Very intresting test, is that a gun or a cell phone?


PDA






TAB
April 28, 2008, 01:19 PM
http://backhand.uchicago.edu/Center/ShooterEffect/

If you enjoyed reading about "Very intresting test, is that a gun or a cell phone?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
nobius
April 28, 2008, 01:29 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 400
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:576.48ms
Black Unarmed:742.16ms
White Armed:631.68ms
White Unarmed:679.96ms

First few images I had my buttons backwards. After that was squared away, I did much better.

bnkrazy
April 28, 2008, 01:35 PM
Very interesting. Here's my score:
Game Over
Your Score: 735
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:559.2ms
Black Unarmed:684.8ms
White Armed:602.68ms
White Unarmed:667ms

eric.cartman
April 28, 2008, 01:36 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 595
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:647.76ms
Black Unarmed:773.08ms
White Armed:655ms
White Unarmed:692.56ms

Jimmie
April 28, 2008, 01:37 PM
Interesting. I'd like to know the biases behind that game.

Your Score: 600
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:668.12ms
Black Unarmed:788.56ms
White Armed:662.56ms
White Unarmed:736.76ms

rainbowbob
April 28, 2008, 01:44 PM
Very interesting indeed!

I took the test. When it was over I realized they are testing more than just your ability to differentiate between a gun and a cell phone.



Spoiler Alert!!!



V



V



V



V



V



V



They are also (perhaps primarily) testing whether the race of the person in the photos makes a difference as to your reaction.

Race didn't seem to make much difference to me in my shoot/no shoot decisions (although I have cultural biases just like every other individual on the planet). I was focused almost entirely on the subject's hands - and having a pretty tough time telling the difference between a phone and a gun.

I would say it is a good training excercise for keeping your focus on the hands. I would like to know more about this link. Who designed the study and for what purpose? I'm not so sure it was designed as a shooting excersise at all.

Can the OP provide further links and source information, please?

FTA84
April 28, 2008, 01:47 PM
I thought the scoring was very interesting.

It appears to be less of a penalty to shoot an innocent than to get shot. Is someone implying that the benefits of self-defense outweight the risks to society?

Is this meant to be anti, pro, or neither?

LaEscopeta
April 28, 2008, 01:48 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 585
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:747.44ms
Black Unarmed:804.6ms
White Armed:700.76ms
White Unarmed:767.92ms

I only noticed 2 times (one armed one unarmed) where I hit the wrong button. I'm guessing my low score is due to slow reaction time. At least I was quicker with armed suspects.

Also seems I was quicker deciding white vs. black, but by < 0.01 seconds. Wonder if that is statically significant.

Finally, did anyone else think the suspect was about to get run over by the street car?

TAB
April 28, 2008, 01:50 PM
they were testing about race, but I still found it very intresting. Not for the race aspect, but for reaction times.

Jorg Nysgerrig
April 28, 2008, 01:51 PM
They are also (perhaps primarily) testing whether the race of the person in the photos makes a difference as to your reaction.
I would say that is exactly what they are testing. As you can see, 3/4 of the people who took it so far were quicker to shoot the armed blacks. They also paused longer before calling the unarmed blacks safe compared to the unarmed whites. Granted, that's too small of a sample to determine anything.

VirgilCaine
April 28, 2008, 02:03 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 540
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:707.4ms
Black Unarmed:714.32ms
White Armed:664ms
White Unarmed:697.48ms

Apparently, it took me much longer to decide if the white guys were safe than the black guys!

It really helps that they are holding the objects away from their body most of the time, so you have a very easy time of telling what it is.

Very interesting test.

Also, why weren't there any women?

Jorg Nysgerrig
April 28, 2008, 02:09 PM
Apparently, it took me much longer to decide if the white guys were safe than the black guys!
Nope, look at your results again. You took 714 ms to "holster" when you saw an unarmed black guy, but only 697 ms when you saw an unarmed white guy.

Also, why weren't there any women?

Because when one conducts an experiment, one needs to control for as many variables as possible. If testing for reaction to race, changing the gender introduces other forms of bias.

32winspl
April 28, 2008, 02:09 PM
I was a bit peeved in that just because they were armed, I don't recall anyone pointing their gun at me. There was really no way to determine if the guy with the gun was a good guy with a gun, or a bad guy with a gun.

LaEscopeta
April 28, 2008, 02:09 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 600
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:658.32ms
Black Unarmed:753.12ms
White Armed:687.36ms
White Unarmed:694.24ms

Took it again and tried to pay attention to the scoring this time. Seemed like I got +5 or +10 for each correct decision, and minus 20 for the one incorrect decision I noticed.

Gained 0.05 seconds on average reaction time though.

I was a bit peeved in that just because they were armed, I don't recall anyone pointing their gun at me. There was really no way to determine if the guy with the gun was a good guy with a gun, or a bad guy with a gun.OK don't think of it a holster/shoot decision, despite what the instructions say. Think of it a simply what it is; deciding if the object in their hand is a handgun or not.

novaDAK
April 28, 2008, 02:23 PM
I was a bit peeved in that just because they were armed, I don't recall anyone pointing their gun at me. There was really no way to determine if the guy with the gun was a good guy with a gun, or a bad guy with a gun.

and since when did I randomly flash through different places and have people magically appear? And also, why do I have to holster my gun? Do they think that if I have a gun out I'm going to shoot anyone I see with a gun? Did I hear gunshots prior to seeing this person? Are they pointing their gun at me? Are they appearing to have a threatening demeanor?

And one last thing, it is much easier to differentiate between pulling the trigger of a gun and holstering, than remembering which button on the keyboard to press for which action...


And I still did good on this little test ;)

rainbowbob
April 28, 2008, 02:23 PM
There was really no way to determine if the guy with the gun was a good guy with a gun, or a bad guy with a gun...

Well....noting that this came from the Univesity of Chicago - I think it's safe to say: "guy with gun = bad guy".

