Racism resulting from the inherent biases and prejudices of the policies and practices of social and political organizations, groups, or institutions.
We are being informed daily in Canada about our “Systemic Racism” problem. In fact we are told repeatedly that to deny it in any way is an overtly racist act. Our institutions have internalized this Ideology into all aspects of policy, hiring and spending. The three government agencies that grant all money for research base their awards of billions of our Tax dollars on it. There is just one nagging issue. It doesn’t exist. It never has.
Structural Racism is a thing. Think Apartheid or some aspects of the Canadian Indian Act. Its structural because it is written into the Laws and Policies of state and societal structures. Systemic Racism is a designer word salad theory based on fundamentally flawed science whose sole purpose is to tear apart the pluralistic Democracies of the West.
The concept of “systemic racism” is based entirely on the concept of Implicit or Inherent Bias This concept has bounced around the halls of the Ivy league since the Late 1990’s. Implicit Bias was popularized and normalized in our societies by an online test from Harvard called the Implicit Association Test that started surfacing in 2007. In the interest of context Harvard also helped create and normalize other “scientific” concepts in the past.. like Eugenics.
“Harvard’s role in the movement was in many ways not surprising. Eugenics attracted considerable support from progressives, reformers, and educated elites as a way of using science to make a better world. Harvard was hardly the only university that was home to prominent eugenicists. Stanford’s first president, David Starr Jordan, and Yale’s most acclaimed economist, Irving Fisher, were leaders in the movement.” …
The Implicit Association Test was offered free on the internet and the Data obtained used to normalize the academic concept of Systemic Racism. The derivative works of this failed theory posit en general that since we, “white people”, are all racist then all the structures Laws and societal norms reflect that Implicit Racism. This ideology, like the Gender Theory, Privilege Theory it is used with, was designed specifically to be used to tear apart pluralistic Democracies.
Canadians should reject this rancid and worthless dogma and remove any politician , administrator ,educator, legal professional, medical professional or anyone else in a position of any influence in our society who subscribes to this dark ideology.
“Project Implicit,” a nonprofit based at Harvard University and founded by the creators of the test, along with University of Virginia social psychologist Brian Nosek. Project Implicit’s stated aim is to “educate the public about hidden biases”; some 17 million implicit bias tests had been taken online by October 2015, courtesy of the nonprofit.
So the the Implicit Association Test is “administered” as described on the Harvard’s Implicit Association website
The IAT measures the strength of associations between concepts (e.g., black people, gay people) and evaluations (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic, clumsy). The main idea is that making a response is easier when closely related items share the same response key.
When doing an IAT you are asked to quickly sort words into categories that are on the left and right hand side of the computer screen by pressing the “e” key if the word belongs to the category on the left and the “i” key if the word belongs to the category on the right. The IAT has five main parts.
In the first part of the IAT you sort words relating to the concepts (e.g., fat people, thin people) into categories. So if the category “Fat People” was on the left, and a picture of a heavy person appeared on the screen, you would press the “e” key.
In the second part of the IAT you sort words relating to the evaluation (e.g., good, bad). So if the category “good” was on the left, and a pleasant word appeared on the screen, you would press the “e” key.
In the third part of the IAT the categories are combined and you are asked to sort both concept and evaluation words. So the categories on the left hand side would be Fat People/Good and the categories on the right hand side would be Thin People/Bad. It is important to note that the order in which the blocks are presented varies across participants, so some people will do the Fat People/Good, Thin People/Bad part first and other people will do the Fat People/Bad, Thin People/Good part first.
In the fourth part of the IAT the placement of the concepts switches. If the category “Fat People” was previously on the left, now it would be on the right. Importantly, the number of trials in this part of the IAT is increased in order to minimize the effects of practice.
In the final part of the IAT the categories are combined in a way that is opposite what they were before. If the category on the left was previously Fat People/Good, it would now be Fat People/Bad.
The IAT score is based on how long it takes a person, on average, to sort the words in the third part of the IAT versus the fifth part of the IAT. We would say that one has an implicit preference for thin people relative to fat people if they are faster to categorize words when Thin People and Good share a response key and Fat People and Bad share a response key, relative to the reverse.
The Website for the test now features the following disclaimer, which brings into sharp question why public officials are referring to this questionable concept at all in public discourse.
Important disclaimer: In reporting to you results of any IAT test that you take, we will mention possible interpretations that have a basis in research done (at the University of Washington, University of Virginia, Harvard University, and Yale University) with these tests. However, these Universities, as well as the individual researchers who have contributed to this site, make no claim for the validity of these suggested interpretations
This disclaimer, which didn’t appear on the site even a year ago is a weak reaction to the massive amount of work that has been done to debunk the worthless Implicit Association Test.
