I found the “Blind” article by Banaji and Greewald about “mindbugs” very interesting. I have been exposed to a lot of logic puzzles and brain twisters involving things being the size, color, etc. before, so that portion did not surprise me. Neither did the fact that eyewitnesses make mistakes because I’ve heard and read a lot about the wrongful convictions and the Innocence Project specifically. What did surprise me was just how easily our brains can be led. When people talk about “leading questions,” I assumed they went something like “You were there, weren’t you?” or “Do you remember seeing this man kill this girl?”. I did not realize that very simple modifications in word choice, like smash vs. hit, or adding more descriptions can modify someone’s memory.
The portion of the article about making snap judgements based on how people look reminded me of the concept of inherent biases. There is actually a test run by Harvard University known as the Implicit Bias Test. (I tried to find the difference between inherent biases and implicit biases but struggled to find a clear distinguisher, so I am operating as if they are the same. If someone could point out the difference between them, I would appreciate it.) This test is supposed to expose your preferences between two different characteristics i.e. white vs. black, old vs. young, varying body types, etc. The end result tells you if you have a strong or light preference towards one of the options or if you are neutral; I think knowing these bits of information is very important to counterattacking these kind of “mindbugs” that Banaji and Greenwald talked about in their article because knowing the associations that you have in your head can help you a) not place an extreme amount of trust in the hands of someone you don’t know just because of their identity and b) counteract those prejudices that you hold, even if subconsciously.
You mentioning the leading questions is super interesting, because it reminded me how these all stem from the desire to manipulate. The more standardly known leading questions clearly try to pull a certain answer from someone, but so do those subtle “smash vs hit” situations … This is too powerful! In my daily life, I can be paranoid over what language people use … or I can use it for myself haha.
I definitely think the only way to counter Implicit Bias is to know your own. But taking such a test also assumes that you trust the test and its makers, which you may not because of your own Implicit Bias. It is very difficult to find a way to convince people that they have these Implicit Bias, because they are so ingrained in the person’s mind.
I also discussed the implications of how one word in a question could change the way someone thinks about and answers that question. The “smash” vs. “hit” example resonated with me because while these words could potentially be considered as meaning the same thing, in the context of a car crash, the way someone pictures what happened can be severely affected by this slight change in word use.
I agree with you point about the values in taking these exams, as it combats and helps to allude to the internal biases that we never truly address or even know that we have. Also, I like your emphasis and explanation of linguistics and the way their objectivity is evident in individual imagination.