4 ms·
Implicit bias tests could end up becoming another big embarrassment for psychology. Worth reading this tweet storm [0] for the little amount of conflicting [1]
by lhnz 10y ago
Implicit bias tests could end up becoming another big embarrassment for psychology. Worth reading this tweet storm [0] for the little amount of conflicting [1] literature that is available.
I wouldn't treat a Vox article as evidence that something is true.
[0] https://twitter.com/Billare/status/783482251761815552 https://twitter.com/Billare/status/783482251761815552
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cfz6CgVWQAELrwZ.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cfz6CgVWQAELrwZ.jpg:large
- ceejayoz 10y ago> I wouldn't treat a Vox article as evidence that something is true. > Worth reading this tweet storm... LOL.
- lhnz 10y agoNice snark. But, the point isn't to trust a Twitter account, the point is to read the actual scientific literature that they linked to... As others have pointed out already [0] IAT hasn't faired well in the replication crisis. Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that 'implicit bias' doesn't exist in any form. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm just pointing out that saying "a real phenomenon backed up by good studies" in light of recent studies is kind of a stretch. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12659715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12659715
- roninb 10y agoI usually wouldn't agree with this because plenty of experts have twitter accounts that are more reliable and accurate than text books in their field. That said, this account doesn't seem to have any provable credentials associated with it and lacks even a first and last name...
- ad-hominem 10y agoAd-hominem. If the account is linking to real scientific studies, then you should read them and judge the points based on their merit, not who is pronouncing them.