I took the Religion IAT, and I am not surprised with my results. We live in a Christian-centric nation where Christmas is months long and Easter is a cultural phenomenon. Having a slight automatic preference for Christianity over Islam was what I expected going into the test. Additionally the order of preference for most respondents (I just analyzed the three different tables given) of Christianity first, Judaism second after a steep drop off, and Islam third was unsurprising. The only part of the results that I found at least moderately surprising was that the highest percentage of respondents that showed little to no automatic preference came between Islam and Judaism. While Anti-Semitism is very prevalent, it usually does not receive the same media platform that Islamophobia does. I figured that more people would have a preference towards Judaism simply because it was not Islam, i.e. the better of two bad options, as a result of the media that most Americans are surrounded by. However, it is also likely that people despise both religions equally leading to the no automatic preference. Long story short, America is a Christian country, even if it is not official, and I am not surprised about it.

Lying is bad. Or, that is what I at least was grown up being told. As the reading pointed out, almost everyone has responded to the question “How are you?” by replying with “fine,” “ok,” or something similar. Odds are, however, you were not fine. You may have been amazing, but you did not want to make anyone feel bad by sharing the success that made you happy. Alternatively, you may have been having a crappy day but did not want to talk about it. Either way, you lied. Does that make you a bad person? Probably not. White lies are usually seen as, at the very worst, being morally neutral. While other types of lies, such as blue and red, skew more towards being immoral, there is no rule stating that one must be honest. 

The reading brings up the possibility that humans are genetically predisposed to lying. While it somewhat seems like a copout to cover up for humanity’s fondness for deceit, it does make sense. So long as they do not get caught, liars tend to do better daily. There have been countless stories about a fake prince/princess or wealthy heir/heiress that took advantage of their lavish image, despite being in heavy debt, to garner the favor of others. It does all come crashing down at some point. When the lie catches up with them, but up until that point, their life is good. To use an unpopular example, take COVID-19 vaccines. The lack of centralized vaccination eligibility requirements has created a loophole system that allows an individual who is motivated enough to acquire a vaccine ahead of their place in line by lying. Claiming residency in another state, lying about a medical condition (smoking is a common one to lie about), or lying about a profession have all been used to significant effect. Those individuals are, without a doubt, better off than those who have not been vaccinated. They are less likely to die, be in pain, suffer financial hardship, etc., than those who are not vaccinated. In this case, lying is morally wrong, but it worked. If homo sapiens are predisposed to lying, does that make all of us terrible people? I do not think so. I believe a more nuanced viewpoint is needed. Humans are likely predisposed to lie, but we must also recognize that the world is continuously evolving. While still highly effective, lying is not as needed as it may have been in the past. It does not hurt to lie a little, as long as one does not lie to himself that one is not being entirely truthful.

I took the Disabled/Abled persons implicit bias test in which I had to sort pictures based on whether the individual appeared to be disabled/abled. I also had to sort pictures of disabled/abled individuals to be either good or bad. My results were that I have no preference between Disabled Persons and Abled Persons- which isn’t much of a shock to me. Growing up, I helped my family take care of my great-grandmother, who was disabled. I never viewed her as an inferior human being to more abled-body persons, such as myself. If anything, I held more respect for her being disabled. In high school, I also volunteered a lot with Special Olympics, a non-profit organization committed to supporting individuals with intellectual disabilities. These experiences definitely influenced my mindbugs to not view disabled persons as being somehow less valuable or preferable than abled-persons.  At the end of the day, human life is a human life.

I found the results of Laurie Rudman’s study on how the “presence of implicit gender stereotypes about romance and home, achievement and career, has consequences for the women who hold them” to be intriguing (116). The first finding was that women are less likely to aspire to achieve individual power and status in society if they associate their ideal significant other in life to be a “Prince Charming” (116). The other finding from this study revealed that these self-defeating stereotypes were a contributing factor for why women would forego professional opportunities that could establish their authority and status in society if it meant that they would have to compete for such opportunities with men. Altogether, both conclusions connect back to the idea of dissociation mentioned earlier in the text. Dissociation is essentially the idea that one can hold two mutually inconsistent ideas. Still, while one idea is reflective, the other idea is more automatic and more susceptible to being endorsed without us being aware.

