If you ask someone if they're a racist or if they dislike homosexuals, chances are, you're not going to get a straight answer. And not everyone lies to cover up the truth; many of us just don't even admit to ourselves that these biases exist, or that they color our judgment and influence our actions.
I just finished reading Blink by Malcom Gladwell not too long ago (a book that I really, truly DID like, for a change), and part of this book discusses people's inherent biases and the ways to identify them indirectly, given the unreliabilty of the self-reporting method. In the context of this discussion, Gladwell references some research done at Harvard, and gives the web address for a test called the IAT: Implicit Assocation Test. You can learn more about it and take any number of versions of this test online.
I love this idea, and this really very clever mechanism for measuring inherent bias. I am particularly intrigued by its implications and potential uses in the law, litigation, and even more specifically, jury selection. Imagine if you could have potential jurors take a five-minute test on a computer and produce accurate indicators of their attitudes and potential biases. Have you ever sat through voire dire in a capital case? It's fascinating, and almost voodoo-like in its convoluted attempts to judge people's inner beliefs and biases. And it wouldn't be useful just in capital cases. Think about your typical felon in possession of a firearm, or drug dealer. Chances are, they look, act, and live a little differently than the majority of your jury pool. Jurors with extreme biases could be outed and excused, and jurors with slight biases could at least be informed of these latent attitudes and be better equipped to make a fair decision. This is, in essence, what our system of justice calls upon us all to do. It does not demand an unbiased jury; it asks that we set aside our prejudices and consider the evidence. Awareness of those prejudices could be a powerful tool not just in the hands of counsel, but in the hands of the jurors themselves.
Take the test. Take several. See what you think. (I have a slight bias for European Americans, and no measurable bias as between hetero- and homosexuals.)
I just finished reading Blink by Malcom Gladwell not too long ago (a book that I really, truly DID like, for a change), and part of this book discusses people's inherent biases and the ways to identify them indirectly, given the unreliabilty of the self-reporting method. In the context of this discussion, Gladwell references some research done at Harvard, and gives the web address for a test called the IAT: Implicit Assocation Test. You can learn more about it and take any number of versions of this test online.
I love this idea, and this really very clever mechanism for measuring inherent bias. I am particularly intrigued by its implications and potential uses in the law, litigation, and even more specifically, jury selection. Imagine if you could have potential jurors take a five-minute test on a computer and produce accurate indicators of their attitudes and potential biases. Have you ever sat through voire dire in a capital case? It's fascinating, and almost voodoo-like in its convoluted attempts to judge people's inner beliefs and biases. And it wouldn't be useful just in capital cases. Think about your typical felon in possession of a firearm, or drug dealer. Chances are, they look, act, and live a little differently than the majority of your jury pool. Jurors with extreme biases could be outed and excused, and jurors with slight biases could at least be informed of these latent attitudes and be better equipped to make a fair decision. This is, in essence, what our system of justice calls upon us all to do. It does not demand an unbiased jury; it asks that we set aside our prejudices and consider the evidence. Awareness of those prejudices could be a powerful tool not just in the hands of counsel, but in the hands of the jurors themselves.
Take the test. Take several. See what you think. (I have a slight bias for European Americans, and no measurable bias as between hetero- and homosexuals.)
No comments:
Post a Comment