1
00:00:00,780 --> 00:00:04,631
>>Behind every innovation
is an inspired scientist.

2
00:00:04,631 --> 00:00:08,891
And behind every PBS program
is a viewer like you!

3
00:00:08,891 --> 00:00:11,152
Get behind your PBS station.

4
00:00:11,922 --> 00:00:15,070
Your support makes a difference!

5
00:00:15,530 --> 00:00:18,550
>>Hello and welcome to
Scientific American Frontiers,

6
00:00:18,550 --> 00:00:19,880
I'm Alan Alda.

7
00:00:20,451 --> 00:00:24,039
we all like to think that we
understand our own minds.

8
00:00:24,039 --> 00:00:27,958
That we carefully weigh the pros and cons
when we make a decision.

9
00:00:27,958 --> 00:00:29,699
And that after we've made it,

10
00:00:29,699 --> 00:00:33,870
even if we have cause to regret it, we
know why we decided the way we did.

11
00:00:33,870 --> 00:00:37,923
Oh sure we know some choices
are more emotional than rational,

12
00:00:37,923 --> 00:00:40,285
but even then, we think
we're conscious

13
00:00:40,285 --> 00:00:44,357
of all the conflicting arguments that run
through our minds as we make a choice.

14
00:00:45,371 --> 00:00:49,868
Well, in this program we'll find out
how utterly deluded we are,

15
00:00:49,868 --> 00:00:55,650
as we join in experiments revealing just how
sneaky and underhanded our brains can be.

16
00:00:56,493 --> 00:01:02,992
[music]

17
00:01:04,159 --> 00:01:06,508
>>I've always thought
of myself as a feminist,

18
00:01:06,508 --> 00:01:09,950
so I'm pretty sure I know how I'll
do in this test of my reaction

19
00:01:09,950 --> 00:01:11,748
to women in the work place.

20
00:01:11,748 --> 00:01:13,498
I am ready to begin.

21
00:01:13,498 --> 00:01:19,258
Women, in fact like Mahzarin Banaji, who's
a professor here at Harvard University.

22
00:01:19,258 --> 00:01:22,499
The test is called the
"implicit association test"

23
00:01:22,499 --> 00:01:24,568
and it begins simply enough.

24
00:01:24,568 --> 00:01:26,657
I have to pair the word in the center,


25
00:01:26,657 --> 00:01:30,340
with one of the words above by
pressing the "e" key with my left hand

26
00:01:30,340 --> 00:01:32,695
or the "i" key with my right.

27
00:01:32,695 --> 00:01:34,875
Well, that could be either way.

28
00:01:34,875 --> 00:01:37,405
Mahzarin has told me to
do this as fast as I can

29
00:01:37,405 --> 00:01:42,146
because it's the time I take to make the
associations that's critical to the test.

30
00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:48,560
Now the target words have changed,
but the task remains the same;

31
00:01:48,560 --> 00:01:52,824
to quickly decide whether the
new words belong to the left or the right.

32
00:01:56,004 --> 00:01:58,286
But things are about
to get trickier.

33
00:01:59,884 --> 00:02:03,043
>>It's the same thing except now any
one of these four will show up,

34
00:02:03,043 --> 00:02:05,295
and when it's "career" or "male"
you'll press the left key,

35
00:02:05,295 --> 00:02:08,315
when it's "family" or "female" you'll
press the right key.

36
00:02:08,825 --> 00:02:11,464
>>"Career" or "male"
>>Yes.

37
00:02:11,464 --> 00:02:14,945
>>So now the categories are
described by two words,

38
00:02:14,945 --> 00:02:17,883
making it harder to decide
where the new words belong.

39
00:02:18,783 --> 00:02:23,273
But since historically, "male" and
"career" have gone together....

40
00:02:23,273 --> 00:02:27,394
This is like, reinforcing this stereotype.
>>Yeah, that's it exactly.

41
00:02:27,954 --> 00:02:32,595
>>The point of the test is to discover
if lurking beneath my feminist convictions,

42
00:02:32,595 --> 00:02:36,866
I actually harbor a hidden bias
against women in the work place

43
00:02:36,866 --> 00:02:41,665
based on all the associations between
"man" and "career" and "women" and "family"

44
00:02:41,665 --> 00:02:44,159
that bathed the culture
I grew up in.