After pondering over Rudman’s study, I wonder how different the results would be if the study subjects remained women. Yet, instead of imagining a life with a Prince Charming, they imagined an ideal life with a Princess Charming? How would this study’s results be different if there were both heterosexual and queer men who participated in this study and were asked to imagine a life with an ideal Prince Charming or an individual of different gender and sexual orientation who possessed the associations of royalty? Questions like these cause me to wonder how the roles of race, gender, and sexuality impact group and power dynamics in the context of leadership- both professionally and socially.

I was not super surprised about my test results. I took the “gender and career” IAT test, and received results saying that I had “little to no bias towards male = career and female = family. I did not notice that in my mind, it did seem a little bit easier to place certain words with the male names and vice versa as opposed to the female name. However, I think that this difference was so minimal that the test probably didn’t pick up on this. One thing about this is interesting, though. I have taken this same test three times now. The first two times, I received results saying that I had a “slight bias towards male = career and female = family”. When I took these tests in the past, I felt I had no bias at all, but I suppose the test picked up on something I was missing. I wonder what has changed in the time between tests. I do seem more aware of this bias, and maybe because of this, subconsciously over time I have gotten past it a little bit. I think also being in a culture at Richmond where there are so many females that are so passionately pursuing careers, this bias may have been weakened for me.

I have taken these exact tests before in high school, so I knew the gist of them before I took them. In high school, we took every test, and the results I got then made sense. I have always been accepting and I was introduced to maybe different people of different backgrounds from a young age. My mom made sure of that. My mom says I have always been empathetic towards others, and I firmly believe that personality/mindset/action is the only thing someone should be judged on.

That being said, the results I got were not at all what I expected. I personally strongly disagree with my results. I would have agreed with a slight automatic preference but I do not think I have a strong automatic preference in this case.

This class’s readings really opened my eyes to the way “mindbugs” begin, how we can become more aware of them, and how we can combat them. A few things stuck out to me as being particularly interesting. First, I thought the reading did a great job of outlining different types of mindbugs and how they start. For example, it titled the mind as an “automatic association making machine”. In doing this, it shed light on two types of mind bugs: availability and anchoring. The discussion about the words participants read that impacted their moods was eye opening for me. When I read it the first thing I thought about was “If my head is stuck in my phone all day, is this what I want to be anchoring my instinctive reactions to?”

Next, I was especially interested in the difference in knowing and endorsing stereotypes. I thought the reading did a great job of highlighting the differences between the two. Yes, most of us know about stereotypes and biases, but this reading opened my eyes to how much we really endorse the stereotypes even though we aren’t aware of their presence in our minds and the effect they have on our thoughts, opinions, and behaviors. I had heard about the Amadou Diallo tragedy before, but in reading in in this context, anchored to biases and implicit reactions, I immediately turned introspective. What biases do I not even know I hold, and how will they affect not only my conscious decisions, but more importantly my split second decisions that occur in my subconscious mind where my conscious mind doesn’t have time to intervene?

Lastly, I appreciated the way the reading offered examples and ways to combat these biases. The most interesting example to me was the blind audition for the Boston Symphony. It seems amazing to me that at the end of the day, music is music, but it truly took literally blindfolding themselves for decision makers here to be more open to female musicians. As the reading mentioned, knowing we have biases is not enough. We have to actively combat these biases with counter stereotypes. Whether it is in our cultures, or our individual choices, as Dr. Bezio mentioned on the podcast, we have to expose ourselves to situations that contradict our deep biases that dictate our outlook on the world. Being open minded and working to gain attention for counter stereotypes is the only real way to make a change.

The IAT test I took looked at whether I implicitly associate exercise with positivity or negativity. Going into it, I asked myself if I knew the answer to this question. I would think I associate exercise with positivity because for the most part, I like to exercise because it keeps me healthy, makes me feel good, and is a way I like to relieve stress. At the same time, there are many times that I dread going to the gym, but I go because I know I’ll feel better after. Just today, I really didn’t want to go to my workout class, because I was feeling tired and stressed about the work I have coming up. I went, partly because they’d charge me if I didn’t, but also because I knew I’d feel more focussed and less stressed. Now, here I am sitting at my desk doing some homework.