VirgilCaine
April 28, 2008, 02:28 PM
Nope, look at your results again. You took 714 ms to "holster" when you saw an unarmed black guy, but only 697 ms when you saw an unarmed white guy.

Black Armed:707.4ms
Black Unarmed:714.32ms
It only took me another 7ms to determine the unarmed black guy was safe...

White Armed:664ms
White Unarmed:697.48ms

Whereas the unarmed white guys took me another 33ms to determine if they were safe. But then this might be because I'm looking at the black guys longer overall.

DragonFire
April 28, 2008, 02:29 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 525
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:709.8ms
Black Unarmed:791.48ms
White Armed:693.72ms
White Unarmed:729.28ms

I lost some points for not reacting quick enough.

This in no way tests any kind of racial bias, or much of anything besides reaction times.

As 32winspl pointed out, there was no "good guy" with a gun or "bad' guy with a gun. It was strictly "is it a gun or not".

Nor does it show anything about our sense of self-defense being more important the safety of society. My decision which button to push is in no way related to how I'd make the decision to shoot to defend myself or not. Nor do bad guys just pop out of the air with a gun.

The decision should be based on the surroundings, the situation, and the demeanor of the BG leading up to the actual moment.

They can claim anything they like, but anyone that believes this has "social" implications is a fool.

Floppy_D
April 28, 2008, 02:40 PM
What I have learned from this game is that point wise, as long as I holster on 4 innocent people, I can shoot an innocent person. So if I holster on 5 innocents per random person I shoot, then I'm still making forward progress.

To prove what an unbiased proponent of equality I am, I shot everyone, everytime, equally. :D

GhostlyKarliion
April 28, 2008, 02:40 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 605
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:615.64ms
Black Unarmed:657.68ms
White Armed:632.72ms
White Unarmed:632.88ms

very interesting game, I didn't even register the color of the person most of the time, I was focused soley on what was in the hands.

eyes dart to suspect, then hands, then identify what is in hand, punch button.

Regen
April 28, 2008, 02:41 PM
Here is mine

Your Score: 540
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:723.72ms
Black Unarmed:814.96ms
White Armed:741.48ms
White Unarmed:804.76ms

I found image contrast behind the subject and gun to be the most influential.

SSN Vet
April 28, 2008, 02:47 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 360
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:732.28ms
Black Unarmed:887.12ms
White Armed:743.96ms
White Unarmed:889ms


yup, the key is to watch the hands.....nothing else.

on at least two of those slides, because of the orientation of the object in the subjects hands, you couldn't really tell whether it was a handgun or a shiny cell phone.

I think the test is fatally flawed, in that it assumes that every person on the planet who has a handgun in their hand is fair game to be immediately shot.

Notice that not a single one of the subjects was brandishing the handgun in a threataning manner. Nor were any of them pointing the handgun in the direction of the camera. So in theory, none of them should be shot. They all could have been innocent CCW holders coming to the officers aide.

imho,
stupid, unrealistic game made up by grad. students who know nothing about handling firearms, nor police tactics, who spend way to much time playing first person shooter video games, whose intent is to paint the world as beuing full of racists because they took on average a fraction of a milisecond less time to plug subjects of one skin color over those of a different skin color.

Kind of Blued
April 28, 2008, 02:53 PM
That is interesting.

Here are my results.

Game Over
Your Score: 555
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:604.12ms
Black Unarmed:750.08ms
White Armed:606.36ms
White Unarmed:768.28ms

I was quicker to "judge" a black person than a white person. Quicker to dismiss them as a threat and quicker to shoot them.

Apparently, I'm not so sure how I feel about those white people...

I think they forgot one of the key statistics. It should be noted how many cell-phone-holding white people you shot, as well as how many cell-phone-holding black people you shot.

torpid
April 28, 2008, 02:55 PM
Game Over
Your Score: -1750
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:315.12ms
Black Unarmed:284.64ms
White Armed:252.48ms
White Unarmed:316.12ms


I kept it holstered throughout the test.

Zoogster
April 28, 2008, 02:58 PM
This is interesting.

Put out the by university the reasoning is fairly obvious.

Someone armed is always bad in Chicago, unless they have a badge.

They are trying to show blacks are discriminated against who have a firearm.

Well I hate to come be the bubble burster. In the city of Chicago most murders are commited by blacks.
Race is a touchy aspect and certain segments of society are used to everyone backing away and being slow to challenge them if they involve race in the discussion. Race is the taboo topic for any non minority.

Well if they want to involve race. Statistics are that someone is more likely to be killed by a black man. Blacks make up around 12% of the population, and are responsible for about 50% of the murders most years. The primary responsible reason is certain well known sub cultures blacks are involved in at a much higher ratio.
So if you see a black man, dressed in the attire of one of those sub cultures, and illegaly armed in a place that does not even allow handgun possession...
That is the national statistic. Regionaly or in cities in can be much higher. I just looked up the statistics for blacks commiting murder in Chicago. 77% of all murders in Chicago are commited by blacks (with most of the victims other blacks.) However they are only 36-37% of the population there.

Even black cops profile people logicly. If you see certain people walking down the street, some are clearly more likely to be doing something illegal based on location, attire, race, and other factors, but race can be one of them.
If you are in a district where most crimes are commited by a certain aspect of the population, then it is not such a big jump to be more aware of suspicious activity by that segment.
In some places that segment is white meth heads, in others it is black crack heads or gang bangers.
You put the resources where the problems are.
It is not some big racial conspiracy. It is logical conclusions to problems with limited resources. If you have a city filled with millions of people and most of your crime is commited by a certain culture primarily of a certain race and primarily male, then you can achieve the best results by applying your limited resources there.
You can also be sure a larger percent of them are going to be illegaly armed and inclined to use that arm if they are involved in the gang criminal lifestyle.
So the logical conclusion is certain people really are more likely to kill you in a confrontation than others, and that is backed up by facts.

