Shoot/Don't Shoot With a Cultural Twist

[tellner]

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]

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]

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

 

[KenpoTex]

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

 

[kidswarrior]

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

Ditto.

 

[still learning]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

I guess I am racists

Game Over
Your Score: 395
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:750.64ms
Black Unarmed:866.36ms
White Armed:744.72ms
White Unarmed:884.2ms

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]

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

 

[MBuzzy]

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]

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?