After taking the test, my results were that I implicitly associate exercise with positivity. While I believe this to be true for the most part, I’m not a huge fan of these tests. I’ve taken them in high school and last years psychology classes, and every time I feel like I am trying to be tricked. I also know how these tests work by now, so I can see where they are calculating the results. The first IAT test I took was in my high school psychology class and it was about if I liked old people. It asked me questions about older people’s health, moods, etc. Just because I had answered that yes, older people’s health deteriorate, and some old people can be cranky, I was told I have an implicit bias against old people. I know this to be false, but the test only knows what I answered. I think these tests are a good starting point, but they are not getting the full picture.

In this reading, as well as the podcast, stereotypes were discussed. In this reading, the author primarily discussed mind bugs, which essentially are stereotypes. They are defined as, “Ingrained habits of thought that lead to errors in how we perceive, remember, reason, and make decisions.” I like that the author brings light to the fact that everyone has stereotypes. They are built from the time we are young by our culture and those in our surroundings. No matter what we do, and how well we are raised, everyone has stereotypes about certain things. When stereotypes, or as the author says, mind bugs, become a problem, is when they are applied in life because they come with many consequences.

The part that stuck out to me most was when the author discusses how hard they are to get rid of. (personally, I believe that is the meaning behind “mind bugs”). The author says that the reason stereotypes are so hard to get rid of is because they are put into play without us really having a personal vengeance towards everyone. Another reason I believe they are so hard to get rid of is because some stereotypes, as Dr. Bezio mentioned in her podcast, are rooted in truth. For example, she discusses her German background and while yes, if you went to a German dinner, typically beer, sausage, and bread would be involved. While this is true, Dr. Bezio mentions being a vegetarian who wouldn’t normally eat a lot of sausage. So, while this stereotype is partly true, we cannot just assume that because Dr. Bezio has a German heritage that all she likes is beer, sausage, and bakery items.

The author ends by discussing where we go from here. If we know stereotypes, or mind bugs, can come with consequences, yet some are rooted in truth, how do we fix it? The author says it comes down to identifying situations where hidden bias mind bugs operate to then be prepared to shut them down.

Ethics is a tricky subject. Nearly everything we do individually and as a society is based on morals, yet nobody can agree on a single moral code. When I was growing up, my ethics were mainly influenced by my family, my religion, and my schooling. As a kid we are taught that everything is normative. Don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t cheat, don’t push over your classmates on the playground. You won’t find any classroom in the world that teaches children to lie, steal, and cheat (or at least I really hope not). But growing up, things become less simple. We start asking ourselves, “hmmm well I was taught not to push over my classmates, but what if they push me first?” We question our ethical teachings and learn that, really, there is nothing normative about ethics. 

I have a hard time believing that any ethical ideas can be normative. Ethics are the core of every society and every person. While listening to the podcast, I was very interested by how Professor Bezio explained the differentiation in cultures and religions and how that related to the world’s ethics. Moral codes apply differently across different cultures which is why we are forced to function in the in-between-land of normative and relative ethical frameworks. I don’t think anything is ever completely normative. Because each culture and subculture have different versions of the “truth,” there can never be completely agreed upon moral standards. For instance, every religion preaches that they know the truth or are close to knowing the truth but there are so many religions in the world. That is thousands of versions of the “truth.” This is why I think that there is no truth, or at least no truth that we are going to figure out any time soon. Societies across the globe will never be able to agree on what is universally right or wrong, and I think that’s okay. 

Also, unrelated to my previous points– I have also always wondered why attempted murder was a lighter sentence than a successful murder. I always thought that intention was the only thing that mattered in ethics. If someone tried to poison me, I always thought it would be just as bad whether they were successful or not, because the fact that they were trying to poison me would be bad enough. Understanding how intentions intertwine with actions made me rethink my position on consequences. I’m still thinking about it though.