People profile with multiple variables, but race is one of them. If you see a suspicious white individual in a predominantly black neighborhood known for drugs late at night guess what? They are more likely there for drugs, or to be involved in drugs than the black people walking and driving by. Yes that is racial profiling, but it is logical.
At the same time if you see a hip hop culture black acting suspicious in the business area where most people are wearing suits and he fits the gang banger profile, he is more likely up to no good than another person you pick at random there. The same goes if you see them in a known gang area or near the housing projects.
If they reach for a bulge in thier pocket they are more likely to be reaching for a gun than someone else at random on the street as well.
Certain segments of the population, belonging to certain cultures, and of certain economic means are responsible for most violent crime in America, and almost all violent crime in some areas. Especialy for random violent crime involving strangers unknown to them.
Ignoring that when determining how to apply resources or act in a confrontation is just ignoring logic.

P.S. I didn't shoot anyone in the test, none of them made a move, and were pointing thier weapons away from me. They said nothing suspicious, and made no sudden movements. Simply having a gun in thier hand was not enough justification for me to shoot.
I guess not shooting random people with a gun in thier hands makes me a foolish person.

Tully M. Pick
April 28, 2008, 03:00 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 690
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:694.12ms
Black Unarmed:741.32ms
White Armed:689.96ms
White Unarmed:764.88ms

coloradokevin
April 28, 2008, 03:06 PM
Very intresting test, is that a gun or a cell phone?

Rather, it should be titled "are you a racist?"

I don't like the message that this could quite possibly send... That is, X% of people were more likely to shoot someone based on the color of their skin, etc.

Honestly, to effectively take that "test" (based on the timeframe it allows) you don't even have time to perceive the person's race, only their hands... Besides, are we just shooting innocent gun owners in some of those scenarios where they are just holding a gun to their side? I mean, should I just blindly plug anyone with a gun? Is that the message?

Without the racial issue being brought into it, I think it would be a more interesting test. I'd rather see results categorized by how long it took you to shoot/holster, and percentage of time that you made the correct decision!

Floppy_D
April 28, 2008, 03:12 PM
You aren't a racist if you shoot all of them.

kamagong
April 28, 2008, 03:16 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 710
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:596.36ms
Black Unarmed:722.88ms
White Armed:613.88ms
White Unarmed:702.44ms

poker88
April 28, 2008, 03:37 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 630
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:610.96ms
Black Unarmed:723.16ms
White Armed:584.68ms
White Unarmed:703.08ms


I would like to see the stats for identifying black vs shiny (guns and cell phones).... forget race. I had some trouble seeing the object against the darker backdrops.

Matt G
April 28, 2008, 03:41 PM
This is an intersting thread, which I and other moderators will be watching. No, I'm not closing it just because the spectre of race was brought up. This site is anti-racism, but we will not close a thread simply because race as a factor in a shooter's response is discussed. It was, after all, the creator of that little online test who brought the issue up.

For whatever the reason[s], it is a simple fact that African Americans (listed on the FBI UCR as "black") are over-represented in incidents of aggravated assaults and murders in the United States, relative to their percentage of the general population. Sadly, some would tar an entire demographic with the brush dirtied by a tiny portion of society.

For what it's worth, my times are far slower than most of those posted here, and I am very ashamed of the occasional "You Shot A Good Guy!" message that I got. We would all do well to practice perfection in target identification over speed.

Game Over
Your Score: 420
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:765.12ms
Black Unarmed:857.16ms
White Armed:775.96ms
White Unarmed:755.12ms

ceetee
April 28, 2008, 03:46 PM
Game Over
Your Score: -540
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:422.04ms
Black Unarmed:287.64ms
White Armed:285.28ms
White Unarmed:432.92ms

I decided to just shoot everybody. Why is it that if you choose to shoot everybody, you get a higher score than if you shoot nobody?

Matt G
April 28, 2008, 03:57 PM
Slightly better the second time around, but still shameful-- I shot two No-Shoots.

I agree that the test is heavily flawed. NONE of the "shoot" targets are actively posing a threat. It rewards you for reholstering quickly if it's a "No-Shoot", even if you apparently have reason to have felt that there was a threat worth drawing your weapon over. It associates being armed with being a person who should be shot. The physical act of reholstering is completely different from the act of shooting, yet pressing a button on the right or left side of the keyboard is the same, and generates a sympathetic response (hint: use the middle finger for your left "No-Shoot" button, and your index finger of your right hand for the "shoot" button.).

There are also issues such as gun placement against backgrounds, finish of guns causing differences in contrast with skin tones, etc.

But still, it's an interesting little game, and I'd be fascinated to see the final data from thousands of test-takers. It would be even more interesting if the test takers had to identify themselves by demographic, and personal attitudes (scaled 1-10) about race, violence, and firearms.

Game Over
Your Score: 590
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:671.96ms
Black Unarmed:788.64ms
White Armed:675.56ms
White Unarmed:751.92ms

Zoogster
April 28, 2008, 04:01 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 650
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:590.16ms
Black Unarmed:644.04ms
White Armed:594.92ms
White Unarmed:640.16ms

Took it a second time. My connection is currently bugged, as I am multi tasking and it drops out every few seconds so it might actualy be better :P

The test is flawed. It assumes an armed person not posing a threat with no prior confrontation backround deserves to be shot.

I had to just tell myself it was just a game for reaction time purposes and do it.

MASTEROFMALICE
April 28, 2008, 04:02 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 570
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:603.16ms
Black Unarmed:711.12ms
White Armed:612.04ms
White Unarmed:712ms

I notice I was quicker to recognize a gun than a cell phone apparently.

conw
April 28, 2008, 04:03 PM
I agree with whoever said that the results seem based more on contrast with the background, etc.

I took longer both to shoot and holster on the black pictures.