45
00:02:44,159 --> 00:02:49,009
"Family or "male", "career" or "female".
Okay, now you're testing me.

46
00:02:49,199 --> 00:02:53,600
The implicit association test
is designed to ferret out any bias

47
00:02:53,600 --> 00:02:58,389
by seeing if it takes me fractionally longer
to figure out where a word belongs

48
00:02:58,389 --> 00:03:02,989
when the pairing of the target words, in
this case: "family" and "male" together

49
00:03:02,989 --> 00:03:08,578
and "career" and "female", is slightly
more difficult for my brain to except.

50
00:03:08,578 --> 00:03:12,939
Corporation - "family"
or...[breaks off in laughter]

51
00:03:12,939 --> 00:03:16,379
"brother", "management"...

52
00:03:17,780 --> 00:03:19,251
and we're done.

53
00:03:20,872 --> 00:03:24,502
>>Slight. I could tell he has a slight.
This is very good.

54
00:03:24,502 --> 00:03:26,952
You are...so let's see,
you're showing a slight,

55
00:03:26,952 --> 00:03:29,551
automatic association
between male and career,

56
00:03:29,551 --> 00:03:34,903
and the...only 12% of the
population that takes this test

57
00:03:34,903 --> 00:03:38,102
shows this bias. What you're
seeing is that you're,

58
00:03:38,102 --> 00:03:41,071
you're showing a much smaller bias
then what many other people show.

59
00:03:41,071 --> 00:03:44,320
I'm up here. I make a strong
association between

60
00:03:44,320 --> 00:03:47,772
"male" and "career" and "female" and
"family" even though that's not what I

61
00:03:47,772 --> 00:03:49,232
consciously express.

62
00:03:49,232 --> 00:03:50,673
>>Even though that's
not what you live, huh?

63
00:03:50,673 --> 00:03:52,331
>>And that's not what I live,
but in my world.

64
00:03:52,331 --> 00:03:54,781
And I don't know, I'd be
interested to know. Maybe

65
00:03:54,781 --> 00:03:58,680
many years of working in feminist
causes made you show this lesson.

66
00:03:58,680 --> 00:04:01,442
>>So all those years of working
in feminist causes

67
00:04:01,442 --> 00:04:06,490
didn't manage to totally eliminate my lingering
association between "female" and "family"

68
00:04:06,490 --> 00:04:09,542
and "male" and "career".

69
00:04:09,542 --> 00:04:12,990
What's astonishing though is that
Mahzarin is far worse,

70
00:04:12,990 --> 00:04:16,463
and she's not only enjoying
a very successful career-

71
00:04:16,463 --> 00:04:18,233
she designed the test!

72
00:04:18,894 --> 00:04:21,854
Another of its designers
is Brian Nosek,

73
00:04:21,854 --> 00:04:24,473
who personally developed
the test he's taking now,

74
00:04:24,473 --> 00:04:27,594
intending to reveal hidden
racial prejudice.

75
00:04:27,594 --> 00:04:29,864
>>These are the same faces
you've seen many, many times.

76
00:04:29,864 --> 00:04:33,633
>>Many times, many times. In fact I helped
create the faces, so...

77
00:04:33,633 --> 00:04:36,974
>>The heart of this test is to see whether
it's easier for Brian to match words

78
00:04:36,974 --> 00:04:40,743
or pictures to the pairing
of African American with bad,

79
00:04:40,743 --> 00:04:43,282
and European American with good.

80
00:04:43,742 --> 00:04:45,934
Then when the pairings
are reversed,

81
00:04:45,934 --> 00:04:50,424
European Americans with bad and
African Americans with good.

82
00:04:50,985 --> 00:04:55,445
[quiet]

83
00:04:55,445 --> 00:04:57,533
>>I can predict.
>>Yeah [chuckle]

84
00:04:57,533 --> 00:04:58,583
What do you think?

85
00:04:58,583 --> 00:05:00,904
>>Moderate. Moderate to strong.

86
00:05:00,904 --> 00:05:03,455
>>Yeah, I'll say moderate as well.
>>Yeah.