We will begin with Journalistic critiques and move to the hard science that debunks the rancid and quite directly racist concept.
“Any social-psychological instrument must pass two tests to be considered accurate: reliability and validity. A psychological instrument is reliable if the same test subject, taking the test at different times, achieves roughly the same score each time. But IAT bias scores have a lower rate of consistency than is deemed acceptable for use in the real world—a subject could be rated with a high degree of implicit bias on one taking of the IAT and a low or moderate degree the next time around. A recent estimate puts the reliability of the race IAT at half of what is considered usable. No evidence exists, in other words, that the IAT reliably measures anything stable in the test-taker.”….
“It’s highly plausible that the scientists who created the IAT, and now ardently defend it, believe their work will change the world for the better. Banaji sent me an email from a former student that compared her to Ta-Nehisi Coates, Bryan Stevenson, and Michelle Alexander “in elucidating the corrosive and terrifying vestiges of white supremacy in America.” || Greenwald explicitly discouraged me from writing this article. “Debates about scientific interpretation belong in scientific journals, not popular press,” he wrote. Banaji, Greenwald, and Nosek all declined to talk on the phone about their work, but answered most of my questions by email.”….
A 2017 meta-analysis that looked at 494 previous studies (currently under peer review and not yet published in a journal) from several researchers, including Nosek, found that reducing implicit bias did not affect behavior. “Our findings suggest that changes in measured implicit bias are possible, but those changes do not necessarily translate into changes in explicit bias or behavior,”
A pile of scholarly work, some of it published in top psychology journals and most of it ignored by the media, suggests that the IAT falls far short of the quality-control standards normally expected of psychological instruments. The IAT, this research suggests, is a noisy, unreliable measure that correlates far too weakly with any real-world outcomes to be used to predict individuals’ behavior — even the test’s creators have now admitted as such. The history of the test suggests it was released to the public and excitedly publicized long before it had been fully validated in the rigorous, careful way normally demanded by the field of psychology. In fact, there’s a case to be made that Harvard shouldn’t be administering the test in its current form, in light of its shortcomings and its potential to mislead people about their own biases. There’s also a case to be made that the IAT went viral not for solid scientific reasons, but simply because it tells us such a simple, pat story about how racism works and can be fixed: that deep down, we’re all a little — or a lot — racist, and that if we measure and study this individual-level racism enough, progress toward equality will ensue.
So lets get down to the Science.
The basic premise is flawed
Taken together, these studies suggest that the IAT-effect is due to in-group/out-group membership and is not based on racial prejudice.
In 1998, Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz proposed that the Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures individual differences in implicit social cognition. This claim requires evidence of construct validity. I review the evidence and show that there is insufficient evidence for this claim. Most important, I show that few studies were able to test discriminant validity of the IAT as a measure of implicit constructs. I examine discriminant validity in several multimethod studies and find little or no evidence of discriminant validity. I also show that validity of the IAT as a measure of attitudes varies across constructs”
“The authors reanalyzed data from a set of studies — J. D. Heider and J.J. Skowronski (2007) — that explored links between the race IAT and discriminatory behavior. The studies in that report were designed to have methodological improvements over past studies of predictive validity, and the authors concluded that links between race IAT scores and “prejudiced responding” and “discriminatory behavior” were supported. Our reanalysis reveals that this was not the case for either study. Study 1 was designed to test for links between the race IAT and competitive behavior in a prisoner’s dilemma game. We found a pattern not conveyed in the original report, which is that the IAT predicted greater competition with both White and Black opponents. The IAT did not predict racially biased behavior. Study 2 was designed to test for links between the race IAT and friendliness of verbal and nonverbal treatment of confederates. We found that the published results for Study 2 were based on erroneous IAT scores. Analysis of the true data revealed that the race IAT did not predict racially biased behavior. These results add to recent evidence calling into question the predictive validity of the race IAT.”.
Bearing in mind that one of the conditions of Harvard’s IAT is that the subject knows the purpose of the Test before they take it the methodology is fundamentally flawed
Methodologically, much research has shown that implicit evaluations result from a multitude of processes, many of them unique to the method that is used (Conrey et al., 2005;Klauer et al., 2007;Rothermund & Wentura, 2004). Testing the contribution of method-specific variance to accuracy in IAT score predictions experimentally, Hahn et al. (2014) found that predictions were if anything nonsignificantly most accurate when participants had received no explanation on how the IAT works and had no experience with it. …