Also, I don't know if they adjusted for this, but plenty of the subjects (black and white) were holding their cell phone like some kind of gun.

Kind of fun but not a very good test for real world skills nor racism.

mike6161
April 28, 2008, 04:09 PM
this is my score it's hard to see if to a gun or a phone.
Game Over
Your Score: 545
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:703.12ms
Black Unarmed:809.32ms
White Armed:724.16ms
White Unarmed:805.08ms

BedPimp
April 28, 2008, 04:12 PM
It's interesting. I like the fact that it's testing my reaction time. It would be more useful if it gave a summary of my mistakes. As I was going through it, not knowing the outcome, I was thinking that things were moving too fast for me to collect any identifying information.

I'd like to see more numbers:
Suits vs sweats
Cell phone vs gun
Standing vs kneeling
Light background vs dark background
Inside vs outside

There is enough data to support any outcome. There are also enough variables to cast a lot of doubt on that data.

chenzzo
April 28, 2008, 04:23 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 630
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:531.88ms
Black Unarmed:614.6ms
White Armed:565.64ms
White Unarmed:563.36ms

misANTHrope
April 28, 2008, 04:27 PM
Game Over
Your Score: -540
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:422.04ms
Black Unarmed:287.64ms
White Armed:285.28ms
White Unarmed:432.92ms

I decided to just shoot everybody. Why is it that if you choose to shoot everybody, you get a higher score than if you shoot nobody?

Um, you appear to have the lowest score in the thread...

Nolo
April 28, 2008, 04:27 PM
One of the things that is most interesting here is how easy it was for me to shoot an innocent. Not because I'm a trigger-happy nut or anything, but, as I was in a game and already a tense scenario with all the juices flowing, I was just quicker to assume guilt.
There's a lesson here:
ALWAYS CONFIRM IT'S A BAD GUY.
Us citizens have no room for error. Let's keep that 2% vs. 11% statistic.

TAB
April 28, 2008, 04:29 PM
Nolo, one of things I found intresting is it was faster for me to shoot some one then it was not to.

bogie
April 28, 2008, 04:34 PM
Heck, I quit... I kept mixing up the two buttons...

Couldn't tell you what the mix was, but I don't know the race of a bunch of them - dead concentration on the hands...

nplant
April 28, 2008, 04:38 PM
Game Over
Your Score: -520
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:115.72ms
Black Unarmed:196ms
White Armed:159ms
White Unarmed:178.12ms

I decided to go for speed over everything else. Hit the wrong button to start with, but then was rapidly tapping the "/" button (fire). I think it's interesting to note that even with rapid "firing" of the button, the test still shows that I'm quicker to shoot "armed blacks" than "armed whites." To tell the truth, I wasn't even looking at the screen, so I'm going to say that the test itself was poorly built if there's a bias towards shooting armed blacks sooner.

torpid
April 28, 2008, 04:38 PM
"Score: -540:"
Um, you appear to have the lowest score in the thread...

Hey now, I was shot dozens of times to earn my -1750... where's the love? :confused:

Cel
April 28, 2008, 04:39 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 735
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:668.28ms
Black Unarmed:756ms
White Armed:675.2ms
White Unarmed:697.72ms

Interesting test. It was kinda hard to see the objects sometimes though. I was looking directly for what was in the hand.

CrawdaddyJim
April 28, 2008, 04:48 PM
Quote:
Game Over
Your Score: -540
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:422.04ms
Black Unarmed:287.64ms
White Armed:285.28ms
White Unarmed:432.92ms

I decided to just shoot everybody. Why is it that if you choose to shoot everybody, you get a higher score than if you shoot nobody?
Um, you appear to have the lowest score in the thread...

Torpid kept it holstered throughout and received a score of -1750.

CrawdaddyJim
April 28, 2008, 05:04 PM
Held the / key down with it set on fastest repeat.

Game Over
Your Score: -500
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:53.32ms
Black Unarmed:51.28ms
White Armed:52.24ms
White Unarmed:52.48ms

Held the Z key:

Game Over
Your Score: -1750
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:51.68ms
Black Unarmed:52.2ms
White Armed:50.36ms
White Unarmed:52.32ms

Zoogster
April 28, 2008, 05:06 PM
What if someone has one of these cell phone guns though?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIjkBVEtyE

http://www.local6.com/2006/0519/9243696_240X180.jpg

Conqueror
April 28, 2008, 05:45 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 610
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:597.32ms
Black Unarmed:720.44ms
White Armed:621.6ms
White Unarmed:665.68ms

I'm pretty satisfied that my black vs white reaction times are less than 1/20th of a second different. I only shot one innocent while I was learning the keys (second picture), though I did holster on two bad guys and got shot twice for being too nice.

Oana
April 28, 2008, 06:01 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 500
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:712.92ms
Black Unarmed:835.16ms
White Armed:754.8ms
White Unarmed:719.96ms

According to this, I have a bias (by milliseconds) against African American men. But then I took it a second time, and this time, I knew that people would be bouncing all over the pages and I had an idea of what the objects looked like. Big difference - now they're about even:

Game Over
Your Score: 565
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:654.32ms
Black Unarmed:752.4ms
White Armed:663.2ms
White Unarmed:749.8ms

Frankly, they cheated, IMHO, by telling me I was "too slow" several times. What does that mean - I'm actually looking for the object, instead of basing my judgment on color? I got this a lot with another test, the one where you're supposed to associate harmless or harmful objects and black or white faces. "Too slow"?! Is it "too slow" to not shoot when I'm not sure? That would, to me, indicate a lack of bias, but I guess they don't count it because it doesn't fit their preconceptions.

What I also have an issue with is the shooting of completely innocent-looking targets. I'm going to hesitate to shoot a kneeling businessman. But it told me I took "too long". Why am I being asked to shoot people who aren't actively pointing guns at me and have innocuous expressions on their faces?

