LOL, I'm less biassed than I think I am.
I had the 'slight' association of males/science, and I'd pre-judged myself to have a moderate association; and I also took the race one, and expected a slight bias towards white - but came out, apparently, with a slight bias towards black. Personally, I think it's because when the 'good/bad' switched I got confused a couple of times, and I'm really neutral :)
I'd agree with Chris on this one, however - even at my moderate age, far more male contemporaries are in science (especially if you count IT/tech sphere) than women, while the reverse is true (say) of teaching, or linguistics... so the association may be classed as 'bias', but that's misleading. It's simply more likely that someone I know in the science/tech field will be male, while in the 'liberal arts' field (horrible term, BTW) they'll be female.
The hardest question for me was whether philosophy counted as a science - luckily not <g>
I decided not to do the ageism one when I realised that 'old' meant 'older than me', but 'young' means 'noticeably younger'... which in mid-30's is probably not the point <vbg> but also made it impossible for me to decide what I even refer to as 'old'. LOL.
Fun tests, though. <edit> except that I started wondering if they were adapted from brainwashing tools... trying to emphasise association subliminally... |
