I took a great deal of pleasure finding out in this reading that most likely if a flat earther took an Implicit Association Test (IAT) they would associate earth with a sphere. Of course, their explicit bias still is the earth is flat. But I still enjoyed imagining a flat earther getting said IAT result and their reaction to it.
Something that stood out to me in the reading was in chapter 6 when the authors discuss facial recognition by race. I have known for as long as I can remember about racial profiling, specifically when it comes to police officers misidentifying innocent black members of comminutes as suspects. But this year with the help of some of my other classes I have come to think more about facial features and race, more specifically the concept that it can be easier for white people to see identifying features in other white people, and other races to see identifying features in their race because of the faces they have been exposed to growing up, or rather the differences in faces they have seen growing up.
The way the Podcast discussed change in stereotypes and high/low culture over time seems contradictory to me in the same way it is contradictory to me that women have been taught they are meant to be in the kitchen and cook for their house bands, but when it comes to a career as a chef or a head cook that is a man’s job. The decisions of what is for women vs men, or what is for the rich vs the poor have changed and contracted themselves forever. It makes me wonder how we can change and flip so many “traditions” but still have the same class, gender, and race issues.

I took two tests and was not surprised by either of my answers. One of them I would say I was pleased with the answer as I had “no automatic preference.” The other I was slightly less pleased with myself for but again not surprised as it suggested a “slight automatic preference.” But I do believe the reason I got the second one was because of something I feel about my life rather than something I judge others for.

In the podcast Dr. Bezio mentions religion as an example of Normative claims, she says religion is a good example of normative claims because each religion has universal Truths that its followers live by. Her exception to her comparison was Unitarianism. I found this compelling because I was raised Unitarian Universalist. (They are an “unusual bunch.”) While in other youth groups and Sunday Schools children are told what to believe, we discussed what religion meant to us and what it meant to others. We would learn about other religions’ holidays, traditions, and beliefs and then discuss how they connected to us and to each other. Unitarianism is more relative than normative in some of the more traditional ways, but it still has some universal truths. At the beginning of our service, we light a Chalice and say an Affirmation in unison which states, “Love is the doctrine of this church, the quest for truth is its sacrament, and service is its prayer. To dwell together in peace, to seek knowledge in freedom, to serve human need, To the end that all souls shall grow into harmony with the divine. Thus, do we covenant?” And at the end when we Extinguish the Chalice as a symbol of our time together ending we say our Mission Statement; “We welcome all as we build a loving community, to nurture each person’s spiritual journey, serve human need, and protect the Earth, our home.” While this may not be as Normative as other religions, as welcome each person in the congregation to believe in any (or the absence of) higher power they wish it still has a sense of community and common ethical standards.

I have a question about the reading that if anyone has an insight on, I would be happy to hear!  I understand that there is a belief (from Noncognitivists) that ethical arguments cannot exist because ethics are not “true” or “false” but does that mean that even if a moral argument is backed by data from a study such as The New Hope Project it can still not be considered “true”?