Clothes, too. A disproportionate number of the black men had oversized clothing. At least two had oversized white T shirts, which can (in some areas) be an indicator of gang activity, or at least affiliation with thug culture (even if only via popular music, culture, etc.).

In short, it's rather flawed.

I'd be curious to see this test in several forms:
a) High contrast object/background and low contrast object/background (a HUGE issue with this test)
b) All business/professional clothing and all casual/baggy clothing
c) Female characters

misANTHrope
April 28, 2008, 06:13 PM
Torpid kept it holstered throughout and received a score of -1750.

:o

Oana
April 28, 2008, 06:13 PM
The test is flawed. It assumes an armed person not posing a threat with no prior confrontation backround deserves to be shot.

Hear, hear.

As a side note, Harvard has a bunch of "Implicit Association" tests up (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html). They tend to have similar flaws. Not the least of which is confusion! It took me several tests to actually get the format of the thing down, and then there were a variety of problems inherent within the test.

I took the Weapons/Harmless Objects association test, but they made a fatal flaw. They assumed that I would associate a weapon with Eeevil. :D

Superlite27
April 28, 2008, 06:41 PM
Try it this way:

See how fast you can shoot all the white people! I waited a few seconds before holstering for the African-Americans. Here is the result. I bet nobody can beat my time for the white people!

504.44 For White Armed 500.92 for White Unarmed. Anyone think they're quicker?

Game Over
Your Score: -1470
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:3872.68ms
Black Unarmed:4230.32ms
White Armed:504.44ms
White Unarmed:500.92ms

mgregg85
April 28, 2008, 07:05 PM
I'd be careful with this, I wonder if they are recording the results for some kind of study.

LawofThirds
April 28, 2008, 07:15 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 485
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:450.78ms
Black Unarmed:478.66ms
White Armed:437.34ms
White Unarmed:429.96ms

To be honest, I shot a lot of innocent people. Mostly in the nice peaceful backgrounds. Also, I wasn't shot once. What's that say about my white unarmed numbers?

Superlite27
April 28, 2008, 07:17 PM
Yeah, but you shot everybody. I just shot the white dudes.

1911 guy
April 28, 2008, 07:41 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 340
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:637.24ms
Black Unarmed:709.12ms
White Armed:630.76ms
White Unarmed:675.4ms

I must be getting slow. I kept fudging the fingers and popped a few guys holding a PDA/cell/soda can.

Deer Hunter
April 28, 2008, 08:20 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 600
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:592.16ms
Black Unarmed:647.44ms
White Armed:605.68ms
White Unarmed:659.12ms

I'm gonna play again!

Anteater1717
April 28, 2008, 08:59 PM
Game Over
Your Score: -510
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:92.76ms
Black Unarmed:104ms
White Armed:114.84ms
White Unarmed:126.12ms

I shot everyone

Zach S
April 28, 2008, 09:23 PM
it is much easier to differentiate between pulling the trigger of a gun and holstering, than remembering which button on the keyboard to press for which action...
Yeah, for the first few pics I had it backwards, took a minute to get straightened out...

CBS220
April 28, 2008, 09:30 PM
Game Over
Your Score: -500
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:67.04ms
Black Unarmed:78.44ms
White Armed:28.12ms
White Unarmed:91.8ms

I shot everyone. I hate cell phones.

marksman13
April 28, 2008, 09:47 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 525
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:490.4ms
Black Unarmed:609.4ms
White Armed:533.64ms
White Unarmed:588.2ms


Honestly, it seemed to me that the test was slightly rigged. I think the background should have been kept the same throughout. I think the reason I was slower to holster on some of them and slower to shoot on others was more about not being able to clearly see the persons hands, not the color of his skin. I couldn't even tell you what race half of them were because I was focused solely on hands.


Game Over
Your Score: 550
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:493.56ms
Black Unarmed:583.72ms
White Armed:495.4ms
White Unarmed:590.32ms

Second time around the score wasn't much better. Reaction times were much closer between races. I learned to tune out the back ground.

packnrat
April 28, 2008, 10:55 PM
i got board, so i restarted and just shot them all, crashed the game at -240.:eek:


.

Auburn1992
April 28, 2008, 11:08 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 420
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:651.88ms
Black Unarmed:762.2ms
White Armed:667.96ms
White Unarmed:783.16ms

XD Fan
April 28, 2008, 11:11 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 525
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:698.28ms
Black Unarmed:779.12ms
White Armed:667.88ms
White Unarmed:783.36ms

Blackbeard
April 28, 2008, 11:13 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 450
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:634.48ms
Black Unarmed:840.72ms
White Armed:649.16ms
White Unarmed:644.44ms

I know I shot good guys of both races, and both sets of bad guys got me. Of course, none of them were actually pointing their guns at me...

MachIVshooter
April 29, 2008, 12:22 AM
First round:

Game Over
Your Score: 465
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:695.32ms
Black Unarmed:720.72ms
White Armed:653.8ms
White Unarmed:710.72ms

And the second time, now knowing how this little game works. (noticed that they get you going 5, 6, maybe even 8 or 9 times in a row on armed or unarmed and then switch it, screwing with your muscle memory and coordination)

Game Over
Your Score: 750
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:586.28ms
Black Unarmed:672.24ms
White Armed:602.44ms
White Unarmed:683.48ms

I think the background, presentation of the weapon/cell phone, size/color of the weapon/cell phone and general orientation of the person have a whole lot more to do with how quickly you can decide that they are or are not armed. I found my eyes moving to identify the object as soon as the person was visible.

As far as controls in the test, it is slightly flawed. Yes, there were 25 each of White/armed, Black/armed, White/unarmed, Black/unarmed. But there are discrepencies in the size of the weapon/non-weapon and it's relation to the body. The images of black men more frequently had larger guns/phones held away from the individual than did the white man images. Obviously, the larger and more removed the object, the faster one can identify it.

