If you are a man, how many times have you been wanting to give birth, feed and nurture children, cry, do make-up, dress pretty in pastel colours and have somebody to care for you? Name 10 African countries which are lawful, peaceful and cooperative with neighbours. Now name 10 Northern ones. How many europan origin people are in NBA compared to african? What are the testosterone levels in Africans compared to Inuits? How does excess testosterone affect the brain which is a biochemical and electrical organ? Which countries in the world have the highest suicide rates? Where are they located? How does less sunlight affect human psyche? Where do geographically and climatically do people rely more on each other? I could go on this for hours and there are a few scientific articles behind each word.
"Little to no automatic preference between European American and African American" But I also have "a moderate automatic preference for Light Skin compared to Dark Skin." Go figure. I would say (again) that there is a difference between preference or even discrimination and racism. A preference does not mean that you believe what you don't prefer to be inherently inferior (I dislike Brussel Sprouts but recognize them as a nutrious vejetable) or that one actively tries to put down or eliminate what you don't prefer. People have the ability to counteract irrational impulses or to recognize that even though my friends have largely been white that doesn't mean I hate people who are black or that I think they're inferior.
I feel like clumping things into groups is just something that people do naturally. Its evident every day of your life, you want "your" sports team to win, you have pride in "your" country. Its a problem because most things that we do involve some type of classification and grouping, and I think that this makes Racism and gender sterotpying more prevailent. Its kind of hypocritical telling someone "America is the country you live in therefore its the best", while also telling them "well your white thats the race you are, but you better not say white is the best". I'm not condoning racism, but merely suggesting that it occurs because as human beings we want our team to win and we are brought up in a society where that is the norm.
How many blacks are more interested in basketball than whites? The actual answer to your question is ~7:3, iirc. How many of European origin excel in gymnastics compared to African origin? Swimming? What is the race of the best 100m hurdler? 400m sprinter? Testosterone increases with physical activity. Based on studies posted on this forum in the past I have not seen evidence that has proved a large difference based on race over lifestyle. There are many other variables. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'd like to see your strongest article (though I suppose it should probably be a different thread so we don't derail this one).
Exhumed, I'll play the devil and mention de Montesquieu with his "The Spirit of the Laws", simply because I have no wish to further this discussion on races, it's of no real interest to me or has any relation to my daily life. My intent was just to show that preference for something doesn't mean that it's racist or that everything is equal. How many times have you dreamed about giving birth and nurturing your child? Ciao
Yes I took it again switching hands (right hand on the left key & visa-versa) and the order was different as far as I can tell. I also got a different result "moderate automatic preference for European American" as opposed to no preference on the 1st test. I was making more mistakes this second time which could have altered the result although I didn't get the "'there were too many errors to determine a result" message. I suspect handedness, attention, and other factors may play a significant role in scoring.
When I took the test, the initial sorting associated white with good on the left side, and then it switched to black/good on the right. Was it that way for everyone? If so, that could influence the test results as some people may tend to have a hard time making the switch. Hopefully they thought of that and alternate which race is initially associated with "good".
I tested as "no preference", but the early part of the test almost seemed like a racist indoctrination program reminiscent of A Clockwork Orange. You'd see a black face, then EVIL. A white face, then FLOWERS, a black face/oppression; a white face/happyness. All we needed was some Beethoven music.
Great Scot! What a magnificent idea! I'll put Clockwork Orange soundtrack in my playlist right now and do the test.
Interestingly in recent years the highest suicide rates have all been in former Soviet or Soviet-client states. The current top ten for men (who are more often suicide completers than women, although women are much more likely to try) are: 1. Lithuania (75.6 per 100,000) 2. Russia (70.6) 3. Belarus (63.6) 4. Latvia (56.6) 5. Ukraine (52.1) 6. Slovenia (47.3) 7. Hungary (47.1) 8. Khazastan (46.4) 9. Estonia (45.8) 10. Sri Lanka (44.6) (http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/) As far as I know the highest suicide rate in any locality is still among Indian teenage females--"The average suicide rate for young women aged between 15 to 19 living around Vellore in Tamil Nadu was 148 per 100,000. " (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4846.html)
They do. It was different the 2 times I took it. However, that only adjusts for the bias across subjects--it could still affect an individual test.
Yeah, I know. Of course, climate is just one factor, although I don't personally understand it, because I like all kinds of weather, even when it's gloomy and rainy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Post soviet states have a twilight generation that's mostly insane and/or desperate. The main reason is the fall of the USSR and the radical changes that event brought. In Latvia are about 2/3 more insane cases than there were in the 80s.
That's ok, actually: the point of the test is to measure your reaction time differences between the first and second half. Clever little design. Essentially if you're white and have no problem on the first half - racing through "white=good" and "black=bad" - then suddenly run into huge time dilemmas on the second half, this is used to indicate racism. As in, you can't make the leap to "white=bad" and "black=good". It's a fine premise. You have to have both possible comparisons. The thing, though, is whether or not the test always runs that way - whether it ever starts "black As to how it ranks your personal belief system, it's invalid. If I start out on "white=good" and "black=bad", and then switch to the reverse, it stands to reason I've short-term "trained" my brain to think that way. So after a few screens I can bang away quite quickly as the words and faces come up: I've "taught" my brain to make the association and so things go quickly. The problem arises when you hit the reversed part of the test, where now white=bad and black=good. You've trained your head to make the association before, so now your time is going to suffer in the next round since instead of starting from an unconscious zero preference, you're short-term trained to associate white=good and black=bad. You have to unlearn your little rote association. It's a little like learning to ride a bike and then having the wheels suddenly start working backwards. It leads the subject. A more worthwhile methodology if the author is seeking populational differences would be to organize it according to race, so that African-Americans start on black=good and white=bad, and European-Americans start on white=good and black=bad. Then you measure the difference in time for people of different races when they hit the reversed section, as before. Whichever group makes the switch faster, wasting less time on the choices, presumably is less prejudiced (not necessarily racist per se) since they probably aren't having inherent prejudices reinforced by the test parameters in the first half. I'm sure there are better designs than the one I've just suggested, of course. Maybe a randomized design (as RCBD) would be better still. But it's no good for measuring individual bias, since you as an individual are probably going to be subject to this short-term "brain training". So, it's almost a given that you'll take longer on the second half as you try to forget what you've just been shown in the first half, and you'll correspondingly make more errors too (no idea how those are worked in statistically...binomial maybe). Although, I was also doing it with a migraine. I don't know how that would affect the results, but it sure made me cranky when I saw how the test was set up.
The test is flawed because it has you first do the exercise with good=white and black=bad. Through the short drilling period, I got used to just hitting e when i saw something good or white, and hitting i when i saw bad or black. When they switched it, I couldn't shake the reflex i had already learned previously. The test is flawed purposely to show that people are racist. I'd be curious as to what the results would be if they switched the order of the paring (do black=good and white=bad first) And also..why does it ask your racial preference, doesnt that kind of defeat the point of it determining what your views are?? and whats with the questions about crime and laziness lol?? If you think poor people are lazy or that if you think its wrong to break the law does that make your score more racist?? what a joke
really? i guess they change it up. well maybe ill go back and take it until i get black=good first and see if i do better.