87
00:05:03,455 --> 00:05:06,335
>>Strong preference for white.
[exclamation of laughter]

88
00:05:06,335 --> 00:05:09,205
>>You've taken this
for the umpteenth time,

89
00:05:09,575 --> 00:05:14,055
and you still haven't caught on
to the fact that you're a little biased?

90
00:05:14,055 --> 00:05:15,975
[laughter]

91
00:05:15,975 --> 00:05:21,526
>>I think part of that is the insistence
that my conscious beliefs still matter.

92
00:05:21,526 --> 00:05:25,276
It isn't that-- that fact that I
keep showing these implicit biases

93
00:05:25,276 --> 00:05:28,577
mean that I'm a biased person so
I should just accept that and move on,

94
00:05:28,577 --> 00:05:32,635
it's that-- no, I don't agree with
those, I do have them

95
00:05:32,635 --> 00:05:35,065
and I will admit to having
those implicit biases

96
00:05:35,065 --> 00:05:38,667
but I'm not going to let that rule
what I would consciously want to have.

97
00:05:39,927 --> 00:05:43,335
>>It really is remarkable that here I am
in Cambridge, Massachusetts--

98
00:05:43,335 --> 00:05:45,555
perhaps the liberal
capitol of the country--

99
00:05:45,555 --> 00:05:49,904
with two academics who pride themselves
on their enlightened attitudes,

100
00:05:49,904 --> 00:05:52,246
only to discover that they
have latent within in them

101
00:05:52,246 --> 00:05:56,731
biases they would fervently deny
if their own test hadn't revealed them.

102
00:05:59,581 --> 00:06:01,569
But all may not be lost.

103
00:06:02,202 --> 00:06:05,794
>>We found in research, and
also in testing of myself,

104
00:06:05,794 --> 00:06:10,685
that if I put myself in a situation where
I think about positive black exemplars--

105
00:06:10,685 --> 00:06:14,402
I think about Michael Jordan
and Colin Powell and people...

106
00:06:14,402 --> 00:06:19,396
Martin Luther King who have had a very positive
impact and who are also African American,

107
00:06:19,396 --> 00:06:23,153
I show much less bias immediately
after thinking about those exemplars

108
00:06:23,153 --> 00:06:25,355
then if I hadn't thought
about them before.

109
00:06:25,355 --> 00:06:29,715
>>Even simple things, like the presence
of an African American experimenter,

110
00:06:29,715 --> 00:06:34,943
reduces race bias. That the presence
of a competent woman,

111
00:06:34,943 --> 00:06:38,085
makes women's attitudes to math
become more positive.

112
00:06:38,085 --> 00:06:40,575
Those kinds of studies

113
00:06:40,575 --> 00:06:44,515
sit, I think, in contradiction the ways
in which people like I thought about this-

114
00:06:44,515 --> 00:06:46,654
we thought they were learned
over long periods of time,

115
00:06:46,654 --> 00:06:49,143
that they were entrenched,
they were rigid, inflexible--

116
00:06:49,143 --> 00:06:51,224
and that does not appear
to be the case,

117
00:06:51,224 --> 00:06:53,534
and I think that that's where
the room for optimism is.

118
00:06:53,534 --> 00:06:56,805
On the one hand, I would like people
to take these data seriously

119
00:06:56,805 --> 00:07:00,967
when we can show the vast numbers
of people who show the bias,

120
00:07:00,967 --> 00:07:02,945
I think we need to contend with that.

121
00:07:02,945 --> 00:07:07,224
On the other hand, what this work
is showing is that it might be

122
00:07:07,224 --> 00:07:10,755
not that hard to shape environments
that can change these,

123
00:07:10,755 --> 00:07:13,878
even automatic kinds of attitudes.

124
00:07:15,188 --> 00:07:19,806
>>You can find out if you harbor unconscious
biases you would deny even to yourself,

125
00:07:19,806 --> 00:07:23,536
by logging on to the
Project Implicit website.

126
00:07:23,536 --> 00:07:27,868
There you'll find tests of attitudes towards
such things as age and religion,

127
00:07:27,868 --> 00:07:33,149
as well as lighter fair like the Harry
Potter movies versus Lord of The Rings.

128
00:07:33,878 --> 00:07:37,256
Give it a try. You may be in for a shock.