If anyone doesn't believe me, just do what I did. Make tally sheets for black and white. Then make two columns, one for armed, one for unarmed. In each of those columns, have boxes for small/closely held, small/held away, large/closely held and large/held away.

Interestingly, when doing this tally, I had a much harder time keeping the races straight than whether the object was large or small, close or far.

akodo
April 29, 2008, 02:51 AM
Game Over
Your Score: -500
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:98.68ms
Black Unarmed:105.36ms
White Armed:120.76ms
White Unarmed:99.68ms

I just watched TV and clicked 'fire' as fast as I could

Combine this with post 24 when someone did the same with holster every time

Game Over
Your Score: -1750
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:315.12ms
Black Unarmed:284.64ms
White Armed:252.48ms
White Unarmed:316.12ms

this indicates to me that the test is flawed. Doing it like that all groups should be equal, yet it supposedly showed me that it took me 20 seconds longer to identify a white man as armed.

It is interesting, even by firing blindly, my results still paint me as a racist being faster to shoot a black armed man and slower to realize that an unarmed black man is not a threat.

I wonder if there is some built in fudge factor to re-enforce a preconceived notion, and 'prove' itself (i'd not put something like that beyond brady bunch) or if there are just too many other factors involved like browser speed, if you are running other programs in the background, etc

Whatsit
April 29, 2008, 09:32 AM
oops..

Game Over
Your Score: -240
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:940.64ms
Black Unarmed:21222.6ms
White Armed:1083.8ms
White Unarmed:1064.48ms

rjohnson4405
April 29, 2008, 10:07 AM
Game Over
Your Score: 490
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:779.44ms
Black Unarmed:853.04ms
White Armed:766.08ms
White Unarmed:790.64ms

fchavis
April 29, 2008, 10:24 AM
Game Over
Your Score: 550
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:620.4ms
Black Unarmed:686.8ms
White Armed:605ms
White Unarmed:658.48ms


All sorts of bias going on here. White or black, shooting just because they've got a weapon? Weighted score for shooting first?Aside from their generating algorithm (muscle memory, picture contrast) I have a problem with the fact that it scores better (less bad) to simply shoot everyone. I don't like what the test's creators seem to assume about the average CCW's mindset.

ronwill
April 29, 2008, 11:15 AM
Interesting.

Game Over
Your Score: 590
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:738ms
Black Unarmed:848.36ms
White Armed:721.72ms
White Unarmed:809.88ms

mike101
April 29, 2008, 11:25 AM
I suck at this, but it's better than Whack-A-Mole! :D

Leitmotif
April 29, 2008, 11:25 AM
Game Over
Your Score: 595
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:622.16ms
Black Unarmed:764.48ms
White Armed:628.52ms
White Unarmed:695.72ms

My reaction times suck for a 26 year old, particularly considering that I 0wn in 3d shooters. Also, after much time at the range, I have trouble seeing a smiling person holding a gun in a safe direction as a 'shoot' scenario. :rolleyes:

Some of them even seemed to be exercising proper trigger discipline!

hankdatank1362
April 29, 2008, 11:48 AM
Game Over
Your Score: 490
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:623.28ms
Black Unarmed:764.8ms
White Armed:605.08ms
White Unarmed:729.76ms

Took me a while to get the buttons figured out.

Does this mean I'm more likely to shoot if an assailant is white?

M1 Shooter
April 29, 2008, 01:34 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 475
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:803.76ms
Black Unarmed:794.16ms
White Armed:823.44ms
White Unarmed:807.04ms

So, what's it mean, besides the fact I am a good bit slower than many of you.

Grayrider
April 29, 2008, 01:58 PM
Your Score: 585
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:739.92ms
Black Unarmed:832.92ms
White Armed:716.68ms
White Unarmed:754.84ms

Hmm...I was only looking at their hands after the first 2-4 while I sorted out what was going on. Had some mistakes there, then a couple later.

I suspect this test mainly reflects contrast and hand position as others have pointed out. I would bet if we look back over the images we will find that the white individuals had more clearly visible items in their hands. I recall one black individual had a handgun but it was held so that you were looking directly top down and it was just a long silver line. I did not shoot on that one. I also got tagged for taking too long on a few.

John

Spartacus451
April 29, 2008, 02:09 PM
Got bored couldn't finish. The time limit doesn't make sense. You take longer to determine that someone doesn't have a gun then you take to determine that they do.

ilbob
April 29, 2008, 02:20 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 200
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:847.84ms
Black Unarmed:1319.08ms
White Armed:841.04ms
White Unarmed:858.76ms

Personally, I question the need to shoot someone just because he is armed.

Carry Big Stick
April 29, 2008, 02:29 PM
My score,
Game Over
Your Score: 750
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:606.2ms
Black Unarmed:665.88ms
White Armed:628.92ms
White Unarmed:615.16ms

Not quite sure why it says that much different. I shot them all equally. Some of those positions are a little hard.

I would like to see several different things on this test that would really help it. I would like to see how CCW owners do compared to average citizen that has no gun interest. I also think it would be interesting if they asked for the users race. Would a black user still shoot the black guys as fast? I don't even know the race of a couple of those I just looked at the hands.

I like that they used the reasons we always hear when an LEO fires on an unarmed citizen. They have the something shiny, the cell phone, and the wallet. I think some of these shooting by LEOs are justified if the person presents the object like a weapon. I mean who goes around pointing their cell phones at people like a gun. I keep the phone just like a gun, holstered and there if I need it.

I'm sure we have all seen this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruQmcQgolM0 The BG decides he is gonna use his cell as a gun.

Okee
April 29, 2008, 03:24 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 645
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:697.72ms
Black Unarmed:803.56ms
White Armed:695.88ms
White Unarmed:721.08ms

Popped two no shoots:uhoh:

lovin_it_strong
April 29, 2008, 03:38 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 645
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:687.4ms
Black Unarmed:756.48ms
White Armed:686.28ms
White Unarmed:730.44ms

interesting that it seems to take most of us recognize a gun faster than we decide something isn't a gun.

