Very intresting test, is that a gun or a cell phone?
- Thread starter TAB
- Start date
- Status
nobius
Member
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.
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
Member
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
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
Member
Game Over
Your Score: 595
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:647.76ms
Black Unarmed:773.08ms
White Armed:655ms
White Unarmed:692.56ms
Your Score: 595
Average reaction time:
Black Armed:647.76ms
Black Unarmed:773.08ms
White Armed:655ms
White Unarmed:692.56ms
rainbowbob
Member
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.
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?
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
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?
LaEscopeta
Member
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?
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?
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
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.
Last edited:
VirgilCaine
Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 617
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?
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
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
Well....noting that this came from the Univesity of Chicago - I think it's safe to say: "guy with gun = bad guy".
VirgilCaine
Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 617
It only took me another 7ms to determine the unarmed black guy was safe...
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
Member
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.
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
Member In Memoriam
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.
To prove what an unbiased proponent of equality I am, I shot everyone, everytime, equally.
GhostlyKarliion
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2006
- Messages
- 426
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.
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.
SSN Vet
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Status
