters here who know me to judge.
I then took a test on White British vs Asian British - my first instinct was to try Black British but I then though that the coverage of Asians/Muslims ("asian" in the British context means "from the Indian subcontinent" rather than "from the Far East" would perhaps have heightened any underlying prejudice I might have. Somewwhat to my surprise, the test found I had no particular preference between White and Asian Britons, though that may have been a function of taking two tests in quick succession.
Where do you think prejudice comes from?
I'm a little surprised by your opening post that prejudices are ingrained at about age 6 and then supressed later.
I've read, and found from personal experience, that in the pre-school years, children are blithely ignorant of differences in race, religion, (dis)ability and so on - at this age the concept of 'country' is bit nebulous so it's hard to talkabout. But at age 5 or 6, they learn their prejudices from the people around them - mostly, their families and the other children they mix with. While this tallies with the opening post, it puts an entirely different spin on things by highlighting that prejudices in this context simply do not exist much before age 6.
It's at that age that kids start to tease one another over perceived differences - four year olds don't go in for that very much, certainly not in the same way.
So I'd say that prejudice is a learned phenomenon, soaked up unconsciously by kids, and more than likely exuded unconsciously by their families.
What can be done to counter harmful prejudices? What should be done? )
Based on my pervious answers, I think the key is to make people aware of their unconscious prejudices. Then any that survive will be through conscious choice and not accidental, unconscious leakage.
Have you ever taken an Implicit Association Test? Did it reveal any prejudices that surprised you?
I first took an IAT a couple of years ago. As I recall, it had to do with race and weapons -- whether you associated weapons more with black faces or white faces. I wasn't terribly surprised to see that I did associate weapons with black faces. (I was slower and more error-prone when the task was to choose between "White face or weapon" and "Black face or non-weapon.")
Yesterday I took another one. Oddly enough, I think it was the same one AuthorMusician took, about Judaism. I was mildly surprised by this result: "Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for Judaism compared to Other Religions." I'm not Jewish; I was raised in a Christian family (my parents were Catholic, but moved to the Episcopal church because the Catholic Church didn't approve of priests and nuns getting married
). I'm not a religious believer myself, though I'm not a committed atheist. Call me agnostic. I'm not sure why I have any automatic preference for Judaism.
Where do you think prejudice comes from?
I think there's a certain amount of xenophobia that's hardwired in the brain. Contra Rodgers and Hammerstein, "you have to be carefully taught" to overcome this prejudice. Most are learned from peers or "the culture" (handwaving alert). Other implicit associations may be rational:
I can respect that, though I think the facile equation of born-again Christians with the Taliban is a mistake. Interestingly, another current news story quotes Dr. Banaji but focuses on the neural mechanisms that underly feelings like these:
What can be done to counter harmful prejudices? What should be done?
From the conclusion of the Scientific American profile:
I'm a bit skeptical about this. I don't think it's harmful, but consider my first IAT, which showed I implicitly associate blacks with weapons. Maybe movies and TV have contributed to that, but it's also firmly based in reality. The sad fact is that here in San Francisco, blacks make up less than 10% of the population, but more than 50% of the victims of homicide. Is it racist when facts like that filter into your subconscious?
I first took an IAT a couple of years ago. As I recall, it had to do with race and weapons -- whether you associated weapons more with black faces or white faces. I wasn't terribly surprised to see that I did associate weapons with black faces. (I was slower and more error-prone when the task was to choose between "White face or weapon" and "Black face or non-weapon.")
Yesterday I took another one. Oddly enough, I think it was the same one AuthorMusician took, about Judaism. I was mildly surprised by this result: "Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for Judaism compared to Other Religions." I'm not Jewish; I was raised in a Christian family (my parents were Catholic, but moved to the Episcopal church because the Catholic Church didn't approve of priests and nuns getting married
). I'm not a religious believer myself, though I'm not a committed atheist. Call me agnostic. I'm not sure why I have any automatic preference for Judaism. Where do you think prejudice comes from?
I think there's a certain amount of xenophobia that's hardwired in the brain. Contra Rodgers and Hammerstein, "you have to be carefully taught" to overcome this prejudice. Most are learned from peers or "the culture" (handwaving alert). Other implicit associations may be rational:
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 19 2006, 01:07 AM)
However, I might have prejudice against organized religion in general. Actually, I do, and for good reasons. That's why I don't associate with them. And prejudice isn't really the right term. I have rejected organized religion in favor of my own take on such things. Ergo, whatever organized religions want to do doesn't concern me, until they get political or violent. But that's not religion any longer.
How about the Holy Roman Empire? Or the Taliban? Or the fundamental self-proclaimed born-agains (or never born)? Anyone with their yonkahs up in my face, I am against. It's just not religion; it's all about control, or for a better term, power. I don't consider it prejudiced to be against those who want to wield their power trips on me. It's actually self-preservation.
How about the Holy Roman Empire? Or the Taliban? Or the fundamental self-proclaimed born-agains (or never born)? Anyone with their yonkahs up in my face, I am against. It's just not religion; it's all about control, or for a better term, power. I don't consider it prejudiced to be against those who want to wield their power trips on me. It's actually self-preservation.
I can respect that, though I think the facile equation of born-again Christians with the Taliban is a mistake. Interestingly, another current news story quotes Dr. Banaji but focuses on the neural mechanisms that underly feelings like these:
QUOTE
U.S. researchers observed the brain activity of liberal college students who were asked to think about Christian conservatives. As they did so, a brain region strongly linked to the self and to empathy with others nearly shut down, while another center -- perhaps linked to stereotypic thoughts -- swung into high gear.
What can be done to counter harmful prejudices? What should be done?
From the conclusion of the Scientific American profile:
QUOTE
Fortunately, our brains do not seem permanently stuck on bias. Powerful cultural signals push in one direction, but awareness, close relationships and experience can push back. Banaji, Greenwald and Nosek are starting a nonprofit to help people apply their research. They envision seminars and lectures, followed by "booster shots" of online exercises.
By weaving awareness into our day, Banaji states, we can help our conscious attitudes take charge. It is like exercising regularly and eating healthfully, she explained to the filmmakers. And she suggested that they could build more protective measures into their lives and work, much like flouride in drinking water. "In every movie where you can do things counter to sterotype," she told them, "you are likely to produce change."
By weaving awareness into our day, Banaji states, we can help our conscious attitudes take charge. It is like exercising regularly and eating healthfully, she explained to the filmmakers. And she suggested that they could build more protective measures into their lives and work, much like flouride in drinking water. "In every movie where you can do things counter to sterotype," she told them, "you are likely to produce change."
I'm a bit skeptical about this. I don't think it's harmful, but consider my first IAT, which showed I implicitly associate blacks with weapons. Maybe movies and TV have contributed to that, but it's also firmly based in reality. The sad fact is that here in San Francisco, blacks make up less than 10% of the population, but more than 50% of the victims of homicide. Is it racist when facts like that filter into your subconscious?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.