ZeSpectre
April 29, 2008, 04:10 PM
Played the game where I didn't shoot anybody (hey, nobody made any threatening moves in my direction)

Your Score: -1805
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:106.44ms
Black Unarmed:311.16ms
White Armed:131.6ms
White Unarmed:312.88ms

Replayed the game where I simply assumed everyone was a threat and opened fire (held the key).

Your Score: -500
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:34.56ms
Black Unarmed:26.64ms
White Armed:44.96ms
White Unarmed:47.56ms

Note the odd results especially since I simply held the holster or shoot keys down so technically speaking there was NO reaction time and no reason for the numbers to be different. Something is highly skewed in this "test".

Caimlas
April 29, 2008, 04:34 PM
I noticed a couple things about the test:

* It seemed to me that the black guys were further to the periphery of the images than the white guys. This might delay holster time or increase a person's propensity to "shoot first". Eyes take time to move.
* There seemed to be a number of black people who had the objects they were holding obscured by light or dark colored clothing, making it difficult for a quick identify.

That said, my "time to shoot" for blacks was higher by 42ms (!) than my "time to shoot" for whites, and my "time to holster" was 10ms shorter. And I'm white. I also did not notice the race/color of the people, to a few exceptions when they were very dark, or very light.


I'd like to see more numbers:
Suits vs sweats
Cell phone vs gun
Standing vs kneeling
Light background vs dark background
Inside vs outside


me too - that'd be a hell of a lot more interesting than the color of the cell/gun holder!

GEM
April 29, 2008, 04:48 PM
The rationale is found at :

http://home.uchicago.edu/~jcorrell/TPOD.html

This line of research came out of the Diallo case. The issue is whether race influences the shoot decision and might cause a false positive.

The effect has been shown in subjects but found not to be present as much in trained officers and can be mitigated with training.

IIRC, the first author has presented this work to various police agencies. It is a good thing to study and can help avoid unpleasant mistakes by correct training and aid officers if a false claim was made.

coloradokevin
April 29, 2008, 05:00 PM
I also agree that the time limit is ridiculous. Sure, in a real gun fight you want to shoot first. But, you had darn well better know that you are in a real gun fight before you do!

I still maintain that this so-called test has no other purpose than to attempt to promote the idea that there is a racial bias against people that causes them to be killed more frequently... I believe that this couldn't be further from the truth.

GEM
April 29, 2008, 05:06 PM
Since I've talked to these guys, the purpose of the research is to find out if there is a bias and factors which influence it.

One can suppose there is a political agenda but that's one's own tin foil hat.

While somegun folks may not admit to it, there are legit factors of race that influence decision making.

Jorg Nysgerrig
April 29, 2008, 05:38 PM
For those interested, here's the paper published regarding it: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/psp9261006.pdf

Rapidfire_85
April 29, 2008, 05:41 PM
Your Score: 645
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:637.72ms
Black Unarmed:761.24ms
White Armed:641.6ms
White Unarmed:717.24ms

looks like im quick to notice guns, but hesitant to say they are cell phones.

GEM
April 29, 2008, 05:43 PM
Here's their important last paragraph:

The data presented here suggest that, although police officers
may be affected by culturally shared racial stereotypes (i.e., showing
bias in their response times), they are no more liable to this bias
than are the people who live and work in their communities.
Further, at least on the simulation used here, the officers’ ultimate
decisions about whether or not to shoot are less susceptible to
racial bias than are the decisions of community members. The data
suggest that the officers’ training and/or expertise may improve
their overall performance (yielding faster responses, greater sensitivity
and reduced tendencies to shoot) and decrease racial bias in
decision outcomes. We feel that this research represents a valuable
melding of basic social psychological processes with an issue of
great importance to our society. By examining the influence of
race in the automatic processing of danger-related stimuli, and the
capacity of expertise to moderate this effect, these findings touch
on a topic of great interest to social psychologists, sociologists,
police, and community groups, alike. The investigation of racial
bias in police use of force presents a unique opportunity to apply
experimental social psychological methods to an issue that is vital
to the members of increasingly diverse neighborhoods and communities

------ I would think that this should negate the tin foil hat view of the research.

sloo50
April 29, 2008, 05:53 PM
Your Score: 515
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:678.84ms
Black Unarmed:761.96ms
White Armed:684.8ms
White Unarmed:713.44ms

leathermanwave
April 29, 2008, 07:28 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 135
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:735.8ms
Black Unarmed:843.12ms
White Armed:748.4ms
White Unarmed:821.72ms

tinygnat219
April 29, 2008, 10:27 PM
This is with holding the "Fire" button down:

Your Score: -500
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:51.08ms
Black Unarmed:47.32ms
White Armed:49.64ms
White Unarmed:39.32ms

This is with holding the "Holster" button down:
Your Score: -1750
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:331.64ms
Black Unarmed:24.88ms
White Armed:22.88ms
White Unarmed:22.52ms

Rugerlvr
April 29, 2008, 10:29 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 550
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:679.76ms
Black Unarmed:858.44ms
White Armed:728.44ms
White Unarmed:760.8ms

CalebJns
April 29, 2008, 10:45 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 560
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:680.28ms
Black Unarmed:744.2ms
White Armed:659.44ms
White Unarmed:708.72ms

never_retreat
April 29, 2008, 11:16 PM
Game Over
Your Score: 620
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:613.68ms
Black Unarmed:755.88ms
White Armed:625.2ms
White Unarmed:689.52ms

Pants
April 30, 2008, 01:51 AM
Game Over
Your Score: 580
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:783.12ms
Black Unarmed:840.12ms
White Armed:782.24ms
White Unarmed:784.8ms



I read a book about SEALS or Delta or something and they say "when trying to assess threats, always look at the hands..."

It's true. I only noticed skin color peripherally.

doberman
April 30, 2008, 02:08 AM
Game Over
Your Score: 620
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:689.72ms
Black Unarmed:802.76ms
White Armed:692.56ms
White Unarmed:723.52ms

No fair I had to itch my nose!!:cuss:

LOL!

doberman
April 30, 2008, 02:12 AM
I read a book about SEALS or Delta or something and they say "when trying to assess threats, always look at the hands..."

It's true. I only noticed skin color peripherally.


I only looked at the hands. I can't remember any race, but recall cell phone, wallet, and a soda can.

archigos
April 30, 2008, 02:28 AM
Game Over
Your Score: 700
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:625.24ms
Black Unarmed:688.12ms
White Armed:656.48ms
White Unarmed:707.2ms

Flawless until the last image :cuss:

freakshow10mm
April 30, 2008, 02:34 AM
Game Over
Your Score: 330
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:793.36ms
Black Unarmed:976.36ms
White Armed:863.84ms
White Unarmed:870.32ms

Screwed up at first mixing up the shoot vs no shoot buttons.

I think some of what the black vs white is that the blacks with the guns had silver guns more often than the whites did, who had primarily black guns. The contrast of siver gun with black hand is easier to pick up than a white hand with a black gun. I focused on the hands. Some of those were tricky.

czbegenner
April 30, 2008, 02:45 AM
Game over
Score 210
Black armed 524.56ms
Black unarmed 813.12ms
White armed 541.16ms
White unarmed 603.12ms

retgarr
April 30, 2008, 02:59 AM
Game Over
Your Score: 560
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:620.2ms
Black Unarmed:733.48ms
White Armed:593.28ms
White Unarmed:732.68ms

After taking a unisom

davidconatser
April 30, 2008, 10:27 AM
Game Over
Your Score: -2320
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:2064.92ms
Black Unarmed:1522.68ms
White Armed:1650.64ms
White Unarmed:1266.32ms

Very few of the models looked even remotely threatening. Except maybe for poor gun handling. Most of them could use more training.

Reholstering would not be an issue since I doubt I would have drawn on any of them.

I wonder if competition shooting where the target just has an outline of a gun conditions folks to fire too quickly at the sight of a gun and perhaps reinforces the liberal bias.

Force Science http://www.forcescience.org/ has done some good work on threat assessment and response.

tmajors
April 30, 2008, 01:55 PM
I went to about 100pts then thought this "test" is BS. I'm not sure I would have shot any of the guys I saw with a gun because none of them I saw were in a threatening pose to me and there were no innocent victims around that they were threatening.

Tarvis
April 30, 2008, 02:08 PM
Totally worthless test with inconclusive results.

Blackbeard
April 30, 2008, 08:06 PM
Yes, what would have been better would be a video where the subject is either hostile or not -- draws a weapon, charges, etc. Then see what the reaction differences are between white/black. It'd also be interesting to see some with OC weapons holstered, and see if they get shot.

coylh
May 4, 2008, 06:35 AM
I didn't like this test:

* There's no scoring difference for being faster or slower. In practice this meant that I took more time than actually necessary in evaluating.

* The action for "shoot" is the same as the action for "don't shoot". In reality, the action for don't shoot might be to do nothing. So what if I didn't re-holster "quick enough"?

* The "you're in Milan, oh wait you're at McDonald's" background shuffle was unrealistic.

Daemon688
May 4, 2008, 11:37 AM
The Implicit Associations Test was orginally developed at Harvard. The original authors of the page in their introduction specifically cited the Amidou Diallo case in NYC. As the name implies, it's testing your implicit associations! IIRC, the basic hypothesis was: If you hold stereotypic views that blacks are more likely to be criminals, dangerous, etc., then you should be faster to respond to shoot than if they were white.

So basically, if you're faster to shoot when they're black and have a gun when compared to shooting when they're white and have a gun, then you probably hold those stereotypic views about black people.

Originally tested on students and in later studies with police officers. Police officers were less likely to make this error (thankfully).

P.S. This study had nothing to do with CCW.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

Flyboy
May 4, 2008, 11:59 AM
I'd like to see the same thing run, but with a third category of people: white people wearing black gloves.

I, like most of us, looked at the hands. I noticed that there were several times I didn't even consciously notice the color of the person, though I remember the color and appearance of several of the guns. I found it easiest to identify dark guns on a light background, and bright guns on a dark background (this ought to be obvious).

I wonder if forcing the color near the gun would have an effect on the outcome.

I'd also like to see subjects (the people taking the test) sorted by level of training. I'd bet that shooters--particularly those with formal training--would be both faster and more accurate than non-shooters.

atblis
May 4, 2008, 12:42 PM
Another thing. Considering the size of the images, how far away would those people be away from you.

100 yards?

Eightball
May 4, 2008, 12:59 PM
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:782.96ms
Black Unarmed:748.64ms
White Armed:672.44ms
White Unarmed:727.44ms

Roughly even times for me for the different skin colors--i.e. their color doesn't matter, the perceived threat does. Would've been faster all-around, but the images were weird to me, and it took me a minute or two to get used to it all.

This could've been more interesting if they had firearms that weren't full-size Beretta 92s and the like, but rather small things like a Jennings, Kahr, or whatnot. Could make the results rather interesting.

Oana
May 7, 2008, 02:31 AM
Of course, you could also drop people into a real sim and see how they deal with that. That would be even more interesting.

Bottom line, it needs work.

Feanaro
May 7, 2008, 04:26 AM
I was biased against whites(no scores, went off on a tangent, closed the window thinking I had the scores on the clipboard). I think contrast plays a great role in this. Black gun on a white hand was an easy shoot. Silver gun on a black hand was an easy shoot and so on. These sort of factors are hard to control for.

If you enjoyed reading about "Very intresting test, is that a gun or a cell phone?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!